# Planning Commission Zoning (Sub) Committee - October 1, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · October 1, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6896 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6896?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-10-01 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: October 1, 2026 - **Length**: 15,667 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. 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). --- ## Full transcript meeting on October 1st. And our first item on the agenda is PLN ZOTA 26-11, Urban Growth Master Plan implementation. All right. We got me now. Awesome. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. The first item on our agenda, as indicated there, is the ZOTA dealing with the implementation of the Urban Growth Master Plan. We do not have any new updated text since we introduced this to you all at the committee, so we'll go over that kind of briefly and then give you all an opportunity to give us some feedback. But once again, at a very, very high level, the UGMP, the Urban Growth Master Plan, was implemented as a result of the 2023 expansion of the Urban Service Boundary, bringing in 2,800 acres of land that then would be master planned. 2025 House Bill 443 took effect, requiring that the review and approval of development plans be based on objective criteria. And so the ask for today is to take aspects of the UGMP, the recommendations of the UGMP, and convert those into objective standards for the ordinance and the subdivision regulations in order so they can be carried forward throughout the entire process. Just as a quick refresher, the five areas of expansion, and we've shown this to you a couple times, are shown up on screen. Each one of those had a regulating plan that explained the required densities, the land use, the transportation networks. And this is all being reviewed and talked about as a part of the zone change process and the preliminary process. So the regulations that we're proposing today are to make sure that these carry through with the subdivision, the final plats, and the final development plans for these properties. Here is an example of one of the pages from the UGMP that, once again, makes recommendations for access management and other aspects. So we took these, largely that same framework, the same recommendations that the plan put forward, and for most of the text we have in front of us, applied those into the zoning ordinance text amendment framework. Once again, the process is for reviewing preliminary development plans. We get to talk about things like master plans. However, with the final development plan process, that objective standards piece comes into play. So the intent, once again, of this text amendment was to bring those regulations forward in a way that was objective and that could be applied. It also affords applicants the ability to formally request waivers and variances of those in circumstances where a regulation may not necessarily fit. Going through really, really quickly, you know, we've given you this language earlier but was just going to go through very quickly section and kind of hit the big pieces. Article one is definitions. So incorporating definitions for things that hadn't already been talked about. So the retail ready units and the block face were included there. Article three is really more of a just generalized regulations for each of the zones. That's where we're hitting on the regulations to get the mix of residential types to make sure that we are getting those developed kind of concurrently and that we're getting streets where we have, once again, a mixture of housing types. Concurrency is what we talked about at the last work session. Once again, the framework that we've got shown here is exactly what was recommended with UGMP. There was some comments previously about tweaking those numbers or kind of creating a different threshold to kind of apply moving forward. But essentially for the residential development does require a small amount of commercial in those mixed use areas before full build out in the village and child centers. Commercial development basically is limited to 80,000 square feet until 50% of that required residential is built and then the rest comes online. So really we wanted to make sure that there was the most flexibility afforded to the residential piece because once again, the intent behind the master plan was to create residential density and to get those additional housing units. Article three does also create some language that talks about providing transit facilities in town and village centers. Moving on to article 15, it's a very, very small tweak, but the master plan calls for using alleys quite a bit. This basically cleans up the setbacks for things like garages from alleys. So if they can meet the width requirements that we're asking for and is going to be recommended as a part of the complete streets kind of framework and the master plan framework that we just apply the normal setbacks in those instance for accessory structures. So this had a specified setback no matter what the distance of the alley was. So we were cleaning that up a little bit here. Article 16 is really got kind of two pieces. One is talking about providing active depths for parking structures when they're adjoining these major streets. So having non-residential uses on the bottom floor where they adjoin and then the commercial access standards. These are a piece that gets talked about a lot during the development plan process. These are talking about the curb cuts you can have, sharing, sharing access between commercial users as well as providing that inter-parcel connectivity. So this would codify the recommendations more or less exactly as written from the UGMP. And then article 18 is kind of cleaning up the piece that sort of has lingered as sort of a, I don't know, disconnect would be the right word. Essentially article 18 lays out the different land use buffers under various conditions. So there was a certain dimension when a property adjoins an agricultural parcel, when one adjoins the urban service boundary and a requirement to match dissimilar zones and match their setbacks. So essentially it was creating an issue where a certain property could have three or so different dimensions that were being provided to them. This standardizes that to 25 feet across the board. This is a little bit different than the framework that the UGMP called for where they were talking about a hundred foot buffer and a roadway reservation up to 15 feet. So staff in sort of reviewing that and how it's sort of played out so far and the feedback from developers have found that that is limiting essentially the buildability of these sites, limiting the density that we can get and kind of leaving us with partial roadways. So staff's recommendation is just to take the standard boundary that sort of isn't applied and applied to kind of the majority of these situations and making that the standard moving forward. So 25 feet standardized across the board when a property adjoins that urban service boundary and using that as the buffer moving forward. So with that staff is recommending approval of the text. Once again the importance on this objectifying these kind of recommendations making sure that the final development plan we have something that we can lean on and something that applicants can respond to and request variances or waivers if necessary. So with that the general timeline it is that committees today left the old timeline on there. The 22nd is when this is slated to appear so ignore the the 8th. We are in fact at committees today talking about it so and then we'll proceed through the normal text amendment route to go on to council. So with that one other piece sort of after the adoption of this and the complete streets SRA there will be sort of a re-evaluation of UGMP to make sure that there isn't any conflicts on any of the changes that we make here and making sure everything is still kind of connecting. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions you have of staff. Molly. Thank you Jared. Thank you Daniel. I know this is a text amendment and pictures or images aren't really appropriate in a text amendment. Does planning staff plan to create some helpful diagrams to help people or developers understand or are you going to have to depend upon a development plan refer backs to the text amendments and see how it falls. Yes so we do have the diagrams of the like the UGMP was adopted and with sort of a lot of the same framework and so there are some graphics associated with that. We also will be having some updates to how we're showing development just I guess or the text amendment or the zoning ordinance regulations thank you are to be getting an update with the unified development code piece moving forward. Once again as you noted kind of light on actual graphics so if there's a piece that you know as we see applications come in that sort of needs more explanation that's something that planning staff can kind of respond to when we have supplemental documents that kind of help with a lot of these pieces so if there's something. Can you show those to us today or do we just need to be able to figure out what it says in the text? I guess if there's like a specific like provision that's causing some question as to how it sort of would be applied or what it would look like you know we can we can generate something like that but it really just depends on the concept. I guess I would appreciate some just some visuals about how the access and the curb cuts. Sure yeah we can we can provide some examples of that. When it's when the concurrency is if you have don't have this you have to have that or if you have those those would kind of be helpful for me at least to understand better than reading dry words sorry another exciting words on a piece of paper. These are great words no understood completely and then moving forward on the 22nd we can make sure that we have for any of these pieces that are kind of hard to digest at first glance we can have some graphics that'll provide examples some maybe mock development type pieces that we can explain. That'd be super helpful for me at least thank you. Other questions here? I've got a couple Daniel. Okay. One is regarding the perimeters I see here we're changing 10 to 25 15 to 25 where is the original language that talked about 100 that we adopted? Yeah that is that's within the the UGMP itself. I don't have a copy of that in