# Urban County Council Special Meeting - Public Hearing - Zone Change - September 17, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 17, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3118 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3118?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-09-17 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 28,636 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 September 17, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Chuck Ellinger presided over the meeting. The Council considered one agenda item during the session: Ordinance 0839-13, which proposed a zone change for properties located at 4100 Nicholasville Road and 104, 108, and 112 East Tiverton Way. The ordinance was approved. The Council took one vote during the meeting and heard four public comments from members of the community. ## Attendance **Present:** Chuck Ellinger, Lawless, Mossotti, Myers, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Beard, Clarke, Farmer, Ford, and Henson **Absent:** Akers, Kay, and Lane **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Ordinance 0839-13** [timestamp: 3:24:51] The body voted on an ordinance to change zoning for property at 4100 Nicholasville Rd. and 104, 108, and 112 E. Tiverton Way. The ordinance would rezone 49.17 net acres from Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to Mixed-Use Community (MU-3) zone, and 0.65 net acres from Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone to Mixed-Use Community (MU-3) zone. The ordinance also included dimensional variances. The motion was made by Beard and seconded by Myers. The ordinance passed by roll call vote with 11 ayes and 0 nays. The following voted in favor: - Lawless - Mossotti - Myers - Scutchfield - Stinnett - Beard - Clarke - Ellinger - Farmer - Ford - Henson No votes were cast against the ordinance. The approval was conditional, subject to the following requirements: - Certification of ZDP 2013-22: Fritz Farm, LLC (Summit Lexington, Bayer Property) must be completed within two weeks of Planning Commission approval - No commercial or business use shall be permitted within 75 feet of any single-family residential use ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the meeting regarding the proposed zone change. **Leigh Buckley** [timestamp: 2:15:44] spoke against the zone change, expressing concerns about increased traffic and the proposed entrance on Habersham Drive. She requested that a privacy wall be installed and that the Habersham entrance be eliminated to protect neighborhood integrity. **Joseph von Sternberg** [timestamp: 2:19:33] expressed support for the zone change. He cited the Fritz family's long-standing presence in the area and noted the developer's proven track record with successful projects, including the Summit in Louisville. **Ron Winfield** [timestamp: 2:20:42] opposed the development, raising traffic congestion concerns. He projected that the development would generate 20,000 additional vehicles per day and noted that the Manowar and Nicholasville Road intersection already operates at a failing level of service. **Edward Prentice** [timestamp: 2:22:22] warned against allowing new streets from the development to connect to Tiverton and Habersham. He argued that such connections would create dangerous and unmanageable traffic patterns in what is currently a dead-end neighborhood. ## Contested Items Three significant areas of disagreement emerged during the meeting: **Traffic Impact Study Validity** Opposition groups challenged the adequacy of the applicant's traffic study, asserting that it contained fundamental flaws, including incorrect signal timing and a failure to calibrate findings with real-world conditions. The applicant and city staff defended the study's validity, emphasizing that it had undergone multiple reviews and received formal approvals from both city and state agencies. **Development Intensity and SPUI Foreclusion** Community opponents objected to the proposed development's intensity, arguing it would exceed the density of Fayette Mall and would foreclose the future construction of a Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) that had been recommended in the Small Area Plan. These opponents requested that the development be scaled back to address their concerns about density and future infrastructure needs. **Procedural Dispute Over Signage** Opposition representatives raised a procedural objection, contending that the applicant had failed to post the required signage for the public hearing. The Council voted unanimously to continue the hearing despite this challenge. In doing so, the Council determined that there had been substantial compliance with notice requirements and concluded that rescheduling the hearing would be impractical given the 90-day statutory deadline governing the decision. ## Ordinance 0839-13: Zone Change for 4100 Nicholasville Rd. and 104, 108, 112 E. Tiverton Way The Urban County Council held a public hearing on a proposed zone change affecting approximately 50 acres. The proposal sought to rezone the properties from Agricultural Urban (A-U) and Single Family Residential (R-1D) to Mixed-Use Community (MU-3). **Presentations and Key Speakers** Planning staff presented the proposal alongside the applicant, Bayer Properties, LLC. Key speakers included Chuck Ellinger, Bill Sallee, Bill Lear, Adam Kirk, David Silverstein, and Darby Turner. Opposition to the proposal was presented by Hank Graddy. **Issues Discussed** The hearing addressed several substantive concerns: - **Traffic impact** of the proposed development - **Stormwater management** requirements and feasibility - **Compliance with the South Nicholasville Road Small Area Plan** - **Development intensity** and how the proposed project compared to existing nearby developments, including Fayette Mall **Outcome** The ordinance was approved by the Urban County Council. --- ## Decisions - **0839-13** — passed (11-0): An Ordinance changing the zone from an Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to a Mixed-Use Community (MU-3) zone for 49.17 net acres and from a Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone to a Mixed-Use Community (MU-3) zone for 0.65 net acres, including dimensional variances, for property at 4100 Nicholasville Rd. and 104, 108, and 112 E. Tiverton Way --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Could you give a second read to Ordinance, please? Ordinance number one, an ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a mixed-use community MU3 zone for 49.17 net, 54.73 gross acres, and from a single-family residential R1D zone to a mixed-use community MU3 zone for 0.65 net, 0.82 gross acres, for property located at 4100 Nicholasville Road and 104, 108, and 112 East Tiverton Way, including Dimensional Bariances, Bayer Properties, LLC, Council District 9. Thank you. As the presiding officer, I have some responsibilities and duties that I have to do and go through some rules. And first of all, I need to swear in all witnesses who plan to give testimony, give evidence. If you would, please stand and raise your right hand if you're planning on speaking during the hearing. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth? I do. Thank you. Now let me go through some of the hearing rules and explain how this procedure will go. As the hearing officer, I will be presiding over this, and I have the power to make evidentiary decisions to exclude irrelevant and repetitious testimony from the record. Council members may inform me when they believe testimony is irrelevant or repetition so that I can make an issue of the evidence you're hearing to exclude or limit such testimony. We have to make sure that you all provide a witness list to the presiding officer at the beginning of their presentation and opponents shall provide a witness list at the beginning of their presentation. All parties in favor of the zone change shall submit all printed materials to be tendered for admission into evidence to the council members, to the council clerk, and the Department of Law at the beginning of their presentation, and the opponents must do the same at the beginning of their presentation. Each witness who is identified on the witness list of the opposite side and who testifies shall be subject to cross-examination at the conclusion of the testimony, followed by the opportunity for redirect. Any witness called by a petitioner or opponent will stay in the public hearing so they may be questioned by a petitioner, opponent's attorney, or member of the council later in the hearing. All persons speaking shall be identified by name and address for the record. All documents considered by the Council should be marked and numbered as exhibits and entered into the record by the Council Clerk assigned to tape record the meeting. All architectural renderings of developments will not be permitted to be introduced into evidence at Council hearings for the reason that Council has no power except in H1 overlay zones to bind developers to construct the buildings as depicted. preliminary development plan subject in conjunction with zone changes which allow building footprints, parking, and other basic information to be accepted into evidence. I know there is a motion that the petitioner will be bringing forward to the council when they speak. Now, as the order of how we're going to go through this hearing, we're going to have the planning staff, we'll summarize the record, and Mr. Salih will be doing that. We'll have the petitioners present their information. Then we'll have the ability to be cross-examined. While the opponents, they will give their information, and both parties have agreed to 45 minutes. And then they'll be cross-examined by the petitioners. Council staff then will have an opportunity to make additional comments. And then if the public, and there's a sign-up sheet in the back, the public would like to speak, Then they will give the ability to speak three minutes, give your name and your address, and we'll go through those in favor and those in opposed. But please try to not be repetitious. And then we'll have closing arguments by the opponents and then the petitioners, and then there will be the opportunity to ask questions from the council members. Then we'll close the hearings, and there will be no more testimony. Then there will be motions. At this point, I would ask, is there any questions before we start? Seeing none, I'd ask Mr. Grady. Yes, sir. If you would, go to the mic, please, before we start. I'm Hank Grady, and first, I'm the one who appeared and requested this public hearing, and I want to express my gratitude. However, it is my understanding that the applicant has failed to put a sign on the property as required by statute for public hearing. And if that's the case, I believe that the public hearing is not properly advertised, and I would ask that the applicant, because of the 90-day requirement, that the applicant withdraw the application and begin the process again so that it can be done legally and not with a fatal defect. If we go forward, we're going forward with an improperly advertised hearing, and it's the fault of the applicant, I think, that the sign was not put up. So I would ask that the applicant withdraw or this counsel turn down the request to cause the defective sign and require the applicant to begin the process again. And I will defer to our legal counsel and also, I guess, planning staff, and please give us the information that Mr. Grady has brought forth. Chuck, we may want to ask the applicants as well. I'm assuming they want to weigh in on this to some extent as well. Good afternoon. I was only going to comment that the instructions for Council public hearing do place the responsibility to sign on the applicant posting of that. Okay. I didn't really hear very well, Mr. Sallee. I don't know if the microphone's not up. Sorry. I'll project a little better. Thank you. The instructions on a council zone change proceeding does place the sign of responsibility on the applicant for the posting of that sign. Thank you. And I'd ask the applicant if they... Yes. Just in getting ready for the hearing this afternoon, it came to our attention that the sign was not posted. The ordinance does not place responsibility on either party. The statute doesn't place responsibility on either party. However, the policies of the urban county government do place responsibility on the applicant. The governing statute does not make that a fatal flaw if there has been substantial compliance with all of the notification requirements. In this case, as I'm sure you're aware, there are letters that are distributed throughout the notification area, which in our case is well beyond what the statute required in the Irwin County government's case. They also required the publication of a newspaper ad. Both of those were done. The failure to post the sign as best I can find out is simply a result of a miscommunication between my office and another office involved in this. I take full responsibility for it. There's no place else that the buck should come to rest. Now, there are, I believe, legal counsel for the government has concluded, at least has advised us, that they believe that the notice that has been given is sufficient. I would also tell you as a matter of case law, substantial compliance is allowed. There's a Jefferson County case interpreting the statute that I just quoted, which is 100.182. In addition, case law is that anybody who's here for a hearing cannot complain about the lack of notice because they clearly have notice. Ironically, there are lots of signs up in close proximity to the property in announcing the hearing, those in opposition, but there's not one posted on the property. Thank you. I would defer then to legal counsel and your opinion on what you think this body should do. Well, we just became aware of this a few minutes ago as well. And what we determined at that time was that we would notify everyone, and we did. As a practical matter, under the statute, there's only one hearing required. The urban county government has both the planning commission hearing and then if requested a hearing at the urban county council. There is also a statutory period of 90 days that requires if you all do not act within 90 days, whether you have a public hearing or not, meaning passing the zone change or disapproving a zone change, that the planning commission's decision becomes effective. because the 90 days will expire next week. There is no way to accomplish this 14-day notice at this time. So it would seem prudent to go ahead and have the hearing with everyone here because everyone would get their chance to be heard, have their opportunity to say something. Otherwise, if you all determine not to have a hearing, it is very likely the 90-day rule will kick in because you're not required to have a second hearing. Thank you. Do Council members want to wage in on this? If you would, please. Council member Sani. Thank you, Chair. I just have a question in the Law Department. The Planning Commission would override at this point. Is that correct? I'm sorry? The Planning Commission's decision would override at this point? If you all don't act, then the Planning Commission, who did have a full hearing, their decision would become effective in 90 days. Is there any liability on our part that we do not have this hearing? Well, I can't guarantee you that there wouldn't ever be a lawsuit under any circumstance, and that could be made, but the arguments about due process and things would be a little more difficult if there's a full hearing twice. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. this exact same situation came up last yeah like in november i think of last year and we were told at that time by the law department that we could not have the hearing if the sign had not been posted I knew you were going to ask me that question, Ms. Wallace. The circumstances were different in that situation because there was effectively time to post, to reschedule the hearing and post the sign with the 14-day notice before the 90-day period was expired. But this body chose not to do that. So that was a little bit different. There's no way to meet the 14 days requirement ahead of the 90 days in this situation. In that situation, it only left the council with like three or four days. It could have had a meeting. I can't remember exactly, but I know that the 14-day period could be achieved before the 90-day period expired in that situation, and that was the difference. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. It was proper notice given prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The signs were posted. And, Tracy, if I understood you correctly, we are only required to have that one public hearing. The statute requires one hearing. We as an urban county government have traditionally allowed for, if it's requested by a party, if you all choose to schedule one, to have a hearing in front of the council. But you all approve numerous different zone changes and text amendments without hearings. And we're not required to do that by statute? No. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Henson, to answer your question, signs were posted for the Planning Commission hearing this summer on Tiverton Way and on Manowar. I'm not certain whether one was posted on Nicholasville Road. The one on Manowar did happen to be very close to Nicholasville Road. Was it posted on the property? Yes, on the property. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think on the technicalities of it, probably since it wasn't posted, there's kind of a reason not to have a hearing. But that would also, in essence, perform the zone change because there's no time to reschedule and take away the opportunity for the public to be part of the conversation here today. So I would just say it's not an ideal situation. It's not one that we would want to be in, but I think we're here to have a hearing. Let's have a hearing. Thank you. And I think at this point we'll go ahead and I'll give the opportunity to the council to vote if they want to have the hearing or not. And, Council Clerk, if you would put up all those that would like to have the hearing. Council Member Stendham. Mr. A. since you brought this issue up, has any new testimony, do you still want to have a hearing? Or how do you feel after you've heard what's been discussed? Do you have a comment in the back? I am here because we requested a hearing and we very much want a hearing. We want it to be legal. And I hear Mr. Lear say that substantial compliance will cure. I hope he's right. But, yes, I don't want to waive or lose the right to have a hearing. We very much want a hearing. Very good. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I think at this point, if we would, we'll vote to see if the Council wants to go forward with it. All those in favor say aye. Aye. There should be 11. We have one other person I vote in. Oh, there, thank you. All right. That passes. We'll go ahead and begin. We'll go ahead and begin, and I would ask playing staff, if you would, go ahead and summarize the record for us, please, Mr. Saline. Thank you very much, Council Member Ellinger, Members of the Council, good evening. It is my responsibility to enter a number of items into the record for this evening. The first is the legal notice that was published in the local newspaper advertising tonight's hearing. The second is an affidavit signed by myself regarding the notices that were mailed. There were about 250 letters sent to property owners within 500 feet of this location. in a few instances, additional supplemental notification, and also to the neighborhood associations that are registered with the urban county government in this vicinity. The next item is the recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission from their public hearing in late June of this year. Council members have been supplied a copy of this, and there are additional copies at the end of the calendar here for anyone in the audience interested in that. We need to enter into the record copies of the zoning ordinance and the land subdivision regulations in effect for the urban county government. I also need to enter into the record a copy of the 2007 comprehensive plan and a small area plan done in this general area, the South Nicholasville Road small area plan, which was adopted by the Planning Commission in 2009. There are two other items. One is a memorandum from the staff of the MPO, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, regarding their review of the traffic impact study that was filed as part of the zone change application materials. These also have been distributed to council members, and there are also copies on the counter behind me of this document. The final item I have are the e-mails and the petitions that the planning staff has received about this application. Some are from the Planning Commission hearing. Some are from this particular hearing. There is a petition with 56 names on it in opposition to this hearing. I'm submitting the originals to the council clerk, and I'll distribute copies to the council members for your review during the hearing. I'd like to begin by orienting you to the location of the subject property. There are four parcels of land involved in this zone change, and they are at the northeast corner of the intersection of Manowar Boulevard and Nicholasville Road. Using the zoning map, Nicholasville Road, U.S. 27, is situated here. Manowar Boulevard is an east-west arterial facility here. This property also has street frontage on Habersham Drive, which is a signalized intersection at Manowar Boulevard opposite of Victoria Way here. In addition, three parcels, very small parcels, along East Tiverson Way are part of this request and also have frontage on that facility. There is also one other public street stub into the subject property from the north. and one from the east, Tangley Way, here. The subject property is currently zoned agricultural urban for most of the acreage involved in this request. The property of 4100 Nicholasville Road is AU, agricultural urban. That is the same category as land across Manowar and Catecorner across Manowar, where the University of Kentucky's South Farm Agricultural Research Farm is located. There are a number of other zoning categories in this immediate area. The most common is R1D zoning along two sides of the subject property, along properties on Walhampton Drive, East Tiverton, Tangley Way, and along Habersham. The Fox Harbor Residential Subdivision also adjoins the subject property across that street here, and this development is an R1E single-family residential zone and single-family development. There is B1 zoning immediately to the north of this location on both sides of Tiverton Way along the east side of Nicholasville Road at that signalized intersection. And across Nicholasville Road is a restricted B3 zone in place for the Walmart and Lowe's shopping center that has been located on that property for a number of years. The three properties on Tiverton are zoned R1D, and the AU property are proposed for an MU3 mixed-use community zone. We have three mixed-use zones in our zoning ordinance, and the other two do not allow for parcels this large to receive mixed-use zoning under the criteria contained in the zoning ordinance. I would also like to orient you using a few aerial photos at this time as well. This is from the south, looking to the, sorry, this is not an oblique, this straight aerial photo, showing Nicholasville Road and Manowar Boulevard. Fritz Farm is here, including the three parcels on Tiverton Way. Two commercial uses I mentioned in a B1 zone, the B3 development directly across Nicholasville Road. South Farm is here. This is also agricultural land. However, this parcel, although zoned agricultural, is the Pax Christi Catholic Church. The property is surrounded by the Devondale Baptist Church to the north, which is in an R1D zone. And Tavostock Street is the one that stubs into the property from the north. and Tangley Way from this direction. You can see a number of single-family homes in this general vicinity as well. This is the photo looking from the south at the intersection of Nicholasville Road and Manowar. The property is agricultural in use, and there has been for a number of years a conditional use permit approved for the corner for garden center use on this part of the property as well. This is looking from the west to the east at the subject property, and this photo captures almost entirely its frontage along Nicholasville Road here. Again, Tiverton Way, Manowar Boulevard, Tangley Way here. The rear of the property, again from the same orientation, this is Tiverton. Habersham here, single-family homes, and the Devondale Baptist Church adjoining. This is still looking from the west at the other end of the property, where we have Habersham here, I believe I misspoke on the other street. Victoria Way is here, Catholic Church I mentioned earlier, and the subject property adjoining the single-family residence in that location. Finally, this is looking from the east to the west, the opposite direction, where you can see the intersection at Tiverton, the intersection at Manowar, and the right-in-right-out access across from the subject property on Nicholasville Road. As we do with every rezoning, we look to the comprehensive plan for guidance as to the request. This is an exhibit from the 2007 comprehensive plan, and the subject property is located again at the northeast quadrant of the Nicholasville Road intersection with Manowar Boulevard. The subject property is in this location, Tiverton Way, Walhampton, Habersham, here. Up until 2009, this property was recommended for residential use. However, you see the cross-hatching on this drawing, which is the same as on the board to my left. That was indicating the Planning Commission's desire to conduct a small area plan for this area because approximately half of the frontage of land along Nicholasville Road from Tiverton Way to the south all the way to the county line is vacant and was vacant at this time. So the Planning Commission did conduct that study, which resulted in the South Nicholasville Road small area plan. That planning effort concluded with this land use recommendation for the general area, which is also on the larger board. Again, to orient, Nicholasville Road is here, Manowar Boulevard. The subject property for you this evening is in this location and is mostly recommended now for a mixed-use residential and commercial land use under the Small Area Plan. That same category is recommended for much of the land across Nicholasville Road south of Manowar in this location as well. The three small lots on Tiverton are recommended for residential, and the two existing B1 areas are shown to remain in that location. The adjoining land uses for church and residential stayed the same under this small area plan's recommendation. In this small area plan, there was also a conceptual development proposed for the subject property. And that was part of an analysis of a sub-area, which is identified in this photograph here. It included two of the church properties, pardon me, four of the church properties, included not just the Catholic Church, but also Port-O-Memorial Church, Southern Acres Christian, and the Devondale Baptist Church, including the vacant property directly across Manowar from the subject property. Thank you. This is the conceptual plan that's contained within the small area plan. It's Tiverton, Nicholasville Road, Manowar Boulevard, Habersham. The concept behind this plan was that there be residential use abutting the existing residences in the subdivisions, that there be mixed-use development toward the center of the property, and that there be commercial use along the two arterials primarily to buffer noise from the other residential uses. Is that it? That's it. The staff reviewed the petitioner's proposal in light of the small area plan and the Fritz Village concept plan and found that the petitioner's proposal was for open spaces and residential uses most closely aligned to the existing residential uses in the area. Mixed use for commercial and residential in the same buildings were proposed in the center of the property, and the edge properties along the two arterial frontages were proposed to be mostly commercial in nature. The percentages that were offered in the concept plan were very closely matched in the staff's review with the proposed development plan that I'll be presenting to you in just a few moments. But the staff's conclusion was that the proposed development does mirror the Fritz Village concept plan that was a part of the small area plan's recommendation for mixed-use land use at this location. The small area plan had other recommendations, one of which included a study of stormwater for the large property at 4100 Nicolaisville Road. and the staff included in this report, we were aware that discussions had taken place between the applicant and their representatives and the Division of Water Quality about the form that those improvements might take. This is an amended application. It has twice been amended from the time it was originally filed. And with this second amended application, the planning staff recommended approval of this rezoning to the planning commission at their public hearing last June. The planning commission heard not only from the planning staff, but also from some of the citizens that are here this evening. And the conclusion of their hearing on June 27th, they voted 9-0 to recommend conditional approval of this rezoning to the Urban County Council. Their findings were that the requested mixed-use community zone was in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan as amended by the 2009 small area plan. The findings specific to that were that the South Nicholsville plan encouraged mixed-use in a village-style development with emphasis on pedestrian, bike, and transit-oriented design, and the proposed development matches that. In addition, the sub-area section of the plan recommended mixed use for the majority of the property and high density for the three parcels along Tiverton Way. It recommended the stormwater study that I mentioned. It recommended constructing only residential structures adjacent to existing residential structures. And it recommended placing non-residential structures nearest the intersection of Manowar and Nicholasville Road. The Commission found, as did the staff, that the locational requirements of the MU3 zone were met with this application. And finally, that the proposed development will implement the vision put forth by the Small Area Plan to create a mixed-use development with commercial-only structures along the arterials and a village-style mixed-use area in the center of the property. The Planning Commission recommended one conditional zoning restriction on this property, and that relates to its northern bounds closest to the Devondale Baptist Church. The Commission, at the urging of the planning staff, recommended a buffer of 75 feet from a residential use where no commercial or business use would be permitted. The Planning Commission also reviewed the preliminary development plan that is shown here as an exhibit, and it will illustrate some of what the planning staff concluded in reviewing this application. Slightly askew from the zoning map, we have Nicholasville Road, Manowar Boulevard, Tiverton Way, Habersham Drive, Tangley Way, which does stub into the property, as does Tavostock Drive at this location. The accesses proposed are to each of those streets, one here, one here, a new connection to Tiverton at this location, a new intersection on Nicholasville Road opposite the right-in, right-out that exists for the Walmart and Lowe's development, and a ride out and a ride in off of Manowar Boulevard. One street that is not proposed to extend into the property is Tangley Way, although there was considerable discussion as this plan went through the review process about the need for a pedestrian and possibly a bicycle connection into the subdivision at that location. The uses on the property, again, are commercial in these buildings along Man-of-War frontage, this building, this building, and that building. The ones shaded in orange are strictly residential, these three. And then these are considered mixed-use buildings where they would have non-residential use on the lower floors with residences above. and a five-story hotel, this location that would also be a mixed-use building. This plan proposes just over one million square feet of total floor area for all uses, 2,477 parking spaces, 135 rooms in the proposed five-story hotel, and two parking garages, one being proposed here and one here, in very close proximity to the mixed-use and residential buildings. Open space is proposed in this location, some of this location, and in the area of the stormwater basin that is conceptually planned for the property. This garage is conceptually proposed to extend out over that facility. Also, there is an open space proposed in the center of the development that's identified as a public green here, where the taller buildings would flank that open space area. The Planning Commission approved this development plan at the conclusion of their hearing. and this plan was certified meeting all their conditions of approval two weeks later on July 11th. Finally, I mentioned earlier a traffic impact study was required to be filed with this zone change. Our Metropolitan Planning Organization reviewed that study under the requirements of the zoning ordinance and concluded that the study meets the zoning ordinance requirements found in Article VI for traffic impact studies and agreed with the applicant's recommendations. That concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you very much for your kind attention, and of course I'll be available for your questions later in the evening. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Would the petitioner or the opponent like to cross-examine anything that Mr. Sally has said at this point? Seeing none, I then will ask the petitioner to begin their presentation. And before you start, we do have a motion that you all tender to the council that I would like to hear now before we decide if we're going to go forth. Sure, please. Our motion was to allow the Council to view a model that was prepared by the applicants to reflect the nature of the mixed-use development that we propose. It's a little unusual. It's the first time it's been done in my memory, actually, physically. It was done because there are a number of statements about how mixed-use developments are supposed to create a particular type of environment. This is offered as a reflection of the type of environment. It's not offered as an exact model of what ultimately would be developed. I want to make that very clear. But the Planning Commission did see it and consider it at its public hearing. And the reason that we've had it covered up is not to add suspense, but because you haven't ruled on the motion and it's very heavy and you can't just cart it in here once you've ruled. So we think it would be of use to you in appreciating the nature of this type of mixed-use development. Thank you. Mr. Grady, would you like to comment on this motion? And if you would, please come to the microphone for the audience. My only question to Mr. Lear is, is this the same 3D model that was presented at the public hearing of the Planning Commission? Yes, it is. You have an alternate? Yes, it is. That's correct, yes. Then we have no objection to this being unveiled. Okay. Thank you. Council members, I see Mr. Second. We have a motion and a second. In discussion, Mr. Myers, you had a question. Yeah. I know that you stated this, Mr. Lair, but just for the record again, and I was actually going to ask Mr. Sally, if we view what's presented here today, or first let me go back, when the Planning Commission both approved and certified this development plan, Is it in any way able to lock the developers into building that specific plan legally? No, sir. They have approved a preliminary development plan, and certainly they could propose a final development plan that would be different from the exhibit that I just presented to you. Okay. For the law department, if we view this 3D model here today, do we have the ability to lock them into building this specific plan legally? You can impose certain conditional restrictions, but they have to be within what's provided in the ordinance. So it's not going to be, you know, you've done that before, but unless the applicant agrees to certain things, if they're not contained in the ordinance, which are buffering and use, then you can't really put any kind of other conditional zoning restrictions on the plan unless they agree. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other discussion? All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed? Mr. Lear, you can use the depiction, and you will have 45 minutes for your presentation. Thank you. I'd also note that we have distributed the witness list as required, And I do want to mention one thing. Before the hearing is concluded, we will have some additional information to tender on this issue of notice that we addressed earlier that further, I think, substantiates the substantial compliance, and that includes some photographs of signs, one of which may actually be on the property, albeit posted in the right-of-way, I assume, by the opponents, because it's obviously not in favor of the zone change. Nevertheless, we're satisfied that adequate notice has been provided. As I said earlier, my name is Bill Lear, and I'm here representing the Fritz family, the owners of the property, and the applicant, which is Bayer Properties. Also with me are my co-counsel, Bruce Simpson, and that's not a misstatement. I'm sure that will send a tremor through the force. And Nick Nicholson in our office. From the Fritz family, Johnny Fritz, Carol Johnson, and Judy Blake are here. David Silverstein with Bayer Properties. Ben Edlund, Keith Messinger, Mark McIntosh with HDR. Michael Dunning with Shook Kelly Architects. John Ferris, whom you all know well, with Commonwealth Economics. Not all of those people are anticipated to testify. Some of them that are on the witness list are simply here in case questions come up. They won't necessarily be in our case in chief. I wanted to begin by giving you a little bit of information about my clients, as well as an overview of the zone change. The Fritz family, including their parents, John and Mary Fritz, have lived and worked on this property collectively for nearly 100 years, which is to say they were on this property a long time before Fayette Mall, a long time before Target, Best Buy, Lexington Green, a long time before Kmart, Don Jacobs Oldsmobile, Zandale Shops, a long time before Southland Drive, which was built in the 1960s, even well before Central Baptist Hospital. I told a story at an earlier hearing about dealing with senior Mr. Fritz and asked him what was the first development he remembered, non-residential development, coming out of Nicholasville Road. And what he said to me was, I guess that would be Central Baptist Hospital in 1954. And they're also on this property well before any of the near-to-Nicholasville Road residential developments were ever built. Three times during the 1990s, they came before the Urban County Council with proposals to rezone their property, once for a portion of it, the other two times for all of what you see tonight. On each of those occasions, all or virtually all of the property was proposed for retail uses. On each of those occasions, it was not in agreement with the comprehensive plan. It came before the Council with a strong recommendation of disapproval from the staff of the Planning Commission and a unanimous or virtually unanimous recommendation of disapproval from the Planning Commission. And on each of those occasions, this body denied the zone change request, primarily because of noncompliance with the comprehensive plan, essentially saying, we have rules, we have planning, you didn't follow the rules, we're sorry. Subsequent to each of those, there were several other retail zone changes granted on other parts of Nicholasville Road, but not on this property. This time they're coming before you with a zone change request in full agreement with the comprehensive plan that actually has more residential square footage on it as proposed than it does retail square footage that comes to you with a recommendation of approval by the planning staff and a unanimous recommendation after a full-blown public hearing by the Planning Commission of approval. This time, it's different. They have played by the rules. They have followed the comprehensive plan, and that's what's before you tonight. Bayer Properties, new to Lexington but not new to Kentucky. They built an outstanding development known as the Summit in Louisville. The summit is their traditional name. Their load star is the summit in Birmingham, which is a development that has won national acclaim. They are recognized throughout the country as one of the premier developers and operators of high-end retail and, in some cases, mixed-use properties. They work with a team of design and development professionals. They have worked elsewhere and are working here who have produced some of the top mixed-use new urban projects in America. When I was on my own accord, not as a lawyer but as a developer looking for models for what became Center Court, one of the projects I visited was Birkdale near Charlotte. It is the most outstanding example of a new urban residential over retail development that I've ever seen, and the architects that have designed this are the architects that designed that. Now, a quick overview of the development. Comprehensive plan recommends mixed use. The request is MU3. You can't get any more dead on than that. And