# Urban County Council Special Meeting - Public Hearing - February 26, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 26, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2891 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2891?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-02-26 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 9,791 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 February 26, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Chuck Ellinger presided over the meeting, which addressed one agenda item focused on a zoning change. The Council considered an ordinance on second reading to change the zoning designation from R-1D to R-4 for property located at 116 and 118 Simpson Avenue, 1100-1110 Prospect Avenue, and portions of 101 and 103 Burley Avenue. The ordinance was approved. During the meeting, the Council took four motions to a vote and heard five public comments from citizens. ## Attendance **Present:** Chuck Ellinger, Kay, Lawless, Mossotti, Myers, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Akers, Beard, Farmer **Absent:** Ford, Henson, Lane, Clarke **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Ordinance 0072-13: Initial Zoning Change Motion** [timestamp: 1:14:04] Ms. Lawless moved for approval of an ordinance changing zoning from R-1D to R-4 for property at 116 and 118 Simpson Ave., 1100-1110 Prospect Ave., and portions of 101 and 103 Burley Ave. The motion failed with no votes recorded. **Ordinance 0072-13: Findings of Fact** [timestamp: 1:17:59] Ms. Akers moved, seconded by Mr. Myers, to approve the findings of fact for approval from the Planning Commission regarding the zone change request. The motion passed by roll call vote with 9 ayes and 1 nay. - **Voted For:** Kay, Mossotti, Myers, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Akers, Beard, Ellinger, Farmer - **Voted Against:** Lawless **Ordinance 0072-13: Adoption of Zoning Ordinance** [timestamp: 1:18:30] Mr. Kay moved, seconded by Mr. Farmer, to adopt the ordinance changing zoning from R-1D to R-4 for the specified properties. The motion passed by roll call vote with 9 ayes and 1 nay. - **Voted For:** Kay, Mossotti, Myers, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Akers, Beard, Ellinger, Farmer - **Voted Against:** Lawless **Adjournment** [timestamp: 1:19:04] Mr. Stinnett moved, seconded by Mr. Myers, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. ## Public Comment Five members of the public provided comments during the meeting, raising concerns about the proposed development's impacts on the neighborhood and environment. **Ken Cooke** [timestamp: 0:27:29] expressed concern that the proposed development would bury the North Fork of Vaughan's Branch, a significant stream that drains 350 acres of the University of Kentucky campus. He questioned how the project would manage stormwater flow, velocity, and downstream impacts. **Priscilla Pemberton** [timestamp: 0:31:17] opposed the zone change, citing concerns about increased congestion, lack of sidewalks and streetlights, and the perceived negative impact of student housing on the neighborhood's character and safety. **John Miniard** [timestamp: 0:34:55] shared concerns about traffic congestion, lack of sidewalks, and disruptive student activity, including loud parties and crime. He cited personal experiences with police inaction and dangerous driving conditions. **Ginny Daley** [timestamp: 0:37:28] highlighted multiple concerns including increased traffic volume, parking issues, stormwater runoff, noise, and crime. She also noted the lack of affordable housing and argued that the development contradicts the Comprehensive Plan and harms the existing neighborhood. **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 0:44:34] supported concerns about the area's existing hyper-density, noting that the proposed development would exacerbate issues related to poverty, crime, and stormwater. She argued that the development would not respect the neighborhood's scale or character. The public comments collectively addressed environmental impacts, traffic and parking concerns, neighborhood safety and quality of life, and consistency with planning documents. ## Contested Items The meeting featured three significant areas of contention regarding the proposed development: **Zoning Change Justification** Council Member Lawless challenged the staff's rationale for the zone change, arguing that a prior R-1T rezoning in the area had not been properly vetted. Lawless contended that allowing such "spot zoning" would undermine the Comprehensive Plan and erode neighborhood character. This disagreement resulted in a split vote among council members. **Stormwater and Environmental Impact** Multiple residents expressed concerns about the proposed development's environmental effects. Specifically, they raised issues regarding the North Fork of Vaughan's Branch, including the burial of a stream and what they characterized as inadequate stormwater management. Residents argued that these impacts would increase flooding and degrade water quality in the area. **Traffic and Safety Concerns** Residents reported experiencing increased traffic, dangerous driving, and crime related to existing student housing in the area. They cited specific incidents involving parties, police inaction, and parking congestion. Residents argued that the proposed development would exacerbate these existing problems, creating additional safety hazards for the community. ## Ordinance – Second Reading: Changing zone from R-1D to R-4 for property at 116 and 118 Simpson Ave. The Urban County Council held a public hearing on a proposed zoning change from Single Family Residential (R-1D) to High Density Apartment (R-4) for a 1.976 net acre parcel located in Council District 3. The affected properties included 116 and 118 Simpson Ave., 1100-1110 Prospect Ave., and portions of 101 and 103 Burley Ave. [timestamp: 0:07:54] The Planning Commission had previously recommended approval of the zoning change, citing a recent unanticipated zone change to R-1T in the adjacent area as justification for the proposal. Key speakers during the discussion included Bill Sallee, Darby Turner, Ken Cooke, Priscilla Pemberton, John Miniard, Ginny Daley, and Amy Clark. Opponents of the zoning change raised several concerns about the proposed development: * Stormwater management and drainage issues * Traffic impacts on the surrounding area * Potential increases in crime * Effects on neighborhood character Despite the opposition voiced during the public hearing, the Urban County Council voted to approve the ordinance by a vote of 9-1, moving forward with the zoning change from R-1D to R-4 for the specified properties. --- ## Decisions - **0072-13** — failed (0-0): Approval of an ordinance changing zoning from R-1D to R-4 for property at 116 and 118 Simpson Ave., 1100-1110 Prospect Ave., and portions of 101 and 103 Burley Ave. - **0072-13** — passed (9-1): Approval of findings of fact for approval from the Planning Commission regarding the zone change request. - **0072-13** — passed (9-1): Adoption of the ordinance changing zoning from R-1D to R-4 for the specified properties. - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjournment of the meeting. --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. Council public hearing when we get a quorum, we need a minimum of eight council members. I'm sorry, ten. When we have a minimum of ten, we will begin the hearing. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. And we will begin. Would the clerk please take the roll? Mr. Ford? Ms. Gordon? Ms. Henson? Mr. Kay? Here. Mr. Lane? Ms. Lawless? Here. Ms. Mazzotti? Here. Mr. Myers? Here. Ms. Scotchfield? Present. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Clark? Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Here. Thank you. Thank you. And could you give second reading, please? Thank you. Now I am going to announce that the hearing is open and I need to swear in all the witnesses. Anybody who's going to be given testimony, if you would, please stand up and raise your hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Now I need to go through some rules as a presiding officer. I want to explain to you that as the presiding officer, I have the power to make evidentiary decisions to include irrelevant and repetitious testimony from the record. Council members may inform me if they believe the testimony is irrelevant or repetitious so that I can make an evidentiary hearing. The petitioner may submit a witness list to the presiding officer at the beginning of the presentation, and the opponent shall provide a witness list at the beginning of the presentation. All parties in favor of the zone change shall submit all printed materials to be tender for the mission and evidence to council members, council clerk, and the Department of Law at the beginning of the 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 the testimony, followed by the opportunity for a redirect. Any witness called by the petitioner or opponent shall 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. 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 taping of the meeting should be verbatim without interruption. Architectural renderings of developments should 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 may show building footprints, parking, and other basic information may be accepted into evidence. Now, in the order of proof at the hearing, first we will begin with the presentation of the planning staff. Then we'll have the petition of the presentation of petitioners and then presentation by the opponents. After that, the staff will have the opportunity to make any additional comments, petitioner's presentation of rebuttal evidence, closing summary by opponent, and closing summary by the petitioner. I think before we start, Mr. Turner, I believe you all have come to an agreement. Yes, Mr. Chairman. You may recall at the work session where this was scheduled for hearing, It was noted by Mr. Simpson that Mr. Hodge and his clients, Mr. Hodge and Mr. McIntyre, had withdrawn their consent. They have property within the development plan area. We have resolved that dispute, and the consent is reinstated. It also involves litigation that was involved in the suit, so all matters are settled. and there is no objection from the parties with land within the plan area. Thank you. And I think Mr. Simpson is here to confirm that. Thank you, Mr. Ellinger. What Mr. Turner said is exactly correct. The litigation has been resolved and the consent has been reinstated for the purpose of this application and our clients have no objection to the proposed zoning that's before you tonight. Thank you. At this point, we'll have the presentation of the Planning Division staff. Mr. Salini. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Councilmembers. Good evening. It is my duty to enter a number of items into the record for your hearing this evening. The first is the legal notice that appeared in the local newspaper advertising the date and time of tonight's hearing. need to enter in an affidavit that I have signed regarding the mailed notices that were sent to all the property owners within 500 feet of the location you'll be reviewing tonight and also to the nearest registered neighborhood association need to enter a copy of the recommendation from the urban county planning commission on this own change these were distributed to council members during your break and there are a few copies available behind me on the counter for audience members need to enter copies of the zoning ordinance and the land subdivision regulations that are in effect for the urban county at this time also like to enter into the record a copy of the 2007 comprehensive plan then finally the staff has received one letter and email regarding this zone change I'd like to submit one copy to the clerk and then distribute one copy to the council at this time. That is a letter of opposition to this zone change. Ordinarily, I would begin by going to the zoning map and introducing you that way. I think this evening, for this application, it makes more sense to begin with some photographs of the area to orient you to the location of this property. Most people are familiar with this area of the community. This is Virginia Avenue at South Broadway. This is its signalized intersection. The first major intersection heading from South Broadway toward Nicholasville Road and toward the University of Kentucky is here at Export Street. Export Street connects to Simpson Avenue, which is here. And some of the local landmarks in this area, there is a motel on this corner of Export Street, a fast food restaurant here. The University of Kentucky Credit Union is located here. There are a number of condominiums and apartments in this general area, again, of Export Street and Simpson. This is a view immediately south of where we just were looking. Again, these are the apartments, University Village apartments here. This is Simpson Avenue, Export Street. We have Prospect and Fern Avenues and Burley Avenue. The rail line is very prominent in this area, as you saw for the overpass in the photo. There's a Kentucky Utilities substation just to the south of the subject properties. Across the railroad is a facility owned by the University of Kentucky, and residential uses immediately across the railroad tracks there. this next view is a little bit more detail of the area that you're reviewing this evening for the zone change again this is the end of simpson here this is prospect and burley avenue here the subject property is in about 14 different lots here all of which are currently zoned r1d single family and they are proposed to be rezoned to an R4 high-density apartment zone. This is the University Village apartments here as well. They're surrounded by single-family homes, most of which are also in an R1D zone, but a small portion is zoned R1T. Next photo is the same exact area but shifting orientation. This is looking from the east to the west. Again, the subject property is identified. The rail line here, the University Village apartments here, This gives you a perspective of the neighborhood that's in this general area. And again, we have Prospect Avenue, Simpson Avenue, Burley Avenue in this location. You see a number of single-family homes immediately to the west of the subject property area. The properties that are before you for the zone change include several on Prospect. here. This would be 1100 through 1110 on both sides of the street, 116 and 118 Simpson, and portions of 101 and 103 Burley Avenue. It's basically this area right here. Now looking at the zoning, we've identified the subject property and the surrounding zoning. Again, these streets are labeled Burley Avenue. The rear of the two properties on Burley are currently R1D and are proposed to go to R4, as are all of the properties I mentioned on Prospect and the two on Simpson Avenue. The zoning in this area is quite varied. To the north, there is existing R4 zoning where the University Village apartment complex is. I mentioned earlier the R1D zoning for the Lynn Grove subdivision area. More recently, there has been a zone change to R1T for a number of properties on Burley, including the front portions of the two properties before you this evening at 101 and 103 Burley. There is R2 zoning across the railroad where we saw a photo of the existing homes, and the