front of me but we can we can have that I guess so how so how does this interact with that so this will not edit that plan it will just trump that plan is that how so how does that how does that interaction work? How does that interaction work yeah yeah so essentially we have a the UGMP is on the books now we were reviewing those plans in light of the adopted UGMP so we've had in the previous applications and the current applications that piece has been you know legislated to or shown to say hey we're in agreement the kind of the last piece the follow-up piece that I kind of reference at the end of my PowerPoint presentation would be a move by our staff to if this is adopted or you know they may the planning commission may find no we're actually fine with keeping it as is in which case there would be no change but I think there would be a follow-up to address any of these aspects that may have some conflict because ultimately we don't want to create sort of we want to minimize the amount of time where the the two pieces are kind of talking past each other but ultimately at the final development plan stage they would be looking at the objective standards of the ordinance and that's sort of how I think that would generally sort of take precedence at that point if we've adopted a regulation that speaks to the same thing in the same way that the UGMP or not the UGMP the 1996 expansion area master plan we created the expansion area master plan we made the zoning ordinance changes and amendments since that time that apply to those areas and so we kind of refer to the two but ultimately we're looking to the the actual adopted ordinances for that kind of final development plan such so there will be a cleanup depending on kind of the the scope and extent of what is codified by the planning commission and council here and then hopefully trying to minimize any amount of time that we have a a conflict so if I understood that correct because right now like it says any residential business office or industrial zone to the urban service boundary we have a 10-foot setback currently and then it's a 10-foot except in the areas that are newly expanded which aren't isn't in the ordinance it's just in the plan that that's a hundred foot yes we would be changing the whole urban service boundary to 25 feet and then if I understood you correct we would need to go back and change the plan or the plan would then just get ignored I'm trying to understand how that interaction yeah yeah so that's the the we have how daily approaching from plan east plan east good afternoon how daily manager long-range planning um we would have to take a look at what we would want to either adjust or modify from the plan that would take an amendment of that plan which has its own kind of process we want to make sure that the planning commission reviews the rules first before we go back to that to have that conversation the plan is allowed to differ from the regulations because it is really meant to be a guidance document it would allow you all to do more when it comes to restrictions buffering requirements things like that but we see that this is the implementation of that plan we would follow up with you afterwards to review that document open it up and see what needs to change from that plan based off of what you all pass from a regulatory framework so we would be following up this review with something with the comprehensive plan and the urban growth master plan to make sure that they match and then my second question had to do with the concurrency of the 4000 square feet of commercial that was discussed in the last meeting could you just update me it looks like that sort of exception has been removed or is that somewhere else that's not in this text as well i'm sorry what which exception so we had talked about before the full residential can be completed a basically a small amount of commercial has to be constructed which was i believe 4 000 square feet um the question we had at the last meeting was whether that retail ready space that's constructed can count as that 4 000 square feet or not and um does this speak to that and then if it does can you kind of walk me through that yeah yeah so the the definition um uh let's see here yeah so looking in article three and then we're we're talking about the residential and concurrency requirements um number four retail ready units um shall be considered non-residential area for concurrency purposes so that 4 000 square feet of required commercial space can actually be residential units that are built to that definition that we lay out in article one of retail ready and those would count towards the 4 000 okay i think at our last meeting we had some concerns about that yeah i guess because we had already made that requirement pretty small and just concerns about then um whether there would really end up being any commercial at all in some of these spaces sure um and so oh could you was that um yes i i want to not just skip over that since that was part of our discussion at the work session yeah yeah and and what you have in front of you is there's there hasn't been any modifications to the text usually we go to the committees to get that formalized piece so even though you all have been hearing about this kind of piecemeal at the committees or not the committees at work session we wanted to get this feedback before we look to make any kind of tweaks and changes so what you're seeing is just the framework from the ugmp brought forward if the planning commission feels like that the retail ready units shouldn't count towards that 4 000 or if that number should be larger that's absolutely you know sort of available but we were looking once again for the residential piece to make you know relatively small amount of commercial satisfy that concurrency because we really wanted to make sure we got the rooftops and i think that's something that we've been hearing from the developers was we usually get the residential and the rooftops before larger scale commercial and so in order we didn't want to create a requirement that was going to create basically mismatched or mistimed commercial residential development and it is a hard uh needle to thread i think in a in certain aspects so uh if the commission feels like that is you know a greater number is warranted we can absolutely have those those tweaks or discussions but we wanted to as a baseline bring that original recommendation have that as a starting point okay um thank you for that explanation does anybody else have any more questions anybody have any comments here to share um my only comment daniel will be on that issue i think during that um urban growth master plan we as a commission um if my memory serves correct we reduced the total required square feet versus some of the original draft concepts or drafts and um just to put that into context again so it's saying 40 of the total number of dwelling units shall be issued so that means the developer could build 40 of the housing units but then they would have to provide 4 000 square feet of commercial floor area which you know is it one typical size restaurant or maybe a coffee shop store um to me that requirement um is important with that concept of the urban growth master plan with these mixed use areas to have something in the neighborhood um that is an actual business use not just a business constructed space and so i do think that um component would be um important to preserve and i think that we've reduced it to um a small enough margin where it's really one typical size business or two very small businesses that it's not an impediment to really a full scale development um i guess with that comment is there a motion sure i'll make a motion so i mean my my request for images a document i haven't looked very carefully between that and this so i don't really have any questions about how the two are concurrent yeah and once again as we you know move forward for the 22nd we'll make sure that we've got graphics and sort of a kind of a deeper dive on that and then as always if there's questions as or you know any thoughts on creating new text uh feel free to reach out to staff okay so i'd like to make a motion to um for the subcommittee the zoning subcommittee to uh approve pln zoda 26-11 the urban growth master plan implementation and that's without any modifications at all without any modifications but a request for images okay pictures all right um well i'm at this point i'm just gonna sort of state my opinion but i think that this is in uh largely good text and in the right direction um i am going to um uh at this point i think i do want to see that one thing um uh fixed before before supporting it at this point so is anyone uh all in favor maybe i should ask that we postpone then okay you already got a motion any opposed that passes four to one thank you very much daniel i'm sticking around okay excellent too all right the next item on our agenda is bln mar 26-16 ok gentry llc so just going through the the next couple here uh we have the ok gentry application so item a and item b we don't have any updates at this time so uh the next that we would really get into would be the anderson community's application on item c so uh giving just a very quick overview on this staff has received an updated development plan as well as the justification but based on the time that was submitted there is not a revised staff report as of yet for for either the development plan or the zoning item so essentially we'll go through kind of the the general flight framework the sort of things that we were looking for at the initial postponement and then we'll let you all take a look at the revised plan but once again as we move forward to the planning commission hearing you would have once again the full reports on on those items so um with that sorry can you just clarify because i think i just missed it so are they planning on coming back to committees or are they planning on going straight to the convention yeah they plan to go to the planning commission on on october 8th so as next week with no with revisions yes so they they will receive the revised staff report from staff i mean from staff regarding the development plan as well as the zone change um and they have also requested some waivers um once again based on the timeline when those were submitted uh we don't have a reflection on those yet this did go to committees initially um a couple of i don't believe it was the last month but the month prior so they have been through one time we will be showing you the updated