# Urban County Council - Zone Change Public Hearing - May 19, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 19, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3961 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3961?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-05-19 - **Last revised**: May 19, 2016 - **Length**: 15,096 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a meeting on May 19, 2016, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers located at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507, with Vice-Mayor Kay presiding. The meeting addressed one primary agenda item involving a zone change request from MU-2 to B-1, which was ultimately approved by the council. During the proceedings, the council took one official vote and heard from three members of the public who provided comments on matters before the body. The meeting focused on zoning matters affecting the community, with the successful approval of the zone change representing the main accomplishment of the session. ## Attendance **Present:** Vice-Mayor Kay, Akers, Bledsoe, F. Brown, J. Brown, Gibbs, Henson, Lamb, Moloney, and Farmer **Absent:** Mossotti, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Evans, and Hensley **Late:** Farmer Ten members were present for the meeting, with five members absent. Farmer arrived late to the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted one roll call vote during the meeting on Ordinance 0340-16. **Ordinance 0340-16** - An Ordinance changing the zone from a Mixed-Use 2: Neighborhood Corridor (MU-2) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone for property located at 1501, 1505, 1507 and 1509 Versailles Road [timestamp: 7:55]. Councilmember Farmer made the motion, which was seconded by Councilmember Akers. The ordinance **passed** by a vote of 6 ayes to 4 nays, with no abstentions. **Voting in favor (6):** - Akers - Bledsoe - F. Brown - J. Brown - Farmer - Kay **Voting against (4):** - Gibbs - Henson - Lamb - Moloney The ordinance was amended to include tattoo parlors as a prohibited use before the final vote was taken. ## Public Comment Three residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to a proposed zone change. **Ms. Lane Boldman** [timestamp: 1:30] addressed the meeting on behalf of her homeowners' association, voicing opposition to the zone change under consideration. Ms. Boldman filed emails and petitions as part of her testimony, representing the collective concerns of her neighborhood association. **Ms. Paula Singer** [timestamp: 1:45] spoke against the proposed plan, raising two primary concerns: pedestrian safety issues and the need for affordable housing in the area. Ms. Singer submitted several exhibits to support her opposition to the zone change proposal. **Ms. Laura Stone-Bell** [timestamp: 2:00] also expressed concerns about the potential impact the zone change would have on the surrounding neighborhood, adding her voice to the opposition. All three speakers focused their comments on the same zone change proposal, presenting a unified front of neighborhood opposition. The speakers submitted various supporting materials including emails, petitions, and exhibits to document their concerns for the official record. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one primary contested item that generated significant community debate. **Zone Change from MU-2 to B-1** The proposed zone change from Mixed Use-2 (MU-2) to Business-1 (B-1) classification drew substantial opposition from community members during the public comment period. The controversy centered on two main concerns raised by residents and community advocates. The primary objection focused on the potential loss of affordable housing opportunities. Community members argued that changing the zoning from mixed-use, which typically allows for residential development alongside commercial uses, to a business-only classification would eliminate future affordable housing options in the area. Several speakers expressed concern that this change would contribute to the ongoing affordability crisis in the community. Traffic impact constituted the second major area of opposition. Residents voiced concerns that rezoning the property for business use would generate increased vehicle traffic in the surrounding neighborhood, potentially affecting safety and quality of life for existing residents. Multiple community members spoke against the proposal during the public comment portion of the meeting, though specific names and the exact number of speakers were not clearly documented in the available materials. The opposition appeared to be organized, with speakers presenting coordinated arguments about both the housing and traffic implications. The outcome of this contested item was not specified in the available meeting documentation, leaving unclear whether the zone change was approved, denied, or tabled for further consideration. The significant community opposition suggests this item likely required extended discussion among council members, though the final disposition and any conditions or modifications to the original proposal remain undocumented in the source materials provided. ## Zone Change from MU-2 to B-1 [timestamp: 6:19] The council considered Ordinance 0340-16, a zoning change for 0.964 net acres at 1501, 1505, 1507, and 1509 Versailles Road from Mixed-Use 2 (MU-2) to Neighborhood Business (B-1). Key speakers during the discussion included Traci Wade, Jihad Hallany, Lane Boldman, and Paula Singer. The proposal involved rezoning the properties to allow for neighborhood business uses while including specific conditions to address community concerns. One notable condition included in the zoning change was the prohibition of tattoo parlors on the properties. This restriction was incorporated as part of the rezoning conditions to ensure the development would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character. The ordinance was approved by the council, allowing the properties to transition from the mixed-use designation to neighborhood business zoning with the specified conditions in place. --- ## Decisions - **Ordinance 0340-16** — passed (6-4): An Ordinance changing the zone from a Mixed-Use 2: Neighborhood Corridor (MU-2) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone for property located at 1501, 1505, 1507 and 1509 Versailles Road. --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ORCHESTRA PLAYS The End I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. Just so you'll know, we're waiting on the 10th council member, so we have a quorum for this meeting. We can't begin until he arrives, but he is on his way. We should start shortly. Thank you. Thank you. Amen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Good evening again. We're still waiting on a quorum, but while we are waiting, I'm going to explain some about how the meeting will be conducted, then when we have a quorum we'll officially convene but this is an informal set of information for everybody you know where I can begin where it's not official we're going to ask anybody who would like to speak to sign in, and when we officially convene, I will ask all of you to be sworn in as well. The applicants have agreed to limit on their presentation of 10 minutes, so I will ask that, as I understand it, there are two people who are paired with more extensive remarks on behalf of those opposed, to ask each of them to limit their comments to 10 minutes as well. If you're signed up, there's a limit of three minutes per person, and we ask that you give your name and address when you come to make your presentation. I'm Steve Kaye. I'm the Vice Mayor. I will be the presiding officer, and part of my responsibility is to make rulings about the evidence and to decide whether anything is repetitive or irrelevant. If you have printed materials, we ask that you submit those at the time that you make a presentation. Anybody who serves as a witness on either side is asked to stay for the entire hearing because those both in favor and those opposed will have the opportunity to cross-examine anyone who has given any presentation. and the order of the hearing will be first we'll get a presentation from the planning division staff then we'll have a presentation from the petitioner then we'll have presentations from the opponents and then an opportunity for individual comments then an opportunity for cross-examination by both sides staff will then have the opportunity to make additional comments and petitioner can present rebuttal information at that point the council will be able themselves to ask questions of the staff petitioner and opponents and again petitioner opponent shall be entitled to rebut any new evidence at that point I will declare the hearing closed there'll be no further evidence to be entered in. Council will then have its own conversation and discussion, and there will be motions and adopt findings of fact and so on. On the ordinance, the council can vote either to approve or reject the ordinance, and in order to overrule a decision of the Planning Commission that requires a majority of the Council. So even though when we get here we'll have 10 people, it will require 8 votes to overturn the finding and the ruling of the Planning Commission. The Council will also have to have a motion to have its own findings of fact. And at that point I believe we'll be done. So as soon as our 10th person arrives, we can... Three minutes, he says. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I believe we're ready to begin. Madam Clerk, could you call the roll, please? Ms. Mossadi? Ms. Scutchfield? Mr. Stennett? Ms. Akers? Ms. Bledsoe? Mr. Fred Brown? Here. Mr. James Brown? Here. Ms. Evans? Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Gibbs? Here. Mr. Hensley? Ms. Henson? Here. Mr. Kay? Here. Ms. Lamb? Here. Mr. Maloney? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. At this point, if you have not signed up to be a witness and you wish to speak, please do so. But at this point, I would like all those who are going to speak in the hearing to stand. And if you can, raise your right hand. I want to swear you all in. If you're signed up to speak. Okay, I thought there were more people signed up to speak. Yeah, if there's a possibility, you don't have to, but if you are signed up and you think you want to speak, you need to be sworn in. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? I do. I do. Thank you. Okay. I believe we can begin with a presentation from the planning staff. I think we need to give the ordinance a second reading. I'm sorry? We need to give the ordinance a second reading. I'm sorry. Skip right over it. yes first we have to have the clerk give a second reading to the ordinance in order it's changing the zone from a mixed use two neighborhood corridor mu2 zone to a neighborhood business b1 zone for 0.964 net 1.235 gross acres for property located at 1501 1505 1507 and 1509 brusales road jake reardon council district 11. thank you now presentation from staff thank you vice mayor kay members of the council i'm glad to be here tonight to present the Planning Commission's recommendation to you for map amendment request, which is an MAR 2016-2. The applicant is Jake Reardon, and this is an amended application. As mentioned, there are four parcels involved with the zone change, 1501, 1505, 1507, and 1509 Versailles Road, and the request is to rezone from a mixed-juice zone to a neighborhood business, which is our B1 zone. For the record, my name is Tracy Wade, and I'm a senior planner in the Division of Planning, Planning Services section, and I am happy to be here tonight. I have a number of items to enter in the record of the hearing, and so we'll start with that tonight. First is a copy of the legal notice that was in the Herald-Leader for the public hearing tonight. Also, a sworn affidavit regarding the mailed notification that was sent in late April for the particular zone change, as well as neighborhood notice that was mailed around the same time. A copy of the final report, which all of the council members have at their seat, and extra copies are at the rear of the council chambers. Copy of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. Copy of the 2015 Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan. Copy of the zoning ordinance and the land subdivision regulations in their current form. The planning staff would also like to enter into the record. I believe you have one email at your place, which was rather lengthy, so the council clerk's office made copies for everyone. It's a 20-page document. It also has a petition attached to it. We do have one additional email that I'll ask the council to review during the course of the hearing. Let me start orienting the council to the location of the subject property of this particular zone change. Again, it is four parcels, and they're located along the north side of Versailles Road at the intersection of Versailles Road and Delmont Drive. Starting at the... I'm going to use the overhead projector here. starting at the corner of delmont drive along versales road is 1501 1505 1507 and 1509 those properties are all currently zoned mu2 and they're requesting to rezone it to a b1 zone other zoning within the general vicinity include includes b1 to both the east and the south of the subject property, residential to the north and west of the subject property. That single-family residential, which is depicted in the yellow color on our zoning maps, R3 and R4, which are higher-density residential zones, and those border the subject property adjacent to the west and the north. In addition, there's more R3 zoning across Versailles Road to the southwest. This is an aerial view of the subject property shown with the yellow outline, and it does give the council an idea of some of the land uses in this vicinity of Versailles Road. The subject properties currently have four residential structures that were historically built as residences located on the subject properties. In this vicinity, residential zoning and land use does continue along Versailles Road to the west of the subject property as well as along Delmont Drive to the north. Across Versailles Road in the business zone is the Days Motel. Located here. And then across Delmont Drive from the subject property are actually two nonconforming structures. They're located in a B1 zone, but they are and have been in the past utilized for multifamily development. Currently, they've been vacated, so they're boarded up. Again, that's directly across Delmont. They're B1, but a residential land use. just a graphic that the planning staff displayed for the planning commission at their hearing in february along versailles road there is a break in the land use generally right along versailles road to the west of the subject property is residential within this corridor and to the east the land uses start to change and become more of a commercial corridor towards the downtown The staff did note to the Planning Commission at their hearing that Delmont Drive is somewhat of an entrance into a residential neighborhood. As Delmont Drive, as you traverse to the north away from Versailles Road, it is all single family residential. This is a view of the current structures on the subject property starting at 1501 and going through 1509. Many of them have been modified in some way, principally because they haven't been used strictly for single-family residential for a good number of years. Let me go through just briefly a few more photographs of the area. This is looking down Versailles Road towards downtown, the commercial area of the corridor, the Days Motel across the street, as well as the Fuller Saw Shop, which is also in a B1 zone. And then this is the view of the rear of the subject properties from Delmont Drive. And before we get to the Cardinal Valley small area plan, let me go back to the views of the properties. I want to briefly tell you a little bit about the history of the zoning for these parcels. The parcels at 1507 and 1509 were rezoned to a professional office zone in the early 1970s. So those have been used as a daycare most recently. 1501 was rezoned to a business zone in the 1980s, specifically for a commercial art shop. and at that time the property was conditionally zoned very strictly to only allow the one art gallery. A few years later, 1505 was rezoned to also have the same conditional zoning restriction, very strict, to allow the expansion of that art gallery. In 2005, all four of these parcels were brought in by the current owner, but not the applicant, to rezone to the current zoning, which is the mixed-use two zone. In all the cases when the rezonings occurred, very strict conditional zoning restrictions were put in place in order to protect the adjacent neighborhood along Delmont Drive. So if we go back to the comprehensive plan and the small area plan, the applicant contended to the Planning Commission that their request to rezone the property was in agreement with the comprehensive plan, specifically several of the goals and objectives. In addition, the Cardinal Valley small area plan was recently adopted by the Planning Commission last year, and in reviewing that, the Planning Commission found that one specific goal was most relevant to this particular zone change, and that had to do with Versailles Road corridor improvements. Specifically, that goal reads that the goal would be to improve aesthetics and function of the corridor for vehicles and make it more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. In reviewing both the comprehensive plan and the small area plan, the Planning Commission did find that the proposed rezoning was in keeping with the comprehensive plan and the small area plan, particularly this goal. They noted specifically that the development plan met, or as it was amended, more so met the intent of these particular goals. At this time, I will direct your attention to the development plan that was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their hearing in February. The Planning Commission did accept the staff's recommendation of approval with conditional zoning restrictions, and they also approved this development plan for the subject property. i mentioned earlier this is an amended development application originally the applicant asked for a highway service business zone which is our b3 zone they amended their application to the b1 zone and the planning commission found that the b1 zone was in keeping with the adjoining zoning across delmont and across for sales road and they also felt that the proposed development plan was more in keeping with the existing development in the area and in keeping with the desires of the small area plan. The B1 zone requires a 20-foot setback. The applicant is showing a retail structure of 12,000 square feet on their development at that 20-foot setback line. In addition, all of the parking is to the rear off of Delmont Drive, and they are showing a large patio and sidewalk area on their development. They're also maintaining six-foot sidewalks along Versailles Road, as well as on Delmont Drive. On February 25th, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the proposed rezoning to the Council, and they voted seven in favor and one against that motion that afternoon. The applicant's engineer as well as several objectors were in attendance at that public hearing. So the following findings of approval were adopted by the Planning Commission at that hearing and now have been forwarded to the council for consideration. Those are on the front of the final report that the council has. First, they found that the proposed rezoning was in agreement with the comprehensive plan goals and objectives, specifically related to infill and redevelopment. In addition, encouraging positive and safe social interactions, developing, excuse me, enabling infill and redevelopment that create jobs where people work, excuse me, create jobs where people live, and also encouraging compact, contiguous, and mixed-use sustainable development within the urban service area. Second, the comprehensive plan encourages the consideration of how proposals relate to development in the immediate vicinity, and the Planning Commission agreed with the staff that this proposed B-1 zone is compatible with the existing zoning in the area and the development pattern. Third, the proposed B-1 zone is located along a corridor from downtown to Keeneland generally that was studied by the Division of Planning as well as the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, and this will provide an opportunity for jobs closer to where people live. And lastly, the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan encourages aesthetic and functional improvements to Versailles Road and that those improvements allow for pedestrians to utilize the corridor, and that seems to speak to encouraging pedestrian-oriented development, which the Planning Commission agreed the applicant's proposal encourages. The Planning Commission also made a recommendation that this zone change be accepted as long as the development plan was approved by the Planning Commission, which they did do. In addition, third, they suggested conditional zoning restrictions to the council. They suggested prohibiting 10 uses on this parcel, and those are listed again on the final report. Generally, they are the same uses, a few fewer, than what was conditionally zoned 10 years ago for the subject property, prohibiting the most intense land uses that might be problematic adjacent to a single-family residential neighborhood. They also suggested three other use restrictions, that there be a 10-foot landscape buffer along the rear property line closest to property along Delmont, right here. They suggested outdoor lighting should be shielded away from single-family residential uses, excuse me, any residential uses in the area, and that pole heights be limited to 20 feet. and last, that any freestanding sign erected on the property be limited to 10 feet in height. The Planning Commission felt that these were important for these four properties to ensure greater compliance with the comprehensive plan and to provide greater consistency with prior action by both the Planning Commission and the Council involving businesses located in this area. That concludes my prepared remarks for tonight, and I'd be happy to answer any questions either now or throughout the hearing. Thank you. I'm going to give both the petitioner and opponent an opportunity to cross-examine. Petitioner, any cross-examination of the staff at this point? Opponents? Okay, thank you. That allows us then to move to the presentation by the petitioner. Mr. Vice Mayor and a member of the council my name is Jihad Halani I'll present this affidavit as our exhibit that the sign has been posted on the property I mean the staff has done a great job presenting the project we are in agreement with the staff we felt that this project is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, the small area plan, and the corridor study by planning and