# Urban County Council - Zone Change Hearing (Clover Communities) - July 8, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 8, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4788 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4788?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-07-08 - **Last revised**: July 8, 2019 - **Length**: 16,100 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 July 8, 2019, at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers in Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice Mayor Kay presiding. The meeting focused on a single agenda item, Ordinance 0599-19, which was ultimately denied by the council. During the session, the council took two votes and heard from three members of the public who provided comments on the matter under consideration. The meeting represented a focused session addressing one specific ordinance rather than a broader legislative agenda. ## Attendance The following members were present at the July 8, 2019 meeting: **Present (12 members):** • Kay • Lamb • McCurn • Moloney • Mossotti • Plomin • Reynolds • Worley • J. Brown • Ellinger • Evans • Farmer **Absent (3 members):** • Bledsoe • F. Brown • Gibbs No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The council considered one main item during this meeting, with two separate votes taken on the same ordinance. **Ordinance 0599-19** addressed a zoning change request for property located at 3330 Todds Rd., seeking to change the zone designation from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to High Density Apartment (R-4). The first vote occurred on a motion made by Mr. Worley and seconded by Ms. Plomin [timestamp: 06:59]. This motion **failed** with 7 ayes and 4 nays. Council members voting in favor were Lamb, McCurn, Moloney, Plomin, Reynolds, Worley, J. Brown, and Ellinger. Those voting against were Kay, Mossotti, Evans, and Farmer. A second roll call vote was then taken on the ordinance itself [timestamp: 07:25]. This vote also **failed**, but with the vote counts reversed: 4 ayes and 7 nays. In this vote, Kay, Mossotti, Evans, and Farmer voted in favor of the ordinance, while Lamb, McCurn, Moloney, Plomin, Reynolds, Worley, J. Brown, and Ellinger voted against it. The reversal in voting patterns between the two votes suggests the first motion may have been procedural in nature, possibly related to how the ordinance would be handled, while the second vote was the substantive decision on whether to approve the zoning change. Ultimately, the ordinance to rezone the property from Agricultural Urban to High Density Apartment failed to pass. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the meeting during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to a proposed zone change and development project [timestamp: 05:40]. **Mr. Ron Ayotte** spoke first, raising concerns about the proposed development's physical characteristics and planning compliance. He argued that the project's height and scale were inappropriate for the area and criticized the lack of adequate buffering between the development and surrounding properties. Mr. Ayotte contended that the proposal does not align with the goals outlined in the comprehensive plan. **Mr. Edwin Gibson** followed, speaking as a representative of several neighborhood associations. Gibson focused on the broader community impact of the proposed development, expressing concerns about how the project would affect the existing neighborhood character. He questioned the compatibility of the new development with the scale and nature of existing homes in the area. **Mr. James Sutton** concluded the public comment period by voicing his opposition to the development proposal. Sutton specifically cited concerns about potential negative impacts on property values in the surrounding area and the overall effect the project would have on the community. All three speakers presented a unified opposition to the zone change, with their concerns centering on themes of scale compatibility, community impact, and adherence to planning principles. The comments reflected neighborhood-level organized opposition, particularly given Gibson's representation of multiple associations. The speakers' concerns spanned both technical planning issues, such as buffering and comprehensive plan compliance, and broader community concerns about property values and neighborhood character preservation. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that drew community opposition. **Zone Change for 3330 Todds Rd.** The proposed zone change for the property at 3330 Todds Rd. faced substantial opposition from community members during the meeting. Residents expressed concerns about how the proposed development would impact the existing neighborhood character and the adequacy of local infrastructure to support the changes. Community members who spoke against the zone change cited worries about the development's potential effects on their neighborhood's established residential nature. Additional concerns were raised regarding whether the current infrastructure could adequately handle the increased density or activity that might result from the proposed zoning modification. The opposition represented broader community sentiment about maintaining the area's current character while questioning the preparedness of local systems to accommodate the proposed changes. The specific outcome of this contested item was not detailed in the available meeting materials. ## Ordinance 0599-19 [timestamp: 05:40] The council considered Ordinance 0599-19, which proposed changing the zoning classification for 8.332 net acres located at 3330 Todds Road from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to High Density Apartment (R-4). Key participants in the discussion included Vice Mayor Kay, Ms. Traci Wade, and Mr. Nick Nicholson, who presented information and engaged in debate regarding the proposed zoning change. The ordinance would have allowed for higher density residential development on the property, transitioning it from its current agricultural urban designation to accommodate apartment-style housing. This type of zoning change typically involves considerations of infrastructure capacity, neighborhood compatibility, traffic impacts, and community planning objectives. Following discussion and deliberation among council members and input from the identified speakers, the council ultimately **denied** Ordinance 0599-19. The property at 3330 Todds Road will retain its current Agricultural Urban (A-U) zoning classification. --- ## Decisions - **0599-19** — failed (7-4): An Ordinance changing the zone from an Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to a High Density Apartment (R-4) zone for property located at 3330 Todds Rd. - **0599-19** — failed (4-7): Vote on the ordinance to approve the zone change --- ## Full transcript I'm gonna head on to the lead, smashing in my guts, night, but if you're so real, you spend your life waiting for a moment, it just don't come, don't waste your time waiting. Badlands, you've got a little ordeal But the world that I stand is the price you gotta pay Keep us till it's understood And these badlands are treating us good Working in the fields How to get your back burned Working with the wheels Hell, you get your facts Learn, baby, I got my facts Learn real good right now You better get it straight, darling Old man's gonna be rich Rich man's gonna be king And a king's gonna spy to lose everything I wanna go out tonight I wanna find out what I got Well, I believe in the love That you gave me I believe in the faith That can save me I believe in the hope And I pray that someday it may raise me Above these bad lives, you got a little of a pain Let the broken upstanders Of course you had a pretty cheap We'll be right back. I want to find one face that ain't looking through me. I want to find one place I want to spit in the face of these. Hey, love, you've got to live it all day. Like a broken heart, say, it's the pressure that I pay. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. . Good evening. Good evening, everybody. Welcome. It's slightly unusual tonight. We have two zone change scheduled. We're taking them in the order in which they were submitted. So that's why we're going to do the Clover Communities first. and then the Anderson Acquisition second. My name is Steve Kay. I'm the Vice Mayor. I'll be chairing this meeting. Part of my responsibility is to kind of run through how we will conduct this meeting. And I guess before I do that, I will ask the Clerk to please call the roll. Vice Mayor Kay. Here. Ms. Lamb? Here. Mr. McCurn? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Massadi? Here. Ms. Plowman? Yes. Ms. Reynolds? Yes. Mr. Worley? Yes. Ms. Bledsoe? Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Here. Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Evans? Here. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Gibbs? Thank you. And now if I can ask clerk if you'd please give second reading to the ordinance. Number one, an ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a high density apartment, R4 zone, for 8.332 net, 8.385 gross acres for property located at 3330 Todd's Road, a portion of Clover Communities AMT, Council District 7. Thank you. Now if you plan to speak at all, or if there's a possibility that you're going to speak, I ask you to stand and raise your right hand, I need to swear everybody in. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Thank you. My understanding in terms of time limits is that the petitioners agreed to limit their presentation to 30 minutes or less. People have signed up to speak in opposition and I believe we're clear about how that will work. One of my responsibilities as the chair or the presiding officer is to make decisions about I don't have evidentiary evidence to exclude anything that's irrelevant and repetitious. Do that with a light hand, but it's part of my job. If you have a witness list, if you have not already, if you would submit that to the clerk, that would be great. Anybody who does speak is subject to cross-examination, and we ask if you speak that you stay for the entire hearing in case people have some questions for you. When you speak, if you would give your name and your address and come to the podium. The order of the hearing will be as follows. First, there will be a presentation by the planning division staff. And that is subject to cross examination by petitioner and opponent. Then there is a presentation by the petitioner, which also is subject to cross examination. Then a presentation by opponent or anybody who wishes to speak in opposition. At that point, staff will have the opportunity to make additional comments, if any, and petitioner may present rebuttal evidence, and then those in opposition may present rebuttal evidence. At that point, there's an opportunity for a closing summation by those in opposition, and then a closing summation by the petitioner. At this point, council members will be open to ask questions of staff, petitioner, and opponents. If there is new evidence introduced through those questions, that will be subject to rebuttal. Once all of the questions have been asked by council members, I will state that the hearing is closed. And at that point, there'll be no further evidence introduced. At that point, council members will be free to comment, ask questions among each other, and eventually to make motions for approval. And the order of those motions is first a motion on the findings of fact that have been forwarded to us, to either approve those submitted by the Planning Commission or to propose different findings of fact. And then a vote on the ordinance itself. And I believe that's all I need to say at this point, except for the fact that any vote by the council to make any change to what the planning commission has forwarded to us requires a majority of council, which is eight votes, rather than a majority of those present. so unless there are questions or comments from council members at this