plan um and giving kind of just a very brief talk through of what they've sort of tweaked um but not a kind of item by item this is what they've changed this is staff reflection um just based on when that was submitted to us okay thank you awesome so um very very briefly this is a request um for property located on todd's road rather large development of 123.13 net acres that was included within the the ugmp under the agricultural rural zone they are now seeking the medium density residential r4 and the b1 zone in order to establish a mixed-use development from a place builder perspective they're choosing the medium density non-residential mixed-use place type with a new complete neighborhood development type staff is in agreement with both of those aspects not located on the slide but staff did attend a neighborhood meeting hosted by the applicants i guess about a week or so ago there was i would say probably a dozen or so folks in attendance largely representing kind of the residential development located a little bit further north so these are agricultural parcels that are generally sort of homes on 10 acre lots or so but essentially there were some concerns with the the scale development and kind of the time proposed but the applicant can kind of speak to that in greater detail but the parcel itself once again is a large agricultural tract this is todd's road as you are heading kind of further away we have the interstate that is cutting through this portion right here the 96 expansion included area here so this is a kind of a was included within the expansion of the urban service boundary in 2024 the aerial view kind of shows that that pattern development a little bit better but this is a parcel that is seeking to go from agricultural use to a once again mixed-use development spanning several different development types they're placing this within the new complete neighborhood staff is in agreement with the the choice there this is the recommendation based on the urban growth master plan for the area detailing a town center development closest to todd's road with these darker colors of red and orange indicating high and medium density residential that then transitions to that yellow lower density residential as you move further south the part of the parcel touches the very bottom here of a future village center located across some floodplain and greenway i'm zooming in a little bit closer you do see kind of the the parcel roughly follows the west side of this proposed road so basically the left side to the interstate is where we're looking at with this proposal so the items that were addressed that we asked the applicant to address at the initial submission we wanted to make sure that the the minimum residential densities were being hit we wanted to make sure that the village center being shown on the southern part of the property was being displayed there were some changes to the roadway network that the applicant was looking to or that needed to explain as well as looking at some of the access management for the commercial pieces as well as sort of the residential development there was some questions on the extent of this floodplain and how that was impacting the plan and then a deeper discussion on some of the comprehensive plan policies the new materials that once again staff alluded to they have since provided us with a new development plan they have since provided us with a new justification and they are coming forward with waivers regarding things like the access lot frontage cross-section dimensions block length and connectivity in many of these cases these are aligning what the future expectations would be with the the ugmp not the ugmp but the complete streets subdivision regulation update so this is sort of looking forward to the feature and trying to kind of match that but in the interim they need to request waivers and so you will get a report on those waivers along with the revised materials with the last rest of the application i'm just going to briefly show here the concept plan and kind of talk through some of the the general changes once again a large mixed-use development and to fit it on screen it's been sort of flipped so todd's road is here so this is the front of the development with once again commercial uses multi-family residential single family interspersed with townhomes and other kind of smaller less dense options one of the things that has changed since this plan has been resubmitted is this spine road along the eastern part of the property now follows the ugmp recommendation so rather than deviate and follow the entire property line it stubs into the adjoining parcel they also have now provided development this would be later they are indicating i think this is one of the latest phases of development that would come online when the rest of the the village center uses here operate so once again centralized green space around that existing pond feature a mixture of residential developments densities development types all trying to kind of create a connected walkable area so once again staff will provide a review of our previous recommendations what they've changed how they meet the urban growth master plan as well as the comprehensive plan all of that will be provided to you all in advance of the the hearing on the 8th and with that staff is still at their original recommendation of postponement simply because we have not had time to kind of fully evaluate the revised materials so with that i'd be happy to entertain any questions you all have of staff yeah thank you uh daniel do you by any chance have a list of the comments the that this committee made the last time we saw this plan because it seems like we had quite a few uh and i can't really tell from this black and white drawing what is what i i would have to go up there on the screen and look like is the playground still located at a point that's so far distant from the majority of the housing um other things i remember are escaping me now but i think we had some some concerns yeah i think dick dick is will be here to to talk through kind of the specific we haven't kind of dug into the micro level of kind of where those comments sort of went but they would be incorporated into our review okay thank you anybody else thank you very much daniel no problem all right applicant good afternoon dick murphy here on behalf of anderson communities and just wanted to update you as well the um um we've been working diligently in the since we postponed this at the last meeting samantha castro uh in particular has been meeting with traffic people here and planners uh and and we feel like we're in very close compliance with the urban growth master plan and with the complete streets plan we're asking for some waivers as mr crumb mentioned largely those are because samantha has designed this to be in agreement with the complete streets ordinance which has not yet been passed and we're dealing with today's ordinance so instead of changing we don't want to change our plan to comply with today's ordinance no one will have to change it back to the way we had it originally to meet with the complete streets ordinance so we are going to ask for some waivers of current standards so that we can meet the complete street standards on there that makes no sense hopefully and so we've we've submitted those to the staff we've submitted the revised plan to the staff as mr crumb mentioned we had a meeting with the neighborhood association a week or so ago and we heard issues about traffic especially there'll be more traffic on todd's road i think they made clear that they did not want the i'm looking for our main right there yeah all right they did not want that main i'm sorry i'm i'm i'm north is north is to the left here so we're talking there right there i think yeah our main intersection opposite todd station they did not want that to be a roundabout at all so and they were concerned about having apartments so close to the street up here um and and especially they did not want any any land taken from their side of the road to make traffic improvements and i told them in in my experience dealing with the highway department that i've never known the highway department to condemn land across the street for improvements that we have to bring in an application they act as benevolent dictator tell us what we have to do but i've never seen them take other people's land across the street to make the improvements on we do we took to tell them that we would have to be making improvements to todd's road but that that comes a little farther in the process when we get down to the final plan stage we submitted the plan to the state and the state says okay we want you to do this this this this and this so we so uh but it was a very civil and fairly good-natured meeting we had with the neighborhood association um on the uh some of the discussions i think on the playground locations miss davis the i think we've we had a label on the plan possible playground we and looking at it we thought really that's just tentative we're gonna we're not sure where we're going to have them throughout the plan so we just took that off knowing we will have them but it was a little too early for us to try to pinpoint all those locations so um and some of our waivers relate to things like uh we're planning units to face on the greenway and open space not a public street which had been shown in the plan but we don't have public street frontage on those things we do have vehicular access and access into back for cars but those things will be taken up to you but i won't take up much of your time we just want to tell you we've been making a lot of progress submitted the plan to you and you'll be seeing the whole thing with the staff reports a week from today thank you thank you are there any questions for the applicant uh maybe uh mr murphy in the last time we saw this it was a postponement what you are indicating to us today is that you've addressed all the issues connected with the postponement and then what i've heard the staff say they just haven't had time to review that is that that's accurate as i from our standpoint okay thank you any other questions is there a motion yes mr chair i move for a postponement for pln mar 26-18 and there's a motion to recommend postponement all in and seconded all in favor that passes unanimously thank you very much next up here we have pln mar 26 test 19 um up campus student living llc dalton belcher i'm have planning staff find the clicker here so this is a uh zone change uh from the uh