Music Thank you. This is a public hearing for a zone change. And there's a few preliminaries that we will need to go through before we get going. And the first is to call the roll. Madam Clerk. Ms. Akers? Ms. Bledsoe? Here. Mr. Fred Brown? Mr. James Brown? Here. Ms. Evans? Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Gibbs? Here. Mr. Hensley? Here. Ms. Henson? Here. Mr. Kay? Yes. Ms. Lamb? Here. Mr. Maloney? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Massadi? Ms. Gutchfield? Here. And Mr. Stinnett? Thank you. Thank you. Next, if you are planning to speak at all in the hearing, I need to swear you in. So you would need to stand and raise your right hand, if you would. Thank you. And I will give you the oath, and you'll just say yes, if you would. So do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Thank you. A few more things. I'm Steve K., Vice Mayor. I'm the presiding officer. And as such, my responsibility is to conduct the hearing and, if required, to make rulings about whether testimony is irrelevant or repetitious. So I ask you, if you've already heard something being said, to avoid repeating that, if possible. I don't think I'll need to invoke that very much. If you have a witness list, it should have been presented to the clerk. If not, you can do that now, whether you are for or against the zone change, or if you haven't signed up. If you would, we'll get that list shortly. And if you have printed materials, if that has not been submitted to the clerk, that should be submitted either at this time or when you make a presentation. If you provide information, if you testify, you are asked to stay in the hearing to be subject to cross-examination as questions from either council members or people on the other side of the question. When you rise to speak, if you would, come to the podium, give your name and address. that would be helpful and I want to tell you the order of the hearing it will go like this first there will be a presentation by the planning division staff then presentation by the petitioner then a presentation by the opponents and I need to ask at this point do those in opposition have someone who will be representing them anybody either an attorney or anybody else who will be designated to represent. Seeing none, I will ask that those of you who are here in opposition limit your testimony to three minutes so that we can proceed as fairly, but as quickly as possible. After the presentation by petitioner, there will be the opportunity for those in opposition to speak to the council. The staff will then have the opportunity for additional comments. Petitioner may then submit rebuttal evidence. And then a closing summation by the opponents, since you don't have anybody to represent. If someone of you who has spoken feels like you'd like to make a closing presentation, I'll allow that. And then a closing summation by the petitioner. at that point the council will ask questions if they have any and both petitioner and opponent will have the opportunity to rebut anything that's new that is not to repeat what's been said but if there's new evidence at that point the hearing will be closed and no further evidence will be taken the council will then deliberate amongst itself the council will then vote either to adopt findings of fact or not. And that will be done by a roll call vote. There's then a motion to approve or not findings of, to actually approve a set of findings of fact, and then a vote on the ordinance itself. And if you're not at all familiar with these proceedings, what you probably need to know is that the rules are such that to overturn the ruling the planning commission it requires a majority not of the people who are here but a majority of the entire council so there are 10 people here tonight which is the minimum we need for a quorum but a majority of council is eight votes so to overturn the decision of the planning commission it would require eight votes of those present tonight and i believe that's all i need to do in terms of preliminaries and unless someone has questions or comments on council we can proceed and we'll start with the staff presentation mr sully Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye. Council members, good evening and Happy New Year. As is our protocol at the start of your public hearings on zoning matters, there is a number of items that I need to enter into the record of your hearing tonight. The first being the legal advertisement that was published in the local newspaper advertising tonight's public hearing. The next is an affidavit that I have certified to regarding the mailed notices for this public hearing. Notices were mailed more than 21 days to property owners within 500 feet of this location, and due to an error in the time listed in the original notice, a corrected notice was mailed to those same property owners. In addition, this also certifies that we've notified the nearest registered neighborhood association to the location of the subject property. I need to enter in a record copy of the recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission regarding their public hearing on this zone change, which was held in late October of last year. This has been placed, copies have been placed at your location. There are also a few extra copies on the counter behind me for those in the audience that are interested in this. The staff has received a number of communications about this zone change tonight. One is an email from Tim Query, who is, of course, the urban forester, and he has asked that this be entered into the record for your public hearing regarding tree preservation issues regarding the subject property. In addition, we've received two letters, a letter from the Aylesford Place Neighborhood Association and from Reverend Stephen Richmond, and then a number of other email communications. At this time, I would like to circulate these to the council and also give the clerk a copy of these same emails. I'd like to enter in the record a copy of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, which has been adopted by the Planning Commission. The Council has adopted the goals and objectives portion of this plan as well. I'd like to enter in copies of our zoning ordinance and our land subdivision regulations that are currently in effect for the urban county. and then finally a one-page staff exhibit that the staff prepared. We have also placed this at your location. This is a copy of the original submitted development plan and the certified development plan. We think that some of the information on these items will come up during the course of your hearing tonight. We'll enter this in the record as well. This is a zone change request from an existing R1C single-family residential zone to an R3 planned neighborhood residential zone. This is an amended application. The original application sought a rezoning to an R1T townhouse residential zone. There are three properties involved, properties having an address of 509, 513, and 517 Pike Road. This is an aerial photo of those properties, and they can be described as being on the east side of Pike Road, which does give them their address, at the end of Devonshire Avenue, which is perpendicular to Pike. These are generally south of Red Mile Road and north of South Broadway. Pike Road is not a signalized intersection with South Broadway. However, a parallel street just to the South Gibson Avenue many people are familiar with is a signalized intersection to South Broadway. The subject property, as I mentioned, consists of three residential lots. Two on either side are currently vacant lots. The middle property has an existing single-family residence on it. All three are proposed to be rezoned R3 under this application, and as you'll see from the development plan, there is an increase in residential density proposed as well as the rezoning for these properties. This is the zoning map for that area, and it shows the existing R1C zoning. This is a property that has as much R1C bordering it as it does P1 professional office. The professional office properties are oriented, of course, to Red Mile Road. The R1C properties are the neighboring residential properties in the Gibson Park subdivision. These three lots are all a part of the Gibson Park subdivision. And I would ask you to look at the northwest line of the subject property. It looks as if there is a portion of Devonshire Avenue that borders these properties. And until last year, there was a right-of-way that did border those properties. That right-of-way has since been abandoned and closed, and the subject property now includes the area you see here, which is half that former right-of-way. There is no pavement in that area. That is a grassed area. This is a view of the subject property looking from the end of Devonshire, turning right into the slide onto Pike at the one structure on the three lots. It is a single-family dwelling. It has been there a number of years. You can note an addition, two-story addition, on the left side of the structure that was also completed a number of years ago. That addition actually currently straddles one of the property lines of the three for the subject property. It was not unusual decades ago for folks that owned a series of lots to be able to get building permits to build across those lots. That was routine until probably the last 10 years or so. This is a view looking northward at the subject property from across Pike Road. The one vacant property is visible to the right here, and there's a very large hackberry tree in the center of that lot that you see, and it is somewhat sloping from left down to right in this slide. Again, a closer view of the home on the subject property with special attention to some of the trees that are behind the subject property, including the hackberry I mentioned from the other slide. I have one other photo and a couple of other exhibits to share with you at this time. I have an oblique aerial photo of the property. This is looking from the west to the east. The subject property is here. Again, the slides we saw were from this location on Pike, showing the one structure and the two vacant lots. This slide gives you some perspective about the existing trees. Can we dim the lights for just a moment? Let me see if these will perhaps be a little more visible with the lights low. The rear property line is heavily treed. The hackberry we saw in the photograph is here, and there are some other trees to the rear of the property here as well. This shows a very good orientation to the office uses along Red Mile Road and also to what are mostly single-family homes in the Gibson Park subdivision, which is zoned R1C. This photo, as well as any, shows just how this subject property is kind of on the border between two different development areas. The planning staff, as we always do, evaluated the zone change in light of the 2013 comprehensive plan. Initially, we reviewed an application that sought approval for eight townhouses on the subject property, meaning the existing dwelling was proposed to be removed. Before that application went to the Planning Commission in a public hearing, the petitioner amended that application to ask for a different zone, R3 instead of R1T, and also to preserve the existing dwelling in the center of the property. Those were the two primary things that were accomplished by their amendment. So when the Planning Commission held their public hearing, they were reviewing an amended application from what had been originally filed. The staff reviewed a very lengthy justification provided by the applicant showing that this zone change was in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan. The planning staff agreed with that justification, and again, it was very important from our review in realizing how this property really is bordered on two sides by two different types of development. We did believe that a modest increase in density, in this case to a total of 7.65 dwelling units per acre, because this property is on the edge of the neighborhood, was in agreement with the policies and the goals of the 2013 comprehensive plan. The applicant did propose conditional zoning restrictions as part of their rezoning to R3, which the staff also recommended in our staff report to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held their hearing in late October on the 22nd, and it was attended not only by the staff and the applicant, but also by some residents of this area. At the end of their public hearing, they voted 8-2 to recommend conditional approval of this zone change to the council. Conditional approval, meaning conditional zoning restrictions, are also recommended. The reason was, firstly, the requested planned neighborhood residential zone is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan. And in making that finding, the Planning Commission adopted four findings that the planning staff also adopted. The first being that the petitioner proposes to develop two duplexes, which creates a variety of housing types in the immediate area that complement the existing neighborhood. I would point out in that finding there is a typographical error. We apologize for that. It's the very first word in the third line under A. That should be develop to do plexus. The second finding was that the petitioner proposes to moderately increase the development, pardon me, the density of the subject properties to 7.65 dwelling units per net acre. The third finding was that the applicant plans to maintain a similar front yard setback and provide off-street parking in the rear of the development, which will better match the existing character of the neighborhood. And the final finding was that the proposed development is well aligned with the vision articulated in the comprehensive plan for, quote, single small lot infill projects and is using two vacant lots that are considered underutilized in this urban context. I did mention earlier that conditional zoning restrictions were offered by the applicant and also recommended by the staff. The R3 zone allows a variety of different residential types, including duplexes, townhouses, single-family units, and many multifamily apartments as well. Under the provision of Article 6-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission has recommended conditional zoning prohibitions for several uses should the property be rezoned R3. Those are for multifamily dwellings or apartments, dormitories, boarding or lodging houses, assisted living facilities, and community residences. Under the Planning Commission's recommendations, none of those uses would be allowable at this location if it were to be rezoned R3. As is often the case, there is a development plan associated with a zone change involving residential, and this is the development plan that was reviewed at the Planning Commission's public hearing. This is not on either of the exhibits that the staff has presented to you this evening. Again, Pike Road, the frontage, Devonshire Avenue. This is the existing dwelling that we saw photographs of, and the two vacant lots would each have one duplex constructed on each lot. Those duplexes are to be two stories, and this one is proposed at 3,100 square feet. this one slightly larger at 3,600 square feet. So there would be a total of five dwelling units on the entirety of the subject property. It's to have a single access easement very near the corner of Devonshire and Pike serving parking to the rear of these properties. There was no tree inventory information provided with this development plan, and that's why you see that on the certified copy. There were variances approved by the Planning Commission for this development plan. Those are regarding the required lot frontage for the two duplex lots. Pardon me, for one of the two duplex lots, the southernmost lot. The minimum requirement is a 60-foot wide lot anytime that there is a duplex in an R3 zone. That lot is proposed at 50 feet, and the justification for that was the location of the existing dwelling, which prevented a 60-foot wide lot there. There was one other variance approved by the commission, and that was to the maximum number of parking spaces. This is in the infill and redevelopment area, and the single-family dwelling actually has more parking proposed than is allowed by the zoning ordinance. That was