# Urban County Council Zone Change Public Hearing - November 19, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · November 19, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6629 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6629?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-11-19 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: February 28, 2026 - **Length**: 46,853 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council met on November 19, 2025, at 5:00 PM in Council Chambers in Lexington, KY, with Vice Mayor Wu presiding. The meeting's agenda centered on a single item — Ordinance 0992-25, a proposed zone change — which was ultimately denied by the Council. Over the course of the meeting, 1 vote was taken, 3 public comments were heard, and no presentations were recorded in the meeting data. ## Attendance All 15 council members were present at the November 19, 2025 Council meeting. No members were absent or late. **Present:** Morton, Reynolds, Sevigny, Sheehan, Wu, Beasley, Boone, Brown, Curtis, Ellinger, Elliott Baxter, Hale, Higgins-Hord, LeGris, and Lynch. ## Votes and Decisions The Council held one recorded vote during the November 19, 2025 meeting. **Ordinance 0992-25** — A motion to approve an ordinance changing the zone from a Medium Density Residential (R-4) zone to a Downtown Frame Business (B-2a) zone was made by Ms. Elliott Baxter and seconded by Ms. Sheehan. The motion **failed** on a roll call vote of 7 ayes to 8 nays. [timestamp: 6:03:24] - **Voting in favor (7):** Sheehan, Wu, Beasley, Boone, Elliott Baxter, Hale, and Lynch - **Voting against (8):** Morton, Reynolds, Sevigny, Brown, Curtis, Ellinger, Higgins-Hord, and LeGris There were no abstentions. The rezoning request did not receive the votes necessary to pass. ## Public Comment Three members of the public addressed the Council during the comment period, with speakers divided on a proposed zone change. - **Audrey Matthews Fields** [timestamp: 1:36:39] read letters from residents opposing the zone change, focusing on its potential effects on affordable housing and the displacement of community members. Her comments reflected broader neighborhood concerns about who would be affected by the proposed change. - **Rich Skimming** [timestamp: 1:44:15] also spoke in opposition, emphasizing the historical significance of the area in question. He criticized the effect that student housing developments have had on community character, framing the zone change as a continuation of that trend. - **Matt Burton** [timestamp: 1:47:29] offered a contrasting view, speaking in support of the zone change. He argued that high-density housing near campus is needed and that the proposal represents a beneficial approach to strategic urban growth. The public comment period surfaced a clear divide between residents concerned about displacement and community character on one side, and those prioritizing housing density and urban development on the other. ## Contested Items - **Zone Change from R-4 to B-2a:** This item drew significant community opposition. Residents raised concerns about displacement, the potential loss of affordable housing, and the impact the proposed rezoning could have on the historic character of the neighborhood. The disagreement centered on whether the zone change — which would shift the designation from a residential classification (R-4) to a commercial one (B-2a) — was appropriate given these community impacts. No outcome information is available in the provided record. ## Ordinance 0992-25 Zone Change [timestamp: 6:03:24] The Council took up Ordinance 0992-25, a proposed zone change that would have reclassified properties on Maxwell St. and Kalmia Ave. from Medium Density Residential (R-4) to Downtown Frame Business (B-2a). Key speakers on this item included Vice Mayor Wu, Daniel Crumb, Brandon Gross, and Jessica Winters. The proposal drew significant public opposition during discussion, with concerns centered on two primary issues: displacement of current residents and the preservation of the area's historical character. Opponents raised objections to converting what is currently medium-density residential land into downtown-oriented commercial zoning, arguing the change posed risks to the existing community in the affected neighborhoods. The ordinance was ultimately **denied** by the Council. --- ## Decisions - **0992-25** — failed (7-8): An Ordinance changing the zone from a Medium Density Residential (R-4) zone to a Downtown Frame Business (B-2a) zone --- ## Full transcript Chair will call the question. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion as conditioned is approved. Thank you, sir. I thank you. Okay. Make sure he has your business card. Thank you. And to the residents of Cadentown, thank you all for coming and giving us your input. You're welcome to stay for the rest of our meeting. All right. Thank you. Okay, let's move on. Oh. Good afternoon, everybody. We can take our seats. Just a quick fire marshal reminder, there's no standing in chamber, so if you can't find a seat in here, we have overflow out in the mezzanine, so if we can get settled, that would be terrific. I am calling to order this zone change public hearing for Wednesday, November 19th, 2025, on PLN MAR 25-00014. Clerk, may I have a roll call, please? Council Member Morton. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Reynolds. Here. Council Member Savigny. Council Member Sheehan. Here. Vice Mayor Wu. Here. Council Member Beasley. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Boone. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Brown. Here. Council Member Curtis. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Ellinger. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Elliot Baxter. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Hale. Council Member Higgins-Horde. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Legree. Yes. Council Member Lynch. Present. Thank you. Thank you. Clerk, can I have the second reading of the ordinance, please? Yes. Item 1, an ordinance changing the zone from a medium density residential R4 zone to a downtown frame business B2A zone for 2.003 net 2.716 gross acres for property located at 25 251 through 273 Maxwell Street, odd number addresses, and 256 through 271 Calmea Avenue, even number addresses, CS Acquisition Vehicle LLC, Council District 3. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Dan Wu. I'm the Vice Mayor, and I will be presiding over this meeting. I'm going to lay out how this meeting is going to go. Council members, please write down and hold all your questions towards the end, as you will be able to ask them after all the presentations have been finished. And council members, also be aware you must be here for the entirety of these proceedings. If you leave the proceedings for any reason, you cannot return and vote. We will be scheduling regular breaks throughout the hearing for the benefit of the council and the public. If anybody does have an emergency and needs to leave the room, please let me know. I can pause the meeting and then continue it after we regain quorum. For the purposes of this hearing, we must maintain a quorum of at least 10 council members. If we fall below that quorum, we must pause the meeting and make an effort to restore quorum. I will begin by swearing in all those who plan or wish to speak during today's hearing. I'm going to... Do we have somebody outside in overflow as well? Okay. I'm going to ask everybody to raise hands. So if you want to go out there for me and just kind of preside over the swearing. If anybody who wishes to speak tonight, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Okay. Thank you very much. If you are planning to speak, please stay for the duration of this public hearing. My job as the presiding officer is to facilitate this hearing and it is within my purview to make judgments about whether the evidence being introduced is relevant and or repetitious. Have all the witness lists been provided to the clerk? Thank you. All printed materials that are to be presented should also be provided to the clerk right over here and they will distribute it to us council members. Presentations from all parties, planning staff, applicant, and organized opposition will each be 20 minutes. We will begin the presentation from the planning staff on behalf of the planning commission and they are subject to cross-examination, followed by presentation by the petitioner, similarly subject to cross-examination, and then presentation by the opposition, also subject to cross-examination. Each of those cross-examinations will be for up to five minutes. After that is public comment. Each public commenter will be limited to three minutes and we ask that you state your name and council district for the record. If you would like to speak during public comment, you can sign up electronically. Leighton is out front in the lobby with an iPad. You will have 30 minutes from the start of this hearing to sign up, so about you can sign up up to 532, let's say. A clarification, if you are one of the presenters on any either of the presenting teams, whether the petitioner or the opposition, you may not sign up for public comment, so you are either part of the presentation team for either side or you are a member of the public for public comment, but not both. There will be an opportunity for planning staff to offer clarifications or comments. Petitioners and opposition will also have a five-minute rebuttal period and then an opportunity for a three-minute summation. After that, there will be an opportunity for council members to ask questions of all the presenters and an opportunity if there's new information that is introduced for rebuttal. At that point, we will close the hearing. We will close the hearing and council members will deliberate amongst ourselves. At that point, we will no longer be asking questions of anyone out here. Then we take a roll call vote to adopt findings of fact. After that roll call vote, we will approve the ordinance. Are there any questions, comments, or concerns from council or staff at this point? Thank you. If not, then we're going to go ahead and get started first with the presentation from the planning staff. I believe it's Mr. Crum. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. First, we need to enter a number of items into the record as it relates to PLN-MAR-2514. First, we have a number of items. First is a copy of the legal advertisement that was placed in the newspaper for tonight's hearing. Also, a sworn affidavit stating that the mail notification letters for this public hearing to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property have been completed as required. In addition, notice was provided to the Aylesford Place Neighborhood Association. Number three, we have a copy of the final report that was sent to council. Copies have been placed at your seat tonight and there are a few extras in the back of the room. Item number four is information submitted during the planning commission hearing, which includes emails and letters. Five is a copy of the current comprehensive plan, Imagine Lexington. Six is a copy of the current zoning ordinance, and number seven is a copy of the current zoning ordinance, and number seven is a copy of the current subdivision, land subdivision regulations. And then number eight is a traffic impact study and staff presentation regarding the PowerPoint presentation from the division of planning summarizing the planning commission recommendation. And then last, we have letters and emails for the petition regarding the case since the planning commission meeting has taken place. And with that, I will begin my actual presentation. Once again, in front of you, printed materials is a copy of the presentation that you're seeing right now, a copy of the final report, and that public comment that has taken place since the planning commission. So here before us, we have a request from the medium density residential R4 zone to the downtown frame business B2A zone. This is affecting 12 total properties with the addresses of 251 through 273 East Maxwell Street with the odd addresses only, as well as 256 through 271 CalMEA with being the even addresses only. The applicant today is seeking this rezoning in order to construct a high density residential development with an integrated parking garage. As we make discussions on zone change requests, we always do so in light of the comprehensive plan, specifically the place builder element, which is a distillation of all of the goals, objectives, and policies of the plan and is what is used to show compliance with the comprehensive plan during zone change proceedings. Staff will get into this in a little more detail in a moment, but staff agrees with the applicant's choice to identify this as a downtown area and to identify this as a high density resident development. Just to orient everyone, these properties consist of the entirety of the block shown in the center of the screen here, where Maxwell, Rose, CalMEA, and Stone all intersect. So this is within the downtown core. Zooming in a little bit closer, you see the variety of zoning that is present in the area. Subject properties, like I mentioned earlier, currently have a R4 zone. That's this brownish color that is matched by this existing development. We have this pinkish color is what the applicant is seeking to go to. So this was across the street at Stone Avenue, was a recent zone change with the Stavrov development for another student housing development. So the applicants are seeking to obtain that zone. This dashed color that you see here indicates that that's the location of an H1 historic overlay. Staff later on in the presentation will talk about some of the implications of that historic overlay, but it acts in addition to the zone requiring additional considerations for physical changes to the site, additions, demolitions, and new construction. There also is some R5 zoning with this darker color present in the vicinity as well. Aerial view of the subject properties. Once again, you see the 12 parcels primarily oriented towards Maxwell Street here and Cal Mea Avenue as well. The profile from Rose Street as well as Stone is of the sides of the buildings as well as the parking lots associated for this uses. You'll notice that both the proximity of these parcels here to both our downtown core as well as across the street to Maxwell to the University of Kentucky. So the proximity to our downtown core, the proximity to the University of Kentucky, and its location along a major downtown arterial roadway are all going to be factors that play into this discussion here. Once again, noting that this property is located across the street from the Aylesford H1 overlay, that that was established in 1998. When that was established, there was actually consideration for the subject properties here to be included within that overlay. That would place additional restrictions on the ability to, once again, remove any of those houses, modify the site. However, during the consideration of that process, it was ultimately opted that those properties are not included. They are largely similar in composition and time of development to many other properties within the Aylesford H1 overlay that are present today. The big implication of not being within that H1 overlay is that there are no restrictions on their ability to demolish the current structures. If they wish to do so, they could do so at any time. They would just need to file for the appropriate permits. We have some pictures of the structures present on site. Once again, a number of structures currently occupied by these properties. Included within the final report is some information from our historic preservation staff that details some of the historic background as far as ages of construction, architectural style, and other features. Rather than repeat that, I will just go through and show the different styles. Primarily, what we are seeing are examples of purpose-built multi-family residential development from approximately the 1920s. These structures are all being proposed to be removed with this particular request. Once again, just a variety of styles dating to that same approximate time period. Moving forward, we get to the place builder element. Once again, this is the tool that the planning staff, the planning commission, and the council uses to examine zone change requests and determine if they are in compliance with the goals, objectives, policies, and components of the comprehensive plan. The first step during the place builder process is to identify what is the context that we are looking at. The way that these comprehensive plan policies can be carried out vary wildly depending on if this is a downtown area versus suburban or an industrial area. The applicant is seeking to place this in a downtown context. Staff is in agreement with that choice. Based on that place type, there are a number of suitable development types. Basically, if you are in this type of area, the comprehensive plan recommends a particular style of development. Here, there is a recommendation for high-density residential, which the applicant is choosing, as well as recommended zones, zones that can meet the intent of the comprehensive plan and provide the built context that we would expect for these types of areas. The downtown itself has some very significant priorities. The priorities for these types of areas are dense residential options. We are talking about ground-oriented pedestrian engagement, economic development, and job creation. We are looking at a trend where we are trying to minimize parking and really push multimodal walkability as well as transit options. Once again, we look at the transition to these second-tier areas, so these areas that are outside the downtown core and how that transition is accomplished. Once again, the applicant's choice is for high-density residential as well as the downtown framed business zone. Both of those are in agreement with the comprehensive plan. When it comes to high-density residential, we are talking about high-rise residential units. Once again, emphasizing connectivity to transit, connecting multimodal options, as well as providing an increased level of residential density relative to the rest of our county. Here, we have an image of what that can look like and up. High-density staff's starting point is typically about five stories and up. The request tonight is for up to an eight-story structure. With regards to the comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies, we've pulled out a number of these that have applied to this request. The first talks about accommodating the demand for housing in Lexington responsibly, prioritizing a higher density and mixture of housing types. Here, we have some existing kind of medium-scale residential development being proposed to be replaced with a high-density residential development located on a downtown corridor. Theme A, Goal 1D, talks about implementing housing initiatives that, once again, strengthen opportunities for higher density and housing affordability. 2A speaks to identifying areas for infill redevelopment, adaptive reuse, and mixed-use development. Approximately two acres located in close proximity to the University of Kentucky as well as the downtown core, identifying those as areas that could benefit from that increased density and conserve those populations well. The fourth item on that list is really one of the areas that was discussed most by the planning commission. A lot of the conversation about this site has been talking about the context and design features of the area surrounding the development projects and developing standards and guidelines to ensure that it's compatible with that existing urban form. Much of the conversation for this particular development is how this site relates across the road with the historic district that is present, how that interacts with the context of downtown, how it interacts with the context of a downtown corridor, and the new development that is occurring on Maxwell at this time where we're seeing the student housing developments of six and eight stories respectively. Finally, we are talking about prioritizing multimodal options and options that de-emphasize single occupancy vehicle dependence. We're looking at this particular site, you're looking at an area that is in close connectivity to transit stops, the transit hub downtown, commercial opportunities, educational workplace opportunities, and so looking to de-emphasize that parking and emphasize really having residential density on our most precious downtown land. When we talk about the policies, a lot of these same contexts come through. The multifamily design standards are a set of standards that apply to any residential development. They talk about activating the streetscape, minimizing parking, ensuring that you have a variety of materials within the design. Staff found that they were in agreement with those. Design policy number four spoke to the same kind of larger conversation that I just identified, evaluating is this development sensitive to the surrounding context? How does it relate to both the downtown while also stepping down and providing a buffer to the existing historic overlays which do not have the same development potential due to the overlay that's placed on them? Density policy number one underpins a lot of the conversation about this site, explicitly saying we need to locate these high densities areas of development along these high capacity roadways such as these arterials, major corridors, and downtown to facilitate the effectiveness of transit, which is really supported by the ridership provided by dense residential options. Density policy two talks about infill residential increasing the density of a particular area while enhancing these existing neighborhoods through context sensitive design. Now, conditional zoning restrictions. As a part of the past couple of zone changes along the corridor with the Stavrov and the subtext developments, several conditional zoning restrictions were placed on the site. These were use restrictions to really focus the intent of these projects that are claiming to meet the comprehensive plan by providing these dense residential options, ensuring that that's followed through and this essentially would limit or otherwise prohibit certain uses and establish a minimum density for the site. These are in line once again with our last two rezonings in the area. You all as the urban county council have the ability to modify those and provide certain other restrictions as well. We found that those were appropriate in order to maintain the character of the corridor, protect the adjoining residential uses, and meet comprehensive plan goals. So the development plan that we have in association with this development is really one structure. So this is a structure that is housing a number of dwelling units along with the integrated parking and the development itself is going to consist of a eight-story structure that does dip down to six stories where it adjoins Rose Street here. So the opposite side of Rose Street is the beginning of the Aylesford H1. So there's a step down along this corridor here but otherwise the rest of the structure is eight stories in size with a total of 332 dwelling units that brings it to a total of 1,010 bedrooms. Supporting this is 436 parking spaces which are accessed internally and have vehicular access along Calmea and then exit onto Stone. We have some markups here that are a little bit clearer to read of kind of how that's shown. Essentially the structure itself incorporates some open area courtyards. We have amenity area located on the roof of the structure and these carve-outs here represent light wells that are designed to not only bring light to the units within those but break up the building facade. So those have been incorporated along all four contexts. The development plan which was approved by the planning commission also contains some notation that kind of further locked in the design elements that the applicant showed the planning commission via renderings. Once again the urban county council typically does not look at those so we have basically a schematic top down view of what this eight-story structure is looking like. One of the core aspects of this particular development can be seen here that sort of shows the floor plan of those bottom levels where you can see the integrated parking but this light blue color here that rings around all four sides of the building represent townhouse units. Each of those units is individually accessed and will have its own front porch activation and so a lot of the applicant's justification spoke to creating the structure that does occupy this entire block face but is going to mimic sort of the 12 individual properties through having a number of these townhouse units each with their own individual entrances and activation, eyes on the street, all aspects that we look for in sort of a successful development within a downtown type context. As far as the planning commission hearing itself, it was held on September 25th. There were 12 individuals that spoke in opposition. The testimony itself took approximately three hours. Staff presented our recommendation, both our initial staff report and the supplemental where we recommended approval of the applicant's proposal. The applicant made a presentation explaining that their findings, explaining that this was in agreement with the comprehensive plan and describing their proposal to establish this multi-family residential use. There were some citizen comments that were concerned with a number of aspects of this site. The size and massing of the structure, the proximity to the Aylesford H1 district, potential traffic impacts as well as the loss of those existing structures. Ultimately, the planning commission voted 8 to 2 to approve this particular proposal. I recommend approval to you all and the reason for this, they found it was in agreement with the comprehensive plan's goals and objectives, finding it was going to increase the demand or meet the increased demand for housing, especially amongst the University of Kentucky students, incorporates changes in the massing and height of the structure in order to transition from that downtown context to the development across the way within the historic district. Once again, this request de-emphasizes the single occupancy vehicles by limiting the amount of parking on site and providing for direct multi-modal connections to the University of Kentucky and the downtown area. They found it was in agreement with the policies of the comp plan for similar reasons, finding it would meet the multi-family design standards, creating a step down in height to be more sensitive to that surrounding context and providing for additional residential density along a downtown corridor. They found it was in agreement with the development criteria of the comprehensive plan, speaking to land use criteria, talking about increasing residential density on a downtown corridor, transportation and connectivity, talking about the accessible links to transit, a widening of the sidewalk network and creating a walkable streetscape, talking about meeting environmental sustainability and resiliency aspects by not impacting environmentally sensitive areas and incorporating integrated parking structure to reduce that surface parking and impervious surface present within the development. Meeting site design criteria, talking about activating streetscapes, improving pedestrian connectivity and limiting that parking on site and providing programmed open space. Finally, meeting the majority of the criteria for building form as it meets the multi-family design standards, incorporates height transitions and provides for active first floor uses that improve the pedestrian experience on the site. At this time, staff normally would be able to answer your questions but that I guess will come in later in the presentation but that is all staff has at this time. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Does either the opposition or the petitioner want to cross-examine staff at this time? No, thank you. Good, okay. Thank you, Mr. Crum. All right, next up is the presentation from the petitioner and we have Mr. Gross. You'll have 20 minutes as well. Good evening, council members. My name is Brandon Gross and I'm here today representing CS Acquisition LLC on this rezoning application. I'm going to refer to them as core spaces because that's what everyone else refers to them as. And so we have submitted our witness list. The sign affidavit regarding the notice signed to be placed to the property has been submitted to the clerk. In front of you is my exhibit binder. There are 14 exhibits that I've submitted. I'm not going to go over each one of those for you. The clerk has a copy of those. And so what we're going to walk through today is real quickly I'm going to talk some and then I have Austin Pagnotta from core spaces will also present. We'll be the only two presenters for our team even though we have other members of our team here and we also have our engineers here. There we go. So currently in part of this I'm not going to rehash everything that Daniel said. I'll be able to answer questions on specific items that he spoke of during his presentation. I don't want to be necessarily repetitive but right now Lexington has a housing need of 22,549 units. But of those we need 14,000 rental units right now in Lexington and that makes sense because about 40 percent of our population live in rental housing in Lexington. So that means that's 132,000 of our citizens currently live in rental housing. And so they need housing just as much as people that live and own their own homes need housing. So right now we actually need more rental housing than we need for sale owner unit housing right now. We currently would need to expand our housing stock by 16 percent not tomorrow but last year. I would guess these numbers are now almost or over a year old given the amount of housing that we have built over the last year. I would say this 22,000 number is probably higher today than it was last year. I think we're making great progress with regulatory changes and policy changes but those new units have not come online yet. I think in the next two or three years hopefully we will see some closure in that gap but right now we still have that gap present. We also have our population. We have grown 2,800 people so over the last four years. We have historically grown about one percent a year. We have grown less than one percent over the last four or five years in this county and I think that is directly related to our housing crisis. If you don't have somewhere to live why would you stay in Lexington? Why would you not go to Scott County and Georgetown and other locations? Also we have the issue is the University of Kentucky. It is our largest grant state university in Kentucky. It also employs the most people of any other employer in Kentucky. I think they employ about 13,000 people in our city. They are an important economic driver for our city and we as a community and then we'll hear some tonight it'd be great if the city and UK work together. I agree with that position. Unfortunately I can't make the mayor and the president sit down and have meetings and work together. That's something that needs to be done at a higher pay grade than myself but I do acknowledge that that is an issue. Now we also had a local study. This was done last fall for some of the council members who are new. You were not here when this presentation was done. Ed Holmes and EHI and some others put this together. It has some interesting figures. Number one from 19 to 24 our rent costs went up 47 percent on average. So if you were a renter you're essentially paying 50 percent more today than you were in 2019. Once again our numbers they confirmed our numbers both rental but they also confirmed this interesting fact. We need 4,769 student housing units in our community. So that was something that it was put in that. It was kind of overlooked. It wasn't discussed a lot but that report showed that we need almost 5,000 student housing units in our city not just just for non-students in our city. And I'm going to speed up because I'm going to give Austin some time to talk. So part of this is the conversation is where is downtown? Where is it? I grew up in Lexington. I consider this block part of downtown. I'm not the only one that considers this block part of downtown. I pulled this. This is a neat map. Pulled this from the Fayette Alliance. One of their presentations where they were showing the downtown that shows all the major transportation corridors downtown and it shows our location right here within those transportation corridors and downtown. The 2007 downtown master plan also shows this property being located downtown. And then yesterday I watched the debate on our new government center and our city considers this property to be located within downtown. This is the study area. If you look here the RFP said you must propose something within the