current r4 and p1 zone to a b2a zone there are uh multiple addresses included in this zone change including 226 228 and 230 east high street 209 211 217 and 219 stone and 102 hagerman court so i want to go ahead and note similar to what mr crumb just did uh this the applicant had our staff report they were given ahead of last month's committees but they were not able to make the uh meeting i think their attorney was out of town so they postponed and we did not present this at committees last month in the interim period between last month's committees and today they've made some revisions to their plans staff has not had time to meet and review these as a full staff we've done a cursory review and i will address some of their changes here at a high level i know they also have a presentation they will probably get into more detail about it uh but just to to give you that and i'll show that as we get going here uh but uh for the place type the applicant has chosen the downtown place type they are also uh high density residential for the development type and the request is to allow for construction of a multi-family residential building with 225 dwelling units so you can see here on screen uh the subject properties are in the white and you've got the surrounding zoning here as well and uh the properties have frontage on east high hagerman and stone and then i'll zoom in here to show uh in the brown and tan colors mostly through here where i'm highlighting these are currently residentially zoned properties and then the the reddish pink that you see is b2a and b2 commercially zoned properties and there's a little bit down here as well so the uh to the north we have uh just generally offices and parking parking structures up this way we also have to the east what is uh currently the ymc ymca's uh location and offices and more parking and then south and west you have various different residential development so as i mentioned they have they've chosen the uh downtown place type and they've also chosen the uh high density residential uh staff is in agreement with these uh select or these choices for this uh project we also note that the uh downtown place type includes b2a as a recommended zone and that is the zone that they're requesting so this is getting into what i was saying earlier our initial review uh and these are what were our recommendations for postponement and i've just kind of uh abbreviated them here but we had six things that we had called out first was uh the just addressing the downtown master plan and their justification how this request is in agreement with the plan uh second was the step down of the building in relation to the one and two-story buildings that are to the southwest and there's some some renderings that will give us a little bit more information on that uh also just addressing the multifamily design standards and i'll talk about that with a graphic coming up and then streetscapes and entrances of the project as well as how they were activating the street specifically on east high street and then we had multiple development criteria that we wanted them and they're called out there we wanted them to address a little bit more in their justification and then also at the time the applicant had not had a neighborhood meeting they uh since yesterday after afternoon or evening they had a neighborhood meeting that was well attended staff was there as well sure the applicant will address a little bit of some of the feedback they got at that time so just to be clear this is the first site plan i'm not going to spend too much time on it but just to just show that this is what we had initially based our recommendation on uh it was showing you know a 10 stories apartment and then nine stories here and you have the one and two story houses here um and then this was the first rendering they had shown us uh and this is this is an example it says example architecture here at the bottom as you can see this was from a previous project it was more so i think just a placeholder and to give us an idea of what they were going for but we had asked for something a little bit more specific yeah i can go back is there something you'd like for me to highlight or yeah so uh high streets here and then you got hagerman here stone here and then like i said you got some residential here and then here's the uh project sign that helped all right i could have slowed down and done that for you to start right yeah okay so this is with the uh the revised plans that the applicant has submitted so again they took into account some of what staff had uh had in our staff report as a reason for postponement so as you can see um they're still showing non-stories here but they are and there's some renderings that will show this as well but they're kind of beveling down uh stepping down the structure down to six stories here uh with some of these uh covered you know these like landscape balconies and then um here there's multiple renderings here and i know based off the presentation earlier this morning that the applicant will probably get into these in more detail but just to highlight a couple things that are that we noticed and again this is a high level review we haven't really gotten to get into this too much but they're showing uh you know you've got some artwork mural areas shown you've got sidewalks you've got street trees and landscaping throughout here and then again this is sort of just a zoomed in view of the same thing and then here this starts to show the the stepping down but the next renderings probably got a little bit better view for you to see in the context so we've got you know the the structure and then it starts to drop down here as we get closer to these residential structures these one and two-story homes uh here and then these are just some other renderings and i'm just going to kind of move through these a little quicker because i know they're going to address these in more detail as they present um and then uh this has not changed at this time the conditional zoning restrictions proposed by the applicant staff does not have any issue with what they're proposing uh just quickly i'll say that they're the ones that they proposed here the eight are establishments for display and rental of automobiles motorcycles trucks and boats hostel establishments minor automobile and truck repair establishments primarily engaged in the sale of supplies and parts for vehicles and farm equipment drive-thru facilities for sale of goods or products automobile and vehicle refueling service stations adult entertainment establishments and stadium and exhibition halls and then here is basically the the six bullet points that i addressed earlier and kind of just did a summarized version of this is them with maybe a little bit more detail but mostly the same thing of what i've already discussed so at this time staff is still at a postponement recommendation like i said we've not been able to have a full staff meeting to review the revised documents that have been sent into us and uh mr cheney i think he was able to get a little bit more into it than i was and he will discuss the development plan i think he may have a little bit of an updated uh recommendation on that that he'll get into whenever he gets up to speak but uh at this time do you have any any questions for staff are there any questions for dalton okay thank you don't um and then are we let's hear about the development plan now and uh one last thing is chris is coming up um similar to our sort of the last couple rezonings in the area the historic preservation staff will be providing information relating to the existing structures on the site that will be provided at the actual hearing itself so that piece will also be forthcoming all right chris thank you all right so the the associated development plan in jdp 2660 um as dalton mentioned we we did get a revised plan on september 29th um the let's see so the the difference between the our initial plan and this plan uh the initial plan was more of a rooftop view and this is showing uh i believe it's actually the second level right yeah um with access off of stone avenue so again just kind of reorient uh this is this is east high street here with east vine street off the plan and then hagerman court is to the uh to the top of the plan and stone avenue is uh to the bottom of the plan and then um there's the additional um residential kind of going off the plan to the to the left um the ymca is directly across the road across east high um on the plan uh they're showing uh vehicular access into parking structure on the second level um there is a little bit of a grade change from from east high going up along stone avenue they're showing another um vehicle access into the parking structure on the first level off of hagerman and then they're showing their um this is the second floor the lobby uh leasing area and amenity and there's like a mezzanine in this area and on the first floor uh off of east high street there's a lobby uh as well uh and then these um they indicated um our townhomes but they could also be used for uh residential or i'm sorry uh commercial uh if if needed um the kind of the main difference between the our initial submittal on this one um there are a couple things that just technical things that happened as far as uh printing the document so we had a couple cleanup items that were basically add things back in that got left out inadvertently we we discussed it after subdivision committee and it was just some cad snafus um i'm trying to think if there's as far as the uh and this just kind of just for reference um see if i get it right can't remember how many back it comes um i think it's okay i can't read the addresses um so it's it's roughly this this area um with the remainder uh going back this way still being uh the residential as it is now um and um one of the things that oh wrong way one of the things that we uh had concerns with initially was the lack of like drop-off space delivery space uh on the street and they've addressed that with the um the revision it's a little bit hard to see but they're showing um some off-street parking here uh to be able to come off of east high in front of the building and then also some in front of stone avenue or along stone avenue uh adjacent to the uh the building entrance and then there's a delivery area off of hagerman and they indicated that this is where um deliveries will occur and then on the plan um on the first floor a lot of their utilities and trash compactor and things like that are this kind of