a variance granted by the Planning Commission for that lot. The duplexes do have the appropriate off-street parking provided for them. Finally, some of the communications that we forwarded to you regarding the removal of trees. There is not any tree protection area on this development plan, but that is not really an uncommon circumstance. Tree protection areas are ordinarily provided at the time of a final development plan. The plan that the Planning Commission reviewed and which has been certified is a preliminary development plan, which allows no development of the subject property at all. Should the property be rezoned as it's being requested, there would be a need for a final development plan to be filed and go back before the Planning Commission and be approved before any construction of the new dwellings could occur. That concludes my prepared remarks. Thank you very much for your kind attention, as always. And, of course, I will be available for your questions later in the hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Next, the presentation by the petitioner. Mr. Walburn. Good evening, Vice Mayor, Council Members. My name is Jacob Walburn. I'm here today on behalf of the applicant to Flying Dutchman Properties, LLC. I have two matters of housekeeping before I begin my presentation. One, under the terms of Lexington's zoning ordinance, the applicant is actually required to post a sign on the property notifying the neighbors of this hearing. We did, in fact, post that sign on December 28th, which is more than 14 days in advance of this hearing, and I have an avidate evidencing the same that I will enter into the record. Additionally, I'm going to enter in a paper copy of the PowerPoint presentation that will be accompanying my remarks. at this time. I want to thank you all for your time. I know Council just got back from break. Sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be heard today. We're very excited to present this development to you. Flying Dutchman Properties is a group of investors, local business people, represented here today by Johnny Bruce and Ryan Foster. Our project was engineered by Vision Engineering, represented here today by Matt Carter. And as questions may come up later in the hearing, they'll be available to address any issues you might have, as will I. I'm not going to belabor the points that Mr. Salee just made. He did an excellent job. But I do want to point out that we're talking about a very, very small subject property here. Our rezoning request is for .754, or approximately three quarters of an acre gross. That nets to a little less than two-thirds of an acre net to our clients. This is what is considered under the zoning ordinance small lot infill. Mr. Salee did reference the amendment of our application. I did want to explain that to you. Our original application was to go to R1T. The idea was that you raise the lot entirely, grade it out, build eight townhomes. That was the original plan. However, we ultimately opted for amending our application to go to R3. Why? Because there's nothing wrong with the house that's there now. It is an older house, but it's in pretty good shape. It's been a mainstay of the neighborhood. It has recently been rented. We think it could be rented again. Frankly, see no reason to tear down a perfectly good house that's serving the neighborhood well. The other reason that we went to R3 was basically because of a quirk in the zoning ordinance about what's the difference between a townhouse and a duplex. I think two townhouses hooked together under our zoning ordinance are considered a duplex, whereas three would be considered a townhouse development. Since we were only doing two units on each lot, that's all that would fit. We had to go to a category that allowed duplex. That's why we went R3. R3 is sometimes referred to as the apartment zone, and that makes people very nervous because they don't like apartments in their neighborhoods. That's why we offered those conditional zoning restrictions that Mr. Salee mentioned. We've intentionally endeavored to take out uses that we feel are too intense for the neighborhood. It's not our intention to represent that we're going to build two duplexes and then come back and build an apartment after we get our zoning. Under the terms of the rezoning we've requested, we would be unable to do that. The uses that would remain in the R3 zone are single-family, duplex, and townhouse developments. We did have our public hearing back in October. It was a vote of 8 to 2. One resident came and spoke against us. Staff recommended approval of our recommendation. Mr. Salee did show you a zoning map. I wanted to show you another one that had a little bit broader reach. As you can see, this is a fairly diverse area that we have here. Mr. Salee mentioned the P1 uses directly about our property. This is a very large R4 apartment development. It actually doesn't have access to Devonshire. It's accessed off of Red Mile, but as you'll see in some photographs here in a moment, it is very visible from our development. You have some B4 uses down here. This is an R4 that's a condo unit here. And then there has been a recent rezoning request down at the end of Pike Road to, I believe, B1 to allow for a Zaxby's restaurant. That's in the 400 block of Pike. Superimposing over that zoning map what the site actually looks like, you can see that large apartment development that I referenced. This is South Broadway, standard commercial development through there. The subject site is right there. Drilling down into our subject site a little bit closer, it is right here. What does it look like now? We already saw a couple of pictures. That's the existing house. This is the vacant lot to the right. This is the vacant lot to the left. This is a large single-family house that the owner owned all three of the parcels, treated it as one unified yard, but they were never consolidated under operation of law. They remain their own separate parcels. We did submit a preliminary development plan. Mr. Salee already went over that, so I don't see any need to belabor the point there, simply to reemphasize that we are proposing two duplex units for a total of five housing units on the subject property. Now, that's why we're here, so why are you here? Well, under Kentucky law, we're required to seek approval of the Planning Commission first, and then, at your discretion, the Urban County Council for approval of our zone change. in order for you to grant a zone change under state law, you have to find one of three things to be true. That our application is either in accord with the comprehensive plan, that the existing zoning category is inappropriate and our proposed category is appropriate, or that there's been major changes in the area that were not contemplated by the comprehensive plan. Our position is very simple. We think our proposal is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. What did staff think about that position? Well, they agreed with us. They said that our proposal was in accord with the comprehensive plan, incited five different specific goals of the comprehensive plan that this body adopts that they said our project was in compliance with. I'm going to talk about each of these, but I'm going to tackle them out of order. This is the order that the staff report had them. The number one thing I'm going to focus on is infill development. There is a huge emphasis in our comprehensive plan on infill development. Some of you may be aware that the urban services boundary is actually a national historic planning landmark. It was very unique when it was put into practice. The urban services boundary is a really, really big deal in Lexington. The last time we updated our comprehensive plan was in 2013. In 2011, there was a decision that we were not going to expand our urban services boundary. And this was embraced by members of the council, the planning commission, preservationists, and developers alike. So important is infill development that we've dedicated a whole theme of our comprehensive plan to encouraging infill development. Why is that so important? because a lot of Lexington's identity and branding are really tied up in the idea of the urban services boundary. We are surrounded by beautiful horse farms. We brand ourselves the horse capital of the world. And in order to keep that designation, we have to preserve our farmland. This is a direct quote. I actually copied these directly out of the comprehensive plan that basically suggests that urban infill and redevelopment really complements rural preservation and vice versa. By encouraging small lot infill development, you're actually also encouraging preservation of our rural interests. What did the Comprehensive Plan specifically instruct us to do? To maintain that urban services boundary and to pursue incentives to encourage compact urban growth. The Comprehensive Plan goes on to give us specific strategy to implement infill within Lexington. I would like to read these to you briefly. Stimulate economic investment in established communities. This is a new proposal in an old existing neighborhood. I think we meet that. Encourage pedestrian-scaled and multimodal transportation. These are small-lot infill that are located next to transit stops and within walking distance of some of Lexington's largest employers. Allow for flexibility in housing types, densities, and configuration while encouraging quality and variety. We are indeed proposing flexibility and variation in housing types. Encourage affordability in housing for all citizens. As you're aware, some citizens simply are not able to purchase their own single-family home. Rental options need to be provided. Ensure the compatibility of new construction in a context-sensitive manner. As I'll further demonstrate here in a minute, I think we've done a very good job of that. But maybe my favorite one for this proposal, provide a mix of housing types, densities, and land uses that allow for a diversity of citizens. We're asking for a very modest increase in density here. Why is that important? Because we're running out of developable land within the urban services boundary. This is again pulled directly from the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. Based on the 10-year average from 2000 to 2010, we estimate that we could run out of developable residential land within 11 years. So encouraging this type of development, utilizing underutilized land, very, very important to maintaining the urban services boundary where it is. And again, why is that so important? Because it's difficult to be the horse capital of the world without horse farms. Now I also want to talk about this underutilized property aspect. staff said that our proposed development was well aligned with the vision articulated in the comprehensive plan in that it is using two vacant lots that are considered underutilized. Here is our close-up of our development. You can see it outlined here in red. When we compare it to the housing that's across the street, if you'll actually look at the densities, putting two additional buildings on our lot actually matches the density that is directly across the street in the existing development. this is found property in that as i mentioned the single family lot and the two flanking lots were treated as one parcel and additionally that abandoned strip of right-of-way this is right-of-way that had been under the urban county or at that time would have been fayette county's control and since i believe the 1920s had never been constructed was maintained by the respective property owners upon discovering that this body rejected dedication that property has now accrued both to Flying Dutchman's property and the adjacent P1 behind it. So what's the summary on infill? Infill is very, very important to Lexington. If we're going to maintain or even modestly grow our urban services boundary, we have to encourage development within the existing urban services boundary. And we think that small lot infill is definitely embraced by the 2013 comprehensive plan. Want to touch on housing choice. Housing choice is also a big component of the comprehensive plan. This is, again, a direct quote from the Comprehensive Plan. Diverse neighborhoods feature townhomes, apartments, and condominiums, and duplex housing adjacent and mixed with single-family homes. What does the Comprehensive Plan instruct us to do? Provide a variety of housing types in all neighborhoods. I think our proposal endeavors to do just that. But I wanted to see if that was really a thing. In Lexington or some of the more desirable neighborhoods, do they really embrace this philosophy? So I took a walk, and one of my favorite neighborhoods in Lexington is the Fontaine Road area. So I took several photographs that I want to place up on the screen here now, where you can see that in the Fontaine Road area we have apartments located next to single-family houses, duplexes and quadplexes, a variety of architectural styles, heights. And that bottom right photograph is to demonstrate that a lot of these developments have parking in the rear, just as we have proposed. I'm also very fond of the Duke and Romney Road area. Took a walk there as well. Again, you're going to see a comparable mix of housing there, both single family, larger apartments, duplex, variety of heights, variety of architectural styles. In some of Lexington's most successful neighborhoods, we see this kind of variety. Now, lest you think I've engineered this portion of the presentation to appeal solely to Councilmember Farmer, I've also spotted several other examples, both within newer and older neighborhoods within Lexington, where we see this kind of variety, where we see duplexes and smaller, denser developments immediately adjacent to existing single-family homes with differences in setbacks, heights, building styles, et cetera. Now, we can't just have unbridled infill. We can't just find a couple of vacant lots and put up the biggest apartment buildings we can find. We have to have responsible infill and context-sensitive infill. And I think our proposal is very representative of that responsible infill. Our density increase is very moderate. There are two buildable lots right now where we would not have had to have sought a zone change or planning commission approval to build single-family houses. So we could have three housing units on our site already. Our proposal is simply to go to five. We think that's a very, very modest increase. It matches the existing area, as I'm going to demonstrate to you here in just a moment. It addresses real concerns. I'm going to show you photographs that Pike Road on-street parking is a concern in that area. It's one of the reasons that we thought it very important to provide off-street parking, as to not contribute to that already existing problem. And we've proposed conditional zoning that's going to take out of those out-of-character uses that are too intense for the neighborhood and remove those from consideration. If we take a walk down Pike Road, you're going to see there's already duplexes on Pike Road. They already exist today. There's a variety of heights, housing styles, construction materials. Here we see a full two-story next to a single story. We see different setbacks, different heights. This is a diverse neighborhood already. We're simply contributing to that diversity. I want to make sure you understand that again. There are existing duplexes on Pike Road, which is a two-block street today. What's the parking situation on Pike Road? Well, it's a little tight. These photographs were taken back in October when I was preparing for the original zone change hearing. This is an overhead view. You can see that on-street parking is an issue in that area. But as you can see, with some of the larger denture developments, they have provided that rear off-street parking in the units on Pike Road that are already multifamily or duplex. As Mr. Salee mentioned, we're on a zoning border. We're right next to both P1 and R4 property. These are photographs I took back in October of some of the adjacent P1 and R4 that are visible from our subject property. I thought it was important to include this to give you an idea of we are on a zoning boundary, and we think that this development can serve as a step down from the more