University of Kentucky property is zoned B4. Of course, the university is exempt from our zoning regulations. This is a view of the comprehensive plan. And we have a copy, of course, on the mounted overhead as we do the zoning map that we just reviewed. The comprehensive plan has two different land use recommendations for the subject property. Hopefully we can zoom in just a little bit on that. Thank you, Chris. And again, to orient you, here's the rail line that we saw in the photos. Here's South Broadway. Virginia Avenue is here. So the subject property area is right in this area here. Most of the subject property is recommended for medium-density residential land use, and that is defined by the comprehensive plan as residential density of 5 to 10 dwelling units per net acre. There are two properties that have a different land use recommendation, and they are immediately adjacent to the railroad. in that light green color. They are recommended for green space and open space land use. One is the utility substation we saw a photo of, and the other is the vacant area that immediately abuts the railroad. When the planning staff reviewed this application last fall, we noted that the request for an R4 zone was not in agreement with the comprehensive plan at this location. Some 78 dwelling units were proposed on this almost two-acre parcel that comprises all the properties on Prospect, the portion of the two lots on Burley, and the number of properties on Simpson, the two properties on Simpson. The density proposed for those 78 units was 39.47 dwelling units per net acre. So obviously there is a higher density proposed at this location than is recommended by the comprehensive plan. So the staff then had to look at the appropriateness of the request and the existing zoning, and also whether there had been any unanticipated changes in this area since the 2007 plan was adopted. The staff did find that there had been a major change that the plan did not anticipate, and that was for the R1T area immediately to the south of the subject properties. That zone change was approved last year and did allow for a higher density of residential use than was anticipated by the comprehensive plan. Further, the staff found that R4 zoning was appropriate at this location because it would provide a step down of intensity from the railroad track moving west into the subdivision area, and also it would buffer the residential uses in the subdivision beyond the subject property from that particular use. So the staff did recommend to the Planning Commission approval of this zone change at their public hearing last December. The Planning Commission heard not only from the staff, but also from the applicant and their representatives, also from a number of ejectors who appeared at that hearing. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission's hearing, they voted 10 to 1. Mr. Salen, could you wait just a minute? We have lost our quorum. Gladly. Thank you. Thank you. Would you continue, please? Certainly. Thank you. The Planning Commission heard not only from the staff, but from the petitioner and their representatives, and also from a number of objectors that appeared at their hearing. The Planning Commission did vote 10 to 1 to recommend approval of this rezoning to the Urban County Council. They adopted the staff's findings that's in our staff report that's part of the packet that you have. But to summarize, the first reason for that recommendation approval was that a recent zone change request has been approved in the immediate area that has caused a major unanticipated change, not anticipated by the 2007 comprehensive plan. Additionally, the Planning Commission found that the proposed R4 zone is appropriate at this location for three reasons. The first, the proposed expansion of the University Village apartments would create a step down in density from very high density residential to the planned redevelopment along Burley Avenue, which is in the R1T zone, which I mentioned. Secondly, the highest density in the neighborhood will be situated adjacent to the railroad, thus buffering single-family residences from the dust and noise associated with the railroad. And finally, the University Village Apartments also zoned R4 and the proposed zoning would allow for the two developments to be integrated together. The Planning Commission reviewed the development plan that was submitted with the zone change at their hearing. We have that as an exhibit here on the wall. Again, to orient you, we have the railroad here. North is just a bit askew on this map. Simpson Avenue is here. Export Street extending northward to just off the map where it intersects Virginia Avenue, as we saw in the photos. Burley Avenue is here. Prospect here, Simpson, and Fern. The subject property for the zone change is on this part of the development plan within the pink highlighted lines, and it proposes the 78 units I mentioned in three apartment buildings and six townhouses. There are also some other residential buildings shown on the development plan that have not been constructed and they're similarly depicted. An apartment building here on property that's already zoned R4 that would have an overpass to the University of Kentucky property across the railroad, six additional townhouses, and a number of townhouses along the frontage of Burley Avenue in the R1T zone that have not yet been constructed. All of the other buildings on this plan shown in solid orange are existing buildings. This is an amended development plan for the University Village apartments here on Simpson and Export Street. also this plan depicted an underground stormwater system at this location between this building this bank of townhouses and adjacent to the railroad that is the concept for stormwater shown on this development plan this plan was certified two weeks after the planning commission meeting as it met all of their conditions of approval at that time that concludes my prepared remarks thank you very much and of course i will be available for your questions later in the evening thank you now we'll have the presentation of the petitioner thank you again mr chair mr chairman um i'm darby turner representing the petitioner Anderson campus rental properties we are I'm going to keep this very brief one thing I did want to point out while I'm up here I want to blind take the and this was presented in some detail at the Planning Commission hearing but the Campus plan for UK, the long-term plan, is this is the new medical center or medical school. It is all going to be in this area here. So this is an overpass over the railroad to that plan complex in the future. We are in complete agreement with the planning staff and their recommendation. this case was heard in an extensive hearing before the Planning Commission and the recommendation was for approval at a vote of 10 to 1 as Bill mentioned and we would respectfully request that you honor that approval recommendation I do have one piece of business to take care of for the record And that is the affidavit of Tony Bonner, Tony for the posting of the sign. And I'd like to put that into the record. And other than that, unless you have questions, I'm going to sit down. I understand there are objectors here who wish to speak, and we would reserve time for rebuttal as to their remarks. Thank you. At this time, we'll have a presentation by the opponents. It's my understanding that opponents are not represented by council, but we do have four objectors, and I'll give them an opportunity to speak at this point. The first individual is Ken Cook, and if you would give your name and your address. And we usually limit this to three minutes, but I'll be a little more. I think three minutes