# Urban County Council - Zone Change Public Hearing - February 25, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 25, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6349 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6349?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-02-25 - **Last revised**: February 25, 2025 - **Length**: 45,857 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 25, 2025, at 5:30 PM at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507, with Vice Mayor Wu presiding. The meeting's primary business centered on a single agenda item: a Zone Change Public Hearing, which was approved by the end of the session. Over the course of the meeting, 1 vote was taken, and 4 public comments were heard. No presentations were recorded in the meeting data. ## Attendance The following members were recorded for the meeting held on 2025-02-25. **Present (12):** Vice Mayor Wu, Gray, Hale, LeGris, Morton, Sheehan, Beasley, Boone, Brown, Curtis, Ellinger, and Elliott Baxter. **Absent (3):** Lynch, Reynolds, and Sevigny. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting produced one recorded vote on February 25, 2025. - **Ordinance 0031-25** — A rezoning ordinance for properties located at 475 and 495 Haggard Lane and 450 Radcliffe Rd. The motion was made by Ms. Elliott Baxter and seconded by Ms. Curtis. The ordinance **passed** on a roll call vote of **11 ayes to 1 nay**. [timestamp: 5:29:30] **Voting in favor (11):** Gray, Hale, LeGris, Sheehan, Wu, Beasley, Boone, Brown, Curtis, Ellinger, and Elliott Baxter. **Voting against (1):** Morton. The ordinance passed with the following conditions: the development is limited to 29 units in the R-2 zone, 26 units in the R-3 zone, and 179 units in the R-4 zone, with a cap of 234 total units for the entire development. ## Public Comment Four members of the public addressed the meeting on February 25, 2025, offering a range of perspectives on what appeared to be a housing development proposal. - **Raquel Carter** [timestamp: 1:35:16] spoke in support of the housing project, emphasizing the need for affordable housing and describing the proposal as an opportunity to address community issues. - **Greg Widener** [timestamp: 1:40:41] raised concerns about insufficient parking and the use of alleyways for access, arguing that these factors compromise the livability of the area. - **Scott Sloan** [timestamp: 1:57:38] focused on traffic and safety issues, sharing a personal account of a car crashing into his parents' house as an illustration of existing hazards in the area. He also criticized the public process, contending that it limited meaningful input from neighborhood residents. - **Michelle Hutchison** [timestamp: 2:24:10] expressed disappointment with how the proposal process had been handled, citing flooding concerns and characterizing the treatment of the community as viewing the area as "cheap land." Overall, public comment was largely critical of the project, with recurring themes of infrastructure concerns — including parking, alleyway access, traffic safety, and flooding — as well as frustration with the perceived lack of adequate community engagement in the process. Raquel Carter was the sole speaker to express explicit support for the housing proposal. ## Contested Items - **Zone Change for Haggard Lane and Radcliffe Road** [timestamp: unavailable] A proposed zone change affecting Haggard Lane and Radcliffe Road drew significant opposition from community members during the meeting. Residents raised concerns across several areas, including increased traffic, flooding risks, and the potential impact on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The nature of the opposition reflected broader community anxiety about how the rezoning might alter the area's existing conditions and quality of life. Specific details regarding the outcome of the vote or decision on this item, as well as the names of the parties formally presenting or opposing the proposal, were not available in the provided record. ## Zone Change Public Hearing **Ordinance 0031-25** | [timestamp: 03:05] The council held a public hearing on an ordinance to rezone properties at **475 and 495 Haggard Lane** and **450 Radcliffe Road**. The proposal would change the current zoning designations — which include a mix of business and residential zones — to different residential zones in order to accommodate a new housing development. Key speakers in the discussion included **Vice Mayor Wu**, **Traci Wade**, **Daniel Crum**, **Jessica Winters**, and **Jon A. Woodall**. The ordinance was ultimately **approved** by the council. --- ## Decisions - **0031-25** — passed (11-1): An Ordinance changing the zone for properties located at 475 and 495 Haggard Lane and 450 Radcliffe Rd. --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This zone change public hearing for Tuesday, February 25th, 2025. This public hearing is now open. I wanted to say on behalf of Council Member Reynolds, I had a family emergency and couldn't make this hearing. But we do have quorum, so clerk may I have a roll call please. Council Member Gray? Here. Councilmember Hale. Present. Councilmember Legree. Here. Councilmember Lynch. Councilmember Morton. Here. Councilmember Reynolds. Councilmember Sevigny. Councilmember Sheehan. Here. Vice Mayor Wu. Here. Councilmember Beasley. Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Boone. Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Curtis. Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Ellinger. Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Elliot Baxter. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think we missed Councilmember Brown. Councilmember Brown. Here. So sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Clerk, can I have second reading of the ordinance, please? Of course. Item 1. An ordinance changing the zone from a neighborhood business B1, Highway Service Business B3, Interchange Service Business B5P, and Mixed Low Density Residential R2 zones to Mixed Low Density Residential R2, Plain Neighborhood Residential R3, and Medium Density Residential R4 zones for 12.49 net, 20.09 gross acres for property located 475 and 495 Haggard Lane, and 450 Ryclyffe Road, Transit Property Owners, LLC, Council District 1. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening, everybody. I'm Dan Wu. I'm the vice mayor, and I will be presiding over this meeting. I'm going to lay out how this meeting works, as I usually do, especially we have new council members for whom this will be their first zone change hearing. And I'm sure we have folks from the public as well that this is new for. So I'm going to kind of do a little rundown of how we're going to do things. Council members, please write down and hold all of your questions until the end of the hearing as we will be able to ask them after all of the presentations are finished. Council members, also please be aware that you need to be here for the entirety of these proceedings. If you leave the proceedings for any reason, you cannot return. I am planning to slot in regular breaks here throughout so that we can do what we need to do. If anybody has a particular emergency and needs to leave the hearing but come back quickly, please let me know and we can make that happen. In order to do that, I will call a brief recess. We must maintain a quorum of at least 10 council members. If we fall below quorum, we will pause the meeting and make an effort to restore quorum. I will start by swearing in all those who plan to speak during today's hearing, whether you're a member of the public or a member of one of the presentation teams. If you would please raise your right hand, anyone who is planning to speak tonight. 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. If you are, excuse me. If you are planning to speak, we do 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 being introduced is relevant and or repetitious. So if you've heard the points that you're about to make, just having been made, kind of think about that and adjust accordingly. Clerk, have all the witness lists been provided to the clerk? Not yet. Okay. Let's see. Party's petitioner, Mr. Woodall, do you have anybody that's presenting with you during your initial presentation? Not in terms of presenting with me. I will have a few of my team testify. Okay. Have you provided a list of those names to the clerk? We're all signed up. They've signed up if I'm happy to speak. Okay. So I'm going to let me clarify something real quick then. Everybody who's signed up on the iPad outside, this is for public comment. If you are a member of either the opposition team or the petitioner's team, you will be within the 20 minutes that's allotted to you. So if you have folks who are speaking as part of your presentation, if you don't mind writing that down and giving that to the clerk for both sides, I would appreciate it. Council Member Moore? I just had a point of information regarding holding the questions to the end. Are you talking about to the end of the presenter? So like for instance. Yeah, so I will. We're going to spell that out real quick. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay, so let me get back on track here. Have all printed materials been presented to the clerk and distributed to council members? Okay. Presentations from both parties will be 20 minutes as well as for the planning staff as I 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, similarly subject to cross-examination, then presentation by the opposition, also subject to cross-examination. The cross-examination will be up to five minutes. After that will be public comment. Each public comment will be limited to three minutes, and we ask that you state your name and council district for the record. If you have yielded your time to someone else, we have noted that here. and the total time that you can have is nine minutes. So you can have two people, up to two people, yield their time to you to give you nine minutes total. The people who are yielding to you also need to be present in the room in order to give you that extra time. Let's see. If you would like to speak during public comment, you may sign up electronically with our legislative aides outside and you have 30 minutes from the start of this hearing to sign up. So 6 o'clock sign-ups for public comment will close. All right. After that, there will be an opportunity for planning staff to offer clarifications or additional comments. Petitioner and opposition will each have up to five minutes for rebuttal and then an opportunity for a three-minute summation. Then there will be an opportunity for all council members to ask questions of all the presenters and an opportunity if there's new information that's introduced for rebuttal. At that point, the hearing will be declared closed, and council members will deliberate amongst ourselves. At that point, we will no longer take questions, or ask questions, rather. After that, there will be a roll call vote taken to adopt findings of fact, and I'll get into the nuance of that when we get to that point. Right now, any questions, concerns, or comments from either council members or staff at this point? I just have a question regarding when council members can ask questions. Can we ask questions after each presenter? So after when the planning staff presents, can we ask questions to the other planning staff after they present? After the developer presents, can we ask questions after they present? And then after the community's lawyers presents, then can we ask questions, not wait until the end? What is the regular process on that? So the regular process is we have one block of time in order to ask questions for two planning staff, opposition, and petitioner, all kind of at the same time. So not three different kind of questions as we go. So kind of after everyone is presented and after all the public comment has been presented as well. Okay, so then what is the time frame for the council members? How much time do they have to ask questions? There is no time limit for the Q&A section of it. So we just sign in to speak as we normally do. All right. Any other questions or comments? Okay. If not, we'll get started here. This is going to be potentially a long night. Most of these hearings do go on for several hours. I will do my best to run as efficient of a meeting as possible and get everybody home as we can. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify, for the council meeting time, our discussion doesn't have a time limit, but we're still following our five-minute rule with two times to sign in. I don't know that we do for zone change hearings. Tracy, can you clarify that? I don't think in the past we've limited the amount of questions. just because this is such a unique, you all don't do zoning, zone change hearings too often. But I feel like we have in the past limited, like you have five minutes on this turn and maybe we can keep signing in. Yes, correct. Yeah, each council member's question turn is still five minutes, but I don't think we're limited to the speak twice rule on this particular issue. Thank you for the clarification. Yeah, thank you. Any other questions? Okay. All right, let's get started. We're going to go for planning staff first. Ms. Wade and Mr. Crum. Yes. Good afternoon or evening, Vice Mayor Wu, members of the council. For the record, my name is Tracy Wade, and I am the planning services manager in the Division of Planning. And I'm happy, along with my colleague Daniel Crum, to be presenting to the council a zone change that the planning commission reviewed recently. So this is a request by Transient Property Owners, LLC, to rezone property. Before we get started, we do have a number of items that need to be entered into the record of the hearing. And some of those things are new to today's hearing, but most are coming to you from the Planning Commission's hearing. So the first is a legal advertisement that was placed for tonight's hearing, so that is unique. I'm going to label my exhibits as I give them to the clerk. The second is an affidavit that the Division of Planning received notice letters from the applicant. We checked those and mailed them for tonight's hearing. That was sent to 124 property owners within the 500-foot notice, as well as two neighborhood associations. The next item is a copy of the final report that the planning staff sends to the council, which really triggers the start of your process. And you all should have a copy of that at your seat as well. That includes the recommendation of the planning commission, the application materials, as well as minutes from the planning commission's meeting. The fourth thing are the information that was submitted to the planning commission, which includes a presentation from the applicant, as well as neighborhood photos and emails regarding the zone change. The fifth item is our copy of the comprehensive plan, the adopted Imagine Lexington 2045 comprehensive plan. The next is a copy of our current zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations. So those are for reference if we have questions tonight. And then the last is a PowerPoint presentation from the Division of Planning, which is just getting started here on the overhead, and which the council members also have a copy of at your seat. Okay. With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Crum, and he will present the Planning Commission's recommendation to the council, and then we'll both be available for questions towards the end of the hearing. Thank you. Thanks, Tracy. Good afternoon, council. This is Daniel Crum with Planning Staff. The request before you pertains to three properties, 475 and 495 Hagrid Lane, as well as 450 Radcliffe Road. These parcels total approximately 12.49 acres in size, And they currently are zoned neighborhood business B1 and corridor business B3. As zone change requests involve the right-of-way, there is some remnant interchange service business B5P and R2 zoning that is located in the interstate right-of-way, but it's outside of the scope of this project. So essentially, this is a B1 and B3 zone change. And the applicant is seeking three residential zones. The R2 mixed low density zone, the planned neighborhood residential R3 zone, and the medium density residential R4 zones. All three of these zones are designed to accommodate an affordable housing development that includes single family detached, single family attached, as well as multifamily residential units. All zone change requests use the place type and development type element that are included in the place builder portion of the comprehensive plan. Staff will walk through the implications of that a little later on the presentation, what that means, how they're derived, and how it applies in this instance. However, to just sort of introduce it, they've chosen an enhanced neighborhood place type and a low-density and medium-density residential type. Both the planning commission and planning staff were in agreement with that choice. So here we have the subject properties shown in white in the center of your screen here. Here we have North Broadway just to orient everyone that's running diagonally across the screen. We have the interstate, which cuts through here. So generally, the property is located off of Haggard, as well as Radcliffe Road, both of which are collector roadways that kind of span between North Broadway here and then Russell Cave Road to the west. So this is an existing residential neighborhood in the vicinity that was originally platted in the 1960s. Here we can see a little bit closer the three subject properties here, here, and here, and the relationship with the surrounding properties and the surrounding zones. This lightish yellow color that you're seeing on the opposite side of Haggard and the opposite side of Radcliffe is single-family residential zoning, once again was applied and in place at the Comprehensive Rezoning in the 1960s. This orangish color that you see here on the other side of Radcliffe and in this portion here that extends up through the neighborhood is R2 zoning. So that allows not only for the single-family uses, but also townhomes, as well as duplexes and kind of low-scale multifamily. From a commercial perspective, much of the land kind of south and east of Haggard and Radcliffe here was commercially zoned. So at that same time that that neighborhood was being developed, those portions were primarily oriented towards commercial development. So originally zoned B1, there was a portion of the subject property here that received a rezoning to B3 in the 1970s. However, no development actually took place. Here we can see kind of the properties as they exist today. Right now we have, once again, the three parcels here, here, and here that have comprised the transy athletic field. So there was intentions to use this property commercially when the zone changes went through, but it never actually developed. So in the early 2000s, Transy bought the property and had been using it for their athletic fields. I believe those operations ceased around 2019. And so this is kind of the development you have kind of before you. Once again, the Radcliffe neighborhood and the surrounding vicinity, a mix of single-family residential with some duplex interspersed, but really not a higher multifamily component as of yet. Commercially speaking, we have several hotels in the vicinity. So we have a two-story red roof inn here, another hotel. We have a religious assembly use here, as well as across the road in this large parcel. And then directly adjoining here as well, we have an office use. So once again, an existing residential neighborhood that really started in the 1960s, the area that was planned for commercial development, but over time pieces of it, as you can see, kind of a long haggard lane that haven't really filled out as of yet. Here we have some views of the subject property as well as the surrounding context. So this is taken from essentially the intersection of Haggard Lang and Haggard Court. The subject property is shown on your right with the existing neighborhood shown on the left. Moving forward, this is the intersection of Haggard and Radcliffe. So the subject property is sort of defined by this masonry and the trees that were planted at the time of the development of the original athletic facilities. and that it continues residentially on kind of both sides from there. Here we have a view of Haggard Court. So this is sort of the access point for those commercial uses that we were talking about, the Red Roof Inn as well as the church and the office uses. It is worth noting that while there is no mapped floodplain in this area, the public testimony and the experience of the engineering is that this area does experience a pretty significant amount of flooding, and flooding concerns were one of the main areas raised during the public testimony on this item. Here we have the view of Haggard as it's going out and connecting to Broadway. And so you can see in the immediate vicinity, we have this church here. As a frame of reference, that church is approximately the same size. It's about 54 feet, and so it is slightly larger than the highest of the proposed buildings that we'll be talking about this afternoon. So as a frame of reference, that church is kind of an approximate as far as the upper height of what is being proposed today. Here we have some views of the subject property from the interior. We have the existing ball fields, existing parking areas. Once again, this site has not been in full operation by transi since 2019. So with respect to how we evaluate zone changes, the primary way to get a zone change approved is to demonstrate you're in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is a community-wide plan that is updated and required by law to be updated every five years that really sets out the vision for how, as a community, we would like to grow. So it sets out our priorities. It sets out the issues and challenges we're facing. And it sets out the things that we believe are important as goals, objectives, and policies. And so here are some examples of some of these that kind of apply to the project. but really speaking towards prioritizing this demand for housing that needs to be met, prioritizing higher density when it is sort of applicable, finding and creating housing for Lexington's aging population, residents with disabilities, trying to address affordable housing, increasing walkability and connectivity. These are all comp plan goals and objectives and policies that the applicant is charged with meeting, demonstrating how they're meeting among all of the other plans that we have within the comprehensive plan. The place builder element is essentially on a site-specific basis how the applicant demonstrates that they're meeting these kind of concepts that are found within the comprehensive plan. So the first thing that the applicant does is they identify the type of place that they're seeking to rezone. In this case, enhanced neighborhood refers to areas that are joining existing residential development, areas that could benefit from additional housing stop, additional housing variety, and seeks to kind of add those items while still kind of maintaining a balance and remaining context sensitive. Those type of areas have a kind of recommended development intensity of a low or medium nature and recommend both the R2 and the R4. The applicant is proposing kind of a mixture of multiple different development types, ranging from single family that essentially matches what we have in the existing neighborhood, townhomes, which are sort of a newer addition, and then three- and four-story multifamily residential that staff will sort of outline in the review of the development plan. But both of those are recommended for the applicant's choice in place type. As far as the zone, the R2 and the R3 and the R4 essentially are an increasing in intensity residential zones. So they all allow for a variety of uses, ranging from single-family up to various shades of multifamily. The applicant has used all three of these zones rather than a singular zone in order to kind of create a step back. So I will show on the development plan kind of where those general boundaries are, but the intent based on the applicant's justification was to start with an R2 of the areas closest to the bulk of the neighborhood and then step that back in intensity as you're moving closer towards the corridor, closer towards the existing commercial development. as we are taking a look at the place builder element. What the place builder element does is based on the type of context you provide, it gives you criteria, criteria you can use to evaluate the plan to see if it's meeting the goals, objectives of the comprehensive plan. And so here are some of these examples that are not exhaustive, and the staff report lays out in greater detail. But these are examples of what we're looking at, creating mixed-use developments that are compact and dense, incorporating kind of vertical elements to reinforce the streetscape. It talks about where you should locate your parking, how we basically create the type of developments that the comprehensive plan calls for. This is the development plan for the subject property, and there's a couple different moving parts, so I'm just going to go through kind of piece by piece. We have here in blue, along the perimeter of both Haggard and Radcliffe, are these blue single-family residential lots. Those will be individual lots, single-family detached, kind of a standard product. That is the R2 zoning, so that R2 zoning is going to curve around here and encompass those units. served interior by some alleyways shown here. Then this grayish color here, we have attached units, townhome units with the R3 zoning. So R2 on the perimeter, moving into R3. What we are seeing here is the site being served by public streets. And so these would be public streets with access points, two to the north here, one to the west, and then further down a connection to Haggard Court as well. And then we have the multifamily residential component. So here, in this purplish color, we have four three-story multifamily residential apartment buildings with their corresponding parking. And then those would be followed up to the furthest points on the property here, this L-shaped four-story multifamily residential that is oriented towards senior living, so specifically senior. All of this is proposed to be affordable housing and kind of developed as such. As far as the total number of units, it breaks it out to 29 single-family detached homes, 26 townhomes, and 176 multifamily residential units. So that's kind of the breadth of the development plan that was reviewed and approved at the Planning Commission. During the hearing itself, it was held on December 12th. There was a number of individuals that expressed opposition to that, and testimony basically took about two and a half hours. Staff presented our staff report, which recommended approval of the plan. The applicant explained their proposal to establish their affordable housing development. And then concerns from the neighborhood touched on several different aspects. Really one of the main ones being sort of issues with flooding, issue with sewer capacity and coverage in the area. It is worth noting that there is one of the concerns with the sewer capacity, sewer issues in the area. There is a trunk line project on New Circle that is addressing this area, and that actually went online with beginning work yesterday. So some of this is larger than this particular request, but site-specific issues that they thought potential traffic impact. They noted that there's some speeding concerns on Radcliffe as well as Hagrid Lane. And then there was some opposition to the multifamily units, and they opined that the increased height was out of context with that area. But the Planning Commission ultimately unanimously recommended approval of this request. And I'm going to go through the findings that the Planning Commission based their approval on. The first being that they found it was in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives that talked about providing a variety of housing choices, increasing the density in an area that's available for redevelopment, providing affordable housing opportunities. We also found it was in agreement with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for many of the same reasons, that it's providing additional residential density and intensity, providing that additional housing types, which is currently characterized primarily by single family and duplexes. They also found that it was an agreement with the development criteria. So once again, the place builder, based on the type of place that they are looking to develop in, at the intensity that they're seeking to develop in, lays out specific criteria that this should be meeting. And so staff and the Planning Commission found that it was an agreement for the criteria for land use, talking about providing more compact single-family types when you do so, orienting that towards affordable housing options, and then increasing density in a way that allows for additional senior housing as well. They found it's an agreement with the transportation criteria, as it kind of provides pedestrian connections through the site, provides connections to transit stops, and provides connectivity to nearby parks and other kind of complementary uses. They found that it was in agreement with the environmental sustainability criteria, as this is not impacting an environmentally sensitive area. This is a site that had been used for this recreational use, and that the development will actually improve that tree canopy present on site. They found that it was in agreement with the site design criteria, as it was within a walkable distance from a park, generally located that parking to the interior of the site, and used the residential components to kind of frame the street and kind of build in intensity as they go further from the neighborhood. And finally, they found it met the criteria for building form, which included the multifamily design standards and kind of creating a development plan that builds towards the street, provides connections to the neighborhood, and maintains a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. As always, it's subject to the approval of the certification of the corresponding development plan, which was signed and certified by staff. So at this point, I'd be happy, or I guess we will take questions a little bit later. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Does the petitioner or opposition at this time want to cross-examine staff? Okay, let's do, in the order I'm doing the presentations then, so let's have petitioner do cross-exam and then we'll have, you have no questions? Okay, perfect. Ms. Winters, you may come and cross-examine. I believe we have. Hi. Should we both be here? Good evening. I'm Jessica Winters on behalf of the opposition, Radcliffe Marble Neighborhood Association, and I just have a couple follow-up questions for you. One of the slides in your PowerPoint showed the Parkway Baptist Church in the area and indicated that the church was pretty much the same height as the three and four-story units that are being proposed in connection with this development. Are you aware that the church is far down on a slope and that impacts its intensity with regard to its height relative to the single family homes in the area? The number is just meant to indicate the size of the structure. Nothing else. Okay. Did the planning commission consider the fact that that property frequently floods? That was included as part of the testimony and would be evaluated as a part of the final development plan where it would have to meet all stormwater regulations. Okay. You talked during your presentation about how the comprehensive plan for enhanced neighborhoods recommends a diversity of housing styles. Isn't it true that the comprehensive plan also prioritizes neighborhoods serving businesses and employment opportunities? It does call for that where applicable. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to interrupt you for just one second. And so for the record, we want to make sure everything that we say today is into the mic. So if you all can. Am I not close enough? You literally need to be standing right in front of it. Oh, okay. My apologies. Can you all hear me okay? It'll get a little awkward. Actually, Chris, do we have the handheld? Yeah, I'm working on the original. Okay. He's working on that, and we'll make that a little easier. Trying not to crowd out Daniel here. Right. Thank you. We may have a workaround here. Okay, and there was a question I had when you showed the layout of the proposed development, and it showed that the single-family construction was fronting Haggard. Do you recall that portion of your presentation? Yes. Isn't it true that the single-family construction in this proposal is accessed only by an alley with no driveways facing Haggard? Yeah, the interior will serve as the vehicular access while the frontages will be external. Okay. Isn't it also true that all the other single-family residences in the neighborhood have driveways facing the road? I'm unaware of any that don't. Isn't it true that the senior living center will be four stories tall and located directly across the street from single-story, single-family residential homes? Yes, directly across approximately, I think structure to structure would be approximately 100 feet. Okay. Okay. What did the planning commission mean exactly by the term affordable housing in this context? You mentioned that they found that it was promoting affordable housing in the area and its findings of fact. What exactly does that term mean? Yes, so it meets the state and federal definitions of affordability off the top of my head. the applicant can speak to the technical terms of that, but meeting those requirements. Okay, are you referring to the 80% AMI threshold? I think the applicant would probably be best suited to answer those questions. Okay, I'll save that for the next round. In finding that additional senior living housing was necessary in this area, Did the Planning Commission consider the 100-unit senior center approved nearby in an existing Ramada building? So that comp plan policy just speaks kind of generally. It's not geographically located just to one, but rather that we are encouraging housing for senior and aging populations. And you would acknowledge, would you not, that there is a recently approved 100-unit senior living housing complex that has been approved for nearby rehabilitation and reuse of an existing remada structure? I can't speak to that particular project. Staff could give you some research, but that's not something I'm briefed on right now. Okay, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Crum. All right, next up is presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Woodall, you'll have 20 minutes. And then just a word, since we had a little bit of confusion about public versus presentation comments. So if you have folks from your team that are going to be giving presentation during your 20 minutes, they can do that, but they won't be able to speak as members of the public. There's no double dipping there. Sure. Thank you. Not a problem. Thank you all. For the record, my name is John Woodall. I'm with the law firm of McBrayer PLLC. I have the honor and the privilege tonight of representing the applicant, Lexington AHC Fund LLC, and have been involved in this since we filed our application last fall. Mr. Crum did an excellent job going through the particulars. I will do things a little bit differently tonight because of our time constraints than I normally would because it's very important, I think, that you hear from our team members as opposed to an attorney on this project. When you get to where I'm in my career, you want to be involved with things that mean something, with things that are impactful, with things that move people's lives. And this community, we all know we have a housing crisis. And we have a serious affordable housing crisis. And this council and its predecessor council recognize that. And that's exactly what this particular project is designed to address. It's not a cure-all because it is a crisis, but it is a transformational development. it's transformational because nothing like what this team has done or wants to do I know it hasn't been done in Lexington and we frankly don't think it's been done anywhere this team was made up of a whole lot of important folks that are local to this community that had a vision for this one Luther Deaton with Central Bank he's here We don't have a representative here, but the Commonwealth of Kentucky was important as well because they are marked $10 million for this project, for this project alone in House Bill 1, because they felt it was so important to our community. Ed Holmes had another hearing tonight that came up in Berea. He's with EHI Consultants. He's part of our design team. Ed couldn't be here. But Stephen Garland is here from Prime Engineering. He will be available to answer any questions you might have about drainage and traffic, which we beat to death at the Planning Commission. And finally, we have Zach Worsham with Winterwood Properties. Johan Graham with AU Associates. Those are two affordable housing developers in our community. Daryl Neer with Lexington Habitat for Humanity. Austin Sims with the Lexington Housing Authority. And finally, Mr. PG Peoples with the Urban League of Lexington. So this group came together to do this project. The banks are providing a $3 million no interest loan to enable the purchase of this property. And when that money is paid off, it will be recycled back for another project in our community. And the $10 million earmark, that doesn't go somewhere else if this project is not done. It goes back to Frankfurt. And I know some of you are new to the planning process. Let me just tell you, I've been doing this a while and I have the honor of doing it statewide, much more in Southern Lexington than anywhere else. Without a doubt, I don't always agree with them, but you have the most sophisticated and meticulous planning staff anywhere in this Commonwealth. They work their tails off on these plans. And they make us do the same thing. This is an exacting process from start to finish. It takes time, and it's frankly not for everybody. And that's fine with me because it weeds out people that aren't serious. And this group is serious. But we start out with a, just so you know, this doesn't happen in a vacuum. We start out with a pre-application meeting. And before I even got involved, all of these gentlemen were on the ground having meetings with the neighborhood to talk with them about the project, what it would be, what it might not be. You'll hear some disagreement tonight about what was said or promised and whatnot. But neighborhood engagement is very much a part of the process. It's what the comp plan calls for. It doesn't mean that the developer has to cede to the objectors of the neighborhood everything that they might want or not want. Because many times, what's wanted is just don't do the project. But we try. That's part of the process. That's not that way everywhere, but it's that way in Lexington. And that's just fine. Once we file the application, we move into technical review of our plans. which is a lot of back and forth with folks that are with the city. You may walk into a TRC meeting here that might have 20 people in it. And there were a lot at this TRC meeting, I remember, who wanted to talk about drainage. This blew me away. one of the ladies that spoke can't take a shower when it's raining because of sewage coming back up in her shower. That's happening in our city. And if it hadn't been for this project, I wouldn't know anything about it. Well, now I know that through the Stormwater Management Committee, we found out during this process right after that, that there's a project being led on New Circle that's going to fix that. But my words to that woman after that meeting were, use this project to highlight the problems that you're having because you've got everybody in the room here that makes these kinds of decisions in Lexington or knows where to go. So we have that process. Then we go to the subcommittee process, subdivision and zoning, and where we present to a subcommittee of the full planning commission and they make a recommendation and then we have to go to the full planning commission. And so that entire process played itself out with this development. I called it transformational. And it is just in terms of the way it's been put together and the folks that have stepped up to do it. There's no question and nobody can refute that this project is squarely in the wheelhouse of our comprehensive plan. You've seen my presentation in front of you. I'm not going through it because of the time constraints, but that's all in the justification letter, and Mr. Crum went over it. It is squarely within the wheelhouse of that. This is an infill project on vacant land, and there's no dispute about that whatsoever. in terms of the engagement a lot of times you know neighbors may come out of that wondering well you know they didn't do anything or they didn't listen well here i will submit to you that for this particular project you're not seeing any renderings and i want you to know nothing's being hidden from you there. That's a rule you all have when it gets to the council level. At the planning commission, we can show them all the renderings we want of the buildings we're going to build or we intend to build. Can't do it at this level for whatever reason. But know this, that multifamily could have been taller. It's not. There was another access point added. Senior housing, I believe my folks will tell you, was not on the board at first here. And it came about as a result of some of those meetings. Once again, all we have to do is try. And any of you that have heard me speak at these meetings, I believe wholeheartedly in the neighborhood's right to be here and so forth. You didn't hear me get up and object at your work session when you all voted to have the hearing because I believe in their right to due process. But you all made a decision during the 2045 comprehensive plan process that affordable housing was important. In fact, in theme A, which is under your goals and objectives, building and sustaining successful neighborhoods, you mentioned affordable housing 63 times. Seven times in theme C when talking about creating jobs and prosperity. Another 12 times in theme D talking about improving a desirable community. And 28 times in theme E when you were talking about urban and rural balance. So you and your former council believed in this because you should. Because like I said, this impacts people's lives. A lot of things I stand up here and advocate for developments, it's economic development and our community needs it. But this is, we're going to have folks that are going to own homes in the single family component of this that probably never owned a home before. We're going to have folks that we're putting roofs over heads. and until I got involved with the child foster care system for whatever reason, I had no idea how important that was until you start looking at those cases. And believe me, we have a lot of them in our community. These developments are important. And this one is something Lexington can be proud of. In my package, you'll see some slides. I will say I kind of lifted from the Kentucky Housing Corporation. You saw that homes are where jobs go to sleep at night. Well, that's what this is. And Lexington's come a long way there. I mean, we put together an affordable housing fund. We have a housing commissioner now. We've allocated pandemic funds for affordable housing. We've adjusted our zoning code to allow for it. And this award-winning development, I call it that because it was given a community impact award at the Chamber of Commerce dinner here a few weeks ago is important. And I could drone on all night about it. The most important things I'll say about, quickly, because I have my engineering team if you want to ask questions about it. First of all, drainage. Our development doesn't drain towards the neighborhood. It drains the opposite direction. And as far as traffic, our traffic study, which we had performed, would state that the largest daily increase or delay in increase is a three-second delay, and that's at ultimate build-out, and that's at Haggard Lane and Paris Pike. Three seconds. So traffic's not really an issue with this development, folks, and neither is drainage. This is a big improvement for our community, and I'm going to stop there and i don't remember what order i put things in but um let's see zach you're the closest why don't i have you jump up first put steve up first he talks a lot but good this is zach worship with winterwood properties and he's just going to share with you his vision his company's vision for this project thank you john thank you council members for your time now again i'm zach Horsham from Winterwood Incorporated. We're an affordable housing developer based here in Lexington and we're honored and thrilled and proud to be a part of this development team and have been proud of the process we've gone through so far. I think John has touched on this well and I'll just say quickly that this really is an innovative solution to a housing crisis that we have here in Lexington that's being felt all across the commonwealth and all across the nation. For this sort of public and private partnership and the sort of private investment from our local banking community at no interest in order to take the next step towards solving this crisis in Lexington is something to be proud of. And I'm proud to be part of this community. I'm proud of the way that our council and our city government has supported affordable housing. I'm proud of the way we have led in the state in creating an affordable housing fund that has attracted tens and tens of millions of dollars of private investment in this city and supporting this project is attracting state funding, it's attracting federal funding, it already has private funding behind it, and this is going to be another way that Lexington can be a leader in this space. This project is going to see itself replicated again and again in our city, which is going to rapidly expand our ability to build affordable housing units and bring them online more quickly to meet this crisis, and we believe we're going to see it all across the Commonwealth, and Lexington's got a chance to be a leader in that. So thank you for your time, and I hope you will consider that in your decision this evening. Thank you. Next will be Johan Graham with AU Associates. Good evening, members of the City Council. My name is Johan Graham, and I am the owner and president of AU Associates, one of the affordable housing developers proud to be a part of this deal. I'm a resident of District 4 and a proud alumni of Transylvania University. I'm honored to be a part of this innovative housing project, bringing $10 million of state resources to the table and be part of this collaborative project with my affordable housing advocates and local banks. The beauty in this is the financing used for this land purchase is in a revolving fund, meaning once we're paid, it can pay dividends for other affordable housing projects indefinitely for our community into the future. We have meticulously followed the guidelines of the comprehensive plan and are requesting appropriate zoning and density per that plan. To do medium to large lot single family dwellings would not be financially viable. It would not have been approved by the Planning Commission. Our company continues to work to provide affordable housing in all of Lexington districts, with projects recently completed or underway in Council Districts 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12. That's half the districts in this city, and we're proud to be working with many of you on those projects. Most of you ran campaigns championing the need for infill and redevelopment, as well as affordable housing. I ask that you support the unanimous decision of the Lexington Planning Commission and support our affordable housing project here in Lexington. And Daryl, near with, excuse me. I'm sorry. You got to speak into it. My name is Darrell Neer. I'm with Lexington Habitat for Humanity. Just for context, yesterday when I went on Realtor.com and took a look at how many homes are available to individuals who are earning between 30 to 60% of AMI in our community, that number is 33. 21 of those homes are under 1,000 square feet. We are proud to be part of this project. We will be building in concert with our other partners 55 units of single-family home ownership opportunities for families that live in our county. Those opportunities are more than just houses. I want you to think about the individuals who are finding pathways to home ownership that bring stability. And with stability comes hope. Economic hope, educational hope, healthcare hope. And so as we have this conversation, it is really easy to get caught up in units. But I want you to think about the people, the families that will go into these apartments and these homes. Because those are the stories. Those are the opportunities that you are deciding today. And so I am grateful for this opportunity. I am proud to be part of this project. And I am grateful to be part of this community that is able to believe in a dream such as the project being built on the Transie baseball field. The literal field dreams. So thank you so much. And my last three minutes here. Steve? This is Steve Garland is with Prime Architects and Engineers, our design team. Just want to briefly hit. We don't have to go into it as deep as the Planning Commission, but briefly hit on the drainage aspects and so forth. Do we have that slot? Chris, can we pull that up? Yep. Which one goes forward? That would be six. All right. So Steve Garland with Prime AE. So part of due diligence, I went back to the existing conditions of this site from 1927. So you're looking at the USGS 1927. I've got a place marker that says Hagrid Court right there. The drainage is showing from back in 1927. It's flowing northeast. And how do you go forward? There's a highlighter at the top right, or press and hold? I'm highlighting the growth. Press and hold the top right. That one. 1929, not a whole lot changed. 1950, we now have a private drive going up to the high point. Apparently, they dug a little pond up on the top of the hill. The next map was 2022. We're getting close to how it looks now. Drainage is still going to the northeast. Now, I took the 22 and overlaid it on a Google Earth map, showing all the public infrastructure, the roads, buildings, and so on. So Radcliffe Road is the ridge. Everything flows, as the blue arrows show, down the hill into the public storm sewer that goes into the interstate, and from the interstate goes into the unnamed tributaries of Cane Run, goes all the way up to the west side of Georgetown, if you track it all the way. there's the u.s stream stats by the usgs showing the path of the water going to the north east and then north so the land does fall away from radcliffe which is great we have the single family the townhouses then the apartments the apartments are low they're they're just a a little higher than the church, but the land slopes away. We put the highest density down the hill to provide screening, not only in topography, but to allow the buildings, the houses and the townhouses, along with the landscape, that will be required, the 40-foot on-center street trees, interior trees, perimeter plantings, to act as screening from that use. All right, thank you all very much. Ms. Winters, would you like to cross-examine the petitioner? Yes. Okay. Come on up. You have five minutes. And Mr. Woodall, if you want to come back to the podium, you can use the podium mic. Is this on? Okay. I'm not answering her question. What's that? Well, they can be for whoever you think is most appropriate. They're just general questions based on your presentation and the speakers. You mentioned that the legislature has earmarked $10 million for improvements in connection with this project. How will that money be spent? Infrastructure creation. What type of infrastructure? Well, if you ever built this for Woodall, would you speak into the mic, please? Thank you. The development has to be built, meaning it has to have roads, has to have sewers, sanitary sewers. whatever it takes to build the development. Okay. It's costly. So that includes roads and sewer systems in the $10 million? I believe it would. That's what usually goes into developing a project. Okay. Zach, if I say anything wrong or Steve, let me know. Are you aware that sewer repairs in other neighborhoods, such as Ashland and National, are being allotted $35 million combined for just such projects? I don't know. So do you think the $10 million is sufficient to cover the issues in this area? This $10 million was for this particular project. Are you talking about stormwater consent decree work? Because that's a totally separate situation. Well, I'm just asking whether the $10 million is going to be sufficient to solve the issues that are created by this development. Well, let's lay a foundation, Counselor. First of all, what issues created by this development? Well, sewer issues, runoff, water runoff. Do you have evidence from an engineer that says we're going to create those issues? Well, we will be getting to that. Or is that just your speculation? I think it's actually recognized. That's what I'm asking. You don't? No, we do not. Well, I'm not going to answer any scientific questions then. Okay. That's fine. I'm just asking questions. With regard to neighborhood engagement, are you aware that for the first several meetings, the proposal communicated included only single-family houses? I was not involved in the first. There were, what, four? Three, four meetings? Yeah, I was involved in the last one. So you don't know that? Okay. What does the applicant mean by affordable housing? Are you talking about 80% AMI, 60%? Well, that's the question. You refer repeatedly to this being an affordable housing project, and I'm curious about what that means exactly. I don't mean to interrupt. Can we try not to interrupt each other and show a little bit of decorum for each other, please? Thank you. Go ahead, Zach. Yeah. The project is going to be deed restricted to serve individuals making 80% of the area median income or less. And do you know what 80% of the area median income is? Not off the top of my head, no. $76,000. Are you aware that the median income in this neighborhood is $57,000? No, I was not aware of that. Okay. So this is actually gentrification, not affordable housing for the people in this neighborhood, right? Objection. gentrification really wow you mentioned a city commitment to fixing sewers on new circle isn't it true that the city has placed responsibility to fix haggard's issues on the developers shoulders we have a consent decree once again counselor i mean do you know anything about that because that's that's a lot of what's going to fix a lot of the problems on this side of town and everywhere else. And isn't it true that if you look at this application on ASELA, the Division of Engineering has numerous unresolved issues for stormwater and engineering concerns, correct? We haven't even gotten to the final development plan stage yet when all that will be dealt with. You're asking development plan questions. You're asking development plan questions. This has nothing to do with zoning, which is why we're here tonight. Okay. Isn't it true that there are only four handicapped spots called for at the Senior Living Center proposed in this project? We're not to the final development plan stage yet. I don't think we're at a stage where we're talking about how many handicap spots we're at. We'll have whatever the ADA requires. Okay. How much will each single-family home in this project cost? That's a Daryl question. Our home's appraised for about $260,000, but that is not the sales price of the individual. So we're purchasing the homes. That will be pegged to the income of the individual home buyer at 30 to 60% of AMI. 60% of AMI for a family of four is $54,000. Our foundation for homeownership is roughly $27,000. So their ability to pay will be pegged at 25% of monthly income for their house payment. So it will vary across homeowners. And is that availability to pay pegged on federal funding? or what assures that? The employment history of an individual. But what's subsidizing the house purchases? A number of funding streams that are available for, I mean, in terms of, we have a number of grant vehicles that help us be able to deliver on our home ownership opportunities, and we could go into the specifics, but again, what our homeowners are paying, specifically, 25% of their income, 30 to 60% of AMI. Okay. All right, thank you all very much, Ms. Winters, we're out of time for a cross-examination. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Thank you. All right, it is now time for a presentation from the opposition. So, Ms. Winters, you're up. You have 20 minutes. I'll wait until my PowerPoint gets pulled up. Okay. Good evening, council members. My name is Jessica Winters. I'm an attorney here in town, and I live on 2nd Street in the 1st District. I'm here tonight representing my client, the Radcliffe Marlboro Neighborhood Association, to voice its opposition to the requested zone changes. Please include the position statement that's been previously distributed to you, as well as these letters of opposition in the administrative record for this proceeding. Radcliffe Marlboro is a neighborhood in northern Lexington. Its boundaries are Dover Road to the south, North Broadway to the east, Russell Cave Road to the west, and I-7564 to the north. The neighborhood membership area consists of approximately one half of a square mile and has a population of 1,853 with a density of 3,522 people per square mile. The median income is $57,218 and there are 846 housing units. The walkability score is only 10 out of 100, which means that vehicular transportation is a necessity for residents in this area. As you will hear in additional detail throughout this presentation, Radcliffe Marlboro lies on the outskirts of town and it's largely been ignored by the city in terms of funding for improvements in neighborhood serving development and services. But the people who live in Rycliffe Marlboro are long-term residents and homeowners who care deeply about their community. When this project was first announced, residents of the neighborhood immediately began asking questions and organizing to ascertain how community members felt about the proposed zone changes in development. The neighborhood has been well organized, holding more than a dozen neighborhood meetings, some without the applicants, to talk through the project proposal and reach a consensus as to its response. The neighborhood is unanimously in opposition to the project and the proposed zone changes. To be clear, Radcliffe-Marble neighborhood is not a NIMBY neighborhood. The neighborhood does not oppose infill and redevelopment. The neighborhood does not oppose increasing density or projects within its boundaries that will help alleviate Lexington's housing shortage. What it opposes is a project that completely disregards the safety and welfare of this existing enhanced neighborhood. In the name of increasing density and under the banner of affordable housing, the applicant obtained approval from the Planning Commission for a project that crams as many units as possible onto a small parcel, provides no neighborhood serving uses, and exacerbates serious existing problems in the neighborhood that the city has failed to address so far. The requested zone change and accompanying development plan are not appropriate for this enhanced neighborhood. The project site is located on a 12.5 acre site on the eastern edge of the neighborhood near an interstate junction. The current zoning of this project site is appropriate for this enhanced neighborhood. According to Place Builder, an enhanced neighborhood is an existing residential area to be enhanced with additional amenities and neighborhoods serving retail, services, and employment options. Development should be context sensitive and should add to the sense of place. Incorporating multimodal connections is crucial to neighborhood success and viability. In enhanced neighborhoods, place builders specifically cause for intentional open space to fit the needs of residents and that low and medium density residential developments should incorporate or at the very least be within walking distance of nearby neighborhoods serving commercial and employment uses. That is not present in this project site area. The legal standard applicable to requested zone change has not been satisfied. Granting a requested zone change that does not comport with the comprehensive plan and which will directly and negatively affect the safety and welfare of community residents is improper as a matter of law, pursuant to the terms of our zoning ordinance and KRS 100. The project will worsen long-standing issues with sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and traffic, which represent a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and must be taken into consideration by the Council. Long-time traffic issues in the neighborhood will worsen with the proposed zone change. The roads in the Radcliffe-Marborough neighborhood were built for 1970s standards. This project will add at a minimum 234 vehicles commuting daily. This assumes only one vehicle per unit, which is quite unlikely given that most households own at least two vehicles. Residents have been told that no alterations would be made to the medians on Haggard Lane to accommodate increased traffic volume. Haggard Lane, which intersects with North Broadway near the I-6475 interchange, is routinely backed up nearly half the length of the road of Haggard. At peak commute hours in the morning and afternoon, drivers routinely idle three to four traffic light cycles to turn from Haggard Lane onto Broadway. Traffic accidents frequently happen at the intersection of Haggard Lane and Broadway. The danger is caused by repeated backups of vehicles attempting to turn onto southbound I-75. Transportation, connectivity, and walkability within the neighborhood will all be negatively impacted by the proposed zone change in the project. Pursuant to the comprehensive plan, development within an enhanced neighborhood should create and or expand a connected multimodal transportation network that satisfies all users' needs. That's DCO2-1 and should alleviate congestion, DCO4-2. The addition of 179 multifamily dwellings as reflected in the proposed development plan will worsen long-time traffic issues within the neighborhood. And you're going to hear more about this tonight from community members and in a video that I'll play for you at the end of my presentation. The project does not provide for safe multimodal facilities to ensure vehicular separation from bicycles, pedestrians, and other modes of transport, ADS 5-1. It does not incorporate clear and dedicated connections to nearby community anchors, ADS 10-1. And it does not utilize flexible parking or shared parking arrangements, C-PS 10-1. Public transport is not a viable option for the residents of the Radcliffe Marlboro neighborhood. Although the applicant has repeatedly referenced in its prior position statements that there are several bus stops in the proximity of the project site, There is no proposal for mass transit infrastructure such as seating and shelters, ADS 1-1. It should also be noted that the sidewalks in the neighborhood are located on one side of Haggard Lane only. The Lex Tran stop at Blue Ridge Drive and Haggard Lane is on the opposite side of the road, and riders currently stand on a small concrete pad abutting a homeowner's yard to wait for the bus. The applicant does not propose improvements to the existing infrastructure, only a drastic increase in density that will negatively impact safety and accessibility for existing residents. Lex Tran's July 2022 comprehensive operations analysis report found that the north side connector route, which services this area and on which the stops are located, underperforms in terms of ridership and it has been recommended for discontinuation. Under that proposal, both Haggard Lane and Radcliffe Road would lose service. The routes, furthermore, as they exist now, do not run frequently and do not provide access to many areas of Lexington. Long-time sanitary and storm sewer issues will worsen with the proposed zone change. Theme B of the comprehensive plan focuses on protecting the environment. Goal one is to protect water resources by improving urban stormwater and sanitary sewer infrastructure. Radcliffe-Marlboro has had a long sanitary and storm sewer issue, which are not addressed at all by the project, and will certainly be worsened by the significant increase in density called for by the plans. The Urban Service Report's Storm Sewer section notes, despite not being in a FEMA special flood hazard area, the Division of Engineering has stated there are known flooding issues on Haggard Lane. And FEMA also recognizes the issues in designating the area as a past claims hotspot region and its risk mapping. Data compiled by the risk assessment company First Street shows that a large portion of the project site is prone to flooding and recommends purchasing flood insurance when acquiring property in the area. And that information is cited more extensively in the position statement you have before you. These slides of the Transylvania University ball field were taken after a moderate recent rainstorm event. The city's stormwater priority project's