point we will begin the hearing and we'll hear first from staff welcome thank you vice mayor Kay and members of the council my name is Tracy Wade and I am the planning manager for the Division of Planning in Planning Services and I'm here tonight to present a zone change requested by Clover Communities and it is an amended request hence the AMD for tonight's hearing the applicant is requesting a zone change from an agricultural urban zone to a high-density apartment zone which is our R4 zone for 8.3 acres of land at 3330 Todd's Road and that's a portion of that lot for the record i'll enter several items for tonight's hearing the first is a copy of the legal advertisement that was placed in the newspaper for the public hearing today second item is an affidavit stating that we did send the legal notification that the applicant brought to our office for tonight's hearing and we sent that to 240 property owners within the 500 foot notice as as well as five property owners within a supplemental notification area. And in addition, we also provided notification to neighborhood associations within the area, and that was three associations. A copy of the final report that the council received on this requested zone change, and you should have that at your seat as well. And we have extra copies on the counter here if those are necessary for members of the public. Our next item is the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, and although we've adopted a new Comprehensive Plan, this application was filed while the 2013 Comprehensive Plan was in effect. However, the 2018 Goals and Objectives had been adopted by the Council, so that also informed the Planning Commission decision on this case, so we'll enter that in the record. A copy of the zoning ordinance for the county. And then lastly, a copy of the land subdivision regulations also for Fayette County. I will describe the petitioners proposing to rezone the property, again, to an R4 zone in order to construct a single structure for a senior apartment building. They propose 125 units within that apartment building. And so the density when we calculated that is 15 units per acre. Orient the council to the site. Todd's Road runs from Manowar Boulevard to the southeast to the county line. And it provides frontage, a little bit of frontage for the subject property to the north. It's shown here. Part of the subject property is within this white area. In addition, Forest Hill Drive is a collector street that runs through the Andover neighborhood, and it circles the subject property. And then Manowar Boulevard is to the north and northwest of the subject property. If we get a little closer, again, Todd's Road to the north. Here's Andover Woods Lane, which does provide some frontage for the subject property. the right-of-way of that roadway local roadway abuts the subject property and in addition to that from forest hill drive there are several cul-de-sacs but there are also two stub streets putter lane and reuben lane both connect to 33 30 todd's road in this case putter lane abuts the portion of the property that the applicant is asking to rezone and again forest hill drive runs kind of around loops around the subject property within the Andover neighborhood. And this aerial photograph depicts the area proposed for rezoning. It is a little bit of an odd shape, but the subject property in total is a triangle. And this represents the rear portion of that triangle. It's, again, about eight and a third acres. and that also includes the access drive from Todd's Road for the existing church Handover Baptist Church which is located in the front of this property at 33 Todd's Road so the access drive is included in part of their zone change for the R4 zone tonight and as I mentioned the excuse me the site itself 3330 is only a portion of it being rezoned tonight. The rest of that site includes a detention basin adjacent to Todd's Road as well as Andover Baptist Church which also fronts along Todd's Road. Other uses within the vicinity and zoning includes single-family residential to the west and south and east in the Andover neighborhood as well as an R4 zone shown in the dark brown on our map and that includes single-family attached or townhouse units here at the Andover Villas. The R1E zone across Todd's Road is actually part of the former golf course and the large AU track to the west of the subject property or northwest is just a remnant single-family residential home. Ariel might help with that. In terms of on the ground, again the site has a church already in existence there that accesses Todd's Road. This is Todd's Road. It was recently widened and improved includes sidewalks curbs and gutters now all along its entire length on both sides from the rear of the church you can see the subject property is all green space currently this is from the church's parking lot the other two roadways I mentioned in as I oriented the council were Andover Woods lane which has frontage along the south side of the subject property and in that location is the andover green subdivision so it has single family homes that are two-story on one side of this local street and then the other side of the local street is a tree line that is part of the shared property line with the subject property and so there's a posted notice sign there as well but it is a single-family residential neighborhood and then the other street that has right-of-way that abuts the subject property is putter lane and that is a stub street from the forest hill drive collector street and this is the end of currently putter lane and again tree line on the subject property of existing trees also this is again a single family residential neighborhood with one and two story homes the applicant proposed the r4 zone in order to construct the 125 unit housing development for seniors at the residential residential density of 15 units per acre In doing their application, they originally proposed an access point bordering the east side of their property, or northeast side of their property. And through the process, it became clear that they were going to need two access points, not just to Todd's Road as they originally proposed. And so they amended their application to, I guess, give up this land in their zone change application and move over here. and that was due to spacing along Todd's Road for their access point. The state indicated that they were concerned about the location of that access point next to Champions Way, which has already been constructed. So the applicant utilized some time to evaluate this access point further, and they also proposed access from Putter Lane into the site, which wasn't originally part of their application. within the application the applicant opined that they were asking for their zone change in compliance with the comprehensive plan and specifically the goals and objectives of the 2013 and 2018 comprehensive plans by doing a few things first increasing density to accommodate the demand for housing prioritizing higher density and mixture of housing types because they were proposing multi-family and addressing senior housing in this location. They were supporting infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area, and they were also allowing for safe, affordable, and accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disadvantaged residents. And those were all adopted goals and objectives from the Comprehensive Plan. And they also opined that the proposal maximized development of a vacant tract in a way that enhances existing urban form. And generally, the staff and the Planning Commission agreed with those particular goals and objectives in meeting the comprehensive plan. And there was general support also for senior housing. The staff, though, I will mention, recommended disapproval of the stone change request, and there were really four issues that were brought to light during the hearing that the Planning Commission held. The first had to do with the character and context of the area in terms of the proposed structure and its massing next to single-family residential neighborhoods. And I'll just show this is the original development plan submitted with the application as an exhibit. And, again, I mentioned their initial access point ran along the Andover Villas and Andover Woods Lane location. And so there was concern about the massing of the structure near single-family homes because it was proposed to be four stories and up to almost 50 feet. They modified their plan some, but at some point they did also reduce the height. So the height was not as much of a concern, but the staff remained concerned about the massing of the proposed structure. So it went from a four-story structure with a coverage of 39,000 square feet, and instead they lowered the building to three stories and then really just spread the building out. So now the lot coverage increased to 49,000 square feet here. So they reduced the height in response to some concerns with that. In addition, the staff noted some concerns about the change of use proposed at the back of the site between the single-family neighborhoods and that that was the existing character in the area and that they were proposing something that was more intense and dense than what was the character of the existing neighborhood. So that was the second concern that remained. The third concern had to do with connectivity. and the staff presented information to the planning commission about the desire to have connectivity and that's not just a staff desire but that it's noted in the comprehensive plan the importance of connectivity and the proposal was to connect putter lane the sub street over to andover woods the staff felt that that connectivity allowed for better integration with the existing neighborhoods neighborhoods could access friends or family in the senior housing location rather than accessing Todd's Road. And then the last concern that was expressed was if an R4 zone is proposed at this site, there are other land uses that can be permitted as principal permitted uses in an R4 zone, and they would be allowed by right. although the planning commission could review development plans the use would be by right so whether it's a one senior housing structure or multiple apartment buildings there was some concern about a change of use after the zone became effective so the staff did make a recommendation of disapproval related mostly to those four concerns and that's part of the record in terms of the TAN staff report you received. The Planning Commission held a hearing on the request, and they made a different recommendation to the council tonight, and I'll go to that. So they held a public hearing April 25th, and it lasted about two hours. There were, I believe, six neighbors that spoke in opposition, and they were concerned about some of the things, same things that the staff was concerned about and that was the compatibility of the use and the structure in the area the scale and height they mentioned noise and light pollution and then traffic increases along Todd's Road the Planning Commission in their hearing deliberated on that information and they opted to recommend approval to the council tonight and that was a vote of eight to one so eight in favor and one in opposition and they made these following findings that the request for high density or r4 zoning did meet the 2013 comprehensive plan for four reasons it expanded housing choices to address all residents of lexington and fayette county it offered safe affordable accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disadvantaged residents by providing the senior apartments supported infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area by utilizing an undeveloped or underutilized property for housing and lastly it upheld the urban service boundary by utilizing area inside of our urban service boundary and not going outside so this the planning commission made that those findings at that hearing and recommends to the council approval of the proposed zone change