# Urban County Council Zone Change - April 12, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 12, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5549 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5549?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-04-12 - **Last revised**: April 12, 2022 - **Length**: 17,713 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a meeting on April 12, 2022, at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers in Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice Mayor Kay presiding. The meeting focused on a single agenda item regarding a zone change for property located at 4085 Harrodsburg Road, which was ultimately approved by the council. During the session, the council took one formal vote and heard from two members of the public who provided comments on the matter under consideration. The meeting addressed zoning matters affecting the Harrodsburg Road corridor, with the successful approval of the requested zone change representing the primary accomplishment of the session. ## Attendance The following members were present at the April 12, 2022 meeting: **Present:** • Vice Mayor Kay • Bledsoe • F. Brown • Ellinger • Lamb • LeGris • McCurn • Moloney • Plomin • Sheehan • Worley • Baxter **Absent:** • J. Brown • Kloiber • Reynolds **Late:** • None A total of 12 members were present for the meeting, with 3 members absent. No members arrived late to the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted one roll call vote during the April 12, 2022 meeting. **Ordinance 0207-22** [timestamp: 07:26] The council voted on an ordinance changing the zoning for property located at 4085 Harrodsburg Road. The ordinance would rezone the property from Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to two different zones: Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone and Highway Service Business (B-3) zone. Council member Baxter made the motion, which was seconded by Sheehan. The ordinance **passed** by a vote of 11-0-0. **Voting in favor (11):** Bledsoe, F. Brown, Ellinger, Lamb, LeGris, McCurn, Moloney, Plomin, Sheehan, Worley, and Baxter. **Voting against:** None **Abstentions:** None The ordinance includes several conditions: • The R-3 portion is limited to no more than 7 single family homes and no more than 14 townhome units • Vehicular connectivity must be established between the B-3 portion and the Palomar Hills Neighborhood, with specific layout to be determined by the Planning Commission on a development plan • Screening and buffering provisions must follow those described on the preliminary development plan • Existing trees bordering the property must be preserved except for deceased or dying trees and those that adjoining property owners agree to remove • Several specific uses are prohibited ## Public Comment The meeting included public comment from two speakers who addressed the proposed zone change. **Sam Dunn** spoke in support of the zone change with conditions [timestamp: 02:00]. Representing the Palomar Hills neighborhood, Dunn emphasized the collaborative process that had taken place between the developers and the neighborhood community. He expressed the neighborhood's support for moving forward with the proposal, contingent on certain conditions being met. **Joy Murphy** also voiced support for the development [timestamp: 02:30]. Speaking as both a local resident and a realtor, Murphy highlighted two key aspects of the proposal that she found beneficial: the inclusion of green space within the development and the addition of housing units. She noted that the current housing market demonstrates a clear need for more homes in the area, making this development a valuable addition to the community. Both speakers presented supportive positions on the zone change proposal, with no opposition voiced during the public comment period. The comments reflected themes of community collaboration, environmental considerations through green space inclusion, and addressing local housing needs. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated community opposition and required extensive deliberation. **Zone Change for 4085 Harrodsburg Road** The primary point of contention involved a proposed zone change for the property located at 4085 Harrodsburg Road. The item faced substantial community opposition and initially encountered resistance from city planning officials. The Planning Commission had previously disapproved the zone change request, citing specific concerns about connectivity issues and density levels associated with the proposed development. These technical concerns reflected broader community worries about how the development would integrate with existing neighborhood infrastructure and whether the proposed density was appropriate for the area. However, the application underwent a significant transformation through community engagement efforts. Following discussions between developers, city officials, and community members, compromises were reached that addressed the initial concerns raised by both the Planning Commission and local residents. The resolution process involved modifications to the original proposal that satisfied the connectivity and density concerns that had led to the initial disapproval. Through this collaborative approach, the developers were able to present a revised plan that balanced development goals with community interests. Ultimately, the City Council approved the zone change after the compromise measures were incorporated. This outcome demonstrated the effectiveness of the community engagement process in resolving initial opposition and finding solutions that worked for multiple stakeholders. The successful resolution of this contested item highlighted the importance of ongoing dialogue between developers, planning officials, and community members in addressing zoning concerns and reaching mutually acceptable outcomes for development projects. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided data for this contested item.* ## Zone Change for 4085 Harrodsburg Rd. [timestamp: 07:26] The Council considered Ordinance 0207-22, which proposed rezoning property at 4085 Harrodsburg Rd. from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to a combination of Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) and Highway Service Business (B-3) zoning. Key speakers during the discussion included Traci Wade, Bruce Simpson, and Sam Dunn, who presented details about the proposed development and zoning change. The rezoning proposal included specific conditions designed to manage the development's impact on the surrounding area. These conditions included limitations on the number of residential homes that could be built on the property, as well as requirements for connectivity between different areas of the development and appropriate buffering to protect adjacent properties. The mixed-use nature of the proposal, combining both residential and commercial zoning designations, reflects the property's location along Harrodsburg Road, which serves as a major transportation corridor. The R-3 zoning would allow for planned neighborhood residential development, while the B-3 highway service business zoning would accommodate commercial uses appropriate for the roadway frontage. After consideration of the proposal and the accompanying conditions, the Council approved Ordinance 0207-22, allowing the zone change to proceed as requested. The approval enables the property owner to move forward with development plans that incorporate both residential and commercial elements while adhering to the specified limitations and requirements for connectivity and buffering. --- ## Decisions - **0207-22** — passed (11-0): An Ordinance changing the zone from an Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to a Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone, and from an Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to a Highway Service Business (B-3) zone for property located at 4085 Harrodsburg Rd. --- ## Full transcript You got it. Keep that core nice and tight. Forward on the right foot. Go. There you go. Get a drink of water. Here we are going to do a little song from Jamaica. This one's called Mind My Business. And so this one's nice and easy. You won't have to think about this one too much. So we have tap, tap, push around with your arms and your foot is tapping around. And then you have left tap, right tap, push around. Then we have a little jump to the right, jump, jump. You can just step, step. You don't have to jump. So it's jump, jump, hit your hips, jump, shake, jump, and shake. And then we have a nice, easy V step. Those are the only steps in this song. So let's go. This is Mind My Business. Nice little Jamaican song. Ready, tap the right foot, go, right, left, tap around. Up, up. Do it again. Up. Up. Tap around. Little hop to the right. Here we go. Hop, hop. Shake, shake. Hop, hop. That's all you're doing. V-step. Just nice and easy. Ready? Tap right foot, go. Tap around. You're doing great. Tap it. One more. Little hop to the right. Hop, hop, come on. Hip, hip, hop, hop. Again. Last time. V-step. Get ready. Tap the right foot. Left foot. Tap the right foot. Go. Again. Jump. Keep jumping. Use those hips. Three steps. Tap it. Keep going, tap. There you go. Good job. All righty. We are going to slow it down again. This time we're going to do a bachata. Now bachata, your basic footwork in bachata is step together, step, touch, step together, step, touch. But you can do it in different directions like we're going to do. We're going to start forward, one, two, three with a tap, back, two, three with a tap. So you come up on your right foot, tap, go back on your left foot. We do two of those and then right and left two. On the chorus part, we're going to take to the right, step together, one, two, three, tap front, side, back, lift. Step together, one, two, three, front, side, back, lift. If you don't want to do the one, two, three, just go step together, step, touch and then do your taps, okay, whatever works for you. We also have, we're going to turn towards our right shoulder first, same footwork, step, step, step, tap, and then we're going to have some sways in there, okay? When you're turning, please keep looking at the TV. Watch me. That way you won't get dizzy. If you don't want to turn it off, just turn your arms, okay? So you pick which modification works for you. This is just the way you are. All right, little sway. Single, single, hold. And we're going to start the bachata. We're going to go up on the right foot back on the left. Ready here we go come forward step step step with a touch back two three with a touch come again now right and left step together step and touch again come forward here we go right foot Good. And back. Going forward. And back. Right and left. Here we go. Now, to the right. Here we go. Step together. Step, step, step. Touch front, side, back, and lift. Step together. 1, 2, 3, touch. Step together. 1, 2, 3. Don't give up on this one. You'll get it. Step together. 1, 2, 3, touch, touch, touch, lift. There you go. Last time. Come forward. 1, 2, 3, and back two three now turn one two three keep turning good keep looking at me so you don't get dizzy come forward and back Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome. I'm Vice Mayor Steve Kay, and I'll be the chair of this meeting. And we are waiting for one more council member. The rules of these kinds of procedures is that in order to vote, you have to be there from beginning to end. And I know that there's one other, we're good to go. I thought there was one other council member, but we have just gotten the sign that we're good to go. So we will start. Part of my job is to describe how this will all work. So bear with me, it takes a little bit. But the first thing is. I'll start over again and try to speak up. I don't know if anybody else has this experience. I always think I'm too loud, but I always get the feedback that I'm not loud enough. I don't know if that's good or bad. So the first order of business is for the clerk to call the roll, please. Yes, sir. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Fred Brown? Here. Mr. James Brown? Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Weissmere Kay? Here. Mr. Kloiber? Mr. Kloiber? Ms. Lamb? Here. Ms. Legree? Here. Mr. McCurn? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Plowman? Here. Ms. Reynolds? Ms. Sheehan? Here. Mr. Worley? Yes, ma'am. And Ms. Baxter? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Now, I'll ask the clerk to give a second reading to the zone change ordinance. Yes, sir. Item 1, an ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone for 3.88 net and gross acres, and from an agricultural urban AU zone to a highway service business B3 zone for 7.88 net, 9.245 gross acres for property located at 4085 Harrodsburg Road, Harrodsburg Road, LLC, Council District 9. Thank you. Thank you. The next order of business is if you plan to speak, that does not mean that you have to, but if you think you might, I would ask you to stand if you're able and need to swear you in. So. do you i'll read it and all you have to do is say yes 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. Part of my job as the chair is to make what is called evidentiary rulings. And so if there's any testimony that I judge not to be appropriate, I can rule that out of order. rarely do that, but that's a part of my responsibility. The way that the hearing will be organized is that well, let me back up. I don't know how much of this I really need to read. Let me just, I'm a little rusty. Okay, I just need to notify you that if you speak, you'd be subject to cross-examination. And the order of hearing is that first there will be a presentation by the planning staff, and they will be subject to cross-examination. Then there will be a presentation by the petitioner, also subject to cross-examination. There will then be an opportunity since, as I understand it, there is not an attorney representing the people who are here present, but there will be an opportunity then for public comment, at which time anybody who wishes to speak will be asked to give your name and the council district you're in, and you'll have three minutes to speak to the council. it's also possible for people who are here to yield their time to another person up to 15 minutes. And after all of that, there's an opportunity for rebuttal and a summary by each side. I think that's all I need to say, and I know I have a lot of people signed up. I will just reiterate that you do not need to speak if you don't want to, but you're certainly welcome, and I appreciate all of you for being here. Okay, after the summation, council will have the opportunity to ask questions of the petitioner and of the opponents. When that series of questions is completed, I will declare the hearing closed. And at that point, it's inappropriate for anybody to make any comment of any kind except for council members. So that's for council deliberation. At that point, after council has deliberated, we'll take a vote on the findings of fact on this issue. And after we've taken a vote on the findings of fact, we will then take a motion on the underlying ordinance. So I think that's all we need to know. Council members, questions, comments, ready to go? Okay. So back to the beginning and a presentation by staff from the planning staff. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor Kay, members of the council. My name is Tracy Wade. Thank you, Susan. I'm Tracy Wade. I am the planning manager for the Division of Planning and Planning Services section. And I am here tonight to present to you a recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission for a map amendment request. This case number was PLN MAR 21-16, and the request is by Harrodsburg Road, LLC, for property located at 4085 Harrodsburg Road. I have a few items to enter in the record this evening, just to make sure we're all on the same page here. First, a copy of the legal advertisement that was sent to the Herald Leader, an affidavit signed by myself that notification letters were sent to the 500-foot notice area adjacent or around property owners around the subject property, as well as to two neighborhood associations within the time required. In addition, third item is the final report that the Planning Commission staff sends to the council for all zone change cases for tonight. And you all should have a copy of that at your seat as well. My fourth exhibit is information that was previously submitted to the Planning Commission during their public hearing. And so those were primarily emails from interested citizens. The fifth item is our 2018 comprehensive plan called Imagine Lexington. A copy of our current zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations. A copy of my presentation for tonight. And again, I think you have that at your seat as well. And then the last item is we did receive one email since the Planning Commission's action related to the case, so I've supplied that to everyone at their seat as well. As the council clerk read for the record, this is a proposal to rezone property at 4085 Harrodsburg Road. And the current zoning is agricultural urban, AU, and they're proposing to rezone to two separate zones. A B3 zone, which is our highway service business zone for almost eight acres. And then an R3 zone, which is our planned neighborhood residential zone for about four acres. The site itself is just less than 12 acres total. The petitioner is proposing the business zoning in the front along Harrodsburg Road, and then the residential zoning to the rear of the site. In the area we have, well, Harrodsburg Road provides the frontage for the site currently, and it traverses from Jessamine County into Fayette County and is one of our main commuter routes from Jessamine County into downtown Lexington. The site is to the north side of Harrodsburg Road, but outside of Manowar Boulevard. A little bit closer view of this, the shaded area around the property indicates the notice area where we sent notice for the zone change, and the different colors represent different zoning categories around the site. The yellow indicates an R1D, which is our single-family residential zoning. In addition, this orange color to the south is an R1T zone, which allows for townhouses. To the northeast is R3, which currently is developed with single-family homes, but does allow for a mixture of residential types. There is also some R4 to the south, which indicates part of a multifamily residential development. There's a little bit of agricultural zoning that remains from the subject property along Harrodsburg Road at Stedman Drive. And then lastly, the B3 zone to the east between the subject site and Manowar Boulevard. So the B3 continues all the way to Manowar Boulevard. And hopefully you saw that. So the proposed zoning comes, again, splits the property with the residential to the north, to the rear of the property and the business zoning along the front edge of Harrodsburg Road. This is an aerial view of the subject property. It has been utilized both for a single-family home since the 60s, and then it was transitioned into Shriners Hospital bought it, but they never used it, and they sold it to the Masonic Temple in the mid-'80s. And so it's been used by the Masonic Temple for a number of years. They have moved their organization further to the northeast along Harrisburg Road, so this site has remained vacant for about two two to three years as you can see in the aerial photo there is construction occurring on the palomar fountains at palomar development and that includes a whoops sorry an access drive called fountain blue lane which does stub into the subject property to the east side also in the vicinity syringa drive stubs into the subject property from the from the west from the single family area of palomar hills subdivision a few photos of the um of the site from from the ground level this is an at the entrance to the site and you can see the historic home that sits back from the road on harrodsburg road these two to the right and to the left are views down harrodsburg road so this one looks back towards Lexington and this one looks down Harrodsburg Road towards Jessamine County and this would be the entrance to Palomar Boulevard and then this is a view across Harrodsburg Road from the site where we do have a little bit of that agricultural zoning as well as the plantation subdivision and then from the Syringa Drive access this is the current sub street At that edge, you can see that there is a gate and there has been some travel in the past there, but it is gated and so access does not continue onto the property currently. Looking the other direction on the other side of Palomar Boulevard, this is the other piece of Syringa Drive that exists and then just a few of the single family homes in that immediate area. As I mentioned, stub streets do exist within the area. the Fountain Blue to the east and then Syringa to the west. And then there is a proposed or planned street connection for Syringa Drive to continue and connect to what is called Captain's Court, which does bring you down to Madrone Way. And that has a signalized intersection with Harrodsburg Road just off the site. Let's see. Move on to the applicant. I'm going to try to be as brief as possible. We did have a very long hearing with the planning commission a few months ago in January, but I want to try not to rehash every bit of it because it was a bit complex. So the proposed zone change request I've already described, it has those two pieces. The applicant submitted a justification when they filed that addressed some of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, which is only really the very beginning of our comprehensive plan. What they did not address or how they did not explain in their justification was how the proposed zone change was in agreement with the remainder of the comprehensive plan. So the rest of past page 16 to the end. And they did not utilize the place builder element of the plan. So they did go to the effort of identifying a corridor type, which is part of place builder, as well as a development type. But then no further information was supplied to the staff prior to the planning commission hearing in January. Again, the applicant did choose these two zones, the B3 and the R3 zone. But if you go to the place builder portion of the comprehensive plan under corridor type, these two zones are not specifically recommended in the corridor type. And this, I think, these five bullets led to a staff recommendation of disapproval and then ultimately a planning commission recommendation to you of disapproval. To get into a little bit of the comprehensive plan in the place builder, which is a compilation of policies, goals and objectives in the comprehensive plan, really a distillation. We have identified or the planning commission has adopted the comprehensive plan for the community that identifies seven place types. Again, the applicant identified for this property that it's located within a corridor place type. Within the corridor place type, there are a number of development types and then recommended zones. So they selected a medium density, non-residential, mixed-use development type, which in essence is anything non-residential. if it's just not strictly residential. That's what falls into this category. In addition, the medium density part of it means that it's a little bit higher intensity than your typical outlaw developments. In addition, the zones selected or recommended, the recommended zones show up in this same information. So the corridor place type is described within the comprehensive plan. The intent of this place type is to provide more intensity along our corridors, and that is to allow for our community to develop at a bit higher intensity as opposed to adding density within the neighborhoods. The corridor place type does have a map associated with it, and as you can see, it identifies all of our major arterial corridors within the community. And specifically this site is located here where the arrow kind of flies in. So it does fall within the corridor place type. When the applicant selected medium density, non-residential, mixed-use development type, a few of the things that became a bit problematic for the staff and the planning commission were some of the matching up what's described in our comprehensive plan with what the applicant proposed. These were the issues that rose to the top. This description talks about mid-rise structures, mixed-use structures, including more employment space for professional offices and entertainment space, providing multimodal connections, allowing for easy neighborhood access, orienting your buildings to the street, and then providing parking internally to a site. So while the applicant was proposing commercial development, some of these main points were not being proposed with their development plan. And again, in terms of this land use and development type, there are recommended zones from the comprehensive plan. B6P or B1, two different mixed use zones, and then two higher density residential zones. Again, the B3 and the R3 are not within that list. That does not mean they cannot ask for those zones. It just means that they need to provide a justification that identifies why those two zones or your selected zone is appropriate. And then lastly, for each place type and development type, we have a list of development criteria that should be considered when evaluating something to see if it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan. And the applicant did not submit information related to that. So as I mentioned earlier, that's really what led to the Planning Commission's recommendation. So to summarize, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on January 27th earlier this year, and it was held via video teleconference, so we were still on Zoom at the moment, or at that time. During that meeting, there was support by 22 neighbors who spoke during the meeting. over the course of the four hours of testimony. This is kind of my summary of what occurred. Staff remained focused on the materials submitted prior to the date of the hearing. The staff makes recommendations to the Planning Commission as well as advice to applicants based on the guidance set forth in their comprehensive plan and then our adopted regulations, which we submitted for the record. The applicant entered supplemental justification into the record that day, but did not present the content during the course of the hearing. The applicant focused on density and intensity of the proposed development and its compatibility with the adjoining land use and zoning. And then the neighbors focused on preventing a connection between the neighborhood and the commercial development, as well as emphasizing their desire for no multifamily housing on the site. The planning commission remained focused on the question of, is your requested zone change in agreement with the comprehensive