master list, dated of January 2024, doesn't list any plans for solutions along Haggard Lane. Upon inquiry from the neighborhood, the Department of Water Quality Deputy Director Greg Lubeck noted that the department had received complaints about stormwater issues along Haggard Court, but upon learning of the development plan, the city opted to shift responsibility for repairs to the developers. The developers have argued that stormwater will flow north through the Cane Run watershed and under Interstate 75. But you have to remember that that area has already been required by the city to tear down homes and joyland, where flooding issues have persisted for decades. As you will see in the upcoming video and from public commenters, there is a significant disparity in how the city is handling well-documented and severe stormwater and sanitary issues in this area compared with its approach in wealthier neighborhoods. Reviewing this application in a CELA, it furthermore appears that our Division of Engineering has far more questions than answers about how stormwater and sewer issues will be handled in connection with the proposal. The Council should send the proposal back to the drawing board and require additional information about how these problems will be addressed before voting on the zone change. The proposed project is not context sensitive and is not in accordance with many of the goals and objectives of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan requires developments within enhanced neighborhoods to be context sensitive. The project does not complement or blend with the look or aesthetics of the Radcliffe-Marborough neighborhood. Density Policy No. 1 states, high density development is not appropriate in every context. Design Policy No. 4 states that new construction should be at an appropriate scale to respect the context of neighboring structures. Under the applicant's plan, the number of housing units in this neighborhood will increase by 28%. Furthermore, 22% of the neighborhood's total housing units will just be on 4% of the neighborhood's land. The development's 18.73 units per acre dwarfs the existing 2.92 units per acre. This magnitude cannot be what it was envisioned in averring a proposed development to be addressed to the context of its surroundings. The recently approved Urban Growth Master Plan defined a medium density development, which the developers have proposed here, as having between 11 and 25 net dwelling units per acre. But you have to consider that the developer is actually proposing to place 40 dwelling units per acre in one of the R4 zoned parcels, far exceeding the Urban Growth Master Plan's guidelines. Design Policy No. 4 has a stated goal to provide development that is sensitive to the surrounding context. The goal is to design new buildings that seamlessly blend into the neighborhoods, respecting the overall scale, character, and placement on the site, and preserving as much of the natural environment as possible. The existing neighborhood is made up of detached, predominantly single-story, single-family homes. The proposed four-story senior living facility would be 51 feet tall and tower 425% higher than the rest of the neighborhood. The senior living apartments on Haggard Lane will be constructed directly across the street from single-story homes on Blue Ridge Drive. The neighborhood is bounded by Russell Cave, Radcliffe, North Broadway, and Dover Roads and contains no apartment complexes or four-plexes and no buildings taller than two stories. Almost all the homes are single-story ranches averaging 10 to 12 feet tall. The four three-story apartment complexes are proposed to be 41 feet tall and would be 342% higher than the neighborhood. This cannot be considered to be a seamless blend. The comprehensive plan requires adequate green space and open space in all development projects. The proposal here eliminates significant green space, closely crowds the sidewalks, and overshadows adjacent residential properties, thereby destroying the context and design of the neighborhood. Theme D, improving of a desirable community, indicates that developers should work to achieve an equitable and comprehensive transportation system. There is no plan here to address the significant traffic increases occasioned by the development, and no plan whatsoever for encouraging walkability or cycling within the project site. The developers have ignored feedback from neighborhood residents. Placemaking Policy No. 7 requires meaningful engagement with the neighborhood. You'll hear from many of the neighbors this evening that many concerns voiced by neighbors have been completely ignored. There's also been significant misrepresentation throughout the process about the nature of the project itself. For instance, the first packet provided by the developers to residents showed only examples of single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, and showing these home styles became a clear bait-and-switch once the developers months later presented their actual plans for five large-scale multifamily buildings that are multiple times larger than the buildings previously shown to neighbors. Due to time constraints, this topic will be covered in more detail by a community commenter. The inclusion of multifamily housing units in this neighborhood will have a negative impact, and this concern is not hypothetical. The inclusion of multifamily housing units will have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and this is supported by statistics you'll hear later this evening about what has actually happened in other AU developments in Lexington. The drastic increase in density is not needed in this location, and the proposed dwelling units are not truly affordable. The current R2, B1, and B3 zoning of the project site is appropriate for the area and would allow for the development of neighborhood-serving businesses and increased density through the addition of single-family homes on lots that harmonize with the existing development in the area. The zone changes being sought would eliminate the diversity of zoning that is necessary to the development of neighborhood-serving businesses, eliminate green space, and overcrowd the neighborhood in an area of Lexington where existing multifamily housing is not at capacity, and development of additional multifamily housing and senior living is already underway. The project will drastically increase density from 4 units per acre to 18.73 units per acre on the project site without adding any neighborhood serving facilities or amenities. The increased burden this will place on the neighborhood in the name of increasing density is not justified because multifamily housing exists in abundance in this part of Lexington as opposed to the south end of Lexington. Granting the zone change and allowing this development will reinforce socioeconomic disparities around the city. In addition, AU's other multi-housing facilities are very nearly as expensive as a single-family home in the area. A three-bedroom single-family home for sale nearby at 497 Radcliffe Road is priced at $229,000, or $1420 per month, according to Zillow's payment calculator. A three-bedroom apartment at Winterwood, which is one of the AU developments, the alcove at Russell, starts at 1380. The Radcliffe-Marble neighborhood asked this council to require responsible development. Here, that is a development scaled to the size of the neighborhood. The single-family homes proposed by the neighborhood would complement existing aesthetics and not further stress sewer infrastructure, stormwater runoff, or magnify current traffic congestion. They would also increase density, provide affordable housing, and protect the safety and welfare of the neighborhood. I'm going to close this by sharing with you a video highlighting the long-standing issues in the neighborhood that have not been addressed, and which demonstrates a commitment by the city to make vast improvement in wealthier neighborhoods while ignoring Radcliffe Marble neighborhood, a neighborhood with a median income far below the 80% AMI target of the proposed development. . Thank you. The End Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you, Ms. Winters. Mr. Woodall, would a petitioner like to cross-examine? No, you're good. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Winters. Okay, we are almost an hour and a half in, so I think this is a good time for a break before we get into public comment. It is 6.49 by that clock on the wall. We're going to convene back here at exactly 7 o'clock. Thank you all. ¶¶ ¶¶ The End The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End All right, everybody, we're going to come back into session. If you all could please take a seat. I'd appreciate it. Thank you all very much. All right, so we're going to move on to public comment. If there's anybody here to give public comment that was not sworn in earlier, if you would please raise your right hand for me. Anybody in the room that wasn't sworn in? And I know we do have some folks. Actually, can we double check? Do we still have folks out in overflow right now? We do, okay, thank you. Just so you all know, there is a, I think, multi-second delay between the broadcast, what happens here live and the broadcast out there. So when I start naming folks that come to public comment, I'm going to name three people. I'm going to say the person who's up, the person who's up after that, and then the third person. That way we give folks outside the room a heads up and they can make their way into the room. Okay, it sounds like everybody's been sworn in, is that correct? Nobody hasn't been sworn in? You have not, okay. If you would raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you give at this hearing will be true and to the best of your knowledge? I do swear. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. All right, so when I call your name, please come up to the podium, speak into the microphone, state your name and district number for the record, and you will have three minutes. And I know some folks have time yielded to them. I will confirm the presence of the folks yielding and I'll let you know how much total time you have. All right, so up first is Raquel Carter. If you would make your way up to the mic, followed by Ray Daniels and then Greg Widener. Welcome. Good afternoon or good evening. So I'm Raquel Carter, District 6. Right there. But anyway, today I am speaking as a representative of Lexington for Everyone. I am a business owner, entrepreneur here. I've been in real estate over 20 years. But as a member of the board of Lexington for Everyone, I actually joined this organization because of its title. Because we were determined to bring a group of people together to make sure that whatever growth, whatever opportunities or developments that came along in Lexington, that all of our residents were included and not just the residents that had already been established or were already wealthy or had already become homeowners. Now Lexington for everyone is for homes, jobs, and equity, but for me it's the homes that is the passion. As a realtor for 22 years, getting people into homeownership has always been the priority. And we know now not just home ownership, but just any home affordability is almost impossible. You know, people with great jobs that are graduating from colleges and starting families can't afford homes. So what are we doing? How can we actually address this situation of homes for everyone? And that's why this project is so important. I do believe and I do agree with some of the testimony that we'll continue to hear that this area, that this neighborhood, that some of our communities have definitely been neglected. And this opportunity to bring both private and public dollars to be put into this area that has been ignored is the best opportunity to bring all of these matters to the forefront. And to you all as council, you have the ability to handle and to address all of these situations. So being able to do that and create opportunities for housings just makes this project the best opportunity that we have. And so as Lexington for everyone being in support of it, Guy Realty as a homeowner, as an entrepreneur, a mother, I just couldn't be behind this project anymore. but I do implore you to listen to the citizens and to the community and make sure that we are addressing all of the issues that are already there and allowing the development to enhance this area. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Ray Daniels, followed by Greg Widener, and then Brandon Gross. All right. Thank you. My name is Ray Daniels, District 7. Thank you, Vice Chair Wu, Council Persons. I'm here representing Transylvania University and also Lexington for everyone. I just want to speak briefly about your leadership and previous council's leadership. This has led us to this point, you can either ameliorate or exacerbate problems. And we have an affordable housing problem. And this is a solution to try to ameliorate some of that. So we have created partnership. How do you solve problems at a high level? You create partnerships. We have five banks and five affordable housing developers as part of this process. We also have government, federal and state government, as part of this development. Solutions. This was a viable solution created by that partnership that will be studied, that can be replicated, and that will be picked over as a viable option for things going forward in affordable housing. Outcomes. This will be easily measured. We'll be able to measure was this a success or not. We'll be able to measure are we doing the right thing by that community, by all parties involved. So we'll have the opportunity to have measurables as well. And lastly, like I said, my comments are very brief. This is transformational. This is something that's unique to the state of Kentucky, unique to our region. And we can be a leader when it comes to affordable housing. This affordable housing issue we have is, of course, a statewide problem. We're here to address the Fayette County issue. and by executing this project as effectively as we will, this can indeed be transformational for so many lives. This impacts not only our workforce, it impacts our future workforce. It impacts our ability to retain talent to the region, which is what we need to attract high-dollar employers. You can't attract people to your region if people can't live in the region that they need to work. So this project is transformational in many different ways. But you have at the table, you have non-profits, you have banks, you have businesses, and mainly businesses that can employ people, and you have your leadership. Your leadership is what's going to make the difference, and that'll make the difference to the city of Lexington and Fayette County. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Greg Widener, followed by Brandon Gross and then Brett Malloy. Okay, I'm Greg Widener, District 1, and I think I've got some people that have yielded me some time. So if you've yielded me your three minutes- Hold on. Let me look here. I don't have anybody on the sign up, Mr. Widener, that's yielded time to you. All right. So you have three minutes. Okay. Well, all right, then I'll have to talk fast and you need to. Can I have the clock restarted now? So I'm doing introductory stuff. All right, thank you. So thank you so very much for all, for my community, for listening to us tonight. We really appreciate it. Thank you so much. I have a PhD in communication from the University of Kentucky, and I say that not to brag, but I say because there are some experiences that I experienced that are directly applicable to this project. We're not against home ownership. We love the fact that there are going to be more affordable housing opportunities. We love condominiums. Anything that's home ownership, we're in favor of and we're excited by. But there are some legitimate problems with this plan, and I know it's the first draft, I understand that. I'm going to be speaking about not enough parking and the alleyway. So those are my two things. So when I was a UK student, I commuted from Richmond to UK three or four days a week for four years. And would you believe me when I tell you that UK does not have enough parking for transient students? Would you all go with that? I think maybe you would. And I had a terrible time. It was difficult, and there were days that I didn't think I was going to get to class on time and so forth because they didn't have enough parking. I know what it's like not to have enough parking, and we don't have enough parking in this plan. There's just not enough. So we were told that the developers only had to provide 1.5 spaces for every unit. So when I went down to the comprehensive planning commission to speak, I looked at the literature there and the statistics there, And there's 230 units here, and the parking spaces average out to 1.2 per unit. And that's not enough. You know, when you sell people's homes, they want two spaces. When you have condominiums, they want two spaces. When you look at the Radcliffe-Marleboro neighborhood, we have wonderful driveways that have at least space for two cars, and that's minimal, and there are no exceptions to that in the entire neighborhood. So anything really less than 2.0 is a violation of our community standards. And the reality is that's not enough. That's not enough. And so we need more spaces, and that means probably less buildings. An alleyway as the primary way of getting to your home is an aberration. It's substandard. None of us in this room get to our homes through an alleyway. None of you do. Why should that be permitted in this development? And I think the reason is there's too many buildings. And you've emphasized density at the very sacrifice of affordability. And I mean, I'm sorry, of livability, livability. And so this needs to change. So thank you. Thank you. Up next is Brandon Gross, followed by Brett Malloy and then Brittany Rothmeier. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate your time being here tonight. And, of course, all the neighbors and everyone else that came. I will say that this partnership that has been proposed. Will you give your name and council district? I apologize. Brandon Gross in District 10 at Lafayette Parkway. The partnership that has been put together is being watched by others in this state. I was actually on a telephone call today with some people from Louisville at the Bingham Fellows, and they were actually watching. They'll be watching tonight. They were excited about this project and how it's come together, and they want to replicate this in Louisville. I'm hopeful that tonight you will approve this project, and we will be able to be a leader in this space. And so that's what I want to talk about on the partnership side. I do want to mention real quickly that the Kentucky Housing Corporation came out with a study this year, which I'm sure you guys saw at one of your work sessions at one of your committees at one point this year. But it says that Lexington needs approximately 22,000 housing units today. That's not tomorrow. That's not next week. That's what we needed this year. This is 234 units. This is 1% of what the city needs today. We need 100 of these just to get to where we break even with our needs for our community. This project will bring 234 units that are going to be a mixed style. So you're going to have home ownership. You're going to have rentals. They're all going to be affordable. They are being proposed with an infill. They are being proposed with higher density. They are being proposed checking off all the things that our comprehensive plan says we're supposed to check off to move forward. If we do not want to continue to expand our urban service boundary, we need to approve projects like this where somebody is willing to go in and build units that our community needs. Once again, I just want to mention this is 1% of our need. A penny out of a dollar of what this community needs is being proposed tonight. I hope that you will approve this project. I think it's going to be a great project for the community. I think we're going to be a leader. And other areas of the state are going to come in and study this partnership and replicate it. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Brett Malloy, followed by Brittany Rothmeier and then Sarah Titchener. Is Brett Malloy here? Mr. Vice Mayor, you can sign everything with us. Okay. All right, Ms. Rothmeier next, and then we'll have Sarah Tishner, followed by Diane Cahill. Thank you, Vice Mayor, members of the council. Brittany Rothmeier on behalf of Fate Alliance, we're in the third district. Since 2006, Fate Alliance has advocated for more than 100 zoning policies that promote responsible and sustainable development inside the urban service boundary. Policies that promote housing, jobs, retail, commercial space, equity, agriculture, and more that all have countywide impacts. We supported the majority, of course, of the comprehensive plan for 2045 and the urban growth management soda. And all of the hard work that went into it by our planning staff and all of you. And which contains policies that promote more affordable, more attainable housing options. Walkable and people focused infrastructure and development that support the quality of our neighbors lives as well as housing and jobs. Fate Alliance has not supported individual zone changes over time because they're so project-specific. We don't and we can't know all the details of the conversations between the developers and the neighbors, the developers and the staff, and all the other intimate details about hundreds of zone change proposals every year. But at the same time, we recognize that specific projects are where the rubber meets the road, and policies that we so strongly as an organization support are put into practice. If zone changes are consistent with those policies and the intent of those policies, then they make responsible and equitable use of land inside the urban service boundary. And they make it truly happen. We commend the affordable housing developers involved in this project, the Housing Authority, AU Associates, Habitat for Humanity, Winterwood, and the Urban League, and others for coming together on it and for all the banks who joined forces to make it possible. We hope that this can be a model for future projects and offer our support however we can. It's vital that neighbors are part of this process. We can't put the city's focus and money towards new development at the expense of our existing neighborhoods. We must all ensure that their voices are heard and that their voices are respected, and that their concerns are addressed in ways that support their quality of life, as well as the intent of our comp plan. Concerns raised by surrounding neighborhoods to this zone change raise very valid issues about existing infrastructure in a historic neighborhood and reflect the importance of investing in our infrastructure to make sure that they're receiving the same amount of support as brand new neighborhoods and brand new development areas. Both things can be true. We need to invest in existing neighborhoods like neighbors you've heard from or will hear from tonight, and we need to build new housing. And with careful intention and resources, we can and must do both, and this is a great opportunity to do so. If this zone change is approved, we hope that those concerns that are addressed tonight will be thoroughly worked through in collaboration with the neighbors. The existing proposal represents the type of innovative, transit-oriented, missing middle, mixed, and diverse affordable housing development that's encouraged in the comprehensive plan, the urban growth management ZODA, and other policy changes that Fade Alliance has been supportive of, and to encourage infill redevelopment and investment in our existing communities. We recognize that this is complicated, and we thank you for all your effort in making it happen and striking the balance to create housing options for more community members while considering and investing in our existing neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Sarah Tishner, followed by Diane Cahill, and then Darnell Tagaloa. Good evening. My name is Sarah Tishner. I'm from District 1, and I live on Brewer Drive. in the Radcliffe Marble neighborhood. Traffic accidents frequently happen at the intersection of Hagrid Lane and North Broadway. The intersection is also in close proximity to North Broadway's intersection with New Circle Road that is frequently described as one of the Lexington's most dangerous intersections. The Kentucky State Police Crash Information database finds that the Hagrid Lane intersection suffers nearly half of the crashes annually as the New Circle Road intersection, even though it's merely an interest to a neighborhood. For instance, in 2024, there were 67 collisions at New Circle Road and Broadway with eight total injuries. There were 28 collisions at the intersection of Haggard and North Broadway. The position statement submitted by the neighborhood provides additional statistics. Frequent collisions throughout the neighborhood have made it unsafe for children to play outside. 2024, 89 total collisions, including nine injury collisions. The 2023 Lexington Safety Action Plan identified prioritized corridor projects and prioritized intersections. Over the course of its data-gathering period, the study found that the intersection of Hagrid Lane and North Broadway have 73 crashes, which ranked the 16th worth prioritized intersection in the city. While the report suggests 76 improvements to the other 29 prioritized intersections, the report did not suggest any of those improvement countermeasures to be suitable for Hagrid Lane. If the city cannot suggest any improvements for such a dangerous intersection, why would we willingly add hundreds more vehicles to that intersection daily. This council should not approve a requested zone change and allow projects of this size when these important issues have not been addressed. Thank you. Thank you. I'm from District 1. I forgot. Next up is Diane Cahill, followed by Darnell Tagaloa and then Scott Sloan. Diane Cahill, District 1. Thank you all for your time attention or reading my email I won't duplicate what we've already heard I lived on Radcliffe for many years and my son grew up in that park I've had two cars come crashing into my yard when he was a child and then across the street I've seen pedestrians be hit by automobiles on Radcliffe speeding is a a big problem. We saw some fire trucks earlier and the station 8 is already overwhelmed. They're one of the busiest in the city and I can't imagine what this is going to add to their burden on their caseload. So that's something to be taken into consideration. So I leave my neighborhood where I'm at now in Elkhorn Park, and I come out Cane Run and turn right onto Broadway. It's always backed up. I'm sorry, I don't have statistics for the car crashes that are at that intersection. So Dover and North Broadway, Cane Run at North Broadway. that it's just all backed up, three lanes of traffic, and so you can't get out onto Broadway. So that's a big consideration of mine, the traffic. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Next up is Darnell Tagaloa, followed by Scott Sloan. And then is Connie Smith Monahan here? Yes. And you're giving your time to Scott Sloan? I am. Thank you. And Kendall Bales? Yes. And you're giving your time to Scott as well? Yes. Yes, thank you. Okay. Mr. Tagaloa, go ahead. Good evening everyone, my name is Darnell Tagaloa. I reside in District 1, the best district that we have. And I wanted to read something here, and it's, own street parking has already risen in recent years in Marlboro-Radcliffe neighborhood. The development plan proposes 219 parking spots for the 179 multi-family units. If this is not enough parking, own street parking availability will continue to worsen. As a neighbor noted at the Urban County Council during the January meeting, emergency vehicles already have difficulties navigating the streets as is. The proposed development plan calls for an alleyway as well as two streets, all of which are narrower than the existing roads. Apartments, the proposed development plan lists 130 parking spots. Senior living facility, the proposed development plan lists 89 parking spots with only four reserved for those within handicap permits. The applicant's traffic study suggests only 40 vehicles across all of the occupants of the 230 plus housing units will leave the development during the morning. Based on the US census data estimating 2.24 persons per household in Lexington, there will be at least 524 more residents expected in the area with developers having planned at least 292 parking spots. It is indisputable that significantly more than 8% of the occupants will leave for work in the morning. The council should not approve a requested zone change and allow a project of this size with these important issues have not been addressed. So that's what I was sent here to read. I got a minute 20-something left. And I don't have much more to say, but I do have a question for the council. And are we discussing business development or people development? Because we have a lot of issues that are gone unaddressed that have been brought to y'all's attention today. So before we start anywhere, regardless of the amount of money that's been raised and put towards this project, we're all appreciative of that. But what do we do about the people? Because I don't think we're going to get any millionaires to come living in these complexes and housing departments. That's going to bring substantial growth to our community. Not just within Lexington, but specifically in that community, which already has a high crime rate. 45 seconds left. something that I haven't heard in here and something I want to do. I pray for this public hearing tonight. Give the council members wisdom and guidance as they deliberate on the items before them. May everyone involved acting good faith in every decision be righteous in your sight for our benefit and for your glory. I pray regardless of the outcome of this project, I pray it does not divide our communities within Lexington, but instead bring our communities closer together according to God's will. In Jesus' name I pray and love. Amen. Thank you. Next up is Scott Sloan, followed by Lori Beaton and then Rolanda Woolfolk. And Mr. Sloan, you'll have nine minutes. Thank you. Scott Sloan, District 12. But I spent 30 years in Radcliffe Marlboro and frequently visit my family and friends and belong to the Neighborhood Association. I'd first like to thank the council members who voted to have this public hearing today. Councilmembers Beasley, Boone, Curtis, Ellinger, Gray, Hale, Morton, and Reynolds, your willingness to hear the concerns of your constituents is admirable. The process leading up to today, though, cannot be how we want the people of our city to interact with our elected leaders. The membership of the Radcliffe Marlboro Neighborhood Association has been told repeatedly, council members are not allowed to discuss this project with us. We worked tirelessly to prepare a 27-page report filled with details from state traffic maps, city traffic cameras, city traffic reports, stormwater and sewer reports, and the comprehensive plan, among others, so you could consider the many reasons to vote against this zone change. However, we were told by Vice Mayor Wu that we could not give you this information until the beginning of this hearing. How can you possibly be expected to review a report like this while listening to comments and presentations? You should be as angered and disappointed by this process as we are. Rules have also been changed for the worse compared to past hearings. The length of time we can speak and what we can present has been limited. We were also told multiple times by Vice Mayor Wu that there would be no deferring of time. That changed tonight just minutes before the meeting began. Arbitrary rules are no rules at all. The muzzling of the neighborhood's expectation that we can speak with our elected leaders alone is reason to reject this proposal and engage in a real discussion about what's right for Radcliffe Marlboro and Lexington. I also wanted to share a couple of observations, one from today and one from four, six months ago, actually. First, just walking through the neighborhood today, you've heard some comments already about speeding. There is a flattened 20... a 25 mile per hour speed limit sign where someone has crashed into it that is pushed all the way down into the ground. In August, at 3.15 in the morning, a person was driving so fast along Radcliffe that they first clipped the car in front of my parents' neighbor's house, then overcorrected, crashed into a light pole, knocked over that light pole, crashed into mom and dad's tree, kept going, hit a 2,000 pound rock that they have in the front yard from the old Bourbon County Jail and we had to calculate the weight for insurance purposes of course and was still going so fast that a 2,000 pound rock bench could not stop it and he crashed through the front of their house. We spent four months fixing the house. My parents are in their late 70s and early 80s. This is not what retirees deserve. They deserve a safe neighborhood, a neighborhood without traffic issues of this kind. I'd like to take a minute as well to talk through just some comments and observations that we made from some of the council members from past zoning hearings. Vice Mayor Wu, you mentioned in a past zoning hearing concerns about neighborhood engagement. in terms of their development plan. What you've heard tonight is that the developers have not engaged in good faith with our neighborhood association. There was a bait and switch clearly. At an April meeting, they showed us single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. We told them, we want to have homes that mirror our neighborhood. Several months later, they came back with a four-story senior living facility and four three-story apartment complexes. They did the exact opposite of listening to us. Council Member Brown, you mentioned at that same zoning hearing concerns about on-site management of the multifamily residential properties. What you'll hear tonight is a recitation of online reviews of how poorly those complexes are being managed. People complain about rat infestations. They complain about no responses from the management. They complain about waiting two years for repairs to their apartment. These are not the kind of property managers that we want in our neighborhood, and I would dare say these are not the kind of property managers we want in Lexington. Council Member will agree. You brought up concerns about landscape buffers and existing tree inventory at that zone hearing. What hasn't been mentioned much tonight is there's so much on this small property that there aren't even going to be spaces for roots of trees to grow. They're just going to cause problems with stormwater issues again and make this even worse than it already is. And you already saw how bad it is. Council Member Baxter, you thanked the developer at that time for offering options in their zoning proposal. consider tonight asking the developers to come back to us to work with us and to offer real options that work with both the neighborhood and work with a comprehensive plan. Because what they proposed is no seamless blend. It is not anything that's appropriate density-wise. You saw medium density is supposed to be up to 25. They proposed 40 units per acre. This is way too many people on a very small property that already has enormous existing problems that have never been acted upon. And let me close with a challenge to each of you. This country has engaged in a discourse in recent years about the dangers of concentration of wealth among the relative few. Home ownership has helped generations of Americans create individual wealth. This development is an opportunity to work with non-profits, including some already involved, that have programs to help first-time homeowners. Please vote no tonight and charge the banks and developers involved with establishing only home ownership in a neighborhood that has long been owner-occupied. Let's use this as an opportunity to create a generation of homeowners. not hundreds more people paying rent month after month to two companies that are behind 334 apartment complexes in six states. Please vote no. Thank you. Next up is Lori Beaton, followed by Rolanda Woolfork. And is Bridget Francis here? Yes. And you're giving your time to Rolanda? Yes. Thank you. All right, and then after Rolanda will be Sharon Martin. My name is Lori Beaton, District 1. In June 2023, Winterwood opened the alcove at Russell, a 202-unit affordable housing apartment complex on Russell Cade Road across from the end of Radcliffe Road. In 2024, police responded to 309 calls from those 202 units, up 533% compared to 2023. The fire department responded to 142 calls, up 546%. The police department provided our neighborhood association with the nature of the calls, but redacted details about crimes involving children, domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, rape, and hate crimes. I'd like to read you the number of redacted crimes. A vote to approve this zone change will add these to our neighborhood. These are awful, horrible crimes that will put our children and grandchildren at risk. Please vote no. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted. Redacted Redacted. redacted, redacted, redacted. If you've lost count, that's 55. 55 crimes and 55 victims and 55 reasons for you to vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to advise against shows of support in that manner. It's against our council rules. Thank you. Next up is Rolanda Woolfork followed by Sharon Martin and then Louis Boggess. And Ms. Woolfork, you'll have six minutes. Okay. Okay. Rolanda Woolfork, Lexington Historical Black Neighborhoods Council, 2nd District. game. You hear it all the time. You got to play the game. Well, what is the game? The game is leaders coming to the community saying they better than us. So you have the banks, stock, central. You have two leaders that they brought to the community that they felt that's going to benefit us, like Austin Sims and PG Peoples because they feel that we respect them, which we do. But we kept asking, I asked myself, I was like, well, who, what do they have in plan? Where do they fit in? Because those two don't sell homes. So I looked up housing authority. because they have to do an annual report every year to HUD. And in it, there's no statements showing that they will be doing anything over at Marlboro-Radcliffe. If anything, they will be doing is developing Vassels Road, 59 units, Pemberton Townhomes, Shropshire Avenue Development. Short term goals that they have is 600 unassessed housing units. But then they want to do their scattered homes and turn them into red. So I was like, well, where maybe since this happened in 2023 that they was talking about that, maybe because in January 10th, 2024 is when we received the information on the news that this development was going to happen. So I went back and looked and see if we can find it. I went all the way back to 2019 and there's nothing showing the housing authority is going to do anything with this development. So where do they play it? Is this the game? We tell people that we're going to bring these people in. They are part of the game. they're going to make these things happen for our community. We get these bait and switch all the time in our neighborhoods because they feel that we're low income, we don't come to the meetings, we don't watch the meetings, and we don't know the game. But we know the game. We just figured, hey, they make more money than us. They got the money. they already told us they got the money, $10 million. So then part of the game, Winterwood, AU Associates, and Habitats for Humanity went to the legislators and talked to them to the housing task force and said, we can't buy land in Lexington because all the outsider developers are purchasing all the land. but we got to land now so Transylvania said they're good stewards to the community they like the community but we had an empty ball field since 2019 but during that time did they ever ask the community can we get your children to do something on the baseball field can we give you an opportunity to do anything pertaining to using our field no So we hear all the time, this is a great plan and this has never been done before. Well, I guess let me bring something to your attention. In August 15, 1995, we had St. James Place. St. James Place consists of Bill Embry, who created the Faith Community Foundation. But he also did St. James Place. And who was a part of that? The Nice Foundation, Hurl Leader, Pam Miller, Kim Kern, Bank One, Central Bank, Community Bank, National Bank, Kentucky Housing Corporation, United States HUD. We have RA Constructions done in Frankfurt. Honorable Well Judge Ford, a senator. We also had Larry Hawkins, the United States House of Representatives. So I think this has happened before, and it won't be the last time. So stop saying this is something new. It ain't nothing new. We've done it before. We've done it multiple times. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Sharon Martin, followed by Louis Bogus and then Rachel Sloan. I'm Sharon Martin, I ceded my time earlier to another speaker. To? Okay. It wasn't indicated on this, so you said you don't want to speak, is that correct? Thank you. Louis Boggess is up next, followed by Rachel Sloan, and is Lisa Allison here? And you're ceding your time to Rachel Sloan? Okay, thank you. Good evening, Council. My name is Louis Boggess, and I live at Linwall in the Radcliffe-Marble neighborhood. I'm in District 1. In tandem with Ms. Winner's presentation earlier about the Acela portal, it also shows that an employee in the Division of Engineering reviewed the development proposal on December 8th and posted 30 comments questioning numerous facets of the development, including stormwater management, narrow streets and alleyways, retention walls, and flooding issues. Among the comments, we have known flooding issues on Haggard Court. Current discharge from Transie Field onto Haggard Court needs removed as part of this project. What is the proposal for stormwater management? Underground stormwater management is not permitted in a single-family development, per the stormwater manual. Show proposed locations for underground. Where will the proposed discharge connect to the existing public system? Define who will maintain the proposed underground systems. Force main isn't shown on the plan. Other sanitary sewer lines are missing as well. Address sanitary sewer capacity. Note 8 says all streets are existing. Review street section D-D. It doesn't match the standard street section. The alley cross section doesn't match the standard street section. Provide dimensions for drives and walkways. show and protect natural spring. The same employee reviewed the plan again 10 days later and added 10 more comments per Acela, including single-family home lots encroach on a forest main and easement. Review and provide a solution to remove the structures from the easement of the 10-inch public forest main. Ensure each single lot has its own sewer tap. Our GIS shows a spring in one of the open space areas, but KSG does not. This will need to be investigated further. Address existing drainage issues with the revised stormwater management plan for this development. Are the downstream sanitary sewer lines sized to support this development? There are a couple of 8-inch lines before they reach the collector. The survey notes need reviewed and corrected. As Sella showed, the building inspection review listed nine comments including relocate dwellings out of easement, detail residential paving parking, detail private sidewalk, detail location and size of porches, patios, and deck, detail story number for single family and townhome, list minimum side, rear, and front yard setback for single family. Experts in this area tell RM&A on crowded sites developers often find it difficult to establish room for all aspects of the development. Among the issues is that there is no room for tree roots to spread if they are marked on the plans. The council should not approve or request a zone change, and thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next up is Rachel Sloan, followed by Michelle Hutchison. It is Sarah Wright here. You're giving your time to Michelle. Okay. And then is Patricia Berry here? Patricia Berry? Okay. All right, so next up is Rachel Sloan. Yep. And you'll have six minutes, followed by Michelle Hutchison, who will also have six minutes. Rachel Sloan, District 1. First off, I would like to thank Tyler Morton for being instrumental in us being granted this public hearing and thank council members who were willing to vote in favor of giving us a voice because quite honestly, throughout this process, I feel like that we have not been given a voice. in consulting with our attorney this afternoon we were told that we would be given three minutes per vice mayor wu so in order to convey all the information that we needed to be able to convey this evening we passed out the information among the speakers and then we get here to sign up and all of a sudden, 20 minutes before the public hearing begins, we concede time. So, I don't have prepared remarks, but I do have several things I'd like to say. The topic that I chose that I was going to cover was sewer, which I think is quite appropriate for this whole development, because we've got four banks, three non-profits, two developers, and we're going to allow approximately 55 people to create generational wealth through home ownership. The remainder will be money that goes back into the pockets of AU Associates and Winterwood Properties. As a taxpaying citizen, I feel like that I've been misrepresented during this process. I have reached out to multiple law firms for representation this evening and have been told over and over again, I'm sorry, we can't represent you. That's a conflict of interest. So you've built a consortium of business people for this project so that you could make sure that we had to struggle to find anybody that wasn't in this community and associated with this project to even be able to represent us. Ms. Sloan, I'm going to ask you to speak into the mic, please. Thank you. Certainly. So, we were fortunate to finally find Ms. Winters, who is here with us tonight on our behalf. I'd like to make some remarks to rebut Lexington for everyone. And Mr. Daniels, you are correct, Mr. Daniels. You can't exacerbate problems, and putting this development in our neighborhood is in fact going to exacerbate problems. Mr. Rose, your comparison of one penny, the analogy. One penny is more than what's been offered to our neighborhood for this development. We've not been given any indication that any money from this is going to be reinvested into our community. The community that you're about to bulldoze 12 and a half acres of. We're not opposed to the development. we want what probably many of you here have, a home that you own. The ability to create generational wealth. I live in a neighborhood where extended families live in the same home or that home has been passed down to them. this development is not going to allow for that save for 55 families and quite honestly we haven't been told if all of those homes are actually going to be owner occupied homes or if they're going to be constructed as homes and then rented out we haven't been given that information by the developers before my time runs out I will go ahead and address the sewer topic I grew up on Radcliffe Road in the house that was struck by the hit-and-run driver. My parents are here tonight. My brother spoke earlier. When my husband and I, who just spoke before I did, decided that we were ready to buy a home, we bought on Linwall because his parents live at the corner of Blue Ridge and Haggard. so when they walk out their front door, they're going to be the ones staring directly at the 51-story senior apartment building. But we wanted to be near our families, so we bought a home on Linwall. We were given, at the closing, the all-dry basement warranty, and by the ice storm of 2003, we realized that that was pretty much a null and void warranty because we spent the entire night of the ice storm dipping water out of our sump pump because there was no electricity while my husband navigated up icy steps with a five-gallon bucket of water to empty it all out of my basement. I have currently in my home three backup sump pumps, a 50-foot-long drain hose so that I can pump water out of my basement and into the yard. I have an auxiliary sump pump powered by the municipal water supply so that when my power goes out, my basement won't flood. I have 20-foot drain pipes in front of my house to try to get the water away from my house. Thank you, Ms. Long. Next up is Michelle Hutchison, followed by Regina Harris and then Yolanda Edwards. And Ms. Hutchison, you'll have six minutes. Good afternoon to everyone. As I stand before you today, I represent this neighborhood. And we are very disappointed of how this proposal has taken place. We had to find out on the media January the 10th, 2024, through an interview. The interviewer stated, Lexington has scored a home run. However, we weren't even in the game. It was also mentioned that it was cheap land. Is that what the perception of our community is? cheap land. We are working class citizens. I'll tell you about myself. I did 34 years at Toyota and I retired. And I'm not talking about just being an employee. I was a valuable employee more than I can say for the neighborhood. We are very tired of everything placed on the north side of town that is deemed undesirable. We got the health department, throw it on the north side. We got the bus station, throw it over there, them the ones riding the bus. We got the housing authority, them the people that needs help. You even put Fayette County Public School office over there. The public assistance office is located over there. Why? You think we need public assistance? We're working people. Also, we have a current developed affordable housing unit. My question is, when is it going to stop? When is it going to stop? We're not opposed to single family housing, but we want it to match what we have. Again, when will it stop? With all the concerns that have been brought forward today, your decision will show us that we're not one Lexington and money is ranked higher than people. In conclusion, Marlboro neighborhood input was useless. This was just a formality to say the box was checked. Yes, we met with the neighborhood. If that was not true, why did they utilize two African Americans to present the proposal? If they cared about us, why wouldn't they present it? because they felt like that they could relate to us. They are above us. I hope you vote no for the zone change. I myself, I've been living in this community for over 30 years. I know you all don't know about flooding. I do. I lived in my house and human feces is coming up for two days. sewage. You all wouldn't like that would you? Then I moved my basement flooded again three times. I've lost valuables, valuables debt FEMA or no one else can return. My photos, things that was personal. I would like to remind you of of your commitment that you all have made when you were sworn in. There were certain key words that stood out to me as your duty. From the mayor, she talked about servant leadership. Build trust. We are to build trust in you all. Improve the lives of the community. We are the community. Vice Mayor, you said, represent the people, serve the people. What is serving the people? Are they the people and we're nobody? You all raised your hand and were sworn in to be faithful and true. Just on Sunday, there was over a thousand people at the Consolidated Baptist Church with the mayor. The mayor stood up and she wanted to talk about the lyrics of Lift Every Voice and Sing. She reminded us, may we forever stand true to our God. Again, true to our God. That's your God too. Trust in our native land, which includes where we live. What does serving the people look like and feel like to you? Does our neighborhood count? Did our vote make a difference in where you're sitting today? I hope you vote no to the zone change. Thank you. Next up is Regina Harris, followed by Yolanda Edwards and Todd Johnson. Good evening everyone. I think I'm very grateful and I believe that I'm very grateful to be here because it was a fight just to get to this point. So I'm very grateful for everybody who is showing up in support of our neighborhood. Will you give us your name and district? I'm Regina Harris, district one. Thank you. Thank you. So as I was saying, my husband and myself, we started over there. At one point we were part of Elkhorn and then they inherited us with Radcliffe Marlboro and I absolutely love my community. We have raised four amazing children and they are doing amazing and it's because of our community. I lived across the street from a dentist, lawyers, nurse, and just amazing people. So when I speak about some of the issues that happened as a neglected community that I was able to see, it's very disheartening to still be in this position again where you have put so much sweat equity into your home, you've put a lot of information into your home, and you've gained a lot of community. And with this being said, it's a family community. It's an area that's well loved and even when we had Councilman Tyler come by when he was running, it showed the support of our group, how we love each other as a group and organization, small organization I would say. What was important was we have spent, my husband and myself, he's really, the person's probably spent the money, over $10,000 fixing the irrigation, water, and all this amazing stuff. Which takes away from cars for your teenage children, etc. So for now for it to come in and to have people say this is the way we want to see our neighborhood grow, without actually fixing an issue, it's kind of disheartening again. And it's also leaving a distaste in the mouth of our teenagers who are going to be voting in the mouth of the people who have to pick who's in our area, how we get represented. And I have heard on several occasions as I'm running through, painting a picture of a community doesn't mean developing, it means kicking out your locals. It means uplifting your locals. It means bringing more to the table so your locals are more than welcoming to bring something new in the community. But when you have a community that has gone unseen for this amount of time, it's just a distaste. So again, I'm going to just wholeheartedly say our neighborhood and the neighborhood beside us and all the locals in Lexington, development should not mean pushing us out. It should mean uplifting us. And that's all. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up is Yolanda Edwards, followed by Todd Johnson and then Jose Socaras Ramos. Good evening. My name is Yolanda Edwards, District 1. I live on Russell Cave Road in the Radcliffe-Marborough neighborhood. The Radcliffe-Marborough Neighborhood Association reviewed footage from the traffic camera stationed at the intersection of Haggard Lane and North Broadway, which you saw a portion of that video for you earlier presented by Jessica Winters. Within just three minutes of each other on Tuesday, February the 18th, there were multiple traffic violations and dangerous conditions created by backups. You saw some of them on the video previously. Following the lead of the Front Runners Lexington, the Radcliffe Marlboro Neighborhood Association viewed 30 minutes of footage from the traffic camera and observed 52 red light runners during that half hour. We applaud Vice Mayor Dan Wu for appointing the Street Safety Task Force and ask that this intersection be reviewed in more detail. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has issued a request for proposal for a planning study in the area, but the study is not due to have a final report submitted until May of 2026. When traffic inevitably worsens with the new development, the city may be powerless to do anything since it has no jurisdiction over the state-maintained North Broadway. The state's study may also be rendered meaningless since it would have been conducted prior to the opening of the large development. This council should not approve a requested zone change, nor allow a project of this size when these important issues have not been addressed. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Todd Johnson, followed by Jose Socaros Ramos, and then Amy Clark. Good evening, council members. Thank you all for your time this evening. I appreciate all the work that you guys do in these hearings and hearing the public and what everybody has to say. I'm Todd Johnson and I represent the Building Industry Association of Central Kentucky. And as it's been expressed here throughout the evening, people's homes and people's neighborhoods, whatever those homes and neighborhoods look like are important to them. It's been reiterated here tonight that we do have a housing crisis in this community. We've known for years that we are underbuilt. We have known for years and seen time and time again, study after study, the need that we have for affordable housing to meet the needs of those in our community who are on the lower end of the earning segment of our community, the 80% below AMI. I have been very proud to be associated with this project since it came off the ground. our association and our members have been proud to be a part of this. And I would encourage you this evening to vote yes on this zone change. And the main reason, technical reason, I'll encourage you to vote yes is because, as it was reiterated earlier in comments, Lexington has a very rigorous, comprehensive, some would say stringent planning process, going through all the processes and all the committees, through the planning staff reviews, through agencies of government, and through the planning commission to get here to unite tonight on a zone change. We've talked a lot about things outside of the zone change process and what is actually pertinent to a zone change. But through the planning staff's review and through the appointed body of the planning commission, this comes to you all this evening with a recommendation of approval from both of those bodies. And again, we appreciate your work, and I would highly encourage you and strongly encourage you to vote yes on this phone change. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up is Jose Socaros Ramos, followed by Amy Clark and then Zach Skubiz. Hello, everyone. I believe Sharon Martin cheated her time to me. I'm not sure if that's reflected. I don't. I don't have her signed up at all. She's signed up. That's. Oh, okay. Okay. I got you, I didn't see your name for Mr. Ramos. Okay, so you have six minutes. Awesome, thank you so much. My name is Jose Sicaras Ramos, District 1. And before I get started, I just want to thank you all so much. I know it's getting a little late, so I appreciate you all listening and tuning into this really important issue. I live on Lynn Wall in the Redcliffe Marlboro neighborhood. And I want to just touch on some quick traffic count data that I think will be helpful in you all making your decision. Traffic counts compiled by the state transportation cabinet reveal both North Broadway and Haggard Lane, which have been mentioned several times tonight, to be among the most travel roads in their respective categories in this city. So North Broadway from New Circle Road to I-75 is about a one-mile stretch and has an annual average daily traffic count of 24,825 vehicles in this one-mile stretch. That's according to a 2023 review by the state, and that also includes 2,673 semi-trucks. Now, Hagrid Lane, it's about a .34 mile road that has an annual average daily traffic count of 5,544 vehicles. And Hagrid Lane has more or similar daily traffic compared to roads in every single district that are well known to have traffic issues. I have one for every district, but I'm going to save us some time and only mention a couple. District 1, East 3rd Street from North Limestone to Midland Avenue has 5,899 daily vehicles that go on that road. And then jumping over to District 10, West Lowery Lane from Nicholasville Road to Moore Drive has 5,264 daily vehicles that are counted. I want to jump back to Radcliffe Road really fast. this 1.27 mile road has an annual average daily traffic count of 2,410 vehicles. The city's division of traffic engineering just completed data gathering on both ends of Radcliffe Road at Layton Road after repeated collisions on the street in 2024 prompted an inquiry from a member of the Urban County Council. The dangerous intersection at Hagrid Lane and North Broadway is caused by repeated vehicle backups attempting to turn onto southbound Interstate 75, which we've seen in the videos. And the backup from the Interstate 75 on-ramp also backs up vehicles of neighborhood residents on Hagrid Lane that cannot make it through the light. I want to touch up some other things. Obviously, with this heavy traffic in the neighborhood comes the issue of speeding. I live on Linwall in front of my house in the past couple of months. The city has set up two speed meters. One is still there right now on Linwall. And that just goes to show that this means that both the city and the residents are aware of the speeding issues. And recently enough, I found that I'm going to be a father for the first time. And this is really exciting and also really nerve wracking in several ways. But one of the ways is I worry about the speeding issue and imagining my child out on the lawn playing and something, God forbid, happened. So aside from being a father, I'm also fairly new into my home ownership, which leads me into my next point. I'm an immigrant. I'm the son of two immigrants who came to this country and worked very hard and very diligently. In their 22 years of being in this country, they've just been able to afford a home. Luckily, I've been able to, you know, get a little bit ahead and purchase my home, but that's, you know, at the sacrifice of all the things my parents did. Lexington needs more affordable single-family housing. I work for a small nonprofit, and my wife is a teacher, and you would think that we would be able to buy a home decently easy. No, it was very hard, and we had to scrape everything we could to purchase our first home, which is our pride and joy and is the first step to building generational stability, wealth, and prosperity for us, our children, their grandchildren, and perhaps their grandchildren as well. The demand for housing has far outpaced the production of new supply. We know that, but we need more affordable starter homes, homes that teachers, that nurses, that factory workers, the average 9 to 5 person can afford and can buy. The proposed development will only create 33 single-family homes. We need more than this. There is a real opportunity here to create more single-family homes that folks can begin to build that generational stability with, instead of just paying money to a company that's over each month with rental. I respectfully ask that the city council should not approve a requested zone change and allow a product of this size when these important issues have not been addressed. I thank you all so much for your time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up is Amy Clark, followed by Zach Scubas and then Joni Holland. I'm Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road. I'm in the third district. In general, an intensive infill project today on land subdivided many decades ago faces terrific challenges. Existing infrastructure and development doesn't meet modern standard. And the land is full of surprises. Throughout the review and hearing process, we've seen this through the testimony of neighbors on the Marlboro project. Although the Planning Commission approved and staff certified a preliminary development plan for the land of the proposed zone change, with a density ranging from 8 or 9 units per acre for the one family uses to 21 to 40 in the R4 multifamily zone proposed, they reviewed no subdivision plan at all. Blocks, roads, sewer, flooding, lots of critical things go into a subdivision plan. This despite the fact that a development plan that indicates and intent to subdivide must incorporate a subdivision plan or meet the required subdivision standards. We have alleys on this plan and roadways not yet approvable. Sidewalks at curb edge, no bike or shared use paths, multimodal transportation facilities for increased density are not to be found. Real problems with stormwater, flooding, and sanitary sewer backups and overflows are by now acknowledged to exist. Critical problems with traffic, congestion, and conflict are likewise acknowledged. The federal level wasn't always aware of these problems. I think it was the firm map. But the locals have enhanced our awareness. For example, a federal map shows no natural spring on the land, but the LFUCG has record of such a spring. Now, the applicant explains and staff concurs that they will address all these problems before a final development plan is approved, can be approved. We know that a preliminary subdivision plan must be approved too at some point. Mr. Woodall notes that Frankfurt has allocated $10 million to support infrastructure. Will that cover it? How much is needed? No idea yet, really. it's my belief that the council needs a clearer assessment of the challenges of this site, a more substantial, thoroughgoing, and realistic evaluation and review of the site and what's planned for it. The challenges of this site and their cures before awarding an R4 zone with radically increased intensity, pavement, rooftop, and traffic