Council Clerk, could you take the roll, please? Mr. Myers? Ms. Scutchfield? Here. Mr. Stennett? Ms. Akers? Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Clark? I'm here. Mr. Ellinger? Here. Mr. Farmer? Here. Mr. Ford? Here. Ms. Gordon? Ms. Henson? Here. Mr. Kay? Here. Mr. Lane? Ms. Lawless? Here. And Ms. Masati? Here. Thank you. We have 10, and we do have a quorum. Could you give second ring to the ordinance, please? An ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone for 24.88 net, 27.71 gross acres for property located at 4500 and 4524 Old Schoolhouse Lane, Ball Homes, LLC, Council District 10. Thank you. At this point, I need to swear in the witnesses. So all those who plan on giving testimony in this hearing, would you please stand up and raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. At this time, I've got to go through a few hearing rules. As the presiding officer, I have the power to make evidentiary decisions to exclude irrelevant and repetitious testimony from the record. Councilors may inform me when they believe testimony is irrelevant or repetitious so that the presiding officer may issue an evidentiary ruling to exclude or limit such testimony as the presiding officer agrees. The petitioner shall submit a witness list to the presiding officer at the beginning of his presentation. and the opponent shall provide a witness list at the beginning of their presentation. All parties in favor of the zone change shall submit all printed materials to be tendered for admission into evidence to Council Members, Council Clerk, and the Department of Law at the beginning of their presentation, and the opponents must do the same at the beginning of their presentation. Each witness who testifies shall be subject to cross-examination at the conclusion of his testimony, followed by the opportunity for redirect. Any witness called by a petitioner or opponent shall stay in the public hearing so that they may be questioned by petitioner, opponent, or member of the Council later in the hearing. All persons speaking shall be identified for the record. Give your name and your address. All documents considered by the Council should be marked and numbered as exhibits and entered to the record by the Council Clerk assigned to tape record the meeting. The tape and the meeting shall be verbatim without interruption. Architectural renderings of development will not be permitted to be introduced into evidence at Council hearings for the reason that the Council has no power except in H-1 overlay zones to be buying developers to construct the buildings as depicted. Preliminary development plans filed in conjunction with zone changes which show building footprints, parking, and others. Basic information may be accepted into evidence. I had to just get those out of the way. Now, at this point, and I'll go through kind of the process of what we're going to have go on in the hearing tonight. We'll have the planning staff first. They'll speak, and they'll summarize the record. Then we'll have the petitioner give their presentation. Mr. Lear is going to be the one speaking on half of the petitioner. And then they'll have the presentation by the opponents, and I think Mr. Wolstein is going to be the one who's going to be conducting that. And both sides have agreed to keep their presentations to 45 minutes. After that, then the staff will have any additional comments. The petitioner can then present rebuttal information. and if they're public, if you'd like to speak and you're not part of the presentation, then we have a list in the back and you'll have three minutes to speak at that point and please sign up in the back. And then we'll have a closing summation by the opponents, closing summation by the petitioners. The council will then be able to ask questions and now close the hearing. And then we'll, at that point, the council will vote to either adopt or their findings of fact and the vote for the ordinance by roll call. So with that, we'll go ahead and begin, and I'll ask the planning staff, Mr. Salee, if you would give your presentation, please, and summarize the record. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Members of the Council, good evening. It is necessary for me to enter a number of items into the record for your hearing this evening. The first is a copy of the legal notice that was published in the local newspaper advertising tonight's public hearing. Next item is an affidavit that I had signed regarding the mailed notices that were sent to property owners within 500 feet of this location, in agricultural areas even farther than that, and also to the registered neighborhood associations that are in the general vicinity of this property. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is the recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission and their public hearing held in July of this year on this proposed zone change. Copies were distributed to the Council members in between the break, and there are additional copies at the end of the counter for anyone in the audience that wishes to see that. He'd enter into the record copies of the land subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance that are currently in effect for the urban county copy of the 2007 comprehensive plan and a copy of a memorandum from the staff of the metropolitan planning organization they reviewed the traffic study that was required by the zoning ordinance for this zone change and that memorandum also was distributed to council members at your place and also there are additional copies on the counter for anyone in the audience interested. Finally, staff has received numerous communications about this proposed zone change. We have received three letters, a letter from the Lexington Tree Board, from residents of the Dogwood Trace Subdivision, and from the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. I'd like to circulate those copies of these to the Council members. In addition, I'll enter into the record the originals that we have received. We have received, as of about 4.30 this afternoon, some 89 emails. All of these are either in opposition to or concerned about the proposed development involved with this zone change. And then finally, just before the hearing began, I was handed seven additional emails in opposition or with concern. We do not have copies of these, so I would ask to make sure the council clerk gets these. Thank you. I'd like to begin by warning the council members to the location of the subject property. Two properties are involved with this zone change request. They have an address of 4500 and 4524 Old Schoolhouse Lane. Although they have those addresses, they are quite visible from Harrodsburg Road. Harrodsburg Road, major north-south arterial in this area. The subject property, the larger, is 4500 Old Schoolhouse Lane, and a much smaller tract is the 4524 Old Schoolhouse Lane tract there. Old Schoolhouse Lane in this location parallels Harrodsburg Road and is accessed at Harrodsburg Road at the signalized intersection across from Military Pike here. So there is a traffic signal here. An old schoolhouse accesses the opposite side of that traffic signal. There are also signalized intersections at Dogwood Trace and Overlake Boulevard's intersection with Harrodsburg Road, and also at the old Higbee Mill Road intersection with Harrodsburg Road at this location. This access also serves the Village Green area and the South Elkhorn Christian Church, which we'll have some photographs of in just a moment. The subject property is zoned AU, that is an agricultural urban zone, and is just shy of 25 acres in size. Other property in the area is also zoned AU to the north and to the east of this location, and the predominant zoning on the other sides of the property are residential in nature. There is R3 immediately to the south of the property. There is the Lexington Primitive Baptist Church occupying the front, and the rear six and a half acres or so is vacant on that parcel. The Firebrook subdivision directly across Harrodsburg Road is also zoned R3, although in this area it has developed entirely for single-family detached residential purposes. Other residential zoning in the area, R1D zoning along Twain Ridge Drive, this location, and Desdemona Way, cul-de-sac off of that street here, and to the south, an English station, there is R1E single-family residential zoning. R1D and R1E are for detached single-family homes. This request, this before the council tonight, seeks an R3 zoning for the property, a planned residential neighborhood zone, and that would be consistent with that to the west and to the south of this immediate location. I'd also like to show you some photographs of the subject property in this area. This is an aerial view of Harrodsburg Road and the corridor here. The intersection with Old Higbee Mill is here. Military Road here. So the access to the subject property is at that location. And as I mentioned, Old Schoolhouse Lane parallels Harrodsburg Road there. This is the English Station subdivision. and the Dogwood Trace Subdivision further to the south, accessing Harrodsburg Road at that location. The subject property is here. It is up for rezoning. The R3 property to the south for the church and the vacant parcel is located there. This photograph also shows the South Elkhorn Creek, which crosses Harrodsburg Road very near this vicinity, and also what's called the drive-in tributary, which used to flow from the south on 68 Drive-In Theater, which is no longer there, to the north and intersecting South Elkhorn Creek at that location. Look at a few oblique aerial photos now. This is looking from the south, again at Harrodsburg Road. It's an intersection with Military and Old Schoolhouse Lane here and with Old Higby Mill Road here. This shows a very good picture of the South Elkhorn Village commercial area and the South Elkhorn Christian Church there as well. Firebrook is located here, and a portion of the Palomar subdivision is adjoining that. This is a view now looking from the east to the west, again at the subject property. For orientation, we have Old Higbee Mill. is here. This would be military's intersection. No, I think I was right the first time. This is Old Higby Mill. This is military, this location serving Old Schoolhouse Lane. Subject property is here. This being the smaller tract of the two that's before the council this evening. This property is agricultural and will remain so. It is not part of the zone change. This is the R3 portion that is currently vacant and the English Station subdivision there. This is a view from the north. Again, looking at Harrodsburg Road and the subject property. It's access, an old schoolhouse lane, English Station subdivision here. And the final one is from the opposite direction. This is looking from the west to the east. again we have at old Higbee Mill the intersection here of old schoolhouse lane the subject property this shows across the creek this location is Twain Ridge Drive and Desdemona Lane here single family development in that area as we do with every zone change we always look to the 2007 comprehensive plan for guidance this is a reduced version of the map that is to the right on the boards over there. And again, to orient you, we have Herodsburg Road here, military and its intersection at this location. The village green is that red area there. The subject property is here, and the church is also identified as a semi-public existing land use. The subject property is recommended for medium-density residential use. That is defined in the comprehensive plan as residential development with a density of 5 to 10 dwelling units per net acre. The staff reviewed the applicant's application and found that their density proposed for this particular development was within the range recommended by the comprehensive plan at this location. The comprehensive plan also recommends two street extensions, as shown in this exhibit. It recommends a connection and an extension of Twain Ridge across the creek, this location, and that Agape Drive, a north-south street, be extended northward from Dogwood Trace across the English Station area into the subject property. In addition, the green space master plan is also an adopted element of the comprehensive plan, and that plan does show some future trails being recommended in this general area, both along the creek, South Elkhorn Creek, and along the drive-in tributary here. The petitioner proposes to develop 241 dwelling units on the subject property, and as I mentioned a moment ago, that would result in a level of density that is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. The staff reported that to the Planning Commission at their public hearing held in late July of this year. The Commission heard not only from the staff, but also from a number of residents in this area, in addition to hearing from the petitioner. At the conclusion of their public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 11 to 0 to recommend conditional approval of this rezoning. Of the 11 members, one member abstained and the other 10 voted in favor, so the abstention counted with the majority. The conditional approval recommendation was based on several findings of fact which are on the front page of the Planning Commission's final report and recommendation to the Council. They are that the requested planned neighborhood residential R3 zone is in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan for a number of reasons. First, the plan recommends medium-density residential future land use for the subject property, which would suggest a maximum of 248 dwelling units for the subject property. In addition, the applicant proposes to develop 241 dwelling units on the subject property, including the additional 6.25 acres to the immediate south that's already zoned R3, for a proposed residential density of 7.74 dwelling units per net acre. And finally, the proposal provides for a collector street system as generally recommended by the land use element of the 2007 plan. The Planning Commission also recommended that conditional zoning restrictions be put in place for this property should it be rezoned R3. Those are for a use restriction and for buffering restrictions on the property. the use restriction would be that for the 24.8 acres proposed for rezoning, that the use of that property be restricted to no more than 248 residential dwelling units. In addition, a landscape buffer is recommended as part of the conditional zoning along the properties to the immediate north of this location. That buffer is generally a 20-foot wide buffer along the northwest corner here, and as it extends farther to the east, reducing to a minimum of 10 feet in width, where in this area the existing berm and existing trees above a 3-inch caliper would be proposed to remain. and should the berm be removed for any reason, then a seven-foot-high wall or fence be erected in its area, in the same area where the berm is removed. So it is a pretty significant landscape buffer recommendation by the Planning Commission. And in addition, should the berm be removed, the fence be installed. The Planning Commission also reviewed the preliminary development plan that was submitted as part of this application. and the Planning Commission did approve the development plan. To cover it briefly for you as an exhibit, we have Harrodsburg Road, the intersection with Military and Old Schoolhouse Lane here. English Station is currently accessed off of Old Schoolhouse, and Twain Ridge, as the photos show, does stub into the subject property, although across the creek, the drive-in tributary that's here. the proposal is for 196 apartment units on roughly half the developable area of the subject property including a street extension from old schoolhouse lane up the hill beyond a very large bur oak tree that is labeled to be protected on this plant and extending in the general direction of twain ridge but stopping at this point which is roughly at the edge of the existing flood plain for that drive-in tributary. In addition, 45 single-family residential lots are proposed for approximately the other half, the eastern half of the subject property. This plan does include the six and a quarter acres on the rear of the existing church that are already zoned R3, and that is outlined in pink in this particular exhibit. Street extensions of Agape Drive are proposed all the way to this new street, which again is aligned with Twain Ridge but will not connect to it. Three cul-de-sacs are proposed off of that street to serve the development. In addition, a pool and clubhouse are proposed as part of the apartment complex, and some 358 apartment units are proposed as part of this development. The Planning Commission added three notes to this plan in their approval. They are that a number of issues be resolved should the rezoning be granted at the time they might see either a final development plan or a preliminary subdivision plan in the future for this property. And that was that the applicant will document that an archaeological site is not on the subject property. That was an issue discussed extensively at the Planning Commission hearing as to whether that condition was, in fact, the case on this property. Secondly, that off-site road improvements will be resolved at that time. That primarily is for the frontage here along Old Schoolhouse Lane. And then finally, that protection measures for an existing spring and for the significant bur oak tree will also be resolved and discussed by the commission in the future. On the rear portion of the existing church property, approximately here, very close to the current stub of Rhin-Mobway, there is a documented spring that serves the drive-in tributary. This is a very steep area along its western edge, and as you would expect as it goes to the creek, it's very flat and accessible from that direction. So obviously it will prevent any type of street extension at that location, but more protection measures for that existing facility were desired by the Planning Commission in the future should this property be rezoned. That concludes my prepared remarks. I thank you very much for your kind attention, and of course I will be available for questions later in your hearing. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, we'll have a presentation by the petitioner. Mr. Lear, if you would, make sure that you give the witness list and present the printed material to the council members, clerk, and the law department. Thank you. At this point, I would give your opening statement and the presentation of your direct evidence subject to cross and redirect. Okay, thank you, Council Member Ellinger, members of the Urban County Council. My name, for the record, is Bill Lear. My business address is 300 West Vine Street, Suite 2100, 40502 in downtown Lexington. With me today are a number of folks. I'd just like to run through them briefly. And as far as I've tendered the witness list, in order to move through this as expeditiously as possible, what I plan to do is make the entire presentation in chief. I'll mention the materials we've received from various of the people who are here and available. They'll be available to testify later should it be necessary for rebuttal or to answer questions. With me from my law firm, Stahl, Keenan, Ogden, is Nick Nicholson from Ball Homes, Ray Ball, and Rena Wiseman, formerly of Stahl, Keenan, Ogden. She was my partner, now she's my boss, I guess. EA partners, Al Gross and Roy Cayley, Diane Zimmerman with Jacobs Engineering. She's our traffic engineer. Also Richard Herndon with Cultural Resource Analysts. I think that hits everyone who might be called upon to offer evidence in the hearing tonight. The request, as you've heard, is for residential development, a mix of multifamily and single-family detached housing, in full compliance with a comprehensive plan. And to restate one thing that Bill said, it comes to you with a recommendation of approval from the staff and a unanimous recommendation 11 to 0, or you can count it as 10 to 0 since there was one abstention from the Planning Commission, after a full public hearing at which all of the issues relevant to the zone change were aired out. I would like to take a minute at the outset to mention a few things about the development concept for this property. I'm going to, if we could put the development plan up front. It's the same one you have on the board over here. I just thought you might be able to see it, especially on the right-hand side. A little bit better, although this one is not rendered up. This won't take but a second. But I want to point out that toward the rear is where the single family is. We put single family in the back next to the single family in English Station. This little six-acre tract here, when the church was rezoned and this was rezoned, It was approved for a loud maximum of 100 townhouse units and a proposed development of 81 townhouse units. The point of that in relation to this zone changes that currently what we're proposing is 16 single-family units aligning with the English station lots behind it in pretty much a one-to-one ratio, and there's about half of eight others. So in effect, from the maximum originally allowable of 100, what we're showing is effectively about 20 single-family units, 16 full and halves of eight others on this. Then the rest of them are arranged in primarily a cul-de-sac fashion, which has the beneficial aspect of limiting the number of lots back up to the greenway. The apartments are toward the front, and they are next to the church. None of the apartments is adjacent to any of the existing single family. There is a property on the other side of English Station, the Kammick property, which is currently undeveloped. And there are no pending plans for development of the property. Our understanding is the owner has not moved forward with any kind of development concept. and frankly there's no idea when that might happen, how long it would be before it happens. We show we have provided right away across the greenway. One thing that you might be able to see better up here, there's actually on the other side of the creek, there's a fair amount of open land that historically was farmed. It's incorporated in the greenway. Obviously it's not the kind of thing that could be developed, but in a minute you'll see some aerials, and you saw them earlier. There is some open pasture land over here. The creek area is pretty overgrown and some fairly severe slopes once you get back into the creek. Not up on the hill here. Up on the hill here it's relatively gently sloping. Street connections. Agape is proposed to be stubbed in. It's already stubbed in from the other side on Dogwood Trace. And then I