# Urban County Council Special Meeting - Zone Change Hearing - November 27, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 27, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2774 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2774?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-11-27 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 47,808 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council met on November 27, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507. Mayor Jim Gray presided over the meeting. The council considered one agenda item: an ordinance to change the zoning designation from B-1 to B-3 for properties located at 1949 Nicholasville Rd and 145 Collins Ln. This ordinance was approved. The council took five motions and votes during the meeting and heard 24 public comments from citizens. ## Attendance **Present:** Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Gorton, Henson, Kay, Lane, Lawless, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, and Blues **Absent:** Crosbie **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Findings of Fact for Disapproval** [timestamp: 03:31:53] A motion by Lawless, seconded by Blues, to approve findings that the proposed zone change is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and should be disapproved failed on a roll call vote. The vote was 5 ayes to 9 nays. Those voting in favor were Gorton, Henson, Kay, Lawless, and Blues. Those voting against were Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Lane, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, and Beard. **Findings of Fact for Approval** [timestamp: 05:05:18] A motion by Martin, seconded by Beard, to approve findings that the proposed zone change is in substantial conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate for approval passed on a roll call vote. The vote was 9 ayes to 5 nays. Those voting in favor were Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Lane, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, and Beard. Those voting against were Gorton, Henson, Kay, Lawless, and Blues. **Conditional Zoning Provisions** [timestamp: 05:22:53] A motion by Martin, seconded by Lane, to approve conditional zoning provisions to protect adjacent property owners and ensure compatibility with the neighborhood passed unanimously on a roll call vote of 14 ayes to 0 nays. All members voted in favor. The conditions include prohibited uses, stormwater reduction, fencing and trees, maximum height, inclusion of conditions on the final development plan, and provisions if a hotel is not built. **Amendment to Ordinance** [timestamp: 05:29:20] A motion by Martin, seconded by Myers, to amend the ordinance to include conditional zoning restrictions and clarify provisions if a hotel is not constructed passed unanimously on a roll call vote of 14 ayes to 0 nays. All members voted in favor. **Ordinance 1101-12** [timestamp: 05:35:22] A motion by Ellinger, seconded by Myers, to pass Ordinance 1101-12, changing the zone from B-1 to B-3 with conditions for 1949 Nicholasville Rd and 145 Collins Ln, passed on a roll call vote of 11 ayes to 3 nays. Those voting in favor were Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Henson, Lane, Lawless, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, and Beard. Those voting against were Gorton, Kay, and Blues. The ordinance includes B-3 zoning with prohibited uses, development as a hotel in conformity with renderings, 50 percent stormwater runoff reduction, an 8-foot fence with brick columns and evergreen trees, a maximum 4-story height, and inclusion of conditions on the final development plan. ## Public Comment The meeting included extensive public comment on the proposed zone change, with speakers divided between supporters and opponents of the project. **Support for the Zone Change** Thirteen speakers supported the proposal, primarily emphasizing economic development and neighborhood revitalization. Julie Butcher, a property owner across from the site, called the proposed hotel a safer and more attractive alternative to the current conditions [01:19:10]. Billy Sherrow highlighted potential jobs and increased property taxes [02:11:41], while Brad Pickerell praised the developer's efforts to address neighborhood concerns [02:14:56]. Local business owners expressed strong support. Danny Collins, co-owner of Southland Bowling Lanes, stated the hotel would bring customers to local businesses [02:18:22]. Pam Littleton called the $15 million investment vital for revitalizing the Southland Drive corridor [02:28:06]. Don Hurt, owner of Old Kentucky Chocolates, viewed the hotel as a strong anchor for the area [02:34:41]. Several neighbors supported the project after the developer made concessions. Amanda Hale cited the need for better use of the blighted property and the developer's commitment to stormwater mitigation [02:20:32]. Shirley Tipton supported the change after the developer reduced building height to four stories and committed to stormwater improvements, fencing, and screening [02:23:51]. **Opposition to the Zone Change** Eleven speakers opposed the proposal, raising concerns about environmental impacts, neighborhood character, and precedent. Joseph Miller, spokesperson for the opposition, argued the zone change would harm property values and violate the Comprehensive Plan [01:33:19]. Environmental concerns centered on flooding. Tenlee Tarrier presented photos of repeated flooding on Goodrich Avenue and questioned whether the developer's stormwater plan would solve the problem [02:39:11]. Bill Fountain argued that proposed trees would not grow due to utility lines [02:36:24]. Residents expressed concerns about neighborhood character and personal impact. Clarissa Spawn worried the hotel would lead to generic box stores and destroy the area's unique character [02:47:44]. Megan Horn stated she would have reconsidered buying her home if she knew a hotel would be built nearby [02:46:42]. Candice Wallace argued the developer knew the property was B1 zoned when purchased and should not be allowed to change zoning for personal gain [02:55:53]. Sue Beard, a realtor, cited a study showing B3 zoning leads to higher rental rates and argued the neighborhood's character would be lost [02:57:01]. ## Contested Items The November 27, 2012 meeting featured three significant areas of contention: **Zoning Change and Neighborhood Impact** A proposed zone change from B-1 to B-3 for a property adjacent to a residential neighborhood generated substantial community opposition. Residents, led by Joseph Miller and supported by over 200 neighbors through a petition, raised concerns about traffic, flooding, noise, and potential impacts to property values. The zoning change became the focal point of debate between the developer's interests and the neighborhood's desire to preserve its character and quality of life. **Developer Concessions and Precedent** The council was divided on whether the developer's proposed concessions were adequate justification for the zone change. The developer offered to reduce the hotel height to four stories and commit to stormwater mitigation measures. Council members disagreed on the significance of these concessions: some argued they were unprecedented and substantial enough to warrant approval, while others contended that the concessions were insufficient to overcome concerns about establishing an unfavorable precedent for future development in the area. **Procedural Dispute Over Public Testimony** A procedural disagreement emerged regarding the rules governing public participation. The question arose as to whether public speakers could be subject to cross-examination during the hearing. The presiding officer ruled that public speakers were not witnesses and therefore could not be cross-examined. This ruling prompted brief debate among council members about the appropriate procedures and rules for conducting the public hearing. ## Ordinance changing zone from B-1 to B-3 for 1949 Nicholasville Rd and 145 Collins Ln The Urban County Council held a special meeting to consider rezoning a property located at 1949 Nicholasville Rd and 145 Collins Ln from B-1 to B-3 zoning classification [timestamp: 00:00:00]. The hearing included presentations from multiple parties: * Planning staff provided analysis and recommendations * The petitioner presented the case for the zone change * Opponents presented concerns about the proposed rezoning Key speakers during the discussion included Bill Sallee, Bruce Simpson, and Joseph Miller. The council heard public testimony from both supporters and opponents of the rezoning proposal. The discussion addressed the implications of changing the zoning classification from B-1 (limited business) to B-3 (general business), which would allow for different types of commercial development and uses on the property. **Outcome** The Urban County Council approved the zone change from B-1 to B-3 for the property at 1949 Nicholasville Rd and 145 Collins Ln. The approval included conditions that were established to address concerns raised during the hearing and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. --- ## Decisions - **Findings of Fact for Disapproval** — failed (5-9): Motion to approve findings that the proposed zone change is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and should be disapproved - **Findings of Fact for Approval** — passed (9-5): Motion to approve findings that the proposed zone change is in substantial conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate for approval - **Conditional Zoning Provisions** — passed (14-0): Motion to approve conditional zoning provisions to protect adjacent property owners and ensure compatibility with neighborhood - **Amendment to Ordinance** — passed (14-0): Motion to amend the ordinance to include conditional zoning restrictions and clarify provisions if hotel is not constructed - **Ordinance 1101-12** — passed (11-3): Ordinance changing zone from B-1 to B-3 with conditions for 1949 Nicholasville Rd and 145 Collins Ln --- ## Full transcript We've got everybody here? Yeah. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, okay. All right. Good evening, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to this rezoning hearing. And we have a procedure that begins with a roll call and then the second reading of the ordinance by our clerk, Susan Lamb. And then I will go through the procedure, and then we'll have a swearing-in of those who will be speaking. All right. So first, Madam Clerk, if you will call the roll. Ms. Crossby. Mr. Ellinger. Here. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Here. Ms. Gorton? Here. Ms. Henson? Here. Mr. Kay? Here. Mr. Lane? Here. Ms. Lawless? Here. Mr. Martin? Here. Mr. McCord? Here. Mr. Myers? Here. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? President? And Mr. Blues? Here. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right. Next on our procedure is a second reading of the ordinance. and I'll ask the clerk to please read the ordinance. All right. And then we'll come back to some questions. Second reading of ordinance number one, an ordinance change in the zone from a neighborhood business B1 zone to a highway service business B3 zone for 2.589 net 3.030 gross acres for property located at 1949 Nicholasville Road and 145 Collins Lane, Greer-Nick Road, LLC, and Greer-Nick Road 2, LLC, Council District 3. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right. Council Member Lawless. Just quickly, I wanted to say when we scheduled this, Council Member Crosby said she couldn't be here because it was the only date she couldn't be here, so I just wanted to let people know that. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. What I'm going to do now, what I will do now is share with you all the procedure. This is basically the protocol that we will follow for the hearing. All right. As the presiding officer, I will swear in the witnesses, including the planning division staff. and all witnesses that will be giving evidence will be sworn in. So I'll come back to that. At the beginning of the hearing, as presiding officer, I will explain the hearing rules and explain that as presiding officer, I have the power to make evidentiary decisions to exclude irrelevant and repetitious testimony from the record. and basically all that means is that if, as the late Louis Stout used to say in these hearings, he would say, we want everybody to have a chance to speak and to share what they have to say, but we don't necessarily need to hear it four or five times. So if you all just bear with us on that. Council members may inform the chair when they believe testimony is irrelevant or repetitious. The petitioner will submit a witness list to the presiding officer at the beginning of the presentation, and the opponents shall provide a witness list at the beginning of their presentation. We have that, Ed. We will get it. We will be getting it. Okay, Bruce. All right, thanks. The next item on our protocol is all parties in favor of the zone change shall submit all printed materials to be tendered for admission into evidence to Council members, Council Clerk, and the Department of Law at the beginning of their presentation, and opponents must do the same at the beginning of their presentation. Each witness who testifies shall be subject to cross-examination at the conclusion of his testimony, followed by the opportunity for redirect. Any witness called by petitioner or opponents will stay in the public hearing so they may be questioned by a petitioner, opponent, or member of council later in the hearing. All persons speaking shall be identified for the record. Basically, just identify yourself when you speak, please. All documents considered by the council shall be marked and numbered as exhibits and entered into the record by the council clerk assigned to tape record the meeting. The tape of the meeting should be verbatim without interruption. Okay. Architectural renderings of developments will not be permitted to be introduced into evidence at Council hearings for the reason that the Council has no power except in H-1 overlay zones to bind developers to construct the buildings as depicted. Preliminary development plans filed in conjunction with zone changes which show building footprints, parking, and other basic information may be accepted into evidence. Okay. And real quickly, I'm just going to share with you the order of proceeding. The order of proof at the hearing, the presentation of planning division staff will first present. Our staff, the planning staff, will orally summarize the record of the hearing before the commission. And then the presentation will be made by the petitioner. That includes an opening statement by the petitioner. and then presentation of direct evidence by petitioner, subject to cross-examination and redirect, and then the presentation by the opponent. That would include an opening statement by an opponent, presentation of direct evidence by opponent. Staff will have the opportunity to make additional comments, if any, and then petitioner's presentation of rebuttal evidence and the closing summation by the opponent and then the closing summation by the petitioner. After all opponents have spoken and the applicant has had the opportunity for rebuttal, at the conclusion of the presentations, the Council will ask questions of the staff, the petitioner, and the opponent. And then the hearing is closed and the Council votes to adopt findings of fact. the council votes on ordinance by a roll call in the course of the hearing there will be there will be some questions and i will generally direct the questions to either the staff or to our council mr gardner and there will definitely be your honor actually tracy jones who may be new to some of the council members is our new planning and zoning attorney so she'll probably be handling most of the questions. Okay, Tracy. Thank you. When we get to the voting, it's generally a little bit challenging to make it clear. So Tracy will ask you to really make sure that we're all clear on how the vote is taken. All right. Ed, have I forgotten anything? All right. then I think we can proceed. Just for the record, Mr. Simpson, as the counsel for the petitioner, my understanding is that you're going to be able to make the presentation in 45 minutes. All right, sir. You may go ahead and say it. Yeah, you better go ahead and say it. All right. Next is swearing in. So anyone who intends to speak, be a witness, if you will stand, please, and let me swear you in. All right. Just hold your hand up, please. Thank you. And you can answer after I give the oath. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. I do. All right. Thank you very much. All right. First is the presentation by the planning staff, Mr. Salee. and bill you might want to do the same thing everybody else has to do so introduce yourself so we all know those of us who don't know we will know who you are certainly will mayor thank you members of the council good evening i'm bill sally i'm the planning manager for the planning services section of the division of planning it's my pleasure to be here at your hearing tonight and to present to you the recommendation of the planning commission after their public hearing on this zone change. As is necessary at the start of your public hearing on a zone change, there are a number of items I need to enter into the record for your hearing tonight, the first being the legal notice that was published in the local newspaper advertising tonight's hearing. The next is an affidavit signed by myself regarding the mailed notices that were sent to all property owners within 400 feet of the property you'll be reviewing tonight and also to the nearest neighborhood associations in close proximity to the site. The next item is the recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission regarding their public hearing held earlier this year. These have been distributed to council members for tonight's hearing. This includes the minutes of their public hearing as well. Next, I need to enter in the goals and objectives of the 2012 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the entire document of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. These have both been adopted by the Planning Commission, and the goals and objectives have been adopted by the Urban County Council. I'd like to enter in copies of the zoning ordinance and the land subdivision regulations that are in effect for the urban county government. And then finally, the staff has received a number of letters and e-mails regarding the zone change. We have originals to circulate to the council members. There are four letters and e-mails in support of this application and 47 in opposition that we have received since the Planning Commission public hearing. At the Planning Commission, there were 11 submitted in support and 16 in opposition. We have copies for the Council Clerk, and I'll circulate the originals at this time. Thank you. Rezoning from a B1 neighborhood business zone to a restricted B3 highway service business zone. These properties are at 1949 Nicholasville Road and 145 Collins Lane. These properties are very near the intersection of Southland Drive and Nicholasville Road. Using the zoning map, Nicholasville Road, of course, is US-27, a north-south highway in the community. Southland Drive has a signalized intersection at Nicholasville Road and extends to the west through an area mostly zone B1. There is some B3 zoning in the area as well. And across Nicholasville Road to the east, it becomes Jessalyn Drive in a residential area. The two subject properties are just north of this intersection. On the northwest quadrant, there's a gas station. 1949, Nicholasville Road is definitely the larger of the two properties. and 145 Collins Lane sits directly behind it. Both of the properties comprise the nearly two and a half acres of property that are before you this evening in consideration of this rezoning request. The surrounding zoning to the site is entirely B1 to the north where there's a very small commercial center, gas station, some retail uses. The Southland Bowling Lanes are a short distance to the west of this location, as is a car wash establishment here. Collins Lane is an access road that connects Southland Drive near the intersection of Rebel Road and parallels Southland at this location. 1949 Nicholasville Road is also where the Denny's Restaurant is located, and as we'll see later in the photos in the development plan, that use is not proposed to change. The applicant is proposing a five-story hotel at this location. That is not a permitted use in the existing B1 zone, and that is why they filed a zone change to a restricted B3 zone in the hopes of allowing that use at this location. I do have a few items to show you on the overhand, and I'd also like to show some photographs to help further orient you to the area. This is the same zoning map that's on the wall. Again, we have Nicholsville Road, Southland Drive, Jessalyn Drive here. Goodrich Avenue is a residential street a short distance north of the subject property. And as I mentioned, the site is bounded by B1 zoning on three sides, along with R1C, single-family zoning for the homes along Goodrich, a very small R3 parcel that is immediately north where there's a parking lot and a vacant lot. There is P1 zoning in the area as well across Nicholsville Road and across Southland Drive where there are some office uses and a bank, among other uses, in that area. This is an aerial photo of the same location. Again, we have Nicholsville Road, Southland Drive, Chessland Drive, Goodrich Avenue, Edgemoor Drive is here. This photo shows very well that the entire subject property is almost entirely impervious. There are existing buildings on the subject property at this location and this location. This is the car wash, retail uses, and the gas station, and the bowling alley, along with residences and the small commercial building immediately to the north at the Denny's Restaurant. Here's another view. This is looking from the north to the subject property. Nicholasville Road is here. The gas station, the existing Denny's Restaurant. Behind the Denny's Restaurant is a very large office building that was formerly the headquarters to the Jericho Company. That use moved away from this location long ago, and the property has been vacant in recent times, although used for offices since they moved their location. I'll come back to photos in just a moment. I mentioned that this is a restricted highway service business zone that is being requested by the applicant. There are use restrictions proposed for the B3 zoning, should it be granted, that would prohibit a number of uses, including lots for display, rental and sale, farm equipment, automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, travel trailers, mobile homes, and supplies for those items. In addition, automobile service stations are proposed to be restricted, as are car washing establishments, indoor amusements such as pool halls, skating rinks, theaters, or bowling alleys. Another prohibited use would be self-service laundry or laundry pickup stations. Garden centers, kennels, minor automobile and truck repair are proposed to be restricted. Carnivals on a temporary basis, taxidermy establishments, a number of adult-oriented uses, including adult arcades and bookstores, and cocktail lounges and nightclubs are also proposed to be restricted by the applicant's application as part of their zone change. There is also a buffering restriction proposed, and that is that along the north and west property lines there would be a 6- to 8-foot tall decorative privacy fence with 12-foot evergreen trees planted along that line at 10-foot spacing. That is part of the applicant's proposal. Now to show a few photographs on the ground. This is Nicholsville Road looking north at the existing Denny's restaurant and this is the office building directly behind it that is now vacant. The parking lot that you're looking at in this photo is proposed to remain if the zone change is granted. This is a view of Collins Lane looking from Nicholsville Road. The parking lot for the restaurant is at this location. This commercial building is part of the zone change, although in the very rear of the lot, this is the car wash. And then in the distance, the existing bowling alley is also visible. This is a view of the same location. Looking now at the office building that is in very close proximity to the rear property line of those properties along Goodrich Avenue. A little closer up view of the entrance to that building. Obviously, it's not occupied as the parking lot is empty as well. This is a view from nearly the same location on Collins Lane looking to the south. This is looking between the gas station and a restaurant use here looking south to Nicholshire Road. South and Drive is in the foreground, and the Continental Towers actually appears in this photograph. This is a view of the existing property line between the subject property and the homes on Goodrich Avenue. This is as seen from the subject property, as is the next photograph. The building, as I mentioned, is in very close proximity to the existing property line, and a portion of the building may actually be on the property line as well. This is a view of the sole piece of property that is zoned R3 just to the north of the subject property. This is looking from Goodrich Avenue toward the rear of the office building. You can see there is some landscaping and vegetation between the properties. These are homes on Goodrich Avenue, and there is a very small detention basin situated here at the rear of that R3 property. Bill, can you show us that property on the... Certainly, Mayor. Master plan over here. That R3 property is four lots removed from the intersection of Goodrich and Nicholsville Road, and it does widen in the rear. Show us on the bottom where it would be, on the bottom map, on the bottom diagram. The property is here. Okay. On the larger scale. All right. This is a view of some of the homes on Goodrich Avenue. I believe this is looking on the north side of the street. And another photo of the same. One of the issues at the Planning Commission meeting, this exhibit helps illustrate, is the proximity of the buildings to this rear or side property line, depending on orientation. The existing Denny's Restaurant is in very close proximity to that line, as is the existing office building. The other commercial building closer to Collins Lane, obviously, is set back much farther. The hotel use proposed is proposed at a very close setback to that property line, about 23 feet. The proposed B-3 zone allows a building as high as 75 feet in height, whereas the current B-1 zone allows a building only 25 feet or 35 feet in height. That difference is dependent on whether or not there is a residential use on the top floor of a B-1 building. That was one of the major issues at the Planning Commission hearing on this zone change. The proposed height of the hotel that is proposed here was an issue discussed by Planning Commission members and many that attended that meeting. Next, I'd like to review the comprehensive plan recommendations with the Council. This is a view of the comprehensive plan land use map, and that is the same map that we have up on your board to my left. Again, this is Nicholsville Road. Southland Drive is here. Jessalyn Drive, extending across. Goodrich Avenue. Edgemoor Drive, here. The subject property is situated here, and it is shown in an area of land use for retail trade and personal service uses. Those are generally uses that are conducted in a store or a store-like environment under the comprehensive plan. you will notice something unusual about the comprehensive plan in this area with the cross-hatched area. In 2007, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, it was anticipated that this area would be subject to special study, and that does include the front portion of the subject property. There was a small area plan that was begun by the Planning Commission for that area, and there was some dialogue with different stakeholders in that area, but the Planning Commission ended up suspending that activity and did not adopt a small area plan amendment for this portion of the Nicholasville Road corridor. It was called the North Nicholasville Road small area plan in that another was done further out Nicholasville Road in the urban service area. The land use recommendation for the other properties, this is a closer up view of the same, is for low density residential, shown in yellow. The professional service uses are also recommended in this particular area. In reviewing this application, the planning staff noted that there is some B3 zoning in the Nicholasville Road corridor, but generally those B3 zones are in areas that were zoned more than 40 years ago prior to the time that we had conditional zoning or where there are existing hotel sites in the corridor. A hotel use is proposed here, and what the staff found is over the last 10 years, when hotels have been approved, they have generally had quite a bit of distance from single-family residential areas. That distance averaged at about 300 feet. They ranged anywhere from 800 feet to about 150 feet in distance from residential areas. The height to yard ratio that I mentioned earlier and the height restrictions that are inherent in the B3 zone are one of the reasons that the staff in our report said that it's not well situated against or next to low-density residential land uses. The staff initially at the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee meeting made a recommendation of postponement of this application. We felt that the separation between the proposed land use and the existing low-density residential land uses was not adequate for the use that is proposed. The applicant decided not to postpone their application, and so the planning staff prepared a revised staff report at the Planning Commission hearing. And in that revised report, the planning staff recommended disapproval of the requested B3 zone. There were two reasons cited in our report. The first was the same reason that we offered for postponement of this application. That was that the proposed hotel is located far closer to the nearest residences along Goodrich Avenue when compared to other hotels developed over the past decade, which were on average located about 800 feet from residential uses, single-family residential uses. Secondly, the staff found that the applicant had not provided sufficient justification for the proposed zone change. When we have a zone change, there must be findings that either the zone change is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, or if not, that there have been either major changes in the area that were not anticipated by the comprehensive plan, or that the existing zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. So those were the two reasons that the planning staff recommended disapproval of this request at the Planning Commission hearing. the commission held their hearing on september 27th and heard from a number of citizens including the applicant and the planning staff as well and by a vote of seven to three voted to recommend disapproval of this zone change to the urban county council they cited the same two reasons that the planning staff cited in our revised report that day that was first that the proposed zone change and development do not propose the appropriate buffering needed between a highway commercial land use and existing low-density residential land uses, a hotel being more of a highway commercial use than a store or retail type of land use. Secondly, the applicant had insufficient justification to meet the requirements of KRS 100, and those findings mandate that the MAP amendment either be in agreement with the comprehensive plan that the existing zoning be inappropriate, the proposed zoning appropriate, or that there have been major unanticipated changes in the area. The Planning Commission at their hearing also reviewed and considered the preliminary development plan that was filed in conjunction with the zone change, and that is the exhibit to my immediate left. It is a much larger scale to the other exhibits we have been reviewing. in Nicholasville Road, the intersection of Southland Drive, just to the south of this location. It is at the corner of Collins Lane and Nicholasville Road. This development plan, as I mentioned, proposes to maintain the existing Denny's restaurant and the parking area that is there today to serve that use. It does propose the new hotel, five stories in height, about 200 linear feet from sidewall to sidewall. She was proposed about 60 feet. Bill, excuse me just a second. Can we get that image on the screen? Chris, can we get it? It's not a very good shot of it. I can try to get it. Cannot? I can get an angle shot on it. It's all right. Just do the best you can. Okay, thanks. Tell us again. Start at the Denny's again, please. We'll do. The existing Denny's is at this location and is proposed to remain as it exists today. The access point for that restaurant is also existing and proposed to remain, as is much of the parking in this particular area. Some new landscape islands are proposed in that parking area. And you'd be removing, you're going to tell us what you'd be removing? Yes. The demolition. Yes, sir. The office building is proposed to be removed from this part of the property here. And in its place, the hotel is proposed. So give us really carefully where the office building is on that overlay, or overlay it for us. At this scale, that office building appears here. All of this is parking on the existing property. The other existing commercial building exists at this location. and that building is also proposed to be removed from this development plan. There would be two underground detention basins proposed to handle the stormwater in this particular area from this development. This one would have parking over top, as would this one. There would be circulation allowed in Collins Lane at four locations, including accessing a canopy at the front of the proposed hotel. The Planning Commission, because they recommended disapproval of the zone change to the Council, has indefinitely postponed consideration of the