there were iterations of this because you could do a mixed use development in B6P as we originally filed for. You could do it in a mix of B6P and B3 and a standalone R zone, which was our first amendment, but we listened on every occasion to the staff, and finally the staff said, we really envisioned this as an MU3 zone, and we said, fine, that's what we will conform with, and that's what we filed in the final amendment. It is, as you can see, a new urban layout. It's like a mini version of Main Street USA. It's a mix of retail, of entertainment, of hotel, and of residential uses. The residential is both freestanding, and you've seen that from some of the description already, both freestanding and above retail. And I will tell you it's the best example that anybody has come up with design-wise and place-wise in this community in a long time, unless you go way back into the history of Lexington Inn or near downtown. It features parking structures, something not seen outside of downtown Lexington and the U.K. area except at hospitals. But that's a way to decrease the surface area of parking, and that's a feature of new urban developments in other cities, like the one I mentioned, Birkdale near Charlotte and some others that I've visited as well. Well, landscaping, streetscapes will create a sense of place unlike anything that we've seen here except in certain parts of downtown Lexington. Pedestrian-friendly, consumer-customer-friendly. It's a development that will provide a maximum of ingress and egress and connectivity. and it's probably a little hard to see all of that, but this proposes a right in and right out off of Manowar Boulevard. This property has 1,250 feet of frontage on Manowar Boulevard, and that right in and right out will work well. It's on the development plan approved at the Planning Commission preliminarily, and it will take traffic off of Habersham. It will take traffic out of the Nicholasville Road-Man-O'war intersection. It also features a full-blown signalized intersection on the Nicholasville Road, for which we have applied for and have received conceptual approval already from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. It also has access points out to Tiverton, out to Habersham. The only one that's not connected is one that would go into the neighborhood in a way that the others don't. And the necessity of having an access here and here appeared to us to be duplicative, and we were confident, and it's been confirmed, that no one in the neighborhood would want direct access in there, although pedestrian and bike access is something that will be taken up back at the Planning Commission. This is also a development that offers a solution to long-standing stormwater drainage problems not caused by the Fritz property. I repeat, not caused by the Fritz property. I can't remember which road is which, but under one of the two abutting roads, there's a 33-inch stormwater pipe that carries water, not from the Fritz property, but from across either Manowar or Nicholasville. And across the other road is a 48-inch pipe, and they dump hundreds of thousands of gallons of water onto the Fritz property that ends up going down into this neighborhood. They've had severe flooding. And you'll hear tonight that this development will feature an oversized retention as well as some other improvements that will drastically reduce not just what would have happened from this development, but what's happening today without any development of this property. Now let me talk just a little bit about intensity of development. The small area plan model that Bill Sally showed you a while ago, it's not supposed to be the absolute way it's to be developed, but it's a model that suggests how this property could develop in a mixed-use fashion consistent with the comp plan. It shows building lot coverage of 917,300 square feet. It shows total building square footage of 2,590,000 square feet, about a million and a half square feet of commercial space and what would equate to about 1,100 residential units. Here's what this development proposes. Just over 50% of that amount of lot coverage. Almost cuts it in half. 40% of the total square footage that that model, that suggested model, would allow. 28% of the amount of retail acreage. 40 residential units as opposed to 1,100. If you look at the site statistics for this zone, you'll see that the floor area ratio maximum is 2.0, and we're proposing .482, less than a fourth. Open space requirement, 15%. We're proposing 16.1%, which is 350,641 square feet. I've read in some accounts, and I heard at the Planning Commission, that we were paving over every square inch of this property. I will tell you that that 350,641 square feet of open space is about eight acres of open space, and it is slightly, and I think it's 50,492,304 square inches that's not being paved over on this property. The lot coverage is 50% maximum. We're doing 22.3%. That's the whole issue of density and intensity. The comprehensive plan, as you'll see a little bit later, contemplates that when you're doing mixed use, when you're doing this type of development, they want you to grow up to help Lexington not grow out. That's what this concept is all about. all about, and this model, which you will hear more about, shows how faithful this developer is to that concept. The rest of our presentation in chief tonight is going to consist of David Silverstein, who will give you more of an introduction into Bayer Properties and the development concept. I'll talk about comprehensive plan compliance. Bruce and Ben Edlin are going to address traffic, stormwater, and other infrastructure issues, And then I'll wrap up with a discussion on the economic impact, which is clearly going to be significant for this property. So I thank you for your attention up to this point, and I'll introduce David. Thank you, Bill. Good evening. I'm David Silverstein, and I'm one of the owners of Bear Properties. It is indeed a pleasure to be with you tonight because after having worked on this project for now over two years, it's nice to come before you to finally be able to submit to you our plans to allow us to hopefully go to the next phase of the development and request that you approve the rezoning. Before I get into specific comments about the plan, I'd like to share with you a little information about my company, who we are, the types of developments we've been fortunate enough to engage in throughout the country. You've heard pictures do tell a thousand words, so I'd like to share with you a little bit about who we are, if I can make this work. Hard to see, but our mission really is to create real estate environments which improve the quality of life in the communities we serve. I've had the pleasure of being with my company now for over 20 years, and I can certainly say to you that we have lived up to our mission statement. You'll see projects that we've developed in Reno, Nevada, Birmingham, Louisville, Fort Collins, Colorado. And I would submit to you that all of these projects have, in fact, in their own special way, enhanced the quality of life in the communities in which we've developed. Our footprint really is across the country, east coast, midwest, and out far west in Reno, Nevada. We are a full-service real estate company. And what I mean by that is that we have a development wing, a development arm, so to speak. We have a property management division. We manage our own portfolio, and we also manage for others as third-party managers. Our management portfolio, consisting of our own properties as well as others, is a little over 13 billion square feet. We have our own leasing team. We don't hire out the leasing of our properties. We have our own leasing team within our organization. We have our own marketing department, and certainly we have a strong accounting division as well. as bill mentioned 20 years ago well not quite almost 16 years ago we were fortunate enough to develop in my hometown the first summit project i was born and raised in birmingham and for years i knew that our consumer traveled to atlanta to shop you know i have four daughters they were constantly driving to Atlanta to shop, no question about it. We had tremendous sales tax leakage to Atlanta, but we felt like there was an opportunity to bring to Birmingham a project that was different. It's not a mall. It's an open-air concept. It has wonderful architecture, beautiful landscaping, and a quality mix of retail. And we sought to bring to Birmingham retail that was not otherwise in our city. And once Birmingham was built, we were able to do Louisville. I trust that many, if not all of you, have at least set foot in Summit Louisville. Went to Reno, Nevada, and we proposed to do a Lexington Summit as well now. So a few pictures to show our commitment to quality and our commitment to detail. This is the Summit Birmingham. spend a lot of attention to what we call the hardscape, that is the sidewalks, the lampposts, the hanging baskets, the fountains. As Bill said, we attempt to create a sense of place. And quite frankly, when the female shopper comes, that's who we're trying to create a sense of place for. The idea is you can shop and browse and feel very comfortable in being in the environment. Stay a long time. Enjoy the environment. This is looking down into the plaza where we were able to bring Saks Fifth Avenue to Birmingham. I'm not standing before you tonight to say that I'm bringing Saks Fifth Avenue to Lexington, although we'd love to do it. I'm not sure the market is quite large enough for Saks, but the point is this is what the project looks like early evening looking down into the Saks Plaza. We partner with the Alabama Ballet, for example, to host events at the site, which we do really in all our developments. And our goal would be to do the same here with your cultural events. We'd love to bring the symphony or performing arts out from different venues but to the venue itself that we have. went far west to Reno and were able to build a very unique project in the foothills of the Sierras it's on the highway leading up to Lake Tahoe in the southern part of Reno which is the growth corridor of that city as we all know Nevada in general has been hit very hard with the downturn in the economy but quite frankly our summit project in Reno continues to do quite nicely. It really is the premier shopping venue in that city. Once again, the hard scape with the hanging baskets. You'll see also that we really require that the retailers utilize individual storefronts for each shop. It's not all linear. It's not all one storefront example. We insist that there be an architectural element that's throughout the project that's unique. It's a great setting for our project in Reno. We're able to do the summit in Louisville as well. Once again, our commitment to making it have a sense of place. When I started this project two years ago, working on this project two years ago, I quickly learned that there were several, several major challenges for the development of the Fritz property. I quickly learned about the zoning controversy that the Fritzes and the city have been engaged in for a number of years. I understood that that would be something that we would have to deal with. quickly learned and understood that if you're going to build a commercial development on Nicholsville Road, there's going to be a major discussion about traffic. No question about it. How could it not be? And we quickly learned also that there was a significant, there is a significant stormwater drainage issue running through the site, and that the neighborhood in the rear of the property has for years flooded. And through no fault, as Bill says, through no faults of the Fritzes, this has continued with a lot of off-site water draining through the site. So zoning, traffic, stormwater. We recognized that we needed to deal with these issues, and it was going to take a great team to do that. So what you see before you is the development team that we've put in place to deal with these issues. We hired HDR, which is one of the best local engineering companies, to deal with the traffic and engineering issues. And, of course, we hired a number of lawyers to help us deal with the many issues that we would face working through this project. So what did I do? One of the first people that I went to meet was Bill. I sat with you, Bill, two years ago and said, talk to me about what the vision of your staff would be for developing this site. Help me understand your concept of the small area plan. And Bill was kind enough to assemble his staff, and we met. And through those meetings, we were able to come together as to how this site, from a development plan standpoint, should look and feel. And Bill's correct. and he did a wonderful job articulating to you what the small area plan is all about in staff's vision, and that's the same message he gave to me two years ago. We want to sense the place. We want a mixed-use project, and that's what we set out to do, and that's what we have done. We held a neighborhood meeting that we were able to listen to some concerns of the neighbors. certainly the neighbors have a right to understand what is going to be developed on this site. It's been a farm for generations. What's it going to look like? What's it going to feel like? How are you going to deal with traffic? And how are you going to deal with the stormwater issue that has plagued us for all these years? So we rolled our sleeves up and we went to work. So we did traffic analysis for Nicholsville Road and Man of War in Tilberton. HDR did an analysis. It was reviewed by the city staff. It was reviewed by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet here locally and at Frankfort. I don't know where else I could go. the layer upon layer upon layer of review that this project in all aspects has received is pretty significant. But that's okay. It's about a $100 million investment. And it needs to be done the right way. So we welcomed the scrutiny. We really did. I want the traffic to work. Goodness gracious, I don't want to build a project that doesn't flow well. I don't want to build a project that floods the neighborhood. You know? So we have received, really at all levels, scrutiny from staff at your city, from the district office on the transportation cabinet, and at Frankfort about the traffic. And I would say to you, that level of scrutiny speaks for itself. If I may, I'd like to just show you the model quickly or talk to you about the model. Mr. Myers, you asked a legitimate question. Is this what we're going to really build? Or are we showing something to you that's still pie in the sky, so to speak? Bill may shoot me, but I will tell you, we've worked hard to create this type of presentation that's reflective of where we are today. Can I say to you that every single building is going to be exactly where it is? Probably not. But I can certainly tell you that it's our intention to come back to Planning Commission with a final development plan that's reflective of what you see here. That's my commitment to you. It's my commitment that I've given Bill. It's my commitment that I've given to the Neighborhood Association. And if I'm going to change it dramatically, I've got to start all over. I mean, that's just the bottom line. So let me just walk you through it real quickly. This is Nicholsville Road. I'm sorry, can you see? No, you can't see. This is Nicholsville Road, and this is Manowar Boulevard. I think what I'd like to really have you focus on is that the residential that Bill Lear and Bill Salee were talking about is located here above the retail. It's our desire to create a main street flow here with retail residential above these buildings here and freestanding residential here. I really do believe that this does create a sense of place. One thing that I can confirm to you is that when I first saw the small area plan and I looked at the amount of density that the small area plan would have proposed for this site, I said there's no way in the world you could put that much density on here. The comment that it's a million square feet, I want to slightly clarify if I might. It's not a million square feet of retail. It's about 430,000 square feet of retail. and the balance is square footage made up of residential units. So I can assure you that when we first looked at the small area plan, we didn't ever believe that we were going to be able to produce a project that had 2 million square feet of density on this and get people in and out efficiently. I made a commitment two years ago to Mayor Gray when I first met him as well to say, Mayor, I'm David Silverstein, I'm from Birmingham, and we'd like to build a project in your city. Let me tell you what we're all about. And the commitment I made to Mayor Gray at that time was that we would come to your city and we would build a summit project in keeping with the projects that we built around the country. If we couldn't build that, we weren't going to come to your city and do something differently. The commitment that I made to the Planning Commission a month ago was that we're still committed to do that. And it's the commitment I make to you tonight. We've got a ways to go through this process to begin to make this come to fruition. We have the capability to do it. Our company is used to doing quality projects. So I stand before you tonight to say that I respectfully request that you allow this to go forward. I failed to mention that I do love your city in the sense that I've been coming here for 30-plus years, visiting our dearest friends that live here. I've even cheered for the Wildcats a couple times, but I won't be cheering for them in two weeks when they play the Tide. But your city is a special place, and our desire is to be part of that special place. And I respectfully request that you grant the zoning change that we're seeking tonight. Certainly, I can answer questions now or at a later date, Mr. Chairman, a later time. I think we'll let you go ahead and do your presentation. Thank you. And, Mr. Lear, I have 16 minutes left for your time. Very good. I'm going to run through. If I want to advance this, do I just push right here? Let's see. There we go. All right. As I said, I'm going to make reference. I'm going to go quickly because Bill has already really covered a lot of this. The small area plan that's called the South Nicholas Hill Road Small Area Plan was a result of a process that lasted a year, involved 11 meetings. It was totally transparent, inclusive, all the stakeholders, neighborhood associations, property owners, the University of Kentucky, the economic development staff, two council members, members of the planning commission. You can see up on the section that says the steering committee. These are all the people that were involved in what you might say the highest level, hundreds of others involved in all of the meetings. There were detailed analyses. Look at the schedule of all the meetings that were involved in this small area plan. That's the planned study area you see there. There was a significant amount of public outreach, providing residents with the avenues to share their concerns, hopes for the future. They had focus group interviews, three public input meetings. They developed a survey and distributed that to neighborhood associations. They had a web page. and this was truly a prototypical, inclusive, and open process. Created a webpage, as I mentioned before, published notices in the Herald-Leader and ACE, advertised on the community bulletin board. What came out of it for this property was a mixed-use recommendation. Previously, it had been high-density and medium-density residential. that's the key language that recommends mixed-use land uses and development for the large agricultural parcels. That's one of them. And they noted that this is a perfect area for this kind of development on a large scale. You see what they said about mixed-use. Provides greater residential density, diverse and sizable population, more safety and social interaction. you can see the concepts, and if you look at the model, we submit that we've created it. Now, there are multiple ways that mixed use can occur in Lexington. First, the three MU categories. And as I said, the comp plan says mixed use, and we're MU3. It goes on to say you can do it with some of the traditional categories, and that's what we started out with. But what we ended up with as a result of staff input is what you see tonight. Those are the numbers I gave you before. That's that model, how many square feet it would have allowed. And this shows the extent to which we have reduced the scale of the development from that. And also we'll reiterate what David said. We've got about 416,000 square feet of commercial space and 484,000 square feet of residential space. But look at that down at the very bottom. That's a great example of a mixed-use development. Entirely residential in terms of the floor area. Entirely non-residential. That includes the hotel, which