intense P1 and R4 uses to this R1C neighborhood. I did think it interesting. I periodically had to go in and check on that sign that I mentioned at the beginning to make sure it was still posted, and I didn't have any photographs of after the leaves fell down. The view is much more pronounced from our property now of that adjacent P1 when the leaves are off the trees. That's why, again, we think this is a very prudent area to do a modest increase in density. It serves as a natural step down from these more intense uses. So summarizing that, this is a step down area. We think it matches the diversity already present on Pike Road today. and we're attempting to integrate into the neighborhood without adding to existing issues like the off-street parking. So to wrap up my remarks, we think this is a very small-scale development, but that really embraces several goals of the Comprehensive Plan. It's found underutilized property that's very, very rare within the urban services boundary and even rarer within New Circle Road. You just don't see an opportunity like this very often to develop land in this very small way. Small lot infill is definitely encouraged by the comprehensive plan, and it's vitally important to maintaining the urban services boundary. And we've attempted to employ a context-sensitive design. We are really proposing four additional units to the site as it exists, but it's really only two since we could have single family as it exists today. It does match development that's already existing in the area, and we've tried to have a proactive approach to deal with some of those issues that we'll come up with from the neighborhood. While I do reserve time to rebut any remarks that are brought up in opposition and would be happy to answer your questions at the appropriate time, that concludes my prepared remarks. And I thank you very much. Thank you. Since we began the hearing, someone has come in who has requested to cross-examine staff presentation. And in order to do that, I'm going to recognize Amy Clark, but I will need to swear you in. So if you'll stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Thank you. You may proceed. Thank you. Mr. Salee, you mentioned the tree protection plan, and you noted that it comes at the time of a final development plan. is there a tree inventory that is required at the time of application for the zone change? Yes, it's more at the time of the development plan, but yes. So was the preliminary development plan for the zone change certified without the tree inventory map? It was not. It was certified with the tree inventory on the plan. Was that certification made before the vote of the Planning Commission on October 22nd, I believe? Let me get the exhibit, and I think I can answer your question. The staff exhibit for the certified development plan shows that the development plan was approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting on October 22nd of last year. This development plan was certified with my signature on November the 5th of last year. So the certification took place after the Planning Commission hearing. but this is the development plan that was approved by the commission meeting all of their conditions of approval. So it was certified after the public hearing. So a condition of approval that the sign-off on the tree inventory or the trees, the urban foresters sign-off on it, that condition was met before it was certified on November 5th. That's correct. But the tree inventory information was not available to the staff to advise the Planning Commission, nor to the Planning Commission prior to that. The tree inventory information was not. There was other information provided to the Commission. Let me put this on the overhead. there was no tree inventory on the submitted development plan that you see here. However, these photos are routinely circulated to the technical committee and to the two committees of the planning commission as they review development plans. So there was information provided about there being trees on the property. Obviously, it was not as detailed as information, as is on the certified development plan that's in the staff exhibit. But that's fairly routine operating procedure in the review of development plans. How many trees were noted as significant trees were actually labeled by genus or species with a diameter on the certified plan that wasn't available to planning commission and staff at the time of the hearing and vote? I would estimate three. I'm not sure the hackberries are significant trees under the ordinance. I believe I'm counting a hickory of 18 inches, two oaks of 24 inches, thickness of trunk diameter, and enormous four-foot burr oak. I think they're five in all. Was that five yet? I think it was four. Hickory, two oaks, burr oak. Oh, did the staff after the certification note also an elm on the property? I have not noticed an elm on this document. And these are matters that you review, or do you just learn from the urban forest or environmental services that they deem it in order? as to whether a tree meets the ordinance requirement for being significant. So you haven't had any communication with environmental services regarding an elm as well? I do not recall anything about an elm, no. Okay. There are trees in the two tree lines, and perhaps that's where the elm is located. The communication I've had with Mr. Query yesterday was about the bur oak tree in the parking area. What kind of tree protection area is recommended in the zoning ordinance when you're thinking about how much room, if you change a zone on a piece of property, is available for parking versus trees? If we find four or five significant trees, what kind of tree protection area may that possibly entail when it comes to a final review where you're making choices about once the zone is granted, this is how to handle trees, the competition between trees and parking? Well, the general recommendation of the zoning ordinance is that drip line areas are to be considered for tree preservation, but different species have different requirements. And so that's why the planning services staff relies so heavily on the urban forester's recommendation, or if arbor studies have been done for the trees. Those are evaluated generally with a final development plan to make those determinations as to what, if anything, should appear under those root zones. Thank you for clarifying that information. You're welcome. Let's see if there's something else. You presented the zoning development plan insofar as it was presented at all. Is that correct? I mean, this is a zone change hearing. It's not altogether significant. Yes, it's presented as an exhibit to the council. Okay. Certifying the record of what the planning commission considered. The lot lines indicated for three separate lots on the certified zoning development plan, are they existing 50-foot lot lines, or are they pursuant to an intended change of lot lines? I believe the latter. This lot line exists. This lot line is not in the configuration of existing. The existing is more about here through the addition that we saw on the slide. Is it usual in a preliminary development plan to put lot lines that may be rather than existing? Actually, the ordinance requires that to show proposed lotting. But not existing lotting? Existing lotting can also be shown on a development plan. Must it or? Existing lots? Yes. In this case, it would have been confusing to have had two because it would have appeared that there was a very narrow lot here. If you have both the existing lot line and the proposed lot line, it would have appeared to be a very narrow lot being created. So in that instance, in this plan, it makes more sense to show the proposed lot than the existing. One last. There's on the certified development plan, there's a 12-inch concrete pipe noted running across where the proposed duplex nearest Devonshire would be. Was that information about that available to the staff at the time they gave their advice to Planning Commission and at the time of the planning vote? I have to admit, I don't know if that was raised through the committee reviews on this plan or not. Were there committee reviews on this plan? On the plan, which plan? On the plan that came before the October 13th plan that came before the Planning Commission on the 22nd? The original development plan for the townhouses was reviewed by the technical committee and the subdivision committee. then it was revised into the form that's on the certified plan and this plan. I don't believe that this plan was reviewed either by the technical committee or by the subdivision committee. Okay. And one final detail, the certified development plan, as indeed also the one from October 14th, which is what you're showing up there, doesn't note a jut out behind the carport, which is intended to be torn down, a couple more feet there, about 16 feet long. Is there a reason that wouldn't have been on the plan showing the existing house? I'm not exactly sure I understand your question. Is it that this line is off by a few feet? May I have the pointer? How does it work? Push this button, the red button. Name it. Okay. Oh, there we go. Right there. I've just... Along there. Okay. The PVA record, the planet, PVA public record shows a jut out. Shows the property line through that carport. There's, here. Okay, if we put this up. There we go, that works. Is it, there we go. It's the skinny red piece there, okay? The carport is the lavender patch. at the top, and the skinny red piece is actually a piece of the house that's two more feet wide. I ask because there was at the Planning Commission deliberation on two variances associated with the width of lot that proposed duplex right next to that jut out should or would have. So I wonder if this information about where the house actually was built included that two feet or not as they decided on variances. I don't recall that level of detail. Okay. As I mentioned to the council, this lot was granted a width variance to be only 50 feet wide. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. That would allow us to move to presentations by those in opposition. I've got a list here. I will call your name. If you'll come to the podium, you'll have three minutes to speak. The first person is Mr. Charles Shipley. Vice Mayor, I believe that Ms. Clark is telling us that she also wanted to cross-examine the petitioner, So we might want to do that before, since they've already done their presentation, before the opposition starts commenting. You wish also to cross-examine petitioner? We'll take that now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walburn. And you indicated that the applicant wishes to have R3 zoning. Were you indicating that he wishes to have R3 zoning for duplex and townhouse uses? That's correct. Okay. And was it your intent to use it as a group project on a consolidated lot? It was not. It is not. So these will be single-family flanked by two duplexes on separate lots? That's correct. I do think it is important to note that the parking area would actually be subject to an easement. That would be an agreement between the property owners to maintain that parking area. But otherwise, yes, that's correct. Okay. So you don't really aim for the group project use. Correct. You were clear on how many dwellings, five dwellings. Correct. Can you say how many bedrooms are planned for those dwellings? I cannot. Or how many bathrooms? Cannot. They have not yet been designed to that level of specificity. Or how many parking spaces? There are 13 parking spaces depicted on the certified development plan. Okay. You indicated the recent zone change. Actually, is it completed? Has it gone through council? Yes, ma'am. Was that neighborhood business B1? I don't know if it was, I'll be 100% honest, because it was not a zone change that I handled. I don't recall if it was B1 or B3. but I do know it was B-1 or B-3, and I know that the preliminary development plan reflected a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru that if memory serves was represented to the Planning Commission to be a Zaxby's restaurant. If the staff could clarify, I believe it's a highway business zoning, a B-3 zoning that was recently changed to. Well, you're not the staff. Highway business. You mentioned existing duplexes already in the area, which are a very welcome option variety. These are nonconforming duplexes, is that correct? As that term is legally defined, yes, duplexes in that zone would be nonconforming. So they're grandfathered in. I mean, that's the layman's way of saying nonconforming. I can't testify to that because I have no familiarity with how those properties came to be. As nonconforming uses, would that mean they can't be enlarged, bedrooms added? I'm in an awkward position because I would object to your question. I object as it calls for a legal conclusion. You can go on to the next question. Sure, that's fine. And the P1 uses you mentioned along the back, one of those is a church, is that correct? I think it's more than just a church. I think there are offices affiliated with it. But actually, the abandoned right-of-way that we mentioned, when right-of-way is abandoned, it accrues to each adjacent property owner. I believe the Christian church was the beneficiary of the other half of the right-of-way. Okay. So a church is a conditional use permitted in residential zones. It is zone professional. So let's stop there. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Walbert. Thank you. then if we can go back to where I thought we were mr. Shipley again you just a reminder you'll have three minutes and if you'd give your name and address thank you that's one all right I'm Charles Shipley I live at 1075 Duncan Avenue I'm a homeowner. I've lived there for 26 years and I've always loved it in my neighborhood. It's a it's a really quiet neighborhood despite the fact that it's close to hospitals and a major highway and everything. It's always been really nice back in there. I live up on Duncan so it's a dead-end street. And one of the things I've always loved about the neighborhood and I've got an example of but in my own yard, there's a lot of really large trees. And what I have on my property is about a four-foot wide bur oak tree. It's been estimated to be over 300 years old. And on this property that they're wanting to change to R3, there's another really large bur oak tree similar to mine. And it's at least four feet wide. And I've got a report, and I gave it to one. Yeah, and in the report, a certified arborist named Nick Williamson, and he's over... I object to hearsay. Do you have copies for that? I also object to hearsay. I'm sorry, but you can cross-examine after we're done if you have a question for any of the people who are in opposition, but you cannot object to testimony. I guess my point, Vice Mayor, would be that... I'm sorry, but I'm not going to recognize you to speak. This is a time for the opponents. If you have rebuttal, you'll have time for rebuttal. I don't mean to cut you off, but that's the way we're proceeding. What exactly is he referring to as being hearsay? I would request that you continue with what you were saying. Well, what's being circulated is a report from a certified arborist identifying several significant trees on that property. And one of them, and I've got a slide. One of them is that 48-inch wide burrow tree. And according to the plan, it's right in the middle of that parking lot, which means that this significant tree, and you all know what a significant tree is, is going to be destroyed. and in its place they're going to put in a couple little small landscaping trees who pale in comparison to the canopy that that tree is providing. There are several other trees on the line. I mean, there's a huge hackberry tree. I don't know if those are protected. It's noted, though, that it is a very large tree, an ancient tree with a large canopy. And there is an elm tree, according to this arborist, and it's over there in what was that right-of-way. and I can't tell from the sketches, but it looks to me like that entrance, that driveway, is going to cause it to be removed as well. And that hickory tree that they're talking about is right next to a house. What's going to be that 3,100-square-foot building is right next to it, and the arborist believes that it might be safe, but from what I can tell is it'd be too close to the building. They'd probably take that one down too. It just looks to me like these significant trees that he's noted in his report are in serious danger of being destroyed. And those trees are an example of something that appeals to me about this neighborhood that I've lived in for over 25 years. I've got a neighbor down the road. Well, he's not there now. His name was Steve Hartwig. He lived there for 15 years. He lived up at 503 Ingleside. he noticed that in our neighborhood that a lot of properties have gone rental and as people would sell their homes as they would pass on, usually elderly people and houses would go on the market they would go almost immediately to these rental property developers and you can get some good neighbors and you can get some students and I don't have a problem with students but when it becomes almost all students it changes the face of the neighborhood Mr. Shipley, I'm going to have to ask you to finish up. I tried to give you extra time because there was an intervention, but if you would. Well, anyway, he moved after 15 years, and he said these zone changes were the nail in the coffin for him. He didn't want to live there anymore. He moved to Versailles. So we're losing stable residential families. You know, people have lived there for a long time, but plan to stay there, age in place. Like me, I'm not old yet, but I'm getting there. I want to stay there. and I don't want this kind of thing to chase me off. I feel like it has some say in whether or not R3 is appropriate, and I don't think it is. They can build an R1. They can put two houses in there if they want. Leave it R1C, and it won't have all these drastic changes in the destruction of the urban forest canopy. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks. I'm sorry. I have to cross-examine you just to get in the record. Probably. I'd like to have all the negative, if you would, All opposition, testimony, and then I'll have you can cross-examine and bring them back up. Okay. That's fine. That's okay. Thanks. Thank you. Next is Mr. Melvin Cosby. Hi. My name is Melvin Cosby. I live at 334 Woodland Avenue. I've lived here all my life. And I know all about student housing and student infield living a block from UK. And I'm mainly down here to speak for the trees or 100-year-old trees since trees can't speak and developers can. And I don't see any sense in sacrificing hundreds of years of trees to make a buck. And like I said, I went down to Kroger's. I heard about this two days ago. and I rushed down to Kroger's with a petition, and within half an hour, I got 20 signatures opposing it. That's from Euclid Kroger. Plus, all my life, you know, I've driven out South Broadways and always admired that big oak tree by Avis rental car. So this one up here, that's actually not the tree in question. I took the wrong picture. I rushed out yesterday and took the biggest picture of a tree I could find, but that's not the one in question. But it is typical of all the trees around there, including the one next to Avis rental car. You know, they're old-growth trees right here in the middle of downtown. And to cut them down for more student housing, it's just a crime, I think, to make a buck over a bunch of old trees. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next is Vicki Batson. my name is vicki batska and i live at 1080 duncan avenue and i've lived there for 12 years in the home of a lady who bought her property there in 1945 and one of the things that has made me grateful that she has now, old enough, she has moved to Florida to her daughters, is essentially the traffic. I mean, I know they're talking parking, but I'm talking traffic. Duncan is a two-block street, and already on that street in the daytime, there are usually a couple of cars parked in front of my house that belong to somebody else. They don't belong to anybody on the street. There's students who come, or there's someone who lives either in the neighborhood or students who come there and park. As they pointed out, you cannot drive up and down Pike Street. You cannot pull out on South Broadway on Pike Street. And the comment was made, you know, Gibson is next door, and it has a traffic light. But you have cars coming down the hill from the student housing that is beyond this development. You have people trying to come down and turn. It is a traffic nightmare anywhere to try to get on and off of South Broadway. I recognize that we need to use the infill and to fill in the property, but not with as much density as is probably being proposed. Because if one family was moving into a duplex, we would be talking one thing. But very often you put three or four students in a duplex, and that comes to eight, and that comes to eight, and 12 parking spots in the back don't necessarily cover all of that. And there is no more room for parking on those streets. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to have to take a short break. Why don't we take five and give everybody a chance to take a break? We're short a quorum. we'll come back in five minutes Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll get started again. The next person to speak in opposition is Gary Duncan. Mr. Duncan. Good evening. My name is Gary Duncan. I'm a resident of Pike Road, 421. I've owned the property since 1984. we've seen drastic changes in this neighborhood in that length of time when i moved to this area i was the young kid on the block it was a much older neighborhood environment a lot of those people have passed and gone and has really become a student rental area and i'm concerned about any future development because it's changing the atmosphere of the neighborhood and i have some other things to say, but it'd be kind of repetitive, and I thank you for listening to me. Thank you. Mr. Robert Phillips. Hi, my name's Rob Phillips. I own the house on 506 Pike Road, right across from the supposed development. A couple of things that comes to mind when I was listening to y'all's plan, when we're talking about the trees, they also talk about there's already multifamily and businesses. It is totally separate from this block, the developments. The trees that they mentioned, they kind of put a partition across those kind of blocks, some of that. Still don't see as much of it. Right now, I actually rent the house out. I rent it to a sweet couple. They love the neighborhood. They love the environment. That's going to go away. If you're building two duplexes, 3,100 square feet, 3,600 square feet, the largest house there is probably about 2,200 square feet. How many bedrooms are going to be in them? How many bathrooms? They won't tell us. you know, it's going to totally change that neighborhood. It's going to be like American Avenue. I don't know if you're all familiar with it, but it's ruined it. And I think it's a shame that someone can buy a property that's zoned one way. You know, if he wants to build two houses on it, fine. It's always zoned that way. But to rezone it to suit his needs or their needs, it's not right. it's all got to say thank you Sandra Duncan Thank you. It would have been a great idea 15 or 20 years ago, but then I couldn't afford it. Now I can afford it, but I'd like to stick around near the hospitals, near the doctors. But there's four people on my block, only four, that are still homeowners that are living there. This is getting way out of control as far as rent. We rent it to these young people, and then all these places are rented right now to young people who have large parties. They urinate in our yard. They make lots of noise. We call the police. The police says they can't do anything a lot of times. Sometimes they will tell them to break this up. but it's we are debating whether to move or stay because of all of the rental I don't, it's just not that much fun to live around four homeowners and a lot of rentals so I hope you all will consider that. Thank you Thank you Rich Cowden council members vice mayor my name is rich cowden i'm a live on duncan avenue i've lived there almost 20 years and what brought me to that neighborhood was close to downtown but all the residents there are mainly uh people who have been long-term residents lived there quite a while the neighborhood itself i know you hear a lot about red mile that's a completely not even in our neighborhood all of our neighborhood has a eight foot tall wire fence that separates all of that other area from residential area there are 76 homes in our neighborhood only three of those are duplexes but two of those duplexes are consistent with all the other home sizes in our neighborhood which probably range from 800 to 2 200 square feet the newest one that's a duplex has been turned into what the pva calls a four to 19 unit apartment it's actually a house that has been remodeled into the big box structures you see like on crescent elizabeth area where that's been dominated by students now from what i understand they want a 3 600 square foot duplex with four bedrooms on each side and a 3 100 square foot duplex with four bedrooms on each side that would make a total of 16 units and as pike has been now dominantly the cause of our close access to uk it's a very hot investment area for investors for uk students and that's understandable my biggest complaint is infills needed and i can certainly understand that but it should be consistent with the other homes in the area size wise not too large those would be the largest units in the neighborhood but they would be on the smallest lot, a 50-foot lot with a 3,600-square-foot unit that contains eight bedrooms. Parking is already, on Pike itself, a big problem. If you go there at night, you'll see the entire street lined with cars. There's not an empty place hardly to park on that entire street. But it's not a diverse neighborhood. Like I said, there's 76 homes. Three of them are duplexes. The rest are all modestly to average size units. And we'd like to keep the neighborhood that way. If they can infill and infill with the properly sized units that are consistent with the units that are in the neighborhood, rather than putting the big box type structures that you see so much. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Casey Condon. Good afternoon. My name is Casey Cowden. I'm 14 years old. I'm a freshman in high school, and I've lived on Duncan Avenue all my life. It's a nice residential neighborhood, and it doesn't have much traffic, and I think it'd be good to keep it that way. That's all. Thank you. uh... journey daily thank you and and i really want to thank you all for coming for this hearing sometimes i know they're hard to pull together and get enough people here so i'm really appreciate you listening to us my name is jenny daily i live at one thirty six burley avenue I don't live directly in this neighborhood. I live right across Broadway in the neighborhood that's kind of a sister neighborhood to Gibson Park. While I don't live in the neighborhood directly affected by the zone change and development, I live in an adjacent neighborhood. I'm concerned that what happens in Gibson Park will set a precedent for the kind of infill and redevelopment that occurs in my neighborhood. As a homeowner, I'm actively involved or engaged in the planning and permitting process of the various developments in my own neighborhood. I can testify that every single developer in my neighborhood cites what the city has allowed in previous developments to argue their case before the Planning Commission. Also, planning staff will refer to recent changes that will allow new applications coming in to be in accord with the comprehensive plan, when in fact, without these precedents, they would not be in accord with the comprehensive plan. And Bill Sally, when he was doing his presentation, even used some of that rhetoric. Once a change occurs in the neighborhood, it's the basis for further change. So I'm before you tonight to try to prevent what appears to be a rezoning and development plan that would set an unhealthy precedent if allowed to move forward. First of all, and I have two points for bad precedent. First of all, I believe that this proposed R3 zoning is inappropriate for the surrounding R1C neighborhood. For one thing, if you are building duplexes, R2 is the appropriate zone. The fact that they've asked for a variance, a parking variance, to allow for that middle property, which I'm so glad you're keeping, but to have it be a duplex, why don't they just do R2 for the whole thing? In this picture that I put up here, it may be kind of hard to see, but the issue is, as the last speaker, a previous speaker pointed out, the two duplexes are oversized and not in context with the surrounding properties. Each side of each duplex is larger than the other surrounding properties. So if you can see this, oh, your version looks much better. The house that I have circled Mr. Wells' house is right across the street from the applicant property. His house is 1431 square feet. Each side of each duplex is larger than that. So just to give you an idea of how big, how the scale of these two duplexes, not against the duplexes, just the scale. The houses to the right of the subject property, they're like 800 and 700 square feet. Double those, that would equal one side of each duplex. It's over-scaled. And I'm not going to belabor this point about the inappropriate zoning because you've heard a lot of that. Do you need me to cut me off? I need you to wrap up. Can someone give me their three minutes? Will you allow an abdication? If someone has signed up to speak and is willing to yield three minutes, they can do that. And that, tell me your name. Captain Everly, I can do that. Thank you. Repeat the name. You didn't return it. Yeah, louder, please. Captain Everly. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Proceed. My main concern, thank you for allowing this, is that the process used to vet this zoning and accompanying development plan did not follow the usual process, and therefore sets an unhealthy precedent about review processes in the future. As Mr. Saleem mentioned, the amended zone change and development plan were not reviewed by either the tech or subdivision committees, And the bottom line is, when this came before the Planning Commission for approval, the package as a whole was new to the Planning Commission. They had not vetted this total package, and there was a lot of confusion. One example of how flawed this vetting process was was the tree inventory. It did not come in as it should with the application, came in after the Planning Commission approved it, and therefore took out of the public the possibility to review it. And as you're seeing tonight, after the plan was certified, citizens are coming up and saying, this is what we know to be the case. So the public review on this is all messed up. This hiccup in the review process may seem like a minor misstep, but it is not. It challenges government transparency and the role of citizen involvement at its very core. The subcommittee review process is where many questions are raised, details are fleshed out, and it is the prime opportunity for concerned citizens to learn about a project and raise concerns. Citizen engagement at the committee level often improves projects and makes them better and stronger, which is what we'd like to see with this one. Seeing a development plan for the first time at the Planning Commission Zone Change Hearing does not give citizens proper time and venue to study and raise questions and inform. It also does not give Planning Commission members enough familiarity with the project to make an informed decision. This flaw in the vetting process for this specific project, if it's allowed to go unremediated, then this sets an unhealthy precedent for further reviews. So I'm asking you tonight to find, one, the proposed zoning is inappropriate for the surrounding neighborhood, and two, that the review process for this particular zone change was flawed enough to require a redo. I'm confident if this goes back to the drawing board, we're all going to get a better plan. The neighborhood, the developers will be stronger, and so I'm hoping that you will make that happen. Thank you so much. Thank you. Will Harvey. Hello, and thank you all. My name is Will Harvey. I co-own the property at 504 