# Urban County Council Public Hearing: Zone Change - February 13, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 13, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6043 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6043?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-02-13 - **Last revised**: February 13, 2024 - **Length**: 27,080 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 February 13, 2024, at 5:00 PM in the Council Chambers in Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice Mayor Wu presiding. The meeting focused on a single agenda item regarding a zone change request for Joyland Crossing, LLC, which was ultimately approved by the council. During the proceedings, the council heard from six members of the public who provided comments on the matter under consideration. The meeting concluded with one formal vote taken by the council members, resulting in the approval of the zone change application. ## Attendance The following members were present at the February 13, 2024 meeting: **Present:** • Vice Mayor Wu • Sheehan • Worley • F. Brown • J. Brown • Ellinger • Elliott Baxter • Fogle • Gray • LeGris • Lynch • Monarrez • Plomin • Sevigny **Absent:** • Reynolds No members arrived late to the meeting. A total of 14 members were present with 1 member absent. ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted one recorded vote during the February 13, 2024 meeting. **Ordinance 0002-24** [timestamp: 07:20] The council voted on An Ordinance changing the zone from a Highway Service Business (B-3) Zone and Single Family Residential (R-1B) Zone to a Medium Density Residential (R-4) Zone for property located at 2200 Old Paris Rd. and 2324 Paris Pike. F. Brown made the motion, which was seconded by Elliott Baxter. The ordinance passed by a roll call vote of 10 ayes to 3 nays, with no abstentions. **Voting in favor (10):** • Sheehan • Worley • Wu • F. Brown • J. Brown • Ellinger • Elliott Baxter • LeGris • Lynch • Monarrez **Voting against (3):** • Gray • Plomin • Sevigny The rezoning ordinance received the necessary votes to pass and will change the zoning designation for the specified properties on Old Paris Road and Paris Pike from commercial and single-family residential uses to medium density residential development. ## Public Comment Six community members provided public comment during the meeting, with most expressing concerns about a proposed development's impact on traffic and safety. **Stacy Underhill** [timestamp: 06:22] raised concerns about increased traffic and pedestrian safety issues that would result from the proposed development. She cited existing traffic congestion and inadequate parking as current problems that would be worsened by the project. **Lynne Slone** [timestamp: 06:25] requested specific conditions be placed on the development to protect her adjacent rural property. She asked for buffering and lighting requirements to minimize the impact of the proposed project on her land. **Karen Payne** [timestamp: 06:28] voiced concerns about existing traffic congestion and safety issues in the area. She expressed belief that the new development would exacerbate these already problematic conditions. **Dave Cooper** [timestamp: 06:31] described current traffic conditions as chaotic and suggested that installing a traffic light should be a required condition before construction begins on the development. **Debbie Aminoff** [timestamp: 06:34] read a letter from a neighbor who opposed the development. The letter outlined concerns about the project's height, traffic impacts, and potential environmental effects. **Zach Skubiz** [timestamp: 06:37] provided the sole voice of support for the development during public comment. He argued that the community needs additional housing and suggested that increased pedestrian presence in the area could actually improve safety conditions. The public comment period revealed a clear divide in community opinion, with five speakers raising concerns about traffic, safety, and environmental impacts, while one speaker supported the project based on housing needs and potential safety benefits from increased foot traffic. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that drew substantial community opposition. **Zone Change for Joyland Crossing, LLC** The proposed zone change for Joyland Crossing, LLC became the primary source of contention during the meeting. Community members voiced significant opposition to the proposal, raising multiple concerns about the potential impacts of the development. The opposition centered on three main areas of concern: • **Traffic Impact**: Residents expressed worries about increased traffic congestion that would result from the proposed development • **Safety Issues**: Community members raised concerns about potential safety hazards associated with the zone change • **Environmental Impact**: Opposition included concerns about the environmental effects the development might have on the surrounding area The nature of the community opposition suggests this was a well-organized effort by local residents to challenge the proposed zoning modification. Multiple community members participated in voicing their concerns about how the zone change would affect their neighborhood and quality of life. The structured opposition indicates that residents had conducted their own analysis of the potential impacts and came prepared to present specific objections to the zoning proposal. The combination of traffic, safety, and environmental concerns represents the typical range of issues that communities raise when opposing development projects in their area. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, participant names, and the final outcome of this contested item were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## Zone Change for Joyland Crossing, LLC [timestamp: 05:00] The council considered Ordinance 0002-24, a zone change request from Joyland Crossing, LLC to rezone property at 2200 Old Paris Rd. and 2324 Paris Pike. The proposal sought to change the current zoning from Highway Service Business (B-3) Zone and Single Family Residential (R-1B) Zone to Medium Density Residential (R-4) Zone. Vice Mayor Wu led the discussion of the ordinance. Several speakers participated in the proceedings, including Traci Wade, Daniel Crum, Richard Murphy, and Catherin Perkins, though the specific details of their comments and positions were not provided in the available materials. The zone change would allow for medium-density residential development on the combined properties, representing a shift from the current mixed commercial and low-density residential zoning. The R-4 zoning classification typically permits higher density housing options than single-family residential zones while maintaining residential character. Following discussion among council members and input from the speakers, the ordinance was approved. The successful zone change clears the way for Joyland Crossing, LLC to proceed with their medium-density residential development plans for the Paris Pike corridor properties. --- ## Decisions - **0002-24** — passed (10-3): An Ordinance changing the zone from a Highway Service Business (B-3) Zone and Single Family Residential (R-1B) Zone to a Medium Density Residential (R-4) Zone for property located at 2200 Old Paris Rd. and 2324 Paris Pike. --- ## Full transcript Zone change hearing, PLN MAR 23-00018, Joyland Crossing LLC. This public hearing is now open. Clerk, may I get a roll call, please. Council Member Sheehan? Here. Council Member Worley? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Wu? Yes. Council Member Fred Brown? Here. Council Member James Brown? Here. Council Member Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Council Member Elliott Baxter? Yes, ma'am. Council Member Fogle? Here. Council Member Gray? Present. Council Member Legree? Here. Council Member Lynch? Present. Council Member Minaris? Here. Council Member Plowman? Here. Council Member Reynolds and Council Member Sevigny. Here. Thank you. Thank you. And when you're ready, clerk, can I get second reading of the ordinance, please? Yes, sir. Ordinance one, an ordinance changing the zone from a highway service business B3 zone to a single family residential R1B zone to a medium density residential R4 zone for 5.24 net, 7.71 gross acres for property located at 2200 Old Paris Road and 2324 paris pike jordan crossing llc council district 12. thank you thank you my name is dan wu i'm the vice mayor and i will be the presiding officer for this meeting i'm going to lay out how this meeting is going to go for council members please hold your questions until the end as we'll be able to ask them after all presentations have been completed and i'm going to start off by swearing in everyone who plans to speak at today's hearing. If you would all please raise your right hand for me. So anybody who may be speaking today. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Thank you. All right, so and if you are planning to speak, we ask that you stay for the duration of this public hearing. So my job as the presiding officer is to facilitate this hearing, and it is within my purview to make judgments about whether or not the evidence that's being presented is relevant and or repetitious. I haven't had to do this yet, but I may stop you if we're repeating information. Have all the witness lists been provided to the clerk? Thank you. All printed materials should also be given to the clerk and they'll be distributed to us up here. Today the presentations from all parties will be 25 minutes each as previously agreed upon. We will begin with a presentation from planning staff on behalf of the planning commission and they are subject to cross-examination followed by a presentation by the petitioner and by the opposition all of which is subject to cross-examination. After that, we do public comment. Each public comment will be limited up to three minutes, and we ask that you state your name and council district for the record. You can also yield your time, and the person being yielded to can have up to nine minutes total. So two people can yield their time to you, and you'll have nine minutes. If you would like to speak during public comment, you can sign up electronically. one of our legislative aides is out there with an iPad and sign up will cease at 530 exactly. There will also be an opportunity for all presenting parties a five-minute rebuttal and then also an opportunity for a three-minute summation. And then there'll be an opportunity for council members to ask questions of all the presenters and an opportunity if there's new information that's introduced during rebuttal. At that point, I will declare the hearing closed and council members will not take any more questions and we will deliberate amongst ourselves. And then we will do a roll call vote to be taken to adopt findings of fact. After that, we will take another roll call vote to approve the ordinance. So any questions or comments from any presenters or council members? all right then let's go ahead and get started with presentation from planning staff this way good evening vice mayor woo members of the council my name is tracy wade i am with the division of planning i'm the planning services manager and with me this evening is daniel crumb he's our senior planner that reviews zone changes and text amendments tonight we are presenting a zone change to the council that has been recommended by the planning commission and the case number is pln mar 23-18 the applicant is joyland crossing llc we have a few items to enter in the record this this evening so that they become you know part of our our record of the zone change hearing this evening and then mr crumb will present the recommendation of the planning commission first is the legal ad that was placed in the newspaper for this public hearing by the council clerk we also have an affidavit from myself stating that the required notification was sent for the notification area for this zone change within the 21 days required by ordinance and that is to 67 properties in addition our office sent three letters to neighborhood presidents neighborhood presidents or chairmen's of the nearby neighborhood associations for old Paris community old paris place community bryant station neighborhood association and also the joyland neighborhood association at your seat tonight is a copy of the final report that the planning staff sent on behalf of the planning commission and that includes the recommendation as well as application materials and the minutes from the planning commission's hearing at the planning commission there were a number of items entered in the record and so we've brought a copy of those also the 2018 comprehensive plan and again to clarify the reason we're using the 2018 comprehensive plan is this was this application was made before the 2023 plan was completely adopted so we still had the the most the contents of the 2018 comprehensive plan but the 2023 three goals and objectives were in effect so both of those our zoning ordinance which is current land subdivision regulations for fayette county a copy of the presentation that mr crumb will be presenting tonight and you should also have that at your seat to follow along we brought with us also the paris pike small area plan that was adopted in 1995 prior to the road being widened and then the last item also we we took the privilege of making a copy for each council member of any new comments public comments and also copies of a petition that were signed by nearby residents and sent to the planning staff or the planning mailbox since the Planning Commission hearing occurred in November and with that I'll turn it over to mr. Crum and we'll be here I'll be here the rest of the evening for questions if necessary. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Good evening, everyone. Daniel Crumb, planning staff. What we're here to decide this evening is a request to rezone 5.24 acres of the property at 2200 Old Paris Road and 2324 Paris Pike. The applicants are seeking a rezoning from the highway service business, B3, and single-family residential R1B zones to the medium density residential R4 zone. The intent behind this rezoning is in order to establish a multifamily residential development. As with the new comprehensive plan, the applicant is encouraged to make a choice in the place type and development type. That plays into the criteria that planning staff look at when we evaluate if a request is in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The applicant has chosen a corridor place type and a medium density residential development type. Staff agrees with both the choice and place type and development type, but we'll get into that information a little bit later on in the presentation. So just to orient ourselves in the location of the subject properties, here they are located along Parris Pike. So this is Parris Pike as it transitions from Broadway and heads out towards Bourbon County and Parris. Running parallel to it and intersecting near the subject property is Old Parris Road. So it intersects and provides some of the road frontage there. In terms of the intensity of the roadway, Paris Pike is a major arterial roadway with approximately 19,000 trips per day. Zooming in a little bit closer, you can see the zoning of the surrounding area. So the subject properties, once again, shown in white in the center of your screen. Surrounded by these yellowish colors, it's single-family residential zoning of various densities. So to the east, two parcels with single family further down and across Paris Pike. We also have some more single family residential across the railroad, which serves as the rear spine of the development. So the railroad runs to the rear of the property. Across the road from that is R3 zoning that has single family residential development as well as AR zoning. So this red line that runs along this parcel here is the urban service boundary. So the subject property is located within the urban service area. However, it directly adjoins on the opposite side of the railroad areas that are within the rural service area. So there was expanded notification as a result from that. Along Parris Pike, there's also a strong commercial component. So on the opposite side of the roadway, we have B3, that highway service business zone, with several commercial uses, bank, gas station, as well as the Peterbilt facility here. and then the Joyland neighborhood behind that. So here we have a mix of some existing single family, some more recent R3 that was developed later, and then commercial zoning that was present along the corridor as well. As far as the subject property zoning and zoning history, they also were previously zoned single family residential. In 2017, this piece here was rezoned to B3. That was in order to establish a gas station, restaurant, and other commercial uses. So that was approved by council. There were some restrictions that were put in place at that time that prevented several types of businesses through conditional zoning. So it restricted auto sales lot, adult businesses, and a handful of other uses, including a cocktail lounge. The parcel 2200 Old Paris was zoned single-family residential as well. After the adjoining piece was rezoned, there was a request to rezone it as well, sort of as an isolated development for another gas station type use. Staff at that time had concerns with access to just this small parcel, especially with the intersection of a couple major roadways there. And so that was ultimately withdrawn. So the applicant is now seeking to change that existing commercial zoning, which would let them have a wide array of commercial uses, in order to have a multifamily residential development that spans both parcels. So this would provide additional density on the corridor in terms of housing units. Here we have an aerial of the subject properties. So the parcel here is undeveloped. It appears to have been largely clear-cut some point in the past. So it's around the perimeter. There is existing tree line with a handful of mature trees that are sprinkled throughout the property, but it's otherwise been cleared. The parcel at the corner here has a much more interesting history. That was the location of a nonconforming cocktail lounge. That was the curbside bar, as well as an auto garage and a residential use as well. Those are proposed to be removed. The curbside bar has actually been closed for a couple of years now, but all of that would be removed in order to accommodate the new multifamily residential development. So here we have a graphic that talks about sort of the Paris Pike corridor. So this is somewhat unique. It's got sort of a long and storied history, but in the early 90s, an interlocal agreement between Fayette County, Lexington, and Bourbon County in Paris established an interlocal agreement in order to protect the integrity of this roadway. It has significance as far as scenic and historic and its location of a number of significant farms, horse operations, and other rural developments. So in the 90s, an interlocal agreement was made. They created the Parrot's Pike Corridor Commission. So this is a citizen body that looks at and reviews development that occurs within the boundaries here. So on the screen, shown in red, is the portion that they have purview over within Fayette County. The blue is the corresponding portion in Bourbon County. All of this with the intent of protecting the integrity of this roadway that has had that scenic, cultural, and historic value. What arose from that interlocal agreement was a small area plan that kind of discussed the entirety of this stretch of roadway. It acknowledged that the ends closest to both Paris