mentioned, I think it was mentioned earlier, the other street in the back, the pronunciation for which I never get right is Rima. Anyway, Bill pronounced it correctly, I'm sure, is not to be connected. But it wasn't shown on the comprehensive plan to be extended in any event. We've got some photographs. Yes, if you'll show me how to advance them. Okay. All right, good. You've pretty well seen that before. It shows the Stringer and Porter property immediately to the north. They are two neighbors most directly impacted. We have worked with them and worked out development and buffering agreements with them. The last tab in the booklet that we passed out is a letter of support for the zone change from Mr. Stringer. Then you see the church property, the one that's shown as development plan parcel. The reason it's shown, that's not technically in the zone change. It's already zoned. It is on the development plan. And then, of course, the zone change parcel. This doesn't show the portion that goes on the other side of the creek, but there are some aerials from which you can see that. This is Military Pike. With the lighting, it's a little hard to see. One of the things that you note, you can see this property from Harrodsburg Road, although you can't see much of it because there's a pretty significant slope, and then the property falls away once you get to the top of the slope. The very large tree that you see directly in front of you is the bur oak tree, concerning which you've read probably in the newspaper and will hear some more tonight. That's the intersection of Old Schoolhouse. You're looking south there, Old Schoolhouse, and Military Pike is off to the right. That's looking at the same intersection just from a different direction, Military Pike across the road. This is looking back up again south on Old Schoolhouse. Now you're south of that, and you're looking back down Old Schoolhouse, and the road up the hill on the right goes into the Harvey property. A little closer view of that. That's just looking at Firebrook across Harrodsburg Road. Another view of that. That's approximately from the front of the church, I believe. This is the road. It's a little dark. You can't see it. The road coming up the hill onto the Harvey property. And there you see the driveway that goes under the bur oak tree on the left-hand fork, and the right-hand fork goes back by the house. The house is virtually covered up with vines now. That's another look at that. That is, again, a view. The driveway loops to the left under the burr oak and then comes back around, and then the fork here on the right goes back to the rear of the property. That's the burr oak with the driveway under it. That's a little further under. That's looking back at the other. That's a picture taken from directly under the bur oak tree, and that's from near the front of the house. There's a second tree on the right that you can see is not healthy, and you can't see it from that picture. It's been pretty significantly impacted by utility pruning, and that's one that our arborist says is not a candidate for preservation. that's another picture near the house under the tree now we're looking that's a section of the property I believe that's looking toward the porters in the back and that tree line on the right is one that will be preserved as a part of the agreement and the conditional zoning restrictions that's simply a shot the reason we took that is this property historically was used as a composting operation A lot of the topsoil has been removed as a part of that. There are several spots like that on the property, and it is clearly no longer appropriate for any agricultural use. This other use was a lawful use, but it did take a lot of the topsoil off. Another view of the back of the property. That's looking toward the Stringer property. Again, you see the tree line. And these are various stub streets that have been built in. That's the Agape Drive, English Station Intersection, Dogwood Trace, Stub Street, looking toward the Kammick property, Rima Way, which won't be obviously connected, another Rima Way. That gives you hopefully a little bit better idea of the character of the area. Turning to the basis of the zone changes, you heard it is agreement with the comprehensive plan. And this is not a terribly difficult calculation. The comprehensive plan calls for medium density residential with a range of 5 to 10 units per net acre. The proposal for this works out to 7.74, so this is pretty much center of the fairway in the middle of the range. if you went back to the original plan for the six acres in the back and did 100 townhouses and you maxed out under the allowable range on the property that's now subject to the zone change according to the staff's calculation you could build as many as 348 units maximum we're at 241 with a conditional zoning condition of no more than 248 Again, the types of units that we are proposing are right in line with what the comprehensive plan would suggest. If you look at, I believe it's tab 4 in the booklet, a description of medium density residential housing types found under this category includes single family, detached, townhouse, duplex, and apartment. So we're very much in line with that. And as the staff has said, the roads that are shown on the comprehensive plan to be extended, we have either proposed to stub, which is the only thing we can do on our property, or provide the right-of-way in the case of the road that would come, Twain Ridge, that would come across the greenway. None of this is new. And I think that's an important point as you consider this zone change tonight. None of this is new. The 1980 comprehensive plan, which, believe it or not, is now 33 years ago, showed all or virtually all of this property as high-density residential in a category that would have allowed from 13 to 33 units per net acre, far greater density than what we now show. And some of it in medium density at 6 to 13 units per acre. The 1988 plan changed at all the medium density at a range of up to 10 units an acre, and that's when the Agape Drive extension was first shown on the comprehensive plan. Another thing that's relevant to this zone change in terms of planning appropriateness is that multifamily is an important component of housing in a corridor such as this. In South Lexington, there are basically two predominantly residential corridors, Tate's Creek Pike, Harrodsburg Road, they're two predominantly commercial corridors, Richmond Road and Nicholasville Road. Tate's Creek Pike, which has always been recognized as a wonderfully effective and desirous residential corridor, if you go out near New Circle Road and go out from there, you see Merrick Place, Kirk Levington, Saddlebrook, Old Farm, Park Place, Grand Reserve, All very desirable apartment complexes, all of which work well, integrated with the single family that really is the predominant use out on Tate's Creek. There are some, but not nearly as many on Harrodsburg Road. There's Beaumont Farm and there's Palomar Reserve. Apartments of the type we're talking about, multifamily, is a legitimate and important component to provide the kind of diversity of housing mix that belongs in a corridor like this. So we're in complete agreement with the comprehensive plan, and I don't think there's anybody that can seriously contest whether we, if measured against that, can contest that we are in agreement with it. There's some other things that I want to address because they have come up at various times in this process. The first is traffic. That's always a consideration or it's always something that the staff looks at. The scope of the traffic study is given to the developer by the staff. Our traffic engineer, Diane Zimmerman, took that scope. And in here you've got both the original traffic study and an addendum. I'll talk about the addendum in a minute, but if you look at tab 5, this is the staff review of our traffic study. And if you go to the very last page, the conclusion is the Harvey Property Lexington Traffic Impact Study meets the LFUCG Zoning Ordinance Article VI General Requirements. But if you turn to the page before that where it compares levels of service and you look at the key intersections on Harrodsburg Road, you'll see Harrodsburg Road at Higby Mill, the morning peak. It's a C. The 2005 non-build, it's a C. The build, meaning when this is built out, it remains a C. Virtually no change in the amount of delay. In the PM, it's a B. It stays a B, and it stays a B. Harrisburg Road at Military Pike in the morning, it's a D, it's a D, it's a D, and in the afternoon, it's a B, it's a B, and it moves to a C with about two or three seconds more delay. Again, very acceptable. Harrisburg Road at Dogwood Trace, the level of service C stays a C with no build, stays a C with the build, and then in the afternoon, B, B, and B. Now, that's Harrisburg Road. There are some poor levels of service for the side street, which is the reason for that is on Military Pike, for example, it is an F. And if you look at the side streets on all the major corridors during the peak hour, especially the evening rush hour, they say that uniformly. Why is that? That's because the main corridor gets all the green time. Any of you that have been on a side street trying to get out to a major corridor, any of them in Fayette County during rush hour, you know you have to wait. My favorite one is Fontaine at Tate's Creek. You have to wait an eternity because all the green time. But that's the reason for that. It's not a poorly operating road system because if you look at what's happening at the main arterial, which is designed to move the traffic at peak hour, They are all very acceptable levels of service, and some of the others are even better than the ones that I read. So the Urban County Traffic Engineering review of what we've presented has agreed with it and has said that it's an acceptable study, and the study concludes that the impact of this development on the existing road system will not be material. One thing I would say, I actually looked, I did crunch some numbers about the impact on traffic if you said, okay, we're not going to do any apartments here, we're going to put it all in single family. There's an interesting factor because of the typical single family makeup, which has more residents on average and more cars on average. single-family detached dwellings tend to produce more traffic, just about 10 trips per day according to the ITE studies, whereas apartments are about six and a half or so. So if you put this whole thing in single-family instead of apartments, especially if you left all of the townhouses that I mentioned earlier on the six-acre track that's already zoned, it would be very close to a wash in terms of traffic with what we're showing in our report. Either way, it would not be a material impact on the road system out in this area. Now, the other thing that was done, because this issue came up at the Planning Commission, If you turn to tab 7, we asked Diane Zimmerman. Some of the residents, particularly in Dogwood Trace, said one of the concerns was that if the Kamek property is developed and if this is hooked up, there will be an inordinate number of cars coming from this development to avoid Harrodsburg Road and go the back way, especially to Belle Reef Shopping Center. because if you want to go to Kroger's store and you don't want to go out on Harrodsburg Road, that's the way you would go, and that's a legitimate concern from their perspective. So we asked Diane Zimmerman to look at that, and the reason that the planning staff did not request that information early on is because it's not connected up. I believe it's because it's not connected up. Nevertheless, we looked at it, and if you look at page three of the program, of her report, the intersection that she primarily looked at was Belle Reve, which is the way into the shopping center, and Agape. If you're going to the shopping center, that's where you would go. You would go down Agape, you would go past Trace, and you would go to Belle Reve, and you would actually turn right to go in the front of the shopping center. It does increase the amount of traffic. There's no question about the fact that it would increase the amount of traffic, and you can see the various turning movements. But the level of service there at every one of those, if you look at page four, assuming that this property is developed as it's proposed and assuming the Kamek property is developed, and she assigned 70 units to that, which again is the mid-range, those levels of service, it looks like the report card of an honor student. It's AAAA, AAAA, AABB, AAAAB. So there's only one of the turning movements or the through movements that degrades at all, and that degrades by less than a full second, and that's Agape Drive going southbound. So, yes, there is more traffic. There's no question about it. I think anybody that lives out there would know that. But according to this report, again, it would not be a material impact on the road system. Now I want to turn to another issue that's come up. That's the issue of the bur oak tree in the front. Obviously, that's attracted some attention in the media. There was testimony and statements about it at the Planning Commission. First thing I think we all need to understand is that the whole issue of protecting the borough is fundamentally a development plan issue. It is fundamentally a development plan issue. If you look at the definition in the governing statute of development plan, what the development plan does is it governs the placement of everything that goes on the property, roads, buildings, set-asides, and the like. If you look at our own zoning ordinance in terms of what a preliminary development plan is supposed to do, And that's what this is. A preliminary development plan is a site plan by which, at the early stages of design development, the Commission may consider, approve, and restrict many major aspects of the development without requiring an undue amount of final design work on the part of the developer. The preliminary development plan is less detailed and specific than a final development plan in terms of the exact arrangement of buildings, parking areas, open spaces, access points, and any other design features. Now, in this case, the Planning Commission heard testimony about it, as it should have, because it's a preliminary development plan item. And one of the notes that they again approved unanimously says additional mitigation slash protection measures for the bur oak shall be determined at the final development plan. Now what we presented, this is for your information, we presented information from Ian Hoffman, who's a certified arborist in Kentucky, that we retained back in June to look at this entire issue of the design around to protect the bur oak. and he proposed that there be a minimum protection area of 50 feet, I guess out from the trunk, you would say. He would say it in a more scientific way than that. After the hearing, the tree board delivered a letter, which you've got a copy of it, which says you should take care to address certain other trees on the property. We got that. We ask him to amend, to review this. By the way, at tab 9, you've got his credentials, which as an arborist are impressive. He's former chairman of our tree board. He's former chairman of the Kentucky Ornamental and Turf Association. Anyway, his credentials are significant and recognized. and at tab 10 you will see his various recommendations as to what he would what he suggests ought to be done and and on the second page the crux of the tree protection plan is he basically says there are there are five trees that they ask us to look at he says one the one that i mentioned earlier that's been trimmed back and is in poor health is not a candidate for for preservation. On tree number one, that's the large bur oak. The development plan calls for a minimum of 50 feet over eight times the DBH. DBH is the diameter. On the east side of the tree, the TPZ could be twice that wide. The other oaks have even larger area for a TPZ. Now, we have already looked at ways to modify the road system and the like. There are other things that can be done on the development plan to increase the protection zone. But the bottom line is that's a matter that's going to get expert testimony, and it's going to get, I'm sure, plenty of comment at the Planning Commission. And we have as much interest in protecting that tree as anyone. It's an amenity for the property. It's a sentinel, the way it stands there. We have no interest. And, in fact, one of the articles in the paper mentioned a previous ball development, where it mentioned favorably a previous ball development where they had created an HOA tract to preserve some large trees. He concludes by saying, In my years of experience as a certified arborist, along with the research materials referred to above, it is my conclusion that the trees can be preserved and protected by the following treatment plan, or the treatment plan before, during, and after the development of the property. And I do want to point out one thing that, or I guess further illuminate, one thing that he said about the TPZ. The minimum area occurs in right there, and I'm sorry, as I've told some of you before, When I used to do this a few years ago, that didn't shake. That's 50 feet there, and there are ways, even including elimination of sidewalk in that area, where that can be extended. But if you go in this direction, and even though it's a property line, you go a little bit further before you get to the most severe slopes. It can be as much, I mean, nothing's going to be disturbed, and it's as much as 80 feet. If you go down this way, it can be as much as 140 feet. If you go down this way, it's over 200 feet, 170. So there's a lot more area in there. Now, we've proposed initially a gazebo, which is not – that's something up for discussion. It's certainly not as significant as building a street or any of the other buildings. That will certainly be the topic of discussion if there's concern that that impacts the tree protection zone. Bottom line of all this is that this whole issue is going to get plenty of discussion, not just this tree but the other three over there when this goes back to the Planning Commission. And there is precedent for that not just in what was done in the other ball development at Blackford. There's precedent right down the road. a stone's throw away in a development that was approved not long ago at all down near the Ethington property. One of the folks that has expressed an interest in all of this, Mr. Leonard, was a consultant to the developer and stated that he carefully considered the root zones of the significant trees. He said there are a couple of trees very near the location of the proposed townhomes. Actually, they're about 30 feet away in that case that will need to be removed because they're severely impacted, but they're not significant trees. Mr. Leonard explained that using modern practices, the petitioner should be able to completely preserve the root zone of one of the two most significant trees and only slightly impact the root zone of the other tree. So this whole idea of protecting the root zones and creating protections for significant trees is not new. And we've actually, Ms. Wiseman, has had some conversations even today with Mr. Leonard about our willingness to work with him and others, with our own expert when this goes back to the Planning Commission, and do everything we can to come up with a mutually acceptable plan. Also in your book at tab 11 related to this, you'll see the current situation there with the driveway. We've highlighted that for you. You can see that in tab 11. The driveway, as you saw in the pictures, actually is already under the tree, much closer than the road would be. Part of what our arborist recommends is that that be removed and removed carefully. Again, that be a part of the tree protection plan. The last of the issues that you heard mentioned in Bill's report is the archaeological review. We engaged an entity called Cultural Resources Analysts, again early in this process, to conduct an archaeological review of the site. Why do we do that? One of the reasons we did is because there was a map in the archaeology office of the state that showed the approximate location of an old prehistoric burial site on this property. And so we had the folks did a survey in addition to which they went back and reviewed the record. The net of their work is it's about a half a mile south of this property. And you'll see it in their report. They explain how the error in the state map occurred. They've actually gone back to the original works that discovered it, some 1932 work done by a couple of professors who identified the farms that it was on. And they said it was a half a mile south of the Elkhorn Creek, which puts it well off of this property. And the irony of all this is they sent us an email. They said if you really want to find out exactly where it was, you need to find out where the Hardman and Fane farms were because that's where they found this stuff, the Hardman and Fane farms. So we went back. We did the title work. Dogwood Trace, that's where the site was. And I am confident that the site was, they even referenced the fact that it was not, even in 1932, well preserved. I'm confident it's long gone. But the point of all this, you heard that we're supposed to go back to the Planning Commission and demonstrate that it's not on this property. We've engaged these folks, and that's what their research has produced. They've gone back to the base documents that first identified them, and they've said it's not here. and their report that explains that and explains how the error occurred is in tab 13. Their credentials are in the tab right before that. And as I said earlier, the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Stringer is the last section in the last tab. Okay, that's a summary of the issues that we're aware of that have come up with respect to this property. The primary issue is the land use issue. What does a comprehensive plan recommend? It recommends medium-density residential. What are we proposing? An R3 zone that's in the mid-level of the medium-density residential category. Therefore, we're fully compliant, and we would respectfully request that you approve this plan as the Planning Commission did unanimously and as your staff has recommended. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lear. At this point, we'll have the presentations from the opponent, and Mr. Wolstein will be the one that will be given the presentation. but you have a list of different people that are going to be supplementing that with you. Correct. My name is Fred Wolstein. I reside at 4765 Rima Way in Dogwood Trace. Councilman Ellinger and members of the City Council, we are here today in opposition to the changing of the zone for the Harvey property for medium density R3 development. This very issue came before the City Council five years ago, and the developer's bid was properly defeated. Yet all the concerns that defeated the zoning change at that time are also involved here. This zoning change, requested by Ball Homes, should be similarly rejected. The citizens filling this room tonight are not just residents of Dogwood Trace. They are also residents of English Station and Firebrook and possibly some other neighborhoods in the adjoining area. These citizens share concerns about development of property for high-density use where there is no need for such development and where there is not sufficient infrastructure to support it. Development of this property appears on its face to be contemplated by the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, but in fact it is not in conformance with that plan. What is clear today is that no one wants to pay for a multi-million dollar bridge necessary to connect one of the conforming connector streets, Twain Ridge, and the proposed connection through Agape Drive does not conform to the comprehensive plan because it is not wide enough to be a collector street. The Planning Commission was apprised of those facts but stated that the residents would simply have to refrain from parking along the street. There is no such authority unless there is a petition indicated by the citizens who agree to such a parking restriction. To the contrary, we have a number of statements that have been signed by the residents that live along Agape Drive that show that such a petition would be unsuccessful. So that leaves the narrow, steep, and twisty entry that currently exists on the property. The road is not a proper means of ingress or egress for a number of reasons. Not the least is that it would imperil a 300-year-old bur oak tree. When the city council defeated the same basic proposal a few years ago, the threat to that tree of running over its major feeder root system was a major concern for denying the zone change. So what is the difference now? The proposed main road still runs right over the root system, but now we have a different arborist who says it might not hurt the tree. I don't know why this arborist would be more believable than the arborist who opined earlier, but I submit that the city loses a great asset if this new arborist is wrong. Why take the risk to develop medium-density housing that we don't need and can't support infrastructure-wise? This area has been labeled an infill area, vacant or bypass land with existing development area. However, there is not sufficient infrastructure for the planned development. There are no sidewalks or bypass in the area. The relevant public schools are overcrowded and no room for new students. And the South Elkhorn pump station does not need additional stress by medium density development, nor does it meet the EPA consent decree for a two-year, 24-hour storm event. Lexington knows well water runoff issues in the area. The planned development will only feed more runoff from the paved areas in the South Elkhorn Creek. further endangering businesses like Ramsey's that have already been prone to flooding. We are not far removed from significant sanctions from the EPA regarding our water runoff issues. Why are we adding to them here, in a property bounded by South Elkhorn Creek and two tributaries? Also a significant concern is the impact that the development will have on the safety of the citizens in Dogwood Trace. If you had spent any time in the Dogwood Trace, you would quickly notice the number of individuals, families, children, using the subdivision streets for recreations of all types. Dogwood Trace has a wonderful family-oriented relationship that is furthered by residents feeling safe enough to walk in the neighborhood and to talk to their neighbors. Given that old-school house laying will be hard to navigate, it seems that most of the traffic for the new development will go through the heart of Dogwood Trace, particularly since it was a shortcut to Bellarive, Plaza, and Kroger's. We also heard at the last hearing, which was the Planning Commission, that pre-Columbian burial grounds may be involved in this property. Mr. Lear and Ball Holmes stated that this is not the case, but more study is required before letting this property go forward for medium density development. There might be a situation where development of a piece of property is more important to the city council. Maybe you would be tempted to overlook some of these significant issues, but this is not that property. There are plenty of properties in the area with medium density developments that have stalled, and there is no need for this type of development, particularly when it has threatened the character of one of Lexington's most family-friendly neighborhoods. I ask you to listen to the subsequent presenters that are citizens in the area and rule that this property not be granted medium-density zoning. Nancy? Is this the one that's on? Nancy Terahar, 2465 Dogwood Trace Boulevard. At the county hearing, my neighbors were accused of selfishly wanting no development at all. The term for this selfishness is NIMBY, not in my backyard. This is not true. We simply don't want a substandard and nonconforming development plan as the basis for rezoning. Not near our neighborhood, not in any place in Lexington. We are not asking for anything special. There is no selfishness in our coming to speak with you. We have concerns. We also have some feelings of distress. We have concrete evidence, facts and figures, and valid reasons for our objections. We're not against the Ball Homes. We object to their flawed plan, which has substantial and significant deficits. related to infrastructure, environmental issues, and adequate protection of the 300-year-old Burr Oak, which is a treasure. One example of the many infrastructure issues is the insufficiency of our sewage treatment plant. That's serious. Another problem with the plan is the plan to use Agape as a collector street, although it is too narrow. The standard width of a collector street set by experts is 36 feet across. Agape is 31 feet, and the width of Old Schoolhouse is 19 1⁄2. Using substandard collector streets will create traffic problems. We are not objecting to more cars per se. We object to the inadequacy of infrastructure to support more cars on a daily basis. Things will be fine once the cars get to the highway. Neighborhood streets, however, will be hectic and dangerous. There would be a cascade of problems and difficulties involving services, safety, and traffic. Conforming to standards, on the other hand, could avoid these problems altogether. The guidelines of the master plan are guidelines. It's necessary to also look at the reality. Having a connector street substandard and too narrow, it doesn't make sense, and it's going to lead to problems that none of us want to face. Thank you. Yes, my name is Bob Patti. I live at 2500 Sun Gale Court. That's in Firebrook. I've been involved in this because I was involved in the last one. Basically, I'm a safety person. This week I've decided to take upon myself, they didn't ask me to, to go measure roads. The reason why I know more about measuring roads and all is that I was a superintendent for a traffic crew. We laid out shopping projects for a contractor, or for our people to do. So I decided to go to Old Schoolhouse Road. And she's right, it was about 19 1⁄2 feet. The widest there is a little under 21 feet. I went up, I walked the full distance of it. It has major breakage problems on each side. It has not meant, it was not built with the kind of traffic, Even if it was to be widened now, it would not be strong enough in the middle. The other thing about that is that when I was measuring, I saw numerous trucks turning into English station. And I was thinking to myself, I really need to be here when a school bus is here. Here's my Kentucky driver's license. I have a driver's bus license as well as a Class A driver's license. I know that there's no way that the people that I drove for would allow me to take a bus down that hill or to even drive on a road that narrow. And basically, I'm going to give up my time to anybody else, but I really think that people need to think about using the old school house road. I'm only going to do this once. Please don't clap, if you would. Just kind of refrain and just let the speaker speak. Thank you all. Good evening. My name is Jan Geddes. I live at 4764 Rima Way and 2499 Harrods Point Trace. This evening, I hope to convince you that the use of Agape Drive as a collector street for the ingress and egress of the proposed old schoolhouse lane property is untenable. The City's most recent comprehensive plan states that if a parcel is to be developed, as you know, there must be a collector street. In relation to the proposal before you, of course, Agape Drive would serve as that street. In the LFUCG Roadway Manual dated 2005, the term collector translates to a street that collects traffic from local streets and feeds this traffic into the larger, higher traffic volume and arterial road system. Wits are designated for the, quote, reasonably expected uses versus possible uses, end quote, which tend to lead to wider streets. As you've heard, Agape narrows to 31 feet, inclusive of curbs and gutters. By definition, then, Agape Drive is clearly not wide enough to constitute a collector street. Designed for reasonably expected uses, Agape Drive was created to encourage safe pedestrian bicycle passage, less daunting crossing, on-street parking, traffic calming devices, including stop signs, a lower vehicle volume, slower speeds, and a more watchful and defensive motorist. Finally, in conjunction with a previous hearing on this zone change, the Planning Commission was informed that the width of Agape Drive was not sufficient to be a proper point of ingress and egress for the proposal. In response, the Planning Commission determined that the residents who lived on Agape would be prohibited from parking their cars or those of their visitors on Agape Drive in an attempt to make the Agape, quote, a conforming connector street, end quote. According to Gene Gardner, Associate Traffic Engineer for the City, parking prohibitions such as that necessitated by this extension can only be made through a petition process, one which can only be initiated by the residents affected by the prohibition. Sixty-five percent of the residents in the proposed area must agree on the prohibition and sign the petition. It is therefore with pleasure that I present to you the petition signed by 85 percent of my neighbors on Agape Drive voting against any future prohibition seeking to restrict parking of cars at any point along Agape Drive. I thank you for your consideration, and I present to you the petition. Good evening. My name is John Yoswick. out of the 4860 Bud Lane and Dogwood Trace subdivision. I was surprised at the July 25th Planning Commission meeting when one of the planning staff's reasons for recommending approval of the zone change was a provision for the collector street system via Agape and Twain Ridge drives. Collector streets per the 2007 comprehensive plan. I was surprised because the connection to Twain Ridge requires a major piece of infrastructure. A bridge to be constructed. The developer will not build a bridge, we all know that. So that falls to the city to do so. I'd like to know when the city is going to commit to building the bridge and when it will be built. The 2008 estimates for the building of the bridge were upwards of $3 million. I'm sure it must be double that by now. With the various Lexington financial problems and commitments, I can see this bridge a major piece of infrastructure being built for decades, if ever. No development should be considered in this area without this critical piece of infrastructure in place. Thank you. Hello. My name is Lauren Larson. I live at 4796 Rima Way. Again, my name is Lauren Larson, and I am a physician in the community and a native Lexingtonian. We have chosen to raise our family here, and I want to ensure that my children will grow up in the bluegrass of Lexington as I did. I am thankful for the opportunity to appeal to this council about our concerns. I want to formally submit my disapproval of the zone change from AU to R3. I want to preface what I'm going to say with the fact that we all lived on what was once farmland, whether your subdivision was 25 years old or 50 years old. The South Elkhorn area is an environmentally restricted area due to the 300 to 350-year-old bur oak tree and South Elkhorn Creek, which runs on this property. There are also underground springs and limestone, which we can't see. Blasting, filling, and grating can affect this entire ecosystem if intruded upon. We are concerned about the impact of traffic, density of housing, and preserving the natural beauty of the greenway, as well as maintaining the survival of the 300- to 350-year-old burrow tree. This grand tree is located at the front of this property. This is a significant tree as defined in the Zoning Ordinance Article 26. There are three significant trees on this property which the tree board had asked to save. the largest of which is the Baroque tree, which is 72 inches in diameter, which is 6 feet. This is the only significant tree that Ballholms has included on its development plan. For a little history, this tree had sprouted in about 1660s to 1710s. George Washington was born in 1732. Our founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, and our country won its freedom in 1776. Kentucky became a commonwealth, and Frankfurt was declared the capital in 1792. This tree would have been approximately 100 years old at that time. This tree has survived droughts, fires, severe storms, the Civil War and the Revolutionary War. It has remained intact, even sitting on a steep hill of limestone. The proposed development will damage its extensive root system. This tree sits close to an edge where its root system is limited on that side. That means that more room is needed on the other side for the roots. There is a formula, according to the Zoning Oranus 26, tree protection standards, that for every one inch diameter of breast height of the tree, that there will be one to 1.5 radius defined as the critical root zone. This tree's critical root zone should be 72 to 180 feet at its minimum. How did this develop or vow to save the tree? A lot as a safety barrier for the tree. How much? 50 feet. This 350-year-old bur oak tree deserves a maximal protection we can provide, not the minimal protection for a road. Remember, we are disturbing its habitat and tranquility. The road that is planned will host greater than 400 cars, the only egress and ingress available for 196 apartments and 45 houses. The road is 50 feet wide and lies along the side of the tree. There are two other large trees in its path that will be destroyed. One is approximately 130 years old. The 300 to 350-year-old burrow tree is currently sitting on a hill on the property of a single land owner. That lot is somewhat vacant now, and this tree will be exposed to exhaust and the weight of hundreds of cars and trucks daily. There are many more old trees on this property, which we will lose with this development. Yes, foul homes will plant lots of little trees, but you can't grow back a 100-year-old tree, much less a 350-year-old baroque tree. Lexington has been a part of Tree City USA since 1989, which is the first and longest in Kentucky. We need to protect the tree and the nearby blasting as they prepare the road, which is on a steep incline and needs significant widening from 29 feet at least to 50 feet on their proposed plan. When this project is done, the developer just moves on. We are the ones living with the environmental impact. We need to protect the tree from nearby blasting and development. We also need to protect the historic South Elkhorn area where the tree grows. Developers should be held accountable for their destruction. They say they want to save the tree, but they need to provide action in order to do so, including correct numbers. Okay. Dave Rich, 4796 Reem Away, and I yield my time to Dr. Larson. Thank you, honey. Okay. Hi, Dr. Larson. Thank you. This is an environmentally sensitive area, and according to Article 611A, the subdivision regulations, it is defined as an area due to its natural and physical setting. which may have environmental problems with regard to its development. A detailed site planning is necessary to overcome the physical limitations of the land. It states that environmentally sensitive areas, such as this one, will be subject to more restrictive regulations. In what way is an R3 zone with 196 apartments, 241 total dwellings, on 22 to 25 acres, depending on how you do the calculations? How is that restrictive? I would like to show you a few pictures of this area. I know you've seen quite a few. The overheads, when you look down on the land, doesn't really do its service. These are trees on property that Ball Homes has developed and that are suffering. If they care to save a tree, this particular tree is stressed from the grading changes at the entrance of Blackford Oak development. My pictures look much better in real life. The second one is the oak in Blackford Oaks dying from grading changes from 5 to 6 feet of soil level that had been changed because of grading. And again, you can see it sloped down. The next one. This is the oak in Glassford development dying from grading changes. The roots were smothered by additional soil grading put on top of its root system. And again, it looks more pathetic than that. And the next picture, please, is the dead oak tree at the back of Walnut Hills development. Again, another Ball Homes development. Now, I have more pictures. This is the intersection that they were talking about. This median is not very long, the grassy area. So you're widening the road that's going this way, which is Old Schoolhouse Lane. and you're cutting the corner really quickly for these cars and that's what makes the buses really hard to turn and angle. So I would not want to be another car with an oncoming bus having to turn. Go to the next picture, please. This is the cliff, basically, that the Baroque sits on. The big tree in the back. I guess I should use this, shouldn't I? All righty. I'm a novice. This is the Baroque. Handheld? Yeah, far away. Oh, this? I can do that. Maybe. Thank you. Okay. This is the Baroque, and you can see the steep incline, which, where is my pointer? Okay, there's steep, steep. This is really hard backwards, I might add. You're quite good at this. Okay, so this is the steep incline that the Baroque sits on, that the road will have to be cut into and of course damage the root system since there is very little clearance between that tree and the cliff. Next picture please. Okay, there's another angle of it. And you can see the steep incline of the private driveway on the property. This road will also have to be widened 250 feet by the way. And if you can tell it, there's basically stone on each side of that road. So there will be drilling and blasting and whatever else goes on when you widen the road about 20 feet. Okay, next picture. Okay, this again, you'll see that there's stone on each side of this road. That's the property road going up to the Harvey property. And again, there's going to be lots of blasting going on because that road has to be widened another 20 feet. And the next picture is, that's me standing on a different property showing you the angle that this road is going to have to go on. These buses, the cars that are coming down this road are going to be slipping and sliding, especially in the wintertime. and I just want to inform you that you're going to have to majorly salt this road from these cars because there's going to be huge amounts of fender benders. But salt also hurts the Baroque tree. So you've got to think about how much salt they're going to use, how frequent they're going to use it, and then where does that salt go when it's washed off the road? It goes into the root system of that Baroque tree, which ultimately will kill it. If the road doesn't kill it, the salt will. And there's us. We're sitting at an angle. This is the highest property in this whole area. That's how high it is. We are looking at the roofs of Firebrook. Where is this water going to go? When you mess with the development of the land, you mess with the flow of water. This is what we're looking at. And you're going to damage this tree as well. Is that it for my pictures? Thank you very much. Actually, do I have more minutes? Rats. Rats. Mr. Wolstein, you have 19 minutes and 35 seconds to finish your all's presentation. Hello, I'm Patty Ruff. I live at 2309 Dogwood Trace. Dear Council members, I object to this requested zone change because the infrastructure to support the proposed development of the Harvey property. Excuse me, could you bring your microphone a little closer so we could. Thank you very much. I object to this requested zone change because the infrastructure to support the proposed development of the Harvey property is not in place and will not be for quite some time. Our schools are at or over capacity. Sewer and water service is at capacity. Our pumping station is overloaded. Our emergency services are stretched. Harrodsburg Road traffic is at capacity, as is intersection traffic in the area, and there's no public transportation to relieve it. The mentioned bridge to Twain Ridge is too expensive to even consider it a viable option. The property between English Station and Dogwood Trace Subdivision is privately owned and not on the market. That leaves Old Schoolhouse Road. as the only way to access this proposed development. The folks in English Station can attest to the difficulty they have navigating it during peak traffic times and when the weather is bad. The topographic lines on the site plan indicate the new developments road will also have quite an increase in elevation and will dump cars onto Old Schoolhouse Road, which was never meant to be more than a temporary access to English station. As I look at this proposed development, I see many noble ideas in the comprehensive plan being marginalized in the name of infill. For example, 3.A under Protecting the Environment, identifying and protecting natural resources and landscape before development occurs. Those natural resources and landscapes have been identified. The bar oak and other old trees, the natural springs, and the South Alcorn Creek. This natural space is working