the back back of house on along hagerman so that's where the access is into the compactor area and uh parking those things um so they they have addressed some of the items that we had concerns with um initially um and we're kind of moving along um in the right direction so uh there was a question about um i'm going to go back to the uh there was a question about would the uh they indicated that the the terraces where the building steps down would be accessible from the units um and that the vegetation would be in planners and there was a question um from the subdivision committee would those remain and they indicated that they're there those would remain and we could put a note on the development plan to to reflect that so that was that was something that came up during subdivision committee um and we kind of talked through so and with that if you all have any questions for me i'd be happy to answer thank you chris are there any questions for chris on the development plan um okay um applicant Good afternoon everybody. Brandon Gross here on behalf of the applicant. I have with me Jihad Elainey from Vision Engineering. Tyler Ammerman from the developer is in from Chicago. Last night we had our architect in town but he had to leave this morning to get to a meeting tonight. Muhammad Mosein, he will be here when we have our public hearing and so yeah so I apologize for not being able to make it here last month. I had to be in Texas for a project and so I had to send my colleague for a postponement but over the last month we've not been idle. We have taken the staff's report, we've digested it, we have met with the urban forester, met with the pedestrian planner, met with traffic engineering, met with planning staff to make revisions based upon feedback in the various reports but also just talking through should we make this change or make that change. We filed everything, revised materials on Monday. The staff didn't have an opportunity to review the zoning materials today so they gave you some back information. I'm going to walk you through what the project looks like today as resubmitted and so I guess the first thing is it sounds like the staff and us are in agreement on the place type and development type. I think there were an agreement on the conditional use restrictions and we have a handful of things that they wanted more discussion on and some design changes to better fit within the downtown framework and so this is shows us where the project is. So we're located here. This is East High Street. We are a five-minute walk from University of Kentucky at this location and then this shows the current zoning map and so this is our location here for our project. One of the property is already B2A so it is not part of this application. It's part of the development plan, part of the project but it's not actually part of our zoning application. Here we have the YMCA. It is being sold. Rumor is it's going to be a 20-story building but they've not filed anything officially for building permits yet so we don't know but we plan on that being known in the future. Here you have the Verve. Here you have Maxwell. These are the two core spaces blocks that are currently being demolished and so as you can see you know this neighborhood area is it's a neighborhood in transition currently. This is an aerial. This is what Chris was trying to point out of the properties. This one here 224 East High. Once again part of the project but not part of the zone change application and then we have these residents located here. Just some snapshots. All this material is attached to the justification letter so you can look at it. So I'll speed forward. So this is the revised development plan from the top floor looking down and I'm gonna walk over rather than using the printer. There we go. Okay so some of the changes we made based upon our meetings with the various staff and the city is in talking with David and Scott. They wanted to see parking at this location. Currently there is no curb parking on High Street. Their thought was when this gets done and the Y gets done if they have parking on both sides it will slow traffic down in that area. So we added that in. It also creates these bumps which will lessen the crosswalk for pedestrians who are crossing from across High Street. Right now we have talked about what to do here and the consensus is and we can add a note to the development plan for this to be resolved at final is that until we know what's going on here that traffic engineering doesn't have a recommendation on what should go here at this time but we all recognize that we do want these people to be able to cross over and these people to cross over safely. So it could be there's two bump outs with a four inch rise in the future that would slow traffic but not stop traffic at that location. So we're in discussions. We'll be adding crosswalks here and here once again. This will be a bump out. This will have a little bit of a bump out at that location. Along the front the power lines are overhead. The utility is not I guess I shouldn't say favorable but they're not cooperative in burying them. So with that we've had to push the building back a little bit which is the good thing is that allowed us to have a larger sidewalk. We're going to have these two planted areas. These are the townhouses with entrance and we'll be able to have some street trees located in this area. We talked to the urban forester. These two trees are both pretty root bound in their location but they look relatively in good shape. So the idea will be is we will remove asphalt, remove concrete and then build more of an island bump out for those trees. Hopefully be able to preserve them. We're also talking to them about whether or not a couple trees in this area could possibly be also preserved as part of this project. This is where you can see the step downs that I'll show you on the sides. This will be a lobby entrance. This will be a lobby entrance. Right now we're proposing townhomes. Each one will have a street level, ground level entrance onto high street. This we will improve. It will be two-way at this point. Traffic, I mean parking will be on what two levels but they will not be connected. So essentially it'll be about 80 parking spaces per level. They will not be connected. This will be one entrance. The second entrance is here and this is really where we're the short-term delivery area. We've talked to traffic engineering. They thought this would be a good location for that. And then we're going to have a plaza-like setting, mezzanine. The amenities them as far from the lower density housing and then the courtyard will be start on the second level and all the tenants will have access to those once again these levels here these units should be able to access as they those particular terraces and mr. Owens asked about making sure plantings actually did get planted there and we told them we would be willing to add a note that says that we will make sure that's a vegetative screened area to further buffer that area so once again this is you can see where the elevation changes from High Street going up towards Maxwell the parking for the lowest level parking will be half underground half above ground this is the first level so on the first level on High Street which is the lowest elevation well if townhouses is what we're proposing we will have a lobby entrance here this entire street front will be activated with those uses I'm going up Stone Avenue the bottom floor will be partially underground the trash compactor the generator everything is held within the building none of those backroom services will be located on the exterior of the structure here the second floor second floor of the townhomes this is first floor has an open-air mezzanine bleeds into a second floor amenity you'll have lobby space other amenities student areas lounges things of that nature this traffic parking will come into here they cannot access Hagerman from here and then vice versa on that first floor Hagerman they will not be able to access here we'll have our bark bike parking as Chris said we plan on having the solid wood fence here it's got turned off during the CAD that was inadvertent we will have that we will have trees planted along this area also on the site so this is the corner of high and stone the idea is to have these first floor be made of brick and masonry materials this is that bottom amenity space lobby space we were talking about you can see kind of a townhouse entry this is the main space on stone and then you see where the temporary parking and this is where the bump-out occurs if the other side of the street is ever redeveloped or the city has the funding to build a second bump-out that would then close that gap for pedestrians this is the corner of Hagerman we plan on this shows you the activation along High Street we are working to have balconies artwork and different materials to break up the facade all that goes to the multi-family design standards that playing staff mentioned that we're deficient in and there are our explanations here's another rendering I'll kind of jump through I'm gonna jump through the various levels I mean there it's an apartment building we're gonna have studios one bedroom two bedroom three bedroom four bedroom units each bedroom will be rented which is pretty standard for this particular targeted market but once again while it's targeted to our students anyone can rent one of these if they wanted to mr. Wilson you may have one if you wanted to rent one yeah and so but this is where you start seeing that step back so here at this level so we have the garage and then we have so at this level we start walking that back currently that height is 63 feet the r4 which is the adjacent zone has a maximum of 60 feet so we're starting it essentially three feet above what the other zone has and then we start walking that back for each floor so you see again walk it back a little bit further walk it back a little bit further so by time you get to the top floor I can't recall how many feet that is do you recall Tyler so 60 back from okay so but the top were 65 feet from the adjacent property this shows you yeah that's right approximately 65 feet from the property line additional renderings this here shows the how the step back works in relation to the existing lower density housing next to it we did a solar and shade study given the location of where this property is and how it faces the lower density housing will only be shaded during the early morning hours and then as you can see