and Lexington here were the most developed, and they were sort of intended to be a transition away from the urban areas and toward the areas that they were looking to most protect. Out of this, an overlay was developed, the Paris Pike overlay. that actually creates actual development standards, restrictions, other things that actually apply to development on site. So those were developed in order to protect that scenic character, protect the style of development. But the small area plan envisioned that it was a gradual increase in density as you approach these areas, which would then be further protected. The small area plan and the interlocal agreement also acknowledged that there were portions of this area, including the subject property, that fall within the urban service boundaries. And so it gives advice to follow the comprehensive plan's guidance on how those areas should develop. The subject properties, for reference, are the absolute very tip of this Parris Pike Corridor area. So they are the very last properties before you are no longer required to go before the Parris Pike Corridor Commission. The Parris Pike Corridor reviewed this development. They had some concerns, especially with access and traffic, and voted to recommend disapproval. Once again, this is a recommending body, but their recommendation is passed along to Planning Commission as well as yourselves. But to get to the development of the site as it stands now, here's the parcel at 2200 Old Paris. So this is the curbside bar building, the existing garage, and then tucked behind is an existing residential building. The parcel that it adjoins, once again, is vacant with an existing tree line along the perimeter, but the inside largely has been cleared at some point in the past. Here we have a view of Paris Pike as you are heading out of town, so this is looking north. Some things to note about this is the lack of pedestrian facilities. So this entire stretch of roadway, basically once you get outside of New Circle, lacks pedestrian facilities, and it is somewhat of an inhospitable environment for pedestrians. The shoulder is available there, but other than that, it is fairly limited. But here you're seeing the way the development kind of occurs in this area. Two lanes headed both ways with corresponding turn lanes. The site does have existing access here across from Rogers Road. Here's view in the opposite direction. So Old Paris comes in and connects at this lighted intersection here. The curbside bar is located approximately this location. And once again, you have a lack of pedestrian facilities or really meaningful crossings or connections. all the way down further south until essentially New Circle Road. Here we have a copy of the development plan. There is a separate handout that should be able to show that in a little bit more detail. It can be kind of hard to see details on the whited out screen without a color up. But essentially the request is for multifamily residential. This is a total of 165 units spread across six separate buildings. The primary kind of characterizing feature of these buildings is they're featuring first floor parking. So they are kind of obtaining more open space and more efficiently utilizing their land by having parking on the first level and then residential above it. These are going to be 45, a maximum of 45 and a half feet tall. So a single floor of residential, three floors of, a single floor of parking rather, with three floors of residential above. Access to this site is going to follow the existing access that the site currently has and was generally proposed under the last rezoning, which was approved. Once again, this is a preliminary development plan, so this is a conceptual idea of how this site is going to develop. However, it will still need to go through the full planning commission process for a final development plan where issues like access are finalized. The site is showing an improvement in pedestrian facilities. It's a little hard to see, but along the entirety of its frontage, as well as internal of the site, are pedestrian networks. So we have sidewalks, and we've got interconnectivity on the inside. This is stubbed into the adjoining property lines as well as roadway connections here and here to accommodate potential future growth as the adjoining parcels are also within the urban service areas and would be eligible for a rezoning in the future if the intensity was sought to be increased there. As far as a development standpoint, when we look at development along the corridors, the comprehensive plan calls for increasing our density and reinforcing the roadways. So here the buildings are fronting as much as possible. There is an easement that runs along the front edge of the property that does limit their ability to kind of encroach closer. But they are also showing landscaping kind of throughout, especially along this shared property line here. With respect to the place type and development type, so this is the place builder. So this is what kind of informs how planning staff calculates a development is meeting or not meeting the requirements of the comprehensive plan. So they begin by choosing a place type. Where is this located? They have chosen a corridor. Staff, based on its location on this major arterial roadway, agrees. So these are our highest intensity roadways. The comprehensive plan in 2018, as well as the 2045 that was later adopted, both call for increasing density and intensity along these roadways. They are best suited to handle this increase in traffic, the increase in intensity of the roadways, and are better suited to future transit improvements in the future. When it talks about a corridor place type, it provides a list of suitable development types. The medium density residential that the applicants are choosing here is recommended within the place builder at that time, as is their choice in zone in the R4 zone. When we're looking at medium density residential, you're looking at sort of a multi-story structure, but this is really, really trying to key into providing additional density, but also maintaining amenities. So making sure that you have intentional open space and providing connections where you can. This site is fairly constrained with its ability to make meaningful connections because it's bordered by not only an arterial roadway, but also a rail line to the rear. So to the greatest extent possible, the applicant is providing stubs for future roadway connections should the properties adjacent develop differently in the future, as well as providing the only stretch of sidewalk for this portion of Parris Pike. So contributing to future improvements in pedestrian, roadway connections, transit service is what staff found that the applicants were doing here. When we're talking about the comprehensive plan, this is, once again, the goals and objectives from the 2045 plans as well as the policies of the 2018 plan. But really speaking just in general to an increase in density, mixture of housing types, you know, providing for this additional housing within the urban services area in land that has been historically underutilized due to its location and the difficulty of developing in this area. And this also is providing for an aging population and population with disabilities. A good number of these units are designated as accessible units. So there are first ground level units that are specifically being catered towards those aging and people with disabilities. With regards to the multifamily design standards, we don't have renderings to show at this time, but the multifamily design standards were met in staff's review of the application, really providing that internal open space connections throughout, activating the roadway, and creating visual interest through kind of changing the design and the materials to create kind of that visual interest along the corridors. When we're talking about density, once again, highest density should be directed towards our major corridors in downtown and increasing density while enhancing existing neighborhoods through context-sensitive design. So at the proposed height, it is not out of scale with the development that's sort of along the intense roadway like Paris Pike. And they have designed the car parking areas as not to be the primary visual component. So you are getting a building and pedestrians that are activating the road frontage rather than car and parking areas. There was multiple development criteria. Once again, they've met the in staff's review that they've met the requirements for the multifamily design standards, building at an appropriate scale relative to the surrounding area, providing a pedestrian-oriented ground level with that activation with the interior improvements and providing connections to future improvements in transit roadways and multimodal transportation, locating parking to the interior of the development where it's not that primary component, and then screening where appropriate. At this time, there is transit service in the immediate area. However, it is located on the opposite side of Parris Pike. In the future, this may change. The transit service is reactive to where development is occurring, And so contributing additional housing units, especially if further development occurs on that side, can change the current route configuration to provide something that is a little bit more appropriate there. Finally, we found that the roadways were providing a vertical edge to help reinforce the streetscape in a way that wasn't being done previously. So as far as the Planning Commission recommendation, the Planning Commission hearing was held on November 16th. There was approximately one and a half hours of testimony and presentations. we've presented our recommendation of approval based on the comprehensive plan and the submitted elements. The applicant provided some information on their intent to develop this site. There were concerns that were voiced by the surrounding community, concerns with traffic, height, and landscaping and screening, but ultimately the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the requested zone change. And so with this, the Planning Commission recommended approval for the following reasons. They found it was in agreement with the 2045 comprehensive plan's goals, objectives for reasons on providing higher density, serving the aging population, using an underutilized parcel within the urban service area, and creating that additional demand for transit that can help spur future improvements. They found that it was in agreement with the policies of the comprehensive plan from 2018, meeting the multifamily design standards, increasing density on the corridors, using adequate green space and focal points within the site, and designing it so that the car and parking areas are not the primary visual component. Staff found that it was in agreement with the development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan, meeting the site design, building form, location criteria, the transportation and pedestrian connectivity criteria, and the green space and environmental health criteria. So this is subject to the approval and certification of the corresponding development plan, but staff and the Planning Commission both are recommending approval at this time. I would be happy to entertain any questions you may have of staff. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Does the petitioner want to cross examine planning staff? No, thank you. Does the opposition want to cross examine planning staff? No, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Crum. All right, next up will be presentation from the petitioner. We have Mr. Murphy. And you will also have 25 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy and I'm pleased tonight to be representing the applicant which is before you, Joy Lane Crossing, LLC. One of my clients can't be here tonight, Corey Johnson, who had knee surgery and he thought he'd be up and able to get here by today and he cannot and he sent his regrets. He's probably watching on TV. Two of other people involved, Fabi Singh and Harry Singh are with me on the third row. And we have our design team with us as well. Fred Eastridge, who's our civil engineer from Vision Engineering on the fourth row. And Mark McIntosh, who's our traffic engineer, who's also from Vision Engineering on the fourth row. And Brandon Powell from Million Architecture is on the fourth row as well. And we're pleased to have the architects involved. The million architecture, Jay Million and Brandon Powell have been involved from day one on this project. They went to us to meet the design staff in your division of planning. Before we filed, we had two or three meetings with the design staff who, the design staff made a number of recommendations to our plans, which we adopted. And I think you'll see we have, I think, an outstanding plan to present to you. And we're very pleased to bring this proposal to you, which both agrees with the comprehensive plan and received a unanimous 9 to nothing vote of approval at the planning commission. As a little background, my clients purchased these two properties in 2022, a little less than two years ago. if you could put that first overhead up there right now we have an aerial on here which shows you the area a little bit as well the maybe rotate that clockwise one there there we go okay push it up a little bit we have our property is located at 2324 Paris Pike and here is Paris Pike going through here at the bottom a little bit off the picture is the curb bar which is a well-known location in the area and this is where old Paris Road comes into Paris Pike there's a traffic signal located right there our property is located here this shows you the the railroad track if we could push that up just a half inch or something to get the bottom of that picture in there we go there we go here's old Paris road coming in here is the railroad track coming through I understand this is a CSX line it's a main line it's the right of way is a hundred feet wide you see a lot of the trees on the hundred foot wide railroad right of way as you know the railroad is higher it goes above old Paris Road at this intersection and comes on down a little bit and is our boundary line here our northern boundary line is located approximately this area you can see a little bit we have a most of our common property line is with this house it's a two acre single-family detached lot zoned R1B it's zoned for half acre lots approximately 15,000 acre lots but they have one house it's one lot on a two acre lot which goes down to about this point and up and back then in the rear of the property we have a little bit of a border with a 13 acre lot which is next to this house there's a panhandle from this lot coming into us and hits our property at the very back you can see there's a three rows of trees on their property there's a row of trees on our property and we will be continuing trees on our property line I'll show you those those that landscape easement in a little bit along Paris Pike we'll be having a landscape easement which I show you here across the street we have the Freight Liner facility excuse me it's the Peterbilt trucks facility I don't know exactly what they do there but there's a lot of trucks there I don't know if they fix them or sell them or what but this is the Peterbilt facility directly across the street. This strip is a little strip shopping center also across the street. It has Whitaker Bank at one end and a hair salon at the other end. Also across the street is the Speedway convenience store and down here is a is a plot that has been zoned for commercial use but has not yet been developed. As Mr. Crum mentioned to you there are no sidewalks on that side of Paris Pike. There are none on our side going up but there will be after we build this because we're going to put sidewalks all along this border of our property and I will mention too that going further up Paris Pike there is I'll show you a plat for a minute that we had the two lots I mentioned to you the two acre tract 12 acre tract which curves around us then there was a larger 30 acre two tracks here which have recently come in for a subdivision at the Planning Commission. They were sold a few months ago to the Hazard Land Company and the Hazard Land Company has filed a subdivision plat with the Planning Commission on these properties up here which show about 55 single family detached lots on about 32 acres. So they're going to be high-end residential units that property sold for $125,000 per acre up here and now it's being subdivided into single-family detached houses it's already zoned r1d so it doesn't need a zone change to get a subdivision after that there is a tract of land which the people who used to own those two tracks gave to the city which you all know is going to be a city park between these this subdivision which will be constructed here and the lexington country club so we're going to have a sidewalk we're doing the sidewalk on our side hopefully as other properties develop a sidewalk will be required up there so people on our side of Paris Pike can walk to the new City Park which is going to be up here just beyond that new that subdivision which I was mentioning to you if we could go to my slide two on the there we go wanted to give you some history of this because this is the zone change which was granted in 2017 for most of our property. I'm going to switch pointers here and this property is again here's a here's Parris Pike here is the curb bar lot this in 2017 the curb lot was not part of the application because it was under separate ownership. That time I I represented the owner of the property, the Jones family, which came in and asked for a B3 highway service business zone on the property, which was granted. On this property, you can see we have the entrance point, the same place we have it on our development, immediately across from Rogers Road. Everything else is different, though. This property is a has three restaurants on it. Each of the restaurants has a drive-through window on it. Three restaurants, three drive-through windows. In addition, this building down here, in addition to a restaurant on one side and a drive-through on the back, has a convenience store with gasoline sales on the property. So it was zoned for B-3. This is the approved development plan, which was signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission in 2017, three restaurants, three drive-throughs, sale of gasoline, and a convenience store on this property. We have workforce housing, missing middle housing on our property. We're going to be having 165 units of missing middle workforce housing. On the Paris Pike frontage there was a bit of green space here on the side on the north against our two acre tract which comes down to here this showed a five foot landscape easement with a six foot fence we have increased that on ours we're going to do meandering walk through there will be 29 feet to 20 feet wide have a six-foot fence plus landscaping which I'll show you in a minute as well but the important thing on this and I'll be discussing traffic in just a second we can go to the second slide so that to show you the traffic comparison on this one well excuse me this is the subdivision for the property two to the north which I was telling you about this is a little different because north on this plan is set the bottom south is to the top so we are down here but this shows you the new subdivision which I mentioned to you coming in on Paris Pike and hopefully they'll be doing a sidewalk and the others we doing sidewalks we have a sidewalk up here then this property is going to be has been deeded to the LFUCG for a new city park right there so if we go to the next slide I did a comparison of the traffic generation between what we got approved on the northern lot the part that doesn't have the curb this is about 85% of the land area of what we're proposing my clients have bought both properties now but in 2017 that traffic study we did indicated that the morning peak hour trips were 508. That doesn't include pass by trips, which are another 150 or 200 trips. Afternoon peak hour was a 453 trips. Again, not counting pass by trips. These are newly generated trips on the property for the B3 development. What is our traffic generation? On R4 in the morning, we are 75 trips we are one-seventh one-seventh of the trip generation of the B3 which has already been approved for this property what are we in the afternoon we're 92 trips we are 20% one-fifth of the traffic will be generated by this development as will be generated by the B3 which has already been approved for this property and again to be fair to be conservative on this on the b3 i wasn't counting in the additional pass by pass by trips which the traffic engineer counted i wanted to count the new trip so we're at a maximum in the pmp 20 percent in the morning we're one seventh evening one-fifth of the traffic which is generated by the b3 proposal so one of the points i'm making is that we are down zoning the property we are going from the one of the most intensive business zones in the community b3 to the r4 medium density zoning on this property and our residential uses which we think there's a great need for will generate much much less traffic than will the existing b3 zoning on the property. The who and also I'm sorry we will be eliminating an access point to old Paris Pike as the as you saw in the pictures the curb bar had an access point directly to old Paris Road between the light and the underpass for the railroad which as soon as we walked in to talk to the planning staff they said nope no access there but the fire department said well we want to we want a second way in and out so we are going to have an emergency access off of old Paris Road where the existing curb bar entrances but it's going to be limited to fire and first responders will have the clicking device so they can get in and out all other traffic will come in opposite Rogers Road. Who will our residents be? We think our target resident will be perhaps somebody who works in some of the factories on the north side of town, perhaps somebody who's in the service industry, perhaps it'll be young professionals who want a second bedroom for a, if they can have the privilege of working at home, they can work at home in the second bedroom. Perhaps it'll be teachers teachers aides perhaps will be nurses or health care workers perhaps it'll be police officers firefighters that sort of thing that's what we view as our probable resident of this community the the property is well let's go to the next slide here and this is our colored up development plan the one One change on this which we're not showing is we do have the access points in here which Mr. Crum mentioned we have two stubs into the adjoining property which were made after the Planning Commission hearing on this. But this is our color development plan. We have, again, this is the emergency access off of Old Paris Road. We have an interesting feature on this property. We have a 30-foot wide water line easement, which comes through here under the railroad through our property where the little arrow is on this. And then it makes a hard right turn, 90-degree right turn on the water line and goes up Paris Pike. Now, that easement is 30 feet wide, but it's got a humongous water line on it. It's a 24-inch water line, two-foot diameter water line. And I didn't know this, but this is the water line that Kentucky American supplies water to the Toyota plant up in Georgetown. So Kentucky American is very protective about that easement. We cannot even plant a tree in that easement. We are going to have to, we're going to be using grasses, which I'll show you on this easement along Paris Pike. We cannot build in this area. We can put a driveway over it, but we cannot build anything in that easement coming up to Paris Pike. So we have hard boundaries. We have the railroad. We have Paris Pike. We have the two-acre track going back to this point, and we have the panhandle of that 12-acre track going through here. but we are adding pedestrian connectivity through our sidewalk we have a sidewalk on the north side meandering through the green space we have in the middle, this is our on-site manager's office, along with a swimming pool community room, central lawn this is where people are going to get their mail, so it's the place where you'll be able to meet your neighbor and if you don't want to talk to them a long time, you can say hi if you want to you can sit next to them at the swimming pool for an afternoon it gives you the option of having as much interaction with your neighbors as you want to on this property but we think it's a very good plan we have our we have our landscaping along i'm gonna mention here along the our trees which were shown along paris pike are just on just outside of the 30 acre easement and we have our buildings and these buildings show the footprint you see parking spaces but those are on the lower level of the buildings we'll have parking below and we'll have residents on the three stories above that but one one item which shows you how much detail the architects have thought about is that our accessible units are going to be on the lower level and they're going be designed so that each accessible unit will have a parking place right next to it so you'll be able to go in on the level into your residential unit and you're going to have a parking space right next to your accessible unit on that the other residents will have to walk a stairway up to their units but not for the accessible units and the accessible units will have be able to have a car right next to them. We have the amenities, as I have mentioned to you, and we have talked to Lextran about a bus stop along this property. The bus goes up, does go up on our side of road your division of traffic engineering talked to lextran we had offered to pay for a portion of a bus shelter to have a bus stop here lextran declined at this time but as mr. Crum mentioned to you lextran is reactive and we feel there's a good chance that as more development comes up here us and others that perhaps they will reconsider and have a bus shelter on the property I'm going to talk about this connection to Rogers Road more in just a second. Because we do need to mention we agree with the comprehensive plan, as Mr. Crumb mentioned to you. I'm not going to go into the level of detail that he did. I had to on my application, which is in the record. But we provide greater density along a corridor. your comprehensive plan calls for multifamily residential to be next to the major corridors of the community our buildings provide a vertical edge along Paris Pike we oriented them so that our buildings are parallel to Paris Pike so on our side of the road what you're going to see is a view and you're going to see our sidewalk you're going to see our grasses along the easement you're going to see our trees then you're going to see our building unlike the other side where you basically see parking lots right away when you see on the other side of Paris Pike. We will provide, we will use underutilized vacant property in the community. We provide middle-income housing, workforce housing, and we mitigate as I said the visual impact of the parking because our parking is underneath or it's in the back along the railroad track. Wanted to talk about a a few particular things traffic if you could well go to the next slide I'm not sure I have this is the this is our buffering well which I'll talk about this is the buffering along the northern boundary we're going to have a area which varies from 20 feet to 9 feet we're gonna these are the profiles of true trees we'll have a pine tree excuse me evergreen and 12 foot later we'll a deciduous tree which you see behind there so we'll be alternating them along the northern boundary if you could see the other slide which may be the slide before this one this is the landscaping along paris pike we have the pavement about 15 to 28 feet later we have our property line the sidewalks in there then we have 30 feet of grasses going up to the trees going up to the side of the building. But my times are running out so I want to talk about traffic. As I mentioned we generate no more than 20% of the traffic which would have been generated by the existing B3 zone which is there on the property now so we're not having a choice between nothing or what we're proposing the choices between B3 or what we're proposing. We have talked to the state about where our access point will be because as mr. Crum alluded when we went to the Paris Pike corridor Commission they wanted to put our access point right at our far end of the property as far as we could get away from the traffic signal at Paris Road which would be right next to the driveway into that two acre lot they thought that was a better solution when we got back to the Planning Commission the state highway department and your traffic planner said know it's safer to have our entrance immediately opposite Rogers Road that way when you're coming out you see what's on the other side you can look either way we have excellent sight distance either way I know at times of the day there's a lot of traffic out here we talked to the highway department about a traffic signal on this property and it's a chicken or the egg thing as you know with the highway department they said we decide on a traffic signal when there are warrants in other words when the property is built and we determine there's a need for a traffic signal we will build a traffic signal now we have offered my clients have offered to contribute to pay for a traffic signal on this property that that offer stands what i can't tell you is that a traffic signal will be there before any development on this property is built because it won't I've got to be honest with you and whatever comes in here will probably not have a traffic signal at the beginning because that's not the way the state operates they will have to have the warrants first and then a traffic signal but my clients know this and whatever is required by the state department of transportation and your traffic engineering department we will comply with whether it's a signal or some other arrangement for access on the Paris Pike we will comply with that and again we think we're having a much safer traffic situation than what was here before have much less traffic generation we're eliminating that access point on to old Paris Road where the curb bar was I noticed yesterday there's another access point from the curb bar under Paris Pike too. They had two access points apparently. We're doing away with both of them except for emergency access for the fire department and emergency responders on there. I'm going to conclude up because I see my times running out here. We will comply with what the state requires, but we are supplying a 165 unit missing middle housing development on this property. We have on-site amenities. We think we're making this a community where people can live. Our design and having the amenities to have is to have long-term residents here, have a place where people want to stay for longer periods of time than just live here a year and move someplace else. We're building sidewalks and connections into adjoining properties. We have agreed with the design guidelines set forth in your comprehensive plan and is supervised by the design planners in your division of planning. We have been through many levels of review we've been through meeting with the design team we've been through the technical committee the subcommittees of the Planning Commission Planning Commission they recommended approval by a vote of seven excuse me nine to zero to come to you on this and we thank you for your consideration and I will mention too we have people have proposed conditions to us about removing the top floor or something like that. I want to point out to you when you hear your discussion, we are on the tipping point of having a number, enough units to support what we're doing on this property. Enough units to support the amenities, the swimming pool, the recreational facilities, the on-site manager that we have. We cannot agree to lower this or reduce the number of units because of the point we have reduced them already through the process. We're at that point we have a great plan this is a great plan whether it was zone b3 now or ar now and we ask for your approval thank you very much we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have thank you mr murphy um does the opposition would you like to cross-examine the petitioner ms perkins yeah ms perkins come up to the podium please You'll have up to five minutes for a cross-examination. Mr. Murphy, we're wondering what is the income levels of workforce? I couldn't find it in 2018, and I'm not finding much on it in all of the paperwork I've been searching. We do not set income levels for this. We know we're providing a residence for people who will be in that range of the people I mentioned to you. This isn't built, so I can't tell you what the income levels will be. The reason I'm asking is because I do know that, or I think I know, that in 2045, I believe there are some proposals for workforce housing and that workforce is defined as a certain income level. and that if you label your housing workforce, that it excludes me, excludes anybody that makes under $78,000, I think, for one person and $107,000 for. So I was wondering, and I know that doesn't have anything to do with the zone itself, but it is a very dense land use, I think. Ms. Perkins, I'm going to advise you to keep it to questions for Ms. Murphy. What is the anticipated rental? We will not have income limitations on this. Okay, thank you. And why do you think this is downsizing when the use is so much denser in population? It might be downsizing on traffic, but not on the density and the land use of this and the number of buildings that are proposed on it and the height of those buildings. Well, I felt this was a down zoning because we're right now in the most intensive business use, B3, which has not only traffic, it has noise from the drive-throughs, it has movement of cars it has cars idling it has lighting it has more activity 24 hours a day but generally that's down zoning from b3 to a residential type use thank you even though the b3 was conditioned and that there are conditions on lighting you still consider it a downsize there were conditions on lighting but we will also comply with lighting restrictions here we won't have lights that go out horizontally we will have lights that are limited so that the light source is in a box heading downward so it lights the ground it doesn't light the surrounding area going out up or to the sides on it One question about the buffering on the northeast and primarily on the northeast boundary, I want to ask you. In the previous zone, it was 20 foot of continuous buffering of large type trees between this property and the two northeast properties, the entire boundary. How much of 20-foot buffering did you put on this property between the north and northeast? Is it continuous or just? We have, as I mentioned, the B3 had a 5-foot landscape easement along the north. We have a varying length one, varying width between 9 feet and 20 feet. We think we're doing more trees than was proposed seven years ago in 2017, and we have a meandering sidewalk through there, so we will have much better buffering under this plan than was on the old one. I do disagree that the buffering on the old zone on the condition had a 20-foot buffer consistence of large-type trees planted every 30 feet apart. from the fence line between 2330 and 2350. Ms. Perkins, I'm going to advise you again to keep it to questions for Mr. Murphy. Thank you. May I ask one question? It's my understanding that Ms. Perkins, you're the representative for the organized opposition, so you're going to be the one doing cross-examination of all parties. Do I have a second to quickly ask one more? Your time's basically, I mean, we can go ahead and add 15 seconds if you want to. School buses. How will the school buses access this property? Mr. Murphy. Excuse me. I'm sorry, my client was asking me a question and I missed the question. You can repeat the question, Ms. Perkins. What is the proposal for school buses to access this property? We will consult the school board on that and make sure there's access in and out of there. Thank you very much. Would planning staff like to cross examine? No, thank you very much. Ms. Perkins, then you're up for the organized opposition presentation. Ms. Johns is starting. Warning. Yep. So she's up there now. Yes. Go ahead, you'll have 25 minutes. My name is Patty Drouse. Kathy Perkins and I are representing Joyland Neighborhood Board of Directors. I have lived in Joyland for over 40 years at 608 Allen Court District 6, but our issue also concerns District 1 and 12. I am showing you drone video footage, especially for council members not as familiar with this location. Video footage was taken this February, early February at 4 p.m., not at peak traffic time because we needed good daylight for the drone. There's a hand-drawn map in your packet to help with orientation to what you are looking at. Initially there's a view looking south with old Paris on the left and Parkside and Speedway gas station on the right. The interstate is in the background. At one point it pans north and you will see on the left the speedway, the shopping center, Rogers Road, Peterbilt trucks, and on the right side 2324 Paris Pike. 2200 Old Paris Road and 2324 Paris Pike is a very difficult piece of property for pedestrian, bike, and bus safety due to traffic, road configuration, and conflicting needs. This R4 zone change does not agree with or comply with the comprehensive plan, which envisions dense housing with multimodal transit oriented development on a corridor place type. But currently there are no meaningful transit safe provisions for vehicle, bike, pedestrian, or bus modes. Joyland Neighborhood Association has a strong objection to the fact that insufficient consideration has been given to vehicular, pedestrian, and bike safety. There is no safe way for a vehicle to turn left out of 2324 Paris Pike, nor for pedestrians or bikes to cross the street. So Joyland Neighborhood Board is against the zone change without conditions to remedy the transportation issues. We are asking for conditions on this property. There is a map in your packet showing Kentucky Transportation Cabinet average daily traffic counts. A 2019 count on Paris Pike at Kingston Road shows 19,340 vehicles daily. A 2023 count on North Broadway near the I-75 ramp shows 20,581 vehicles daily. And apparently the COVID issue has left a block of time where they didn't do a lot of monitoring there. There are pages in your packet from the Kentucky State Police showing annual collisions along this section of North Broadway from the I-75 ramp to Kingston Road for the years 2020 through 2023. The range is 63 to 89 collisions per year. We just had some the other day. There is a lot of darting vehicular movement along this stretch of road to and from multiple locations, as you can see on the video with the Speedway gas station and Rogers Road and so on, the Waffle House, Dollar General. There will be 165 two-bedroom apartments. So if the number of cars could be 165 to 330. As there are 198 parking spaces for these cars, some will have to park across the street in Joyland. On workday mornings, a large percentage of the apartment parking lot cars will turn left out of the apartment complex, crossing four lanes of traffic to go towards downtown or the interstate. So I think Mr. Murphy's figures are a little bit off on that. Lex Tran has refused to stop at this proposed apartment, likely because there's no bus pull off and because it cannot get a bus across two lanes of traffic to get over to Rogers Road in Joyland at such a short distance. There is no bus stop on North Broadway or Paris Pike outside of New Circle. The closest bus stop is on Rogers Road, .2 miles from the development near all the apartment buildings on Rogers Road. Pedestrian safety will also be an issue. Joyland Crossing apartment residents will want to cross the street to go to Dollar General, to Mary Todd School, to Mary Todd Park, to catch a Lex Tran bus or a school bus, and to go to and from their park vehicles in Joyland. If you stand at the Whitaker Bank next to Speedway and watch cars and tractor trailers coming southbound on Paris Pike from Paris, There's a hill on Paris Pike just before Joyland, and you can't see what's coming on the other side. The vehicles coming from Paris mostly don't drive the speed limit. They come into town at maybe 50 or 60 miles an hour instead of the 45 miles. At the time of approval of the B3 zone change in 2017, there was a traffic impact study by Zimmerman Traffic Engineering. The summary of the study by the city's transportation staff concluded the signalization of the Rogers Road intersection would be required, as well as other transportation improvements. In your packet is one page from the Planning Commission minutes from June 22, 2017, when Mr. Emmons presented the summary review of the study, as well as the printed summary itself. This is still the same road, the same location with the same issues. This zone change should be conditioned for vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle safety, or it will have to be dealt with after there are adverse events. So it seems that a traffic signal with clear pedestrian considerations at Rogers Road and turn lanes and flashing lights or raised pavement markers on southbound Paris Pike near Kingston should be required before building occurs. So the Joyland Neighborhood Association is requesting conditions be placed on this zone change, that a transit safety study be conducted, a signalized crossing for pedestrians and vehicles be provided at the Rogers Road intersection subject to the approval of the Kentucky TransCab, and communication with Lex Tran and Fayette County Schools to determine what is needed for Lex Tran and Fayette County School Buses to enter and circulate through the property and to meet those criteria. By doing this, the development will meet many of the place builder 2018 and 2045 goals they currently cannot meet. Some of these from 2018 are direct pedestrian linkages to transit should be provided. Developments should provide multimodal transportation infrastructure to school sites, including sidewalks, shared use paths, and roadways, and these are in your packet. Development on corridors should be transit oriented. in conclusion this is about traffic and about traffic conflicts safety should be planned and implemented for all modes of transportation for this intersection before residents move in thank you for this opportunity to speak and for holding this public hearing and now kathy kathy perkins will present good job thank you we don't clap we don't clap uh thank you and if you're gonna clap clap for me because I'm nervous as I'll get out, okay? I'm just saying. I can't perform comedy here, so, but my name is Catherine Perkins. I'm Joyland Neighborhood Association Vice President. I live at 258 Swigert. Vice Mayor Wu and District Council Persons because I'm woke, okay? Joyland Neighborhood Association, the homeowners of 2330 and 23, don't you smile 2350 Paris Pike and most of the neighbors in other neighborhoods I've communicated with don't object to multifamily housing we object to the approval of a zone change and preliminary development plan on these two parcels of land because of locations currently are not ideal for any zone or development especially R4. 2324's limited unsafe accessibility and from the state regulated national award-winning scenic highway Paris Pike along with 2200 old Paris roads poorly located designed access are two very important deterrents as to why it's you can't safely and successfully develop these properties. So I don't think I need to tell you the, I'm not going to tell you that, purposes of the zoning ordinances, but on your packet that I gave you, oh also this area is part of the Cane Run watershed and I will tell you that Division of Water Quality Stormwater Runoff, as well as those of us who live in joyland know we are in an area of special needs protection and that is one of the purposes of our zoning ordinances is to make sure that areas with special needs get protection we have sinkholes everywhere including one right next to this property on the fence line of 2330. the first page of the ila says that uh that's the interlocal agreement our job is to protect this road from pressure to develop so as to maintain the unique agricultural character of the paris pike corridor for the benefit of the general public tourists and area landowners the second page says that uh of the interlocal that this urban area is part of this area to be protected so i think that there are a lot of things in our uh 2018 on uh comp plan and in the small area plan that show reasons that this property needs more uh more concern as to being developed with this density and height enhance the existing environmental qualities of the bluegrass and encourage high quality and new development as it may promote tourism and enhance the everyday light quality of life in fayette county that is the small area plan place builder says new construction should be an appropriate scale to respect the context of neighboring structures this does not this new construction is new construction is not at an appropriate scale to the contents of neighboring structures. Nor is the six four-story high apartment complexes with citizens of my neighborhood, surrounding neighborhoods, and neighbors I've talked to once setting the future context for the mile, mile and a half of the urban service area boundary. In spite of housing being developed down the road, possibly in a subdivision, that will have a setback and is going to be 15,000 square foot lots, not houses six stories tall. But the corridor 2018 imagines, says development should create context-sensitive transitions between intense corridor development. Development should work with the existing landscape to the greatest extent. There's no way this is going to happen on this property. this property will have to be landscaped later and what about the landscaping at 2330 and 2350 paris pike and that's why we feel a continuous buffer of at least 20 i know 2330 would like 30 feet with large species trees and that if that can be done it will offer protection from the equipment of the development of this property from destroying everything on the other side uh... and this is we also feel that there should be a greater setback from paris pike larger trees and make that inclusive of his uh... water easement so we feel that uh... the story height of this is a little egregious uh... that it's not does not relate to the size and character of development to the adjacent structures and those of the immediate neighborhood. And that is a part of the 2018 multifamily design standards under architectural design. So that we feel that this development is not compatible. And if you're going to approve the zone, R4, for the density and all these apartment complexes, then we feel these conditions. 2350 is economic development. The small area plan does say that we need to protect the economic development activity as well as natural resources. We can go down more to this small area plan. And these also mimic a lot of what is in 2018 and 2045. Protect and secure open spaces, scenic vistas, environmentally sensitive and physically unique areas. Again, 2330 does have a sinkhole wetlands to the front of it. She's very concerned. And 2350 is a working horse farm. So this is another reason why we feel an increased buffering along the entire northeastern border should be part of the condition of this zone. Encourage the maintenance and preservation of soils those existing trees and vegetation, as development occurs, this R4 zone cannot do that. Everything will have to be demolished on this property in order to develop it the way they have proposed. Or the way an R4 needs to be developed as well. Development should work with the existing landscape to the greatest extent possible. Does zero extent possible qualify for that? And there, again, the small area plan says buffering. We also have a part of our small area plan, enhance and maintain horse farms. You take the risk of pushing 2350 out of business without adequate buffer along with the fence height because of the disruption of that many people living and walking along that fence line right up next to it, or at five feet from it. So in 2017, this property received its B3. On that B3 final paperwork you have, staff recommends that conditional zoning restrictions be employed in order to ensure that the entrance of the Paris Pike corridor is more aesthetically pleasing and that it provides an appropriate transition from commercial to residential and agriculture. We don't feel that, we feel that this is still something that staff should be recommending, but hasn't, and that this should be a condition of this zone. And you're taken into your consideration. In 2017, this property did have prohibited uses, which I think are very important. And I know they don't pertain necessarily to this zone. Mr. Crumb did not read them to you all the way through. But those prohibited uses were established in mints and lots for the display, rental sales service, and minor repair equipment, cocktails, lounges, and nightclubs, car wash establishments, pawn shops, adult arcades, massage parlors, et cetera. Now this advertising signs and then it had the buffer restrictions of 20. Perkins, I apologize. Let's stop the clock for a second. We lost a council member to a break, so all council members need to be here for the entirety of all evidence given. So I'm going to take a quick recess until council member Fogel returns. Okay, thank you. I could use a drink anyhow. Yeah. I might have to- Yeah, apologize. Or dump my spleen. I'm just saying, this is stressful. Are you all praying for me? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, council members, if you can take your seats, we're about to get back into it. All right. Thank you all. I just want to clarify some rules of this hearing real quick, just so everybody understands what's going on. And so for council members, we need to be present for the entirety of this hearing in order to be a part of it. If we walk out during a portion where evidence is given, we're not allowed to come back. So council member Fogel does have to leave. We still have quorum for this hearing and we're going to carry on as normal. So I apologize for the interruption and just a reminder to council members. I will schedule breaks appropriately. anybody needs to leave please let me know and i can pause the proceedings and that way we don't lose um our process so if we can put uh miss perkins remaining time back on the board and miss perkins ready when you are to continue your presentation thank you Thank you. Okay. And now we have to remember where I was, so let me know if I repeat myself. In the 2017 zoning ordinance and final report, which I did pass out to you, that this subject property, when it was zoned, was zoned with restrictions put on it. The prohibited uses, I think I raced through them, but maybe I didn't, establishments, and lots of display for the display rental sales service and minor farm repair, equipment, contractor services, cocktail lounges, nightclubs, car washes, establishments, pawn shops, adult arcades. I bring that up because it has also had the other ones they had on it and the buffering restrictions. And these restrictions, it goes on to say, are necessary and appropriate for the subject property in order to restrict the most intense land use on the property that could have a negative impact on adjacent agricultural and residential land uses and the aesthetic condition of the Paris Pike Corridor. The land uses next to this property are the same. This property, R4 zone, will have more dangers actually, in my opinion, to the neighboring farm and agricultural uses. And that's why we feel that this R4 should either be denied or conditioned as equally or more so than what it was for the B3. Also in the 2017, under case review for this zone, It was stated that at the time in 1973, stormwater issues were a concern. And also providing the traffic issues were a problem with this property. So this property, even before the road was widened, had traffic issues. And historically, it's been recommended low density in 73, 1980 or highway commercial in 88, 96, 2001, and 2007. and again it was given the highway commercial in 2017 not developed why access is a very big concern i think i i think that's i didn't didn't want to flubber around up here but this is why we are we believe that this zone is is not appropriate for this property unless it is conditioned. And conditioned with the safe access and also with the buffering and connectivity because that is a big part of all of our imagines. And preservation of soils, this property cannot be developed the way it's being proposed and protect the land next to it. We also think, I guess for me, I think the buffering needs to be along the railroad tracks. I know that we are a karst land. I don't know what this soil is. I know we have the aquifer running underneath so much of the land in our neighborhood and across the street. I know there's sinkholes, like I said, on the property next door. So I think that this buffering needs to be increased or the zone needs to be denied. And I guess I'll end with, I think I've said it, I think B3 conditioned is less egregious than R4 with no conditions. And I think that you should consider what I've said. And I'll finish up with my recommendations for, well, I have three minutes that I don't have in my head. For the closing, I get to do that later, right? The conditions for. Yeah, you'll have a three minute summary. Okay, I can do that. I need to breathe. Sorry. Thank you, Ms. Perkins. Thank you. Would planning staff like to cross-examine? Oh, sure. Would the petitioner like to cross-examine? No. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Perkins. All right, now we're going to head towards public comment. If there's anybody here to give public comment and you weren't sworn in earlier in the evening, would you please raise your hand for me? Okay, thank you. Do you swear or affirm, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Thank you. All right, so we've got, looks like, 12 people signed up. When I call your name, please come to the podium, state your name and district number, and you'll have three minutes, and we have a few people with time yielded to them. We're going to start off with Stacy Underhill. And is Julian Lineman here? Okay, thank you. And is Tara Kamara here? Thank you. all right miss underhill you'll have nine minutes Can you show me how to use this? Sorry. Yeah, so the top button you hold down and it... Oh, sorry, that's a different thing, sorry. Yeah, you can't use a highlighter with the projector on this. There's no way to point out. No, not with that. Okay. My name's Stacy Underhill. I've lived in Lexington all of my life. I've lived on Preakness Drive which is in old Paris for 22 years. Fortunately I can't point. Our neighborhood is connected to or would be connected to the Joyland Crossing neighborhood. If the map was pushed up a little bit more you can kind of see where Preakness Drive is that's my street. The way this is built there are only two ways in and two ways out. If you see where Preakness Drive is it ends on Bronze Station Road and then it goes out ends on old paris pike unfortunately we are not connected to any other neighborhoods if you go one way there's horse farms and if you go south well there's the interstate so we're stuck to those those exits unfortunately for us whenever there is an accident on the highway which is quite often google maps will redirect traffic in our neighborhood and it will be bumper to bumper you can look at this next picture this lovely picture was taken in front of my house on preakness drive and well you can't really see it there but you have a nice pinsky truck and that's traffic is bumper to bumper all the way down paris or all the way down preakness drive to strawberry fields and then out old paris and traffic is this is about like a once a month thing and when this happens I try to forewarn our neighbors through our Facebook group to say hey our parking lot or our neighborhood is a parking lot try to avoid it that kind of thing but we don't have any options to go elsewhere I was here for the November 16th Planning Commission hearing meeting and I remember Tom Martin said something which I agree with on the surface is whenever there's a new development residents will slowly realize a new path to take and we don't have that option and unfortunately this will this new development will increase traffic in our neighborhood because it was poorly designed and we have two ways in and out and the drilling crossing only has one way in and out the next thing I would like to talk about is an article that I read in the Herald leader on December 29th in 2023. It was written by Christopher Leach and it was talking about the pedestrian fatalities in Lexington. Pedestrian fatalities in Lexington increased 566 percent in that year. 566 percent. Now how is this related to Joyland Crossing? The Joyland Crossing apartments are only allowed or only allowing 198 parking spaces 198 parking spaces for 165 apartment units that's 1.2 parking spaces per two-bedroom apartment Paris Pike does not have any street parking you can't park on a street this apartment complex is not going to be connected to any other residents. For these residents to park, they're going to be walking across four lanes on Paris Pike to get to Super America, to park at Super America or park at the Peter Brook truck. We're going to put pedestrians on Paris Pike. If this is changed to residential, it will bring pedestrians, pedestrians and that will also increase pedestrian deaths. Also Lex Tran has stated that they cannot put a bus stop on Paris Pike. There's not a place for them to stop. So anybody want to ride the bus are also going to have to catch or cross four lanes of highway. So if this zone stayed business, it would prevent or minimize the pedestrians that are on Parris Pike. That's it. Any questions? Thank you, Ms. Andreil. Next up is Lynn Sloan. And is Lisa Frenet here? And you're yielding your time? Thank you. And Elizabeth Woodward? And you're yielding your time as well? Thank you. So Ms. Sloan, you'll have nine minutes. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Lynn Sloan, and I am in District 6. And our family has been on our property, our farm, which is located right next to this development. They purchased this property about 95 years ago, and so back in the 1930s. And back in the 1930s was 40 years before the interstate was built. And 40 years before the urban service plan, the urban service line. So we've been here a long time in a very rural, what started out a very rural area. And the important thing that I want to bring that no one is really focused on, And it may be a matter of first impression for you all. Our property is on the urban service line. We're rural. We can only have one home, one residence. And on the other side where this property is, so it's on the urban service borderline. And when we look out right now, we see green and trees. But soon we will see six four story apartment buildings. And we understand there is going to be growth, but let's balance it. So they're going to have the apartment buildings, four story, next to rural farms with horses in the field. Let's just make sure that we can be smart about our planning in this instance. And one thing we were looking at is, and we've been warned about lighting. So, and those of you who have horses understand the importance of lighting. So you already have an ordinance on lighting, which is under Article 16, general regulations for vehicular use areas. Our concern is that we are going to be looking out, we're going to be on our farm, with our front of our house overlooking these four or these six buildings. And what is going to be the height of all those lights in the parking lots are going to be there? Because they already told you, all those parking lots are going to be all lined up there. And under this section 16, it says, Lighting used to eliminate all street parking shall be arranged as to reflect away from adjoining residential zones. And freestanding lighting shall be no taller than 12 feet in height. This sounds reasonable. This sounds reasonable and we're hoping that this could be what your ordinance is, could be a condition of this. We don't want it to be like Kroger Field where their lights are 40 feet up in the air. And we're concerned if this is pushed into a later on into a development plan, it could get lost. So this lighting is very important. So when we're working together and they're going to have, if they're going to propose these changes, we also want to propose some things that we can also work together with. The other thing they discussed, which was a great idea on the northern, it's a triangle. And one angle of the triangle is the Paris Pike. And they're going to do some borders there. And then the northern border, they're going to have some borders. And we are the eastern border along the railroad track. And it's important, we believe, to have a buffer. They could have large trees there, we'll have large trees on our side. We're going to have to spend money to have large trees to block as much of the buildings and lights as we can. So those are our requests, that those could be the lighting that this section 16 will apply to this particular area. And about buffering along both sides, the northeast and the eastern side. And that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up is Karen Payne. And you'll have three minutes. So I'm Karen Payne and I'm the only one that lives on Paris Pike. and as everybody else has said traffic is a big concern already if I live if you're going down Pears Pike I'm the first farm on the left in between Kingsway and Swaggart I can barely get out of my driveway now at at peak traffic times it's backed up past my driveway and so they're proposing a subdivision directly across from me with 55 homes. If you do two cars per person and the other one, one car per person, you're going to have, I mean, the traffic, I won't be able to leave my house. And the safety of pulling out of there, now people are going 55 and 60. It's a danger to pull out of your driveway there. You're afraid you're going to be killed. So, you know, I'm not trying to repeat the safety traffic thing again but it's it's a real concern for the residents living there because we're already in jeopardy with the traffic and it backs up past the driveways there at which you know you got Mack truck then you got a church then you got Kingston then you got another church and then you got me that's a high half a mile down from there and if this other subdivision that's across from me goes in with 55 houses you're talking about three four hundred more cars that are going to be in that air just in that area you know we're concerned you know growth is going to happen but that corner is the most dangerous corner except for like new circle up there you just cannot get in and out and there's a wreck almost every day and at prime traffic times like 3 3 30 school gets let out at Bryan station the buses are coming up through there to go to strawberry Lane and let kids out so I mean it's already a big mess in the in the land there is not big enough for that many houses and that many people and we just wish you would consider the traffic in the safety issues before you grant these people to be able to build there. Because there's no lights or anything there, and the Speedway has a ton across, like they were saying, and we're all really in danger. And there's a wreck every day at that corner at Speedway, people pulling out of old Paris, trying to get out. You can't see the oncoming traffic, and people are running into each other there. And yesterday, there was a huge wreck right there. I mean a really bad one so and then it goes to the interstate and backs up people are trying to turn right to get on the interstate which makes it even more complicated it backs up so the residents up the road can't even get out of the properties and it's a danger because people are going 55 and 60 there's no caution lights there and then there's no whatever they put in the road to slow people down but I don't know what thank you miss Payne we need we need help before building thank you thank you next up is Dave Cooper followed by Debbie Aminoff I'm Dave Cooper I live in district one I lived in the Joyland neighborhood for 13 years goes through this area pretty frequently i feel like i'm pretty familiar with is it so patty's video i hope you all got a sense of like how chaotic uh the traffic is there that's that's the only word for it it's just it at afternoon peak especially it's like crazy town around the speedway uh gas station and coming in cars coming in from old paris bike there are cars going every which way and i have advocated for a long time that the whole intersection needs to be redesigned for safety as it is now now we're adding in in this um this the cars exiting out of this new development across from Rogers Road. I hate to get, people keep bringing this up, but it's like the way things are right now, this development is going to go ahead and there's not going to be a stoplight there. But before we even get to that point, we've got all the construction equipment. We've got all kinds of bulldozers and earth movement equipment and gravel trucks and all this other stuff that's going to be coming into this property. Fine. It's getting out of there. It's physically impossible for an 18-wheel sort of type piece of heavy equipment to turn left out of this proposed development during the peak traffic times. It can't be done. And so we're going to go ahead, but the situation, the traffic situation does not work. One of the parts of Patty's video showed that Parris Pike backed up all the way, sometimes up to Kingston. It's not that uncommon that this happens at peak afternoon traffic. There is nothing, there's no way for them to turn left out of this construction site. Does that make sense? You know what I'm saying? So there has to be a condition that says we're going to have a stoplight before we even start construction. Thanks. Thank you. Up next is Debbie Aminoff. Hi, I'm Debbie Aminoff. I'm actually reading a letter from Garnetta Graham, who lives at 2330 Paris Pike. She says, I am not opposed to some sort of development for that property, but I'm very much against the proposed one and the zone change. The buildings are too tall and too congested for the entrance to our beautiful Paris Pike. In my opinion, to place that many people in that space with only one entrance slash exit, no traffic light, no right turn entry lane, and no acceptable pedestrian access to transit lines in an area that is already plagued with near daily accidents is a blatant disregard for human life there is no guarantee that the developer has to stick to the current plans and could come up with new ones that are even worse for the area therefore i have sent my request to the council member for land restrictions in case the zone is changed the requested restrictions are require no less than a 20-foot berm 30 foot is better the entire length between the development and the properties at 2330 and 2350 paris pike with mature trees at intervals of no greater than 10 feet require a solid six foot fence the entire length between the development and the properties at 2330 and 2350 paris pike and require that no structure shall exceed at 33 35 feet in height sorry then there is a subject of the sinkholes there are known ones on my property close to the property line in their existing plans the later date exit run right into one of the sinkholes their building number two sits on what I suspect is right on top of one I have some personal concerns in addition to the above flooding runoff from that much asphalt will likely cause my property to flood as the ground level is a bit lower noise privacy security disappears and my land value will tank but I'm just one person one voice who matters little in the overall scheme of things. I am not able to attend any of the meetings. Would be appreciative if you voiced my opinion slash concerns. Garnetta. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Fabi Singh. You had wanted to yield your time to Mr. Murphy, but you're allowed to speak on your own behalf if you like, since you're signed up. You're good? Okay. And Harinder Singh, same situation? You're good? Okay. Okay, thank you very much. And then last up is Zach Skubitz. You have three minutes. Hello, my name is Zach Skubitz. This is the fifth one of these I've been to, I think. Just a few notes here. My first thing just coming into this is that I don't love how far out of town this is. I wish we could build more density inside town, but I recognize that we are so far behind on housing construction that it needs to be put somewhere, and this is somewhere. A lot of concerns have been about speeding cars in the area, but emptier roads aren't going to slow down cars. If anything, it increases velocity. if speeding cars is a concern then the city may want to look at reducing the speed limit if that's within its power i know these roads can be kind of weird or increasing traffic enforcement in the area one thing i was a little confused about i heard i think the applicant said it was four stories i heard someone say it was six stories i want to make sure that it is four stories nothing was about the concern that it would be the plan to be changed i heard this when i came for the soccer stadium meeting also. I don't think these kinds of bait and switches are allowed. I think the zoning committee does look into this and keep track of it, but I want to make sure that's a thing. Let's see what else we have here. For the concerns of pedestrians, increased pedestrianization, having more people around. It increases the awareness of them. If people, if they're there more often, it will increase people's knowledge that they're there and people may drive more aware of the area. One concern was that this was barely inside the urban service boundary. That is true, but it is still within the urban service boundary. It's a binary. There isn't really a gradient there. And the last thing was about protecting the view from the highway. If the concern is road safety, the highway should not be pretty. It should be boring. You should be focusing on the road not the trees around it that's all I have to say I do want this to be built thank you thank you very much all right next up is going to be rebuttals so this section will be for I was requested by somebody who came late if they could speak and they didn't sign up so I'll make a motion that we amended and allow Amy Clark to speak so moved we have a second okay any discussion on this all those in favor say aye all those opposed say nay I think we'll need a touchscreen vote All right, should it be up on your screen? All right, looks like that motion passes. Ms. Clark, you'll have three minutes. I want to thank you for your indulgence and I'm glad to take some of the time that others actually didn't use because they're better organized or have less ambition. My name is Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road and I do swear to tell the truth. You have a letter, there is one copy circulating and they're putting it up on the board. I want to point out first of all, the whole triangle that is urban zoning extends as far as the country club there and no further. So anything you're talking about in terms of urban development and its connectivity and mutual support is within that tiny triangle on that side of Paris Pike. In all, when the Planning Commission voted approval, there was thought that two large 33 acre parcel would be shortly developing, And that would provide needed density for additional transit facilities or a signalized intersection for turns and that kind of thing. It is now applying for 55 dwelling units. I reckoned out the other dwelling units that might be provided if the land should change and there really isn't much. I would say the maximum would be less than 60 units in the lifetime of the people who live there now. One is an active horse farm recently restored and already in the second generation. So anticipation of considerable density to help this property out, I don't think is there. I don't think it makes a very good corridor place type, even though it is the Parris Pike corridor. That's because it doesn't have the things that the comp plan describes as important, such as a livable mix of uses, connected to a livable mix of uses, transportation facilities in all modes. I do think it is possible with the right conditions to get multifamily density there, and I think it would be a good idea. We haven't seen that demonstrated by the applicant. I encourage you to consider the authority of the Paris Pike Corridor Commission in advising each body on zone changes, development plans, ZODA and the like. This is a state ratified interlocal agreement between our community and Paris and Bourbon. And the Parris Pike Corridor Commission recommended disapproval. And their chief concern was the access to the site and traffic in general, the terrific traffic hazard. I would add that the bus route isn't something that would do well for workforce housing because it doesn't go to employment centers. And finally, I will just say, you will find suggested conditions. And if you choose to disapprove findings that you might consider. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Thank you. All right, time for rebuttals. This section is, you have five minutes each presenting party to speak to comments that were made earlier in the hearing. Staff, do you want time for a rebuttal? Thank you, Mr. Crum. You'll have five minutes. All right. Daniel Crum, planning staff. So just kind of a handful of things that I wanted to touch on. The first is sort of just reminding us kind of procedurally how some of these functions. So the applicant has come before you with a zone change request and a corresponding preliminary development plan. They are not able to build off of this plan. This is simply an illustrative document that shows the intent behind the property, helps prove some of the compliance with the comprehensive plan, but is required to have a final development plan. Almost always, in circumstances where you have traffic issues, the planning staff makes a recommendation to resolve these issues at the time of final development plan. This is especially poignant when we have something like a state-owned road. So the government here is not able to unilaterally impose conditions upon the transportation cabinet. So that is a joint conversation between the applicant, KYTC, our local engineers, and the traffic engineers here. So that's sort of an evolving process. But a reminder that the access for the current situation with the B3 zoning was in an identical location with a higher traffic volume to the site. With regard to the height that was mentioned, once again, this is a four-story development, a total of 45.5 feet at the maximum height. Under the current zoning, they would be able to build a taller structure. The maximum they can do in the R4 under a group residential project is 60 feet. In the current B3 zone, they could go as high as 75 if it was stepped back to the locations that are shown. So kind of a wider array of uses, a higher intensity of potential development was kind of the impetus for the conditions that council put on in 2018. And so commercial development, especially when it's dealing with gas stations, drive-thrus, lights, fumes, odors, all of those land use impacts are not necessarily found when you're talking about multifamily residential development against other residential development. That's reflected in landscaping changes. So a landscaping is much less when you have R3, R4, and higher adjacent to single-family residential. There were some comments made about, let me bring this back here to the aerial. Here we go. So it's important to kind of understand the relationship between these adjoining properties. So you've got the development that is occurring here. You do have single-family residential. However, there is existing a dense tree line not necessarily visible from the roadway is this home. You do have the existing home on the adjoining property with some agricultural uses with those horse training facilities. But this has set back a significant distance. If you look at where these structures are on the property, we are talking about a total height of 45 1⁄2 feet over the course of hundreds of feet. There were some comments made about lighting. There doesn't need to be a condition for the requirements of the zoning ordinance to apply. They always apply. And so that maximum parking lot pedestrian scale lighting is currently set at 12 feet, and that is what they have to demonstrate compliance with, and that is all that can be approved as far as freestanding lighting. There was some conversation about the connectivity. Once again, this is a heavily constrained site. However, they are improving it to the greatest degree that they are able to. They are not able to unilaterally make the government have a bus line that stops at this location. They are contributing to that future demand. If that was the threshold for development, there wouldn't be any development north of New Circle. All of these areas lack that comprehensive sidewalk, that comprehensive coverage. This is going to increase the connectivity, stub into any potential development that occurs to the north, and help supplement on that end. So staff wanted to just clarify some of the issues with that. As well as we can provide some further information about the Paris Pike Corridors Commission. Once again, this was in an area that was examined. It is called out specifically in the plan as the areas that are closest to urban growth and development. It is supposed to transition as you get further away from that urban core into those protected areas that have that overlay. However, the subject property, based on its size and its proximity development, could never meet any of the guidelines that are called for within the small area plan. So the small area plan was looking at preserving these large, agriculturally significant areas. These have historic and scenic significance. What they didn't intend to be applied to, especially on a micro scale like this, are a former site of a bar, a cocktail lounge, and a site that doesn't meet the minimum size requirements. So the context in this area, while it is still have to go to the Parris Pike Corridor Commission, doesn't meet that character of what this is really looking to protect is those large, significant farms, those large agricultural areas outside of the urban service area. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have of staff on any other items, but those are just some items that staff wanted to clarify. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Would Petitioner like to offer a rebuttal? Mr. Murphy, you've got five minutes. I understand I have five minutes for rebuttal, then three minutes for a summary later on? Correct. I just have a few sort of some of them unrelated points I'd like to mention that were mentioned by the neighborhood people. And by the way, I've had a pleasure to deal with it. people miss Perkins is a wonderful person I've got to know her and appreciate that it's a good neighborhood and we think we're gonna make the neighborhood better on the traffic back up on Preakness Drive in the old Paris place neighborhood neighborhood we will not be affecting that one way or another our access point is going to be on Paris Pike itself it will not be on old Paris Pike it will not be backing up traffic there miss sloan talked about the buffering and she does for a little bit of our property we have her on the other side of the railroad tracks i do need to point out as i did at the beginning that is a hundred foot wide csx railroad line heavily treed on that 100 feet there's an elevation separation as well we're also proposing some trees on that side of the property. As Mr. Crum mentioned, we will comply with the lighting requirements. We have to. The new ordinance, which is just going into effect, limits our height to, I think, 12 feet in parking lots. That won't be, they'll be below the tree line on the parking lots there. On the traffic discussion, there's been a lot of discussion of traffic, and there are 19, excuse me 19 000 trips a day on paris pike as has been mentioned several times that is a lot of traffic but it's what we have all over town on nicholasville road i think some places we have three times that i had a zone change before you a month or so ago on richmond road out in the rural area 43 000 43 000 trips a day that is not unusual in the community if we're limiting development to areas that have less than 5 000 trips we won't develop anywhere the number of accidents we did a traffic study this is in the record mr mcintosh is here the number of accidents on this stretch of road near rogers road where we're going to be intersecting the state reported is 25 less than would be expected in a stretch of road of that type it's less than the number any accident is bad but i do need to point out to you the state said it's 25 less than the number of accidents you'd normally see in a stretch of road like that our drainage will be handled uh predominantly on the curb bar property that's one good reason that the two properties have been jointly owned we can now do our drainage or basin on the curb property there's a question about that um the uh let's see here the prohibited uses which miss perkins mentioned in the b3 zone i think all of all of the zone the message the uses she mentioned which were prohibited in 2017 on b3 are not allowed in the r4 zone anyway on that we plan a residential community the question was raised about will we have enough parking on site as you all know there's a new ordinance on parking where the planning staff tries to discourage over parking discourage big expansion of parking lots we're required to do a parking study when we submit the zone change we did it mr mcintosh did the parking study and calculated the number based on national parking studies that we came up with about 1.2 times the amount of units. Does that mean that people will be parking across the railroad tracks and walking over across Paris Pike and walking over? No. What Joyland Crossing LLC is going to do will tell people that when they rent a unit, they have one parking space. if they want another one it may be available an extra charge if one is not available and they want two two parking spaces they'll tell them don't rent here go someplace else that's how we're going to handle that there will not be parking up paris pike or whatever or across the railroad tracks or whatever on that and we will be connecting we are doing the connectivity as as requested by the staff with the sidewalk and our two stub streets into the property to the north so that when it develops we can have connections so people don't have to go out on paris pike to get from one property to another thank you thank you mr murphy uh would opposition like to offer a rebuttal ms Ms. Perkins. All right, you'll also have five minutes. Okay, we're not really here to discuss the preliminary development plan. my understanding i know we look at it but planning commission sent this to you without any conditions put on it or on the zone although in 2017 they did feel that buffering was an issue even in this This current year, the subcommittee mentioned that buffering was an issue. And planning staff said we'll take care of it at final, but that continues to be an issue. Access is an issue of this property regardless of the zone. And I don't think that Mr. Murphy can fix the access without state approval. In fact, I don't think he can do much along the road front without state approval. It's my understanding he can put a sidewalk on the water easement. But we can certainly condition buffering or setback where he can add the buffering that we would like to see on Paris Pike. No traffic study has been done since 2017. Mr. Murphy quotes traffic studies from 2017, not now. Traffic is faster, heavier, and everybody's texting while they drive, too. If you don't have a light, if you don't make that a condition, this is an accident waiting to happen. School buses are constantly coming out, so traffic is a big issue in this area and buffering as well. I know that we have some ZOTAs that are the urban growth management is coming before you. It has been passed by planning commission. That ZOTA is supposedly combining zones. So R4 and R5 and B1 can share. There are many principal uses in B1 that would be conditional uses on this property, and quite a few of them are not appropriate for this property, and that's another reason why I think there needs to be some prohibited uses, like possibly, hold on, where is it at? No conditional non-residential uses, that it should just be conditioned to have that. or no conditional uses from B1, whatever. Buses, we still haven't addressed how we're going to make sure that this property will be accessible for buses. And you can work with anybody you want, but you've got to get it approved by state. And until it's approved, our buses are at risk going in and out of there. I wouldn't be here fighting this the way I am. if I wasn't going to feel guilty. And I'll feel guilty if a friend of mine or one of my neighbors or a school bus of children are involved in an accident because of this whole location, and including the access to this property. So I think a new traffic study needs to be done for sure, and that it should be should have been recommended before this came to you but it can be a condition that it be done before they can do any kind of building i guess you can put that on there to go with it and again remember that staff recommended in 2017 and also the small area plan talks about it being our job all of our jobs according to the interlocal, but that restrictions need to be, conditional zoning restrictions need to be employed in order to ensure that the entrance to the Paris pipe corridor is more aesthetically pleasing and that it provide an appropriate transition from commercial to residential, but it needs to be safe and connected. And you can say all you want that you can do it later, development wouldn't occur, but you can do it simultaneously. You can condition this property to have those in place before this development can happen and buffering. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is summations. We're going to do three-minute summations from each presenting party, and then we'll take a quick break. So thanks for hanging in there. Staff's submissions is up first. Mr. Crum, you have three minutes. All right. Daniel Crum, planning staff. In summation, staff just wants to reiterate what we've kind of been conveying throughout this entire presentation, that both planning staff as well as the planning commission themselves have found that this is in substantial compliance with the comprehensive plan, meeting a variety of goals, talking about what we need as a community moving forward when that comes to the density of housing, where housing should be located, how we deal with these types of vacant properties inside of the urban service area. When we're looking at sort of the different ways that this meets, it's sort of a comprehensive look. We are talking about the density, how it's designed, access to open space, potential connections in the future. All of these point to an approval vote. The Planning Commission recommended this unanimously, 9-0, without any additional recommendations for conditional zoning restrictions. Once again, as you all are considering this request, if you opt to place conditional zoning restrictions, you are limited in the purview of your ability to do that. It's basically uses, buffering, and the like. And it's worth noting that currently the R4 zone does allow for some non-residential uses as conditional uses that requires Board of Adjustment approval, but that's the context of what we have here. When we're looking at this property, it's important to note that this is not the final step in any of these processes. It needs a final development plan, which takes comprehensive review by the entirety of our government as well as the state. This property hasn't developed since it was rezoned precisely because there were issues in one form or another that were holding it up. So if there is some doubt on sort of the future proceedings, look at the current example. Everyone from the state to the local level is going to have to be satisfied with the safety of this project, that it's meeting the comprehensive plan's goals, and it is doing so in a safe manner in order for it to proceed. So staff is recommending approval for all of the reasons mentioned previously. The Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously, and I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff. Thank you very much. Next up, summation from petitioner. Mr. Murphy, you have three minutes as well. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. There are a lot of issues we've discussed tonight, which are really final development plan issues, For instance, determining whether buses can make the turn in there. That's something that is reviewed on the final development plan. We go through traffic engineering, we go through the fire department to make sure trucks can make, and buses can make the appropriate turn on that property. We did, we updated the traffic study currently. We presented that to the planning commission. It was reviewed by the staff. So we did do a traffic study to present for this zone change. It was updated and reviewed by the planning division staff. We will be going to the state. I was just talking to our engineer before I came up here. Before we can start building this, we have to get an encroachment permit from the state highway department, just like we have to get a final development plan and we have to get a grading plan and building permits from this government. We have to get an encroachment agreement from the state highway department. At that time, the state highway department will tell us exactly what we can do, what the access at Rogers Road will be. If it's going to be a light, that's fine. My clients have volunteered to contribute money to the light. The state may say, well, you're going to have to put a light in in a little while after this. They'll tell us what to do. That will be determined. we will be the agent that will cause the state to consider this intersection and how it should be made safer. I have never dealt with a group that has been more cooperative through the entire process than this group of clients at Joyland Crossing LLC. Before we started, we went to see the design group at the city before we had a plan put together. we align the buildings the way we were advised under your guidelines we have put an amenity package in here which will keep we feel long-term residents here and keep it'll help them be happy members of this community we will be connecting to other properties as mr crumb has mentioned through sidewalks stub streets and that sort of thing but we will the my clients have said they They will contribute to the cost of a traffic signal. They will contribute to the cost of pedestrian improvements for crossings. They volunteered to contribute to the cost of a bus stop shelter. They have done what they need to do. They have presented a plan, I think, to you all and to this government, which is in complete conformity with the comprehensive plan. It is putting slightly additional density property along major quarters of this community with the buffering, with the setbacks, with the type of architecture that the comprehensive plan has asked for. We thank you very much, and we hope you'll vote in favor of our zone change. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. All right, Ms. Perkins, you're up for opposition summation. You have three minutes. Okay. This R4 zone application without conditions does not align with many of the goals and objectives of the Paris Pike Small Area Plan 2018 or 2045. It lacks safe access, safe connectivity for all modes of transportation, along with not heeding multifamily design standards put forth in the 2018 comp plan as far as relating height, size, and character of the DP or the intent of our four zone as a location. The intent says that medium to medium high density residential uses should be located along collector and arterial streets. not major corridors like this. Now, I know that 2045 is suggesting this. 2018 might have said we need a little more, but this is a major corridor with major issues in this location. There might be a reason why this property hasn't been developed. So we are asking that you vote no to this R4 as it's been approved by planning commission and passed to you without conditions without respect to traffic issues without consideration to the surrounding neighborhoods to the con or to the context of the existing landscape without adequate buffering on all sides and without what citizens wishes this is what citizens don't wish for the urban service beginning of it to be the gateway to communities unless it has those conditions on it and we can ensure that it doesn't destroy or create more issues within the area and this is a heavily dense it's gonna everything's gonna be paid just saying there'll be a little grassy areas but so we ask that you uh if you decide to vote approval that you put conditions on this zone uh 30 foot at the least 20 feet continuous landscape buffer shall be established along the northeast property boundary. Trees shall be planted every 30 feet within the buffer and selected from the large species list of manual planting, along with the six-foot fence on the outside of the buffering. If this can be done without damaging the current tree stand on 2330 and 2350 Paris Pike properties, we ask that a 15-foot landscape buffer and six-foot fence be put along the southeastern boundary of the railroad tracks. This is to protect the neighbors and also the residents. And 150-foot setback and stories to be restricted to no more than three stories above ground level. And that safe vehicular access from Paris Pike be approved by the planning staff, Department of Traffic Engineer, and the state of department as recommended. and safe connectivity for all other forms of transportation. Thank you, Ms. Perkins. Remember, safety does stop here right now. You can make sure this is safe before it's developed. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Perkins. We're going to take a quick five-minute recess and reconvene at 725 sharp. Thank you. All right, if everybody can take a seat, we're gonna come back in the... Council members, take a seat please, come on. I can use it. All right, I'm going to go ahead and open up the floor to questions from council members. And please make sure to ask all of your questions during this section of the hearing. After I close the hearing, there'll be no more questions for our presenters. Sign in to speak, please. We'll start with Council Member Gray. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I don't know who my questions are for at this point, but I have, I guess this is for the staff. And I also recommend the petitioner and opposition maybe hang out close to the podium for questions addressed to you all. Okay, I happen to live in this area. I heard a lot about the traffic issue, which is a real issue for anyone that lives in that area. I heard the petitioner mention that there has been a traffic study that has been submitted. Is this true? To our knowledge, we can check the file real quick. So the number of units did not rise to meeting a threshold of requiring a traffic impact study. I'm not sure if numbers were presented at the planning commission hearing, but I don't believe a formal full-body traffic study was submitted as a part of this application. In addition, so there's no traffic study. So I heard mention that Lex Tran has denied a bus shelter in the area. Is that correct? I can't speak for Lex Tran, so whether or not they choose to put a stop there could be based on numerous factors, but that's sort of outside the planning staff's purview on any discussions that they've had with the applicant. So you have no idea. Yeah. Next, there was a mention of, I guess, the issue with the residents is that potential height issues, that it's not in accordance with, I guess, the look of the area. What information do you all have regarding the height requirement or height? Sure, sure. So it's important to understand also sort of the geography of this. So this is an area where just based on its location next to a major arterial roadway where you've got hundreds of feet of separation, where you have to the rear, you've got railroad right-of-way, 100 feet of right-of-way, and then stepping back, and then to the adjoining properties to the east, a dense tree line where the structure, quite frankly, just isn't visible. So when you're looking at sort of the context, it sort of stands alone. As you go further out, you're going back towards single-family detached residential development that's more in line with kind of the Paris Pike corridor intention, but this is sort of the most urbanized section of that development. So there's not really any development there to have a direct correspondence with. So the comprehensive plan, when we look at these types of developments, tells us to put it in the context of the corridor place type. So it's relative to the corridor. It fits sort of the height and intensity that it's called for in the comprehensive plan. Thank you, sir. And for the petitioner, you mentioned that you submitted a traffic study. We just heard from the staff they have not received that study. The parking demand study. We did receive a parking demand mitigation study. Okay, you get it. Parking. Okay. But it did not rise to the threshold of needing a full traffic study for the zoning ordinance. And I'm just checking. Also, regarding the lighting, did you want to add anything regarding, because that was an argument that I heard the residents state. Yes, so the current restrictions would apply. So without needing any additional conditions or anything else, they are required to have 12 foot, no higher than 12 foot tall lighting in their parking areas. directed away from adjoining residential properties. It's also worth noting that where that adjoins the properties in question there, you have the railroad right-of-way, but that would still apply to the residential portions to the east as well. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a couple of questions about buffering trees, the fence. These have been some topics that we've discussed or heard about tonight. i'm referencing the preliminary development plan here there's a note here about the existing tree inventory list would you all be able to provide any more information about how many of the existing trees are going to be able to remain on the property and if the current coverage of the lot is about 34 and it says here there's going to be an increase in that could you explain a little little bit about the future coverage? Yeah, let me get a copy of the development plan real quick. Okay. And I'm not sure if this is a question for the petitioner for planning staff, but. I mean, it might be more appropriate for that. Yeah, this may be more appropriate for the applicant in that regard. But based on the numbers provided, the applicant has indicated that it's an increase in the total amount of canopy present on site. the inclusion of that into your landscaping areas. Okay, I might return to that question, but while you're up at the podium. Sure. We've had some requests about conditions. It says here on the preliminary development plan that there's a proposed six foot fence. In order to require that, would we need to integrate that into any conditions? or are we meant to trust this preliminary development plan where it says that there's a six-foot solid fence all along the development? Yes, so you can incorporate specifics as far as it relates to buffering. I believe that is part of, let me grab the zoning ordinance. So there is required screening when a R4 development adjoins single family. That's a six-foot-wide landscape easement at a minimum. I'm not entirely sure off the top of my head if that requires a fence or if that is just a planting with trees, but let us grab the zoning ordinance here. Yes, so the zoning ordinance requires, as a component of that required screening, a continuous six-foot-high planting hedge, fence, wall, or earth mount. So that a six-foot-tall barrier of some sort is a requirement of the zoning ordinance, regardless of anything in the development plan for the zone-to-zone property perimeter screening. And is that along the AR zone as well as on the R1B zone, or is that only a requirement along the R1B? Yes, so this is... On the development plan, the six foot fence is listed on both sides? Yeah, this is specific to where it adjoins the R1A, R1B, R1C, R1D, or R2 zone. So that is not a requirement along the perimeter to the south where it adjoins the agricultural, rural, and the railroad. So if we wanted to require that as part of this zone change process, we would need to stipulate as such along the AR zone. but it's already a stipulation along the R1B zone? Yes, and there's actually some requirements as well along where it adjoins railroads, so there is some landscaping required there as well. Okay, is it the six-foot fence, or is it a different type of buffer? Sorry to give it into the weeds, so to speak, but... Yeah, so that is a 15-foot wide boundary, and same as 2T, that requires one tree per 40 feet, plus a double row of six foot high hedge or a six foot high fence wall or earth mound. So you're getting trees plus a six foot tall barrier regardless required by the ordinance along the south and the east. So that six foot tall barrier is already a requirement. Yes. Okay. Plus potentially some additional buffering. Okay. That's helpful to know. Since I still have 45 seconds left, would the petitioner mind to answer my question about trees, about maintaining these significant trees, about the percent coverage beyond the 34% proposed for the plot? I am Fred Eastridge with Vision Engineers. there are two existing trees one of them is dying that's in the center of the development then there's one that's going to be in the parking lot to be removed the rest of the trees I follow on the that are substantial interest fall on the right-of-way of the Parris Pike which we can't bother and we're not going to bother and then there's another one around the back that we're not going to bother it's not in his own so there's two trees that are going to be removed One is dying and then one is going to be in the parking lot. And then the shrubs and things like that would be removing. Okay. Thank you. I know my time is up. Thank you. Council Member Lunch. Thank you. My first question is for Mr. Murphy, if you don't mind. Could you explain and go into a little bit more detail about what your engagement was with the neighborhood, how extensive it was, How diverse the population, geographically speaking, that you engaged when you went to the neighbors surrounding businesses to talk about this potential development. Well, we had contacted, there are two neighborhood associations involved, the Joyland and the old Paris Place associations. I had known Ms. Perkins from doing the zone change back in 2017, so talked to her several times. remember this a long time we had a meeting at bryant station high school where all were invited both both associations and i'll remember it because i had to take out in my name a 1 million liability policy for the fayette county schools in order to be able to come in bryant station high school we had that meeting that night with 18 people there i've had many conversations with miss perkins on this i've had conversations with other people in the neighborhood the people in the neighborhood have come to the technical review committee here the subdivision and zoning committees of the planning commission and the planning commission we've had conversations in the hallways and that sort of thing so there's been quite a bit of contact back and forth on this yes okay thank you and my last question for right now is for mr crumb Hello. Hello. In the staff's October 2023 report, you all uplifted a possible sanitary sewer capacity issue. Has that been resolved? So once again, that is something that's sort of evaluated at the time of final development plan. So that is sort of the next step, the finalization before anything can be built. We have to have those assurances that it's going to meet the demand and that all the infrastructure is adequate and able to support this facility. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My first set of questions are for Mr. Murphy. And I'm glad to hear that you had neighborhood engagement. I don't think that was mentioned during the earlier comments. So thank you, Councilmember Litch, for asking that question and for your engagement with the neighbors. So is there a, and I think Mr. Crum had mentioned this, so is there a height buffering requirement on the side where the train tracks are? I know there's some concern about the height of the buildings, but is there a limit on how high you can go and how high you can build them in relation to the train tracks? Not that I know of. If there is, we're meeting it because we've got the development plan review for this property. property. The tracks, as I mentioned and as I showed on the aerial, are 100 feet wide, and they're very heavily treed on both sides of the track. It's a very dense, dense barrier along the railroad track now. Whatever trees we put in, we'll be using trees to screen other trees, essentially, along that railroad track back there. So you don't have any, so as it stands right now, there's no plan to take out any trees to do the development. So you would be adding trees next to existing trees. Yes, we'll be adding trees. Our development plan shows us adding trees along the railroad track. And we will be taking out the two trees in the middle, the diseased one and the other, which Mr. Eastridge just mentioned to you. But we're not going to be taking out trees along that railroad track. We're going to be adding trees along the railroad track. And I might add the barrier, the buffering on the northeast side, Ms. Perkins had asked for one tree every 30 feet on center. Our plan shows one tree every 12 and a half feet on center. We're already exceeding what was requested along the northeast side. As I mentioned to you earlier, we're going to be alternating evergreen with deciduous about 12 and a half feet apart along that boundary line. Okay. And then also the plan is to have on-site property management. Is that 24-hour on-site property management? I don't know if it'll be 24-hour or not. We have an office with a manager there. And that's, to me, the key thing is this, is having an office there where somebody's there every day, at least during the day, every day, where complaints can be brought to the on-site manager. If we don't have that in the amenities, people end up having to call somebody and get voicemail and phone trees and that sort of thing. And I think, Tracy, you said you mentioned that they shared the traffic study. So was it an updated traffic study or was it a parking study? What was shared? There was a traffic mitigation, not traffic, sorry, parking demand study, which is what they submit to since there's no longer a parking requirement. And we don't want people to over park. We ask them to give us some evidence as to why they're suggesting a one to one or a two to one ratio of parking spaces to units, and so they did submit that. Mr. Murphy told me that they submitted something to traffic engineering about traffic, but it wasn't submitted to planning because it wasn't required for the zone change. So Mr. Murphy, can you speak to what you submitted to traffic engineering? Was it a complete updated traffic study? Mark McIntosh is here, our traffic engineer. I'll give you the summary here, and I want to clear his name here. He's our traffic engineer. He submitted an updated study to David Filiotreau in your division of traffic engineering because that's what they're going to be using when they discuss with the state what kind of access we can have into the property and where it's going to be. So that has been shared with David Filiotry. Is that correct, Mr. McIntosh? He's nodding his head yes. And so that was submitted. We, as staff has mentioned, we were not required to submit any traffic study because we're below the threshold of the level of traffic that even requires a traffic study. But nevertheless, we submitted one and it went to the Division of Traffic Engineering because the main issue is this access point at Rogers Road and how the state's going to treat that. So they're going to use that when they meet with the state prior to our construction to determine what access the state will or will not require. Okay. All right, I might have some more questions, so I may come back. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Murphy. don't sit down quite um i just have one question um as it as it relates to um the the parking that i see that looks to be under the building is it on is it first is it ground level parking or is it below ground parking i think it's ground level yeah my architect is nodding his head okay ground On level parking. Okay. Thank you. And then for staff, can you speak a little bit about what the height maximums are in a B4 currently? Like what they're zoned for now. So the B3? I mean B3. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yes. So there's a maximum height in the B3 zone of 75 feet. Now, there is a requirement where you're adjoining residential that there's a ratio, a three-to-one ratio of your setback to your height. But with that, they are allowed to go as high as 75 feet if they step that back accordingly. So with a 30-foot setback, they would be able to build as high as 75 feet. Okay. And the previously filed development plan included drive-thrus and what other uses? Yes, so there was drive-thru restaurant uses as well as a gas station with, I believe, a convenience store attached to that. And I believe they were all single-story or one may have been two-story, but it's smaller. But the potential to go larger if they took an amended final development plan to the Planning Commission. Okay, and would hotels, for instance, be permissible on a B3? In the B3 zone, yes. Okay, I'm just trying to see, like, what would be, would they be eligible to build currently as opposed to what they're asking for? Okay, that's all I have for now. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a lot of respect for the Pierce Pike Commission. I mean, obviously, 30 years, it's intent, and also success is along the way. Mr. Murphy, you referenced meeting with the commission. Was that one time or twice? How did that go? Can you share what that interaction was? well due to a mix-up communication i wasn't there but it was considered at the paris pike quarter commission meeting and i think the staff will be able to tell you more about that i understand it was at that time recommended for disapproval because they wanted us to move our access point from being opposite rogers road up up north as far as we could bring it on our property up against the property line with that two-acre tract that is next to us to the north on that. So they wanted it moved up there because they felt it would be safer to be there because it's farther away from the traffic signal with Old Paris Road. And so we came in and talking to your traffic engineers in the state, they said, no, we want it opposite Rogers Road. They said they even gave us particular ways we had to line up the lanes across the intersection. They said it'd be safer that way. So they wanted it to be moved up, is that what you're telling me? The Paris Pike Corridor Commission wanted the access point moved farther north. Okay, and our folks did not want to do that? Right. Okay, Ms. Wade, was that at the commission, was that something that you attended? Yes, it is. And there was a mix-up. The scheduling happened, well, the corridor commission meets quarterly, and so our application deadline was a Monday, and they were already scheduled to meet the next Monday. So this was added to their agenda to be heard, so we didn't have to have a special meeting. But the Parris Pike Corridor Commission did vote to disapprove the zone change, and the reason stated during the motion was due to issues of traffic impact and ingress-egress along the corridor. So that was their main concern. They discussed a lot of other issues, but that was the main concern in terms of the traffic. Probably a lot that had been discussed tonight. Yes, a lot of the issues we've discussed tonight. Okay, great. All righty. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Sevigny. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a question for our staff. And it's really, my questions really revolve around, because I think we have a time, I personally think there's a timing issue that we have to contemplate. And since the applicant mentioned worker class housing, okay, worker class housing, if we pass a ZOTA over these next three months, this applicant may be able to get a bonus to move from an R4 to an R5, I understand, if they're committed to worker class housing, which is what I heard the applicant say. So give me an idea of the difference between the height restrictions in an R4 and an R5. But suggesting. And I'm saying in the. In the. In the new. In the new Zota. Yeah. well we didn't bring hal bailey with us tonight oh yeah yeah um i don't think the height heights are changing in the new zoda some of the accessory or conditional uses are being proposed to change and refer back to the b1 but i don't think the height okay so what are the current heights then Okay, in the R5 zone, the height limit is a four to one height to yard ratio. So similar to the R4, it depends on how the width of your side yard dictates the maximum height of the building. I think R4 is a maximum of four stories or some sort of minimum. But the R5 does not have a story limit. It doesn't, so we could go taller. Council Member Savigny, I'm going to call a point of order on we're here to judge this particular application on its own merits and not on a speculative future legislation. And I completely agree with you, Vice Mayor. My only concern is if putting some sort of restriction on height matters to the neighborhood, I just think it's something to be contemplated because an action that we take later on could actually change the whole situation. So that's just my thoughts. Yeah. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess that was done. I'll start with staff since you all are right there. So I want to circle back on the existing zoning, the existing B3 zoning with, was that with an approved development plan, correct? So they've got an approved development plan for a gas station, three restaurants, all with drive throughs. And so that is by right, they could go pull a building permit. They have a preliminary development plan. Preliminary development plan. So they don't have a final development plan for that. But they are presuming that they meet all the requirements that might be put on them. They've proposed and had approved a preliminary development plan for these uses that they've told us about tonight. Yes. Okay. When we go through here, I see that one of the, in our findings of fact, one of the conclusions made is that the request encourages redevelopment of underutilized parcels of land within the urban services area. And so that's what one of the findings of the planning commission, correct? Yes. And just from a staff perspective, the 2045 comp plan that we've just passed, like the 2018, has an emphasis on infill and redevelopment projects inside the urban services boundary. Yes. And would you agree with me that this council also put a heavy emphasis in the goals and objectives on increased housing, particularly low or middle slash workforce housing? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. and then the last question for you all is as it comes to traffic lights and where Lex Tran chooses to put traffic lights on a state highway and where Lex Tran chooses to put bus stops that is not within the purview of your office or this council am I correct in saying that yeah yes that's true our MPO works with Lex Tran frequently and so they can usually work something out our choices on development may inform LexTrans decisions or the state highway traffic engineers decisions but we have no say over that until until they see reason to to to make those efforts is that correct it's that's true I think Daniel put it well we can't make a unilateral decision I understand the cabinet that would be inappropriate I understand when what I have seen in the past you may your experience is then when we make decisions that we think are best for our land uses and our property which within our city limits which is within our purview then that may later affect or inform the decisions of those other jurisdictions yes thank you mr. Murphy a couple of things that i that i want to clear up so one you said you use the phrase workforce housing and I and I want to make sure even though and vice mayor I'm not going down the path of our the ZOTAs that we are currently talking about because we don't it's very speculative but you make clear that you believe what you're building in the market rate level where you will be will be ideal for that workforce housing income level of a tenant you but you said you are not restricting the income limits you are not restricting who you'll take as a tenant you just believe that you your product that your clients will be offering is a is a workforce housing type product yes that would be your ideal market yes sir that's who we feel will be attracting to this site there's no sort of land-use restriction there's no sort of requirement from a housing finance agency anything like that this is just you believe you are adding to that housing stock and that's part of your justification that is right yes There's been some back and forth about the traffic study, so I do want to clear this up because if you submitted that to traffic engineering and you have your engineer here, I want to be clear. Your discussion of that, while maybe that document itself is not in the record, the numbers you provided to us come directly from that traffic study, correct? Yes, sir. And that traffic study shows a difference of what is proposed, would be 75 peak hour morning trips, 92 peak hour afternoon trips. Was that right? I believe so. But what is already approved and could be built, that traffic study shows 508 morning hour peak trips and 453 afternoon hour peak trips. Yes, sir. So concerns over traffic safety, while they're always paramount, what is being proposed in this down zoning, the traffic impact study that you have, that you referenced tonight, and that your engineer is here, is a significant reduction in what could be built as far as trip generation. Is that what you would tell us? Very, very significant reduction. Yes, sir. Vice Mayor, my time's up. I'll come back. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, I've got a question for you as well. You talked about doing some neighborhood engagement with a couple of the neighborhood associations. Can you tell us about some of the compromises or changes that you made to the plan after you met with them? I'm trying to think back through. The discussion was about access points. The difficulty is we don't have control over our access points. We understand the traffic situation on Paris Pike, but we are constrained by the state. So a lot of the discussion was what you've heard tonight about where the access point goes. The only change we've made probably is to have the emergency access gate onto Old Paris Road. I'm not sure that was a result of our discussions with the neighborhood, to be honest about it. We had a lot of discussion about Mr. Singh was there telling what he wanted to do on the property, just making them aware of what our proposal was. There was issues you've heard tonight about access, amount of traffic, and about buffering. I think we've increased our buffer along the northeast line since that meeting, the one along the two-acre tract and where we bought into the 12-acre horse farm tract for 100 feet or so in the back. We've increased that. I think we've clarified that we're planting additional trees along the railroad right-of-way. We've had questions about the impact of our buildings on the vista along Paris Pikes. So we had our initial plans, the architects did the 3D plans of our buildings and everything. They weren't showing the landscaping on there. So we had developed the landscape plan along Paris Pike as well, which we showed you since that time, of the grasses. We can use ornamental grasses in that 30-foot easement. So that's what the architects have proposed, going up to our trees, up to the building on there, on that. So I'm going from my memory here, but that's what I'm reporting to you. Question for staff, Mr. Crum. You mentioned that when Planning Commission passed it 9-0 unanimously, they didn't suggest any changes. Is that correct? Yeah, there was no recommendation for conditional zoning restrictions. placed on this. Okay, and during your time working as a part of staff with the petitioner, did you all suggest changes to their plan, and if so, what were they? So this has been sort of a, conversations have been going on for a while in this particular project. The main gist of staff's kind of initial recommendations was we need to activate that road. So bringing the buildings up, pushing the parking interior to the site, or doing it on the, underneath the structures itself, but connectivity, you know, I'm not sure if the original drafts of the plan included sidewalk facilities along Parris Pike there, even though they currently exist sort of in a vacuum, providing that kind of first step as a catalyst for future connectivity was important. I'm sure that there's a number of comments made with our open space planner and the like, but they've been fairly receptive about all of staff's kind of concerns, a request for additional information on how they're meeting different aspects of the comprehensive plan, but really the design, centralized open space, reinforcing the streetscape, providing connectivity, and making sure that their environmental needs were being met were the main gist of staff's comments. Great. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Are there any more questions from Council for any of the presenters? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And Daniel, so the main concern that I heard tonight, and I think we've all heard, is traffic. And if we can't put any conditional zoning restrictions on this property in regards to traffic, is there anything that we can do to ensure that traffic gets looked at and then improvements may get suggested by the state or whoever to address access, egress to this property so the neighbors feel that their concerns can be and will be addressed? Yes, so the neighbors themselves, so the planning commission, the decisions that they're making, the consideration for any upcoming development plan, that is a public hearing. So in a very similar manner to when public comment was entered for the preliminary and the zoning, they have the ability to request that as well. I'm sure planning staff, this is sort of, we are aware of the conditions out there as well. So this can be kind of a jump start to some larger conversations with the state, various stakeholders and the like. But for the folks in attendance, they still have public participation options that directly tie to these particular items. Okay, so the answer to that is no. There's nothing that we can do. We would just have to progress the conversation and evolution of this property, and then the process is supposed to take care of the traffic concerns. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Any further questions from Council to any of the presenters? All right, seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close this hearing. At this point, we're no longer asking questions of the presenters, and we're going to open up discussion among Councilmembers on this hearing. Council Member James Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you to everybody that came out tonight, especially Kathy and Patty, for representing your neighborhood the way you have tonight. I'll also say thank you to the petitioner for having an interest in developing that property and providing additional housing in this community that we all know that we need. I remember the zone change that we had on this property in 18. And I remember the neighbors coming and sharing their concerns about traffic. Looking at it being a commercial development, a lot of that concern around traffic was all dependent on how successful that development would have been with people patronizing the restaurants, using the convenience store, whatever was proposed. And those numbers seem aspirational. But looking at it now as a residential development, there will be cars, there will be people in that traffic. It just seems more real to me now than it did at that time, just because people will be living there and coming in and out of that area. And I tell you what, the drone footage that you showed was real. I mean, that's real situations. That traffic is like that every day. It's a lot of cars, and it looks chaotic. but living in that area and maneuvering that it it it flows I wouldn't say flows well but traffic moves and I think that's the intent that traffic that traffic goes I do completely understand the concern about approving this development and the traffic that it's going to bring and the challenges that may come with it and I do think it may be unfortunate that moving forward with development is going to push the state and push the city and push lextran to do something different to make those traffic conditions better but i think that's just where we are and i think those conditions do need to be made better in that location um i'm interested in hearing what my colleagues say and think uh the housing need that we have in this community and i don't believe it's housing at all costs but i do think it's housing and looking to do what we can to make this community better and i do trust the processes i know our staff is diligent i know the development process is rigorous and i do think the state is attentive to these concerns um so yeah i'm interested in seeing what others may say but i do understand the concerns of the neighborhood so thank you vice mayor thank you any other comments from council councilmember baxter thank you vice mayor i also want to thank everybody for coming out today i know it's maybe not the way you wanted to spend your tuesday evening but i appreciate you all coming and telling us how you feel and because you will see this every day and your opinions and your viewpoints matter and we we hear you zone changes are difficult for us as well they're difficult for the community to understand they're difficult for us because petitioner comes and gives us a preliminary development plan to help us envision what the property might look like however we are tasked with trying to decide if the zone is appropriate without hanging our hat on that development plan and and that's hard it's hard to envision a property without without that vision I will say that it's really rare and I haven't seen it since I've been on council to see a down zoning like this and I appreciate that from the petitioner I think the desire to develop an underutilized and blighted property that's there now is commendable especially with that property being inside the urban services boundary and fill and redevelopment is very important to us and we have said that time and time again I even appreciate the the thought of putting the emergency access in there I'm very I do not like one one way in one way out and so when I saw that that kind of gave me a little bit relief i know that that doesn't answer a lot of the current concerns that we heard from the public about traffic and that's that's a huge concern but i do agree with councilmember brown that potential development will i think will have an effect on what the state and other entities in the community how they react so we can't always not move forward just because we don't know how someone else is going to react and this is something that's with our within our purview so I will be supporting this don't change thank you thank you any other discussion from council members all right if we don't have anyone else signed up to speak up next is we're gonna take a vote to adopt findings of fact either findings of fact to support what the Planning Commission has sent to us or to offer alternate findings of facts I will entertain a motion Just to clarify, Council Member Fred Brown, you're moving to adopt planning commissions? Yes. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Sevigny. Thank you, Chair. Is there any way to actually limit the height? that that's kind of my biggest concern I think is that that we're in the middle of a change process that might change the applicants product I do actually I appreciate councilmember Worley's bringing up the traffic issues there's all that kind of stuff but is there a way to limit the height and what I I guess I would have to make a motion to limit the height I'd make a motion to limit the height to four stories. So moved. Second. So you'll be imposing a conditional zoning restriction. Yeah. So you'll have to vote on that separately. Yeah. So we have a motion on the floor to... Would this be amending the findings of fact? You're not amending the findings of fact. You're adding a conditional zoning restriction. So do we have to vote on it? So Tracy, as a matter of process then, would that come as we actually approve the zone change itself? Because if we're approving the findings of fact now, then we would approve the zone itself. Would the conditional zoning restriction be placed then or now? Well, you all have done it both ways. I personally think it's better if you adopt the conditional zoning restriction in some cases because it helps you all decide what you're going to do in terms of approval. But you can also adopt the findings of fact to approve it and then add the conditional zoning restriction, but you'll still have to take separate votes. I think I just heard you say your preference would be we handle that now. Thank you. We handle the amendment now. And just to clarify, Council Member Savigny, what was the height that you wanted to amend to? I just wanted to limit it to four stories, which I think is what the applicant has submitted because that was it. Gotcha. And I don't think there's a height. It's not necessarily a height restriction. It's just a four stories. From my understanding, and I'll probably rather Mr. Crumb clarify, the zone that we're applying for would allow it to go up to 60 feet, right, is sort of the statutory limit? We typically, because the zoning ordinance refers to height and feet, asks for you to make a height restriction which goes to use to be in feet. Which, somebody might have to help me with what four stories is. I think, it's 45 and a half feet currently, right, is in the plan. Is that correct, Mr. Murphy? I'd prefer stories because you measure them different ways on this so our measurement in the development plan I think is the way the city measures to the midpoint of the gable midpoint of the gable on there so so I think a story I'm looking at my guys this limitation four stories would be preferable to a foot limitation 50 feet my engineer says if you don't go with the number of stories. Just so I'm clear, planning staff recommends that we name the amendment to feet not stories, correct? Yes, because the height of a story can vary depending on use. You know a commercial story might be 12 feet tall. The first story for the underground parking also might be 10 to 12 feet tall for vehicles get in but a typical residential story you know your single family home it might be eight feet but as you get to multi-family it would be larger so we would prefer a maximum height and again measured the same way the zoning ordinance does everywhere else to mid gable okay so would council members civigny like to make a friendly amendment to yeah what would you like me that friendly amendment to be i will tell you that i would tell you that the r4 the the r4 new one calls out four stories or 60 feet whichever is less is what it calls out so that would be my friendly amendment 60 feet yeah hold on hold on So in making a recommendation for a conditional zoning restriction, the zoning ordinance requires a reason for that restriction. So usually it's phrased as the restriction is necessary and appropriate because. Councilmember Sevigny, ball is still in your court if you want to restate your amendment. I just need a moment. Four stories are 60 feet due to the two, whichever is less, to limit a workforce bonus or to work to limit future bonuses. So moved. I'm just literally trying to make sure it's kept to what an R4 is. That's it. okay is there any objection to council members the big need i have an objection to that i mean you're you're catching your rationale which is a finding that we're going to have to rely on in terms of something that is speculative going forward right now so i mean i understand what what you're doing but we we need a a reason that we can you utilize in this i will remove i'll remove my request I'll drop it. Thank you. The amendment's off the table. We're back to the original motion to adopt the Planning Commission's finding of facts. Council Member Worley, are you signed in to speak on this? Thank you, Vice Mayor. First, I want to say to the neighbors that are here, they've done an unbelievably fantastic job, particularly as laypeople, representing their neighborhood's interest. And I also appreciate the respectful and professional tone that you all have taken through that, which is not always the case in these settings. I think all of your concerns are 100% valid, and changes like this cause those concerns. And while I will be supporting this rezoning and the motion, I want you to know that I do understand those concerns, and I've heard them many, many times. And I think that the Planning Commission will continue to hear those concerns as this development plan plays out. I think though our community has stated that these are the type of lots that we want to be developed, and in a housing scenario is the best way for those to be developed. Otherwise, you have blighted unused spaces, or you get intense, less desirable commercial on the properties. So I think this is a change, but in my time on this council, and I have seen that usually a friendly neighbor next door as opposed to an intense business over time becomes a welcome change. But I understand your concerns, and I would encourage you to continue to work through this process to make sure that this development plan is as amenable and as unoffensive change as possible. so with that I will be supporting it because I believe this is what our community has stated that we need. Thank you. Councilmember James Brown. Thank you Vice Mayor and I share the same concerns and sentiment that Councilmember Worley just shared and I will add that I will be supporting this motion as well but I will commit to this neighborhood that I'm willing to get engaged and involved in the development the development plan process as well. I think we as council members can weigh into that and advocate for neighbors as well. So if there's any opportunity to add another voice to making sure it's the type of development that the community wants, I will commit to doing that going forward. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion before us? All right. Let's do a roll call vote, please, on adopting the findings of fact. Councilmember Sheehan? Yes. Councilmember Worley? Yes. Vice Mayor Wu? Yes. Councilmember Fred Brown? Yes. Councilmember James Brown? Yes. Councilmember Ellinger? Yes. Councilmember Elliott Baxter? Yes. Councilmember Gray? No. Councilmember Legree? Yes. Councilmember Lynch? Yes. Councilmember Minares? Yes. Councilmember Plowman? No. And Councilmember Sevigny? No. All right. Thank you. That motion passes. I will now entertain a motion on the underlying ordinance. Second. Okay. We have a motion from Councilmember Baxter, second from Councilmember Minares. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, let's do a roll call vote please. Council member Sheehan. Yes. Council member Worley. Yes ma'am. Vice Mayor Wu. Yes. Council member Fred Brown. Yes. Council member James Brown. Yes. Council member Ellinger. Yes ma'am. Council member Elliott Baxter. Yes ma'am. Council member Gray. No. Council member Legree. Yes. Council member Lynch. Yes. Councilmember Menares? Yes. Councilmember Plowman? No. And Councilmember Sevigny? No. All right, thank you. That motion passes. Thank you everyone for your time and attendance. Thank you to staff for all their hard work and thank you for the community for coming out and engaging. We are adjourned. Thank you.