is the reason that there's a little extra there. And mixed-use. and there's more square footage in the mixed-use buildings in the residential category than in the retail category. All right. How do I go back? That one? Okay. Now I'd like to ask Bruce if he would come up and talk about traffic along with Dan, traffic and the other issues. There you go. Thank you, Bill. Mr. Ellinger, members of the council, I know we have 12 minutes. The economics are really important. and I'm sure the last thing that you all want to hear at this point in the afternoon is stormwater runoff, sanitary sewers, and traffic on Nicholasville Road. Suffice it to say, and I think most of the public does not really appreciate this, at least those who have never been involved in the planning and zoning matter, but it is a process. As Bill explained, for one year this community met and adopted the small area plan. Stakeholders, three neighborhood associations, property owners, Council members and others took part in planning for this part of Fayette County, specifically, in terms of what the land uses should be. And part of that study included traffic consequences. They factored in, well, if we recommend a land use, it's going to have a certain traffic consequence. And what did they recommend? They recommended exactly what's been presented as a mixed-use development. That has traffic consequences. they have recommended on one of their examples in this book a development that could go on this site that would be 2,590,000 square feet. In terms of traffic, our impact is greater than 50% less than that amount at 917,000 square feet. So in terms of potential adverse impact of traffic, we've reduced it substantially of our own volition. Now, we come here tonight as we always do. This is not the first hearing on this case. It's been through, as Bill mentioned, a number of reviews by the State Transportation Cabinet, our local staff. It's been through subdivision committee meetings. It's been a full-blown hearing in front of the Planning Commission. I'm not going to go in details of the traffic except to say a couple of things. One has to do with we are operating in a situation that was created in 2007 governing how dense we were going to be as a community. And that's basically from the fact that we're growing to the tune of about 45,000 people every 10 years in our community. The chart before you reflects that. That comes from your latest comprehensive plan draft. we're increasing about 40,000 to 45,000 every 10 years, but we're not expanding the boundary. We're going to have more traffic, and our community is going to have to accept it and live with it. Now, we have come up with a proposal here with our traffic study. Ben Edlin and HDR Quest spent 600 hours in developing the traffic study that was submitted to your traffic planners. They've reviewed it. Max Conyers testified at the Planning Commission. This meets all our requirements of the zoning ordinance. We approve it. The opponents have tendered two traffic studies in opposition, critical of our traffic study. Yet tonight, Bill Sallee will tell you that the planning staff and the government find our traffic study in compliance with a comprehensive plan and see no need to change their recommendation. That's important. You're going to hear a lot from the opposition about a couple of matters. One will be something known as a single-point urban interchange. And they're going to point to this booklet, and they're going to make a case that this booklet specifically recommends this single-point urban interchange at the corners of Nicholasville Road and Manowar. And I'm here to tell you that's simply not the case. Out of 120 pages in the small area plan, there are three sentences devoted to this single... I've got to keep reading it because I can't say it. Single Point Urban Interchange. It's a discussion item among many. It was a discussion item among many that came from the Metropolitan Plan that our staff leads up in several different counties. It's a wish list for traffic improvements. One of the wish lists was, we need this interchange. The cost of that interchange is $60 million. It's projected to be completed, to the extent it's ever funded, in 2030. Yet they rest their opposition to this case that we should not have any more development on Nicholasville Road until this $60 million project is completed in 2030. I ask you to keep in mind, because that's not realistic. And in fact, if you look at what the small area plan has recommended in two different instances as examples of the kind of development they would like to see in this area, you will find that the $60 million renovation, this is South Farm. Here's the Fritz property over here. The design that they talk about in three sentences is nowhere reflected on what the Small Area Plan Group and the Planning Commission found to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. It is nowhere to be found. Likewise, if we go to Fritz Development on the next slide, there's no reference point at all to any single interchange at $60 million. That was simply a discussion item. And if you look under the recommendations at the end of this whole sub-area four is what they call it, you will not find any recommendation for this particular interchange. So they're going to make a big deal out of it. I suggest that you keep that in mind. Finally, with regards to the sanitary sewers and the stormwater, the Fritz property has been the victim over 40 years of substantial stormwater runoff from a 48-inch line coming under this point, a 36-inch line pipe coming through this point, an 18-inch line coming from Manowar over here, all dumping on the Fritz property for years and years. The proposal that we have on our preliminary development plan is going to reduce the rate, which is the most important factor for stormwater that's coming off this property, by 50 to 70 percent over what we were legally required to do. 50 to 70 percent over what we would be legally required to do. That is a substantial benefit to the downstream properties who have been experiencing significant flooding for years and years. Ben Eadlin can respond to questions. We'll be happy to deal with any rebuttal issues. But it's really important to hear the economic benefits of this, and I'm going to let Bill finish up. Thank you. A couple of real quick points related to stormwater. Just so you'll know, if all we were doing was taking care of our property, we could put 1.7 acres and 9.6 acre feet. What we're putting is 3 acres and 16.4 acre feet in the retention base, and that's a huge upgrade. If you look in your booklet, you'll see a copy at tab 6 of the transportation cabinets. This relates to traffic. The transportation cabinets conceptual approval of the signalization. We're also adding some extra lanes to Nicholasville Road at our cost that are south of the Nicholasville Road-Mantle Ward Boulevard interchange. Real quickly, economic impact. This is John Ferris' work. You all have relied on his work many times in TIF and other matters. $92.5 million in development costs, $153 million of total economic impact just during construction, direct wages of $40.4 million. Then on ongoing operations, impact of $128, almost $129 million, and that's just due to the restaurant and retail operations, $55.34 million in estimated wages, support for that many, almost 3,000 jobs. Fiscal impact, $5.98 million in estimated incremental tax revenues. 5.3 of that goes to the state, about $700,000 locally, although if a TIF is approved, a lot of that that would otherwise go to the state comes indirectly back to the TIF, which will be entirely funded by the developer and repaid by those state revenues. Then if you look at a 20-year period, $160 million in estimated incremental tax revenues, incremental tax revenues, $18.5 million to the state. That is a significant economic impact. And the reason that we featured that, it doesn't just show the order of magnitude of this proposal. We're not fully recovered from the Great Recession yet. We're pulling out of it. This is really one of the first significant new retail developments that's been conceived since then. And this shows that we're pulling out of it. It shows that we have the capacity to create a significant new amount of construction work, a significant amount of sales work, and a significant amount of jobs and of wages, all to the benefit of our community. I do want to put one other affidavit in the record which does show some signs, courtesy of our opposition, that have been put out. Some of them, at least one of them, maybe even on the property, but in close proximity to the property, all related to this issue of notice, which we're satisfied has been met. So I'll tender this to the clerk. this point and thank you for your attention we respectfully request that you support the recommendation of your staff and of the Planning Commission allow this magnificent development to go forward thank you mr. thank you mr. Lear and at this time mr. Grady or mr. Turner do you have any cross-examination for the petitioner in that case I would ask that the opponent mr. Grady go ahead and give your presentation, and please make sure you tender your witness list and any printed material to the council, the council clerk, please. And if you would come to the microphone, please. Mr. Lear said I don't need to call you, Your Honor. I was not aware that I needed to prepare a written witness list. I'm going to present my presentation with notebooks, and I'm going to call Adam Kirk, our traffic engineer, as part of our presentation. And I would ask that my verbal representation be sufficient for this public hearing. Thank you. Mr. Hearing Officer and members of the Urban County Council, I have previously introduced myself. I'm Hank Ratty, and I represent some of the neighbors in opposition to what is being requested from the applicant, Bayer and the Fritz Farm. What I will do is go through a portion of my notebook with you, and then I will call on Mr. Kirk to explain his traffic analysis and what is wrong with the traffic analysis, the defects of the traffic analysis that the applicant has presented to you. Let me begin first by responding to something Bruce Simpson said. It is dangerous to consider the consequences of combining Bruce Simpson and Bill Lear, but I think what is significant for you all is that in a 45-minute presentation by the applicants, by my count, about 42 minutes of it dealt with things other than traffic and about three minutes of it dealt with traffic. And I believe that the applicant has failed to discuss with you the most serious issue and the issue that we believe requires that this development be scaled back. Bruce Simpson made a reference to the small area plan, the single point unit interchange, very dismissively and then said until that gets built, the opposition wants no development on the Nicholsville Road. That is simply not true. Our position is that the development that occurs on the Fritz Farm needs to be scaled back to something that is less intense and scale back so that it does not foreclose the opportunity to build that interchange improvement. Not no development, but less than this. We supported putting this model in front of you because we believe this model shows, frankly, how intense this development is. It is an extraordinarily intense development. Now, if you have my notebook, I'm here with Randy Strobo. We represent some individuals who have organized as don't overload Nickelsville Road with more traffic, don't overload our neighborhoods with more traffic. We turned in petitions of persons in opposition to the Planning Commission, and I've included them in the notebook. We appeared before the Planning Commission. And we asked that the Planning Commission not approve this development. We indicated that there were parts of the development that we can support, and we'll get to those in just a minute. But we asked that there be certain modifications, certain specific modifications to this development to make it more acceptable to the neighborhood. On page two, I want to make the comparison that I believe is at the heart of the problem with this proposal. Fayette Mall has 1.4 million square feet of retail on 100 acres, 14,000 square feet per acre. Fayette Mall actually has recently reduced that square footage with the redesign of what was the Sears space. Lexington Summit proposes 416,000 square feet of retail, 629,000 square feet of residential, a total of 1,045,000 square feet on 49.82 net acres, 20,000 square feet per acre. Fayette Mall is 14,000 square feet per acre. This is more intense than Fayette Mall, and that means it is too intense for this location on this road with the road operating in its current condition. Mr. Lear and Mr. Simpson take refuge by making what we think is a misleading comparison. They say it could have been much worse because the small area plan would allow us to do $2.5 million, and we're not doing $2.5 million, so what we're doing must be all right. We believe that what they have jumped on is a confusing part of the small area plan that we believe is misleading and unreliable. As I understand the 2.5 number, it appears to be a plan to build, but it actually includes parking as well as buildings. And it is not intended to be an open door to develop at 2.5 or less. we ask you to compare real development in Lexington and compare this proposal with Fayette Mall and think about 14,000 square feet per acre versus 20,000 square feet per acre. That is why we argue that this is too intense. Let me, Randy, are you ready to go? All right. If you'll go to the next slide. On page four of my letter, I summarize the points that we want to make to you this evening. First, the point is that the Planning Commission did not base its recommendation on the evidence that was properly before it. The planning commission heard, and you will hear, that the Bayer traffic study is incomplete, inadequate, and fails to consider the full scope of the traffic issues in the corridor. This development, as is proposed, will foreclose the Nicholasville Road Man-of-War improvement that is in the small area plan, the SPUI, a single point unit interchange. This development is too intense and contradicts the intent of mixed use in order to build a village-like development. This is not a village-like development. Now, I've said earlier, we believe the small area plan is contradictory. It contradicts itself. Actually, Mr. Simpson pointed that out, that there's no place in the scenarios for the land to implement the SPUI. We believe this was an error in writing the small area plan, and it reduces the reliability of that plan to support the application that is before you. We cannot find any evidence that they are going to use state-of-the-art design to control stormwater. We see no evidence that they're using green infrastructure. And we would ask this Council to consider our recommended modifications to the proposal. Next slide. And contrary to what Mr. Simpson says, the small area plan is essentially based on concerns about traffic along Nicholsville Road. One of the main concerns from the public input was traffic, page 37. Too much traffic, 32. Nicholsville Road Manor Ward traffic, 33, 32. Tiverton. Continue. Continue. These are portions of the comprehensive plan. that talk about the importance of considering traffic, of solving problems, maintaining smooth traffic flow. Continue. Now, these comprehensive plan suggestions are included in my letter to you, and we will ask that you adopt findings of fact that reference these as a basis to deny the application as is presented. Hold that slide. The Small Area Plan, principle number one, calls for the protection of existing residential neighborhoods. Creation of new residential neighborhoods that are compatible with existing development and are sustainable into the future. Next slide. Improving the existing connection between Man of War and Nicholsville Road, principle number five. Next slide. These are the sites in the small area plan addressing traffic as a problem in the corridor, and these numbers are included in my letter to you. Next slide. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet recommends keeping signalized intersections limited to the existing locations, East Tiverton, Manowar, and South Point. As this spacing is designed to ease traffic congestion, a right-in and right-out access was recommended for this property. What Mr. Lear and Mr. Simpson are proposing is contradictory to what is in the recommendation of the small area plan regarding traffic at this location. Next slide. And this is the single point urban interchange that requires ramps be put in a portion of the Fritz property and the South property. This is what the plan calls for. The proposal that's in front of you would put buildings where this interchange needs to go and is planned to go as part of your comprehensive plan and your community traffic study. Next slide. Mr. Kirk, will you come forward? Introduce yourself. Thank you. My name is Adam Kirk. I'm a certified professional traffic operations engineer. And what that means is I've spent considerably too much time. Talk to the floor. And loud. Okay. My name is Adam Kirk. I'm a professional traffic operations engineer, which means that I study traffic for a living. I've probably spent way too much time looking at traffic, examining traffic, and analyzing traffic than I'd care to admit. I'm also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, which certifies me in terms of land use planning. and I primarily use that looking at the integration of land use and traffic operations. I was retained to look at the traffic impact study that was prepared for this summit development, both in terms of how it aligns with the small area plan and then in terms of the comprehensive plan, as well as to analyze the impact study and how well it gives you the information that you need to make those decisions. And if I can figure this one out, we'll get going. A couple of things, and I hate to repeat what Mr. Grady just said. But when we look at the small area plan, we've heard a lot of discussion of the land use. The plan submitted is in agreement with the land use. What we fail to discuss thoroughly is how well is it in line with the traffic and transportation plan that's presented both in the small area plan as well as in the comprehensive plan. Because if you look at the way the comprehensive plan is, we typically think of that as a land use document. But in reality, Chapter 3 deals with land use. Chapter 4 deals with our environment. Chapter 5 deals with jobs creation. And then you get to Chapter 6, that deals with creating a desirable community, which gets into our transportation issues or park issues and all. So that's what our small area plan also does. What the small area plan says regarding traffic is that KYTC recommended keeping signalized intersections limited to existing conditions. That's at East Tiverton Way, Manor War, and South Point, as this spacing is designed to ease traffic congestion. What we know as traffic operations professionals, the more signals that you put in, the more traffic congestion you've got. If you need a case study on how that's true, drive down Nicholasville Road. We have far too many traffic signals, and we have more congestion. The more signals we have and the more closely spaced they are, the more traffic congestion we have. And when we get into the discussion of the impacts today, I think you'll see that that's going to hold true in this case as well. So when we were putting together the small area plan, the transportation cabinet and the division of planning, assembling it said we're going to limit the number of access points or signalized intersections to the existing conditions. What they also say is that realizing that 4100 Nicholasville Road is a large piece of property and it will develop, what they said is that that access should be limited to a ride in, ride out across from the existing Walmart. And then finally, it identifies the single point urban interchange, also known as a SPUI, also referred to tonight as an SPUI. PUI. What the SPUI does, it is the most compact interchange that we can design. The reason that this plan looked at a SPUI is because we are already very constrained. If you look adjacent to the Walmart property, which is on the west side on the top of the page, that is very constrained in there. We're actually looking at retaining walls that would allowed those ramps to develop. So we had to design, because of the current conditions, the most constrained type of interchange that we can. And then you can see further on down that they are showing a right in, right out. The reason that's limited to a right in, right out is because it coincides with the single point interchange. Because right here with our existing Walmart, that provides access through the ramp in a grade separated fashion. So we'd actually They have a ramp coming up. Walmart would access the ramp. And then you could do the same thing coming to this ramp. If I may, just to show where we're looking at here, this is the proposed signal within our development. The ramps don't actually touch down until it's very close to Tiverton Way. So if we were to put in a SPOEY, they would actually be flying over the proposed intersection where they've got a traffic signal. And that's essentially the problem. We're not saying don't develop this property. I'm not saying build this interchange before you can do anything else. I'm saying if you put in this traffic signal, then it's impossible to build a single-point interchange because the signal would be in the middle of your ramps, and then the actual physical ramp would be cutting through these buildings through here, and then you would also have grading issues because that would be elevated. That's the primary reason why we say that the current development plan does not support the small area plan and the small area plan as well as the transportation plan. Now, how do I go back? Okay, one of the other things that we need to look at is, was this SPUI or single point interchange, just somebody had a last-minute thought when they're putting out the small area plans, hey, let's put this in, put one quick picture in it, and devote three senses to it. That's not how it happened. What actually happened is in 2007, through the congestion management process, the city hired Intran Engineering to study the entire Manowar corridor. What they found was that the intersection of Nicholasville Road to Manowar was the most heavily traveled intersection in that area, in the entire study corridor from Nicholasville Road to Interstate 75. What they recommended in that study in 2007 was to build this buoy. From there, that plan then got moved into the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. And granted, it says right now, completion by 2030. I will tell you, if you've been working with the Division of Highways long enough, 2030 is a near-term project. This is not something that, when we say 2030, you're actually looking at design. 