is fine, but if we have cross-examination, we'd be glad to answer questions. My name is Ken Cook. I live at 639 Cardinal Lane here in Lexington. I am Secretary of the Friends of Wolf Run, which is a watershed-based organization that tries to improve the water quality, the aesthetics, and the property values of streamside landowners in the watershed that this development is proposed to be installed in. We would like to bring to the table tonight some concerns that we have that we don't think have been adequately addressed by planning staff nor the presentation of planning staff. And if you could go to the next slide, please. And those concerns are related to a stream, North Fork of Vaughan's Branch, that runs through the proposed development area. What you're looking at is an aerial photograph. Let's see if I can see this. Where's my? Okay. What you're looking at is an aerial photograph. Here's the railroad track. Here's the existing development. These are the areas that are proposed for the zone change. And then this is the stormwater basin that currently exists. The blue line here is my depiction of a blue line stream that runs through the stormwater basin. Could you switch to the next side, please? The proposed development will put a five-story building over top of that particular stormwater basin and the stream. Neither planning nor the proposed – could you go to the next slide, please? If you look at the development plan provided, they make no reference of the stream or the watershed that exists in this area. So go to the next slide, please. The fact that this drains a very significant area of the University of Kentucky's campus, I think, needs to be considered when you make your decision about whether this project could go forward or in this particular form. Next slide, please. Basically, this drains approximately 350 acres of campus going all the way up to Cooper Drive, to KET, including Chandler Medical Center, parts of the parking lot for Commonwealth Stadium, all running underneath the proposed five-story apartment complex. Next slide, please. This is a photograph taken on January 13th of this year of a 1.7-inch rain provided by a neighbor in that area. As you can see, not only do we have – this is just half of a two-year storm event in terms of a 24-hour storm event, in other words, the type of volume that you would see here. Not only do you have the storage that would be under this building, which they are proposing to relocate, but what I have not heard addressed yet is the flow that runs through here in terms of the amount of volume, the velocity, and the force that will be coming underneath this building. That is going to be very difficult to relocate, and I have yet to see any adequate way that they are going to address this particular issue. So next slide, please. So that basically is the element of our concern. Now, a lot of this project area that we're pointing out on this map is not in the area proposed for the zone change, but the zone change will enable this particular construction project that we have concern with. Next slide, please. So our request is in its current form, please reject the zone change or put a conditional use on it that will not allow them to bury this stream. Next slide, please. Basically, what we need to see addressed in this area is the water quality impacts, the flow impacts, the tailwater condition impacts. In other words, if you raise and change the volumes of this, you can send water back up that tube that comes from University of Kentucky and the downstream impacts. So those were our concerns. Did I use my three minutes yet? You did, but I'll be liberal if you have some. Oh, no, I think that's all. That's what we're concerned about. We'd appreciate your assistance in addressing this particular issue, and we'd love to talk to Anderson communities about this, but as yet we haven't been able to get that conversation. Thank you. Thank you. The next person on the sign-up sheet is Priscilla Pemberton. And if you would give your name and your address, please. You have three minutes, unless you need a couple more times. If you would bring them. There you go. My name is Priscilla Pemberton, 139 Burley. The only thing I say about this whole matter, we are congested enough. America has done all this, and they've built these U.K. houses, and it's a mess that you would not want to get into. You cannot go on America, off America. You've got U.K. students everywhere. and it's unreal. They park on top of you. They've been robbed. It's a mess. So what Anderson wants to do, he wants to make a mess of Burley. It's already apartments on Burley at the end of Broadway. All right, all that's congestion. Nobody lives there yet. But there are four bedroom apartments. That will be a chaos. And nobody's there yet. So Mr. Anderson wants to make a mess of the other end of Burley. He wants to build all these for U.K. students. We are overrun with U.K. students now, and we like living where we live, and we're just average folks. We pay our taxes. Of course, we're not allowed to have a sidewalk. I can't believe that. When I bought on Burley, you know, there were no streetlights, no nothing, and I called codes. And I said, you know, I don't quite understand this. I just bought a home on Burley Avenue. I have no sidewalks, no lights, no nothing. And I want to know why. Well, they gave us the lighting. We can see. But Coach told me, you'll never get any sidewalks. And I said, excuse me? He said, lady, you will never have a sidewalk. And we don't. And it's quite dangerous for kids. You know, you're always watching out for little folks and everything, and they don't have any sidewalks. And there are a great deal of them on America where we're just down from it. But don't congest this area. We're a mess enough. We've got UK over here, you know, university over there. We've got them everywhere behind us. Why do we have to have all the rest of them? And I don't quite understand what Mr. Anderson calls a stream. A stream to me is something that, oh, I don't know, tickles down here like this. Now, their stream is this whole thing. Now, call that a stream. I'd like to know who's calling that a stream. This is a tickle. This is a river. And that gentleman just showed you how much water is down there. So I can't understand how Mr. Anderson thinks this is possible or anybody else. But that will be up to you all, but I'm saying no to Anderson. No. He's a nice little guy, but would you like to do business with him? I don't think so. He looks and talks sweet and all this sort of thing. He's so modest. Well, try doing business with him. Let's keep our comments just to the zone change and not to personal attacks. Okay. But that's what I have to say. We don't need it. Thank you. Thank you. The next person on the sign-up sheet is John, M-I-N-I-A-R-D. Yes, sir. Menard, Mr. Menard. If you would give your name and your address, and you have three minutes. But as I said, I'm trying to be a little liberal here to make sure everybody gets to speak. Okay. My name is John Ralph Menard III. I reside at 128 Burley Avenue. I own my home. It was built back in 2000, 2001. When I built my home, they said I couldn't extend my driveway. All the way up to the street was concrete, and I had to put gravel out front because they was going to build curbs and sidewalks. I've yet to see them. I have friends in the neighborhood, not only Ms. Priscilla, but I heard a lot of other people in the neighborhood. The only place in our neighborhood that's got sidewalks and curbs is where Mr. Perry built his apartment building since the sidewalk was there before he'd come. and he built a new park across the street. We would give him that park for him to build us a new park, which