the way the Sun rotates the building's shadow goes the other direction through the rest of the day and I do not believe I think other than sorry winter this one has a shading problem during winter but that shading problem is being caused by other buildings and not by our building this shows kind of the materials that are being proposed as we said we're proposing brick at the bottom then we will move up to cyber board composite other materials as we as we move up so the lowest levels where the eyesight when you're walking the eyesight will have the best materials and then they will kind of slowly move up as you move up so from the ground level everything will look like it's brick but from it will not it will transition to cement board and other products this shows the Stone Avenue so there's the entrance here is the parking garage this is the first floor lobby amenity space and then all of in this here this is actually part of this here is actually garage that's partially underground sorry partially underground right here on that space and then these are the trees that we are committed to try to preserve you can see we'll we'll agree to have these this vegetated area also up here at the top and it's just different elevations and I think that's it that's kind of the update of what the changes we've made we did talk with the subdivision subcommittee this morning about whether the townhouse or the retail was the direction to go our preferred direction is the townhouse mr. Owen said he'd prefer the retail we will talk that the staff of course will listen to what your guys preferences also when we're making those changes that floor will be built at a 13 foot height so it could be converted into retail in the future if necessary but we think once if it's residential we think it'll just probably stay residential and so with that um are there any questions for me do we have any questions for the applicant okay I don't see any right now thank you thank you appreciate it do we have any people from the public that would like to comment on this one if you if you have a comment if you don't mind please come up to the podium and if you would state your name my name is Leslie trap I'm at 1045 Lane Allen Road in Garden side we own two properties on Ransom Avenue 134 and 135 our kids live down there in those houses in selling real estate you can certainly get the sale if you can get the client to start talking about designing the drapes that's the old adage I just would like to step back a minute I have no problem with the proposal from the applicant it's a lovely design they've obviously put a lot of work into it but I'd like to at least get on the record are we missing the forest for the trees right now we have a lot of things happening in this area right adjacent to historical overlay certainly there is a speculative rush right now not unlike the AI movement going on but also we have this in real estate with student housing at University Kentucky clearly offloading their responsibility to house their own students don't blame them someone else can pay for it but I just asked the staff to and by the way all the questions the staff has I totally agree with they've done a good job at it but I like to step back a little bit at the 10,000 foot level and ask is to consider we've got approximately 5,000 more people coming down to this area with these multiple improvements improvements that are being proposed is the current infrastructure able to handle that right now you know for example in this property we've got 50 people we're substituting that with 700 750 people will the sewers support that I spent a lot of time in Miami and I used to hear a planner down there on one of the councils the alderman look at those high-rises and say that's a lot of poop coming down those floors the other is parking I know that parking went from 1.5 down to 0 but a point that's been made is that that doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to go to 0 should it be 2.5 don't know right now one bed could handle two people married couple or dating couple both of them are going to have a car where you're in that kind of community unfortunately don't live in Amsterdam that has a wonderful infrastructure for mass transit and bicycles the thing that really concerns me is the this effort not just by this applicant by everyone you're gonna have a lot of people trying to coach the existing revenue-generating student population in Lexington we know there's a cliff there's been a lot of talk about the fall-off of student attendance in the coming decade so are we now providing speculators our product students and is that a limited number and are we going to end up building something for that which will not come at least in the next ten years according to all studies so three things parking poop and poaching my name is John Meckler 415 East Maxwell Street a couple blocks from this project I don't think there's a time really to air many of the concerns that not just myself but many of the neighbors share but the one of the things um I look at these images and maybe mr. trap addressed it with the drapery trimming they always make the images look so nice by putting in these images of little bushes and little trees but if you really notice and with all do respect to our supposedly that they have consulted with the urban forester but there is very little green space in this plan you know I I'm concerned about this project and the irresponsibility of it on many levels but I'm here I'm concerned about the whole whole neighborhood and and one is are we making a neighborhood that's livable that has we say we want affordable housing and people living downtown this is the neighborhood that has that but apparently it does not have the respect of the developers to find more appropriate places instead they dislocate and remove the people and there's a little bit of there's a lot of righteous anger throughout the neighborhood and the entire community about what is happening in this in this corridor I don't know if pitchforks are coming but I think a lot of the concern is we're just racing ahead with this land rush without seeing the ramifications of what we've already torn down and so I speak for many of us and our concerns and the hope that we have a livable inner city not just a dense inner city and I say that to those of you who think density at all costs and I feel like that is what we're rushing for we ignore everything else and it's all about density and I could create a step back and of course my what's close to me is green space yes someone else will speak on historical structures but what makes a street livable being able to walk the privilege of being walk under the shade of the trees and nothing impacts vegetation or trees like tearing up an entire block and you cannot avoid digging those roots and damaging and you can you can attempt to save them but you're putting it in I think a common sense shows that things are not going to grow to equal the beautiful trees that are on that block now so I urge us to slow down why don't we see what the ramifications of parking and everything with the existing things we'll we'll be presenting next time some actual perceived parking numbers with some of this that goes through and one last thing which may be irrelevant but it may be relevant to some of you citizens on the committee is these projects we think okay increases our tax revenue they'll pay a little more taxes but you know as with this one how many millions of dollars are leaving the town in rent every year to go to Chicago this is we think we're building something that's enriching the town we're actually being mined for our our student resources so I I don't see how this really enriches the town in the long run and I don't really see how this makes for a livable city thank you listening thank you is there any other comments from the audience afternoon I'm karma Brian we own property on 227 high street I want to first of all express my gratitude to the planning staff and the Commission for your service I'm not increased opposed to increasing density in our downtown neighborhoods I am in favor of affordable housing and as the other speakers have pointed out this does not solve the problem that we have for the need of affordable housing the lowest rent for each of the unit is $800 a month so if you have a unit that has four or five bedrooms that is not affordable for a family so as others have pointed out once the student cliff occurs is this structure going to be excuse me sorry adaptable for families so I am opposed to this zone change proposal as others have pointed out we are at risk of ruining the walkability of our community do you ever walk around in that neighborhood it's very very unique and beautiful a friend of mine talked about the bluegrass recently and about what is it about the bluegrass that makes the bluegrass so great it's the horse farms of course and the beautiful agricultural areas and it's Grants Park it's places like that but it is also communities where people can afford to live and serve the needs of our citizens and to live affordably and this is not a good solution I really urge you to think more creatively and less destructively in how we can increase housing in our community and as soon as this zone change is approved you know that it's going to be used for more development that isn't going to serve our community very well so think about the bluegrass postcards postcards of horse farms and Grants Park but also think about the walkable communities that are so important to the vitality of our city of the one more thing I think I would like for our planners and the council perhaps to think about more creative ways to preserve historic properties other than the h1 overlay it's not working obviously it's not protecting historic property and there is a 200 year old property that's going to be demolished for this project you can't get it back that's 200 years of history that we cannot bring back let's think more creatively about how to solve this problem instead of as Mr. Mickler points out sending our resources to Chicago we deserve to keep our resources here and make them safe and livable for our own citizens I really appreciate your time thank you interesting conversation today I ran into somebody from UK housing and she wishes to remain unnamed but she said these folks are coming in from out of state speculatively that there is a there is 37,000 UK students currently housed somewhere and what these guys are doing are putting luxury dormitories in place to poach those students