Mr. Tevis stated that the standouts would be reduced setbacks, reduction of parking, sidewalk improvements, and walkability.

Mr. Brand stated that it was generally well written and encouraged reinvestment and that he was in favor. He stated that he noticed requirements for minimum heights for privacy fences, trash screening and things like that and encouraged them to consider a maximum height as well. He stated that there was a situation recently in the city where someone installed an 11’ tall fence and he would not want to see that happen to this neighborhood.

Mr. Dishman stated that as a City Councilman he was very concerned about Mr. Malone’s taxes as well as other senior citizens in that area and would like to see some protections put in place. He stated that this neighborhood had been making improvements for a long time and that he was supportive of the overlay request.

Ms. Kring stated that on page 9 of the overlay there was mention of the city street tree list and as the Ag and Natural Resources Educator for Purdue Extension that she was unaware of that but that the DNR had a very nice resource for that.

Mr. Tevis stated that there was a new Urban Forester and that they should have that list.

Mr. Ivy stated that people had reached out to him stating that emphasis was not being given to Elm Street east of Madison Street as far as upgrading the infrastructure. He asked if there was an additional phase to the overlay that would make that area more walkable and easier to navigate.

Mr. Tevis stated that the old railroad area had been zoned for heavy industrial and that if someone were to develop that area between the church and the old gas station there was an obligation that the developer would have to make that sidewalk improvement at that time.

Mr. Landess stated that a petition was mentioned with signatures of those in support and asked if there had been any opposition. He also asked how many property owners in that area would have their homes remain as they currently were.

Ms. Robertson stated that on the online petition there was one opposed stating that they did not want any new development in the McKinley Neighborhood. She stated that she spoke to a few in person who were undecided and did not want to sign the petition, maybe 2-3. She stated that she was also to pass out 75 door hangers and few people who had been undecided reached out and ended up signing online. She stated that there were not a lot of homeowners that lived in McKinley, many of the homes were rentals but that they tried their best to reach out and had at least 2 meetings as well.

Ms. Swackhamer stated that 170 notices had been sent to parcel owners.

Mr. Tevis stated that there were about 100 viable homes and of that number maybe 20-25 were owner occupied.

Mr. Landess stated that he understood the 20% requirement, but that if he were a resident now would be the time to leave because of the things that would going to happen and that he was not saying this to be mean, it was just his observation. He stated that rebuilding a community was great and that millions of dollars were being spent in this area, but this was his observation.

Ms. Robertson stated that as a resident of the area for 22 years and seen the changes, and that everything that was happening would be happening anyway. She stated that part of her motivation as