hard for us, absorbing rainwater, filtering runoff, cleaning the air, and cooling on hot summer days. Hard surfaces like roofs and parking lots do not. They cause runoff that compromises the water quality of creeks. For all these reasons, this is not the right place for this kind of development. Mr. Ball wants to put there. Maybe he should look at redevelopment instead of infill, another noble idea in the comprehensive plan. I might suggest Turflin Mall area where the infrastructure is already in place. I ask counsel, please do what is right. Follow the current intent of the R3 zoning recommendation. Put this type of development in an area where necessary services and facilities will be adequate to serve the anticipated population, not in this sensitive area that is lacking the necessary infrastructure to support it. Please, Council, deny this zone change. This parcel deserves a development that would put less strain on the natural resources and the infrastructure. Thank you. I can't waste any time here since the countdown is going. I'm Dave Leonard, consulting arborist and friend of the bur oak tree. And really, my part is just about the tree. It's a 71-inch diameter tree, 72 inches. Call it a veteran tree. And it has survived a lot, as it was earlier mentioned, as Lauren mentioned. But now is kind of the ultimate challenge. Can it survive development? The current plan is what I major have a problem with, or have a major problem with. It's listed a protective fence at 50 foot. I understand that may be reviewed eventually, but currently it's not reviewed. It's at 50 foot. And on one side we have a cliff. On the other side we have a road. And the driveway could be taken up, yes, but 50 foot is totally inadequate for that. and I have provided actually a table that's used for that. The current arborist, Mr. Hoffman, used a formula. Well, not a formula. It's just a drip line. Edge of the drip line is a great thing to save trees. And that is normally used when a tree is a 15-inch, 20-inch diameter, 30-inch diameter. You use this. For this tree, it's an exceptionally old tree. I can't say it's on its last legs because Burroughs can live a good 500 years, so it might have 150 left. We don't know. But it is growing. We do know that because it has grown in the last five years. But old trees need a lot more room than younger trees. You can't trample the roots. They do not accept the changes that a young tree can handle. So basically, I say in my notes that the tree is extreme age, growing on shallow soil, which has been indicated by all the rock there, both of which cause it to have a really extended root zone, much more than normal. So again, 50 foot is totally inadequate. If we were to go with a 70-foot or a 100-foot root zone, anything would be better than 50-foot. 100-foot I would like to see on that one side, and that would be good. But, you know, as much as I have looked at underground and at trees, root systems, probably more than anybody here and a lot of people in the United States, I haven't found a tree root yet that's read the guidelines. So, you know, they are just guidelines, and tree roots grow where they will and where they can. In 300 years, they can grow a hell of a long way. So we really want to protect that as much as we can. And for your all's information in here, I've included several documents from different publications that are our international guidelines that we use as certified arborists. And we have guidelines for the city. We're not going by. I don't know why, but I'm only speaking for the tree. I would like to see the guidelines at least observed as much as possible. Thanks. My name is Roger Marion. I live at 2430 Dogwood Trace Boulevard, and I'm a retired geologist. As you heard, it was previously suggested that there was a pre-Columbian Native American burial site on the subject property. Bald Holmes has presented such a scenario and subsequently presented information which they claim suggested the site is actually located off the subject property, or if there was a site, that it was destroyed by modern use. Today, following me, is Dr. George Crothers, Director of the William S. Webb Museum of Anthropology and Director of the Office of State Archaeology at the University of Kentucky. He will describe how he is confident that the site is still present on the subject land and that its location and evidence of its existence have been verified and accurately located on the Kentucky Geological Survey map. He will say that the evidence of a site can be seen on images he has brought to the hearing today. He informed us that there was a request to his office for preliminary site information by the firm hired by Ball Holmes, mentioned earlier, as cultural resource analyst. Dr. Carruthers has not reviewed that report, but understands that it's a cursory exam and has said a mere walkover of the site is insufficient. At a minimum, the investigator should conduct shovel testing on a grid pattern and perhaps use geophysical investigation to determine the extent of the remains of the burial site. he will describe that this site is located in the northwestern portion of the Harvey property not too far from the 300-year-old Burr Oak. The conclusion of our comment leads us to say in fact we don't believe that the uncertainty about this site based on the cursory survey by cultural resource analysts and the lack of documentation that they had done a proper survey can allow the council to approve the zone change at this time. Dr. Crothers. My name is George Crothers. I'm the director of the Office of State Archaeology at the University of Kentucky. And I'm here mainly just to address some facts that seem to be in dispute about the location of this site. The Office of State Archaeology at the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kentucky has authority under KRS 164.725 to designate archaeological sites in the Commonwealth, and hence is the official register of known archaeological sites in the state. My office is routinely consulted by archaeologists to determine what archaeological resources may be present on a property prior to development. It's come to my attention that in the minutes of the Irwin County Planning Commission hearing on July 25, 2013, that the archaeological site designated 15FA3, also known as a Hardman burial mound, which my office has located within the boundaries of the proposed development is actually located, and this is now quoting from the minutes, further to the south and west of the subject property. I've made a thorough review of our records and determined that the Office of State Archaeology, contrary to this statement, does indeed have the location of 15FA3 accurately identified, and based on recent aerial imagery, that there is additional information to conclude that the site or portions of the site may still be intact on the subject property. while 15FA3 is described as being located 0.5 miles to the south of Elkhorn Creek in a 1932 report. This information is superseded by maps and notes in the Office of State Archaeology by William G. Haig, then Director of the UK Museum of Anthropology and dated June 3, 1946, indicating its correct location. Furthermore, infrared aerial imagery obtained in 2012 and a recent digital elevation model produced by LIDAR Mapping indicate a soil anomaly and topographic feature corresponding to the location of 15FA3 as currently identified in OSA records. It's my opinion that sufficient information exists to warrant further inspection of this locality using appropriate archaeological techniques to determine whether Site 15FA3 does indeed retain any integrity, especially with regard to the potential to contain Native American human remains. And I have the maps, and I'm happy to share them with the committee, but in the interest of time, I won't show them at the moment. Hi, my name is Kate Giuliani. I live at 4804 Waterside Drive. I'd like to present a petition and also this for evidence or for display. My name is Kate Giuliani, and I am a Firebrook resident. Along with the 254 neighbors who signed the petition presented this evening, I am opposed to the proposed rezoning of land on Old School House Lane from agricultural urban to multifamily residential R3. According to the LFUCG zoning ordinance, Article 8, R3 is intended for multifamily dwellings in, quote, areas of the community where necessary services and facilities will be adequate to serve the anticipated population. The proposed location for new development is in an area plagued with a deficient sewer system, which gained federal attention from the EPA in 2011 when South Elkhorn Pump Station on Bowman Mill was formally cited as one of the most troublesome of 75 pumps the city operates. The accusation that Lexington's sanitary and storm sewer systems were discharging millions of gallons of untreated and partially treated sewage and other pollutants into Fayette County's creeks and streams each year was followed by an EPA consent decree obligating LFUCG to pay $425,000 in civil penalties and more than a quarter billion dollars to fix sanitary and storm sewer systems. As a result, we, the residents of Fayette County, are now paying a new stormwater fee and an increased sanitary sewer user fee for improvements to reduce sanitary sewer overflows. The consent decree appendix entitled Recurring Locations of SSOs and Unpermitted Discharges lists South Elkhorn No. 1 as the most severe sanitary sewer overflow site in the city. According to the consent decree, the South Elkhorn pump station and force main upgrade had to be completed. This construction, the initial step toward compliance, was completed fall 2010 at the cost of $15.2 million and is claimed by LFUCG to be, quote, one of our most significant achievements so far. Despite this progress, significant additional investment is still needed in three areas at South Elkhorn to achieve compliance with the EPA consent decree under existing conditions with regard to one-hour peak flow. Development on Old Schoolhouse Lane would exacerbate two-year, 24-hour design storm challenges and threaten future compliance with the EPA consent decree. And I'd like to show this exhibit. Appendix C4, the capacity map at South Elkhorn, was submitted to the EPA on December 21, 2012. The map indicates inadequate pump station capacity and inadequate sanitary sewer collection capacity, as highlighted in red, under the existing conditions. Consequently, the South Elkhorn Sanitary Sewer Project proposals includes three projects, which are detailed behind that page, for an estimated total capital cost of $6.3 million on a schedule, quote, TBD, to accommodate existing needs. In other words, the projected $6.3 million spending on an undefined schedule is independent of the proposed development in the exact same area, shown in red, as inadequate on the capacity map today. Consideration of a development proposal that applies the added strain of 196 multifamily dwellings and 45 single-family homes on an already inadequate system, currently under the EPA's microscope, is unfathomable. Replacing valuable green space with added runoff and risking violation of the EPA consent decree for the sake of building hundreds of apartments in an area without infrastructure to support them cannot be justified. Thank you. Thank you. I'll have three minutes to finish up your presentation. And I know that we're running very short of time, and so I will try to make this quick. I have a lot of data here. It's a small phone book-sized collection of data on total maximum daily load regarding the South Elkhorn Creek. And I know that we talked a lot about green space here. You know that, I'm sorry, I have to back up. I'm Vicki Holmberg. I'm a resident of Firebrook Subdivision, and I am a physician. And I believe that if you examine these things, you'll see that having an affinity for green space and trees and that sort of thing is part of what makes us human and healthy. You know that the response to green exercise is not New Age conjecture. It's hard 21st century science revealed in a number of studies, featured in the most respected medical journals. Physicians speak now about the mental and physical health benefits of linking children and adults to the outdoors and of combating childhood obesity. A recent local publication advised people to take their children wading in a creek. One of the creeks mentioned was the beautiful South Elkhorn Creek, but here's an unpleasant secret. The total maximum daily load of coliform bacteria in this creek does not meet the standards which are required by the Clean Water Act. Coliform bacteria or fecal bacteria are in excess, making the creek unsafe for primary contact, such as swimming, where there might be ingestion of water, or secondary contact, such as wading, that might be done by adults or children. Data such as these reinforce the fact that our sewers are already overloaded. The creek is polluted during its entire course through our watershed, both above and below us. The watershed has had chronic unaddressed pollution, and additional development cannot improve our water quality and will likely diminish it via chemical runoff, pet waste, and sediment deposits, all of which are inherent in land conversion. I do not say that since the water is already polluted that we have nothing to lose. This is not the direction that citizens wish the management of our natural resources to take. My name is Ron Begley. I live at 4857 Firebrook Boulevard. I oppose this development, and earlier in his presentation, Mr. Lear mentioned Tate's Creek Road and all the residential developments. What has not been mentioned is that Ball Homes is presently developing and almost finished with a 250-unit apartment complex at Manowar Boulevard and Winthrop Drive. This complex has not been finished, and as of 1.35 p.m. yesterday afternoon, they only have 10 apartments rented, which pretty much makes this proposed development, especially the 196 apartments they wish to build, renders it pretty much useless. The 45 single-family dwellings that they want to build, I think there are enough houses for sale in the surrounding neighborhoods to actually accommodate the people wanting to move into this area. Therefore, the apartments and the single-family dwellings are very unnecessary. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, I will ask Mr. Sallee, do you have any additional comments? and while he's doing that if anybody that is here on the opponent side if you would stand up for the council to know who is against it that hasn't spoke we usually allow that to happen thank you all I think it's pretty obvious. Thank you for this opportunity. Just one item of rebuttal, and then I did am passing out a rebuttal exhibit. but I wanted to point out that Old Schoolhouse Lane currently is the only access that is available to the English Station subdivision. So those homes that are immediately south of this proposed development have to use English Station Drive to access Old Schoolhouse Lane and then the signal there at Harrodsburg Road opposite Military Road. I wasn't sure if that was clear through the discussion, but I thought I ought to point that out to the council just for reference. The item that I have distributed, and I'll give the original copy to the clerk, is an article that the staff received about a month ago, not quite a month ago, from a fellow who was disappointed because in his neighborhood a street wasn't extended across a park and an infrastructure element that prevented him from attending or patronizing one of the best pizza restaurants in his town. And he set out, being a planner, to analyze why street connections are not favored by citizens and why they're important. And so I wanted to distribute that basically to the council. the crux of his article is that by not connecting streets in a fashion it creates other problems and that there are other solutions such as traffic calming to deal with those types of issues thank you thank you at this time I will ask the petitioner if you would like to give any rebuttal evidence I want to hit two or three or four, maybe five very specific points. I'll save summary for later. I think it's important to understand what was and what wasn't done at the Planning Commission. The statement was made earlier today, this evening, that the Planning Commission determined that parking would be prohibited on Agape. If you look at the notes of the Planning Commission, or if you watched the tape, a single Planning Commission member, Frank Penn, in the comment section said, quote, the problem with the width of a gape drive could be mitigated by prohibiting parking on one side of the street, end of quote. That was one of 11 Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission took no action, so there are lots of opinions about ways to deal with traffic issues. That was one that happened to be expressed, but there was no action taken by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission also, if you look at the very last line of the notes, added a condition the applicant, meaning Ball Homes, will document that the archaeological site is not on the subject property at the time of final development plan. And Dr. Carruthers, I think it was, and I'm sorry if I missed the name, would be a welcome addition to that conversation because the information that we have received is that the site is south of there, and that comes from the 1932 study which we referenced, and I told you the basis for my statements earlier. Any images, infrared or otherwise, that can lend additional information would be welcome, I am sure, by the Planning Commission and would be welcome by the developer. But that's an issue that fundamentally was reserved by the Planning Commission to be resolved, and the burden is upon the developer, as that note states. The tree issues. I appreciate Mr. Leonard's comments. He is an expert. We have an expert. The urban county government has an expert. Tim Query. All of those people will be involved at the final development plan stage in determining what are the appropriate amounts of protection for the burrow tree. And someone mentioned, and maybe didn't hear what I said earlier, that we hadn't addressed the other trees. and the tree board report, tree board letter that I made reference to came after the hearing. It didn't come before the hearing, it came after the hearing, and they referenced a couple or three other trees. And since then, we have asked our expert, Mr. Hoffman, to address those. We have already looked at adjustments in the alignment of roads and the location of buildings to provide for their protection, and all of that will be in front of the Planning Commission. I didn't bring those in tonight because that's not a part of the preliminary development plan that was considered. Staff hasn't seen this, and so that's all a part of the conversation. The issue about the pump station is when I saw some of the letters that were floating around before this that referenced it, I thought back because I remembered even five years ago that pump station was on the government's priority list. So I went back and we checked. We talked to Charlie Martin within the last day. He confirmed that they have already upgraded, the Irvin County government has already upgraded the South Elkhorn Pump Station as one of the four early action items required by the consent decree. They installed all new pumps, a new wet well, put in a 36-inch force main that goes all the way to the treatment plant, seven miles of 36-inch force main. He said that you all are familiar with the CAP program. There is actually a positive balance in this bank of 179,924 gallons per day in this bank. and you're aware that under the cap there are various geographic areas called banks. The specific work done resulted in a new capacity of 29 million gallons per day by the installation of five pumps, seven miles of 36-inch force main, directly to the wastewater treatment plant. And they also configured the wet well to accommodate a sixth pump would result in a capacity of 32 million gallons a day. So that was an issue that's been addressed. I noted with specificity one of the objectors who said if you don't build Twain Ridge, then you shouldn't be allowed to develop this property. The case that determined that the urban county government could not require a developer for a relatively small tract to build a major bridge involved Trace Boulevard. We handled that case. It was at the back part of Clemens Heights. If that statement that was made earlier was true, if you don't build the bridge you can't develop, then Dogwood Trace wouldn't be here. because Trace Boulevard was the bridge that was supposed to go across to connect Trace Boulevard across South Elkhorn Creek. So it seems to me that the same rule ought to apply here as applied there. And that brings me to maybe my largest concern about the objectors. And I will assure you, at the Planning Commission hearing, I did not use the word NIMBY. Here is what I said. all the concerns about loss of green space, all the concerns about rooftops that increase flooding, all the concerns about wastewater treatment, all the concerns about loss of trees are raised by people in subdivisions that are already adjacent to the South Elkhorn Greenway and up and down Harrodsburg Road where there used to be farms. I pointed out the number of objectors there were that came in, or the number of objections there were that occupied several pages of the minutes of the Firebrook zone change related to density, related to traffic. And one of the things that I have to confess that does bother me, I'm old enough now and have enough history to have remembered Harrodsburg Road as it existed. My father was born in Wilmore, so in the 50s. And after that, I traveled up and down that road, and there was nothing. There were lots of bur oak trees. There was farmland. There was no encroachment on South Elkhorn. There was no development. And I mean no development. I'm talking about beyond Piccadome Golf Course. All of these objections are being raised tonight by people who ought to be there. I have no objection to them being there. But they drive cars. They create traffic. They have kids that go to school. They have impervious surface on their property that causes more flooding than there was before. They flush their toilets, and they add to the wastewater. And this simply, the development that we have is simply the last in a long line of developments out in that area. It's no different. It creates the same issues. So this is one of those people in glass houses kind of situations. and it's no reason for objecting to and certainly no reason for denying the zone change. Now we will have the public sign-in speak. You will be limited to three minutes, and if you would give