zone of the downtown of downtown Lexington. It has an exhibit to the RFP. This is the map that Mr. Ford showed you of that exhibit. We are located within downtown. It seems silly to me that if the property owners could have submitted this property for the new government center as being part of downtown that for us to argue that this is not part of downtown does not make any sense at all. I'm not saying the city would have agreed to put the government center downtown but the fact that it was even considered as a possibility just shows you that most of the community considers this area downtown. So the B2 zone it is a transitional frame zone that surrounds the downtown core. The downtown core we are currently in the downtown core. That's where most of your jobs are, your government workers and other things, large entertainment opportunities. And then outside of that core you have the transitional zone. This map here shows our location. So here's our downtown core zone B2 and if you see here this is our transitional zone that goes into the east end. Our transitional zone surrounds our downtown core everywhere until you get to here and then it stops and then all of a sudden there is no transitional zone. This makes sense to be transitional. We should not have a core downtown zone and then have a residential zone right next to it, R4. There should be a transition between those two zones. We are 650 feet from the downtown core zone. We have two downtown transitional zone projects right next to us. Now these purple outline areas are the historic districts. This is the South Hill, this is Aylesford, and if this is Belle Core and if you look we have downtown transitional next to Belle. We have it next to Aylesford. We have core next to Aylesford. We have both in and outside of South Hill. So the idea that a transitional zone cannot touch a historic district is just not the reality in our community. They touch, they are located within. This right here could be rezoned to a 10-story building. Heck this here, this zone right next to on the other side of High, it has no limit. They could put a 15-20 story building right across from this H1 overlay. Now we're going to talk about a little bit about the new context at Maxwell, but essentially the area around Aylesford could have larger residential than what we are proposing. In the 1990s when this was rezoned, and not rezoned, this is done at H1, there was lots of H1s being formed. Those of us who are from Lexington, you recall all the battles that were going on during the 90s regarding student housing, regarding what were we going to preserve, what we were not going to preserve, and lots of neighborhoods were preserved. Aylesford was preserved. This one was not preserved. And if you look at Exhibit 11 in your materials, I've got a letter from the council for the Neighborhood Association for Aylesford asking that our property be removed from consideration of being a part of Aylesford. Now they're going to say it was part of a compromise. I get it, but you agree to it. And when you agree to it, that means you open this up for future ability for this property to be developed. The comprehensive plan goes on and says we were supposed to upzone areas because we knew UK was going to continue to grow, but we never did it. And now we're at a point where there's a critical need to upzone areas in our city to provide more housing for the people. We are at a point in our community, we are failing to meet the basic needs of shelter for our citizens in this community. Now this map here is going to show you, I wanted to close in so I couldn't show you everything. So over here on this side we have Woodward Heights. That is an H1 overlay. It's in Ms. Reynolds' district, I believe. Then we have the parking lot at Rupp Arena. Woodward Heights is 20 acres of preserved structures. Then we go to South Hill Station. Once again, a neighborhood completely preserved. That's 40 acres of structures that cannot be removed and redeveloped. So right now we're at 60 acres along the south side of downtown that we cannot use for future growth in our city. This area here does not have the H1 overlay, but if you look here, UK owns, UK owns. These areas here are owned by churches. UK owns this. This area here is the only area in which we can actually bridge and provide high density residential along our downtown core. Because once you leave Rose Street, you're back into Aylesford. Aylesford has 150 acres of land that is preserved. So along our southern downtown, we have 200 acres of property that is preserved that cannot be touched. So when people come in and say, you're destroying the culture, you're destroying our buildings. The buildings that are on our block are similar to what's in Aylesford. There's 200 acres of land that has been preserved along the southern part. We've only left 40 acres between Rupp Arena and this area for any future growth of residential between our downtown. I watched the downtown master plan update the other day. They say we have about 4,100 people live downtown Lexington. That's pitiful. When people say, I want a grocery downtown, I want a pharmacy downtown, I want better bus service downtown. Well, you're not going to get it with 4,100 people. You need 15,000 people because those services will not come unless there are people to be served. You cannot build services for phantom populations. Now these are not my renderings. So these are just to show you the context of what Maxwell is going to be. So from Martin Luther King, this is the proposed subtext project. So this right here, this is Martin Luther King. This is Lexington Street. These two buildings have now been removed and in their place. Gil Bain is building this project that will go from Lexington down to Stone Road. This is what Maxwell is going to look like in the next few years. Our project is going to match the context of what this is going to look like. This project and these projects are going to look like an urban area that you see in other large cities that are building in their downtown areas. And then there's lots of benefits. So first off, there's going to be a large capital investment. Usually construction, you get $3 for every $1 spent for construction. This project will create job opportunities for skilled trades, knowledge workers like myself, service workers. We're all part of the system that comes with these big projects. New housing choices will create existing housing stock elsewhere to open up. So while we're going to have a net of 900 new people living in this particular block, that means there are going to be 900 other houses or dwelling units somewhere else in this community that will free up for other people to live in. Now, some of the objectors don't believe in supply and demand, but that's just how it works. You build more supply, then there's going to be a little bit less demand. And then I'm going to wrap up and let Austin, but here are some other benefits. We're on a transit. We did not need to, but we agreed to do eight-foot sidewalks along Maxwell and Rose Street. So we're going to have eight-foot shared use paths instead of the standard five-foot sidewalks. We have lots of amenities. We really built this to focus on pedestrians because we think most of our residents are going to want to walk to school, walk to downtown. It was a very pedestrian-focused development. And so I'll let Austin wrap up and then, of course, you'll have questions and I could go on all night, but you guys don't want to be here all night, so I will pass the baton over. Thank you. Hi, everybody. Thanks, everybody, for being here. We really appreciate it. My name is Austin Pagnotta. I am with the Core Spaces development team. Just as a kind of resetting, Core Spaces has been in the community for about six years now. We built Hub Upper and Hub Limestone in the community, and we still own and operate those assets today. So unlike many other developers, we are not here for a quick flip. We have invested in this community historically, and we will continue to invest in this community. This project has taken six years to get to this point today. For me to be at this podium, it has taken six years. All the challenges that Brandon outlined before I got up here are all true, and assembling large pieces of land in downtown areas like this is not easy. With that being said, the main things we're going to cover are, number one, this site is outside of a historic overlay and does not contain any unique historic structures not already found in those historic overlays. Historic overlays cover 40 percent, almost, of downtown area. So as Brandon showed on his maps, 40 percent of the downtown area is covered in historic overlays. So if we can't build in those areas, and now we can't build next to them, where are we supposed to add the densities? That doesn't include land owned by cities, universities, municipalities. That doesn't include office buildings, hotels, properties that are already highest and best uses. We're also adding price-sensitive options to the market, which we'll detail a little bit later in the presentation. And this development promotes walkability and reduces the reliance on cars. You don't reduce traffic by building far away from campus. You reduce traffic by building next to campus and reducing reliance on cars so people can walk to campus or walk to downtown or walk to the grocery store, walk and go get coffee. They don't have to drive if they're into downtown locations, which is extremely challenging to do given the current zoning constraints facing Lexington. So why a third project? Of course, built here twice, we still own and operate in the market, but why are we here for a third project? It's not a surprise. UK has added nearly 7,000 kids in the past four years with no additional supply, with almost no additional supply. Over the next three years, they're going to add potentially another 4,000. So in total, that's 11,000 students over the past four years and over the next three years that could be added to this area. Where are they living? The students are living in houses and multi-family apartments that could be better suited to families and professionals of this community. Missing middle is occupied by students because they don't have a place to live next to campus. Land constraints that we reviewed, which are, you know, mainly 40% of the land being in historic districts, publicly owned land and the non-residential uses limit these new developments. The site currently has 80 beds. We can deliver 1,000. That means we're freeing up housing for families and professionals and really preventing this problem from getting much worse. This shows a portfolio pre-leasing comparison, which shows our two properties in Lexington and how pre-leased they are, which means for next year, how leased they are, August of 2026. Our properties as of November 11th are over 90% pre-lease for next year. We have 50,000 beds that we track, that we own and manage across the country. Our portfolio average and where we would expect to be at this time is roughly 50%. So Lexington, our two properties here, are outpacing our national average by double and they're full. This slide shows our 4-2 light unit, which is our price sensitive unit. This is really important and if there's questions on it, we're happy to go into a little bit more detail. But what we're showing here is we're roughly expected to deliver 300 beds in this product type that we call the 4-2 light. It will offer a price point that is more affordable than what's currently being rented on site, which has been confirmed at roughly $1,000 a bed. So the housing on site is renting for $1,000 a bed and 80 beds. We're going to be able to deliver 300 beds of our 1,000 beds at a price point 15% more competitive than what's actually being achieved on site. These units are even comparable with on-campus dorms, which you can see on the left here. I also wanted to include a slide that shows the demand for this type of product. We spent a lot of time iterating on how do we create price sensitive options within our community that appeals to a larger demographic. We've done surveys. We've been iterating on this unit for about 15 years now. And what we've seen across our 50,000 beds is these units relative to our units across our portfolio will lease on average 20% faster than the standard units because they provide more affordability in a safe and secure project at a project that's close to campus and competitive with shadow market supply. Quickly, I want to touch on the existing inventory. So there's around, again, 80 beds on site. CORE is not kicking any tenants out. We're not terminating any leases, but we will be providing relocation assistance to all tenants that need it as their leases naturally expire in August of 2026. In terms of community feedback, we have, in our opinion, gone above and we've done everything we could to get engaged the community. We put our first neighborhood meeting in the newspaper and then online. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Those who have experienced me chairing meetings will know that I run a very tight ship and I do not give extra time to anyone. Ms. Winters, would you like to cross examine the petitioner? Come on up to the mic, please. Yeah. We'll have five minutes. Go ahead. Ms. Winters, would you come to the mic? We just need to have everything audible for the record. Oh, that's uncomfortable here. So I was curious, what is the timeline for the construction of this project, if it gets approved and opening to the public? Yeah. So we will be starting construction in August of 2026 and opening for August of 2028. And do you know what the housing gap will be in 2028 with all the other new projects that have been approved? Yeah. So right now it's roughly 11,000 beds short relative to the previous year. Just the forecasted projected growth. There's about, obviously the Gilbane project is 700 beds and then Subtex is 900 beds. So that's roughly 10% of that total shortage. And then we have our project here at a thousand beds. And are you aware that there are other projects for student housing in the pipeline here in Lexington? Real estate development is very tricky. There are rumors of other development projects going forward. And it took us six years to bring this site just to where we are today. So still a significant gap to fill. Okay. Brandon, I just wanted to ask you about the H1. You mentioned earlier that properties within an H1 district cannot be removed or redeveloped. Isn't it true that structures within these areas actually can be demolished and redeveloped with an application and approval of the BOAR? Yes, technically you can remove those structures. It just doesn't happen very often. Okay. You were discussing earlier about your 4-2 light costs for those units. Isn't it true that you're only planning to include two or three hundred of those in this development? Yes, we'll be including 300 beds of 4-2 lights, which is roughly 30 percent of our unit mix in one unit type. That is more than 3x the current beds on site that rent for more than what we project to charge for our 4-2 lights. Okay. And what's the cost of a one-bedroom unit in your development? A one-bedroom could be around 1600. Okay. And how about the cost of a two-bedroom? A two-bedroom apartment would be around, you know, probably 11 to 1200. We could check the rates at Upper and Limestone right now. And that's per bed, so it would be 2200 to 2400 a month? That would be per bed, yeah. And the way we think about it is that there's two individual people living in those units. So similar to the dorm slide we had up previously, there's four people in a dorm paying $1300 a bed with no divider, no privacy, no amenities, etc. Our project will be providing the amenities in the A-plus location for a similar or lower price point in some of our units. Yeah, and right now my son, I'm paying $1400 a month for him to live on UK's dorm in a two-bedroom apartment. It is a little bit different than market rate because it's not per the unit leasing, it's per the bedroom, which is how most student housing operates. And we're not going to be 100% student housing, probably expect roughly 80% of our populations to be student, but we would expect them to lease by the bedroom, not the unit. Okay, and so your four, two light units at $875 per bedroom, that brings you up to a total rent for a four-bedroom apartment of about $3,500? Roughly, and again that's per bedroom. And I think it would also be a helpful comparison if we can follow up with square foot per rent, because those are really affordable relative to what's on site today. So there's a couple one bedrooms on site today that are 400 square feet, still getting above $1,000. If you look at the bedroom per occupant in our four bedroom, it's really large, and they're still getting around three to 400 square feet of bed in those specific unit types. So they're not really sacrificing space, it's just more people in a unit, which students often prefer. They want to live with their friends, they want to live close to campus, they're coming from a dorm where they're living with 30 people on a floor, right, and paying more than what we're going to charge them for a 4-2 light. So that's why that pre-leasing velocity chart on our 4-2 lights, those units lease up first, because there's such a huge demand for them, and it's a very innovative product that nobody else really does right now. We've spent 15 years iterating on this unit, because we are focused on price sensitivity. It's one of our mottos as a company, is how can we appeal to a larger demographic, that we're not just building for the classes, we want everybody to be able to live at our properties, and that's why we compare to on-campus rates when we're building 30% of our beds. Okay, and just a quick note on community engagement. You say that you advertise the community meeting in the newspaper. Did you put any signs for the community meeting in the neighborhood? Yes, we did, all over the properties. Okay, and did you specifically post for the meetings at the various apartment units? We did not. We're not sure if the owners put those at the individual property units. If you look at Exhibit 2, it shows all the various opportunities and the different methods we did to let people know about this. Our neighborhood meeting, we had two neighborhood meetings. The first one, I mailed flyers to all the neighborhood associations within the area. We also mailed those to the property owner-occupied premises within the 500-foot area. We notified the Planning Commission. We notified the Office of the 3rd District about the meeting. We did talk with Beth Musgrave, and so that was in the newspaper about the meeting. And an online article where the date, location, and time of the meeting were all posted online. So we did try to get as many people as we could to our first meeting. We had about 20 or 25 showed up. I believe that representatives from both the Aylesford neighborhood and from the South Hill neighborhood were both in attendance at that meeting. And so at a certain point, you know, we do as much as we can. And I tell you, every time I have one of these cases, I learn a little bit something, how to do something a little bit different to try to get more people at meetings. I'm not afraid to have neighborhood meetings. I had a Kroger one at Bryan Station earlier this year. I had 150 people show up. So I really want people to come to these meetings so we can get their feedback and try to adopt what we can within our developments, because that's important to me as a member of this community. And I know it's important to you and the Planning Commission. And so not everyone may have heard about it, but we did attempt to try to broaden as many people as we could have them there. All right. Thank you. Now it's time for the opposition presentation. Ms. Winters, you're up. You've got 20 minutes. And Mr. Coleman will be passing out some materials that we have for the council's consideration. Mr. Coleman. Mr. Coleman. Yeah, there you go. We'll just pass it. Thank you. Good evening, council members, and thank you for your time. My name is Jessica Winters. I'm an attorney here in town. I live in the First District. I speak tonight on behalf of my client, the Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation, or BGT, to voice its opposition to the requested zone change. For your reference, the BGT is a non-profit preservation organization that strives to protect, revitalize, and promote the special historic places in our community to enhance the quality of life for future generations. As an entity whose mission is to protect historic structures, the BGT and its members have an interest in advocating against the demolition of this entire city block of functioning, fully utilized historic properties. BGT has 600 dues-paying members, 9,000 social media followers, and 3,400 newsletter subscribers. It has an average reach of a quarter million individuals who interact with its social and print media over each six-month period. Aylesford Place Historic Neighborhood, Transylvania Park Neighborhood, and Aylesford Action join in this opposition. In total, this organized opposition represents the voices of more than 1,000 of your constituents who are opposed to the destruction of one of Lexington's most beautiful historic areas. Over the past 40 minutes, you've heard from planning staff and the applicant that the zone change should be approved because it complies with the directives of our comprehensive plan. Now I'm going to spend all the time that I have, which is 20 minutes, trying to explain to you as succinctly as I can that the proposal does not comply with the comprehensive plan and should be rejected. Due to time constraints, I can't cover every argument that's included in the position statement that's been distributed to each of you. I urge you to read the statement and I'm requesting that it be included in the administrative record of this action with its attachments. First and most importantly, the proposal does not comport with the comprehensive plan because the comprehensive plan does not support the demolition of an entire block of National Register properties. This project will result in the loss of 12 National Register listed residences. This includes architecturally significant structures, which you'll hear more about later. The 12 properties at issue represent a significant portion of the Southeast Lexington Residential and Commercial Historic District. It's a National Register district. Unlike the buildings demolished for the adjacent Maxwell Complex, these historic structures largely retain their integrity and are currently fully utilized. While I discuss our comp plan's historic preservation policies, you'll see slides of the structures proposed for demolition. Designating a district or building to the National Register is an exacting process that ensures the nominated resources have both significance and integrity. Nominations must pass stringent state and federal and local reviews and each one of these properties qualifies for historic tax credits and receives special consideration under the National Historic Preservation Act. The applicant has argued that the historic significance of the building should be disregarded because they are not located within an H-1 overlay and are therefore not specifically protected from demolition. The Aylesford H-1 overlay begins directly across Street from the site. The exclusion of the project site from the H-1 overlay does not, however, mean that this council must allow its complete destruction. A commitment to historic preservation is seen throughout our comprehensive plan and is not limited to discussion of preserving and promoting H-1 districts. To be clear, our comprehensive plan does not state that we should preserve and protect only those structures that are located within H-1 overlays. Instead, it repeatedly discusses the fact that we need to preserve and protect our historic resources throughout the city. For instance, Theme D, Improving a Desirable Community, Goal 3, is protect and enhance the cultural landscapes that give Lexington its unique identity and image. Goal 3A states that decision makers should, quote, protect historic resources. Goal 3B states that the decision makers should, quote, incentivize the renovation, restoration, development, and maintenance of historic residential and commercial structures. Goal 3C states that decision makers should develop incentives to retain, restore, preserve, and continue the use of historic resources such as urban neighborhoods. An entire place-making policy is devoted to discussing the benefits of historic preservation. Place-making policy number nine states that we should honor Lexington's history by requiring new development and redevelopment to enhance the cultural, physical, and natural resources that have shaped our community. Growth policy number five specifically states that decision makers should identify and preserve Lexington's historic assets in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, our local Historic Preservation Office, and the Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation, on whose behalf I am speaking this evening, and the National Register process. So that begs the question, what do the experts say about this zone change and plan? They say it should be rejected, that the cost in terms of lost history is too high. Craig Potts, the State Historic Preservation Officer, provides a letter attached to the position statement as Exhibit A. Mr. Potts states that raising an entire block of National Register buildings simply because they are located on the outskirts of an H1 is not sound development strategy. Mr. Potts notes that the creation of H1 overlays is a politicized process. Dissenters in a neighborhood can obstruct a proposed H1 regardless of the significance of the resources in the area. As a result, notable buildings can be denied H1 protection regardless of local, state, or even national significance. Mr. Potts highlights the significance of the proposed site and states that the Kentucky Heritage Council encourages the continued use of these properties which represent a key stage in Lexington's urban evolution. Lexington's own Historic Preservation Office, through its Director Betty Kerr, echoes Mr. Potts' position. The Historic Preservation Office prepared a 20-page report regarding the historic significance of this block, which was provided to the Planning Commission. I've attached that report to our position statement as Exhibit B for your review. Ms. Kerr herself addressed the Planning Commission and discussed the unique nature of this particular section of Maxwell Street. This block of residential structures is a compilation that together has great significance. She said the significance factor is driven by the fact that this is a comprehensive and cohesive neighborhood that is representative of the development patterns of our community in the early 20th century and the fact that it demonstrates for the first time a planned mix of single-family residences, duplexes, and apartments. As Ms. Kerr stated, the neighborhood is there to tell a story, a story that is lost when demolition occurs. On my next slide, I have a little clip of her comments to the Planning Commission for your consideration. I'll see if I can do it. It's supposed to have a little... It is what the impact of picking away at these neighborhoods and punching holes in them when they are significant and matter to our community's heritage and I think matter for our future as well. They are part of what gives Lexington its charm, its character, its stories, and for every block you lose and every segment of blocks you lose, you're left with segments, but you don't have the story. The whole story has been negatively affected. These considerations led Planning Commission member Robin Mickler, who actually voted in favor of the two prior projects on Maxwell, to vote against this proposal. Mr. Mickler stated that the H-1 is not the only means for historic preservation. My next slide contains a clip of his comments at the Planning Commission for your consideration. I think that these buildings, to an extent that we haven't seen in the two other blocks, were built for multifamily, were built for apartments, and they have details that are incredible, like some of the other houses in the neighborhood, but they are targeting the exact goal that we're calling for with the middle housing in our comprehensive plan, and it's a complete block. It's intact. There's nothing missing, and if we leave the current zoning in place, a lot of these buildings provide a lot of units for the size lot they're on, and the buildings are sturdy and well built, and that in and of itself acts as a historic preservation means without all of the burdens and details of H-1. So I sort of agree with the letter from the State Historic Commissioner Potts that this block is different, and I think that this is a healthy, vibrant block and a beautiful example of a town and gown neighborhood connection with apartment buildings from the 1920s, and I'm a no on this zone change. It's clear that following the comprehensive plans directives with regard to historic preservation should lead this council to deny a proposed zone change that is accompanied by a plan to demolish an entire block of National Register listed structures. Here, the State Historic Preservation Officer, our Historic Preservation Office, and the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation are all objecting to this proposal. We are pointing out to you the historic and cultural significance of this block. We are informing you that all of these buildings are included as contributing resources in a National Register Historic District. Every single policy and objective in our comprehensive plan that speaks to the importance of identifying and protecting historic resources is at play here. Approving a zone change would ignore significant mandates of our comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan does not support the demolition of an entire block of National Register properties. The comprehensive plan also does not support development that eliminates middle housing and displaces long-time residents. The applicant has argued the zoning it requests is appropriate because two other projects have successfully obtained upzoning from R4 to B2A in the same stretch of Maxwell Street. That raises the question, why is this block different? Why shouldn't the same zone change be granted here? It shouldn't be granted here because this block is currently fully utilized and provides valuable middle housing that our comprehensive plan specifically dictates should be encouraged and preserved. Pillar one of the comprehensive plan discusses livability and notes that with regard to housing it is crucial to have the full spectrum of housing options available for those in all phases of life. This means, and this is a quote, pursuing more compact housing types that constitute the missing middle housing stock in Lexington. That's from page 140 of the comprehensive plan. Growth policy number nine is titled support missing middle housing types through Lexington. The comprehensive plan notes that neighborhoods that once included a mix of housing types were the fundamental building blocks of our city. The plan notes that these neighborhoods disappeared in response to the enactment of racist zoning policies that made these areas non-conforming and replaced them with newly created zoning designed to separate people along racial, class, and socioeconomic lines. The comprehensive plan states that these policies should be reversed and middle housing should be supported and promoted because doing so promotes equity and diversity in our communities. The block at issue is an example of a fully utilized missing middle housing stock. It is currently comprised of a diverse group of residents of all walks and stages of life from students to teachers to employees of local businesses and the university to retired people. The residents walk to school and work and enjoy living in an area that is close to downtown but is still affordable. The requested zone change would eliminate middle housing along this portion of Maxwell Street entirely in favor of a project that services a homogenous population that separates people along class and socioeconomic lines. This is precisely the type of zone change that our comprehensive plan says we should steer clear of. Simply put, the requested zone change is not equitable. Our comprehensive plan focuses a great deal on the need for equity and development. Theme A, Goal 5 of the comprehensive plan states that we should ensure equitable development by protecting existing housing affordability for all and expanding low and middle income housing across the city. This project is antithetical to this goal. When the affordability and equity question has been raised in connection with the zone change requests connected to luxury student development proposals in the past, the response from applicants has been, there are other opportunities for affordable housing in other parts of Lexington. We don't need to worry about