transportation cabinet. The staff agreed with us as well. The planning commission agreed with us. The small area plan has been done in April of 2015, which is very recently, and we are in agreement with that. And also, the transportation cabinet study has been a recent study, and our proposal is in agreement with that. I just want to speak a little bit about the current zone is MU2 zone, and we are proposing B1 zone. The difference between these two zones basically is that the B1 zone allow residential. You can put residential. On MU2 zone, you can have commercial as well as residential. It's much more intense toward residential. As the staff mentioned, this property was zoned in 2005 as MU2 zone, and this property has been available in the market for the last 10, 11 years, and there's a reason why it has not been able to move. This MU2 zone has been kind of constrained and created hardship on this property. As we move to B1 zone, we believe this is going to make this property more valuable. The location of it is on one of the major corridors toward downtown. As the staff mentioned, the small area plan encourages uses that increase pedestrian activity. And what we are proposing on the site, as you can tell, the four building or the four developmental area is like 20 feet from Versailles Road. We have 35 feet behind that. It's going to be like a patio area, this concrete patio area, nicely landscaped. And then the parking will be along the back of the site with a nice landscape buffer. So we believe that we met all the current regulation from the comprehensive plan, from the small area plan, and the studies that has been done. And our agreement was all of them. We also met with the staff and the neighbors on multiple occasions. We met with the neighbor one time, but with the staff on multiple occasions. We address a lot of the concern that the neighbor expressed to us from the landscape buffer, also on the pedestrian activity to kind of develop something more pedestrian-friendly, and that's what this proposal is. And I guess if you have any questions for me, we are available to answer it. Great. Thank you. Do the opponents wish to cross-examine or leave the information presented by the petitioner? I'm sorry. If you have a comment, you need to come to the podium. So you're... Hi, my apologies. My name is Lane Bowman. The petitioner came to the neighborhood associations once on a special meeting immediately after the new plan had come out. So neighbors didn't have a lot of time to digest it. Within a week and a half, it was approved. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have any further witnesses? No, we don't. Thank you very much. That will allow us to go to the presentation. I think we typically hold questions until we've heard, then we'll come back. That's okay. And I have how much time to clarify? Ten minutes? Okay. Hi, my name is Lane Boldman. Thank you for taking the time to come out on a really nice evening after all that rain. I appreciate it. You received petitions and comments from me, representative of the neighborhood associations. The petitions, I have to apologize, you've got some duplicate pages in there. I have corrected pages here, which I can give right now. Total petitions against 200 from the citizens in Cardinal Valley and Hamilton Park and surrounding neighborhoods. We believe the zone change is not preferred due to its location in an area in need of affordable housing, which is the current usage. There are tenants in those properties right now. It has been demonstrated to be desirable and adjacent to other residential properties. The zone change, elimination of existing affordable housing with commercial business in an area that is presently a transitional buffer between commercial and residential, we believe MU2 is a more appropriate zoning. The zone change encourages commercial sprawl and discourages responsible infill and redevelopment, in our opinion, because of the intense work that has been done with the Oxford Circle area, the small area development plan for Cardinal Valley, the corridor plan. We believe that all of these plans are really positive for the area. We support good infill and redevelopment. I haven't spoken to a neighbor yet that hasn't been supportive of these plans, but we believe that this property is not indicative of that careful planning that has been taking place in the process. So for these reasons, we're opposed to the zone change, which reduces affordable housing, negatively impacts nearby residential neighborhoods, discourages redevelopment in priority areas, and encourages commercial sprawling areas where commercial office availability is already in ample supply. So, as you see, the neighborhood is primarily 1920s homes, some of the original homes in Cardinal Valley, some of the oldest neighborhoods outside of the city core. It has historic charm, affordability. With good sound development, it can be another Southland, Kenwick, Chevy Chase, West 6th type development. We encourage this and are hopeful of this. There are no other commercial entities or retail on this block. You'll see the hotel across the street, but there's no other commercial retail on this block. And you've got the pictures. Okay. Concern of comprehensive planning versus piecemeal redevelopment. Again, there's been a lot of resources poured into looking at this area, the whole of Cardinal Valley, the whole of Oxford Circle. People want to see this succeed, and within the study, we point out some things that are particular issues of concern and issues that could help these plans succeed. One thing that was pointed out is a piecemeal approach with the Oxford Circle study, in particular they mentioned, will not work. You need a holistic approach. We believe that extends to the whole neighborhood. We want to see the redevelopment happen in the core, in the business area, in Oxford Circle and have it be well planned and well developed and get the neighborhood behind it. They are behind it. One thing pointed out in the Oxford Circle study, the demographics of this walking trade area are such that they will not support any uses, commercial or non-commercial, by themselves. Okay, it's important that everyone gets behind it because the demographics are so different. Lower income, language barriers, limited access to transportation provide justification for the development of a societal community hub in this location. This is what people in our neighborhood want to see. They want to see attention paid to the hub. They don't want to see the current housing chipped away at. and they want to see the entire area revitalized in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner. Okay, there's some concern about the four-unit commercial retail building. I've certainly had people ask me what's going in there, and I said it's irrelevant. It's zoning. It's not, you know, it's not, you don't get to decide what's going in there. it's currently up for lease as an NNN net lease term, which I think I'm not as familiar with that. I'm not a realtor, but what I read on it, it seems to encourage that the renters take on all of the liability, and that kind of encourages, in my opinion, absentee ownership not to take as much care with the property, but that's my conjecture. the issue about the sidewalks we can appreciate that we certainly would like to see the corridor the transportation corridor succeed but zoning should not be used as the primary method for infrastructure development this is rezoning in an area that's currently all homes we don't want to see it rezoned for the sake of getting better sidewalks we can find ways to get better sidewalks that's great, we'd like to see that but that should not be the primary driver. I'll just stop with a couple other things. You've gotten all the comments from the neighbors. There were, with the 200 petition signatures, there were also 44 comments that were submitted with that so you can get a sense of how people feel about the area. We appreciate the substantial effort in planning and investment through multiple studies, citizen input, attention being paid to responsible planning and development of other nearby and adjacent areas. We really appreciate everything that you all have put into this. We want to see this succeed. One of the most important considerations in the success of these long-range investments is having the trust and cooperation of the community that it serves. This, above all else, is critical to the success of these projects, in my opinion, based on the feedback I've received, that the majority of my neighborhood feels the proposal does not match the efforts of successful long-range investment in the neighborhood, and it undermines the trust that is being built from these other initiatives. We did try to work with the developer on this. We felt like we had only gotten to see, well, we had first heard it was a gas station. Then by the time the neighbors actually saw the plan, it had changed, and by that time they only had a week and a half to respond. It really wasn't enough time for them to really understand. We had asked the developer for some examples of other development they had done to help the neighborhood understand better. Received an email saying that that would be forthcoming, but I never received any follow-up on that. So it's a shame with all of the wonderful expense and time and planning and comprehensive studies, three major studies, to help this area. My area has lower-income people. It's hard for them to challenge these things properly. they're doing the best they can to get the word out but they want to see what i've heard time and time again they love the plans they feel this doesn't match it thank you thank you and i believe there's one other person to present on behalf of the opponents also 10 minutes thank you vice mayor kay thank you council members thank you for being here on this evening and listening to us i also want to thank planning staff who has been extremely helpful during this whole process which is new to all of us i have some visuals thank you so much we are not here to oppose improvements at this intersection of Versailles Road and Delmont. We welcome the new infrastructure plans of the Versailles Road study. We look forward to the addition of a green space medium to provide safety for pedestrians and wider sidewalks and narrower traffic lanes to slow traffic as recommended for this section of Versailles Road. We are not here to stop development. We are here to say that the existing MU-2 zoning is precisely what the Comprehensive Plan and the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan recommend. Mixed-use zoning is appropriate for this area and allows for business and residential to live together at this entrance to two long-standing residential neighborhoods, the Versailles Road Residential District and Cardinal Valley. And I don't think I gave my name. Did I? Paula Singer, 110 Hamilton Park, just off Versailles Road. As a member of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan Steering Committee and a neighborhood resident representing at minimum 200 corridor residents and concerned citizens opposed to the zone change, I ask you to focus not on the general and broader recommendations of the comprehensive plan used for a majority of the Division of Planning's reasoning to support the zone change, but on the specific, in-depth, small area plan, which by definition is an amendment to the comprehensive plan and an intense study of a specific area intended to guide growth and development or redevelopment. In