your name and your address, and please exclude irrelevant and repetitious testimony. And we'll hear from the people that are for the zone change first, and then we'll hear the ones against. The first person on the list is Ray Watts. And if I butcher your name, I apologize in advance. I've lived there longer. Most of these folks out here, even though I'm only 70, nearly 70 years old, we use that piece of property. Name and your address, please, sir. Raymond A. Waits, 2200 Old Higby Mill Road. And the area is, we were the farmers that were living there. My family knows where supposedly the Indians are buried because they were there when they were there. So 170-some years. So that's the history I have of this area. But the area is now needing to be developed in a proper way. But the neighbors have decided that this is the best chance we have of getting something reasonable. I still have other land that's in the same development potential. But we feel like Mr. Ball is doing the best we can with what we have. And I know the folks that have the property for sale, we cannot maintain it. I've helped maintain it now for several years and got to use the facilities up there. But we do need to move on with this piece of property. Mr. Ball is going to be assuming the risk. He knows more about what the demand is going to be. It is a nice neighborhood. Like I said, I've lived there for all my life, and my family has lived there a lot longer than that. So I'm doing the best we can with what we've got. Thank you. Thank you, Ray York. And the next person is Tom Kimmerer. Yes, my name is Ray Ork. I live at 990 Walnut Hill Road in Lexington, Fayette County. I am a deacon at the Primitive Baptist Church. I was a real estate salesman that wrote the contract originally in 1972 for the church with Mr. Savage that owned the 125 acres of which Dogwood Trace would be a part in the future. I just wanted to say that the church, we have had much development around us since 1972, obviously. And when Mr. Conraderson decided to use the property next to us, of which this property is part of the development plan now, We objected to the smell and also the noise that was involved with it, but we said nothing. We said nothing. We stood by also and said nothing. When the dogwood trace was developed, we said nothing. we also stood by and said nothing uh in objection when english station was granted their development plan and with anywhere from 15 to 20 foot rear loss that backed up to our property we also said nothing when we stood by and said nothing about the fire brook when they added the uh to the traffic along then two-lane Harrisburg Road. And they also ruined our view out our big front window, the pastoral view of our sunset out the front window of our church building. But we said nothing. I have two questions that I would like to ask. But did the Firebrook, I mean the Dalgit Trace development, when Kroger development came in, did they object to the Kroger development, which would have increased the traffic along the Goppe? Also, are you suggesting that we should have objected to all of these developments as they came along? Should the church have objected to it for the same reasons that you have made? Should we have objected to your sewer problem, to your transportation problems, to the schooling problem? I don't think so, but anyway, that's about all I have to say on that. Thank you. Thank you. Tom Kimmerer, and then the next person in line is Alan Heisel. And if you would just kind of line up so we can keep this process moving, that would be helpful. My name is Tom Kimmerer. I own a house at 214 Jusselin Drive, which I share with the largest white oak in Fayette County. There are two Ph.D. level tree physiologists in the state of Kentucky. I'm one and Jeff Stringer is the other. and he and I both agree that this tree can be preserved. I have been paying professional attention to the old growth trees in this region for more than 30 years. We know that there are more old trees, that is, trees that predate European settlement of this region, in this region, in the bluegrass, the physiographic region of which Lexington is the center, than any other region in the United States. Let me repeat that. There are more old-growth trees, trees that predate settlement in the bluegrass than any other region in the United States. We still have a lot of them in Fayette County. I can tell you that we have lost 90% of the burr oaks in Fayette County in the last 60 years. So these are trees that are 300 to 500 years old, and I'll come back to the age issue in a minute. We've lost 90% of them in the last 60 years, and that's by actual count. I repeated the study that was done in 1950, and that's primarily due to development and growth of the city. I firmly believe that the remaining old-growth trees in the bluegrass need to be protected and preserved, and I also firmly believe that the best way to do that is to follow the comprehensive plan. The majority of old-growth trees in Fayette County and in the bluegrass are outside of the urban service boundary. The majority in Fayette County are certainly outside the urban service boundary, and there's still quite a few of them. So I think that following the comprehensive plan and building housing in this area is entirely consistent with an effort to try and preserve as many of these ancient trees as possible. Now let's talk about this individual tree. I've heard a lot of numbers bandied about. I am an expert on old trees, and I have no idea how old this tree is. I can tell you that it was certainly here before Josiah Collins built the first building here in 1779, but I don't know how much older it is. How long can such a tree live? We have no idea about that either. It's common in England for oak trees to live more than 1,200 years. But we only know that because the English have been there watching them and writing notes down about them for that long. So we don't know how much a tree can live in these kinds of conditions. Now, let's address the site for this particular tree. And Dave Leonard and I might disagree on the details of how to take care of such a tree, but I think we both agree on the basic principles, which is to provide as much rooting space as possible. This tree will have a lot of rooting space. Even after the road goes in, according to the diagram that's there, this tree will have quite a bit of rooting space. I've seen lots of burr oaks in other regions of the country that are larger than this tree, that have less rooting space, and are doing fine. A lot of the burr oaks decline after construction because of inadequate construction care and inadequate post-construction care. But I think if it's done right that this tree can live another 500 years or whatever period of time. It will be there long after the houses are gone. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Alan Heisel. And the next one is Betty Lee Martin. My name is Alan Heisel. I live at 303 Crestridge Trail, subdivision Holloway in Jessamine County. I'm also a member of the Lexington Primitive Baptist Church, a deacon there, and a retired, semi-retired architect. I happened to have designed the building when it was built in the 70s. When we bought our property, we were surrounded by farmland, as Mr. York has stated. Firebrook was a beautiful horse farm across from us. And we've seen the land on all sides be developed, on three sides out of the four. This property onto the north of us is the last one that remains undeveloped. And we realize that it will be developed at some point, sometime in the future, and I would prefer that that happen by an experienced developer who is willing to work with the neighbors, who is sensitive to the trees, the other issues that have been brought up, and seems to be willing to make every effort to satisfy these objections. Philosophically, I prefer to see infill development of this nature rather than to see our farmland disappear. I think this is a good case for infill development, and we would be happy to see this development go forward as proposed, and we'd like to lend our support. Thank you. Thank you. Betty Lee Martin. Okay, now we'll move to the against the zone change. And the first person I have is Justin Williamson. And the next person will be Patty Yoswick. And your name, address, and three minutes, please. Justin Williamson. I live at 2149 Ladera Lane in the Dogwood Trace neighborhood. I am the president of Dogwood Trace Neighborhood Association. Mainly on behalf of the neighborhood, I want to express my concerns. there's a lot of talk and potential disagreement about potential roads in the future and the impact of those roads on the neighborhood. Traffic studies done by the firm representing Ball Homes sounds promising, but I still want to record our concerns about additional traffic and area relief recently, in the last couple of years, petitioned the city, and they've graciously provided a stop sign, a four-way stop sign, at Agape and Dogwood Trace Boulevard because of traffic concerns. So that's basically the essence of my presentation today. Thank you. Ms. Yoswick and then Ruth Marion is next. My name is Patty Yoswick, 4860 Bund Lane, Dogwood Trace Subdivision, and I would like to make one comment and defer the rest of my time to Kim Creschetti. Mr. Lear has said on many occasions that we are all on farmland. I'm sure his home was built on farmland as well. I just think that our property in Dogwood Trace and Firebrook had some thought to density, traffic control, safety, and just a lot of other things that this development doesn't seem to present to us. I'll give the rest of my time to Kim. Thank you. Hi, I'm Kim Crosetti. I live at 4785 Rima Way, and I've been involved in the past with the development of Dogwood Park and the Greenway. The South Elkhorn Greenway is going to be going through this area. I have a map up here that helps show one of the problems we've had in our area is because the bridges that have not been built over the drive-in creek or the South Elkhorn, it's made it really hard for residents to be able to move around with walking and bicycling in the area. You have the homes that are on, I guess we're looking here, from my right of where the creek is, is Copperfield and Clemon Heights. Their only exit is going off on Clay's Mill, and then Dogwood and the other neighborhoods over here on the left of the creek. We have to go off on Harrodsburg Road. And we now have a trail in the park where number six is at Dogwood Park, and that's part of the South Elkhorn Greenway. We have a trail in there that connects. So you can ride your bike back and forth, and you can walk back and forth between these neighborhoods without having to get on the busy roads. The trail at this point ends at Dogwood Park. The proposal is for it to continue on through the greenway and then get to the point where there's actually part of the trail that's already built underneath Harrodsburg Road at where the bridge is. It goes over the South Elkhorn. So this area that's being developed is very important. It will be part of the South Elkhorn Greenway with the trail system continuing on. this map just shows you what has already been obtained for this greenway the dogwood park area the next one up is the greenway that's behind where english station is and you can see how right above where it says 1.4 there's a little lip off to the side that's an area that's been a plan for an entryway onto the greenway but where this next development is just farther up it cuts that off and it doesn't make that entryway any bigger and it's a very steep hill that goes straight down it'll be narrow and steep so it won't be accessible you will not be able to put a trail that have to be steep stairs to get in and where the plan is here now it has a backyard going straight across where Rima would finish and that cuts off more entryways into the greenway and then there's also a spring that's on the property and that's it's a really pretty spring it runs all year long that rock ledge it goes across it's the water comes out right underneath the rock ledge and then goes all the way down to the the main creek and the next picture this shows that there's like a gravel tributary that comes out of the spring running all the way down, that is in the backyard of one of the homes in the development that's planned right now. And it seems to me that that's not good use of the land. When we did the greenway, we didn't know the spring existed. Now we know the spring exists. And it needs to be, it's right next to the greenway. It's right where a good entrance to the greenway would be. And I would hope that we could somehow have that worked into the plan. and that also brings up people walking along this creek, and the cleanliness of the water is very important. We're going to have lots of children in this area, and hopefully as the area develops, because we don't have roads going over, that the people can walk and use bicycles along those paths. So those were my concerns I wanted to bring up. Thank you. Ruth Marion, and then Shannon Buzzard. I'm Ruth Marion, and I live at 2430 Daqua Trace Boulevard. I've spent the last couple of weeks getting petitions signed on Agape, walking the neighborhood, talking to our neighbors, and they really do not want Agape to be opened up. It is a very nice neighborhood right now and would really destroy the whole street if it is opened. Thank you very much. I'll relinquish the rest of my time to someone else. Thank you. Sharon Bezard and then Ron Begley will be next. Hi, my name is Shannon Mazard. I live in Dogwood Trace Development in the 10th Council District. I've joined the community to oppose the current comprehensive development and zoning plans by the city, Bahams, and Harvey properties. And it is our community's hope and resolve affected by the current defined plan for this property to bring about elevated quality of standards and quality of life for the entire community, having a more positive outcome for our future. I just want to mention real quick what hadn't been mentioned yet, just kind of going back on the collector road system. In your comprehensive plan, when it talks about the collector road system, it does say it's for good connectivity throughout all levels of transportation system and is essential. However, connectivity is not appropriate in all cases due to safety and other unique considerations, which this property does pose a lot of unique considerations. A few other things that are recapping. It was noted that the petitioner is proposing to purchase property behind the church building so that it can be incorporated into this current plan, which could potentially bring another additional 100 more units to the community, which I believe it would bring that number to 348, but that really got a little confusing because I heard all kinds of different numbers. With regards to additional housing units, it should also be noted that currently our schools, not only in our district, but in Fayette County are overcapacitated, with the example of Pell-Larns-PLD High School for our community being at 641 over, or it's 111.2% full, according to Fayette County school assessments. And also in the 2010 Fayette County Census cited a total of 12,117 vacant housing units, in which that number may have increased due to the downturn of the economy and local business closings and increased unemployment. And also regarding the historical site, in Article 13, historic preservation states, I just wanted to kind of highlight a little bit from that article that it is the finding of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council that the individual nature and character of this county cannot be properly maintained or enhanced unless its distinctive historic districts, landmark sites, neighborhoods, areas, places, structures, improvements, geological and archaeological sites are preserved. The current proposed development results in an increase in safety issues, property right challenges, no resolution to traffic congestion, and an increase in city and taxpayer debt. Therefore, it is suggested to make proper corrections to the comprehensive plan for land use of this property consistent with surrounding communities as KRS 100.211 allows and according to KRS 100.183 recommendations. In last, I do want to kind of address Mr. Leary in regards to the commissioner that spoke up and said that he would order no parking at his will. He did say that in his own words, and it is in the video. For whatever reason, it was omitted from the report. I do not know why, but we were there, and we did witness it. and it was a pretty offensive statement, so I would be guessing that that would be why it was omitted from the report. But I just want to clarify that he did state that he addressed that for whatever reason, he acknowledged that they made the streets too narrow, but he would take it upon himself that if he wanted to make it a no-parking zone that he would. So I just wanted to make sure we address that and have the truth clear. But thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Ron Begley and then Jerry Hall. You spoke earlier. Oh, okay. My name is Terry Hall. Thank you very much. I live at 4716 Trace Court. And there's three things. I've sat here and listened to both sides. There's three things. I'm in Dogwood Trace. I'm opposed. Three things that we can't get away from. One is the expert. Please make sure you talk into the microphone. One is the expert who came up from UK. I feel we need to delay until that's investigated, until we flesh that out. And I think there's some accommodations for that. But there's two more things. First, Mr. Lear mentioned himself, the schools. He said these families got kids going to school here. They're flushing toilets here. And he's exactly right. I got two kids going to Dunbar. That school is 40% over capacity already. Right now they want to add portables to accommodate. Guess what? They already did that at Garden Springs. They did it at Beaumont too. And my kids used those portables. I had a first grade kid in the middle of winter walking out of the building in an area that was not fenced off or not otherwise protected and was not supervised. leaving the school building to go out into a portable because that school, even nine years ago, was that overcapacity. Is the solution to bring another 248 homes worth of kids into that school? I don't think so. Now, I've heard that there's a proposed school going to be built, and that's wonderful. When that school's built, then we talk development. But it's ridiculous to talk it before. Next, the wastewater treatment system. Mr. Lear mentioned that we've spent over $15 million on South Elkhorn. That's true, and that's great, but guess what? There's another proposed $770,000 that needs to be spent in accordance to the consent decree that's been laid out by Lexington Fayette County Urban Government and forwarded to the EPA. The total amount to make our watershed, the South Elkhorn watershed, safe, to make that water safe, to get it up to where it meets EPA standards, is $6.3 million. Now, that will only get us up to where we are now. In other words, that will make this watershed sufficient for what we have right now. You add 250 homes, guess what? We're no longer sufficient. Well, we can add to it. The plan is to add to what we've got throughout Lexington over the next 10 years. We've got $200 and some million planned to be spent over the next 10 years. That's in accordance with a document that was published in October 12, 2012 by our city government. So we're going to add 250 homes to an already overtaxed wastewater system, to an already overtaxed school system with no foreseeable plan, no plan in place to build a school. We're going to do it someday. Someday everybody's going to do everything. But the wastewater problem will not be fixed for at least 10 years, at least. Thank you very much. Thank you. Vicki Hall. My name is Vicki Hall. I live at 4716 Trace Court, and I also oppose this development. I know the gentleman has spoken about the land was there. It was farmland, and it did get developed. And yes, we do live there. And perhaps people should have spoke up and widened the roads before they were made because they had to go back and be widened. They had to go back and build bridges. When we plan things, we shouldn't have to go back and fix them. That's throwing good money after bad. And I just think we need to think things out before you jump in and make things worse and then have to throw more money on top of things to fix a situation. It just doesn't make sense to me. I think about our schools, and I think about our children, and I think about our health. And I think it's very poorly thought out and very poorly planned. So I will really wish my time to whomever else. And the next speaker is Mary Ann Rimmel, and then David Green. My name is Marianne Rimmel. I live at 2308 Dogwood Trace Boulevard, and I relinquish my time. Okay, who do you relinquish it to? May I take it? I think she needs to. And then you have to make sure you're on the list here. Okay, I'm Kate Giuliani. Actually, who did you relinquish your time to? You have time as well, right? Okay. She's relinquishing to Kate Giuliani because the next speaker has time. And who's relinquishing? Okay. First, I just wanted to respond also to Mr. Lear's comment that Lexington-Fayette Urban County government had made significant investment in the South Elkhorn station. Perhaps you missed my comments earlier where I congratulated the city for that same accomplishment. However, it is documented by LFUCG that in their submission, December 21, 2012, to the EPA, that there are three more projects required, totaling $6.354 million. Next, I wanted to just talk quickly on a different topic. According to the South Elkhorn Creek Watershed Plan, which was prepared by Green Solutions Consulting Group in 2011, South Elkhorn Creek Watershed is listed as impaired on the Kentucky Division of Water 303D list for fecal coliform bacteria and sedimentation, in part due to pervasive urban-suburban land use, poor sanitary sewer and stormwater infrastructure, and runoff from livestock. The article goes on to say that the velocity of the runoff, which picks up pollutants, is the result of significant urban-suburban development in the South Elkhorn Creek watershed. This proposed development is, in fact, proposed to be part of South Elkhorn watershed. It's important for Lexington Fayette Urban County Government to tackle the major renovations to the sewage and storm systems in a timely manner and not to offset the progress that has been made already with development that is not supported by our infrastructure. Thank you. And now David Greenlaw. Christina DUDCEK. Hi, I'm Christina Dudak. I live in Firebrook at 2604 