from all the other student housing that exists all over Lexington so I want us to recognize that this is not multifamily living the lawyers dotted their eyes cross their T's and and we think this is multifamily housing like karma said too expensive the average cost for a house a three-bedroom two-bathroom house is about seventeen eighteen hundred dollars these can range from four to five thousand dollars not feasible and I appreciate I learned something else last night these guys they work really hard to follow the rules and they are following the rules for this little piece right here the problem is not this little piece problem is this one this one this one this one and this one and this one we are going to be overwhelmed they like to call it multifamily but then they always say it's five minutes from UK so it's not multifamily this is not planned for multifamily this is planned for some some kids with rich parents for dormitories that's all they are is expanded dormitories and all these people that are being displaced this isn't for if we're trying to create density for for affordability this is not the right plan and these guys all they can do is is look at the proposal for this but when you look at the whole plan this is not affordable housing this is just for students so we're not achieving our goal with the comprehensive plan for infill all we are doing is this is UK campus 2.0 so I would I would ask you to look at not just this proposal but to look at it holistically is this what we want for downtown Lexington is this good for our community I just don't think so thank you thank you we're bringing it back to the committee here yeah Molly couldn't I feel like we're seeing everything all at once I think there's a movie title in there what is the schedule for this project I am unclear yeah so for this one this is slated to appear at the normal zoning committee so October 22nd so there is three weeks between now and the the Planning Commission hearing in that time you would see a staff report from the zoning staff report that would be sort of addressing the applicants changes and any additional kind of staff feedback that would be necessary but the next time you would see this would be the 22nd so it's not going to there's not going to be a chance for us to really talk about it make comments have them come back reconsider it again before there's a public hearing well this is that opportunity okay yeah go ahead just just a couple of things first of all to the people who just made comments I think you've already or she should know that the Commission and the staff were all well aware of these concerns that you're bringing to the table in fact if I'm not mistaken we were supposed to have a town and gown committee to meet with the University of Kentucky to determine first of all where do they project how many students have you got coming in and where do they think they can deal with it and if in fact they do plan on in dealing with it or best the point is what are you going to do with all these students because we understand the overflow in the community the second point that you hit is something that we are very into and there's lots and lots of discussions and this has to do with affordable housing and we will be probably I guess in the next few not until after the elections but we will be having a lot of discussions related to how we can address that their thing is going on right now that we're working on as such so I just want to let you know that we are sensitive to everything that you've said because but oh there's one other thing we as a Commission just as the staff we're we're hampered by the state law Kentucky law 100 the only reason we can deny a zone change would be predicated on three things it does not fit or formulate a form you know conform to the comprehensive plan there's a health and safety issues are there some economic issues that were not considered at the early time so we're sort of hamstrung related to the things that we can do as such to the staff we talked about this this year issue with the town and gown kind of thing and I was told the last time we asked this question that there was a committee that had been formulated between the staff I think and the University of Kentucky to start listening to what their plans are and have you all met or who has met or is that just a figment of my imagination I think we talked about it last and we referred to the downtown master plan yeah and that process did involve some outreach between planners and the university in terms of the you know the interaction between downtown and campus that did not involve planning services staff in terms of meeting to talk about existing projects and so I don't know if Hal wants to share any more information I'm not aware that there's an ongoing meeting happening with our staff and I recall when we last talked about it was in council chambers and I asked what was happening and mr. Duncan said essentially it's none of your business we'll take care of it I don't I don't know if I would go that far it is something that the administration is working on with the University of Kentucky I know that they continue to do outreach we did have a significant amount of collaboration to try to understand where the university is going with their future development specifically how their their master planning document is moving forward what they are planning for they are not particularly planning a large residential push on campus they have a couple of other projects that they're focused on we focused a little bit of the redo of good Sam based off of their recommendations that was one of the things that they highlighted would be coming in the next 10 to 15 years however there was a continued focus on the the population is growing and that they are adding more students I know that there is a they don't see the same doom and gloom for the college participation in the future they continue to see growth for their students so yeah I appreciate you calling that out this is for the Planning Commission at this time yeah so during those conversations we were working very closely with them to hear from them just one other quick question to follow I don't mean to drag this out what other universities have done in communities where there's been this the trick is to find this balance and that's what we're gonna have to struggle with and I think we'll have to accommodate they'll have to accommodate and what-have-you and I guess I'm particularly interested in knowing what accommodations they are willing to make and if they say to us we're not going to make any I'd like to know that ahead of time because that would help us at least with planning it may not be a easy planning task but we certainly could have some sense of that but in some of the communities where you've got this large student influx what the universities have done have purposefully kept where they go now I don't know the university would want to do that or not I obviously understand from the community perspective the revenue and all those types of things but in some communities where they've had this particular issue that is one thing that the university has done but anyhow I will talk more about it and what-have-you but I wanted the people to know that what this is something we're concerned with thank you all right in the I was just wanting to comment to mr. Wilson there was an effort probably about 20 some years ago to have a plan that both the University and the city agreed upon about various accommodations for student housing near the university thanks to the efforts of one individual who owned probably 300 houses he organized students to come down to City Hall and oppose it and it did not pass and it was based on the plan are the things that have happened with the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia to make it truly the areas around UK suitable for families professors graduate students and students not just a well I lived on Elizabeth Street for a number of years so I know what it's like and I chose to live there because I wanted to be in a place that was vibrant and had lots of different people but the time I left I and the house across the street where the only owner occupied houses for 600 700 feet and it was terrible but I wish we could do different and I I apologize for my statement about mr. Duncan he did say it was an administrative decision and it was nothing that we really could control or affect which of course we're we're volunteers but I do think that as we have been told there are there's a proposed project the only thing that staff can do is to respond to it in terms of how it meets the very long list of various departments that have to be okay with it transportation sewer utilities pedestrians and and bicycle safety let's see there there I mean there are so many departments that it has to fit with but but in essence it seems that we have a bigger problem with the very framework in which we're considering these things and I do think that the fact that we have what is referred to here in mr. grosses image we have the verb we have Maxwell we have core spaces to be announced well if I'm not mistaken that looks like the area that we turn down for a zone change the council turned down for a zone change and it is our for so I assume that is what we're talking about they're going to do something within the parameters of what it's owned and we know that we also have reasons that we can object to a zone change and I intend to go through the comprehensive plan and find out why this is not in keeping with it for various reasons because I don't think I'll tell you what I object to and I'll tell mr. growth this six stories is not a step down when you're a one-story house next door that is a token gesture I also believe that having wood fences for a building that caused millions to construct is ridiculous there should be a masonry fence because a wood fence is going to disintegrate I think having the lowest floor has a brick look like brick it should be brick I also agree that density is fantastic and we need it but it does have to be livable and I don't think this is livable I will stop so that someone else can speak thank you we're at this point we're here in our discussion I'm pretty sure that the staff afterwards will be able to speak with you about that before we before I call for a motion here I will ask a couple of comments since we're probably headed here for a motion to postpone since that's the recommendation from staff we have heard from some of the citizens and see and the applicant