You'll have to excuse us. We're having technical difficulties with our log ins. We'll have a queue and we will go ahead and start our proceedings and the first thing we need to do is to have the council clerk give second reading to the ordinance. How about a roll call? Roll call. Or do the roll call. Thank you. Mr. Blevins, Mr. Blues, Ms. Crosby here, Mr. DeCamp here, Mr. Ellinger here, Mr. Gray, Ms. Gorton here, Ms. James, Mr. Lane here, Mr. McCord here, Mr. Maloney here, Mr. Myers here, Dr. Stevens present, Mr. Stennett and Mr. Beard present. Thank you. Now, would you please give second reading to the ordinance? Ordinance changing the zone from a high density apartment, our four zone to a neighborhood business be one zone for 14.78 net 17.47 gross acres of property located at 3,600 through 3,652 Winthrop Drive, J. A. H. Winthrop. Thank you very much. Now we will begin our hearing. And the first thing we'll do is swear in anyone who wishes to be a witness. So if you intend to speak, please stand up and raise your right hand. Anybody else? Do you swear that everything you say in testimony is the truth and only the truth? Nothing but the truth. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, council members, this is the point where I wanted to let you know that I had a talk with Mr. Simpson, and he said he thought he could finish his part in 45 minutes. So it's up to you to decide whether that is what you desire or if you want to ask for something different. Go ahead. Now is the time to speak up. Sounds fine. Okay. They're saying max, 45 minutes maximum for your side. And then that is from the attorney and his folks. And then any citizens who wish to testify will be limited to three minutes, which is our normal for citizen testimony. The second item I wanted to bring up is that council members each received a letter from Mr. Simpson requesting that he be permitted to present architectural renderings to council. So I need to know what your sense is for that, whether you'd like to see those or not see those. Council member Blevins. Ed, would you give us law's comment and recommendation on this motion, please? Well, it's a request to waive a council procedure that has been in place for some time that the only time architectural renderings can be considered is in a request for an H1 zone because that is the way the statute is set up. And the fact, the basis for that has been that the planning commission, not the council, has control over the development plan related to any of the zone changes that you hear. It is a council procedure that can be waived if it were determined that this board or this council wanted to hear that and let whatever it was go to the weight, you know, for whatever it's worth. But it certainly is within your all's rights to make a decision one way or the other on the motion. Do you- Could I speak very briefly? I'm sorry. Excuse me. Yes. But does law have a recommendation one way or the other? I really don't. Okay. All right. Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Ms. Gorton. Members of the council, I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here tonight on behalf of the appellant in connection with our zone change hearing. And I had filed this request that we would be allowed to introduce these renderings simply because they were introduced at the planning commission. And if we're ever going to consider design as part of development, which we've talked a lot about, then I think you ought to at least be able to consider it for whatever value that you may deem it to be worth. If nothing, so be it. But we would like to be able to share it with you in terms of what our efforts have been today. Legally, if you decided not to have a hearing in this case, you'd have to base your decision on the record of the planning commission. In which case, it would be presumed that you reviewed the record of the planning commission, which would have the same renderings that we're asking to be considered tonight, again, for whatever value that they're worth. And I understand the reason for the rule that in the past, perhaps some applicants have come before the council and have said, well, we're going to do it this way and make it look nice and pretty. And then when you approve it, somehow it doesn't look that way. The difference in this case is this, we've committed to do the very thing that we're saying we're going to show you tonight by way of conditional zoning and, to the first time in my knowledge, covenants that would run with the land that would be binding not only upon this applicant, but would be binding on any applicant. We do that voluntarily. It's even more important than a zone change in terms of the law because it exists regardless of what the zoning might be. So we're pledging to back up what we're going to show you in terms of this illustration. But again, what I'm asking you to do is to be able to consider it in the same way that the planning commission. Thank you very much. So we would hope that you would do that. Thank you. Mr. Gardner, could we get your opinion on, I know that council members cannot approve final development plans. That's up to the planning commission. What would be our role based on what Mr. Simpson said in terms of if architectural renderings were approved and in our zone change, they go to the planning commission and do they affect the final development plan? The way you phrased the question, they would not because they would not really be part of your zone change decision. I believe what Mr. Simpson is referring to is an offer on behalf of this developer to record a deed of restrictive covenants that would bind that this property would be developed in a specific way and using certain design and architectural methods. That is something that is being presented or represented to you that they are prepared to do to assure that it gets done the way they are telling you. And that would have to be approved in the findings? No. No. So. The zone change, in fact, could be up or down without regard to that or it could be that the decision gets difficult because of the fact that that's not really part of what you all are being asked to do. Relates back to the fact that the planning commission has the control over the development plan. And even if the deed of restrictive covenants were put to record, there's still going to be a review by the planning commission of the proposed development and they would have the opportunity to, based on their decision making ability, to make some decisions related to it, notwithstanding whether those, whether that deed was in fact approved. We have some other questions. Council Member Stevens. I think my question's partially been answered in that if the applicant asserts that he will use these plans, if the zone were changed, then I would like to see them. Okay. Okay. Council Member Stennett. Well, you know, normally we've had this problem because I've been on council of seeing development plans and they change. Again, this council is not deciding what the final outcome is going to be and actually we're deciding what the zone is going to be tonight. But having said that, if there are covenants that you wish to introduce that would necessitate illustrating that on a plan, I think you should be allowed to do that to that extent. But to give us an overall plan of the whole area and say that's what we should base our decision on, I think that should be disallowed. But if there are covenants that pertain to illustration purposes only, then I would be in favor of something like that. Okay. Council Member DeCamp. Mr. Salih, is it normal procedure before the planning commission to see renderings such as they saw in this case? On a development plan, it's not uncommon at all. Right. But at the time that they're asking for a zone change. In some instances, that does happen then as well. It did in this particular case. Right. I mean, this is something that I have brought forward several years ago simply because I thought we were unduly prejudiced by some pretty plans and then never, ever saw anything near what after a zone change was made. And I thought it was unfair to this group to be able to see any kind of renderings because I think it has undue influence, especially as we're only to look at the use. Now, if there's some covenants that you want to put in there and want to illustrate just a particular thing, but we don't look at a total rendering of this, then I think that might be fair enough. But I think it's absolutely unfair to this body because you go back to a development level after, if there is an approval of the zone change, then you have to go back and get your development plans approved at a different level, not this level. And so, I mean, I think we're stepping in. If we see a total rendering and say, yes, you're going to build that, then we're usurping a decision that is not made by this body, but made by the planning commission under the development plan. So, I mean, I don't know how you can separate this, Bruce, if you're just going to use a particular sort of small piece to show us what, you know, that you're going to put into the agreement. That's a different story, but I would be very opposed to looking at a total development plan. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Bruce, could you speak to the issue that Councilman Stennett raised as to whether or not you're going to show us the full plan or what you need to show us with respect to the restricted covenants? Well, what we're, and again, the purpose of this is to be totally transparent in that what we're asking to see and what we can show you by illustration that exists in other communities. I mean, there's a way around the rule that we just do not get around. We'd like to show you what Steve Austin has designed. But we can show other examples in other communities. But Steve Austin has designed it. The Planning Commission saw this. And what we're proposing are architectural guidelines, standards for development that are illustrated in a very extensive way in a book that illustrates this concept that we're talking about, a town center that looks very handsome and exists all over the country, but it doesn't exist here yet because no developer has come before you except for one. And it's not built yet to do this. And there is a precedent. I mean, you have approved one of these. You just didn't have a public hearing on it. But this same kind of concept was approved three years ago out on Winchester Road. So I'm not trying to mislead anybody. And quite the contrary, what we're trying to do out of an abundance of commitment is to say there is no bait and switch to our proposal. What you're going to see tonight is what we intend to build. And we want to try to assure you in every legal way possible that we are committed to what we say. Everything that we represent, we want to be put teeth into it. And so this is from us. It's a voluntary commitment on our part. No one's forcing us to do this. We're simply saying we want to do this because we're serious about this. And I understand that in the past some people have not lived up to the word. But to my knowledge, no one has ever come before the council in connection with design alternatives that say we're going to not only do what we say, we're going to commit it in writing such that there's no question that the principles that we're talking about have to be lived up to. Obviously, when it goes back to the planning commission, they can have jurisdiction over the development plan. But these guidelines will still be in place in terms of overall commitment of what this project will look like. Did that answer your question? It does. And I just have one comment. And that is that, as you all know, I put this into committee, this very issue into committee. And it's interesting that someone is willing to come forward and say that we're willing to do covenant restrictions that require us to uphold what it is that we're presenting before you today if they're allowed to present it. And so I would be interested in seeing what they have to present. And maybe even this might end up being a test case. I don't know. But I know that we have this in committee and we need to figure out how we're going to address this issue long term. And so I would be in favor of them doing what they have to do today. Council Member Blevins. Thank you. Ed, I'm having trouble understanding what binding agreement we can have with Mr. Simpson tonight. All we get to do here is up or down on the zone change. Is that correct? Yes. So how is it that other than taking him at his word that covenants will appear someday, how will those appear legally is what I'm trying to get to. Well, they will have to be recorded by his client and then they would run in favor. I have he's I have seen a draft of what has been prepared or proposed and it would be put to record in the county clerk's office and then it would run in favor of the urban county government and could be enforced by the government. But at some future date, he will go down to the clerk's office and apply the covenants, correct? That's correct. So we're still and I don't mean to say this is the way it's going to sound. We're still relying on Mr. Simpson's word that they're going to do that. Is that correct? That's correct. OK, I'm fine with seeing the plans for the record. I just I want to make sure we all understand that it's still we're still relying on the word of the applicant here. Council member Baird. Second, I'm sorry, Tom. What we see on the wall over here, is it not a pseudo development plan anyway? It's not just a pure land use indicator, but it's got more to it than that. It shows plantings and parking and a lot of other things where the placements of buildings and we always present to you the development plan that is presented at the Planning Commission hearing. So what are we talking about then? Well, the procedure that's at question is architectural renderings, not a simple. Beyond that. Exactly. OK, well, I might say I'd like to see them also. Council member DeCamp. You know, the real estate market's a little iffy, goes, has its ups and has its downs. Once we make a zone change, the zone change is there. And, you know, Bruce has said we intend to, we want to, you know, I intend to do a lot of things that sometimes I don't get around to doing or I want to do something. I mean, if I just, you know, it just leaves a real gray area here. Not that I don't trust, you know, Bruce and I'm sure with all the good intentions. But I think everybody has got to know around that there is a real gray area because we cannot, any covenants that are put on have to be put on after the fact. And the fact is that we make a zone change. You know, a lot of things can happen between the time that we make a zone change and something positive happens. And if those positive things don't happen, the zone change is there. And, you know, that's a whole different kind of story. And I think that we all ought to be aware of this. I mean, you know, if they're going to, if this body agrees to see development plans, I'm not going to look the other way. I'll look at them. But I still think that we're skating on a little bit of thin ice here. Mr. Gardner, could you, it seems to me there have been a few council members sort of tiptoe around the issue of how architecture will relate to the land use, which our function is to approve the land use. Can you elaborate on that? I'm not sure I can. I mean, the basic question I think has been posed by the council members who are questioning whether you should review these or not. And that is that the questions being asked tonight is should the property be rezoned? There is a situation, I believe it was, I can't think of the address, but over near the Belcourt zone change, one of the more recent ones where I do believe the council did see some architectural renderings, maybe not to the extent that's being discussed tonight, but there, I believe, have been cases. And it simply, I'm hedging because I don't know, there's no clear answer to it. It really doesn't relate specifically to the quote land use because that's a zoning issue. And then within the zone, there's permitted uses and conditional uses and everything else that can be done in a myriad of different ways. But there's certainly where you're hearing an applicant talk about what they specifically have in mind. And there are in the proposal that they are proposing some conditions that could be put in by conditional zoning in terms of use, such as how many residential units there would be. And those kind of things could clearly be locked in tonight. What is not as clear or what cannot as clearly be locked in is how exactly are those units going to look and how exactly is the thing on the ground going to look. I'm sorry, I'm not really addressing it directly, but it's a very, it's kind of esoteric. Council Member Stennett. Thank you. Mr. Gardner gave me a perfect segue. I was going to ask Mr. Simpson, have you looked at conditional zoning? Yes. To establish some of the covenants you're talking about? And I would, my legal opinion is this. If an applicant for a zone change wishes to voluntarily submit covenants as a voluntary condition of approval, I believe this body can adopt that voluntary submission. If I want to come in here and voluntarily put extra commitments on property in connection with a zone change, you all can accept them as part of that condition and we're thereby bound. And what I'd propose to do is to commit to everything in this book, everything that it says we will do, we're going to do. And the restrictive covenant that I have to hand out that we will sign does that very thing in addition to other things relative to uses. And I believe any person that wants to voluntarily do that to the council, it's recorded in the minutes, it's accepted voluntarily. You all can make it binding in connection with the decision to rezone the property. That's my legal opinion. Did you get your answer? I did. But