he did. Now, I have nothing against Mr. Anderson personally or Mr. Perry, either one. But there's been times in my neighborhood, I've got a house out behind me, which is on American Avenue, and there's some college boys that live there. I counted 180-some people in the yard in the back of the house drinking and partying and going on. We called the police. The police come and did nothing about it. Just told them to quiet down. They went right back screaming and yelling and playing their music. And another thing, you come up Francis Strive off Burley, and you try to get out on American, I'd like you to come down there about 4 o'clock some evening and try to get out on American, any of you. If you live in my neighborhood, you know what I'm talking about. I don't approve of the creek getting dammed up or going under the ground or whatever. That's a big hole of water when it rains. I bet you go there right down and smack you up. And the reason I know this is because I walk my dogs every night. As far as the building goes, well, they know what I can do about it. But I don't approve it or disapprove of it. But I'm tired every time a house empties up, they tear it down for some reason or another. Somebody does. I don't know who. But every time a house empties up in our neighborhood, it gets tore down, and they build a four-bedroom or five-bedroom house on top of it, and they rent out the room for $500 a month to the students. That's all I've got to say. Thank you very much. And the last speaker I have for the opponents is Jenny Daly, and she requested before the hearing to have six to eight minutes. And if you would, give the pass out also to the clerk there, please. Yes, I will. Thank you. My name is Jenny Daly. I live at 136 Burley Avenue, and I do have a slide to put up and then what Percy is giving you to put into the record. First of all, I want to thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to council. We had requested a hearing for the last zone change for the townhouses on Burley, and that was scratched because the developer didn't put up the hearing sign in time, and there wasn't enough time for council to reschedule that meeting. So you didn't get to hear from the neighborhood then. My comments, I've lived in the neighborhood for two years. I live in my grandmother's house. My family has lived in that neighborhood since before it was even subdivided in 1913. So I'm very familiar with the neighborhood, grew up there and haven't lived there, but just living there recently. I'm here tonight to ask you to deny the request for the zone change because of the following reasons. The increased density in our neighborhood will cause problems with traffic. It's a walking neighborhood with narrow streets. Two cars can't even pass each other on the street. There are no sidewalks. And one of the issues of traffic that really hasn't come up and it's hard to illustrate to you all, But in order to get from the headwaters where Mr. Anderson Development is and make a left-hand turn on Broadway, you either have to go out, as Mr. Sally said, at the Broadway Virginia traffic light, which gets backed up. People don't go there. They cut through the neighborhood and make a left-hand turn at American and Broadway where there's a traffic light. And I just received some information this afternoon that the traffic volume at that intersection has jumped from 5,509 in 2004 to 31,700 in 2010 at that spot. So we're looking at putting an additional 200 people that will potentially drive in and out of that as a part of their regular traffic. Another issue is parking. Right now we're flooded with on-the-street parking that's rampant and dangerous, especially when the students have visitors over. They just pack in the street in certain areas. You can't make turns. I've had to back up one-way streets because they're all in the street, and you get blind sites. It's really hard to pull out from one street to another, make a turn, because of the parking. The stormwater, which Mr. Cook has talked about that particular stream, But adding new and expansive impervious surfaces are going to give more water to the neighborhood in general. And the only place there are storm sewers right now in our neighborhood are down in University Village. Noise and trash. Well, it started happening last fall. We're getting those sort of state street type parties where the whole street is thumping and jumping. We call the cops. The kids disperse. Then as soon as the cops go away, they come out again. I think you all got a letter from someone in our neighborhood where she cited kids hiding behind the car in her driveway until the cops left, then coming out and partying again. And then crime. I've been keeping stats on crime in our neighborhood. The majority of the neighborhood crime occurs on the student property, and then most of that is on Simpson. and as you know, the first homicide of the year was on Simpson. I get the raids report from the police every week and there's always three to five crimes in our neighborhood located primarily on Simpson, but what it is is somebody comes by. The students are an attractant for crime. They're the victims as well. But the density is what allows a criminal to come through and open the car doors and they just continue on into our neighborhood. This density also does not support the major goals of the Comprehensive Plans and Infill Guidelines. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan outlines the need for more affordable workforce housing. This development is designed for student housing, which is not affordable. As I think John said, these are four-bedroom, four-bath, $500 a room. I rented my house out for $400 for four years. So the cost of a house is now the cost of one bedroom in these apartments. It takes away affordable housing and flexible single-family dwellings, which a lot of students live in those, and they're fine, and replaces them with expensive student barracks. The 2012 Comprehensive Plan lists a goal of expanding housing choices, and as I just mentioned, a single-family dwelling, a house, can be used by students, by elderly, by poor, but once you make these student apartments, they can really only be used by students. And the scale of a three-story apartment building juxtaposed with an 800-square-foot, one-story cottage contradicts the infill and redevelopment guidelines to respect the area's context and design features. So in general, this infill is not sympathetic with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of scale, density, or function. And then lastly, the planning staff, and I'm not really sure how to call what their initiative is, but they've identified areas of the city that constitute a food desert, or is it a food drought? It is a food desert where there is a constellation of circumstances where people don't have cars, they're low income, and there's no grocery store within a mile. We are one of those food desert areas, and I think it's really irresponsible to continue to add people in to a food desert. So overall, this zone change and development does nothing to improve the existing neighborhood for the existing residents. Please, please don't throw us under the bus by allowing this development to go forward. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. At this point, that concludes all the people who are signed up to speak. and I saw an individual walk in who hasn't signed up yet and I guess I need to ask, Law, if they didn't sign up ahead of time, are they able to speak? If you want them to, they can, but if they haven't been sworn in, you'll have to swear them in. Okay. Did you want to speak? And it has to be relevant to this zone change? Okay, if you would raise your hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Okay. If you would give your name and your address, and you have three minutes, please. My name is Amy Clark, and I'm resident at 628 Castle Road. I just wanted to second some of the things that have just been said by a neighbor with three images. Okay. The first is the poverty and crime map. You can note there, if you can zoom it, please do, can you find on that map for yourselves Virginia Avenue to the north and Waller to the south? You can see that this is a red-hot area, both for poverty and for crime, and adding population to it, just as was said, is a problem. This map is prepared by the long-range planning staff for consideration in the upcoming comprehensive plan update. Second, the hyper-dense development slide. That's the gully slide. I'll take the other one. Thank you. And if you can, again, dim the lights or enlarge the image, that would be a great help. Can you see there the house on the corner of Virginia, I'm sorry, of Francis and American? That's actually two lots, two houses. What they did was take a supergiant house built design and slice a piece down the middle to make two lots out of it. This area has been subject to extreme hyperdensity in recent years. It doesn't need any more density without some serious planning first. I appreciate that the development plan before you is a planned development, but the larger context is being ignored, and it's this egregious hyperdensity. You can see four doors down from that. another pair of buildings. If it's enlarged a bit, you may be able to see that they're actually cantilevered over the alley that goes between them to get cars to the back for maximum parking. You can see the barracks on the other side of the street, several in a row, and if you pull the slide a little down, thank you, you can see they enter on those alleyways and the entire back is paved for cars. If we are talking about flooding and runoff and issues like that, these are important considerations. And finally to the third slide, the gully. I believe you have heard from the neighbors and I have certainly read in the Planning Commission testimony that you have before you that their preference really is to have this lovely wooded area that soaks up water and hold soil with roots rather than a high-density building right there as a buffer between them and the railroad and also as more suitable for preventing flooding. Thank you. Thank you very much. At this time, we will have the staff give us any additional comments if they would like. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have two comments. The technical committee met and reviewed the development plan that you were reviewing this evening in late November. When they reviewed that, staff from the Urban County Government's Division of Water Quality did express some concern over the concept for the stormwater detention. This is a preliminary development plan. It does not allow any construction to actually occur, but my takeaway from that technical committee review was that this issue would be reviewed at the time of a final development plan for this property, and that is a requirement before any construction could begin either on the infrastructure or the buildings that are depicted on this development plan. Secondly, I did fail to mention that there are two street closures proposed as part of the development, plan. That would be most of Prospect Avenue and the very end of Simpson Avenue. And of course, as you know, street closures have to come through the Urban County Council. So there will be a number of steps that will have to occur before this conceptual development could advance. Thank you very much. Thank you. At this time, we'll have petitioners. They can give any rebuttal evidence if they'd like. Thank you again. I have several comments in rebuttal. One, and it was noted with Mr. Cook with the five-story building that he was talking about, that is not in the area being requested for a zone change tonight. The stream and the water issues and and stormwater issues are issues that have been dealt with at the Planning Commission level, consistent with the preliminary development plan. Obviously, there's a lot more work to do as you get to a final development plan stage. In fact, one of the notes on the approved preliminary development plan is that stormwater management study shall be prepared at the time of final development plan, evaluating pre- and post-development hydraulics, the detention volume for the proposed redevelopment, and the area east of the railroad tracks to comply with the provisions of the Division of Engineering Stormwater Manual. So this, as you indicated before, the question before this body is not planning elements. It is a zone change. The planning elements such as stormwater and the stream are being dealt with, have been vigorously discussed at the preliminary stage and will be vigorously studied and discussed at the final development stage. Mr. Anderson's engineers have already had discussions with UK because the water comes underneath the railroad tracks through a culvert and onto the property. That's the stream that you saw in the picture. or the water runoff area. That whole area, as U.K. develops and this area develops, will have to have a coordinated stormwater system, which is already being discussed and will be evaluated as a part of the development process. It should, and it's an opportunity, to improve the stormwater situation in the area proper and modern technology and requirements relative to detention, retention, and so forth. So this planning process and this redevelopment is a process that will address a number of the issues that are complained of today. much has been said in the opponent's discussion about the barrack style development that has occurred. You need to understand that the units designed for this planned development are to be one and two bedroom units. They're designed not for the undergraduate students. They're designed for graduate students at the medical center, staff at the Medical College of Medicine, and that sort of thing. Very similar to a density and apartment mix that you would find in the suburbia area. So it's not cram as many as you can in at $500 a bid. This is a planned development to coincide with the development of the university of its medical school complex on the other side of the railroad tracks. It's also designed to eliminate by that population being able to walk over across the railroad tracks. It's designed to eliminate a lot of traffic that might otherwise be going back and forth to other job locations and job centers. So that's the beauty of a planned development. Security and so forth, the design, there's been a good deal of discussion already in the planning stage about security by design for the whole development area, the planned development that's shown on the development plan, which is beyond this zone change. But it's the opportunity to really, by design, add security elements to decrease the amount of criminal activity that can occur, the access of criminals to the parking lots and so forth. In other words, you don't have 15 ways to get in. you have more limited pedestrian and vehicular. And it's a very popular concept with current planning trends to provide the security within that area in many respects by design. The neighborhood is changing. There's no question about that. It was developed, I think I heard, as subdivision in 1913. When the property that Mr. Anderson acquired in this particular area, of the residents that were on that property at the time he acquired, there were only two that were owner-occupied. And those two he relocated to houses, to one, a new house, and another totally rehabilitated house in order for those residents to continue to live in the area. So the area has changed, and it has changed dramatically with the advent of the university pushing in that direction. So we understand those issues. We think this planned development, as you see it here, actually improves and corrects a number of the issues and concerns that the neighbors have with regard to stormwater, with regard to student activities, with regard to security. And it's the density near the university where you can get to the university, and so the vehicular traffic is minimized. So we understand the concerns. There's a lot left to do, and that's part of the process for the final development plan and full development. This is an initial part that enables us to go to those steps. And we would respectfully ask your approval of the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Thank you. Thank you very much. At this point, we'll have the closing summations. And I guess I'll ask our legal department, since there is not representation for the opponents, what's the proper procedure on that? I don't think you have to have that. Okay. And then a summation from the petitioner then? Or would that be sufficient what you did? At this point, we are at the conclusion of all the presentations. So now we'll ask the questions from the council, either of the staff, the petitioner, or the opponents. And if the petitioner or the opponent shall be entitled or but, any new evidence, that's brought up at the council questioning. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the residents for coming out tonight. This is the whole purpose of having a zone change is to allow your opinions to be heard and weighed in before we make our final decision. I do have one question from Mr. Gardner. I know back during the CAP process, the capacity assurance, we referenced a state statute that prohibits the council during a zone change from using the sanitary sewer system as a means for approving or disapproving a zone change. Is that same standard under states that you apply to stormwater? Can we consider that as part of our decision-making to approve it or disapprove it? I'll be honest with you. I'm not sure. I do remember that discussion in the CAP, but I only remember it being directed to the sanitary sewers, and I would have to check. I apologize, but I do not know. Okay. I understand, because, again, the zone change is for use only, not a development plan. That's correct, and certainly the CAP program, while probably, well, I'm making an assumption here, I assume it won't be relevant in this situation. I don't know that. But in the future, at some point, it will be relevant to whether development can proceed. But the idea is not that it could stop any zone changes that are justified. It would just be a check on our system. Okay. And then, Mr. Turner, what improvements will be made to the roadways? Will the road be widened back to the main artery at all or improvements made? You mentioned shutting two pieces off. Two streets will be closed. Right. Actually, if we can have Mr. Barrett, who is mayor with that and did the design. Thank you, Kevin, for the record. I'm Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. Of course, Prospect is proposed to be closed in this location here. Simpson Avenue is proposed to be closed at this location. and this would become a private street. And the Section CC proposes curb and gutter with a six-foot sidewalk where it fronts our property. So there will be a small section of sidewalk added just in front of your property? Just in front of our property, yes. Okay, thank you. And, Bill Soutley, do you know, are there any plans to add sidewalks in this area from planning development? I was going to ask Commissioner Paulson, but I think since you're the planning representative, because we're seeing this in a lot of areas where we approve a development plan, they get sidewalks, but the older area, we kind of forget to go back and as a city do that. I'm not saying put the onus on the developer necessarily, but as a city, are there plans at all? I'm not aware in this area that there are any plans for the overall neighborhood. You may recall a number of neighborhoods over the years through community development block grant funding have had sidewalks installed. As a general rule, when planning reviews a development plan, we are looking at the frontages of the property and not very often at off-site improvements. Very good. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Chair, and thanks to all of you all that came out tonight and to my colleagues for being here. Mr. Selle, one of the things that you stated was that it wouldn't have been appropriate under the comprehensive plan unless there was something unexpected that happened. Am I right, and did I hear you say what happened that was unexpected was other zone changes in spots in the neighborhood, which increased the, that's what changed was they were rezoned for a higher density? Yes, it was actually the zone change immediately to the south of this location from R1D to R1T. That was a change also not in agreement with the comprehensive plan like this one, but that zone change did allow a higher density of residential use immediately adjacent to the subject property that the Council is reviewing this evening. So that was cited as the unanticipated change in the area. And I guess that, among other things, especially, well, I'm sure it happens other places, but I'm familiar, of course, with the 3rd District, and this is an area new to the 3rd District, is that those spot zone changes happen. And then that changes, that gives justification for the adjacent properties to not follow the comprehensive plan. And so neighborhoods get chipped away and they lose the culture and nature of that neighborhood. And we've seen it many, many times. And so I think that the previous zone change was the one where the developer didn't put up the sign, the notice of the sign. So we couldn't have the zone change hearing. But, you know, if we keep doing that and we do the spot zoning in our neighborhoods, and then that's the change that makes it okay not to follow a comprehensive plan. These neighborhoods get chipped away and chipped away and chipped away. And that's my concern. This is a neighborhood that my understanding is, you know, people have a lot of transgenerational families have lived there in these, you know, small, very affordable houses. And so much like some of the other areas. If we can't consider the watershed issue, and I'm not sure if that's on there, Mr. Gardner? Well, the answer that I gave was I recall a discussion in the CAP program about a statute related to sanitary sewers. I'm not certain there is one in this case. but my recollection is that those are areas that the development process is intended to handle as has been testified to here today. So in terms of whether a zoning use should be changed, that's really not usually part of the equation. Okay, thank you. Again, I'm very concerned that the justification for this being approved by the staff is because something else was rezoned that didn't match our master plan, our comprehensive plan. and, again, that domino effect that I've seen over and over again. So that is of great concern to me. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Beery. Thank you, Chair. Darby, I guess it's you, Mr. Turner. I'm sorry. Unless you make me walk to the map, then it's going to be time again. I thought I heard somebody say, and it may have been you, that there was going to be some type of a structure for the students to get over across Norfolk and Southern. Yeah. And this was presented by Bill and his staff remarks as well. And this is on an area that is not included in this zone change, but it's a part of the plan development. This is a five-story building right here, which will have a pedway across the railroad tracks and will empty, have its other location terminus on the university property, and that has been worked out with Bob Wasman and the University of Kentucky. So that is the crossway right there. Is that going to be ADA? Yes, it will have to be. It would have to be, I would think. I know Brandon Crossing, for instance, had a similar problem, and they ended up having to use a lot of space for ramps. This is a little different because of the building that's there. Obviously with the building there will be an elevator here and some similar facility on the other side. Okay, very good. Thank you. Any other council members have questions? Seeing none, at this point I will close the hearing. And now, oh, I'm sorry, we have, Council Member Lawless, did you have a question? Okay, Council Member Lawless. Thank you, I'm sorry. Okay. So the Pedway is supposedly going to go from, I guess, the top of the five-story building. That's correct. And is that the part of that railroad track that is no longer in use? Tony will have to. No, this rail line is in use. Okay, there's another one that's not in use that's an abandoned track, so I just want to see. Yeah, this is actually a very busy line. Okay, I'm not very, I'm directionally disabled. So, again, I have a question about the traffic, and when I look at these statistics, that from 2004 it went from 5,509 traffic volume to 2010, 31,700, and, of course, now we're at 2013, so that's three years older. I know that there's a lot of issues with cars speeding and cutting through that neighborhood, and because there aren't curbs and there aren't sidewalks and there's a park there, it often, so I'm having a hard time understanding how closing streets is going to do anything that cause further congestion. Well, actually, as you see the plan, actually closing some streets, and the internal circulation within this development actually replaces a lot of those transportation elements. Are they going to, like, helicopter over to Broadway? No, but you can move around within this to various locations as opposed to the other streets. We have lost our quorum, so if we could, we have to take a two-minute recess right now here until we get our quorum back, if you don't mind. Okay. I'll display. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Barrett. Nature called. Talk about the internal circulation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Lawless. Thank you. Would you like, Council Member, would you like Tony Barrett to go through the internal circulation of the plan that you were asking about? Yes, that would be fine. And also, I think that suggesting that this is designed for grad students versus is pretty irrelevant as to who rents it. But if you would, you know, I think that's another one of the red herrings we hear a lot of. And, you know, I respect you a lot and you do a great job. So if you would, please. I missed where those traffic counts were referring to. Was it Broadway and? Broadway and. Broadway and American Avenue. Broadway and American. Okay. Okay. American Avenue is near Simpson, Burley, and then American down here. So the way we've designed the plan is particularly to part of the safe by design principles is to reduce your entrance points, and that way you can have a better control of who's coming and going, and this takes in some of those principles where we've, by closing Prospect Avenue, we are eliminating most of Burley, or essentially all of Burley, as a point of ingress and egress for this property and are taking it to Simpson Avenue and Export Street out to Broadway and also internally here through our parking lot, which this continues out on another property, maybe that's the credit union property, to Export Street, which goes to Virginia Avenue. So part of the concept was try to divert the traffic from cutting through the neighborhood as much as we could and controlling it from a safety perspective. That was the internal circulation for the traffic. Okay. If anybody else has any questions or? At this point, are you finished with your question? Because you have 30 seconds left. Okay. I'm talking to law now about a motion. Okay. So if we could have this. Well, I'll close the hearing if you have no more questions, and then we'll go to a motion. At this point, it's just council members who can ask questions at this point. So are you done with your questions? Yeah. Okay. Is there any other council members who have questions? At this point, I will close the hearing, and we'll now take a motion to adoption of facts. And this is in Councilmember Lawless' district, so I think she wants to make a motion on the findings of fact. Mr. Chairman, can I say something? No, sir, you'd be out of order at this point. Council Member Lawless, are you planning on making a motion? Can we take a 10-minute break so I can refer to the law? We will take a 5-minute break. We'll come back at recess at 7.20. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for your patience. I'd like to make a motion to overturn the Planning Commission finding and based on the findings of fact that I hereby move to adopt the following findings of fact in support of disapproval of the zone change request at 116 and 118 Simpson Avenue, 1100 through 1110 Prospect Avenue, and a portion of 101 and 103 Burley Avenue. One, the requested high-density apartment R4 zone is not in agreement with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for density residential land use, defined as 5 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre. Two, no evidence was presented before Council that the current R1D zoning on the property is inappropriate. Number three, insufficient 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 is not anticipated by the comprehensive plan. And for the proposed high-density apartment, R4 zoning will adversely affect the existing single-family residential land use in close proximity to R1D zones due to the increased density and inability to sufficiently buffer the high-density use from the single-family resident uses. So moved. We have a motion. And no second, so that dies for like a second. Do we have a motion to approve the findings of fact? No. Well, do we need to read the findings of fact? No, you don't need to read them. You would just need to move to approve the findings of fact as set forth in the Planning Commission's report. Please. Thank you, Chair. I would like to make a motion to approve the findings of fact as stated in the Planning Commission's report. Second. We have a motion and second, and we need a roll call for this. Yes, please. Who was the second? I'm sorry. Mr. Myers seconded. Mr. K? Yes. Ms. Lawless? No. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Ms. Scotchfield? Yes. Mr. Stinnett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Yes. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. And Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. That passes, and now we need a motion for the ordinance. So moved. Second. We have a motion and second. We need a roll call. Mr. K? Yes. Ms. Lawless? No. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Ms. Scutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes. Ms. Akers? Yes. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. And Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. That passes and the zone change passes, and this hearing is concluded. Motion to adjourn. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. The moon may be mine But I can't see things in the sky I only have eyes for you I love you. We're in our way. We're in our way. We're in our way.