that here. Here, all we need to worry about is density. This position is not supported by our comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan says that affordable housing and middle housing is needed throughout Lexington. The current proposal will eliminate an entire block of viable middle housing stock that meets every affordability and equitable development goal of the comprehensive plan in favor of luxury housing that the current residents cannot afford, thereby displacing long-term residents and gentrifying this block of important middle housing. Currently, there are 12 buildings with 80 beds on the block with an average rent of between $750 and $1,000 for a one-bedroom apartment. The proposal calls for approximately 1,000 beds with an average rent of $1,500 per bed. The applicant promised a small percentage of its units will be affordable at $900 or $875 per bed. However, it should be noted these units are actually four-bedroom tiny apartments that rent for a total of around $3,600 a month. These are what the applicant refers to as price-sensitive units. Two-bedroom units on this block currently rent for about $1,500 a month, while one-bedroom units in the proposed development can rent for as high as $1,700. As you'll hear from current residents of this area, these rates are not affordable for the current residents. Current residents, including long-term residents and the elderly, will be displaced if the zone change is approved. The goals and objectives of the comp plan never intended to create a monoculture of students. When coupled with the already-approved student developments along Maxwell, this project will add to creation of a pseudo-campus. We need mixed and diverse developments in this area that include affordable rentals for UK staff and downtown employees. Live-where-you-work is a critical sustainability issue, and this is the ideal location for it, and this is actually how the land is currently being used. The comprehensive plan does not state that we must increase density at all costs. It is well known that Lexington has a housing shortage. It is well known that as a city, we are prioritizing density and new developments. That was known when this comprehensive plan was enacted. But this does not mean that you have to approve every request for drastic upzoning. That does not mean that you have to say yes to every plan that would provide additional housing, even when those plans are destructive to our community. This does not mean that you have to approve a change that results in the destruction of an entire historic block of National Register properties. Tough decisions are inevitable. When do you say yes? When do you say no? How do you make these tough decisions? This is the entire point of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan tells you how we make these decisions. It gives you goals and objectives to guide your decision making. The comprehensive plan does not state that a drive toward density should be elevated above all else. Instead, the comprehensive plan talks at length about balance. The word balance used in the context of competing development concerns is used more than 100 times throughout the comprehensive plan. The plan specifically notes that the desire for infill and redevelopment must be balanced with concerns relating to how new development can coexist with and complement existing neighborhoods and historic assets. Imagine Lexington calls for the government to be held accountable for upholding this vision and to be good stewards of Lexington's precious historic resources. And that's also a quote from the comp plan at page 27. Density policy number two states infill residential can and should aim to increase density while enhancing existing neighborhoods through context sensitive design. Design policy four states we must quote provide development that is sensitive to the surrounding context. The comprehensive plan specifically states that the goal is to design new buildings that seamlessly blend into existing neighborhoods respecting the overall scale character and placement on the site. This computer rendering shows what the proposed structure looks like in the context of surrounding properties from the ground level. It is quite clear. Okay we can go back to the next slide, slide prior. There we go. Well regardless it is 85 feet tall. The buildings right across the street are about 30 feet tall. So that's how it fits in with the surrounding historical context. The structure does not actually vary in mass or scale. It will destroy and destroy an entire block of residentially zoned properties that could be put to use for increased density and diversity of housing choices and replace that with a monolithic structure that does not respect the context of the neighborhood in the slightest. The proposed structure will crowd and overshadow adjoining properties located in an h1 district and destroy the predominantly historical context of this portion of Maxwell. This is drastic upzoning that prioritizes big box development at the expense of all other considerations. This is not a plan that balances the need for density with the comprehensive plans directive to require context sensitive development and protect our historic resources. Thank you. Thank you very much Ms. Winters. Mr. Gross do you want to cross-examine at this time? No? Okay thank you very much. We're at 6.15. We have 54 people signed up for public comment. So we are going to take a quick break. We're going to reconvene here at 6.20 by that clock so we can get on with our evening. Thank you very much. So start getting settled. We're going to get started here in just a minute. Thank you very much. So do do do so do all right welcome back everybody i'm going to call us back into session all right so we're going to go into our public comment period uh if anybody's here to give public comment and has not been sworn in um please raise your right hand is anybody in this room okay thank you uh do you swear in the back yeah that's him do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge okay thank you very much so i'm gonna when i call your name come up to the podium state your name again and state your uh council district uh if you don't live in lexington you can tell us that as well you will have up to three minutes uh as per our normal public input rules uh yielding is allowed for up to a total of nine minutes which means uh up to two other people can yield you their time we do have some folks with yielded time and i will note that and i will note the uh the the total amount of time that everyone has i'm gonna go ahead when i start calling names i'm gonna do two or three at a time so that folks out in the uh out in the lobby will have a chance to come in and line up because there is i believe like a seven second delay between what's being broadcast in here live and what they hear out there so i want to make sure to give everybody a chance to come in all right so we're gonna start off With Ross Boggess Followed by Audrey Matthews Fields, I also need to confirm is a Katerina Brennan here Okay, I'll give her a chance to come inside and also is Arthur Wells here Say that again Outside okay If you two if Arthur Wells and Katerina Brennan can come in and confirm that you will be giving your time to Audrey Matthews Fields Is Audrey here? Just to make sure okay. Can I switch positions with Jack Goebel who has to leave earlier and I can afford to say later Give me one second. Okay, so Katerina Brennan you're giving your time to Audrey. Yes. Thank you And Arthur you're giving your time to Audrey as well, okay, thank you very much. So Audrey when you're up you'll have nine minutes Repeat that. Mr. Boggess. Guess which positions with Jack Goebel who has to leave earlier and I can afford to take his position later in the meeting Jack Goebel. Yes. Okay, that's fine. Cool. Thank you. All right, so we're gonna start with Jack Goebel Then Audrey Matthews Fields and then rich Skimming or scheming. I apologize if I say your name incorrectly, please correct me All right, so Jack you're up My name is Jack Goebel. I'm a fourth-year student at UK from the third district I want to share a few of my experiences with student housing over the last few years and why I think it's incredibly important to Improve approve the rezoning and build more housing near campus Starting from my freshman year in 2022. I have never lived on campus The dorms were full by the time my roommate nice time slot came around Since then the university accepted even more students and restricted non-freshmen to living in certain dorms forcing everyone else into off-campus housing At the same time the university has knocked down blocks of student housing to make room for the hospital expansion on South Campus During my freshman and sophomore year in 2023. I worked at core spaces property on South Limestone I was primarily a leasing agent We had access to other near campus apartment complexes occupancy rates and their buildings would fill up shortly after the hub When the hub ended kovat deals which had lower rates or free months of rent sometimes even in 2023 my roommates rent went up $300 per month for the next year as those deals were ending every returning residence rates went up at Least $150 from the previous year He resigned my roommate did and that year was the first time the building reached 100% occupancy No matter how much the rent goes up The building has continued to fill up every year and every other house building an apartment complex that houses students does the same thing Including dorms which have even higher Which have even higher rates of occupancy than ever with increasing prices and mandatory purchase of expensive meal plans Last year I lived in a duplex on Aylesford Place and my landlord asked me to renew my lease a week before classes started before on August 20th He's began August of this year as a side note My best friend who lives and goes to school in Westwood in Los Angeles and next Beverly Hills in West Hollywood Renews his lease for the following year around January February for similar prices with students pay in Lexington Anyway, I said that I didn't have a group together yet and I was going to renew She gave me a deadline in the next Thursday renew I found a group one week later and text my landlord from my class She let me know because I hadn't had a group the group the week prior She had given away the house the next day and I couldn't live there next year I lost the opportunity to renew my lease less than one month after moving in and before classes even started Quickly, I had to find a replacement option because nearly all major landlords thought of student housing around mid-september for the next year I was interested in living with my best friends in South Campus property I was quickly met with ultimatums by a landlord They wanted to live with and apply within 24 hours and pay a $75 non-refundable application fear We'd lose the house and you give it to somebody else He refused to allow us a tour the current tenants if we wanted a tour had to let us in two days later He sent us a 50 plus page residential lease for a higher rent for a house that hadn't been renovated since before I was born and I was still Getting better than what some of my friends pay to live in pretty disgusting houses He said we didn't we had to sign within 24 hours or we'd all lose the house My friends felt the pressure to sign they did while I backed out Then there was some fallout from that They ended up managing to keep the house luckily after considerable back-and-forth with the landlord and this year just last month My landlord did a similar thing despite him allowing me to renew I received a text that I was not allowed to renew anymore without explanation after him agreeing to let me Now I have nowhere to live for my fifth year except a studio or one bed development near campus. I'm looking paying look Looking at roughly paying $1,700 per month. I hope Thank you. Thank you your time's up Next up is Audrey Matthews fields followed by rich skimming or scheming and then Matt Burton And you'll have nine minutes, thank you good evening My name is Audrey Matthews fields and I reside in Council District 10 I stand before you today on behalf of community members and residents of the Aylsford neighborhood who could not be here today in person But who have written and sent impactful statements for this body's consideration Although these heartfelt letters will be read in my singular voice I urge you to bear in mind the collective of people represented by it people with different voices different complexions different stories and connections to this neighborhood these letters are a product of community action a result of Conversations among neighbors around picnic tables and in living rooms the very ones threatened with demolition if this rezoning passes Please consider the weight of their words Imagine ten people standing with me. Imagine the 50 people outside and overflow Imagine a whole block of neighbors as you hear their pleas From our first concerned neighbor dear Lexington City Council I'm a resident of 258 Kelmia Avenue, and I'm a sophomore at the University of Kentucky my freshman year I was living in the dorm rooms provided by UK, but after my first year I wanted to be able to find my own apartment My friend had already been living in the 258 residence and told me there was an open listening So me and my roommate at the time came and toured we were two college girls Just looking for a place to live and didn't really expect much But in our 10-minute tour we said we would take it there was just something so special about this apartment It offers us affordable rent a great location and honestly. It's just a dream I wish more people could see the inside of our apartment because it is literally better than some big apartment complexes I've been to Me and my roommate were so stressed out last year and we were going to live and then we found this place and all of Our worries were gone. I moved in in July of this year and with only a month and a half of finally getting settled again I get informed that my new dream apartment might get torn down The people on this block don't deserve to get pushed out and have their homes destroyed just to build a huge unaffordable apartment complex I've been to other hubs here on campus, and they're nothing special They're all apartment complexes that have unattainable prices Creating a hub is not going to solve Lexington's housing problem Most of the residents in the hub are students and the rent for one person is so expensive that many just can't afford it East Maxwell is a one-way street and building a huge apartment complex right on the road will affect traffic patterns immensely Rush hour on this street is already terrible and constantly backed up So putting an apartment building that is aimed to house a thousand people is not realistic or a good idea for this area The houses on this block while they may be old there are some of the last older houses Lexington has Why would you want to get rid of old houses to provide a big apartment complex? That's unaffordable. My unit has been updated and remodeled and I've had multiple friends have interest in moving here next year But it's crazy to think that it might not even be here I think there are other areas in Lexington That's a better fit to build an apartment complex that wouldn't have to include tearing people's homes apart Moral of the story is while the goal is to provide housing for more people. You must look at all the facts Yes the hub is aiming to house a thousand people but it's in complexes that are unaffordable and it's at the cost of displacing lower income People and bulldozing their houses just to build another huge apartment complex in Lexington at least for myself I could never afford living in the hub I hope that this can help the City Council understand the impact they will put on the people who already live on this block If they approve this project and build the hub just to realize that the area and traffic aren't feasible Then they would have displaced people and tore down their homes for nothing I think before making this decision that people really need to think about this and understand the impacts It will have on people who already live here. Sincerely a 258 Calme a resident right down the street another neighbor writes I'm writing to express my deep concern and objection to the proposed demolition of the houses on Calme Avenue and East Maxwell to make another Hub apartment complex as a current resident I believe this project will have many negative impacts on our community The homes on our block are not only affordable but also historical Many of us who live here are college students who rely on affordable housing like this in such a perfect location close to campus The proposed new thousand bedroom apartment building will be far more expensive than our current rent putting it out of reach for most college students especially the ones who have to cover their own rent a New hub apartment will replace affordable homes with luxury units that do not address the real housing needs of the community It is also important to note there are already two hub apartments nearby adding another hub will just overcrowd and add more unaffordable housing Additionally traffic in this area is already a major issue The roads are very packed, especially during class times and rush hour adding a much larger apartment will only make this worse with more traffic and pedestrians My roommate and I chose this home because it was one of the few affordable options available near campus We plan to stay for at least two years But now we are faced with the stressful task of possibly finding new housing This will make it difficult for everyone on the block to find housing this late in the year when most leases are already signed I urge the city to reconsider this project and explore alternatives to preserve affordable housing Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely Ava true a Fellow community member wrote this I'm concerned with a lack of communication I've received in regard to the fate of the building and potential eviction I only plan to live here for a year as I finished my last year at UK It's my understanding that they have to honor my current lease, but there's been a large communication gap there I've heard many conflicting things, which is a cause of great concern for me The second thing that concerns me is the size and scale of the project in relation to the surrounding area and infrastructure Traffic already decreases the quality of life in the area and would overwhelm East Maxwell The impact of this would be felt far beyond the neighborhood and would further exacerbate a major problem here in Lexington I think it's also important to note that hubs do not offer affordable student housing But a large amount of overpriced apartments those prices are out of out of range for a majority of students as a student at UK I feel that the new housing plans on campus and elsewhere could help alleviate the real problem of student housing I also think it's imperative that the City Council begin to place the interest of every Lexington resident above the interests of UK The university needs to begin to take accountability for overwhelming the city and decreasing the quality of life of other residents and their own students City Council members should be reminded that they are elected to serve the whole of Lexington Not only the university and large out-of-state corporations who will not have to deal with the consequences of their actions sincerely a resident of Kelmia Avenue And last but certainly not least Faith's testimony. My name is Faith and I live at 271 East Maxwell Street I would very much like to join you all in opposition of demolishing any more of our beloved historic downtown buildings My boyfriend Matthew and I have lived here for a little over two years and would be devastated if we were to be forced to move We're not exactly perfect people and we were displaced for several months before his brother graciously helped us to get this apartment It's not easy for several of us to find a place and moving is a nightmare. I wouldn't wish on anyone I've had the opportunity to talk to a couple of our neighbors as well who are students and they've told me that it's too expensive For several of them to live in student housing The ability to rent these off-campus apartments save them thousands of dollars and losing their apartments would put them in danger of not being able to complete their education Thank you for listening to these points of view from residents who will be significantly impacted by decisions They feel they haven't been a part of until now a common thread unites these neighbors Uncertainty and fear yes but mostly love a love of their homes of their neighborhood and neighbors and The love for the future tenants who might find home on Kelmia and Maxwell as they have This is not a debate about the existence of a housing crisis. We as tenants know the problems around us. We live them This is instead of recognition that people are unhappy with the options as they've been presented They want to believe that something better exists something that can serve all of us better They want to believe the city. They call home wouldn't displace them without seeking more equitable options. They want to believe you'll fight for them They want you to see Ellsworth as a collective of people there now who know what's best for their own community. Thank you for your time Thank you. Next up is Rich skimming followed by Matt Burton and then Zack Leonard Thank you, my name is Richard shine For the record, I am the board president of the bluegrass trust for historic preservation, but I was not part of the oppositional team I'm not a resident of Fayette County. I do teach urban geography the University of Kentucky and I am a planning commissioner in Woodford County I also served on mayor Gray's committee on downtown life and mayor Gorton's 2020 task force on housing and gentrification Where I helped write the final report in general I support Lexington's need for urban in full and affordable housing and for students Housing as well, but not in this project when I spoke here last month with the planning commission I highlighted the irony of building the proposed development by tearing down an architecturally significant area of housing that already represents the idea of the missing middle Aimed at creating diverse affordable housing options in walkable neighborhoods Since then a groundswell of opposition has arisen and most of my points were also raised by others and will be tonight And are actually included in Linda Blackwell's editorial and the Herald leader this morning But when we moved to Lexington and I have lived in Lexington 34 years ago I bought a copy of Clay Lancaster's vestiges of the venerable city and began tracking down the remnant architectural jewels of Lexington's past Only to find that almost every entry ended with torn down in the 1970s The urban core had been decimated and under the guise of so-called urban renewal Traceable to the city's first comprehensive plan and subsequent housing and sanitation surveys Those were perhaps good intentions with some bad outcomes. I feel as though we're in the same place today The good intention might be affordable housing, but I urge you to look carefully at the projects that this rezoning will enable This is purpose-built student housing in 2022 This was a 20 billion dollar a year industry with majority ownership held by international institutional investors Dependent upon student debt and often criticized for facilitating gentrification They're increasingly in the south Where we often have more permissive real estate environments and fewer planning and zoning requirements than other places The goal is to take advantage of university's inability or unwillingness to build student accommodation And it's predicated on short-term high turnover tenants and premium rents often calculated on a per person basis as you've heard this evening These developments are perhaps a cost the city will bear for the university's new champions blue venture To develop an entertainment hotel district around the city Blue venture to develop an entertainment hotel district around Kroger field instead of student housing Ultimately, we'll pay the opportunity cost that these developments present for providing true affordable housing in our city and lose one more significant historical neighborhood When there are many other parts of the city that might be more appropriate to development at this scale I urge you to put a pause on this rezoning request and allow the city and local interests to strategize and drive Development needs rather than falling for the first shiny thing that bears a faint resemblance to and a false promise For good urban planning and housing needs. Thank you Thank you Apologies rich for getting your uh name wrong. I was reading off the Um before I call up matt burton, uh, is zach leonard here And is erica freeze here? And you're giving your time to To zach. Okay. Thank you. So matt burton is up next zach. Leonard will be after with six minutes and then jordan smith. Go ahead Hello, my name is matt burton i'm a member of district six I own multiple businesses and buildings in the south hill neighborhood and on uk's campus including dudley square And i'm in support of this zone change Specifically because I believe lexington needs strategically located high density housing In order to continue to grow at a responsible and healthy pace The subject block was originally allocated as high density housing due to its unique location of being directly between campus and downtown Currently there's not one single family home on the subject block Or facing the block and nearly 100 of the residents are students on one-year leases with annual turnover rotating through In order for high density input projects to work and succeed long term They need to be in the correct location Which is pedestrian oriented where residents can walk across the street to a classroom building or two blocks to a downtown trade area and There are far few remaining sites in lexington that meet this criteria that are not a part of a historic overlayer district Present day the current owners at their own free will and discretion could demolish the properties. They are not protected um, I believe the zone change will also provide a functional bridge between downtown and campus And serve as a pressure relief valve on the growing student housing demands And take relief off of the surrounding neighborhoods as well by consolidating housing You know pricing Is a direct function of inventory And what does the most good for the most people there is no supplement or cure for lexington's housing crisis and soaring rates except for increased inventory building up not out In the planning commission hearing that approved this zone change in a vote of eight to two I believe commission member. Mr. Frank pin said it best In regard to the comp plan density policies. I'm a firm believer in that you build a plan and you stick to that plan Thank you for your time and your service to lexington Thank you Next up is zach leonard followed by jordan smith and then zach smith, uh and zach leonard. You'll have six minutes Good All right Good evening council members. My name is dr. Zach leonard and I am a historian preservationist and resident of district one To begin I want to thank you for holding this hearing in the first place Rezoning such as this are incredibly impactful and can reshape entire communities So it is only appropriate that elected representatives weigh in on them Tonight I want to share the histories of the buildings in the project area Which we've also provided in hard copy and explain their designation on the national register of historic places For context this section of what we now call alesford was first developed in the 1920s When the land surrounding the lindhurst mansion was subdivided In a sense This was a planned community as the buildings were intended to be harmonious with each other and could only be constructed with certain materials and setbacks So each property has its singular design features while still contributing to a consistent architectural rhythm Five of the 12 buildings in the project area originated as single-family housing and were later converted into apartments These generally belonged to up-and-coming businessmen who helped drive lexington's turn-of-the-century urbanization And i'll give two examples 251 east maxwell was first owned by samuel walton who was a leading figure in the banking real estate and insurance industries He was also a director of the lafayette hotel Constructed the walton building on esplanade and developed the alcorn park subdivision He and his wife laura likely bought this parcel to be near her sister who had inherited the family's lindhurst mansion Civically active laura was a prominent supporter of the clean milk movement and a charter member of the lexington planned parenthood association And to the east we find a stately stone clad house with amazing detailing That uk alum richard s webb built around 1917 Webb was a prominent studebaker dealer and reportedly convinced this company to manufacture buses which he then used in his expansive fleet In 1957 tobacco warehouse manager jd marshall purchased the web house and subdivided it into four units The seven other properties in the project area were purposefully constructed as Multi-family housing and represent some of the earliest examples of this type in the city Charles rutherford constructed the block's largest department building at 262 calmea by 1927 A descendant of john wilmore for whom the town of wilmore is named Rutherford primarily resided in louisville and was regarded as an expert breeder of horses and cattle In 1927 the property was home to a professor telephone operator bookkeeper warehouse foreman and numerous students The redevelopment of the lindhurst estate also saw the rise of owner occupied duplexes These included the fantastic craftsman at 256 calmea which samuel biedermann a jewish immigrant from kiev built by 1924 The owner of shoe shops in north limestone samuel resided here with his wife and daughters until his death in 1944 And interestingly this entire block seems to have accommodated a wave of eastern european immigrants in this period So the project area was clearly a melting pot from the get-go in which lexington's urban professionals lived in proximity to recent Transplants and students alike and this is exactly the kind of social dynamic that we are hoping to preserve in lexington So now to turn to the topic of designation These buildings were all listed on the national register in 1984 on account of their significance and architectural integrity This does not protect them per se but it does make them eligible for generous rehabilitation historic tax credits And as you'll read in the letter from craig potts our state historic preservation officer There is no substantive difference between an individually listed property and a property that is a contributing element to a historic district as you see here So to conclude the comprehensive plan is supposed to support a variety of housing options Including the missing middle type that these properties represents over the next several years between three and six Large-scale student housing projects will be constructed on the borders of the university of kentucky's campus Some of these will not require zone changes and in these cases the planning commission will not allow public comment So far out-of-state developers and private equity companies have been driving these projects entirely And our planning department for its part has assessed each of these massive developments in isolation But lacks any master plan that might guide their placement or help gauge their cumulative social environmental and infrastructural impacts Although schools across the country are shuddering every day. It appears that the university of kentucky has adopted a policy of endless growth But incentivizing this type of development does nothing to resolve lexington's housing and affordability issues Only desperate students would live in the windowless cell-like bedrooms that complexes like the hub on limestone contain And because of these constricted unit configurations Converting private dormitories into general housing at a future date would be a tall order indeed Admittedly, this is an issue across the country as national private equity companies like coarse basis have bought up huge amounts of property as investment vehicles But this is our chance to send the message that lexington belongs to lexingtonians And not price gouging corporate interests. Thank you for your time Thank you I'm going to ask i'm going to ask those in the chamber to refrain from reaction positive or negative I appreciate it Next up is jordan smith followed by zach smith followed by dylan dome Hi everyone, my name is jordan smith. I'm a resident of district four Born and raised in lexington recently graduated from the university of kentucky During my time at the university of kentucky I