2020, which isn't that far away. The way that you're going to build this program at $60 million is you're going to have federal funding for it. As a metropolitan planning organization, the only way that you can ever get federal funding for projects such as this is that it needs to be put into the Transportation Improvement Program, which is essentially a six-year plan of funded projects. The only way you get into that Transportation Improvement Program is by being in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan or the Long Range Plan. This is our Long Range Plan of projects that we're going to go through. It's in there. The only way you get into that is going through the congestion management process, which is what happened. The SPUI is not three sentences. The SPUI is hundreds of pages of analysis that was done in 2007 that was incorporated within the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and then carried forward into the small area study. so that's and just to kind of leave you on a point of comparison with do we really need a if you look at the amount of traffic that goes through this is nicholasville road and man of war currently we've got about 85 000 vehicles per day traveling through that intersection if you want to look over at winchester road and new circle road there's 81 000 vehicles traveling through there we actually have more traffic coming through the intersection of nicholasville Road and Manwar today than we do over at Winchester Road. What we're proposing in South Nicholasville Road is there is going to be more development. As that development grows, we're going to need a way to get the additional traffic through there. What this development does is it precludes the improvement that's been identified. The smallest possible type of interchange we can build, we cannot build anymore if that development takes place on that corner. That's essentially why we're opposing the development in terms of traffic. One of the other things that I looked at was, does this traffic impact study really give you the information to understand what kind of impacts are going to be seen on the roadway? In order to do that is what I did is I took the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, which maintains regulations for impact studies, and I compared the study against those regulations. I believe you have a letter that I put together that documents several of these. I'm going to highlight three of those right now. Number one is we look at existing conditions. The reason we look at existing conditions is if you've ever sat through a presentation by a traffic engineer, it's a little bit of a mix of guessing and voodoo, and we make up some numbers. We do the existing conditions analysis to say this is what our model is so that you can go out and look at traffic engineering or you look at traffic flow on your own and say this is what their model says, this is what it actually looks like when I look at it, and do those two agree. What the transportation cabinet requires is that you calibrate your model based on intersection cues, travel speed, intersection delays, or vehicle headway. What is included in the HDR report is that they do have existing conditions analysis. They do not have any calibration. And when I look at this, this is actually where most of the problems come from. This is a picture of Nicholasville Road Friday at 5 o'clock before the Planning Commission meeting. This is, you can see down here, this is Man of War. This is standing at the Walmart entrance. Traffic's backed up to here. If you turn and look the other way, Tipperton way is up this way. This is what traffic looks like today. If you've ever driven down Nicholasville Road, I'm sure you've seen conditions like this at some point. I did not, as someone may attest later, I did not go out and wait for traffic to be as bad as I possibly can. I was running late. It was Friday. I went out and I was there for 10 minutes. I took two pictures, and this is what we got. The nice thing was I didn't have to wait around long to get a long queue. This is what the HDR Traffic Impact Study tells you is the existing queues on Nicholasville Road. this is the direction for southbound you've got three lanes it's difficult to read but you're southbound through it shows that you've got a 61 foot queue so during the pmp of the existing conditions the impact study says that only three vehicles are stacked up at man of war during a pmp this is the analysis and the model that was then taken and used to carry forward to look at what's it going to be like when we build this development and what's it going to be like in the future. The reason for this is relatively complicated, but essentially is what happened is there was a minor error, and I'm going to say minor, it's very minor, on how we time signals. One button was left as a default. When you left that button as a default is what it essentially said or had the impact of doing is holding all the traffic back at Tiverton and only letting a couple of vehicles progress through at a time. Because you held all that traffic back, there was no traffic showing up at the Manowar-Nicholasville Road intersection, and all of your congestion was essentially displaced. Because the study area wasn't necessarily wide enough or long enough, we didn't exactly see what happened when we hold traffic back. So that's where this error essentially came from. What I did is took the exact same inputs, took the exact same volumes, exact same timings, and I unclicked the default value so that we could get better progression. This is the corrected analysis, and this is the HDR report. You can see the southbound queue from this HCR report is 61 feet. When you look at the corrected, we're about 750 feet. This starts to feel a little bit more reasonable of what we see when we go out and drive on Nicholasville Road. Delay at Manowar increased from level service D with 45 seconds to level service F with 81 seconds. If you then look at what happens when we actually build the development, this is what we get. They're showing a level service D of 77.5. if we carry the correction forward with level service F with 121 seconds of delay. So we're seeing a 50% increase in delay at the intersection of Manor War and Nicholasville Road. So it doesn't seem like I'm just making this up, and you can get anybody to make a traffic impact study say what you want. If you look at the analysis that was presented in the Manor War study by Intran in 2007, what they said six years ago is that in the AM peak, you had about 100 seconds of delay, and during the PM peak, you had 86 seconds of delay. That's very similar to what we get with the corrected analysis. I think I just started all over. So let's see. I'm going the complete wrong way. Can I start to go back? Randy? and stop. So that's the existing conditions. So as I said, starting off, we're starting off on the wrong foot. One of the other things that they didn't include is a design here analysis or a future analysis. And the future analysis, the reason we require future analysis within the transportation cabinet requirements is not so we can say that this development has to accommodate all the growth, all the other development on the roadway. The reason we put that in there is because we invest a lot of money in a roadway infrastructure. You're looking at a $60 million investment within the single-point interchange. So there's a lot of money, and that's designed to last at least 20 years. We at least make an impact study show that you're not going to preclude that development within 10 years. So this is what the requirement is, is that you look at 10 years after the year of opening, which wasn't included in the ACR report. What we're seeing with the corrected analysis, if we don't do anything in 10 years, we're going to have two minutes of delay at Manowar. If you build this, we're looking at three minutes of delay at Manowar. So again, a 50% increase in delay at Manowar, not to mention the cues that extend from that. One of the other things that it requires is corridor-level analysis. Corridor-level analysis tells you how long does it take you to travel through a corridor. What we see here is one figure. As somebody who studies traffic, this doesn't tell you anything. They say that there's sufficient bandwidth. If you look at the requirements, this is actually what's required, looking at speed and delay on the corridor. As we can see in the design year, it's actually going to take you 15 minutes during the PMP to travel from Wilson Downing to Manowar and through that intersection in 2023. Based on the analysis, you're looking at a 15-minute period doubling the amount of traffic that goes through there. So that's essentially, if you look at the impact study, that's what's happening. This development generates a lot of traffic. That's granted. But the improvements with the additional traffic signal, as well as precluding the SPOE, do not allow the transportation cabinet or the city the tools required to meet that future demand. and the analysis that's been presented to you does not provide you a clear picture of how bad it's going to be. I think if you just look at how bad is traffic out there now, it's bad. We know that. What the report's telling you is it's not really that bad, and we've only got three vehicles lined up at the intersection. So that's all I've got for now. We'll turn it back over to Mr. Grady. Thank you. The notebook that I've given you following my letter includes the written analysis of Adam, includes his CV, and includes as appendixes additional supporting material to support his testimony to you this afternoon. Now, if you will turn now to page 5. How much time do I have, Mr. Hearing Officer? How much? Okay. Let me ask you now to turn to page 5 of my notebook, 1648, 1647, 1646. Let me ask you to turn to page 5, And what I will do is go through the points that we believe should impact your decision and result in your turning down the application as it's presented. Frankly, with instructions to go back and come back with a development that is less intense and less likely to foreclose solving the problems of Nicholasville Road with the improvements that are needed in the future to solve those problems. Our first point on page 5 is, building on Adam's testimony, that the Bayer traffic impact study is incomplete, misleading, and not in conformity with the LFUC zoning ordinances, Article 6-1. And we've included on the pages below that, page 6, those requirements. and if you look at page 6, a traffic impact study for a number of developments including mixed use, and that's what this is, shall be complete and shall meet the following requirements. And I've highlighted some of those, but Mr. Kirk has mentioned them. Look on page 7, the full development traffic volumes, the capacity and level of service in Section 11, recommendations to make sure that traffic can remain at an acceptable level of service, LOSD. And what you have is a report that understates the current conditions and fails to reveal that what's happening out there is in many places already failing, and in places that are not failing, this development will cause them to fail or cause them to fail significantly worse than they're currently failing. It is not a traffic plan that would help solve the problems of Nicholasville Road. It masks the problems of Nicholasville Road. And we believe that because of the inadequate traffic impact study, this matter should not have been considered by the Planning Commission. The developer has not done what he's required to do. and it should not be considered by you, and you should turn down the zoning request because you have been asked to approve it with an inadequate traffic study. I've included on page 8 sections that you saw in the slide presentation. These are from your comprehensive plan. On page 9, you'll see language from the small area plan that we looked at a couple of minutes ago. But these are all requirements that we think govern your decision-making, and we believe, in light of the defects of this traffic impact study, require that the zone change application be turned down. That's point number one. The second point, this development as planned forecloses the improvements. Mr. Kirk has covered that. You'll see the same drawing that Mr. Simpson says you should ignore. We're saying you cannot ignore it on page 11. This is a partial solution or improvement to the problems on Nicholasville Road, and we ask you not to do anything that would foreclose being able to construct this improvement at this location. This is discussed, quoted in my letter and in Mr. Kirk's report at page 11 and 12. Point number three on page 13. as I indicated a few minutes ago when I began comparing 14,000 square feet of building development intensity across the road at Fayette Mall with 20,000 square feet per acre here. The density and intensity of land use as proposed by Bayer is excessive, where it will generate traffic that will result in traffic movements that are currently acceptable at or above LOSD, to become unacceptable in violation of your Article 6, and with traffic movements currently unacceptable, LOS ENF will become worse. You'll see a summary on page 13 of both the corrected numbers that Adam talked about and the results of this development impacts. Now, again, we are not saying that the Fritz Farm should not be developed. We recognize that it doesn't have a future as a farm. It does need to be rezoned, and it needs to be rezoned probably to a mixed use, but not at this intensity. It needs to be done both with a complete traffic impact study before you make your decision, and it needs to have a development intensity that does not cause these kind of traffic results. When you are on notice that you have a situation that is LOSD, and you're being asked to approve a development that will result in that LOS going from passing to failing, then we believe your obligation is to tell the developer you are overloading the system. come back to us with a proposal that does not cause the level of service to go from D to F. Don't take a situation that is working and make it fail. And similarly, don't take a situation that is already failing and make it fail much worse. So this development needs to be scaled back. It needs to be less intense, at least until traffic is improved on Nicholasville Road by installation of certain improvements. Perhaps in 10 years we'll be using mass transit more effectively. Perhaps we will not be as automobile dependent as we currently are. But this proposal, as it is before you, is entirely auto dependent. It is not a mixed-use proposal to create a village as called for in your small area plan. My point number three is that the density of this development is too large on Nicholasville Road in its current condition, and it needs to be reduced. And either the developer should be asked to withdraw this proposal and come back with something that is scaled back, or you should turn them down with the reasons being that this size is excessive. If we'll look at page 15, I want to read some portions of the small area plan to you. Top of page 15, this is from the small area plan. Mixed-use villages with local business connections and connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods are important factors. This is where the word village comes from that Bill Salley mentioned. Now, how staff could look at this and say that this is village-like defies understanding. There is nothing about this summit proposal that looks like a village. As I told the Planning Commission, I live in Midway. I know what a village looks like, and this doesn't look like Midway. Below that is a discussion about what mixed-use development is. Mixed-use developments typically have large common open spaces, gathering spaces for recreation. A well-designed mixed-use development has a higher intensity of both commercial and residential, which is efficient use of land, but it has an open space that corresponds. Below that, mixed-use development is not auto-dependent. It is not multi-separated uses on a large development parcel. It is not a zoning free-for-all where corporate interests prevail under the guise of inconsequential mixed uses. It may be difficult to classify true mixed use, but here's the question to ask. Is this place designed for pedestrian or automobile? Well, the development that Mr. Lear is presenting to you, Mr. Silverstein is presenting to you, is designed for an automobile. Just like Mr. Silverstein wanted to bring traffic, keep it from going to Atlanta, and keep it in Birmingham, this is designed to try to attract traffic from around the state to the summit. So this is an automobile-driven development. It is not a neighborhood or village development. Now, my fourth point, how much time do I have? 741. Thank you. 740, 739. Page 15. I have earlier said, and this is my fourth point, we believe that the small area plan is not a good guide to your decision making. And we believe that Mr. Lear and Mr. Simpson have misrepresented what the small area plan was trying to say or confused when they say that the small area plan intended for there to be 2.5 million square feet of retail. Now, as Mr. Silverstein said, you can't do that at this location. You can't put $2.5 million on 50 acres. So he acknowledged that what they were reading the plan to say is, in fact, not realistic. And as Mr. Simpson pointed out, the plan that you're looking at, the development concept, It says that it is not to be necessarily the plan, but the development concept contains no room for the spewing, for the traffic improvement that is elsewhere found in the plan. I would ask that you find that that page, the page that Mr. Lear hides behind to justify a one million square foot development on this location by saying it could be worse, that that page is not being reliably, it's not reliable, it is a confusing and misleading page, and I would ask that you not consider it. We believe that the error that was made that allows Mr. Lear to create the straw dog that he wants to knock down was because the 2.5, it was intended to include parking as well as building for residential and retail. And that analysis is not as clearly stated in this page as it should be, but that's our understanding of how the mistake got made. we would ask you not to rely on that page to support Mr. Lear's request. On page 17, it summarizes my argument that we can find no evidence that they are using green infrastructure to address their stormwater concerns. What they are talking about is a huge retention basin. It looks pretty traditional to us, and we believe that they need to be more environmentally friendly. your small area plan talks about building green communities. This small area plan wants green development, and yet we don't see any evidence that this proposal is green development. If you'll turn to page 18, and all of you will be delighted to know that I may in fact finish