plan? And is the development plan you've submitted supportive of that justification? Ultimately, the Planning Commission determined that the zone change application for B3 and R3 did not correlate with the development plan. And the development plan depict, because they made one justification for the zone change, but then the development plan really depicts low-density residential instead of the medium and a low-intensity commercial development. So again, the definition from the comprehensive plan talks about mid-rise buildings, offices, etc., and those were not represented with their development plan. So that led to the Planning Commission making a unanimous recommendation of disapproval to the council. And that was in agreement with the findings of fact that the staff supplied at that hearing. There were, I believe, they voted eight in favor of disapproval and zero opposed to the motion that afternoon. So the staff would like to present to you what those findings of facts were. In addition, they're on the final report that was submitted earlier this evening for you. The staff and then ultimately the planning commission found that the B3 and the R3 were not in agreement with the comprehensive plan. First, the requested zones were not recommended zones of the place type of the comprehensive plan. An applicant had not provided sufficient information as to how the zones did fit the proposed place type or development type. Second, the requested rezoning was not in agreement with the goals, objectives, and policies of the 2018 comprehensive plan. and these are a number of the goals that were not being met although i think we can all recognize that there are always some goals and objectives that can be met with any application but again in this case there were a number that were not that were of concern to the planning commission so the proposed development was not integrated it didn't have adaptive reuse or mixed use nor did the proposed development seek to construct at a density or intensity that would increase the intensity along the corridor. The proposed development was not context and design features that were seeking to promote commercial opportunities and actually represented a decrease in the intensity and density of use compared to neighboring commercial developments. The application does not indicate what forms of jobs might be created that will support and showcase local assets to create a variety of jobs. The proposed development does not incorporate safe and integrated pedestrian facilities into the proposal, nor is the proposed development pedestrian oriented. And then lastly, the proposed rezoning and associated development doesn't improve traffic operation. And again, one of the main concerns from the Planning Commission was a connection from the residential neighborhood into the site. They also found that the proposed development didn't meet the intent of the medium-density non-residential mixed-use development type. And then a number of the development criteria, if you recall, I mentioned the two-page criteria that was not addressed by the applicant. So prior to the hearing, the staff went through the list and identified ones that were not clearly being met by the development plan, and that was 24 of the different criteria. And again, some of those relate to that integration of uses, the connection of roads, etc. And then the last two findings were that there had been no unanticipated change of an economic, social, or physical nature in the area of the property since the adoption of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. And then lastly, the applicant has not provided evidence as to why the current zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. Again, the applicant did submit some findings during the hearing, but the Planning Commission chose to follow the staff's recommendation. I'm going to skip that slide and show you the development plan that was presented that day to the Planning Commission. I want to return to some of the connectivity because that became a primary issue during the hearing. The yellow indicates planned roads and their local roads and the possibility to connect through the site here. And then Syringa over to Captain's Court. The red is another network of collector streets. So Madrone, Palomar Boulevard, and then Lion. And then also Palmeadow. and Palomar Boulevard is the green that creates a bit of a loop road and connects out to Harrodsburg Road. As you recall, the proposal was to rezone residential in the rear, so the applicant proposed seven single-family homes that would be adjacent to existing single-family homes within the palomar hills neighborhood um another tier of homes but single family attached homes or townhouses and there's 14 shown there and then a buffer between the two and then lastly the commercial that fronts onto harrodsburg road with five or this shows six proposed structures Their site statistics indicated that there would be approximately 51,200 square feet of buildable area within these. Based on the visual, it appears that the applicant was proposing retail space, restaurants, and potentially a branch bank. The last piece that you have in your packet was there was also a traffic study that was submitted with this application. It was required by the zoning ordinance, and the summary report is in the final report for you. But in essence, the proposed development will increase traffic along Harrisburg Road during our peak hours, which are the rush hours, by approximately 1 to 200 vehicles during that time. And all of the intersections studied did indicate a level of service that would decline based on the more vehicles in this area, which means people would be at intersections longer waiting for more vehicles to come through. both the request to rezone the parcel the zone change and the associated development plan were presented to the planning commission and both were recommended for disapproval the zone change was then recommended to the council for disapproval whereas the associated development plan has been indefinitely postponed and it would not be heard by the planning commission unless the council approves the zone change. If the council does approve a zone change, our ordinance dictates that any preliminary development plan goes back to the planning commission within 60 days. I think that concludes my remarks for this evening. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the hearing. Again, it was approximately four hours in length, and I've condensed that to 15 minutes. Thank you for that. Thank you. Does the petitioner wish to cross-examine? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the council. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant. The applicant, the names of the applicant are the Webb family and the Greer family who are seated here tonight. I suffice it to say that as we come here tonight, we very much disagreed with the staff's conclusions as well as the Planning Commission's conclusions. I found over the years, being down here probably more representing neighborhoods and I have developers, that sometimes people have different takes on the comprehensive plan. It's 350-some-odd pages long, and the application for zone change has gone from three pages now to close to 25 pages for me, representing an applicant, to get into all the details. There's a lot of different provisions in the comprehensive plan that an applicant, staff, the neighborhood, the planning commission, the council, can look at to guide their decision. And I'm sure you've heard this before. I'll only share you with this as a reminder, if you will, that the comprehensive plan under Kentucky law for more than half a century has been concluded to be a guide for development, not a straitjacket. for development. In other words, you're not obligated to follow every dotted I or cross T. It's an important guide, absolutely, no question. But it is not scripture. It's not scriptural. Perhaps for some folks it may be. But it is a guide to development for the community and it's to be looked at as a guide. One of the interesting cases, actually that came out of Lexington, an important case, occurred right here in this room 23 years ago when a very prominent zoning attorney came before you, having secured a recommendation for approval of a zone change from the Planning Commission. And his presentation was, I rely upon the comprehensive plan. I rely upon the Planning Commission's determination that my application is in complete compliance with the comprehensive plan. And even though there was a room full of neighbors, he said, I don't have anything else to add because I'm entitled to my zone change under the law because I'm in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The neighbors objected and raised all sorts of issues about traffic and stormwater and density and incompatibility. And the council turned it down and it went to the court of appeals. And the court of appeals ruled in a seminal case in planning and zoning law in 1999. The case is Huffman versus Alex in the Fayette Urban County government, and the Court of Appeals said, look, just because the developer files an application in complete compliance with the comprehensive plan, he is not entitled, as a matter of law, to get his own change. I say that because it illustrates the principle completely, full circle, that the comprehensive plan is a guide for development. It is not mandatory. It is not a straight jacket. In fact, under Kentucky law, under KRS 100-213, the comprehensive plan is one of three tests that if an applicant meets, can then provide that applicant with approval for his own change request. One is, are you in compliance with the comprehensive plan? Two is, can you demonstrate that the existing zoning of the property that you're seeking to redevelop is inappropriate, and can you show that what you're proposing to do is appropriate? Now, we at the Planning Commission submitted unrebutted proof that the existing zoning, agricultural urban, which is in terms of those uses, it's the same uses that you'll see outside the urban services area and the rural activity area, horses, cattle, farming. The only two uses that were identified in the AU zone, which is what the current zoning of this property is, were hay rides and trail riding. So nobody's going to do that. Nobody's going to use that property on Mason, on the former Masonic Lodge for any kind of agricultural use. It's completely surrounded by urban uses. And the evidence was overwhelming that that's the case, and we believe we were entitled to approval. Now, the comprehensive plan, as Tracy has gone through, and she showed all the development criteria, and they're numerous, you can kind of pick and choose what you find acceptable and justification for your zone change and those that really you don't meet. You can say, well, they're not that important. That's the flexibility with the plan. I say that just as an introductory kind of legal umbrella, if you will, of why we're here tonight in terms of what the law says. What the real important part of this presentation tonight is that you understand the history of how we got here. Now, the 2018 comprehensive plan, more so than any plan that's ever been adopted by this government, placed a special emphasis on neighborhood engagement. To the point that you can't file a zone change unless you meet with the neighbors before you file it. And not just meet with the neighbors and say, this is what we want to do. Do you have any problems with it? That's not the way it works these days. The way it works is you meet with the neighbors and you say, we're contemplating developing this property. And that's what the Webb family and the Greer family did without council a year ago. They met with the neighborhood leaders and they said, we're going to buy this property. As you know, we're developing the fountains next door. It's the same zoning classification that's before you tonight, except it doesn't have the residential, but it's got the B3 conditional, which I'll talk about a little bit. And they met with the neighbors, and they'll say, we're going to develop it. What do you think? And there was then exchange of ideas, information, wants, needs, preferences, objections, etc. as to what was going to be acceptable to the neighborhood. And from that conversation a year ago, a plan was ultimately filed in September indicating a mixture of single-family homes and retail. very much similar to what's 500 feet south of this property. It's called Ethington property. It's a, Ethington property is a commercial townhomes and single family. And we went through the process of filing that zone change. And before we had our hearing in January of this year, we had met with the neighborhood as a group, large group and board on seven different occasions. We had numerous telephone calls with the neighborhood leaders over what we were doing and what they wanted and how it could be enhanced. And as you will hear from Sam Dunn, because I've been doing these cases now over 30 years, and I've never represented a developer where I had the privilege of having the neighborhood leader be a part of the application before the Urban County Council seeking approval of his own change. Typically, no one accepts change. and they object to everything it doesn't matter and i understand that because i've been on the other side of that but tonight for the first time at least in my career you're going to hear from sam dunn who used to be uh commissioner of general services for