development plan at the conclusion of their hearing, pending the result of the Council's decision tonight. Mayor, thank you. That concludes my prepared remarks, and of course I will be available for questions later in the evening. Thank you. Okay. Does anybody have any questions right now just for context? I think it would be worthwhile. Vice Mayor, you'd ask if there are any... The Vice Mayor just asked me if any of the existing buildings are more than one story. None of the existing buildings are one story, although they are taller than a typical one-story building, being commercial in nature. The existing office building may possibly have a partial basement. We're not sure. this is also a one-story building and again being commercial is probably closer to 20 foot in height than it is a typical residential one story alright thank you ok Council Member Kay I believe you entered both the 2007 and the 2012 comp plan into the record is that correct entered the goals and objectives from the 2012 comprehensive plan. So I guess my question has to do with is there any change in the subject property between 2007 and 2012 in the land use between those two comprehensive plans? No, sir, there is not. The land use element of the 2007 comprehensive plan remains in effect. Thank you. Vice Mayor has a question, Bill. I did not know if this was the appropriate time, but you entered into the record the newspaper ad and the notice sent to the neighbors, but you did not enter the sign. Was the signage posted? The sign is the applicant's responsibility, and I've been told that the sign was posted on the property. We would expect to see an affidavit from the applicant about the sign posted. Thank you. All right. Okay. Thanks, Bill. All right. All right. Next on the agenda is a presentation by the petitioner, And that's represented by Mr. Simpson. All right. These are the witnesses, Susan, so I'll just pardon. Sometimes it's in the exhibit book, too, so we can check to see if it's in there. If it is, then I won't need that copy. The list of witnesses? Yes, sir. Yeah. We can see if it's in the... All right. Are the witnesses in the book? Once I get one. Bruce, are the witnesses in the book? No. The witnesses are not in the book. They're on a separate sheet that I just gave you. Okay. I'll get it to you. All right. We'll get her the book. Okay. Thank you, Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of the applicants in this case, which are Phil and Lee Greer. They own the property and have owned it for about eight years. It's been a while since this body has heard a zone change. It hadn't had too many rezonings because of the economy, obviously, in the last several years. But we have one tonight. It has a history which I'll briefly review in terms of how we got here tonight. One thing in response to what the staff said, however, in terms of the application of the comprehensive land use plan that you all need to appreciate and understand, and I think some of you that have been through some of these before do, But the comprehensive plan is more than the color on the land use map. I'm using a green pointer because I can see it better. But this is the land use element of the comprehensive plan. It is one page. The comprehensive plan is 343 pages. and it's all in this book. It's been introduced in the record. The reason I point that out is for two reasons. Number one, as the comprehensive plan points out clearly, it is a guide for the Planning Commission and this council and citizens to look at. It's a guide. And as the courts have held, it is not a straitjacket. In other words, just because a color gets put on that map does not mean that this body is obligated or the planning commission is obligated to approve every request that comes forward that's consistent with the color on the map. Obviously, if that were the case, then there would be no need for any hearing whatsoever because you either came before this body or the planning commission with an application that matched up with the color on the map and got approved, and if you didn't, you got turned down. Well, the law says that's simply not the way we look at planning and zoning and development in the state of Kentucky and in Lexington, and it's been that way for a long period of time. But we have a history when we look at this in terms of how the Planning Commission looks at it, and I will say in large part to staff, that if your application is not exactly in conformity with a specific color, then it's recommended for disapproval. So I take issue with that. The other thing you need to know about the color on the map is this. About ten years ago, applicants would come before the Planning Commission and try to change the color on the map, and they would wind up having many hearings and it wound up in litigation and the Planning Commission put a stop to it. We're not going to have people come when the comprehensive plan is being updated and we're not going to be hearing specific requests and reviewing specific requests individually to change the color on the map. So no one makes any requests to change this map. 98% of the colors on this map have been the colors on the map. since 1969, except when there's a zone change and the color gets changed. So we don't change the color, by and large, at all during a comprehensive plan update. We just don't. We change the goals and objectives. The biggest change that this body has made and the planning committee has made in the last two comprehensive plans, the critical focus has been clearly, as you know, we're not going to approve any more land outside the existing urban services boundary for future development. We're going to grow up and not out. We're going to utilize infill opportunities. And as this comprehensive plan 2007 says quite clearly, we're going to look more creatively. We're going to look differently at different applications as they come up for zone map amendments so that you can consider each case on its own. Is it worthy of approval? based upon all of the information that you have before you, or is it not? We are not wedded clearly to the color on the map. That's an important consideration as we start our case that I ask you to consider throughout our case. It is a guide. It is not a straitjacket. The other undisputed fact is this. This property has been zoned for commercial use for more than 45 years. 45 years. We're not going from a residential zone to a commercial zone. We're not going from a professional office zone to a commercial zone. We're going from a commercial zone to one use. One use only based on the restrictions that we have imposed upon ourselves in this application. We're only using one use in a B3 zone, and that's a hotel. All the rest of those uses in the B3 zone are excluded except for the B1 uses, which is what we have right now. I have an additional restriction that I'll put on at the end of my presentation, but those are the facts. We're asking for one use, one limited use, which as we go through the evidence in this case, you will see there are a number of four-story hotels located throughout our community, next to neighborhoods, closer to houses than what we're proposing here tonight. We'll show you evidence of that. How did we get here? Well, the Greers bought the property eight years ago. At that time, as Bill Sally went through the explanation, The property had been used initially by Jericho Incorporated back when Jericho was first formed. It was Jerry's and then Long John Silver's. It was professional office for that company only. They were there for 20 or 30 years. Then they leased the property out to Kentucky Mortgage Company, an office use. They had it for several years. And then for three years, Central Baptist Hospital used it for offices. But clearly, as the photographs in the evidence book that I introduced point out, it's no longer appropriate behind the Denny's and the rear of the businesses that face on Southland Drive looking at their dumpsters. You can't compete in the professional office market anymore based upon the circumstances that exist. So you're confined to existing B1 uses, restaurants, and I'll go over those in a minute, all the things you can do right now in a zone change that we believed would be more of a nuisance factor, more of a traffic generation factor, more of a stormwater factor, more incompatibility factors under the existing zoning than what we're proposing. So Phil and Lee said, let's come up with a proposal, but let's first hear the neighbors so we can make whatever changes that we need to make. And you will see in my exhibit book, under the first couple of tabs, the letters that were sent out to the neighbors, inviting them to meetings. We had two meetings. Because I've always found, in both representing neighborhoods and representing applicants for rezonings, it's better that you talk before you have a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. Why? You try to minimize conflicts, save time, understand the other fellow's point of view, and to the maximum extent that you can, try to reach some kind of accommodation. Over two meetings, what we heard were concerns about our proposal as a hotel would generate too much traffic on Nicholasville Road. That was clear, a very serious concern. The second thing we heard, we're very concerned about stormwater runoff. This particular area in Lexington on Southland Drive and Goodrich has a history, probably one of the most top five significant stormwater problems in the history of Lexington. There's no dispute about that. So we heard about stormwater runoff, and I'll go into that in a little bit more detail. The third thing we heard about was we don't want a lot of noise and a lot of lighting, a lot of activity in whatever use you're proposing. So we heard about that. And so in response to those concerns, we engaged a traffic engineer to do a traffic study, even though your ordinance that requires traffic impact studies when you're doing a zone change, you have an ordinance that says if you're going to increase density and traffic to a certain threshold amount, you have to do a traffic study. You have to pay an engineering firm to do a traffic study. Our application was not intense enough to warrant a traffic study, but we did one anyway, because the neighbors expressed concerns that our proposal would generate more traffic than what the existing B-1 uses are. And as our engineer pointed out, and I'll discuss briefly, that simply is not the case. In point of fact, it's the least traffic generator. In an area of Nicholasville Road that we all have traveled upon, this neighborhood is directly impacted by it, clearly, as are other neighborhoods along Nicholasville Road. So the use we're proposing is much less, significantly much less, than what the existing B1 would allow us to do without a zone change, without a public hearing on the use and what we wanted to do. If we wanted to use any of the uses that are outlined in the exhibit under tab number three, those are the B1 uses. All of those uses, banquet facilities, automobile service stations, retail stores, grocery stores, retail plant nurseries, outdoor miniature golf, quick copy services, restaurants, and the like. Typical kinds of commercial uses that we see all over Lexington. But not so much if you've got an outdoor patio and a restaurant. Do we really need another restaurant on Nicholasville Road? Do we need one where they're going to be up until 2.30 in the morning, potentially, using it? If it's a successful restaurant, which we hope it is. and the people whose backyards are next to it, under the existing B1 zone. The Greers could go in and put in a restaurant back there, which they have a number of cheddars, as you know. They could put an existing restaurant back there, and the only screening and buffering that would be required as a matter of law, no public hearing on it, no debate, you got the zoning, you go before the planning commission, you put up a six-foot fence and one tree every 40 feet. And that's all you have to do. And you can have a restaurant, and you can have outdoor seating, and you can have the bar and the restaurant, as long as it meets a certain four-ary ratio in terms of use. And you can stay open until 2.30 in the morning. And you can have cars slamming and people walking and talking. You can have that. I don't say that as any kind of threat. I'm just explaining as a reality, that's a very likely use. And it's a use that's really not compatible, particularly with the people that live next to this property. And in fact, the people that live closest to this property, the neighbors, the homeowners that live closest, will testify tonight that they want this. of all the potential uses and changes and based upon all of the extras that the Greers have provided in this case, they want this, and you'll hear from them. Now, Amy Carrington had to be delayed. She won't be here until about 8 o'clock, but she's got a letter, and one of the neighbors will read that letter, and Amy will be available for questions later on during the course of the hearing. She lives right next to it, and she's in favor of it. So we looked at all the available uses. We had a traffic study, and we established that the traffic to be generated from the B1 uses would be anywhere from 50% to 450% greater than the hotel uses. 50% to 400% greater than the hotel uses. The hotel use is one of the lowest use. This hotel has no nightclub. It has no bar. It's a Hampton. It has a traditional Hampton-type warm-up breakfast, and that's it. There's no kitchen. There's no dining facility. There's no cocktail lounge. It is just a Hampton. It's a handsome hotel. I regret that I can't show you how handsome it is. I was able to show it to the Planning Commission. But it's a handsome hotel. What the Greers committed to the Planning Commission, and what we're committing tonight as part of our application, is that the hotel that we have shown the neighbors, two separate meetings and in emails to them, and what we represented at the Planning Commission, that what we showed at the Planning Commission in terms of how this hotel would look and the landscape features internally, we'll commit to as part of our promise to develop this property as a hotel. And I'm doing that again tonight, and I've got it in my findings, my proposed findings, that a developer can come forward and voluntarily say, I'm going to promise this, and it's a condition of this zone change. If you prove it, I'm going to be held accountable legally, and the Department of Law will agree with you, with me, has. If we promise it and you approve it, it goes with that property. It has to be done. And we're promising tonight to build the very kind of building that we represented, the Planning Commission, and to the neighbors that we would build if we're successful in getting your all's approval, which we hope we are. Under tab number four, you can also have professional office. You can have medical clinics, nursing homes. You can have community centers, ticket and travel agencies, kindergartens, cable television studios, signal applications, a number of other different kinds of uses. We believe we've got a very low intense use, and it's a residential use. People come to the Hamptons to stay. They don't come to party. There's no bar. They come to stay. They come to stay because Central Baptist is down the street. UK Med Center is down the street. St. Joe Hospital is not too far away. The University of Kentucky is not too far away. It's close to downtown businesses. It's on a main arterial. There's plenty of options and access points. It's a residential, temporary residential, for people that stay in hotels like we all do from time to time. So the other thing that was a concern that I mentioned was stormwater. The record is not in dispute. that Goodrich Avenue, Southland Drive, this property, all the way down Southland Drive, has historically had a failed stormwater management system. Why? Because back in the day, in the 50s, when all this was approved, there were no requirements for any detention. None. So people developed. No detention. The water just flew right off, and it started flooding people's houses. About eight years ago, this government had to pay for six houses at the end of Goodrich. at the end of Goodrich because it failed to take care of stormwater problems, your predecessors, back in the day. Those houses are gone, torn down. It's an empty field. At the end of Goodrich now, all you see are buildings on the back of Southland Drive. There's no screening. It's wide open. The railroad track across Southland Drive, wide open, no screening. That's there. So what are we proposing to do that's significant? Well, under existing zoning, under the existing B1 zoning, the Greers could go in there or whoever they sold the property to, rehab the existing building, put in a restaurant, put whatever you wanted to do, keep the same footprint and not have to do any stormwater detention. Not any. Use the same footprint, you don't have to do any detention. Even if you change the building around and wanted to shift it like what we're proposing, under the same zone, without a zone change, the most you would have to do is 20% reduction. 20%. That's all. That's the minimum you'd have to do if it remains as is in an area which has been flooding for years. The other thing is that when the Greers bought the property, FEMA designated it as a floodplain. In fact, all of Southland Drive going down the Bowling Alley, all of the property that the Greers own, even to the backyards and some of the houses, structures on Goodrich, are right now, well, not right now, in a floodplain. Meaning that you can't develop it even if you've got a zone change. Well, how do we respond to that challenge? Not for just our benefit, but for all of the other businesses along Southland Drive and the homes on Goodrich that are in the floodplain. What we did was we engaged vision engineering, Jihad Helani, worked with FEMA. They looked at it again, recalculated, looked at all the improvements that we were going to do, and guess what? They're taking the property out of the floodplain. Because of our efforts, the Greer's efforts, they paid for this. The Irvin County government did not pay a dime for this study, for this work, to get all these properties out of the floodplain so they would have the potential for success. South and Drive, I'll talk to you later, been struggling for a long time. It's hanging on. But because of this application, these properties, Jihad Alani will tell you if asked, we've gotten approval, we expect to get the letter next week of all these properties being out of the floodplain. And the thing is, if they're not out of the floodplain, no one can do anything, not even us, with your approval of this case. But what I'm telling you is, And if you want to ask Mr. Helani, he'll tell you. We've got approval from FEMA that all of this property, most of it outside our property is out of the floodplain. That's important for a couple of properties on Goodrich. Why? They're paying floodplain insurance right now. They're paying extra money every month because their property is in the floodplain. And because of this study, they will no longer have to do that. Now that's a benefit. That's a benefit particularly to them. The other thing that we're doing, keep in mind they could just go in and rehab the existing Jericho offices, not do any detention. We are promising, as a commitment condition of this rezoning, to reduce the rate of stormwater runoff from this property by 50%. 50%. I don't believe you can point to another developer in the history of this body's review of zone changes that has obligated themselves voluntarily to reduce the rate of stormwater by 50% over what they would be required to do if they wanted it to develop under the current zoning. 50%. Underground storage vault, bioswales, not only stormwater runoff rate, but water quality to exceed what the urban county government requires. To exceed what the urban county government requires for stormwater management and stormwater quality in one of the worst watersheds, Wolf Run, in our city. Major, major benefit, not just to the Greers, but to all the properties that are going to be impacted. So we have that. Why? Why? Because we knew we were going to have people not necessarily like what we were doing. And we still don't, regrettably, but that's the nature of these hearings. We appreciate that. When it gets right down to it, it is about the height. It's about the height of the building. And there's a number of hotels, which I'll show you, that are taller than ours, or as tall as we're proposing that live, they're adjacent next to residential houses, closer. But we've heard it's too high. Five stories is too high. It's just too high. And so the Greers have been evaluating that objection, though they don't believe it is too high based upon the screening and buffering provisions, which will consist of the existing tree stand, which is 60 to 80 feet tall, all along Goodrich Avenue between our property and the homes on Goodrich. We're going to add an 8-foot privacy fence, wooden, with brick columns every 32 feet to make it attractive. Not your usual, just long stockade fence, but a handsome brick, wooden fence all the way around on Goodrich. and then we're back up next to a parking or to a car wash, a very noisy car wash, and we're going to buffer that too with this 8-foot privacy fence and bricks columns. And then on the other side of the fence, we're putting planting at installation, 12-foot evergreen trees. Now, when was the last time you had an applicant come before you in any zone change and obligate themselves to a 12-foot tree at installation? every 10 feet, all along that fence to the west where the car wash is and all along the common boundary with the homes on Goodrich. So you have the existing tree stand of 60 to 80 feet. You've got the 8-foot privacy fence with the brick columns, and you've got 12-foot trees planted that grow about 3 feet a year. Now, we're not trying to hide something ugly. I'm telling you, it's a handsome proposed building. It is the top-of-the-line Hampton. In any event, that's another consideration, another response that we undertook to the concerns about the height. But as the Greers deliberated, and they come here tonight, and what they have directed me to say is this, that they will compromise one more step. it has to be conditional because this is the $15 million development. South and Drive hadn't seen a $15 million development since the 50s when it was built. And I'm proud to say I was one of the first people to go into Woolworth and buy a cherry Coke on my Schwinn bike when I lived on Woodbank. $15 million. But they've heard the complaints, and even though they believe they tried to be as sensible and reasonable as possible, sensitive and reasonable as possible, tonight they're going to commit to a maximum of four stories. Four stories. Now, I say it's conditional because, and this is the condition, that's a lot of money to spend and you're going to knock out 25 rooms, potentially. Now, they may be able to make it work. But it's going to be four stories. However, there's a couple of things that we don't know. This is a Hilton product. Hilton may not approve it. They wanted 105. They've always wanted 105. They license these facilities. And at the end of the day, it may not be profitable at four stories. So our proposal is this, that we're going to commit to four stories. You rezone the property. If we believe it's justifiable, economical, and Hampson approves it, we're going to be bound by all of the promises that I've represented to you tonight. The screening, the buffering, the stormwater, the reduction in the traffic, the handsome building, and all the rest. But if later it's determined, and again, this is in every case. People come before you and ask for a zone change to do a certain thing, but the economy changes or whatever, and they don't do it. In this case, we can do a B1 zone. Our intention is to build a hotel. But because this need to compromise one step further has come relatively late in the day in an effort to try to make the peace and to calm the storm, if you will, with those that don't like it five-story, that if we build a hotel, it will be no more than four stories. And we'll do everything that we've committed to doing, and I've got that in my findings. And I have shared that with the law department to make sure that we're legally obligated because I told them, if I say something, if I promise something, it's going to be in writing and it's going to be enforceable. That's not me. That's Phil Greer and Lee Greer. They said make it enforceable. So you approve this zone change. The maximum height is now four stories. We can build a little over three stories under the existing B1 zone. We can build a 35-foot tall building. You've approved previous projects where you've got commercial, and you have residential on top. I'll just knock something off. Can you hear me? You've approved commercial with residential on top. And we can, with that proposal, because we're right next to Goodrich, we could have apartments overlooking the backyards of Goodrich, 35 feet tall. Not need a zone change, just do it. So the difference between what we could do as an option, 35 feet tall, and what we're asking for in terms of the fourth floor is 12 feet. Now we've got to add a parapet to screen the top of the building, so it comes down to about 17 feet. As we stand here tonight, the difference in what the dispute is, basically, is 17 feet. 52 feet will get the structure built. There is one, the sign of it, the Hampton Inn is a little bit higher than that, it faces away from the neighborhood. But the closest portion of the building, in terms of its design in any event, is situated, as Bill Sally pointed out to you, and it's on the development plan up there. If you follow my green little dot, Goodrich is here. The hotel has 47 feet exposed directly this way. you will see other situations and other exhibits shortly where the entire hotel is facing back up to the neighborhood. This is not what the Greers wanted to do. They wanted to minimize the exposure to the neighborhood. Now, it's 23 feet to the property line. It's about 125 feet to this house right here. That's Amy Carrington's house, and she's in favor of this application, as is the lady on the right, as is the lady on the left. So we've tried to minimize the conflict point. But that's another compromise that we've made tonight, is to do that very thing, to make it four stories and recognizing that if we choose not to, if it's economical or we can't do it because we can't get approval, it won't be built. And the only uses that we can then use are the uses that we have now, B1. So we're talking about 17 feet. 17 feet is shorter than I am from me to you, any one of them. The photographs that I have, I'm going to go through these quickly, Chris. Bill showed you some of these. Just go ahead and move through those. We've seen the location of the property in Goodrich. The property has, the last three or four years, They've tried to look at different options to develop it, and it's simply not available for professional offices, which is what it has been. And so it's in need of some major cleanup and repair. We'll just go through these slides. This is the car wash that is to the west of the hotel site, and the houses on Goodrich are right here. If you go back in these yards, you hear a lot of noise from this car wash. Now, it's just a business. All the Goodrich backs up to, on that side, commercial property. This is some of the screening that you see in the summertime. I'll show you some winter screening in a minute. This is from two of the houses on Goodrich, actually are next to the Mexican restaurant, and they look out over a parking lot where the Mexican restaurant is, and this is what they see now of the existing building. This is their view as we stand here today. this is over the backyard of one of the houses on Goodrich who is in favor of the zone change looking across toward where the hotel would be another view from the backyard of one of the residents toward where the hotel will be more screening again, you can move through these pretty quick, Chris this is kind of, turn this the other way around one of the issues, again, as I mentioned, is stormwater Well, this is like a 1930 kind of fix to a serious stormwater problem on Goodrich. And the other thing is Goodrich drains toward us. We don't drain toward Goodrich. They drain toward us. This drained water, this is an open channel, and you'll see the next two slides. This goes under the current property. Constant flooding in this basin next to the two houses on Goodrich. Floods all the time. It's not adequate. This is why. This is not on our property. This is next to the Mexican restaurant, all this stuff. So there's a significant water problem. One of the neighbors who lives on the other side of the street of Goodrich, not next to it, called me and said, I'm concerned about it. Get back to that last picture, if you would. She wanted to know where the stormwater went, so we had Mr. Helani and his assistant. We opened up every manhole cover, dug up holes all over the property so we could find and show her, so she could see for herself. You can see she was very determined to look. We were glad that she did. We located them all. One of the commitments we're making, we're tearing up all the existing dilapidated stormwater lines that the government owns on this property, dedicated to the government. We're going to replace them all. This is some of the wintertime screening. You can see it's not as thick as it is in the summertime. Again, this is wintertime screening. I took this just a few days ago. This is another signal of the stormwater problem coming from Goodrich. The water backs up against this wall, and somebody at some point tapped a hole through this wall on our property so the stormwater wouldn't flood these people, and it comes over on our property. This is more the existing wintertime screening. It's about 25 foot tall. Now, this existing building is 25 feet tall. this is down at the end of Goodrich where the houses used to be that there's no screen this backs up to South and Drive and the railroad's over here I mentioned there's other instances where there's tall buildings, this is a residence inn out on Pink Pigeon in Hamburg it's about 50 some feet tall, 54, 55 52 feet tall, 4 stories This is a house in Hamburg as well on Pleasant Ridge and Timberbark Drive, I think that is. This is a single-family house. This is a 47-foot hotel. It's 104 feet. 104 feet. We're about 130, but this is all neighborhood over here. And this is the hotel. Here's another example of a four-story hotel. It's kind of hard and dark to see. This is out on Vendor Way and Pink Pigeon. You saw the front of the residence in. That building is 52 feet tall. It's 75 feet away from the single-family houses in Hamburg. These are very nice houses, 280, 350, $400,000 houses right next. No screening whatsoever. No 8-foot fence, no 12-foot trees. This is a four-story residence right next to this neighborhood. This is over across from Big Elm Golf Course next to the Campbell House, another four-story hotel in a residential area. It's 46 feet away from this single-family house. 