Water Knoll Court. And I was here five years ago when we fought this before. I want to say up front that my neighbors are very against this proposal. I, too, have lived in Lexington my entire life. I can remember playing in the South Elkhorn Creek as a child. and I can remember my parents just railing about Firebrook and all the development that's going on in that neighborhood. And, you know, I do have some concerns with regard to the term of infill. There are so many properties right now that we could infill into that already have the infrastructure, and I provided some pictures. I sent you a little pamphlet that looks like this. Some of those include the Turflin Mall property, which is well over 20 acres. That's an eyesore that has not been developed. And it could be rezoned, and we could do some apartments there if necessary. I think that's the last picture, actually. The other one is the Old Springs Inn property, which has been sitting barren for over two years. It's already been torn down. It's prime property to be developed. It already has the sewage and could be used since it was a hotel with many rooms. would be perfect for apartments. Also, we have a huge ice store at this point that is right before the proposed development, which is Palomar Reserve. And I don't know if you can find the picture of Palomar Reserve, but it's this six or seven buildings that are supposed to be 14 buildings. There's the mall. There's Palomar Reserve. You can't really see it, but you guys can see on your pamphlet. This development was built to be condominiums, two- and three-bedroom condominiums. It only got halfway finished, so now we have four or five buildings at one end, gigantic gap, three buildings at the other end. These condominiums are fraught with trouble. Right now, four of the units are for sale. It's been as high as 10 at a time. These are resales. now it's being listed as apartments for rent they cannot fill this unit they cannot build it out the demand is not there for it why are we building more apartments? why? we have less than a quarter of a mile from us a huge open space that we can't fill up with these proposed that were already passed condominiums why? why are we building more? because we have to? because it's on a comprehensive plan? Do we, like robots, march towards our comprehensive plan? Do we have a date that has to be finished? No. We are citizens that can make decisions and who have elected leaders to help us make the right decision. This development is not the right decision at this time. I want my children to be able to go to a creek, plant a creek. Am I going to have to drive to the Daniel Boone National Forest because of our comprehensive plan? Looks like that. I mean, I want these trees. I want to have the luxury of pulling at the end of a military pike I could do every day now and seeing that giant tree and thinking, man, that's been there long before I was here. You know, I don't think we should take that from our children. And I don't think we should wax over. Sorry, your time has expired about 30 seconds ago, actually. I gave you a little leeway there. Okay. I don't think we should wax over the burial ground either. I think that that's something that was presented to the zoning commission 30 minutes before the meeting. I think that's bad. I think it's wrong. I think it's ugly. Thanks. Ann Falconeer and Jack Wilson. David Danford. I believe I'm supposed to get the closing statement in opposition. Okay. H.K. Crocker. Connie Greenlee. Geneva Sock, S-O-K, Mark Sock, Gregory Woods. Greg Woods at 4804 Matthew Court. I just want to say I'm opposed to the building development. If anyone wants to talk, I can yield to them. Okay, Amanda Mueller. Joseph Mueller. Tony Gillespie. Lee Thompson. Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Tony Gillespie. I live at 2548 Sun Gale Court in Firebrook, and I relinquish my time. Thank you. Thank you. Lee Thompson. He's going to relinquish his time to me. Mr. Glesi, did you have the person you wanted to relinquish your time to? Okay, you have three minutes. Okay, so Christina Dudak. One of the other points I wanted to bring up is the fact that Mr. Lear talks about Harrodsburg Road being a residential thoroughfare. And in the last five years, I can, from memory, haven't looked, but I've seen these apartments and townhomes go up on Harrodsburg Road. The Lex, the apartments in Angliana, I think there's 500 units. Newtown Crossing, the townhomes at Newtown Crossing, which are new, 172 units. Beaumont Apartments, Palomar Reserve. Those are just to name a few of the new developments. Not all of those are full. There are also 80 homes in the 40504 and 40503 area code that are three bedroom, two bath, that are for sale right now, which is the slowest time of the year for real estate. There are 83 of those homes. There are also 75 townhomes for sale in the 40514 and 40513 neighborhoods. So as you can see, I don't think that this is a necessary build at this point. also I would like to stress that I think that we need stipulations in place not promises from the builder we should stipulate what's going to happen in regards to the artifacts what's going to happen in regards to the trees not just leave it up to wishy-washy we're going to deal with that when it comes time to it because as you know, no one's watching that once it passes, it passes and then we have to trust that the developer is going to do the right thing thank you Lee Thompson. Kimberly Sutherland. Lois Crocker. Gary Conrad. My name is Gary Conrad. I've lived in Lexington for 31 years, of which 20 have been at 2605 Sun Gale Court in Firebrook, where I currently live. I have some thoughts I'd like to share with you that may not have been brought up previously. First of all, when I looked at the LFUCG website, I felt there was kind of this mandate that this property had to be rezoned to R3. I don't understand this mandate. Old Bridge could have been R3. It's single-family dwelling. Firebrook, a portion of it, is zoned R3. The developers chose to make it all single-family dwelling. Dogwood Trace could have been R3 it was chosen to be single family dwelling Clemens Drive region, Clemens Heights could have been R3 it was chosen to be single family dwelling in each case the developer decided it was beneficial to their desires and the community's desires to make them single family dwelling rather than R3 I don't see why this property cannot be zoned to low-density single-family dwellings. They're marketable. Spirebrook and Dogwood Trace Homes turn over very rapidly in this market. I don't see why they can't be similarly zoned that way, this property be zoned that way. And I think the developer would find a reasonable profit for it. Now, another consideration is you're talking about 248 units. If you consider an average of a couple cars or vehicles, per that, that's 500 vehicles. All those vehicles, according to the current development plan that we have just seen, are going to be egressing and ingressing through the old school Lane Road. If there was one single accident that blocked that ingress or egress, can you imagine? you could not get emergency vehicles up there. You need some kind of back kind of egress or ingress, some back way to go to that property. And as the individuals here have said, that the AppGate, I always pronounce it wrong, is not a satisfactory egress for this. So I'm proposing that you consider for the developer, they could potentially purchase, there is the possibility, I don't know if the owners would be willing, to purchase an easement to a reserved road which connects to Higbee Mill Road and then directly to Firebrook. The other thing I want you to consider in the short time I have left is consider all the apartment complexes in Lexington that you can think of And consider the fact that almost all of them, at least the ones that I can think of, with some exceptions, I agree, always directly connect to a major artery in Lexington. But this would be an exception. And this is a difficult area now because it is not similar to Tate's Creek Road because the highway has been fully developed almost to the river, and there is a bridge where Tate's Creek Road does not have a bridge. And there is all kinds of development occurring in counties south of this area. And there's been a gradual, continual increase, both Keene Road to Military Pike as well as Harrisburg Road. There's been a constant increase in the traffic. And so I think there's substantial considerations here to make this a low-density property or keep it AU as opposed to R3. Thank you. Thank you. Horatio Zaglul and Maddie Dorman would be next. Horatio Zaglul. I live in 2513 in St. Gale Court in Firebrook. I have lived in Lexington for 13 years. I work for the University of Kentucky. I am a pediatrician and dedicated to pediatric critical care and palliative care in children. and I want to... We have come to this country after living in four different continents and I am so proud to be an adopted American citizen. I am a first immigrant with four children and a granddaughter. And the responsibility of the council is enormous. that decisions were taken in the past with numbers read to us doesn't mean that time demonstrated that they were correct. So it's important to learn all mistakes that were done in the past, even if that compromise a political attitude. It is also important to think that if after listening to so many owners asking to preserve the current quality of life or improving it, what is stopping us to make that piece of land a park or ask the developer to donate it to the citizens and build the park? I don't know. I do live every day with children that are dying and their parents suffering. And if that means that I will need every day to live in a glass house to regain my sanity and continue the next day to work, so be it. Thank you. Thank you. Maddie Dorman. Paul Randhall. Karen Liu. Dale Straussner. Gloria Straussner. Hello, I just can't stay away. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Whose time are you taking? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Lauren Larson, as you well know. I'm a physician, but I'm also an engineer. And I spent many years doing math problems. One of the things that I noticed, they love to talk about housing density. Housing density, housing density. And they calculate these numbers. And no matter how you play the game, these numbers can come out the way you want them. Okay? But the broad matter is, you've got 31.14 net acres. Okay? You've got 8.63 acres of this greenway. Subtract 31.14, 8.63, and you get a whopping wonderful number of 22.51. When you want to calculate dwellings per usable acre, you can't count a flooding greenway. You can't add that in the overall acreage. You can't count it. You're not building on it. So if you take the 31.14 acres, subtract the greenway numbers, you get a 22.51. You have 241 dwellings on 22.51 usable acres, and you get 2.71 dwellings per acre. I do believe that is higher than medium-density housing. You can play with the numbers. You can calculate the whole thing. You get 10.71 dwellings per acre. That's what you get. So if you look at this, you're not counting the green white. You're looking at the apartments that you build on. 10.71 dwellings per acre, that is high-density housing. That's what we, the people, get to look at every day. Thank you. Thank you. Jason Sloan. And this is the last speaker we have signed up, so if you'd like to speak, then if you would, come to the microphone after Mr. Sloan and give your name, your address. But if you have not been sworn in yet, we'll have to swear it again. Mr. Sloan. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. I'm Jason Sloan. I'm the Historic Preservation Specialist for the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. And we've submitted a letter voicing our concerns about this development. And one of the big concerns we have is the potential for pre-Columbian burial sites here. And that concern has also been expressed by the State of Stort Preservation Officer, Craig Potts, as well as Dr. Carrie Stackelbeck, an archaeologist for the Kentucky Heritage Council. So we just want to make sure that that was put out there as well, and they've submitted theirs in a letter to Mayor Jim Gray. So thank you. Mayor, do we have that letter? Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak who hasn't spoken? Seeing none, then we will move on. At this point, we'll have our closing summations, and we'll first have the opponent. And I think, Mr. Holstein, I think you were going to have Dan Danford. Is that who was going to do the closing? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Council. My name is Dan Danford. I am an attorney with Stites and Harbison, but I am not here in a legal capacity. I'm a resident of Dogwood Trace. I came and spoke here five years ago, and some of you sat on this panel, when exactly this same issue was before this group. Now, I've been sitting here for almost three hours now. I've been sitting in the back row, and I've been listening, which is hard for a trial attorney to do. But what I've heard is a lot of information from Mr. Lear, who is a wonderful attorney, well-respected in his group, nothing bad to say about them at all. And then I've heard a lot of comments from a lot of citizens, some of whom apparently couldn't last the three hours. Not one of those citizens has been coached by a lawyer, has retained counsel. I didn't do any of that for any of them. I'm here today because I'm a citizen and I'm concerned about this. I have the same concerns that I had five years ago. Now, five years ago, when this issue came up, this council considered all of exactly the same issues that we're dealing with here today and rejected this zoning proposal. The council should do the same thing here today. Now, as I was listening in the back, what I wanted to hear is what every trial lawyer fears, and that is an opponent whose arguments are rock solid. The arguments have no holes. They take no leaps of logic. And that's what you fear the most. And frankly, as I listened to a very high-powered presentation, I was kind of left scratching my head a little bit. Here's why. What I heard is this, that you all should approve this because the Planning Commission did it without any nay votes and because it is contemplated by the comprehensive plan. And that's about it. That's the guts of the presentation of all this. And then I heard Mr. Lear get up, and he had six points. But the one that really got him, the most important point to him, was this impassioned historical view of this area. and he concludes that impassioned historical view by saying that if you have the temerity to stand up here when in fact you're already a homeowner then something's wrong well frankly every person sitting here is a homeowner and the reason we're concerned about this is because we own homes in that area and we're very concerned about what's on that hillside now if that's the best argument The most impassioned plea? That's not a very strong argument. Now, I will say this as well. This historical argument was made, I swear, it was almost word for word given to this commission five years ago. And this panel did not buy it then and should not buy it now. Here's the key. I'm not going to go into a bunch of details. You've heard a ton of detail, probably more than you usually get from just regular citizens. But I want to give you a big picture, okay? And that is this, that the premise from the other side is essentially as if this is contemplated by the comprehensive plan, done. Okay? There's really nothing to talk about. Now, that was exactly the same argument that was rejected five years ago, and here's why. The concept is this, that something can be on the comprehensive plan, and it might make sense at that time, but things can change. And sometimes things can change, and it makes what is a square peg being pounded into a round hole. I forgot that backwards. So I looked as I was sitting back and watching all these wonderful aerial views, And what really strikes me is when you look at that property and you look at the flow of roads into there, what jumps out at you is Twain Ridge. Clearly, when the comprehensive plan was designed, Twain Ridge was supposed to be the main thoroughfare that cut into this area. Just look at those. It just flows right into it. Now, what have we heard about Twain Ridge? Well, five years ago, we heard, it was a different developer, but five years ago, we heard, oh, there's a case. And the case says, you can't make me pay for it. You can't make me put a bridge in. We heard the same thing here today. Now, five years ago, I read the case, and I thought I was a little overstated, and so I came in here and argued at length about that. I don't know if anybody cared. But here's the point. Today, it really strikes me what they're saying is Twain Ridge is off the table. Okay? We're not going to build a bridge. You're not going to build a bridge. No one's going to build a bridge. And so the main thoroughfare that is supposed to go into that property, in order to make it the round peg that fits in a round hole, Twain Ridge, will never be developed. So what's left? We have Old Schoolhouse Road, which is not conforming Collector Street. Old Schoolhouse Road is a nightmare. If I lived in that neighborhood, there is no way in creation I would go up or down Old Schoolhouse Road. I challenge anybody to get a fire truck or a school bus or anything along those lines up and down that road, whether there's other traffic coming or not. Can't be done. Shouldn't be done. Not safe. So what's left? There's only one place, and that is Agape Drive. Now, Agape Drive, you've heard that in the Planning Commission phase, it was raised to the Planning Commission, wait a minute, I know it's on the plan, but it doesn't conform. It's not wide enough. What you've also heard is that what was on the video is the thought that, no, no, no, that's okay, we can fix that because we can make you not park on it. You know that's not true. You know that's not true. You know it takes a petition process. And you know, because you've seen the petitions, that almost everybody that lives alongside that street has happily signed a detailed petition saying, I would not agree with that. People park along that street all the time. Both sides, it's part of the fabric of the neighborhood. You cannot just take that away in order to try to make this a conforming collector street, particularly when it's the only one that could possibly be a connector street. Now, what we heard about the study that was done, and I don't understand all the AAAs and all the BBBBs and all that, but I don't think I have to, and this is why. What I really heard is that it got a bunch of A's, And that's because if you line up Gagape from the proposed property and straight out to the connector road to Kroger's, it's in a straight line. And I think essentially that's what that means. There's no obstructions. There's no curves. There's no hills. It's just a straight line. Okay? Well, that's exactly true. And that is exactly the problem. Because anybody that lives in this new development and anybody that already lives in English Station, another additional how many homes, When they have their chance to either go to Kroger or to get out of the neighborhood, are they going to go down this windy, curvy road that's impossible to get onto Harrisburg Road without waiting forever? No, of course not. They're going to go shooting straight down Agape. It is a straight shot. The back straightaway on the Kentucky Speedway is no straighter than that road. Now, you may say, well, that's overblown. I mean, I don't think it's going to turn into a speedway, but I do think this. That is this. I'm not only a homeowner in this area, I am a father. I've got a 14-year-old daughter who runs through this neighborhood all the time. I've got an 8-year-old who's walking to her friend's house all the time in this neighborhood. My wife and I walk, we bike, there's people out all over the place. This road, Agape, goes right through the heart of that community. right through the heart. And if you put 248 new dwellings plus English Station and you run them right through the heart of this neighborhood, that is going to kill the nature of this neighborhood. I implore you, do not do that. The council before did not do that. I implore you not to do that. Now, what I also heard, I was really, really interested, because last time, in my estimation, what killed the deal for the developer at that point was the 300-year-old burrow tree. So I thought, well, I'm going to be really interested to see what are they going to say about this? What kind of arguments are they going to raise? And you know what I really heard? I heard, let's just kick that can down the road. Let's let the Planning Commission hear from our experts down the road. Okay? Well, you know what? Well, this council, five years ago, denied the very same petition, based in large part upon that Baroque, that you could not protect it. You look on that plot, and that road runs right by the Baroque tree, just like it did with the last development. It's in the same place. Now, we have dueling experts. We have Mr. Timmerer. I don't know how many errors there are on that, but whatever. We have this gentleman, and he comes in, and I don't know what his expertise is, but he claims to have it. He says, well, you know what, there's lots of old growth trees in this area. Really? Is that how we look at old growth trees in this area? So this is just, there's plenty of them. Don't worry about this one. There's plenty of them. Now the 90% of the burr oaks are gone. I guess the 10%, well, you know, what's another tree? What's another tree? So here's the thing. He concludes, I don't know how, but he concludes, despite what other arborists have also said, that running a road right over, the road's already across the route, but running a road across and having this many people potentially go over it day in and day out is going to harm the tree. That was an established fact that this council agreed to five years ago. And I ask you, other than a couple of new names in the debate, what has changed? Now, I'll leave you this. This is anecdotal, of course. But I think that when you have a company and you put a name on the company, it says a lot about what you do and about what your focus is. So the main arborist that I've heard of, you know the name of his company? Big Beaver. What does that make you think about? It doesn't sound like preservation to me. so here's kind of the here's the thing we can kick the burro down the road we can kick the burial site down the road we can kick all that down the road there's no reason for you all to decide that even though you