Mr. Gardner, so if we want to put in there, there has to be 100,000 retail square feet in this area. We could do that. We could do the number of units for housing. Yeah. The difficulty is that there are specific situations when you can put conditions on a zone change and a specific kind of conditions. And when architectural or other visual requirements are mentioned, it says you may do that, impose, quote, impose architectural or other visual requirements or restrictions upon development in areas zoned historic, which relates back to the original reason, I think, for Mr. DeCamp or whomever came up with this in the first place. So the voluntariness of the offer certainly could affect the defensibility of what the council did. But in terms of reading the ordinance as to the kinds of conditions that can be put on, I don't want to strongly disagree, but I have to somewhat disagree with Bruce's opinion. Mr. Gardner, did that answer your question? Because I guess my question then is, could the architectural piece be heard after the land use piece? If, in fact, you want to do it, if it's approved. It will be at the, it could be at the Planning Commission. So this body wouldn't really need it. But I don't believe it would be in front of this body. Okay. Another time, at another time. Okay. Council Member Maloney. Mr. Gardner, I can't see your face. Question, I mean, I'm kind of going on what Councilman Stenitz says. If we do pass tonight the architect of this the way they want it, can the Planning Committee, when they go back to the Planning Committee, say, oh, we can't do this. Can they override us and say, sorry, this, we can't do this? I may have to let Bill answer. But basically, the Planning Commission is not in a position to enforce what would, in essence, be restrictions on private property by deed. They would run in favor of the urban county government as proposed, but it would not be a strict limit on what the Planning Commission decision making would be. They could make some decisions based on the engineering requirements and other things at the final development plan stage that possibly could affect this, I think. So, you're saying is we could pass all these certain architect conditions and the Planning Commission could just say, I'm sorry, it's just not going to work. We have to go back and do another way of doing this. And even though this body, this council, made a condition on it, they can still override this. I wouldn't say that's black and white true, but there is truth in that. There's not, they're not going to be able to just completely undo what the applicant wants to do in terms of a development. Because if it fits with the zoning, and you can chime in, Bruce, if it fits with the zoning, then there's no reason for them to not agree to it if it fits within what the zoning has been changed to and is being proposed by the applicant. It would be things like engineering or other issues that might come up that possibly could affect it, but in terms of the way it would look, there would be no motivation for them to change that. Because they're, again, looking at what the applicant is asking to do at that point. I think, I mean, I'm going back a little bit what Dick said, Councilman McCann, that, I mean, I trust you, Bruce. I mean, I think you're going to, I don't have, I think you all do a tremendous job if it does pass whatever, but I just don't think we should be getting into the architect and all this kind of discussion, because I don't think this body is made up to do this. I'm not an expert at this, and maybe there are some here that are an expert. And I think planning has the expertise to make those decisions. And I'm not going to sit here and vote on these, even though it may look wonderful on the piece of paper, which I think is great, but I don't think I should be voting on something that I'm not the expert on that. I'm here to ask for, to make a zone change, and I'm not here to decide on how that building can be built, how the architect should be there, even though it may look wonderful. But to me, I don't think this body, and I think we should make it very simple that we're here for a zone change tonight, not be here to decide on what the architect or what the condition of this building should look like. Council Member Blevins. Thank you. I had another question for you. I hadn't realized that Mr. Simpson was proposing to introduce the covenants via a condition on the approved zone change. Are we overstepping our bounds as a council by doing that and stepping into the purview of the Planning Commission? I know there's other areas where we've been dangerous in that regard before. So I'm asking for your legal opinion that we could even legally do what he's proposing. I'm thinking, well, I'm doubtful, but I'm not a lawyer. He's going to confer. He has stated he is voluntarily proposing it. However, I stand by what I stated earlier, that is, the only time conditional zoning in relation to visual and architectural restrictions or conditions is in an architectural, I mean, I'm sorry, a historic situation. So I can't go beyond what the ordinance says. I'll just have to say that certainly if this board or body were to do that, you would be treading possibly over into the Planning Commission in a way that would probably not be the best thing that you could do. All right. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. I'm going to make a motion to exclude these renderings. I have a motion and a second to exclude the renderings. Is there any more discussion? If not, we'll take a, shall we take a voice vote, Clerk, or do you want us to vote on here? Okay. We'll take an electronic vote. Council Members, if you'll, this is to exclude the architectural renderings. So if you support that, you vote yes, and if you don't support that, you vote no. Seven to six. Is that correct? Seven to exclude, six not to exclude. Okay. So the architectural renderings will be excluded. Now, if we could go ahead, and I want to go through the rules of the hearing. If I, I'm sorry, Ms. Gordon, I understand about the renderings, but I can show photographs of what we're talking about that exist in other communities that we're proposing. I just didn't want you all to be thinking I was baiting and switching or not following your decision in connection with this case. Excuse me just one moment, Bruce. Apparently, Mr. Lane's vote did not get recorded. Oh. I just want to record your vote as, and then you'll have to, I'll have to do it over here now. No. It's not recorded. I vote in opposition to showing the renderings. I'll make that note. So the vote is still seven to seven, which does not pass. So now, back to you. You will be showing photographs in your testimony. Yes. Steve Austin will show them. Okay. Thank you very much. Now, at any rate, we will be having our public hearing, and it's up to the presiding officer to make decisions as to whether testimony is irrelevant or repetitious, and it's also up to council members to let the presiding officer know if you think that testimony is repetitious or irrelevant, and we can exclude or limit that. The petitioner, do you have a list of witnesses? Do we need an official list written? No. No? Okay. Anyone who testifies who wants to have information entered into the record will need to give a copy to the clerk, the council clerk, when you give your testimony. Each witness who testifies will be subject to cross-examination after their testimony, and then an opportunity by the other side to give any redirect questions. Anyone speaking at the podium needs to identify him or herself by name and address for the record, and all documents will be marked and numbered as exhibits and entered into the record. And so I think we've covered it all, Mr. Legal, so we'll start with the planning staff to give their presentation. And remember, if you were sworn in, you can testify. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the council, good evening. As is necessary, there are a number of items I need to enter into the record of your hearing this evening. The first is the legal notice that was published in the local newspaper advertising tonight's public hearing. Next is an affidavit signed by myself regarding the mailed notices that were sent to property owners within 400 feet of the subject property. The next item is the recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission on their public hearing on this zone change request earlier this year. This was distributed at your places before the start of the hearing, and for those in the audience, there are a few extra copies at the end of this calendar if you'd like to see that document. You need to enter into the record a copy of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan for the Urban County. And then finally, copies of the current zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations that are in effect for the Urban County. I'd like to orient you first to the location of the subject property using Zoning Mat 55 The subject property is on the corner of Winthrop Drive and Man o' War Boulevard. Man o' War is here on this map. It is to the west of Nicholsville Road, which is here, and it is at the southeast corner of Winthrop Drive. This is a signalized intersection with Man o' War, and as you go from Nicholsville Road to this area, you would cross the railroad bridge over the Norfolk Southern Line, and that would be the first traffic signal you would encounter going away from Nicholsville Road on the inner loop of Man o' War. Subject property includes two lots, a total of almost 15 acres of property. The larger tract is at the corner. It is zoned R4 and is vacant, and there is a small triangular parcel immediately to the south that is also vacant, but a large detention basin exists on that property. Both properties are zoned R4, that is a high-density apartment zone, and R4 zoning is also found in this area. To the east and to the south, there is residential development occurring on Golden Trophy Trail, which has an access to Winthrop just to the south of this area. There's also R3 zoning in this area for single-family homes on the north side of Man o' War and to the west and farther south of this location as well. The other zoning that appears in this general area is single-family residential zoning across Man o' War Boulevard on the opposite side of Winthrop Drive. So this property is entirely surrounded by residential development. I would like to show you about a half-dozen photos of the subject property in the surrounding area at this time. This is a view of the subject property looking from the south, and again, to orient you, we have Man o' War Boulevard here and Winthrop Drive is here. In the bottom of the photo, you can see the development ongoing on Golden Trophy Trail. You can also see the detention basin that occupies much of the southern lot associated with this zone change. This is a view now looking from the east to the west. Man o' War is on the right-hand side of the photo, and you see the subject property, the surrounding residential development. You can also see directly across Winthrop Drive is the only non-residential use immediately abutting the subject property. There is a Baptist church that is developed on that property, and currently they have a building addition in addition to this photo taken earlier this year. This is looking now from the west to the east at the subject property, a single-family development across Man o' War Boulevard, townhouses closer to the railroad line from the subject property, and in this area, a high-density apartment development on the north side of Man o' War also adjacent to the railroad line. In the vicinity are some other existing commercial centers. This is a center at Nichols Park in Man o' War. The railroad bridge I mentioned is here. It's anchored by a Lowe's and a Walmart, and there is some outlot development associated with that as well. Farther to the west of the subject property's location, we have the Mill Pond Center, again with some outlot developments anchored by a grocery store and a former health club facility. Across Boston Road is additional commercial development that is ongoing. The two vacant lots you see here are under development, and there are buildings now occupying that portion of the property. As was mentioned when the ordinance was read, the zone change request is from the R4 zone to a neighborhood business zone for the entirety of the subject property. As we always do, we look to the comprehensive plan, land use recommendation, and the plan itself for guidance in reviewing zone change decisions. To orient you to the land use element, we have Nicholsville Road here. Man o' War Boulevard is here. The subject property is on the southeast corner of Man o' War and Winthrop Drive. It is an area recommended for high-density residential use that is defined by the plan as residential development of 10 to 25 units per net acre. That also includes the townhouse area and the development on Golden Trophy Trail that we saw immediately to the south. Medium density is recommended for some of the single-family areas that border the subject property, and the area that's R1D is recognized as a low-density residential development. The planning staff, when we reviewed this request, noted that the petitioner is proposing 164 dwelling units for the subject property. That would calculate out to a density of between 11 and 12 dwelling units per net acre. However, they are proposing a mixed-use development for the property, which includes commercial and office land use that is not in agreement with the plan's recommendation. The staff then looked at the implementation section of the comprehensive plan document itself, again seeking guidance in reviewing this zone change since there were land uses proposed that were not in agreement with the plan. In that particular section, there are guiding principles and characteristics that must be reviewed in the implementation section in questions of reviewing the land use element. In this particular case, the staff found that this particular development did not do enough to provide connectivity, either at a pedestrian or vehicular level, to the adjacent residential properties, primarily to the east and to the south. And as a staff, we felt that it lacked the necessary characteristics to create a true neighborhood center at this location. As a result of that, and as a result of the fact that in 2005 the Planning Commission was presented with the concept of a mixed-use on this 15 acres, including retail and high-density residential, a proposal that they did not incorporate into the 2007 plan, the planning staff recommended disapproval of this rezoning request at the Planning Commission's public hearing in September of this year. The staff also thought that the proposal was oriented more to Manowar Boulevard and Winthrop Drive than to the surrounding residential areas that border it to the south and to the east. The Planning Commission, in late September, heard not only from the staff, but also from the applicant, from some supporters for this zone change, and some objectors to the zone change. And as a result of their hearing, they voted 8-0 to recommend disapproval of this rezoning request to the Council. The reasons are found on the recommendation from the Planning Commission. To briefly summarize, the first reason was that the requested B1 zoning was not in agreement with the comprehensive plan, in that the plan recommends high-density future land use for this site, while the applicant proposes a mixed-use development with commercial and office space contrary to the land-use element. Secondly, the proposal could not be found to be in agreement with the plan, because specifically it does not provide pedestrian-vehicular connectivity to the surrounding neighborhood, promote environmental sustainability, or maximize transit service. The Commission's second finding was that there have been no unanticipated changes in this area since the comprehensive plan was adopted in the early part of 2007. Thirdly, that existing retail, office, and commercial sites already in the established area, or within a half-mile of this neighborhood, adequately serve the area and there is no compelling need for additional retail or office space in this area. Finally, the Commission found the existing R4 zone is appropriate in that it will promote development in a fashion recommended by the comprehensive plan at this location. As was mentioned earlier, the Planning Commission also reviewed the preliminary development plan that was submitted in conjunction with this zone change request. There is a rendered version of that to my immediate left. Again, to orient you, this property is on the south side of Man o' War and the east side of Winthrop Drive. Very clearly, the triangular lot where the detention basin exists is not proposed for any development and the existing tree stand on that site is proposed to remain. The vacant lot to the north is proposed for a mixture of land uses, including a 14,000 square foot drug store very near the corner, a 3,000 square foot branch bank, and other buildings that are to have retail or restaurant uses on the first floor and residential uses above the first floor. That is the only way in the B1 zone you can have residential use is above the first floor. In addition to freestanding restaurants are proposed as part of the plan, in addition to just over 600 proposed off-street parking spaces, there are a couple of open space areas proposed in addition to a clubhouse and pool facility for this development. The development is proposed to have two access points, both to Winthrop Drive, one opposite the church's entrance, and one between that entrance and Man o' War, although that would function as a right-in, right-out, given the median in Winthrop Drive. That concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you very much. Of course, I will be available for questions later in the evening. Thank you. And I think this might be the point where you can be cross-examined by the petitioner or opponents. So does the petitioner have any cross-examination questions at this point? Any opponents? Are there any opponents? Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Sallee. Now we'll hear from the petitioner. Thank you, Ms. Gordon and members of the Council. I am Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of the applicant in connection with this zone change. And I appreciate Mr. Sallee's testimony. I would ask simply this. I know you've had a long day. I've committed to finish our presentation in 45 minutes. I'm going to honor that commitment. And however, there are a few folks that want to share information with you. And one of whom is Steve Austin, one of whom is Dermot Dawson, who is a principal in connection with this development with the Bell Reef Development Company. We have some neighborhood people that want to speak as well. Before we even got very far in connection with this zone change application, we had two meetings with the neighbors. And we notified everybody within the notification area to inform them of what we intended to do, what we'd like to do, to get their feedback. And to see if it was worthy of the neighborhood's consideration. And we found, to a large degree, that it was. And I would simply ask those that are from the surrounding neighborhood who are here tonight in support of this zone change application to please stand so that the Council can see by your presence that you're here in support of this application. Thank you. I ask that you keep an open mind and I'm mindful of what the Planning Commission decided and what your staff has recommended. And basically, what we have before you tonight is a choice. We can do things in connection with this property the way it's been zoned since 1996, R4, high density residential. Or we can look at an alternative form of development that we have given a lot of lip service in this community, but very little action. Mainly because we haven't had a developer come forward with a plan, a proposal, to have a mixed-use, integrated development that incorporates the number of residential units on the property that equates to high-density residential in connection with some small retail businesses, no big stores, this is only a 96,000 square foot shopping retail center. But mixed-use development with apartments, condominiums, professional offices, within walking distance, a five-minute walk of 2,000 people. We talk a lot about plans in this community and we'll go over some of those in terms of what they represent. And we will submit to you that, with all due respect to the Planning Commission, that they erred in this case because our application is in conformance with a comprehensive plan and for reasons that we'll get into. And in a particular part, if Jermon, if you will pass out the little green book right now, I'll help you. Basically, Ms. Gordon and members of the Council, under tab number two, this case is going to come down to our ability to prove, by evidence, the items identified under tab number three, the interpreted guidelines of the comprehensive plan. And we're going to show you, by the evidence, why we're conforming with every single feature of those guidelines so that we're warranting approval in connection with the zone change. You know, when you come before you all, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation and you all make a decision. You all make the final decision. And so you have to consider the evidence that we're going to introduce. Do we conform with these guidelines? And we're going to present, basically, unrebutted evidence that we do and warranting a zone change to have something totally special and totally unique. I want to introduce Steve Austin at this time to give you an overview of what we're proposing. This project has been in the process now for about nine months. It has gone through extensive review and evaluation. And it represents a unique opportunity for this Council to approve something totally different and unique, which we desperately need to change the face, the streetscape, of what development in the suburban quarters of our community looks like. You have that opportunity tonight. And I'm going to let Steve Austin, who is a town planner. He's a planner. He's a landscape architect. Many of you know him as the president of Bluegrass Tomorrow. He is not here tonight in that capacity. He is here in a private consultant capacity. I can tell you that in working with Steve in the past, he would not be down here tonight if he did not believe what he had to share was worthy of your consideration. Certainly, his credibility is important to him. It's important to me. And I'm sure it's important to you. And Steve is going to share with you the Winthrop project at this time. Thank you, Bruce. For the record, I'm Steve Austin. Your address, please. 304 South Hanover. Thank you. What I'm going to do is, as quickly as I can, and I think you'll see it as I go through it, but please stop me if I'm going too fast, to take you through my design process as I was asked to come in and help with this project, having the experience that I have as a town planner and a new urbanist, how can I make this as the most special kind of development for Lexington that we can. Mr. Sallee has already gone over the site plan. What I want to do is, if I can, is to kind of take you through very quickly the way I approached the design of this. I began with our wonderful comprehensive plan. And I think this project meets many areas of the comprehensive plan. I picked out, I think, the most salient. Goal number 14, establish and promote well-designed communities that promote appropriate services to multi-neighborhood areas and encourage community interaction. Objectives talk about mixed-use centers. The objectives talks about design and location criteria for mixed-use centers. So the plan is anticipating that these kinds of places need to occur. It talks about encouraging new residential developments to exceed minimum threshold densities, which is what we've done. And it also talks about reevaluating how we look at suburban shopping and residential units, residential developments, with particular emphasis on mixed-use and appropriate neighborhood-scale developments. Goal 15, preserve, protect, and enhance the character and quality of existing neighborhoods. It talks about the objectives of this to plan for establishment of retail uses. But most importantly in Goal 15, it says, encourage innovative design, planning, and development solutions that are consistent with neighborhood needs and character and promote human-scale, bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. The photographs I'm going to show you in a little bit will meet the objectives of this goal. Goal 16, promote well-designed new development that creates and enhances neighborhoods and communities. The key objective here is to encourage medium and high-density residential and higher-intensity non-residential uses that respect the character of existing neighborhoods and developments and are compatible with proposed development areas. That's what we're going to bring before you tonight, high-density residential, high-intensity non-residential in one package that the neighborhood wants to see. The comprehensive plan also talks about a land-use section that says every neighborhood should have neighborhood commercial areas within walking distance of most residents. I'm going to talk about that. The map shows that this particular piece of property is zoned and planned for high-density residential. The development in front of you tonight is high-density residential. We're simply asking to do something more. We're not talking about saying, well, give us commercial and we do something else. We've already got high-density residential built into this plan. We're simply saying, let us use this land more efficiently, more intensively than the comprehensive plan shows. In addition, the comprehensive plan talks about the various ways that you can get around the land-use map or you can improve on the land-use map. It has a section, and I quote, the purpose of this section is to articulate the guiding principles for which the interpretation of other plan elements in determining when in fact a proposal may be found in agreement with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan interpretation should take into account the following outcomes. It should support increased residential development compatible with existing nearby development. It should serve to create a cohesive urban form. It should promote environmental responsibility and sustainability. It should ensure timely provision and or upgrade of community infrastructure. It should promote a development pattern that links rather than isolates the community and the neighborhood. It should further adopted goals and objectives elsewhere in the plan while not seriously conflicting with any of those. And it must address the basic recommendations of the land-use map, especially where residential use is recommended. And that's what we've done. We're bringing to you a high-density residential development. So I'm going to go through these very quickly, each one by one. But in the background, the comprehensive plan says that if you want to find that something is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and yet not in compliance with the land-use map, the commission or in the council in this case should carefully review the proposal to determine whether it would not destabilize the surrounding area or raise the risk of unintended precedents. So keep that in mind. Are we going to destabilize the area with what we're proposing or create unintended precedents or are we threatening or compromising historic area sites or resources? If the council can make findings of this nature and after considering the things that we're going to lay out for you, then this recommendation can be found in agreement with the entire comprehensive plan. So the first kind of section or the first area that talks about how we can find this proposal in agreement with the comprehensive plan is that it supports increased residential density in a manner compatible and complementary with existing nearby development. You've seen the – you'll have to excuse this, I don't know why my computer is acting weird. Maybe it wanted to show the other presentation. As you've seen with Mr. Salih's presentation with the site plan itself, the land uses we believe and the design are very compatible because we've – with the surrounding neighborhood because we've gotten a lot of support in our community meetings. The folks here have turned out tonight. They want this and there's neighborhood. The suggested tenant types that we've added are proposed for this particular development are right in line with goal number 15 and the objectives of the comprehensive plan. The second portion of the interpretation of the land use map categories is to serve to create a cohesive urban form. This development is oriented to the neighborhood. It is not oriented to Man o' War Road. As we can see with this particular line of access, all of the buildings face inward on the village green that we're proposing. The views into the site from the Winthrop neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods are into the site. This is not a conventional strip mall. This particular development faces the neighborhood and it faces inward. There are two standalone uses that do face Winthrop Drive and I'll come back and talk about this in a second. Within a five-minute walk of this neighborhood, a minimum of 2,000 to 3,000 people are residents, many younger and elderly folks. If we look at the comp plan itself as a portion of the land use element, provide for neighborhood commercial areas within walking distance of most residents, if we begin to identify where those commercial areas are relative to this neighborhood, what we begin to see is that those 2,000 to 3,000 people are not within five-minute walking distance of either the Mill Pond Shopping Center nor the Lowe's and Wal-Mart Shopping Center. We've got a significant area that is not within walking distance of any particular commercial area. This development is oriented to the neighborhood. As I said, connectivity is a huge part of what we're proposing. We're making sure that people can walk to this, that people can bike to this, that people can get into this neighborhood in various ways besides simply driving their car to it. If we look at Mill Pond Center, which is half a mile down the road a little bit, we can see up in the upper left-hand corner, there are folks who look out their back door every day and see the back of Mill Pond Center, 150 feet separates them from commercial. The way that this particular center is designed, it turns us back to the neighborhood. Despite the fact that you live 150 feet from the shopping center, if you were to walk there, you would have to walk as far to this particular shopping area as if you were to walk to this more attractive, mixed-use, green area that we're talking about. This is a picture showing the view to the east. If you were to walk to the Lowe's and the Walmart shopping area, this is what the kind of walk that would await you. What we're proposing is to create integrated land uses that have very high pedestrian appeal. I'm going to go into this a little bit further. One of the things that I do as a planner is I go to walkscore.com to see how neighborhoods rank in terms of their walkability. This has not only impacts on the environment, the social networks, but it also has impacts on the value of the houses in a particular area. The walkscore of the folks that live in this area is 29 out of 100. I don't know that I've seen anything lower than 29. If we can look at the hundreds of dwelling units, the thousands of people that live here, it seems that we should offer some alternative besides getting in the car and driving to the nearest shopping center, which is either Mill Pond or the Walmart shopping center. Just by way of comparison, if we look at a neighborhood, and we can pick many out here in Lexington, this is the Hollywood, Mount Vernon area. Their walkscore ranks 83 out of 100. That's the kind of dramatic shift that we're talking about. We have, in our design, created and paid special attention to the public realm. We are creating a place for people, a place that people want to be, and we have seen numerous examples of this around the country where land uses address the streets, street life and level activity occurs. Architectural details, which we went into a discussion of before, but just generally, these are the kinds of details that are necessary to make this kind of development work. We mix uses vertically and horizontally to ensure that we have the most holistic community experience as possible, unlike almost every single new suburban development in Lexington, where you have residential on one side of a berm, looking at the backside of a shopping center, or office buildings down the street from a shopping center. We're talking about mixing uses vertically on the site. Shops on the first floor, offices, apartments above, if that's what it takes. And again, I'm going through this very quickly, we could spend a lot of time showing you examples from developments around the country that are utilizing these design principles. We do have two freestanding uses on the site. A majority of new urban developments that I've visited do have freestanding uses on the site. They have the three-story traditional streetscapes, while at the same time acknowledging economic realities with a drugstore or a bank, for example. These are two site plans that show that this is Birkdale Village outside of Charlotte, North Carolina. They've created a wonderful streetscape with mixed uses. They have two freestanding outlots or commercial uses. This is Mashpee Commons on the bottom, and again, they have something very similar. I think that's a tradeoff that you make to ensure the economic viability. It does nothing to lessen the value or the creativity of the particular development. The comprehensive plan says if you're going to do this and we're going to make leeway or make exceptions to the land use map, you should give special attention to parking. Parking or the design should not be driven by parking. In this particular development, there are no large parking fields. Parking on the main square is angled and parallel. There's no 90-degree parking, which lessens the harshness of parking, and the main parking is hidden from the town square. Again, this is very similar to many developments that we've seen around the country to create that desirable streetscape. Long street parking in front of the buildings, larger parking lots broken up behind the buildings. Environmental responsibility and sustainability. We believe that this kind of development is vital for the environmental future of not only Lexington, but we think this country. Compact, multi-story, mixed-use, walkable developments are the most environmentally sensitive developments possible. A study that came out on the 20th of September of this year that said you can't buy clean cars and greener buildings alone are not the entire solution. They're not enough to tackle the climate change problem. This is a flyer from a conference that's being held this week in Chicago that says why hybrid vehicles won't save the planet. The gist of this is this. We can't continue to separate things and make people drive and talk about environmental responsibility. We've got to encourage at every level we can the ability for people to walk or bike or take transit to developments. This is from the president or the executive director of the American Planning Association. We need more development that is compact and allows a mix of uses. Planners throughout the country recognize this. We're proud that we're talking about something that is perhaps the most environmentally