Pike with Rance Paxton. It's just across the street from the proposed development. Most of the points I wanted to make have pretty much been touched on. But here, I'm 24 years old. My partner is 25. This is our house here. And, you know, we've taken a big risk to get this place. We purchased it last November. We're in it for the long haul. We're living there now. You know, we might rent it eventually. But right now, we're living there. And that's where we want to be. we were attracted to the place because of how quiet the street is it's basically a cul-de-sac back there it wraps around with Devonshire but it's tucked away this would change a lot of that I'm not sure that the 13 proposed parking spaces I really don't think that would cover the potential to have 20, 25 people living on these three properties and street parking is non-existent right now or it's at its max, I should say. I would also like to point out that just, as it's been said, how misleading the fact is that there are P1 and R4 zones within site. That is not applicable, in my opinion, because it is very much basically a cul-de-sac. It's the end of this neighborhood. It is not bridging the gap between these zoning areas in any way. That is the end of this area. The trees block the way. That's one of my main points. It is not bridging any gap between zoning areas at all. It is redefining a large established zoning area. And yeah, that's about all. Oh, one more point. Our house here is 1,600 square feet. The smaller of the duplexes proposed is 3,100 square feet. Our house is probably about average for the area. We're talking double that. Who knows what could happen with the amount of people that could be living in that area. It's something I would not like to see, and thank you all for your time. Thank you. Amy Clark. I'd like to second what the gentleman who just spoke said. These are lovely places. They're small. They're, you know, smaller than one dwelling in the proposed duplexes. They're affordable. This is an affordable neighborhood. The houses you're seeing, the whole sheet that he showed, 120 top end, 80, 70 at the lower end. Incredibly affordable neighborhood. This neighborhood works because it's a pocket with hard boundaries. insofar as it gets susceptible to pressure from what you have to call a student housing monoculture pressing in from Red Mile, it's threatened and endangered. there's a tiny red box that's the subject property if you're looking at it from red mile there you can see first of all that there's an enormous r3 area built chock-a-block with maximum occupancy townhouses in the R3 there, and parking. There's very little tree canopy. There's an R4 even nearer to the subject property. You can't, well, oh, yours is better. Okay. The P1 there, church, is a use in a neighborhood, a conditional use. Next to it, it's quiet as can be all day long. These people work 9 to 5. They go home. Even during the day, they're in their offices. Rates, rental rates. The student housing in the area, these were pulled off public postings on the website. They ranged, the lowest I could find was $379 per bedroom. So reckon something like $500 a bedroom times four bedrooms times five dwellings and tell me where you're going to put the parking. You today are deciding whether the trees will have a claim to the space on that lot or not. If you zone this R3, the applicant has a legal right to use it as R3, and you have to do some bartering how much tree canopy can we afford to preserve. There's a long tradition of this being R1. This was the last comp plan to have a map of designated uses. That whole area is R1. If you draw a thousand foot radius, there are about a dozen different zoning types here. There is variety in spades. It does not increase variety of housing choices to have this R3 here. And there's nothing, if you look at the zone description and the uses eliminated from it, there's practically nothing left to the zone. They want to use it for a townhouse and R1. Your time is up. I would ask if anyone has signed up and would you have minutes. Thank you. Okay. Scott, is it Smouse? Good enough. Scott Smouse, 736 Addison Avenue. I'd like to remind the council that in the past few years, we've lost 40% of our tree canopy because of the ash bore. And I did not see a plan for the drainage from the property on the parking lot, which will wind up in Wolf Creek at some point. This property is at the very top of the hill. The rainwater has got to go somewhere. But that's not the points I really want to address. I live on Addison Avenue, and about the time I bought my property, 11 years ago, it's when people started buying property for the student housing. A fellow named Wayne Michaels bought a lot of the property and actually has brought the neighborhood up. But the houses he has built are in scale with the rest of the houses. He builds houses mainly with three and four bedrooms, adequate parking. I've heard no complaints. The street next to us, Gulfview, a fellow bought a bunch of property up. He has no consideration for the other neighbors. He provides no parking. It has ruined the lives of many families over there. We still are a neighborhood with small children, people raising families. We've got lots of elderly. i know we can't stop them from building two little houses but keep it in scale let's slow it down just a little bit at least till my days are over and you can do whatever you want to and i'd like to close with one thing that i heard and probably the wisest thing i've ever heard in this chamber by Louis Stout was that when you have to consider a zone change, think about the effect it will have on all the people that live in the area. Thank you. Thank you. Robert Wells. Good evening, everybody. My name is Robert Wells. I live at 512 Pike Road. I'm right across the street from this new zone change. And up to this day, I still haven't figured out where 513 and 517 are. They're nowhere on the map. It may, because I live at 512, and the house that's originally still standing there is 509. So I'm thinking the vacant lot on the right side is 507, and on the other side would be 511. I'm still not concerned where 513 and 517 are. I don't think they're in my neighborhood. I've been living there 25 years, and the trees, you're going to hear a lot about the trees. During the summer, the shade those trees give off is unbelievable. It keeps my house cool, and the trees are from across the street. The gentleman told the planning commission that one tree might need to be removed. And so far, I've counted four trees need to be removed just for where he wants to put the parking area. They're huge trees. they're not going to grow up in my lifetime or yours. 13 more cars on my street. I can't see it. And plus, the way Devonshire goes right into their driveway, we already have so much trouble of people coming around the corner that they're going to be shooting right across Pike Road going to driveway and vice versa. I can see that that's going to be a huge problem. And nobody's addressed that. I also am concerned about the drainage. Once you're putting those houses in the parking area, that's a lot of water that needs to be drained somewhere. Right now, it naturally goes into the grass area, and we have no trouble. But I can almost guarantee once that goes into effect, putting the parking area in the houses, that's going to be a huge problem. Maybe not for them, but the houses next to them going down the hill. I just don't see why they can't go with the size houses that are around there. And they said that it wasn't going to be built for students. Well, you all know what that's going to be turning out to be. I love students, but when they're right across the street from me partying, that will change. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have nobody else signed up to speak in opposition. Mr. Walburn, you can have the opportunity. Let me tell you two things. One, you can hold a general rebuttal after staff has an opportunity to speak again. But if you also want to cross-examine any specific person who spoke in opposition, you can do that now. If it pleased the chair, I would like to avoid cross-examining anyone. There is one item that has been included in the record that I need to lodge an objection to, and I think testimony may be required for that. So that being the case, I would ask to cross-examine one witness, and that was Mr. Shipley. I believe he was the first gentleman who spoke. Mr. Shipley, if you would, please come forward and answer questions that will be asked. I'll make it really easy on you. You provided several exhibits when you testified, did you not? Yeah, I have a document that was produced by a certified arborist. Are you a certified arborist? No. Did you prepare that document? No, I didn't. Okay, that's all the questions I have. And I would move to strike objectors exhibit A as a means to preserve my legal record. It's hearsay. I believe that your cross-examination will be part of the record and your objection, but we are not, as I understand it, although this is a quasi-judicial hearing, we're not in a position to strike any information. I'll have to check with legal on that. It is a quasi-judicial proceeding, but the admission of evidence is up to the chair, but he can certainly lodge his objection, and you can make a decision as to whether or not you want to allow it in the record. We're not, this proceeding is not bound by the rules of evidence, as the courtroom would be. Thank you. Given the nature of this hearing, I'm going to allow that to stay in the record and the objection. Thank you. Thank you. And before I go to staff's opportunity to speak again, one thing that we failed to do at the beginning, Clerk, we did not give second reading to the ordinance. So if you do that now, I'd appreciate it. an ordinance changing the zone from a single family residential r1c zone to a planned neighborhood residential r3 zone for 0.654 net 0.754 gross acre for property located at 509 513 and 517 pike road including dimensional variances flying dutchman properties llc amd council district 11. thank you uh mr silly Thank you, Vice Mayor. There are just a few rebuttal items that I have to present to you this evening based on the testimony you heard. The first, I think, would have to deal with Ms. Daly's characterization of the staff using rhetoric. I think what she's referring to is the language that we use in our staff reports. And as you know, every time that you have a public hearing, included in the packet from the Planning Commission is a usually two- or three-page staff report from the Planning staff. That is a typical process. We provide those reports also to the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, which reviews those about three weeks prior to their public hearing. And they're also presented at the Planning Commission's public hearing. There are, as you know, several planning staff professionals that are involved in the creation of those reports. And we do the best job that we can to provide the Planning Commission, its zoning committee, and ultimately the council the best information we have available on all the urban services, all the issues associated with a property, with its history, and with the proposal that's before both this body and the Planning Commission. The other item that I need to address that Ms. Daly mentioned was that the usual process has not been followed with this zone change. There are two issues that I need to raise on that. The Planning Commission hearing and mailing of notice involve three separate mailings. And I'd like to enter a copy of each of those mailings into the record of your hearing tonight. On July the 6th, a letter was sent to just under 100 property owners in this area, and it told them of an application before rezoning by this applicant for a zone change from R1C to R1T, the original zone change. And it advertised a public hearing to be held on August 27th by the Planning Commission. Before, or I should say at August 27th, shortly thereafter, there was a second notice mailed to almost the same property owners, dated August 31st. It mentions that the applicant has amended the petition, and the original information sent will remain the same, except for a couple of things. The zone change is now requesting an R3 zone rather than R1D, and the hearing will be held October 22nd instead of the original August 27th date. Then there was one additional notice mailed October 2nd to, again, the same almost 100 residents, noting that there is now a variance request associated with the zone change. So there were three separate mailings prior to the Planning Commission hearing for the zone change. And if you happen to read the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing, you'll see that there was one gentleman that spoke. My recollection was there were only two or three, maybe four other people present for that hearing. But I think it is important for me to enter these into the record of your hearing tonight. And looking at the file, we only had probably less than 10 return letters from approximately 300 that were mailed, and that includes your hearing this evening. Finally, to answer Mr. Wells' question, I've just put up on the overhead a copy of what we call the ZOMAR plat that is done with all zone change applications. This is stamped by the applicant surveyor just showing the three addresses of the property. These correspond to the PVA listed addresses, and for notification purposes, those records are also important in that the notices are mailed not necessarily to the resident in the area, but to the owner of record according to the property valuation office. Thank you very much. Thank you. We're getting close to the end of the proceedings. What will happen now is there will be an opportunity for Mr. Walburn to enter rebuttal evidence and then a closing summation if there is someone on the opponent's side who would like to make a closing summation and then a closing summation by the petitioner. So, Mr. Walburn, rebuttal? I'll defer rebuttal and reserve the right to give a closing. Thank you. Thank you. And is there anyone who is in opposition who would like to make a summary closing statement? Thank you. Amy Clark, I would ask you to consider what citizens need to be part of a zone change decision. there have been faults in process here Mr. Penn it's in the minutes that is of record with you Mr. Penn asked why didn't this come before the zoning subcommittee why didn't this come before subcommittee it was a zone change and a development plan change why didn't this come before the committee this is a pocket neighborhood It's everything you want for Lexington. It's affordable. It survives on its hard boundaries. There is enormous variety of housing choice. It meets market needs at a range of levels. It is rental and homeowner. Why are the houses so low in price? Perhaps because everyone in this neighborhood, as you've heard tonight, feels threatened that the city will not uphold the zoning ordinance and, in this instance, the current zoning of the property, that the city will give owners a legal claim to increase the density enormously. The applicant has requested an R3 zone. He has expressed, the applicant, the LLC composed of three LLCs, has expressed an intent to use it for duplexes, that would be an R2 zone, and for townhouses, that would be R1T. He doesn't mean to consolidate the lots. If you look at all the uses proper to the R3 zone, he's cut out what the zoning ordinance says is the primarily in the intent. The primary intent of this zone is for multifamily dwellings and other residential uses. He's not having multifamily. He's not having group projects, which would be multiple buildings on a single lot with a coherent, unified development plan. That would require possibly 18 parking spaces, require if it's five dwellings with four bedrooms each. This is not the appropriate zone for the location. And the fact that so many conditional zoning restrictions, so many prohibitions were added, with the finding of fact that they were needed so the uses permitted wouldn't be too intense for the neighborhood, that shows you that the zone is too intense for the neighborhood. I know my time's up and I had one more thing and now I can't find it One more point if you'd like to take it and then if you'd finish that'd be fine Yes, I'll just