tonight to r4 i believe that's all i had to cover i just wanted to go over the development plan a little bit again this is their access drive from todd's road and then it transitions into a parked a parking area that loops around their proposed building and so the building is a bit of an l shape with a second wing and they're utilizing this back corner which is a lower area for recreation including a trail these larger parking spaces are garages so they're offering garage opportunities and also just parking spaces and then this is the location where putter Lane comes in and they're proposing a what we term a hammerhead cul-de-sac so not your typical ball-shaped cul-de-sac but it's more of a three-point turn opportunity and then ask they will ask the Commission to consider allowing these roadways as basically access easements throughout and utilizing this as a access easement as well. And again, that was, they reduced their height during the week of the hearing from four stories to three stories and expanded the footprint to address the height concerns. That concludes my remarks for tonight. I'd be happy to answer any questions now or any time during the hearing. Thank you. Does the petitioner wish to cross-examine? No. Anybody in opposition wish to cross-examine Ms. Wade? Thank you. Thank you. Next, we will have the presentation by the petitioner. Mr. Nicholson, welcome. Thank you. For the record, my name is Nick Nicholson. I'm an attorney here for the applicant. Clover Communities with me is Robert Jack with Clover Communities and Mark Bloomquist with Bloomquist Design Group. For the record, I'm also submitting an affidavit verifying that the applicant posted this sign in accordance with all notice requirements and also a copy of my presentation for the record as well. So, I know that Clover Communities might not be a familiar name to you all in this room, but it is a very familiar name to basically the use that we are here to discuss, and that is specifically apartment rental housing for the elderly population. There are over 20 different developments that Clover has built. They have constructed, they have developed, they have owned, and they still operate every single one of those developments. They are in New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan, and they are building projects right now in Louisville as well. And so they are a known commodity with regards to the senior housing population. What we are here to discuss is a zone change for just under nine acres. It is going for AU, which is the Agricultural Urban Zone, which is known as a holding zone for property that is already inside the urban service boundary until such time that public services become available in that area and development can occur. It is on a track of undeveloped open space behind an existing user, the Andover Baptist Church. This proposal is going to allow the Andover Baptist Church to continue its operations. This is not a project where we are kind of dispossessing an existing user. You'll hear a lot from me about, when we're talking about compliance with the comprehensive plan, about underutilized properties. Whenever we were talking about the urban service area and whether or not we needed to expand or not, a lot of talk was spent about vacant and underutilized parcels and how much acreage was available. This is just such a parcel. You have nine acres of open space that we're able to utilize for a need that we have in this community, and we're able to do it without dispossessing an existing user. I think this is exactly the type of development that kind of got at the heart of what the comprehensive plan was calling for. But it is three stories. It is 125 units. And this is just basically what is called elderly living. It is apartments for individuals that are above 62, as defined in our zoning ordinance. This is not assisted living. There is not a medical component to this development at all. It is specifically just apartments that are for our aging population. I know that what I'm about to say is not really information that is new to you all, but I do think it's important to get at for individuals that have not been to a zone change hearing in front of the Urban County Council. It is a very different zone change hearing than what was in front of the Planning Commission itself. what is before you all today is should this property be zoned R4. The Planning Commission when looking at this question also has to approve a development plan that goes along with that zone change. That development plan discussion talks about things such as building height, it gets at things like where parking is located, the different access that there is, how much open space, all the different things that really are about the design of what this plan is that we're proposing. That's not what is before the council today. And so much as our statutes have even specified that the council is not to look at architectural or other visual requirements in areas outside of the historic areas. And this council has looked at this exact issue, and that is why you all put forward your own policy in order to make sure that architectural exhibits and renderings aren't appropriate evidence to be put in to a zone change hearing. And that's why I'm not here to show basically elevations and other type of exhibits to get at what does this building exactly look like. That was information that we talked about at the Planning Commission hearing. And so I know that this is old news to you all, but I did want to explain why my presentation looks different today than it did at the planning commission and why i'm not addressing some issues that were talked about at length at the planning commission with that said what we're here today is to talk about is this request in compliance with the comprehensive plan um one we believe that it should the zone change should be approved because it is in compliance with comprehensive plan i'll also talk about the secondary justification that the existing zoning is is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate but in very summary fashion we think this this use is absolutely perfect for this parcel it is perfect for this area and this R4 zoning is in compliance with the comprehensive plan because it provides just the clear need that for senior housing that is throughout the 2013 comprehensive plan that is discussed at length and also the updated 2018 plan. Ural's 2017 Fayette County Housing Study goes into extreme detail on why this exact use that we are here to talk about today is a vital need for our community and I'll get into those those basically points but from the very start of theme a exhibit or goal one it talks about expanding housing choices and it talks about the need that we have to provide safe affordable accessible housing to meet the needs of our older and disadvantaged residents. It talks about how we have to support infill and redevelopment. And I'm going to come back to this point here in a minute. But needless to say, I've said it before and I'm going to say it throughout this presentation, this is the type of underutilized parcels that we need to take advantage of if we are going to uphold the urban service area. A lot of times when people think about infill and redevelopment, they only think about the downtown core. They might think about some of the areas right outside. But as we specified in the goals and objectives, it is throughout the urban service area. It is not just in the downtown core. This particular piece of property has been inside the urban service area and slated for residential use since at least 1980. And yet, it sits today as an underutilized parcel. We also need to provide for accessible community facilities and services to meet the health and safety and quality of the life of our residents. We're lacking in that with regards to the need for rental housing for an aging population. And again, the housing study will back this up. With regards to upholding the urban service area, I'm trying to keep this from going crazy, I apologize. It basically has been focusing throughout the comprehensive plan and throughout the discussion of the 2018 update. That when you have acreage that for whatever reason has been passed over by development, we need to take a new look at how that land has historically been used and how we can take advantage of that property as we ensure that we do not have to expand. The comprehensive plan gives us specific strategies and approaches, and it talks about we need to be providing a mix of housing types. We need to be providing an increased density, and we do need to be focusing on basically a multifamily, higher-density type land use in order to meet all of our needs. This is what I was getting at when I said that the housing demand study made very clear that this exact use for this exact population is necessary. We knew when this plan was basically being brought forward that it was going to show that there was an increase in population. We knew that that was coming. But I don't think that everyone understood the extent to which our community is growing and also which certain population segments of our community is growing. It looked at the different demographics that Lexington is facing. For this exact use, the age 65 and above, we're increasing by 16,000 people in just a 10-year period. Some of those people are aging into that population, but this also is for individuals that are outside of the community that are coming here, specifically because they need the type of senior living that we are offering to provide. I note that that's a percentage increase of 44%, and it is why the Housing Demand Study specifically listed this as one of the most significant increments in this entire study that was examined. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I'm going to ask our technician. Either that's too loud or we're getting an echo or a hum. Is there something we can be doing about that? That ain't better. We'll find out. I was picking up on the same thing. I was trying to get around a different area that might work. But this percentage increase was by 44%, and it's why it was specifically identified as one of the most significant increments that we've found in the study. They broke this down by each of the population groups. They wanted to know, okay, well, what is your housing demand going to be? Are you looking for single family? Are you looking for rental? Are you looking for townhomes? Are you looking for condos? What are you looking for? And what it found is that right now we are at a deficit of multifamily rental units for an aging population. By the end of the 2025 period, which is only six years away, we're going to be over 2,000 units short for the population that's expected. We're only here talking about 125 units of a very, very clear need. I've been able to say with such confidence that this is a need because not only did in 2013 did we identify it in 2018 we reiterated it, but we also did a study to make sure that the numbers were right and in 2017 we found we are lacking and this population is growing and that problem is only going to increase. It is why I feel so confident in saying that this particular use is very needed. However, I also understand when you hear about an R4 zone as a neighbor, you have concerns. We saw them just listed earlier, traffic, light, and noise. Senior housing is a perfect neighbor if those are your concerns. We did a traffic study for this development. 25 total trips in the AM, 33 total trips in the PM peak. those numbers are historically low for any apartment complex that I certainly have ever brought into this body and is one of the lowest generating residential uses you can have noise and light issues that are concerned with neighbors those are our concerns for our clientele as well our clientele does not want noise pollution our clientele does not want a lot of lights It's why we specifically use LED lighting. We tend to go for wall packs as opposed to poles because it helps decrease any type of bleed outside of the exact area. And so for this proposed use, we also think that this is very much a great neighbor. The second main justification that is before you all today is that the existing AU zone is inappropriate and the proposed R4 zone is appropriate. As I said earlier, the AU zone is a holding zone. It is designed to make sure that a community doesn't develop too fast to get beyond what the public services can handle in the area. This zone is very clearly available for development today. It has all public services. It's been developed all around it and beyond it, and it's been inside the urban service boundary. It has been inside LFUCG's plans to serve since at least 1980. And so I feel very, very confident in saying that AU is an inappropriate zone because the zoning ordinance tells us that it's an inappropriate zone based on the surrounding areas and based on the ability to serve the public services. The R4 we believe is appropriate because we looked at history, we looked at surrounding areas, and we looked at what kind of uses could go in this area based on what is needed. The most recent zone change that was in the area was this parcel right here, and it went to R4 from a different residential use. Right across from here is a substantial amount of R4. Right down the street, one from here, under .2 miles away, is multi-story, multi-family. And right here is a majority kind of of this area, of the Andover Forest area, is also zoned R4. We looked at recent history, we looked at surrounding area, and we looked at a need that we've been discussing in rentals for senior living that's very, very clearly needed in this community. R4 is a very clear answer here. It's right next door, it's right in this area, and it allows for a use that Lexington absolutely needs. Now, the last kind of point that I'm going to make is that kind of during this process, we've had a lot of communications with the staff, and we've had a lot of communication with the neighbors. and there were three main issues that got brought up from the neighbors. It was connections to the neighborhood from this project, the height of the building, and also the building materials. A lot of this is not what we're here to discuss today as I kind of started my presentation with, but I do think that context is needed because before the Planning Commission meeting, before the Planning Commission, before we were forced to do anything, before any conditions were put on the development plan we voluntarily cut an entire floor off of this development in order to make sure that building height was not an issue anymore we also looked at connections to the neighborhood the biggest concern we heard from the neighbors was connecting to Andover Forest basically right here I'll go back to the plan biggest concern we heard was the neighborhood did not want any connection to endover woods lane right here we said we did not want it we did not think it was necessary and we are not showing it unless the Planning Commission requires us to connect there we do not plan on connecting to that street in any way shape or form these two connections right here and right here are basically the minimum that the code requires for any type of multifamily we are trying to limit any connection that the neighborhoods did not want while still making sure that we're providing safe and accessible access for our residents the last issue was building materials and we voluntarily agreed that there will not be any type of vinyl siding whatsoever on this development we're too early on to get into specifics on what that will be but we voluntarily agree there will not be any type of vinyl siding on this development if the concerns were basically building material based. Again I know that stuff is not part of this kind of this part of the hearing but I did want to make sure that I at least did give the context as Miss Wade was talking about how we eliminated one of the stories in the building Heights. With that simply put I would say that we have a plan that demonstrates this property can and should be zoned R4 and I would request that you would uphold the almost unanimous decision of the Planning Commission but I'm happy to answer any questions if you all do have them at this time. Thank you. Does anybody from the opposition wish to cross-examine the presenter? Seeing none, I have people signed up to speak in opposition. I will call you in order. I understand that some people will yield their time if you'll tell me that you're yielding and to whom. I'll just start with the people at the top of the list um ron ayotte do you wish to speak or you will you yield their time no we have two people who will yield their time to me okay please come to the podium and who will you uh if you're here and yielding your time would you give me your name thank you welcome thank you good evening my name is ron a i live at 3418 country club drive in andover club villas i am president of andover club villas owners association the andover club villas community is located adjacent to and on the east side of the property that Clover Communities is requesting a zoning change from agricultural urban A-U to high-density apartment R-4. I'd like to preface this presentation by stating that I, and not to my knowledge, any resident of our community is opposed to having a residential complex with seniors adjacent to our community. However, this is with the understanding that the complex complies with the 2018 goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan for the city of Lexington. My presentation will show that Clover Community's current proposal does not meet this standard. See that the infill development that respects the character and context of an area is certainly an area that we're very concerned about. and over club builders opposes clover's plan because clover's preliminary development plan has significant issues that do not meet the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan these issues should be addressed prior to rezoning first the height and scale transition to adjacent neighbors if they're proposing a three-story table building which is approximately, it's actually 39 feet tall, spanning 448 feet in one direction. Just think about it. A football field and a half. And 300 feet in the other direction, another football field. It is a large monolithic structure that will dominate the landscape. The building is positioned on the area's highest elevation and will result in a significant impact to the surrounding households. It's insufficient buffering. The building's footprint is too big for the lot size and shape. Basically, it's being shoehorned in there. This does not allow for proper buffering space between building and parking areas and adjacent residential properties. Architectural design. although Clover has stated and I think it was mentioned again this evening by attorney Nicholson that they'll modify the original design and materials that were originally all the exterior was entirely vinyl siding but they have not yet provided a drawing of modifications that are compatible with area standards such as hardy board siding a combination of written with a combination of brick and the ironed stone and finally connectivity of of neighborhoods the proposed access points do not connect adjacent neighborhoods again at the bottom here you note that the zoning commission staff recommendation was for disapproval has been as has been covered earlier this is a current aerial view of the property triangular in shape you can see the The Baptist Church is here. Incidentally, Andover Club Villas are located here. There are still three villas yet to be built. And Glover's current proposal is a three-story footprint. And again, if I can... You're looking at a football field and a half this way, football field that way, and it's just a real large footprint. That's really the major objection that we have. There's not sufficient space for transitioning or buffering to surrounding communities. this is an example of a Glenwood Square senior apartments that Clover has built this is in Twinsburg Ohio that gives you an idea this is slightly under 448 feet on so that gives you an idea of what this complex that they're proposing will look like you're looking again here are three stories all the vinyl which again they said that they would address but we haven't yet seen the plans we look at the again at the footprint oh i'm sorry We're looking at near Todd's Road and Manowar. There is a development there, but you've got trees that really buffered very well. There's also another development on maple leaf, which is buffeted by a large green space. there's nothing here to buffet that large structure now in dan by hamburg we as a senior residence it's a mental community for adults 55 and older i understand clover is planning 62 and older but that really doesn't matter but this here is a combination of two and three-story connected units there's a total of 68 units well integrated with surrounding neighborhoods again and clover is planning for 125 units versus 68. obviously economically it can work with 68 units because it's working in hamburg with 68 units this is another example of a clover community in strongville ohio again four stories in this case but all vinyl although the first floor certainly looks like brick but it's actually red vinyl as you can tell from these pictures and maps these buildings don't you cannot tell from these pictures in that that they that they don't sit in the middle of a residential neighborhood when we looked at six next to a college campus another sits next to another large apartment complex in other words not in the middle of a residential area and this is another one in clover in duffalo new york by clover this is a four-story apartment complex again with the old all-famous vinyl siding so the pictures these buildings speak for themselves as to how they would not mesh with our neighborhood so in summary we ask the council to reject clovis plan as proposed as it does not meet the comprehensive plan our 2018 goals and objectives laid out for the city of lexington it doesn't provide neighborhood integration it doesn't provide appropriate context with surrounding developments it doesn't provide adequate connectivity again those are part of the recommendation for disapproval by the zoning commission staff i thank you for the opportunity to present our side of the story i have to answer any questions you may have thank you i think we have other people signed up to speak and then i'll ask if there's any cross-examination. Edward Gibson, welcome. You have name and address. Dear Vice Mayor and Council Members, good afternoon. My name is Edwin Gibson. I live at 713 Broadmoor Place in Andover Hill. Andover Neighborhood Association is a community association, the community association that governs Andover Hill. I am here today along with some concerned neighbors. I was hoping for a better turnout, but I think they're counting on me to speak on their behalf. Concerned neighbors as the representative of the board of directors of the Andover Neighborhood Association to express our concerns about the Clover development. In addition, the boards of directors of the Gulf Town Homes at Andover Homeowners Association on Gulf Town Circle and the Reserve at Andover Residential Homeowners Association directly across the street, across Todd's Road from this development, have also asked me to express their concerns about the Clover development. Collectively, these associations represent 803 homes in and around where Clover is proposing to build senior living apartments. In general, we are not here to object, I am not here to object on their behalf to the requested zone change or the need for senior housing. I'm a senior myself this year. We are sensitive and supportive of the need for infill and preservation of our rural heritage. We are aware that the zoning for the nearby Andover Club Villas, which Ron just spoke about, is R4 and other R4 development in the area. Most of the R4 of which Mr. Nicholson spoke are connected two and three unit townhomes in many of the communities in and around where the Clover development. They're not large structures like what Clover is proposing. We are aware of and support the zone change requests of Anderson acquisitions to a similar higher density development and business uses. The concern we have is that Clover Communities, the Clover Communities project, differs considerably from the Anderson Acquisitions project, and more importantly, the character of the existing homes in the adjacent communities the clover project affects many homes in the andover neighborhood association directly the building would be directly next door to and overshadow the homes on andover woods lane hunters green court and hunters nol place while we appreciate clover community's concession of reducing the height of building from four stories to three in the amended proposal the objection to the height remains an issue as as does the footprint or magnitude of the structure itself. Planning staff who recommended disapproval of the zone change expresses our concern succinctly in Point 1A from the minutes of the April 25, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, and I quote. The proposed development of the site does not respect the character and context of the area by not properly transitioning in height and passing of the proposed structure, end quote. Excuse me, Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir. Are you about to wrap up or do I need to ask for more time? Is it three minutes already? Yes, sir. If I might just summarize then. Yes, some of you may know that the Andover community's recent ordeal with the former Andover Gulf and Country Club, the Andover community spent the last two years navigating through intense and expensive litigation to acquire control of what would happen to the former golf club. Our goal was to preserve and project property values by preventing development that is contrary to the existing community-wide architectural standards. We succeeded in buying the former club and are now able to control the use of the property. The Clover Project is exactly the type of development the Andover communities fought so diligently to prevent on the former golf course. For all these reasons, we object to the Covert Communities Project, some of which I wasn't able to state. And we urge this Council in the strongest possible terms to not approve the proposed development. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Rebecca Welch. thank you and then James sorry I'm having trouble reading this name southern I'm sorry we need you to come to the podium willing to give my time to mr gibson yeah my name is jim sutton i live at 3520 hunters greenway just a street or so over from this proposed development i don't see that this will help my community at all i was glad to hear that they do not plan to open up and over woods lane but there are alternative properties around on old todd's road on liberty road where those buildings would fit in much better than they would in my community if i look at it from my standpoint that development can do absolutely nothing for me i'm a senior but that will do nothing for me it will not raise my property value if anything it will decrease it it'll increase traffic around there if you open up andover woods lane if you don't i guess there's not much i can say about it but i would not want that in my backyard the size of a football field and greater no it doesn't go with the community at all most of the things i wanted to say was said by mr gibson and the gentleman from andover club villas so keep my community the way it is thank you thank you once again petitioner any cross-examination okay and i have nobody else signed up to speak in opposition that would bring us to further comments from staff no further comments petitioner any rebuttal evidence thank you opponents any rebuttals seeing none yes ma'am that you have if you want to speak you need to come to the podium give us your name and address My name is Jeffrey Honchel. I live at 920 Andover Woods Lane, right on the border of this proposal. I just had a quick question. I had heard several of the presenters today refer to this little block that has been recently rezoned as R4 in our area. that they built a bunch of townhomes there that, as I understand, are all sitting pretty much vacant right now. So I don't see why the need for more multifamily dwellings in our area are there when we have a bunch that are sitting there empty. And that's all I just had that quick question. Great. Thank you. uh would you any further there's an opportunity for summation by opponents first any further comments at this point if none then petitioner uh summation thank you vice mayor um i will be very brief this is very similar to what we heard at the planning commission meeting there was not a kind of outspoken concern specifically for the r4 zoning it was well what is this building going to look like because of that the planning commission voted near unit near unanimously to approve the zone change and the development plan is approved but with a lot of conditions those conditions are you need to look at the connectivity of the site you need to address things such as buffering like this is going to be addressed during the final development plan process it is why the way that this basically the legislative body works its way through this process is you file a zone change with the planning commission that has a preliminary development plan i always refer to it almost as a proof of concept and then it goes to the council to see well is this the right zone for this property and if that answers yes it goes back to the planning commission to talk about these type of building design issues at the final development plan which is where you actually have to pull permits there will be another full public hearing on all of these issues even with that said we went ahead and took a lot of these concerns off the board with regards to the pictures of the vinyl sightings there is not going to be any vital siding whatsoever on this development we still are going to be working on the building mass in the shape of the project as it comes through the final development plan i noticed mr james or yeah mr james specifically did not say that he was not here to object to the zoning and that this is building basically related. You've even heard several of the people here today, we don't object to this use, we acknowledge that this use is needed. You even heard some people say it's needed just not in my backyard, a direct quote. We as a community have developed 2013 comprehensive plan and the 2018 update where we don't get the luxury of saying yes we need this but just don't put it near me we've decided that the urban service boundary is worth protecting and in order to protect that we have to look at increase in density we also have to look at the types of units for all of citizens not just folks that can afford a townhouse that can purchase a townhouse but also for the elderly that are looking to rent specifically apartments our housing demand study identified we need 2200 more of these by 2025 we're trying to help alleviate that specific identified concern. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have. Thank you. At this point I'll open the floor for council members to ask questions of staff, petitioner, or opponents. Please sign in if you wish to speak. Councilmember Worley. Thank you Vice Mayor. I have some questions for the petitioner Mr. Nicholson. And quickly first, because I know some people yielded time, some people may have not signed up, if we could get maybe a show of hands of everyone that is here in opposition. So we just have an idea of everyone that's come. Thank you. So I have some questions and they're going to sound in development plan, Mr. Nicholson, but keep in mind I'll preface this by what I'm hearing now. The use as design doesn't seem appropriate to me in the area, so I'm trying to get some clarification as to why R4 would be appropriate here and a lot lot of these do fall back into certain development plan issues because while I understand the process as you mentioned it's not new to many of us we sitting here today don't have guarantee of what the Planning Commission is going to do and so this is supposed to be a senior living facility is there a note on the development plan or a deed restriction that says in fact that this will be limited to folks that are 65 and up is that being volunteered we have volunteer to development plan note yes on this on the 65 and up so to be very clear to anyone in attendance here in the council itself if this ever is not senior living it has to go back to the planning commission for another public hearing there is not a way to just convert this into general apartments in any way shape or form okay um that's our council member will i'm sorry just for clarification i thought you said 62 and over 62 is the definition in the zoning ordinance for elderly not 65 62 for 65 okay thank you it's the difference in where everyone thinks senior is 65 just based on the three the three years are not my concern as much as i did not believe that they um and then we look to um you know you say that you don't want connectivity to andover woods lane uh the neighbors obviously don't want connectivity to andover woods lane um has there been talk of volunteering that note obviously the planning commission um they have to prove but has there been any talk of volunteering a note to preclude any access on the andover woods line we would happily after that offer that but it's not i cannot be i cannot be more clear we do not think access to andover woods lane is good for the neighborhood for this development for the surrounding area there's not a benefit for it because of how tied in and over woods lane is in this back kind of restricted area we do not see anything but a detriment to our development to you know their neighbors by having that connection so you would commit on the record here that you would volunteer that note I've committed at the Planning Commission I'll commit here again today but it doesn't currently exist though now that note does not currently exist it does not because it's a resolve issue at the final development plan stage specifically about that access. The planning staff is urging for the Planning Commission to approve that access. And so it is a resolved condition of the plan. We will happily put that on. Similarly, the three stories, I know you originally you have changed it to three stories, but again is this is this going to be delineated on the development plan to preclude anything higher? It is on the plan today. And then finally I I gather from some of your comments that one thing that you've not been willing to, your folks have not been willing, I say you, I know you're representing them, your folks have not been willing to volunteer to this point are materials and aesthetics other than we won't use vinyl. But we can't get any sort of guarantee on we'll use a certain percentage of brick or a certain percentage of hardy board. I mean, you say you've met with these neighbors, and that's obviously a concern to them of what they're going to be looking at. And so, but at this point, there's been no volunteering of anything like that. Not percentage-wise, no. We have basically said, and this was, again, was said on the record at the Planning Commission meeting, that we will only use hardy board, stone veneer, and masonry work. We don't know if this project's going to be allowed to move forward. So we have not done any mock-ups of this building with these materials, because we don't know if we can go forward. But that can be done, though. You've got an architect here, don't you? At the final development plan stage, yes, that can be done. could have been done prior to the final development stage plan in order to talk about volunteering a note before the final development stage, correct? I would not have been able to introduce any evidence whatsoever of that to this body. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm asking you about what you could have volunteered in the development plan that would have made an R4 use, in my opinion, more palatable and more appropriate, and that's not been done at this point, correct? we have specifically outlawed the one material that we heard time and time again we do not want that we said fine we will not get that here are the alternatives we can sit back down to figure out what works if we're allowed to move forward vice mayor my time's up i'll chime back in later thank you thank you councilman maloney could you come down please i've got a question here on the definition. When I look at the staff disapproval on number one, does not meet the 2013 comprehensive plan. When I look at the recommendation by the Planning Commission, defining the opposite of what you just said, that they explained to me what is the difference. I mean, when I read something, it should be the same on any side. Why is the Planning Commission arguing with the staff that this is not in compliance with the 2013 comprehensive plan? Well, there were certain portions of the comprehensive plan that the application did meet, and those were referenced in my presentation and I think by Mr. Nicholson as well. They're proposing housing at a high density to meet needs of our community. He referenced the housing study. But there were other portions of the comprehensive plan that they were not meeting. And those were related to the staff findings for disapproval. So because of the height and massing of the building, and it was an option, obviously, of the applicant, they chose to propose one building rather than multiple buildings. The staff felt that multiple buildings might have broken up the massing and been more context-sensitive in that area. So we just found different issues that the applicant didn't address. The Planning Commission held the hearing and made a different conclusion. That concerns me. That's why I rely on you all. You all are the experts on this. There's times I would disagree with you, but this is the first time I've ever seen a vote like this that totally went against everything you all said. And what brings back the point that Council Member Wordley, and they agreed, let's say we agreed today, but at the end of the day, the Planning Commission can override this council on any of these agreements that we've come with. Is that correct? Or if they do say that they're going to shut this road off, can the Planning Commission come back and say, no, you can't do that? The Planning Commission can override on development plan issues, yes. Okay. It concerns me how their definition and your definition does not come together. I understand that. And I see the concerns that the neighborhood has and the developers are willing to work with, but then you've got a comprehensive, you've got a Planning Commission that's going against everything that you all agree. It concerns me on that, and I'm glad you answered that. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Oh, gosh. Ms. Wade, if you could expand on the lack of a transition or buffering from the single-family residences to the proposed multifamily structures, would you mind pulling back up the, I think it was page 12 maybe of your PowerPoint? Could you expand on what is the recommended buffering? The site has a required buffer of 15 feet between the single family residential zone and the R4 zone. And then that includes a fence, a wall, a berm, or a hedge of six feet, as well as trees every 40 feet. And I think that would be along this western edge, all along it, because this is all single family, as well as this southern, I guess, southeastern edge of the site. The AU boundary should be 25 feet as well. So they did provide some space, but again, because of the change of use, the staff felt that there should be a greater buffer between the different uses, especially because of the height of the building. Okay. And down in the corner, like at the bottom of what I would say the state of Kentucky, it's what it kind of looks like in the Paducah area. What is that? Is that a walk track, or what is that of the green area down there? It is. That was what they considered their recreational area, so they did provide a walking track. And I believe it connects here to the parking lot, crosses over in front of the structure. This one terminates in the parking lot. Those are some of the issues that the staff at a final development plan would want to address with the applicant. Generally, we don't want sidewalks to just end in a parking lot. We want them to cross to get you into the structure. and in addition there were concerns about no pedestrian connectivity to the surrounding subdivisions because the comprehensive plan does encourage integration of the land uses, especially for not just vehicular but pedestrian, because you might have someone you know that lives there that you'd want to walk instead of drive. So technically if anybody was in this development and they wanted to go out onto, it would be putter lane is the only way that they could go into that one area um yes they'd be able to exit putter on putter lane and get on this is and excuse me forest hill drive it's a collector street and it would circle back and it does connect over to todd's road again and then they'd also have access on todd's road right but for walking purposes if they wanted to exit out of here and walk the only place they could because of what you were just saying about the connectivity within the neighborhood would be on putters lane or um and i don't are there sidewalks out on todd's road there there are but there i don't believe there's a sidewalk between the two sites like i don't i don't know that there's a sidewalk along their access the church's existing access so the applicant would likely need to include that Okay, so basically it's 15-foot buffer around the exterior part and then the same information sort of like the six foot and the higher berm and all that, the language. Is that in our recommendation? No, it's part of the zoning ordinance. That's the standard is 15 feet with the berm and the trees. But the staff's recommendation was about transitioning between the single family and the multifamily. And the applicant didn't feel that that was necessary. And so they didn't offer any additional landscaping. And that became a finding for the planning staff and making a recommendation for disapproval. Okay. But the planning commission didn't agree. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Thank you. My time is up right now. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have a few questions. Tracy, the R4 usage, what's the range of density on R4 per acreage? There's not a specific range in the zoning ordinance, like an upper limit or a lower limit. Generally, we see about 20 units an acre, so this is close to that. They're proposing 15 dwelling units an acre. that's kind of on the lower end of R4, you can see from their site plan that they have quite a bit of open space, whereas many of our R4 zoned properties with multifamily have less open space, and they utilize the land to a little bit higher intensity. So 20 is probably the average. I would say the upper limit is about 30 dwelling units per acre. So the other developments that are around this one that are R4, are they that intense? because they they i guess from the picture and i guess it doesn't show every unit but they don't look as intense as this development is that not the case um the adjacent r4 is townhomes and it actually has a higher floor area ratio or intensity of the use of the land but they're not as tall that's why they chose r4 because they're one and a half and two story and so they were spread out in terms of a townhouse layout and they used more land but didn't go up because they were meant to be more accessible units not elevator access the other multi-family in the area is along let's see maple is that right maple leaf drive there's multi-family over here that are three three-story along off Dabney Drive. These are townhouses, and they're also two-story Forest Hill Drive. These are still single-family residential, although there are four-zoned. They're still single-family residential in that area. Probably the tallest structure besides the church with its steeple are these multifamily all the way on Maple Leaf Drive. Okay. And I understand, I guess, the staff get their recommendation for disapproval. And I don't want to create any speculation, but did they have a recommended zoning for that area based on density and neighborhood compatibility? Were they recommending R3 or R2? I would, if I had to speculate, I would guess an R1 zone or R3, and likely for lower intensity residential off of the corridor is what we had talked about, that the higher intensity uses are more appropriate on collector and arterial roads. And so in this case, where the church remains would have been a better location for multifamily along the corridor versus tucked to the back which is accessible from the local roads so likely this area would be most appropriate for a lower intensity residential like single family or perhaps duplexes and townhouses that's what the staff concluded okay and then um attorney nicholson um i just have a I know the developer or you all have made contact with the neighbors in the neighborhood, but how many meetings, how much engagement was initiated? We had a full public hearing. I was in fairly regular communication with Mr. James. We had a lot of conversation throughout this entire process because one of the main kind of difficulties for this particular project is what we were hearing from the staff and what we were hearing from the neighbors was in kind of direct opposition. And so we were trying a multitude of different types of plans that might be able to find the middle ground between neighbor and staff. We kept hearing about the connectivity to kind of walk in the area, and then we talked to the neighbors, and they're like, whatever you do, do not connect anything to Andover Woods. and so you know we tried to accommodate the neighbors in that regards and we for a lot of those issues we had very similar kind of back and forth so your engagement the neighbors did it take place at a neighborhood meeting at a meeting that you called or just at the public hearing we had a neighborhood meeting that was specifically for our project to meet at the andover country club to go over the development plan go over the zone change request and you talk about anything and then we've had other phone calls and email conversations with their representatives to update them through the process and kind of talk about those issues we specifically met with the neighborhood outside of the planning commission i'm out of time but i'm gonna ask one more question before i go um what are the what are the rents uh what are the proposed affordability of the rents well i can i can i can chime back in if you're that upset about I'm getting a little. One bedroom, $1,000 a month. Two bedroom, one and a half bath would be around $1,300 a month. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. Ms. Wade, I was going to ask. Go ahead. I actually have not recognized Council Member Farmer yet, and you've spoken once already. So let me get Council Member Farmer. Of course. Absolutely. Thank you both. So, as presented to us tonight, what is the connectivity as sent to us by the Planning Commission? So, the Planning Commission conditioned the development plan on basically resolving these access issues at the time of the final development plan. And so, at the time of the final development plan, in order to get approval, we have to basically submit a new plan that will show what kind of access there is to adjacent roads. where these sidewalks are exactly going, where all these connections are throughout the site, to the approval of the Planning Commission. They did not vote to approve the zone change and just throw connectivity out the window. They voted to approve the zone change because R4, they determined, was the right zone to move forward, but we do need to talk about how this development relates to the neighborhood, and we will have to do that at the time of final development. plan. I'm just slightly confused because in the picture when you look at Putter Lane it comes up with a I think the term was hammerhead. Yes. That's kind of a new term and a new use. Hammerhead it's a it's a typical termination on any type of kind of local road. The original concept was to create a entire local road from Putter over to Andover Woods. That was met with a whole lot of hostility and so we tried to determine a way to not put the local road all the way through the project the only way to properly terminate a local road is with a cul-de-sac and one of the designs of that is a hammerhead so literally you would pass over what is now the end of putter lane into this waldorf rectangle that is on the subject property it's not waldorf it's just like you You would, I mean, if you picture the end of a cul-de-sac, it is, you know, curbed with two entrance points. It's just designed as a hammerhead as opposed to circular. But it is on the subject property, not in the neighborhood. It is on the subject property, yes. But it doesn't really provide connectivity. It just provides the opportunity to come in and turn around and go back out. It does provide connectivity because it's an access point for this site, for any type of emergency vehicles that wants to get here. they can use putter lane directly and come onto this property as you see this is a direct kind of drive yes so you can basically access from putter from here you can go to putter from here you can go down into putter if you want to just you know cut through that is a full access point it just has a termination because you have to do that whenever terminating a local road that that doesn't connect to another local road. So you can drive through it? So yes. Even though it looks like it's a square or rectangle? I picture almost a three-way stop, if you will. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, and these are crosswalks right there to make sure. So that's a crosswalk? Yes. Thank you. Yes, I apologize. Yes, those are crosswalks in order to continue the sidewalks of putter onto this property to make sure you have full kind of walkability from the site and this kind of giant amenity area back here thank you for that further explanation all good thank you thank you those are not walls thank you uh councilmember massadi thank you vice mayor um miss jones i have a question for you mr nicholson opened up this evening stating that we are here tonight to determine whether or not our floor is appropriate, the zoning, correct? That is correct. Okay, so as a council, we can determine the density on this property, and we can determine the buffering. Yes. And that is all, correct? That is correct. Okay, that's what I wanted to make sure was clarified. Thank you so much. That's all, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. I want to tag on to that, and then I'll ask that. We can also determine the height, can't we? Yes, obviously the way you might limit density could have an impact on height, but generally you all don't impose a restriction based on feet or number of stories. Does that make sense? Okay. I just think I remembered the one zone change over on Nicholasville Road where we dealt with the height of it, I believe. so but anyway that's my question is um the one parcel that has the townhomes that's on todd's road do miss wade do you know the buffer i know this is probably not i'm hoping you might remember this uh but because it do you know the buffer for that townhome community development uh to the surrounding properties on that by chance to the single family it should have been 15 feet on either side though there were still agricultural urban setbacks so those two ends should have been 25 feet so that's there were 15 and where the single family and then 25 on the other side two ends yeah okay and then the the discussion that we had last week there we had there were 25 feet but that was just because it was we it was designated that way in the planning commission correct yes because that was single family that was town home to single family as well right so okay okay thanks thank you thank you council member worley uh thank you vice mayor miss wait um so i'm looking through the report out from the planning commission and the staffs uh so generally the adjacent uses are, or surrounding uses, I should say, are single-family detached and or townhomes. Is that a fair assessment? Yes. And I thought I saw a number in here that the average, I guess, for lack of density, is about five units per acre. I would say that's accurate. And this is proposing 15 units per acre. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. I see no other council member has signed up to speak or ask questions, so I will now declare the hearing closed. And no further evidence can be taken at this point, and council may deliberate on the evidence it has heard. um question comments uh at this point council members eventually we'll move towards a motion council member warley i hate to be the first to to chime in here just being in my district i tend to like to hear what some of my colleagues say but since i'm i am the one chimed in i'll I'll say what I hear now, the use of senior living is needed. It's good. But a three-story monstrosity of a building on top of a single-family neighborhood just doesn't seem appropriate to me. And that's why some of my questions may have been phrased in aesthetics and things that we can't necessarily control. I think some of a lot of our questions deal with the concerns of what is available in R4 zoning and you see that the other development even R4 has not been this. The other development in the area have been townhomes or single family detached homes at as much as 10 units per acre less. I struggle with this because I think it's a need in our community but I I don't know that as proposed, this particular zone change respects the character and context of the area. And I have serious concerns. And I'm sure I'll chime in more, but like I said, I'd like to hear what my colleagues feel about this. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I'm going to echo a lot of the same comments that Council Member Worley shared. But first, let me thank the neighbors in the neighborhood for coming down, sharing your concerns, and letting us know how you feel about the development and your community. Like I said last week, we as a community have made a decision that we're going to grow and develop in a certain way. And we have to look to provide opportunity for folks that want to continue to live in our city and create opportunities for new folks that want to live in our community. So we have to maximize the opportunities wherever they may be. But I think we have to be intentional about how we do that, and I think we have to be sensitive about the neighborhoods, you know, specifically where these developments take place. I'm not sure that this zoning, that this intensity in this residential neighborhood is appropriate, even though there are similar developments in zones nearby. I just don't think they're as intense by acreage. And then the height of it kind of concerns me. So, you know, these are tough decisions that we have to make, but I think we need to take those into consideration about how we approve these developments in these neighborhoods as they come before us. But they're not easy. so please keep in mind that we're making tough decisions for these neighborhoods and for our whole city as we move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Massardi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You asked for our input. Council Member Roarley, I didn't realize you got up. I have a question. You can wait. I'm sorry. I just didn't look up. I was listening all the time. That's fine. One issue I think that we need to look at is affordability, though. I understand this is an intense development, but not all seniors can afford to buy a townhouse or a single-family resident. When you're over 65, many of them live on a Social Security or some type of a pension. So that's my big concern here is what can we provide for this area that's compatible with the neighborhood, but then also conserve a population that doesn't have the ability to purchase. So if we can work on that, I'm okay. but if we can't i think we've got to have a place for these folks who don't have the ability to purchase a place to live so that's my input thank you thank you councilmember lamb thank you vice mayor um i'm going to echo some of the same concerns i do have concerns with the the buffer and the height i know in my council district i have uh sarah christian village which is um senior living and it I know the buffer in on that is is much larger than than 15 feet and and so they're in their height they have different buildings but I do it's you know it's a much further distance to the single-family neighbors so I really do have you know I know we do need We do need to have housing. I'm concerned with the cost of it, you know, affordability, too. So this is hard because, you know, we want to support infill, and I have been very supportive of it. But I also understand the concerns, and I guess it's because the neighborhood has already been defined there. And wouldn't it be wonderful if we all came at the same time and figured out how the lay of the land where we could integrate everything together. And perhaps maybe there's another option out there if you put your hat on again and thought of a different solution. But I do have concerns with this because I know how that projects have integrated into my neighborhoods, but there's a much larger buffer to this. So I will wait and see what my colleagues have to say further, but I'm concerned with it. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I understand, you know, the neighborhood's concern, and I actually represent the district that borders this on the other side of this. So, you know, my district has grown just like Council Member Worley's district has grown. My house is on what used to be farmland. and it I think this area um honestly I think we just kind of have to accept that it's just growing and again other council members have have mentioned that you know we decided to um not expand and we have to find land where we can find it um that's that's what infill was so this is just the product of it. And I voted to keep the boundary the way it is. So this is just part of, again, it's the growing pain of it. Going back to, I think, what Council Member Maloney was kind of getting at, I'm just frustrated that there was such a difference with what the planning commission decided versus what the staff decided. Because I'm not sure why the staff made the recommendation that they did, quite honestly. Because I do see, as is in the comprehensive plan in 2013 and now, it's always talking about connectivity. It's always talking about density. we had a hearing last week I think and my reason for not liking that one was because there was not connectivity to a very main street this one I just don't see a reason to not approve this I mean I understand the concerns but when there are other R4 zones around this property. It's really difficult for me to argue why this shouldn't be the same. As was pointed out, this area has already been developed, and it's being developed. and we have to get out of the not in my backyard mentality. I know no one likes it, but this is the result of keeping the boundaries as they are. And it's just a product of it. And again, we're just growing. We're growing everywhere. And on the other side of Manowar, on what is Liberty Road, you have apartments that abut houses. So, you know, I understand the concern, but it's happening everywhere. And, you know, no one has complained. I know it's an adjustment, but honestly, with what is around this neighborhood, I honestly just can't see a reason to deny this because of what is already zoned and what's already been developed there. So that's my thoughts, Council Member Worley. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I know, Council Member Worley, you've asked us to weigh in. I represent the 12th District, and that is mostly outside the urban service boundary. So obviously, infill and redevelopment is very, very important. With that said, this isn't a good fit. I think that the massiveness, I think the height, I myself do not live that far away. council member evans and council member whirley we all kind of share that area and right up the road i have quite a few busting at the seams type of neighborhoods but for me this this is not fitting into the character of that area so i will not support um this zone change to r4 thank you thank you vice mayor thank you um before i recognize council member whirley again And Councilman Maloney, if you wouldn't mind taking the chair, I'd like to be recognized. Go ahead, Vice Mayor. Thank you. I guess I want to speak to the question that's been raised a couple of times about why there can be such a disparity between the recommendation from the staff of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission itself. When I look at that plan, what I see are some fairly obvious downsides. It's not consistent or as consistent as it might be with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. I think that's pretty clear. It has problems of connectivity. We are supposed to be committed to connectivity for a whole variety of reasons. This particular piece of land is a very difficult piece of land to develop. It's an odd shape. It's in an odd place. It is surrounded completely by development. So when the planning staff looked at it, I believe they focused on the question of, is it compatible with the neighborhood and does it have connectivity issues? And they came down on the side of saying, we don't think this is the right thing to do. Planning commission looked at it. They looked, I think, more at the question of the overall need of the community for housing, the appropriateness of providing some senior housing in particular and they came down in a different place we are in the business of infill which is always going to be difficult I don't think we're going to get any clear-cut cases that can be well if they're clear-cut the Planning Commission votes them up and nobody objects but anything that comes to us they're going to have aspects which which are consistent with the comprehensive plan and aspects where we have questions about that consistency. Our job is to weigh them and to come to a conclusion that we think is in the best interest both of the neighborhood and of the larger community as we continue to deal with growth and the need for infill. So, thank you. I'll take the chair back. Councilmember Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I thank you all very much for all your thoughts. I'd simply like to just respond to, and I know that this wasn't necessarily Councilmember Evans' intent or others that are talking about the need for infill, but I take umbrage with we've chosen that we have to grow, and so therefore we have to grow. And there's other similar zoning in the area. Well, that other similar zoning you've heard was developed at a significantly less intense manner, five units per acre as opposed to 15 units per acre this is this thing is monstrous right on top of single-family homes I think we do need to in infill I think we need to grow I think we need this particular senior living use just not as designed it doesn't make this zoning appropriate it makes all the things people are afraid of of R4 right on top of them and and and that's my That's my take on it. Vice Mayor, whatever is your pleasure, but while I have the microphone, I have a motion, or if you'd prefer to wait and see if there's any. Right now, there's no one else signed in to speak, so if you have a motion, it would be appropriate. Thank you, Vice Mayor. For all the reasons that I've stated here as to why I believe this is inappropriate, I would move to adopt the following findings of fact for disapproval that the proposed rezoning of the subject property does not meet the 2013 comprehensive plan or the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan for the following reasons. A. The proposed development of the site does not respect the character and context of the area as related to theme A, goal number 2A, by not properly transitioning in height and massing of the proposed structure. B. The lack of transitioning of buffering from the single family residences to the proposed multifamily structure leads the dominating of the landscape by the new use not an enhancement of the existing urban form relates to theme E goal number 1D and enhancement suggests both the addition of new services or forms of housing and the inclusion of new development that will not change the character of a neighborhood which I believe this does and to that there have been no major changes of an economic physical or social nature within the immediate area which were not anticipated in the comprehensive plan adopted by the Commission and which have substantially altered the basic character of such area for all those reasons I've moved disapproval so move. I have a motion and a second before I ask for discussion on the motion just a reminder that this would require eight votes to pass requires a majority of council so anybody wish to speak to the motion Council Member Brown. Vice Mayor, if you could, can you provide clarity on if this motion passes and is supported? What would the next step as far as application for development be for this parcel? My understanding is that this would reject the findings of the Planning Commission and that would end this process of seeking a zone change for that property. Is that correct? If you all reject this zone change, then they would have to wait for one year to come back to the Planning Commission. Even if they wanted to change the type of zone that they would apply for, there would still be a one-year wait? I was under the impression if it's a materially different application. In order for it not to have the one-year time limit, it would have to be materially different when it comes back. And that just has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Okay. That's somewhat answering my question. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. I see nobody else signed in to speak. Councilman Maloney, if you again would take the chair. Go ahead, Vice Mayor. I guess on balance, when I look at it and I understand both the recommendation from the Planning Commission and from the Planning staff, I believe that given the difficulty of this particular site, that we're unlikely to get a better proposal for a variety of reasons. So I'm going to vote no on this motion. Thank you. Mayor. Thank you. Councilman Brown, you wish to speak again? Are you still signed in? I'm still signed in, but I still have another question. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm sorry. Or I'm not sorry. I just want clarity. When the applicant, when the planning department reviews these zoning applications and they They make a rule on whether to approve or disapprove. At that time, can the applicant change their zoning application to entertain one that the zoning staff or the planning staff may approve or entertain? Ms. Wade? The applicant has the ability as it goes through the planning commission process to postpone at any time and amend their application. They amended their application once, but they chose not to make other amendments as suggested. Okay. So they also had the opportunity to look at other zoning options as well? Absolutely. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed in to speak. If we could have a roll call vote, please. I'm sorry. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to clarify, so there's 12 here, and if it's a 7-5 vote, it still would pass, but it would not, since you need eight votes, that the Planning Commission, still their recommendation, would go forward. Is that how it would be? If you don't get eight votes, this motion is going to fail. It'll fail in that what the Planning Commission recommended, then we'll go forward. Unless we have a different motion. I would think you would need a different motion. Okay, I believe then we are ready to vote. If we could have a screen and a roll call vote, please. Vice Mayor Cain? Ms. Lamb? Mr. McKern? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Massadi? No. Ms. Plowman? Yes. Ms. Reynolds? Yes. Mr. Worley? Yes, ma'am. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Evans? No. Mr. Farmer? No, ma'am. Vice Mayor, before you call the vote, I actually realized I voted incorrectly. So before you call the vote, I need to change my vote to yes. I apologize. I just caught myself. So you haven't called for the vote. I have not spoken about the results, so it's always possible to change your vote until. Legally, until you call the vote the way that it ends, a person can change their vote. Can we get the screen up again, please? I clearly did not. Right, right, right. And I, Susan Lamb, am changing my vote. We just need the screen for the previous vote so that we can see. You can go and you can hit the previous vote on here, but she'll have to fix it in the record. Okay. And so she changed it. I believe that that vote reflects passage of the motion. And we now, I believe, there also needs to be a vote on the ordinance, even though that the findings of fact have been disapproved. And so if we can. Vice Mayor, I believe we need to amend the ordinance to reflect disapproval. Because this, as written and first read, it's an ordinance changing the zone. and so it would need to be amended to an ordinance disapproving the zone change. Typically we've just ordered the ordinance down, but we just need to vote the ordinance down. So if you do not... That leaves the potential for ambiguity. I maybe ask Law for what they think we ought to do here. If you disagree with the ordinance because it is written in the positive and you do not want to amend it, then you would need to vote no on this ordinance because it is for approval and you now have findings for disapproval. Or we could amend it to reflect the findings we just made so that it's not... That's true. That's true. Okay. I believe that traditionally what we have done is simply taken a vote on the ordinance as read. And if you don't want to pass it, you vote no. Madam Clerk, if you'd call it. We've had a motion. We need a motion and a second to approve the ordinance. I need a motion and a second to approve the ordinance. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Hold on, Vice Mayor. I want to ask. Just one moment. Just to make sure we don't get the wrong vote here, let's ask the law department just to tell us, because we don't want to get that same issue here. It's kind of you get that double negative, because if we do the same thing, it would be no on this vote. Correct. The ordinance has already been given second reading, and the ordinance has been given second reading is to approve this zone change. So, since you've adopted findings of fact in support of disapproval, you will need to, your vote on this ordinance should be the same to reflect that, which is a no vote that would disapprove the ordinance. So a no vote is a vote for disapproval. Please call the roll. Vice Mayor Cain? Yes. Ms. Lamb? No. Mr. McCurn? No, ma'am. You get a reverse, you vote. Mr. Maloney? No. Ms. Massadi? Yes. Ms. Plumman? No. Ms. Reynolds? No. Mr. Worley? No, ma'am. Mr. James Brown? No. Mr. Ellinger? No. Ms. Evans? Yes. Mr. Farmer. That vote reflects failure of the motion. And I believe, first, I want to thank everybody who's come out for taking your time. We appreciate it very much. It's a hard process. I'll now entertain a motion to adjourn. Do we adjourn or do we? We adjourn. We'll take a 10-minute break and then we'll have another hearing. Thank you.