sustainable thing that we can. Our development promotes linkage rather than isolation. We encourage walking and cycling. We encourage things, pedestrian-friendly things such as traffic calming, very narrow curb radii and the like. These things don't happen by accident. You have to design them in. Conventional suburbia does not do this. We talk about the importance of streetscapes. We talk about the importance of pedestrian amenities such as benches. We don't have benches anywhere in suburbia because nobody walks to suburbia. So therefore, we don't need benches. The importance of proper street trees, the importance of encouraging alternative transportation, be it neighborhood electric vehicles, bikes, or in this case, mopeds. A transit route was added that went directly by this site earlier this fall. The developer proposes to build a bus shelter on this property to serve this transit route. And then finally, the last prescription is that the basic use recommendations of the land use map should be adhered to, especially where residential use is recommended. The development takes full advantage of the allowable residential densities. On the smallest net acreage, we've got nearly 14 dwelling units per acre. Despite the density of the site, the walkable amenities such as shops and restaurants as well as the clubhouse and pool will enhance resident quality of life. Regarding density, it boils down to this. Our community is going to grow more densely than it has in the past. We face a choice of density for density's sake without regard to the environment, our social network, or our physical health. Or we can choose density with regard to the environment, our social network, and our physical health. And that's what we believe this particular development plan offers. We have a community green that's nearly an acre in size. Developments of this type across the country use these to promote sociability, to promote health, to promote community. They have concerts here, they have community activities, Santa comes, they have Easter eggs, they play bluegrass music, they salute the flag on the 4th of July. The kind of park that we're talking about is equal to one of the courthouse plazas or Central Park downtown. It's larger than Cheapside Park. We've also taken into consideration the neighbors to the south of this particular development. Those folks who live here, we've got an extensive landscaping plan to ensure that while they're welcome, we don't intrude unnecessarily. And to that end, we've shown a series of landscaping options that will buffer, I think, extensively any impacts that were to reach these folks. These folks are several hundred feet away from the interior of this development. But we want to make sure that we're as good of neighbors as possible. And then finally, what it boils down to, the discussion we had earlier, is how does all this happen? It doesn't happen by accident. We can't simply show this pretty picture and say, well, if we show it, it'll happen. This becomes the model, if this is approved, of how we do it other places. Somebody's got to be the first. This developer says, I want to be the first. So we have proposed and would agree to the most extensive urban design guidelines that I've seen, that I've been a part of, not just in Lexington, but in Central Kentucky. And I'm not going to spend any time on them, but the idea is this, that if we're serious about this as a community, we've got to get serious about these kind of architectural restrictions. We can't simply trust that it will happen in the absence of these architectural restrictions. So we cover the entire range. We talk about HVAC, for example. We talk about window bulkheads and how big they have to be. And we use a couple of examples. This is Townley Center and Dennis Anderson's development, who's done a good job of that. When we talk about architectural restrictions, these are the types of things that will be agreed to so that we can ensure that this development gets built in the way that we've presented it tonight. So thank you all for listening, and I'll be glad to answer any questions or turn it back over to Bruce. Thank you, Mr. Austin. Thank you, Steve. Dermotti is passing out, actually, the hardbound copy of Steve's PowerPoint. Last two architectural renderings that Dermotti and I quickly extracted, members of the council. We simply wanted you all to see the level of detail and work that has gone into Steve's design, the thought process, the quality of what's being proposed. And it's a serious commitment, as indicated by what we discussed before this hearing began relative to our seriousness of committing to do this project the way that is illustrated in that handbook. We also had actually created a scale model of this project, which you could actually walk around and see it from a real-life perspective in terms of how it would look, and both if you flew over it like in a helicopter and drove through it in a car or walked through it as a pedestrian. In any event, it is the first serious commitment that I'm aware of to actually create something unique and special that it seems to me you all have asked for for quite a long time. I point to, as evidence of that, the memorandum of understanding that this body reached with the mayor back in January of this year. It's under tab number one. And I highlighted one of those principal guiding features for you all's work during the coming term, which is to embrace a creative and innovative approach to planning, which is what we're trying to do tonight, embrace a creative approach to planning. We could do this the same old way. We can have the same old strip centers at the same old corners with a sea of parking, which no one likes, or we can come up with a walkable, integrated, mixed-use development that not only the developer is willing to commit to, but as evidenced by the number of people who have come down here tonight who live in the neighborhood, that they would like to have as part of their neighborhood. Now, obviously, not everyone is in agreement, but the great majority of the people who have stood here tonight certainly vouch for the endorsement of our proposal. Again, it is about the guidelines of what is in compliance with the plan. We set forth under tab number three. Steve Austin went through and detailed and backed that up with evidence of what our commitment is and why we're in compliance with the comprehensive plan under tab number three. Under tab number four of the handout is a document, excerpts, that you all adopted as a council back in July of this year, in which you all wanted to have more bicycle and pedestrian orientation with respect to new development, and what did you say? What did you say in terms of your guiding policy? What you said was that in terms of development patterns, we want to incorporate a mix of land uses and new developments in infield projects that place retail, schools, and parks in close proximity to where people live to reduce the length of regular routine trips. You said you want to create incentives to encourage compact, higher density residential developments as needed to support neighborhood-oriented commercial development and to encourage transit use. In this project, we're right next to a major Lexington transportation route, Lexington transit route, bus route that's newly created in this area. We have, for the first time, a true neighborhood mixed-use center. Typically, you see strip centers. You look around the community and you'll see strip shopping centers all over the place. You don't see anything like this. So we're in compliance with your adopted plan to have more pedestrian connectivity, more bicycle activity. Under tab number five is the bus route that Steve talked about. Indicated in red is the shopping center where the bus route comes by to serve the people. Under tab number six is a letter to Terry Garcia-Owens committing to build a bus stop, a shelter for people right at the end of the bus line there where it stops to serve this center. In addition to commitment to that, we've committed under tab seven and eight to build this center with green building principles. We committed to the planning commission to do that. That's in compliance with your comprehensive plan. It's an energy saver. It's an atmospheric protection that we need to go more and more towards. Under tab number nine is, of course, our traffic study. We comply with all the provisions of the comprehensive plan relative to level of services, all the key intersections. Under tabs number 10, 11, and 12, you will see Steve made reference to Townley Center. I know Councilmember Blues is familiar with that. Townley Center is a mixed-use development. It was recommended by the planning staff and the planning commission against being approved. It was against the comprehensive plan. The neighborhood and the developer work together, much like we have in this case, to come up with a mixed-use residential retail development, and the council approved it. Likewise, under tabs number 12 is Patch and Wiltz. That was a zone change in which the planning commission adopted a mixed-use development just like this, same principles, same guidelines, same reasons. This body approved it without a public hearing, so we believe there's ample precedent for this to be considered by this body as well. I just want to illustrate a couple of other, through some photographs, what Steve pointed to in terms of what we're proposing to do with this land use that would probably not be done, but for what we're proposing. That has to do with the detention basin and also the view scape along Man O' War. As most of you know, detention basins serve a purpose of dealing with stormwater runoff so that we don't have flooding in adjoining areas. This particular property, if you can put it up there now, Alden, to dim the lights a little bit, these photographs of this basin are in your handouts under tabs number 13. This almost has a three-acre detention area, and it serves the function of detaining stormwater, and it could remain in the same format. You'll see the next slide will have another photograph of the detention basin. That's the way it exists now, and likely, if we were to put apartments there, it would probably remain pretty much as you see it there today. What we've proposed with this plan in terms of this mixed-use project, though, is to take that detention basin, almost three acres, and actually make it an amenity, a water feature much like you see at Lexington Green that serves a seafood regatta that people go and eat dinner on out frequently, to dress it up, clean it up, and make an attractive amenity, have some fountains and that sort of thing. That's part of this overall project and part of our commitment to the neighbors and to the planning commission and to this body. The next photograph is, in contrast, we can have the same strip centers. This is a half a mile away. This is a Walmart and Lowe's site that you see from Man O' War, and the next slide is the typically filled Walmart parking lot off of Man O' War. We could have that in terms of future retail, or we can do it differently, and that really is the challenge. And we're proposing, by way of our commitments, and I had put in restrictive covenants. I understand that you all don't want to consider those. Those are under tab 14 to indicate our level of our commitment. Under tab 15, we have also put in our conditional zoning provisions relative to this proposal, and that is we agreed to eliminate gas stations, freestanding fast food restaurants, freestanding liquor stores. We'd also eliminated a number of other uses that the neighbors wanted. All of those are set forth in there, in addition to the screening buffer of pine trees, 10 foot on center, staggered all around the south end of this basin. There was concern expressed about the outdoor playing of music. You can't do it in a B1 zone. It has to be inside in terms of live music, and then only by way of a conditional use permit that's obtained through the Board of Adjustments. So you would not have any live music being played outside for anyone. And we would suggest that, quite frankly, if you wanted to do a high-density apartment complex, if you wanted to have 250 units there, we could have a basketball court, tennis court, swimming pool, and volleyball, and it would be quite active. It could be well up into the hours of the night. What we're proposing is it would be much less intrusive in terms of the existing neighbors, much more compatible with the existing neighbors than that potential kind of use. And still, we would qualify, and this is the important part, we would qualify with our proposal for what the current zone is, which is high-density residential development. We're in perfect compliance with that part of the plan. Staff certainly doesn't dispute that. And we believe, as witnessed through what Steve Austin has demonstrated through those guiding principles of green buildings, of interrelationships, of having this center within a five-minute walk of 2,000 people, for small retail, restaurants, boutiques, places to get your hair cut, places to eat, get your pharmacy supplies, do some banking, there's a five-minute walk that we can encourage in the suburbs for the first time. We have a developer willing and ready to commit to it. I have demonstrated, by as much as I can say, of our seriousness about the commitment that we're going to undertake. Now, Dermot Dawson is a principal with this development. I've worked with Dermot extensively in connection with the plans for all of this. He has traveled around the country looking at these sites. He's willing to put up his money, along with his partner, Mr. Hughes, and others, to make this work because it's demonstrated to work. In every single chamber trip that we've gone on, what we're proposing tonight exists in those communities, but it does not exist in Lexington, Kentucky. It's time for that to be considered. It's time for it to be done. I want to have Dermot share with you his research and his reasons for proposing the development that's before you tonight. Thank you, Bruce. You have about seven minutes. All right. It's going to be short. We welcome you. You guys need to get home and have dinner. Members of the Council, Dermot Dawson, 24 Avenue of Champions, Nicholasville, Kentucky. As Bruce alluded to with this development, why we need it, I used to live in Lexington up until I was drafted in Pittsburgh in 1988, and I've traveled all over the country in different states. You see the mixed-use developments in a lot of different states, but you don't see them here. I think the reason why we need them here, other states have adopted and approved such mixed-use developments, such as the one that we're proposing here on Winthrop. Many people ask, what value, if any, does it bring to a neighborhood or a community? What we're trying to create, it's not going to be ... Everybody knows what the regular shopping centers are, the concrete, driveway, parking lots, and then you've got your retail. What we want to do is create something different, which is more family-oriented in the design that we're proposing with the residential and the retail, but also 20% of the space is going to be green space with a courtyard, also the detention basin. We're going to dress that up and make it a water feature where you have walkways where people can have their families come and walk and just enjoy, feed the ducks. We want to create something totally different than what you see here usually in Lexington. I've been all over the country, and I tell you what, I've been in Arizona and different places, and they have a lot of mixed-use developments there, Boulder, Colorado, Florida. Lexington, it's time for a little change, and I think we could use something like this for what we're proposing. What it creates, other than your regular shopping centers, I think it creates more of a family atmosphere with the green space where the kids can come and more of a family atmosphere where they can come and have dinner, go and eat ice cream, go feed the ducks, and sit out in the courtyard and enjoy the green space. That is totally different from the usual development we have here and around Lexington. Right now, I know that there's been a big movement for downtown redevelopment with the addition of the townhouses and center court, which is great, but I think also that concept needs to be moved to the suburbs as well and have fresh ideals and just new concepts introduced into the suburban market as opposed to just downtown. I've lived here all my life, a Lexingtonian. After I finished playing professional football, I ended up coming back here and getting into commercial development. And like Bruce alluded to earlier, I traveled around extensively and everywhere I go, I always look at the new developments that they have out there, take pictures and kind of get an idea of what we can implement here in Lexington that would create a different facade because everything is pretty much the same. And that's why we wanted to try to bring something new and fresh here to Lexington. But, and that's the main reason, we wanted something totally different and new. And I came back here to raise my family after leaving Pittsburgh, playing professional football there for 13 years. And I would like to see new things here. I mean, we've made great progress over the years since I've been gone. And when I come back, something else is being built, but it's always the same concept. And we want a new creative, open to new creative ideals and designs. And that's what we're proposing. If you guys do agree upon the zone change. So, I just wanted to convey to you guys that it's going to be a first class. If you guys do approve the zoning, it's going to be a first class development. And I can guarantee you that. And thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Simpson, you have about 60 seconds on your 45 minutes. Do you have any 60 second words for us? The only thing I want to do is introduce the affidavit where the sign was posted. Ms. Gorton, affidavit and sign that Roy Kaley did for us. I'll reserve any further comments in terms of for the closing or any rebuttal that may be necessary, but that is our case. We appreciate your attention. I would ask that you review Steve Austin's booklet. It is a very extensive compilation of what we propose to develop on this site. I do believe the neighbors would like to share some of their comments with you though. Thank you very much. Is there any cross-examination of Mr. Simpson, Mr. Austin, or Mr. Dawson from staff or any opponents? No? Okay. Are there any opponents who wish to speak? Now is your chance. Have you been sworn in? Okay. Please step to the podium and give us your name and address. My name is Dallas Erickson, 425 Joseph Brianway. I would just like to express a concern that the Mill Pond Center, located close to this area requesting a zone change, has five listed vacancies. Gold's Gym left the area a few years ago. They do have a new fitness place, but a consignment store has gone out of business and the Dollar Tree that was located there is now relocated closer to the mall where they can get more traffic. It's just a concern that if this doesn't succeed, what will it do to the land value for homeowners in the area? Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there other opponents who wish to speak? Okay. If not, does our staff have any further additional comment? They'll be next, if that suits you. I'm kind of following an order here. Well, there don't seem to be any more opponents due there, so we can have any supportive people speak and then we'll hear from staff. For the record, my name is Jimmy Van Epps, 525 Mill Pond Road. Ladies and gentlemen of the council, I come to you as a representative tonight of 113 residents living in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Winthrop development. As a group, we are united in our support for this project. I would like to enter the names and signatures of these 113 citizens into the record. Am I supposed to say let that be entered into the record? Was I supposed to ask? I'm sorry. No, you're not. You're doing fine. Okay, now don't take this lightly. There are 113 people that would come here to speak tonight to the council in support of this project. Now just think, 113 multiplied by three is quite a long time, a lot longer than a quadruple overtime Kentucky football game, so let's keep that in mind. For some reason or another, all these people couldn't come here tonight, but we still stand united in this project for this community-oriented development. And as a neighborhood, we want this project. As a community, we want this project. One of the most understood absolutes in politics is that people will show up and express their aversion for something they don't want, but it is quite difficult to get someone to go the extra mile for something they do want. Now how many times have you seen citizens show up in droves and express their concern over a development? I'm sure there's been many times. As a council, you've heard numerous zone change requests. Now how many times have you guys seen 113 signatures in favor for a development in their backyard? I would say there's not been too many. We are asking you to approve a development that is centered around an outside-the-box idea. Now for many years, developments in and around Lexington have consisted of basically one thing. You have retail space, or you have professional space, you have condos and or restaurants. Now why not bring all these sectors into one and create synergy? My first thought when I saw this development was the community of Seaside in Destin, Florida. The community revolves around the green space that serves as a host for many community events. Surrounding the green space are shops, restaurants, offices, and residences that are diverse as the owners and citizens around them. Now these are not big-box retail stores. These are not chain restaurants. These are local eateries and local stores. Our question as a neighborhood is why not bring this to Lexington? Why not have this development as a model for future development and infill for the city of Lexington? We ask for your support in this project that achieves 21, or I'm sorry, 17 of the 21 goals and objectives of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Van Epps. Are there other supporters who wish to speak? I'm Bill Ault. I live at 569 Golden Trophy Trail in the Magnolia Run gated community. We are really directly south of this new addition. I hope it'll be a new addition. I've talked to several neighbors that are around me and they are all in favor of this. They tell me they, please, please go down there and talk to them and get something done about that retention area there. We had weeds three and four feet high there this year. In fact, the pictures they had did not do justice to what we've seen there this year. Picture yourselves maybe living in this area and what would you want in this particular area? I mean, you've got a choice here. Possibly high density apartments or just find development. It's gonna be a green development. It's gonna have trees. There's gonna be places where kids can get and walk around. We can ride our bicycles up there. And it'll be integrated in itself. The people that live there will have their own swimming pool. They'll have their own clubhouse. I think it's a different concept than what you've really seen around Lexington. And it's something that I would appreciate you really looking into. I know it's difficult. You're concerned about the density of traffic in this area. But I think something like this, the traffic would be more steady than it would be in a high density area where people go to work at one time and come home at another time. Where you're gonna really have traffic jams probably in the more critical time of the day. So I appreciate very much your attention to this and your vote in favor of this zone change. If you don't vote for this thing, what else are we gonna have? This thing has sat out there for years as nothing has been done about it. We need to do something and get something going here. And I think they have proposed a beautiful proposal to you. I don't think you could have anything finer in an area than what you can see right here. So thank you very much for listening to me. I don't envy your jobs tonight. And please vote in our favor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ault. I was just brought a sign up sheet. And so I will start calling names from the sign up sheet. And if you haven't been, oh, you don't wanna speak anymore, those of you who signed in? Okay. There are a few who wanna speak. They may be sworn, but I did not sign in as a speaker. You were sworn in, did you say? Okay, yes, you may speak. So we'll just ditch the list. And go ahead and go to the podium and state your name and address. Thank you. My name is Paul Sisk. My address is 3421 Fleetwood Drive. But I stand in representing the Anchor Baptist Church where I'm the pastor, 3601 Winthrop Drive, directly across from the proposed development. I could spend time telling you about all the little details as it applies to the development, but I wanna share with you from a pastoral and a church perspective, our look at this development. The scriptures are very clear that we are to do two things. Love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and then love your neighbor as yourself. A problem these days is that we don't know how to be neighborly. We are so easily confined to computer screens and staying within our own little domiciles and getting in our cars with our cell phones or turning up the radio, we have lost the interconnectivity that should be there and is absolutely vital if we're going to love our neighbor. I believe that this development helps us move back to a place, a place back in time, where it was common for folks to sit on the front porch and as people would come by, strike up a conversation and come on up and visit. I think this will help us get to know our neighbor. And if we don't know our neighbor, we certainly are going to have difficulty loving our neighbor. We're in favor of this development. Thank you very much. Are there others who wish to speak in favor? Okay. Now, Mr. Sallie, this would be your opportunity to add any additional comments. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gordon. I do have two rebuttal comments. Mr. Simpson has entered into his packet minutes of the Planning Commission meeting for the Townley Center zone change and also for the Patchen-Wilkes zone change. I need just to address some information about those. In the case of Townley Center, both the planning staff and the Planning Commission did recommend disapproval of that zone change to the council. The nearest neighborhood was in support of that proposal. The main reason that we did recommend disapproval of that was nearly 10 times the amount of non-residential use was being requested with that development than was recommended by the comprehensive plan. And that was of a concern to the staff. And I would note here, five years after that zone change, still not all the retail and restaurant land use has developed on that proposal, although it does seem to be doing very well. Secondly, in the case of the Patchen-Wilkes zone change, also in 2002, the Planning Commission minutes do note that the staff and the Planning Commission did recommend approval of that zone change. What is not clear from the minutes is the fact that those were filed in September of that year. And if you'll note, those minutes are from November. And on the Planning Commission's agenda, the original recommendation was for postponement of that request. What happened over the two months between the time it was filed and the time that the Planning Commission hearing was held is there were a number of discussions between the staff and the applicant focusing on things like connectivity to residential land use that had been planned in the vicinity of that center. And that, and an amendment to the original request, did allow the staff finally to recommend approval of that. And ultimately, that was rezoned. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Salley. Mr. Simpson, does the petitioner have any rebuttal? I suppose I would just take the opportunity to rebut and close for the sake of time, if that's permissible. That's fine. Hearing no objections, I'll proceed. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm a lifelong resident of this community. I've had the privilege of coming down here before you all since 1988. I have never been in a case where there was a proposed commercial use next to a residential neighborhood where there were proposed apartments as a part of that, or condominiums, proposed offices, and had the level of support come down during the night for a council case in support of a zone change. Now, I've witnessed in Townley Center, Metathorpe working with the developer. Mr. Salley indicated the staff disapproved that. The Planning Commission disapproved it strongly. I've not seen any adverse consequences from that. I think in this case, we're even a couple of levels above Townley Center case, and in that this is the last part of undeveloped land in this area. This is the last remnant parcel. And yeah, we could do the same old thing. We could maintain the status quo. We could drive around Man o' War and seeing the same back of buildings facing Man o' War that dominates the landscape for those of us who live in that end of town, which is where I live. I grew up there. Or we can do what you all suggested with your memorandum of understanding. You have no opposition from the neighbors. You have complete support from the developer. I tried as best I could at the beginning of this hearing to commit my life and soul, almost, to do this, to build it even. And so I say I can't demonstrate any more seriousness about the level of commitment to do the thing that we have said we're going to do. You know, I believe that very much when you deal with people, when we've dealt with the pastor, when we've dealt with the church, when we've dealt with the neighbors in the meetings that we've had, you know, you understand whether someone is being straight. And you understand if someone is being credible. And when you back it up with promises and commitments and voluntarily willing to be bound by things, when no developer would ever do such a thing, at least in my experience in 20 years, this developer, Dermotti and Jim Hughes have chosen to do so to demonstrate that we are going to do this. We're going to make that basin attractive. We're going to make this a gateway into this neighborhood. We're going to make it a special place. And we're going to create a model for suburban development. Nothing gets done unless people are willing to risk their capital to make it successful. This is a $30 million project. That's a lot of money to risk. It's a lot of money to commit deed restrictions to in support of their commitment to do the very thing that they have discussed with the neighbors, with the planning commission, with the staff for six months. Steve Austin wouldn't come down here on a whim. You know Steve. I can find no better, no credible representative of creative new urbanism planning in this state than Steve Austin. If I could, I would use him, but I can't find him. He knows what he's talking about. He knows what we need. He's talked to you before time and time about what we need. And now you have an opportunity. You have a choice. You have commitment. You have as much neighborhood support as you've ever seen for development of this nature. Please take advantage of this opportunity, honor the commitments, the pledges. Let us have the chance to do the thing that we've pledged to do. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone from the opposing side who wants to do a summary? No? Oh. Then we will turn it over to the council members for questions of the staff, the petitioner, and any opponent. And we have a list here. And first on the list is Council Member Stennett. Thank you. I guess I'll start off my questioning to Bruce. Why be one? Why not the mixed-use zone? The mixed-use zone only applies in certain areas of downtown. It doesn't fit. The B1 does. It allows for residential development to be placed on top of retail. It is the same zone that we used in the Warren Rosenthal project, which is exactly like this on Winchester Road, 25 acres, it's bigger. And so it is a planning tool that accommodates exactly what we're proposing. What about the parking? How many parking spaces are planned in this area? I mean, will there be a structure of parking spaces for the company, all the townhomes and condos? We have sufficient parking in terms of the numbers. I'll let Steve, if he knows, or Rory Kaley knows the number of parking, but those have been factored into in terms of compliance with the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance. Steve? So it'll all be surface parking, then? It'll all be surface parking, and we'll actually provide more than the ordinances would require. And what about the lighting of that parking lot? Will they be buffered? How tall will the lights be? I mean, is there gonna be- That'd be buffered, and I think that's covered by ordinance, isn't it? I'm not sure there is a height restriction to the lighting. There is an ordinance provision that lighting from a commercial property cannot be directed at a nearby residential property, but there's no height limit inherent in that. Okay, and Bill, since you're on the microphone, the mixed-use zone, is it correct, they cannot be outside of Newspark Road? That's correct. The mixed-use zone has not only that limitation, but a number of other locational criteria that are part of the zoning ordinance. And any change in that, obviously, would have to come before this council to alternate or change the mixed-use zone? Yes, sir. And the staff, part of your disapproval was due to several goals in the comprehensive plan or characteristics, as it says in here. One of those is the goal, I believe Ms. Wade rebuttaled it, in terms of job creation. What is your department's interpretation of the, I guess our goal is to create more jobs here in Fayette County, simply put. What is your interpretation of what type of jobs those are? Well, with a development scenario, that is often an issue when you're looking at residential versus commercial use. Generally, the commercial use tends to have employment, office or industrial the same way. I think what the staff points out is there is also job creation through residential development. And that would be through construction, through residential services and things of that nature. Obviously, the employment is very different in the two, but both do generate tax revenues from the payroll standpoint. But there's no clear indicators of what type of jobs those have to be. I mean, from a council member's standpoint, I would be looking more for sustainable jobs, rather than jobs that are temporary, such as the construction jobs. And I think the retail, while we may not, they may not be desirable long-term for our sustainability of revenue for this government. We all would like to have the industrial manufacturing jobs, 100, 200 jobs. But unfortunately, that's not always the case. But I don't see the goal as saying there has to be a specific type of job. I mean, that's what I read in the minutes, and I don't see that. I'm not sure the comprehensive plan is that specific as to the type of employment. Okay, because that's what they referred to back in some of the minutes. Also, Bruce, can you address the type of condominiums? What price range will they be? You know, the price range will probably range around $175 to $225, somewhere in that category. Is that right, Jim Germani? Somewhere in that price range. And they'll be available for sale, and if somebody wants to lease them out, they'll be leased out, you know, just like the