close with a letter from Walt Gaffield who has served all the neighborhoods Basically, he says the elephant in the room, this is a, was, went to council members. The elephant in the room is student housing. The kind of maximum density student housing monoculture can't be allowed to spread. It threatens the stability of this neighborhood, this verdant neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Waldoin, rebuttal. Thank you, Vice Mayor and Council Members. We appreciate your attention this evening. I'll be very brief. During the objectors presentation, we've heard one word repeatedly, and it's a word that I didn't use, and it's student. Why didn't I use student? Am I trying to hide the ball from you? Are we trying to put a secret student development in? No, we're not. If we wanted to maximize our density, we would have never amended the original zoning application. If you remember at the start of my remarks, I told you that our original application was to level the building and put eight townhomes. Now, let's assume that we could get four bedrooms in these units. For the record, we haven't said we want to put four bedrooms in these units. These units haven't been designed yet. It's very difficult to get project funding when you're not sure if you're going to be able to have the appropriate zoning. So we're showing proposed. But we'll circle back to that issue here in just a minute. If we wanted to maximize our density, we would have stuck with our original proposal. We didn't. Why? Because the comprehensive plan tells us we need to respect the neighborhood's context. And what better way to recognize this neighborhood's context than to keep a perfectly good existing single-family house? We took that to the applicant, to my client, and we told them, we explained that to them, and they decided to keep the house. So I think that shows their commitment to respecting the character of the neighborhood. You've also heard a lot about process, and I want to talk a little bit about process. Preliminary zoning plans, or as I know them, or PDPs, preliminary development plans, are what you see tacked to the wall over here. You can't build off of a PDP. If you all vote to uphold our zone change this evening, we can't go out with shovels tomorrow. Yeah, it'll be a little cold, but we can anyway. Why? Because we have to have a final development plan. There's a whole other level of review that we have to go to at the Planning Commission in order to actually pull our building permits. And issues there are examined like the adequacy of parking. What are we going to do with the significant trees in the area? We have evidence of the bur oak. It didn't come up too much tonight. We're already looking at ways to preserve that bur oak. We have no desire to tear down significant trees. That tree was struck by lightning and is dying on one side, but we want to consult with an arborist, and that's a final development plan issue. That's something that will be dealt with at our return to the council, or at our return to the planning commission, rather. What could we have done? Well, we could have just built single-family houses on these lots without a zone change, without planning commission approval. We could have cut down any trees we wanted. We could have dumped as much on-street parking as we wanted, but we didn't do that. We're trying to be responsible, and I think that's the theme that I want to leave you with tonight, is this is endeavoring to be a responsible development. Are there issues to be worked out? Yes, and they're worked out at the final development plan. But I think the evidence that's before you clearly demonstrates that the findings of the Planning Commission were adequate to sustain this zone change, that the proposed development is in character with the neighborhood, and that this modest increase in density. We're talking about there's been a lot of reference to the size of these duplex units. Well, they're duplexes. There's two residences in them. You really have to divide by two. And I would point out that the footprint of each of those buildings, the footprint, I'm not talking square footage. As you all understand, there's a difference between footprint and square footage, but it isn't even bigger than a house that's going to be in between them. The footprint of the existing single-family house is larger than the proposed duplexes that we're proposing. So in summary, I would suggest that this is a context-sensitive development. It does meet several goals of the comprehensive plan. The process was observed as is required. and we'd ask you to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, Council Members, if you have questions of staff or petitioner or opponents, if you'd log in and I'll recognize you. Council Member Maloney. Bill, I've got a question for you. Well, American Avenue and Burley Avenue is. Years ago, was it zone R132? I believe most of the zoning along American and Burley is R1D. It's a single-family residential zone but allows a smaller lot, probably because those lots, I think, are smaller than the ones here in Gibson Park. But they do have apartment complex and all that now. They were able to get zone changes over the years to go from the homes now to apartment complex. Yes, sir, you're correct. The zone changes basically have come from the north to the south. They began in the Simpson Avenue area and have progressed as far as Burley in the southerly direction, at least encompassing one block of what used to be that subdivision. Okay, that's all. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. I have a couple questions for you, Exabel. I'm confused. The footprint is the same. How much square foot is in each duplex? The northern duplex, or yes, the one on the top of the drawing, is shown as 3,100 square feet. They look to be equally sized, so each one would be 1,550 square feet and two stories. And two stories. Yes. The southern duplex is shown at 3,600 square feet total. So each unit, 1,800, 900 on each floor. Okay. So then I have a couple of questions. So the stormwater concerns, I know that Ken Cook sent in some of those around somewhere. I assume that the footprint then really isn't that much different if they were to build two single-family houses on those units in terms of runoff or impervious service implications just for the houses. I think the difference in runoff is primarily due to the parking area. I think that's correct. I think it's probably. those two footprints proposed might be slightly larger than the average in the subdivision, but, again, not as large as the one next door. Okay. So the parking that's, I know several people brought up that people are parking maybe from college students, are driving over, are going to the doctor, and they're parking the side streets and they're walking over. Has anyone ever considered doing residential permit parking only to cut down on some of that transient parking? I'm just curious if that's been an issue. I have not heard of such an effort. Perhaps some of the longer-term residents may be able to answer that question. Is that? Can I ask that now or should I wait? There's something I've heard mentioned. But no one's ever done it yet. I was just curious because it seems like even the needs you have now, that might be something you want to think about to maybe cut down on some of that impact. It's just a thought. And then. Council Member Bledsoe, I can answer that. We had attempted the permanent parking along Addison, not necessarily on Duncan, but in that neighborhood. And the neighborhood, the neighbors rejected it. But that, it's been a while, you know, a few years back, so maybe they would consider that. But yes. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Henson. And then lastly, are there any residential, as zoned right now in this neighborhood, are there any restrictions on the dimension of a current house? For instance, if I buy that last lot and I build up my own single-family residence, are there any, and I want to build a 5,000-square-foot home, may I do so? This is in the defined infill and redevelopment area. And as such, there is a general limit for a single-family dwelling of 2,600 square feet as a maximum. So, no, you would not be able to build a 5,000-square-foot dwelling at any of these three lots. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Sally, I have some questions as well to follow up on Councilmember Bledsoe's questions about the runoff. I actually drove by this property today, and it looks like there's just like one driveway there now. And so this and lots of green space. So having all of that concrete poured, to me, it means that there is going to be, you know, the runoff does have to go somewhere. So was there any study or has there been anything done to look at the amount of runoff that the increased parking, what it will do to the area? I don't know the answer to your question. Generally, engineering will review this type of a plan as a conceptual plan. And if they view things such as stormwater detention basins, at this stage they're looking more at its location on a property rather than, say, its volume, what it would hold. That type of analysis ordinarily would come at the time of a final development plan. That said, perhaps the petitioner or his engineer may be able to answer your question more fully. Thank you. I would ask the petitioner to respond, please. Indeed. We did look at runoff. Under the zoning ordinance, typically developments that are larger than one acre are required to have on-site detention. As I mentioned at the outset, this is about two-thirds of an acre we're under. That having been said, we have reviewed generally. We don't believe it to be a significant problem, but I would echo Mr. Solis' comments that that's something that really comes more into play at the final development plan stage when we get into a more, I guess, closer look at the nuances of the development plan with LFUCG's Division of Engineering and Division of Water Quality. But preliminarily, no, we did not identify any particular problem with stormwater that this would generate. Okay. At the back of the parking lot, there's the green. Is that a landscape buffer? I can't. Is it? It's a landscape area. It's not necessarily a buffer within the meaning of the zoning ordinance. It is a strip of land that has vegetation and trees in it. One thing I would say is that conceptually, this is a very conceptual plan. I can tell you there have already been fairly significant edits that would be brought forward for the final development plan portion. But, yes, that would be a landscaped area. Okay. I'd like for Mr. Salley to respond as well. Thank you. That is a required landscape buffer under the zoning ordinance. because it butts a P1 zone, there is a requirement for what's called zone-to-zone screening, and that buffer must be a minimum of 5 feet. This is depicted as 10 feet, and ordinarily the ordinance will allow it up to 15 feet in width. But it does have to contain trees. Probably the existing tree line, I'm going to suppose, would meet most of that requirement, but there are additional requirements either for fencing or hedges to be planted there as well. Okay. And then I noticed that there is just the one entrance into the parking lot. Will there not be one off of, is that whatever the, Duncan, is that, I don't know if that's the next street down. It is. Duncan is the next street south, but this property does not extend that far south. So it's one way in, one way out. Under this concept, that's correct. and single-access easement to serve all three buildings. And I'm going to go here because nobody else is going here, but the bur oak tree. So if you were looking at that document up there, that preliminary development plan, can you estimate where that bur oak tree is currently? I think I would rather show you on the staff exhibit rather than estimate. would you hand that back to me one yellow dot I'm sorry just one one comment well the clock was running but there's I think uh Unless anybody objects, I'm going to allow each council member to kind of have a full dialogue as they wish so that we can get all the answers. You're not speaking. You're really listening mostly. If that's okay, so proceed. Thank you. Mr. Selle. Last point, or question, I should say. According to the tree information provided on the applicant's development plan, right there, that yellow dot is where the bur oak tree is. It's approximately 25 feet off the back property line at its center. and of course it has a very large diameter. So I had heard that it was right in the middle of the proposed parking lot, and it appears that it is such. Yes. One possible way that that tree might be able to be retained without a huge redesign of the development plan would be, if you will, the parking and the access were flipped to where the parking was along the edge of the property. The access drive closer to the sidewalk, and that way there could be, if you will, a bump out or something provided to allow the tree to remain. It's obviously something that would have to be looked at in terms of the roots and the condition of the tree and a lot of other information, but conceivably that may be a way that that tree could be preserved without having just to scrap this concept okay and since my time is up I'll hush right now but I'll come back so thank you councilmember Gibbs thank you vice mayor I like to talk about the tree a little bit more one thing we got a communication from Dave Leonard I'm sure you I'm sure you see if I have the whole audience hasn't seen this a Dave Leonard is a board-certified master arborist he's probably the best non-arborist in the region. In regard to the Burr Oak, he says, quote, it has graced this spot for approximately 200 years and is still in good condition and growing vigorously. So I just want to make sure people are aware of that. Now, another communication we have is from Tim Query of the city forester. I was wondering if you could comment on this for me. He says that our office will want to see several items in the final development plan stage of the planning process. They want a revised tree inventory map. And they also want the area in the rear of the property to be shown as a tree protection area, including the bur oak, in addition to other mature trees. And I'm not sure I've been following this all, but I get the impression there's going to be a border along the back, but it's not necessarily mature trees. While our forestry people are wanting mature trees left along the property line, how compelling is their case? I mean, can they tell the development, can they make sure that's in the development plan, or they just suggest it? In speaking with Mr. Creary yesterday and in reading his email, I think what he's doing is communicating to the applicant as much as to the council that they are going to take a close look at all of the mature trees on the property and that they may not agree to this type of a layout at the time of a final development plan. But they have no, they can't coerce, they can only make suggestions, is that correct? Ordinarily, Mr. Query and the staff of his office is not unlike the planning staff where we make recommendations to the planning commission. He is a member of the technical committee, and so at the earliest stage of review of a final development plan, he does have a vote on whether or not the plan should be approved or postponed or revised or disapproved. Beyond that meeting, it goes to a subcommittee of the Planning Commission called the Subdivision Committee. And at that point, there are only two staff members that have a vote at that committee. That's the Traffic Engineering Division and the Engineering Division. So Mr. Query wouldn't, he would be like, much like the planning staff, we would recommend to that body what should be done or what changes might be able to be made to a plan. Okay. I have other questions as well. Well, this is only my third zone change hearing. I'm relatively new. But I've been surprised at some of this stuff. For example, the tree inventory wasn't required before it went to the Planning Commission. That just doesn't seem right. Is that normal? No, I would say that's not normal. In this case, there were two competing requirements of the zoning ordinance. One requirement is that the tree inventory map be submitted with the application. that was not done in this instance. The other competing ordinance that's in the zoning ordinance is that the Planning Commission has a maximum of 90 days to consider an application unless a longer period of time is agreed to by the applicant. In this case, the applicant wanted to proceed at the end of October. And if you look at the agenda, the previous recommendation on the development plan had been postponement for a number of reasons. But the commission either had, they had to act on the plan. They were not able to postpone the plan any further beyond that date because the applicant did not agree. So at that point, they basically either had to approve the plan or disapprove the plan. The planning staff, quite frankly, we're used to seeing plans that have not met all of the ordinance requirements. And so we, in our recommendations, require that all of those ordinance requirements be obtained before the plan is certified, before it's signed as an approved plan. And that was done in this case. So my view is really the commission had two competing things. They, under a normal filing, let's say it hadn't been amended, it was the first month in, the commission could have postponed it and required the tree information to be submitted ahead of time. But this other ordinance section was in conflict with that. So only one of the two could be met. Okay. Another question, Councilmember Lamb already touched on it, and Mr. Willis touched on it as well as the stormwater. It seems like I'd like to see a better look taken at the stormwater, especially since you're putting a sizable parking lot for 13 cars out back and potentially losing trees, which suck up water. It just seems to be premature to approve of the zone change without having a really clear idea of it. And granted, I know it's less than the one-acre requirement, but I still think you need to take a look at that. That all said, the bur oak has got to be preserved. I think that's just absolutely crucial as far as I'm concerned. But I do have concerns about the zone change itself. Now, typically, I'm a person, I'm very much into density. And I think I'd prefer not to see an extension of the urban service boundary, if possible, and so on. But I'm not sure this one, you know, the small increased density here might have too much of a negative impact on the neighborhood. As a couple of people, I think as Ms. Clark put it, it's kind of a pocket neighborhood in a sense. And I think to point out that there's a P1 behind it, that just didn't fly with me. You know, it's separate from that. It struck me as almost disingenuous, to be honest. That is a compact neighborhood. And I think to, you know, I'm afraid this would have a particularly negative impact on it. And one of our speakers, I'm not sure, Mr. Cowden, I'm not sure, the gentleman with the Aruba hat back there, he said American Avenue. And that strikes, you know, it hits something. And, again, can you explain, what is the zoning on American Avenue? Much of the properties along American are zoned R1D, a single-family residential zone, but the difference in this one, this area is zoned R1C, and that letter at the end indicates the minimum lot size allowed in each zone. Uses allowed are the same. I don't know how many folks are familiar with American Avenue, but it's pretty scary, to be honest. Those buildings that butt out over the driveways, What's the zoning on those things? My belief is most of those are zoned R1D. They're single-family residential dwellings. Some of the development in that area led to some of the revisions in the zoning ordinance about five years ago to limit the number of bedrooms in new single-family dwellings to four, especially in the infill area. And again, I like diversity. I like density. But I just have reservations about the negative impact that we have on this neighborhood. So let's see if I have anything else. I think that's it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to comment more than have questions. I'm very familiar with the area. Yeah, I think they're going to wait for the company. Yeah, there'll be an opportunity after I close the hearing for further comments. but if you have questions, now would be the time to do that, and we'll close the hearing. And then it'll be just a conversation amongst council members. Thank you. Council Member Hanson, no questions at this point? Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Attorney Walburn, so after all these months, you must be specifically familiar with the objections of the neighborhood. What have you tried to do to placate their... Well, I'm... Well, they're a tree problem. I'm not talking about traffic. I'm not talking about density. I'm talking about trees. Sure. Well, in all honesty, this is... It was yesterday, I believe, was the first time we'd ever heard anyone reference any of the trees on the property. No kidding. No kidding. I have a photo of the bur oak, if you'd like me to put it up. I'd love to see it. Thank you. So this is a bur oak that you say has been hit by lightning, and Dave Leonard never mentioned it in his expert. Correct. I can't offer hearsay testimony any more than the other guy, but I'm given to understand that when a tree is struck by lightning, oftentimes branches will cease to grow on one side, and I think you've got a pretty prime example right there. This will turn it back up my head. Now, I would say, though, that doesn't necessarily mean that that tree's got to go. In fact, I agree with Councilman Gibbs. We have bur oak. I remember the Harrisburg zone change, and I didn't even do this line of work when that went on. I know how significant the bur oak is in Lexington. So we are looking at options, and I'd like to show you one that our engineer put together just yesterday to preserve that exact tree. Please. I'll just zoom out just a little. As you say in or out. Ow, I'm sorry. We need to get wider. Excuse me. Very simple reorientation of the parking lot that provides for the borough to be preserved. And I think that's the important point I'd like to make. Those are final development plan decisions. That's something that would have, Mr. Query is going to review the final development plan. He provided us with advance notification so we can address his concerns. I greatly appreciate when staff does that. It gives me the opportunity to give a better presentation. That's a long way of answering your question to say, here is an effort of preserving the tree. You asked specifically about the tree. There's an effort to preserve that tree. And is that something we could regulate via additions here tonight? Well, I would ask that you not. And the reason that I wouldn't is because right now all I've seen is the email that was provided in the record. I got that earlier today. And then the letter that I got for the first time tonight. We'd like to have an arborist look at it and assess the lightning damage before we decide what to do with it. The zoning ordinance does protect what are termed significant healthy trees. By species and by size, certain things are considered significant trees that you can't remove. If this is a healthy tree within the meaning of the zoning ordinance, it is clearly a significant tree under the zoning ordinance, and we couldn't remove it if we wanted to. And then just shed light briefly, if you would, on the rest of the so-called inventory of the other trees that we had a conversation about earlier. Do all four of those come out under any or whatever? I'm only aware of the three. Again, that's more of a final development plan issue. I don't want to say definitively one way or the other. Could some of them be considered significant? They could. That's something that I would rely on a professional to advise me, both our engineer and an arborist. Well, I think there's an anxious, I mean, technically the ability to overturn this is one thing a number of votes wise. On the other hand, I think there's a feeling I would expect among other council members for you to want, for us to want you to work with the neighborhood to make this as proper as possible as far as the trees are concerned. So that ends my comments. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Before I recognize Council Member Bledsoe, I'd like an answer to your question from our staff about what we can and cannot do regarding, at this point, if there was interest in some way to protect one or more trees. What right do we have at this stage? The Planning Commission can impose conditional zoning restrictions regarding the use of the property and regarding landscape buffers. I think if you wanted to incorporate conditional zoning restrictions into preserving some or all of these trees, my belief is you would need to couch it in that context. The bur oak tree is about 25 feet off the rear line. It's a little larger than the typical landscape buffer. I'm not sure there's a means to do it by an individual tree basis, but I might rely on Ms. Jones for clarification on that. I agree with what Mr. Salis said in terms of you can only provide conditional zoning restrictions at this stage with the zone change for use and for landscape buffering. There's really not anything else that anything else turns into a final development plan issue that the Planning Commission has to deal with and also has to get input from. I will tell you that in doing, you know, because there might be a way to articulate it, it still may not be something that is defensible should it be challenged. So I just ask you to keep that in mind. You know, the reason I believe why that's the case is because at the final development stage, which goes to the Planning Commission, there's usually required by them a number of sign-offs. And as you've heard earlier in this hearing, until everyone signs off and until everybody's satisfied, no building permits can be pulled based on that final development plan. So it's the same reason you all don't generally consider architectural renderings at your zone change hearings. So that would be all I would caution about. Okay, thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, sir. I have two specific questions as respect to planning. I may have missed this when Council Member Gibbs was asking, what's the difference between a C and a D, an R1C and a D? In the zoning, the uses allowed in both zones are identical, from permitted, conditional, accessory, those are the same. R1C allows lots as small as 8,000 square feet minimum with a minimum of 60 feet of lot frontage. The R1D zone allows lots as small as 6,000 square feet in size, also with a minimum of 60 feet of frontage. Okay. That's the primary difference in the two zones. Okay. Thank you. And then secondly, the one concern that I have probably more than anything else is the domino effect. And I'm just curious from a planning perspective, opening that up, this small corner in the larger scape of the neighborhood, are you concerned that it will have a domino effect, maybe not in this neighborhood, but are similar to it? The staff— Do you consider that? That's a very good question. The staff's positive recommendation on this zone change was based in large part because these three properties are at the edge of Gibson Park. I don't believe from the meetings I attended with the staff if this same zone change had been proposed, say on one of the interior corners of the subdivision, that we would have had the same recommendation. I think the juxtaposition of these properties surrounded by so much P1, in our estimation, made them different. That said, it's hard to know what other property owners in the area might turn around and apply for and what decisions they may rely on as precedential. You know, it could be that other property owners on Duncan or Pike or Gibson or any of the other streets may ask for similar rezoning. It's just impossible to predict. My guess is that you would be less than favorable of those due to the surrounding properties. Well, again, this for us as staff was because it was an edge situation rather than an internal situation. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. Mr. Walburn, the information or the picture that you put up on the screen a while ago, Yes, ma'am. Can you, you placed that on the screen, but you didn't give any description of that. Can you explain how many, you know, the change on what you all. Oh, sure, sure. I'm sorry. Yeah, there wasn't any explanation with it. It was just a picture. Sometimes I take for granted the planning commission sees a lot of these. You all don't get to see as many. I apologize. So this would be Pike Road running along the top here. you're seeing basically the same orientation of buildings that we've been talking about. You still have the side access running back, but instead of the parking being adjacent to the buildings, it now sits adjacent to the zoning buffer. And the reorientation of the parking spaces allows us to do, we would call this a landscape island or a landscape bump. It allows us to keep that tree. This was a tentative workup by the engineer. It hasn't gone through everything, but this was more just a conceptual. As you can see, we're setting 12 feet, 20 feet, 25, and 25 off of any paving from the location of the existing tree. That was just an effort. As this issue was brought to our attention yesterday, we wanted to make sure we had an answer for it. Could our development still work if the tree needed to stay? The tree may have to stay anyway under the zoning ordinance. We needed to be sure it could work. That was our conceptual drawing to show that it could. Okay, you said 12 feet, 12 feet, 20 feet around the tree? 12 feet to the actual parking lot. Okay. 20 to the, I guess that would actually be the south, 25 to the north, and I think that's 25 to the property line. Okay, all right. Well, I just want to make a point here that I do remember the Harrodsburg Road zone change, and then the council did actually have a 75-foot conditional buffer. So now I have actually, there was some document that came across our desk tonight that spoke about a 60-foot buffer. I guess it's the difference in the size of the trees. I don't know. So I'm contemplating here that you're talking 12, 20, and we're talking 60. I mean, that's a significant difference. So I would say two things in response to that. Number one, I'm not able to ask the arborist how he came to 60. That number, it may be well informed. I have no idea. He's not here for me to ask him any questions. The other thing I would suggest is let's take 60. Let's take his suggestion. That takes us to about there. It requires us to demolish the house. So to give the protection that that arborist, who we can't ask how he came to that number, says we can have no development on this property ever and we need to get rid of what's there. That's clearly not the case. We will work with the urban forester when we get to the final development plan. If that tree needs to be preserved, we'll make sure it has – we can't get his sign off without him feeling that it's adequate. That's the commitment I can make to you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Walmer, and I appreciate it. Tracy, and the 75-foot buffer that – I don't know if you – do you remember the Carrodsburg Road one? I remember that. Are you talking about the one, you're talking the one at Harrisburg Road, Military Pike out? Right, I'm talking about the neighborhood out right. I don't remember, I mean, I remember that zone change and I remember the issues about that tree. I don't remember if that came from, I don't remember where that came from. I don't remember if that was a, if you have something, I'd like, love to look at it. I actually have the minutes from that meeting. I mean, if it came from the council, then I would assume it was close enough to make it somehow a land part incorporated into landscape buffer. I just don't remember how that was done. I do remember that zone change. It was included in the findings of fact. And and the condition was a part of that from the minutes that I have in my hand. So my question to you is, is that if we did this for that tree, then how can we discuss this tonight in an effort to try to preserve the same type tree? I don't know for sure that I can answer that question. I don't know if Mr. Sully might remember better than me. I'm not trying to put him on the spot, but I mean, without going back and looking exactly at the facts of that zone change that may have incorporated that in some way, I just can't remember it specifically. Each one's going to, you know, it's going to depend on the property lines and those type of things to determine what can be included in a buffer. That tree that you're referencing was fairly close to a property line, not unlike this tree. I think the major difference was that tree was in an area of open space. There were no structures proposed between the street that they were contemplating and that property line. So it was very easy to incorporate protection measures into that open space. There were no pavements proposed. they'd move the road away from the drip line and the 75-feet area from the tree and so forth. Yes, I guess theoretically the council could do something similar here. The trunk of the tree is about 25 feet. So any number you go beyond that then begins to impair potential paved areas on the site. All right. Thank you all for your clarification. I know that's a lot of questions, but I think it's very important. I know this is one component of the concerns of the neighborhood. However, I do feel like that it is a, I mean, here we are trying to increase our tree canopy, and then we're getting ready to, you know, consider this. So I think it's very relevant and very important. And so thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just a quick clarification. The Dave Leonard letter didn't say 60-foot radius all the way around. He clearly understood there was a building there that was 60 feet just on one side. He said the south side, you know, the orientations. I'm not quite sure what he meant by that. The orientation is kind of confusing. But I just want to point out that Dave just indicated one direction, 60 feet. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think Amy had made some comments about the tree earlier. And can you refresh my memory? Thank you. And I have to say I agree with Attorney Walburn. These are very messy details. it's not for council tonight to decide how many feet is right for a tree. Your job tonight, if you will look at the zoning ordinance, what it tells in this paragraph of the zoning ordinance is what happens at the time of a final development plan. Once you decide to grant the owner of this property the legal right to use it... I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you. If you can answer the question, which is about the trees, I'd be happy to hear it. It is about the trees. Well, it's about the trees. It's about the change for the trees. It's not. Okay, but I'm just, am I asking you to respond to her question and not to begin to advocate on other issues? Would you repeat your question, Council Member Henson? I was just asking her for her, because she had commented earlier about the trees. She wanted more information about what you said about the trees. Yes. Actually, the next words of my sentence were about the trees. Then proceed. Okay. R3 grants a certain density and intensity of use, and this paragraph in the Tree Protection Ordinance explains that you have to save significant trees. This is the Planning Commission. But you have to weigh against the significance of one or another tree. the claims of an owner to use his property according to his legal right. So I really think your question is about what density and intensity do you want to allow him to weigh against the trees. I will say, too, I'm sympathetic that it's not right that the applicant should have heard about the tree first. the day ago. Neighbors know best about their neighborhood. You've heard all night from the neighbors about the trees in their neighborhood and the neighborhood. It was Mr. Shipley, the first one to speak, who pointed to the oak, which has been shown in his backyard, and he said there's a burr oak there, and there's elm, and there's orange osage, and neighbors know about these things. Neighbors need to be involved. It's a shame that it's been so late. There was also an Arbor's report, which I won't, it's not in evidence, saying that, yeah, damage, lopsided, the burr oak is lopsided. His main theme was, these trees have been horribly neglected for decades. We took these trees for granted. We took this neighborhood for granted. We took the quiet enjoyment of our homes for granted in neighborhoods like this. And that's what a zone change judges. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. And I guess, so, Bill, if we wanted to preserve these trees, we could, as a condition to this zone change, because it's my understanding that there are five trees on this property that are significant. I'm not sure, but there's more than the burr oak. And it would be very difficult for them, considering the size of the lot, to preserve those trees and build. I think the harder thing is to determine a buffer at this juncture, given that the five trees are all spaced differently from the property line. Right. We have one that's about 20 feet, one that's 25 feet. The other two or three are even more internal to the property. I think certainly the staff has heard the concern about the trees tonight. And should the zone change be approved, I think it will be well on our mind and that of Mr. Query at the time the final development plan is going to come through. It's hard to imagine how the council can craft a buffer restriction that would encompass all four or five of these trees, in my view. Yeah. Yeah. So if we grant the zone change, I want to make sure I understand. Grant the zone change, it's their land. They technically could do whatever they wanted with those trees, or they have to have an approved development plan. But if the trees are found to be somewhat insignificant, they can go. Yes. They can be cut down. Yes. Some of them could be lost, yes. Right. Some of them may not be in very good condition, it's hard to know. And if we don't grant the zone change, then they could develop single-family homes and cut down the trees, correct? I think that is correct, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lamb, and then we're going to take a break again, but go ahead. Just one more quick question, actually. Okay. All right. So everything moves forward tonight. They come back to the planning commission for the final development plan. You find out that the trees are significant, that they cannot be moved, they can't be taken down. Has there been a time where that during the development plan stage that everything originally planned had to be changed because of a circumstance like that? Wow. That is an excellent question. I know development plans have been altered for that purpose, a complete redesign. And I mean, I say that because of the fact that where the trees are located, that top building, the unit, I would think that that top unit wouldn't be able to be constructed in the way it's proposed if those other trees are to be kept. That's why I'm saying what I'm saying. I think the two duplexes do have the ability to move a little bit closer to the street, maybe as much as four feet. And would that make a difference in preserving some of those trees? It might. Okay. So that can happen at the final development plan stage? Yes. Those type of details can be reviewed then, yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, I'm going to declare the hearing closed. We're going to take a five-minute break. Council will come back for Council deliberations and then for motions. Thank you. colleagues a history about this neighborhood. This neighborhood's gone through a lot of trouble over the years, and the reason I asked about the question about Bowley Avenue, because at one time it was a 1D, now as you all see what that neighborhood has turned into. And you asked about high density. This neighborhood took a sacrifice to make one of the most high density they could possibly put in their district because they had a blighted area there. If you all remember, it was a trailer park. and if you all remember what it did it made newspapers it was people living in Ross Stewart it was a bad situation but these folks here willing to take in one of the highest densities in Fayette County to put in their backyard and if you look at that all that is yellow single residential families and to me we don't see that very much lately and that seems starting to fade away because especially in that part of town. It's unique when you go down that street and how beautiful those homes are and how beautiful and how this neighborhood has worked so hard for all these years to keep that neighborhood. I'm surprised some of them what they went through over the years is still there but they lived through it. And tonight and if you all remember I voted against that question and voted against right away last year because I had a feeling we were going to be here this year. the right away was brought to the council. And the reason I was afraid of it is because we're possibly going to see another American bully happening. And, guys, I am for everything like that. But to me, these folks have seen way too much. And to allow this, and it's nothing against you guys, but it's going to start somewhere, and it's a dynamo effect. And once you start once, it starts going everywhere. And I don't care if that's being this close to the University of Kentucky, and especially as you saw American Bully Avenue. I think just that Broadway should be the part where you separate these two and still keep the residential in there. And also remember, we did not allow the folks in those apartments to come back in the neighborhood. We allowed them to go out on Red Mile Road. And you can't do that with American and Bully Avenue. They all have to go down those old neighborhoods because you can't go over those railroad tracks. So the last thing I ask you all to do is make this into another American Bully Avenue, and give these folks a break. They deserve it, and I hope you all will vote against this. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I wanted to share my comments that this area that I've represented for eight years and prior to that, Council Member Maloney represented. And so we have seen the same things. And I think the trailer park, I knew people that lived in the trailer park. It was really, really a bad living situation for a lot of people. The student housing, when it was built, or I call it student housing, but the multifamily housing, it was divided from the neighborhood. So they're fencing up. You're not totally safe from it. I do know that. I know that I get complaints with parking and students that may not act the way they should, the way they were brought up to act, and that their parents would be ashamed. But I think in this case, when you look at these properties, it's out of character with the neighborhood. And I do appreciate the infill and redevelopment of our city. I appreciate our horse farms and the fact that we can preserve those. And in order to do that, we have to have the infill. But I also think that things need to be kept within the character of the neighborhood. And this is not on the outskirts of the neighborhood. It really is right in the middle of the neighborhood. It's at the back of the neighborhood, but it is in the middle of single-family homes. So I think I've asked for a motion from law to express my desire to—I want to not accept the Planning Commission's decision. So Tracy's bringing it to me. Thank you. Do you want me to make the motion now, or do you want me to wait and let Council Member Gibbs? You can, if you wish, you can make the motion, and we'll continue the discussion on your motion, if that's okay, Council Member Gibbs. Okay. Then in that case, I move to adopt the finding of the facts for disapproval of the zone change. The proposed zone change is not appropriate for the area due to the increased density proposed and evidenced by the increase in impervious services. The zone change is not in agreement with comprehensive plan because it will not preserve the character of the neighborhood with primarily small size family residents. and there have been no unanticipated changes in the area since this adoption of the comprehensive plan so moved second i have a motion and a second and i have at least one person signed up to speak council member gibbs thank you vice mayor would it be okay if i had to ask planning a question bill i've got I want to make sure I understood correctly that if we deny this zone change and it remains R1, if they decide to build single-family dwellings there, there are absolutely no protection for those trees. Is that true? None that I'm aware of, sir. None that you're aware of? I can't think of any permits that would be necessary to remove the trees or anything of that sort. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Any other council members wish to speak to the motion? Seeing none, we'll take a roll call vote. So yes for her motion, right? Her motion is on the floor, which is to findings of fact to disapprove. Ms. Blitzo? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Farmer? No. Mr. Gibbs? Yes. Mr. Hensley? Nay. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. K? Yes. Ms. Lamb? Yes. Mr. Maloney? Yes. And Ms. Gutchfield? Thank you. i only have nine votes on the monitor i just saved another one did that fix it thank you that motion passes and it passes sufficiently to overturn the finding of the Planning Commission. So at this point, you'll need to vote on the ordinance, but as it's written, you will be voting no if you're going to disapprove the ordinance okay everybody understand so now we have to vote on the ordinance as proposed if you wish to disapprove you have to vote no is that correct it's a no vote at this point that's correct to be consistent with the to be consistent the findings of fact Council Member Lamb? There also needs to be a motion to approve. To disapprove. This is a really tough one. Wait a minute. Tracy, how would that be? Because there has to be a motion. If you make a motion to disapprove, then you will be voting yes when the vote is taken. And that will disapprove the ordinance. And you've adopted the findings of fact. But the ordinance, we've had a second reading of the ordinance. Now we would just be voting. We don't need a separate motion. I don't think that you do. I think you can vote no as long as you get the requisite vote. All right. So the motion on the floor. You just need to call the question, basically, I think, on the ordinance. It's fine. Unless anybody wishes to... The customer gives a U logged in or that's just... No. Okay. Yeah, drop me. So just to clarify, we are now voting on the ordinance. and if you wish to vote consistently with the vote that you just took on the findings of fact you would vote if you voted yes on the findings of fact you'd vote no on the ordinance and vice versa madam clerk call the roll i just want to make a clarification before we vote so with no motion are we saying yes to approving we're saying so if we vote no we do not approve okay so with no accompanying motion i just wanted to clarify that okay thank you vice vice mayor typically when we have a second reading of an ordinance someone moves approval and and then we have a second and then we take the vote on the board okay whichever so i will entertain a motion to approve the ordinance as read. So moved. Second. I have a motion second, and now the same deal. If you voted yes before, you want to vote no now. No, ma'am. Madam Clerk, thank you. Please call the roll. Ms. Bledtoe? No. We got vote no. Mr. James Brown? No. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Gibbs? no Mr. Hensley Ms. Henson no Mr. K Ms. Lamb no Mr. Maloney no and Ms. Gutchfield thank you so that motion does not pass and is there let me see if there's anything else at this point that we need any other business I think that concludes the hearing. Thank you all for coming and sharing your views and Councilmembers for taking the time. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Without objection, we stand adjourned. ¶¶ I'm out. I'm out. I'm bad, you're more You know I'm bad, I'm bad You know it You know I'm bad, I'm bad You know it, you know And the whole right hand is right I'm gonna tell you once again You know I'm bad, I'm bad You're more You know I'm bad, I'm bad You know it, you know it You know, you know, you know You know