recommending the zone change, staff first references A, theme A of the comprehensive plan growing successful neighborhoods, emphasizing infill and redevelopment, adaptive reuse that respects the area's context and design features, striving for positive and safe social interactions, attracting, retaining, high-paying jobs, and encouraging compact, contiguous, and or mixed-use sustainable development. The existing zoning of mixed use already respects the area's context by bridging the transition between B1 zoning found directly across Delmont to the east and across Versailles Road to the south. As for positive, safe, and social interactions, both of the B-1 properties to the east and south have currently been used or are currently being used as residential properties. The 1419 to 1427 Versailles Road properties, two buildings currently vacant, provided low-income housing until very recently. The Days Motel across Versailles Road also provides low-income housing. housing. Caddy corner from the subject property are Westminster Village at 1510 Versailles Road, zoned R3, and the Women's Hope Center, 1518 Versailles Road, zoned R3. The residential nature of the bulk of the surrounding properties, despite some of their B1 zoning, results in high pedestrian traffic in the area and has been the cause of a high amount of pedestrian crashes identified in the Versailles Road multimodal evaluation. To provide through neighborhood retail space an additional reason for pedestrian traffic from Days Motel, Westminster Village, the Women's Hope Center, and other residential units across Versailles Road before the appropriate infrastructure recommended in the Versailles Road study is implemented would only serve to increase the incidence of pedestrian crashes. Where I've circled there is just that is Delmont and Versailles Road, and that is the highest incidence of pedestrian crashes. Vehicular crashes are also of higher incidence in this area. I again refer you to the Versailles Road Multimodal Study, which cites poor access management on the eastern commercial section of Versailles Road. To add to this existing problem by lengthening the commercial section with additional retail is not safe planning. As for attracting and retaining high-paying jobs, we do not know what kind of retail establishments might be attracted to this parcel, so we cannot say if the retail spaces will attract or retain high-paying jobs. We do know that mixed-use development, with its emphasis on the principal permitted uses of P1 and B1, banks, civic organizations, real estate offices, art galleries, medical offices, and so forth, is more likely to attract and retain high-paying jobs. And finally, staff's reasoning under Section A encouraging compact, contiguous, and or mixed-use sustainable development is already and better fulfilled by the existing zoning. Staff's reasoning under B, that B1 is compatible with the immediate vicinity, is not accurate. The immediate vicinity is low-density residential and high-density residential. Low-density is the yellow and high-density is the darker colored. These properties zoned B1, such as the Days Motel, in reality provide low-income housing. The proposed landscape buffer at the rear of the property will not shield Delmont Drive residential properties across the street from a view of the retail space, nor will it shield this narrow residential street from increased commercial traffic, commercial delivery trucks, increased litter, and environmental pollutants associated with all forms of retail development. Staff's reasoning under C that the proposed development will provide an opportunity for jobs closer to where people live seems contradictory, since the development will remove housing and discourage the residential rehabilitation efforts that are currently underway on Delmont Drive and Versailles Road by young families attracted to the uniqueness of the homes and the location near downtown Lees Town. and the distillery district, all areas where new businesses are providing jobs. Staff's final reasoning under D cites the small area plan's recommendation for B1 zone setbacks to encourage pedestrian-oriented development. This setback recommendation hardly seems a significant reason for a zone change. Further, until the speed limit of 40 miles per hour in this area is reduced, and until pedestrian safety islands, as designated in the Versailles Road study, are implemented, pedestrian-oriented retail in this area will only serve to increase auto-pedestrian dangers. The first priority of the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan is neighborhood conservation through ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing, expansion of home ownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income households, expansion of affordable rental opportunities through and preservation of existing rental units, and the promotion of engaged communities and citizen neighborhood involvement to impact the quality and appearance of housing stock. I have circled that area in the center in lighter blue. That says neighborhood conservation, and that is the exact area where this proposal is to take place. Previous zone changes of this parcel have always been sensitive and respectful of the needs and concerns of neighborhood residents. Planning staff's own report of January 2016 in opposition to the applicant's original proposal for a gas station B3 provided the appropriate history. I won't repeat that here. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to interrupt. Your time is up. Is there a motion to... Can you wrap up, or do you need more time? I need about three more minutes. I can do it. I'll sign up. May I proceed? You may proceed. Thank you. When the Division of Planning looks on paper at zone maps and street maps, that is one way of arriving at a decision. But looking at the neighborhood and speaking with those who live there, who raise their children there, who have made their biggest financial investment in a home on Versailles Road, Hamilton Park, Halls Lane, and Westgate Garrett and Woodford and Delmont Drives in Cardinal Valley is another way. Strong residential neighborhoods are vital to successful retail development. Study after study supports this reality. Chipping away at established neighborhoods and inserting miscellaneous unnamed retail development weakens a residential neighborhood and contributes to its decay. A study by the nonprofit Urban Land Institute found that retailers looking to invest in a neighborhood look first for the strength of the surrounding residential market. The Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan provides a much-needed vision for our community. It gives hope of plan development. Since 2012, the City of Lexington has spent close to $400,000 on studies of Versailles Road and Cardinal Valley. The Versailles Road Multimodal Study, the Versailles Road Corridor Study, the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, the Oxford Circle Redevelopment Feasibility Study. You funded these studies to better understand the complexities of this gateway corridor and its multicultural neighborhood and to provide a vision for this corridor. You funded these studies to be guided by the statistics gathered. In fact, as I understand it, Council recently set in motion the process to obtain funding for Section 1 improvements to the westernmost section of our existing commercial area. from Parkhurst Mill to Village Drive, as recommended in the Versailles Road study. $3.2 million to complete the streetscape and so forth of this area. If you allow commercial sprawl, it will lessen the value of the dollars spent in the existing commercial area. This area sits well within the boundaries of the small area plan. It is an oversight of that plan that this section of Cardinal Valley Versailles Road was not selected for a follow-up feasibility study, as was the Oxford Circle area. This intersection is too important to residents and corridor users alike to allow development without an in-depth redevelopment feasibility study. It is equally complex to the Oxford Circle area and, in fact, shares many of those similarities. Let's go to number 10 and 11, please. Can you wrap up? Yes, right now. Very little. These four properties are all occupied. One of them is occupied by Laura Cortez, who lives at 1505 Versailles Road with her seven children. Please be guided by the Small Area Plan's focus on neighborhood conservation through adequate supply of affordable housing, expansion of home ownership, expanding affordable rental opportunities, and ensuring safe, attractive, and well-maintained residential environments. We welcome well-planned, well-researched development that will enhance the corridor and strengthen the all-important residential neighborhood component. We already have mixed-use zoning that satisfies both residential and business needs. Please do not approve this zone change. It is not warranted. Thank you very much. Thank you for the extra time. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, do you have a list of people who have signed up? If you'd bring that forward. Each of the people have signed up. If you are still interested in speaking, if you'd come to the podium, give your name and your address. Thank you. and if you've decided that you don't need to speak you can pass okay I have I might ask the chair I yielded my minutes I do not mean to speak my name is Amy Clark with the chair's permission I will present written remarks Do you want to circulate written remarks at this time? With your permission, if that is all right. Are there any objections to written remarks being circulated? Seeing none, you can circulate written remarks. If you'd just give them to the clerk and we'll... Thank you. I want to take these in the order that they came, and I don't... Okay. The first person is Laura Stonebell. If you just come to the podium, and you might want to bring that mic down, the mic right in front of you. If we can have your name and address, you'll have three minutes. Okay. Distinguished Council members and guests, my name is Laura Stonebell, and I am a resident of Christian Towers Apartment at 1511 Versailles Road, the property adjacent to the area proposed for rezoning and development on Versailles Road. I am here to speak on behalf of Christian Towers Management and its residents. We are concerned about this proposal for a number of reasons. First of all, from an aesthetic standpoint, Christian Towers is surrounded by tall, mature trees that lend a quiet and peaceful ambiance to our three-acre property. It's nice to be able to look out one's window and see these lovely trees all year long instead of just buildings. As a result, we don't have a boxed-in feeling. We are bordered by residential areas with lush vegetation on all sides. even for Sales Road, is about one-tenth of a mile from the apartment building itself, keeping street noise to a minimum. This is our home, and I fear the integrity of that home would be destroyed or at the very least greatly compromised if commercial development is permitted in this area. Further, from a practical standpoint, the trees provide a buffer between us and this surrounding busy area of town. They also provide a shady canopy, keeping us cool in summer and serve as a windbreak in bad weather. Our garden area supports a backyard wildlife habitat. This area is registered with the National Wildlife Federation. Our large yard and spacious grounds provide for residents to go outside and sit or walk their dogs. This is a much-needed and highly-priced feature of our property and adds to its appeal and its value. According to the U.S. Forest Service, healthy mature trees can actually add an average of 10% to a property's value. Consequently, this area of Versailles Road also has a lot of traffic. And as a result, we've already seen many accidents. Right now, one of our residents is recovering at Cardinal Hill Rehabilitation Center following a car accident in which she was injured and required surgery. This accident occurred at the entrance to Christian Towers driveway about two weeks ago. Another concern is that residents of the area often go walking in the adjoining neighborhoods. Many wait for the city bus in front of the building or across the street. If another commercial establishment is built here, we feel it will be a detriment to the lifestyle and to the safety of the residents of Christian Towers and others who live in the area. More traffic is something we do not need. Many of the people in the area have young children and pets, and there is a church in the area whose parking is already greatly limited. As our director, Anita Mills, said, the addition of another business near us would not be a convenience but a hindrance. Ms. Stonebell, again, I need to interrupt you. Your time is up. Can you wrap up? She can have my man in tickets now. Can you tell me your name so I can... Mary Ann Olson. Thank you. Okay, you have three more minutes. Yes, sir, thank you. At present, there are a variety of businesses near us, including a motel, a grocery, a bar, numerous service stations, and a Pepsi-Cola bottling plant, all of which contribute to the present congestion. This area is also highly impacted by traffic from the Red Mile Racetrack on nearby Red Mile Road and the University of Kentucky, especially when school is in session. Additionally, there is concern among residents about increased crime in the area. We have fought this issue for years and feel the addition of another business will only intensify this problem. Finally, given the aforementioned concerns, I respectfully request that you not consider consider rezoning this area. Thank you for allowing me to share my views and those of the Christian Towers community. Thank you. Next person is Judith Jones. I'm just going to pass. I think that Laura Stonebell explained it very well. I'm a resident of Christian Towers. Thank you. And next would be Janine. Janine. That's all right. Everybody talks before my day. I'm going to pass. I'm from Virginia Towers, and Florida did a good job, and I appreciate what you said. Thank you. The next would be Mr. James Smouse. I didn't sign up, but I did sign a petition, but no, I don't expect that. Thank you. Then Jane Choate. Hi. You said the name, so I don't need to repeat it, right? Just your address then. I'm at Christian Towers, 1511 Versailles Road. I've never been to a city council meeting before. I have to say I'm impressed. It's a careful, well-thought-out thing y'all do here. I didn't expect to be pleased. I'm impressed. Well, thank you. I just would second everything that the others have said. They've spoken well. I'm really worried about the dangerous. It's a dangerous section, and I'm a pedestrian there a lot. And it's hair-raising to walk the sidewalks or to cross the street. So congestion and safety, real problems. The trees and the beauty of Christian Towers, that's one of the reasons I have to live there. I need that green. I need those trees. And we'd like that kept and protected as much as possible. So, and also the other thing I would say would be any sense to hand a change in rezoning over without knowing what, but it's like giving an empty plate and you don't know what's going to be on the plate. And my concern would be environmental pollution. A lot of us have respiratory challenges and are extremely sensitive if, say, a laundromat were to move in with all the particulates and the scented things that would come out of it, or who goodness knows, a fast food place, whatever. It's not knowing what's going to be there or some industrial thing. That kind of thing, how it would affect the health of the residents, is a concern as far as I'm concerned. But otherwise, it's been well said. Thank you. Thank you. Next would be John Bell. I just passed. My wife did a good job. Thank you. Then Joey Shadowing. Yes, I'm Joey Shadowing. I live at 114 Woodford Drive. And I feel that just changing the zoning would really change the character of the neighborhood. We have some old, almost historic housing there that blends very well into the neighborhood, and that's Tracher Versailles Road, and I am very much against the zone change and would like to keep it as is. Thanks. Thank you. Next would be then John Boone. I'll pass. Thank you. Susan Spaulding. Thank you very much. It's good to be here. And everything has been said very articulately by both Lane and Paula, but I do want to add two observations. Oh, my address, 964 Fredericksburg Road. I live in the Gardenside neighborhood. And my two observations are that that whole Alexandria Drive for Sales Road area, I'm wondering if there is a market for more empty buildings. We already have plenty of empty buildings out there. If people need a place for a business, they can find one without having yet another empty building sitting there sort of proclaiming that it's empty and there's nothing happening. That's one observation. And the other is I loved seeing the small area plan with the trees and the median and all that sort of thing. That's the main corridor that people use to enter Lexington from the airport. We have all sorts of people coming to Keeneland. and the more residential it can stay, the more welcoming it can be, I think the better image it projects of Lexington instead of being yet another strip of little box stores lined up along the road like any other city. So those are my two observations. Thank you. Thank you. Next will be Mary Powell. I yield my time. Paula has summarized the feelings of the people on Patalum Park. Thank you. Rita Miller. I'll pass my time. I feel like people who have spoken to you have been in the neighborhood longer and probably have addressed things better than I can in short terms. I do totally back their opinions. Thank you. Craig Olson. Thank you. Gloria May. Ann Holt. I'm Ann Holt and I live on Hamilton Park. I have enjoyed the presentation. I think there's been a lot of thought going into this. I would oppose the zone change because I don't see that it enhances the Versailles Road corridor. I believe that was one of the objections of one of the purposes of having the study about the Versailles Road coming into Lexington. And I think a little block of commercial businesses on the road will not enhance our entrance to the city of Lexington. Thank you all. Thank you. Anna Mack. I do not wish to speak. Thank you. Thank you. Everything is fine. Jan Hellebush. I'll pass. I'll score everything. Thank you. I believe that concludes the list, unless there's someone I skipped over inadvertently. Was there someone? Anybody else who signed up? Okay. Do the petitioners wish to cross-examine any of the people who have spoken against the proposal? Yes, sir. I have a couple of comments. Some of the comments, basically, about piecemealing. This zone change will be surrounded on both sides by B1 on the east side and the south side by B1, so it's a continuation of a B1. It's not like we are an island in the middle of nowhere. And actually, the MU2 is an island in the middle of nowhere. So the B1 will be a continuation of the existing surrounding zone. Oh, no, no cross-exam. I apologize. Yeah, if you had questions for any of the people who have spoken, you'll have a chance to rebut. Thank you. In that case, staff, additional comments? I would just like to clarify the Versailles Road corridor study was not a land use study. It had to do with looking at the existing cross section of that roadway and looking at different improvements that could be made to the road itself. And then the Oxford Circle Redevelopment and Feasibility Study, I believe the Planning and Public Works Committee just received a presentation about that within the last few weeks. It hasn't been reviewed by the Planning Commission and, in fact, was just completed at the end of March. The Planning Commission held their hearing on this particular zone change in February. So it was not part of really the consideration of either the staff or the Planning Commission when they reviewed this particular zone change. And that study is specifically geared towards Oxford Circle, not the entire length of Versailles Road. Those are my only comments. Thank you. Now petitioner rebuttal of anything that's been presented by those in opposition or the staff. Thank you, sir. I apologize. So, yes, we're not peace-mealing. It's a continuation of two existing B1 zones. And that's true. We had one meeting with a neighbor. Some of the neighbors were supportive of what we are planning. Some of them, they were not supportive. And some, we are able to convince. And we also made some modification to our drawings to kind of address some of the concerns. and also there have been discussion about the B1 zone is going to create potential more accident, pedestrian accident or vehicular accident. Well, as the MU2 right now, by right, we can go and have a commercial use on first floor and the residential on second and the third floor. So the commercial is going to be available either by B1 zone or MU2 zone. For both zones, the commercial is permitted. So I just want to make sure if it's a problem for B1 zone, why it cannot be a problem for MU2 zone. And also, the neighbors mentioned there have been a $400,000 study on three major studies related to small area plan, as well as the comprehensive plan and some other study. I mean, we believe we are in agreement with all this study. The staff believe that we are in agreement with this study. The Planning Commission agreed that we are in agreement with this study. And also with respect to the property next door, it's an apartment. It has been vacant. The city already condemned this property because it has not been taken care of and has been deteriorating. We believe that this development will create some kind of momentum for these corridors as needed, and then this is the start. And as things kind of progress, there will be more development progressing. And we believe our development is in agreement with basically, I mean, what I'm trying to say is that we are not against reworking cross-section. We're not against our development. It's not against reworking cross-section or having raised median with grass or trees or any of these. It's just, I mean, we believe that B1 and MU2 are very close to each other. The B1 has less intense use on the residential, whereas the MU2 is more intense on the residential. And this property has been MU2 for 11 years, and we believe there is a reason for that. and we believe that the B1 zone is going to be a good zone for this property to move on. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, Council Members, if you have questions, comments, of any of the evidence that's been entered, or questions of any of the people who have presented, if you'd sign in. Starting with Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Tracy, I have a couple questions about some planning stuff. I'm just not, I'm relatively new. About the current zoning, it's mixed use. Yes. Does that imply that if they developed it under that zoning, it would have to have some residential, or as mixed use can be that professional and commercial? or it intended? The principal uses of all three of our mixed-use zones are those available in our P1, which are generally office uses, the B1 uses, which add on to that generally retail and restaurants, and residential. In all three of the mixed-use zones, there's a requirement for a mixture of uses, residential and non-residential, at a certain threshold, and it varies for each of those, but in each case there has to be a mixed-use building before there are any other additional buildings that are not mixed-use. Okay, so they could develop this site under the current zoning and maintain some residential. It would be required to have both. I'm always concerned about losing housing stock. It's one of my primary concerns in the inner part of the city. now if they did is there some I should have asked them before but since I got you up there I'll ask you if they wanted to do that they could do that under this zoning, the current zoning but would there not be enough parking for both residential and commercial on that site because I would hope there is because somebody zoned it that way 10 years ago the rezoning in 2005 also included the adjacent parcel on Delmont Drive, 105 Delmont. That piece was originally part of the applicant's proposal to B3, and they withdrew it when they amended their zone change. In 2005, when these four parcels were rezoned to MU2, the fifth parcel on Delmont was rezoned to a B3 zone with the intent that they asked for a conditional use on that property for parking. So the parking necessary to meet the mixed-use 2 zone was actually going to be just off of this particular site. Okay. So if they just keep this, they would still need to move forward and find parking for the mixed-use if it were developed in the configuration planned for in 2005. Obviously, plans can change, and they could develop a smaller footprint where the parking could be met on site. Okay. And I have one other. I appreciate the design that they didn't do curb cuts on Versailles Road. Yes. Makes it safer for both vehicles. But on the other hand, they put the curb cuts on Delmont. Is there a precedent for having the entrance to a commercial development via an otherwise completely residential street? Can you cite another example of that for me so I can envision it? In this particular case, I believe it was the 1988 comprehensive plan actually suggested that these four parcels work together and have access off of Delmont Drive. And the intent was to eliminate those access points on Versailles Road because of the number of turn-ins and outs and back-in and out for residential properties. so that that's the that was the intent long-standing intent for these parcels was to have access from delmont i'm trying to think of another example i'll let you know if i think of something okay can't off the top of my head okay thank you tracy thank you vice mayor thank you uh councilmember farmer thank you vice mayor minds for staff too in looking through the packet and it's been alluded to here. It says in 2005 the property was rezoned. Was rezoned from, it was B1 before 2005? I believe two of the parcels were P1 and two were B1. In 2005 the property was rezoned from B1 neighborhood business zone to mixed use. So you're saying that some of it was B1 before? The two lots at the corner of Delmont and Versailles Road, one was the corner lot, 1501, was rezoned in 1988 for the art gallery. All right. With the conditional zoning restrictions, so only the art gallery. Then in, I believe it was 94 or 95, 1505 was rezoned to expand the art gallery. So those two partials were B1, again, with that conditional zoning restriction for one use. and then my understanding was the other two lots remained P1 with a daycare. And then in 2005, all four lots and the Delmont were brought in and rezoned to MU2. That's what my understanding was. And then further in the packet, these are from the notes for February 25th, and it reflects that at that time the subdivision committee recommended postponement. There were some questions regarding the proposed access from Delmont Drive. What was the subject there? I believe the subdivision committee originally reviewed the plan related to the B3 zone, and they recommended postponement of that particular plan, and the access points, does this have a pointer, were where they're showing one now on Delmont and then one very close to the intersection because their intended use was a gas station. And they needed two access points on Delmont as well as an access on Versailles Road to allow the fueling truck to move through the site. So the subdivision committee, with that idea in mind, was very concerned about access to Delmont and Versailles Road. When the plan came back, It removed those two access points, one at the front here very near the intersection on Delmont, as well as the Versailles Road access. So their postponement changed the footprint and the style of the plan, or their input, I guess. Yes, as well as the staff's recommendation of disapproval for the B3 zone. Well, there you go. That's a strong one. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Tracy. You're welcome. I guess as one that has lived in this area my entire life, and I know I used to walk this area when I was a child, it has always been residential. I know that the two apartment buildings that are condemned are B1, which I don't really understand why because they've always been apartments. And maybe there was a plan there that fell apart just as the same as these houses. I think these four properties, it is four, right? It is. I was president of the Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association when the zone change came through and Richard was the council person to the MU. And we were presented an elaborate plan of what those properties would look like. So at that time, the association went along with it. But what they have become are four blighted properties that are very ugly to the corridor. But I'll, you know, can any zone remain residential? because this went to an MU zone, but it remained, you know, when you talk about part of it was business, part of it was a daycare, part of it was a residential property, and so I guess that fit the zone. And, you know, that's what I was the most disappointed in is what these four properties became. Now, if this zone change doesn't go through and it remains an MU, they can still demolish those structures, right? Yes, ma'am. Even though they're close to 100 years old? Because they're not in a local historic district, They aren't protected through our H-1 zoning and the BOAR's review. Typically, the process would be for someone to apply for a demolition permit, and then the Division of Historic Preservation can put a hold on those permit requests and review and document historic structures. Right. But there's nothing in the existing regulations that would prevent the demolition of these four structures. I guess the main thing I am concerned with, too, is Delmont Drive. And there's no one here from Delmont Drive, but they will have the potential to have commercial property on both sides of Delmont Drive at Fersales Road. And I see that as being out of character. And I can give you an example. I don't know if this is what Jake was or Council Member Gibbs was referring to or not, but along Winchester Road, and I believe they're like Michigan, they're states. The farmer probably knows that it's commercial on both sides, and then the whole street is residential. And it's like this haphazard sometimes. Even there might be a commercial building in the middle of the block or whatever, and maybe that was before zoning even existed. But I just feel like if we do something, we need to do it right. And I just can't help but think that this is out of character for Delmont. Because I happen to know that those condemned properties that are already B1 will most likely not remain there. But that's... The two structures that are there? There are apartment buildings on the opposite corner, and to have both sides commercial of a residential street to me is out of character, but maybe that's my thinking. It happens along many of our commercial corridors. Harrodsburg Road has quite a bit of that. Across from Turflin Mall, there's commercial, and then as you get back away from the commercial corridor, it becomes residential. But usually at least one corner is residential. But my time is up. Thank you. You're welcome. I'll be back. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. I got a question for the staff. So according to what you said earlier, if they were to move forward with the current zoning now, they don't have enough parking that's allowable for mixed-use development with commercial and residential. They would have to identify additional. The mixed-use zone has a different parking generator, and you're able to share parking in a sort of a calculation of 50%. The residential can share it. the past development plan from 11 years ago that was never acted on included that extra parcel, and that's how they intended to meet the parking requirement. If these four parcels were to be redeveloped with mixed-use 2, my guess is they would have to have a smaller building than what was originally planned 11 years ago in order to meet the parking. I can't say for sure that they can't meet the parking or wouldn't be able to if they did a different design. Well, I guess it answered my question. The parking would impact the development. Yes. Possibly. Another question I have, if the neighbors have certain objections to the style or the type of businesses that occupy that space, if this moves forward and gets redeveloped. Is that something that can be added tonight or a later date, you know, put some restrictions on how it gets developed and what businesses are allowable specifically? I guess addressing the concern of the environmental businesses that may have an impact on the environment or health consciousness. Is that something that can be included? It is, and the staff, in developing a recommendation to the Planning Commission, presented restrictions for conditional zoning restrictions to limit some of the proposed or some of the allowable uses in the business zone. To restrict 10 uses, prohibit those from the list of what would normally be allowed, and the Planning Commission approved that particular list, but the council can add to that list or modify it. Once the council acts, though, that list of conditional zoning restrictions is set. another zone change would be required to modify that list of conditional zoning restrictions. Okay. So if there were a particular use you were concerned about tonight, if the council as a whole agreed, we could amend those conditional zoning restrictions suggested by the Planning Commission. Okay. And then I have a couple of questions for the developer. I know you're not at the point where you have to submit a final development plan, But is it your intentions to build or develop the structure that is, I guess, similar to the neighborhood that is behind the current development that this was to move forward? Are you going to try to make the building kind of resemble the 1920-style housing that's currently in the neighborhood? We don't have any plans for any building yet, but this is something we can work with the neighbors about the building material and height and also to work and architecture. Okay, so that's something you would consider. What about, and this is probably Council Member Gibbs' question, what about the trees? What's the plan? I know the 20-foot setback from the road, so does that call for removal of trees in the front? And if so, the way this plan sits down, do you have to remove any trees from the rear of the property to make this development work? I'm sure there will be some tree removal. I'm not sure how much the extent. I need to get close to the development plan to see it, if you don't mind. There's 8-inch maple tree will be removed. We can try to save the 12-inch pear tree here. We can plant any additional trees here along the side. There's two 10-inch white pine tree will stay. There's going to be some tree removal. Yes, sir, but we can mitigate by planting more trees and things like that. Okay. All right, well, I'll finish up with saying that, you know, I appreciate all the neighbors coming out and sharing their concerns and comments about the development. And I just hope that if this moves forward with the planning department's recommendation that the developers will work with the neighbors to help make this development, and it becomes a part of the neighborhood because you will be their neighbors. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair, Vice Mayor. I guess I'll ask Jihad. You can answer this, I think. Are there sidewalks currently in front of the property on Versailles? I believe they're not six feet, so we're going to improve them to six feet sidewalks. And what about Delmont? Are there sidewalks there? I don't think so. Yes. but we're going to make it six feet. Okay. We can make six. And what businesses are currently located on the four parcels today? Are they vacant? Are there businesses operating there? No, no business. Other than no business. Nothing. Okay. And then this might be for staff. I didn't see, I saw a lot of the prohibited uses that were added, I guess, from the commission. and I wondered if it was just, maybe it's not allowed under B1 at all, and one of the residents mentioned it is why I looked for it. Are tattoo parlors allowed in B1 zoning? I'll have to check. Okay. I know that one of the residents mentioned that they didn't need any more of that and a lot of other things, but I see that a lot of prohibited uses have been included in the staff report, So I just wondered if that was a provision. If you want to come back to me. We can strike it out. This is something the neighbor, we can prohibit the use of that tool. So you wouldn't be opposed to including that as a prohibited use? Okay. We'll let her look that up and come back. I'm fine. Thank you. Okay. I see no further council members signed up for questions. I'm going to declare this hearing closed. At this point, there is a... If you wish to rebut, yes. There will be an opportunity from those against to rebut before I close the hearing. To answer council member Aker's questions, tattoo parlors are at principal use in the B1 zone currently. Okay. Rebut from the opponents if you wish to. Again, if you could give your name and your address. Okay. My name's Jan Hellebush. I live at 134. Were you sworn in? No. Well, I signed up. Were you here when I asked people to stand and swear? then if you don't mind if you would raise your Vice Mayor I'm not sure about it being there be an opportunity for rebuttal at this point did you close the public hearing yet I believe I was in the process of closing the public hearing when the question was raised I'm thinking about the procedure and thinking that the rebuttal should have probably happened before we actually started asking questions, the council started asking questions, with all due respect. So I'll let you handle it, but that's my interpretation, sir. Let me get an opinion from the law department. I think it's appropriate if the chair desires to allow rebuttal of things that were raised in answers to the council's questions, because you didn't close the hearing before that. Typically, the procedure that the council follows is that you all ask questions before the hearing is closed. And I'm assuming it's in part for that reason because to get answers to your questions you have to have people outside of the council speak about it. Chair, I'll allow this lady to answer a question related to what's been asked. I think we're allowed to do that. I can request that person to answer a question that has already been asked. Yeah, I think the question is, had I actually closed the hearing, and I believe that I was in the process when this question was raised, so I'll rule that the hearing had not been closed. You may rebut. Thank you. Oh, and you need to be sworn in, so let me get to the right place. If you would, do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? I do. Thank you. I work the poles in that area, and there are a lot of new residents that live on Delmont that were totally unaware of this, and they're new young couples. So they're working. They didn't even know this was going to happen. But there is already parking behind these buildings. The whole back of the building are parking. and the entrance is off of Delmont Drive. There are no entrances off of Versailles Road right now into the properties. They've all been closed and covered up. So there is, it was on one of the slides, if you all go back and look, there's ample parking back there, and it's due to owner neglect that these buildings are in the shape they're in. Thank you. Thank you. if you would come to the podium. Yes, Lane Bolton, Woodford Drive, just to clarify for Peggy's comment on Delmont Drive residents, you'll find in the detailed comments, the 44 residents that made comments, there are some residents on Delmont there. Thank you. Ma'am? I didn't quite get to hear what you were saying about the trees that border Christian Towers property. Could you repeat that again? I couldn't catch all you said of what trees you might take down on the left-hand side there where Christian Towers trees are. There's an 8-inch maple tree. Say again? 8-inch maple tree. You're going to take down a maple tree. Could you point with your finger? This tree over here. Okay. But over on this. Over on that line, yeah. On that line, we are maintaining all these trees. You're not going to cut them down? No, ma'am. Good. There's also a mulberry tree there. You're welcome to all the honeysuckle you want to cut down. But I've been trying to get that cut out. But there's a mulberry in there, too. Okay, because those are good trees. They're well-established, and they're healthy. Yes. We like them. All the green area will not be bad. You're going to leave them. Okay, I couldn't hear what you said. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I believe at this point I'm going to declare the hearing closed. There will be no further evidence. I'm also going to suggest that we take about a five-minute break, and when we come back, the council will deliberate on the evidence it has heard. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I think we're ready to begin. At this point, it's appropriate for council members to make comments or to make motions. And just to be clear, it's a little bit complex, but the council will have to vote twice. first to adopt a set of findings of fact, either those proposed by the Planning Commission or a different set of facts. And following that vote, whatever it is, the council will have to vote either to approve or reject the ordinance itself. So I believe that's all we need to know. I see Council Member Henson has signed in. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a motion. I moved findings of the facts for disapproval of the proposed zone change, MAR 2016-2, the following reasons. The existing zoning is appropriate and the proposed zoning is inappropriate because the existing zoning allows for commercial use but also maintains residential use, which preserves the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Number two, there have been no major changes of economic, physical, or social nature that were not anticipated in the comprehensive plan and altered the basic character of the area. And three, the proposed zoning would create additional traffic and create a more unsafe pedestrian area, which is inconsistent with the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan. So moved. Thank you. A motion by Council Member Henson, a second by Council Member Maloney. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. I want to support Council Member Henson's motion because I want to give you a little history. I was on the council in 1980, and I got burned on that zone change. And the neighborhood got burned on that zone change. It was a good idea, and the staff approved it. and we had the good businesses that went in there for a while. We had the photo, I mean, the picture shop, and then we had a couple of insurance. It went well. It went real good. And then a few years go by, they all moved out. And then it became a blighted area. And so we, Peggy, was the president of the neighborhood association, and then the developers came aboard and sat down with the neighborhood association, and they met on this, and they brought it to the council. And I was not in the discussion, as you know, when I'm allowed to talk about zone changes, But I was, when I found out that both sides come to agreement, and everybody knew at that time, I knew how important affordable housing and residential was, and we were having a hard time finding residential in that, in Lexington. And so they did this zone to make it into residential and commercial. And it was a great idea at that time. and as a lot of you council members know those projects were done the last 10 years and some have failed big time and some have done well and that I got burned there and the neighborhood got burned there and you may be the best I mean I'm sorry when you get burned two times nothing I'm not holding against you guys but to me this is a very sensitive area It's like a sore thumb sticking out there. And when you do a project like this, that's why we have a small area plan. That's why we have – and to me, you've got to work a long time to put something in there good. And you've got to work with these neighborhoods. You've got to work with the staff. And I think you'll learn this today. And I hope if it passes, I hope you all will continue to work. If it don't pass, you'll work with the neighborhoods. But it's just – I don't like to get burned. And I've been burned twice. and nothing I'm not holding against you guys, but this is very sensitive, and I personally think there should be more time, and I think the neighborhoods should be involved with this, I think our planning staff should be involved with this, and I think the developers. And as I look at what development is available in Luskington, the thing that comes to my mind is what we've done over there behind, on South Broadway, which is a good thing. I mean, you got some, they just built the pizza thing, but that don't fit. That kind of development will not fit into this neighborhood because it does not compromise what this neighborhood is. And if you've all been out there, you know what I'm talking about, the new pizza place they built out there and all that. I just don't think it's the right place to put this kind of development there. But I just think, I hope the council does not support this right now, but I think there is opportunity there, and I just don't want to get burned again. So this will be the first time that I will go against a development approved by the two times, both of them by the staff and the neighborhood association were on board both times. So this will be the first time that I will go against the staff recommendation and the planning recommendation because I'm tired of getting burned. So hopefully something good will come out of this. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to explain my motion because I know I've had such a long history with this area. I think the area is very vulnerable, and it needs to, as Council Member Maloney said, it needs the right attention. I appreciate anyone that wants to invest in Lexington, period, as far as development, but I also know that it has to be in good character. This is not, I think a mixed-use development would be as it is, would be much better for this area. And my biggest concern is that Delmont Drive would lose its identity as a residential street. And so, you know, I do know that my biggest concern is that there would be commercial properties on both sides of Delmont Drive, and it would definitely lose its identity. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd just like to say I support Council Member Hensley's motion. My main concern is the loss of housing stock. And the current zoning would allow mixed use so we could continue to have some housing there. So if this does get defeated, I would like to see some sort of development there to include housing. And that's it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up. I'm going to make a comment myself. As it happens, I was on the Planning Commission when this particular piece of property was transformed into a mixed-use piece of property. At that time, somebody came forward and believed they had a way to use that property appropriately for mixed use. Obviously, that did not happen. And my concern about the property is that it sat there for a dozen years, and no one has stepped forward to try and make it work as mixed use. But I share the concern about the lack of the loss of housing, and especially affordable housing in that area. I also, having served on the Planning Commission, I hesitate to overturn staff and the Planning Commission when they make a decision. But in this particular case, I believe there's an opportunity to go back, try again. there is in the next few years i expect that corridor will be approved improving substantially with the attention it's getting and so i will also support the motion i see nobody else signed up to speak clerk if you would call the roll If you vote yes, you are supporting the findings of fact that have been proposed by Council Member Henson. For disapproval. Correct. Findings of fact for disapproval. Ms. Akers? No. Ms. Bledsoe? No. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? No. Mr. Farmer? No, ma'am. Mr. Gibbs? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Ms. Lamb? Yes. I can't see the vote on my screen. Can we get that up? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Maloney. Yes! there's still a vote missing council member farmers a no vote that motion passes six to four so the findings of fact have to be adopted by eight eight on the findings fact as well as the original motion in that case i'm sorry that motion fails the floor is now open for any other motions on findings of fact council member no at this point unless there's further discussion it would be appropriate for someone to submit a motion to approve and drop the findings of fact proposed by the planning commission is that correct? Yes. Okay, first, I would like to make a motion to amend the conditional zoning restrictions submitted or approved by the Planning Commission to include tattoo parlors as a prohibited use. Second. A motion and a second to amend the findings of fact to include tattoo parlors. Any discussion on the motion? Any here. Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Okay. Then I guess I will make the motion to approve the findings of fact as submitted by the Planning Commission. Second. And I think your motion also needs to include the additional conditional use restriction. And it will probably need a new first reading. Because that's, I think that's material change. Because you're adding a new prohibited use. There has to be a new, I'm sorry. I think the motion that she made is fine, but it needs to also include the additional prohibited use that you all just added on, and I think that will require a new first reading because... Of the entire ordinance? Well... I mean, of that. Okay, so what we're voting on is the findings of fact as amended, and if that passes, then we have a new first reading? or you have to have a new first reading first? You've already voted on her motion. And so you've added that as an additional prohibited use. So when that ordinance is adopted, it will also list the prohibited use as tattoo parlors. But because you've added a new prohibited use that wasn't forwarded to you by the Planning Commission, I think you're going to have to, even though you're going to be reading exactly the same thing, you're going to have to make the motion to approve the ordinance based on the findings of fact as adopted by the Planning Commission. Once you do that, well, let me say this. I think you can do this. I think you can make a motion to adopt the findings of fact as proposed by the Planning Commission and including the new additional prohibited use, and then I don't think you'll have to give it to a new reading because you will have accomplished it when you vote, if that makes sense. I just want to make sure that it's clear that you all are adding a use that wasn't forwarded to you. Okay, and so we've voted on the amendment. now the motion is to adopt the findings of fact with the additional conditional use? Yes. Okay. That's what's now on the floor. Any further discussion? I did. She asked who seconded it. Oh, okay. Further discussion, clerk, please call the roll. Ms. Anchors? Yes. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? No. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Gibbs? No. Ms. Henson? No. Mr. Kay? No. Ms. Lamb? No. Mr. Maloney? No. Can we please get the vote up on the screen? Ms. Bledsoe, I'm sorry. Can you repeat your vote? Yes. Just checking. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Thank you, sir. that's not it can we repoll and have the votes can you give us a screen so we can have a screen so that when they vote Council members, please register your vote on the electronic screen, and let's see if we can clarify where we stand. so procedurally where are we with it if that vote fails well yeah because it's a tie right So procedurally, we need a new motion. We have no findings of fact. Can you give me some guidance on how we proceed? If you all fail to act, either by operation of law because you have a tie, or otherwise the Planning Commission's recommendation is going to stand. And then tattoo parlors would be allowed there. And that would leave us without that amended... Without the amended use, prohibited use, yes it would. I'd like to ask Council Member Farmer to take the chair for a moment. Yes, Vice Mayor, go ahead. So now I've got another question for law. I basically want to move to reconsider. Now, there was no prevailing side. I voted no. No, there is no prevailing side. So can I move to reconsider the motion? I think you can. I would move to reconsider the motion, and I'll explain why. because I believe we'd rather have this go with the amended version than just affirm the Commission's findings. And I will change my vote to the other side. So that's my motion. I second that. I'll change my vote also. We need to take a vote on the reconsideration. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. That motion carries. Let me give you the chair back then. Let's stay within the future. Thank you. You've done an excellent job. May I speak to this? So we need to now take a vote on the reconciled. You're voting on the findings of fact as you amended them. Right. Again. At this point, you're not voting on the zone change yet. Right. But we need to vote on the findings of fact as amended. May I make a point, sir? Yes, on your motion to reconsider. Okay. Can we take that vote? Vice Mayor? Yes, ma'am. Just for the clerk's attention, I want them to be clear that who voted no on the motion to reconsider so that they know for the record. You guys need to ask about that. Yes, ma'am. We noted it. It was a voice vote. Did you get it? Okay. Okay. Well, it said 10 to 0 up there. So I just want to make sure you guys get it, okay? unless there's further discussion of the motion can we get an electronic screen for the reconsideration no we voted on the reconsider and now we not yes the motion as reconsidered council member farmer so in order to change what the planning commission sent us we will need eight votes at this time i believe so you you already approved adding the new prohibited use in your last you did that then you move to adopt the planning commission's finding as a fact as they were presented to you with that prohibited use so we can amend what the what the commission sends to us without with a majority vote of the people present you're you're going to adopt the same findings of fact you've just added an additional use okay so when you're when you are adopting what the planning commission sent to you it doesn't require the eight majority vote if you're trying to overturn what they sent to you we need eight of votes then it requires eight votes thank you thank you so i think we're ready to vote on the motion that's up for reconsideration. If we can get an electronic screen, that'd be great. That's not the motion to reconsider. Basically bring that motion back up. I'll do it. you move to we need do we need a new motion yes i'll entertain a motion at this point so we move do you want the council member farmer i would just make the same motion that council member acres made to approve with the findings in fact with the additional uh condition of no tattoo parlors. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second by Councilmember Akers. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll take a vote. If we can get the electronic screen and please call the roll. Ms. Akers? Yes. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes. Mr. Gibbs? No. Ms. Henson? No. Mr. K? Yes. Ms. Lamb? Mr. Maloney? No. That motion passes. Now I will entertain a motion on the ordinance itself. A motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member Akers to approve. Any further discussion on the motion? council member farmer so now do we need eight votes for this or just a majority of who's here you do not this is the same all right if you are you're you're going to approve what was recommended to you by the planning commission you're not going to change it so it does not require eight votes it requires a majority i love our nuanced approach thank you you. Any further discussion? Looks like we've got the screen up. Please log in. All in favor, please say, just log in. Call it. We need to call the roll. Ms. Akers? Yes. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Gibbs? No. Ms. Henson? No. Mr. Kay? Yes. Ms. Lamb? No. Mr. Maloney? no that motion passes i believe that let's see what else we need to do before we adjourn before you move adjourn if i may take the privilege of the chair and thank all of you coming out thank the petitioner for bringing this forward i hope that that before long we see a new proposal for this piece of property that meets the needs of the corridor and the approval of the neighborhood from their perspective. Any further comments? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Adjourn. Motion adjourned. Without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you.