rest of the residences in the, you know, the nearby neighborhood. Well, we'll talk a little bit about the commercial end of it. We've all sat on this council, and we've all asked for more commercial retail space downtown. We saw the several studies recently done where there's not a demand for retail downtown, supposedly, or has changed dramatically, where people are scaling back a little bit here in the last several months. What have you all looked at outside of New Spokane Road, since mixed use is not available out there, in terms of retail demand? Have you all documented anything through any type of studies or anything? Well, we have, and I can have Mr. Hughes come up here, or Germani, either one, because they're the ones that have looked at these centers, and I asked them the same question. I said, you know, when you're gonna invest $30 million, what is your sense that it's going to be successful? And the answer that I've gotten is this, that these kinds of mixed use centers, with the civic green space, with the small square footage for the stores, these are kind of boutique type stores. You're not talking about a grocery store. The biggest store we'd have in this center, 7,000 square feet, and that'd be for a restaurant, a fine dining restaurant. The rest of them are between 1,200 square feet and 4,500 square feet. These are places for ice cream shops. These are places for salons. These are places for the usual kinds of neighborhood activities that people go to, and these centers, if you've been to them, I've been on several trips with the chamber, and people hang out there. They use these centers a lot. I mean, you go to Lexington Green on the weekend, that's the center of the South End. That's where I hang out a lot of times. We're gonna have that and better for this neighborhood to enjoy as an amenity, and so I think what attracts people is the combination of the people that live there and the people in the neighborhood who are integrated with this development to use the kinds of neighborhood-oriented services that are close by in an attractive setting, and Jemai, did you have anything? Can I do it in the microphone? You need to go to the microphone, please. And with the proposed residential, we're gonna try to have businesses, sub shops, ice cream shops, salons, hair, nail, things that the residents there can utilize themselves, along with the two restaurant pads that we have, the bank, and also a potential drug store. Very good. Well, I just wanna say a couple comments. I represent my district as the sixth district, which is outside of New Circle Road, totally, every inch of it. We don't have the advantage of mixed-use zoning out there. You mentioned Petch and Wilkes, which is in my district, which is the B1, as you mentioned earlier, but we have Hamburg. We have situations out there where traffic is not good, but yet, it was a need created at the time, and here's an opportunity to probably do something a lot different, and I know my district would benefit greatly from this type of design and planning, so I would invite you out to the northeast end of Lexington, and I have a couple properties along New Circle Road. I'm sure we'd like to have this type of design, but it puts this council in a bad situation because time and time again this year, we've seen where the comprehensive plan, it was just passed nine months ago, is not in agreement with our current infill and redevelopment goals. I know Council Member Stephens and Council Member James have worked extensively on the infill and redevelopment committees, and we haven't had a lot of outcomes of those yet, but I think this is pushing the trend that maybe there's a lot of opportunity in our city since we're not gonna grow out, start changing the way we grow in, if that makes any sense, and this is an opportunity. We mentioned Townley Square that was disapproved adamantly by two bodies, the Planning Department and Planning Commission, but yet it's flourishing, it's doing good. I haven't heard a bad thing about it from the neighborhoods around it, so I'm gonna be inclined to support this tonight, and I thank you for trying to step outside the box and not always saying, hey, we have to do high-density residential apartments because I don't know anyone that would come in here tonight and say, I want 400 apartments right there on my corner, right behind my home. You wanna talk about retail, I would much rather have something like this behind my home than 400 apartments, so thank you all. Council Member James. Thank you, Chair. Please keep in mind I ask a lot of questions, so they're not meant to be critical. I'm just a question asker to solve things in my mind. If you've watched any of the council meetings and any of the committee meetings, you know that I am probably the loudest council member talking about affordability, and the number of 175,000 to 225 just absolutely, I nearly fell out of my seat because here, once again, we're being brought forth a plan for something that, yes, I mean, the design looks great and it sounds great. I'm glad that you're incorporating green design. I'm glad that you're considering transit. It's nice that you're considering the neighborhood, but it's the dollar amount, and who's going to be able to live in that area, and you may not even, I mean, I know that your argument, or what you would say in response to that would be absolutely appropriate because all of them are, but I think as in your packet under tab number one, our memorandum of understanding between us and the mayor, the second one, you highlighted one that's very important. They're actually all very important, but the second one is to construct and implement a community vision from the government's perspective that will provide a roadmap to the address of our community's immediate and long-term needs, and I think affordability is one of the long-term, and maybe even immediate in some cases. I would definitely, and I don't know if this could happen, but I would ask that, and this is me maybe impeding on private business, but that you look at putting some other amount if this is approved as far as your cost for those units, and it was my understanding, and Council Member Myers is trying to educate me a little bit, but it's my understanding maybe that if you have more units on a particular acreage or lot, then there's a possibility that things are a little bit more affordable, so I think as I'm considering my judgment or my decision tonight, I would be looking to make sure that, who is your audience? Who is the developer's audience? Who do they want to live in this place, and does that meet the vision of Lexington of who we need housing for? You make very good points, and I agree with all of them. The difficulty obviously, as you know, comes in the application on a given parcel. Because we have now restricted land, the price of that land is extremely expensive, unbelievably expensive, and in order to have affordable land, you have to have affordable prices for the developer to be able to sell it. He obviously can't sell it for less than what he paid for it. This land's been available since 1996. It's been zoned now for 13 years for our four apartments. I think it's fair to say there's a high price attached to this land, and because of that price, it simply is not going to turn into something that, you know, whatever affordable is. Clearly, $175,000 is not affordable for a number of folks in our community. There's no dispute about that. We can't control that because the prices is what the price is. I will say this about this neighborhood, and I did some research. I went around and I looked at the sale price of every single house in the area around here, and just so that you know, I'm talking about this area in here and this area in here, which consists of about 536 residential units. The area where I'm pointing in green, these houses right now are small townhomes, and they are priced, I think, at about as affordable as Lexington is ever going to see, starting at $95,000 up to about $125,000. These people will be served by this mixed-use residential neighborhood. You don't see too many developers willing to put in a $30 million development next to houses that are, you know, $95,000 to $125,000, and there are a number of them right in here that will be directly linked. We want these people to come here and use these shops, and while it's true that we may, the people that live in this development, because of the price that we have to pay for it, will be at that price range, we do believe that the vast number of people that certainly live over in this area will be served. Affordable housing is underway. It's being made available, and they are, for the first time, at least in my recollection, going to have a top-quality mixed-use retail center, handsomely designed, that they can take their kids over to with their babies and enjoy the same civic space that typically is not made available to folks like that. It's typically moved away, you know, in my experience. So I think that's the value that we bring to affordable housing in terms of what we're offering tonight. And with that, as you pointed out, that the existing townhouses in that area are a range of 90, you said about 90,000? In the area that I talked to, the area to the south, they're more expensive. They're in the range of around $145,000 to $225,000. So as we develop more, okay, as we're looking for, as addressed in number two of our MOU, as we look at long-term, and maybe this is just, and you can tell me this is just what people do and this is how people make money, and I can accept that. I'll have to. But if we continue to, when we look at affordability, it should be nearly sustainably affordable. If we continue to look at an area that surrounds a blank space now, and we build in that blank space something that is $100,000, or $75,000 to $100,000 more than some of the places around it, are we not then starting to disrupt the affordability that exists for those folks that are living there? So as we purchase property, then the property values surrounding that increase. So all of these people sitting here, that they live near that area, their property values will increase when this development is built. Is that correct? I would say so, yes. Okay, that's it, except for that one. Okay. That's... I mean, that's just, I mean, that's money. That's business, that's the way things are going. But I wanted to say that, because that's reflective of what we're doing as a council. As we consider these things, when we think that's a great thing, that it's $200,000 or $225,000 for this, and it's gonna be a great development, and we pay for what we get, we need to look at the long-term, what that means for us long-term. Moving on. I did wanna make mention to that point of under tab number three, one of the characteristics of development proposals should be emphasized in the demonstration and support of the above principles. And on number four there, it does say, projects that provide for housing diversity and incorporate affordable housing as an inherent component. So within your own documents, that is addressed. And I would, again, refer the developer to this and make sure that they are adhering to this. If you're gonna adhere to any component of it, and I think that should be addressed as well. There's no response necessarily needed for that, unless you really wanna do it. Well, you know, I really do wanna do it, because, you know, speaking candidly, I've been privileged to be involved in a number of debates. And in the South end and in the North end. And quite frankly, I've seen a lot of people not willing to risk $30 million, because the nearby neighborhood doesn't have expensive enough houses for them. And I don't believe that's correct. I believe that's right. But it's their choice as a business person. You're right, you're right. So in this instance, again, I guess to be redundant, we have folks that are willing to actually provide an amenity to people living in houses that most of us would consider affordable. I mean, as there is affordables they're gonna get in this community at $95,000, in my experience, and amenities that typically you just don't find that close, this nice or that close. I don't know where they are, I haven't seen them. Okay, I'll accept that from you. Under tab number six in your packet, kudos to developer for implementing bus shelters. I know that's something that a lot of the market rate developers are doing, trying to encourage transit. But one thing kind of deterred me from that, I wanted to give tons of kudos. And then when Steve Austin mentioned that you all put in more parking than even was required. And I think one of the things that we need to start doing, if we're really going to increase transit usage, is to actually limit parking, to encourage the walkability, the biking, the live where you work kind of concept, and the using of public transit. So I don't know that that's necessarily a plus, to say that we've increased parking spaces, but instead to put that utilization into the public transit. So that kind of was a negative, it turned into that. And I see Steve jumping from his seat. I agree 100%. We've got to rethink our parking. We're talking about 20 or so spaces. And that makes a difference. And that's 20 people that would be using a transit service, that we are really trying to encourage. But it's not like we said, well, we need 100 more, 200 more. But I agree with what you said. Okay. Under tab number seven, the article that you have regarding move housing demand from bigger to greener. Again, I wanted to go to the second column, the very last paragraph. The very first phrase there is an increased focus on housing density. So with all, with as great as this article is, and how you pulled some things out of it, one of the things that you did not mention, that really should be mentioned, is they are talking about the increased density goes to conservation. So it's not just building green, it's living green and designing green. And part of that is that increased density. So if you're gonna use that to your favor, be sure you implement all of those components. And I think we are, because this will be the first green development, mixed use development in the history of Lexington. Okay, good. Another plus, I just put on that next page was a plus for the green, the letter that was attached there. But I also wanted to talk about the Anderson mixed use development under tab 10. And the fact, one of the reasons it looked like that planning commission disapproved it, which I think is actually a plus, and which would have been why I would have favored this, is because the developer was actually asking for higher density than what was allowed at that area. So I think that that's gotta be something that we mentioned that, we're talking about that they didn't approve it. Well, one of the reasons they didn't approve it is exactly why I'm struggling with this development, is because they actually wanted to increase density. I've had the privilege of touring that development there. And one of the things that I, even though it's not necessarily what some people would find affordable, but I was quoted that one of the units would be $135,000, and it was a pretty nice unit. So kudos to the Anderson and mixed use development on Leasetown Road. But I think we need to highlight one of the reasons it was disapproved was because they wanted to go over the amount. I would be fine with over the amount in this case, because I don't know that it's enough. And then I just had a few other things. What's the difference between an apartment and a condominium? Typically, condominiums are for sale, you own them as a homeowner, and apartments are always leased. So will there be any rental units on this development? Yes, as I mentioned, some will be owned and leased by purchasers, some will be leased from, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Dawson will continue to own and lease out as rental units. Do you know the percentage? You know, a lot of that depends on the market in terms of how this lays out. I don't know that there's a definite commitment on a percentage at this point in time. Damani, or? It just depends on the market conditions. You can't really forecast, you know, how many rental units you're gonna have, or lease out. And it's just all based on, you know, how many units we were able to sell or pre-sale. And do you know what the rental amount would be if you had any rental? Not at this time, no, no. We'd have to work with the numbers, you know, and of course, you know, things change as you do the developing. But right now, it's kind of hard to put a price tag on how much it would go for. And how large would the units be? You know, right now, and I can't talk off the top of my head, I can't remember, to tell you the truth. Bigger, larger than 1,000 square feet? Yes. We're gonna have two and three bedroom. And the two bedroom, I just can't, I don't wanna give you any misinformation. I'd have to go back and check just to make sure what we proposed. And it could change. Yeah, who's your target audience? Who's your target tenant? Well, you know, anybody, actually. I mean, I know you have a concern for, you know, the price of the condominiums. But once again, as Bruce alluded to as well, you know, your development cost and cost of land kind of dictates how much you're gonna have to charge in order to recapture, you know, the money you spent for, you know, engineering, or your soft cost, development cost. You know, all that stuff is calculated in there. They kind of give you how much you're gonna be charging for the retail price per square foot. And also, you know, the square footage of the, or price per square foot for the condominiums as well. Right, I was just asking about your target tenant base. So, for example, you mentioned, you know, you can walk in the green space and be with your family and walking around. So are you picturing this as a family type atmosphere? Well, the development itself, we wanna have it as a family type of development. You know, with the green space and the water features. And, you know, that's what we're really looking for, you know, to make it more quaint and not your traditional shopping center. You know, just a big parking lot and, you know, just stores. You know, but as far as the target audience, you know, it depends. It depends on who can afford, you know. And I know you may have a problem with the price of them, but like I said, you know, the land price and development costs and everything else that goes into it, developing it is gonna determine the price. And I don't know that it's just that I have a problem with the price, but even in one of your references, you said, or someone mentioned something about Boulder, Colorado, excuse me. And when we were, many of us were there, many council members expressed concern at Boulder. We took our chamber trip there. Yeah, for how much they were costing, for the cost of the. Yes, it was kind of scary to many of us. Go to California, go to Poway, California, La Jolla and different places and look at some of those developments and see how much they're going for. Well, I'd rather not go there. I'd rather go places where we can see where mixed income is actually alive and well and that kind of thing. Where everybody has a chance to have part of the American dream. Well, where we're not dividing our community. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think that's kind of where, that it's gotta be a mixed income kind of feel. And so that we feel like that what happens in one area could happen in another area. And we will have some smaller units as well, based on the layout is, I'm not for sure exactly because we haven't really defined and gotten a complete layout yet of how it's gonna lay out, but you will have some smaller units that will be priced lower. So somebody may be able to afford that potential condominium. What happens to the property if the zone change doesn't go through today? Well, you know, hopefully we can get rid of it. We'll see what happens, you know, just haven't decided what we're gonna do. Just kind of sit back and weigh our options and, you know, possibly build apartments what it's already zoned for with the R4 zoning. If not, try to sell the land to somebody else. Okay. All right. I think that's all the questions that I have. Let me make sure. Oh, I did have one question. What, this may be for Mr. Sally. What qualifies as a neighborhood business? Are there certain specifications? I think the thing that comes to my mind would be the listed uses in the neighborhood business zone, which generally refer to restaurants, almost any type of retail use that involves a store environment. Obviously equipment that's outside that you would buy, that would be the opposite of a neighborhood business type of use. It can also incorporate offices, either general or medical types of offices. So there is a service component to it as well. Okay. So it has some type of basis of whether, is it based at all on whether the neighborhood itself can sustain that business as opposed to drive-by traffic? That is the primary difference, is it's oriented more to the residents in proximity to the location than to the motorists driving by the site. That is, in concept, the main difference. And if this zone change is approved and they start talking with retailers to come into that spot, what's the process? Will we, as a council, see what types of businesses are coming through? I doubt it. What we would expect would be that the development plan would identify for us the different uses that have different parking requirements. And that would mainly be things like restaurants versus offices versus retail stores. And that's generally about as detailed as a development plan gets. There is greater detail at the building permit counter due to building codes and individual fit-up requirements for, let's say, an ice cream parlor versus a drug store. Things of that nature generally are tweaked through the building inspection permitting process. And are neighborhood business parking requirements different than other types of businesses because you're expecting folks to walk and bike in? Yes. Generally, the smaller the retail center, the less parking that's required on a ratio basis with that very concept. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Council Member Stephens. Me? Yes, you. You're up, Doc. Thank you. I'm very encouraged by your presentation and have a great deal of interest in it. The Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee and the Planning Division some years ago looked at our patterns of development in Lexington, and we invited Norrie Winter to come, who's a landscape planner, as you all know, from... I won't tell you Boulder, but that's where he's from. And he introduced some new concepts to us back in about 2001, and one was mixed-use development. And at that time, we limited it to, and the council adopted it, we did limit it to inside New Sokol Road, which I think now is a mistake. And the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee and its various subcommittees, which are meeting, are considering that, and we think that we would like to make everything within, at least I do, and I think most agree, that everything within the urban service area be about the same. Mixed-use development at the periphery of our urban service area was just as important as one in the center of town, and particularly when you're talking about these nodes and neighborhoods like you have here. So I think that will probably happen, and you won't have to try and squeeze in a B1 maybe in the future. And I do think sometimes our developments get ahead of the Comprehensive Plan, and I can think of several... I've been here so long, I've worn out a lot of pants sitting in these seats, and I can remember several zones that were turned down because they didn't meet the Comprehensive Plan, and then the Comprehensive Plan got changed a year or so later, and then it came back and it was unanimous. So I think sometimes the Comprehensive Plan lags behind what really is good for our community. So I don't mind personally voting against the Comprehensive Plan if I think what's proposed is a proper and right for our community. We have had some... I know the Reverend Sisk talked about the new urbanism. I'm a believer in that also, but I call it not-so-new urbanism because we're really getting back the way it was when I grew up as a kid with no TV and maybe a radio you couldn't really tune in too well. But we used front porches and sidewalks and the neighbors got together. And it's hard to really love your neighbor as yourself unless you have a chance to meet him. And I think neighborhoods like this create that connectivity between people, which is so important in a good community, which we don't always have now. And I go out to these new subdivisions, and all you see is these... We did outlaw snout houses, too, in our redevelopment plans. All you see is garage doors projecting on the street, and every now and then one of them open and the SUV runs in and runs out, and nobody gets to know anybody. So I think these have great potential. And there was some lady that says it takes a village to raise a child. I can't remember exactly her name. Who was it? I'm not allowed to say anything that's political here because we're nonpartisan. But she did say that, and that comes to mind when I think of a development like this because the lady next door gets to know your kid. And I think that's very good. I have visited Seaside, Florida, down near Destin. And my brother lives in a place called Camarillo, California, which has very progressive zoning and restrictions on signs, things like that. And I visited with the planners there and they've taken me around the town. And it's a beautiful place in Southern California near Ventura. And it's because of the plans that the citizens have accepted to regulate their community as it's developed. We do have a little example of a new urbanism here in Lexington on Maple Leaf. A developer several years ago, Duncan McFarland, built a series of townhouses with a central green and garages on the back, I mean alley on the back, so all the garage doors you don't see. And that worked out pretty well. Unfortunately, Duncan moved on to Charlottesville, Virginia and it's no longer developing here. But I was encouraged by his, I was hoping we'd get started with things like that when he did it. But it's not been as rapidly accepted by our community. I congratulate and thank the developers for willing to take the risk. There's a lot of risk when you put your money up and hope that it works out. I do think it'll work out here because I think the Anchor Church has really helped the viewscape there on Man O'War. But beyond that, it's kind of a monotonous, unpleasant drive as you go along there. If you can get by Walmart. And there isn't really much that you can set your eyes on. And this kind of development, I think, will be an attractive amenity as well. So I'm all for it. And I hope that the council agrees with me. Thank you. Council Member DeCamp. Thank you. I'm not inclined to support. I fully support mixed-use proposals. We've needed it for a long time. And I'm glad to see it come before us tonight. I don't need any pictures, Bruce, to know that this is the right thing for Lexington. And I've read most everything that Steve Austin has written about city planning. And I've always believed his philosophies and agreed with him. And I even believe that in a few years, we're gonna have developers who are gonna be buying some defunct strip malls and putting in mixed-use. And I only hope that that will happen. Because we have a lot of half-baked strip malls around this city that are going broke. And I hope that developers will go out and be looking at that land to see how it can be converted into mixed-use. Although we can't officially, Bruce, accept the restrictive covenants and deed restriction, I accept them. And I think all the people here tonight accept them. And I think when you have people like Steve, who has written about his philosophy about city planning for a long time on your team, I feel confident that these will happen. Of course, once we make a zone change, many things can happen. And that's always something that you're fearful of. But I certainly, as a council member, wanna take a leap of faith. And I certainly support this zone change. And I hope everyone tonight will. Council Member Crosby. Mr. Austin and Mr. Simpson and Mr. Dawson, I just wanna thank you all for painting a very beautiful picture tonight of what you wanna do with this land. And allowing us to protect the integrity of our process. So I think we have a clear idea of what you all wanna do without having to go into what you all were wanting to do tonight. I think you all did a beautiful job. And thank you. Council Member Blevins. Mr. Salley, I need your assistance. You had a picture a while ago that showed the east, looking east view. Could you wave your magic wand and make that reappear? Actually, if you like, Bill, you see the map up there that has the brown colors? Yes. Can you tell me what is there? I know one of them was this. Just walk us through that again. Sure. Let's start at six o'clock to the site. On Golden Trophy Trail, we have attached fourplexes, residential development to the south. And that is extending to the north, as the photo indicated. The streets are in, and probably some of those units have been built over the past six or nine months. Now, let me stop you. Is that the gated community I read about in the notes? Where is the gated community on the map? Probably. There is a private street system. Golden Trophy is a private system, and I believe that they have installed privacy gates. I think that is correct. So that entire brown spot is a gated community? This area is my understanding of what is restricted access here. Okay. The townhouse area that Mr. Simpson talked about earlier, I am not aware that that is gated or have their own private gating. I think that that, although these access ways are private, they are not public streets, that there is no impediment to getting there. There is a public street parallel to the railroad, Lockdale Terrace, that was visible in some of the photos, and then serves those developments as well. Are you aware of whether or not the last one you talked about, the townhomes, do they have access to Man O' War by foot directly? I do not believe so. I think that there is a right-of-way fence between the sidewalk on Man O' War and that development. Elevation problem, I'll tell you. Also, yes. Oh, okay. As you're going over the railroad, you are at a different elevation. Mr. Beard's exactly right. Okay, let me shift over to Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, I'm having trouble seeing how folks are gonna do foot traffic to this beautiful development through a gated community. Help me understand that. I'll let Steve, I think there's nine different access points, Steve, as far as pedestrian access points that we have even integrated into the private area. We made it available so they can have access to our development. Can you, I think it's probably in some of the handout material, too. I think so. The key thing is they don't have to go to Man O' War to get here. They could go through this particular, the street system, while gated for cars, is not gated, at least right now, against pedestrian traffic. And that's what our plan envisions is having those openings. So, for example, the folks who are in the white part of that map, just beyond the dark brown, how are they gonna, they're gonna have to go through somebody's backyard, no? Or is there, I guess I'm just not seeing how they're gonna make that passage. I think it's not over yet. It may be easier if we could switch to this. If we could switch to my computer. If you will bear with me, you can see that there's a connection here. This is a parking court that basically goes to the property line. And that's what we're talking about, allowing that, see, that opens up that entire area to come through here. We've also shown a connection here. When this is constructed, we would go through there. We certainly have a sidewalk access onto Man O' War. We could, and we haven't gotten to the point of, going through the green space, which is in the back of some of these houses along that retention basin. That may or may not be an acceptable thing. It's certainly physically possible. But the primary access would be right through here. Okay, and so the alternative route would be up Winthrop as well? Exactly, let's say if you lived here and you couldn't get through here, you could, whoops. You could come down through here, go like this, and then up and around. Okay, okay, thank you. And then the second one, I just wanna confirm, you guys do own the detention basin. That is your property to deal with, is that correct? We're buying the whole detention basin and the other 11 acres that's next to it, yes. Oh, that's yours. Two different tracks. Okay, I just have a few comments then. I'd say Godspeed to the Infill and Redevelopment Committee for the creation of the mixed-use designation. I think we need it, and you're seeing why right here tonight, huh? Maybe February. Maybe in February. I wanna explain to the folks here, probably, and maybe even to the TV audience, it probably seems like a no-brainer that we should do this development. It looks, it's beautiful, it's an interesting idea, it's the new way to design, it does increase foot traffic, and you may be sitting in your chair wondering why would we even deliberate? We should have had this vote an hour ago. I feel the same way in certain regards, but you have to understand what the limitations are of what's before us. When we vote tonight, it's strictly on the zone change, and once we change it to be one, anything can happen to this property. I hear the assurances of Mr. Simpson and his partners, but that's the fact. We have to, and so what you see is a natural hesitation on the part of the council to be careful not to approve just any change, because once we do, it's no longer in our hands. This is our last and only opportunity to make this decision. I just want you to know that. What you're seeing is a very deliberate process so that we all feel comfortable that what we pass tonight, whether we go up or down, doesn't matter. We have to be comfortable with that decision, and that's one of the struggles I've had this evening. I want to give you an example. Earlier tonight, Ms. James was asking Mr. Dawson what size are your apartments going to be, and he justifiably answered, I'm not really sure, because what's going to happen over the next few months after they get approval, assuming they do, they'll go through the design and do market studies and so forth, and that will help drive how big things are. That could drive this development in other places as well. Once it's B1, it can be a lot of things as long as it complies to B1. So I just want you to know, if we vote this up tonight, it's going to be taking a bit of a risk. All right. Mr. Levins, if I could add, one of the conditions we've imposed several in connection with the findings of the fact that in my little green book there is that we have to have 164 residential units. It can't just be a B1 commercial without those. It has to be a minimum of 164 units. Those findings, in fact, haven't been adopted just yet. No, they haven't, but I'm saying that you do have the power to put limitations on this property in connection with the B1 zone change, and we've articulated for the benefit of the council all those uses and buffering screening provisions and the mandatory residential minimum that we have to have. You're quite correct. My mic. So I want to go back to that, and then I'd like to say that I actually support this. I do, and I will be supportive of whatever comes forward, provided there's some restrictions in that regard. That's