the ervin county government several years ago and you will hear from him what i just uh gave an overview about of our cooperation with with the neighborhood. So I believe that the material that I've submitted at the Planning Commission, the evidence we introduced at the Planning Commission, which is all part of your record to review as a part of this, I will simply incorporate that by reference, is part of our justification legally to sustain a recommendation of approval. The other thing I've learned over the years is this. It's one thing to adopt a comprehensive plan and say we want high intensity along the corridors and this is what Lexington future is going to be until it comes to a specific parcel of property next to an existing long standing single family neighborhood and then people say wait a minute I didn't know that was going to be part of the comprehensive plan. And I polled the neighbors, how many of you were aware the 2018 comprehensive plan was going to increase density on this particular tracked. And of course, in my experience, when it gets down to a zone change, very few people actually know anything about the comprehensive plan. None of them knew anything about this. Now you can say, well, that was their fault, and maybe so, but my experience is in the real world, as a general rule, people never understand the comprehensive plan until somebody files a zone change close to their home. Then they find out about it, and it's important and its relevance. But we're here tonight, all these folks, I may be mistaken, we'll find out. I will just simply, as the chair indicated, not everybody needs to talk. And so perhaps if we indicate the number of people who are here in support of the zone change from the neighborhood, if you would just stand up at this time, if you're in support of the zone change that we're seeking tonight, if you'd just stand up. Thank you. I will now go very briefly to just illustrate the kind of development that has culminated from a year's worth of meetings. If we can load the slides up there. Is it on there? Okay. I can't see it very well, so it would be better to look at this one. Tracy kind of gave you an outline of the property. It's about 11 acres, and it's completely surrounded by single-family homes on three sides, and then it faces Harrodsburg Road. This is kind of a colored-up version of the site plan. Initially, we had all single-family homes in the back, and then we invited the staff to one of our neighborhood meetings in December, and they discussed a number of options, one of which was increasing the density by putting some townhomes in lieu of the single-family homes as a suggestion. We subsequently talked with the neighbors about that, and we made a change in our plan, and we filed that with the commission before the hearing. One of the big concerns, we had different meetings with different people. We had more meetings with the people that lived immediately adjacent to the development. I found that those are the people that are impacted the most from any kind of change in land use, particularly when you go from vacant land to developed land like what we're talking about. So we met with those folks a couple of times just to explain our proposal, discuss our landscaping and buffering plan, and we're going to fine-tune our landscaping and buffering for this development, much like we did at the fountains around the perimeter of the property so that we'll have an eight-foot fence. Ever so often, we'll have, I forget the distance of brick columns to make it attractive. And then we'll have evergreen-type screening and deciduous screening intermixed on the outside of the fence. All of that would be responsibility of the webs and the greers to maintain that, but effectively that will be a very substantial and a handsomely designed screening and landscape buffering around the perimeter of all the properties adjacent to this particular parcel. Again, this is an illustration of the development plan. One of the features, and it's kind of unusual because the comp plan certainly talks about increasing density. The comp plan also talks about when you're doing a development, a mixed-use development like this, where it's integrated with single-family and townhomes and commercial, it ought to have a create a sense of place and neighborhood and inviting place not just empty spaces but to have some green spaces that obviously you could put a building on but the webs and the careers listen to the neighbors and talked about how they want a green space as part of this development even though that takes away certainly commercial space and in certainly residential space. There are a total of 58,000 square feet of green space on this 11 acre parcel. There are three mini parks. I just dropped one in there. There's another one there. Another one there. I'll show you kind of a slide that shows our compatibility with a comprehensive plan of pedestrian connectivity and these three mini parks that will be available for everybody. In the neighborhood that comes to the commercial centers, These are set up so that people can, if you want to have ice cream, have a soda, have a brief conversation. We wanted people to enjoy their experience in this retail site and as well for the neighbors that live behind it, as well as for the neighbors in Palomar. We wanted to make it a place you wanted to come and see. And of course, we do have connections to the fountains at Palomar, which is underway. Obviously, COVID slowed it down, but it's now getting fully developed. We're waiting on one major anchor tenant, which we hope will come about pretty soon, and then you'll see some significant progress once that tenant locates on the site. But the importance of this is you don't see this much dedicated green space in a commercial site next to a residential site and one that's used, which I'll highlight in just a minute. This is kind of just a concept plan of what the houses will situate to show compliance with the comprehensive plan as we move through. This would be Syringa as a sub-street in the existing Palomar neighborhood. It goes into the development that we're talking about tonight. This is the first little mini-park area that we've set up. to maintain for the people that live in the neighborhood. It also, you see the trees there. Those trees, we had an arborist come in prior to doing any significant planting to identify what are the most important trees that are worth saving. We want to save them. We don't want to kind of build around them or put them at risk. So the webs and greers said, create something unusual, unique, and contributory to a sense of place for this new development. and that's what the folks at Vision Engineering, Mark McCain, and Jihad Alani came up with to create this nice sense of place, a focal point inside of this development with one of the three mini parks. There's another mini park at the end of the street that comes off of Syringa, and then as we walk toward the retail site, there's another mini park that will be set up. There's pretty much more access by the commercial visitors and the people that work in those stores. It's almost a half acre in sight that will be landscaped and have benches and tables for people to take a break and enjoy a break from work. Or, as I mentioned, an ice cream or a soda or just meet with people in the neighborhood. One of the questions that came up, well, how much commercial space do we need on Harrisburg Road? We had it studied, Philip Sewell, commercial real estate broker, who does almost exclusive work along Harrodsburg Road. He did a survey of all the retail sites on Harrodsburg Road from Beaumont Center, which is located at Beaumont Development and New Circle Road down Harrodsburg Road to northern Jessamine County, where the Bell Reef development is. It's 98% occupied. In terms of commercial space, that's 100% occupied in terms of actually having tenants there because a 2% vacancy rate is almost unheard of. But this corridor is in need of additional commercial services. We've seen commercial use move away from retail goods more to services and restaurants and things of that nature. I live out here. I can tell you there's very few places to eat, particularly since they tore Murray's down, which is one of my favorite places. And once the fountains gets up and running, there's going to be a super nice restaurant over there, which I'm looking forward to. But there is a need for more commercial services along this heavy residential corridor. I've submitted findings of fact to Tracy Jones, your counsel. I also submitted conditional zoning provisions, which we have volunteered to place upon the property, limiting certain uses on the property. And in addition, to deal with this issue of connectivity, that the planning staff, and I think the planning commission, was concerned about, they wanted to see connectivity between Syringa and this new development, both retail and the residential. And so after the Planning Commission's decision, we huddled up with the neighborhood leaders. They then met with the neighborhood and kind of polled people on, you know, would you be amenable to opening Syringa up if we could try to limit cut-through traffic to the extent that we can. And after several meetings, including a couple that I attended, the neighborhood vote was to open up Syringa for this important connectivity. And so as a condition of approving this zone change, I placed the language in front of Tracy for her review, and she'll get into that in a moment. But there will be a condition of approval that Syringa has to be opened up for motor vehicles both to the commercial space and to the residential space, subject to approval by the Planning Commission. Obviously, the neighbors and I will be weighing in on how that connectivity should work. We want to eliminate as much incentive for any cut-through traffic as possible. We're going to try to slow traffic down and make it so that only people that would use this connection, which is what it's designed for, are the people that live in Palomar Hills. They'll come to the shopping center in cars. There's plenty of pedestrian connectivity that we've got on this development plan. But it's really geared for the Palomar folks, not geared for anybody else to use it as a cut-through. and we want to create as many disincentives as we can to stop that. That is an issue, though, we'll have to deal with at the Planning Commission because they do have final jurisdiction in that regard. I do want to introduce Sam Dunn. Sam has been one of the neighborhood leaders over the past year. He's on the board. As I mentioned, he was former commissioner of general services and with this government and before that in parks, and he can give you his history. But he's a longtime resident of Palomar. And as I say, this is the first time that I've ever gotten such a transparent relationship and really a trusting relationship that goes back to the fountains between a neighborhood and a developer. It's gone on now for five years. This is the second zone change where it's happened. And it's unprecedented in my tenure as a lawyer doing these kinds of cases. My hat's off to the Webs and the Greers for being open to allow me to work with the neighbors like this. We worked a year and a half on the fountains. We worked a year on this one. It's very unusual. I usually don't get that much leeway. But they wanted to keep the momentum going of the relationship that was established in the fountains. And it's here tonight. So Sam, if you'll come up and address the council with respect to what you have to say, I appreciate it. Well, good evening, everyone. I've been chosen to represent the neighborhood for some opening comments tonight. And I was telling some of you earlier, it's been over 25 years since I was last behind this podium. So it's nice to see some familiar faces. My wife and I live in Palomar Hills, have lived in Palomar Hills for 22 years and reside at 2204 Pepper Tree Court. Palomar Hills began in 1986. Today there are 663 homes and townhomes situated on 200 plus acres. We are a planned community, bordered on the west by Historic Mill Ridge Farm, on the south by Bowmans Mill Road, on the east by Harrodsburg Road, and on the north by Manowar Boulevard. Our community association provides oversight and has an active board of directors and eight neighborhood presidents elected from various sections of the community. As a deed-restricted community, our neighbors and leadership strive to maintain the beauty and unique bluegrass identity of our neighborhood. For this reason, we take active interest in the compatibility of development that occurs around us. Our journey here tonight began over a year ago, when we were approached by developers who had purchased the 11-acre Masonic Lodge property on Harrisburg Road. The developers of the Webs and the Greers began a series of meetings with neighbors to get input on components of their development plan. The meetings included large and small town hall gatherings and one-on-one visits with neighbors directly bordering the proposed development. In the autumn of 21, the developers shared with us the initial plan, and we were pleased as stakeholders that they had incorporated our ideas and suggestions. The inclusion of single-family housing was a significant issue for our community that had been favorably addressed. On December 20, our neighborhood had a town hall meeting with the LFUCG planning staff. Even though it was Christmas week, we had an overflow crowd present. The planning staff shared comments on the initial design related to the current comp plan. There was active discussion regarding density of housing, and our neighbors, although opposed to high-density housing, agreed with the planning staff that medium density or townhomes would be acceptable because it was compatible to our neighborhood. As a result, we requested the developer to revise the initial plan to include both single-family and townhome residential components. On January 27th of this year, the Planning Commission met via Zoom call to consider the zone change. 22 Palomar neighborhoods participated to voice support of the proposed plan and zone change. It was during this meeting we also learned of the city's desire for connectivity. Due to several problematic issues, the Planning Commission denied our zone change request. The neighbors of Palomar were obviously disappointed, but we were not deterred. In the following weeks, we had other city leaders express to us that the connectivity issue was a contributing problem. However, our neighborhood leaders were struggling to understand that concept. As a former city employee, I knew when there were questions, it was best to go to the source for a better understanding. In the old days, I had ironed out many a planning issue with Frank Thompson and Dale Thoma, some names that you might remember. But I had never met Jim Duncan. I called Mr. Duncan and introduced myself, and within 24 hours, we had a productive visit. He explained the concept and purpose of connectivity, indicated that we needed a service road to allow neighbors egress from the development without getting back on Harrisburg Road, and even offered a suggested route. I then asked Mr. Duncan if through a cooperative effort, could we still salvage the zone change. He mentioned it's happened in the past when the council has conditioned his own change with specific elements. I appreciated Mr. Duncan's time and his useful information. As a follow-up to that meeting, we approached the neighbors about supporting the connectivity, and on April 4th at a town hall meeting with 60 participants, they overwhelmingly approved. We then asked the developers to amend the plan to include the connectivity supported by neighbors, and the plan was updated. In the 2018 comp plan, we used words like communication, stakeholder involvement, and meaningful engagement to encourage developers, neighborhoods in the city to work together to achieve desired objectives. This journey has had peaks and valleys, but we believe that ultimately, by working together, we have created a win-win-win for all parties. Our request tonight of the Urban County Council is this. We would ask that you approve the Masonic Lodge zone change with conditions. Conditions would be, number one, inclusion of the single-family and townhome residential components identified in the plan. Number two, connectivity for Palomar residents with the syringous service road added to the plan. And number three, commercial usage on the frontage of Harrodsburg Road. In closing, once again, we believe this situation creates a win-win-win for all parties. Thank you for your time, your attention, and your consideration. Thank you, Sam. Mr. Vice Mayor, we have, I'm not sure how many people, how many people have signed up on this list? About a thousand. A thousand? So, Bruce, if I may. Yes. What I'm going to do when you're complete, when you've completed your presentation, I'm going to ask if there's anybody here in opposition. Okay. And if there is, give them an opportunity to speak. And then I will ask if anybody who signed up in support would wish to speak. And then people, if they're here, who still have something to say would like to hear it. Does that make sense? That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So is there anybody here who has signed up who wishes to speak in opposition to the zone change? Seeing none, is there anybody who signed up in support who would like to add their voice to this hearing? If you would, if you wouldn't mind, come to the podium. I don't want to try and find your name on my list. If you'd come to the podium and give your name. Hi, I'm Joy Murphy, and I'm a resident of Palomar, but I'm speaking to you for a few reasons. I moved to the Lexington area and your beautiful bluegrass area about eight years ago, and as you can hear from my accent, I'm from New York, okay? So this looks completely different, and I love the way it looks. Please don't change it. But that's not the only reason I'm here to talk to you about that. I was thrilled when Mr. Simpson was going over his diagram and he was showing us the green space. That is so important, and don't lose that. My middle daughter started going to school at UK in 2010, and Lexington has changed so dramatically since 2010, just the landscape of it. I don't want the bluegrass to lose what it's known for and the beauty and the rolling hills. So please keep that in mind when you're looking at that. The other thing I'm talking to you about, I'm also talking to you as a realtor. I am a realtor here in Lexington. And I'm sure you've seen all over the news, it is so hard for people to buy a home right now. And I'm probably looking at many homeowners up here. Just this past year, I've dealt with three clients that I finally got them homes that have been looking for over a year. their tears and their frustration and just trying to get their families into a home. So when I'm looking at seeing more rentals, that's not what you need. As somebody who's helping these people as boots on the ground, they're trying to get out of their rentals. They're trying to find homes. So when I see townhomes and homes that are being built, that's truly what is needed right now. And sometimes things look really good on paper, like your comprehensive plan. But in reality, in real life, things have changed. There's been COVID. The world has changed, and house prices have changed. No one could predict this. So sometimes we have to kind of come out of our box and shift gears a little bit to make things work for what we're dealing with now. So that's all I want to say. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Anybody else who wishes to speak in support, sir, please come forward. and if you would give your name, council district, and you'll have three minutes. My name is Chester Tackett, and my wife and I, we live at 4032 Santee Way in Palomar Hills and have for 32 years. Half the residents on Santee Way have lived there 25 plus years. Obviously, it's a great place to live. My wife and I are in our mid-70s, retired, and our home is our forever home. For most homeowners, our home is the single biggest investment we will ever make. My wife and I have invested a great deal of money in our home, One investment being $80,000 into our backyard, including an upgrade, a covered deck, a brick paver patio, a pergola, a fire pit, water feature. Why is this important? Because these upgrades back up to within 12 feet of the Masonic Lights property. It should be noted that former Masonic Lodge property is bordered on three sides by the Palomar Hills neighborhood. And that the backyards of those 24 homes that border this property are small. Therefore, our homes will be extremely close to what is developed there. consequently having a major impact on the usefulness of our backyards and the value of our homes. So obviously approval of the zoning change request is of utmost importance to the Palomar Hills community. Should the zoning request change be denied, Palomar Hills residents have good reason to expect the next zone change request will be for an apartment complex. Why? Because if the plan under consideration here with the agreed upon conditions is unacceptable, what is the likely alternative? Furthermore, the urban county zoning and planning staff call for high-density housing, translation apartment buildings. The last thing we homeowners want are three-story apartment buildings, or due to the elevation of the land, effectively four-story apartment buildings, practically on our back doorstep, degrading the usefulness of our backyards, overshadowing our homes, blocking the sunlight, producing unwanted artificial light at night, producing noise pollution, including our intruding on our privacy, lowering the market value of our homes and causing extreme increased traffic flow. Not much to like there. In conclusion, because we sincerely believe this zoning request change is compatible with the Palomar Hills community and certainly for the 24 homes boarding the former Masonic Lodge property, we would be eternally grateful for your vote to approve the zoning change request. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Come forward. If you'd give us your name and your council district, you'll have three minutes. Number nine, I'm Scott Sandberg. I live next door to Chester. And, you know, I'll be brief, but, you know, what this is all about is compromise. And my job would have been a whole lot easier in my 35-year career if Bruce and his clients, the way you operated to engage with the community. I don't necessarily deal with people that easily with my career. So thank you, Bruce, and your clients for all that. but the most important thing is palomar is my home it's my wife's home we've been there 30 years we've raised kids but it's not all about us at all it's not about karen and scott it's not about chester we are seeing some young people moving into the neighborhood casey and sarah next door just moved in. They have small kids. We would like to preserve what we all moved to Palomar for, and that is a way of life, a way that our community has developed. Our friends are in Palomar. Our neighbors are in Palomar. My entire life has been in Palomar. So we want to try to at least request that what everybody has described here is what I feel is a really good compromise between the plan and what's being developed in that property. I support with the conditions that were mentioned earlier the zoning change. I think it's something that we can all be very proud of if we can all come to some kind of an agreement here. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Yes, ma'am. I'm LaShawn Fugate. I've lived in Palomar for the last 14 years and District 9. So thank you for meeting with us this afternoon and allowing the Palomar community to voice our concerns regarding the development taking place on Harrodsburg Road. We understand the importance of change and embracing growth in terms of moving life and initiatives forward. But on the other hand, on the other side of the argument is the need to preserve such important things as family traditions and building a safe community for our neighborhoods. I was reminded of one of the long-held family traditions that exists within the Palomar community when it comes to the kids' Fourth of July bicycle parade. Kids from all over our neighborhood will meet up at the park with their bikes and wagons decorated for the occasion, and they will ride alongside their friends and family on Palmetto just a short distance to celebrate the holiday. This road runs perpendicular to Santee, which, with the proposed changes, will facilitate increased traffic through this neighborhood and will jeopardize that sense of family and security that this neighborhood has worked hard to create. Not too many neighborhoods that are being built today are conducive to those types of family outings, so it's very important to try to preserve in as many ways as we can. More and more younger families are moving into this area, and we are concerned for their safety. We ask council to think of those small kids riding through the streets, just as many of you more than likely did when you were younger, when finalizing your decisions in this manner. As a resident of the Palomar community and a member of the board, I support the zone change with agreed upon conditions, including single family and townhome residential, connectivity for Palomar residents, and with a service road in the commercial property on the front end of Harrisburg Road. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Yes, sir. I'm the Division 9 Peter Wollum. I live in Palomar on Shannawood Drive. And I'd just like to extend a worry that we all have is the amount of traffic that at the moment has increased since Madrone was extended. into Palomar and past the church that I go to. And there is an intention to bring in the road into Syringa and Palomar Drive and across into the Masonic Lodge, which we're talking about. And from that, it goes into fountains, and that from there, it can go around to Man of War. So therefore, you can miss out two traffic lights If you turn on Madrone and to go to Dunbar, and we have seen a terrific amount of traffic increase since Madrone was open. And we are worried about children. We have got a very young population now because parents, grandparents, and their children have moved in with their children, so grandkids as well. and it's just that we feel that that is an important aspect of what will happen and to allow any more people living in that area is just going to increase the amount of vehicles around and as I say we're going to find more input into the traffic light situation. So thank you very much for listening to me. Thank you. is there anybody else who wishes to speak yes sir good evening thank you for holding this meeting and allowing us to voice our opinions my name is john fedok i live on the corner of santee way and palomar boulevard palomar drive palmetto drive excuse me my main concern is the traffic if we open this up to a a high density housing issue in these in this proposed area we have already have a problem with people using uh turning down santee way off of road off of harrodsburg road to cut through that neighborhood in the morning and to use it as an exit in the afternoon there are it's a three-way stop sign at my intersection and i can tell you how many cars just breeze right on through there and you know they're not from that neighborhood because they're moving at around 40 miles an hour and i think the traffic has become a real issue you've heard that from other people talking about it but it is realistic and if we open up syringa to a lot of traffic coming through there that's only going to complicate that entire neighborhood and create problems for us living there with the limited capacity that we have so i think the plan has been proposed is a realistic opportunity to one, make sure we curb some of that traffic, and then the same thing, develop that property so it reflects the ideals and concepts of Palomar Hills. It's a unique neighborhood. There are very few other neighborhoods that have the restrictions that we have for all the residents. We all contribute to the support of the community association and that gives us a lot of freedom and insights at the local at palomar hills and i don't want to see that removed so i think you should consider that when you're evaluating this plan and approve the proposed uh zoning change with provisions thank you thank you is there anybody else who wishes to speak yes sir Hello. My name is Jay Connie. I live at 2032 Glade Lane in Palomar. My property backs up to the fountains at Palomar development that's in process. I wanted to talk to three points. One is I'm a strong advocate of property rights. So I believe if I want to control someone else's property, my job is to buy it. Number two is the developers have done research into what was economically viable for them. And it's only reasonable that that should be respected. they know what makes sense, and to have people from a planning commission tell them what they should do that's not economically viable for them, I see as a violation of their property rights. Number three, I've seen the developers engage with the neighbors in the development of Fountains at Palomar, the Webs and the Greers, and I'm one of them. and I've really been pleased with how much they've engaged and created a border. They have two rows of fast-growing large arborvitae, 10-foot centers, alternating rows that are going to provide a very nice green wall behind where I am because I'm downslope from it, further towards Man of War. The residences are above the development, and there they have the wall that was described with the concrete columns and the cedar planking in there. So we're really appreciative of the engagement and the respect for us and the willingness to accommodate our interests even though it's their property. And the fourth point I'd like to make is the traffic at Lyon and Manowar is an unresolvable technical traffic engineering problem. And I'm a systems engineer by background. I've been in the business almost 60 years. I'm older than I look. And the traffic going through as a cut through to avoid the intersection at Harrodsburg and Manowar can be a real problem. And I think the only control will be people reacting to how long it takes to get through that intersection, getting out of the Manowar from Lyon. And there's no viable solution to it. There's no technical viable solution I can see. So only by reducing the traffic or the incentive for people to drive through from further south on Harrodsburg as they come north, and then instead of making the turn on demand of war, going through the neighborhood, that's the best we can do. That's the best that seems viable in reality. So that's all I wanted to say, so thank you for hearing me. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening. I'm Casey Wiesner. My wife and I reside at 4024 Santee Way with our two daughters. One just turned 10 Sunday. It's in fourth grade at Rosa Parks. I have a 16-year-old that just started driving last week, so watch out, everybody. But anyways, I grew up in the neighborhood. My mother and I do residential real estate with Wiesner Properties. I grew up in Herod's Hills, and we backed up to what is now Beaumont Center, where it used to be a cow pasture, so I lived there at a young child. We moved to Palomar, and I lived on Palmetto, and the current Eddington property that backs up where you have Evergreen, Nutmeg, that was being developed while I lived there too. And now we're on Santee, where we purchased our home about a year and a half ago, came in and put close to $200,000 of improvements into the home and have gotten nothing but positive reviews from that. But we do back up, and I knew this property would be sold. I didn't think it would be soon as it happened, but when I saw David Graves with Cypress put that sign up, I texted him and I said, what's going on? And so he kind of gave me the price and had some lookers. So we knew it would be sold. It's not a surprise for us, but a lot of our neighbors who have been here for a long time, I know it's a big, big concern for them, and it is for us too, because our children are playing on Santee, and his people do cut through there. But I know that it's not going to stay green space forever. None of us were going to pay the $5 or $6, $7 million, whatever it went for. But the single families with the townhomes in the middle there and then the commercial would be something that my family would approve of. And a lot of our neighbors said we would, too. You know, as Joy had mentioned, our residential real estate 40513 is scarce. There's hardly anything available. So welcoming some new construction into the neighborhood and area would be very good. but I appreciate y'all's time here this evening and I approve what Bruce has brought to us. We do thank you, Bruce, and your developers, the Greer and, sorry, Webs. Thank you, I'm sorry. But we would like to see that pushed through. Thank you. Great, thank you. Is there anybody else? Yes, sir. Hello, Brad Kirkhoff. I live at 4009 Peppertree Drive. I've been in Palomar twice since 2004. I'm president of the Palomar Hills Community Association. Today, we've got a big group of people supporting. We've had seven meetings, probably on average 50, 60 people each meeting. Go through the evolution of this development. If you were with us a year ago and you asked everyone to stand up supporting any kind of development going back in there, it would have been a 100% different crowd. So we've been through several processes, several iterations. We're not getting everything we want, but in this plan, I think we're getting what we need, and we know what we're getting. We went back to the developers after talking to several representatives, after listening to staff and going through the last process and understanding how important the connectivity was. We actually went to the developer and pushed to add the connectivity. They didn't come to us for that because we wanted to increase our odds of this potentially going through because we know what we're getting here. We don't really know what we're going to get if this doesn't go through. So I just want to reiterate, we're getting what we need. We know we're compromising. We know we're giving a little bit. I think it's a win-win-win potential opportunity for staff, for city, for neighbors to all do that, developers. There's 663 houses in Palomar. There's 2,000-plus people that live in the neighborhood. We have an Easter egg hunt Saturday. We have over 1,000 eggs that we bought for this Easter egg hunt. So large neighborhood. We're really focused on security. We're focused on community. We're focused on protecting what's around us. We're putting in $40,000 worth of cameras, $40,000 worth of cameras right now as we speak to do that. We think this is a plan that we can live with. The neighborhood, through several meetings, unanimously supports that we've got a majority of the neighborhood supporting it, and we just ask for your consideration tonight. Thank you. I don't think any of your kids in. Sorry for that. I don't think any of your kids in. Maybe we'll all show up for the egg hunt. I have one in my backyard. Is there anybody else at this time who wishes to speak on this issue? Okay, the staff wish to add any comments? Thank you, Vice Mayor Kay. There were just a few items I want to clarify for the record. The staff makes recommendations based on the comprehensive plan, so it's not just our preference as professional planners that we present that information to you. It's part of the adopted comprehensive plan, and that comprehensive plan does recommend increasing density, providing dwelling units for people who want to live in Lexington. of various types throughout our community, not just in this particular location. Nothing in the comprehensive plan is a requirement. There is, as Bruce mentions, and he mentions actually this quote quite often in his hearings, which helps the Planning Commission remember, and I hope the Council as well, the Planning Commission or the Comprehensive Plan is not a requirement. It's a document that is meant to be a roadmap and a guide for how our community should grow. But if we veer too far off of the path, you know, off that roadmap to our destination, we'll never reach it. So if we never encourage higher density development or higher intensity on our corridors, we're never going to be able to provide the dwelling units that are necessary for our community to remain a growing, thriving community. So, yes, we can veer off the roadmap and take a detour, but if we don't keep our destination in sight, we're really never going to get there. Meeting with the neighbors is also not a requirement, although it is strongly encouraged. The planning commission sees the benefit of the applicant meeting with the neighbors prior to filing. oftentimes it can diminish the conflicts that occur and so they do they do strongly encourage that both through the comprehensive plan and through their questions during Planning Commission hearings and then lastly there are alternative findings that are available through KRS 100 the primary one is always is your request in agreement with the comprehensive plan and so I would say 95% of our applicants work to address that particular finding first and if it's not possible to make that finding then they rely on these alternative findings and so mr. Simpson did provide those at the hearing to the Planning Commission and I believe what happened was not that the Planning Commission thought AU the ad urban zoning would remain here long term because it does have services available to this immediate area but they did not agree with the second half of that finding. So you have to find that the AU is no longer appropriate, but that the proposed zoning being contemplated is appropriate for this location. So they just, they didn't come to the same conclusion that Mr. Simpson proposed in his findings in relation to that second half of the finding for approval. I think that's it from the staff. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, do you wish to some a summary or can we move to the next? Okay. And you'll give you. We can move on. Mr. K. I appreciate the planning staff. We're blessed to have such qualified professionals. We do disagree from time to time. I've always been in the trenches, if you will, and representing people for and against development. I've always believed that if you can get people together and find a common ground, which takes time, it takes trust and verification of that trust over time. And I think through the Webbs and the Greers and these folks that are here tonight, they've come up with a proposal on this site that is in fair consideration of the length of investment and these people's homes, the money they've spent, and their expectation of something that would be generally compatible in terms of new development, I think we've reached that. And as the neighborhood representatives have said, it is a win-win-win, and we ask for your all's approval of that tonight. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, I will open the floor for council members if you have questions of any of the people who have testified so far. If you'd sign in. Council Member Baxter, question? Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First and foremost, I just want to thank the Palomar community for your engagement and your commitment to your neighborhood. And for showing up to not only one, but two public hearings to share your input. It is greatly appreciated and it does not go unnoticed. So thank you for that. Second, I want to commend the developer for being so willing to compromise with the neighborhood and working together to reach what seems to be some common ground. I do have one clarification that I need to ask you, Mr. Simpson. The connection that has been proposed, the service road connection, will that change the number of single family homes or townhomes? or will that number, could you just clarify what those numbers would be for me? There is the possibility that the connection might result in the loss of one or two townhomes, depending upon what ultimately the Planning Commission approves in terms of development. So it could be less units than what we're showing tonight because of that. We want to make that connection so it's not an incentive for people to speed. We want them to slow down, and we want it strictly oriented toward the Palomar. residents. And that was seven single family and 14 townhomes, is that correct? I'm sorry? Was it seven single family homes and 14 townhomes? Yes, that's correct. All right. So we might lose one or two townhomes depending upon location. Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I've been, I've sat up here for a long time and I got echo with Mr. Simpson. I've been here since 1980s and I've seen something tonight that I've never seen. I've seen a neighbor, what Bruce said, a neighborhood and a developer working together and to come to that compromise is incredible. And another thing, Commissioner Dunn, I called him You know, when he come up here, he always brings good ideas. And I've never, to my knowledge, ever voted against that man. And to hear his proposals that he recommended and his concerns, I'm hoping that that will be added into whatever we come to an agreement with. But I just want to thank you because I usually follow your recommendations because you've never let me down before. But I do want to commend you all. It's something I've never seen tonight. And I hope other neighborhoods and developers learn from what you all have done and make sure that this thing can go through like this and make lessons in a better place to live. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First, I've had the privilege of representing most of you for seven years. So I feel like I still represent you in this hearing. and our conversations, and I certainly did five years ago during the Valmar Fountains development and those conversations. So I feel like this has been a long history, if you will, of trying to bring that entire green space to use. And you're right, it would love to be just kept green forever, but that's not the reality. So I know we've worked really hard over the last five years to figure out how to do this well. And I think that's the challenge. How do you develop a comprehensive plan, being also sensitive to the people who live in that particular space and being mindful of development. And that's a challenge. It's a challenge why we ask, as part of the comprehensive plan, to have development and developers meet with neighborhoods early on to figure out where are those issues of compromise or where are those issues of concern and address them early. And the things that I heard that I'm particularly excited about, the green spaces and parks. I know I've mentioned that. And I hate when you lose some of those places. My kids played soccer at the corner there at the old church. And so adding some green spaces to make sure that transition is good I think is really important. Two, the Ethington development did have single-family homes, then townhomes, and then B1 in development. And I think that's really important for continuous development on that road. You're going to see it when you drive down Harrisburg Road for that to be mimicked, especially when you're backing up so close to Palomar. And your homes right there are so important for that to make sense when you're looking at it. And I think the plan does that. As regards to density, let me just make a few comments of the last five years. When we changed the plan from 2018, it changed the density levels. So what used to be medium density is now looked at as pretty much low density. What was high density, high rise or more like three to four apartments, is now medium density. So oftentimes, and I'll use an example, when the property on Wellington was developed, it was developed as a low density apartment. what people thought, I think, oh, that's one or two levels. It's not. It was three, and we approved it. I opposed it, as did Council Member Baxter. For that reason, I thought it was too high of a density. But the conversation, the challenge, I guess, of the conversation is that the word change from high and medium, the definition has changed in our plan. So when my neighborhoods got the plan, they saw medium density and didn't realize what they were actually getting with that plan. And so I would argue we already have high density coming to that area, right on Wellington, which is very close, and right across the street from Palomar Fountains, you have two very large complexes that are high-density condos. So there is a lot of already compact use, I would say, multifamily options in that area, and we're coming. And I think the addition of the housing in the townhomes makes sense. So I appreciate the compromise, and I appreciate the sensitivity to connectivity. I know that's not what neighbors want. I get it. None of us like to have that as a challenge with traffic. and quite frankly, we're going to have traffic from now on. It's not going away. There is no easy way to condense half the city, the city doubling every day. It's not happening. So I appreciate the sensitivity to saying we have to do something to make this work, and I appreciate the compromise that you all have done to do that. And I appreciate developers being willing to lose some on their side to make that work for the neighborhood. So I just wanted to offer my thoughts and give context. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you all for coming tonight. When we redid the comprehensive plan and we did the place builders, it's a very complex way that it's put together. But one thing I think is the most important part is how developers and neighbors have to come together and talk and do it on the front end. I've always told the developers that that's what you need to talk to neighbors because that's the ones who are going to be affected day to day by it. So I really am glad that you all did that. It took some time to get here, but I'm glad that you all were able to do that. I've been like Mr. Maloney here sitting through a lot of these, and I've never witnessed what I witnessed tonight. And from our perspective, it's really nice when you all can come together. You can compromise. You can find something that works. I want to thank the Webs and the Greers. I want to thank the neighbors for really working together and coming up with something that we all can be proud of, that you're going to live every day and enjoy. and thank you for making our job easy. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I do appreciate the presentations today. And I have to say, I had a look out at watching Sam, and I keep looking for Shirley Watson and Ned Jennings right next to you because, you know, those were back in the day, and there's not too many of us left that remember those. I would ask the question of Mr. Simpson. You talked about little single-family homes. Have you all decided what the square footage of the single-family homes and the townhomes or an average of what you all expect them to be? You know, we haven't got into that level of detail. They'll be very similar to the homes, the townhomes that are being developed just south of us. They're going to be expensive. What house isn't, right? I'm sorry? I said what house isn't, right? Yeah. Everything's going up. But that will be compatible to what's been developed just the south. We haven't got into the, since we haven't gotten approval for the zoning, we haven't got into that level of judgment on the deed restrictions and that sort of thing. But the price of the land dictates what the houses, what the lots will sell for, and what the lots sell for, well, what the house will sell for, usually it's five times what the lot sells for, and these lots will probably be priced at $150,000 or more, probably more. Okay. Well, I appreciate it. You know, in the 4th District, I had the privilege of watching the Fritz Farm be developed, And I know that it is scary when you think about apartment complexes being developed next to a single-family residential neighborhood. But I have a good experience with that. And so I have to share it because there seems to always be such a negative connotation about apartments being near single-family homes. And let me just say, the Summit is beautiful. They have beautiful apartments. We have not had one ounce of problems with the single-family homes that are next door. There's beautiful landscaping, and so I just have to say from a personal lens is that it's not always a bad thing. You know, they can't exist together. And I appreciate and value everybody's thoughts today and points, and I appreciate that you all have come together and found a good compromise. I know it will be a beautiful development. I mean, the Greers and the Webs, they make beautiful developments. You all have made beautiful developments in our community, and you'll continue doing that. But I guess my only thought is that if we keep using our mentality that anybody that lives in an apartment, that it's not going to be good for my neighborhood, I just wish that we could get past that conversation. because I've witnessed it in my district, and I love it because it's real. So I'm glad that I feel like that you all are going to be in good shape and that you're going to have what you want, and it's going to be a beautiful development, and the green space is fantastic. But as one parting comment, as I could say, is that it's not always bad to have diverse development with each other. We all can learn from each other. But thank you. I appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And, you know, we have a real good feeling in the room right now. So I hate to think some negative things here. And it's not negative towards the proposal. It's negative towards how we got here and how the Planning Commission, listening to a neighborhood and developer's agreement could get caught up in the fervor that it must have to reach a unanimous disapproval. I don't think we ever see a unanimous disapproval on anything. So I'm not really sure what happened there. And, you know, Ms. Wade, the more and more we do these things together, it's almost like she anticipates some of the things I'm going to say and gets out ahead of them. But we have a fantastic staff, and I respect and expect the staff to take the academic exercise that they do and encourage more density and encourage several of the things that are in the comprehensive plan. That's their job. But once it gets to the Planning Commission, I feel here that there was an attachment to the academic exercise as opposed to reviewing the merits of the case before them. Particularly when the applicant came with the alternative justification. Not necessarily that it was in agreement with the comprehensive plan, but that the existing zoning was inappropriate and the proposed zoning would be appropriate. which, Ms. Wade again, she jumped ahead of me, that's what KRS 100-213 says. In the absence of a finding of agreement with a comprehensive plan, you look to is the current classification inappropriate, which it most certainly was, ag land inside the urban services boundary is inappropriate, and is the current appropriate, and it is exactly, what was proposed is exactly what is around and adjacent to it, which is almost a universal argument in zoning law that is an appropriate classification because it's the stuff that's already there. And not only was it the stuff that's already there, but the different uses that were being proposed had appropriate buffers and transitions, which are called for in the comprehensive plan. So I think that too much was focused on the academic exercise of each little piece of the comp plan to the point of inconsistency. It should be more dense, but it shouldn't create traffic. I mean, those are two inconsistent findings. So I think we are getting where we need to go here. I think it's a great development. I appreciate all of the work that was done with the neighborhood and the developer working together. That's what we ask for. And as many of you all know, in my personal business, I do planning and zoning law in surrounding communities. And never in my personal practice have I seen a neighborhood so supportive of a development. Never in my time serving up here have I seen such a support. So while we can all pick and choose little things we may not like or an academic philosophy that we think it should be a little more dense or that, and I agree, it's on a corridor. It should be, corridors should be dense. But this one does add more commercial uses and slightly denser residential uses. But we always have to keep in mind, even though it's on a corridor, where is it on a corridor? It's a stone's throw from the urban services boundary. We're all the way out. This is not a piece of the corridor that is right in the heart of town. And so we have to keep in mind what is compatible when we look at what we have written in our comp plan and in our zoning ordinance. In my personal opinion, the times that I've been to that part of town, this complements the area perfectly. And I think it was a well thought out design and a great compromise with the neighbors. I intend to support it tonight. There's other council members that want to speak, so I'm not prepared to make a motion. And I certainly would defer to the council member of the district if that's her preference. But I think this is a great development. And great job all of you all. I wish we never had to get to this stage. It really shouldn't have. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye. And thank you to all of you who have come out multiple times to speak and share your thoughts about this development and the character and practice of your neighborhood. I simply had a question and it was about this question of connectivity. I know that when we were listening to some of the kind of condition zone change discussion about Syringa, there was a mention of connectivity and that being part of it. I'm reading through the notes here and I am simply seeking clarification about pedestrian infrastructure, bike racks, sidewalks. Could you all clarify if there's any additional pedestrian infrastructure that will be included in this connectivity part? We have several pedestrian paths from the new development that go into the shopping center and of course Palomar would walk through the... Let's see here. Oops, I go backwards. This is one pedestrian. You can see the path coming down at the bottom. That goes right up to the Syringa Street. It's a designated pedestrian path. There's two or three. There's one there. That goes right up to the edge of the street. This is another one as presently the syringa goes into and it cul-de-sacs. And the cul-de-sac spins off on this pedestrian connection to the shopping center in one of the three parks that we've got. This is another pedestrian connection. So there's pedestrian connections and sidewalks internally and they go to the retail site. Thank you. I think my question is also about pedestrian connectivity between the existing neighborhoods and this proposed development. So that if neighbors wanted to come into this area and shop or dine or what have you, they would be able to do that on foot easily? Yes. I mean, they'll go through Syringa, their sidewalks up to Syringa, and the sidewalks from Syringa take you directly into the retail site. Okay. That's helpful. That helps me have a bit more of a vision. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. No other council members signed up at this moment, but I want to add my comments. This hearing is unusual in many ways, but what you've just heard is really unusual, and that is council members weighing in with their philosophies of development. So since my colleagues have done that, I'm going to take the opportunity to do it as well. And by way of background, I served on the Planning Commission before I was on council. So I've sat through many a zone change, and I've worked with the staff over the years. I want to make a couple comments. The first one is that, yes, it's very unusual to get a unanimous no vote from the Planning Commission, but I have a different take on why that's the case. Typically, a developer that gets strong opposition from staff and realizes that they're going to go into a zone change hearing with a strong recommendation of disapproval will continue to work on the plan. Now, for many reasons, these developers chose not to do that and they brought it forward. My understanding is that the main point of contention had to do with the connectivity, which is, it's a point of contention, I would say, when people think about development, But it is best practice and there are reasons why connectivity is a value in the comp plan. And that is that it keeps cars off of the main arterials. If you don't have connectivity, what you're doing is you're forcing traffic out of a particular development onto an arterial to go wherever they want to go. And again, there are differences of opinion about that. But I just want to make the point that when I look at this, what I'm pleased about is that there was a compromise on the question of connectivity. That it is an important aspect. It's controversial mainly because if you are within the area, you want to keep traffic out and that's perfectly understandable. But if you look at the broader context of the flow of traffic in the community, what the lack of connectivity does, has done in our community, is forced traffic onto the main arterials and congested them. We have a hub and spoke development on our roads. We don't have basically a grid pattern, which would allow, which basically, a grid pattern is connectivity. We don't have that. And so I think it's an important issue. And maybe one other thing. So this is, This is where I get, I feel like I get to be a preacher. And that is about the larger question of how this community continues to grow. Because it's absolutely the case. We cannot have density without more traffic. And we have some important decisions to make going forward about how much density is really acceptable to the community and how we develop in a way that accommodates the density where it really belongs. So coming back to the case in hand, I believe this is a piece of land that should be developed. It should be developed with the density that's been proposed. I will be in support. I understand full well that the effort that the developers have made to reach out to the community is really extraordinary. I think it's come up with a good result. And from the perspective of a member of the council, we like nothing better than to have agreement brought to us. So thank you all for being here and all of the work that you've done. I, at this point, am going to close the hearing, and that means that right now the conversation has to be just within council. And at one point I will recognize the representative of the district who has a motion, but I would like first to see if council members have any additional comments at this time. If you do, please weigh in. Seeing none, Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. After everything we've heard tonight and all the hard work that's gone into this particular zone change, one, I'm very proud to represent you. I'm really proud to represent a community that has worked so hard to come to a common ground. So with that being said, I'm going to ask you to bear with me because I have a whole lot of stuff to read. Okay. I move to adopt the following findings of fact in support of approval of Zone Change Request PLN-MAR-2116, Harrodsburg Road, LLC, located at 4085 Harrodsburg Road. The requested zone change to Highway Services Business B3 Zone and the Planned Neighborhood Residential R3 Zone is in agreement with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons. One, the requested zone change would allow for infill of a vacant property or underutilized site by adding residential and commercial land uses, which will also include pocket parks for use by future residential properties. This supports theme A, goal number two, objective A, to identify areas for infill, and objective C, to incorporate adequate green space and open space into the development for the intended population. Number two, the requested zone change will create connectivity between residential and commercial developments, both by pedestrian and vehicular access, that connect to a major corridor. This supports theme A, goal number three, objective B, to strive for positive and safe social interaction, including connections for pedestrians and various modes of transportation. And theme A, goal number four, objective C, to establish and promote road network connections in order to reduce police, fire, and EMS response time. Connections between adjacent land uses are also supported by theme D, goal number one, to work to achieve an effective and comprehensive transportation system. Number three, the requested zone change creates additional single-family homes, townhomes, and commercial businesses on a property that previously only contained one home, connects the neighborhood to the new commercial development, and will provide goods and services both to the nearby residential neighborhoods and for the commuters along the Harrodsburg Road corridor. This supports theme E, goal number one, objective C, to emphasize redevelopment of underutilized corridors, and objective D, to maximize development of vacant land within the urban service area. Number four, the proposed development is context sensitive to the adjoining properties because it creates a transition in the intensity of land use with the most intense commercial uses along the Harrodsburg Road corridor and the lower density single family dwelling units adjacent to the existing single family homes in the Palomar Hills neighborhood, which supports density policy number two, A-DN2. The proposed commercial area will continue the existing neighborhood serving commercial development along Harrodsburg Road, which supports design policy number 12, A-DS12. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any comments, questions, concerns about... Can you repeat that? No. I think the appropriate thing is to say what she said. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, we need a roll call vote. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Kay? Yes. Ms. Lamb? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Legree? Yes. Mr. McCurran? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Plowman? Yes. Ms. Sheehan? Yes. Mr. Worley? Yes, ma'am. And Ms. Baxter? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion, and now Councilmember Baxter, a motion on the underlying ordinance. I have a little bit more. I move to place the following use and buffering conditional zoning restrictions on the property pursuant to Article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance. The R3 portion of the zone change shall be limited to not more than seven single-family homes and not more than 14 townhome units. There shall be vehicular connectivity between the B3 portion of the zone change and the Palomar Hills neighborhood, the specific layout of which shall be determined by the Planning Commission on a development plan. Screening and buffering provision shall be as described and depicted on the preliminary development plan. Number four, existing trees bordering the subject property shall be preserved except for deceased or dying trees and those trees which an adjoining property owner agrees to be removed. Number five, the following usage shall be prohibited. Pawn shops, adult arcades, massage parlors, adult bookstores, adult video stores, adult cabarets, adult dancing establishments, adult entertainment establishments, and sexual entertainment centers. Athletic club facilities greater than 6,000 square feet. Mining of non-metallic minerals, nightclubs, tattoo parlors, carnivals, special events, festivals, and concerts. self-service laundries, billiard or pool halls, dancing halls, skating rinks, miniature golf or putting courses and bowling alleys, establishments and lots for the display and rental sale service repair, minor repair of farm equipment, contractor equipment, automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, boats, travel trailers, mobile homes or supplies for such items, except that there may be permitted an electric car dealership. These restrictions are appropriate and necessary to ensure the adjoining single family neighborhood is not adversely impacted by the most intense highway services businesses. So moved. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Kay? Yes. Ms. Lamb? Underline motion. Yes. Ms. Legree? Yes. Mr. McCurran? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Plowman? Yes. Ms. Sheehan? Yes. Mr. Worley? Yes, ma'am. And Ms. Baxter? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. That vote reflects the passage of the motion. And before I ask for a motion to adjourn, I'll just repeat. Thank you all for coming. We have to do the ordinance. I thought... We don't need to vote on the ordinance to approve it. I thought I redid it. I'm sorry. That's right. We need to first and second... Go ahead. I'm sorry, first reading of the ordinance, new ordinance. Do we need two readings? Substantial change or? Yes, the title is not really changing, but the basis for your findings effect and the conditional zoning restrictions have changed. So we need a first reading and a second reading. and then a new first reading and then a second reading to vote on it. Thank you. Madam Clerk, if you would give us first reading of the new proposed ordinance. Yes, sir. An ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone for 3.88 net and gross acres and from an agricultural urban AU zone to a highway service business B3 zone for 7.88 net, 9.245 gross acres for property located at 4085 Harrisburg Road, Harrisburg Road, LLC. Thank you. Thank you. And now we're going to ask for a second reading. Can I make a motion to suspend the rules and give second reading to this item? Thank you. Yes, thank you. Councilmember Bledsoe. I formally make a motion to... I just said it. Just suspend the rules and do second reading of this tonight. I have a motion and a second to suspend the rules. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Now we may have second reading. Thank you. Yes, sir. An ordinance changing the zone from agricultural urban AU zone to plain neighborhood residential R3 zone for 3.88 net and gross acres. And from an agricultural urban AU zone to a highway service business B3 zone for 7.88 net, 9.245 gross acres for property located at 4085 Harrisburg Road, Harrisburg Road, LLC, Council District 9. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we need a roll call vote. Roll call vote. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Kay? Yes. Ms. Lamb? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Legree? Yes. Mr. McCurn? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Plowman? Yes. Ms. Sheehan? Yes. Mr. Worley? Yes, ma'am. And Ms. Baxter? Yes, ma'am. Madam Clerk, I believe I was the motioner. Just for your records. Thank you, Chair. For the record. Okay, now, before I ask for a motion to adjourn again, thank you all for coming and for your participation. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. motion in a second without objection we stand adjourned