early, identify some aspects of this proposal that we support. We do support the write-in, write-out access from Manowar. We believe that is a good proposal, and we would like to see that in the final development plan and the development of this property. We also support the design not to access from Tangley. You heard Mr. Lear's explanation, and we agree with that explanation. We also support adding the third northbound lane from Toronto to Manowar and onto the entrance of the summit as is proposed. That widening, we think, helps Memphisville Road, helps the community, and is a useful and important part of the proposal. These are the changes that we would like to ask you to make. remove the commercial buildings W and V and designate this area as open space or urban forest as part of trying to green this property more than it currently is with no connection to Habersham. That is, use the right in, right out. W and V are... You have three minutes, Mr. Branny. W and V are these two buildings at this location coming toward Habersham. We would ask that you protect Fox Harbor and Habersham by not allowing this significant entrance into the development and use Man of War as the entrance into development. So we would ask that these buildings be removed and that this area be converted to open space. We would ask that you remove P and N. These are the buildings that are in the way of the spewy, and these are the buildings that foreclose that transportation improvement when there's funding to do it. So we would ask that these be removed or pushed back. We would request removal of residential buildings FF, GG, HH, and II. These are the residential buildings in this area. We, the neighbors who experience rush hour problems coming and going on Nicholsville Road and Manowar, support using this property for retail and using it for office buildings and not additional residential that has to navigate Nicholsville Road at rush hour in the morning and rush hour in the evening. The switch from the comprehensive plan high-density residential previously to the current retail or mixed use, we believe, was the correct decision. But we would ask that you limit the residential to the residential above retail, the new urban use that Bill Lear talks about, and remove the buildings that are exclusively residential. We don't believe they're necessary for the summit, and we believe that they compound an existing rush hour nightmare. We could support those buildings being developed as office buildings. They may provide that function, but we don't believe that they are needed now for the summit at this location while Nicholsville Road is in the shape that it's in. We ask that the developer withdraw, or we ask that you disapprove a proposal that puts a signalized intersection across from Walmart. We ask that you follow the small area plan and require a write-in and write-out on Nicholsville Road. Finally, we request that Summit work with the City of Lexington to four-lane Tiverton Way from Nicholsville Road so that the Tavistock entrance to the Summit, using the Tavistock entrance to the Summit and a stoplight at that intersection. Specifically, we would urge that the main entrance off Nicholsville Road be a redesigned Tiverton Way and a widening of Tiverton so that it can relieve the current congestion at that location. Now, we've made these requests to the developer. We've not gotten a response other than they won't consider them. But we believe that this development, as it currently is, needs to be improved. And with that, I will submit the questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. At this time, I will allow the petitioner, if they'd like to cross-examine Mr. Grady, and then I'll allow Mr. Turner. You want five minutes to speak, I think? Mr. Lear, did you want to cross-examine Mr. Grady? I can't. Okay. Then, Mr. Turner? Thank you, Council Member Ellinger and members of the Council. I'm Darby Turner. I represent the owners of Fayette Mall. And this is an unusual place for me in these kind of proceedings. I'm not here to object to the summit. But they're fine developers, and they do very nice developments. Our concern is traffic on Nicholasville Road, and I know that sounds funny as well. But the free flow of traffic on Nicholasville Road is important to our business. It will be important to the summits business, and it's important to all of the businesses as well on Nicholasville Road, as well as the residents of Jessamine County and Fayette County as they travel back and forth on that road from their homes to work and vice versa. You've heard, we commissioned one of the traffic studies that has been mentioned. And the neighborhood, that was done by CDM Smith, and then Mr. Kirk did the study for the neighborhood. We are very concerned that opportunities may be lost with regard to what could happen and what needs to be done on Nicholasville Road for the benefit of all. and right now there are three corners that are open at nicholasville road and man of war it's important to for the next foreseeable future for the next 20 years 10 years 20 years 30 years 40 years to determine what needs to be done to that road and and plan for it and that's that's our position We think that that has not been dealt with sufficiently, and it's a lost opportunity. We welcome the summit to the retail community and so forth, but we need to deal. That intersection across from the new intersection presents great difficulties and forecloses many other opportunities to deal with the situation. and the comprehensive plan called for a right in and right out. It's our position. That's what it ought to be. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Lehrer, did you want to cross-examine? Mr. Grady, if you would, come to the mic. All of you should find in the front packet of your notebook proposed findings of fact. That would support a denial of the zone change request and disapproval of the development plan. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to ask staff if they'd like to make any additional comments. Mr. Saleh? Thank you, sir. I did have three things that I wish to comment on. The first was to confirm if my opening remarks were confusing about the total square footage of the project being a little over one million square feet. That number does include the residential square footage as has been discussed by other speakers since. It is not a million square feet of just retail land use. So I wanted that clear in case I had confused that unintentionally earlier on. I failed to mention in describing the development plan to you about the proposal for a widening of Nicholasville Road. Currently, the lanes shift and there is a reversible lane situation near the intersection of Nicholasville Road and Manowar Boulevard. This development plan does propose a widening along the entire frontage of Nicholasville Road so that it would be a complete three-lane facility heading toward town along this portion of the highway. That transition would then happen to the south of Manowar Boulevard. And then thirdly, in addressing kind of why the staff felt that this did meet the conceptual mixed-use village concept that was in the small area plan, We did identify that there are gathering spaces proposed on this development, that it does allow a higher intensity of development than our general residential and most of our other commercial zones allow, and that it is auto-dependent in terms of the amount of parking that is being provided. There is room being provided for automobiles, yet from the staff perspective, if you are in this development, either residing or working, there are opportunities for live-work space in very close proximity that is somewhat unusual here locally outside of the broader neighborhood kind of context, this being in one development where you can live, work, reside, shop, have pedestrian experiences in this development. And certainly the staff felt in this development that it would be very pedestrian-oriented. Thank you. Thank you. Any rebuttal, any comments? At this time, and I've had requests from council members, if Mr. Grady, if you could have the people who you represent please stand so we'll know if you don't mind. Please stand. Thank you very much. And at this time, we'll have an opportunity for the public who have signed in. You'll have three minutes, and I'd like to have you give your name and your address. And we'll start with the ones in favor of the public hearing, Leah Buckley. and you're for the zone change well no actually I'm a mix I'm I'm I'm for the zone change yes I mean I have questions so this is why I'm here I was with suggested that I come I have some photographs that would support my concerns. Do I give these to you? My name is Lee Buckley, and I do have these photographs that I would like to share with you so you would understand why I've come here this evening. And they also would help give you some visual reference for my requests. And these photographs are of my home. I live at 300 Fox Harbor Drive, right on the corner. My home is adjacent to the development. I'm an original owner. I've lived in my home for 25 years. I'm a retired Fayette County teacher. I still work for Fayette County as a substitute. I only substitute at Southern Elementary, where I've taught all these years. I'm very fortunate to live in the neighborhood where I teach. I chose to live in the neighborhood where I teach. this has given me an opportunity I know all the children almost everyone who's gone through Southern I was the art teacher there so I've had every child in that neighborhood since 1987 it's been a delightful experience so I know the children and I know the families and I'm personally extremely invested in our community I want to express my desire to protect the quality of our neighborhood as well as protect our financial investments in our properties. If things go as the proposed development plans, I do have some concerns. I'm here to ask you to please consider two requests. One, eliminate the Habersham at Fox Harbor Drive entrance. And secondly, to provide a privacy wall adjacent to the property. If one of the development's entrances is on Habersham at Fox Harbor Drive, it would most definitely create more traffic than the neighborhood road is capable of sustaining. Manowar and Nicholsville roads are far better suited to absorb the amount of traffic that will be generated. By making Habersham and Fox Harbor Drive an entrance point, it would effectively turn our residential neighborhood road into a giant intersection. The amount of traffic would be unbearable and extremely dangerous for our little subdivision. At a minimum, I would request the installation of a brick privacy and sound buffering wall to preserve the integrity of our neighborhood. I've provided examples of such a wall here in these photographs. They were taken on Nickelsville Road across from Central Baptist Hospital. I personally have been very fortunate to have been able to sit on my deck for these past 25 years and watch the most beautiful sunsets over the Fritz Farm field. Should this development go through, I ask you to please help us to preserve as much of our neighborhood's character as possible by considering these two requests. Thank you. Thank you. The next one, Joseph von Sternberg. I never know how to say your last name, Joe. I'm Joseph von Sternberg. I live and reside at my farm on 3215 Lexington Road. I am a developer and farmer. My family has lived in northern Jessamine County for over 100 years, not myself. But the Fritz family has farmed with us and for us for over 20 years, and I've been personally involved with his family. I've done a development myself, Legacy Estates on Brannon Road, but it worked out really well. I'd just like to say that I've known the Fritz family over 20 years, and whatever they say they're going to do, they do. I've been associated with, I've seen the Summit properties in Louisville. I've traveled through Reno to go into Tahoe. I remarked what a wonderful state-of-the-art development it's been. I'd just like to say that I think it would be a boon to Fayette County. It should be something you should pass with that reservation. Thank you. Thank you. Ron Winfield. Name, address, and three minutes, please. My name is Ron Winfield. I live at 173 Toronto Road, which is off Nicholasville Road, one block south of the proposed summit development. My wife and I have lived on Toronto Road since 1983. We are opposed to the proposed development at Manowar and Nicholasville Road. If this development is approved, the developer's own traffic study projects an additional 20,000 cars per day through this intersection. This is on roads that are already severely overcrowded. The Manowar and Nicholasville Road intersection already has the lowest level of service that there is failing. The recommended overpass type intersection at Manowar and Nicholas Hill Road is sorely needed improvement, but it will be impossible if this development goes forward as proposed. The petitioners have offered no solution for the additional traffic, saying basically there's going to be more traffic, so just get used to it. My wife and I each have to drive through this intersection at least twice each day. I urge you to please vote no on the proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Adam Kirk and Adam Erty, you spoke, so. Edward Prentiss. Name, address, and three minutes, please, sir. My name is Edward Prentice, address 396 Fox Harbor Drive, property owner for 24 years. The neighborhood consists of two main streets, East Tifleton and Fox Harbor Drive. Both are dead ends. Dead end runs into another dead end. The consensus of the neighborhood is something will eventually be built on the Fritz property, but does not understand why the neighborhood needs to be involved, put all the exit entrance on Manowar and Nicholasville Road. As a now large amount of traffic cuts through Tiverton and Habit Champ to abort the Nicholasville Road and Manowar intersection, even our Councilman A. uses this route. Once the French property is developed, this traffic will increase. There is no way to stop this additional traffic and we are not asking. But we are asking the Council to stop any additional streets from development onto Tiffin and Habersham. We can only speculate on what a dilemma this will cause. Don't allow any new streets from development onto Habersham across from Fox Harbor. This would be ridiculous. How many stoplights two ways, four ways does the law allow within less than 150 feet, and that's between man and war and tangled away? Remember, Fox Harbor is a dead end. You don't need to be a traffic engineer to understand this, but just use common sense. Planner's staff has no skin in the game. They have been meeting with the lawyers and developers without any citizen oversight. You, the council, represent us and should not be expected to rubber stamp everything from planning and stair. Please do not destroy our neighborhood. Keep streets out. Some points is to keep our neighborhood intact. Align development to exit and entrance on Manowar and Nicholasville Road. City will be additional tax money for LFUCG. Fritz will sell property. The lawyer is getting paid. Sounds like a win-win situation. Except for the $7.25 minimum wage jobs, part-time, limited benefits, or none, keeping these people on a treadmill is nothing to be proud of. Counselor, do not be a bully. Leave the neighborhood intact. All the other shopping centers you have approved on the corners are kept out of the neighborhoods. This one should not be in the section. Thank you. Thank you. Becky Smith. Is Ms. Smith still here? I don't see her here. At this point, we will go to closing summation, and we'll start with the opponents, Mr. Grady. Thank you. intense, way too intense. We ask you to look at the model that is in front of you and determine that that is not the village. That is something that is compatible with the neighbors as called for in the small area plan, that the developer has taken advantage of some ambiguity in the small area plan and has overdeveloped this property. We ask you to recognize that the traffic study is inadequate, as asked by the developer, and to heed the warning of Adam Kirk. Recognize that until a traffic study is done by the developer, that it's complete, and it accurately assesses the impact. You have not been given the information that you are required to have to consider a proposal of this magnitude. We have proposed suggestions to the developer that might make this more palatable, and we have gotten no response other than an unwillingness to consider any of the suggestions we have made. Under the circumstances, we appeal to you. This property is going to be developed, but this is too much at this time at this location, And we ask that you turn this down and require the developer to do a traffic study that is calibrated correctly and analyzes existing conditions correctly and analyzes the future impact correctly. And once he has done the study that is correctly done, and you and the Planning Commission have an accurate picture of the impact this is going to have, then and only then should you consider what we hope will be a scaled-back development. But above all, do not foreclose the opportunity to try to fix the Manowar and Nicholasville Road intersection, the SPIEWY, to pick a terrible acronym. But it is what is the only engineering solution to try to improve the Nicholasville Road-Manowar interchange. And it's in the plan because it's the only thing that can help the interchange. And these developers ask you to ignore that opportunity to fix, and you should reject that invitation to ignore a possible partial solution to Nicholasville Road. With the facts that are in front of you, tell the developer to go back to the drawing board and come back with a scaled-back development, reducing the residential feature of this provision. and make sure that it doesn't exceed the intensity of the Fayette Mall across the road and make sure that they solve traffic problems, not aggravate them. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now close the summation by a petitioner. Mr. Lear. Thank you. This will also include some rebuttal since this is the first opportunity we've had to do that, but I'll move through all of it very quickly. The first thing I want to address is the spooey, which rhymes with phooey. And I don't know if you saw what the gentleman said when he came up here. He said that this so-called spooey, and I'll get to exactly how it's recommended or not recommended or mentioned, and mentioned is the word. He said it comes all the way down here and you don't get through with it until over here. What that means is that he and Mr. Grady, who are here saying, among other things, please don't put all this traffic in our neighborhood, are suggesting that there be a major development on 50 acres of some caliber that has no access, no access to Nicholasville Road. Well, what does that mean about the traffic? there's only two places for the traffic to go, Tiverton and Habersham. The same is true of the argument you heard about why the proposal for a signalized intersection is wrong. The signalized intersection does more to take traffic off of Tiverton and Habersham than anything else. When the small area plan was done, the transportation cabinet is the one that gave them the right in, right out. You saw that. The transportation cabinet is the same entity that we went back to before, literally, at the earliest stage of this. And we said, we want to work with your traffic engineers. We want to work with the urban county government engineers. I'm going to come back to that in a minute because I was in some of these meetings, And I saw the interaction. If you don't think we got a skeptical eye from the state and from the local folks initially on the concept of a traffic signal here, you'd be wrong. They made us prove to them. And the whole notion that there is this one error that skews the entire process is ludicrous. This is not a situation where somebody hands a document to our traffic engineers here or the state's traffic engineers, and they say, thank you very much, we'll bless it. I think you heard, you may not have heard what they said, 600 hours of work on this. I know for a fact, because I was party to this, they came back and forth. They said, we want you to do this with the model. We want you to do that with the model. It's not as if they don't have their own data on these roadways. It's a state roadway. The state transportation cabinet that's given conceptual approval for this signal and for additional lanes that we're providing down south of Manowar, they looked at all those things. So now let me talk about the Spooie. I told you what it reminds with. about what it rhymes with. Here is how it's presented in the small area plan. There's a section that says the Lexington Area MPO 2035 recommends the following plan, recommends the following for the plan, and it lists some of the things that the MPO has listed. One of the things the MPO has listed as a potential, and it says in the MPO language that funds or other circumstances may not be available due to limited funding, only the most important projects. Well, here's what they've got. They've got in 2030, they've got this SPOE at a price tag estimated today of $60,640,000. It comes right behind six-laning Newtown Pike from New Circle Road to I-75 at a price tag of $73.65 million, which comes right behind New Circle Road improvements widening to six lanes from Versailles Road to Leestown at a price tag of $128.4 million, which comes right behind, and this is all 2030, right behind New Circle Road widening to six lanes with a bike lane and other improvements from Broadway to Liberty Road at a price of $120 million. And that comes behind projects like New Circle Road, a little earlier, New Circle Road, New Town to Broadway, widened to six lanes and had a bike lane at a price tag of $158 million, which comes at the same time as adding six lanes to Nicholasville Road in one location. And this is in 2025 at a price tag of $113.96 million. And all that comes behind the new connector which is shown in here between Jessamine County and I-75 at a price of $192.49 million and on and on. Now, the gentleman said the federal government is going to provide all this money. I don't know which federal government he's been reading about, but it's not the same one that you and I have been reading about. and the state of Kentucky doesn't have that kind of money, and we don't have that kind of money. What this is, it's not a recommendation. It is a quote about some of the things that are in here, and the effect, if you said you can't do anything that would interfere with this, what I would say is a pipe dream project based on reality, you can't have any access. for the road. Now, Hank says that we're more intense than Fayette Mall. And Bill Sally, I think, helped correct that because he said there's 416,000 square feet of retail on this space. Well, let me tell you about more intense than Fayette Mall. There are two stores in Fayette Mall, which are a small percentage of the overall. One of them's Macy's, and it's got 275,000 square feet. Another one's Dillard's, and it's got 208,000 square feet. You add that up, and just those two stores. And that doesn't count Dick's. It doesn't count all the other stores in Fayette Mall. It doesn't count all the out parcels. It doesn't count Jacques C. Penney, as my kids used to call J.C. Penney, that and Tarjay. It doesn't count any of those. And it's already 66,000 square feet more than all the retail, just those two stores. And Hank is trying to tell you that what we're doing is more intense in Fayette Mall. Now, everybody that's been around any kind of development knows you can't equate a square foot of residential with a square foot of retail, especially when it's Fayette Mall-type retail. Now, he says there's a mistake. There's a mistake in the plan because it does. This 2.5 million that's shown on this model doesn't include parking. Not true because that model shows more than that. For each one of those buildings, it has a building number, the number of stories, the ground floor coverage, and then the total square footage. And if you look and see how they get to 2.5 million, in many of those they multiply the ground area times 2, 3, or 4. Now, unless these people were thinking that you were going to build a five- or a four-story parking structure in there or a three-story parking structure for every three-story building, it doesn't include parking in those numbers. It includes buildings, and it includes buildings of two, three, and four stories. I think I've talked enough about traffic. You have to assume, if you buy the traffic argument that this study is flawed, you have to assume that nobody but this gentleman that's ever been involved in this knows what they're doing when it comes to traffic studies. You have to assume that the state transportation engineers don't know what they're doing. You have to assume that the urban county planning people don't know what they're doing. You have to assume that the urban county traffic engineers don't know what they're doing because all of them, over a period of two years, have looked at our numbers, have vetted our numbers, have gone back and forth with our numbers, and if they saw numbers that they didn't like or didn't think were right, they talked about it to us and they made us make changes. They want us to remove the residential-only buildings, which is really odd, because one of the things that we did where we could, where it was feasible, was to put solely residential or residential over retail next to the existing residential. That was a planned concept that the small area plan said we should use and the staff supported us using. That's why it's there. That's as much as I want to say about Hank. Darby, I said at the planning commission when the Fayette Mall stood up and said they were concerned about traffic on Nicholasville Road, I said I was having an out-of-body experience. Now I think I'm in a parallel universe of some kind. It is clear to me that Fayette Mall wasn't concerned about traffic when they started out, weren't concerned about traffic when they did a 23-acre expansion that I think Darby represented them on a long time ago, which they had to go to court and get. They weren't concerned about traffic when they did the Big Dicks expansion and all of the other stores over in the back that are out there now. And I guess I ought to make him the offer now. If you're really that concerned, you've got four signalized intersections to the Fayette Mall, two right in, right out. We'll be glad to trade off with you any time you're ready. I don't think they'll take us up on that. I don't think they really believe the SPOE is going to be built either. One of the things, there were very few neighbors that stood up when you asked who was represented by Hank. There were only a small number who actually spoke, but I don't want to not deal with the issues. Lee Buckley addressed a couple of things that are really development plan issues. We've got to go back for a final development plan. I am confident that the Planning Commission would not support terminating the access to Habersham because then there would be no access at all. They might, in favor of a full-blown signalized intersection for this particular development on Man of War, but I think that would be a tougher sell with them. You know the stress on connectivity in the plan. There were two potential connection points. We only chose one of them. I do understand Mr. Prentiss' issue. I have to correct something. I don't understand that a loop road that has two ways out is a dead end. And he lives down on the loop. And it's true that there are some times during the day when he comes the quickest route, which takes maybe a half a minute or 40 seconds to get up to Habersham. If he runs in there at certain times, it probably is hard to get out. But he can turn the other way out of his driveway and take maybe 30 seconds longer and get to Habersham the other way and turn left or go straight on Tibbert and get out that way. Is it a little bit inconvenient? Sure, it is. I live out Lakeshore Drive, and between 8 and 8.30 in the morning when I'm coming in, I don't go past Henry Clay High School. I turn left and go down Wallace Way. Is that inconvenient? Yes, but you just understand that as long as there's an alternate route, that's an option and it's not a reason not to make an important street connection. That is the principal items of rebuttal. So we didn't spend as much time on traffic as they did because we spent two years on traffic, and we dealt with every official at every level that we're required to deal with on the basis of traffic. And the rule of decision here is the section of the zoning ordinance, not some of the state standards that apply elsewhere, and we satisfied every single one of those. we satisfied the staff we satisfied the planning commission unanimously that we had met all the requirements of the comprehensive plan and and this is a different type of development it's a mixed-use development exactly if you look at pictures in the plan if you look at the model in the plan if you've been to mixed-use developments around the country that's what it is. This would be a significant benefit for Lexington, be a significant benefit for the area, and frankly, once it's built in the neighborhood that's nearest, when houses are put up for sale, they will probably have the same thing on the little flyers that the houses next to the summit in Birmingham have. And you know what that is? It's not don't buy here because of the summit. It's how many minutes it is to the summit. How many minutes it is to the summit because they want the buyers to know they're in proximity to a really quality, really beneficial development. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, the Council will ask questions of the staff, petitioner, and opponent. Petitioner and opponent shall be entitled to rebut any new evidence brought of my council questions. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Salley, I have a question for you, sir. Could you restate for us what the vote was with the Planning Commission? The Planning Commission vote was 9-0. Okay. Have you heard anything here this evening from the opposition that was not presented to the Planning Commission as they made that 9-0 vote? I don't believe Ms. Buckley was present at the Planning Commission hearing. There were probably just a few comments from Mr. Grady and Mr. Kirk that weren't exactly the same. There was additional commentary tonight that was not at the Planning Commission. Has everything from the officer in terms of their attorney that was stated tonight been rebutted? I'm not sure everything has been rebutted. There was considerable rebuttal, yes, sir. Okay. So I guess what I'm getting to is they talk about the traffic study and the error and all those kinds of things. But what they presented in terms of those things aren't any different than what they presented to the Planning Commission. I think, yes, the error was the same that the Planning Commission reviewed. Okay. And they still voted 9-0? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Ms. Lawless? Thank you. Mostly I'd like us to have a break, but I'll go on. I have several questions. And I like the esteemed Mr. Lear, honorable Mr. Lear. Don't know what's more confusing, Mr. Tanner being on the position, or you and, I'm sorry, I know your name as well as mine, Bruce Simpson working together. So I think I'm in a parallel universe also. First of all, one thing, I have several questions about this. And one thing that is really surprising to me for a zone change hearing is I'm not hearing anybody say they don't want this property developed. I've never had that happen. And also, I did understand what Mr. Kirk was saying. And that's not to in any way say our Kentucky Transportation Cabinet or our local transportation people don't know what they're doing, but it is an extremely specialized area, and that's why we often hire consultants that are even from out of state to do our studies. I look at Man of War and I think about New Circle Road and what it was meant to be. It was meant to be a bypass, something you could quickly go around. When it was built in, I don't know, the 50s maybe, I don't remember. It was here when I came in 69. And what it's turned into is a stop and go, stop and go, stop and go, stop and go. And it's created a great deal of trouble. and problems. So my concern about adding an additional traffic light on Manowar is that we're starting that pattern. I also know that additional traffic signals do create more hazards, more speeding, and more automobile accidents. So I have a real concern about adding a traffic light on Manowar. We're not putting one on Manowar. Oh, you're not putting one on Manowar. Okay. Nicholsville. Mr. Lehrer, could you go to the microphone, please, so the audience could. The proposed additional access on Manowar is a right in, right out. Okay, thank you. In the middle of the property, not a signalized access to Manowar. Okay, thank you. I got confused there. The other thing that I'm wondering is you said it's a high-end development where people would live, work, and play. And when I hear that, I think that the residential properties are going to be quite expensive. And what I hear about the jobs that will be available in the hotels and retail shops, the people that could afford to buy a house there or an apartment there or whatever aren't going to be able to pay for it on those kinds of salaries. And so that's somewhat of a concern. Yeah. I think what I would say to that is that if you want to gauge what the market is likely to be on the residential side, then look at the newer developments that have been built out in that area, not in the distant past, on the Mahan property. And there is one, the name of it escapes me, there's one down the road on Nicholasville. That's the single residential development that's been done on Nicholasville Road since 1968, I think, at least in that stretch. And those are not extraordinarily expensive. And you have to, I think you have to assume, now we've not studied that, but I think you have to assume that people who are currently working in the retail sector, you know, this, what we're talking about in terms of square footage would be a drop in the bucket of the overall Nicholasville Road retail. So unless it's true that all of the existing employees in the Fayette Malls and all the other areas out there aren't able to afford what's out there in apartment availability now, unless you assume that they aren't, I don't think you can assume that employees on our property wouldn't be able to afford the residential on our property. Okay. Yeah, it's all rental. It's not designed for ownership. Thank you. Mr. Clark. Thank you. I'm going to agree with Mr. Grady a couple of points here I think are important to be pointed out. And one of the things that Hank said is that this does need to be rezoned and it's going to be developed. I'll come back to that. But the other thing that he said is the small area plan is misleading, and I agree with that too, Hank. My question is, is that preventive of approving a development in this particular case? I think it's probably not, even though it's not as appropriate as we would like to think. I think Hank's strongest point, and I think everybody knows this, is the traffic. And I think the SPUI is even stronger. And the reason I want to point this out, because it's not just this development, folks. Somebody said you've got three parcels on this intersection that are not developed. Three. We're just talking about one here. What's going to happen when you have not only this property redevelopment, but the U.K. development, the farm, and the one across Manowar? Now we're talking three different kinds of property that are going to be developed in some way, who knows, residential, commercial, whatever. We have to think about that. I don't know what the answer is, and I'm not sure that the spuey is the way to go. I'm not saying it is. But I think you folks need to really think about what's going to happen 30 years down the road, if it is 30 years down the road, and make some exceptions where it can be developed in some way. I agree with Mr. Lear that you don't really need all that room all the way down Nicholasville Road. I think that's pretty ridiculous. But you do need to think about how much room do you need to develop an intersection there that's going to be more compatible to the traffic that's going to be there 20 years down the road. I think that's important. I'm on the MPO committee, so I kind of know where we're going here. So I talk with some degree of information. I am also concerned about the traffic on the residential streets I'm not sure there's anything you can do about that I appreciate Leah Buckley's comments and I think the wall is probably a great idea I've seen a reason why you can't do that and thank you for teaching art to our kids by the way now let me, if I could ask Mr. Silverstein a couple of questions would you mind please sir? I'd have to do What retail establishments do you have under contract or have strong indications that you're going to have in that development? Anything at all, or is it premature? We're in serious discussions with a number of retailers. It would not be appropriate for me at this time to go public in this kind of setting with who we're discussing. I would love to. Okay, I understand that. But it's just not appropriate that I do that now. Okay, I understand. Let me put it this way. Relative to the Louisville Summit, are we looking for the same kind of quality in terms of retail? Sure. I mean, like I say, I stand before you tonight showing to you what our other summit projects reflect of in terms of quality, both from a landscaping, architectural, and retail mix. As I said to you, some of the retail that we have in Birmingham may not be coming here now, but all of the retailers that we're speaking to for this project are truly reflective of our other summit projects. Good. Now I'm going to ask you a question that you can't answer. I know you can't. I'm going to go ahead and say you can't answer this. Have you any examples of where retail establishments have come into your summit development and duplicated themselves in a downtown area? Yes. Good. Right answer. Yes. And I have spoken to Mayor Gray and have seen your plans for revitalization or redevelopment of the area downtown. And I would submit to you, and I believe this wholeheartedly, that when we're successful in bringing some of the retailers here that will do their first store, they will certainly consider going to a vibrant downtown area. And I believe that firmly. Good. Exactly the answer I wanted. Just let me say this. Hank said this is going to be developed. No question about it. And I want to say this. If it's going to be developed, why not summit? Why not what? Why not summit? This is not a question. This is a statement. I think this is probably one of the best developments I've seen, and I've been in the Louisville development. And I know there's some problems. I know people are concerned about it. But if it's going to be development, why not go to the best? And I think this is probably one of the strongest developments we could possibly imagine. I think there are some exceptions that can be made as you come up with a final development plan. But I certainly do think it's the right choice at this point. Thank you, Mr. One last comment, if I might, to each one of you. We don't build on the field of dreams concept. This isn't build it and hope they come. Every project that we do is pre-leased to a certain level to ensure that when it opens, it has a reasonably, reasonably good chance of being successful. We're not going to build this project if it's not leased appropriately, pre-leased appropriately. And that's just not the way we've ever done anything. So I submit to you from your questions that it will either be the summit or we won't do the project. I understand. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Lear, as thorough as you were in your presentation, I do have a couple follow-ups on the road improvements that you talked about. So are you saying you're adding a lane along Nipplesville Road on both sides? No, on our side. When I say both, I mean north and south of Manowar. Ben, can I answer that? Yeah, if he can walk. Yeah, if he can show us on the model even. Could you give your name, please, for the record? Ben Edlin with HDR. Thank you. When you're looking at the model, I'll try not to get Ms. Masati's way. We are adding, starting on the opposite side of Manowar, on the development side, starting adding an additional lane back there and then continuing that additional lane through all the way through this center section and then it tapers back in once you get the tier it then you've got three lanes in that direction what this also does it allows us to provide for everybody keeps talking about alternatives mass transit i know the city has done some studies as far as a additional bus service, maybe even a BRT along this route. So we are providing that there would be a stop out here as far as those improvements would be so they could come in and stop. We have talked to Lex Tran, too, about being able to go through the site. They see those options and like what they've seen so far. So the extra turn lane was calculated in your collection of traffic flow? Yes, it was. Okay. And then what about on Hammersham? Would there be a stoplight there? There is a stoplight on Manowar right now. We're not predicting a stoplight there, but that's a final development plan detail that we'll have to get into. Okay, and then on the model, it shows a right in, right out still at Walmart. Will that remain or will that be a full-blown intersection? This will be a full-blown intersection. Okay, and the state's already granted approval of the stoplight? The state has given us in writing a letter. It's in your packet given to you, conceptual approval. We did spend over a year working with not only the urban county government staff, but the Kentucky Transportation staff. We did calibrate the model. We spent numerous days out there witnessing what was going on, more than one day. We also were out there to take video to show during our meetings with the cabinet. So we had a core sim model that we built that ran all the way from south of Manowar all the way down Nicholasville Road. And then on Tiverton, any improvements to widening Tiverton as part of the development? Tiverton, we were looking at the existing spacing there as far as how much room we had. You know, there's two businesses on each side, neither one owned by the summit. So we are confined there. We will be looking at how much space we have there and how we can reconfigure and get as much flame power as we can there. So not on either side of the road there, there's still some more, I guess, things to look at there. Okay. Very good on traffic. And then I have a question for our law department. There was made mention by the defendants about X and out certain buildings in the model here that we're looking at. Talk to us, and I've been through this before, but for public assumption's sake, this is a zone change. This is not a development plan. And we can, as a council, if we approve this zone change, make the planning commission adhere to a particular development plan. Is that correct? That's correct unless it's something that the applicant is proposing and they're agreeable to. Right. So if we wanted to X out some of the letters that were read out earlier, we really couldn't do that because even if the summit says this is what we want, the planning commission will still make that final decision. They will as part of the final development plan. Okay. Very good. And, you know, usually when we sit through these things, these are about zone changes. This is about use. Tonight I didn't hear a lot about from use from the defendants. I heard a lot about traffic. Mixed use was our determination tonight going from AU to mixed use. Is that appropriate? And that's what I didn't hear a lot of argument from tonight, and I wish I would have heard more because I think what we've been shown tonight and what we've seen makes a very compelling case to support what the Planning Commission has already decided unanimously. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Ford. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Salee, please. I want to thank Attorney Lear, Attorney Simpson, Attorney Grady for bringing both sides of it. Let me quantify what I've heard. I've heard the impacts on traffic on Nicholasville Road, which we know the current status of how congested that area can be. I heard 85,000 cars per day go through the intersection of Manowar and Nicholasville Road. I just want to confirm that that's reliable information. I certainly can't rebut those numbers. In talking to Mr. Conyers of the NPO staff, it is one of the higher volume intersections in the county. Okay. Perhaps only behind the Nicholasville-Reynolds area. And then also, I think I've heard, and the petitioners can advise as well, 25,000, the exact number of parking spaces on the proposed development. I have that. It is 2,477. 2,500 parking. I'm sorry. It's late in the day. 2,500 parking spaces. My concern definitely has to be twofold again with the traffic on Nicholasville Road, not only for Lexingtonians, but for folks from Jessamine going south that come in and out of this community every day. The other issue that I have is not an issue that I have to weigh is how that traffic is going to encroach and impact the neighborhoods that run adjacent to this development. Let me confirm, Mr. Ealing. So a question that Council Member Stenet just raised. So the proposal would have stoplights now that exist at Man of War in Nicholasville, stoplights at Tiverton in Nicholasville, and then now a stoplight that connects Walmart and Lowe's to the summit. So pretty much midway between Tiverton and? Yes, sir. And I would like to clarify one thing. On the, you're saying 85,000, there's around 58,000 on Nicholasville Road, and then there's like 32,000, 33,000 on Man of War. It's not 85,000 in one direction. Okay. They go through that intersection. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Ms. Massadi. Thank you, Chair. I guess, Bill, you can answer this, or do we have someone from, oh, I'm sorry, Bill Sally. I'm sorry. Or someone from traffic engineering. Do we have anyone here from the government? I don't believe so, no, ma'am. Do we have any kind of traffic control that's going to be inserted for the neighborhood, either at the Habersham or Fox Harbor? Is there a four-way stop sign proposed there or anything for those people in the neighborhood coming out? I don't believe that three- or four-way stops have been part of the discussion of the preliminary development plan that's before you or shown as an exhibit. This would be a typical type of discussion at the final development plan stage should the rezoning be approved. Mr. Lear, if you want to address that, please. Thank you. That actually was a part of some discussion that came up at our meeting with the neighborhood, the various of the neighbors. It's been some months ago, but several of them ask, not just at that one, but I think maybe there's one intersection a little bit further back that they suggested also would be a good place for a four-way stop. We think that would be an excellent addition, and I don't think there's any reason not to do that. I mean, most of us live in neighborhoods now or near that have got a lot of four-way stops. And it's interesting. It seems like you don't just put one in. Usually there's a sequence of them once they're in there, and I think it'd work fine. Right, because we spent a lot of time about the traffic on Nicholasville Road, but we've not spoken about the subdivision itself, about the people that live there. They're trying to get in and out of their driveways every morning to go to work and have to deal with this, with the traffic generated from the development. And one other thing that I did want to mention that was a part of those discussions and that we have committed to, and that is to make sure no construction traffic comes through the neighborhood, nor deliveries. I mean, we can deal with any of our lessees and have them commit that they won't have delivery vehicles coming through the neighborhood, and there ought to be plenty of access. Okay. And I have a question about stormwater. Is there anyone that can respond to that? Or sewer capacity? Mr. Martin, do you mind? I was not sworn in. Do I need to be sworn in? I would assume you probably would have to be, Mr. Ellinger. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. I know based on experience in a lot of these large developments, I mean, initially there's enough capacity that it's built for the development, But down the road, as these neighborhoods come online and the sewer capacity was not projected for some of these other neighborhoods that have the pipes in place, the infrastructure, we have issues. And I think we have discussed that because we have issues now with raw sewage coming up and manhole covers that initially were not there but are there now because of developments that have come online. because these neighborhoods are older in these developments. As far as sewer capacity and stormwater, how do they fare in that relation? Because you're going to put a big development up here with residential and commercial, and we've got pipes that are probably in some of these older neighborhoods that don't have the capacity to deal with this. Let's deal with the sanitary sewer issue first because there's that very clean thing we talked about this afternoon, the CAP. Correct. The CAP will govern this, whether or not that they are permitted to connect to the system. They will have to meet CAP conditions as part of their approved development plan, or otherwise that development plan will not be certified. So there's a stopper there that has to be demonstrated that there's sufficient capacity there. On the stormwater end of things, you know it gets a little more complicated because you're dealing with fully developed areas and trying to go back and retrofit them. We have a stormwater project in the downstream area that is in the design phase right now, and it was funded through the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority on a low-interest loan. So we've got a project that is ready to launch, and we've been working with the developers in their engineering, particularly Ben and his team, to make sure that they're aware of what our project is intending to do. And based on what I heard from testimony today or tonight, is that what they're doing as far as their runoff is going to exceed what is required to be done. So I think in conjunction with our project to solve the existing problems and their steps in taking, you know, going beyond what's necessary, I'm not concerned about it. Again, I think we work through these things through the course of the development plan and, more importantly, the improvement plans. But in working with them over the last couple of weeks, I don't see anything that I was particularly concerned about. As long as you're comfortable, that's great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Farmer? Thank you, sir. I guess, Mr. Lear, just a couple of questions just based on the previous testimony. In looking at the model and listening to Mr. Salee's description, he said two parking structures. I think the model reflects three, and I'm just wondering, is it? Which way? Just two? All right, that's one question down. And drawn in on the plan, David, you would take the microphone, please. There could possibly be a third if, in fact, the hotel comes. I'm just looking at it. I think it's the third one in the center there. There would be one here if a hotel is ultimately part of the project. There's one here which serves the residential and another one back here. So you're right. Potentially there's three when the hotel comes up. The model reflects three, but the development plan as of right now just reflects two. No. When we submitted that, it had the potential for having a third if, in fact, the hotel were to come. Okay. My next one is about the basin, the blue outline basin. What sort of, I mean, it's not, for everything else that's in the model, the basin's not in the model. What form would that basin take, or how would it integrate into that area, especially as it backs up to those homes? I mean, will those people have diving boards off the back of their property into the depth of this? Or what size, what kind of basin are we talking about? Ben can probably answer this, but I can show you if you look over here. The outline of the basin is right here. Actually, part of it comes under the structure. Agreed. So I guess in a rain event, if you wanted to dive, you might dive from... I'm talking about the property owners on Wallhampton. Yeah, there will have to be a berm constructed to impound the water. Ben can give you a little bit more details. Please. The majority of this basin is going to be excavated down into the existing ground. So when you look at the deepest part of that basin where there's a couple of houses there now, the dam would only look to be about four foot high. And then it's excavated down into the ground to create the volume. And that means, I mean, on your quantity, will that meet what you think would be the runoff under a certain storm event? Yes. Yes. And then does it dovetail somehow under the proposed parking structure in some capacity then? It does. The parking structure will be, the lower level of that parking structure will be built out over that excavated basin. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. I just, I feel like I'm standing on about a two-foot stack of comprehensive plans and somebody slipped an urban service boundary around my neck. Thank you. Could I just direct you to one of the exhibits that will answer? If you look at, I think it's exhibit 8, tab 8 in the book we handed out. If you look at it, you'll see the various LFUCG design storms at the left. You'll see the existing condition that's out there now with no development. You'll see the peak runoff. you see those numbers in that column, the second column, and then you see what happens with the detention. And some of these are actual storms, like June of 1995. And if you look at how much the reduction is in the far right-hand column, you'll see the significance of over-designing this basin compared to the preexisting condition. It's a pretty dramatic reduction. I appreciate you pointing that out to me. Okay, thanks. And I also appreciate your all's potential investment in Lexington and the great jobs you'll bring with it. I've just sat here through a lot of decisions, and I don't like all of them, but I'm glad to make them. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Mr. Ford? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question from Attorney Lear and somebody that can help me. My question is germane to the neighborhood, the impacts of the neighborhood. And I'm looking at the layout there, and I'm looking here. Hammersham, the proposed development plan calls for almost a four-way intersection with Hammersham, Fox Harbor, and going into the new development. Is that correct? Yes. You're looking at the one that's right down. That's correct. And as of right now, I would say it appears that Fox Harbor dead ends to Habershaft right or left. Is that correct? Correct. And it goes, I'm not sure it stays Fox Harbor, but you can go back around here and connect out up here from that. Then there's actually in the back of the subdivision there's a connection in that direction. Thank you, Attorney. Councilman Stanton raised a great question. Our job tonight is to consider the zone change and not to delve in too much to the development plan, but since we have such good detail that's been presented on the development plan and the schematic here, is there an opportunity, it seems to me, I would hope, if there were an opportunity to shelter the neighborhood to a certain extent, I think that would be worth exploring, particularly if there is another way to enter into the new developed site from the Man of War side. I guess as proposed right now, the Fox Harbor-Hambler-Shaft intersection really is helping folks that will navigate and enter into this development from the Man of War side. I just wanted to bring that up under the hearing side of it, Mr. Chair. and once we go to our work as a council, I may ask the advisement. I'll go ahead and ask it now if it's okay. Planning staff, legal staff, I guess we're talking about conditions now. Is that the appropriate time to talk about that now? Or how, in the consideration of our zone change, if I, for one, wanted to bring that to the attention of the petitioner in regards to the benefit of the neighborhood, how would we go about sticking things on? Would that be a condition that would lead, if this zone change were successful, with a condition that would lend directive to the planning commission if it goes back there? I think, Council Member Ford, you're talking about possible conditional zoning restrictions in the council's consideration of approving? Yes, sir. Okay. The limit of the council's ability rests with the use, kind of the class of use that's allowed within the zone, and then buffering restrictions. I don't know that that would extend as far as limiting access possibilities. Certainly based on the testimony tonight, my expectation would be that that will again be raised as an issue with the rezoning successful and this plan takes the form of a final development plan at the Planning Commission. I'm not sure limiting the access is something that Council has the ability to do through conditional zoning. Okay. That's really more so a function of the Planning Commission. Yes, sir. Okay. Our job is to consider the zone change. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Myers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly don't want to try to replace any restrictions on the development, but Mr. Silverstein, the questions were raised about the retention. I just thought I've got a 6 1⁄2-year-old and a 4-year-old. And so when we talk about how deep that might be, could you guys consider in your process, I don't want to put anything on here today, doing some type of wall or something around that so that the houses that back up to that, the child doesn't go for a swim and not come back home. Sure. I think your question is absolutely appropriate. And when we go to the final design and submit the final development plan, we'll work with HDR to come up with an appropriate buffer to ensure that no one, whether you're a resident in the project or a resident in the neighborhood, is put in an unduly harm's way. I mean, you're right on it. I mean, that's responsible development. Sure. And that's who you guys are. And that's also a great point, too, is that there are residents inside the development that would need to be protected as well as not just the people outside. Not just the people that live in the neighborhood, but the people that are living in the development. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Ms. Lawless? Thank you. Is your proposed retention a part of the condition of your zone change? Detention, I don't know what. It's a part of the approval of the development plan. Right. That is fundamentally a development plan issue. Would you all be willing to commit to placing that as a condition? That wouldn't be legal. We are certainly willing to put it as a condition on the development plan. We already have. I mean, it's a condition on the development plan, and unless the government allows us to back away from it or we try to back away, the issue won't ever come up. But I need to be clear, this is something that we committed to do at the very start of this problem. Way before we filed the zone change, we sat down and said, we know there's a drainage problem. We want to work with you and get it fixed. And I just wondered if it was. The other thing that occurred to me is, are the streets in this development going to be private streets? And so the people in the development will be maintaining those in the future? We've had a big discussion about private streets today. So we would be responsible, as we are in all of our other summit projects, to maintain the private common areas, the common areas within the development, the streets, the landscaping, the lighting. Okay. That's all part of the responsibility that falls on me as the owner of the shopping center. And did I understand you say that you – something about a TIF in here? I understand it's a separate issue. I was just curious. If you don't answer, you don't have to. Well, no, I don't mind. It's a proposal that we've made. It's moved forward, and it will allow us to pay for significant infrastructure. And one of the things not mentioned, a part of our development plan, we're going to pay for 500 feet of upsized sanitary sewer lines downstream from our property. That was one of the things that I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but that's a part of our agreement as well. Moving them from 8-inch lines up to 12-inch lines. Again, I hope that you will consider some of the neighborhood's concerns, like putting a wall for screening. That doesn't seem like a big deal and something that you would possibly consider, and that's not something we can make you do. So thank you very much. Thanks to everybody concerned. Traffic is a problem, but it's not something we're really supposed to consider, I don't believe, in this zone change hearing. So I hope people can sort things out for the best deal going for the community. And thanks to everybody that's here and worked hard. These are difficult decisions, and thank you all. Thank you. I see no more questions for council members. At this point, I want to thank you all for coming, and I will go ahead and close the hearing. There will be no more testimony. And now I'll entertain a motion for adoption of findings. Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chair. I move to adopt the findings of the Planning Commission and approve the zone change. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Thank you. And now we need to make a motion on the ordinance. Do I have a motion to adopt the ordinance? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, would you take a while, please? Can you repeat the mover and seconder for me, please? Ms. Massadi seconded. Thanks. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Ms. Gutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. And Ms. Henson? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That passes. I want to thank once again everybody for coming out, and we stand adjourned. Thank you.