what I'd like to see when we're done. I think that's probably enough. Council Member Baird. Thank you very much. A couple or three. One's an observation, I guess, which somewhat speaks to Council Member Blevins' concerns, and that is that I'm sure, absolutely positive, that this won't be the last time Bruce Simpson stands up in front of us, nor do I think this is going to be the last project Damarnie Dawson or Jim Hughes will be doing, and if they don't keep their word this time, they might have a little more trouble next time. Damarnie, the rental versus condo mix, can I assume that everything is for sale on day one, and then as it's sold to individuals, they are the lessors, and or are you going to reserve some to be from the get-go to be rentals? Well, at any time you do residential, you try to pre-sell as many as possible, and we can have people that buy them and lease them out as well, but if we do have some surplus and they're not selling, we will resort to leasing. But if the person walks in and wants to buy all of them, you probably would sell them all. Oh yeah, we'd have to. That would be a no-brainer, no-brainer. I guess the other thing is the accessibility. I'm familiar, intimately familiar, with Lockdale Terrace and those townhouses back there. Is there going to be access for those folks without having to go all the way back around and down Mill Pond to Winthrop? Mr. Beard, isn't that the area we were just talking about, or am I- No, this is outside of that area, I believe. Let me pull this photo back up. It's another layer out. It's the first peel of the onion, not the second. Help me. Is it in here? Yes. Yeah, again, as we envisioned, that these folks would have access primarily through this connection here. Okay. If, for whatever reason, that didn't work, their connection would be here, but again, it's- That's a bit long. It's power circuitous, certainly. They don't have any walkability on the manor where this is a 50-foot bank. Yes, I'm- So if they're going to drive, they're going to drive no matter what. They can't, it's not like they have a shortcut to get over here. Well, this speaks somewhat to Council Member James's concerns because this is affordable housing in that area, and we would want them to be able to partake of the amenities of the center also. These things don't work. If you don't have people coming and going through them, traffic-wise, bike-wise, and walking-wise, they just don't do it. So it's not in their interest to close it off. Well, with those few things getting answered, I too support this and look forward to seeing it happen. And hopefully, again, as I mentioned a little earlier, you'll be doing other places, and I appreciate that also. Thank you very much. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to applaud all of you, particularly Mr. Austin, for your work in this area. This isn't new. It's new to Lexington, but it's certainly not new. And you know that, and you've been preaching that for a long time, and I know that you're happy to see this start to come to fruition maybe tonight. In St. Louis, they were doing this stuff 10 years ago. So certainly applaud you in what you're doing. Wish you well in it. There's some areas in my district that I'd love to talk to you guys about as well, and I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. I too want to thank you all for being here tonight. I spend a lot of time up in the Cincinnati area, and I've always go outside, 275 Erlander, and places like that, and I see this kind of development, and I always say, why Lexington doesn't have this? And they do well up in those, and they back up the neighborhood, new constructed neighborhoods, and they make it into like a St. Matthews, and Louisville, and places like that, and maybe a Chevy Chase in Lexington. And I see these neighborhoods that need to have that kind of neighborhood atmosphere where you can walk to where you're going. And I think it's wonderful, and I'm glad we're finally going to get to see something. I hope it passes, and I will support it. And I've been saying for about three or four years when I drive up through Cincinnati and places and see these kind of, I just wish why Lexington doesn't do it, but I think you're all on the right track of doing something that does well up in those areas. Thank you. I have a couple questions. Mr. Sully, I did want to clarify on the gated community. When I drove out there, there was no gate. It looked like a little booth. Now, I don't know if they're going to gate it when they finish back in there, the houses that they're building, but it was perfectly open for anyone to drive in. My recollection may be what's approved on the development plan and not necessarily what's been installed or constructed. Okay. Mr. Simpson, one question. Did the current owner own this property when the comp plan was being updated? I believe the current owner's owned it and the family for like 80 years or something. 80? I think so. Oh, okay. And did they apply for a land use change during the comp plan update? They did on a portion of this property. I think it was five acres back in 2005. 2005. And just to amplify on that question, this is in connection with the 2007 comprehensive plan. As I review the record in connection with that, and Bill Lear's here. I don't know if he was involved with that. I know his partner, Reno, was in representing the owner. But those got very limited reviews. I mean, it was, if you recall, the last two years was focusing on whether we're gonna expand the boundary or not. There was very little attention given on changing land uses. In fact, there probably weren't more than a handful of color changes on the map. But it was about, as I recall, five acres maybe. Bill may know exactly the amount, but there was a request that was filed in 2005 or thereabouts. I think Mr. Simpson's exactly correct. Okay, all right. Thank you. And one other question, Mr. Simpson. Did you say you had met with the neighborhoods around there? Twice. Can you show us which neighborhoods you were in those meetings? Well, I sent out letters to every property owner within the legal notification of the zone change. 400 feet? 400 feet. So I think we sent out over 400 letters. I mean, it's a pretty dense development out there. And of course, this is a subject property. And so basically, even on this side of Man O' War was included. And the folks pretty much getting around in here. All the people in this area, I would say. 400 feet, whatever that's it. And then of course, word of mouth. There were a number of people that got wind of this. Mainly because Mr. Van Epps, he went around to a lot of the neighbors and informed them. As typically happens, been in my experience. I mean, the people that get legal notification usually will tell other people. And in this case, that happened. We had two meetings at Anchor Baptist Church and very well attended. I'm guessing, Pastor, the first one was probably the largest, maybe 75, 75 to 100 people showed up at that meeting. And then the second meeting was mainly just an update of people in terms of where we were. Nothing really changed. We just wanted to inform them. And there were probably half as many at that meeting. Again, sent out the same number of letters informing folks about it. I think that's really important, particularly with a mixed use. So I appreciate your doing that. One question for Dr. Stephens and maybe Mr. Salley. I wanted to clarify the mixed use designation. Has it been, Dr. Stephens, did you mean that in the coming year, it would be discussed in relation to being a category for outside New Circle Road? Yes. Okay, and so infill and redevelopment is currently discussing that? Yes. Okay, very good. All right, thank you so much. I don't know what they'll do, but I know what I'd like for them to do. I understand, okay. Do any other council members have questions? If not, I think this is when I declare the meeting, the hearing closed. And I've wanted to do this for 10 years. The hearing's closed. Yeah. Yeah. So now we have probably a motion. Yes, I have a motion. And this is a very lengthy motion, so please bear with me. The reason for the length of this with findings of fact is that we're going to read into the record some of the conditions and so forth that we want to make official to this. So with that said, yes. Excuse me. Do you have copies since it's lengthy? I do not. And council members, do you have any copies? The majority of it is in the book with some changes that I made to suggest to council member McCord. Okay, thank you. But you will basically be able to follow along by looking at your book. Okay, thank you very much. Okay. I move to adopt the following findings of fact in support of changing the zone for the subject property from high-density apartments R4 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone. The rezoning is in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan. The land use map element recommends high-density residential R4 uses for the property. The mixed-use development will include 164 apartment units, yielding a density of 11.10 dwelling units per acre, which is within the recommended density range of the R4 zone. Section B, the development complies with the following goals and related objectives of the comprehensive plan. Goal seven, to support and uphold the urban service area concept and related growth management strategies. Goal 11, to provide diverse business and employment opportunities for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County. Goal 13, to provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of all citizens. Goal 14, to establish and promote well-designed communities that provide appropriate services to multi-neighborhood areas and encourage community interaction. Goal 15, to preserve, protect, and enhance the character and quality of existing neighborhoods. Goal 16, to promote well-designed new development that creates and enhances neighborhoods and communities. And goal 19, to provide and maintain a comprehensive transportation system. The mixed-use concept will facilitate convenient provision of needed goods and services, including banks, drugstores, and restaurants for residents who live within the same development or adjacent to it, thus reducing reliance on the automobile and encouraging greater pedestrian and bicycle activity among residents within the general neighborhood, thus helping to create a community in the truest sense. A bus stop on the premises will provide an additional alternative to the use of the automobile. Section C, the mixed-use development is in accord with the land use principles set out on pages eight through 10 of the comprehensive plan, which recommends placing more intensive land uses near arterial roads and will also provide an appropriate transition in intensity between the existing neighboring residential uses and Manowar Boulevard. Section D, the proposal agrees with the interpretation of land use maps and categories section of the implementation element of the comprehensive plan. This section of the comprehensive plan recommends interpreting land use proposals in context with all the plan elements and not just the land use maps. In particular, this section recommends an interpretation of agreement with the plan for development that incorporates the following principles among others. Principle number one, increase residential intensity that is complementary and compatible with existing nearby development. Number two, the creation of a cohesive urban form. Number three, environmental responsibility and sustainability, number four. Linkage with the community and number five, furthers the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan without seriously conflicting with other goals and objectives. The purpose of mixed-use development meets these principles in that it will increase residential density, which is compatible with neighboring areas, will be a cohesive urban form of mixed-use with non-residential uses on the ground floor with apartments above, promotes environmental responsibility and sustainability by incorporating the tension as an amenity and the use of green building design. We'll link with adjoining neighborhoods and finally, we'll meet the minimum residential density recommended for the property. This fully complies with the characteristics of development set out on page 10 of the implementation section of the comprehensive plan, including number two, projects that incorporate the recommendations of the land use element and in addition, provide needed uses or services to the immediate neighborhood. Number three, projects for which the design is not driven by surface parking lots. Number four, projects that provide for housing diversity and incorporate affordable housing as an inherent component. Number five, projects that use green building and site design principles. Number six, projects that maximize the availability of transit service. And number seven, projects designed to promote walkability, both in terms of site and its integration into surrounding neighborhoods and design. Based on the foregoing findings, I further move to place on the subject property the following conditional zoning restrictions, which are necessary and appropriate to ensure that the project will be developed as a mixed-use development to allow only uses that are compatible with the adjoining neighborhood area and to provide buffering to enhance the visual quality of the development. Number one, that there shall be not less than 164 dwelling units. Number two, these are the prohibited uses. Principal permitted uses, A, freestanding stores that sell alcoholic beverages. B, self-service laundries and clothes cleaning establishments except that laundry pickup stations shall be permitted. C, repair of household appliances. D, automotive service stations. E, all gasoline pumps. F, drive-through facilities for freestanding restaurants. Accessory uses, A, the rental of trucks. B, warehousing, wholesaling, and storage. Conditional uses, A, self-service car wash. B, mining of non-metallic minerals. C, truck rental. D, gasoline pumps available to the public without an employee on site. Three, screening and buffering. There shall be planted and maintained along the southern boundary of the retention basin eight-foot pine trees staggered 10 foot on center. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second to accept these findings of fact. Is there any discussion? Thank you. We have two seconds. If not, will the clerk call the roll? And also, will you do your electronic voting along the way? Mr. Blevins? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. DeCamp? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Instead of it being Mr. Newberry, it's Ms. Gorton. That will be corrected in the record. Aye. Mr. Gray is absent. Ms. James? No. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Dr. Stephens? Aye. Mr. Stennett? And Mr. Beard? Aye. Thank you. That motion passes, so. I have another motion. You have the ordinance? Thank you. I move to amend item number one on the docket to read as follows. An ordinance changing the zone from a high-density apartment R4 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 14.78 net, 17.47 gross acres of property located at 3600 to 3652 Winthrop Drive subject to use and buffering restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change. Second. We have a motion by Mr. McCord, second by Mr. Myers. Is there any discussion on the ordinance? If not, will you take the roll call vote and council members, please vote electronically. Mr. Blevins? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Aye. Mr. DeCamp? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. James? No. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Dr. Stephens? Aye. Mr. Stinnett? Aye. And Mr. Beard? Aye. That motion passes, and I believe that completes our business. No, that doesn't complete our business. Oh, you have to give it first reading and then second reading. Will you give the ordinance first reading, please? Ordinance number one, as amended, for first reading, an ordinance changing the zone from a high-density apartment R4 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for a 14.78 net, 17.47 gross acres of property located at 3600 through 3652 Winthrop Drive, subject to certain use and buffering restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change, JAH Winthrop. Do I hear a motion to give this second reading? So moved. Second. I believe we have that. Will you give it second reading, please? You should take a vote on that motion to suspend. I'm so sorry. Everyone seconded it. So, would all those in favor push your electronic vote to give this second reading? That motion passes. Will you give that second reading, please? Yes, ordinance changing the zone from a high-density apartment R4 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for a 14.78 net, 17.47 gross acres of property located at 3600 through 3652 Winthrop Drive, subject to certain use and buffering restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change, JAH Winthrop. And now there's a motion to approve for the second reading. Yes. Do we have a motion to approve? Do I have a... Okay, we have a motion and a second to give the second reading. To vote. All those in favor? She's got to call the roll. A roll call now. A roll call. We'll do a roll call now. Okay, and will you please vote electronically also? Mr. Blevins? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. DeCamp? Yes. Ms. Newt? Ms. Gorton? Aye. And will you be sure the record says Gorton? I will make sure, I promise you, I can promise, I will. Ms. James? Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Yes. Mr. Myers? Thank you. Dr. Stephens? Aye. Mr. Stennett? Aye. And Mr. Beard? Aye. Okay, now that motion passes and I believe our work is finished here, so thank you all very much. A motion to adjourn would be appropriate, please. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved.