Music ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. family trust council district 10. thank you thank you and now um i guess i should formally introduce myself i'm steve k the vice mayor i'll be chairing this meeting and i need to lay out some of the ways in which we'll proceed so the first item is to swear in all of you if you plan to speak even if you don't actually end up speaking or you might speak if you would stand or raise your right hand either way and I need to swear you in. Not council. I'm sorry got distracted. It's nice to see you all standing there I know with your hands raised. Rules followers. It's a little, you know, we'll do this for a while and no. 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. Thank you. So we have agreed with council presenting that council will limit their remarks to 30 minutes. We will allow any people who are in opposition to begin with a presentation that will not be time limited. And then there'll be three minutes for any people who want to speak on either side of the issue. My job as the presiding officer is to make judgments about whether the evidence being introduced is relevant or not. I usually don't have to exercise that power, but I want you to let you know that I may choose to rule that some input is either excluded or repetitious. The petitioner has submitted a witness list. I believe they've given that already to the clerk, is that correct? Has the witness list been provided? I think it's actually in the packet, so I don't know if it needs to be separated for the clerk's purpose. And all printed materials that's going to be presented should be also provided to the clerk. And it's already been done to council members. The order of presentation will be first, staff will present on behalf of the planning commission. Actually, let me back up a half a step, I'm sorry. I need to let you know. If you are speaking, you're asked to identify yourself by name and address for the record. And I think, if you speak, you're asked to stay for the duration of the hearing and you would be subject to cross examination. Then the order of presentation first, planning division staff will present. And they're subject to cross examination. Then the presentation by the petitioner, similarly subject to cross examination. Presentation by the opponent. And then time for individuals whether in support or in opposition to make public comment. Those public comments will be limited to three minutes. After the presentation by the petitioner and the opponent, there'll be an opportunity for staff to add comments at the end. And then an opportunity for rebuttal, and then an opportunity for summation. After which, there'll be an opportunity for council members to ask questions of all who have spoken. And an opportunity if there is new information that's introduced for rebuttal. And at that point, the hearing will be declared closed. There'll be no further input from anyone in chambers except for council members. Council members will deliberate and then a vote will be taken to adopt findings of fact. And that's done by a roll call vote. And then finally adopting the findings or not adopting the findings of the Planning Commission. I believe that's it, unless there's questions from council, comments, or any concerns from staff at this point. If not, we are ready to proceed and we'll start with the staff presentation. Good evening. members of the council and vice mayor kay my name is tracy wade for the record i am the planning services manager in the division of planning and i'm here tonight to represent to you or to present to you the planning commission recommendation for a zone change requested by the rta family trust before we get started i do have a number of items to enter into the record and some of these have been placed at your seat and are also available in the back of the council chambers tonight the first before we get to my list i will just note for the record that the applicant provided an affidavit of the sign that they posted on the property for tonight's hearing so make that part of the record and then the items that the division of planning has to enter today are first a the newspaper advertisement and the affidavit for tonight's hearing that was posted in the newspaper as required as well as on our website second that the division of planning and myself have supervised the mailing of notices within the 500 foot notice area for the subject property tonight and that went to 73 properties within the 500 foot notice third a final report this is the document that the council receives from the planning commission representing the recommendation it includes the minutes of the planning commission as well as staff reports from that particular case so you all have a copy of this and it is in the back of the room available next and available for council members to review are items that were submitted for the record to the planning commission there were several emails from objectors in the nearby neighborhood as well as a presentation made by our MPO staff member mr. Emmons related to traffic counts in the area next we have the 2018 adopted comprehensive plan imagine Lexington the current zoning ordinance for lfucg the current land subdivision regulations for the city and then last are the two handouts i provided and again at the back of the room to the council members our powerpoint presentation for tonight and then something that's a little bit newer what we call a development snapshot this is mailed out to our neighborhood um our neighbors our property owners within the 500 foot notice before the planning commission and we updated that tonight for today for the council's public hearing it includes basic information about the request and then on the back a not to scale development plan as mentioned earlier the subject property is 1009 and 1017 Wellington Way the subject property encompasses about an acre and a half of property and then the gross acreage includes our right-of-way that is proposed to be rezoned today they are requesting a high density apartment zone which is our our four zone the current zone is a neighborhood business zone the other two references on this slide are related to the comprehensive plan and we'll get to that in a few minutes the proposal for this subject property is to construct a one residential building that's four stories in height to accommodate 88 dwelling units for this particular size property the density associated with those 88 units is 56.4 dwelling units per acre the subject property is located on the north side of Wellington Way I'm going to zoom in a little bit on this this graphic depicted on the screen tonight shows the subject property in the middle that's the white with the outline and then anything that's in color represents the 500 foot notice area so all of those properties receive notice about the subject zone change and then the colors represent the existing zoning so in this vicinity we have Wellington Way that is a little bit curvilinear and it intersects with Harrodsburg Road to the south and east of the subject property the subject property has frontage along Wellington Way as well as an access easement for Palomar Center Drive Palomar Center Drive continues to the north as well as to the south through the Palomar shopping center a zoning in the vicinity includes professional office to the northwest as well as the southeast and that's in that light teal color that is also along Harrodsburg Road. B1 which is this orange red shade to the east and also south and then B6P which is the shopping center central our commercial center zone to the south and then these brown and yellow shades are representative of multi are of representative of residential both zoning and development to the north of the subject property is r3 zoning although these are all single-family lots and then to the east across harrisburg road we have a multi-family development and then also single-family residential again the subject property is proposed for a residential development just an aerial view of the subject property which is currently vacant almost all other properties within the immediate vicinity are currently developed These are a few of the photos of the site. The top photo in a panoramic view is looking at the site from Wellington Way. You can see a few structures in the background. These are single-family homes that front onto Palomar Trace. And then this brick building, which is about a two-story building, is a Taekwondo studio. the second view on the lower half of the screen is from Wellington Way towards the commercial development and you'll see there's a Panera restaurant as well as an athletic facility those are commercial establishments across what would be across the street from the site other views in this general vicinity this is Palomar Center Drive the access easement that provides frontage on the side of the lot. In the background you can see a three-story medical office building. This view in the top center is of Harrodsburg Road. Bottom center is the three-story office building that does front onto Harrodsburg Road. Bottom right is a bank, Chase Bank, which is across the accesses this access isn't it and the three-story building and I'm not sure I can make out that last photo in terms of the comprehensive plan for the for the community we have place types we have development types and then we also have something called the place builder so let me go through that really briefly the comprehensive plan when it was adopted in 2018 created a bit of a structure associated with development and it outlines place types that are appropriate for redevelopment in this case the applicant opined that their place is a corridor along Harrisburg Road would be the corridor so that's on the right hand side of this view and in addition the comprehensive plan makes recommendations for development types that are appropriate within that particular place so what is appropriate along a corridor the comprehensive plan recommends medium density residential medium to high density residential high density residential and then also a mixture of residential and and commercial uses the comprehensive plan also makes recommendations where a corridor is appropriate these zones are suggested or recommended by the comprehensive plan although other zones could be requested in this case the applicant also opines that they are proposing a medium density development type and that is consistent with what is allowed or recommended by the comprehensive plan for this particular place type and again they have selected a zone that is recommended by the comprehensive plan for this place type and development type some of the concerns that came up during the Planning Commission's review and staff review of this case involved traffic and safety of pedestrians in the vicinity as well as the height of the proposed structure and so these photos show the height of surrounding structures and how they might relate to the subject property. The top left shows the athletic facility that's across Wellington Way. This shows an office building, the medical office building on Harrisburg Road. These are the single-family homes to the rear of the site, and then a two-story office building that's adjacent along Wellington. And again, this photo shows the, from earlier, the Taekwondo studio, which is a two-story structure. Here's the medical office building to the rear, and then the single-family residences also to the rear on that site. The applicant, in proposing their development, again, I mentioned they chose a corridor type and a medium-density development type. and the planning commission concurred that those were appropriate at this location and also that an r4 zone could meet those recommendations of the comprehensive plan. Part of the comprehensive plan also sets out development criteria in something called the place builder. It's a distillation of the goals and objectives and the recommendations and policies of the comprehensive plan. and in addressing the justification for their zone change the applicant prepared an evaluation of how they met those development criteria and in doing so they prepared this this graphic which is a which shows areas that meet the comprehensive plans recommendations the building is shown in an L shape that fronts onto Wellington Way it puts the parking to the rear also only has access to the access easement not to the main collector Street there are pedestrian access ways provided into the building from the front of the building to the sidewalk there's also a pedestrian access provided across Wellington Way to provide access to nearby commercial development to the south in the shopping center as well as restaurant and athletic facility they are also showing the location of trees proposed the location of an underground detention basin below the parking lot which will allow for more of their site to be utilized for development as opposed to ponds or water oh and the above rooftop garden so their open space is shared open space not just in a plaza format along Wellington but also on the roof so in doing their evaluation there are three categories within the place builder that are being evaluated first has to do with site design building form and location and the applicant as I mentioned move their building to the frontage along Wellington Way provided parking in the rear and underneath the structure provided pedestrian entrances along the street additional landscaping to the rear and along Wellington and also addressed the comprehensive plans multifamily design standards and pedestrian level lighting the second category has to do with transportation and pedestrian connectivity the applicant provided a safe pedestrian crossing across Wellington Way address access to nearby commercial areas south of Wellington Way and a transit stop and then also agreed to provide bicycle storage facilities within the structure and then the last category is green space and environmental health and I mentioned they provided underground detention and some green infrastructure with permeable pavers they added tree canopy coverage and the rooftop open space this graphic shows the proposed tree canopy to be planted on the site they also did a lighting study to show the Planning Commission that they could provide low-level lighting to not disturb nearby property owners and the staff in reviewing the proposal made a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval I'll get to the findings in just a minute the Planning Commission did hold a public year full public hearing on April 22nd there were several people in attendance at that meeting besides the applicant's attorney there were and when I say in attendance we were on zoom so everybody was on TV but four neighbors spoke in opposition to the request and expressed concern about the size of the development and especially the height of the proposal for multi-family at this location the possibility of increased noise and traffic and pedestrian safety along wellington way also the loss of green space because currently the the property is vacant and then lastly i guess that's a duplication regarding the height of the proposed building the planning commission after hearing the case presented did make a recommendation to the council that you're hearing tonight for approval seven voted in favor and one against and those findings that the planning commission made at the hearing are listed on your final report and then they're on the powerpoint here tonight basically they found that the requested our poor zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and specifically the goals and objectives and there were about i believe eight goals and objectives that were mentioned within the findings more specifically they're providing needed housing for our community they're providing a mixture within the immediate area of different types of housing so there's not any multi-family in this immediate well there are some across Harrodsburg Road but not on Wellington adjacent to the Palomar trace area and they are also doing infill on a vacant site so utilizing and absorbing our underutilized land providing that transportation connection across Wellington to the commercial areas that provided not just a connection for the residents that might live in this location but also those anyone on that side of Wellington Way and let's move on the I mentioned earlier about the justification that the applicant provided related to the development criteria so this these three findings address the three categories of development criteria and how the applicant has met has met those so again the Planning Commission didn't make a recommendation in favor of this zone change at this location this is just a black-and-white view of the development plan which I'm happy to go over in more detail if we need to and that color rendering of it at this point I concludes my comments for tonight and I would be happy to answer any questions now or later in the meeting thank you just either the petitioner or those in opposition want to at this time cross-examine staff member no one thank you very much all right next mr. Woodall presentation from petitioner thank you all appreciate you hearing us tonight it's great to be back in person kind of but as Tracy alluded we did have a zoom hearing one of many for me over the last year and I'll take in person any day on behalf of RTA Family Trust I once again appreciate the opportunity to address you my name is John Woodall with McBrayer. Myself and my partner Scott Schutte have had the honor and privilege to present this application through the process. We've had a great team to help us. This is Greg Smorestad, who's with Banks Engineering, our engineering group, and Julian Elasco with Integrity Architecture, and Celia Moore with Integrity Architecture, and Lewis Morris with RTA Family Trust. As Tracy alluded, this plan since 2018, everything is adjudged in line with Place Builder. And the one thing that I've learned, one thing I already knew is that your planning staff, I don't always agree with them, but you're not gonna find a more diligent, hardworking group than they are. They really put the time in. and what place builder has done. I mean, like I said, it's part of Imagine Lexington that's just started a couple of years ago. And in large part, we saw a big drop off of development in 2020 because of COVID. So there's not a whole lot of plans that have probably come across your desk that have gone through that process. And I will tell you as an applicant, and probably intentionally so, it's really required applicants to step up their game. It requires a whole lot more interaction with staff. And as I've learned, not just in cases like this where one can say, well, our request meets the comprehensive plan, approve our zone change. But even in the case of just a development plan, where we used to call it zoning by right, that's not a guarantee anymore. You have to have a good plan. You have to work at it. You really do. And that's what's happened here. My clients own this property since 2013. It was rezoned then from back my former partner Chris Westover was involved in this from R3 and P1 to a B1 zone. and it's my understanding the R3 that was there came about in 1988 to support the child care center was there when I used to live real close to there and that was where La Petite was and it's gone but with that went the 100 to 200 kids that were there in daycare and I just bring up the prior zoning classification just because it's important because of the neighborhood concerns now with this plan about traffic and the height of the building lighting and things of that nature the prior approval in the b1 zoning process was for a building that was going to be 45 feet in height overall and then the signature feature of the roof was was 55 feet this building is not that tall we started out a little taller but it's it's been back down to 40 feet and for in four stories the bottom line is with the pressure on on the development community in terms of the urban services area and and so forth and the expansion or lack thereof and then all the pressure as our latest census reveals on our surrounding communities there's a lot of pressure for for infill housing here there just is and so the development communities had to react to that this property was previously approved for you know it was retail restaurants not a lot of people are building restaurants these days in fact I think we're gonna see a lot more restaurants in Lexington I read an article yesterday about some of the larger restaurant providers across the country that are closing shops whether it's due to covet or adjusting lifestyles whatever but the bottom line is infill is is the key word these days and and i don't think that trend is going to discontinue especially with the fall of the of the coal business in eastern kentucky and the opioid crisis there there's a reason that georgetown's still the largest growing community or scott county is in this state and that we're going to continue to see the spillover effect of that so fast forward and we when we submitted this particular plan like I said it put a place builder puts the burden on the applicant to really come up with a good plan and work with staff to do that in terms of from the very beginning so we had our initial meeting with staff to discuss whether this was in fact an appropriate zone whether this use at this location would be would be something that that that they would get behind or at least help us with and it was and so we jumped headlong into the process we started out with a with a neighborhood meeting back in january of last year by zoom to try to understand because i've read through all the zoning minutes from prior hearings regarding this property over the years and having grown up on that side of town a little bit I knew what some of the concerns were and we heard those same concerns be aware of traffic be aware of how your building will be situated and the number one concern we heard was where's the pool going to be especially from those owners that live on Palomar Trace Boulevard and drive behind us well i was happy to report we're not having a pool for that very reason that was not something that that was going to be consistent with with the neighborhood and and so we did away with that the other big issues that that came up in terms of our multi-family design standards open space you know how are we going to deal with that tree canopy property screening stormwater detention, site lighting, bicycle storage, our building aesthetics. How are we going to meet our open space requirements? And that's when we came up with the rooftop deck. Activating the ground plane, which, and that was, you know, that's kind of code word for you need to have more than one entrance coming out onto Wellington Way, and there needs to be something that makes that entrance area more appealing. So we came up with the plaza area there, which we can't use, actually, to count against our open space requirement, but we were doing it anyway. And we worked with our design team, and our design team worked with staff to come up with some of these changes. The rooftop, let's see if I can get this done. Okay. uh-oh how do i go backwards there we go okay mr woodall yes i'm sorry to interrupt you but we have traditionally not allowed renderings to be included in a zone change hearing i am going to okay well all right i'll just talk about it then because you're seeing it in what in your binder anyway and for the record um i'm relying on on all the documents that that miss uh wade is submitted and we've also submitted our own binder okay so in terms of the rooftop the idea there was to meet our open space requirement in in a creative way that would also be something that our potential tenants would enjoy so we've actually put a rooftop garden and meeting area on top of the building which once again we're 40 feet to the top and if you count the parapet walls they don't they don't typically count we don't need a variance we're not asking for a variance here we're about 42 and a half to that fencing i mentioned the plaza space that is at the entrance on wellington way that's simply a feature that will allow for limited meeting in that area i don't know whether miss wade later or perhaps mr bailey are going to talk about traffic counts when mr emmons before he retired there was there's all there's been a lot of talk about traffic and what are the what are what problems are we going to create with this particular development if we're not careful so mr emmons did a um a review of this himself and what we concluded was or he concluded was and this this was this presentation was made to the Planning Commission was part of their findings that was that the additional traffic generated from the development will not overburden Wellington Way or Palomar Center Boulevard and here's the important part Mr. Immans also concluded that the proposed development will generate significantly less traffic than the previously approved development plan that included restaurants and retail so much much less trips than having a restaurant with a drive-through at this location. The height of the building, this is also very important, and this is not a rendering, Mr. Vice Mayor, so I'll just move to it. What we did here, because of the neighbor's concerns about height, we thought it was very important to have an exhibit that showed the heights of the various buildings in the area. and importantly the residential homes that back up that would back up to our development there's our our finished floor is actually seven feet lower than they are so those homes that are immediately adjacent to our property will as when it's all said and done will actually be a little at least at the top roof be a little taller than our building and you can see the gym Planet Fitness, I believe it shows, I think it's 20, but it's also higher up in elevation. So we're, if you look at the CHA Health Building, it's at 36. So we're consistent with the other properties in our in our area there another huge point with staff and with the traffic folks here was the mid-block crossing how are we going to move traffic across or foot traffic across Wellington Way to activate the shopping center and that's when you know Craig and staff came up with a mid-block crossing and which we feel is a safe way to cross wellington way and also calm the traffic in that area the other concern that was raised with us is well there's a there's a bus stop there and when at certain hours a day when the bus is there we have cars that want to swing around the the bus so we worked with lextran and the development plan that that ms wade shows you actually shows that bus stop moved up across Palomar Center Boulevard now more towards the gym so away from Harrodsburg Road to solve that problem and as far as our tree canopy issues mr. Martin had a was concerned with with the number of plantings we additionally had so we beefed up the plannings that on our on our development plan that shows more trees than we initially had and out of respect for the neighbors along the property line we're planting more trees than than the subdivision regulations would actually require us to lighting was also a big concern so we contacted contacted us contacted excuse me outside lighting designer to try to come up with a with a light plan for us that would deflect light onto our property and not onto others and with a 12-foot ballast am i right on that joey yes yeah so lower light poles lower light but still provides for the safety of our tenants bicycles something near and dear to my heart councilman Ellinger's heart we worked with the bicycle and pedestrian coordinator to designate short and long term covered bicycle parking that's very important especially to young professionals these days miss Wade already showed you this diagram I just want to make sure everyone understands it one of the things I've struggled with and trying to articulate whether an applicant complies or has complied with with what place builder requires and what the part and parcel of that the multifamily design standards require is how to show that it's easy just to get up and say well you know we comply with theme b section a whatever that wasn't working it wasn't resonating especially over zoom so we came up with this which this is a diagram of our site and we've by these numbers cataloged it so you can see exactly which which provision of the design standards that we comply with on the site itself that seemed to be the best way to do this and it to make sense and during the process that we can be held to per our development plan so that's why we've done that we've worked really hard on this I could go on all night I'm you know excited about it but you don't want to hear that so the last thing I will say is our our design team is here if you have any questions of them whatsoever but in my mind this this process has worked exactly how it should I think we you know we initially submitted a good plan but it needed tweaking and and that's what the process is supposed to do and with working with with staff and being pushed and then going through the technical review process and the zoning committee process you'll note in your packet at one point we were recommended for postponement and within that 30-day time limit we worked we went back to the drawing board and worked on some other things and turned that into a recommendation of approval and miss wade alluded that the vote was seven to one there were three folks that had to had to leave the meeting i feel like they all would have voted for us it would have been a ten to one vote we just worked really hard on this plan and And I think it's a good one. And I hope you'll follow the planning commission's, excuse me, commission's recommendation tonight. Thank you. Okay, thank you. At this point, my understanding is that Mr. Walsh will start with a few comments for those in opposition. And then if there are others who wish to speak, I'll recognize them. If you would give your name and address for the record. Vice Mayor Kay, members of the council, my name is Michael Walsh. I live at 2153 Palomar Trace Drive. I oppose this zone change and development plan and ask that you do not approve it. Effective infill should enhance an area without altering it. This plan has to alter the area in order for it to become more effective. This proposal does not complement the area, it complicates it. It deviates from how the area was conceived and it violates critical design policies of the comprehensive plan. The catalyst for all of this is the requested zone change from neighborhood business to high density residential. This area was envisioned, established, and has evolved as a commercial corridor. apartments were initially considered for 1055 and 1031 Wellington Way where office condos are now located but it was determined that a step down in zone to professional office was a more appropriate transition for the existing single-family homes than a step down to high-density residential it was also determined that the added density of apartments in this area would overburden overburden the planned collector street for economic viability the R4 zone on this one and a half laker one and a half acre lot due to its size and shape leads to a 50-foot tall structure 88 unit tower with a rooftop party deck that is out of context and not sensitive to the surrounding area it must be situated on the property in such a way that it does not maximize the existing street network or ensure proper road connections for safe access. All previous plans for this property included access to it via both Palomar Center Drive and Wellington Way. Parking space reductions are being awarded despite inadequate pedestrian infrastructure resulting in hazards and safety issues. Despite proximity to surrounding restaurants and retail, there is no connectivity. Existing sidewalks displace pedestrians into roadways or through landscaping before they reach these destinations. I have a photograph to show you later that demonstrates that. The proposed solution of a median block crossing on a three-lane collector street with no apron next to a bus stop that's already been relocated once to improve traffic safety restricts traffic flow on a collector street, restricts access to existing businesses, contradicts a July 2019 traffic study, and is inconsistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers' findings on the effectiveness of two-way left-turn lanes. This is not conscientious and careful development. The applicant's team acknowledged in previous public hearings that what is being proposed now is inappropriate for the area. They stated a three-story building looked out of place in the neighborhood, and a one-story building is more in keeping with the neighborhood. And as recently, as early as 2020, they stated the character of the immediate vicinity is a combination of multiple zones, B1, P1, and B6P, and is exclusively commercial in nature the 2018 comprehensive plan did not change the characteristics of this property or the surrounding area and it does not support this proposed zone and plan I ask that you not approve that what I would like to share with you very briefly now is some information that I had submitted during the Planning Commission public hearing to the Planning Commission this information was not included in the final packet of information that was sent to council this photo actually puts into context the impact of the height of these tall buildings that the applicant just mentioned are in proximity to the area you can actually see between those two buildings the roof of 1055 Wellington Way which is an office condominium building that building actually starts as a at a much lower elevation and is built to residential scale so you can see it's below the tree line and it's below the roof line of those houses Thank you. This is another picture of the largest building in the area, which is the St. Joseph Office Building at 3581 Harrodsburg Road. This is from the crest of Palomar Trace, and it's very difficult to see, but at the very top of the street, that's the only visible aspect of that building. So the height of that tall building does not alter the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Here's another picture further up the road of 1031 Wellington Way. Again, it's below the tree line and roof line of existing houses. This is a view from Palomar Trace of the gymnasium, which is across the street from Wellington Way. So it's on the other side of the Collector Street. It was actually designed to be less obtrusive to the neighborhood when it was initially built. Further up the road, this is getting near the cul-de-sac on Palomar Trace. Again, it's very difficult to notice the impact of the large office building. This is another view of the gymnasium between the houses there. It's obscured with some trees. this is a vacant lot that's near the very top of Palomar Trace Drive again you can see tree line and this house is a two-story house so the brick there is in the area of 20 feet the proposed building will be twice that size plus with the rooftop deck and there needing to be elevator access to that the elevator structure will at least be 10 you know maybe more feet so we're talking about an overall height of a structure closing in on 50 or even exceeding 50 feet and finally this is in the cul-de-sac up on Palomar trace Drive and the way that that building the st. Joe office building was designed again it started at a much lower elevation it's not as obtrusive it's brick and blends in with the existing buildings there the study that mr. Emmons did I had talked to him about that I'm not certain that his analysis included Palomar Center Drive I believe it just included the impact of Wellington which is a collector street that is designed to handle much more traffic the access road there on palomar center drive is at most 20 feet wide which is only four feet wider than a standard two-door garage door and you can see that the limited amount of space there is frequently used for delivery vehicles there are also at many times trash pickup landscaping vehicles that block at least one of a two-lane road so all of the traffic that's being proposed for this building is going to enter and access on that short narrow road which also serves the Taekwondo studio the st. Joe office building the Sedona tap house in the Chase Bank building should there be some sort of medical emergency at the st. Joe office park that requires immediate EMS could be a considerable safety issue or a challenge the other slide addresses the pedestrian access to the Palomar Center there's the the property where they're intending to put the building the only pedestrian access into the Palomar shopping center goes along this sidewalk down Wellington to Lyon Drive crossing Wellington there's no sidewalk access into the Palomar Center at this entrance there's only three lanes there that cover the entire width of that access point. There's an entrance, a left turn lane, and a right turn lane. So one has to go all the way up to Manowar Boulevard, walk all the way down to this recently installed cut through in the fence where there's a sidewalk which takes you into that corner the Palomar Center and you can see that distance is roughly half a mile the proposed median block access point brings pedestrians to this point where again in order to get to just these two rest or get to the gym or the Panera restaurant they're having to walk into oncoming traffic going to those same points there's no sidewalk access down on this portion of Palomar Center Drive and here there because of the manner in which these developments have occurred the lanes do not line up on traffic going out to Harrodsburg Road so traffic typically has to nose out into the crosswalk in order to see oncoming traffic an issue with putting that median block crossing anywhere in here is that it obscures people trying to get around the bus when it is stopped as well as trying to people that may be trying to get into these businesses here. The 2019 traffic study that I referenced indicated that as traffic flows on Wellington towards Harrodsburg Road, that's when it slows down. Traffic speeds up coming down here to Lion Drive, so any calming efforts should be down on this area of Wellington and not on this area of Wellington. I appreciate the opportunity to share this information with you and would like to share the rest of this time with Mr. Martin. Thank you Mr. Martin if you would give us your name and address please. Vice Mayor, Vice Mayor, Vice Mayor you need to swear him in he wasn't here at the beginning. I've been reminded that you You were not in the room when I swore in the witnesses. So if you wouldn't mind, do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? I do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the council, I'm Doug Martin. My law office is located at 1031 Wellington Way, which is immediately adjacent to this property. So on your site plan, if you look, my office will be to the left. I have the front corner office closest to this property, and so I can see it better than just about anybody. As a former council member for this area, I know the area pretty well. I live in Beaumont, and so I've been back and forth through that intersection literally hundreds of times. And anybody who's done that knows that that intersection is a hot mess. It is. So if you will sort of picture with me coming up or down Harrodsburg Road, turning in to Wellington Way to go to Palomar Center or something like that, it's five lanes of traffic wide. I think I've got this right. I think it's two in and three out or three in and two out, something like that. It's five lanes wide. And so when cars come in off of Harrisburg Road, they don't stop. There's not a stop sign at the easement road on which this property is going to exit. And although there is a, and I'm talking about on Wellington Way. So they come in and they turn right, they go left, they go straight. And so folks coming off of Harrodsburg Road onto Wellington Way are going a couple places. They can either go up to where off this easement road where there's a Chase Bank or Sedona Tap House or the Karate Place or there's a medical office building up there. Or they can go straight. And many of them do because up to the left is L.A. Fitness. There's Panera. And then on the right is our two office buildings. one of which I'm in. There's 20 units in my building, there's 20 units in the next building down. So, one of my problems with Mr. Edmond's traffic study is he appeared to take a traffic count past all these destinations and measured traffic after people have gone to Panera or to LA Fitness or to my building. And so I'm not sure that his traffic study, It was sort of sprung on us at the last moment at the planning commission, so we didn't have much chance to prepare for that. So there's a lot of traffic coming in. In Palomar Shopping Center, there's only two entrances to Palomar. There's the one here off of Wellington, and then there's the one on the other side off of Lion Drive. And so Malone's is in Palomar Shopping Center. If anybody's seen Malone's at 5 o'clock trying to pick up a salad, it ain't easy. You also have Sedona Tap House, and that parking lot is packed. They don't have parking for their existing employees because they were parking in our parking spaces, but now they're in golf carts going down to the LA Fitness building and carting employees back and forth on golf carts. So that's going to be impacted by the traffic on this. You have people riding around in golf carts to go to Sedona Tap House. So I don't think that this property is appropriate for high density residential. So it's, you know, I think there's what, 90 units that are proposed for this. So those 90 units, there's no entrance on Wellington Way for this development. They have to exit onto this small two-lane easement road. And the neighbor made an excellent point. People park there. You have delivery trucks that regularly park there. And so you have one of the two lanes blocked for extended periods during the day because they can't get all the way up and turn around in the Sedona Tap House. And so they're making deliveries and things like that. And so you're going to have, in addition to the restaurant of Sedona, you're going to have the restaurant down at Malone's. You have the other restaurants such as Qdoba and things like that. At rush hour, you're going to have these people coming and going from their homes, their apartments. People coming and going to these restaurants all through that one intersection. So to get out of their apartment, if they want to go to Palomar Shopping Center, they have to cross five lanes of traffic during rush hour. Now, when I'm over there, I don't go that way unless I'm going out to Harrisburg Road because you can't get across. I can't get back to my office in many parts of the day because there's too much traffic pouring in off of Harrisburg Road. And so by adding 90 units out of one access point, one access point is a terrible idea. And anybody who's been over there understands how this could get a lot worse. Now, I support increased density. Absolutely. We have to do that in Lexington. But it is just not the only criteria. We also have to have good planning. This building is going to be high. Staff thinks that because it's the same height as the LA Fitness building that that's okay, but they're going to be sort of towering over the houses behind. And the houses, and with a party deck, if they've got music up there, that's going to carry for a mile. You put music 40 feet up in the air. So if perchance you are inclined to approve this, which I hope you don't, I hope you prohibit music up there. Because it's going to carry, and I'm going to hear it from my office. And I may have to move my office because I need to be peace and quiet when I work. The buses on Wellington Way, there's a bus stop, and we've talked about the bus stop. But it's more than just a bus stop. It's where the bus drivers take their breaks. They stop there and they get out of the bus and they smoke a cigarette and the bus sits there for 10 or 15 minutes. So it's not a question of just, well, you know, we've got a minute or two minutes while they stop and let people on and off. The bus sits there for an extended period of time. And so if you're going to put an island there in the middle of Wellington Way, you are going to have trouble with all these cars coming in out of LA Fitness and out of my building, although it's a professional office and there's not that much traffic, you're going to have people backed up behind these buses. And so I don't think that's been adequately provided for. So not to keep this short. At a minimum, you should acquire two entrances from this property, one off this easement road and one off of Wellington Way. I know that's inconvenient for their development, but I think it is going to be a great disservice to this area to put all that traffic through that five lane wide intersection. I think this property and I think the comprehensive plan supports that this is best used for where it started, which is professional office. And so to put a high density with a party roof right in the middle of office buildings and next to a residential neighborhood, I don't think is a great idea. And so if you are inclined to improve it, I do hope you would prohibit music up there because I think that's going to be a bad idea. Thank you for your time. It's good to be back here in council chambers. Thank you. Thank you. Does staff have any additional comments at this point? I'm sorry. Before I ask that, are there other people who wish to speak in opposition? Yes, sir. Hello. Thank you for your time. I'm Brian Willett. I live at 2132 Palomar Trace Drive. So I agree with everything they said, and i don't want to repeat what they said really the point i could could you speak more directly into the microphone or take him yeah thank you you're welcome um really the point i want to make is this city has worked very hard on things such as green space preservation and when you look at areas like palomar and other areas outside of new circle road you're talking about suburban environments that are filled with single-family homes with small businesses small b1 type environments that bring a ambiance to the city that attracts a lot of people like myself not from Lexington to a environment that is very family-friendly when you think about a large 50-foot building on Wellington way that is going to be very dominating for that area you are no longer bringing that ambiance you're bringing inner city to the suburb and i i encourage you guys to think about what does that set what tone does that set for the city and is that what we want and that's all i leave you with because i think everything else everybody else said is right on thank you thank you is there Is there anybody else? We should speak in opposition at this time. Okay, seeing none, staff, if you have additional comments. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye, members of the council. the I understand the concern about the access for the the property but I just want to remind the council that the development plan is not within your purview it's within the purview of the Planning Commission and so they have guidance from staff and from our regulations as to when a second access is necessary and that's at a hundred dwelling units so anything less than a 100 according to our regulations and standards does not need a second access So that reassures you at all And again just reminding that the development plan is within the Planning Commission's birth Thank you Petitioner rebuttal at this point Okay, I just want to make sure it's in the record. So I don't have to submit it. All right. Quickly, ladies and gentlemen, as far as the traffic is concerned and so forth, the study that was put together by Mr. Immons was spot on. This particular development didn't require a formal traffic study from the applicant. But since the issue kept coming up, Jimmy decided to do one, and it was spot on. And it took into effect all the pertinent factors. And the most important is this one right here. The development that was approved for this location before this application would have generated 1,988 daily trips. That's 162 peak hour trips. Okay? That's the old development. This one, 400, and this is in the evidence, 473 daily trips. Significantly less. I lived on that side of town. I know what Palomar Shopping Center is, and I know, yes, it can be hectic at times. And I know where traffic goes and where it doesn't. but in working through this process with traffic engineering it was determined that the way we were accessing this property was prudent and the where we were going to put our mid block crossing was also prudent to safely move traffic to the sidewalks that are there don't know where that comes from and the bus stop will be moved we can't do anything about where the bus drivers take their brakes that's the first I've heard that but what we can do is work with Lex Tran in the process to move the bus stop to more safe area which is what we've done and that's shown on our development plan beyond that it's not a 50-foot building where that comes from it's a 40-foot building and yes we have a stairwell to the to the roof um which yeah it's about 10 feet but that that does not count in terms of measuring the overall height of the building which once again as i said our building compared to those homes on on palomar trace we're we're our finished floor is seven feet below the top of their roof line so they're we're already given seven feet right there which is 15 feet less than what was approved before at this location this is a we want to say well there's 90 units there's 88 and this is a good infill project and this process has worked the right way these objectors have objected to every plan that's come along at this location We started out with a whole lot more concerned neighbors, and we've got three here. We've done the best we could. We appreciate you listening to us tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Would either of the people who've spoken in opposition want to rebut? I'll just add with regards to the traffic study, I don't think it's apples to apples because that was measuring traffic impact on Wellington Way, not on Palomar Center Drive. In terms of neighbors and opposition to developments on this property, I met with Chris Westover back in 2013, 2014, when the very first plan was proposed. and we were able to have constructive decisions or discussions that involved some of the same things we're talking about today the height of the structure as well as how the property would be accessed improvements were made and in subsequent plans representatives for the applicant acknowledged that a tall building a three-story building to be specific was inappropriate for the area this was after they used the st. Joe office building that had previously been approved as justification for their 54 foot tall building they came back in 2016 and that's when they said a one-story building was more in keeping with the neighborhood i have been involved in all of these plans so far not to prevent any development but to be involved in making something that's effective for the area and that serves the community in general that initial 2013 plan I have a copy of a petition that was signed by 23 neighbors on Palomar Trace Drive 19 of those individuals still live on that street none of them to my knowledge were contacted for the outreach that the applicant talked about earlier so again I would just like to indicate that everybody understands the the need for infill it just needs to be responsible and appropriate in the intensity of the density of this project is just too much for that property in that location thank you thank you petitioner summation at this point just cross exit or so I basically allowed the rebuttal to go into a summation for the opponents and I wanted to give you the opportunity to sum up if that's if you have anything else you'd like us to hear you're good okay okay I'm gonna open the floor for questions or comments by council members if you just log in council starting with council member Bledsoe thank you vice mayor and thank you all very much for being here tonight and this is my district so I'm intimately aware of the area and the development and I just wanted to ask a few questions actually of Miss Wade if you don't mind coming to the podium and I think Mr. Woodall you made a very good point this is one of the first projects that we've actually seen gone through the new place builder Imagine Lexington plan which I think many of us at the time supported at different levels and wondered how this was going to work when something started from the beginning and ended up here today. So I do think it's important to ask some questions about the process and about some of the new things that I think are different than they were before. So one, I think this is great, and I appreciate you putting it in the mail or to people because I think it's an easy summation of what is happening around. So my questions start here. First off, this is under the corridor development type. So under the corridor, when I first looked at this property, to me that seems farther from the corridor than what a corridor project would be. A corridor to me would be the St. Joe facility or the Sedona tap house, etc. Do we have in these kind of plans a radius of what a corridor does or where it does and does not begin or how does staff define what that looks like? There was not a specific distance identified in the comprehensive plan from the arterial roadways the arterial roadways all of our Harrodsburg Road Tates Creek Nicholasville Road were identified as the corridors but there wasn't a specific distance listed in the comprehensive plan when we did an analysis as a staff we sort of considered that quarter to a half mile back from that road as where we would likely see the intensification start to occur half a mile so based on my just run that would be quite a quite a bit into uh harrods hill development and again depending on the corridor and the situation it could be you know much closer okay thank you and then um under the proposed zoning when we thought about a it says under here under place type development type again this is for clarification because i think when i I first saw this and others maybe not understanding what this with the change of the change of the terminology might mean so when it says medium density residential in my mind that's the old R2 maybe R3 development under the new place builder that's R4 high density is considered medium density development correct yes correct I think that's confusing to people I think it's it's It's confusing to people who got the material and thought a medium density sounded like townhomes and did not quite understand that R4 was on the table. And I just think that's an important change from previous zones to now. And then how, lastly, on the traffic, you know, when the KinderCare was there, there was a whole lot more traffic. They had a ton of children coming in and out. So I wouldn't be surprised if that was a thousand. They're coming twice a day at least through that development. So traffic there is going to be a problem no matter what goes in that development. No matter what happens in that infill, it's a problem now that we've tried to fix. We've done improvement. We've done relaying configuration. I don't know what else we can do at that area, to be honest, even if nothing else happened to improve that area. So whatever happens at that infill project is going to be difficult in the impact of the traffic. But what I want to go to is that how do you reconcile Mr. Walsh's comments on previous zone change denials or changes that were assumed to be in conflict with what the planning commission or what staff recommended on this particular development? I guess he graphically depicted developments that have occurred since the 1980s. So Palomar Shopping Center doesn't have internal sidewalks. since that time we've updated the zoning ordinance that now requires there to be multimodal connections within B6P zones so going forward if that development across the street brings in an amendment the Planning Commission will say where is your pedestrian access from the right-of-way to each of those buildings and so those are changes in the last 30 years we didn't have those requirements in place before so I believe that yes there are older parts of our town that that don't meet the current standards and wouldn't necessarily be developed exactly the same under our standards today but they can be retrofitted to add those sidewalks within that area to make it safer and more accessible I hate to hear about people walking or in a wheelchair in an access easement that that is personally very hard for me to accept because I think sidewalks are extremely important I'm not sure in terms of his his statements mr. Walsh's statements about the 2013 and 2016 developments so in 2013 I was the zoning planner at that point they did the applicant the owner same owner did ask to rezone to a b1 zone and they proposed a three-story structure that was multi-use it had a restaurant i think mr woodall mentioned as well as office and it was proposed to be 45 feet tall in 2016 so there were three years between they brought in another development plan and i i can only assume at that point that the market had changed and they could not find someone to occupy three-story structure at that location and then in 2020 they again brought in a new development plan that instead of a taller building split it out into two separate structures and and those are all acceptable forms of development within the b1 b1 zone I don't the staff doesn't believe that only a one-story building there makes sense just because there are so many other multi-story buildings the taekwondo building the medical building that was just built as well as the athletic facility building across the way mr. Martin's office building is also two two and a half stories and the grade changes in that area make for the height of buildings to not be so onerous isn't really the right word but overpowering I guess they can kind of change sizes and undulate with an with the street and not be overpowering so I'm out of time so I'll come back thank you so can we get a fresh five minute clock as council members have come comments fresh five minutes councilmember Baxter thank you vice mayor while this is not my district this is directly next to my district and it affects a lot of people in my district as well so miss wade i know that you said that a second access point wasn't needed based on the the amount of units here but why was it deemed appropriate that the entrance be on the access road instead of directly on wellington do you know that answer no i'm not sure the applicant proposed it that way I'm not sure that in from the staff's perspective that one is necessarily preference over the other both are would be considered through access ways so that access easement has been extended and now connects over to Harrodsburg Road so there is if I'm leaving this development an opportunity to turn right towards the shopping center but also an opportunity to turn left and go down past the tap house grill to the medical office site and then enter onto harrodsburg road so there there are still some options that may not be how everybody chooses to go but it may alleviate the need to cross five lanes of traffic right you can turn right on to harrodsburg road the way it the way it reads to me and that intersection is a a hot mess as someone described it um if you are coming out of this property on palomar center drive the access road and wanting to get on harrodsburg road you are having to turn across three lanes of traffic to be able to exit the shopping center so that to me is is that gives me reservation i feel like that ink while there always has been um a there was a daycare there there was other you know buildings there that have that did have increased traffic i feel like a lot has happened you know with the restaurant and the medical office there's been additional buildings placed on that access road that weren't there previously so i feel like the access being on that access road is it it will impact while it may not be the thousand cars that the traffic study showed previously, I feel like it will be a problem. I guess what I was trying to mention was there's now another option. When La Petite Academy or Kinder Crayer were first developed there, that access easement did not go anywhere. It stopped because the next parcel was agriculture still and a residential home. Now it continues, and you do have another option to get off the property and onto Harrodsburg Road. you have to turn right but it gets you so you don't have to cross the five lanes of traffic i got you there okay um and then i'm sorry if i missed it but are is this proposed structure owner occupied or rental units well it's a multi-family building so there would be multiple dwelling units so i'm not sure how it would be owner occupied unless it were condoed no rental he says okay all right that's all i have for right now thank you vice mayor thank you come back to council member um i'm sorry we've got other folks council member james brown thank you vice mayor and uh thank you for the presentations and the questions and comments it help give some clarity to what we're looking at today I guess my first question is the comments about the surrounding residential properties first floor starting seven feet above where their first floor is that is that factual is that so mr. Waddell made that statement okay so I don't know that our staff went and assessed that measurement what we did note was that the high the roof line of the single-family homes was at 37 feet from the the site the current site property so no from the single-family site it's a 37 feet to the to the ridge line of that home when they drive into their house now there's a grade change on this site which it sits lower than the single-family areas which is why I think we said they actually will be very close to the ultimately the same height and even perhaps lower than where the single-family home set because of the great change of the topography so I'm not sure I could say it's seven feet so so is so since the development plan isn't in our purview but is that something that can be taken into consideration or make a note of I mean if it's actually you know the greater their developments gonna start seven feet below or whatever the measurement is but it you know it evens out or it changes the true difference in height I think that's important at least for us to consider when we're talking about height for this this development so all right so I got you kind of answered that question and then a Councilmember Baxter asked the same question I had in regards to the entrance off of Wellington, why it was decided off of Wellington or Palomar Drive as opposed to Wellington, but that was based off of the developer's site plans as of now. And then I guess my next question is in regards to the deck on the top. Is that meeting any other zoning requirement for the deck on the roof? Is it meeting a green space requirement? Is it meeting an amenity requirement for the development? Can you give us a little more information about that? Sure. It's meeting part of the open space requirement. So the way the regulations are written today, your open space in front of your building, So they do have, Mr. Wardall mentioned, a bit of a plaza in front of the building, but that space doesn't count towards your open space requirement. It's a nice amenity. It creates a nice active area for the building, but it doesn't count. What does count is around the sides in the back where the trees are planted, and then if you have canopy or, I guess, a balcony that comes out, those count as open space for a unit it doesn't have to be green so there's a difference between the green space and the open space but the rooftop access also can count as open space because they're not just leaving it as a you know flat asphalt roof they're they're making a patio area for people to sit and enjoy so and I guess vice mayor I feel like I step outside of the questions that i can ask in regards to the development plan so i'm just wondering if the amenities that are going to be on this deck is that something that we can discuss or is that something that you know when does that come into play we heard about music and if there's a you know and if there's a pool and that sort of thing i think the activity that takes place on that deck or has the potential to take place on that deck is relevant to the decisions that we make today the the way the zoning ordinance is written the council does have the ability to consider use restrictions of a property so that could be outdoor amplified music something along those lines you could restrict that okay all right then the last thing I'll say in this more of a comment is I think councilmember Bledsoe brings up a good point the fact that it's falls under the corridor classification and there's no specific distance listed you know that that's going to bring up concerns with other developments that we're gonna hear and see I think in this one it it doesn't seem too far from the corridor I can I can buy it but when you're talking about a half a mile that that could potentially change a lot of things and again there's there's not a specific requirement or number in the comprehensive plan but if you look at Fayette Mall mr. Brown your time has expired yeah there is a there's a picture there's a graphic in the comprehensive plan but there's not a specific distance so some commercial developments and intensification that might occur would be within that half mile in in some cases it might only be 200 feet so it just varies based on the context. I don't know if I can say thank you since my time has expired. Thank you. You can get back in if you'd like. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to leapfrog a little off of what Council Member Brown was saying about the noise and the use and it was brought up about music and noise pollution and light pollution because that that affects the the neighbors in the neighborhood and how is that going to be addressed here with this zone change is that going to be an issue the applicant has proposed a greater landscape buffer along their rear property line against the single-family homes than is required and they've also agreed to restrict their outdoor lighting to only 12 feet in height and to make sure that the light does not spill over onto the single family or any of the adjoining properties and then that was raised about the music is that how do we address that or is that addressable that was not something the planning commission really discussed during the hearing so my conclusion was they didn't feel that that was a substantial enough problem to restrict the property to no live music or no amplified music i guess does the petitioner have anything they want to bring up about that or is that a council i would simply say obviously the development's going to be subject to the noise ordinance we we have but i don't envision this is going to be the type of development where where we have loud parties up on top of the roof I don't envision that and I don't think the Planning Commission did either but if there was there's an ordinance that everybody has to comply with you me and everyone on the council so right is there a specific restriction on our development plan from planning no there was not and I don't I think it was that was probably the right thing to do just get back to the planning staff so you were saying that that was to default within the to put the rooftop is for the open space that's how that's why that became what it was yes okay thank you all thank you vice mayor thank you councilmember Lamb thank you vice mayor and thank you all for these presentations I do have several questions here so and I'm trying to do a little bit of homework here the the neighborhood street that runs behind that I believe this gentleman and and the gentleman in the back when was that developed miss way you know well half of it was developed I would say in the late 90s early 2000s and the other half closest to these developments five years ago 2016 maybe okay okay so the daycare wasn't there then it was in 16 it was I think it was still operating in 2016 and they tore it down and it moved okay alrighty to add on to about the music I guess my question of mr. Woodall would be to the would would people be bringing their own musical devices to the rooftop or will the actual apartment complex have its have a robust music system the owner does not envision putting putting a music system in place on the rooftop no that's good to know because yes you know I that that yeah that's that's really good to know so thank you yeah okay the the bus stop on Wellington Way miss Wade is that is that in comparison to where they're talking about doing the center and and this is a bit confusing it is currently it is current but the applicant has worked with Lex Tran to find a new location for it so that it is not in conflict with the pedestrian crossing and it would actually allow for the visibility for drivers along Wellington Way to maneuver around the bus then past the athletic and Panera entrance point and then get to the Wellington Way the the proposed pedestrian refuge area crossing and then proceed towards Harrodsburg Road so it is moving it would be moved so and and this just this question this just came to me the so the the the island that is being discussed does that that's something that would there have to be a traffic study through our traffic engineering in order to install that or is it automatically when you go through i know when we do traffic improvements in our neighborhoods we have to do traffic studies and so forth in order to in you know to do anything bulb outs or speed bumps or pumps or anything like that so would they be required to do a traffic or is this just all inclusive in this in this zone change this is inclusive with the development plan and the zone change traffic engineering is a member of our technical committee and so they work with the applicants when they come through with new development to find ways to calm traffic before something is built that's the idea and then the program that the council often uses is the neighborhood traffic management program and that's usually an after-the-fact situation where we're going back in to the residential areas for the most part and adding things that will calm traffic so So obviously the idea is to prevent those speeding and traffic problems before they occur. Okay, all right. And on one of your slides, Ms. Wade, the buffering and tree canopy, I can't read the, there looks like there's three or four different size caliper trees or size trees. Is there a way that you can expand on, because I can't read the fine print there, as to what caliper trees are we talking about? and specifically as it relates to the property, the line of the property that backs up to the street that runs. I don't know my streets over there. Palomar Trace is the local street. So this graphic was also part of our handout with the final report. And there's a second, third, and then fourth page to that. and it has a bit larger graphic of the tree plan. Maybe you can see the legend at the bottom. So the larger green trees are intended to be large species. The tan and the darker green, looks like evergreen, are medium-sized trees. and then the trees planted, well, probably in planters, on the roof are small trees. Okay, and I just ran out of time, so. Is that helpful? Yes, it does. I didn't see that because it was on the back of this. And I'll say I do have another question, but I'll take my turn, so thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman McCurron. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you for the presentation. And some of my questions have been answered, but keeping with the tree and the shrubbery, along the back the property off of I guess Palomar Drive excuse me where the town where the homes are at right now I believe it's our three zone is that correct that's correct the tree line that is there I guess it's more for the applicant is that going those trees that are currently there are those on your property or so are those on private property they are on the private property for the and this goes back to the zoning that occurred in for the residential development that mr. Walsh mentioned occurred in 2016 previously that land was used for an observatory and so the professor that lived there miss dr. Dozier lined the entire site with mature white pines to prevent the light from spilling onto the property so he could use his telescope so those trees were asked to be maintained when that zone change went through because it was such a heavy tree line most of them have been maintained but what happens sometimes is once a property owner moves in sometimes they remove trees that they don't like so for the most part they're still there and they were required to be kept I appreciate that no that's that's good well if I want to go telescope viewing oh well for the applicant if this is if you guys do have trees on the back of your property along this area would you all be looking at keeping them we're actually planning more okay more than the regulations require and I saw that and it looks like it's just some medium shrubs along the backside there but i was just looking for more mature mature trees if this does go through okay this is greg smorstad our engineer go ahead i'm greg smorstad from banks engineering um so the the trees that you see that line the back of the property in between our proposed development and the single family homes um they are marked as medium evergreen trees so that so that's not it's not a sure of it it'll be a it'll be a tree now this specific species hasn't been chosen yet but once the specific species is chosen that will determine the spacing that we will plant them at now we're only required to have a tree one tree every 40 feet but we've told planning that we will you know pick a species where we can plant more trees back there to provide more of a you know adequate screen between the thank you no that's very helpful and I'm not trying to rush you along here I just have a few more questions thank you the crosswalk that's being proposed along Wellington Way there has that been approved with traffic engineering yes it has okay is that going to be a flashing beacon like a yellow flashing light that you push it before you cross or is that can be a stop exactly right yeah it's a rapid response flashing beacons will be the yellow flashing light okay how many parking spaces are proposed I believe it is 111 you know my my biggest concern for this would probably be the traffic concern as well and has the second entrance ever been considered or was that considered when you looked at it it looks like there is an opportunity for it to be an entrance maybe an exit only on a Wellington along the I guess I'd be the west side of the property so a second entrance for this particular design has not been has not ever really come about and the reason for that is on the previous development plan for this site we had an access on Palomar Center Boulevard, Palomar Center Drive, and we also had an access point onto Wellington Way. And it was in the location, you know, if you're looking at our site plan, kind of where we have the drive coming around the building, it was down in that area. That's where it accessed Wellington Way. The problem with that particular area of pulling out onto Wellington Way, there's a left-hand turn lane that goes into LA Fitness. There's also a left-hand turn lane coming the other way towards Harrodsburg Road that goes to Palomar Center Drive. It creates a really awkward situation for somebody trying to turn out and turn left onto Wellington Way. So working with traffic engineering, they were much more happy with just having the access be off Palomar Center Drive than even trying to figure out how to make something work on Wellington Way. Okay. Thank you. It looks like I'm out of time. I have another question. I'll chime back in. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sheehan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Some of my questions, like the ones around pedestrian safety, have been answered. I have an additional question, and Vice Mayor or Ms. Wade, if it is out of the purview of our ability or our decision-making, please feel free to stop me. but i believe this was us in our last zone change hearing and that is that when we are considering higher density units and and developments like this one of the things we are one reason we are doing that is population growth and needing more units but another is thinking about affordability of housing here so is it possible to for you to talk about the proposed rates for the units in this development what i can say is we haven't specifically determined exactly what the rates will be they'll be in keeping with the neighborhood put it that way i don't want to violate any fair housing tenants or anything but it's going to be a nice development you know so the bottom line is apartment units are in great demand in lexington i think someone told me today that their son was on a 75 person wait list just for an apartment you know near campus which didn't surprise me whatsoever and i'm learning that with my older children now so but so from a business perspective you haven't set like a range of rates of of what would be i don't know uh cost appropriate to cover um your plan precisely that i think that's probably a good place to start i mean obviously the the development has to be economically viable but also you can't price yourself out of the market either so it's market driven okay thank you thank you Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Tracy. Question. Going back to 2016 and 2013 when they had that development, did they have two assets? One was going off Wellington Way and one was going off the other way because we had more cars coming in and now that we're under the 100, you only need one asset. Is that correct? I'm not curious. Yes, that is correct. So the previous zoning was way more cars coming off and there was a reason why you two twice and we're having what the rules now we long as they're less than a hundred we only need one yes and I was looking at those numbers and I saw from your study there was sixteen hundred if they were to use the old development plan and then when you look at the new development plan but this is only 400 and I've been down that road many times where you all are talking about it I I know how bad it is. And it goes back to what Council Member Blessoe said. Whatever you're going to put there is still a problem. And it's a question I have. But this is way considerable less than what the original zoning would allow now. And that's my biggest concern is the traffic, and that's where I'm hearing a lot of this is coming from. And seeing the numbers that Jamie, who just retired, I know I trust old Jamie, I mean, that's pretty good numbers to go from down from 1,600. It's still a problem, and I will admit it. And so something's going to go there. It's going to be a problem no matter what. But to me, when I look at the numbers that we've just been told, it's way less being under this use than what was originally posed. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. I'm going to circle back. I have three quick questions. The medium evergreens that you're talking about on the back of the property, what is an average height of a medium evergreen, sir? Please come to the microphone, please, for the record, please. The average height of a medium evergreen, again, it depends specifically on the species, but would be somewhere between 30 and 55 feet. Oh, okay. Okay. So that's pretty substantial for a medium. Okay. Thank you. The floor plans. Do you all anticipate the being, you know, one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom? Just curious as to what your expectation is with that real quick. All one or just one bedrooms, one bedroom units, right? Right. One bedroom. one bedroom units okay okay all right and and miss wade back to this I know that we have talked about a landscape buffers as it relates to the ground but this rooftop is there possibility of having a more of a buffer on the rooftop I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Did I see that there are going to be some deciduous trees that are going to be on top of the roof? Probably in pots. In pots? The small trees. Small trees. I mean, has there ever been a discussion about, because I know if the community, the neighborhood behind them, was worried about the oh you know being able to see over into yards would there be an opportunity for there to be some other type of a buffer installed on the roof to provide more you know for both sides actually sure the i know there's a railing that's required on the rooftop for obvious safety issues and i think it's three feet tall three to four feet tall so that would there may be opportunities with that to make it a bit more solid than just a typical railing, that they would be able to explore that. That might visually block the chairs and tables that might sit up there. I just didn't know if there had ever been any kind of conversation, and I guess I would ask Mr. Woodall if you all had thought about that or taken that into consideration or, you know, for privacy for both sides. i mean i just well i know that there's there are um plantings shown on the renderings that you're not supposed to see but i envision that there will be yes from the from the owner from the owner's perspective it's part of the landscaping plan to do something up there whether it would be how elaborate will be in in all candor council member i can't tell you that because that hadn't been determined yet but there will be something there in the way of planners i just don't know exactly what just curious i mean i'm just trying to think of a balance i i uh i will save my other comments look for later but uh thank you thank you vice mayor thank you councilmember bledsoe sorry take off this thing um i just have a couple more comments since i ran out of time the first time um and councilman milliam addressed actually one of the things i was going to mention which is the concern for privacy and I understand you can't you don't know how far you can see until you're up there so it's real hard for us to say can you assure that when you're standing up the roof you're not looking someone else's bedroom down or looking to someone else's backyard where there's kids playing I know their families that live out there and that is their concern is that there's an element of privacy there from a home ownership from a from a someone who's living there as some as opposed someone is coming in and out of business who's not staying that makes sense that's just a different element to that piece that's different than a B1 or different than an office space so I know we can't talk about that or put those onto your plans I'm just raising as a concern that I think needs to be addressed for child safety just for the record two I think noise is a concern you can hear moon dance I mean I hear the band from from Dunbar all the time and I get it I live next to Dunbar High School so when they play on Saturday mornings that's part of the privilege of living next to Dunbar thankfully they're decent but they're up early and I understand that so and Moondance when the assisted living facility went next to Moondance they actually have it also an outside pavilion area on their deck and they built it so they could listen to Moondance on purpose the residents could move out and listen I appreciate that at the same time those who lived on the Beaumont side they had some issues with some of the noise and when we when they got too loud we had to have some serious conversations between the moon dance planning and the neighborhood so i just asked that if this moves forward that if there are things that happen that you're open to conversations about how we can handle as a sparrer and the traffic situation you're exactly right there is a right in right out by the office part about that saint joe so there is an element where that was not there before you can actually come back there exit out you can't turn left there is two way kind of that wasn't there in 2016 for the record. The Palomar Trades development