lived at hub limestone for two years And had a great experience living there It was a high quality living environment That greatly enhanced my roommates and my college experience The living environment provided the hub I think and I think a lot of people would agree is Would be a superior living environment than what exists on the property today Um as demand and needs in our city shifts We must evolve as a city to meet these demands And not be stuck in the past over time Needs and requirements of the built environment change and cities must adapt This change is seen In lexington today with the need for 22 000 housing units Um, this is not going to go away without action and the only way to To really change this is to provide new supply We must evolve as a city to fit the needs of our community and provide dense housing within our urban service boundary And preserve the farmland that each and every one of us I think really makes less lexington special And that's why density is so important I'm greatly in favor of the project today And the further evolution and refinement of our city. Thank you. Thank you uh, next up is zach smith followed by dylan dome and then Paul either smith or smith. I don't know if that's a typo Would it be possible to yield my time for another representative? That's gonna have to leave early Uh, will you repeat that it would it be possible to yield my time for another representative? He's got to leave a little bit earlier. He's registered later in the night. You can you can trade your time Can't trade my time with spencer lazari Spencer lazari. Yep. Okay. Thank you Uh, good evening everyone, um, so i'm actually originally from louisville, but you give your name and distance for uh, Spencer lazari, uh district six, I believe I think that's out in hamburg. Um, so i'm actually originally from louisville But I went to uk in 2017 graduated in 2021 And other than a couple months, um in between finding a job. I've basically lived here since 2021. I work actually downtown um, so I was actually Found out louisville is the 23rd biggest city and then I was like, oh, I wonder how big lexington is and I think lexington's the 63rd Which I was like, okay. Well, how many cities are there? And I think between villages towns and cities There's 20 000 cities in the united states So lexington and the grand scheme of things is one of the biggest cities in the united states um with that being said That means we have a very big population. We have a lot of people coming in here for work We have a lot of people who like live here and with that being said The university of kentucky is a large population of lexington. I think it's 30 000 students and then 30 000 faculty members, so The university of kentucky is whether like in my opinion, I would say it's the heart of lexington It's a very big reason. A lot of people live here. That's why I live here. That's why I found the job here That's why I moved from the biggest city in the state to the second biggest city And with that being said the students need in my opinion a place to live a lot of students Since they can't find a place to live have to slowly go out and go out and go out within the city And that pushes other residents like people. I know personally can't live in lexington right now I know people very close to me who live in georgetown now They live out in nicholasville because there aren't places for them to live in the city. I think personally for me I think it's a high density that people keep using that buzzword But I really think that's like an appropriate way to look at the situation that it's a high density City that's becoming lexington's expanding uk's expanding. Um, one little other quick note. Um, Back in 2019. So I believe I was at my starting my junior year Uh, there was a huge house student housing situation going on then where they're going to have to put students and ras in the same Room together because there weren't enough Places to live When I was a student in 2017, I had to start as a freshman. I started looking for a house in september I think I was in a month or two of school before and I already had to look for a house I already had to think about moving out of the dorms The culture of the university of kentucky is to after freshman year you live off campus That's just how it is. And since kentucky isn't really building a lot of units I think it's really important that we build a place for students to live so residents and I believe the students are an important Section of people to look at in this instance and the students need a place to live So residents also have a place to live Thank you Thank you Next up is dylan dome followed by paul smith followed by elizabeth browning Good afternoon dylan dome a from district three Um, I just want to express my opinion of approval for this rezoning project As we've touched on before is we have over a shortage of 20 000 units Um, and I understand this is not going to fix the whole problem, but it's going to put a great dent in this number Something that I do like about this project that i've seen though is the promotion of the high density in the urban area In lexington, we are land constrained. It's just a known fact. There's no perfect sites that exist anymore So being able to take advantage of this infill property is something that I don't think should be overlooked With that like somebody mentioned before is you know, this is going to help protect our farmland Which is a lot of our history heritage and really what makes lexington unique from a lot of other big cities around I have actually lived in housing here on east maxwell and I know that some people touched on it being active functional and fully utilized but many of those times is because students didn't have any other alternative we had to be forced into these housings and something that i've seen from the time that I was there and even until now i'm able to go visit friends and other family in those units and the deterioration of the properties is rapid and I would like to see a project like this come in and help redevelop the city and really help the economic growth. Thank you Thank you Next up is paul smith followed by elizabeth browning followed by elene dressler My name is paul ray smith i'm in district nine And i'm in favor of this I think that it supports the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and infield development and also just wanted to say a little side note as a as a parent that has had three different kids go through uk and live in all kinds of housing outside of the dorm as a freshman The the safety and security and the well-built in the the deal of the projects like the hub Is a very is a benefit and so people say they're expensive Yes, they are expensive Relatively, but they're less than most of the dorm costs and they do provide a better environment for the kids Oftentimes than being stuck in residential neighborhoods and houses So for like I said for different reasons, but i'm very much in support of this zone change Thank you up next is elizabeth browning followed by elene dressler and then anthony humphries Hello council, my name is elizabeth browning and i'm represented by the first district I'm here to speak on the rezoning issue and emphasize the president this action would reinforce That community opinion existence and belonging is less important than uk's housing crisis In other words that uk's housing crisis is worth detrimenting the housing crisis of residents and tenants with a long-term need to be homed safe and cared for in this community During my four years of being a uk student. I became well aware of how quickly and how many construction projects can materialize During that time many dorms were turned down and none built I understand that uk is a pillar of our economy. But who is this economy for? We are deeply concerned about the lack of affordable housing in lexington Many of my friends have been outpriced of their current housing already or are preparing for it in the near future However, this housing project does not address the need for affordable housing and makes it worse This project will remove a whole neighborhood of middle housing Which is already critically scarce that is cherished by many different kinds of households And replace it with an apartment building leeching off of less informed uk students who will be paying far over the standard cost of student housing These neighborhoods have facilitated the homemaking for generations of lexingtonians This looks like travelers from across the states in the world who fell in love with all we have to offer Families wanting a vibrant close community friends living on their own together students paving a space for belonging each home That has stimulated great love in life, but only because people have stayed to live and create that love here I feel that many of those same individuals and families if they were to tour this area next year would get a good look at All of those new projects and find a different more neighborly more affordable and more down-to-earth place to live This solution only invites further destruction of off-campus neighborhoods worsening the massive affordable housing crisis impacting families young adults elders and so on And ultimately contributes to the problem To solve beyond that the community opinion remains the most necessary part of this This will negatively impact current residents demonstrate that careless displacement is endorsed by this government And that our stake in this city in this community takes back burner. I love lexington and we do not want this We all want affordable housing, but this is not that thank you for listening and please listen to us Thank you, next up is aline dressler followed by anthony humphries and then alice christ Hi, my name is augustus dressler I'm from the third district and live less than a block away from the area that has been rezoned for the creation of the hub There's problems with the plan for the project and that it creates many issues and disregards its impact to the community For the number of residents that I would house in a car-centric city In a car-centric city There's no way that there will be enough parking for all of their residents and their guests and the overflow of street park and the surrounding Neighborhoods which already have an issue of an inadequate amount of street parking for the residents currently living there The intersections of rose and calmea maxwell and stone and high street and stone Will not be able to support the number of vehicles now using them to exit the neighborhood, especially during the heavy traffic hours and Tiny courtyards and a rooftop pool are laughable compensations for the amount of green space They're destroying with a massive building that takes up the entire block The hub will do nothing to fix the housing crisis and instead make it worse by tearing down affordable middle housing Displacing all of the current residents and replacing it with expensive poorly managed townhomes and apartments That will only be able to be afforded by the socioeconomically advantaged This will also have an effect on the rent of the rest of the homes in the area Pricing out current residents who can no longer afford to stay in the houses. They're renting and have called home for years And I don't know where they got their current rent numbers from but I live half a block away in a three-bedroom and we pay 475 a bed I couldn't afford to live in one of their tiny four bedrooms that they're talking about building These are all issues that have not been thoroughly looked at The maxwell in the subtext and this proposed new construction of the hub Are setting a terrible precedent of tearing down people's homes for monetary gain with no care for the impact to the community Where will this end when that entire area between high and maxwell are all ugly eight-story buildings? Because that's where it feels like we're headed with the recent purchase of the ymca to be turned into more housing marketing towards students Are you going to let them tear down every house in that neighborhood? Beyond that displace every resident currently living there including the students who will then be forced into Mediocre underserviced financially exploitative apartments because that's all that's left Personally, this is not the lexington that I dream of. I dream of middle housing yards parks Neighborhoods and a community that cares about each other We don't need even more of these complexes This area doesn't need redevelopment It serves our community well as is and the hub and any future developments of this nature would be a detriment to our community and our neighborhoods Please listen to us and change the zoning of this neighborhood back to our four To stop this development by a predatory private equity firm that doesn't care about our town or its proposed future residents We can't let them do this to our community in the name of monetary gain Thank you, thank you Next up is anthony humphries followed by alice christ and then rett constantine Okay, thank you, uh, then alice christ Followed by rett constantine and then zach, uh scubas He got that right Alice christ i'm in the third district and i'm noticing that it's testimony from the third district That doesn't want this project Because we live there and I have lived on The corner of maxwell and transylvania park for must be 40 years now I think we need more people who work at uk and at the hospitals and downtown Maybe people who have just recently graduated from uk If this were really an affordable housing project for families, we heard a lot about Multifamily design standards, but what about multifamily occupancy? This project will not lend itself to that and I think that is what we really want. Thank you Thank you Next up is rett constantine followed by zach scubas and then maureen peters Hello there. Thank you for your time tonight. I'm rett constantine. I'm from district three I'd like to provide a slightly different perspective. I am in favor of this development, but i'm in favor of it as a small business owner I'm a lifelong lexington resident and a uk alumni myself I will say that the hub and core group has been nothing but supportive to my small business when I opened in 2019. There was uncertain times Representatives from the hub reached out to my small business directly as the closest coffee shop to their development and said let us distribute marketing Material for you. They have continued to do that every year without being asked without being compensated Nothing like that And i'll just say that that is something that the university of kentucky has never done even as a proud alumni I've got nothing but good things to say about the university They're an economic driver for my business and for all the businesses in town, but they have made a direct impact to reach out to the community to me And that was one of my most efficient marketing things i've ever got to do The landlords the people that own those current houses have not done that they've not stepped to me and said hey How can we help you? How can we grow this community that has never occurred? I'd like to provide one other point of contention. I I used to when I was a student. I lived on conterras That area is absolutely unrecognizable. Now. I don't know if you guys are aware the developments occurred over there The university of kentucky has absolutely changed that whole layout for a parking lot for their hospital I don't know if these meetings occurred for that I don't know if there was consideration of how it would look for the single family homes that were demolished to do that But i've been to several of these i've been to these past meetings And it seems that the hub is making a strong effort to keep that facade in line with what is currently there An effort that i'm not seeing being made by the university of kentucky when they build dorm projects when they build parking structures I don't think if even if this does not happen I would be shocked if these dwellings were still here in 10 years with the close proximity of the university of kentucky It's a miracle that the university of kentucky is not here saying we would like that land For a big tall ugly dorm that's going to be totally concrete and we don't care what it looks like next door A strong effort has been made to make this look nice for that neighborhood We've heard plenty about the housing shortage. I'm not going to go into that anymore. We've heard plenty about the Significance of the current homes, but there is no great solution, but I do think this area Would greatly benefit from that and I have personally seen how this company does support small businesses in this area and in the city More so than any others the other big apartment buildings in town have not reached out to me in that same capacity So i've got nothing but good things to say about that organization and their support of my business in this community Thank you for your time Thank you Next up is zach scoobies and apologies. Uh, it's actually uh, ross boggess, uh after him you're You messed up my accounting a little bit on the spreadsheet. Uh, and then after uh, ross will be maureen peters You say my name a little bit better each time I make you do it Uh, my name is zach scoobets I'm newly of district 11, but i've been previously in districts 3 5 and 8 briefly And I want to start with a brief note of surprise Usually i'm a good decade younger than the next person in this public hearing And I want to give kudos to every student or young person who came here tonight to speak It's great to see more people who are participating in local democracy I Used to live in district 3 on transylvania park I specifically remember living the neighborhood and asking myself why we didn't have more people living in that area That question led me down a path to attending many zoning hearings like the one today And this project specifically means something to me I've been complaining to anyone who will listen about student housing in lexington Specifically why we make so many students live so far from campus I've long said that every unit we don't build downtown is another student who has to drive to class each day And another car on nicholasville road I also want to briefly address repeated concerns about affordability. The hubs have been booked up for years It seems that there's plenty of people who can't afford those units The opposition extolled how walkable and affordable the block is I think she's right But it's wrong to deny other people those benefits more lexingtonians should be able to experience those great qualities I've spoken to this chamber several times about how more units anywhere in lexington make affordable make more affordable units for renters like me But I want to add this time that the council has a chance to do the unthinkable Make nick road a little bit less awful And I urge you to not let that opportunity go Thank you. Thank you before I call up ross. Um is beverly fortune here You're you're giving your time to maureen yes, thank you, uh and jane fergus are you here Yeah And you're giving your time as well to maureen. Okay. Thank you Uh, so up next is ross bogus. You'll have three minutes, uh, and then maureen you'll have nine followed by jenny levelle Hey there. My name is ross bogus. I live in the third district in h1 overlay of the aylesford area In the aylesford association i've made thousands of calls to people prospecting for commercial real estate I understand how hard it is to assemble I have called so many property owners in lexington I think you all say you spent six years on it. I'm on month three of that I have been said don't go out Go in. So, okay. Let's go in go in somewhere. Well, it can't go into h1 overlay Can't go to h1 overlay. Okay find somewhere that um, isn't going to be torn down by uk as they keep on expanding They don't have to go through that lfucg uh Side of stuff don't go to Uh a side that's going to lead to gentrification and displacement and we're just out of areas so Mr. Lynch, you asked me in a hearing once what a bad development is if I were to build something today and Plant it in that block In the condition that those properties are in and leave it i'd say that's a bad one because All that is is saying if we don't approve this Then we're going to submit those properties there in that condition and that's not leading to The advancement of lexington that we're looking for So I'd like you to consider We have a landlord that has brought us that urban growth street in downtown I understand the the street Activation i'm riding my bike up and down maxwell every single day. I feel the um The the sidewalk activation from it by having townhomes I was very pleasantly surprised to have the townhomes As a part of the wrap to hide the parking infrastructures And to also have front porches. That's a win for the community. That's a win for my my bike route So I'd like you all to To consider i've tried to be impartial with all of it. I've gone to the neighborhood association meetings Um, I want to be bluegrass trust favorite developer whenever I come up here with my developments one day um, I think this is a chance to make history and Say we're going to to make a better city. So Um, thank you all for considering this Thank you Up next is maureen peters followed by jenny livell and then reena harrison and maureen. You'll have nine minutes I don't need nine minutes, but i've got them. Thank you My name is maureen peters and I occupy 276 Lexington avenue in the third council district. I am opposed to this zone change and believe this neighborhood cannot sustain This fourth or possibly fifth student housing development in seven blocks I'm including the recently announced ymca project since it does not require a zone change It is in essence already approved. There is also concern because of the sale last week of the high street post office It's another site which would not require a zone change I find the proposed student housing development to be an unthoughtful design and I believe lexington deserves better They plan to cannibalize the historic buildings on the site And then install fragments back into the facades on the lower two floors Stating people will get the feeling they're walking past the old buildings This is ridiculous At the last neighborhood meeting the developers could not even tell us what the material for the upper six stories will be They said they're still considering options. The upper floors are just monolithic masses with no articulation And no significant step down or setback in massing to be respectful of the adjoining neighborhood The facades of hub one and two are both unarticulated with combinations of materials Which is are unrelated to the surrounding area It's also a poor choice to use colonial revisable architecture features when the most interesting buildings on the block are not Colonial and their interpretation comes off as cartoonish This block represents a fantastic example of the missing middle We hear so much about from the place builder for lexington It provides a much needed buffer to the adjoining neighborhood east of rose street I attended the technical committee meeting on august 27th And while I was at the meeting jim duncan the director of planning came over and sat down next to me Jim, and I went to high school together So we've known each other a long time He asked me how I was doing and I said I was just trying to learn more about the project I asked him if it was lexington's plan to put all the student housing In this neighborhood as opposed to spreading them out around the university He said there is no plan They consider projects wherever developers can acquire property No plan doesn't seem like a good plan for lexington I also told jim that I was reviewing the material uploaded in acela and reviewed the traffic study I asked him if the traffic study considered the increase due to things like door dash uber eats and grub hub While it's a foreign concept to me. I told him I see numerous deliveries every day to the off-campus houses in the neighborhood One study I read said students use this kind of service a minimum of four times a week If this project is built Here the cumulative effect of the increased density to 2500 beds in three blocks Along maxwell could result in 10 000 deliveries a week And nothing has been planned to improve the condition of maxwell street Jim indicated they don't review this information in the required traffic study, but he would discuss it with his engineers This traffic increase on maxwell doesn't include the recent student housing development announced for the ymca Or what will happen with the post office which could impact the high street side of the neighborhood? I'm also concerned about the constructability of so many developments in such close proximity to each other per the timeline given tonight All three will be under construction at one time Maxwell street is not like south limestone or south broadway both of which are five lanes Maxwell is 31 feet wide curb to curb The equipment required to actually perform the work arrives at job sites on trucks with low boys Many of them are 85 feet long Which cannot make the turn onto the streets off maxwell or high? They have to block maxwell to unload And load and it happens multiple times each week. I can't imagine the impact traffic for the three or four projects already approved During the zone change hearings developers assured neighbors parking for area residents would not be impacted But with the first development underway, we've already lost all the parking on maxwell next to the site and all the parking on stone From maxwell to calmea. I believe the council should hit pause for this neighborhood until we have a better understanding Of the long-term consequences and a plan to deal with it. Thank you for your service. Thank you Um before I call up, uh, jenny lavelle is rena harrison here, okay Um is katherine feedback here And you're giving your time Thank you. Uh, and then is zoe allen here And you're giving your time to rena as well, okay great Uh, jenny lavelle, you're up next, uh followed by rena harrison and then carrick moon Jenny left Okay. Thank you for that. Uh, all right rena harrison. You're up Um, and then you'll have nine minutes followed by carrick moon and then david burton Good evening. My name is rena harrison and i'm a fourth year student at the university of kentucky As well as a third year resident on east maxwell street in the third district It's nice to see you all again And thank you for holding this public hearing and thank you to everyone who attended regardless of your position As the speakers before have stated and those after me will state there's a serious issue at hand While these historical homes may not have value to you They matter to us the citizens of this great city and demolishing these homes present greater problems than just displacement It's more than the history of these homes. It's the future of this city For starters private equity firms are a nuisance plaguing american society while they offer some benefit benefits to the companies They acquire and develop and they create they leave the rest of us tax paying citizens struggling as the saying goes Privatized profits socialize the losses the private equity firms are able to keep their profits and avoid liability if all goes belly up They're incentivized to use loans in order to monopolize industries while lowering the quality of said industries like housing Increasing prices and allowing for the possibility of financial plummeting because they are able to avoid responsibility Their practices are distasteful and allow them to encroach upon the great city of lexington as a disservice to the residents who live here Then we have core spaces originally known as core campus llc Private equity firms such as core space rely on investors and loans the funds from investments banks such as goldman sachs Allow for growth and further development as seen by the 600 million nine property portfolio Acquisition in 2019 allowing them to acquire the hub on upper street I could sit here and discuss all day the corruption of such investment banks. Does anyone remember hank paulson the lehman brothers? While this bears no immediate relevancy to the issue at hand it goes to show the corruption amongst private equity firms and investment banking These deceptive values of core space and other investment banking funding These projects do not align with the value of those in lexington and they are not welcomed in the city But this abomination isn't just limited to the city the development of the hub apartments is booming in growing cities, especially nearby college campuses These apartments have attempted to monopolize college student housing hub apartments in exist at and are not limited to the university of michigan Michigan state university the university of arizona georgia tech the university of tennessee the university of cincinnati the university of florida UCF florida state virginia tech the university of south carolina and plenty more these atrocities called luxury apartments promise amenities Such as rooftop pools and sun decks but lack in providing basic maintenance in highly competitive markets with limited availability of housing Private equity firms face less pressure to prioritize the quality of management And the available i'm so sorry to prioritize the quality of management because demand often exceeds supply They know they will sell out and if they don't core spaces can afford to let these units sit vacant until they Achieve the rental rate they need for valuation This is because they have enough capital to absorb short-term short short-term losses and still earn a profit thus their goal remains maximizing profits rather than prioritizing the residents who live there Take it from students themselves As one student on the university of kentucky read about two months ago. I lived at the hub absolutely hated it Describing mold issues after the first year the apartments opened one resident of the hub above target mentioned mushrooms going in her bathroom From past to present the people who live at the hub have nothing but negative things to say about the building itself Maintenance and parking options and now they sat here and tried to tell you that they would Push people away from parking. That's a lie every single person I know that has lived at the hub has brought a car and every single one of them has been unable to acquire parking and so they have had to Try and park and outbeat lex train or alex park by avoiding tickets Every single one of them cannot find parking spots. So I would just like to say that At virginia tech one student discussed how their hub is way too expensive for how badly it is constructed and how bad management is final floorboards peeling in the kitchen Generic wired shelving came out because screws were put directly into drywall and shower doors that won't close That is only a few of the many structural issues of the hub Why are we tolerating houses that even the big bad wolf could blow down? Oh, that's right to maximize profit by using the cheapest materials possible It's clear these developers and private equity firms treat housing as a short-term high return and financial Asset rather than a long-term stable home for residents which fundamentally conflicts with vice mayor Dan wu's running stance and commitment to ensure safe and affordable housing for citizens keyword affordable Price alone hub apartments utilize individual leasing meaning rent is priced per person per today on the hub website looking at an upper street apartment, it is $1,469 for a two-bedroom one-bathroom apartment How is that affordable? I live in a two-bedroom two-bathroom apartment throwing stones away from the proposed apartments and I pay only 650 a month and I have paid 650 for the last three years and i've already re-signed to pay 650 for the next That is affordable housing many private equity developers set rent prices at a five to ten percent premium on what market comparable is achieved Hence in a market so tight there is little to no leverage room for tenants They feel forced to cough up the money not to mention it becomes a standard of what other apartments are able to charge So rather than reducing real rates, they set rental rates So it goes without saying that this has been and will continue to be a spiraling issue that will only worsen affordable housing Now there's no denying. Yes. There is an extreme housing crisis at the moment And yes, the university of kentucky is absolutely over accepting students in comparison of what they can hold However placing multiple high-rise apartments on a one-way street without considering the rest Or the impact on the rest of the city is negligent and shows your priorities sitting with the university of kentucky over your own citizens Better yet How would you feel if one day you woke up and received a text message from your friend informing you that your house is for? Sale, and you'd have to find a new place to live with no warning How would you feel if you received a last minute email that there would be an all-day walkthrough of your house? Just for developers to assess the cost of