own work that there's a lot of change here in the neighborhood and I would like to hear from staff how that relates to the comprehensive plan in terms of in terms of the reduction in green space across these properties as they're being changed to downtown zoning in terms of the impact on the we've talked a lot about the missing metal house housing so in terms of its impact on the loss of sort of diversity of housing types and choices in this neighborhood those are a couple items that I do think given the transition and the larger context of the area it would be important to for me to hear about in the in the final presentation with that said if no one has any further comments is there a motion in regards to PLN MAR 26-19 I recommend per staff's recommendation that we take a postponement on the proposal all right motion was made by Commissioner Davis seconded by let's go with Commissioner go with another Commissioner Davis and and all in favor of that passes unanimously for for for postponement thank you to everyone who joined us today and the next item on the agenda here is PLN MAR 26-20 Turner property for LLC and which staff person is that's that's that's what made so we are scheduled to meet with the applicant so they postponed at the most recent Planning Commission hearing the attorney is here we have a meeting scheduled with them for Friday to talk that through and as far as the changes that have occurred since the original recommendation so we don't have a new presentation at this time okay so then is there and then is there a presentation on or is there any updates on MAR 26-21 Regency Holdings really quickly on the Turner property yeah PLN MAR 26-20 Nathan Billings from Billings Law Firm I represent the applicant just for context this one is one where the development plan was recommended for approval but the zone change is recommended for postponement and we've made two point two revisions to the plan it's really about the interplay of the entrances off of Main Street versus the 20-foot setback buffer and so we have a call with staff tomorrow afternoon to walk through that so I think that I don't think the real issue is the zone change issue I think the real issue is just the location of the access road to access the old Stuttgart building is the way I read the staff reports together so I'm expecting that we come to you all on the 20s I think it's a 22nd right that after tomorrow we'll be able to finalize the route for vehicular traffic that the real issue is not the rezoning I think it's just the development plan fitting in with the rezoning so but we understand the postponement for right now we agree with that all right thanks for that update all right then that concludes the regular items on our agenda are there any staff items just the one postponed item or continued item obviously you'll hear more about that at the end of October as well the one staff item we do have is as you may or may not be aware some of you've been on the subdivision committee in the morning mr. Wilson were you ever on subdivision and they hear brief presentations or share information about the ZOTAs right so they they at least have some awareness that those are coming well they are charged with reviewing subdivision regulation amendments and so when we have one of those and it's acted on in the morning by them we ask the staff to come and just share a little bit information with you all as the zoning committee about a land subdivision regulation amendment so mr. Taylor is here this afternoon I think to just briefly give you some updates on our complete streets land subdivision amendment that's coming forward and I think that also includes some UGMP updates as well okay perfect thank you so just so you are aware we had a work if you missed work session last week Kenzie gave a presentation on the updated manual for the complete streets it is an implementation both of the complete streets design manual incorporating those standards into the subdivision regulations but it's also an implementation of the urban growth master plan the language around the block perimeters things like that are incorporated so as Daniel went through some of the text pieces in the zoning ordinance this is taking some of the elements design standards that were called to be codified in the master plan into their their portion of the subdivision regulations where they belong also implements a number of connectivity policies around the comprehensive plan very specifically that we'll go through when you're in your staff presentation it does have a change in all six articles of the subdivision regulations with the bulk of them being in chapter six where we greatly simplify some very complicated access and intersection spacing standards that we've had for a long time that they've been very confusing to the development community and to staff and to traffic and others that have to implement them and so we have leaned on some some other national best practices and simplifying those standards but the subdivision committee did recommend approval this morning and we'll be prepared for a full hearing on the 22nd along with everything else we're going to be discussing that day so yeah me too me too Kenzie you'll be back we'll leave it we'll leave it to her but if you have any questions on anything in that text in the meantime you're welcome to reach out to myself or Kenzie Gleason and we will get right back with you but yeah appreciate it. And did Kenzie share the text with them last week hard copy text? Yes everybody should have hard copy it's also in full text on the website I can send you a link if you need one just reach out to me and I'll send you a link. Ben just went up to get the packets that we shared this morning which include the staff report and the text so he'll he'll bring that down in just a minute. We'll be happy to give you a digital one. We'll be glad to finally vote on this one. Yes yes we will be too. It's been a long time coming. Thank you all. All right with no objection we're adjourned. I wished him luck and then he said goodbye. He was gone but still his words kept returning. What else was there for me to do but cry? Would you believe that yesterday this girl was in my arms and swore to me she'd be mine eternally. And Marie's the name of his latest flame. Yeah Marie's the name of his latest flame. Oh Marie's the name of his latest flame. Highway run into the midnight sun. Heels go round and round on my mind. Restless hearts sleep alone through the night. Sending all my love along the wire. They say that the road ain't no place to start a family. Right down the line it's really you and me. Love and a music man ain't always what it's supposed to be. Oh girl you're still my moon. I'm forever yours faithfully. Circus life under the beat of the world. We all need the clouds to make us smile. Through stares and time always another show. Wondering where I am lost without you. The beat of my heart ain't easy on this love affair. Two strangers meant to fall in love again. I get the joy of rediscovery. Oh girl you're still my moon. I'm forever yours faithfully. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Faithfully. I'm still yours. Faithfully. I'm still yours. Faithfully. Faithfully. Faithfully. Faithfully. I like to dream. Yes, yes, right between the sound machine. On the cloud of sound I drift in the night. Any place that goes is right. Those far flies near. Those stars away from here. Well you don't know what we can find. Why don't you come with me little girl? On a magic carpet ride. You don't know what we can see. Why don't you tell your dreams to me? Can't you see we'll set you free? Close your eyes girl. Look inside girl. Let the sound take you away. Last night I hung a lead and slept. And so I wished that I could stay. Before the thing could answer me. Well someone bring the lamp away. I looked around. A lousy candle's all I found. Well you don't know what we can find. Why don't you come with me little girl? On a magic carpet ride. Well you don't know what we can see. Why don't you tell your dreams to me? Can't you see we'll set you free? Close your eyes girl. Look inside girl. Let the sound take you away. Why don't you come with me little girl? On a magic carpet ride. You don't know what we can see. Why don't you tell your dreams to me? Can't you see we'll set you free? Close your eyes girl. Let the sound take you away. Why don't you tell your dreams to me? Can't you see we'll set you free? Close your eyes girl. Let the sound take you away. Why don't you tell your dreams to me? Can't you see we'll set you free? Why don't you tell your dreams to me? Can't you see we'll set you free? Can't you see we'll set you free? Can't you see we'll set you free? Can't you see we'll set you free? Can't you see we'll set you free? Can't you see we'll set you free? Can't you see we'll set you free? You don't know what we can find Why don't you come with me, little girl? On a magic carpet ride Well, you don't know what we can see Why don't you come with me? No more running down the wrong road Dancing to a different drum Can't you see what's going on Deep inside your heart Always searching for the real thing Living like it's far away Just leave all the madness since yesterday You're holding the key when you believe it Shine, sweet breeze, shine light on me You are the magic, you're right where I wanna be Can't you see we'll set you free? Can't you see we'll set you free? You don't know what we can find Why don't you come with me, little girl? On a magic carpet ride Well, you don't know what we can see Why don't you come with me? No more running down the wrong road Going all the way Reaching out to meet the changing Touching every shining star The light of tomorrow is right where we are There's no turning back There's more than a feeling Shine, sweet breeze, shine light on me You are the magic, you're right where I wanna be Shine, sweet breeze, shine light on me We'll keep the spirit alive On and on Cause there'll be starlight all night When we're close together Shine those feelings Glistening in your eyes Tonight They're guiding us Shining through the night Shine, sweet breeze, shine light on me You are the magic, you're right where I wanna be Shine, sweet breeze, shine light on me We'll keep the spirit alive On and on Shine, sweet breeze, shine light on me You are the magic Magic, baby Magic, baby Shine, sweet breeze, shine light on me We'll keep the spirit alive On and on Shine, sweet breeze, shine light on me Shine, sweet breeze, shine light on me We'll keep the spirit alive On and on