is R3, I get that, but it is all single-family homes. And as that has developed there is phase one and phase two. And phase one has a different characteristic than phase two. Phase two does have larger homes, larger space, different feel that I think is actually a step like if we're stepping down that does not do that you don't have a corridor with an apartment and then you know R2 and then R1 they kind of went backwards they had an R1 that R3 and kind of moved into larger homes there in that court that court in the back I say that only to say that I understand our comp plan talks about the corridor being that strong I just think that step down to an R4 is awful strong that has no reflection on the development or what you all have done. My personal feelings about... I feel like I was being cut off. I have one minute and 30 seconds. I just think that corridor developments are so critical to the success and I understand that of our comp plan but how that tampers into the neighborhood is really critical and it is specific to that neighborhood and I think this is an interesting space. And I think it also demonstrates the complexity. Having the open space requirement on the roof is a great creative space, a creative response to that tension, which is we have to maximize the space in order to get enough people there to make it worth it, all of which I completely understand. At the same time, we have to meet the requirements of open space and green space. You have to have some creativity to do that. And I do think this does that, certainly in theory and in practice. My concern is just where it's at. And for me, it feels too close to the neighborhood for that development than the corridor, I think, would be. If you did the same thing in that Fayette Mall space, like you just announced, I get that. I get that, I get it completely. Those are my concerns about what I have so far. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak from council. No further questions? or comments i see none does either the petitioner or the those in opposition want to raise any rebuttal of new evidence this is not to go back over the same ground but i see mr walsh thank you vice mayor i just wanted to add to what miss wade said regarding the bus stop initially that bus stop was located much closer to the intersection of wellington and palomar center drive when the buses would stop there whether they were loading or taking breaks that created significant problems getting through that intersection again the way that those lanes come together and don't line up correctly so made it very hard for people trying to turn out as well as for people trying to get around and get into the parking or get into the palomar center or get onto harrisburg road it was moved back to where it is now to alleviate some of those safety concerns there i don't know the dimensions between the entrance to the panera and the gym down to that intersection of palomar center and wellington way but there's not a lot of space and no matter where that bus stop goes looking at the size of the median block crossing you're going to wind up with going from three lanes on that section of wellington way to just one when the bus is stopped there for a prolonged period of time that will be a disaster thank you there's no One more rebuttal. Can the graphic help you? No, I think it's okay. I just wanted to let you all know that, you know, I've worked with traffic engineering and I've worked with Lex Tran on the location of this bus stop. And Mr. Walsh is correct that the bus stop did used to be closer to the intersection of Wellington and Palomar Center, and it's been moved further away. and what we're proposing moves it even further away from that intersection and what Lex Tran has relayed to me is the further away from that intersection we can make it the better and so they were happy with the placement that we've got it shown at now and traffic engineering is in agreement with it also so right thank you okay I believe that we have heard all the evidence in this hearing and unless there's any further comments from council I will declare this hearing closed so at this point no further evidence can be taken this is a time for council to deliberate on the evidence that we've heard and then at some point I'll entertain motions for findings of fact and the underlying ordinance so Council members, if you wish to speak at this point, comment at all, I'll open the floor. Council member Lamb. You know, I always have something to say. Yeah, I know. You know, I see the pros and the cons of this. I know that if I were living in the houses behind this and it was going to be something that would appear to, from what it sounds like, it's hard to visualize it since we can't see the actual rooftops of everything. It would appear that this would be kind of looming over the neighborhood behind. I have serious concerns with the traffic. I've driven over in that area several times, one just to look at the area, but then I frequent Vinaigrette over there all the time. And I know that it is not easy navigating coming in on Wellington and turning into that shopping center. And it's a very busy place. I also understand that we do need to work toward infill and we do need to look at how we can come up with solutions like we did on Tates Creek Road where we're building the townhomes and which is on the corridor. the point that Councilmember Bledsoe was making about the distance to the corridor I appreciated you making that because I had not read that part of it and I am concerned with that being designated as a corridor development because I personally I don't envision that being that I will wait and see what ends up happening with the rest of my colleagues comments but But this is one of those situations where do I think that there could be a better solution here with less traffic? Yes, I do. But on the other hand, it's creating a lot of single apartment units, which I was surprised that there are so many. They're all single bedrooms. So, I appreciate the community that came down to speak tonight to share their concerns, and I appreciate the work that the developer and the owner has worked toward moving this along and trying to come up with a good solution. But, you know, I'm really perplexed and will be anxious to see and hear what my colleagues have to say from this point forward. But those are some of my concerns. Thanks. Thank you. Any other council members wish to comment at this time? Council member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'll say it again. I appreciate everyone coming down and sharing, especially the neighbors, sharing their concerns about the development. Even the petitioner's willingness to come forward and propose a development. It's not easy. The decisions that we have to make as a council aren't easy in regards to our comprehensive plan. As we grow as a city, it's just challenges. There's gives and takes. And there are a few issues surrounding this development that I think are some concerns, one of them being traffic. I think traffic is going to be an issue with any development that comes in that neighborhood, in that area. And we just have to work through them. one of the upsides that I do see or potentially see is that this development may push the rest of the development which didn't have to go about the same guidelines to think about more pedestrian access and walkability I think that's happening now but I think we can work to make it safer the other concern that that I had going into this zone change or was presented was the height concerns but it sounds like there's an opportunity or that could potentially be mitigated by the offsetting of the grading and it doesn't seem to be is intimidating as maybe first communicated there might be an opportunity that it won't level out but I don't think it'll be as drastic as as it seems and it sounds like the developers are willing to address the privacy issues whether it's additional screening buffering or or what other artificial buffer may be presented. So with that I'll wait to hear to see what other council members say but it's just challenging as we continue to grow as a city we got a we're seeing it everywhere and we're making it we are making these same kind of decisions all over town. Thank you. Thank you Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger. I thank you Vice Mayor. Just I'd ask our legal counsel. It was 7-1 in the Planning Commission, so in order to overturn it, it requires eight votes, right? And since there's 12 of us, it couldn't be just a simple majority of 7-5. It'd have to be eight votes to overturn the Planning Commission. That's correct. This is our first in-house one, so for new council members, that's the process that works here. So if you do overturn the Planning Commission, it has to be at least eight votes. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. And so, just a reminder, even though it is counterintuitive, the council's job at this point is first to make a motion on the findings of fact, either to support what the Planning Commission has sent to us or to offer some alternative findings of fact. And once that vote is taken, then to vote on the underlying ordinance. So at this point, I would entertain a motion on the findings of fact. I have to move it. It's a motion either to approve of the findings of fact of the Planning Commission or to offer alternative findings of fact. council member james brown thank you vice mayor i move to adopt the findings effects and recommendations of the planning commission for pln mar 21000 sorry 0001 rta family trust for a zone map amendment from a neighborhood residential b1 zone to a high density apartment r4 zone for 1.56 net 1.86 gross acres for properties located at 1009 and 1017 wellington way so move i have a motion is there a second second i have a motion and a second just to clarify um council member brown you said neighborhood residential but it's from a neighborhood business zone i just wanted to make sure. A typo? Okay. Okay. You comfortable with that? Yes sir. Language. Thank you. Let's have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Seeing none. I'm sorry. Council Member Lamb. Okay. Just for clarification, the motion was to adopt the Planning Commission's findings of fact? Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So just, okay. All right, thank you. The motion is read would adopt the findings of fact from the Planning Commission. Additional speakers at this point? Council Member Bledsoe. Well, I think, thank you, Vice Mayor. I think I've spoken several times on this, obviously. But I will say, I appreciate the staff's interpretation. I appreciate what we've done. I personally do not think this is a corridor development with a high R4 zones appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak to the motion on the floor? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Ms. Reynolds? Ms. Sheehan? Ms. Baxter? No. Ms. Bledsoe? No. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Kay? Yes. Mr. Kuiber? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Lamb? No. Mr. McKern? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. I will now open the floor for a motion on the underlying ordinance. This requires a motion to basically approve the ordinance as proposed. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the ordinance as proposed. The discussion on the motion. Seeing none, again, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, sir. It's been read. I've read it, yes, thank you. Ms. Reynolds? Yes. Ms. Sheehan? Yes. Ms. Baxter? No. Ms. Bledsoe? No. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Kay? Yes. Mr. Kloiber? Yes. Ms. Lamb? No. Mr. McKern? Yes, ma'am. And Mr. Maloney? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion and before I entertain a motion to adjourn, I'll just add my comments of thanks to the staff, petitioners, and those in opposition who've taken their time to bring this forward. Thank you all so very much. I'll take a motion to adjourn. Second. Thank you all. Without objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you.