46 feet away, no fence, no trees, no screening of anything whatsoever. Next one. This is an extended stay hotel that the Board of Adjustment approved at the end of October. It is located on Lowry Lane down off Nicholasville Road behind Trader Joe's. They are proposing, I don't know how high it's going to be, but I know it's going to be four stories because that's what they represented at the Board of Adjustment. Four-story hotel, just to prove last month in a residential zone, it's 113 feet, 113 feet, 148 feet from existing neighborhood development. Okay. So there has been a number of instances in our community where we've had taller buildings. next to residential areas, and there's been no diminution in value. There's not been any huge crowd or rezone or close them down. And, in fact, one of the concerns of the neighborhood was, which is unusual for me, in fact, in doing these cases for more than I care to have mentioned, I've never had an actual appraisal done in connection with the zone change, but the neighbors expressed concern about, well, if you build this hotel, now four stories, it's going to hurt our property value. So we commissioned one of the most well-known MAI-certified appraisers in Lexington, Keith Mays. He went out and did a study to determine residential structures next to five-story buildings. Was there any diminution in value? Did they lose money? And the answer was no. Every property that was next to one of these structures did not depreciate it in value. It appreciated it in value, just like all the rest in Lexington. Now, we also, we didn't have to do it just like we didn't have to do the MAI certified appraisal. We had a traffic study. Brad Johnson is here tonight with CDM Engineers, the top traffic engineering company in our state. I said, Brad, look at the likely uses of this under the B1 zone and compare them to what we're asking for in the B3, which is just the hotel. and you will see when you compare specialty retail, a pharmacy, a grocery store, a medical dental office building, an athletic club, a drive-in bank, a sit-down restaurant, a fast food drive-thru restaurant, a coffee shop, the increase over what we're proposing ranges from actually 82% increase to 530% extra traffic in an area of Nicholasville Road that doesn't need any more traffic in an effort to minimize the impact to the neighborhood. Under tab number 7 or 11 are six reference zoning cases where this body approved in a B3 zone or in a B1 zone a restricted B3, which is what we're asking for. It was a B1 zone like we have. They wanted a hotel, and it got approved. And this is from the staff, and they talked about the distance to single-family houses and feet, ranging from 150 at the bottom to 1,200. I've showed you some examples where there's less than 100 feet against some hotel uses next to single-family homes in Lexington with no adverse impact on those homes and none of the buffering and screening that we're proposing. The next tab, tab number 8 or tab number 12, is just the average distance from each home to our hotel. It's 797 feet. Obviously, some are closer than others. The closest ones are in support of our application. The people most impacted by the height, now reduced to four, are in favor of the application. Average home on Goodrich, 797 feet. The average home distance from the hotel site on the homes on the next street over, which is Wabash, 1,078 feet, and on Lackawanna, 806 feet. I hope that by reducing it from 5 to 4, because we've heard reference that if you only brought it to 3 or 4 from some of the neighbors, that maybe we could live with 3 or 4. We're doing that. We're doing that tonight. Under tab number 13, I've got the existing hotel distances of the hotels that I mentioned. The one on the Campbell House on Parkway Drive, 46 feet away from a 53-foot-tall building. The residence inn at Pink Pigeon is 75 feet away from a 52-foot-tall building. The Courtyard Marriott is 104 feet away from a 47-foot-tall hotel. The extended stay next to Trader Joe's is actually 86 feet to a four-story building. You don't know the height. And ours would be 132 feet next to roughly 55 feet, and that's counting the highest point where the sign is. The side toward the neighbors would be like 52 feet. The photographs in the next tabs all the way down to 17 are the ones you've seen. under tab number 18 are letters from the neighbors and businesses along Southland Drive. I'm not going to read all of those letters because some of these people are here tonight to testify on their own. I do have findings of fact for approval and everything I've said in connection with this case based upon Phil and Lee Greer's direction to me, including the commitment to the four-story hotel, including the extraordinary stormwater detention of reducing your rate 50% along with the stormwater quality and the bioswales, in addition to the 8-foot privacy fence with brick columns and the 12-foot pine trees, the handsome building, all those things are in writing, and as a matter of law we're obligated to do them if we build a hotel. If we build a hotel, it has to be in conformance with the obligations the Greers have directed me to oppose upon them for this particular zone change request. We believe we've gone to extraordinary lengths to compromise. We've listened. They've spent a great deal of money trying to respond to the neighbors' concerns, and I believe you have to say at the end of the day we've done a more than fair and reasonable job. The total extra expense of fixing the stormwater runoff and all the rest that we wouldn't have to do if we did the B-1 zoning is $750,000. Now, you know, we believe we need to do it to try to convince people that we're not going to hurt anybody. We've dropped one story down, and we want to go forward. We're asking for your approval. We have witnesses available to back up everything I've said, and we have a number of people, mayor and members of the council, who are not part of my case, but who have indicated to us they wanted to testify on behalf of our application, and I would ask the chair's indulgence to allow those people to speak at this time. Mr. Gardner, is that appropriate at this time? All right. Go ahead. I don't have any particular orders, though. I think they signed up in the back like they usually do, Madam Vice Mayor. and probably, I mean, just in terms of a suggestion, if you will, the people that are for the zone change come for her first, and of course the people that are against it put on their case and their people, you know. So I would just, I don't have any order because I don't know who I was going to be here. So if the folks who want to speak in support of Mr. Simpson's representation of the applicant will just line up behind the podium. You'll need to say your name and your address, and you'll each have three minutes. I'll come later. Thank you, Ms. Vice Mayor, Council Members. My name is Julie Butcher. I am an owner of an R1C zoned house and lot. at 1922 and 1918 Nicholasville Road. I don't have a pointer to show you, but it's kind of catty corner across from the subject property here. I'm directly across, my properties are directly across from B1 zone businesses, the Denny sale, Toros, and so forth. My property is currently rental and has been on the market for over two years. Oh, thank you. If I can figure out how to work this. Ah. No. Well, that's why you always bring your own tools. Sorry about that. I think you all probably figured out where it is. It's on the corner of Edgemoor and Nicholsville Road. It's those two properties. Anyway, it has a direct view facing the Greer's property. It's not blocks away or blocked by a fence or stand of trees. It's a two-plus-story house that can look directly into that area and does. As an affected property owner, I support this zone change request because the proposed hotel, in my opinion, is far more attractive than the deteriorated eyesore there is now and is the safest and least intrusive alternative. The proposed hotel would also likely increase property values in the area, obviously a concern of mine having two properties in that area. Now, that's as an affected property owner. As a small business owner, employer, and taxpayer, I support this zone change request because the hotel will bring jobs, temporary and permanent, and add to much needed city revenue, all without any special incentive requests like TIF. If you turn down these private business people who want to invest $15 million of their own money in a well-designed, revenue-generating project like this, I believe Lexington will miss an incredible opportunity. Now, you're going to hear a lot more specific reasons in favor and in opposition, and frankly, I don't envy any of you your job of being the decision-makers here, but I would like to spend a little bit of time to talk about how this particular zone application illustrates the fact that our current zoning procedures are broken. As you know, state law requires that the comprehensive plan, any municipality that uses a comprehensive plan, has to update that every five years. And as Mr. Salley told you, in 2007, after public input, there were four areas of the city that were designated for review. These small area plans are SAP studies. The property under consideration today, as Mr. Salley told you, was part of one of those areas called the North Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan. That SAP designated all the properties directly abutting... Yes. Excuse me. Sorry. I know I was away when the Vice Mayor gave our rules about the three minutes. I said, I have this unpopular role of being the timekeeper. So that time has expired. Now, someone could cede their time to you if they want to do that. Okay. Okay. So another three minutes. Okay. Anyway, there was a steering committee formed. The steering committee was not originally compromised of all of the property owners along that. It later became compromised of all those property owners. There was one meeting, and only one meeting, of the re-comprise committee of those of us who had properties along there, and then the planning folks dropped that. So basically, the job was not finished. and I think it would be imprudent for the city to now in 2012 take on seven more small area plans without completing the small area plan that was designated in 2007, which I'm told is the only small area plan that has ever failed in this city. So let's do the job that we're supposed to do, and whatever the outcome may be for that, we'll have to live with it. But the upshot of all this is if we had done the job, if we had completed the small area plan, we might not be here today. We may have had other considerations. We wouldn't necessarily be stuck with, as Mr. Simpson said, the colors on the map. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Yes. I have a procedural question. Yes. My name is Joseph Miller, and I'm here to speak. Joe, would you come up to the mic? I apologize. My name is Joseph Miller, and I'm a designated spokesperson for the opposing point of view. And I just wanted to understand the process, which I'm not an attorney. So are these individuals being called as witnesses that would be subject to cross-examination, or are they simply citizens coming forth to speak their mind, as some of my neighbors will be too? Good question, Joe. Ed, can you, or Tracy, can you help us with this? For myself, I'm just an absolute citizen. Just a second. We're going to get a question answered here, and we'll come right back up. Well, that's why. This is what we think. The rules that you all have for these hearings talk in terms of witnesses called by the petitioner or by the opponent. And so Mr. Simpson said these are not necessarily his witnesses, so I think it would be up to you whether or not you want to allow them to be cross-examined as you go or how you want to proceed on that question. All right. We've got... All right, so what you're saying is this is unusual for us in this forum. Yes. Right. So you're saying it's up to the discretion of the body. Of the body, because the way your rules are written, it talks about witnesses in terms of those presented by each of the parties. And this doesn't appear to be witnesses. All right. What we're going to do then, I'm going to say we're going to allocate 15 minutes for comments by those who are here. And that would mean that you need to encourage brevity. Let us know what you feel, but try to do it in a minute or two. All right. Yes. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. At the beginning of the hearing, we talked about each side presenting a witness list, and I think they presented a witness list, did they not? Yeah, there were six on the witness list. Wouldn't that be who would be actually the ones at this point, I think, would be the ones that would add testimony and then later? Where are the witnesses, Bruce? When are they? As is usual, the case, Mayor, members of the Council, I've got witnesses here to corroborate, respond to questions. I summarize the evidence, which is a typical case in these kinds of administrative proceedings. So they're here, my engineer's here, the traffic engineer's there, stormwater guy's here, the Greer's are here, hotel manager's here. Those would be our evidence for our case. Now, the people that want to testify for or against, they're on their own as far as that goes. All right, all right. But we ask you, so you're not going to have witnesses specifically to speak? No. Only to answer questions if you direct them? All right. If you all have a question to them, or if anyone else has a question to them, they're here to respond. Right. And, Mr. Miller, we'll let opponents also have the equivalent time. May I ask one more? Yes, sir. So I just wondered then, in terms of the order of the hearing, does the opposition have an opportunity prior to the individual citizens to make our case and presentation, and then both groups, those for and against, would proceed to testify? We'll follow the same procedure. Okay. As soon as we get through this 15-minute, then we'll ask you for your presentation. All right? Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Now, there's a good long line here. We're going to do this in 15 minutes, okay? All right. Good evening here. Mr. Meyer. Yes, wait a minute. We've got another. Yeah, Council Member Farmer. I think we give everybody three minutes. That's what we do. What we've said, though, is we are changing. This is not a three-minute protocol. This is up to the discretion of the chair, is what Tracy just said. This is out of the order, and we are giving this amount of time, which is out of the order of protocol. However, you are answering a question he did not ask you. He asked you a question about cross-examining these people as witnesses or not, not about the length of their commentary, which I think we have a three-minute limit. Mayor, let me be clear. I think I might have confused the issue. Mr. Miller's question was, can he cross-examine these witnesses or these people? And what I said was that the way you all's rules are written is that, like, for example, if Mr. Simpson had called some of these witnesses during his presentation that are on this list, which he did not do, then those people could be cross-examined. Whether or not you all want to just have people that come up as members of the general public that haven't been identified as witnesses by either party be cross-examined at this time, that would be your question. But I think in terms of your rules for just people that are commenting, that are from the public that are not on either side, you need to allot the time that your rules stay, which I think is the three minutes. All right, then do we need to do this? Do we need to do that now or later? The comments from the public? Right, which is what we're getting now. I think we do that later. We do that later is what we've done always before. He's dealing with his case. So what we've done before is the petitioner and then the opponent. Right, and then you would hear comments. And then we would hear comments from the public, right. So we need to. Yes, Bruce, Mr. Simpson. I think if you read the protocol, historically, the applicant presents the case, the people in favor of the applicant then testify, then the people opposed testify, and the people that want to testify like these people do, then they testify for their three minutes. So we have all of the pro first, the against second, and then we have questions. Well, that's not the way I remember it, and I presided over about six or seven of these. You've done more cases than I have, though, so I'm going to listen to what Ed Gardner tells us. I'm going to need to confer just a second. All right. What? That's what I thought. I've got a second to my opinion on this from Mr. Stennett. from the occasional parliamentarian. I feel comfortable ruling on this, Ed. Go right on. All right. We are going to listen now to the opponent's presentation, and then we will come back to the comments from the public. Thank you all very much. You'll have a chance to come back and speak. Mr. Miller, when you're prepared, when you're ready, please proceed. Yes, good evening. My name is Joseph Miller. I'm a longtime resident of Goodrich Avenue, and I've been asked to represent my neighbors who oppose this zoning change request. I have a few items to present for the record, and please bear with me. As I mentioned, I feel a little bit like the David and Goliath deal here. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm doing the best I can to keep track of procedure. I have distributed a copy of the PowerPoint to each member of the council prior to the start of the meeting. I have given one to the clerk to enter into the record. I have a witness list, although I don't necessarily expect to call witnesses, but I was told that I would be given equal time to Mr. Simpson. So my witness list is here. And I also have with me tonight a petition that now totals 218 signatures that simply states that these individuals are opposed to the zoning change request that's being proposed. And I'll refer to that. I have some copies, but the originals are here, which I'd like to submit into the record. Yes. And now Mr. Simpson has the PowerPoint, too. Sorry. And there's a remote. Okay. Well, I was intrigued to hear the presentation by Mr. Simpson. I unfortunately don't have any surprise witnesses or amazing things to present here that are new. But I do think that we have thought about this potential change very seriously. and it began, as he alluded to, with neighborhood meetings where we started to talk and have a dialogue. And I'm somewhat new to the political process. I've never really been engaged this way, but I find, of course, that building consensus is a challenge. And I know that initially there were a lot of individual concerns. I'd like to briefly summarize what some of the neighbor concerns are, neighborhood concerns, and then I think what some of the broader issues are here. So if I... There we go. The petition that I just alluded to when I wrote this slide had only 160 signatures instead of the 218 that it contains now. This reflects more than 71% of the Goodrich neighborhood households and more than 60% of all the 210 households in the entire neighborhood association of Wabash, Goodrich, Pensacola, and Lackawanna. We have heard from a few of the neighbors at various meetings who are discouraged by the appearance of the current site, but many of us believe that this has really been owned for eight years and it's not really a reason for a zoning change. We feel that any appropriate B1 development plan would address many of these concerns, including this idea of a fence or a buffering zone. Excuse me, I have to get some water. Sorry. Well, as Mr. Simpson alluded to, we are concerned about a five-story hotel that's just 23 feet from the nearest property line. You know, we do contest the assertion that's been made here tonight that it will not impact our property values. When you look at Mr. May's study, you'll note that it covered a period from like 1967 to 2012, and I would like to believe that anybody's house would improve in value during that time. You know, I purchased my house on Goodrich in 1985 for about $60,000, and I hope it's worth more now with or without a B3 zone change. But I do think that this change would hurt property values, and I'll speak more about that, as will some of my neighbors tonight. We also are very concerned with the precedent this sets. We think that the Southland Corridor is just a terrific asset to the community, and we believe that this B3, even with a conditional B3 zone change, is a zone change. And it would set a precedent for other possible B3 zone requests coming down the road. I know Mr. Greer owns other properties along the Southland corridor. We are also very concerned that this would open the door to a wholesale change in the nature of the Southland area. We do have concerns about traffic. And, again, you know, when you look at the studies, I'm not a traffic engineer, although I have come in and out of Goodrich onto Nicholasville for, like, 27 years, and I'm pretty sure that traffic is a serious problem. And we recognize that any new development there would impact traffic. But I do think that instead of just looking at general averages, many of the meetings we had with the developer, with the neighborhood, they sort of proposed this idea that people come to a motel or hotel, check in, stay there for a day, and then drive away. And they don't really come and go constantly. We contest that belief, and we also think that there are different patterns to how traffic takes place. For instance, an office would have people coming and going from 8 until 5, Monday through Friday. A hotel would have traffic 24-7. And we certainly will bring up at this point, because Mr. Simpson did in his presentation, that one of the arguments made to us is that we were being sort of mean to the poor people that wanted to have a hotel nearby the U.K. or Central Baptist Hospital. Well, he's already pointed out that there is another hotel that's been approved with a conditional zone change before the Board of Adjustment behind Trader Joe's, and we believe that in some ways this weakens the argument that this hotel would meet some unmet need. We also have some broader concerns. You know, obviously you start with just what a neighborhood is worried about, And it's really about us, my property values, the traffic I'll face. But we also have concerns for what this means for the whole community, and I think it goes beyond just our neighborhood. This is a zoning change that would set a precedent. We believe that this is far closer, regardless of the data that Mr. Simpson alludes to. My understanding, and in fact I might call Mr. Sally at some point to comment further, at the Planning Commission hearing, I thought that some of those hotels he alluded to were in place prior to the residential units being built, and so people knew that they were building close to an existing hotel. People who bought houses on Goodrich believed that they were buying properties adjacent to a B-1 business zone. So here are some of these bird-eye views that we talked about, and Mr. Simpson had many. I've marked with X's the three houses that have not signed this petition, and they do represent neighbors that are in favor. I have the NR and NR there for no response. These are people that did not answer the door or weren't home, and so I couldn't ask them what their opinion was. But I can tell you that all the other houses that you see here, the one next to the Mexican restaurant, the small house that Mr. Simpson said is the closest, the people that own the house where she did the manhole exploration have all signed this petition opposing the zoning change. And again, just to highlight the site here and its proximity to the R1. Now, this may be inappropriate. I didn't really think it was architectural, but I did want to show the scale where I've superimposed what, at least we were told, the hotel would look like against the backdrop of the current, much smaller in height, office building. And, you know, it's easy to kind of say, oh, well, it's just 20 feet. 20 feet is just like from, you know, me to the flag. Well, you apply 20 feet vertical, and it is significantly different. And it's why we have zoning laws, because they are designed to protect residential areas and to accommodate development in appropriate ways. Now, this slide has a factual error. And naturally, whenever I proofread something, I discover the site is, you know, what we're worried about is that, you know, the site is south of us, and so there would be a shadow cast by a 65-foot-high building. One afternoon, I took out a yardstick and did a little Euclidean geometry and calculated that it would cast a 103-foot shadow, and that was a concern to some of our neighbors. Again, to highlight the site itself, you know, we see where I've highlighted the Goodrich House areas adjacent to the hotel. And the hotel, you know, they describe this as just being 46 feet facing our street. But this isn't a billboard. I mean, it's not a two-dimensional structure. It's a building. It's 200 feet in length. You know, that visual, like if you live over here, you know, you're looking at something that's very massive as opposed to just the one individual who would be looking directly at the back. I also found that this... Thank you. I don't think I did this. Hello? Loose wires. It's also interesting, I think you'll see another slide here in a moment that will show that Collins Lane here enters Nicklasville Road right where the right turn lane starts for turning on to Southland Drive. If you've ever watched somebody try and turn out of Collins Lane at about 4 o'clock on Friday afternoon, turning left towards the U.K. Hospital, which is what these people are expecting their clientele to do, you'd be kind of intrigued that it's taking your life in your own hands. Again, this is just to highlight the proximity to Goodrich. And it also shows, here's Collins Lane and the turn lane and the intersection with Southland Drive. And I can guarantee you that most days of the week, in the afternoon, Nicholasville Road is a parking lot from this light at Southland all the way back towards Lackawanna and Wabash. solid traffic you know we again like i said we can test this idea that it's not going to hurt our property values uh you know i looked at this study uh briefly that was presented in the handout here and you know we're talking about a large timeline um i could put up a chart of just average median home prices during this period, and of course you would see increases in property values. My house, I paid $60,000 in 1985. If I sold it today, I'd say it was $200,000. If this hotel is built, if my property value goes down 10%, I'm still selling it for $180,000, which the study would say, oh, no sweat. Your property values have gone up still. What are you complaining about? But you have to normalize this in terms of what's the impact? How much more would my house have appreciated? What about the houses in this study that they present that were the timeline, instead of being this real long timeline, is just saying let's look at houses a year before the big development and then what they got two years after. Or let's concentrate not on houses that were very distant from it, but the ones that were closest in proximity. I mean, I think their sample size, the way they've done their methodology is really flawed. And I would just leave the question, what do you think it would do to your property values if a hotel, five, four, whatever it's going to be, stories appeared in your backyard? Again, we think that the traffic is underestimated. And when you look at, here's a shot when apparently the Google mapping car was driving around when nobody was on Nicholasville Road. Very unusual. But we're looking ahead to Collins Lane where it comes into Nicholasville Road. And we're talking about significant traffic coming and going. Also here on Southland Drive, people coming out are going to be trying to turn left if they want to go towards the U.K. hospital because they have to make that left turn onto Nicholasville Road. So they're going to come into that shared middle lane in Southland Drive where cars are already backed up, waiting for the turn signal light for the left turn onto Nicholasville. So just to summarize quickly, is that my time? No. Is there a clock? I have three now, okay. I'm sorry. Just to summarize quickly, our neighborhood concerns, and some of those you'll hear from individual neighbors tonight, have to do with this proximity to R1, the height and visual impact. And frankly, I guess I could re-walk my petition and go back and bring this new development plan or whatever, but ultimately the question that was asked in the petition was, are you opposed to the zoning change? It wasn't, are you opposed to a five-story versus a four-story hotel? And that's what I think we have strong neighborhood association support for. We also haven't talked about night lighting. It's not just the daytime sky, but, you know, obviously if you have a large commercial hotel, you're going to have a lot of outdoor lighting to illuminate the parking lots. We think that we'll get a lot of light from that. We do think it sets the zoning precedent. will hurt our property values, and we'll create some traffic issues. About the stormwater flooding and FEMA designation, again, this is another one of these things where apparently the check is in the mail from FEMA or something. I don't know what that meant exactly. And I don't quite understand how you can just remove a FEMA designation. I mean, I can call my cat a dog, but it doesn't make it a dog. I mean, this is a floodplain. My house is somewhat distant. I'm about halfway down the street. My basement floods. I don't think this is going to change at all. I mean, we have groundwater issues. We have stone foundations. Everybody on Goodrich bought a house, knew their basement was going to flood. First thing to check was whether it was wet or dry, whether there were stains on the wall, and whether there was a functioning sump pump. You know, I don't know enough about the FEMA business to know whether that's good or bad, but I do think that the change in FEMA designation, I know it's presented as altruistic here, but I do think it could open the door to these other B3 developments that we do fear that will come all the way down the south side of Goodrich Avenue. So, again, we applaud the idea that the plan calls for managing stormwater and runoff. We would hope that an appropriate B1 redevelopment would also take into consideration, working with the city engineers, something about controlling stormwater. Obviously, it's a big issue, but it's going to be a persistent issue on Goodrich. Those houses that were torn down at the end of our street became, he describes it as like a bad thing. It's a nice green space retention basin now. Families go for walks, walk their dog there. Kids play there. And again, even at four stories, here's an example of a four-story hotel at Beaumont Center. Southland Drive should not become Beaumont Center. Now, the broader issues that I want to focus on now are really the ones that affect all of the community. This has to do with the fact that we have zoning laws. We have a really great planning commission and very efficient planning staff. Again, this is all new to me. As a citizen of Lexington since 1974, I've never really appreciated all the hard work that these various parts of our city government do. But we have a comprehensive plan. It made for fascinating reading. over the weekend. I just couldn't put it down. But don't skip ahead to the surprise ending. But basically, the comprehensive plan should guide our community development, and I have more to say on that. There's a 2008 infill and redevelopment plan, because, again, as Mr. Simpson talked about, infill is important, but it has to be appropriate infill and consistent with the comprehensive plan. And then finally, you have a recommendation before you that you have to overturn tonight if you decide to approve this appeal. That means to me that the burden of proof is on them to really overwhelmingly make you believe that the Planning Commission ruled an error. The zoning ordinance also is fascinating reading, and I recommend it if you haven't had a chance. Revisited. Neighborhood Business B1 zones are intended to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area. They should be located as recommended in the comprehensive plan. They should be oriented to the residential neighborhood. Contrast that to highway business zones, B3. Conditional or not, it's a B3. The comprehensive plan should be used to determine the locations for these zones. Special consideration should be given to the relationship of the uses in the zone to the surrounding land uses. These are four things that are good for the economic vitality of the community. I mean, I have a lot of respect for how important a developer like Mr. Greer is to the economic vitality of the community. But these are stated to be that they could be inappropriate in other zones, and I think this is an example of that. I also think that when they initially presented this, it came to us the first time I saw it, it was going to be six stories. Well, the six-story hotel suddenly became five-story as this gracious concession to the neighborhood. I have a feeling it might have more to do with the 3 to 1 height-to-yard ratio that's specified in the B3 zone law, because with a side yard of 23 feet, it seems to me you couldn't go above 69 feet. But I could be wrong. Again, you saw some of these materials from Mr. Sally's presentation. The current zoning for Southland is predominantly B1. There are two little islands of B3 out in the parking lot of the Collins bowling alley. I'm not quite sure what you would do there. Maybe with a really small footprint, they could put the hotel there. I don't think it would be a very practical solution. But clearly, again, here we see Goodrich Avenue here, Southland, I'll be one. This is, again, another wonderful resource. You have a great website, too, by the way. So I took a look, as I said, at the comprehensive plan, and there's a vision statement. It's good to have vision. Preserving, protecting, and maintaining existing residential neighborhoods in a manner that ensures stability and the highest quality of life for all residents. Infill that's appropriate in character and design and complement and reinforce the fabric of the neighborhood. Specifically, I call your attention to Goals 15 and 16 in the Comprehensive Plan, which has been shared with you tonight by the petitioner, but I've also referenced the page numbers here for your ease of lookup. Goal 15 is to preserve, protect, and enhance the character of existing neighborhoods, and 16 is to promote well-designed new development that creates and enhances neighborhoods and communities. The objectives of these goals are highly relevant to our discussion tonight and to your deliberations. retain the character, identity, and appearance of vital, successful residential and non-residential areas, develop strategies to maintain, preserve, and revitalize existing neighborhoods, a plan for infill that's appropriate in character, density, and design and serves to reinforce the fabric of the neighborhood, establish retail uses with neighborhood focus and character. We've been waiting for that at that site for a long time. Here we see Objective 15-G, plan for the revitalization of existing neighborhood business areas B1 zones. This is crying out for that. We have an existing B1 zone that needs to be revitalized. Encourage innovative design that's consistent with neighborhood needs and character. Implement neighborhood protection for establishing stability and protection in especially older neighborhoods like mine. Promote human-scale bicycle and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. This is not a human-scale type project. It's another big hotel. Encourage creative neighborhood design with interconnecting street systems and a sense of community. When he describes this as a residential project, it just baffles me. And the Planning Commission staff, in their rebuttal at the hearing then, clearly said that the comprehensive plan does not describe hotels as residential. I mean, people come and go. They're transient in nature. They don't know the community. Obviously, they have a need and they want to visit or have someone here that they have to visit in the hospital or whatever. But they're not residential. The 2008 Infill and Redevelopment Report clearly identifies the entire Southland corridor as remaining and should remain B1 as a neighborhood corridor. Now, this is a slide from one of the presentations I found on the Division of Planning site. Where is infill and redevelopment? It's everywhere. But it is the application and the context that's most important. And I want to comment on this just a little bit because Mr. Simpson said that the reason to approve this is because it's a great example of infill and that we're trying to protect the rural areas. But some kinds of infill can be counterproductive. If you put in projects that ruin neighborhoods or make them less desirable, where are those people going to go? They're going to go to some subdivision that's maybe out further in the suburbs. It's going to put more pressure on the rural areas we're trying to protect. Infill and redevelopment is essential, but as this slide says, it must be balanced in its application and context. Now, this small area plan steering committee that was alluded to here, I know that one of the people that spoke just a few moments ago before we started owns property on Edgemoor. It turns out that, you know, besides having a vision for the Nicholasville Corridor, She also worked with Mr. Simpson to get a zoning change for that property, where he represented her before the Planning Commission a few years ago. It was withdrawn because it was disapproved. But the truth is that Southland Drive was looked at closely in that initial attempt to create a small area plan. And unfortunately, stakeholders, and obviously in the brief time I've gotten into community action, building consensus among stakeholders is hard. But, you know, regardless, they did look at Southland and described it as the jewel in the rough that has huge potential. And they commented specifically that the scale of businesses at Southland and Nicholasville Road is good. So scale is relevant here to the future of this whole corridor. Finally, I just wanted to, you know, touch on this idea that, you know, we have been so excited, really, as longtime residents, to see all the conversations that are happening across our city about smart development, about different ideas for thinking outside the box. And, again, I think this is presented to us as an opportunity, but we see it as an opportunity lost. We really think that just plunking another hotel into a site doesn't necessarily fit the comprehensive plan, doesn't advance the neighborhood, and isn't what we think of as smart development that will set a precedent in the neighborhood and the Southland Corridor. At one of the neighborhood hearings, Mr. Gere told us that he had been approached by Trader Joe's and turned them down. Now, again, he could have, I guess, asked the neighborhood about that if that was what he was worried about, but that's the kind of redevelopment that we think would be great. It's a retail establishment, something that we could walk to and use. So basically, we believe that this really needs to be a B1 business zone and hopefully be redeveloped into something that we would use, that would add value to our neighborhood, and be consistent with the comprehensive plan. So we don't support this zoning change. Now, I mean, I know that we've been given this news suddenly tonight, but lo and behold, it's going to be four stories. Well, I think we still have issues with this. Now, again, I'd have to go walk the neighborhood and talk to those 165 peoples all over again if that's what we're putting on the table. But I sort of believe in my heart that I've been asked to represent the opposition, and that's what I'm doing my best to do tonight. And our opposition is to the zoning change that's being requested and that you will have to rule on it. I just want to touch at the end here on the Planning Commission report itself. And again, this was compelling to us. And when I walked our neighborhood, it was really interesting because a lot of people, I knocked on their door and they said, we thought this was all over. The Planning Commission ruled. I said, no, our city has a process, and that process will include a potential appeal. So we can't just walk away from this. and, you know, again, the disadvantage for a group like ours, we don't have deep pockets. We're a simple little group of neighbors and citizens. We have a neighborhood association. You know, how do you coordinate a response that can in any way compete with what Mr. Simpson presented to you tonight, with his experts and, you know, I can't hire experts. But I can tell you that we are opposed to this and that in my mind, and here I guess I'm speaking mostly as myself, but also as someone who's had a lot of conversations with the neighbors who signed this petition, I think that our opposition is unchanged by anything that's been presented tonight. So in conclusion, we urge you to support the Planning Commission recommendation and deny this appeal. Thank you, Joe. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Since I have a few minutes, I think, still remaining, I wondered if our Neighborhood Association President would like to speak at all or not necessarily? Okay. Well, all right then. In the interest of brevity, and I know it's a long night, I will conclude unless there are questions for me. But I do want to encourage, in the next 15 minutes, if the Neighborhood Association president does wish to speak, it would be an appropriate time. But it's okay. There will be another chance to. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Joe. Okay. Thank you. All right. At this time, our procedure calls for the staff to make any additional comments. Bill, have you got any comments? Mayor, I thank you. Wait a minute. Say that again. Well, the procedure that we've always followed is the applicant goes first, the people in favor of the zone change, then the objectors go, and the people testifying endorsing the objectors go, you've altered that in this case. No. I put on my case. They put on their case. And now the witnesses for the proponents. I'm following the rules that I've had for six years. But continue, Bruce. Go ahead. Well, I'm. That's fine. That's fine. And others on the council. Make a comment and then have the neighbors, all the people they want to speak and for or against. Now, what I said was that we now have, we had your presentation, then we had the presentation by those who oppose the petition, and now, according to our written protocol, staff will have the opportunity to make additional comments, if any. All right, I'm just following. Then it says petitioner's presentation of rebuttal evidence. Now, Ed, am I missing something here? This is what you gave me. Well, I mean, you're cutting the public out of speaking because they're not part of my presentation. I'm sorry. I don't want to get any rebuttal until all the evidence is in, Mayor, and neither can Mr. Miller. And that means people that want to testify from the neighborhood and people that want to testify from the Southland Drive business and also the neighborhood. Okay. We're listening. Tracy, can you help us here? Aside from what I know you're reading from, I think that it has been consistent that we give any members of the public the chance to speak, and then Mr. Simpson, Mr. Miller, Mr. Sally would have a chance to make any final comments. And I thought that's when you had suggested that that is when the public would speak. It's my understanding that you would go ahead with them now. All right. Then we definitely need to adjust these documents. Yes. Okay. Exactly. All right, so tell us exactly what to do now. Planning office and legal office, please. Members of the public who would be in favor would speak, followed by members of the public who are opposed. and then the parties, Mr. Miller, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Sally. All right, so let's review that. And then the members of the public who are in favor of the petition. Yes. And then those who oppose it. Yes. Okay, now that's what we'll do as soon as we have a bathroom break. All right? Eight minutes. I was going to ask some of the people on both sides to yield their time for me to go through the restroom. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Oh, good. We've already got the lineup. The queue has begun. All right, we'll ask those who wish to speak on behalf of the petitioner who support the proposal to please come up to the microphone. All right, now, if you all will please give your name and address in three minutes. Thank you, sir. Please go ahead. Yes, sir. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. My name is Billy Shero, and I own a building at 200 Southland Drive, which is the corner of Southland Drive and Rainbow, right across from Collins Bowlin Alley. I'm an attorney, although I have no professional nor personal relationship with either Mr. Simpson or the Greers. I just happen to be there. My office has been on Southland Drive for nine years. I'm a member of the Southland Association, a member of their board of directors, and also one of the founders and co-hosts of the Southland Jamboree, which is an event on Southland Drive that's been quite successful, as the council probably knows. And Mr. Miller alluded to the fact that this would be an opportunity lost, and I would certainly agree with him that if the council should choose not to approve this project that it would be an opportunity lost. I think the project has been said to cost somewhere between $12,000 and $13 million. I do a lot of real estate work, so I know how to calculate tax dollars on that. And as best I can determine, that's somewhere around $120,000 or $130,000 of property taxes each year. The building that is sitting there now is obviously an eyesore and needs to be replaced. This is a state-of-the-art facility. There has been evidence that the traffic impact would certainly be less than many other B-1 uses that could be placed on that property. I have personally stayed in a Hampton Inn that's very similar to this project. over the last year or so, about 15 nights, both during the week and on weekends, because I have grandchildren that live in North Carolina, and I happen to stay at a Hampton Inn every time I go down there. And I've had an opportunity to kind of observe how these things work, particularly during the day and even in the evening. And I can say that based on my observations, the traffic is very sporadic, and it's very seldom ever concentrated. and it kind of comes and goes in a random nature as opposed to restaurants, office buildings, and those kinds of things. And it would seem that just because a neighbor on a street that actually backs up to this property might catch an occasional glimpse of a tall building through those trees is not a sufficient reason to turn down a project, which we believe, and based on all my discussions with businesses along Southland Drive and business people, would be a real asset to the community. As the council knows, Health First is going in down the other end. They're going to tear that old office building down, put a new building in, and to have that building on the other end of Southland and a brand-new hotel on that end would bookmark Southland Drive in a very attractive way and do nothing but enhance the neighborhood and provide additional jobs. So I would urge the council to support this request on behalf of the developer. Thank you, Billy. Thank you, Billy. Just as a guide for you all, there's a little marker up there that goes from green to yellow to red for time. My name is Brad Pickrell. I live at 782 Glendover Road. I have a letter, actually, to read of someone in the neighborhood, but I would like to give my two cents on this. I'm someone that's grown up, gone on. I've driven Southland Drive my whole life. Grew up in Stonewall, went to Lafayette High School. I live on Glendover, which Edgemoor is my main thoroughfare to get from Harrodsburg Road to Nicholsville Road. I can't see a reason not to approve this, and I applaud the groups for all their hard work and efforts to revitalize Southland Drive. I actually have a letter from James Kreiner. He lives at 1871 Pensacola Drive, 40503. It says, To the members of the City Council, my name is James Kreiner. I am a resident of the WGPL neighborhood, board member for Southland Neighborhood Association, and a business manager on Southland Drive. I fully support the Greer's development plan for the property on the corner of Nicholsville Road and Southland Drive. While I understand some of the neighbors' concerns with the height of the proposed structure, I must respectfully disagree with them as to the impact it will have on the neighborhood. With the mature trees and tall roof lines of our neighborhood, I think the impact of the height of the structure on the surrounding residents will be minimal. I also strongly disagree with those who feel the proposed hotel will bring transience or somehow an undesirable element to the area. As an occasional business traveler, I find Hampton M's to be very clean, well-run businesses of the sort that would make an asset to the mixed-use area such as Southland Drive. While precluded under the current zoning, the proposed use simply makes sense for the location. The impact of the hotel on the neighborhood, despite the height of the structure, will be far less than other allowable uses for that site. So while the exception may be unusual, it is not illogical. Hotels are generally quiet, unobtrusive. Neighbors and the Greers have made many concessions in order to further mitigate the close proximity of the development and the nearest neighbors. I and many of my neighbors would take a tall structure over one that is loud or has smelling dumpsters and grease pits, or even over the current underutilized space. I also believe it's firmly in the best interest of the city to continue to encourage infield redevelopment, and to do so at times will require compromises. in order to find the best use for a property. Given the concern shown by the Greers for issues such as flood abatement, traffic, landscaping, and other issues that would impact us as neighbors, I find the proposal to not just be best use, but truly ideal for the site. So I ask that you please support the proposed zone change in favor of the construction. Thank you, James Kreiner. Thanks, Brad. My name is Danny Collins. I'm a family member that owns Southland Bowling Lanes. My grandfather built those in 1959, Eastland and Southland Bowling Lanes, and so we've been a part of the community for a long time there. I'm also a member of the Southland Association, which is we formed it about five years ago, So for the purpose of drawing those businesses together and seeing that that area becomes more developed and more appropriate for business commerce and neighborhood environment. This project, I see a nice hotel being developed. I see a building structure that will complement the area and improve the area. I see in the plan a lot of customers that will come into our facility and frequent the other businesses. The restaurants, the Chinese, Hunan will benefit from this, I know. And other businesses up and down South and Drive will benefit from this. I do hear the neighborhood having an issue with this. I know that they've made some concessions to deal with this. but I do feel like this is a good project for the community, and it will help South and Drive. And I'd like to introduce my brother, who's also part owner in our enterprises and is an investor in real estate around the area as well. It's Robbie Collins here, along with my brother. I guess my only two cents would be just listening to everything tonight. What I remember about South and Drive, what I know about South and Drive, is there's really two components to it. There's business and residential, and I heard a lot of opposition from the residential side, but I'm just a voice that's on the pro-business side, and that's a viable and a vital part of the neighborhood as well as the homeowners. And I see this as a – we were talking a lot about what might enhance the neighborhood, and I think this would enhance the business side of the neighborhood. for us and for others down through there so i think it'll bring more business in and more patrons in and people from out of town so we're in favor of it and i encourage the staff to approve this the council members to approve the plan thank you thanks collins brothers Hi, I'm Amanda Hale, and this is my husband Clark. We are here tonight to give voice to our support for this project. We live at 108 Goodrich Avenue, one of the properties that had the scarlet letter on it in the presentation. We have a backyard that backs up directly to this project, the one with the car wash right behind it that you've heard about. For the 15 years that we have lived at this address, this property behind us has been an eyesore, as you have heard and you've seen in the pictures. We are ready to see something better back there. Being right off Nicholasville Road in Southland Drive, we recognize that almost any kind of business could go in that space. Traffic on both roads is already significant, and so, of course, we are in favor of a business that would bring the least amount of additional traffic, unlike, I believe, the Trader Joe's that was mentioned, which I think would bring a lot of traffic to the area. It is also our home where we're raising our family, and as such, we would hope to see a business type that would be fairly quiet and have a high probability of being well-maintained and attractive. We believe these characteristics would not only tremendously benefit Southland Drive, but would also have the greatest potential to have a positive impact on property values in our neighborhood. We've talked a lot about B-1 developments tonight, but just any B-1 development wouldn't alleviate the concerns that have been raised by our neighbors. And especially some of those businesses that are possible in that would have a negative impact on those directly on that boundary. This development, as proposed, though, does not have those concerns for us. We believe the proposed project meets all of the criteria that we have just mentioned. Those of us who are closest to the project, as you have heard tonight, with backyards that back up to it, are in full support. We've stared at the dilapidated property for long enough and believe the proposed project provides one of the best possibilities for our properties in our neighborhood. Aside from the impact on the residential side, we firmly believe that Southland Drive could be revitalized by this project and the investment made in the property as an anchor. However, there are some great businesses on Southland Drive, many of which are overlooked by the greater Lexington community because of the presence of properties that look like this one currently does. Those of us that drive Southland Drive every day know about these great businesses, but some people in Lexington never come here because it looks the way it does in some spaces. An infusion of money and public interest in Southland Drive would be great for our neighborhood and great for Lexington. We are excited to think about the possibilities that exist for community revitalization that this project could spark. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you all. My name is Shirley Tipton. I live at 104 Goodrich Drive, and I also had X on my house. It backs up directly to the project. and what I also have for 106 Goodridge Avenue is Amy Carrington, who had a former commitment, and she was going to try to be here by now, but has not been able to make it. I have a letter from her, though, and I would like to read that. Dear Commissioners, on September 4, 2012, I wrote a letter to the Commission in response to the zone amendment requested by Greer-Nick RD LCC and Greer-Nick RD 2 LCC for the purpose of building a Hampton Inn behind my home, which is located at 106 Goodrich Avenue. In that letter, I expressed my primary concerns regarding the proposed development. My concerns were the height of the building, issues regarding the hotel's impact on our neighborhoods, already existing flood problems, light pollution, and noise pollution. Today I'm writing in support of the zoning amendment because all these concerns have been addressed by the Greers. The Greers and their lawyer, Bruce Simpson, met with the neighborhood on two separate occasions. They listened to the concerns of everyone and addressed those concerns in what I believe was an effective manner. Because of the Greers' willingness to adhere to concessions expressed by me and my neighbors, some of which were also included in the September 4th letter I wrote, I am now in support of the development. Regarding the first concern I wrote about in September, which was the height of the building, the Greers lowered the building plan from six stories to five stories, and I was very surprised to hear this evening that it's going to four. And living right behind it, that's fine with me. They positioned the building so that only 47 1⁄2 feet of the hotel would be adjacent to homes on Goodrich. They also agreed to an 8-foot-tall privacy fence with planted tree screenings that my neighbors and I will agree to prior to construction beginning. Regarding the issue of flooding, the Greers came up with a plan that will reduce the rate of stormwater runoff by 50% over what currently exists and what they would be required to do if they redevelop the property with uses permitted in the existing commercial zone. They will do this through an underground detention so that we, the neighbors, do not have to see a detention basin. Currently, Goodrich properties have inadequate storm sewers draining. The approval of the rezoning will improve stormwater management for the Goodrich properties because the Greers have agreed to replace the broken-down storm sewers on their property, thereby relieving the Goodrich properties from stormwater backup. Another expressed concern was over-light pollution, and the Greers agreed to the lighting that would be shielded and hooded away so as not to spill over on the Goodrich properties. And it looks like I'm about to run out of time. So she goes on to talk about, it's kind of reiterating what Amanda and Clark said. She said, It is my hope that this will be the start of a redevelopment renaissance for the Southland Drive Corridor, one where neighbors and visitors alike can walk, shop, and dine. Such a vision is what I cling to when I now look out my back door and view the blighted area. The New Hampton Inn would be an improvement to what currently exists. And I would just say for all the reasons, this is mine, the attractive development of blighted space, storm drainage improvements for good, rich, quiet commercial use, less traffic than other businesses, initiation of positive growth and development in a commercial district. Our neighborhood has no access, road access, into that commercial district. In order to go and do the walking that we were talking about, you have to go either out on Nicholasville Road and into the commercial area, or you have to go down to the end where the park has been developed, and it is through, by the generosity of a business there, there is a gate and a fence that you can go through at the other end of Goodrich. That's the only way you get there by walking. Thank you. The park. All right. Okay. Go ahead. My name is Pam Littleton from 521 Southland Drive. Good evening, Mayor Gray. Council members, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you as a lifelong resident of Lexington, Kentucky, as a business owner of your frame of mind galleries for 30 years and a Southland Drive property owner. We bought our building seven years ago, believing the time has come for a fresh start for the Southland area. As a small child growing up in Southland, I remember our building being the public library. The $15 million private, again private, investment proposed by Phil and Lee Greer will be a great start toward bringing Southland Drive up to the business standard it once was, and will be again very soon with the positive support of this government council. Thank you for your yes vote. Thank you. My name is Ted Mims. I won't have the red light mayor come on. I'm short and sweet. I live at 269 Rosemont Garden, and we also own the shopping center from 402 to 442 Southland Drive. It's been rehabbed, and it has vibrant, good tenants in it. Southland Drive is not broken at all. It has good things going on in Southland Drive. We've got bike paths getting ready to go in. We've got a new clinic going in. We've got bus stops going in, and I think this project helps Southland Drive. It puts the least amount of traffic on Nicholasville Road. With 66,000 cars a day going there now, how can you make it any worse than it is? It's pretty tough. So I want to, as a resident of the area and a lifelong resident of the area, I was born and raised in this area. Five kids raised on Fairfield Drive. I know it really well. And to answer one question I want to make sure of, floodplains can be adjusted. My mother lives in a house that we own on Zandell Drive. We had an engineer go in and petition to get it out of the floodplain, and it's out of the floodplain. No more flood insurance that my mother has to pay. That's for sure. It can be done. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, sir. Hi, my name is Stacey Kern Barker. I'm a neighbor. I live at 178 Jesslyn Drive, so I'm across Nicholasville Road from Southland Drive. I'm a creature of habit, and I do all my shopping on Southland Drive as much as I can. And unfortunately, in the last few years, we've seen some businesses leave. Sloan's Grocery Store left, Morris Bookshop, and sadly for me, CVS Pharmacy moved to Harrisburg Road. So I think the area needs a facelift and it needs a revitalization, and I feel that this project will bring that revitalization to the area. So I do approve. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Dustin Harrison. I'm a small business owner. My wife and I come in support of the ordinance change. As a small business owner here in this town for roughly 10 years, we specialize in landscape contracting. and small construction work, and a majority of my business is for the Greers and them throughout this city and surrounding cities, even some out of state. And, you know, just by hearing of what people have to offer and explain, and I respect the fact of the neighbors on Goodridge, and I do believe that the water drainage improvement that they're willing to put into it will improve, and it will be beneficial to everybody, not only instant but for long term. And also just knowing by working for the Greers and how they are to their family and friends and colleagues and everybody that works for them, it will be an instant gratification to the area. It will bring people from all over, not only coming to the U.K. or Central Baptist or wherever they may come, but it will benefit the whole Southland Drive area. And I just think that with everything they're willing to put into this location, it will definitely benefit long-term and short-term. And I'm definitely in support of the ordinance change. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Mayor Gray and Councilmembers, I'm Laura Boyson. I'm here representing two entities, two addresses. Possibly I could get five and a half minutes. No. As I mentioned, I'm Laura Boyce, and my first comments are on behalf of U.S. Bank. We're at 2020 Nicholasville Road, which would be on the east side of the property, if you're familiar with where we're located. And on behalf of U.S. Bank, we do respect, and I thought the Neighborhood Association did an awesome job at articulating their issues. We respect and understand those issues. We are not opposed to the property change. I am a property owner. I own rental property throughout our community. My first house being on Barbary, and then we have property on Dantzler, which is in the greater area. I grew up in this community. I grew up shopping on Southland Drive as a child. It was the only place to shop. I continue to shop on Southland Drive and watch the evolution. I'm hopeful, and again, I'm now speaking as an individual property owner in the area and the mother of five children who are always employable in the community. I'm hopeful that the community will seek to understand what we have today. I remember Mr. Greer from Tates Creek High School. I have watched their projects for 30 years. I'm aware of what they do with their properties. I'm aware of the flag that they're bringing in, the Hilton flag, the Hampton flag. It's an outstanding flag if you've ever stayed in the properties. I do believe that it is an enhancement to the area, and I'm hopeful that the community and the Greers will seek to understand the synergy there. The Greers have always been great stewards in the community. They're generous in the community, and I do see that there could be an enhancement overall to the community. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Laura. Mr. Hurt. My wife and I own old Kentucky Chocolates. We are part of McGee's that opened in Southland in 1951. We have been continuous business in the Southland area for 61 years. We're the oldest continuous business. With Health First coming down on the corner of the Moore property, a beautiful facility that some of you probably have seen, and the hotel that is proposed makes a great anchor for our area. And I'm on the board of directors of the Southland Association, and with the help of the council, we put in trees, we painted the bridge, and I think in the spring, they're going to put in sidewalks and bike paths, and Southland's alive, and we hope for your support. Thank you very much. Most everything else has been said that I was going to say, so thank you. Thanks, Don. Thank you, sir. All right, now we can turn to those who wish to speak. In fact, Mayor, one thing I needed to do was to introduce the exhibit where the sign's been posted. Okay. Signed affidavit from the person that did that. We also have a petition of 48 other business owners on Southland Drive and a letter from Millwards, also in support that I will introduce to. Thank you. All right, great. Thank you, Bruce. Now we can turn to those who wish to speak in opposition to the petition. If those who wish to speak in opposition to the petition would please just come over to the podium and begin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Bill Fountain. My wife and I live at 131 Wabash. I want to address this first of all, that we are not opposed to the business. Most of the people you've heard before were business owners on Southland. We are very much supporters of the businesses there. This, though, is an infill. I am not at all opposed to an infill. I'm very much in favor of it. But this is the wrong type of infill. It is an infill that is going in with transients. Transients are people who come in, stay a night, stay a couple of nights, and then leave. Everybody in this room that has lived in Fayette County has been down Nicholasville Road and met somebody going the wrong way when their lanes changed. These are people that are unfamiliar with our town. Mr. Simpson, I want to address this comment that you made about the plant material that's going to be going in. First of all, the white pines that you indicated will not grow on this site three feet a year. This is soil that has been under pavement for 50 years. The soil has been destroyed. There is no structure there. The plant material that you talked about that would be 12 feet tall will not cover this. The plant material, the white pines that you were talking about on the north side of the property that would actually help to screen this are right below utility lines. I went out today with a hypsometer and measured the height of those lines. The poles are 34 feet tall. There are wires at the top of that pole. Then there is a bottom line that is at 13 1⁄2 feet. Kentucky Utilities is going to come along and do the lovely job of topping anything that you put underneath this line. So we're going to have 40-foot tall trees is what we've been promised, but Kentucky Utilities is going to make sure that these do not get anywhere near that tall. We're very much in favor of businesses, but this is the wrong type of business. We really do want to see a good business development. No, I'll speak to you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I'm Tenley Terrier, and I live at 99 Goodrich. I'm the lovely person in the picture that Mr. Simpson had to show. So I probably know more about the water than mostly anybody, unless you live about where I live. I live in that house that you can see with the little beige roof, and it's right across from the empty lot, which is the thing marked in red. That's where the current retention basin is or something like that. Because I have pictures that the neighbor who lived in that very first white house on the opposite side of the road, so there's that red vehicle and then there's that white house that looks kind of like really funny, like it's an igloo, I don't know. Anyhow, she took pictures during the time that she lived there and I want to show you some of the pictures. I know Mr. Simpson and his engineering company, or Mr. Greer's engineering company, have talked about the water, and the reality is the hole that was punched in the wall actually brought water onto the Goodrich side. It didn't take it away from it. The person who punched the hole was really hoping that would happen, but it didn't. We actually got more water on our site. So I would like to show you, since I know I don't have a lot of time, the pictures. These are the pictures of the flooding in the water retention basin. So that whole empty lot that you're seeing the water is going over the sidewalk, that is the neighbor's yard. There's their water. That's one year of flooding. This is another year. The white building is the second part, the building behind Denny's, which is going to be torn down. This is the level of water in another year of flooding. And I'm not talking like one year and then five years later. This is every three to four years we have flooding at this level. And I don't know, and maybe, you know, I don't have an engineering degree. This water runoff is not going to be a problem. If I was the Greers, I would be afraid that my front yard of my hotel would look like this too. Next picture. This is my house. Well, okay, this is my husband's vehicle. This is the road across Goodrich. The retention basin is on this side. The whole road all the way across is flooded over. That's how bad the water is at my end of the street. I get everything from Nicholasville Road. I get everything that comes down this half of Goodrich, and that's the water. Next. Oops. Oh, that looks much better. Again, this is the picture. It shows Shirley's house, too. But this is, again, the back is the white wall. This is, again, the flooding. The flooding, the flooding, the flooding. That's all I can say. Another year, the water goes all the way across the street. That one picture on the right-hand corner, that's of my house. So that's the water coming onto my driveway across the street. I'm sorry, I didn't put them in the right order. another year. That's the whole lot, that whole area, completely covered. So the retention basin goes down maybe about four feet in the back of that area, in the back of that plot. The rest of it is covered with water. You wouldn't know that the retention basin was there. And this is kind of my favorite one, and I wish we could make it look a little bit better, but this was the year of a really bad flood. This might have been the year that I don't know, for people that lived here, maybe 92, 93, do you remember when they showed the picture of the Volkswagen at the corner of Nicholasville Road and Southland Underwater? That's my neighborhood. This is that property across the street from me. That is her washer and dryer floating around in her basement. That house is still there. It's next to the water retention basin. It is the house right behind where the Greers are going to build their hotel. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Kathy Franklin. I live at 1609 Elizabeth Street. I'm on the other end of Southland, but it's part of the North Nicholasville Road corridor. I just wanted to touch on a few points that I think weren't addressed, just to call attention to them. One of them is that I believe that the property or the hotel being built is not supposed to have windows on the side that faces the actual houses, but there is a whole hundred and some odd feet of windows on the other side. And I think that people need to consider that this is invasive of people's properties along Goodrich, whether it's the people who are adjacent or not. You can see pretty far from a five- or four-story building. So I think that's something that needs to be taken into consideration. Another thing is that the Greers have implied that they could put something worse on this property as it is zoned now. And I think that that really is an implicit threat and that they're really holding the neighborhoods hostage. And I think that that's, regardless of what they say about making compromises, that they are responsible for the blight that the adjacent neighbors have complained about. So I feel like they don't have good faith for the neighborhoods unless the neighborhoods give them what they want, and I resent that myself. The other thing is they say one kind of development could be a restaurant, and it could be noisy, but I know that the city is in the process of developing a noise ordinance, which should be able to deal with any kind of noise that comes from a business, so the neighbors would have recourse in that respect. I think really what's on the table here is whether the B3 is appropriate. I don't think anyone who's a neighbor, and I count myself as a Southland neighbor because I love Southland. I love to go to Southland and shop. And I don't think anyone there doesn't want businesses. We'd love it to be more thriving than it is, but it's a secret little place for a lot of us. We don't want big things to come in and kind of ruin the character of it. We're not anti-business. And the final point I would like to make is, because I do live on the other end of this corridor, I feel like the precedent of changing to a B3 kind of has a domino effect down Nicholasville Road. And Ms. Butcher alluded to the small area plan that was in place. But the neighborhood feeling about that and the reason it didn't go anywhere is because we felt like there would be this kind of development all the way down Nicholasville Road to the detriment of the neighbors. So thank you very much. Thanks, Kathy. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Megan Horn. I live at 105 Goodrich Avenue, which is directly across the street from the hot zone, I guess. My husband and I have actually only lived there for about a month and a half. I had no idea we were moving into a hotbed of zoning intrigue, and I now sort of feel like we should have gotten flood insurance. But if I had known that this was happening when we purchased our home, I would have thought twice about it. If I'd known I was going to walk out my front door in the morning and stare at the side of a five-story or four-story hotel, I would have thought twice about purchasing my home. And I can tell you from being in the market that it is a buyer's market, and there are plenty of other places that people could go. We specifically wanted to live in this neighborhood. I drove my real estate agent crazy because I wanted to live in this neighborhood because I think it's really special, and I wanted to stay that way. So I urge you to vote no. on the zoning change. Thank you. I yield my time. Thank you. Hi. My name is Clarissa Spahn. I live at 103 Irvin Road, and we also own a home at 1909 Belafonte Drive. I am a more than frequent shopper on Southland Drive. I'm going to skip some of what I was going to say. I want to point out that I'm not from around here, and we chose to move here. And the reason we chose to move here was places like Southland Drive that were really unique to this city. I grew up in Miami. I lived in Charlotte. We've owned property in Portland, Maine, which did protect its business areas and its residential areas. And I can say when a hotel like this goes in, this is not an either-or situation. It will be followed by generic box stores. And the property that abuts it will certainly become valuable because it will be valuable for people who want to put in big box restaurants, big box stores, and it will change the nature of Southland Drive. It currently is uniquely ours. Ninety percent of the business property is in use, and the majority of businesses are currently locally owned. I like it. It's 50s, it's funky, and it's not anywhere USA. This is one of the few successful shopping areas left in Lexington that still has a local flavor, and it helps set Lexington apart from other towns that people like me would be making decisions on regarding where they want to move. And this hometown advantage, I believe, will be gone if the zoning is changed. I guess that's about it for what I want to say and I would greatly encourage you to consider this fact I guess I do want to add one more I have looked up and down other corridors we live off of Richmond Road there's plenty of B1s up there I think people in that area need to consider the areas around the Herald-Leader building there's lots of B1 buildings there and they're very close to Belcourt and I think this sets a bad precedent for Southland Drive as well as the rest of our city. Thank you. Thank you, Clarison. Hi, my name is Alicia Cox. I live at 113 Goodrich Avenue. I just have a few things to say. I do want to start with the fact that my husband and I both grew up in Lexington. We did leave for about 15 years and lived in Los Angeles and Chicago, but then when we came back, we knew we wanted to live in the Southland area. My husband grew up on Tahoma, which is right across Nicholsville Road from Goodrich. and we knew we wanted to buy in that area. If we had known three years ago that a five-story hotel or four would be going in on the corner, we would not have bought there. No questions. If people like myself and my husband are not going to be buying in that area when a hotel goes up, what will it become? A rental street? A U.K. student area? Who knows? I'm also extremely concerned about the transience in the area. If a hotel is built there, we do have a four-year-old son. And I do get emails sent from the Lexington Police Department that tell me where predators are living. If there is no safeguard against transient predators, they would be holed up in a hotel lying in wait, watching and grooming potential victims. Also, you know, non-residents driving down Goodrich Avenue would be looking for a way out onto Southland, not knowing that there is no way to get onto Southland Drive. So that would create a lot more traffic on our street. and if you've been down our street, it's a very quiet street. The people who drive down Goodrich are people who live there. So that's a concern because they would have no idea that they couldn't get out. Also, Mr. Greer has been quoted as saying that he was doing this for us. Unfortunately, a hotel on Southend Drive doesn't do anything for the neighbors on Goodrich or Wabash or Lackawanna. I can't stay at a hotel that's right across the street from where I live. Why do I need to do that? a store or a barber shop, something that we could use. That's why we chose to, when I moved back from a big city, I wanted to live in an area where I could walk to places where I could eat and storefronts where I could buy things that I didn't have to get in my car. But I can't use a hotel. A Trader Joe's we could have used. And finally, I would like to say that this, when you're voting, know, hopefully, to remember that this is a neighborhood. This is our neighborhood. It is not a B3 highway service off-ramp. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Amy Clark. I live on Castle Road, 628. That's the other side of Nicholasville and a little nearer to the university. I'm looking at the new goals and objectives approved for the Comprehensive Plan 2012. And I'm seeing F, implementing the plan. And the first of the goals is engage the residents of Lexington Fayette County in the planning process. And I want to compliment the whole of you involved in the planning process, particularly Mr. Miller and the 218 citizens who signed the petition in opposition to this zoning change. That goal is being met here tonight, and I hope it continues to be met. and there's nothing that furthers that goal more than you're listening to the citizens as they speak to you. So I appreciate that. I tried to clarify with some questions during the break exactly what it means to have a change, a late-breaking change, a four-story commitment. As I understand it, and I invite you to clarify with the applicant, if the Council grants the zone change to B3, an additional voluntary condition is added, not only that it must only be a hotel of all the uses permissible in B3, but that it may only be a hotel up to four stories. And I'm not sure whether the measure in feet is included in that or not. if the Hilton says no what then? well as I understand it once you've made the zone change it's B3, it goes with the land it stays with the land so that's worth contemplating what that opens it up to there's been a lot of talk about the hotel needed to serve the hospitals in the area I can only as a very near resident of the university, think of the game day hotel that it could equally be, ought equally to be. It's very near to alumni and the stadium and so on. And the traffic is remarkable to contemplate. They've made a sort of traffic engineering feed here. Exit onto Nicholasville or exit onto Southland. If you are headed to a hospital visit, you have to cross traffic on a left turn across the stream of traffic. I think that's worth contemplating in the impact on the traffic. Finally, I would simply say that Southland's come a long, long way. There's wonderful greening of Wolf Run. It's an incubator for local businesses. Change it to B3, those local businesses won't have that incubation place. That concerns me. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. Hi, my name is Candace Wallace. I live at 130 Goodrich Avenue. And last fall when I purchased my house on Goodrich, I made that purchase with the knowledge that I was buying property that was adjacent to B1 and then R1 on each side. Similarly, in 2004, when Mr. Greer purchased the property we're discussing tonight, he was fully aware that that property was also zoned B1. Instead adjacent to other B1 property and R1 property. And in fact, the B-1 zoning must have been profitable for him for the last eight years since Mr. Greer intends to live the Denny's restaurant, which is zoned B-1, on the property there, if he also gets a zoning change. Even as of July this year, Mr. Greer must have thought that the B-1 zoning was a great investment since he purchased another property adjacent to the properties that we're discussing tonight. Of course, I don't know if his intention is to seek another zoning change for that property as well. Mr. Simpson said that it's colors on a map. Zoning is just colors on a map. And I'm sorry, but it's really not zoning colors on a map. It's my house. It's where I live. And it's where my husband and I are hoping to raise a family. And it's very important to us that we have that opportunity. So thank you very much. Thank you. My name is Sue Beard. I'm a residential realtor, and I've been helping clients buy and sell homes in Lexington for the past 30 years. I also have my broker's license. I live on Belafonte and consider Southland to be my neighborhood, too. I love Southland Drive because it's mostly locally owned businesses, which is very special to me. And I fear this will all change over time. If you set a precedent with a B3 zoning, you know, what next? It's like the domino effect, in my opinion. I did an interesting little study. Mr. Greer hired a good competent appraiser to tell him that the, to look at Hiltonia Park, which is the road that runs beside the parking garage for Central Baptist Hospital. It's about five stories tall. So he thought this was apparently a good thing to study in comparison. I don't contest what he said about values. As Joe Miller mentioned, they go up. Of course they go up. But you know what I was concerned about was the character of the neighborhood. I went to the PVA site, and the first thing I did was look at Hiltonia. You know, Hiltonia used to have houses on both sides. And I talked to a wonderful person in the Division of Planning who went back historically and told me that the houses that were knocked down where the garage is now that were all single-family owner-occupied occupied because she could see that they had the, oh, the home set exemption on them. Okay. So here's the statistics on Hiltonia now today. 71% rentals. And if anybody wants to know where these owners live, I've got that. And, you know, I really did study this. So then I went to Goodrich. I went to Goodrich. And I only looked at the properties that back up to the B1 property. Of those that backed up to the B-1 commercial property, the rental rate was 13%. We're comparing 13% to 71%. My professional opinion from working in real estate for 30 years is that with time, as these homes sell, a lot of people, certainly all of my clients for all these years, would not want to live in the view shed of a four-story hotel. And so that the character, in my opinion, of that neighborhood is going to change over time and become more and more rental properties. And then that kind of becomes the domino. Who wants to live next to the rental property? So you get another rental property when that one goes for sale. Please vote against this change to B3. it would unfairly affect the residents of the WGPL neighborhood for the benefit of one investor who knew he could not build a five-story, now four-story building when he purchased this property. Also, he has stated that he cannot afford, he stated this at his presentation to the Planning Commission, he stated that he cannot afford to properly care for his property as it is currently zoned. Driving down South and Drive, which is a successful retail and business and professional office corridor, I find that most of the properties are well cared for. A fair conclusion would be that B1 zoning cannot be blamed for the poor condition of Mr. Greer's properties. Done. Thank you. Thank you, Sue. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Allison Connell, and I've lived down in Goodrich, and I have three teenage boys who were not teenagers when they came 10 years ago, and we use the neighborhood, and it's a real neighborhood. And neighborhoods in the city are what keep a city alive. And my concern with this going to B3 is that this is out of order with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan was designed by the city to look to the future to see what is the best thing for the city. The infill and redevelopment plan was also designed to say what is the best for the whole of the city. And the infill and redevelopment plan had B1 as neighborhood and residential, had, I mean, Southland as neighborhood and residential. So if this is going to be considered going to B3, it seems to me that the first thing to do is redesign the comprehensive plan and go back to the drawing board and say if this is supposed to be B3, then shouldn't this whole area be three, go be three? But to me, this is preemptive of a design that was put in place years ago with the entire city in mind. We don't want our neighborhood to be associated with a hotel right next door to it. And like the other people say, that our property values might stay the same because renters would come in and still pay for those. but it wouldn't be us and it wouldn't be the neighborhood where my kids play and where everybody knows each other and we know the businesses on Southland and we support them and they know us. So a hotel is designed for strangers. It's not designed for neighbors. And the comprehensive plan was designed to protect, preserve, protect, and enhance the character and quality of existing neighborhoods. That's what's stated, and that's what the city council is obligated to uphold. My name's Susan Dale, and my husband Joe spoke earlier. He's our neighborhood rep, and we have lived on Southland for close to 30 years, and we love the neighborhood. Both of us work at UK, and when we get new people in our departments, we'd love to take them to our neighborhood and show them Southland and say, you know, this is just a great asset to the community. A couple of years ago, we brought in Joe Wiley, the mayor of Charleston, to talk to Lexingtonians. And he was just so inspiring. He talked about how people love his city, and they just really feel like it's their city. And the last couple of years, it has been so exciting to see all the stuff that's going on in certain areas. I mean, but those are little quirky businesses. They're restaurants and donut shops and coffee shops that people are going in and setting up downtown. And they're music venues, and they're really excited about it. And we think that Southland is just as special. I mean, I think it appeals to a different kind of person in Lexington, more families. We've got, and to all of you business owners who signed the petition, you're what we love about Southland. We feel like you are Lexington people. This is your city, and we like that we're supporting you. hotels are people that are coming in from someplace else they're not Lexington citizens they don't love our town we know that Southland has its problems some of it is run down some of it is kind of ugly it's got its warts we've got the co-op When Tom did his column yesterday about local businesses, we have some great things on Southland, some wonderful restaurants he didn't even mention. And, you know, there are people like, you know, Julie Butcher, who has addressed, you know, how important she thinks the hotel is. She just is interested because she can sell her property for more. We want to protect it because it's our home. We love it. And when we came up with the petition, we specifically did not make it against the hotel. We made it against the zoning change. We did not mention the hotel in that at all or the opposition to a four-story, five-story, or six-story. The language of the petition is very simple. it's against from B1 to B3, and that was what everybody signed knowing that. Thank you. All right. Next on our agenda, thank you all very much, all who have spoken, and there will be more chance to thank you as the evening proceeds, I am sure. Next on our agenda is our outline of the agenda is a staff opportunity. Mr. Salee. Now what this represents is the planning staff's opportunity to make any additional comments which follow the comments that have been offered tonight. Thank you, Mayor. I do have a few comments. The first is I believe that in my early presentation this evening, I misspoke about some of the staff research, and I wanted to put on the overhead, I believe this is an exhibit in Mr. Simpson's packet to you as well. I believe I stated that the average setback was about 300 feet for rezonings for hotels over the last 10 years. That average is actually over 800 feet, with the closest one being about 150 feet. Of course, Mr. Simpson's provided some other numbers. Next. I've got two of the photos as well that were submitted from Mr. Simpson. And this is mainly, though, in regard to Mr. Miller's comments. where the Planning Commission, Ms. Wade, spoke of some of the zoning history involving some of these. In this particular location, this area had generally been zoned B5P, which is a business zone that allows hotels, and I1, light industrial, when it was first zoned. The property sat vacant for a number of years, and then later a zone change to residential came in. So actually the zoning for the hotel in this particular location predated the approved zoning for the residential. And then in this example, this is a location near Herodsburg Road and Parkway Drive where the building you see there was originally approved as an apartment building in a multifamily residential zone. There is single-family zoning on Parkway Drive as well, but later the zoning was changed to convert that apartment building into a hotel use. Just wanted to add that for the record, and I appreciate that opportunity. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Bill. Next, Mr. Simpson, do you have any rebuttal evidence, or do you just want to do your closing? I'll do the closing. All right. Before that, though, we'll ask Mr. Miller for his closing summation. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. How long do we have for the closing summations? What are you thinking about? We can negotiate this, perhaps. I started off at five stories worth of closing, and now I'm down to four. But is five or ten minutes typical? That's great. Okay. All right. Well, then I'll know what I have to do. At least get, yeah. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to provide a summation for the opposition. I have a few general observations and then a few comments to make about the presentation of Mr. Simpson and then a few final thoughts. When we began this process, many in the neighborhood said, this is hopeless, this is a dumb deal. We got a note from the neighborhood association president, there's a hotel going in, and by golly, it's going to be quick, quick. We have some hearings coming up with the developer in September. Then it goes to the Planning Commission. And immediately a lot of my neighbors started saying, well, gee, we can't fight this. And then, of course, any public hearing or meeting that we had, and I know that these were presented as being nice to the neighborhood, but they're required that the developer meet with neighborhoods about these kinds of projects. And, you know, we did have a conversation, and it's often a very sort of rowdy one, where you have lots of different people who are kind of surprised by something and don't really know what to expect, and everyone has their own pet issue, whether it's traffic or flooding or various different things. The cynic in me tends to think that some of the process is designed to allow the developer and Mr. Simpson to gather data for their further presentation to the Planning Commission about what the issues are that they'll have to contend with. I also take issue with this idea that there was a concession made to us to go from six to five stories. I believe that that was just due to the fact that there was not adequate side yard to allow the height needed for six stories. But regardless of that, as we got further into this process, we started as a group to understand the broader issues here, that these are not just about us, not just about our local concerns, but also about Lexington and the broader community. Now, before I move on to that, I want to talk a little bit about some of those local concerns, because they're not irrelevant, and I am serving as a neighborhood spokesperson. A couple of things that I would highlight here, and for one thing, I want to make it clear. I do, as I said earlier, respect the role that developers like Mr. Greer play in the economic vitality of our community, and I do not doubt that he does high-quality projects. But it's immaterial to me, whether this is a Taj Mahal of hotels or a low-end hotel or whatever, to me the key issue is this is a zoning change that will have negative impacts on our neighborhood and the broader Southland corridor. I think also when you look at some specific things, as much as I like to believe he would do high-quality work, There's this constant refrain about the eyesore. Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think that that's a good reason to do a zoning change. I think that if it's an eyesore and he has no business plan for a B1 business, I'm not quite clear why it was purchased in the first place or what the longer-range vision for those properties was. I also think that, again, this idea that stormwater is going to be this great gift to us, that they're going to reduce the rate of runoff. Well, rate of runoff isn't like total volume. I mean, as I said, I've lived on Goodrich and had my basement with six inches of water in it. You get four inches of rain in Lexington, and half our basements or more are going to be flooded on that street. It's just the way the street works. I mean, the ground, the soils, the foundations. Also, in his remarks, Mr. Simpson gave me some kind of confusing data about whether a B-1 redevelopment project would have the requirement to do no stormwater mitigation or 20 percent or different things were thrown out, I would like to believe that our city engineers would be involved with any redevelopment plan that was B-1 that would consider stormwater issues in today's modern forward-thinking Lexington. The traffic issue, I think, in some ways is a bit of a red herring. I mean, I live there. It's bad traffic. We've already talked about the fact that despite anything that happens there, it's going to have to contend with traffic issues. But I do think that there are some specific parts of how the egress and ingress to this site will be problematic with Collins Lane and off on to Southland. Also, you know, this average distance business. You can do a lot of interesting things with averages. If I had a business and I had 10 people that made $10,000 and 10 that made $100,000, their average salary would be $55,000. Well, I mean, the people at one end of that spectrum aren't going to be as happy as the people on the other. And when he talks about average distances, I mean, heck, why not take that circle or that radius down to Cherokee Park? And you could probably say, well, the average distance to the houses to this development is, I don't know, 3,000 feet or whatever it might be. The reality is that the proximity is really problematic here. It sets a precedent for other kinds of development, separate from the precedent about B3. We're saying that we can just cast aside the concerns about the proximity of a development like this that's 23 feet from the nearest property line, regardless of whether that individual property owner cares about that. Okay, well, a couple other key things then that I just want to address. I think that what I've discovered in my little jaunt into community activism is that building consensus is hard. And it's serious work. And actually, I could not do what you folks do. I mean, being a politician, being someone who's listening to people, it's a lot of hard work, much more than I ever anticipated. But I do think that the city and the citizens have put a lot of hard work into forming a comprehensive plant. And Mr. Simpson says it should be a straitjacket. Well, that doesn't mean you just throw it out the window and say we don't consider it. It's supposed to guide development. It's supposed to be the guiding vision that we use. If those goals and objectives aren't just meaningless, we have to think about that for you to overturn your own planning commission that voted very strongly to disapprove. Again, I think the idea, if the comprehensive plan is wrong, then we've got to start a new process and toss it out the window and start doing it. Same with the infill and redevelopment plan. You know, this idea that infill is good at whatever cost or whatever kind of project, I disagree. I think that, you know, the appropriate infill is important. Context is important. You know, if we ruin neighborhoods, people are going to spread out to the suburbs and get out into new housing developments out in the farmland that infill is supposed to protect. Finally, I think to me the key point is that the burden of proof is on the petitioner. You are being asked to overturn a ruling by the Planning Commission and a staff recommendation that led to that recommendation. I think that you have to accept if we're going to follow the law, the ordinance law, if we're going to follow the comprehensive plan, We're going to follow all the guidelines that you are supposed to pay attention to when you do these deliberations. You have to be able to accept that either this really does conform to the comprehensive plan, or the existing zoning is inappropriate and wrong, or that economic conditions have changed so radically that it makes the comprehensive plan not applicable in this situation. And I don't think that's been shown tonight. So I guess I would like to conclude by just asking you to consider in your deliberations and vote the importance of respecting the hard, hard work that goes into building a plan that's supposed to guide Lexington. And I think that this is inconsistent with it. I wish that, again, this isn't personal. I mean, I really wish that Mr. Greer would come to us with some exciting B1 business that we could be really excited about, but that's not the case. And I think to change the zoning law or make this an exception to the zoning here, or change the zoning, I should say, just to accommodate this project is not a good choice. I guess just the last thing I want to say is, like I said, kind of a new process for me. But I do want to really thank the Council for listening to us, just average citizens who tried to pull together some sort of presentation tonight to compete with what we knew would be a serious challenge or presentation by the petitioner. And I also want to thank everyone I've talked to, the Council Clerk who gave me some guidance about what I might need to bring, and the Planning Commission staff that provided some good information. So thank you, and I urge you to deny this appeal. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mayor and members of the Council, and thank Mr. Miller and his neighborhood for participating in these proceedings. Mr. Miller, after our first meeting, actually came up to me after our first presentation of what we intended to do, and he said, now, Bruce, tell me, is this a done deal? And I said, am I right, Joe? I said, no, Joe, it's not a done deal. I said, you have a right to get your neighborhood organized and come to the Planning Commission and come before this body. I respect the process. This is the marketplace of ideas and recommendations and ultimately your decisions. This is not an appeal to the Urban County Council. You all have to make the final decision on every zoning case. That is under the law. Before I get into my closing comments, just a couple of rebuttal points, rather than take up your time doing a separate rebuttal. We actually had KU come out and look at our proposed screening. Mr. Helani met with them out there, looked at the location of our evergreen trees, and KU approved their location and said they had no problem with our proposed screening. Meetings with the neighborhood, Joe Miller said they were required. They're not required. They're not required at all. More than half the time, developers never meet with neighborhoods. I always do because I represent neighborhoods, still do. I find it beneficial. It minimizes conflicts. and it hopes to get a resolution, some kind of an agreement at the end of the day. Thirdly, in terms of property devaluation and rental, the property down in Hiltoni is right next to Central Baptist Hospital. They have no screening like we have. They don't have 60 to 80-foot trees that border the backyards. They don't have the proposed privacy fence or the 12-foot evergreens and all of that. they're not facing directly Central Baptist Hospital. It's an entirely different situation. What happens if the B3, which creates a lot of fear, most of the cases, honestly, it's the fear of the unknown and the fear of understanding what B3 means. We're asking for one single use in the B3 zone, excluding all of the rest. We're asking for a four-story hotel. We can build a 35-foot tall building. At this moment, we're 12 to 17 feet apart. This council is 12 to 17 feet apart of winning or losing. Southland Drive merchants, winning or losing, and I suggest even the neighborhood, a $12 to $15 million project. These opportunities don't come along very often. You don't find, particularly in this economy, a private entrepreneur willing to put up $12 to $15 million at the corner of Southland Drive and Nicholasville Road. The way it's situated right now, and you've seen the dumpsters and all the other stuff around it that are going to have to be cleaned up, and this will create an important benchmark for that to take place. A very important benchmark. Now, a lot has been said about precedent. Precedent is always contested in every case, argued by both sides. The undisputed facts in this case about precedent are these. Under tab 11, there are six rezonings that this body has approved from B1 to B3 that allows hotels. It's taken place from 2001 up through 2009. Six times you've been asked to change from a B1 to a limited B3 to allow for a hotel. And six times you've approved every single one. Now, they have some distances there. One of them is 150 feet away. The average is 822. Our average on Goodrich is about 800. the three closest properties most impacted, who would have most to lose, are for this. When was the last time that this body had a zone change in which somebody was proposing any kind of commercial development and three single-family homeowners came down and testified for the application? I don't recall it ever happening. Quite frankly, I'm shocked that they did that. But I think they see the value and they see the upside of several things. Number one, they're going to have a quiet use next to them. They're going to have a lot of screening and buffering next to them. They're going to have a residential type use next to them. They're not going to have to deal with potential unknowns. They'll have a fixed designated use that they find that they can live with. They are actually going to be, and this happens in every case, These three people closest to the hotel site, they're going to be the buffer for everybody else in the neighborhood, because everybody else will have them between the development. So we talk about the precedent. I would have thought that the staff or someone objecting would have examined the six cases in which this body has approved B1 to B3 for a hotel and come in and shared the cataclysmic consequences that have befallen each of the properties in those designated areas that you went from B1 to B3, only one use, the hotel. It hasn't happened. We had an appraiser go out and look at all of those properties, and there hasn't been any diminution in value. If anything, what this case is about is this. You have the opportunity tonight to decide between 12 and 17 feet the precedent that is going to be set for anyone that wants to do anything on south and drive in terms of a zone change. Are you going to spend $750,000 to improve the city's infrastructure that the city would never pay to have done? The city would never pay to have that FEMA study done. The city will not put in new stormwater sewers under this project to take care of another neighbor's property on Goodrich. The lady who showed all those flooding pictures, we're going to help her property. We're going to put in new storm sewers. They're broken now under our property. You all own them. It's actually your obligation. They're dedicated to you to fix them. Are you going to fix them? No. The Greer Company is going to fix them if you approve this zone change. The water is going to be better if it's going to come from their property into ours, into the storm sewers, at a much slower rate, which is critical in managing stormwater. Critical. You have an opportunity that doesn't come along. I'm not aware of any other developer in a case that has made as many compromises, that has spent as much money on experts to deal with fear of traffic. We've proven that it's less. Fear of diminution in value, we've proved it's not going to happen. And going to eliminate a lot of people's stormwater problems and save at least two property owners from paying floodplain insurance. This is an unusual opportunity. And we're 12 to 17 feet away. We can't go any lower than the four. You've set precedent before of approving a B3 limited with no adverse consequences to those neighbors, and none of those cases, I've checked their records, made any kind of commitment like the Greers have tonight of $750,000 of improving the city's infrastructure and the extraordinary buffering restrictions that we're putting in. I have findings of fact for approval under my last tab. I submit them for your consideration, and I appreciate your attention. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. All right. Now I'll open the floor for questions or comments from the council members for the staff, the petitioner, or the opponent. All right. And first to sign up is Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Bruce, I appreciate you moving from five to four, but could you explain to me what you said when you had to go talk to Hilton about that request and how that works out? Well, Mr. Ellinger, as you know and as your father experienced, because I had the privilege of appearing in front of both of you, when you come to these cases and you believe you've tried to respond as much as you can to objectors, The last thing any applicant wants to have is a fight. And so yesterday the Greers met, and they said, well, you know what? We're going to try to do it. We'll do four if Hilton will approve it. Now, Hilton has to approve a reduction from five to four. And they've got to work the numbers to make sure that they can make it profitable. All right? So what we're asking for and what my findings specifically deal with is the situation where we're asking for a four-story limitation for a hotel. If the hotel can't be built, we don't have those obligations to do those extraordinary things that would come with that investment of $12 million. We would simply stay where we are as a B1. Anyone that wanted to do a B3 would have to live up to the extraordinary commitments that we've had. In other words, all the $750,000 of voluntary contributions, that attaches to the land. Everybody is obligated to do that. So if they came back and say you have to do five, then you wouldn't do five? You just wouldn't do the project then? We would not build the hotel. Okay. Thank you. All right. Mr. Miller, you wish to comment on that question? Yes. One just concern or question. I've been hearing Hilton in this exchange. Is this a Hampton or a Hilton now? I'm sorry? Oh, so it's okay. I understand. Okay. All right. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you to all my fellow council members for being here tonight. And thank you to everybody on both sides of the issue. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Simpson. He's done a good job on behalf of developers and neighborhoods. You do your job and you do it well, and very respectfully. I'm very respectful of the Greer's attempt to do things in a way that go into the added expense, et cetera, about the flooding. My issue here is what it has been in many of the cases in the 3rd District, and that is spot zoning and taking a property that is B1 and turning it into B3. So I'd like to make a motion at this time, if I may. Would you rather wait? No. Pardon me. I hereby move to adopt the following findings of fact in support of disapproval of the zone change request at 1949 Nicholasville Road and 145 Collins Lane. One, insufficient evidence was presented upon which the Council could make a finding that the proposed zone change requested is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. Two, no evidence was presented before the Council that the B1 zoning on the subject property is inappropriate. No evidence was presented before the Council that there have been major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature within the area where the subject property is located, which were not anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed highway commercial land use is not appropriate at the subject location because it will adversely affect the existing low-density residential land uses in close proximity due to excessive structure height and the inability to sufficiently buffer said use from the residential areas. And five, the proposed hotel building on the subject property is located far closer to the nearest low-density residential land use on Goodridge Avenue than other hotels developed in the past 10 years. So moved. Second. So motion. Where was the second? Motion and a second. Motion by Council Member Lawless, second by Council Member Blues. and the floor is available for discussion, which will actually be a continuation of the questions to staff or to the petitioner or the opponent. All right. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. I would have liked to have had the opportunity to ask these questions before a motion was made, but given that one was made, I'll go ahead and ask now, and then I'll come back to follow up if that motion is turned down. Bill, let me ask you a quick question from the staff side. The Trader Joe's that we've referred to, did that development plan come before the Planning Commission after this or before this? The extended stay hotel behind Trader Joe's, it was filed very nearly the same time. I believe it was after this application was filed. Generally, a zone change takes longer than a conditional use permit, but I'm not certain of those dates. I believe it was after this one. I think that's the way it looks on my math as well, which is very interesting that one's turned down at this point and then afterwards another one goes through, but it is a little bit different process, I understand. The second question I have for you, Bill, is you mentioned in your opening comments about the Nicholasville Road small area plan that is for that area. I know that we were involved with the south end Nicholasville Road plan in my district and so forth out to the county line. That plan has not taken place, that corridor. Is that correct? That is correct. The process, I think one of the citizens commented on that this evening. That process was begun by the Planning Commission. There were some initial stakeholder types of meetings. Okay. But after a period of time, I believe it was in excess of a year, the Planning Commission put on hold that effort. Any particular reasons why they put it on hold at that time? I did not attend any of those meetings, so I'm going by what I've heard in the office. I believe it was, I think maybe Mr. Miller or one of the other citizens said, it's difficult sometimes to reach consensus. I think that's really the reason. Sure. Okay. Part of my questions, and again, I'll let other council members speak after we take the vote, but what I found valuable about the small area plan was a lot of folks in my neighborhoods didn't realize certain places were zoned certain ways but could also be used in other ways. Certain things had changed since that comp plan had been done, and those small area plans were so invaluable to a lot of folks who live in and around and work in those areas. So I was just curious if that had stopped for any particular reason or if we had any kind of information, because it may change some of the dynamics, what we find that small area plan's information. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Council Member Stanton, you were on earlier. All right. Council Member Beard. The finding of facts that were presented to us, it sounded like anyway, and I can be corrected if I'm wrong, that they were drafted prior to the beginning of this hearing. And if that is the case, the whole process of us coming here, we could have walked in and walked out in five minutes rather than four hours. There was one comment made about the height of the building. Well, the height of the building has changed at this point, and there's no reference made to, obviously, the change. So it bothers me somewhat that we had this thrown at us before we ever started, I guess. And again, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but it's what it's felt like. Anyway, thank you. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Mayor. I actually want to speak to the motion, but are there still other people who have questions, or have we shifted to comments on the proposal? Speaking to the motion? If so, then I'll go ahead. I want to really start where Mr. Simpson started and probably end where Mr. Miller ended. The question was raised initially about the meaning of the comprehensive plan and whether the colors on the map make a difference. My understanding about the comprehensive plan is that it is designed to provide stability and reliability for property owners and residents so that they have an idea about what's likely to happen in the neighborhoods that they're choosing or living in. The comprehensive plan is also designed to keep an appropriate balance amongst the various zones. So it's not just what's happening in one place. It's what's happening throughout the county. Do we have enough residential zone? Do we have enough business zone? Et cetera. And finally, it designates appropriate uses within a specific geographic area, and that's the colors on the map. Deviation from the comprehensive plan is allowed under very specific conditions, and the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that those conditions are met. If it's a close call, if it's not clear whether those conditions are met, it seems to me that many of the issues that people have raised tonight become extremely relevant. And I don't mean to minimize their importance, But in my mind, the questions that have been raised are less important than the underlying question which is, has the applicant met the threshold? Have they provided evidence that this proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan? The answer to that is no. Have they provided evidence that the existing zone is inappropriate? I have not heard that evidence. I think there's one other condition. Have they provided evidence that there's been major changes within that area? And I haven't heard that evidence. So on that basis, I would be not out. Now we have to be clear about which way we're voting. But I believe I would favor the proposal, which is to not approve the applicant. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Farmer. You've already spoken, right? I have, but... To the motion. Well, actually, the accusation of my integrity. Oh. Well, maybe we can hold on the... If we need defense. Mr. Farmer. I think we as a group are a little rusty in our zone changery. and I would agree with the tenor of some of the previous comments, I would have allowed personally for the council to ask their questions before a motion were couched personally because I think that gives the council the opportunity to have its discussion before the motion is made, and usually at least in past. Well, we can ask if that's what we need to do. My intention was that we could continue to ask the questions with the motion on the floor. But if that's awkward, then I would ask that the motion be rescinded. No, we're fine. We're fine. This is just a personal point there from having previously done this. Mr. Simpson, I had a question based on your August 8th letter to the Planning Commission. And I just, on the third page of this, in the third paragraph, because of the restricted conditions attached here to the proposed application will be in substantial conformity with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, which recommends commercial development. And I just, tell me more about this statement. As Lexington limits any future expansion of the urban service area boundary, have we done that? Have we said we will forever limit the urban service boundary? You've certainly made it unequivocally clear from 2001 plan and 2007 and 2012, so we're going into 13th year in January, that there's not going to be any expansion of the urban services boundary. I don't think the economy right now even justifies it. But it's pretty clear in my experience in dealing with this body and the planning commission that the community, in fact, has made a decision that rural preservation is more important in terms of a land use matter than any other land use. And that means you have to look inside the existing urban services boundary and not be wedded to a color on the map that's been there since 1969. it doesn't get changed unless there's a zone change. We don't go to the Planning Commission and say, I want to have a hearing on my request to go from commercial development, which allows B1, to commercial development that allows for restricted B3. That's not allowed. That even is not a part of the process. So we're in perfect conformity with recommendation for commercial development. We're in perfectly conformity with six prior zone changes this body has decided, none of which have had cataclysmic effects from going to B1 to B3. Is it final? It's final for 12 years in terms of expansion. That deals more with the encouragement of looking at these on a case-by-case basis. What does the developer have to offer? What can he do to mitigate potential adverse impacts to the neighbors? And that's what the Greers have spent months trying to do in this case. And I believe they've more than reached and met that objective. You are skilled. You answered the question you wanted to answer, and I appreciate that. I'll be happy to follow up with any other. Well, no, I just think with respect to comments from all sides, all of our planning processes are continual. They continue to change. They continue to be updated. They are, and these zone change hearings are part of that process. That's what the plan calls for. All right. Thank you for taking me out on that one. I have more, though. If, in the wisdom of the Council, we defeat the current motion and this proposal does move forward, I just have questions about what's the greater plan here? What else will go on on these pieces of property? I mean, what happens when Denny's goes? What happens when the other border properties change ownership? I mean, this is but one part of the Southland headwaters, and I'm just interested in if there's any conversation, background thought, what would be next, potentially? Well, and that's a good question. It's one that the Greers, because of their financial commitment to this particular area in terms of the property, they want to see improved upon. And that's why, really, you've had unprecedented, in my experience, recommendations, endorsements, and support tonight from business owners. Yes, sir. Getting people to come down for zone change to be 4-1 in the night and stay here. How many times have you been here as long as me? How many times have you seen that? I mean, you just can't get people to be for anything. So I think the momentum in the Southland Merchants Association is like, you know what? It takes one guy to do something really special, make it really nice. And then that's going to give the incentive for somebody else to do something really special and really nice. And the key thing is you all control every single case. If it's against the comp plan, if it's inappropriate, you turn it down. I can't think of one cataclysmic case where this body has recommended something different than the Planning Commission that has made front-page story and has been a big newsworthy item. I mean, I can't remember it. You are all the guardians. And that's why these cases, because we can't change the color on the map unless we have a zone change. We just can't do it. And you all listen to the evidence, and you weigh out. Have we met our burden of satisfying that we're in compliance with the comprehensive plan? Substantially, absolutely. Have we put up conditions of approval that no other developer has done previously? Absolutely. Weigh it in the history of your decision-making, and you will find what I'm saying is absolutely true. I need further help. I mean, you've represented these people as dreamers and doers, and I appreciate that. I appreciate their investment in Lexington and what they do for it. But there's got to be a second act here. There's got to be a thought process about what happens next if this goes through, and I'm interested in what that is or what form it might take. We hope that it provides the incentive to continue a revitalization of South and Drive. Have you heard the complaints about tired, worn-out businesses? Business owners coming down here and endorsing somebody else's property, somebody else's business? Because why? Because they like Phil? They're going to stay in here all night because they like Phil and Lee? No. They say, you know what, this is good. We need to get some things going on Southland. That's why they got together. So where is it going to go? It depends upon their initiative, their capital. and I would foresee because of the economy and the difficulty in getting financing. It's probably going to be a slow, evaluative process, and we hope it continues. We hope it's the earmark for things to come. We want to be the gateway to South and Drive from Nicholasville Road. And these merchants want the same thing. It's an important precedent in that direction. It really is. I appreciate your presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Miller, you want to speak to this? Can I respond to this? Yes. Or only if I'm asked a direct question. No, you can respond. Okay. Well, I think it's an excellent question that Council Member Farmer has asked, and it's one that has occurred to us in the neighborhood as well. And, you know, when we look at, you know, a very well-known developer who owns other properties now, Again, they can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we were told at one of the neighborhood meetings that he owns that gun and archery shop property that's nearby. We do have concerns that, yes, if this is approved, that that vision that's not necessarily being shared right now could be a vision for other B3-type developments as we go down Southland. So I think that is a serious concern. And, you know, I appreciate that business people have come down and supported this. You know, I had an experience where my car broke down when we were young outside of Chicago, and the motel we stayed at, the only place near it that we could get lunch was a bowling alley. So, yeah, we walked from the hotel to the bowling alley, and we ate a hamburger, and I'm not a good bowler, so I didn't bowl. But my point is that, yes, I'm not surprised that there would be a number of constituents who would advocate for this change. Your tough job is to balance these various constituencies. You know, we have business interests, we have developer interests, we have community interests. And I don't envy you the task, but your task is to try and do your best due diligence to look at the facts and make a judgment that does successfully, as best you can, balance these various interests. And I think the balance here tips in favor of community and adherence to the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Not every B1 use that is allowed on this property is appropriate. some of the uses would be very detrimental to the adjacent neighborhoods. I have friends here on both sides of this issue, and these are tough decisions. And so what we have to figure out is what is best. Half of Southland Drive is currently in the 10th district, the southern half. And before the last redistricting, three-quarters of it was. everyone has has heard me talk about the sathlin jamboree which danny collins and his family have graciously hosted for free but that's not even in my district i have adopted this corner of southland drive anyway and and so i i care deeply about about what goes on on southland drive and i think it speaks volumes that that the businesses have have come to speak about this. We in Lexington have decided that at this point in time not to increase the urban services boundary. And I think that's a good thing at this point. I don't think the economy would support it, as Mr. Simpson said. But what that means is that we are engaged in infill and redevelopment, that we have made a decision to try to develop and increase I guess increase density and increase the intensity of use in order to preserve our rural areas. And that is a good thing. But with increased infill and redevelopment, we have to have an increased amount of flexibility about what goes with each other. Because you can't put people closer together and more uses closer together if you're not a little bit more flexible about what can be next to each other. There are a number of facts that lead me not to support the current motion. I'm concerned that some of the B1 uses that are easier to do than this use would be louder, would perhaps have more light, but also the fact that the B1 uses in Southland Drive, some of them have failed. And I think the B1 use on this property has failed miserably. It's a dilapidated, run-down property. And that's not the only one on Southland Drive that has been dilapidated and run-down. I think that I'm persuaded that those who are most impacted by this decision, the three property owners who live immediately adjacent, support it, and not just lukewarm. They support it vigorously. I'm pleased that the developer has tried to turn the angle of the building and to have landscaping, and there's no parking on that side. I tried to, I think, do some things that would minimize the impact on the neighborhood. I think that the current B1 zoning by itself is inappropriate for this property because many of the uses aren't too intensive for this, whereas a sleepy four-story Hampton, I think, is a narrow use in a long category of B3 uses that is perhaps, as one person indicated, safest and least intrusive alternative. I'm concerned that we've lost CVS on Southland Drive. We've lost Morse Bookstore on Southland Drive. We've lost Sloan's. We've lost that whole strip that was the Charlie Moore property that's now going to be redeveloped as the health first. Other businesses have thrived and have invested. Mr. Hurt here from Old Kentucky Chocolates and across the street a good food co-op. And so we need to encourage development on Southland Drive, smart development, but investment so that it is and will stay the kind of cool 50s kish place that we all love about it. I love Dunkin' Donuts, which is right around the corner from this. Excuse me. Donut days. I'm so sorry. Fred's going to be mad at me. Sorry, Fred. And so, but what these businesses need and what we need to preserve Southland Drive is we need bodies in the door to spend their money. Brad Newsom, who was the president of Sloan's, is a very good friend of mine. and he was overwhelmed by the show of support of all the people coming to shop in the last day of Sloan's. And one thing he said though is where were they when we needed them? Why didn't they shop at Sloan's when we needed them? And so in order for Southland Drive to be what we all think it can be, We need to have smart investment in Southland Drive that will help business owners survive so that the next Morris Bookstore doesn't go down to Bill Farmer's district. That's my district. Diane Lawless's district, excuse me. Wow, that's a long district. And in fact, stays on Southland Drive. and by continuing to invest in Southland Drive, we can have the coolest place in Lexington. That would be the Bardstown Road of Lexington where I'd love to see a big iron gate on each side. Welcome to Southland. And so I'm going to support this because it's not a big, rock and loud bar strip joint or something like that. It's a well upper-end small hotel. And I think that the developer appears to be willing to really make it work for everybody. And the other things that are going to go back there either won't survive or will attract so much traffic that you don't want them to survive. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Martin. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I have just one or two questions, and I want to make sure that I'm correct. So, Mayor, I'm going to ask for your guidance. I'm going to ask the guidance of the attorneys and the planning staff. Based on the outline that we had going into the beginning of tonight's session, there are two things that we're asked to do, And you guys can tell this is one of my first intense zoning hearings. We're going to adopt findings of fact, and then we're going to vote on the ordinance. So we're going to take two actions along the way. And currently right now on the floor is a motion in regards to the findings of fact. Is that correct? Okay. With that said, I have just a question for planning staff. And then I perhaps may have a question for Attorney Simpson. The petitioner, the developer, they have asked for an appeal to grant the zone change. And they've also put in place or pledged some conditions on that zone change, which primarily would discount and forego all other available uses in a B3 zone. And they just want to use the zoning use for a hotel. Is that correct? Yes, the conditional zoning that they've asked for would differ primarily from the uses allowed in a B-1 by allowing a hotel use at this site. There are probably a few other uses, a very small number that may already be prohibited in a B-3, but the vast majority would be the same under their proposal. Okay, and Council, thank you guys for your patience as I go along through this. Now, with the additional concession that has been made this evening to go from five floors to four floors, of course, it's contingent upon the hotel chain agreeing. So if, at the end of the day, after we take the two steps that we have to take, if the zone change were granted, however the deal fell apart, and the developers decided not to build the hotel, what implications would that have on zoning? And I hope I'm not asking a dumb question, but what would happen then, Bill? What would be the zoning then in that case? If, and I'm just throwing this out, if we approve but the project fell apart, at the end of the day there's no hotel, what would the zoning be then? The zoning of the property, were it to be approved tonight by the council, would be a B3 highway service business zone. and it would have conditional zoning restrictions that you've considered this evening. So the zoning would carry forward if we made the change. All right. Mr. Simpson. I tendered findings to the Law Department because I anticipated there would be some discussion about this, and I've covered it in part before, but that's not the case. what we're asking for is a B3 zoning limited to a hotel. If the hotel can't be built, the only thing that can take place there, based upon the findings that are in the last tab of my handbook, that if you adopted it and voted in our favor, would be B1 uses, which is what it is now. It would not allow any other B3 uses. It would just allow B1 uses. So nothing would change. If the hotel doesn't get built, the uses that are existent tonight would be the uses in existence for the future. The only thing that would be different is if the hotel gets built to four stories and all those other conditions, commitments of the extra stormwater, all of the screening, buffering, landscaping, and everything else, those would have to be complied with at the time the hotel was built, but it would be capped at four stories. All right. Thank you, Bruce. Thank you, Mayor. I think I'm going to stop my questions. I have other comments later. Thanks. Thank you, guys. Do you have to add to that specific question, Mr. Miller? I do, if I may. I guess I'm still a little unclear by this response and this exchange. It's my understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong from your perspective, but hypothetically, okay, so you grant the zone change with the conditions that are applied tonight. Down the road, Hilton says, nope, this four-story deal won't work. It's off. If then Mr. Greer sells that property to someone else, could he or she, that developer, then go back to the five-story or six-story plan depending on the side yard distance height ratio? So I guess one of our concerns, or one concern I would just raise here, is it seems to me that I don't quite understand how that condition that's been kind of the surprise witness of the night, that they're proposing now a four-story hotel, stays with the zoning if the zoning is approved. And maybe Mr. Sally could address that. I'm sorry I did not hear the question. I apologize. If the zoning motion is approved tonight for the conditional B3 and the deal to build this hotel falls apart because Hilton won't support the four-story hotel and Mr. Greer sells the property to some other developer who wants to put a hotel at that site, is that developer somehow also constrained to this four-story discussion that we are having tonight or could that developer position his hotel in such a way that it could be five or potentially six stories, as long as the zoning was granted by the councils? If the conditional zoning restriction were couched in that no building on this property would be taller than four stories, that would be a way to address the issue. The zone itself, unrestricted, could allow a taller than a four-story building. Well, let me just address it specifically because this would be the legal impediment to anybody changing it, even a subsequent purchaser. And this is in tab number 19 of the findings of fact, and it would be condition number 7, which is the condition I addressed at the beginning of our hearing tonight in terms of the four stories. And what it says is this. Should the applicant or subject property owner not build a hotel, then the conditional zoning provisions set out in paragraphs 2 through 7, and those are the ones for the extraordinary commitments, shall not apply. In such case, the applicant or the subject property owner, which is binding on anybody that buys the property, shall be permitted to develop the property pursuant to provisions of the B1 zone and shall not be obligated to comply with the conditions in paragraphs 2 through 7. if we don't build a hotel, we can't do any B3. It has to be B1. We're imposing that obligation on ourselves by contract in terms of what our commitment is. And I would defer to legal counsel of the law department for affirmation of that statement. All right, did you all... Affirmation or confirmation? While they're conferring? Confirmation? All right. Okay. I just want to make it clear. I'm not contesting that the use would be restricted to a hotel. What I don't understand fully is if the hotel that some subsequent developer might do would also be constrained. So would it transfer? Is that the question? Maybe this will help. what the restrictions that were, or the conditions that were proposed by Mr. Simpson. We've amended them slightly in the event that you all wanted to go in that direction. But what generally they're saying, there's overlap of uses in B1 and B3. If you all move to adopt and make this a B3 zone tonight, and the hotel is not built, all of the conditions that relate just to the building of this particular hotel would no longer be in effect, but the conditions of a B1 zone would be in effect in this B3 zone. That's the best way I know to describe it. So you basically have a zone change to B3, but you can condition the uses under the urban county government and their planning can do that. And you'd be conditioning the use, if this hotel is not built, to the uses in a B1. I think that's the easiest way to understand it. All right. Councilman Ford. Thank you, Mary. Again, since it was initially my question, I think this brings me up to speed. It's basically, if the hotel is not built, for all intents and purposes, the zoning would revert back to B1. Is that right? The zoning would not revert to B1, but the remaining uses allowed here would be essentially the same as what is allowed in B1. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I want to speak to the motion, but first a clarification. The word appeal has been used a few times tonight, and I think it's important for everybody to understand that the applicant is not appealing a decision. The Planning Commission doesn't make a decision. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Council, And as Mr. Simpson said earlier, the council makes all decisions regarding zone changes, whether to approve or to disapprove them, whether to do it without a public hearing or, as in the case this evening, with a public hearing. And that is why we are here to make the decision that we make on a weekly basis in different cases. But to the motion, and the reason I seconded it, for two reasons, and one of them has already been suggested by Council Member Kaye, and that is that the finding that the B1 has not been found to be inappropriate, I think is true. I haven't heard any evidence tonight that suggests that the B1 zoning on this property is inappropriate for it. I don't think it's a very compelling argument to say that a B3 is justified by the fact that a property has been allowed to become run down and an eyesore, and that we need another zoning category to eliminate the plight, if that is what it is. I'm also not very compelled about the notion that we have six precedents here. It seems to me that we're involved in a decision on one neighborhood, on one property. It certainly has implications, but it need not fall into line with other properties in other contexts. And frankly, this is a pretty difficult context because on the other matter, on what effect the zone change would have on the neighborhood, the neighborhood seems to be divided. And there seems to be a question of whether business interests should predominate over neighborhood interests. over the years I think on Council I and all of us have learned to listen to neighborhoods pretty carefully because we know that's where the city lives or dies. And what I've heard tonight that I find most influential on my thought is the desire to preserve on the part of many of the residents the character of the neighborhood. And indeed, that's quite consistent with one of the objectives and the goals and objectives that the Council adopted earlier this year in which we proclaimed the need to expand opportunities for neighborhood character preservation. I was compelled to by the comparison to the Hiltonia situation, the danger of a street, mainly of residential owners becoming predominantly rental properties. And when that balance is upset, we know what happens to neighborhoods. So for those reasons, and because I don't see that B-1 is inappropriate, I second that motion and intend to vote in support of it when we come to that. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Blush. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. First, I just want to thank everyone for being here until late and appreciate both sides of this issue and also our planning staff. Thank you. Bill, I wanted to ask you on that Hilton over behind Trader Joe's that was mentioned earlier. That was not a zone change, correct? That was a Board of Adjustment case. That's exactly right. That proposal was for an extended stay hotel, and that is a conditional use in that P1 zone at that location. An extended stay hotel, by definition, are units that also meet the definition of dwelling units, meaning they have full kitchen facilities. Okay. And the restriction is that at least half of the units must be rented by a week or longer period of time, which again makes them the same as dwelling units. Okay, so they didn't have to come for a zone change. That's correct. The site was already zoned. Both of my colleagues, Council Member Kay and Council Member Blues, spoke to the parameters under which we are to make these decisions. were driven by the requirements of Kentucky Revised Statute and the zoning ordinance. And I appreciated that they both pointed out that those conditions were not met. The proof that the existing zoning is inappropriate, I don't feel, was met. met, and there have been no major changes according to the testimony of an economic, physical, or social nature. And I wanted to speak just a moment about our comprehensive plan, Mr. Simpson, because you and I have both been here a long time. And Lexington Fayette County has, we are actually known, I believe, nationwide for our proactive planning. And the planning and the comprehensive plan are a way that everybody has some comfort that they know what the plan is going forward. And I was kind of surprised about your statement that it's just colors on a map, because we have had proactive planning in this community for many, many years, way back to 1958 when we put the first urban service boundary in place in the country, and we've kind of followed on from that. So we are a community where planning and zoning have been very important. Councilmember Blues spoke a little bit to this particular proposal, and I agree with him that this is unique. I looked at the list under tab 11 of the properties that you listed, and it doesn't seem I know most of those properties. I've been to most of those properties, And I think this property is not at all like those properties because of the age of the residential neighborhood and the continuity of the neighborhood throughout years and years and years and years. And so it brings me to the dilemma that I think we're all in, and that is in fill and redevelopment. We've said we want to infill. We've said we want to redevelop. And the question is, how do we do it without negatively impacting the neighborhood? That, to me, is a huge part of this. and the fact that there were three property owners who are supportive of this did not really address all those over 200 who are not supportive, who will see this. You know, you don't have to be right next door to something to see it and for it to have an impact on your neighborhood. And as I look at my colleagues, I think all of you have neighborhoods. You have neighborhoods full of residences. And the difficulty of placing a four-story hotel very, very close to homes presents problems that I think are reasons, along with the justifications, which were not made, for disapproving this. it's compelling to me that both the Division of Planning and the Planning Commission recommended disapproval we rarely see that now there's a message there and I think if you read the whole packet you saw the various reasons that they did disapprove it and for those reasons I am going to support the motion to disapprove Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. There's been a lot of information shared tonight at the meeting, and I think that the Vice Mayor had a point about we're dealing with infill and redevelopment, and this is a tough issue to deal with because change, sometimes people don't like change. There are a couple of thoughts that I had. One is that if this building is here now, we're torn down, and we put in retail stores or grocery or some kind of a mixed-use development with offices and retail or maybe residential on the upper level, which would be a conditional use, those would be set back, and you'd have garbage pickup all the time. you'd have delivery trucks coming in to deliver to the merchants. You'd have traffic in there, a lot more traffic than this would have. And frankly, if I were a neighbor adjacent to that, I would not be happy about that because to me that would be more disruptive than having a hotel, which has less traffic and the activity is not all the time and very noisy. So from that standpoint, I like the idea of the hotel. The other point, though, that is something we have to consider, if we want to have infill and redevelopment in Lexington, we have to realize that it costs money. You have to buy an existing property. Mr. Greer would have to tear the building down, so there's a cost to that. And then there's fixing the drainage issues and doing the additional improvements to buffer the property from the neighborhoods and then restricting the size of the development to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors also, which eliminates the revenue potential. So you're looking at a lot of ingredients, but it's expensive to do this type of infill. And if we do not allow people that want to do infill to have a more intense use of the property and be able to generate enough revenue to justify the investment in the new infill product, product, then we're not going to have infill at all. The other thought that I have is this property has been distressed for a long time. A long time ago, I leased the building to Central Baptist Hospital when I did some subleasing in my real estate career with Long John Silvers, which owned the building. And then I think Central Baptist moved out after that, and I think it's been vacant ever since. The building doesn't have any windows. It's not very good for an office building because it was built more as a low-cost place to run a business as opposed to a modern office building today. So I don't see there being any really future use for the current building. So my inclination is that this is an appropriate use. We're in a retail zone, a business zone, or a highway business zone. You know, the zones are very close, and I think the uses are compatible. So I am leaning towards supporting the, not the motion at hand, but supporting the idea of, you know, allowing the alternative B3 use. Thank you. All right. Council Member McCord, you've already spoken, and Council Member Lawless has as well. So we'll go to Council Member Lawless and then back to Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. And I really didn't speak to the motion. I mostly just made the motion. And I would like to first clarify that at the very end of the meeting, I went over and asked Mr. Gardner if he could provide me with a motion to make. and that was after the testimony. And so I want to clarify that, and I'm very, very careful, as Mr. Simpson knows, dealing with me many times with zone changes, that I am extremely careful about engaging with either side, which is really difficult, and you know that, which is really difficult because neighborhoods don't have an advocate or an attorney often, but I do that, and I've worked with Mr. Simpson on working with the neighborhood to okay a development. And so this really isn't, I don't see how, and one of the most compelling things to me tonight was the talk about the football game day thing, actually. I hadn't thought about that, but dealing with the football situation, this isn't about infill and redevelopment. Mr. Greer, and again, I respect you and I appreciate all the effort you've put into trying to make this as good a project as possible. But he's not building a hotel for the rural landscape. He's building it because the proposal is that Central Baptist Hospital and UK Hospital, et cetera, need people, have people that come and stay there while they're visiting relatives in the hospital. So that's not going to be built in the rural landscape. It's not about infill. It's about location, location, location. So I don't understand that argument. Again, I feel like it does set a situation where we are spot zoning. There has not been sufficient evidence presented to meet any of those five criteria. And it does have a domino effect, and we have seen it over and over again. And since I've been on council, which is four years now, we have not once overturned the Planning Commission's ruling with a public hearing since I've been on council. So that being said, I hope that people will think about, okay, this property has been owned for eight years by Mr. Greer. He owns other property. There are other people that may own property. So this one's B3. Now what's the next one going to be down the road from here, another B3 that has a different use? So, again, and we saw that with the fraternity lodge on the corner of Woodland and Columbia. The two others had gotten, on the other two corners, had gotten conditional use zone changes, so they used that as a reason to give them a conditional use zone change. That being said, I hope that people will respect the integrity of the neighborhood and of the state and local ordinances, ordinances, our comprehensive plan, and do the due diligence. I also want to say about the small area plan that was going on when I came on council, and I also want to say one thing that I felt was unfortunate was the statements made about Ms. Butcher and her support of this project in her land because she has an entirely different situation and has as much right to be for it or against it as anybody because everybody that spoke tonight on either side had an opinion and it was maybe based on what they wanted. So I feel like it was unfortunate that Ms. Butcher was kind of besmirched there. And so thank you. Thank you. All right. Councilman McCoy. Thank you, ma'am. Just for the public's sake, thank you all for coming and being here for so long. And you have to also understand that this is the only time that the legislative branch of government acts as the judiciary. The way this works is that when there's zone changes, you hear it like a court case, and you as the jury have to decide based upon the evidence which way you're going to go. and you've heard other council members say that this met proof or this didn't meet proof. What you're hearing is that council member hearing the testimony tonight from you all and from the folks representing the neighborhood and the applicant, hearing it and processing it and saying, based upon our rules with the comp plan, did it meet one of the three criteria for making a zone change? One, it's compatible with the comprehensive plan. Two, that the current zoning is not appropriate and what is being proposed is appropriate. Both those actually have to be met, Part A and Part B. And the third is that something has changed dramatically since the last comprehensive plan. Those are the only three ways that a person can actually make a decision to change the zone. And what we've heard tonight, every one of us is processing right now, and that's where the questions are. So sometimes I know how it is when you sit out there and you hear a council member say, I'm going to vote for it or against it, and you start counting votes and get very frustrated whichever side of the aisle you're on. But I wanted you to see what's going on here. I also want you to know this is the area of town I've lived in my whole life. I grew up playing on Southland Drive. This was Fayette Mall before there was Fayette Mall. My mom lived on Rosemont Garden when it was actually punched through the railroad tracks, and this was the shopping center on the south side of town. I grew up biking to this area. I've lived in and around this area. My parents still live very close to it. I've always seen Southland Drive as an amazing opportunity. But I've also watched it decline. I shopped at Foodtown with my family my whole life, and I watched it go out of business. I knew the Sloan's folks as well, and I go to what Council Member Martin said. Where was everybody that was here that last day? And what's interesting is we have a unique dynamic, and it's been shared by people on both sides of the aisle. It's quirky, it's kitsch, it's 50s, it's funky, and those types of things. The way you keep that is that you keep people coming in the doors. And when business owners make money, they don't go out of business. And those funky, cool places stay in business. And what's interesting is when you go and travel and when I travel, where do you go? It was mentioned you don't want to go to any town in USA, right? You go to the funky, cool place. Well, if you can stay at a place where you can walk down the road, which now has sidewalks and bike lanes that we fought very hard for so we could connect this thing outside of a car and reduce some of that car traffic. But the bottom line to it is that when you stay at a place like this and you can go down and get candy at this place or eat here or get your car fixed at a nine-minute lube or another place, that's what people want who are actually traveling. And so the argument that we don't want this to die, I agree with. And I watched it die and come back, and I applaud everyone who has made it their mission to make Southland Drive an amazing part of our town and revitalize it. But at the end of the day, there is a, in 2007, the council's only job when it comes to comp plans is to write the goals and objectives. The planning commission writes that document, but we set the goals and objectives. So in 2007, Council Member Farmer, you were the chairman of the planning committee I served on, and goal number eight was infill. What I've found since then is everyone wants infill unless it's close to you. Everybody wants infill somewhere else other than where I am. And it goes to Vice Mayor Gordon's question of how do we treat infill. It's not all alike, and we have to juggle that balance. It's really hard to have it both ways, to say, well, we don't want to go out in the rural landscape, but yet this isn't what is best, and we should just do something else. And we hear that a lot up here. As it relates to the is this the appropriate zone? Is it the way it's zoned now appropriate, and is this the appropriate zone? I would argue that B1 is inappropriate because there's a whole lot of uses in B1 that damage the neighborhood a whole lot more than what we're talking about tonight. I do think that's an inappropriate zone for this place as a gateway and that this B3 with all these limited conditions is actually the appropriate zone. So for me, that criteria was met right there. But I would also tenure that something else on the third, another one that we actually consider. We can make a choice in favor of a zone change if any one of those three has been met. So for me, it's been met by the first two, actually, because I believe it's infill. That's part of our goals and objectives. I believe that B1 isn't appropriate, B3 is appropriate. But the third one that we're not sitting here talking about is, has something changed since the last comprehensive plan update? Yeah, it's called the consent decree. It's called a federal court case against this city that mandates we fix our water quality issues. And that started happening in 2008, and the judge ordered it in 2011. And we have to fix things. And when you talk about a development that's going to go above and beyond the fixes that any other development would do, that is something, again, that I feel like, from this council member's perspective, meets that criteria. So did one get met? No. For this council member, all three got met. So that is why I'll vote against this motion, and once we process that, if it goes that direction, then I look forward to another motion on the other side. Thank you, Council Member McCord. Council Member Beard, then Council Member. Actually, Council Member Myers has signed on. He hasn't spoken before, so after Council Member Beard, Council Member Myers, then Ford, and Kay. Thank you, Mayor. And again, as other Council members said, thank you, everyone, for coming today. And I'm going to be kind of brief on this. I'm going to start out by saying that I'm not going to support the motion that's on the floor today. And I agree with really everything that Councilmember McCord just said. And when I saw the pictures that the lady put up that showed the water and the flooding and the fact that this developer is needing to put tens of thousands of dollars into fixing a stormwater problem that he didn't create, that he's not adding to, but he's going above and beyond fixing what's on his property to help mitigate that issue. That's the change. That's the deal breaker or the game changer to me that says I'm not going to support the motions at hand because of what they're trying to do here on this property. When I go back and I look at it, earlier a gentleman said that infill and redevelopment at any cost is not good. And that's troubling to me as well because this whole conversation, and I think really the majority of the politics in this community are about growth and no growth and how you do it, smart growth, all the different clichés we want to put on that. But when you look at the colors on the map, and I know that it sounds insensitive to say colors on a map as opposed to my neighborhood, but the fact of the matter is when you have policies in place like an urban service boundary, that if we don't add to it in 12 years, 13 years going out, then there's not room for more development. When you have a policy like the PDR program that says we're going to pay people not to develop land, then the balance has to be infill and redevelopment. But then we go back to the colors on the map, and these colors have been here since the 50s, the 60s, whatever they are, and every single time someone wants to develop or change something, they've got to come in and beg us to make the decision to change the colors on the map. When it comes to not developing, when it comes to no growth, the other side has it locked in because we've got the urban service boundary. They don't have to come and fight every time to keep people from trying to do something in their backyard. You've got a PDR program that takes millions of taxpayer dollars and gives the people to not develop their property. They don't have to fight to keep those things from happening out there because we've already got laws in place. So if you put those things in place, and I'm not saying necessarily those are bad things, But the balance was supposed to be in film redevelopment. But then the people who support PDR and all those programs that limit things on that end of the spectrum come back and say, well, the colors on the map say we shouldn't do this. It's not consistent with the neighborhood. You know, since when I heard comments, neighborhood interests, developer interests, community interests, why can't those things all come together and be one? Why is it that this community so often looks at developer interests as somehow a bad thing? I don't understand that. You know, when I hear people say, and I want to make this clear for people who are watching, most of the people in this community I don't think agree that transients are some kind of a bad thing. We want people to come to our community and spend their tax money. We want them to bring their dollars from outside our community and grow our economy. When I hear people talk about people who stay in a hotel as being transients, my family and I went to a hotel over Thanksgiving to get away and have a nice Thanksgiving with my family and my wife's grandparents I don't think the people around us consider us transients and imposing on their community so that's disturbing to me when we talk about people who come to our community we talk about tourism we talk about the world of questioning games being open to the world to bring their dollars here and invest in our community that's how we grow So we grow from the experience of people coming from outside our community into our community, so we learn from them. They learn from us. That's how the world grows. So that's troubling to me. At the end of the day, you can't have it both ways. And the system that's set up now, and again, I'm not against the PDR program. It sounds like I am because I always bring this thing up. I'm not against it. I'm simply saying there has to be a balance. And a balance can't be you guys get, you know, a million dollars in our budget every year, $2 million in our budget, even if we have to borrow the money to put it in there so we can get the dollar or $2 match from the state and the federal government, that's all good. But the other side is the balance of infill and redevelopment. And we can't keep going back to, but the colors say this, so we can't change it. We've got to have a balance where we come together in this community and we see neighborhood interests, developer interests, and community interests really all as community interests. I love the fact that we have merchants that came to support other businesses to say, we want this business to come here because we think it's going to be an anchor on this street. It's going to bring and encourage people to come and invest. And I like the fact that the three people who have the biggest stake in this are those three houses that have the three X's on them that are right next door. So I've been long-winded. I thought I said I was going to be short, but everybody up here knows that's kind of the way I am. Usually I say, and one more thing, and one more thing, and one more thing. But I'm not going to support this motion tonight. I hope that this fails and that we pass the motion. And I'll tell you something else, too. I'm really excited. I did it, didn't I? That the Greers changed their proposal from five floors to four floors. Personally, I don't think I'd have done that. I think I would have waited to see if they could get the votes for the five. And if not, try to do an amendment at the end of the day and save it. But the fact that you did that tells me you're serious about being a part of our community, continuing to invest in our community in a way that helps and not hurts. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I want to clarify something with Council Member Lawless. I was taking exception, I think, to the timing of your motion as opposed to the motion in and of itself. You said that at the end of our process, you went and talked to Ed Gardner about drafting that. The process is still going on. Right now it's going on when we are asking questions of Bruce Simpson or amongst ourselves. That's all part of the process. And so it isn't over. And I think we've been at this piece of the process for probably an hour at least. And so I'm not fencing with you at all. I just wanted to kind of get that part of it. This part of it is as important as listening to Mr. Miller or Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you. And I just did the motion at the beginning so we could have this discussion. We were going to have it either way. So that was my intention, and I apologize. That's fine, yeah. Not nefarious by any means. No, not. But the Council members, the procedure works this way. Council Member Ford, then Council Member Kay, and Council Member Henson, you haven't spoken yet. Council Member Ford, do you want to yield to Council Member Henson? All right. Thank you. Council Member Henson. I'll make it quick, Mayor. Thank you. I wanted to point out several things because I know that this is a tedious, process and all that, but when it comes to our city, it is very, very important. And we can't cripple developers. We have to allow growth in our city, but yet we have to protect our neighborhoods. So just, I think, Council Member Myers, you were talking about the balance. And in the map, you know, I do think that our zoning colors are very, very important because we're not saying you can't develop on this color. We're saying here's what you can develop in this color. So it is a little restrictive. I applaud you, and I think changing the hotel to a four-story. You know, you've tried to compromise in every way possible to get this to go up. And one last comment I would like to make is if you really want your property values to decrease, have Southland Drive be a ghost town. I think if those businesses, I do think the hotel is an economic development, you know, it's an engine for the Southland Drive businesses. And I have to believe that the folks staying there are going to use Southland Drive. They're going to use the restaurants. They're going to use the drugstores. They're going to, you know, go to those shops. if they don't have the businesses and they close, watch all the property values around there decline, and we can see it in other parts of our city. So that's just another point I wanted to make. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Council Member Kaye, then Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I want to follow up on Council Member McCord's comment about our judicial role. I agree with him, and I'm glad that he pointed that out. It's very important. But I see the meaning of that a little bit differently, I think, than Council Member McCord does. When I look at the language of KRS 100.213 and Article 6.5, it says regulations require that evidence be provided. Not that we have an opinion about something. What it requires is that evidence be provided. I don't believe, and I've said this, but I'll say it again, I don't believe that evidence has been provided that the zone is inappropriate at the moment. I may feel that way, I may think it's the case, but I don't see the evidence. In our judicial role, I believe our responsibility is to apply the present rules. And if we don't think the present rules are any good, then we have to shift to our legislative role and in a different time and place, change the rules. We're going to have to grapple with this issue on an ongoing basis because, at the very least, I think the community is very clear that we're going to save a significant proportion of our rural land. What that means is that sooner or later, depending on decisions we make, there will be no more expansion. Sooner or later. We're going to run out of land or we'll make a decision to hold the line one or the other. And when that happens, all we'll have left is infill and redevelopment. And so I think our responsibility is to be smarter about the ways we think about infill and redevelopment. And if we don't like the way the rules work now, we want to change those rules. We want to be clearer about what can and cannot be done in the way of infill and redevelopment. So going back to my first point, I think in our judicial role, our responsibility is to uphold the present rules so that people know that those rules are reliable. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Kaye. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, is it still appropriate that I ask attorney sent? Yes, it's fine. Attorney, if you can come forward, please. I think I appreciate Council Member McCord again, as Council Member Kay just alluded, to kind of remind us of what our role here is today. I agree with some of the comments that Council Member Myers made, and I know that to lighten it up just a little bit, I know that today is a big day with our new football coach. And when I played and had a discussion with Coach Curry, We went round and about because he had certain rules. He had certain sayings he wanted us to live by. And I may have stepped out of bounds with one of those rules, but I recited to him what he said. And we say certain things. And we, as a council for legislators, we have said infill and redevelopment. And we have said economic development. We have said those two things are important. And I think it's time for us when opportunities arise. I don't think that we ought to be insincere in fabricating or being overzealous in pursuing infield and economic development. But when unique opportunities arise, I think it would be wise of us to take advantage and do kind of what we say. I think it's going to be a time here very, very soon that we're going to have to start doing infield and redevelopment as opposed to using it as a cliche and saying things. Most of the council knows and my constituents knows that I very much value the concerns of residents. But as George alluded to a little bit earlier, our hard task tonight is going to be to find the balance. I do believe optimistically that development and neighborhood can coexist if there is a will to negotiate and compromise. And there's been some compromises here tonight. Bruce, I wanted to ask you a little bit about some of the conditions. The infrastructure improvements I think are very important that have been offered. You did not have to do that, but I think it's a very good gesture in light of all the flooding issues in that area up and down Southland. The president is president. If we've done it before, I think we have to take that into account. Talk real briefly about the nature of the hotel. It's very late this hour. and let me allude to it, if I recall you stated that there will be primarily the purpose of this hotel would be to accommodate guests, and George is right, we need guests, Lexington is a welcoming place, we need folks to come here and help us in our commerce and livelihood. But the purpose of this hotel, strategically located in an infield site, would be to accommodate visitors to Lexington for the purpose of rest, as late as it is tonight, rest, to relax, and to retreat. And stick to that point for just a second, attorney. We have some hotels here in town, downtown and throughout the community, that if we wanted to go downtown and dine, we could go to a hotel and they would have an area where we could dine or socialize and be hospitable. have some hotels that a majority of what we do in a banquet or festive kind of environment. But at this hotel that's being proposed, there's no bar, there's no restaurant, there's no banquet facility. Expound upon that just briefly as it goes to addressing some of those, trying to fit into the fabric of a residential neighborhood right in your back door. Well, absolutely. There is no bar, so you don't have people hanging around until 2.30 in the morning, which our laws would allow. We're not going to have people going just to dine at a nice restaurant and a nice hotel, which I do sometimes, and I'm sure you do as well. This is a place where primarily people will come to visit family members at Central Baptist, St. Joseph's, and the University of Kentucky Medical Center. They will also be here on short-term business days doing business downtown in our community and at the University of Kentucky, which has become, as you well know, one of the largest regional medical centers in the United States. So it is specifically targeted there. Hampton very much believes that this is an excellent location for the kind of folk that will stay at this particular kind of hotel. Two or three days could stay longer, but it's not for entertainment. It's strictly for paying attention to family members and taking care of business in the community. Obviously, if somebody wants to stay there for rest and relaxation, that's their choice, but it's not geared up to like a resort where people are going to be hanging around. This would be for that purpose, for guest services purposes. We want the amenity. It's going to be a nice hotel, but it's not going to be a hotel that's going to be an attraction or a destination of noise or nuisance. Absolutely not. This hotel will be, in my judgment, the quietest use of all the existing uses that are allowed in the B-1 zone right now. There's been a question. I'm going to try to speed it up, Mayor. There's been a question in regards to evidence of the appropriateness of the zone. this is a privately financed infill and redevelopment economic development project. I don't think there's been a lot of discussion about it, but is it safe to say? Ed may have, Council Member Lane may have, his word, the term he used was using it to its optimal use. there's no question I would say that there's an argument made that the zoning that currently exists B1 presents enough evidence that we wouldn't be able to generate the economic development to the benefit of the entire community with the current zoning in place. Hence the request for the limited zone change. There's not enough land. And if we're going to ask business owners to take risk and investment, we have to try to accommodate them. So only if they're going to be willing to work with their existing neighbors. Last comment I'll make, man, I'll turn the floor back over. We said that we're not going to go out. We have to go up. And the attorney has mentioned the difference of about 15 to 17 feet. I think that infillainly development and economic development can coexist within our established neighborhoods. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Attorney. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ford. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to thank everybody for taking the time to come out here. It's been a long, arduous process, and it's necessary. I know I missed the finals of the Dance with the Stars tonight. I did DVR, so nobody tell me who did when. But I would like to make a motion to call the question. Second. And then you. Call the question. We've had a motion to call the question and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Councilmember Kay. We had one person who signed up right at the end who did not get a chance to speak at all, and I'd like to make that possible if he's still interested. All right, and that's part of the discussion. Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I felt I need to chime in. I know it's late, and a lot of good questions from my colleague have been asked, but, you know, I have a lot of history on Southland Drive, so I kind of have a different perspective of my colleagues. I had my first business there. And it is home to me when I think back to those days starting out early and how hard it was to succeed in business. And the stores that we had and the lunchtimes that I could walk to and eat, those are good memories. I appreciate everyone coming out tonight and giving us a lot of things to think about. My district, which is the Hamburg Corridor and the I-75, I probably have the most hotels of anyone sitting on this council. I also have four hotels that are adjacent, two of which have been noted tonight, two residential areas. Not one time have we had an issue with those hotels. Matter of fact, those hotels actually serve as the meeting places for the neighborhood associations because they work with them. One even shares a parking lot with the adjacent neighborhood with the person's backyard, backs up right to the parking lot. Not one problem. I've been on council the last five terms. So can they work? Yes, they can. Now, I think the bigger question here is, I think, Councilman Ford, you started to allude to it. Is this B1 really inappropriate? At this point, I know Councilman Ford alluded to that as well. I think there's a lot of evidence that has been presented tonight that it is inappropriate, and another zone may be appropriate. I guess, Mr. Simms, I do have one question for you. How many anticipated jobs is this hotel going to create? I don't think that's been brought up tonight. Microphone. Good evening, Ned. My name is Bill Kirk. I'm with the North Star Hospitality, the management company who will manage this hotel if it's approved. And we will employ 25 to 30 people. And that's full-time? Probably about 20 to 22 full-time and the remainder part-time. And what's the average pay? The average pay is usually for this kind of property in this kind of area would be somewhere in the region of $8.50. Okay. Very good. Thank you. And I ask that because all during the presidential elections and all during this last election, November, we heard jobs, jobs, jobs. That the number one thing, Lexington, we need here locally is jobs. And this is an opportunity not only for economic development, but jobs. And that's a big, big thing for all of us sitting on this council because 83 cents of every dollar that you business owners here tonight, you know you fund our coffers. 83% of our room comes from these jobs. And that can't go overlooked. So I will not support the motion to disapprove tonight and look forward to continuing discussion tonight to find a way to make this work. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Stannett. We have a call for the question in a second, which was not debatable. but we had a little discussion on it. Is there all in favor of the motion to call the question? Please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Now, Tracy, why don't you review, for the benefit of the council and our guests tonight, the motion that we have before us and what a yes or no vote represents. Well, the motion you have before you is basically a motion to adopt findings of fact to disapprove this zone change. So if you vote in favor of the motion, then you're voting to adopt findings of fact for disapproval. And then if you do that, we'll go from there. If you vote against this motion, then you'll have to have another motion later on if you choose, but you're saying you do not want to disapprove it, in other words, but you would have to have other findings of fact if you do want to approve it. So right now all you're voting on is whether or not you want to vote for the motion for disapproval with the findings of factors recited by Council Member Lawless or you are not in favor of that. Does that make sense? It's logically backwards in my opinion. Yeah. It's always a challenge to translate that. Are all council members clear on the vote? All right. And you need your one person short tonight, but you need eight votes. All right. So procedurally, I will declare the hearing closed and the vote to take place now through a roll call. Yes, sir. Mr. Ellinger? No. And if you wouldn't mind, thank you, to tally your vote as you vote electronically. Mr. Farmer? No, ma'am. Mr. Ford? No. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? No. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? No. Mr. McCord? No. Mr. Myers? No. Mr. Stenet? No. Mr. Beard? No. And Mr. Blues? Yes. All right. The vote reflects a failure to pass by a vote of 9 to 5. So the motion fails. All right. Procedurally, what occurs now? Well, it's up to you all, but Mr. Gardner is talking to Council Member Martin. If you want to approve this zone change, you have to do three things. You have to make findings of fact for approval. You have to incorporate by separate motion the conditional restrictions on the property. and then you will also have to amend the zone change ordinance because it was for disapproval. I mean, it was for approval, but it didn't have the conditions, so we'll have to put those conditions in so that they can be read into the record. So it's three actions, and I believe that Council Member Martin may have those. Can you write those three things down for me, please? That would be great. I'm sorry. I understand now. I understand. I'm looking at the roadmap here. I don't know. That's it. I don't know. All right. Thank you. Are you giving Council Member Martin guidance? All right. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Mine was going to be kind of logistical here. All right. The planning staff, I think, had vetted through the findings of fact that had been provided by the applicant and made some changes in it. I wanted them to go through those changes so that we might entertain a motion for those findings of fact. Sounds reasonable. Can I suggest that maybe you read them first and then we can tell you what the changes are? As opposed to just trying to tell you what they are without you hearing them, hearing the entirety of them? So you say read the findings of... As you wrote them? Yes, and then we can tell you what we have changed. We've got a record. She must read individualized. Don't you think we should read them first? And then we can tell them what we changed. I can't remember what I can. I can't remember what we changed. How are these different from them? Hey, Kevin, how is this different from them? Somebody did it. Read individualized. We don't need to change. I think the cleanest way for you to do it is to make a motion to adopt those findings of fact for approval, read them, and then we can tell you what we've tweaked in terms of that. and you can discuss them if you want to. Mayor, I move to adopt the following findings of fact in support of approval of the zone change. So moved. Do I just go ahead and read? Proposed findings of fact for approval. Number one, the Lexington Fayette Urban County Council finds that the applicant's request for a restricted B-3 zoning for the subject property is in substantial conformity with a 2007 comprehensive plan, which recommends commercial zoning, period. Number two, the existing zoning of the property is commercial, comma, B-1, period. Three, the applicant proposes a severely restricted B-3 use, which besides the existing B-1 uses, will only allow for a hotel use in the B-3 zone. Four, the proposed hotel will generate less traffic than most of the permitted uses in the existing B-1 zone, thereby reducing traffic conflicts with the residential neighborhood. Five, this area has a history of stormwater problems, and the applicant's proposed stormwater plan will be of significant benefit to the neighborhood and businesses on Southland Drive. The applicant has committed to reducing the amount of impervious service on the subject property and also has committed to reducing the rate of stormwater runoff from the subject property by 50%, substantially in excess of the minimum requirements should the property be developed under its existing B-1 commercial zoning. Sixth, the hotel use will be more compatible with the neighborhood to the north because it will be a more residential-type use as compared to many of the other commercial uses allowed in the existing B-1 zone. Seven, the proposed development will provide a much-needed economic stimulus for South End Drive and will provide an important gateway to the South End Drive commercial corridor. Eight, the location of the hotel in close proximity to Central Baptist Hospital, St. Joseph Hospital, and the University of Kentucky Medical Center will provide a nearby housing alternative for visiting families of patients at these hospitals. Nine. The applicant has submitted extensive landscaping, screening, and buffering provisions, which will make the subject property more compatible with the neighborhood and provide an attractive gateway for Southland Drive. Period. Who's leaving? So that's, as I understand, Mayor, that's the first motion. And in regard to your question, or I guess it was Mr. Farmer's, but I'll tell you anyway, those particular conditions were the findings of fact that were submitted by Mr. Simpson behind the tab number 19. in his findings. In fact, we just really changed. We added the word in number six, more residential type. More was not in there. And then we have tweaked what's going to be your next motion with more changes, but that's the only change in regard to one through nine. All right. The motion. Mayor Beard, did you second? Did you get a second? All right. Mr. Stennett is, yeah, Council Member Lane seconded the motion. I thought Beard did. Oh, did you? Excuse me. I read a lot since then. All right. Just discussion on the motion, on this motion. All right. The floor is available for discussion on the motion. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none. Is this a roll call or just a voice vote? Roll call? All right. All right. Council members, question. Council Member Myers. We've got one council member that had to go to. So we've got to. They need to take a break for a second. If we could maybe hold off the boat. Okay. Let's hold. Please. Read the names. Been a long night. We're taking this long. You may be right. Yeah. All right. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Ms. Matt. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Gorton? No. Ms. Henson? No. Mr. Kay? No. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? No. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Yes. And Mr. Blues? No. All right. The vote reflects the passage of the motion. Mayor, I have a second. Thank you, Mayor. I move to adopt the following conditional zoning provisions. Conditional zoning provisions. Second. The Council finds that the following conditional zoning provisions are reasonable and justified. Mayor, may I ask a question of Council? Go ahead. Are the bubbles of the right-hand side included or not included? Ignore those. Ignore those. All right. I'm going to start again, Mayor. The Council finds that the following conditional zoning provisions are reasonable and necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of adjoining property owners and are reasonable and necessary to further the purpose of the zoning ordinances and therefore makes approval of this zoning change subject to the following conditions. Number one, the subject property shall be rezoned to B3 except that the following B3 uses shall be prohibited. A, establishments and lots for the display, rental, sale, service, and minor repair of farm equipment, contractor equipment, automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, boats, travel trailers, mobile homes, or supplies for such items. B, automobile service stations subject to the conditions of Article 16. C. Car washing establishments, provided that surface water from such use shall not drain onto adjacent property or over a public sidewalk, and that adequate on-site storage lanes and parking facilities shall be provided so that no public ways shall be used for such purposes. D. Indoor amusement, such as billiard or pool halls, dancing halls, skating rinks, theaters, or bowling alleys. E. Self-service laundry or laundry pickup station or closed cleaning establishments of not more than 40 pounds capacity and using a closed system process. F. Garden centers. G. Kennels, animal hospitals, or clinics, including offices of veterinarians, provided that such structures or uses, not including accessory parking areas, shall be at least 100 feet from any residential zone. H. Minor automobile and truck repair. Aye. Carnivals on a temporary basis and upon issuance of a permit by the Division of Building Inspection, which may restrict the permit in terms of time, parking access, or in other ways to protect the public health, safety, or welfare, or deny such if public health, safety, or welfare are adversely affected. A carnival may not displace more than 25% of the minimum required parking for the site it occupies. J. Taxidermy Establishments. K. Pawn Shops, which include which, number one, were in operation prior to August 31, 1990 and in compliance with the provisions of KRS 226.010 at sequence and code of ordinances, section 13-52 and 13-53, or two, had on file with the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government prior to August 31, 1990, an application for a business license or certificate of occupancy, L. Adult arcades, massage parlors, adult bookstores, adult video stores, adult cabarets, adult dancing establishments, adult entertainment establishments, and sexual entertainment centers, provided that none shall be located within a 50-foot radius of any agricultural or residential zone, any elementary or secondary school, any park attended by persons under 18 years of age, or within a thousand-foot radius of any other similarly regulated adult business. Number two, the property shall be developed in substantial conformity with renderings of an Hampton Inn tendered to the Planning Commission. This is a voluntary condition to which the applicant has publicly agreed to be bound for itself and any future owners to the same extent as if said condition was set forth separately in an agreement with LFUCG. 3. The applicant shall reduce the rate of stormwater runoff from the subject property by 50% as determined by the LFUCG Division of Engineering. This provision is also a voluntary condition offered by the applicant during the hearing of this matter and to which the applicant agrees that the subject property shall be bound as a condition of rezoning for itself and any future owners to the same extent as if said condition was set forth separately in an agreement with LFUCG. 4. The applicant shall install an 8-foot-tall solid wood fence with brick columns spread every 32 feet between the subject property and homes on Goodrich Avenue and to the west of the applicant's property between its property and the car wash. Additionally, the applicant shall install 12-foot evergreen trees every 10 feet on its property and on the applicant's side of the wooden fence. 5. The maximum height of the hotel shall be four stories as voluntarily agreed by the applicant for itself and any future owners to the same extent as if set height requirement was set forth separately in an agreement with LFUCG. 6. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to place the conditional zoning provisions referenced in paragraphs 2 through 6 herein as notes on the final development plan to be approved by the Planning Commission. 7. Should the applicant or subject property owner not build a hotel, then the conditional zoning provisions set out in paragraphs 2 through 7 herein shall not apply. In such a case, the applicant or subject property owner shall be permitted to develop the property solely pursuant to the provisions of the B-1 zoning ordinance, but shall not be obligated to comply with the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 through 7 herein, period. So moved. Second. Actually, we had a motion by Council Member Martin, and Council Member Lane had earlier seconded it. So sorry about that. Do you want me to tell you what we changed slightly from the applicant's? If you, well, there was a paragraph at the end of his submissions that we basically deleted and added to the beginning here, talking about the reasonableness and necessariness to protect the health, safety, and welfare. we added language to number two about the renderings that the property would be developed in substantial conformity with the renderings of the Hampton Inn that were tendered to the planning commission because they were tendered there but not here tonight also we added to that condition that this was something that was voluntarily agreed to by the applicant and we also added that language at the end of several of these paragraphs about not only for itself, but future owners to the same extent as if it was separately negotiated in agreement with the government. We added to paragraph number three about the stormwater runoff, that the stormwater runoff from the property would be reduced by 50%, and we added as determined by the LFUCG Division of Engineering. We also added to paragraph number three that same language about future owners and the conditions would be binding as if set forth in a separate agreement with LFUCG. In paragraph number five, which was about the height, the applicant had already made the change to four stories, so we didn't change that, but we did add the language that was voluntarily agreed to by the applicant and is binding as if it was set forth in a separate agreement. And the only other change that we made was in paragraph 7 about if the property is not developed as a hotel, then the applicant or the subject property owner would be permitted to develop the property solely pursuant to the provisions of a B1 zoning ordinance. And when it says then the conditional zoning provisions in 2 through 7 won't apply, those were the ones that were specifically geared to this hotel. All right. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I have a few questions. For the folks who are here who stayed late with us and for the public at home, this basically were the findings of fact, these two documents, and the, I forget the exact titles, conditional zoning provisions provided by Mr. Simpson, but I guess redrafted by the law department. So when I read him, I sort of read him for the first time after being hand-admined here. I do have a question for Mr. Simpson because they've added the word Hampton Inn, and I guess if you have a four-story hotel that would be another chain would allow you to do, does including the word Hampton Inn preclude you from having a four-story hotel by some other chain that would be subject to the same requirements? Which paragraph are you talking about? I'm on page three, paragraph two of the handout. Well, it's the property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the renderings of a Hampton Inn. doesn't say we're obligated to do a Hampton Inn. That's fully intentions of it, but in my judgment, that doesn't lock us in. It does lock us in to build what we represented to the Planning Commission in that rendering, be it a Hampton Inn or something else. So is the legal staff comfortable with that interpretation? So if they went to, I'm sorry, it's 1130, and I can't name another chain at the moment. Like if a little Marriott that was a four-story, Would that be allowed under the? Well, I'm going to respond to this one because I did that specific drafting. The rendering is of a Hamptonian, and the offer from the applicant was that we'll build it like the rendering. So we can tweak it, obviously, because we're here and we can change it however we want to. If it can be made more clear. Could we say of a hotel? or admission if you don't worry about it i'm just hung up not either i'm hung up a little bit on the fact that it they are offering to build it as if the rent as the rendering is and if it gets very substantially away from the rendering then you've got you can always change these conditions i mean this if it became an issue that that a courtyard wanted to come in then the planning commission because we're not specifying they can't the planning commission could change that condition as I read the order. Thank you. Of course, the more lawyers talk about it, the more questions get asked. And obviously, our commitment is without question to build the hotel in substantial conformity with the rendering. There is a signature of a Hampton Inn. Now, for some odd reason, it's not a Hampton Inn. We don't want to be locked in just to that if a Marriott, if it turns out, so it would be better just to say with the rendering of the hotel submitted to the Planning Commission. And you're saying substantial conformity. Absolutely, we're rendering. I'm just wondering, if Hampton Inn said, no, no, we have to do five stories, and you guys got Marriott to do four stories, would this preclude you from doing that? We have to do four stories based upon the size. No, I know that, but would it preclude you from building anything? Is it a Hampton Inn or bust? It's a four-story hotel, and we're in discussions with the Hilton, which runs Hampton. I think your question is a good one, and I would substitute the word in substantial conformity with the hotel rendering tender to the Planning Commission. I will make a motion to amend my previous motion to substitute the word hotel for Hampton Inn on page 3, section 2, line 2. So moved. Motion by Council Martin, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion to amend? All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. So we're back to the original motion, and we need a roll call? All right. So, all right, Vice Mayor? I'm so sorry. I have a question. You know, we had all that testimony. Where did you go? There you are, Bruce. Regarding a Hampton Inn with no restaurant, no bar, will those be the same? no restaurant, no bar, regardless of what kind of hotel it is, since that was the discussion during the hearing. I mean, it's not in the conditions, so I'm presuming it's not locked in. It's not going to be a restaurant or a bar. Hampton Inns have, if you've stayed in them, like warm-up little microwave, small heat-up things for like breakfast. I was meaning if the Hampton Inn isn't approved for four stories, but you could get another hotel, a different hotel that traditionally has bars. No bars. But that's not in the conditions. Not in the conditions. So, Mr. Gardner, if that's something that's important and that you agree with and that the applicant agrees with, perhaps it should be in the conditions. I know that, but anything that's not in the conditions, you can do. Did you know that? So I'm wondering if you really intend not to have a bar and a restaurant, perhaps that should be in the conditions. And that was discussed through the whole hearing. Could we say Hampton Inn type, Hampton Inn style? I'm being serious. Without R. Because Hampton Inns are all the same, and I think that every chain probably has one that's like that. It may be the courtyard. It may be the whatever. But that would open it up to only a Hampton Inn type. It wouldn't be a Hilton and wouldn't be a Ritz. And so, Ed, from your perspective, then legally that would hold that there would be no bar or restaurant? I think we'd have a pretty good chance on that because Hampton Inn is a recognizable brand. It's a recognizable setup. I mean, I've stayed in a bunch of them. They're all set up the same. Right. Thank you. Council Member Martin. If that's agreeable to Council Member Martin. That's agreeable with us. That's for Martin. Could we say in conformity with the renderings of a Hampton Inn style hotel with no allowed sale of alcohol? Yeah, they do. I wouldn't want to go anytime. I mean, they do want it. Phil, why don't you come up and talk about it? Can you just give us some language? It's 1130. I appreciate it, Mr. Greer, but can you just give us some language? Well, I think Ed had the language that we would find compatible in substantial conformity with the Hampton Inn type hotel. Second. So the current motion is to amend it by the rendering, inserting the word hotel of a Hampton Inn style hotel. All right. So move. Motion by Councilman Martin. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Now we're ready for the roll call. This is for the approving of the conditional zoning provisions as amended by Council Member Martin. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Mr. Farmer. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford. Yes. Ms. Gorton. Aye. Ms. Henson. Yes. Mr. K. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Ms. Lawless. Yes. Mr. Martin. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Myers. Yes. Mr. Stennett. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard. Aye. And Mr. Blues. Yes. Thank you. All right. Motion reflects passage, or the vote reflects passage of the motion. Yeah, I'm wondering, too. Thank you, Councilman Martin. Thank you, Mayor. We have one last motion. This was provided by the Law Department. I move to amend Ordinance No. 1 to add conditional zoning restrictions related to prohibited uses, required form of development, reduction of stormwater runoff, installation of fencing and trees, maximum height of development, requiring the conditional zoning provisions be included on the final development plan, and providing that if a hotel is not constructed, conditional zoning provisions would not apply except that the applicant may develop solely pursuant to B1 zone restrictions. That's a motion by Councilman Martin, seconded by Councilman Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? Mayor. Right. Councilman McKay. Thank you. I just need clarification about the purpose of this motion. The purpose is originally the ordinance that was before you did not have these conditional zoning restrictions in it or the findings of fact that you all have made just previously, so the ordinance needs to be amended consistently with this, with what you've done tonight. The ordinance was originally before you when you scheduled this hearing. Thank you. All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All right. Well, so this just has to do with conditions. Basically, the original ordinance that got first reading when we started had no conditions in it. It would have just changed the zone. This is amending that ordinance to change the zone, but with all the conditions you just approved. All right. Is there any further discussion? I'm sorry. All right. Councilman McKay, it's okay. It's late. We need to be clear. It's late, and I'm still not clear. The first vote we took was essentially to approve the zone change. Is that correct? No. The first vote you took was to adopt findings of fact which would support approval of the zone change. The second vote you took is to approve the conditions that you want to put on the zone change. Okay. Now this would be a vote to amend the zone change ordinance to incorporate the conditional zoning provisions in the zone change. Without this, if you vote on the original ordinance that was read when we started the meeting, the zone would change, but there would be no conditions on it. And that's not what this council is voted to do. So will there be then a further vote that says now we had... Yes, and even if you had not changed it, there would have been a vote on the ordinance. You were leading up to a vote on the ordinance whichever way you went. Had the original motion to disapprove findings, had those findings been adopted, you would have voted on the ordinance. So this is really just the lead up to the vote on the actual zone change ordinance. And we'll have one more vote after this. Probably two, because you'll need to suspend the rules to give a second reading if you want to get it done tonight, which you probably should. Thank you. Roll call on this. We're not on an amendment. Go ahead, Susan. I'm ready. No, I was just ready to take the vote if you so choose, if the council is ready. Mr. Eleanor. Go ahead, please. Yes. Mr. Farmer. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stenet? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. And Mr. Blues? Yes. And now the ordinance needs to be given a new first reading. All right. So motion for that? No. Or just read it? Just read it. Okay. You read it. Madam. Okay. Please proceed. Thank you. Ordinance number one for first reading, an ordinance changing the zone from a neighborhood business B1 zone to a highway service business B3 zone for 2.589 net 3.030 gross acres for the property located at 1949 Nicholasville Road and 145 Collins Lane, Greer Nick Road, LLC, and Greer Nick Road 2, LLC, Council District 3, imposing conditions upon approval that certain B3 uses will be prohibited. The property shall be developed as a hotel in conformity with artist rendering presented to the Planning Commission. The applicant shall reduce stormwater runoff from the property by 50 percent, an eight-foot solid wood fence with brick column and evergreen trees shall be installed as screening, and the maximum height of the hotel to be constructed shall be four stories, and the applicant will place the conditional zoning provisions on the final development plan, and providing that should a hotel not be constructed, the conditional zoning provisions shall not apply, but applicant may develop the property solely pursuant to the restrictions of the B-1 zone. Now it would be appropriate to have a motion to suspend the rules. Motion to suspend. Motion by Council Member Lane. Is there a second? Second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Madam Clerk, when you're ready. Second reading of the ordinance as amended. An ordinance change in the zone from a neighborhood business, B1 zone, to a highway service business, B3 zone, for 2.589 net, 3.030 gross acres for property located at 1949, Nicholasville Road, and 145 Collins Lane, Greer Nick Road, LLC, and Greer Nick Road, 2, LLC, Council District 3. imposing conditions upon approval that certain B3 uses will be prohibited. The property shall be developed as a hotel in conformity with artist rendering presented to the Planning Commission. The applicant shall reduce stormwater runoff from the property by 50 percent. An eight-foot solid wood fence with brick column and evergreen trees shall be installed as screening. The maximum height of the hotel to be constructed shall be four stories. and the applicant will place the conditional zoning provisions on the final development plan in providing that should a hotel not be constructed, the conditional zoning provisions shall not apply, but applicant may develop the property solely pursuant to the restrictions of the B-1 zone. And now a motion to approve that ordinance would be in order. Motion approved. Second. Motion approved by Council Member Ellinger, seconded by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote, roll call vote. Madam Clerk, when you're ready. I hate to ask this, but I didn't hear who made the motion and said... The motion was Council Member Ellinger. Second was Council Member Myers. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Gorton? No. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? No. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. And Mr. Blues? Aye. All right. Thank you. The vote reflects passage of the motion. All right. Thanks. Is there anything further? Tracy, do we need anything more to do tonight? Nope? All right. All right. We want to thank everyone. and thank all of you all for being with us tonight. Councilman Ellinger, motion to adjourn by Councilman Ellinger, seconded by Councilman Myers. Unless there is objection, we are adjourned.