too. And I'll remind you with Mr. Woodall that they could have built, can yet build, much more for greater intensity of dwellings if the zone is granted. Thank you, Ms. Clark. And in closing, I'll just invite you, look at this bus. It is not a workforce bus. It comes five times a day. Thank you very much. Weekdays. Next up is Zach Skubis, followed by Joni Holland, and is Carolyn Harris here? And you're giving your time to Ms. Holland. Okay, thank you. All right, welcome. Good evening, my name is Zach Skubitz. I am with District 5 and I will be quick because it's late. Most of you kind of know my deal already, I've been here before and I've got a bit of a headache tonight. I think I am the only just a guy here tonight who's gonna speak in favor of this. Everyone else who's spoken in favor has been part of a larger organization or the development in general. I'm just a guy who is looking for a place to rent in the next two months. I know that rent is incredibly expensive here in Lexington, that we have a housing crisis. You've heard that a bunch of times before. And I just want to represent every guy who is looking to pay for rent and is excited to see that Transy has offered to donate a large chunk of land to build more housing. And I think that it's a good idea to take that offer while it exists. I think that quibbling over where the housing goes is something we should have done a decade ago, but we are far too behind on housing construction to worry about that now. That is the gist of what I have. I do have one question that I did not hear answered earlier, which is what happens to the baseball field if the development does fall through? That is the only question I really have, and other than that, thank you for your time, your consideration, and hopefully your yes votes. Thank you. Next up is Joni Holland, followed by Oliver Mabson and Charles Walker. And Ms. Holland, you'll have six minutes. Okay. My name is Johnny Holland. I'm in District 1. I live on Benton Road and I have been there going on 30 years. The multifamily housing simply is not needed in this development. Many affordable housing apartment complexes and senior living facilities in the area remain at less than capacity. Occupants of AU Associates and Winterwood properties also frequently criticize the management of properties. Some comments have been, if you need repairs, good luck. I lived on the first floor of my building and several tiles in my living room were damaged due to water coming in from the outside. Work order was placed in June of 2022. In August of 2024, the floor was still not fixed. There are certain, and I can make comments on others that we found concerns about AU and Winterwood and the rental aspect of this. What I want to talk about is we as a community of our neighborhood, we love what we have. We are not asking that this not be developed. We understand that there needs to be homes. What we have asked from day one that they would not listen to is to zone us as all are to. Give folks the right to have a single family dwelling home or a townhome because we have duplexes and townhomes in our neighborhood. Mimic what we already have. As far as the apartment complexes, we have concern of not having enough parking, that it goes out to the main streets. thus we have kids we have a park on benton road where i live the main entrance to that park is on our road right down from where chancy ballfield is we have to watch those kids coming through the summer because we have speeding through that neighborhood especially on benton road it's a straight strip they think that they can rev up and get up that hill as fast as they can who knows they could easily jump rackliff and end up in somebody's home just like it happened to this couple that on Radcliffe earlier this year. We also on the senior on the senior living aspect of the apartments is supposed to be for like 55 and older. I'm 58. I wouldn't want to have to worry about coming up and down steps or that the elevator would not be working. How quick is their response going to be? And And I can do steps. But what happens if some people can't? Again, we're not asking this not be developed. But develop it right. We're asking the council send it back. Let's work more together as the developers and the neighborhood. Because that has not been going on at all since day one. They came in late with what they had as far as the apartments were concerned. and looked at us like, oh well. And that's exactly how they made us feel coming out of that meeting because they did not listen. I, on my way here, as far as traffic, coming up out of Haggard, the traffic was extended from the interstate all the way down to the fire station going out of town. sometimes going in town that traffic is the same way and so there's a lot of concern when you put a lot of people in this 12 acre area that they're wanting to do you know we're just asking you send it back let's renegotiate this I know that we need housing but I don't think we need to be the guinea pigs to have to suffer because I think because of the area that surrounds us with the interstate, the railroad tracks, and everything, it's going to make it rough if you go through with this. Then what's your contingency to make it better five years down the road? Are you going to have one in place? Because I really don't think that there's one out there to have if you let it go through the way that they want it to go through. We're just asking to re-look at it. that's all we ever asked. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Oliver Mabson followed by Charles Walker and then Ann Freeman. Is Oliver Mabson still here? Okay, thank you. Charles Walker and then Ann Freeman. Charles Walker still here. Okay, how about Ann Freeman? Okay, we normally have sign-ins for 30 minutes outside. inside the chambers before they shut it down, so. Okay. Point of information. Point of information. It stopped speaking. Are we able to make motions to give those speakers an opportunity to speak at this junction? You may if you like. I move to give the two speakers that she is announcing an opportunity to speak. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Can you tell me their names again, please, and I'll put them in. William Wood Jr. Academy of Home. Sorry, give me one second. I'm working on an iPad. What was that first name again? William Wood Jr. Okay, and the second name? Kathy Sloan. There we go. All right, so next up is William Wood Jr. Followed by Kathy Sloan, you'll each have three minutes. And have you all, did you all get sworn in in either of the two swearing in? Yes. You did, okay, great. All right, you may proceed. Just give your name and council district for the record, please. My name is William Wood Jr. And I am a resident of District 12. And I am very much in favor of infill and development. And I know that we have a need to build housing. But I do not think that this plan addresses that with respect for the community and the land and the people who live there. I think that absolutely a development should be done here. It is a great spot for that, but I think that the amount of density does not match the neighborhood. And I also very much feel that the people who live there should own. And this renting of dozens or I don't know how many units it is, but that all the money goes back to one landlord does not fit the community either. I think that it would be very important for people to live in single dwelling homes that own their own home. And that is all I have to say. Thank you. Please vote no. Thank you. And then Kathy Sloan, you're up next. Just give your name and council district, please. My name is Catherine Sloan and I have lived on Radcliffe Road for 55 and a half years. And so I feel like, you know, I have some oomph in this. The association, I don't know, the applicant just has not had any real connection with us. We had to find out from the media in January of 24 that this was going on. Somebody should have contacted our association and let us know what was going on in our neighborhood. Now, in January of 24, we approached them and asked them to have someone come to meet with us. In March, seeking once again to demonstrate the interest being involved in the development process, the neighborhood association invited the owner to come back again. Mr. Graham tells the association no plans had been decided at that time. May 30th, 24th, the developers spoke with the neighborhood residents at the north side branch of the public library. At the meeting, they described their past work, noting a combination of single family homes, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Residents strongly urged the developers to incorporate only detached single family homes. to allow for responsible growth because of traffic and sewer and stormwater problems. September of 24, developer Ed Holmes and the Lexington Urban League president, PG Peoples, held a meeting at the Urban League offices, but specifically asked the Radcliffe Marlboro neighborhood not to invite neighbors, as they did not want a large number of people in attendance. The plan provided now shows three apartment buildings as well as two senior living buildings with a limited number of family homes and townhomes. November of 24, the developers speak with neighborhood residents at the Marlboro Park Shelter, completely disregarding the neighbors concerns voiced at the May meeting. The developers presented a revised plan of 24 single homes, 33 townhomes, and a series of apartment complexes. with 84 apartments and a senior living facility with 96 apartments. The council should not approve or request a zone change. And let me say, I do not want another 243 cars going down my street and destroying the front of my house like they did last August. Thank you. Thank you very much. That is the end of our public comment section. Before we move on, we're another hour and a half in. Let us take about an eight minute break. We'll reconvene at 835. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. guitar solo Oh, yeah. All right, if everybody could take their seats, we're going to come back into session. All right, thank you all for sticking with us. Up next, we're going to have comments, clarifications, and rebuttals, starting with staff. Staff, do you have any additional clarifications or comments you would like to make? Okay, thank you. Mr. Crum, you'll have up to five minutes. Thank you Mr. Chair. Daniel Crum, planning staff again. One of the things that I wanted to kind of highlight is there's been a lot of discussion and I'm going to bring the development plan back up about kind of how much information is necessary at this stage what are the impacts of this development How is this looked at at this stage in the game? And so at this stage, this is what's called a preliminary development plan. This is associated with the zone change and is really intended to just highlight how this plan is or is not meeting the comprehensive plan. This is done before a final development plan, which is what you're actually able to build off of. So at this point, this is the applicant's submission of how they intend to utilize the property. However, some of the details, such as the specifics on drainage, on stormwater, et cetera, have not been done. Moving forward, in order to get a final development plan certified, they have to meet with all of the requirements of all of our divisions, including engineering, solid waste, et cetera, on that final development plan, which is in front of the Planning Commission and is another public input process. And so some of these concepts are not known at this time Simply because we're looking really at a conversation of is this zone appropriate? And how the applicant is wishing to use this zone appropriate in this instance? So once again, there would be, if approved, additional steps, additional vetting, additional subdivision plans to actually go through and implement before a single thing could get built on this site. And if, for instance, they go through and the stormwater is suddenly discharging in a way that's not permitted, they would not be able to actually build and get that plan certified. So there is additional barriers, buffers built in to ensure that this is not the last time that a body looks at this plan in a public forum. There were some comments made with respect to whether or not these, the individuals, how many individuals would be owning the homes versus renting. I just want to remind, fair housing law kind of dictates that in these considerations, we can't make a preference between those who own or those who rent. And so just keeping that focus on. there were some comments made about whether this is context sensitive the context sensitive part really relates to not just matching what's in the existing neighborhood but the comprehensive plan envisions that we are going to need more density if we are going to meet the needs of our community so kind of balancing that so in staff's review of this the ability to kind of take that zoning transition as you're getting away from the bulk of the neighborhood closer to the commercial development where you've got existing higher buildings is what staff kind of looked at as far as that context-sensitive language. So once again, I would just implore you all, as you all consider this, there are most certainly larger issues with regards to traffic, stormwater, etc. in this entire section of town. Really what we are looking at today, though, is this particular development, its impact on its sort of localized scale, and kind of evaluating based off that with its conformance with the comprehensive plan. So just wanted to try to refocus and kind of provide some clarity on process-wise where we are right now, how much info is reasonable to ask of the developer, and that there's still public input opportunities available at the final development plan if you all move to approve. Great. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Next up is petitioners, additional comments or rebuttal. Mr. Woodall, would you like to offer some comments? You'll have up to five minutes. For the record, we have no rebuttal at this time. Okay, thank you sir. Next up is a comment or rebuttal from opposition, Ms. Winters? You'll have up to five minutes. Thank you for your time this evening, council members, I know it's late. Right now you're being asked to consider a zone change and the zone change would allow R2, R3 and R4 development on a 12.5 acre lot. and that's what you have to consider, whether that's all right for this site and this neighborhood under the comprehensive plan. And the sewer issues and the stormwater issues are all part of this neighborhood and this site, and those issues should be considered by you in accordance with the comprehensive plan, dictates that I previously mentioned in my presentation to you in ruling on the zone change. The development plan doesn't matter, so they say, but it does. you're approving a zone chain that's going to allow that type of density on this lot if you approve the zone change. Yes, there is some opportunity for public input on the final development plan in front of the Planning Commission, but as I'm sure you're all aware, those opportunities are becoming fewer and far between. They're being reduced by legislation. They're making many things that were once subject to public comment, now ministerial in nature. simple rubber stamps that eliminate public input and public comment in that process of a final development. And that brings me to a key point here. I think one of the reasons you're hearing from so many neighborhood members about disappointment and feeling disenfranchised with this process, It goes back to the fact that the community members here have not been able to talk about this proposed zone change with you all before today. They're repeatedly told that they cannot discuss upcoming zone change issues or applications with their own elected leaders. So we're forced into a position where we have to come to a public hearing, provide you with a 26-page supported position statement that we only get 20 minutes to explain to you, and you do not get in advance to have an opportunity to review it and consider the information. We're faced with changing procedures in every single one of these public hearings that I've been a part of, which have been many now. And this disenfranchises your constituents. It makes them frustrated. It makes them feel like their voice doesn't matter in this process. It severely limits community dialogue with elected leaders that is essential to the process of responsible, sustainable development decisions. Decisions on rezonings require policy judgment by elected officials. These officials' personal knowledge, positions on issues of importance to the community, and judgment about the preferred course for the community are important and valid components of the decision-making process. In Lexington, constituents are routinely told by their elected officials they cannot discuss zone change requests. This position or practice is not well-founded. The Kentucky Supreme Court has spoken directly on this issue, noting that because rezoning is a legislative function, judicial concepts like an impartial tribunal and prohibitions of ex-parte contacts with decision makers do not apply. And that's the Hume v. Franklin case that I cited to you on our position statement. Councilmember refusal to discuss zone changes throughout the months-long planning process eliminates an essential councilmember function and prevents councilmembers from becoming educated regarding their constituents' viewpoints on matters that routinely and directly affect large numbers of voters. We're requesting that the City Council change its practice of refusing to discuss zone changes with constituents. Thank you. Thank you. All right, it's time for summation. Petitioner, would you like to take your three minutes for summation? Thank you all for your attention tonight. in this very important matter and thank you to the neighborhood for your comments. When we started the hearing, I talked about how impactful this project is. Now you know why. I mean, it's very impactful. It's impactful for the applicant because there's no doubt that this is a project that is going to change lives. And it's a project and a model that will probably be duplicated elsewhere because of what we've done here. But as we've heard so eloquently tonight from the neighborhood, and you cannot help but be moved by their comments, there's a lot of history that we come to as a developer and as an applicant with this neighborhood in terms of drainage issues, traffic issues, and things of that nature. and I think I mentioned that during the TRC process we talked about some of that. Well, I will submit to you that it's projects like this, when they occur, that tend to start solving problems. And I know, I spoke about the New Circle Road project that's already on the board, and I know that there will be others. but we, in terms of our development and our planning process, I mentioned that it's very exacting and the final development plan process for this development will be very exacting. And I would offer to the neighborhood to have a seat at that table with us, which is kind of unorthodox, but to participate in that so you know exactly what's going on all the way through. We knew we were going to get to this point in this community when we've pretty well made a decision to grow inward more than outward. And there was going to be these kinds of debates. And we're all passionate about it. You saw that, some of me, tonight. The folks that are on this team, I've got a character flaw when I believe in somebody. And I believe in them. And I'll go over the top for you when that happens. Mr. Peoples' son and I played peewee football together in 1981, I think it was. I know how much he's done for this community. And I know how much he believes in this project. Same with Darrell and with Mr. Sims and with Zach and with Johan and Mr. Deaton. We're having the vision to get off the bench and to step up and do something to solve this problem in the community. There's been a lot of talk about density. That's just kind of where we find ourselves. The plan that was submitted is exactly what's called for in our comp plan. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Your time's up. Thank you for your time, and we appreciate your vote for us. Thank you. Next up is opposition summation. Ms. Winters, you'll have three minutes as well. In connection with this zone change and proposal, the Radcliffe-Marborough neighborhood stands to lose nearly 13 acres of green space in exchange for 234 cars commuting daily, impervious surfaces shedding thousands of gallons of contaminated stormwater runoff, and 41 and 51 foot tall buildings in a neighborhood where the average home height is 10 to 12 feet. The R4 zone is not proper for the collector's street of Haggard Lane. While the project has been characterized as transformational, the neighborhood believes the project to represent a micro-gentrification by a consortium of businesses masked as a solution to Lexington's affordable housing crisis. Neighborhood input has been disregarded in favor of an extractive economic venture. Of the 234 proposed units, only 55 will be owner-occupied, and will they in fact be affordable? Deed restrictions, it should be noted, that are referenced by the applicant, do expire. AU Associates and Winterwood are developing the remaining 179 units as apartments that will provide their companies with a continuous revenue stream. To date, there has been no offer by developers to reinvest any profits in the neighborhood. There's been no discussion of walkability, of accessibility by bicycle, of true multimodal connections which are required by the comp plan. Based on the foregoing considerations, the neighborhood is requesting denial of the requested zone change or approval of only R2. Thoughtful and measured development will provide much needed housing in Lexington. The neighborhood is not opposed to increasing density on the project site through the construction of single family homes. The neighborhood is opposed to constructing five, three and four story apartment buildings that tower 41 and 51 feet into the air in a neighborhood where none exist and where no home is taller than two stories. Eliminating apartments and constructing only single family residences allows for the increase of lot sizes from 3,500 square feet to 5,500 square feet. This is more comparable to current lot sizes and negates the need for driveways in the rear of homes and the construction of an alley for access. Presently, all driveways in the neighborhood are in the fronts of houses accessed directly from the street. The project site indeed presents a transformational opportunity, but not as it is currently envisioned. We request that you deny the requested zone change, finding that existing zoning is appropriate for this enhanced neighborhood, that the proposed density is not right for this site, that the proposal is not context sensitive, it eliminates green space inappropriately, and presents a danger to the safety and welfare of the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Now it's time to open up the floor to questions from council members. Please remember that this is the section where council members will have opportunity to ask questions of the petitioner, the opposition, or the planning staff. Once we close this section, there'll be no more questions for folks. So I'll also ask Mr. Woodall and Ms. Winters maybe kind of hang a little close to the podium, because a lot of the questions will be directed towards you all. Same for planning staff. As usual, sign in to speak. First up is Council Member Morton. Great. I'll start with Mr. Crumb. So I'll start with your rebuttal statement. In your rebuttal, you stated some of the details on drainage and stormwater has not been done. Mr. Woodall said traffic is not an issue, neither is drainage. In this case, so how do you know that this, that as you stated, well, excuse me, how can the developer's lawyer say that traffic and drainage won't be an issue, but you just stated some of the details of drainage and stormwater has not been done? Yeah, so some of this, like for instance, the draining is subject to the review and approval of the Division of Engineering. So what they're showing today, they haven't fleshed out those finalized details. I can't speak for the intent behind his statement. He may be speaking of just the general draining patterns. I'm not sure. But as far as our review, once again, they have the finalized steps to basically prove what they are saying to us at the zone change stage. Okay. Did you mention that the trunk project on New Circle Road will address the flooding, some of the flooding in this area? No, that's a sewer capacity project, I believe. So that's more oriented towards some of the comments that we heard with some of the sewage problems. The stormwater is sort of separate from that issue. Correct, correct. So you didn't mention that it would address flooding? I don't believe so. I think you may have. And you're correct. That is not a stormwater project. That is a sanitary sewer project, which would not address flooding in this area at all. Okay. Let's see. You made Mr. Woodall speak towards affordable housing criteria in the rebuttals earlier. Being that this is recommended by staff, and staff has emphasized and highlighted the project being an affordable housing project, can you speak towards how this project falls in the line of Theme A, Go 1C, and Theme A, Go 5B, and specifically how it will provide affordable housing and why the staff recommended it based on the affordable housing criteria? Could you repeat the citations that you're asking staff to take a look at? Indeed. I'll ask the question again. You made the developer's lawyer, Mr. Woodoff, speak towards affordable housing criteria in the rebuttals earlier. Being that it was recommended by staff, and staff has emphasized and highlighted the project being an affordable housing project, can you speak towards how this project falls in line with Theme A, Go 1C, and Theme A, Go 5B? Specifically, how will it provide affordable housing and why did the staff recommend it based on the affordable housing criteria? Okay, so theme A1C where we're talking about planning for safe and affordable accessible housing to meet the needs of Lexington's aging population and residents with disabilities. and then with the other citation, protect existing housing affordability for all and expand low and middle income housing across the city. So yes, that's based on the applicant's letter of justification where they're identifying this project as meeting the requirements and being proposed as an affordable housing development. So that's included along with a lot of the review of the applicants or any zone changes application hinges on the justification statement and being able to kind of articulate that. But at this time, we would review that based on that statement. What are the requirements for traffic studies, and do you know if they were followed in this case? Yeah, so I think it's important to note that the traffic study that the applicant has performed, and it was done with the division, or was provided to traffic engineering, was not required based on the threshold of number of units. And so essentially it was provided to traffic engineering, in my understanding, not as a traffic engineer, was that there was a minimum impact. Really what a traffic impact study looks like is existing conditions. What does the number of trips as projected by the number of units do to those roadways? And it takes a sample of roadways within the vicinity. What does that do as far as additional wait time, additional conflicts as well? Sometimes they make recommendations based on existing infrastructure, but with the way that this development is oriented, most of the vehicle circulation, as they noted with the interior alleys, most of the conflict points or the kind of impacts, from my understanding, were at Broadway and Haggard. So that really was the main consideration, and traffic engineering reviewed that and found that to be overall a minor impact there based on the overall circulation. So no specific set criteria, well, set criteria in this case for this study, for this area? No, there's standard findings that are required for that. the planning commission didn't cite any of those in the findings. I'm sorry, can you clarify, are you asking what are the standards that trigger a traffic study? So in regarding to this zone change, the developers did a traffic study, right? They offered to do one, yes. So they offered, did they do it? They did. It's part of the packet that they submitted to you this afternoon. So then my question is asking, what is the criteria or what bounds do we give them on that on that traffic study or is there none? They get to do their own study and we don't look at that. No, the zoning ordinance does establish boundaries and so when they volunteer to do those things, usually traffic engineering will say, can you follow the standards already established in the zoning ordinance? And what that did was identify, and I think what Mr. Crumb said, that there was a minimal impact. And what we heard at the zoning hearing for the planning commission was that the turning movements at Haggard and Broadway where we've heard there's concern, the wait time would increase at that intersection by three seconds. So people are already waiting two minutes. Now they'll wait two minutes, three seconds. Sounds good. So pretty much at the discretion of the developer's lawyer, but then also fitting that zone criteria. Council Member Morton, I don't mean to interrupt you. Your time is up. You're welcome to sign back in. Sounds good. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And, Daniel, I'll just ask you a couple of questions, but then I'm going to have some questions for the petitioner. It's the engineer that did the drainage presentation. That's what I'm going to ask next, and try to figure out how to get that pointer to work, if you don't mind. But, Daniel, I'll just ask you about the sewer capacity and the New Circle Road project. So that project is targeted to help the sanitary sewer situation? That's my understanding, yes. And are we aware of any pump station upgrade in proximity to where this development is? Is anybody here that can speak to that? I am not aware of a pump station upgrade. I know there's a pump station nearby, but I'm not aware that that needs to be upgraded. I think, again, in the applicant's information that they submitted to you this evening, there's information about the sewer capacity in that sewer bank, and that there's several million gallons of capacity, and this project will use, thank you, 13 million, what project will use 114,000 gallons per day. And I guess I'm specifically speaking to a pump station in proximity that was upgraded, And I wonder if that's something that actually gets addressed and gets justified in the development plan stage of this process. And if the engineer wants to speak to it, then I'll go to that part. So, yes, Mr. Brown, the lower Cane Run pump station that's located behind the Red Roof Inn by DLZ Engineering, which is just south of our property line. That has been upgraded just a couple years ago, and that is what is reflected on the LFUCG capacity tracking map there. So that pump station has an available capacity, as you see, of 13 million gallons per day. You'll see that it says capacity withdrawn. That means what is it using is almost a million, and we need $114,000. So that's going to leave, you know, still $13 million. It won't even knock it down to $12 something. And I appreciate that, but I wish somebody from our team, from the city, could speak to it from water quality, and I don't think that's the case. But if you could go to where you were showing where the stormwater falls based off of your research, can you figure out how the pointer works so you can show us where the property is and where the water falls. Okay. That one would be back. Yeah, backwards. Keep going. Here we go. So this is where it was starting to hold it down. Okay. Oh, So once again, Radcliffe Road is the high point. So all the stormwater. Can you show us where the high point is? Radcliffe Road. That's the ridge. So if a drop of water falls in the center, just north of the center of that road, it's going to go towards the neighborhood. If it falls the other side, it's going to go down the hill. So everything drains this direction. And by the way, right in there is that pump station. So by LFUCG has very stringent engineering regulations. We're not allowed to increase runoff on our neighbors. so we have detention basin requirements while a gentleman did talk about the underground detention there is a condition single family cannot go to it that was waived by the division of engineering due to this special case and we have permission to take all the drainage to an underground detention for this development so when you stack up all the engineering manuals this city has put together in three ring binders. They're about this tall. We have very stringent cover sanitary sewer design, storm sewer design, roadway design, procedures manual, construction inspection, and geotech. This city does a very good job. All right. Well, I appreciate that information. And then, Daniel, I'm just going to ask you about the development plan phase. that's where our divisions sign off on all the research and studies that were done by the petitioner to justify and agree that that's going to work or not work. Is that true? Yes, that's correct. The final development plan stage is where they have to show, for instance, in engineering, they have to account for all of their flow, where it's going, what rate. It's truly an exhaustive amount of information. And same with all of the other sign-offs, traffic engineering, planning, et cetera. It's going to have to meet all requirements or it'll never get built. Thank you. I might have more questions, but I'll sign back in. Thank you. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Cronin, I just have a couple of quick questions regarding process right off the bat. So just for clarification for folks in the audience here and as a reminder for folks around this horseshoe, to clarify, as part of the planning process, during a zone change hearing, Council does not have the authority to change specific zones only to determine whether the zones as proposed are appropriate or not. Correct? That is correct. And what happens should we say this is not appropriate? So if you all vote for the zone change not being appropriate, then the zone change would fail. It would stay its existing zoning, which is B1 and B3. And the development as proposed would not proceed. And my understanding is that there is also a set period of time before the petitioner could request a new proposal for a different zone change. Is that correct? Okay. Ms. White is informing me that because the Planning Commission recommended approval, they actually would be able to file even if the Planning Commission disapproves and then this body disapproves, there is a mandatory waiting period of one year. The Planning Commission can reduce that. However, Ms. White indicated that because the Planning Commission unanimously recommended this for approval, if this was disapproved by this body here, they would have the ability to refile for a different zone change in less than that time period. Is there a limitation on that time? Is it just any time? No, it's per the Planning Commission's bylaws. So KRS gives the Planning Commission the ability to refuse, if you will, a new application for up to two years. They have elected in their bylaws to set it at one year. But again, it's relevant only to the Planning Commission's decision because it's their bylaws. Where they recommended approval, there's no waiting period. Okay. They could reapply immediately. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that clarification. And Ms. Winters, I have a question for you. You have asked this body to move forward with the approval of only R2 zoning, correct? Right. The neighborhood wanted me to propose that. However, I understand the council's limitations. I mean, their position is that the zone change should be denied. Okay. Okay, just making sure that we're aware that everyone here is aware of what we can do in this hearing right now, and that we do not have that, and you understand that, correct? Right, and I think it was being stated that that's what the neighborhood was looking for, more so in terms of helping the council understand the neighborhood's vision for their neighborhood and what type of development they would like to see on this site, which they do agree is a great place for infill and redevelopment. So that's why we raise that as something the neighborhood would be supportive of down the road. Thank you so much. And Mr. Woodall, I have a couple questions for you as well. Yes, Council Member. So are you aware of whether or not the petitioner ever considered a proposal that involved the development solely of R2 zoning? I'm certain they probably did somewhere along the line at the beginning. You would do that and work. So that's a no? No. I said I'm sure they probably did. Are you sure or did they probably do it? No, I don't know. I was not involved. So you don't know. Can I finish, please? Go ahead. When you're building a pro forma at the front end of a project, like I'm sure one was built here, initially doing the whole project in single family, probably after a neighborhood meeting, would have been discussed. But as Mr. Graham aptly testified, it was determined it wasn't viable financially or economically to do a project like our comp plan now requires with the density. So yes, I believe it was considered, but it was ultimately determined not to do that. Okay, thank you. I appreciate your answer to my question. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Crum, I have a few questions for you. and these are just addressing some concerns from the neighbors. Can you talk a little bit about our parking minimums and why this was approved with the parking that is shown? Yes, yes. So a recent planning initiative within the past couple of years was removing parking minimums. So now they no longer exist in our ordinance. And that really speaks to and was driven out of the comp plan that we as a community embraced, saying we need to be devoting less space to automobile parking and freeing up the developers to provide density in a way that maybe wouldn't be possible if you had a mandated number of spaces. So to this point, the applicants are required during the process to provide a parking demand study essentially states and justifies kind of where they were thinking based on the number of units they've provided. The Planning Commission can look at that, consider that, can require as a part of the development plan process that they provide more parking. In this instance, the Planning Commission approved the development plan with the parking that you saw on the graphic there. Okay, and it's my understanding as well, with increased parking spaces, the stormwater runoff can actually increase with more asphalt or concrete, correct? Yes, any increase in impervious spaces is going to have impacts in the stormwater system. Okay, thank you. I heard other concerns regarding alleyway entrances and the narrowness of the roads. I believe there are a few other developments in town that utilize alleyways. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking Patch and Wilkes and Townley, but are there others that you are aware of? As far as specifics? Those were the only two that would come to me. I was just curious. It's kind of a newer model, and I was trying to rack my brain. Okay. Well, there's others. We'll just go there. There are others. And then can you talk a little bit about the, I know that there is a significant amount of technical review after a zone change is approved. Can you talk about the initial kind of review by the technical committee and how the staff gets to the recommendation part? the technical committee is comprised of a number of individuals both within the government we also have utility providers and so at a preliminary stage we're talking about is this sort of meeting the core specs of the zone are we having sufficient setbacks utility providers will sometimes weigh in and kind of gauge those we'll identify sort of really big picture issues hey there is a flood plain right in the middle of this property what are we going to do about that kind of speaking through some of these specific things with the site, but understanding that the final development plan is where you have to go through and make sure you've checked every single box. So really, once again, this is kind of a preliminary conversation. Are we showing, say, our two lots that are actually far too large? That was part of the consideration with this. They had to go through, re-lot some of the patterns because the front yards weren't meeting. So essentially, the development plan that gets certified says, yes, this meets the zoning ordinance requirements. That final development plan that comes later through that second process approved by the planning commission is where we've said, yes, you've met all of our engineering standards. Everything's in place. We are comfortable giving you permission to pull building permits and start construction. Okay. I had one more, and there it went. I'll sign back in if I think of it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Hale. Well, yes, considering the traffic flow issue, were there any plans to address that issue, the traffic flow issues on Haggard Lane? So the proposal that we show here doesn't show any alterations to Haggard, so it would still use that existing traffic flow, the same traffic pattern, so that's proposed by the applicant. Okay. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. These are questions more for the applicant. So first, one of the policies noted here is the design policy number five for pedestrian-friendly street patterns, walkable blocks. But we've had some conversation tonight about the bus routes. And I've seen in your packet that you have the bus stops listed that are nearby. And then there's some questions about the Northside Connector bus and some of the annual report from the Lex Tran organization about maybe reducing that line. Have you all had any conversations with Lex Tran about that service? I personally have not, Council Member, but to the nature of the development, it will have to have bus service at that location one way or the other. We talked about it some at the Planning Commission, but that was one of those issues that falls more into the final development plan stage. I mean, just as a developer for this development, we'll have to have that amenity. Okay, and then in some past zone change hearings, the applicants have suggested transit or infrastructure around a development that benefits the rest of the neighborhood. Like beefing up a bus stop and putting a shelter or paying for speed tables or traffic calming measures. Have you discussed any of those kinds of things with the neighborhood, or would you consider that? We have not, but we would. That's why I mentioned the final development stage, and I throw that lifeline out there again. We'd welcome that involvement in that process. We expect it to be an exacting process. The last several zone changes I've had have been the same way, and it just works better that way when everybody knows what's going on. Well, and I think this is an opportunity to have direct conversation with the neighbors to get feedback on what some of those changes could possibly be. Instead of going just through the development plan finalization process, but actually having conversation direct with the neighborhood association. So I would encourage that. And then my other question is about the affordable housing breakdown. So this zone change affords higher density in this area, and that density is tied to affordable housing. And we heard that the single-family homes by Habitat would be 30 to 60 AMI. And Winterwood mentioned 80% AMI, but I see garden apartments, townhomes, and senior living units as proposed. So are all of those under the same 80% or less, or are those broken down in different levels of affordability? Yeah, so the property in its entirety will be deed restricted to serve individuals making 80% of the area median income or less. What you've heard from Mr. Neer and Habitat is specific to what Habitat for Humanities program serves, the 36% AMI. There are other partners here, the Housing Authority and Urban League, who do single-family development work, and they may have different restrictions. In no case will people being served be over 80% AMI. The particulars of every unit type and that income served are still somewhat subject to change. You can probably assume that a large majority of these units will be serving people making 60% AMI, based on the various programs we all work with, but there could be opportunity for a somewhat higher AMI. Okay, and I am particularly paying attention to this for people on a fixed income. I serve on the Senior Services Commission, so the senior living units I'm paying attention to. I have one more question, but I'm getting low on time, so I'll sign back in if no one else asks the question. Thank you all. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have a quick follow up to the AMI inquiry to start. At what point in the process will that percentage be determined? We're talking about the range 60 to 80 or 80 and below. Can you talk to us? Yeah, so if this zone change is approved and after the full final development plan process, there will be several funding applications made to various agencies, the City of Lexington, Kentucky Housing Corporation for a host of different projects being done here, and it it would be done at that point, it would be sometime after the final development plan was filed to know the exact breakdown of the AMI levels being served. But that would also likely come with a deed restriction in addition to the 80% AMI deed restriction. So there are some safeguards to ensure that affordability is long lasting in the project. Okay, thank you. And just could you all start my clock properly, please? Yeah. Thank you. I want to follow up about the alleyway question that was asked earlier. So I heard some concerns from residents about the alleyway as a form of ingress and egress for the residents. When we're talking about alleyway, what are we talking about? Are we talking about a space where an emergency vehicle and a car could pass on the road? Are we talking about two cars? Would you be able to explain that to us, please? Bear with me while I pull out the development plan here. Yeah, so it looks like the roadway depictions here feature 20 feet of pavement. So I think that's the minimum that our emergency services feel comfortable with. And so my understanding is that on-street parking would be restricted in those areas. But once again, in order to sign off on this final development plan to actually institute any of that, it would require those sign-offs from all of emergency services as well as engineering, traffic engineering, that the roadways meet the specs needed, and they've gone through all the steps to obtain that. Okay. Okay, and then when you're talking about travel in the area, we haven't heard very much about sidewalks even around the development itself or in relation to the neighborhood. Would you be able to talk a little bit about that? I'm just thinking about even if people are walking along that alleyway, are they going to have to walk next to the alleyway? Will they have sidewalks? Yeah, we'll bring back the development plan here and we can talk through that internal circulation. Chris, can you put our favorite dance? Yep. Should I ask another question while we wait? Yeah. Okay. So we'll hold. Okay. All right. I will zoom over. Thank you. All right. So what you're seeing, and it's a little bit difficult, once again, at this kind of size and scope to see some of this. But this is sidewalks along the frontage and that are ringing around the property here. So essentially you'll be able to go throughout the development, the exterior here, internal, once again kind of tying into our existing networks that are present around here, but pretty substantial networks that are going to circulate the site both internally and externally. Okay, so sidewalks are planned all throughout the site at this point. And then we were talking earlier about engagement with the neighborhood at different parts in the process. So people have mentioned the final development plan and how it's essential in a process like this that neighborhoods are engaged all along the way. Could you just talk to us about what neighborhood input and engagement looks like during a final development plan, how that happens, where that occurs, et cetera, please? Yes, yes. So there's undoubtedly a greater emphasis being placed at the time of the initial zone change. Really, that's when a lot of that conversation occurs. A final development plan, for instance, doesn't have the same notification requirements, so signage, letters, et cetera, that were sort of given out with this process. So there's comprehensive plan policies that kind of dictate that, and we build that into our review of has the applicant met place builder criteria. but when we get to the final development plan stage that really doesn't have a there's not a zoning ordinance requirement that says you shall hold one neighborhood meeting etc. The most successful plans the ones that have the most neighborhood buy-in obviously do that and it's something that the planning commission will ask for as part of their review on the project but really that has less sort of teeth if you will at a final development plan stage versus the preliminary where it's sort of incorporated into those systems and done that way. So it's encouraged. The public still has the ability to weigh in on that during the actual hearing itself, but there's not a firm requirement to get a development plan passed. So there's a possibility that there could be another neighborhood meeting, but that's not required. But is there a space within the government building or within government conversations where this is being reviewed and hashed out where the neighborhood could come and give input about some of these minute details that we're saying are part of the final development plan, or how would the neighborhood weigh in if a meeting were not held? I know we're getting to the end of my time. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So as a part of the development plan process, the technical review committee is sort of, if the zone change was approved, they moved to finalized and moved forward. They had all of the specs figured out. They would then file an application. The technical committee is really more of a just informational only. It would proceed to subcommittees of the planning commission. That does allow for public comment, so there's a period between then and the actual planning commission hearing. If the applicant is hearing feedback from the neighborhood, they want to work and build towards that, they've got the ability to either make those changes, postpone to have further conversations. The planning commission can hear those same comments and say, you know, the neighborhood has expressed issues of X, Y, and Z. Have you addressed those? They have the ability to postpone if they don't feel that the neighborhood's needs are being met with that proposal. And so that's really how that slots in in the process that we have in front of us. But once again, we always encourage the applicant in the neighborhood have the ability to meet at any time that they've got sort of that. And it's often constructive to do so. Okay, thank you. I'll follow up with other questions. I know I'm over time. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gray. Is that my name? Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My question is for the developers. Hey there, sir. So there was a statement made that traffic is not an issue and neither is drainage. Right. The 6th District, which I proudly represent, abuts this area. It's at Broadway and Hager. That's where the gas stations are. Traffic is an issue. It's not minor to the people that live there. And drainage is an issue, even though you stated that it's not. So could you please clarify your statement? Please, because that's a falsehood. Fair enough. Yes. Let's start with drainage. When I say drainage, Steve is our engineer. and with the plans that have been derived and it will follow this development, drainage is not an issue. As Steve said, we cannot cause a problem for an adjoining landowner. So when I say drainage is not going to be an issue with this development, that's what I mean. And I think I said in my comments, you know, in the TRC, we learned very clearly that folks in this area have issues with drainage. It's my hope that when this, well, just from my experience, when projects like this start, problems start to get solved. It just happens, whether it's because something the contractor discovers on site and there has to be a change and whatnot, but as Steve alluded, the engineering process and the construction process here in Lexington is just as exacting as the planning process. It is. And so any issues like that with drainage I think will greatly improve. I understand now that historically in the neighborhood has been a real problem. Hopefully us coming to the neighborhood will solve that problem. With respect to traffic, Steve can speak to that. Yes, we did a traffic study even though we didn't have to do it. And so when I say it's not a problem, it's not a problem in that when you look at the overall wait time at that intersection, and the wait time is going to be, I think the figure was what, two minutes usually. And this development at build out would be an extra three seconds. So that's when I say not a problem. That's what our traffic study shows. And Steve, you could share with Council Member Gray how we, you know, the metrics that you use. I mean, it's objective. And just to point out also, there is a traffic study that is being conducted on Broadway, North Broadway and Parris Pike. There is another apartment complex that is being built that is adjacent, once again, to my district at the corner of North Broadway and Old Parris Road. So when we're talking about traffic, we're taking, I'm considering all these things when we're talking about traffic as well, is how it will impact the people that actually reside in the area. So in your packet was the RFP. One of my distinguished competitors, Strand and Associates, won that award. So they are the ones doing the study for Broadway. I know there's going to be an emphasis on the ramps. That was one of the big points was trying to fix that congestion there at the ramps. So that is being done by the state. When you do do a traffic study, we did meet with the State Department to pick out the seven locations. We used my vision cameras. We recorded during the peak AM, peak PM. It's a, my traffic engineer, he was here with us, he had to leave. But it is a set standard that's set by the KYTC and LFUCG. And once we completed, we submitted to David Filiotru in the Division of Traffic Engineering here. He reviewed it and accepted it. On talking about things we are doing, it doesn't show up very well on the color rendering. chicanes they squeeze the road in David has asked that on the final develop plan we place chicanes near the intersections that will psychologically narrow the road so people will slow down edge lines they're called edge lines okay well run out of time I have one other question but I guess I'll log back in to answer or to ask it. So thank you. Thank you. Colleagues, I'm going to go to council members who haven't spoken yet first. So it's Council Member Ellinger. Yeah. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Tracy Jones, it was brought up that, and I think the attorney was referring to House Bill 443, talking about state law changing and development plans, but that doesn't take effect until July 1st. Is that correct? So we still have a preliminary development plan, and there still will be a final development plan. Going after July 1st, the process will be changing. But presently, we still are in the old system. Is that correct? That's correct. And could you – another thing that was brought up was about the frustration. I understand. I really appreciate all the residents are here, and I'm glad we are having this process because I think it's important to hear from you. But what is your advice to council members about speaking to residents when end zone changes? Because I think it's important to understand, as we sit as a quasi-judicial body, what we, by law, are allowed to do. Right. And your interpretation of that. And I can tell you the interpretation of the law department because it's been the same, I think, almost the whole time that I've been at the government, which is 25 years. So let me tell you first that you all have two roles in the planning arena. And one is purely legislative, and that's when you all act on and talk about or adopt or enact text amendments to the zoning ordinance. Those come to you all as ordinances. They're pieces of legislation. You all act as you do on all kinds of legislation. and whatever you pass in a zoning ordinance text amendment applies across the board to the entire city of Lexington and Fayette County. The other role that you all play is what you're doing here tonight. And I disagree to some point with the interpretation of the case, and there's other case law out there. There's a whole body of it about this issue. And while you all do represent your constituents and you can aid them and assist them in how do you get down here to this hearing? What can you do at the hearing? What we have advised that you not do is talk about this very specific piece of property that someone owns or has an ownership interest in and the zone that's being requested before you hear it tonight at this hearing. And the reason why is because going forward, the law says that your decision needs to be based on the evidence that's presented to you at the hearing. And so the law department has interpreted that to mean that there is always a risk of if people are talking to you all outside the scope of this hearing. If they're giving you documents or they're giving you information or they're giving you things, there's no control of that in a hearing setting and the quasi-judicial role you're going to play. And it always can subject you to being accused of predetermining before you get in here or hearing more evidence one side or the other or being precluded from hearing evidence. And it can skew this hearing. And when that happens, it's a due process violation. And so we don't want that to happen. And we try to lead you all through this so that it doesn't happen. And as has been said here tonight, when you do this, it's hard. And we want you to try to follow it. And we want to keep you in the bounds as much as we possibly can. Because we want your decision to be protected. And we also want it to be defensible if it's pursued or taken further on an appeal somewhere, which it can be. So that's why. And now, that doesn't mean that if something outside, because you're dealing with people's property rights here. So that's why it's important for everyone to be on the same playing field in this hearing in which you're acting in a quasi-judicial role. Now, if other things come up in the course of something that are not related directly to this, that you all hear as a council person representing your district, you know, hey, there's a problem with this over here or there's something with this over here, you're certainly not precluded from dealing with that or finding a way to address that. But what we encourage you and advise you not to do is get information that you should be coming in as evidence at this hearing so you're making your decision based on all of that at the same time. Thank you. I risk losing my five minutes by talking to the lawyers here. And let me just say, Mr. Ellinger's a lawyer, too. I know. I've got two more points. I'll finish one and come back. Since this passed in the Planning Commission, it was approved. In order to overturn it, it requires eight votes. And since there are 12 of us here, then it would have to be at least eight. So a 7-5 vote, even though it was a passing majority, it still wouldn't pass. Is that my understanding? That's correct. You all have to have eight votes. The way the statute reads is a majority of your entire body, no matter how many are here. Thank you. And I want to get into buffering on my next round. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Before I get to the second round of questions from my colleagues, I have a couple of my own as well. Starting with Mr. Woodall and your team. We talked a little bit, my colleagues have asked a little bit about public engagement and how that worked for you all. During this process, we've heard a lot of different concerns, everything from drainage to water to traffic to safety to height and size of the development. During this process and as a result of engagement, did you all make any particular changes to the original plan? What do you mean the original? I think the plan we have is the only plan we've. Yeah, we met with the neighborhood. Yeah, go ahead. I'm going to let Zach answer that, Vice Mayor. We met with the neighborhood a few times before developing the plan in the first place, and it is less dense than it could have been as a result of some of those meetings, and there's some components like senior housing that were a result of some of those meetings. So no, we have not made changes to the plan that were substantial since it was presented, but we did have meetings before adopting the plan in the first place. Okay, I guess, yeah, that's the heart of my question is, did the public engagement influence your decision making in terms of creating the plan to where you are now. And in a related question, if this zone change is approved, we've all heard that this is not the last step in this whole process. It's one of the earlier ones, that we're still looking at the development plan and having that go through. How would you characterize what kind of opportunities that neighbors and folks with concerns have to engage with you all. Because what we've heard is a lot of the concerns that the neighbors have brought up are very legitimate concerns. But they're not necessarily things that can be addressed with the zone change itself. These are items that have to do with the much more nitty-gritty nuts and bolts of the development plan. So what is your sort of strategy or approach with engaging with the neighbors to kind of talk through these challenges and these obstacles as you're developing the development plan? Well, this is what I'm going to say is kind of out of the box with what our rules require, but what I would propose is that Ms. Hutchinson and Ms. Sloan, I communicate with them as we go through the process, as we file everything. Mr. Worsham's fine with that, my clients are fine with that. That way they would know what was going on and then if there was a communication or something that wasn't made, then be blaming me. That's what I would offer. Because they've been at everything and You cannot doubt their passion for this, and so. Yeah, and I think- It seemed to me to be the appropriate folks. Thank you for that. I would encourage everyone in this room that has concerns about this development, that whatever happens tonight, if this zone change is approved, this is not the last step, this is not the end, this is not, we failed in our efforts and we're done. this really is the beginning of the conversation to have some of your concerns heard and hopefully addressed. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Crum. Going through your presentation, about two-thirds of the way in, there's a page called Development Criteria. Did this development hit all of the criteria? I think it was right before. Yep. There we go. There you go. Yeah, so these are, once again, the development criteria. The overall, there's five sections that apply to different topics. And there's a number that, so to answer your question, do they fit all criteria? No, simply because not all criteria are applicable. Some things refer to, say, what you should do if you have a school site or, you know, some of those things. Some apply, as was noted, to if you're going to incorporate, say, commercial opportunities with that. But the planning staff's recommendation and the findings of the planning commission was overall, it was an agreement with the place builder criteria for the reasons outlined in the staff report that you all have as a part of your packet. Okay. So to the extent that this particular development, it fulfilled the criteria that were relevant to what you all have set out? Yes. Okay. Okay. And did, during the Planning Commission's deliberation, did they suggest or make any changes to the zone change? As a part of, they didn't install or propose any, say, conditional zoning restrictions. Yeah, really it was more of a conversation of kind of the neighborhood's concerns with that. But as far as sort of directives to add additional comments, I don't believe there was any additional, say, changes as a part of their conditional approval. I don't really think there was anything of substance. Okay. Thank you very much. My time is up. Council Member Morton. I'll go back to the initial question I left off at. So what mechanism do we use to vet if the developers follow the criteria for traffic studies set by the zoning ordinance or whatever you mentioned during my initial questions? Yeah, so the, we'll bring the development plan back up. So once again, the traffic impact study is looking at some of the consistency we have is, say, number of units. If they are going through and increasing that number, that changes the corresponding numbers that they're working with and the impact on the area. Any change to the number of units would need to be denoted on a new development plan that would go to the planning commission. Once again, you would still vet those same numbers that are being carried through at the final development stage to make sure that the statistics are accurate, that they're issuing their approval. But once it's issued, there's not a further down the line review. They have the ability, once a final development plan's been approved, they have that vested right and the ability to kind of go pull building permits off of that. So at the time of the final development plan, they would make sure that those numbers are still accurate and comfortable to the satisfaction of the Division of Traffic Engineering. and it would proceed from there. Okay. So pretty much we just accept the traffic study? Our planning staff, our MPO staff, our traffic engineering staff run the numbers and verify the statistics. A lot of that is based off of sort of national data, the IT trip generation manual. Those sorts of information is used to kind of generate those studies, so they review them, but that's not our specific divisions. So I have a limited ability to speak to the technicalities of that. Great. So if this zone change was approved, are the limits of density what has been set forth by this application? In other words, 96 senior living apartments is the maximum number that will be allowed, even if the dimensions of the building does not change. Will the developer not be allowed to develop maybe 98 units rather than 96? Yes, I think the total number of units, if we saw an increase there, I think as far as the breakdown between the multifamily versus the senior living, if there was a difference there. But I think we're looking at the overall development picture with that. The only reason the applicant would not be able to change the dwelling unit numbers is if the council established a cap. If you set a density maximum, they won't be able to exceed that. Okay. Let's see. All right. Mr. Woodall. This is pitched as an affordable housing development. What does that mean? Does that mean that, well, yeah, what does that mean, I guess, just for your understanding? Well, what it means, and you heard the formulas, whether it's 30% AMI, 60% AMI, you can't make over a certain amount to live in the housing. That's what it's focused for, and that's backed up by federal and whatever state fundings. Zach's a lot better at that than I am, obviously. but everything is indeed restricted, as he said. All right. So just an example, what would be the estimate price range for the senior living facility? On rent? Rent. Nation isn't. Most of those would be one-bedroom units, probably somewhere in the $800 range. Okay. Okay. But so this probably, no set, no estimate, maybe $800, maybe up towards $1,000. Well, you asked for an estimate. That is an estimate. But I have to say probably because income could go down and we could have to charge less, and it could go up and we could have the ability to charge more. Right. So I ask that question because I know a lot of seniors are on fixed income, and even then sometimes fixed income doesn't even match that price. So then the question is, is that affordable? Let's see. What is the expected cost for each house, each unit, townhouse in each house? Our cost of construction for the homes that we're building now is about $200,000. For our cost of construction, the house is appraised for about $260,000. The average homeowner, and this is average, based on 30 to 60% of AMI, a homeowner is carrying a first mortgage of roughly $95,000. Okay, so within that 30 to 80 AMI, how many of those units do you think, do you believe will be actually 30 AMI, or how many do you think will reach the AMI? It's all dependent on who applies for our program. That varies year over year. Our average AMI probably comes in at about 45. Let's see. Okay. Mr. Wardle, you mentioned that you held several public input meetings about this overall plan because of the input from the neighbors. How many times did you meet? How many times did I meet? When I got involved, Councilman, that was shortly before we filed. We had a meeting on November the 11th, I believe it was, and I think there were three meetings before that. Mr. Peoples, roughly three before I was involved, Council Member. Yes. Do you know how many people were in attendance? I do not know. I can tell you at the November meeting, I think it was roughly 20, 25. It was at the community, at the park there. Other than just like word of mouth and the neighbors. You're out of time again. For this proceeding, we can sign in more than twice. So you can sign back in. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And Mr. Woodall, my questions are for you and maybe your clients can answer. So the houses are going to be for sale for home ownership as well as the townhouses. Can you say that definitively? Yes. Okay. And then density, a density cap was mentioned. And I think to the neighbor's concern about a bait and switch or the plans changing if it moves forward, I just want to hear from your clients as the petitioners that if we cap the density on what was requested, I mean, is that – can you commit to that? I don't think it's a problem, but can we take two minutes? Yeah. Let's talk about it. Yeah. There you go. Okay. All right. So the next thing I'll ask, too, and this is for Mrs. Winters and your client. So have you reached out to the developer since they proposed a development plan? And it's not the neighborhood's responsibility to do so. But I just wonder if you've reached out to their attorney to meet with them, or has the neighborhood reached out to the developer to have another meeting to discuss the development plan? Sure. I've personally been hired in this case for about a week. But the neighborhood has been active for several months in reaching out to the developer and having meetings and organizing community input. and I you know do you guys have you all reached out to them I know there were some meetings that they initiated in some meetings that the neighborhood initiated during the process but it's important to note that you know there's no requirement for anything like that going forward so you know the public input part of the comp plan that requires this will be done after tonight So I guess I just wanted to be clear just to see if an invitation has been extended or rejected or not, or if there has not been any communication between the two parties since the development plan was. I honestly do not know. We have our neighborhood president here. So we met with the developers at the Marlboro Shelter in November. We had residents who attended the subdivision planning commission meeting in the morning of December, in the zoning committee meeting in the afternoon in December. We had 16 neighbors who showed up at the full planning committee meeting a week later in December. And we have not, we've had meetings at the shelter in January and in February, but there were no, none of the developers in attendance. Okay. All right, well, thank you for that clarity. And council members, I'll just say this now. If it looks like this development is going to move forward, then I may propose a density cap on the proposal. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And my question is regarding, and I don't know who quite to ask, regarding there's been several times tonight from the residents that stated that there was a bait and switch into, I guess this is a question perhaps for the developer. I'll start. So to the developer, hey. Can you explain to me why the residents, what steps did you all take to keep the residents part of the process? Because evidently there's a feeling amongst the residents, many of them, in that you all came with a plan and then all of a sudden, swoosh, it changed. And they weren't part of that. Council Member Gray, since I've been involved in this project, the only plan we have is the one that's in front of you. There were meetings before, I think, that have, for whatever reason, led to that sentiment. I don't believe that my clients misled anybody. I believe they had those meetings to get the neighborhood concerns, and then when they sat down to design, like it happens, you sit down and you design the project, and then you have to make it work for the banks, for the federal agencies, for the state agencies, and everything else. And that's just a fact of business. And it was determined that it had to be built the way it had to be built. I can understand what you heard is, well, we thought we were going to get all single-family homes, but I don't believe that representation was ever made. That's just, I'm not calling anybody a liar or anything else. That's just, I like to think I know my clients, that's all. We have a copy of the materials that were distributed at the initial meetings that show- Ms. Winters, would you speak to the mic? Thanks. As I said, during my presentation, in the initial meetings, only single family homes were discussed. And this is just, we only have one copy of it with us, but this is the material that was passed out at that meeting as a representative example of the type of development they would be seeking. And as you look through here, every single one is a single family home. Does- We enter this into the record? Or is the evidence- We can pass it around. Yes, I would like to see it. And also we do have the overhead over there that you can actually put it up there on the screen. So we do have technology in order to help with that. So- And I think the date on that is from May of 2024. So it wasn't even the first meeting with the neighborhood, I don't think. Was that the first meeting? Okay, it was the first. It wasn't the first. Okay. So this is the third meeting out of four or five. And so still, even at that point, they're representing single-family only. And so there was very little opportunity for the community to engage with the applicant once the current. It's not a single family. It's a duplex, it looks like. This is what I was given by my client. Okay. No, it says duplex on it. Okay. And to the, thank you for that. I was just curious. Also, to the developers, are you all committed to staying in communication with the residents? Because that's what I feel that they feel was missing. And what I've learned as a council member is that's why I over communicate. I give more information than people ask me for in order to make people feel like they're involved in the process. Yes. Can you all commit? Yes. I'll do that once again. Yes. Absolutely. Happy to do it. Thank you, sir. That's all. May regret that, but happy to do it. Well, make them regret it so they can't say that you did not do it. So make them regret it. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. I want to reiterate what Council Member LeGree and Gray said, and I think Ms. Wade, you brought it up, about if this is approved tonight, what goes the system going forward? And I don't know Mr. Woodall has said he was going to work with the neighbors on this. What is the process so the neighbors are informed of where we go with the final development plan? Yeah, the next stage is for the applicant to prepare their final development plan if this is approved. And they would file that with the Division of Planning for review by the Planning Commission. As you mentioned earlier, the House Bill 443 will change our process. So if they file their final development plan before July, it will follow the process we're under now. If they filed it later, it might be different. But what I will say is currently alleys are not a permitted street type. They need a waiver to even build an alley. That means that that plan, if there's an alley proposed, has to go to the Planning Commission for approval because of a waiver. That gives me some reassurance that yes, they've said this is what we want to build. If it shows an alley, that the Planning Commission will have a public hearing and there will be an opportunity for them to attend. And I guess that's one reason I wanted to address that because of House Bill 443, they could run the clock to if it was after July, then this would be the plan. But since there is an alley in this plan, then that cannot be done? Right. It requires a waiver of the land subdivision regulations. And I know that's a bit in the weeds, but I think it gives some reassurance, at least to the neighbors, that they would have another opportunity to speak. Because I want to make sure they're part of the process going forward if it is approved. And with that being said, Council Member Brown brought up the density cap. We haven't done that a lot here, but that is a purview that the Council can do in this process along with buffering. Those are two things that, and I've been a part of numerous zone changes over the 18 plus years I've been here. So I've sat through a few of these and we've made some of those changes. Could you talk about, in here it says improves tree canopy. That was what came from the planning commission. What is the buffering that's going to be put in this development to protect the neighbors? So there are landscape requirements associated with the zoning ordinance, and that happens in two places. Around parking lots, so along the edge and within the parking lot, that's not really buffering necessarily, but it does provide tree canopy. And then there's what we call zone-to-zone screening. So where two zones that are of different intensity meet, there's a requirement in the ordinance that you provide additional width of landscape. And generally between a business zone and a residential zone, we're requiring 15 feet of space with trees every 40 feet and shrubs in that too. So that would be along the interstate, along the Red Roof Inn property, and the office property, and down to Haggard Lane. It doesn't include buffering within a right-of-way, though. Obviously, if we have a street there, you don't need trees in the middle of the street. And during the final development plan, all of those, there are specifics that have to be addressed? that we can actually add extra requirements to the developer at this point if we wanted to. Could we not? On making further buffering to protect the neighbors? Yes, in terms of, and Daniel just mentioned, there's also street trees are required for any new residential street. So those are usually out in the right-of-way, though. Yes, you can require additional buffering. That's usually along the exterior of the property, and that's meant to provide for, again, a transition between land uses. And you can either add more trees. You mentioned, Mr. Woodall, about a six-foot fence. At one point, was there something brought up in that? Not by me. Okay, I thought I heard somebody mention a six-foot fence. Okay. Our ordinance does allow for the 15-foot width to be reduced to five feet if they install a six-foot privacy fence. So the council can mandate the 15-foot width no matter what. That's an option. Or increase to a different width or add more trees. Those are the kind of options. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Okay. So where I left off. So how did we go about promoting these meetings, the community meetings, Mr. Woodall? How do we promote what now? The community meetings, community engagement meetings, how would they promote it? No, well, when we, the one that we did, how did we do that, Steve? We just sent a letter to, I'm trying to remember who actually organized the meeting. usually, you know, we'll send out letters, but I don't think I did that in this regard. I think the meeting was already set by Mr. Holmes. Mr. Holmes set the meeting. Let's just go back a little bit. What input did you receive and what changes have you made to the overall plan because of the input of the neighbors? After that meeting, there were no changes made. And once again, you have those meetings to inform. Sometimes you make changes, and with this particular plan, it was made less dense, senior housing was added, as I also believe there was another access point added, but there's, we can use terms bait and switch and things like that, but there's no requirement in KRS 100 or anywhere else in the ordinance that, I mean, we want, and we put this tenant in our comp plan, we want to have neighborhood engagement, but sometimes you just can't do everything that the neighborhood wants and keep an affordable housing project like this one viable. All right, let's go to design. I know in our initial, in the public hearing request, there was pictures going around of the designs of the apartment buildings, the senior buildings. Is that the same designs given in the Planning Commission? Was not permitted to, by your own rules, were not permitted to show renderings at this stage. I would have had them, in fact, in the Planning Commission hearing, we had a flyover, we called it, of the entire development that we showed, but it was based on renderings. And that's where I think a lot of this with the all-single housing build got going, because that meeting was talking about composition of the buildings that were going to be built. Are they going to be brick? What's the brick going to look like? Is it going to be siding and whatnot? And what was shown was single-family homes. So somehow that morphed into you're building nothing but single-family homes here. My folks didn't see it that way, and they don't see it that way tonight. Okay. More so regarding back to the design phase. So just a question for law. I have those pictures. Can I put those into the record, being that they've already been presented to us? Well, they haven't been presented to you guys. And so they were presented at the Planning Commission because as part of their decision, they had to look at the preliminary development plan. The reason why you're all's rule says that, that no renderings, is because you all don't vote on the development plan. You just vote on the zone change. However, there have been instances in the past, because it's your rule, that you all have voted to suspend those rules and look at certain things. So that's up to the purview of the council, if that's something you choose to do. But your rule, as it stands right now, precludes that so people don't bring them. Okay. So, and this is more so related to at the public hearing meeting, we were, it was shown to us, but then also it was put in our mailbox. So we were given these documents. So this is already knowledge to the council members. So what I'm looking to do, so basically what you're telling me, I can't do that without suspending the rules. That's correct. Because your rule says no renderings will be. Well, I'll make a motion. I'll move to suspend the rules and add into the record images that were already received by council members. It's just images, preliminary images of the senior living apartment and also the apartment that is proposed. So moved. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on this motion? Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Morton, I did not receive anything to this effect. So I don't know if it was because it's your district or do you know what he's speaking about? I don't know how, I mean, let me say from the law department's perspective, I haven't gotten copies of everything that's come tonight. I've gotten copies of some of it. We weren't given that. I don't know how it got in your all's mailbox, so can you answer that? I just want to make sure we know what you're talking about. 100%. It was in our mailboxes right after the request for public hearing, and that's actually how I got this image. And it was in, I looked at the mailboxes, and it was in all the mailboxes. I did not receive it. Well, I don't want to present it. Well, I have a motion on the floor to suspend the rules and add these documents to the record. So moved. Is there further discussion? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. I'd just like to get the law's perspective on this because we had this discussion a little earlier about the information that we're supposed to derive to make our decision based on the facts that we have been part of the hearing. How would you interpret that motion? Motion. I've got two things to say about that. One is, I mean, it's your rule, and as part of this hearing, you won't be making a decision on a development plan. And that renderings go to that. I'm also a little concerned about, while in the past you have suspended your rules to last, I might be mistaken, but I believe that the vice mayor closed the hearing. And have you closed the hearing yet? Not. You've not? No. I just wanted to make sure before we put evidence in if you had. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I just asked Council Member Morton, what's the intent of sharing this information with us? The intent is to look at the proposed design and to ask the developers if they plan to stick to that or do they plan to switch the design. And obviously that can be decided here, but I just want for public transparency of the community to know, because the design of those buildings are concerned. So that's intent. Thank you for that, Council Member Morton. I'm going to vote against that motion. To our law's point about suspending the rules and asking for that to be allowed at a previous hearing, I think I made that motion. And the reason that I made that motion was because we had a development plan for a neighborhood that was part of a small area plan that included design standards. And I thought at that time that since that neighborhood had design standards formulated in the small area plan, that it was appropriate to review the rendering since the development already had guidance on what it needed to look like. I don't think that's the case here. I don't think there's design standards in place. And I would almost, if this moves forward, I think there's an opportunity for the neighborhood to work with the developer to work out some of these details into the final development plan. And I would just hate to lock us into the aesthetics of this development going forward. So I'm not going to support it. Thank you. Any other discussion? Council Member Allen here. This is a technical question. Since you're suspending the rules, is this an 8 or 10 vote on this one? To suspend your rules, your rules say you have to have 10. And also, just to be clear, if you look at the renderings, because you all don't have purview over the development plan, I mean, you can get questions on the record, but there's no way to enforce that. It has to be enforced at the Planning Commission. Just so I wanted to be clear on that, because I know this is the first hearing this year we've done. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I will not be supporting this motion because it's not germane to our hearing. Thank you. I'm going to interject two comments. As you all might guess, I'm very, very process-oriented in doing this particular kind of hearing right. I do not remember receiving anything in my mailbox. If I had, I would have alerted members of our planning staff, particularly in law, to let them know that I had received it, and then I would quickly put it in recycling because we are a quasi-judicial body that is supposed to take in the evidence that we get today, tonight, at this hearing. And I would not have looked at that information. So, A, I don't remember it. B, I second a few of my colleagues' objection to looking at this exhibit it because again we are not ruling on the development plan and I want to be very clear what the function of this hearing is it is to determine whether or not we want to approve the zone change that is it the development plan is in the purview of the planning staff and the Planning Commission so I just want to be very clear about that any other comment on the motion Council Member Martin? Correct, correct. So I agree with you. I thought the same thing. When I seen my mailbox, that's the first thing I went to one of our colleagues and said, what does this do in our mailbox? Why did they put this here? So I agree with you, but they were there. On the other standpoint, it just seems because this won't pass, so I'll speak towards my intent. We know on the north side of town, when we're talking about development and we're talking about the design development, sometimes we get to shorten the stick. It's not always good material. It's more cheaper material. The look of the buildings are not as always good. that is maybe on the other side of town or where we have more privilege. So that is my intent. To ask what are the, in their preliminary reports, what do they believe the design will look like, and are they going to stick to that design or are they going to change it? But thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sheehan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate the motion. I'm also not going to support it at this time because I do think this is the domain of the Planning Commission, And in fact, we've seen a recent case with the Planning Commission where the original renderings and then what came back later were not the same. And the Planning Commission then turned down the change, and the developer had to come back. So I think there is room at the Planning Commission to have this discussion and to look at this question about the look and the characteristics and the feel in that way. Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion on the floor? All right, let's go ahead and pull up Granicus for the vote on this motion, please. All right, that motion fails. Thank you. Do we have any other questions for this segment? This is our last opportunity to ask questions of the petitioner or the opposition before we go into close hearing. Council Member Morton. Plenty more, plenty more. Okay, so speaking back towards design, like I said, my intent was to make sure that on this north side of town, especially in certain areas, low privilege, undervalued communities, that we are emphasizing great characteristics, great material, and material that maybe somewhat resembles the current houses and the current domains inside, well, within the surrounding area. But I'll skip over those design questions since that's not of interest of the council. Let's go. Let's see. Let's do this. Okay. Okay. Can you explain the process of your traffic study? So once again, my traffic engineer did go home. But you meet with KYTC. They review wide intersections to set up the myovision cameras. You record the AM and PM peaks, and then using the ITE, Traffic Generation Manual, and the standards of traffic engineering, and I think we have some slides that Brett prepared. You do the traffic study. We talk about level of service, but level of service can get a little confusing because, like, years ago, engineers, we came up with some great ideas where we thought we would simplify things and say, A, level service A is like A in school and F is an F in school. But that's not really what it's all about. It's about delay. So, for instance, an interstate flowing like an interstate is supposed to is an A. That's about it. So when you say, I want my neighborhood to be an A, that means no one is stopping. So you really want to be careful with what level of service you're asking people to design to. because it could be dangerous going too high, uncontrolled speed. We've heard about Radcliffe. We're looking at doing traffic calming, thanks to David Filiotra's input, because it is fast. That road's wide, people drive it fast. I drove it in my Silverado, and I thought somebody was going to pull up into the back of my truck. So, wide roads can sometimes work against you in a neighborhood setting. Let's see. Did you consider the traffic impact during high volumes of hours such as morning and afternoon? Well, I guess my question would be, what hours did you do the traffic study? The AM peak and the PM peak, and I think it may be in a slide. But I don't know if that's 6 to 8 or what the exact hours of the AM and PM peak, but it's defined by KYTC and LFUCG. Okay. Did your study conclude that there are currently traffic issues surrounding this development? So the traffic issues are at Haggard and Broadway. Traffic studies are volume-based, not speed-based, but we know that there's a speed problem. We've talked to the neighborhood. I drove the road myself. I know there's a speed problem, so we need to do some traffic calming. Let's see. According to your documentation, there will be 222 off-street parking spaces and 59 on-street parking spaces, as well as vehicles for each of the 29 single-family homes and 26 townhomes, with a total of additional amount of vehicles between 300 to 350 added to these streets from this development. I find it hard to imagine that the traffic on Haggard Lane will only be affected by three seconds during the peak hours as mentioned. I also noticed the parking for the apartments in the senior living buildings, but I did not notice anything about the single-family homes. I'm assuming that means parking must be included in the design of both single-family and townhomes? Like they'll have driveways? Yes, they'll have driveways. Okay. And they're shown on the plan. Okay. Let's see. Council Member Morton, are you ready to... No, I'm not. I'm just taking my time. Okay. You've heard some concerns and comments about flooding. My understanding is that the flooding on Hager Court is a problem that you've acquired by obtaining the property. I have a statement from our engineers here at the city that states that there does appear to be a defined problem. Let's see. Let's get there. There does appear to be a defined drainage path along Haggart Court from the detention basin towards Haggart Lane, and this is creating an undesirable condition along the road. Are you familiar with this? Yes. Actually, probably he was hired by the city to do that project. And when we communicated with them, we're now doing this project. that's when they put that on hold to see if we can correct it with this project. Right. And y'all will be correcting this flood issue with your project as a plan? Yes. Okay. All right, Council Member, your time is up. We're going to go ahead and move to closed hearing. I just requested to speak again. I'm sorry. So, Council Member Morton, in our body, we don't really have a filibuster. and in our general council rules and under Robert's rules it's speak but twice. We suspend that here. Point of information. So at the beginning of the meeting I was told that I can sign in as many times as possible. What has changed between that? That's what I was just getting at. So for this hearing because the entire hearing is on one issue in the past we have not limited debate to each person speaking twice. So at this point, I would ask that we be able to wrap this up and go to discussion. It is 10.15, we're going on hour number five. Other council members have mostly spoken once and a couple twice, and you are requesting time number five. So I'm asking as a courtesy if we can move to close hearing. Well, I understand your concerns. I am the first district representative for these constituents. I have questions listed. Prepare to ask. I do not want to be stopped from speaking, and I do not want to be shut up from speaking. So I respectfully decline, and I would love to continue to ask my questions until I'm finished. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Morton, do you know how much time you need to ask the remainder of your questions? So do you think that's an additional 10 minutes? Okay. Well, so just out of respect for everyone here's time, I don't want to limit district council members opportunity to ask questions. So I've moved to give council member Morton an additional ten minutes to finish asking his questions. Point of board. Point of board. You don't have to do that because we are given, as mentioned at the top of the meeting, we have as many time to sign in to speak. Unless there's a motion to limit my debate, then we can go that route. But as for right now, I believe you don't have to do that. I don't know if we have a parliamentarian to answer. So I guess Vice Mayor or somebody from law give clarity. So we have to close the hearing so we can deliberate amongst council members about how to move forward. So I think just being respectful of everyone's time, I just think we ought to figure out a way to move forward. So I'll make a motion to give Council Member Morton an additional 10 minutes to finish his line of questioning. So move. We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? My question, Council Member Brown, is in your motion, is this 10 minutes and then we move to close hearing? Or is this additional 10 minutes? Because as Council Member Morton says, your motion currently as it stands is somewhat superfluous in that as a current best practice for this hearing that we're not limiting debate. I just say as a way for us to move forward after 10 minutes, then I think we entertain a motion to close the hearing. If that's clear. Any other discussion on the motion? Okay, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, Council Member Morton, you have ten minutes. Let's figure out where it was. Okay, you mentioned that the development will address this flooding. what anti-flooding measures will be in place or will be implemented? It wouldn't be called a question. So we will use the engineering manuals. We'll work with the engineering staff, which we have. Your city has a great new development staff of engineers. and we'll figure out what to go forward. Stormwater is also covered by Division of Water Quality, which is Greg Lubeck and his group, which is another good group of engineers. And I'm sure between Prime AE, Division of Water Quality, and Division of Engineering, we'll figure it out. And you're committed to fixing that issue is what I'm hearing? You're committed to fixing that issue, the flooding issue on HagerCorp? Yes. Okay. Let's see. It was mentioned earlier that this is award-winning development. How is this a reward-winning development and we have not even accepted it or pushed it through to be approved? The Chamber of Commerce gave the award. I think the Community Impact Award, I believe it's called. So, at the Chamber of Commerce dinner. I don't know what the criteria for the award is. they obviously thought it was important, so they gave it to the group. I have no further questions. Thank you. All right. We're moving into closed hearing. At this point, no further evidence can be taken. Council will deliberate on the evidence we've heard, and at some point, I will entertain a motion for findings of fact. and the underlying ordinance. So we're going to take two separate votes. So at this time, council members, if you would like to speak, please sign in. Council member Sheehan. I move to close the hearing. We have. I thought you needed a motion for that. No, no, no. We just closed it. Okay. I thought we had to vote on it. No, no. No, we're good. We're just moving on in the regular course of this meeting. Thank you. Yep. Council member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I'll start by just sharing a few comments. I want to start by thanking the neighborhood, my neighbors, for coming out today and speaking and sharing their thoughts and being active in our neighborhood. And I just want to be clear, when I suggested not having another public hearing to move to the next phase and create an opportunity to have a public forum, it's because I just know this process, in my opinion, is flawed, but it's the process that we have. And when we have to try to communicate to the neighborhoods that we represent about zone changes, but we're being told by our law department, which I think has given us advice that they can defend, that we can't engage in it. It's just hard. It's just hard for us as representatives to do that. I thank Mr. Tagalua for the prayer. I think we needed it. And Mr. Ramos, congratulations on expecting a young person. And Mr. and Mrs. Sloan, I'm so sorry about the car running into your house. It was just a problem. But we're already working with traffic engineering to try to do something at the intersections of Linton and Radcliffe to address some of the traffic issues. I will say to my neighbors, and I think I shared this before, The first time I heard about this development was on the news and at a press conference. And I think that's what got this ball rolling in the wrong direction to start out with. When you hear about something happening in your neighborhood, you like to hear it from the folks that are doing it in person and not at a press conference and not on TV at the news. So as soon as I heard it, I reached out to the developers and asked them to come talk to the neighborhood because I said I've represented this neighborhood for years. I was the neighborhood president. this group is engaged and needs to be engaged about this project. And I think they tried to do that. I think the development and the intent of the development is a good one. I just don't think they were able to connect like they should have with the neighborhood to get to a point where the neighborhood feels good about it. But I think this is an important, potentially if it moves forward, an important development for our city. And I think we can still try to work to get these parties together to come with a development. And I'm committed to trying to help make that happen if it moves forward. Another part of my concern is that this zone change doesn't move forward. The current uses that are allowed in those zones, I have challenges with. I know we talk about the amount of human service organizations in North Lexington. Those zones allow for more of those to be concentrated in North Lexington. I'd rather have neighbors as people than businesses. So I have concerns about that. And we as a council and as a local government have a mandate in regards to trying to work to create more affordable housing. Two years, we've been inundated for over a year and a half from a group called Kentucky Tenants, and it was comprised of young people, senior folks, and they were talking about the challenges they were having with finding affordable housing in Lexington. So we've expanded the boundary to create and take some of the pressure off of these infield developments that are happening, but we do understand that they're still going to happen. We just got to work to make them happen in a way that neighborhoods can pilot the changes that come. So, and then I keep thinking about BUILD. I know there were some people here earlier from BUILD, and BUILD has been on us about putting more resources towards affordable housing. And I think we've done that, but now we have to do the next step. And that's come up with plans and work with neighborhoods to create developments that are affordable, that give and provide housing for folks in our community. So, yeah, I think this council has a mandate to look for, to create affordable housing opportunities. But then I also think we have a commitment as a council to help shepherd these. And our opportunity doesn't come until we get to the next phase. Why isn't the zoning process? We just have to stay hands off. But I think I'm committed, and I think other council members are committed to working with this neighborhood and other neighborhoods to make these developments be something that the neighborhoods could look to as examples moving forward. And I know we talked about this project being something that's celebrated across the state, but I don't think the folks in this neighborhood care about the rest of the state. They care about their neighborhood. And I think we have to commit to working with this neighborhood to make this development not just a good development, but a perfect development and one that we can build off of going forward. So I'm looking to support the zone change, But I'm also looking to commit to continue to working in this process to get us to a place where the neighbors feel at least more comfortable about this change going forward. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Morton. To my fellow colleagues, thank you for being here today. A special thank you to those who changed your schedule to be here. Thank you for listening to the concerns of my constituents and some of my questions. I do not believe that the constituents are giving a NIMBY request. This is a normal response due to heightened feelings from having longstanding concerns that have not been heard or not addressed. So I ask you, should we address these problems first, or should we let this development happen and possibly make the problems worse before we work for solutions? Additionally, I would like to add, I am disappointed by entities who have spoken of this project as a great success. Some have given awards and accolades to this project even before the zone change was approved. So much positive press has been given to this project, leading residents whom you heard from today, wondering if it was worth their time to even be here today, let alone was this a done deal from the start. When we value stakeholders above the process of community input, we have a problem. I believe stakeholderships should not outweigh constituent voices or input. We are elected officials to represent the community, not our friends or respected stakeholders. I made a promise that I would support, uplift, and defend all of my neighborhoods, and that's exactly what I'll do. So to my community members, I've heard what you said tonight, and that you've had longstanding issues of flooding, traffic congestion, which you feel have been neglected. If these issues were alleviated, you may feel differently about this development. But since your concerns have not been solved, it is difficult and even impossible to imagine adding density, adding traffic, and paving surfaces such as parking lots and rooftops. I truly do get it. Unfortunately, throughout this zone change process, the process cannot address longstanding issues and neglect. I've asked, but as a council, we are not permitted to add conditions regarding design or conditions that the developers fix or alleviate issues outside of their footprint or the development in question. So I've been on the hunt to find ways that we can address this proactively and think outside the box. And in my hunt, I've found several things that can be done. Most are beginning stages. Nonetheless, they will be started, and I would like to tell you a little bit about them. First, flooding. As mentioned, the Hager Court is on the radar for the city. And as mentioned by the developers, they have committed, hopefully, to fix that in that area. The traffic issues. I will work to proactively install and try to install as many NTMP requests as possible. So look at speed humps, look at signage, look at the linings and all those things to try to address traffic concerns and traffic issues in that area. And I know that Radcliffe is slated for the spring and summer to get some edge lines already done. And me and a colleague will look to see if we can proactively address this traffic concern within all our areas. We know that it's not just coming from this development. We know that Citation is going to open up and it's going to flood in Radcliffe from the library. We know that Citation is going to open up from Windburn. It's going to flood in Radcliffe from the other lane. We know that there's an affordable housing development going on Parris Pike, that North Broadway is an existing issue. They're there. But as stated earlier, I'm committed to making sure that we're bringing the right folks to the table, that we're addressing the challenge before this development goes forward if it does. And then lastly, I just want to thank you all for coming out. And I really, truly do appreciate you. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I want to thank everyone who came out to speak on this issue. Zone change hearings, this may come as a surprise to everybody in this room, don't tend to be the most fun things in the world, not how most folks would like to spend five or six hours on a weeknight. But I do think it is a testament to the passion of the folks who are going to be impacted by this project. And I want you all to know that whatever happens tonight, I hear you. And I am fully committed to working with all of you all because these concerns that are impacting your community are also impacting other communities throughout our city. So anybody who's interested in addressing street safety, water quality, socioeconomic inequality, any of these issues, I invite you to reach out to me, reach out to my office. If you want to have a conversation, we're here. And as far as the process and procedure goes, I think that tonight is also very illustrative of the fact that we need to reconsider how we go about our zone change hearing process. process and I do look forward to working with my colleagues on reviewing that so that we can at least clearly communicate to communities what our purview is as a body when it comes to zone change hearings and I do also want to commend the folks that came together to make this proposal possible I know that there was a lot of work put in by a lot of people with the intent of making housing more affordable, and that is something that Lexington does desperately need. However, I do want to suggest that when we are in a zone change hearing, we all know that this isn't fun, but we do need to operate in good faith and with respect for one another. And in certain moments tonight, I think there was a display of disrespect for both the process and for members of this body. And so I would encourage everybody who is potentially coming before this body to, number one, do their homework. If you were not on a given project, but you're going to be defending that project and arguing for that project, and you know there are going to be questions asked about things that happened with that project before you were brought on, do your homework so you can answer those questions or have somebody here who can answer those questions. And number two, I would encourage y'all to, as we move forward, learn from the mistakes that have been made thus far. And as you continue to engage, should this zone change be approved and move forward, operate in good faith. and do not assume that you know everything and the people who are speaking in a different viewpoint know nothing. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First, I want to thank the members of the community for coming tonight. I know that I originally did not vote to support a hearing tonight, and that was procedural for me just based on my standards for public hearings. I am glad that we had it. I'm glad that you all had an opportunity to tell us your viewpoints on it and share your concerns with us that we can encourage everybody going forward to consider as far as the development plan is concerned. I also want to thank the development team. As some previous colleagues have stated, it did take a lot of collaboration to make this happen. And I personally am very appreciative for you thinking outside of the box and pooling resources to make a dent in our housing problem that we have. sometimes as legislators we can't solve all the problems and we look to the community to help us provide those solutions and i am really happy to be here and see this particular project hopefully move forward with that being said i i also want to say that you know we all know not just from tonight, but we all know we have this current housing shortage is real and that housing prices are out of control. And I did a little search while we were here because we've been here for a minute. And currently on the market at the median sales price for our community, which is $330,000 for 2024, in all of Fayette County, There are 130 homes for sale, under $330,000 in the entire county. This development alone will provide roofs for more people than there are currently houses available. That's amazing. I'm sorry. I'm speaking. Thank you. I know that it doesn't come without heartburn. but I have sat through a lot of zone changes since I've been in office, and none of them are easy at all. They're not easy for you, the community, they're not easy for developers, and they're not easy for us. We can't make everybody happy all the time, but I do know that as a legislator and somebody who has voted on to represent the community, that my task is to make sure that our basic services are provided for our community, and one of those is housing. So, as long as I'm in this seat, I will support housing development as long as it is done responsibly. And I think that this development team is committed to doing that. And if they don't, then what the project's foundation of this being something that is able to be duplicated in the future, it will fail. And I don't think anybody wants to see that fail. So I would encourage everyone to stay the course. I would ask that the developers work in good conscience to hear the neighbors and address their concerns. And yeah, I appreciate you guys sticking it out with us tonight. So that's all, thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you all for being here with us tonight and for your engagement all along the way. I know it's not just about tonight, but you've been in many conversations and many, many meetings and doing a lot of preparation leading up to this evening. What I'm seeing are a lot of people who care very deeply about their neighborhood and not just about their neighborhood, but about people being able to have lifetime investments that help build generational wealth. And help build strong neighborhoods in the process. And you all have shown that with the way in which you've spoken about your values and shown up here tonight to engage with us. So thank you for that. And thank you also for bringing to our attention lots of other infrastructure needs. in your neighborhood. I know you have a council member and advocates alongside that council member who want to help to address sanitary sewer issues and flooding and traffic calming methods and additional infrastructure needs that you're telling us are lacking. So not only have you talked about this development, but you've also shed a lot of light for all of us on some additional investments that we need to make to make sure that all the structures, not only those that might be built, but those that are already here in the neighborhood are safe and sound. And that people can move safely in the neighborhood, whether they're on foot or on bike or in a vehicle. And I know that you're here with an attitude of caring. What I also know is that we have a creative infill project on 12 acres inside the previous iteration of the urban service boundary even. And that we have a project in front of us that brings forward multi-faceted housing options. Options for people to own a home, options for people to rent a home, and options for people to age in a really lovely neighborhood. And I'm impressed with the creativity of that project. I also don't want this project to come at the expense of the quality of life in your neighborhood. And that's why I ask questions about the development plan. Because a lot of what you all brought forward had to do with some of the next steps that might happen in the process. And I don't want you to be left out of that process, or for there to even be the perception that you've been left out. And I know that all of these technicalities can be confusing, that the meetings can be difficult to attend. And that what you're allowed to speak about and when, that's not always even clear to all of us who have attended multiple zone change hearings. So I think what I'm asking, if we are to move forward, is that we have as much transparency of information as possible. And that everything that all of the collaborators on this project are hearing from the residents, that anything that can be addressed, be addressed in the development plan and in the next steps. And so that's just what I want to put out there. And I appreciate you all staying until the end and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Anytime we have these zone changes, there's always a difficult balance between the neighbors who are going to be the one going to be most impacted by it. And then when you look at the whole macro perspective of the city and looking at the affordable housing infill, and it's a tough balance here. I want to first thank you all for the time that you have put into this. I want to thank the petitioners you brought forward, the applicant, and I want to thank you all who have spent a lot of time. The big issue, I think, if anything's come out of this, is the commitment that the developer has made to, in good faith, to work with the neighbors. And I think that's going to be the most important part going forward. Mr. Woodall made it very clear that he was going to work with you all, because I think as we go forward, if it passes and if it's approved, that we have a commitment to them, to the neighbors, that we're going to make sure that there's going to be the density cap. you agreed to that, that this was going to be the amount that was going to be in there. And as we go through the application process, that you're going to communicate with the neighbors. I want to hold you to that. I know Mr. Woodall, and I know you'll hold that to that, because I think that's important as we go forward, is the neighbors are going to be the most impacted by this. So I want them to be the most involved in that. I just want to thank you once again for sitting through this, because these can be very contentious. I know it's very emotional because you all are the ones that are going to be most impacted. So let's make sure that if it does pass that we do the best thing for who's going to be living with this each and every day. So thank you all for coming to us. I think this hearing was important because we got to hear both sides of the issue, which we wouldn't have had otherwise. So thank you all for taking the time to be involved and giving us your input because it is important to us. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Vice Mayor. To the residents who were here, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There are so many days that I look out at the chamber and I'm like, where are the residents who are being impacted? You all showed up. Many people don't show up. And they don't show up in concert, meaning together at once. I'm impressed by you, Marlboro. Radcliffe neighborhood. I grew up in your area, played at the park. I'm a North Sider through and through, and I'll be a North Sider as long as I live in Lexington. And a lot of what you all said is true regarding the North Side. We are ignored. We have been ignored. We lack sidewalks. We're flooded. Our homes are built in flood zones. We have issues with drainage that has been overlooked for decades. decades. By you being here today, you have spoken up and you have showed the city of Lexington no longer will the north side be ignored. No longer will your voices be discounted. No longer will you be treated as though you don't matter because you do. You do. Yes, you do. You have a representative over here who's got that dog in him. You heard him. He's got that dog in him. And you do matter. If you didn't matter, you wouldn't be here today, okay? And if you don't believe you matter, I'm telling you. And one thing I don't do is lie. I don't. Because you've got to remember that lie every single time. You matter. You made your voices heard today. I don't know if this is going to be an uphill battle because, as you heard, there must be, I believe, ten? Eight. Eight. that vote in your favor. But the good thing is that we have on the record confirmation by John Woodall, on the record, and we have of him saying that he will stay in communication. I asked him to be in so much contact with you all that he gets on y'all's nerves. I want him to get on your nerves, Because there is no reason why you all should not be part of this process every single step of the way. This is your neighborhood. You all live with the traffic. You all live with the flooding every single day. As you heard, although it was a misspoke, and I believe that, I believe people say what they mean the first time. I did. That the traffic issue is a minor issue and the drainage issue is a minor issue. You live there. You know it's not minor. I've seen your neighborhood when it rains. And let me tell you, it's a real issue. I see you, although I don't represent you, I represent all of us, okay? But the North side is in good hands. You all heard your representative, the guy that you voted to stand up and be y'all's voice. He's got you. He's got you. There is nothing that will go unlooked with this person right here. So you do matter. You shut up today and you made everybody over here think and realize, hey, I didn't know that they were having this issue over there. I know the issue with Broadway because I live there. It's a real issue. And it's a real issue that you have leaders that have lived on the north side their entire lives who will do every single thing to make sure that you are heard and that you are seen. So I thank you from the bottom of my heart that you're here today. Because so oftentimes our community says they don't care and they just don't show up. But even though you think that you don't matter, look where you are today and look what you have put together. It's because you matter and because your residents matter that you're here and that we're here for five hours. Something like that. Okay? So no matter what the decision is today, it's not over. It's not over. Do you hear me? It's not over. Thank you. Thank you. I support housing. I support affordable housing. Those are things I ran on. I support infill and redevelopment. And I think if we took a show of hands in this room and I asked who here supports affordable housing, I would guess that every single one of us would raise our hands. But that's an abstract and that's a theory. And it's harder to think about when it impacts you directly, when it's your backyard, when it's your sight line, when it's your street, when it's your kids, when it's your basement's flooding. when it's your traffic accidents. And I understand that. And that's why these are very difficult. And that's why we spend five-plus hours on these decisions. And they're never easy for us. We are here to decide on a zone change hearing. We are not here to weigh in or rule on the development plan. It has become apparent to me and I think some of my colleagues as well that a lot of the very legitimate concerns and issues that you all have raised can and should be addressed within the development plan. We've heard it a few times now that the developer, their representatives, Mr. Woodall, have expressed their willingness to engage and address these concerns. And I'm very confident that you all will not only take them up on it, but hold them to it. I've seen the level of detail, the level of research, the level of homework, the level of organizing, and the level of tenacity that this group has shown to come here. And I'll reiterate again what I said earlier. This is not the end of this particular battle. I think you continue communicating, and that's the only way we're going to move forward. Because at the end of the day, we have to think about, we as elected officials, have to think about the micro, which is the individual, the neighborhoods, those concerns. but we also do have to think about the macro, which is the 22,000 units of housing that we're lacking today, and that number is going to be bigger tomorrow and next year and the next year. So if there are good infill projects, particularly affordable housing projects, we have to take a long, hard look at them and weigh the benefit and the drawbacks. thank you all again for coming out and again realize the impact that that you have whenever you all do come out for these events we have nobody else signed up to speak so at this time I will entertain a motion regarding findings of fact either a motion to adopt the planning commission's findings of fact or to determine new findings of fact council member Baxter Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to adopt the findings of fact recommended by the Planning Commission in support of approval of Zone Map Amendment request PLNMAR24-00018, Transie Property Owners, LLC, located at 475 and 495 Haggard Lane for a mixed low-density residential R2 zone, planned neighborhood residential R3 zone, and medium-density residential R4 zone with conditional zoning restrictions. So moved. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Any discussion on the motion? Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I spoke earlier about putting a cap on the amount of units that are being proposed. So with that, I move under the provision of Article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance to adopt the following use restrictions to apply to the subject property. that the number of units shall be limited to the 29 units in the R2 zone, the 26 units in the R3 zone, and 179 units in the R4 zone, limited to 234 units for the entire development. These restrictions are necessary in order to minimize the impact of the new development on the existing residential within the Radcliffe, Marlboro, and Elkhorn Park neighborhoods, while maintaining a compliance with the comprehensive plan. So moved. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the amendment? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Is that a material change? We have to do a new first reading with that? If you all approve those, you will. But as you know, or maybe not, since this is the first one we've had for a while, we only read the title. So the title will be read. You'll have to do a new first reading, and at the end it will say as amended, because in the text of the ordinance, those conditions aren't in there. So when you amend it, that's what we'll do. And then you'll have to give it another second reading after the new first reading. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion on the amendment? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that amendment passes. Any discussion on the amended motion? So this is findings of fact with Council Member Brown's amendment. All right, seeing no more discussion, clerk, can I have a roll call, please? Roll call vote, excuse me. You're going to need to do a new first reading on the ordinance as amended, and then suspend your rules. Before we vote on the findings of fact? You just did vote, I thought, didn't you? No, they did. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. We were in discussion for the findings of fact motion. Council Member Brown made an amendment to that. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, go ahead. Okay, so right now we're doing a roll call vote on the findings of fact with Council Member Brown's amendment, correct? Yes. All right, let's go ahead and just do Granicus. Council Member Gray? Yes. Council Member Hale? Yes. Council Member Legree? Yes. Council Member Morton? No. Council Member Sheehan? Yes. Vice Mayor Wu? Yes. Council Member Beasley? Yes. Council Member Boone? Yes. Council Member Brown? Yes. Council Member Curtis? Yes, ma'am. Council Member Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Council Member Elliot Baxter? Thank you. Thank you. All right, so at this point, we need to do a separate reading of this before a motion to approve the ordinance as proposed, I guess? Mm-hm. So this will just be a new first reading, basically, and at the end she's going to say as amended because you've just amended it. And then you'll have to give it a second reading. A second reading, okay. So you'll have to suspend your rules to do that because you already gave it second reading. Gotcha. But now it's been amended. Okay. In that case, clerk, can we have a first reading, please? Sir. An ordinance changing the zone from a neighborhood business B1, highway service business B3, interchange service business B5P and a mixed low density residential R2 zone to a mixed low density residential R2. Planned neighborhood residential R3 and a medium density residential R4 zones for 12.49 net, 20.09 gross acres for property located 475 and 495 Haggard Lane and 450 Radcliffe Road. Transit property owners LLC Councilor District 1 as amended. Thank you. Do I have any suspensions? Council Member Baxter? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to suspend the rules to give a second reading. Okay, is there a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay, mark one opposed. All right, that motion passes. Can we have a second reading, please? An ordinance changes the zone from a neighborhood business B1, highway service business B3, interchange service business B5P, and a mixed low density residential R2 zone to mixed low density residential R2, plain neighborhood residential R3, and medium density residential R4 zones for 12.49 net, 20.09 gross acres for property located at 475 and 495 Haggard Lane and 450 Reckliffe Road, transit property owners LLC council district 1 as amended. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Roll call vote on the ordinance as amended. Okay. I need a motion and a second. Second. Thank you. Yeah, that. All right, roll call vote please, thanks. Councilmember Gray? Yes. Councilmember Hale? Yes. Councilmember Legree? Yes. Councilmember Morton? No. Councilmember Sheehan? Yes. Vice Mayor Wu? Yes. Councilmember Beasley? Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Boone? Yes. Councilmember Brown? Yes. Councilmember Curtis? Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. And Councilmember Elliott Baxter? Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you all very much. And I just want to double confirm that we are at the end of our agenda. All right. Thank you all so much for sticking with us and for coming out. We are adjourned. Thank you.