demolition your world flipped upside down overnight Now I get those are hypothetical problems to you You didn't wake up to learn from your friend me before your landlord that your house was for sale And you have no place to live by next year But this is a reality for people a reality for residents on hagerman court And I understand that that is not a part of the proposed rezoning But where does it end if it starts with this block? Where does it end? We already saw those 14 properties go up for 3.2 million dollars My friend is one of those people and she found out from me that her property was for sale not from her landlord So if you can feel directly you're not directly impacted by it, but you can't run from the truth The truth is that building an eight-story apartment directly next to another 277 unit apartment complex Also by the ymca that just got bought will hinder the quality of lexington and it's only the beginning of the end The most noticeable effect for everyone will be traffic starting with the unspoken element schools Flowing both in and out of east maxwell street east high street towards tate creek are maxwell spanish immersion school 560 students Cassidy elementary school 645 students morton middle school 641 students christ the king 468 students that alone is 2314 students 2314 students that require carpools and buses you might be thinking yourself Well, I don't have any children or any in grade school at least but you'd be lying If you said that you never got stuck in their carpool traffic on an early morning or an afternoon day Another thing I bet every single one of us in here of experience is the struggle to turn left onto either row street or woodland Avenue when going down maxwell street without these apartments even built There's already consistent backups on those streets because the left turn lane is pathetically small Now imagine construction endless construction on a major road in downtown lexington Let's not ignore the conditions of west maxwell street leading up to aylsford talk about feeling like your car has no suspension as you bounce All around these roads were not meant to handle the influx of cars and neither were the sidewalks Because what about those that don't have cars one-third of lexington residents do not drive a car People rely on safe and accessible sidewalks in the cities and with projects like the current maxwell development sidewalks are being closed off and destroyed Sure, they will be open after construction, but that construction doesn't happen overnight Plus as someone who walks up and down these streets each and every day from class into work There are often times foot traffic is so heavy that I have to walk into the grass to make room for other pedestrians Now imagine students from the maxwell the hub the future ymca all trying to get to their 9 a.m Classes at once It would be a zoo Anyone who drives by the south limestone hub apartment can look over and see a herd of students waiting across the street That's the result of only one apartment now imagine multiple And I will say i'm pleased to learn that they are expanding the sidewalks to eight feet However, how far does that expand because I sure I surely walk a very long amount of long distance as an actual resident therefore with that and every reason stated before the rezoning of the aylsford block should be Reconsidered and reversed in order to preserve the beauty of lexington support local citizens and prohibit the greedy profit driven acquisition of these historical properties Thank you Thank you Coming up, uh before I call up karek moon is mary barons here She's outside, okay, um if mary barons will come on in uh is carly jeffries here She had to leave. Okay Hello So, let me just confirm that mary barons is giving you time and then after karek will be uh, carly jeffries and then david burton Sorry, not carly jeffries david burton and then max stalker Uh, it's mary barons and you're giving your time to karek. Okay. Thank you All right. So karek you'll have six minutes followed by david burton and then max stalker Okay, sweet Hi, my name is karen moon I'm a tenant in district three just down the street from the proposed development and I live at 221 stone avenue I want to thank all of you all again and specifically councilwoman legreece for getting us to this special hearing here today For the past two months i've been helping lead efforts to inform and to organize our neighborhood Because I believe that you will need to hear what we see on the ground before advancing yet another Massive development This evening is the culmination of that work and i'd like to focus my time here on a simple very critical question Who is lexington for? I have walked our neighborhood more times than I can count I've talked to almost more neighbors than I can name And every time I take the steps back up to my apartment, that's the question that I wrestle with Because it is really easy to say that lexington is a city for everyone It's real easy to write a whole comprehensive plan. Maybe not quite as easy. I understand But that's until the working class student tells you that she's scared That she's scared that she may have to drop out because she can't afford the rising rents in district three That's until the elderly man who lives down the hall from you tells you that he can't afford to retire And tells you that he doesn't know what he'll do if his apartment is demolished and he loses access to critical downtown services Or until the young guy just a block over One night crushes a cigarette underneath his boot And he shakes his head and he looks at me and he tells you that the city won't ever really care about people just like us And their stories are all too common But also too often they're the stories that don't make it into rooms like these Because a lot of those folks I mentioned frankly are too busy working or they're too busy trying to catch a breath when they aren't And when you do hear them Saying that this city is for everyone. It's pretty dang hard But I do believe it can be And I also believe that it depends on the leadership in front of us here today Because I know that you and your staff wouldn't be here and wouldn't be taking the time if you didn't care I figure that a bunch of you guys are probably punching overtime for about 40,000 I don't think that's quite fair mind you and I know that you're well capable of making hard decisions And I get it Sometimes the hard decision means putting development interests first. We have a housing crisis. We know but sometimes Like this time I believe the hard decision means slowing down Slowing down to assess the impact of the major developments that are already underway And slowing down to integrate our constituents voices who want a good future for our neighborhood And for our city And it's a good future. That's affordable. That's accessible and vibrant And moving forward with the demolition of our essential missile-mitting neighborhood in favor of out-of-state student development The few of us can afford moves us And our entire community in the entirely wrong direction It sends a callous message to the communities that contribute so meaningfully to what makes lexington great It's the coffee shop staff that walk to work and they know you're ordered by heart a week later That are sitting outside the foyer right now It's the florist owners fighting to keep our neighborhood green And yeah It's even perry the decades-long resident who called the cops on a summer party out through because she was afraid that someone would get hurt And she has lived in aylsford for 16 years and she couldn't make it tonight because she got sick But she wanted me to let you know that she's scared to death Of being kicked out of her apartment again Because she just had to move to an apartment across the street to make way for the demolition that's going on On stone avenue and maxwell right now These decisions send a message that people like that don't matter But they do and they're what makes lexington lexington And years from now when we in my opinion inevitably regret this development You won't be able to sit in a room like this and bring back the houses And you're not going to be able to sit here and make a policy decision that will bring those lexingtonians back We'll all be stuck En route to a lexington that's becoming just another cookie cutter mid-south city that's sold out for a dime And years from now. I would much rather say that we put our shoulders to the wheel together and empowered lexington's heart and soul That we chose a lexington that works for all of us And I know that we're all doing our part And I hope that you'll reward that with a vote to protect the maxwell rose block. Thank you Thank you I'm going to try to get us to eight o'clock and then we'll do a break. So hang in there with me Um coming up next is david burton followed by max stalker and then mark barker Hi, good evening, uh, i'm david burton from fifth district. Thank you for your time tonight i'm speaking uh and coming in support of this proposed development I believe it's the natural evolution of this property in this area uh 100 years ago. Uh, this was an estate building hearse estate Someone decided we needed more housing stock They broke up the property. They built some multi-family near this little school called the university of kentucky and So be it Well few things have changed since then that little school's gotten a little bigger And now those little properties are getting used and they're getting used very hard like a Like a two-cylinder car driving on the autobahn. They are they're used Now the owners need to maintain them. I will never make excuses for them on that point, but the demand is so high It does push the use of those properties. The next evolution Is more density well has been said about price That's not really core's responsibility That's our responsibility actually we can choose we can go live in another county if we want to But the only way is to create more choice more opportunity And very being very liberal with our housing stock. We need more supply. We need at the university. We need it already I'm familiar with The campus housing off-campus situation. I served on the town again committee years ago I understand the needs currently, uh, the need for student housing is swelling it's It's going to become an issue that comes back to this. Uh, this This room again, I suspect in the next few years if it's not if it's not solved if you don't get out in front of it the The the lack of housing stock is going to really press it's going to be pushing into other neighborhoods. It's going to uh, But it's become a bigger issue you already heard how people who Are trying to rent they're renting now in august for next august And and if you talk to the people who own the properties, they're all rented up for next year It's becoming a crisis situation Now, I don't know everything about core, but they're willing to come in and invest their money in our our community And take a risk because people can always walk away and say they're not going to live there. They've always got that opportunity They're taking the risk to come in here and build a lot of property and develop something Which which they don't know the future on they're taking a big risk And at the same time they're helping us out because they are providing housing stock that the university has decided They're not going to do and it's going to happen somewhere unless the university picks up and moves It's just an issue that'll have to be dealt with. I think it's a wonderful opportunity to Revitalize our downtown as well. Brandon, I believe said Thank you. You're out of time Next up is max stalker followed by mark barker and then sebastian giroli My name is max stalker district three I want to thank you for giving residents like myself a chance to speak tonight I graduated from the university kentucky this past may after spending four years in student housing Now as a young professional, I rent an apartment on calmea just across the street from the site. We were discussing today I've seen firsthand how difficult it's become to find affordable housing and a place to live near campus When I was a student every year the rent went up and the choices got smaller Now that i'm working full-time many of my friends have already moved to other cities simply because they cannot afford to stay in lexington And I believe the numbers tell the true story lexington needs 22,000 new housing units and rents have risen nearly 50 since 2019 A starter home costs between 260 and 400 thousand dollars well beyond what most young workers like myself can manage to afford Students and graduates like me end up competing with families for the same limited number of older houses near the university It's not good for students. It's not good for families. It's not good for this city That is why I believe this project matters and why you should vote yes on the zoning change this evening It would create over 300 new apartments designed for students and young professionals like myself. It's modern safe and walkable By housing this demographic of renters in one location It would free up hundreds of single family homes around the around the university for long-term lexington residents This project fits into the city's imagine lexington 2045 comprehensive plan perfectly to grow inward and build density where infrastructure already exists The planning and zoning commission has already approved reviewed and approved this project and it will generate brand new property tax revenue for schools And city services that does not currently exist As someone who loves this city and wants to stay here I see this development as a chance to make lexington more livable and affordable for the next generation We can preserve our history and plan for our future we can protect family neighborhoods by giving students purpose-built housing close to campus Council members you've worked very hard to outline a vision for a smart growth And tonight you can help make that vision real by supporting a project that addresses affordability Meets the city's master plan and keeps graduates like myself here contributing to the local economy Thank you for your time. And thank you for your commitment to lexington's future I urge you to vote. Yes on the zoning change this evening. Thank you. Thank you Uh, next up is mark barker followed by sebastian giroli and then antonio markey marchi Hello, thank you. My name is mark barker. I'm with the third district. I've lived in the third district for about 30 years and my family has owned property in the third district probably for five generations I'm concerned about the traffic on maxwell. Um, it's a very narrow two-lane road and um I've been told that none of the developments the three developments that have either been approved or this one um there's any loading or unloading places for uh deliveries So you have a two-lane road you have 3 000 students, I believe And zero loading and unloading places So my experience around the around the university is when you don't have a place For loading and unloading they just stop in the middle of the street So that makes maxwell one lane It's already Incredibly busy I just think what we're planning now the way it is is just a disaster It's going to be a disaster for the community and I don't think you're going to be able to fix it Once you approve this, how are you going to fix that? you can't Affect the university because the university controls all their roads and they close down the roads every time there's a woman's basketball game or if if there's just um Anything, you know when the students move in and out they close down the roads. So what are you going to do? How are you going to fix that? I think you need to be able to answer that if you're going to vote for this Thank you Thank you Next up is sebastian girolli and then antonio markey and then amelia hall Thank you council for being here today, um, sebastian girolli district five Um, I came here originally to oppose this zoning change on the grounds of affordability But I changed my mind after listening to the presentation of the two gentlemen next to me here I was astounded that you could have six times the supply at the same land cost I mean, I I wish I could get six hundred dollars worth of groceries for what I spent but Less homes is more exclusive than more homes I mean has has anyone ever lived in housing like they're proposing? Has anyone ever been able to walk to school and walk to stores anyone ever actually ridden the bus in the past year? I have it's nice like it's a one of the reasons I didn't want to move back to lexington after my time at university It's because a walkable lifestyle isn't really possible here. It's very difficult. Trust me. I tried What else do we want from these developers? We have to ask ourselves people who came here to oppose. What do we want from them? What could we compromise on where could we meet them in the middle? I mean they even thought about how much light your apartment's going to get they have sacrificed revenue generating space to create an open space For light for aesthetic purposes. That's not required Change is inevitable. We have to ask what we can live with and what we can compromise on We can't live in the past. We have to live for today. Thank you Thank you next up is antonio marquee followed by emilia hall and then john mickler Hello, i'm antonio marquee i'm from district five I support some change with inventory to soften rent rates and for housing to be more affordable The only way to solve this is with a sound change of inventory That's all I have to say thank you for letting me participate Thank you, uh before I call up emilia hall, uh, is john mickler here Yeah Yes, uh is claudia mickler here Okay, if claudia mickler can come in that would be great and then is esther murphy here I'm claudia and you're giving your time to john. Thank you. Is uh, esther murphy here? Okay, that's all right Um, once everybody has signed up and has already yielded their time that's kind of what we're going with so All right. So next up is emilia hall followed by john mickler followed by tim chesney Um, I don't think i've been sworn in I was outside. Oh, I appreciate that. Thank you. Let's do that Uh, if you raise your right hand for me, uh Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your ability? Or best of your knowledge? Yes. Okay Go ahead. Good evening council My name is emilia hall and i'm here to encourage the city of lexington to rethink the zoning changes of the yalesford district I'm a sophomore at uk and live with my three roommates maria lillian and isabel in a house on east maxwell street That is set to be demolished next year As many of you probably know finding student housing in lexington is no easy task It isn't even harder to find somewhere to live at a reasonable price That's in a good location where we feel safe as young girls living alone When we found our house last year, we immediately knew that it was perfect for us With some of us having to pay our own rent. Our top priority was finding something manageable Our rent is less than 675 in person an amount that we feel is very reasonable Our house is not only extremely reasonable in terms of rent But it is also in a great location for us all to get to class and work and is in perfect condition Furthermore, we feel extremely safe in this neighborhood and we do not want to leave We were unaware of the zone changes happening in 2026 when we signed our lease in 2024 And we were not informed until the day we moved in this past august by our landlord Who stated she would not have mentioned it if we did not ask her about the ongoing construction It was a complete shock to everyone and the petitioners to this day have not contacted the four of us as residents We were so excited to spend the next three years together in our perfect home Everyone says that your time in college will be the best years of your life And I truly believe that with my best friends they would be But ever since finding out our house is going to be demolished. We've all been extremely upset and stressed After many tours and attempts to find a new place for next year We have not been able to find anything that will work for us Whether it's that the rent is too high for us to pay for that The location is too far from campus or that we would not feel safe in that area It's clear that we're not going to find another house that fits us like this one does and we will likely have to split up We understand that uk student population grows every year and that it is necessary to provide more housing But it's displacing residents who love their neighborhood and have been there for years the right solution Many of the buildings on east maxwell and colmea are complexes that house six to ten people And about 80 people will be displaced if this demolition happens Furthermore an eight-story building with units that are sixteen hundred dollars a month would disrupt the cohesion of the neighborhood And only provide housing that virtually no one can afford I don't know any college students who can afford to pay that rent on top of tuition And many uk employees do not get paid enough to afford it either The only thing that this hub will do is further contribute to the unaffordable housing problem And it will do nothing to help solve it The houses of east maxwell street and colmea ab are historic and should be preserved not removed to accommodate uk's over acceptance problem I'm asking you all to consider every factor that I have mentioned when making this decision My roommates and I do not want to split up or be under financial stress And we would hugely appreciate it if our house could be saved. Thank you all for your time and consideration Thank you Next up is john michler followed by tim chesney and then wendy mccallister and john you will have six minutes Thank you and thank everybody for their time um I was thinking will you give your name and oh, i'm sorry john michler on council district three. I'm a I'm a bit of a dinosaur for this my uh Great grandfather and his family Built the house. I currently live in at 415 east maxwell about a block and a half from this uh proposed zone change we have a um A business the florist in the kentucky native cafe and and uh We've really put down our life here in this neighborhood for generations I remember my first council meeting and tonight Reminds me a bit of that it was in the in the early 70s and um I heard from some friends that they were going to demolish a whole neighborhood across from the new rep arena in order to put in parking And I went down and I was impressed By how many people were there to speak against? the demolition of that whole neighborhood there there were It was a very mixed race event. Uh as it was a um Mixed housing of all different kinds of demographics a humble housing really And it impressed upon me to this day that with all those people a packed council chamber That the council voted to approve that demolition of that entire neighborhood years later In conversation with mayor pettit who was mayor at the time He said that was Maybe the biggest mistake of his tenure his mayor Was the demolition of that neighborhood? I feel A little bit like we're at the crossroads with this neighborhood And that same thing there are people living in this neighborhood It's it's not low density if you walk it, you know You get to walk and experience the privilege of walking amongst these stone foundations in these big oak trees and Apartments that were built to be lived in by people who lived down who worked downtown Or at the university and in some cases people spent their whole lives there and um we're I feel like we're We're asking now to trade that For something where people will move in and spend two years three years of their life Something that usually we think of as a student dormitory type of thing What you've been hearing tonight is a collage of You're hearing one argument towards infill and and we all respect the needs for infill But there's there's this other collage of things um The The lack of diversity and develop and demographic in the development the historic all of these things have been well Represented I do have one little a couple of things to say about Um The congestion that this will cause Our neighborhood that was not really built for this level of concentration If you add the 165 maxwell and then the maxwell and then this biggest development the hub on maxwell you get 264 beds There's some information that says universities like the university of kentucky These days as many as three out of four students bring an automobile So you so you do the math and you subtract that plus the parking spaces that are being supplied by all three of these developments And you come up with a number of 860 cars looking for a place to park and I would just like to say that that to me personifies the concentration in the congestion That we will be looking at when all three of these Projects are completed Students bring cars now I I wish I wish they didn't I wish they all came and wanted to walk and they will walk to campus But they will have to drive to the grocery store. They will have to drive to the drug store Um Of course green space is one of The things I value so much and Part of what makes our neighborhood livable is the green space in front of these houses. I hope to start a Street tree planting initiative throughout the alesford neighborhood We have done one before and start another one that would start next spring and I would so look forward to being able to plant Trees in the front yards of some of these there are some large trees several large trees on this block And the and the proposed planting will never equal the canopy of the existing trees The livability and the character of this neighborhood will change forever and I fear That the rest of the neighborhood will go too if you pass this zone change, so please I encourage you to think carefully Thank you Thank you next up is tim chesney followed by wendy mccallister followed by willow jordan Good evening council members My name is tim chesney. I live in district five Our city is hurting It's hurting for a simple reason We haven't built enough homes for the people that live here For more than a decade lexan has faced a sphere housing shortage A major study in 2016 told us we needed 23 000 new units by 2025 But we only built a third of what we needed By 2024 the kentucky housing corporation Confirmed we were short over 22 000 homes And we are projected to be 30 000 homes short by 2030 30 000 homes, it's true Every year we under build the pain grows Families lose access to starter homes Young workers leave lexan because they can't afford to stay students rent hundreds Of houses that families desperately need And with more than 500 acres locked up in a historical overlay Where nothing new can be built the problem becomes even more severe And tonight And tonight's vote feels less like a zoning case and more like an effort by bluegrass trust To add yet another block into that Never build here again category That is hurt But tonight you have a chance to begin to heal it by voting yes And allowing cord to build dense walkable housing exactly where students want to live And by doing this you will free up potentially 250 plus homes in neighborhoods like alesford woodland fontaine euclid prall town columbia heights And elizabeth street homes that families need and homes that students will gladly move out of once there's modern purpose-built units in existence This project gives lexington breathing room It slows our slide towards three thirty thousand unit deficit It keeps families here It stabilizes neighborhoods stretched thin Let me put it simply When a city is sick refusing the medicine doesn't make it better. It only delays the healing Lexington needs housing Families need housing and tonight you have the power To help If you believe in stability If you believe in affordability if you believe lexington If you believe in giving lexington a future Then please vote yes Tonight, thank you Thank you. I'm going to call up one more person and then we'll take a short break. Uh, so wendy mccallister, you're up Hi there, i'm wendy mccallister i'm with the third district Um, i've lived on stone avenue for about 30 years and i've come to these things and i've Tried to give you a lot of facts in the in the prior things but What I see here is that there's this groundswell of people that are coming because they essentially don't feel like the process Feels like it's listening to us the people that are living here This is a not a twenty or thirty thousand of people problem. This is a five thousand people problem This is a university problem the university needs five thousand more beds The university is not putting those in so I don't you know when we talk about these big numbers Those big numbers are not where they're going to come from. We're also talking about oh, we'll do it here Because we're trying to save our farmland But I look at our farmland and I say where are we saving our farmland? Like where is that? We're already out to the you know out richmond road We're all the way to the you know at tate's creek. We're at nicholasville road. So I feel like that Idea of saying we just have to like sacrifice this for this bigger goal Is not something that's happening And so when you get down to it, I feel like You were looking at this and were saying, we live here, we don't think that this is going to work. We don't think it has the infrastructure. I've lived there. There's already problems with the construction going on on Stone Avenue, like people parking on the side of the road, parking places going away. And so I would say, bring us in more, sooner, and give us more ability to talk to you directly. I can't talk to my council member. I can't before this. I can't get, I don't feel like the planning staff is giving you a balanced proposal, like this is what these people feel, and this is what those people feel. You're just getting a one-sided thing, and so we all have to run in here and give you our three minutes to try to get all of this information out to you, to say, this is what I live, this is how I see it. I just think the odds are stacked against us in this process. And so while I'm talking to you, I obviously think that you should not do this, because I have lived there, and I can tell you there's a number of reasons why you shouldn't do it. I also think, please take this as a sign to say, we need to be heard in a better way. Thank you. Thank you. We're at about almost 8.01. Let's come back here at 8.10, we're on break. All right, if we can start taking our seats, please. We're going to get started here in just a moment. Thank you. All right. Thank you all. We're going to come back into session and go back into public comment. We have about ten more to go. All right. Next up is Willow Jordan, and then I want to confirm that Jim Dickinson is here. Yep, there's Jim. Is Maria Williams here? You're giving your time to Jim? Thank you. And is, I think that's it. Okay. All right. Next up is Willow Jordan, followed by Jim Dickinson, and then Walter Gaffield. Good evening, council members, and thank you for your time. My name is Willow Jordan, District 3, and I'm here to tell you why I believe you should oppose the proposed zone change. While I was finishing my senior year at UK, I lived in the vicinity of the affected block. By far, this was my favorite area I've ever lived in during my time in Lexington. I loved the quaint and residential feeling of the area, as well as the lovely green spaces and the beautiful historic buildings. The development proposed by Core Spaces threatens all of these aspects. It will bring more traffic to the already congested roads and Maxwell streets, making the area less walkable. It will remove tree cover that has been here for decades, and will tear down many of the historic buildings that make the neighborhood what it is. First of all, it will replace affordable housing that anyone in the community can live in, including students, with overpriced luxury apartments built specifically for students. No matter what Core Spaces may try to claim, this housing is specifically designed for students. Nobody else would pay nearly $1,000 a month for a single bedroom. This development, if it goes through, will price locals out of yet another area in the heart of Lexington, just like what has happened to the previous areas gutted by the various hubs and other student housing complexes of Lexington. For those reasons, I ask that you all oppose the proposed zone change that would allow this development to go through. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Jim Dickinson, followed by Walter Gaffield, and then Gordy Hoagland. And Jim, you will have six minutes. Okay, I was under the impression time was being yielded for me, so I would have six minutes. Is that? Yeah, you have six minutes. That's what I said. Okay. Also, I was at the BOAR meeting and didn't get here to sign in personally. Do I need to be sworn in? You have not been sworn in? I have not been sworn in. Okay, let's do that. Thank you for telling me. Well, I only knew that because the other person got sworn in. I appreciate that very much. Would you raise your right hand for me? Absolutely. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Yes. Okay, you're good to go. Thank you. All right. Vice Mayor Moo, and honorable members of the Council, first of all, I want to thank my Councilperson, Councilmember LaGree, for proposing the motion that you all conduct this very long hearing. It is appreciated, and collectively I want to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to hear probably one of the most transformative issues that will be before you for the next 10 years. I'm going to have to do a John Mickler. I've been around the Council quite a while as well, and I remember the Council meeting that led to the adoption of the historic overlay for Ellsworth, and I do remember very well – I was a green person then, I didn't know all the ins and outs – that we had to cut a compromise to get Ellsworth into an H-1 overlay, and that compromise is why we're here today. The stretch of property that you're looking at to rezone was meant to be in the H-1 overlay. It was excluded because of arguments being made that certain people would be able to keep the Council from approving it if it were not excluded, and so the deal was made that everything west of Rose Street would be eliminated from the H-1 overlay. That's why we're here today. Now, I'm here in my capacity as the President of the Transylvania Park Association. I'm also the Chair of the Board of Architectural Review, and because of that I'm also a member of the Historic Preservation Commission. I have literally breathed and lived historic preservation for at least the past 30-some-odd years. I have lived on Transylvania Park in District 3 since 1985. I want to thank you for your time and the recognition that this issue is terribly important. You've had similar public hearings in the past, and as a crew you have always stepped up and done the right thing. In this case, it is absolutely imperative that you reverse the decision of the Planning Commission to change the zoning designation for this block from R-4 to B-2A. If you do not, it will result in the demolition of 12 national registered listed properties that include some of the city's earliest built multifamily housing. I also want to thank you for your commitment, and I know many of you personally, for being open-minded and to hear all of the facts before you make such a significant decision. My colleagues and I have pointed out, and will continue to point out, the myriad difficulties that this project presents to this block. Briefly, my colleagues have addressed the complete absence of any kind of a traffic study for Maxwell, a failure by the staff and the Commission to ensure that we continue to have affordable housing in this area, and there's also been a complete failure on the part of the Planning Commission and its staff to study the cumulative effect that the building of three massive apartment buildings will have on the livability of this neighborhood. Before moving on to my main remarks, I'm heartily agreed with the presentation given to you earlier by the BGT staff. Your packet has contained extensive documentation as to the significance of this project. I think that's a given. What we're dealing with now is whether we want to keep it that way, but it is important to observe that unlike the housing stock that has recently been bulldozed, and the whole is truly amazing, the buildings that are now on the scaffold have been well maintained. They are good stock. These are not dilapidated houses. They're not falling apart. They are housing that is usable and occupied, I might add, to this day. Indeed, when I walked the neighborhood last week, and it's been a while since I've been there, I used to be a book buddy, and I had to bring books to a person that lived in one of the motel units. I noticed that someone has gone to the effort of rehabbing the houses on Lyndhurst and has restored them. In fact, he's given them names. They have individuality in the neighborhood. They are what create a neighborhood. This is not what this proposed building is going to do. Now for the next few minutes, if I have time, is that the end of my time, 55 seconds? Yes. Okay. Well, let me conclude then. In closing, I believe that the council is dedicated to making sure that Lexington is a vibrant and livable place. It is remarkable how many people I've met who have recently moved here who comment about Lexington being a small town with a big town vibe. That's due in no small part to the fact that we've always had sensible zoning plans so that the residential neighborhoods were allowed to thrive within the shadows of the office towers and hotels. By reversing the planning commission and giving the planning commission invaluable guidance as to how downtown growth should be accommodated, we will also ensure that the livability of this area is not sacrificed at the altar of density. Perfect. I want to thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up is Walter Gaffield, followed by Gordy Hoagland, and then Patricia Cooper. If you'll give that to our clerk. I'm Walt Gaffield. I live in the 10th District. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. The Neighborhood Council believes that the Urban County Council should turn down the latest request for a zone change on Maxwell Street. State law suggests that an application for a zone change should show that the current zoning is inappropriate or that an unanticipated change has occurred in the economic, physical or social nature of the area. Neither of those really apply to this situation. The current zoning is applicable and appropriate and there hasn't been any unexpected changes. The place builder section of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan labels the requested zoning for the property as downtown or the downtown core and the existing zoning, that's what we have now, is labeled as second tier urban. The proposed zone change to downtown zoning would intensify development in the area beyond reason and harm the general area. I don't think the infrastructure is adequate. We'll have to judge do we need luxury housing for students. The place builder states that development in the second tier urban areas should minimize significant contrasts in scale, massing and design, particularly along the edges of historic areas and neighborhoods, which is what you have now. So there's a reason why the zone is being changed because they don't want to have to do that. The council should request compliance with the requirements in the comp plan of the existing zoning. An exception in the Comprehensive Plan states that development quota along major corridors should set the future context and not be subject to height, mass and contextual requirements. Maxwell Street is not a major corridor, so that should not apply. The design of older neighborhoods includes streets in a grid pattern, allowing for many points of ingress and egress. Grids make any individual street less important and less major. And Maxwell is not Nicholasville Road. In conclusion, and I'm not going to keep this, I'm not even going to read this, I really think the infrastructure is going to be a big problem from what people have said. It is a two-lane road. I was on it tonight coming here, and I just, I think I hit every light and the traffic was practically stopped and you're going to add, what, a thousand students to the street and you haven't done anything about it. And I think planning needs to do a better job on the front end when they're going to approve something to make sure the infrastructure is there. I also think we desperately need affordable housing, and I mean, I understand the nuance of why you build luxury housing for students, and the University of Kentucky is not doing what it ought to be doing with its own students. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Gordie Hoagland, followed by Patricia Cooper, and then Timothy Carter. Mayor Wu, I'm sorry, I forgot to introduce a letter into the record. Yeah, you can give it to the clerk. Thank you. Is Gordie Hoagland here? Or outside? Patricia Cooper? All right, you're up. I have not been sworn in. Okay, let's do it. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak that has not yet been sworn in? I think I'm in the last person on the list. Yeah, I think you might be. Okay. Okay. Ms. Clark, I don't think you're signed up to speak, so it's only for folks who are signed up to speak who have not yet been sworn in. So, okay. I beg your pardon? Hold on. Ms. Clark, I don't have you signed in for public comment, so you won't have an opportunity to speak tonight. What I said was, as an objector in this evidentiary hearing, I would like the opportunity to speak. So you're not part of the organized opposition team, which presented earlier today, so otherwise it's just public comment and you weren't here to sign up for public comment, so you will not have an opportunity to speak tonight. I appreciate your thoughts. I differ. I think I am an objector. Thank you. All right. If you would raise your right hand for me. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Absolutely, yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Please go ahead. Okay. My name is Patty Cooper, and I'm a retired faculty member at the University of Kentucky. My pronouns are she, her. I wanted to be here tonight because as a historian, trained as a historian, I have seen a pattern over and over and over again in U.S. history and in our city. So I am here to speak from my heart and say, do not jump off this cliff. Take the time to really examine all the things that have been said because this corporatization of property and this notion of density does not take in everything that is important. And I know you've listened so carefully today, so you know that. But it's heart, it's community, it's citizenry who wants this connection. I don't think constructing this eight-story building is going to do anything except repeat old patterns that destroy community, that signal that ordinary people are not important. What's important is money and profit. I just am here to tell you that is a mistake. There's so much more at stake here, and I'm begging you, please wait. Please do more work. Please don't make this another council meeting I've had to attend since I moved here in 93 that ended up rubber-stamping what the Planning Commission has decided. There's more depth. There's more breadth. Please, please, I'm begging you, take a look. Don't repeat history. Do something new. Try to look outside the box. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to call up Timothy Carter. Is Betty Flynn here? Betty Flynn? Yes? You're giving your time to Timothy? Is that right? Okay. So, Timothy Carter, you're up next. You'll have six minutes, followed by Zach Smith and then Karen Patron. All right. Hello. I'm Timothy Carter, 3rd Precinct. Do I need to be sworn in? Have you not been? I have not been, no. We just did that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Last call. Anybody else speaking? There are only a few of you left. Okay. Will you raise your right hand for me? Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? I do. Thank you. Appreciate it. This is 215 East Maxwell Street, a lovely Queen Anne cottage built in 1885. And this is 251 Stone Avenue, a quaint, prairie-style house from 1920. And this is 245 Stone Avenue, a graceful, Tudor-style bungalow built in 1927. What do these historic houses have in common? They're all gone, torn down, because of you. This past summer, these houses were demolished, along with 10 others along Maxwell Street, after your decision to rezone them. No one would claim that these were architectural masterpieces, but they possessed a quiet beauty and dignity that imparted character to our city. Lexington is poorer for their loss. Now the Planning Commission has recommended a similar proposal for the same neighborhood. The proposal would allow the demolition of at least 12 more historic houses, all of them in an area listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In their place, an out-of-state developer, Core Spaces of Chicago, is planning an eight-story residential building, massive, out of scale, with insufficient setbacks from the street. It will be completely out of keeping with its surroundings. It will overshadow the modest homes around it. It will further erase the neighborhood's history and character. In 2023, the Planning Commission created Imagine Lexington, a comprehensive plan to guide our city's growth. You adopted the goals of that plan. One of its goals is preservation. The plan demands that new development respect the scale, design, and character of existing neighborhoods. This proposal does not meet those demands. It contradicts the very plan you adopted. Worse, this proposal prioritizes out-of-state developers over local residents. It signals that Lexington's history and character are for sale to anyone who values profit over preservation. Honor the commitments you made in the comprehensive plan. Respect the scale and character of our historic neighborhoods. Put Lexington residents ahead of out-of-state developers. Vote no to this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Zach Smith, followed by Karen Patron, and then Bethany Baxter. Hi, my name is Zach Smith, and I currently live in District 9. I'm born and raised in Lexington, went to UK, and graduated in 2019. Like many other students, those problems were prevalent six years ago when I graduated. The demand for housing, that was before the two properties were developed on campus, and the problems were very real. We had to commit to housing in August of the year before. One thing that has not been mentioned, which I don't have any data on this, don't have any statistics on this, but I lived in off-campus suburban apartments for four years post-graduation. If you walk around those apartments, you're going to see a lot of people in scrubs. I think the graduate student effect on campus in medical, law school, anything, I think a lot of those people live off-campus in these developments. Not that that's a massive thing, but I do think that is something to be in effect. If more density is approved on campus, walkable to these classroom buildings, the wait list in some of these suburban complexes from Leestown Road to Hamburg will likely lighten up and make it easier for people post-graduate who move to Lexington to get an apartment. It's a very common thing in Lexington from the citizens to plead for a more walkable downtown area with new and vibrant uses. There's a lot of emotion in this room tonight, which is understandable, but I would also respectfully point out that there are also 300,000-plus people who live in Lexington who are not here tonight, and many of which have aspirations to see the downtown greater area become more modernized and become a more walkable, safe, and appealing area to visit throughout the week. In my opinion, what the applicant has proposed on the subject property are the kind of developments that are needed to move Lexington forward, and I would like to voice my support for the change. Thank you. Next up is Karen Patrone, followed by Bethany Baxter. Is Karen still here? Karen's my neighbor on Transylvania Park, and I don't see her. She left. Yeah, she was outside earlier. Okay. Okay. Let's give her a minute. Jim's saying she left. I'm sorry. She told me. She left. Okay. Thank you for that. All right. Bethany Baxter, you're next. All right. So after Bethany, we've got three people signed up who wanted to yield their time to somebody who is not on the sign-up list, so after Bethany, I'm going to call on these three people and see if they would like to speak on their own behalf. Okay. Go ahead. My name is Bethany Baxter, and I live in the 3rd District. I'm born and raised in Lexington, Kentucky. I grew up in Belcourt. I've lived in Mintel and Kenwick, and about a year ago, I moved to Transylvania Park, and I love downtown Lexington, and I love it because of the many historic homes and the kind of history of downtown Lexington. I walk a couple times a week to the High Street Y. On my way, I pass a group of kids waiting on the school bus. I pass people walking their dogs. I pass folks on their porch. I pass students headed to campus. This property that we're here to discuss is vibrant and thriving. I watched the development further up Maxwell that's already the big hole in the ground a couple months ago, and I watched as all those homes were razed, and for a while there, maybe you all remember, there was one door frame, a single door and a door frame with the glass over top, and it was just really stark and kind of heartbreaking, and I'd recently watched the Goonies with my kids like the weekend before, and all I could think of was that this was some sort of alternative version of the Goonies where Troy's parents win, and the Goonies get evicted, and the Goon Docs are torn down, and I don't like that alternate version of the Goonies. What we stand to lose here is so much more than what we stand to gain. The High Street Y, we've heard it's being sold, likely for student housing. Just this today in the newspaper, I read about the post office, that that's changing hands and might become student housing. There is so much that has changed in this very small part of town just in the past year. I think we need to slow down here, and I would urge you not to approve this zone change, and let's see how things shake out with the properties that are already zoned and more appropriate for additional student housing, and there's been so much talk. This is the University of Kentucky has created this problem, and I don't understand why UK shouldn't own that problem, and I just find it sort of baffling that we're having to have these conversations, and people are getting displaced when the University of Kentucky isn't apparently making any efforts to solve this problem, so I'd urge you to vote against the zone change. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is Luann Holmes here? Yes. Would you like to speak on your own behalf? Yes. That's okay. And before you begin, is Mary Plank here? Okay. Say that again. You're right there. Would you like to speak on your own behalf as well? I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. And then is Carlotta Abbott here? Yes. I gave my time to her as well. Okay. Oh, and so did I. I mean, if he's allowed to speak, I would like him to speak. So you all gave your time to somebody who did not sign up to speak in time, so I'm giving everybody, I'm giving the three of you the option to speak on your own behalf if you would like. Okay. That's fine. So you would like to? Yes. You're Carlotta? Yes. Okay. Got it. So it would be Luann Holmes and then Carlotta Abbott. Three minutes each. Thank you, Hannah. Thank you. I appreciate this. People have said a lot of the same things that I would have said, and I live just a little bit outside of where this building is, but I walk through, and I'm quite disturbed to hear about the post office today. It's something I do two or three times a week. So I moved to that area so that it could be walkable and enjoyable. So like so many people have said, I'm a benefit of the high street traffic calming, which has been wonderful, but I just can't imagine what Maxwell Street is going to be like. And I think about the places where the schools intersect with more commotion going on in Maxwell. So there just seems like there's been a lot of good points put forth today that require a little bit more research. The traffic study particularly concerns me, and I am a preservationist at heart. So while I live in a new building, I love the old buildings and really respect what they bring to the neighborhood. So that would just be my request is that we really do deep dive into some of the issues that have come up. Thanks. Thank you. Our last public speaker tonight will be Carlotta Abbott. Hi, I'm Carlotta Abbott, and I live in the 3rd District, and I have, thank you very much. I didn't come prepared to speak, so this is going to be from my heart. I moved on to Preston Court in 1977. I grew my two children there, my three children. One was born there, and then two grandchildren, and now a great grandchild. And the traffic calming on High Street has been a godsend. I no longer freak every time I'm walking one of the grandchildren along the street that someone driving on the High Street Speedway may hit one of us. But traffic is an issue in our area now, and I can't imagine how the number of bodies we're talking about placing in this proposed construction would have anything but a negative impact on the traffic. I love my neighborhood. I love knowing who the neighbors are. I love having the students around and the buzz that's happening in the neighborhood. And I would ask each of you to consider what those of us who have come here tonight trying to protect our neighborhood are asking. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to thank all the folks who came out for public comment tonight. If this is your first zone change, these things are never short. But I appreciate everybody being very polite and very civil. Next up is comments and rebuttals. We're going to start with staff. Does staff have any additional clarifications or comments? Vice Mayor, I hate to interrupt you, but I believe that what was just passed out were possibly renderings. And by your rules, they should not be permitted. And so I just wanted to note my objection before people, the council members continue to review them. Thank you. Ms. Jones. I got some clarification from law here. Your house rules say no renderings. And there's another item that you already didn't admit tonight. You have the option to suspend your rules if you want to look at them. But otherwise, they shouldn't be part of the record because according to your house rules, you don't typically admit those and look at those. And that's because there are largely development plan issues that you all don't deal with. That's a later issue. So that's your call, but we wanted to make you aware. Go ahead, Council Member Brown. Vice Mayor, I'll say that one of the packets that we received earlier already had the same renderings. So we've been looking at the renderings, and I think in regards to some of the concerns that I don't think are relevant to the land use decision that we're going to have to make, but I think it is relevant to the way it's adjacent to an H1 overlay, I make a motion that we suspend the rules and leave the renderings in our possession. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on Council Member Brown's motion to allow these renderings to be part of our exhibit? Just for the record, it takes 10 votes to suspend your rules. Right. Let's go ahead and pull up Granicus, then. All right. That motion passes. We'll be able to hang on to these renderings. All right. Continuing, I think Mr. Crum is up for additional clarification or comments, and you'll have up to five minutes. All right. Thank you all. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff again. I just wanted to clarify a couple items that were mentioned at various parts of the hearing, the first being sort of the burden of proof that is needed for a zone change. It was incorrectly stated that the only ways to do that was the appropriateness argument or that there's been a change, but the primary one that you see all the time is agreement with a comprehensive plan. And so staff's recommendation and the recommendation of the Planning Commission was that it's an agreement with a comprehensive plan for all the reasons that were stated. Second, there's been some comments about traffic and traffic study and what was or was not considered with this application. The applicant submitted a traffic study that accommodated or that accounted for their proposal. It also featured the already approved developments further west on Maxwell Street, so incorporated those as well. Ultimately, the findings from your traffic staff as well as the Metropolitan Planning Organization was that the existing roadways are sufficient to accommodate the demand from these projects. So that is incorporated as a part of the record as well and wanted to address that as well. A lot of talk has been about the historic nature of these properties, what lens we should use to view that. The comprehensive plan actually lays out a framework for how that's interpreted. So there's a direct quote that I'd like to read. It comes from page 244 of the comprehensive plan and it lays out sort of what the considerations are. It says, the significance of a property can be broken down into four primary criteria of influence. It's an area of an important events, association with a significant persons, a unique or distinctive type or the potential to yield important information. Now during the planning commission hearing, they received a presentation from historic preservation staff that went through these various aspects, the historical background of these properties, the date and time of construction as well as the similarities to what is found elsewhere in the Aylesford neighborhood. Ultimately, the planning commission made the recommendation to approve this with this understated. So that's the lens that they were looking at, not necessarily whether it's in a historic overlay or not, that's the sort of factual underpinning of what they evaluated when they made the decision, yes, to recommend this particular project. And then talking about missing middle housing has come up in several different parts of this presentation. And the real benefit and the reason why this is featured so heavily within the comprehensive plan is the benefit of missing middle or the middle housing is it's providing a variety of housing choices, that affordability or that variety in price point as well as the ability to densify what is traditionally single family areas. And it's important because it's missing. So the periods in the 1920s when we built purpose built multifamily and mixed these units in organically then led to a future development path where we prioritized single family residential development and suburban sprawl. Ultimately, when that occurred, that variety in housing, which is really the significant part of the missing middle, was lost. And so when you looked at the areas that were added in for expansion and the new expansion, the urban growth master plan, they talk about requiring this mix of units, requiring the same things that you're seeing here. However, in the downtown area, the missing middle isn't missing. This is an area where you see this variety in products well outside of this particular node in the neighborhood and is being represented in areas that are slated for preservation within H1 overlays, including in the immediate vicinity. So with that point in mind, we're really looking at a site that, based on all of our other comprehensive goals, objectives and policies, suggests that a greater density is needed and to get an idea of kind of what this looks like outside of the context of high density apartments, I've had experience with friends that lived on Kentucky Court, which is just off of Euclid, south of the Aylesford Neighborhood Association. It's a little cul-de-sac of single family grassland homes that are not too much newer than what we're looking at today. About 26 properties with the potential for about 100 residents. Here we're looking at a proposal and that Kentucky Court makes up about 3.4 acres. We would need 10 Kentucky Courts in order to match the amount of housing that's being provided on a single block here. So that's 34 acres of that single family product that is really popular amongst the students today. So kind of getting an idea of what this density looks like because the demand for the University of Kentucky is not localized to just the downtown area. It's being felt out in Cardinal Valley, in Gulfview, Tate's Creek, North Upper. It's a city-wide issue and that's why it's featured so heavily within the concrete supply and this question of density being something that we need to take a community-wide accounting for. But that's all that I had this time and then any questions you'll have later. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gross, do you have any additional comments or rebuttal? Okay. Yes, sir. You'll have up to five minutes as well. Thank you very much. First, I'm just going to note on the record my objection to the renderings being entered. I appreciate all the neighbors that were here tonight. By my count, it was about a 50-50 pro opposed, which I think may be the first time I've ever had a zone change that came anywhere close to that number of supporters. I do want to mention several, just several things. Number one is we're in a housing crisis and I do projects all over town. I do affordable projects. I do market rate projects and it's the same thing wherever we go. People say slow down, people say we don't want change, and it's just difficult for us to meet the basic needs of our community when, in fact, our community opposes the things and the hard decisions that we have to make. One thing I do want to bring up is the comprehensive plan, it's a guide, not a straitjacket. There's lots of push and pulls. Not every goal has to be met. One thing I do want to talk about is one of the pulls and the pushes on historic preservation. The comprehensive plan states that we are supposed to identify and preserve historic assets. We're not going to say that is not what it says, but this body has already done that. The zoning ordinance has a process. It's Article 13. If you want to create an H1 overlay, you have that process to do that. This is not what we're discussing today. The discussion today is not are these historic properties to be preserved because that's a totally different process for that to occur. The comprehensive plan goes on and says we should do that before we get to this stage because if we don't, we're going to have unsubstantiated calls for preservation. We see that over and over again in Lexington. Just a few off the top of my head. There was a lawsuit to save the state office building at Upper and High Street. Me personally, I didn't think it was a very beautiful building, but it needed to be preserved. A lawsuit and that was tied up in court for years. A lot of people today were saying, well, we understand why the project next door to us got torn down because those are dilapidated properties. They sued on that project too. That was tied up in court for several months. They sued on that project. Some of you weren't on here, you may not remember the hub on South Upper. The Bluegrass Trust opposed that project. It was a parking lot. We were building a building on a parking lot. There was no historic structures, and yet somehow that hub, South Upper, was going to destroy the character of the area. South Hill would be a barren wasteland of parties and cars and students. Now seven years later, South Hill still stands. People are still living there. People want to live there. People are investing there. We had someone tonight from Dudley Square, I don't know how much money they've dumped into that building to preserve it and make it adapted reuse. We see this time and time again of calls for preservation, calls for no change, calls for everything under the sun. Once the change is done, people usually are okay with it, but it's the fear of change. It's the fear of change is what we see all the time. Then lastly, just two more notes talking about we don't care about preservation in this community. If you look at Exhibit 9, you'll see the historic overlays. That's hundreds of acres of land that this body has preserved in total. If you look at another map that's in that same exhibit, that is the National Historic Registry. You should look at that map. If you buy into the theory of the Bluegrass Trust that any property located within that registry should be protected, half of the downtown of Lexington is now off-limits. Even though, once again, the process to make those properties off-limits has not occurred. That's Article 13. That is not why we're here tonight. So those are the rebuttal points I just wanted to make, and I will be here for questions later. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Ms. Winters, do you have any additional comments or rebuttal? Yes. Sure. Come on up. You've got up to five minutes. Just briefly, the South Hill hub that Mr. Gross just said the Bluegrass Trust opposed, even though it was on a service parking lot, the Bluegrass Trust did not oppose that. That was the South Hill neighborhood that opposed that. Also, the office building that's been tied up in litigation for years, that was the Commonwealth building on High Street, that was actually in an H-1 overlay. The developer was able to apply to the BOAR and get a certificate approving the demolition of that building, even though it was in an H-1 overlay. So the idea that H-1 overlay buildings are off the table for development is just not factually true. It's happening in our city, and there will be a high-rise development where the Commonwealth building once was in an H-1 district. So just bear that in mind. I heard a lot of comments tonight about the need for infill to preserve our urban services boundary, and we agree with that. But the goals of balance relating to density versus preservation of neighborhoods, as stated in our comprehensive plan, actually don't conflict with the need to uphold the urban service area boundaries. In fact, Theme E, Urban and Rural Balance, contains a specific directive in connection with upholding the urban service area, Goal 1D, which states, emphasize redevelopment of underutilized corridors. Goal 1E states that we must, quote, maximize development on vacant land within the urban service area and promote redevelopment of underutilized land in a manner that enhances existing urban form and or historic structures. This is not underutilized land that we're talking about tonight. This is not vacant land that we're talking about tonight. In response to calls for balance in these sorts of proceedings and suggestions that applicants use parcels that are not currently utilized, they often say there is no more available land near the University of Kentucky for development of projects of this nature. This is simply not true. There are more than a dozen surface parking lots and unoccupied or underutilized parcels of land within one and a half miles of the proposed project site that could be utilized for development of this type. As the recent plans for the High Street YMCA illustrate, there are alternatives to meet the need of UK's enrollment growth. This slide shows surface parking lots within the Rose Street and Vine Street area. The next slide shows surface parking lots in the vicinity of Broadway and Short Street. The next slide shows surface parking lots in the vicinity of MLK. In fact, the applicants' own projects in and around UK's campus demonstrate that there are better locations for student housing of this nature. The applicants' smaller five- to six-story student residential developments with commercial activity on the first floor, the Hub 1 and 2, have been built on the outskirts of UK's campus. Notable differences between this proposal and the Hub include the fact that, as Mr. Gross mentioned, the first Hub was built on a surface parking lot, exactly the place where we need this sort of infill. The second Hub is built at the corner of a major intersection, Virginia and Nicholasville Road, and it's surrounded by taller buildings. The Hub developments demonstrate that smaller, more compact, and more context-sensitive developments are actually economically feasible and attractive for developers. We can do better than this plan. We must do better because our comprehensive plan requires it. This is too much too soon. At this point in time, a half-mile-long section of Maxwell with historic varied housing stock has been approved for a zone change from R4 to B2A in connection with two large-scale student housing proposals. One of these high-rises, the Maxwell, is planned to have 700 beds. The other subtext is planned to have 900 beds. These projects are in the works and under construction, and we have yet to see the impacts of these developments on this neighborhood. We have yet to see whether these big-box, luxury student developments will be rented or in demand. Many times, when you hear from the community about the domino effect of approving a zone change, in 2023, when the Maxwell was approved, neighbors objected to the loss of 14 historic structures. This was the first domino to fall. When subtext was the next domino to fall, resulting in the loss of five historic structures in a National Registered District, both of these were approved by the Council without a public hearing. The applicant here hopes to capitalize on the momentum of falling dominoes to finish what was started when the decision was made that this area of historic property should be placed on the chopping block in the name of density. To approve this project would bring the total number of lost historic architectural assets in this half-mile-long stretch of East Maxwell to a staggering 29. We appreciate the fact that this time we've granted the public's request for a public hearing, and we are grateful that our elected leaders are taking the time to hear their constituents on this important community issue. We urge you to interrupt the domino effect. Thank you. Now it's time for summations. We'll start with the petitioner. Mr. Gross, you'll have up to three minutes for a summation. Thank you very much. Once again, change is hard, and I understand that. But the big picture, the back row picture of why we are here, is that from 1996 to 2023 we had a dual policy and strategy in this city. It was we were going to focus on infill and redevelopment, and that would allow us to preserve our rural lands. It's a great strategy. I think it's still a great strategy. I'm glad we're still working towards that strategy. But the problem is, for three decades, our tactics were atrocious. When it came to actions, we continuously permitted and supported low-density housing in Lexington. And that's just the reality. We took the easy road. We did infill in the tobacco warehouses. We did infill in places where people wouldn't complain, along Angliana and along Red Mile Road and along working-class neighborhoods throughout the city. Then we allowed lots of people, neighbors, to come in and say, we don't want new housing next to us. We don't want single-family housing next to single-family housing. It's just too much change. We can't handle it. And so then in 2023, we got to the break glass moment. And a lot of you who were on the council at that point made a very tough vote for an expansion of the urban resource boundary. And then when we did that, we said, okay, we've learned our lesson. This time, we're really going to do infill and redevelopment. When projects come forward that are going to support the comprehensive plan, that are going to bring density to our downtown areas and other areas in the city, we said, okay, we're going to start doing this. This is what we're going to do. Once again, the neighbors are not happy about it, and I understand that. I'm a neighbor in this town. People don't like change. I get it. But ultimately, we're once again at a crossroads of do we want multimodal, do we want compact, do we want sustainable, do we want less cars. We are a super commuter community. Fifty-two percent of our workers come in from other counties. That's 90,000 people. 90,000 people live outside of Lexington and come in and work every day. When people complain about traffic, well, that's why we have traffic, because people can't live where they work. They can't live where they want to live. Now, our strategy is we'll build more density out in the suburbs where people don't complain as much on raw land out in the new expansion area. Well, all we're doing is creating a donut where we have more density outside than we have in our core. We need to build our core. We need to have 4,100 people up to a reasonable amount of 10 or 15,000 in the core to support all the other goals that we want on sustainability, on transportation, on access for everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Winters, you're up. Three minutes per summation. To sum it all up, the legal standard applicable to the requested zone change hasn't been satisfied here. All zoning is mandated to follow the comprehensive plan, and granting the requested zone change that does not comport with the comprehensive plan is arbitrary. The applicant says we can tear down these buildings anyway since they're not in an H1, so historic preservation doesn't matter. The position is not supported by the comp plan, as I explained to you in detail earlier. On this issue, the proof is in the pudding. These buildings have been occupied and maintained for more than 100 years. The people who live there walk. It is multimodal. It is dense. It is currently fully utilized and occupied, and approving the zone change will result in the displacement of long-term residents, including the elderly. The reason that these folks won't tear down these buildings if the zone change isn't approved is because they're economically viable. If you say no to this proposal, if you refuse to say yes to a massive upzoning request when it is combined with a plan that calls for the destruction of an entire block of National Register properties, it's not likely that the use of these buildings will change because it wouldn't make economic sense to destroy them. And currently, they're not even owned by a single owner. No doubt the sales to the developer here are contingent on the applicant obtaining the zone change request. Our comprehensive plan was created after a massive effort to seek and integrate community input. These are not just random goals and objectives. The comp plan represents the values of our community. Our plan states, an intentional process called comprehensive planning ensures that the entire community is served by equitable growth. Comprehensive planning relies heavily on public input, and communities should determine how they grow. Communities should determine how they grow, not out-of-state investors. Tonight, we've demonstrated that the requested zone change and associated development plan do not comport with the comprehensive plan. The existing zoning is appropriate, and the requested zoning is inappropriate in this area, and the Council should deny the applicant's request. We've attached proposed findings to our position statement as Exhibit D, and those list in detail the various portions of the comprehensive plan that would support a vote against this zone change. Thank you. Oh, and I still have 40 seconds left. I requested the opportunity to also comment as a constituent of the 1st District, and I was denied that opportunity since I'm serving as a lawyer tonight on behalf of the Bluegrass Trust. So I want to take the last 30 seconds that I have to talk about 273 East Maxwell Street. It's a building that's slated for demolition. It's at the corner of Rose and Maxwell. I lived there for five years in undergrad and law school from 1998 to 2003. My landlord was an elderly woman who lived next door. This is the reason, living in that house is the reason I'm an advocate for historic preservation. It's a big reason that I stayed in Lexington, and it's a reason why I continue to own and live in historic properties in our downtown area. Thank you. All right. I will now open up the floor to Council members to ask questions from any of the presenters or staff. Please make sure to ask all of your questions during this portion of our hearing. When we go into closed hearing after this, we may only deliberate amongst ourselves and no longer be able to ask folks for questions. We will also be operating under our regular Roberts rules of speak but twice. So please sign in to speak. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My first question goes to the staff. Based on the fact that these properties are in the National Historic District, does that prevent them from getting a demolition permit? No. And if this plan does not pass and go through, would it prevent the property owners from getting a demolition permit in the future? No. Does the government have a way of obligating property owners or these property owners to not have a demolition of their properties? No. The only action associated with a demolition is there's a period that can be allowed for historic preservation to document the house before it's removed, but they're currently outside of the historic districts. There is no mechanism for the government to prevent, no other grounds to prohibit a demolition. Okay. So if this doesn't go through, something similar could pop up again because we can't make those property owners maintain their housing the way it is, even though if we wanted to, we can't say you have to keep it as an apartment or as a house. Correct? That's correct. Okay. Does the comp plan, I know you mentioned this earlier, but does the comp plan directly support the demolition of houses that are in the Natural Register Historic District? No. So the conversation there is, once again, that the second piece of testimony that I gave kind of laid out the criteria that we look at in order to kind of judge a building, whether or not it's a unique style, unique circumstances, unique person that has lived there. All of that is sort of factored in. And so when we have these conversations and discussions about whether something meets the comp plan, that's part of the lens that we look at. So inherently being in a National Register District doesn't mean that it meets those criteria. So the comp plan is what the planning staff and the planning commission look to guide our recommendations. And in this instance, they did not find that it satisfied those criteria, and that's how we arrived at that recommendation. Okay. Thank you. I think one thing that is hard for sometimes the public to understand is that if somebody has private property, there are certain rights that they have that we don't have power over. So one of the concerns was loading and unloading. Was that talked about or addressed at all? Yes. So as a part of the development plan discussion there, the property includes areas designated on Maxwell for pickup and drop-off, but for more, say, commercial, say something like UPS or Amazon, they have built into the Stone Road frontage an area on the property where they would pull in and make deliveries there. So they wouldn't be stopping in the road, which I have seen happen quite a bit downtown. Yes. The development plan lays out a specific area for the deliveries to occur. Okay. That's helpful to know. And then how – so if the National Registry of Historic Places, it's not an overlay. It's kind of just a registry of houses. How does one register for that or be a part of that? Because I tried to look it up, and it didn't seem like you could look up specific addresses. Yes. So that's a much larger process than just an individual property. Once again, they're looking at this sort of larger submission, so these areas that sort of share that similar period of development, that historicity, the makeup. And so ultimately you have that framework, which is done outside of the local level, and then you have what the local level, where we actually have the ability to implement protections for removal of structures and a framework to kind of evaluate that through the historic preservation folks and the Board of Architectural Review. That is a separate process. That's what we went through in 98, and so they're completely separate. One is the latter. The H1 is the one that you all, as the decision-making bodies at the local level, actually have agency over, and it has teeth to be enforced and prohibited. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Hale. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I've just got just one question. Has demolition permits already been done for this property? I'm not aware of any demolition permits being filed at this time for those properties. Does anybody know the answer to that? Yes, they have been filed. Yes, we have filed for demolition permits, and we're within the 30-day period, which will probably come to an end at the end of this month. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you. I've got questions for you as well. So currently the property is zoned R4. R4, what's the typical building height max and the number of stories? Yeah, you're typically looking at a R4 is four stories, essentially, and 60 feet, I believe, off the top of my head. Okay. So at this point, the property could be demoed, and they could build a project if they have access to all those properties. That would be kind of the limit at its current zoning. That is correct. Okay. And we now offer a bonus. So we have a bonus for affordable, and we have a bonus for workforce housing. And could you explain kind of how that works? Yeah, yeah. So one of the newer initiatives that kind of arose out of the most recent comprehensive plan and recently was implemented was the concept of both a workforce housing and an affordable housing density bonus. Essentially what this would do is, if you were willing to commit to the government that you were going to rent at an affordable rate or at a workforce housing rate, which is I believe 80 and 120 percent AMI for a certain period of time, that you would be able to essentially get a bump up in the density that you were allowed to develop. So in this instance, if the applicants did not seek this zone change and instead wish to develop it as is, if they committed to having that serve workforce housing or affordable housing, they could develop the R4 like it's an R5. So that gives them the ability to go up slightly higher, and it changes some of the development standards with that. That would not require a zone change. So that would be just contention of agreeing to the government. It would be by right if they basically agreed to that? Yes. Okay. And I think that's 70 foot and five story, if I've got my numbers right. Last question, is sewer capacity, was sewer capacity part of the discussion? Yes. So as a part of, this is once again the preliminary development plan, so this really at its core is the discussion on is the zone appropriate, giving you an indication of how this is meeting the comprehensive plan. Some of the aspects that we typically see evaluated later on in the process include things like the specifics on storm waters, utility, and sanitary sewer capacity. So if there is issues, they have to come back with a final development plan, and before construction could ever occur at this location, they would have to have that capacity assured and also accounted for. Yes, and I'm going to ask you, did you guys do a sewer? Yes, I can supplement that. We have applied for and received our sewer capacity, and we have done our storm water study that shows that the storm water infrastructure is appropriate, and we are currently in discussions with the utility companies to make sure that we have the appropriate load capacity can be covered, and the preliminary studies show that we'll have the appropriate. So we think all the infrastructure will be in place for this project. Okay, thank you. And then back to staff. Did you, since these other projects that are further down Maxwell, are these frame, what do they call them, B2? Downtown frame. Downtown frame B2. And then basically to the right of the rest of this over there, I think it's B4, and it looks like single family. There's single family and multifamily residential that are one and two story down there. How did you consider like a step down? Because it's, and this is not a major corridor. Like this is Maxwell Street. So this isn't Broadway. It's not Richmond Road, you know. So did you consider the step down concept? Yeah, yeah. And so when staff is looking at that, we define what we consider being the comprehensive plan, considers a major corridor, downtown corridor, both Maxwell and High Street are both an arterial by the designation. So that's the lens that planning staff is looking at and evaluating. Now it is built out and it functions differently than, say, a Nicholasville Road or a Tates Creek Road because of that downtown context. So this site is somewhat interesting in the sense that the other proposals that have occurred already with the Stavrov and the subtext applications, they did not occupy essentially an entire block. So you had this basically a portion between Maxwell and a portion between High Street that contained other properties that were outside the scope of the development, and you had some direct adjacency. So when we had, for instance, on the subtext application, there were several places where that eight stories, I believe, at Maxwell, dropped down to be kind of a comparable scale. Flash forward to here, we have properties that are ringed on all four sides by roadways. So we have a bit of a spatial buffer that is separating the mass of this building so that we don't have the direct adjacency issues as before. Now as a nod to sort of the Rose Street and the historic Aylesford, they do feature a step down for that road frontage from eight to six stories, which is still larger than the adjoining context, but that was something that the applicant included as a way to sort of help buffer that distinction. So it being on its own separate entire block with intervening roadways, other setbacks, the spatial difference, that's where staff kind of landed on evaluating that versus earlier projects. Thank you. I'm out of time. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Next, Member Morton. Thank you. I'd like to first start off with just, I guess, the applicant, just regarding the displacement topic. You mentioned this mission about relocation assistance. What would that consist of? Is there a certain amount? Is that commitment in writing and binding? Can you talk me through that? Yeah. We are happy to make a commitment binding and in writing. Obviously, it all depends on the outcome of this meeting and with leases expiring in currently August of 2026, we're putting those packages together. What we want to do is make sure we're not just dictating terms. We want to approach each tenant individually, and we do this across the country. Like we said before, we're long-term holders and investors in the community, so we are really focused on the impact that these projects have. And with there being 78 rentals on site, not owner-occupied, 78 beds are rentals to our owner-occupied, we are going to make that commitment, and we'll put that in writing. Okay. Thank you. And then staff. And this may not have it, may have it, maybe. I'll just get a look later. So do we have any data on how many student housing units have been approved or in the process of approval in comparison to the number of affordable housing units that are in the process of approval that have been approved over the last two years? I can give you the numbers for what we approved on the two previous. On Maxwell, off the top of my head, I don't have the affordable housing numbers. But just to provide the context for what we've already is in the process of being constructed, the Stavroff development, which is directly to the west, is 278 units and a total of 656 beds. I think there was some question about parking on that. That's 215 spaces allocated for that development. Subtext, which is one block further west, is 279 units with a total of 795 beds with 333 on-site parking spaces. The Stavroff of this development is 332 units, a total of 1,010 beds, and based on the development plan of 436 parking spaces on-site. So that's the capacity for what we've encountered recently in the vicinity for student housing. But I would say that off the top of my head, I would assume that the affordable housing numbers are significantly below that. But I don't have the specifics for you right now. Thank you. I appreciate that. So, you know, I guess I am a little sensitive when it comes to that affordability topic as well because I actually was a student at UK as well, in the Lexingtonian, and I got to spend my time at home because of that question of affordability but because of the question of student campus. And I would have loved to have that campus lifestyle, you know. But affordability for students on campus is a real thing. And, you know, I don't have to go deep into things that, you know, the cost of college, the cost of everything else that comes with it, food, all the different things, and then knowing that housing is important. And, you know, I'm very sensitive to that affordability topic. So I look at this, and I do believe that students should deserve access to affordable housing both on campus, close to campus, and ultimately, you know, if that affordability is a challenge, then they're just going to go out into our community's existing neighborhoods either way, which kind of negates that underlying challenge at hand. But then also, speaking about that, you know, the affordable housing just in general, you know, we as a city, that is our need, affordable housing, and that is our big push. And right now, I feel like we've got just an influx of more student housing than almost any other type of housing just throughout this, since I've been here, I've been in touch just with development here in Lexington. And, you know, we need affordable housing. We need it. Our students need it. Our neighbors need it. Our working folks need it. You know, I think affordable housing is a broad term. I was speaking to somebody the other day about it, and he's like, you know, I make six figures, and I still need access to affordable housing. That speaks for itself, because how many people in Lexington make six figures? And I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Council Member Lagree. Yes, Mr. Crum. During the presentation, you stated a description of the area as a, quote, downtown context, and also you called it outside the downtown core. You know, and then we were shown two different maps of downtown, and then I was told that we were developing a downtown master plan to help us inform a map of downtown and help us shape a map of downtown. So I'm wondering, when you all are looking at projects like this, can you show me a map of downtown that you're working off of, and can you tell me a definition? I'm just curious as I'm trying to orient myself. Yeah, yeah, and if we can bring the PowerPoint presentation back up. So to kind of start you off, there is not in part of the, really, the ask for the downtown master plan that is currently kind of being developed and worked through is sort of formalizing a very formal definition agreed upon as sort of a public process for what the context of downtown is. Now, as we have taken on these projects with the Stavrov application, with the subtext application, the downtown place type, due to its location on the downtown corridor of East Maxwell Street, is how we engaged and kind of guided that discussion. So that's consistent with how we've looked at the previous developments in this area, the connectivity and distance to existing. If you see just in the corner here, we've got the existing downtown business or the downtown existing zoning. So the intent behind the B2A is to be sort of this transitionary zone. So the core itself, really the high rise structures we find in downtown, you know, downtown proper, essentially where we're at right now, the intention of that is sort of to have that transition zone that then interfaces with these second tier urban areas. So that's been something that was a lot of discussion at every zone change that we've had here, kind of the appropriate place to kind of do that. We now have this context here that we're trying to match up, especially as it relates to sort of a historic district. So we're in that as a transitionary area to begin with, but ultimately the downtown master plan, part of the intent behind that, is to help guide a little bit more concretely on where those expectations are. So you're not working off either one of those maps of downtown that were shown to us, but you're working off some of these zoning contexts, some of which are new because of zone changes that have occurred within the last year. Is that what you're telling me? So we're basing it based off the descriptions of the place builder archetypes. So we've got this down. So the place builder element doesn't come with a map. We went away from a map-based plan, which is how most municipalities kind of do comprehensive plans. So instead it's a descriptor. So we've got a description of the areas, the transition from our central core, where higher density residential is appropriate. So it's really more of a narrative description that then planning staff evaluates the conditions, the surrounding context, the roadways, the distance to the existing downtown zoning, and that's where we were making the determination that planning staff's view and the planning commission agreed as well that this was a downtown place type. Okay, so you're using a narrative guide, not those two maps. That's what I'm seeing, because we were shown a couple of maps, and then we're told kind of what we're working on with the downtown area master plan has to do with a map of sorts. And I wanted to clarify about the corridors definition. So does the corridors commission fund projects on High Street and Maxwell? Okay, so it is a designated corridor type. Okay, excellent. I wanted to clarify that. And then I have a question about the traffic impact studies. As we were just discussing, there are two large developments in process on the previous stretch of Maxwell leading up to the proposed project. One is that 278-unit project, and one is an eight-story, 279-unit project that we were just talking about. So how is the traffic impact study measuring the oncoming impacts for those two developments that are very much in process? How does that work? So ultimately, the way that the traffic impact studies look at, they use the trip generation manual. So this is a standardized manual that, based on the land use, evaluates the different impacts. So here, the metric that they are looking at to kind of gauge what the traffic flows and expected traffic volumes would be for a sort of off-campus student apartments, which is the code that they use, is based on the number of bets. So they are, in their traffic impact study, budgeting for 900 or budgeting for the other adjoining developments, the beds that are associated with those projects. So it includes not just this development, not just the adjoining development, but all three of those in sync, as well as a projection of now, and then I believe also out to full build 2035 conditions as well. So they look at what this project is doing, how that looks in conjunction with the other major projects that are kind of coming online on that same corridor, looking at how those impacts all of those relevant intersections and how that changes the traffic patterns for today. And they also use that to make recommendations for changes to roadway widths, to other appropriate measures. Here, they found the existing conditions to be sufficient to accommodate what the applicant is proposing and what the two other developments are seeking to do, with the only changes being some bulb outs to slow some traffic down at intersections. My time is up. If I have additional questions, I'll log back in. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I missed your parking, the numbers and parking of the adjacent properties. Could you please give me those again? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just to rehash, the Subtex development, which is the furthest west, that is 333 parking spaces on site. Stavrov development accommodates a total of 215 spaces that they will allocate for their development, and this development lists 436. Thank you. We heard a little bit about setbacks in some of the public comment. Will this property potentially have the same setbacks that are currently there? I know they mentioned eight-foot sidewalks, so I think that the structure may actually end up sitting back a little further from what's there currently, maybe? Yes, they've got basically the development pattern for Maxwell is that they do have these larger kind of front yards. The stone and the row streets are really more of a side yard context. So if you look to the right, you see that that's kind of a narrower aspect. a little bit closer, is closer to the roadway along the sides, essentially, that they front on today. So I'll bring up the development plan, and we can, yeah. Yeah, so I'll bring up the development plan here. So the distance where we've got the roadway here, we've got the existing, or the proposed, expanded sidewalk area. It looks like this is closer to 17 to 20 feet back from the Maxwell side. Now along the, once again, the Stone Avenue, as well as Rose Street, has a little bit of a tighter setback. Part of the application, the applicant's justification with all of this, was to create, to match, essentially, the adjoining student apartment developments, some enhanced pedestrian features, and kind of having the buildings a little bit further back to give the pedestrians more space, was sort of budgeted there. So it kind of varies based on the road frontage you're looking at, how far that building is actually going to be set back. Okay, thank you. And then, confirming there is no commercial activation in this building, like there are other models, correct? Yes, so the zooming in, this is the, here we go. Yeah, so what they've proposed so far, that kind of purplish, the bluish color, are those proposed townhome units, individual townhome style units, with that kind of tan color along Maxwell being leasing offices, amenity rooms, maintenance, et cetera. Now, they are not precluded from coming in later with a commercial development, and in fact, part of the conditional zoning restrictions that we are recommending on the site are to kind of alleviate some of the more problematic ones that could pop up if they decided to kind of incorporate a commercial use. But right now, totally residential. And I guess for the applicant, are the townhome units meant to be owner-occupied or rented as well? So the townhome units will be rentals as well. Okay. And then on the commercial piece, we are planning a small coffee shop for the lobby that will be open to the public and the residents. Okay, and then for the, what has been proposed so far, and I know it may change when you go through the development plan process, but is everything one height currently, or is there any amount of step down when it gets closer to the neighbors? For the total height of the building? The total height of the building, yeah. Yeah, so if you look at Rose Street, Rose Street, we have a step back at floors eight and seven. So we step back above floor six. And then all around the building, if we can show the other floor plan that has... So then we have these step back breaks in the building, which we were really focused on because it enhances the pedestrian experience because it breaks up the building massing from a pedestrian level. I think those are 20 by 20 feet. We don't have the dimensions on here, but roughly. So these are step backs on all four sides of the buildings that provide light bulbs, which is similar to what the subtext property did. They did a break in the building versus an actual step back of the building. Thank you. So when you're on Rose Street looking at the building, it will look like three separate buildings rather than one big building after you leave that second floor. Thank you. That's all the time I have. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thanks everybody for coming. We're going on five hours here and we still have a few hours to go. I want to kind of piggyback on what I start with. Council Member Legree was talking about and Jim Dickinson brought it up about the cumulative impact of three significant developments. Where was the traffic study in our packet here? And you talked about it. And it looks like just doing my math, it looks like there's going to be 981 new parking spots that are going to be added with these three developments. Would that be correct? Yeah, so the traffic impact study should be in the final report document that you have in front of you. I also can bring up some, I've got some slides that speak to those if there's any kind of specifics with that. Tracy's over there shaking her head. Oh, it's not. It's not in the final. That's not something we specifically said. Okay, I apologize for that. Yeah, would you like some specific piece of- Yeah, I'm just, I'm trying to see how that, that that's not going to be a big impact to this community. And are the other developments going to be entering on Maxwell also? And how are they all going to be coming here? Because when you're adding, if it was 215, 333, and 436, is that the numbers that I was told? Yeah, so the traffic impact study sort of breaks this down. And I can give kind of just a general overview here. So things that the traffic impact study is looking at is the general number of trips that are being done. So they take the number of beds in this instance, they take the use, which is off-campus student apartments. And then based on that, they have a certain calculation at a.m. peak hour, as well as p.m. peak hour of how many trips that's going to generate. So those numbers are then put into the context of the level of service and the roadways that it's serving. So we've got, let me bring up the specifics of, it's further back, of the number of, here we go. So the existing conditions is probably the most relative thing. So it's not just what is being generated by these uses, but how are they interfacing with the roadways and what type of traffic do they experience now? So East Maxwell Street, each day, and this is, once again, based on 2022 data, which is the most recent that they have, 9,000 trips averaged per day. East High Street, on the opposite end, and the development has access to both, is 12,000. They also look at some of the other associated intersections in the vicinity, South Martin Luther King, and some others as well. So it accommodates, essentially, the existing amount of traffic, how much they expect, based on the number of beds to be added, what that does to the wait times at these different intersections. And as a whole, both the transportation staff, as well as traffic engineering, found that the existing roadways that serve the development are able to accommodate all of the development that we've seen so far. What is the difference between what is there now and what's going to be added to it? Sure. And that brings us to some of the discussion. So the left hand of this chart, and then level of service is essentially indicating kind of the level of delay. Now, when we have sort of a downtown context, the expectation, if you have an A or a B, you're kind of building your roads too large. Like this is an area where you want, for the safety of pedestrians, to ensure that traffic is moving, not backing up, but also that we aren't overbuilding our roadways. So in the fields and in the traffic study, the existing elements are to the left, and then after the full build, you see kind of what the impacts are. So there are some shifts from the level of service that you would expect based when you add units, but it's within the realm of kind of acceptability from our traffic's perspective. Yes, there will be some delays in certain instances at certain intersections, but as a whole, it's largely comparable with what we have kind of as the existing context. It's a lot to kind of wrap your head around. It's, you know, a dozen different intersections that they're looking at, but overall, that was the recommendation. Could you go back to that other one? Yeah. I just remember when I got an F, that wasn't good, so I'm just trying to see what that red one was. Okay, I've got a minute left, or 45 seconds. The next, for staff, and it was brought up by Council Member Savigny about what's presently there. If nothing, if this is disapproved by the Council, what can they do, because they still have an ability to do R4 and potentially R5, and what would that be to this area? Yeah, so once again, the uses that you're looking at, the R4 and the R5, allow for the full spectrum of residential, so single family if they desired, townhomes, multifamily, up to a certain height based on the zoning. So R4 is a four-story building or 60 feet. R5 is up to 75 feet, if they took the density bonus route. So without needing any type of zoning approvals or changes, then they could do that without needing any additional use approval. And how many beds could they get with that, then, if they did that? Yeah, I don't know if I could get that off the top of my head, but once again, there is some nuance when you have something like an R4. There's more requirements, say, for open space, whereas in the downtown, our open space generally is sort of provided offsite with our parks and other facilities, or say, in this instance, sort of the rooftop amenities. So it would be essentially half the height of the current proposal with a, I would say comfortably not an ability to fill out as much of the site as they have. Thank you, my time's up, thank you. Thank you, Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. One of the features mentioned was a shared use path at this location. Do any of the adjoining properties have a shared use path? Because I want to know what it connects to. Yeah, so really what they're talking about is essentially for the property that we are looking at here, extending on through the next two blocks, so all the way to MLK along these three student housing apartment developments. Basically, our wider sidewalks, wider facilities for pedestrians. It's not a part of a larger planned route, to my knowledge. Just sort of this facility that was incorporated for one development and is carried through into the others to kind of help have that connectivity, essentially. So in the newer developments that are here, but not beyond those? Yes, you would run into crossing the street on Rose would be the existing conditions today. Okay, and then could you talk a little bit about the landscaping required for these two zones? Like what, we know there's some discussion today about tree canopy and green space. So what is the landscape requirement for what it currently is in R4, and then what it would be for B2A? Yeah, so when you're looking at an R4, it's once again a zone that we see kind of throughout the community, really reflects kind of a more suburban context. It has requirements for vegetative open space, as well as kind of common space. Here in the downtown zones, that paradigm shifts a little bit. So whereas before there was requirements, firm requirements for vegetative space, here that shifts to looking at just other forms of open space. So here we've got sort of these interior courtyards, and then we have this amenity space on top, as well as some being within walking distance of several kind of public parks. So the expectation for our downtown zones is a denser development project where open space is either being provided sort of in the building, but less of a traditional green space. And I can pull the R4, we've got a zoning ordinance here, I can pull what the existing requirements are. While you're looking for that, there's been some talk about workforce housing and affordable housing today, and those are based on area median income. Can we talk a little bit about those numbers based on the rental rates that we heard? Yeah. Yeah. If they're interested, I can provide them what we're proposing. Okay. All right, so speaking to the first piece here about the open space and the vegetated open space, R4 is 15% usable area and a 15% vegetated area. Those two things can overlap. And so 15% of this site under an R4, regardless of anything else, would have to be that vegetated open space. When you get to the B2A, you start talking about no required vegetative space and a reduced amount of usable space that's sort of necessary. But I thought that I read in the report from the planning commission that there would be some regard for preservation of trees that are on the property. Yeah, so part of the question, so what you're looking at right now is a tree inventory map. So at this stage, the applicant does not have any approval to build anything. This is the preliminary plan that just essentially allows you all as a decision-making body to kind of view this and see if it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan. So they show throughout the site these little circular dots, which are existing trees and tree canopy present on the site. What they're showing in this darker shade here along the perimeter are the proposed plantings. So at this point, they don't have approval to remove any of the existing trees, but based on this proposal, the vast majority of what is currently internal to the site would be removed with a proposal like this. So there's not a requirement to say necessarily retain those. It's part of the larger conversation of if it's appropriate for the site, but they are proposing some street trees as they show here. Then according to our affordable housing study from our government that commissioned, the area median income for Lexington is $62,908. So at the 120% mark, do you know the numbers of what that rent would be? We can do some math real quick. I have it here, but I just, if you wanna say it on the mic, you can. Not off the top of my head. The high range of 120%, the rental, like the estimated cost for what the rent would look like would be 2,679. If you are doing affordable housing, you must be 80% AMI or less. And the rental rates for that would cap out at 1,786. I would venture to say that most students don't have an income or have an income at 30% AMI or less, which that would be a household income under $26,000. And the rental range suggested is 670 or less. So based on the numbers that we're hearing today, I think that it would be within the workforce housing to up to the 120% AMI and maybe the top end of the range for 80% AMI, but I don't think it would meet that lowest affordable housing rental range. Just because we've had some conversations about that, I just wanna say it out loud. Thank you. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you, Council Member Sheehan, for that question. You guessed where I was going. So I have a very quick question for the petitioner just to ground us back as we're entering whatever hour we're entering now. So a significant part of your argument tonight in favor of this zone change has centered on the shortage of affordable housing in Lexington. But just for the sake of explicit clarity, the development you're proposing is not an affordable housing development, correct? That is correct, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Got a few questions of my own. I'll start with Mr. Crum, if you don't mind. During the planning commission's hearing, did the planning commission diverge from any of the planning staff's recommendations or make any adjustments, amendments, any recommendations of their own? No, the proposal was an 8-2 motion to approve with staff's findings, in fact, incorporated as the justification for that. Okay. And I know during the planning commission's hearing, there was not organized opposition and representation, but there was public comment that came out, right? Did any of the residents make any particular suggestions to change or adjust or mitigate any of their sort of concerns with this development? Yeah, to kind of, I guess, caveat, or some backstory as well, planning staff attended two of the neighborhood meetings. And so the plan that the planning commission ultimately saw did reflect several changes, and that was reflected of planning staff's feedback as well. Up until the hearing itself, there were still some concerns with the neighborhood with regards to massing and step-backs and sort of the specifics on that. But otherwise, it was just sort of a conversation about preserving the existing buildings, generation of traffic, those other concerns that we indicated kind of earlier in the proposal. But it really wasn't so much of an ask to do a particular thing with that. Those more generalized concerns and opposition. Yes. We're talking about affordable, we're talking about workforce. I want to make sure that we're kind of on the same page what this conversation is. The developer has just said that this is not an affordable housing development. The current parcel, those apartments that are there now, are any of those considered affordable by our city standards? So I don't have any data on what those are currently renting towards, so I wouldn't be able to give you a good answer on that. Okay, thank you. I also heard a lot during our couple hours of public comment, these are quotes, this is a university problem, UK should own that problem. What are our development rules when it comes to UK-owned property? Yeah, so as a state entity, the University of Kentucky is not subject to zoning. So they have their own process that they follow. But once again, any of the nuance on step-backs, size of buildings, allowable uses, that's kind of outside of the purview of planning staff. So that if UK wanted to buy these parcels, the local government would not have any say on the form that that ultimately took. So is it accurate to say that UK can do whatever it wants on its own property? As far as us as a local government are concerned. Okay. Do we have any agreements with UK when it comes to creating student housing? Not that I'm aware of. I'm gonna look over my shoulder to the left. Everyone smarter than me also said no. And I apologize if I'm asking questions that may not be within your purview, but are there any state statutes, because they are governed by at the state level, are there any state statutes that govern or dictate UK creating housing for its students or its workforce? I'm unaware. Okay. Something to think about. I think because there is no way to separate the city of Lexington from the University of Kentucky, I think often our challenges are conflated and kind of all lumped together. And because of the way things are set up with the state, and I'll speak a little bit more on this later, we are often left holding the bag in terms of problems that are not of our causing, but that we have to solve, whether it's parking, public safety, or housing. Mr. Gross, let me ask you this, or the developer. Is this housing targeted only towards students? I heard, I think one of you said, you think 80% of the residents will be students, is that right? Yeah, so we abide by all fair housing laws. So traditionally, when we look at like Hub Upper and Hub Limestone, those are a little bit more, I would say, campus focused properties because of their location. This location is in between downtown and campus. It's closer to campus, it's on the border of campus, but we would expect maybe a bigger increase of our percentage of units to be in that market rate style. So we do have one bedrooms, we do have two bedrooms, we have some studios. Okay, what is your expectation, if you're thinking about that 20% that may not be student housing, who do you think this kind of development attracts? Who else is living here besides students? Yeah, so we don't, again, we don't restrict living, but usually what we see in our developments is it's young professionals who are transitioning from college to work, and they're going from a four bedroom unit to a one bedroom unit in a highly amenitized, secured, close to work building. So it's usually mostly young professionals. Okay, thank you for that. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My first question is for the applicant, and it's in regards to the townhouses, and I think you've answered this, but I just want to be clear. The townhouses, you're still going to use the per bed calculation and the rents on those, right? That is correct, yes. Okay. So my next question is for our staff, and it's in regards to the comments that were made about reference to different themes, different goals in our comprehensive plan in regards to preservation. Did the planning staff, when making the approval, did they, knowing that this was going to be a demolition and rebuild, were there any, and is it the staff's obligation to maybe recommend any way to do any preservation to this project based off of what the applicant was proposing to do? Yeah, so as we have kind of discussions on, you know, kind of throughout the process, we absolutely encourage where feasible adaptive reuse and the kind of the, not removing anything that isn't kind of entirely necessary. Here we have a proposal that in order to do the things that our comp plan calls for, namely, you know, providing that parking and internalizing so that it's not offsite, you know, providing that dense use is going to come with trade-offs with what they're able to preserve on a site that's two acres in size. So then we look at sort of the inventory that the historic preservation staff provided us about the styles of housing, the timelines associated with them, other, any important figures or not that were associated with those places, applied sort of the lens that we went through that's laid out in the comprehensive plan, and then from that, use that to kind of weigh, as once again, it was mentioned earlier, that the comprehensive plan is these concepts that are kind of sometimes at odds with each other, but are generally just weighed, you know, found that ultimately what we see on this site is being preserved elsewhere in the Aylesford and surrounding areas with regards to building styles, materials, that missing middle component is still being preserved there. So that's really the lens that we looked through on that, but in this instance, kind of what the applicant was looking to do, there really didn't seem to be a great avenue to integrate the existing buildings and retain them in that way. And I think the applicant has got something to add, but before he does, let me ask. So the staff didn't make any design standards, and is it in the purview of the staff to recommend design standards for this development or the planning commission? So really when we're looking at the parts of the comprehensive plan that talk about design standards, that's really sort of higher level government. So that's putting in overlays or putting in other restrictions. It's not really on the applicant to really fulfill those aspects of the plan or for planning staff to kind of come up with them on a case-by-case basis. It's something that we look at and examine kind of each comprehensive plan, how we can kind of fine-tune those. But ultimately, it's sort of a larger government process. Okay. Brandon, y'all have more y'all want to add to that? Real quick. I don't want to eat up all your time, but first off, Appendix A, as you are very aware of, Mr. Brown, was part of the Windburn Small Area Plan. We do have to comply with these design standards related to multifamily. Also, we have submitted renderings to the staff as part and the Planning Commission as part of our application. And we have committed on the development plan that our building will look like the renderings that we submitted. And then Austin can talk about some of the adaptive reuse of materials and architectural designs. Once again, not something you're looking at, but we can give you that information. And if you look at Exhibit 5 in the packet, you'll see what he's talking about. So just really quick, one of the biggest things we took from our community engagement was the pedestrian experience. So a lot of the buildings on site have some significant architecture that we're not just demolishing and destroying. We are deconstructing and saving and then reincorporating into all of the townhomes that are around the property. So the physical attributes of the properties that are there today, the most eye-popping ones, will be reincorporated into these townhomes that are on the ground floor at the pedestrian level. That's all I wanted to add. Thank you. Okay. And I was gonna ask that as well. I was gonna say from your public engagement, your community engagement, were there any elements that you took from that that you incorporated into the project? Yep. Yes. And it was that plus the step backs. We also moved our lobby location. We also moved our amenity location. So there was a lot of changes made that we didn't get to cover earlier that we have a summary of changes slide. It's on exhibit three. In exhibit three, it's in full detail. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lynch. Thank you. My first question is for the applicant. Applicant, excuse me. You stated that you would offer relocation assistance to any existing tenants that may not be able to afford to live there the new building if it's brought online. You said you've done that in other places. What did that look like? Give me examples of what that package looked like. Yeah, so essentially how we think through it is, again, we're not kicking anybody out. We're not terminating leases. The current owners are deciding not to lease their property for August of 2026, but we know that 78 people, mostly students, are gonna have to find a new place to live. So what we do is we work with them on an individual basis to make sure they can. That includes working with them on moving expenses, monetary payment, and making sure they have somewhere else to go. Usually how long do you give them to relocate? So right after this project is approved, we will be reaching out to current owners and coordinating with the tenants. So today is November and their lease would expire next year in August. So we would work with them over the next six months, hopefully, to figure something out. Okay, thank you. My next question is for Mr. Crum, for staff. In order to overturn the Planning Commission's decision, I'm remembering that there are specific criteria in which we have to do that. There's specific requirements. So we don't have a lot of flexibility. Can you remind us of those? I'm gonna defer to Tracy Jones. If you all are going to not follow the, I know this monitor's really helpful, but it's really in the way. If you all are not going to follow what the Planning Commission recommendation was, the requirement is that you have eight votes, no matter how many people are present. And so you're all here tonight, but you still will have to have eight votes, which you normally have to have for passing an ordinance anyway. So, but, and if you want to add things, if you wanted to add conditions or change conditions, I'm sorry? No, I don't think so. Since we're gonna be overturning the Planning Commission, isn't it 10 instead of eight? It's the majority of the entire council. You have to have 10 present. So the reason it makes a difference is when you don't have everybody here. If you have, you have to have 10 here, but if you were going to only have 10 here and then overturn, you still have to have eight, no matter how many people are here. And then if you change conditions or things like that, you're also gonna have to have the majority of the whole council, the eight. I guess I was also looking for, aren't there, there's three criteria, I believe that in order to overturn a decision, it has to meet one of those three items. Are you thinking about, I think you're thinking about the requirements for zone changes, which has gotten a little bit confusing tonight because at some point there was, I think, a misstatement about that on the part of someone. But what the first requirement under KRS is that, and this is what the Planning Commission found in their recommendation to you, is that the plan that is being presented to you for the zone change is compliant with the comprehensive plan. If it meets that under KRS, then you're done. However, if an applicant can't meet that or there's a reason it's not compliant, then there are two other reasons. And one of those is that the current zoning is inappropriate and the zoning that's being proposed is more appropriate, and they would have to prove that to your satisfaction. And then the last is that there's been a major physical, social or economic change since the comprehensive plan's been adopted, and they would have to show that to your satisfaction in order for you to approve the zone change, which is where the findings come into play. But in this particular case, the Planning Commission found that in their recommendation to you says it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, and so their findings are to support that. Okay, thank you. That's what I was looking for. I appreciate it, thank you. Thank you, Council Member Morton. Thank you. This is for staff. So with House Bill 443 now in effect, ultimately eliminating the development plan process, this zone change, if this zone change goes through, this will ultimately be the last public-facing meeting, possibly before construction begins upon staff approval of the development plan. Is that correct? Yeah, with the very limited nuance of if there is, say, a development criteria or a ordinance aspect that they can't meet and they need a waiver, then they go through that public-facing process again. But yes, it becomes that ministerial action, which does not have that public component in the same way. And then I'll do this to the applicant. So do you plan to keep the final development plan the same as the preliminary development plan that was put forward, with no changes or waivers after this zone change? That is the intent. With the caveat, when you go from a preliminary to a final, you get a little bit more into the details. We still have to meet with traffic engineers about where we're gonna possibly put a bus shelter at this location. So there's some details we have to work out. But the plan will be substantially the same as what you're seeing tonight. And we also, we will commit that we'll have a neighborhood meeting when we file that final development plan to show them what we're doing and what changes we're gonna do. And we would have, we'd commit to meet with the council member of District 3 also. At that time, I know some of you I keep in touch with and I keep you informed. I have meetings after I'm through with the development plan to help you and keep you in the loop on what's going on. And we would commit to do that on this project. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you. Ms. Winters, Ms. Winters, I have a question for you. You were talking about the history of the property and displacement and gentrification and equity. And one of the equity policies within our comprehensive plan is to ensure equitable development and address Lexington segregation resulting from historic planning practices and policies, rectify the impact of redlining and discrimination based on race and socioeconomic status. Was this a redline area? I actually don't know that. So maybe Brandon does. Yeah. Applicant or our staff have an answer to that? And before I hand it over to Brandon who has all the answers. I just asked a yes or no question. Yes, and the socioeconomic equity was what we were discussing in our presentation. I asked, is this a redline area? Yeah. This is a segregated neighborhood. There were racist deed restrictions in place when it was developed in 1916. I have a copy of those in my files if you guys want to look at them. But yes, black people are not allowed to own or lease any of these properties. And that was the case until Shelley v. Kramer in 1948, unfortunately. And so yes, this is part of our segregation has passed. But not, it wasn't a redline area because there were deed restrictions in the other direction. It was exactly. It was a redline area in the extent that black people were not allowed to live there. So you didn't need to redline it. Yeah. Okay, yes, thank you. And then Tracy Jones, sorry, Ms. Jones. I would like to just ask a little bit of a process question. So I know there are a lot of new faces here today. So, and I think we could have some just clarity before we go into like our deliberation phase. Could you talk to us a little bit more about what we are allowed to consider versus what we aren't? Like we talked about the renderings and we suspended our rules. Are there other things that we are, that related to like the development plan that we aren't supposed to be deliberating over when we're making the zone change decision? I mean, basically what you all are deciding is a land use question. And that is, is the proposal that's changing this zone from R4 to B2A, does it comply with the comprehensive plan? And that's based, that part of your decision that you all have to deliberate on and decide about is based on everything you've heard here tonight and everything that came to you in the record from the planning commission. So you can consider all those things to determine, make that decision. And process wise, what that means is that you have options on what you might wanna do depending on how you're all's deliberations go and where you end up. You know, you have the ability to approve this zone change based on the findings and the recommendation of the planning commission. And that doesn't require you to do anything except adopt that. You also have the option to add additional, conditional zoning restrictions, but still approve it based on their findings. But you might, depending on those, if you wanted to add those, there might be some additional things we needed to address there. Or if you were going to disapprove this zone change, you all would need to have new findings because what the planning commission recommended to you were findings for approval, not disapproval. And then just to make it a little more interesting for you, because I know this question is gonna come anyway, so I'll go ahead and tell you, but if we need to repeat it, we can. If you were to decide you wanted to disapprove this zone change and we helped you and assisted you with findings to do that, the ordinances are always written in the positive. So this ordinance is written approving this, but if you were going to disapprove it, you would have to make findings, adopt those to disapprove it, take the vote on the ordinance, the zoning ordinance itself, and vote no. So there's a series of things depending on how you all deliberate, but it's really your decision as to whether or not you believe this proposal to change the zones compliant with the comprehensive plan and whether or not you think, based on what you've heard, how you're gonna make that decision. Thank you. Thank you. Council members, this is your last opportunity to ask questions of any of our presenters. All right. We're gonna go ahead and take, hopefully, our last break. It is 10.08. We're gonna come back in here at 10.20, where we will go into a closed hearing discussion. Thank you. You are dismissed. Thanks so much. Thanks so much. Thanks, Elizabeth. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'd like to introduce our guests to the bank community. Let's welcome them in. Please stand. And be seated. Omeni面utzel começou. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. Omeni面utzel konnichiwa. 🐯 Sound Hodori 사운드 호돌이 サウンドゥ ホドリ 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 유튜브 코미디 채널에 구독&좋아요&댓글 부탁드립니다! 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이 사운드 호돌이