did five years ago no reason to do that now And really, why not? Why not? I ask you, is there one single thing that has changed in the last five years, other than that bur oak tree getting five years older? Is there one single thing that has changed? I haven't heard it. And I've been listening very carefully for three hours. I have not heard it. I implore you, do not kick the can down the road. I implore you, do what the council properly did five years ago. Deny this zoning petition. Now here's the thing. We can argue about how much water runoff is what. We can argue about a bunch of things. But when I look at this big picture, I say this. You've got an isolated little piece of property. It is what it is. It is now a square peg in a round hole. I've said that back both ways. But it doesn't fit what it was supposed to be before, because Twain Ridge doesn't go there anymore. None of the other roads fit. There might be circumstances where you might be tempted to go ahead and pound it in anyway. I can make it fit. Maybe trim a little off the edge. I can make it fit. There might be circumstances where one might do that. What are they here? Do we need apartments in this area? No. There's apartments all over the place around us, and nobody's buying them or nobody's renting them. We've got condos right next to us. Nobody's buying those. We don't need this. We certainly don't need. I remember five years ago the owner of Ramsey's, who had been flooded out like crazy, I'm sure he's really happy the pump station went in but it's going to be cold comfort to him to say we're going to put another 240 some odd dwellings on the top of the hill that sits right above the creek that feeds right in front of your building so you do this so we have all this water run out from this so what do we say to the owner of Sawyer's when now the water level is a foot higher in his store than it was before pretty cold comfort to him, I would submit. What did I say? Sawyers? I love Sawyers. Ramsey's, pardon me. Ramsey's. Actually, I like them both. The other thing that I was waiting for, expecting, I guess, was to hear, is there going to be some sort of calculated rebuttal of some of the main points that are said here? Now, I guess Mr. Lear's not done. Obviously, he gets the last word, and that's just the way it is. But what I really expected to hear when Mr. Sally, I believe it was, got up the second time was for him to say, oh, no, no, no, you've got it wrong about these collector streets. You've got it wrong that actually agape is white enough. or old schoolhouse road it's wide enough but you know what neither one of them are neither one of them are you know the one that is twain ridge the one that will never be connected the bridge to nowhere okay that's what we're dealing with it is a it is a established fact at this point that no matter what that plan says, there is no connector road that connects to this property that satisfies the requirements. Not one. What other risks are there? You've got all these risks and then sitting right on top of them, right on the top of the hill, what everybody says, oh, Paul Holmes wants to preserve it too, is this huge burrow tree that we're going to run right over the root system on. Five years ago, that was a big deal for you all. I hope it is now too. I think it's a huge deal. It is a huge deal. But here's the question. Why, if I think that there are arborists, I have to acknowledge, that there's some risk. that when you die, I think the comment was basically yes, in a lot of these trees that when you start doing construction, when you start doing the building, that some of them die. There's a risk. There's always a risk. And the question here before you is, why are we taking this risk for a square peg that no longer fits in a round hole? Why are we taking this risk? Five years ago you said no, we're not taking that risk. Not risking the tree, not risking changing the neighborhood character of Dogwood Trace, not going forward when the main collector street is not connected. Not going to do that with all these issues you've heard today. I submit to you, not one thing has changed. in fact perhaps it's worse because now we have the burial ground issue i don't know what to make of that but clearly that's heavily disputed but other than that which makes our case stronger there's not one single thing that has changed i urge you for all of these reasons to listen to these people they're not coming here talking about house value they're not coming here talking about and nimpy this and nimpy that. These are people who obviously have gone to great lengths to gather detailed information to marshal their case without the help of lawyers. I'm pretty impressed. But the bottom line is this. No matter what anybody says about it, you've got a little piece of property that no longer fits. Why risk a 300-year-old burrow tree and all these other issues? for a square peg that no longer fits in that round hole. I implore you to deny, like you did five years ago, to deny or overturn this zoning ruling. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Now we'll hear the closing summation by Mr. Lear for the petitioner. Thank you. I assure you I'll be brief. I like the reference to the big picture because I'm not going to get into a lot of detailed rebuttal. I think you've heard the points and counterpoints enough to know. But I'm going to hit on three or four big picture items. We do agree with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan, as you all know who are involved in this, is not the result of three or four people walking in a room and drawing lines on a map. It's always the result of years of work, detailed study, a very open, inclusive process that considers what's best for the entire community and includes the opinions and gives the opportunities of all people to have input. One of the basic premises of this comprehensive plan is that we want to build up and not out. That's why for at least the last couple of iterations of the comprehensive plan, we don't just have upper ranges of densities. We have minimum ranges of densities because we don't want to underdevelop. We encourage a mix of housing types in all areas. This is not a community that says, Why can't they all be like us if we live in large, expensive, single-family homes? We don't say that. We say it's better for the community if we have a mix of housing types. It's been suggested that even though the plan calls for a mix of housing types, there's no demand for apartments. That is not the experience in Lexington. Apartments are highly occupied. The ones around campus that were mentioned as Harrisburg Road apartments like the Lex, they're on campus. They're near downtown. There's no way out in this part of town, and around campus housing is 98 percent occupied. I know that personally and from all of the studies that have gone on. Our comprehensive plan encourages connectivity. This road is not, the Agape is not as wide as most collector streets or as the collector street standard. The comprehensive plan says significant streets need to be connected. Most of those shown are either arterials, but some of them aren't built as arterials or even as collectors. But there are neighborhoods all over Lexington that are connected to neighborhoods next to them by roads that are this wide. And when there's parking on both sides, it slows traffic down. It doesn't speed traffic up. Diane Zimmerman told me she grew up on Alexandria Drive. It's built like a collector street, and it functions like an expressway. That's not what these people want, I'm sure. Big picture. The process that established, that brought this to you, is orderly, it's worked, and it's respected. It's the same planning and zoning process that created every neighborhood from which the speakers tonight in opposition came. Went through the planning commission, the suggestion that we're kicking something down the road because we're giving it back to the people who have, under the law, the responsibility for deciding issues on development plans. The Mike Owens, the Mike Cravens, the Patrick Brewers, the William Wilsons, the Frank Penns, the Eunice Beatys, these are people that you all put on the Planning Commission. Mayor appoints, you all approve them. They're on the Planning Commission, they're citizens, and they're used to dealing with this week in and week out. These are the people that heard the same arguments. These are the people that helped adopt the comprehensive plan, and they voted unanimously in favor of this proposal. You've heard about EP, about environmental issues. We have a consent decree. That consent decree is being followed in this area. That consent decree says that there are priority projects, and the number one priority project in this area has already been completed. And there is a positive balance in this bank, among other reasons, because they're going out and terminating illegal connections. That's one of the policies that you all establish. That's one of the reasons there's a positive bank out here. Now, five years ago, the suggestion has been made that five years ago it was just the same. The council did turn down the PUD zone change. It was an odd duck. Five findings were made. Three of them of the findings said that in one respect or another, the proposal didn't comply with the PUD zone. Three of the five. The fourth one said that no provision was made for Twain Ridge to be connected. No provision was made for Twain Ridge to be connected. This development made provisions. I mean, seriously, it wasn't that it wasn't being built. It said no provision was made for it. This one has provided the right-of-way. And for what it's worth, there's a bridge, not unlike this out in the expansion area, that you all did decide to build. And it wasn't with exactions. It was some extra funds that the government got. The fifth one did relate to the bur oak tree. None of them related to the proposal to connect agape. I want to say that again. Five years ago, the zone change was not turned down because it was proposed to connect agape. Now, this is a tract of land. It's not significantly different than any of the other tracts of land that have been developed up and down this road. It could be built with a less of a winding or down-the-hill connector to military pike. It could be built by building Twain Ridge right smack through the oak tree. We don't propose to do that. We propose to make a connection. There will be some widening down there. The Department of Transportation, it's actually the old schoolhouse, is under control, as I understand it, of the Department of Transportation. So we have to work with them, get encroachment permits, and I'm sure there are going to be some improvements. That will be a connection. The connection ultimately will be to Agape. The traffic study that was done, I'm sorry the gentleman's not familiar with the way those are done, the A's and B's relate to levels of delay at intersections and on thoroughfares. And the A's that I read out were the levels, A's and B's, were the levels of delay at the intersection through which traffic would go if Agape were connected and the Kammick property were developed and people were going to or from Belle Reve. It's done by a professional engineer whose qualifications have not been challenged, and that's the way that you all have required us, that the government has required us to do traffic studies since time immemorial. We understand that the neighbors would prefer not to have Agape connected. I suppose if you wanted to, you could do one of those interdictions and just not connect it, and they'd probably be happy. That's a decision for you or for the Planning Commission, but the comp plan shows it connected, and that's the reason that we have proposed it. I thank you for your time and attention. I'm not going to get back into the weeds on all of these other things. This, we respectfully submit, should be approved in the same fashion as the Planning Commission and your staff have recommended approval. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, I will entertain questions from council members. If you would, please sign in. The first one will have Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. I'm just going to make some statements, if I might. And I want everybody to know that I've tried to look at this objectively. And I have mixed feelings about this. And I want to start with making a couple of comments about, first I want to say about Ball Holmes. I have great respect for Ball Holmes and I have even greater respect for the Ball family. Ray and Mary is one of my heroes, as a matter of fact. Maybe I shouldn't admit that. I do support the comprehensive plan. Here it is, Bill. I know it. I know what it says. I also think we have probably one of the best planning staffs in the country. I'm so impressed with them. I think they do a tremendous job. And I'm impressed with our planning commission as well. And as usual, Attorney Bill Lear did a terrific job, as he always does. Having said that, I'm going to speak heresy here for just a moment. I'm going to talk about the comprehensive plan. In most cases, I agree with it. and though you know I've voted with you several times, a couple of times since I've been on the council. But I'm going to say to you that in this case, the comprehensive plan is wrong or wrongly conceived. medium density is just too dense for this property it's not compatible with this area it's wrongly cited because of the nature of the existing subdivisions it's so unlike what i see around there in firebrook and dogwood trace and old bridge and so incompatible with that. And I see no logical, comprehensive plan for an R3 zoning here. Now let me give me some reasons for that, if I might. Let's talk about access. and I may not be very well organized. I've been scribbling notes here as we go. The comprehensive plan calls for, without doubt, multiple entrances and exits. There's no question about that. I certainly agree that we shouldn't make a developer build a bridge. We shouldn't. And we're not going to. But the Comprehensive Plan called for that. Agape cannot be used as a connector. It just simply cannot be, and I'll talk about that in a minute. There are no plans for connecting Twain Ridge, as has been said by everybody. In the first place, the Planning Commission admitted that Agape is not a connector. I heard that conversation. I was there. I was told I probably shouldn't be there since it's in my district, but I did anyhow. I heard the conversation, and the very person that has been mentioned said that, whoops, we made a mistake. We made a mistake in calling this a connector. Because, why? Because it's not wide enough for a connector. It's not 36 feet curb to curb. Just not. Now, if you've been on Agape, and obviously some of you have, I've been on Agape because I have friends who live there. And guess where I parked? on the street. Most residents there have parking on the street. And as a matter of fact, every time I've been down that street, whether it's to visit people there or campaigning or whatever, there have been cars on both sides of the street, and it's very narrow. There's no way we can make Agapi a connector street. one thing that was not mentioned do you understand that Agape is much smaller from La Crosse to Dogwood Trace than it is beyond Dogwood Trace once you get beyond Dogwood Trace then it does widen out but before you get to Dogwood Trace it's a very narrow street so anyway And in a sense, Mr. Lear made my point about Twain Ridge because he made it very clear that we couldn't suggest the developer build it, and it seems very unlikely that the city is going to build a bridge. And the Planning Commission, I should also add, and again, not as well organized as I'd like to be, but I do remember specifically that during the planning session, when it was admitted that Agape was not wide enough, they said, well, we can solve that. We just banned parking. That's what was said. Okay. All right. Council Member Clark, your time is up, and we can come back to you on the next round, if you don't mind. Okay. If you would, just wrap up here, and then we'll come back to you. You go ahead, and if you can come back to me. I have a couple more points to make. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. I'm very familiar with this area. At one time, I used to represent Dogwood Trace, so I'm quite familiar with the area. I'm also familiar with Mr. Ball's new complex on the corner of Winthrop and Man of War, which is a large apartment complex, and the neighbors there are facing the same issues that you are in Dogwood Trace, the traffic, the sewer capacity, everything from retention ponds to how do we deal with this, and we're dealing with it. I guess my main concern is the sewer capacity. Being the council member that is adjacent to Council Member Clark, we're in the same watershed. In the Stonewall subdivision, we still have raw sewage coming out of manhole covers. I recently had a meeting with our Division of Engineering, and they said it was a capacity problem just because the pipes aren't big enough that have been in place. And when new development comes, the pipes overflow, then the sewer manhole covers come up. I hope that does not become an issue in your area. But it is the same watershed. That is my biggest concern. As far as some of the other concerns, I think the developer has been pretty generous in many instances And I think as far as accommodating you with your park concerns, hopefully with I don't know how we can deal with Agape. I know it's a cut through to Kroger's and Belle Reve. It always has been. Whether or not it's going to make things worse, probably so because of the parking issue. How we can remedy that, I'm not 100 percent sure. But, you know, I'm hopeful that we can get those concessions worked out with a developer. And I guess the last thing that I would say is that no one likes change, and in these zone change hearings, no one goes away 100 percent happy. But hopefully we could come to some kind of an agreement, and maybe Council Member Clark can either support this zone change or not, or maybe make some conditions so we all can live with this, or you all can live with this, that would hopefully work for the betterment of your neighborhood. But I do understand you do have some valid concerns. And, again, my biggest concern is the sewer capacity. And I think Ms. Giuliani hit the nail on the head on that one. And I don't have her paper, so I can't read from it. But everything she said, I'm quite aware of. So that is a very valid concern. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member K. Thank you, Chair. I want to follow up on the water quality question. This is a question for Mr. Seller. Actually, I'll preface it, and then I've got a question. So I, just by way of background, I sat on the committee of council that worked on the capacity assurance program. My understanding when we concluded that was that there would be no development that would be permitted that would add to capacity where it did not exist. Essentially, that's what the capacity assurance program says. If there is no capacity, no matter what else has obtained, a development cannot go forward. Now, do I understand that correctly? Yes, Council Member McKay, I think you do. The practice that has just begun really this calendar year with the adoption of the Capacity Assurance Program is that the Planning Commission will entertain development plans and development proposals, including final development plans on property. But the practice is that that plan will not be certified, meaning it's signed and completed, to actually allow the development to proceed unless there is documentation that the capacity assurance requirements have been met. Thank you for that. And if I can add an additional comment, excuse me, I also served on the Planning Commission, and I know that in previous years we've not had this protection. There have been times when plans have been approved and there's been a negative impact on the neighborhood, and we as a government have not done what we needed to do to protect the neighborhoods. And to be perfectly frank, if I thought we still had to rely on our own will to make sure that everything happened the way it's supposed to, I would have some questions. But given that we are under essentially an order from the EPA that if we violate it, the penalties are severe, I believe that we are now doing what we're supposed to do and need to do in terms of assuring that there's no additional development that would negatively impact any of the current problems that we have. Excuse me. The other question I have for Mr. Salley is to ask about some of the issues that have been raised and help us understand what is appropriate for us to consider in a zone change and what issues are more appropriate or can only be addressed when they get to the actual improvement of the development plan. So I'm specifically interested in the question of the baroque, the connectivity, the bridge, that kind of thing. Thank you. The road connectivity obviously was an issue discussed at the Planning Commission hearing, and as the conference of plan indicates, road connections are anticipated in the future for this general area. I think it's important to remember the comprehensive plan takes a 20-year look at development in the entire community, so not all of these connections are considered short-term. In fact, in this area, there still will be one vacant, agriculturally zoned piece of property, regardless of the Council's decision tonight, that will prevent Reem Away and Agape from connecting. That said, the Planning Commission often will review the timing of connections and the timing of infrastructure as they deal with final development plans, and that would be my anticipation of what will happen should this rezoning be approved and this property come back to them in the future for a final development plan. Often information is updated, and the Planning Commission makes the best decisions that they have with the information at hand. And the question of the bur oak and its protection, and the other thing I didn't mention was the burial mound. Should it prove to be true that, in fact, there is a mound on that property? What difference would that make in terms of the development plan? Well, it's hard to imagine that the mound would encompass a sizable portion of this 25 acres. And yet, if it is discovered that the mound does exist on the site, it's not unreasonable to anticipate that the Planning Commission would give serious consideration for that remaining in open space. Or the developer has the option, under state law, I believe, to propose to remove the burial site. But given its history, that may not be an option here. I'm not familiar with those regulations. There may be federal regulations. Federal regulations as well, Mr. Gardner is telling me. So the short-term solution is probably that would have to be considered as an open space of some sort. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you very much, and thank all of you all for being here. These zone change hearings, and most of them for the last couple of years have been in the third district, so are difficult, and you can see both sides of it on some level. So if the burial ground is a Native American burial ground, that comes under federal scrutiny, and it doesn't matter what any of us say here if the federal government comes back. So I think that's very important to point out. The thing that's hard for me is we have listened to zone change hearings in the 3rd District where the infrastructure is absolutely decimated. Raw sewage coming up in people's backyards and their basements flooding. manhole covers that literally shoot raw sewage up in backyards. The planning commission, the planning staff recommended that one zone change not happen, and the developer didn't put up the sign, and by the time we found that out, we didn't have time to have another hearing. I'm on my high horse here, and I'm sorry, but this is where we are. And so because we couldn't have a hearing, we couldn't overturn the Planning Commission. So the next one in that area, the planning staff approved based on a precedent that there was already one like it in the neighborhood. That is on the watershed and a retention basin that is the main retention basin for the University of Kentucky. And the traffic is unbelievable. Vinyl apartments and townhouses are all over the place. And we keep marching on. And as far as the connection, the bridge, and its future, you know, I think it was 1968 when the initial drawings for Newtown Pike Extension were started. And I was just a senior in high school. So now that I have children that are 40, we're getting there. So, you know, to view that as a reason to, because there's a future plan for that, doesn't seem right. But I also want to say to you all and to my colleagues, and thank you to the ten of us that are here tonight at this hour to be here. So we have a quorum, so we can hear it. And regardless of how anybody votes, I hope everybody will appreciate that. I also want to say thank you to Mr. Lear, who I have a great deal of respect for, and he is an attorney who comes up here, and he doesn't change his argument at the last minute during a council meeting after the planning commission is over and smoke and mirrors on the night of the council hearing. He has a story, he sticks to it, and that's it. But I understand, but what I heard was, what about the Lex and Newtown Crossing and the Red Mile? That's all in the 3rd District, and I'd like all of you all to join the citizens of the 3rd District, which is the economic engine of our community. By far, the majority of our tax revenue comes from the 3rd District. So let's look at what's good for everybody, for you all, for the people on American and Burley Avenue, for Prawl Town, for Elizabeth Street, for the USA. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you. And I always think that the zone change hearings for me are very, very difficult because I live in a neighborhood that I love dearly, and I want to cherish it and look out for it and, you know, see that the right decisions are made. and you have raised a lot of concerns here. But I think, unlike our friends in Washington, I do think that we can compromise and we can come up with a solution, hopefully, that will address your concerns. And I do believe in our water quality folks, and I set on the capacity assurance. task force, and we laid out very strict guidelines to follow when it comes to our water quality and having the proper capacity for sanitary sewage. All of our waterways are not of good quality. All of them in Lexington are very poor, and we're working to correct that. We work very hard to correct that. I agree with Council Member Clark. Agape, I've been on many times, and it is not wide enough to be a collector street. and I would hope that we could do something like I also work with the police a lot in my district neighborhoods that have one way in, one way out are the safest neighborhoods so I would maybe propose something like that until maybe Twain Ridge could be opened up later down the road and as for the steepness of old schoolhouse road, I'm like, how many of you have been to the mountains? Because I know lots of people that go up steeper climbs than that. And then the other thing was water quality, agape, and the old tree. And I am a preservationist at heart. If it were a house, the old school house is going to be preserved, correct? The tree has to be protected, and I would propose something like a 75-foot buffer around the tree. I'm not even sure where the tree is located on the property. But can you show me Bill or Bill? Bill or Bill, I don't care. Mr. Sally. So it's right at the entrance, correct? Correct. And I think that the old bur oak tree would make a beautiful entrance for a subdivision. And so those are my thoughts. and I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other council members who would like to speak? Because if not, I'd like to ask a couple questions. Council Member Clark, are you? Thank you, Chair. Let me continue quickly, and I won't be but just a minute more. I want to mention, too, talking about access, I think the comprehensive plan actually calls for English Station to be closed at the Harrodsburg Road end, and that would literally direct the traffic from English Station back into the development or on to Dogwood Trace via Agape if that happened. I want to talk very quickly about the size of the development. and the medium density creates some problems here, I think, for this property. Let me just quickly mention, I think we have, if I'm not mistaken, and Mr. Lear, you correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm trying to get these facts. There are three type one apartments, and there are 28 apartments in each. And let me talk about beds here just a minute. That's 108 beds with one- and three-bedroom apartments there. There are four type two apartments with two- and three-bedrooms, and I think that equates to 240 bedrooms. I'll make this point in a minute. With 45 single-family homes, that's 90-plus bedrooms. We don't know how many exactly. And then there are 45 single-family homes on the English station. And that's, again, another 90-plus bedroom. So I have a figure of bedrooms. Now, I'm going to get back to that. 528 bedrooms. Now, how does that equate in terms of cars? That's where I'm coming. I don't know how many cars would equate to bedrooms, but you can be pretty sure there's going to be at least 300 and maybe even more. So I'm worried about that. And regardless of the quality of the development itself, if you don't have a Goppy, and I don't think we can have a Goppy, I really don't, and we know we're not going to have Twain Ridge, that means we have one way to get in and out of the property, folks, one way, or 300 to 400 cars. And so I think we have to realize that, plus cars and trucks and school buses and all those kinds of things. And so regardless of the traffic study, and I do understand the system there, but we didn't measure this. We have one entrance for over 300 cars, and you also have Military Pike. Keep this in mind. That's the intersection, Military Pike. And you've got a lot of people coming out of Firebrook on Military Pike. And then you've got all those developments out in Justine County, out in Keene Road, and Military Pike, all those people are coming out to Military Pike. So all the traffic there that you're going to have to create left turns at the stoplight for everything happening, stopping traffic for a longer period of time on Harrisburg Road, I really worry about that. That sounds just almost incompatible. It seems like to me it's going to be a bottleneck. Then let me mention quickly, I do also worry about the grade. Yeah, I think it can be maneuvered, but it concerns me, particularly with ice and snow and school buses and so forth. I also have concerns, as some of you have indicated, about the watershed, about sewage treatment and stormwater, the Burr Oak, Elkhorn Creek, and the environmental restrictions that we probably need. I'm also disappointed that I haven't heard anything, Mr. Lear, about the development of trails or development of the greenway. I thought maybe that would be a major part of the development because that's a tremendous opportunity for development there. So basically those are my comments, and thank you for your time for everybody, and thank you for everybody for being here today. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Farmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all that have come tonight. We had a nice turnout for our Kroger zone change, and we had a nice turnout for our summit zone change. But by far, your neighborhood has represented yourselves beyond the others because you've been very personal, and you've brought us different points of view in different ways, and I'm appreciative of that. If this council is to help you out, so to speak, at least eight of us have to agree to go against the planning commission's unanimous ruling. I'm not sure how that's all going to go. You never know until they take the vote. A lot of people never believe that, but it's the truth. You never know until the vote is taken. We see a lot of folks, there are a lot of people that come to council a lot. We see them a lot, and we appreciate their service and their ability to be here. but you all as a group of public have done a great job this evening. And I know this is a plot of land at the top of the hill with a whole lot of runoff to it. And I don't know that we can do right by you, but we can certainly try. But I appreciate you all being here tonight very much. Thank you, sir. Is there any other council members that have questions? If not, then I'm going to ask a couple. Mr. Sallee, one of the issues that has been brought up is agape and the way that that's going to be. With Twain Ridge, what's the plan down the road with that, if anything? And I heard from the attorney about the, I guess, the law case that kind of doesn't require the developer to do that. What are the expenses that go into that? What's the long-term plan for that? I'm not sure there is a long-term plan in, say, terms of the transportation improvement plan that the MPO prepares or under any of the capital projects of the urban county government for connecting, if you will, the two pieces of Twain Ridge. I'm not aware of any plans for that. Have we had any kind of numbers on what the cost would be on that? Mr. Lear, have you all looked at the cost of that? I think there was testimony about the prior estimate five years ago, but that's the only thing I recall. Minimum of $3 million, I see. Yeah. The only number I recall is somewhat dated, and I think I heard it tonight, and it's consistent with what I recall, $3 million, $3 million plus. is the cost. That was five years ago? And then could you explain to me with the goppy and then with the width of the street on what happens about the parking and how that process goes if either or either bill? There is no, a single member of the Planning Commission offered the opinion that if necessary they could eliminate parking on one side. There's no proposal. The Planning Commission, to my knowledge, has no legal authority to do that. It was, by the way, reflected in the minutes. There's a direct quote in the minutes about what he, or not a direct quote, there is a summary of what he said about it. But unless a, I haven't even researched the issue and what the people said may be correct. But as far as I know, there's no official proposal. It is simply a comment made by a single member of an 11-member body that that could be done. Mr. Salley, do you have anything further? I saw you wanted to. I'm having a hard time getting my finger on it, but I actually was looking at the Code of Ordinance for another reason today, and there is an ordinance that provides that the Director of Traffic Engineering can designate areas as no parking depending on particular needs. It's not a planning commission function. Mr. Danford, did you want to add, and if you would come to the microphone. Thank you very much. I think this is a curious issue, and that is we've heard perhaps differences of opinion, but we've heard from several people, including one council member who was actually at the meeting, about what happened. But here is, no matter which side you fall down on this, here is what happened. An objection was raised, and the objection was the road does not qualify. It's not wide enough. The statement or the conclusion of the Planning Commission at that point was you're right. It's not. One person reportedly said, well, that's fine. We'll just restrict parking. We've looked into that. And, in fact, we've talked to the very same folks at that department, and they said, no, no, the only way you can do that is by the petition process that we talked about before. This community, the folks who live along Agape, are not going to agree to a restriction of their parking. I mean, you've seen a bunch of letters from folks to exactly that point. But here's the other thing. My understanding is that on the record that the chairman of the Planning Commission specifically said that's what our solution is. Now, let's say that didn't happen. Well, it doesn't change. I'm sorry. All right. Mr. Danford, that's good. You've answered my question. Can I make one more point, sir? No, that's fine. All right. Okay. Thank you. And I guess because my time is limited, I only have 30 seconds. I have to stop myself here. The other question was with the bur oak, and I guess, Mr. Lear, could you go through what your plan is on how much you're going to give space in between the tree? The proposal that we brought forth from our expert was that there be a minimum of a 50-foot protection zone. The minimum means just what it says. If you look at the plan, it shows that there's much more room on about 300. If you think of the circle around the tree as 360 degrees, for about 300 of the 360 degrees, there's room in some cases for considerably more than that. So the minimum is, the only place that's the minimum is where on the preliminary development plan, we showed the road coming the closest. And that's why I tried to point out those other things, that there is room to have the tree protection zone in some directions be as long as 200 feet, 80 feet, 140 feet, 70, et cetera. And that's simply the preliminary development plan. So that's the issue that's to go back by the note. That's the issue that's to go back. And the Planning Commission, based on Mr. Leonard and others, could say it has to be 75 feet. They could say it has to be 85 or 100 feet. We'll present our way of dealing with it, and others will present theirs, but they'll make the final decision. Thank you. Councilmember Massani. Thank you, Mr. Lear. Do you mind staying at the podium? I do not. Mr. Council Member Clark alluded to the fact that you all did not discuss the greenways or the park. What is your response to that, and how do you intend to work with the neighborhood in order to preserve those areas? Well, it's more work with the city. The city has a greenway plan, and we have – you can't see it on here. It's not very well. there's a path, in addition to the sidewalk, there's a path that goes all along here. And this is an open space here. I don't know if you can see. I guess you can. This is an open space here, and the path that we show comes right down here, and then it goes into the greenway at this point right here. So we fully intend to cooperate with the other neighborhoods and the city in connecting up to the greenway. So this is the area where we show leaving the right-of-way, and this is right where the path that goes all along here terminates. Now, there's also sidewalk connections, so you can get from all these other places to it. But that's, I mean, it's not an option to avoid that. I mean, it's part of the city's regulatory mechanism, not just to leave the greenways, which we have, but to connect to them. That was brought up in our planning committee today. We've got a lot of issues with the greenway system. And we're supposed to have a report, I believe, to us coming next month. But there's been a lot of greenway dedication. We've not accepted them because of the condition that they're in. I've got neighborhoods that have greenways that look like the Grand Canyon. I'm very serious. I don't have the picture today. I do, maybe. Chris, do you have that picture? Thank you. This is what some of the greenways look like behind some of these developments, and that's a concern of mine. Chris, can you put that up, please? This is the Grand Canyon of one of the greenways that I have in one of my neighborhoods that is adjacent to a subdivision. And I think we've got a couple more pictures, don't we? There's one of the neighbors standing in it, and I think there's one more. So that's a greenway, and I'm a little concerned about these greenways and the liability involved and what they're supposed to look like, and they're not supposed to look like that. So I'm trying to get some kind of response for maybe how you can help us so they don't look like that, because we've got these all over the city and the county, basically, all over Lexington. Is there anything that you might be able to suggest or maybe can help us with? I just don't want these folks to be in the same situation these other neighborhoods are and rather be proactive than rather reactive. Yeah, I understand that. Without knowing where that is or what the circumstances are, it's hard to compare it to this one. I know that I've been on the back of this property in its natural state, and it doesn't look like that, I can assure you. Thank goodness. As I said before, there's the creek here, and then there's a beautiful open area here and here. We'll dedicate it, as we're required to do, and then I think it's probably a citywide issue how to prevent things like that. What that looks to me like is there hasn't been a very good erosion plan. I mean, it looks to me like that's what's caused that problem. I'm not exactly sure what happened. I'm just, again, we'd rather be proactive than reactive and not have this come up down the road for us to have to deal with because we have several of these. And the only other thing I would say to you, and I don't know what, again, I don't know what that's like, But the lotting scheme here, as you can see, the largest lots in the whole development are the lots that back up to the greenway. And, I mean, I think it's pretty easy. The more houses you built that are immediately adjacent to it, the more likelihood you have for erosion. We've built about the least number that you can build along the greenway. Yeah, because in those pictures that were shown, those are homes that backed up to that area. So that is a new development. As far as the park, and they were concerned about the spring, has there been any discussion with the neighbors on that? There's been discussion. Well, the Planning Commission, if you see the notes, the Planning Commission, the spring is approximately right here. That's the, and probably the most likely thing to do is to essentially incorporate it into the greenway, but that's something that's an item to be resolved at the final development plan stage as well. One last question, and I don't know if you can answer this or maybe Ms. Wiseman can answer this. Will there be a homeowners association affiliated with this apartment complex and those homes that will be built? Thank you. their own homeowners association. Most of ours that we set up do with their own deed restrictions and so on. The apartment complex will be owned, managed, and operated by Ball Homes, so as a separate entity. Okay, because I think there was mention of a gazebo, and I was just curious. All the common space, open space associated with the apartment complex, that will be what we will maintain and manage as owners of that complex. Okay, is that indicated on the plan anywhere as far as the homeowners association? I don't think there's any notes. Those are things that they would put on plats as we create lots, the maintenance of common areas and open space. So that will come down the road. Just want to make sure that we follow through on that kind of stuff. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. Just quickly, the Greenway issue is that we often end up, the city ends up having to maintain, mow, and take care of them. So that is extremely expensive. It's necessary. I want the greenways and the green spaces, but that's the predicament we get in when we take on these greenways. And secondly, about the parking on one side or another on Agape, It's not the parking authority that does that. It's traffic engineering can, if a neighborhood chooses to take parking off one side of the street, they can do a petition of homeowners to do that, but they can't do it in reverse. They can't do a petition in the negative. and public safety has the right to take parking off one side of the street if it is difficult for an ambulance or a fire truck to navigate that. So I think you all need to be clear about that's not the planning commission. The parking authority can give residential parking permits, but they don't take parking off one side of the street. Traffic engineering can be called in to look at that and make decisions. Homeowners can do a petition to take it off, or public safety can deem it unsafe for emergency vehicles to go through. And I know that because a lot of the streets in the 3rd District were built before we had cars. So a lot of them are very narrow. And so all those situations have happened a lot. So I want to clarify that's that process. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you. Mr. Lear, just a little follow-up. In the development plan, are any of these private streets, are they all public streets? I think they're all public streets. Yeah. All public. Thank you very much. Council Member Clark, I would just say to you if, from looking at this, I wouldn't really want Twain Ridge to connect because then you'd have a collector running all those cars right by the tree. It's almost better to never connect it, potentially. Thank you. Council Member Henson. I wanted to – Dave Leonard. Do you think a 75-foot buffer around the Burrow tree would be more sufficient? It would be more sufficient. It would be actually the absolute minimum and would still probably remove about one-fourth of the root system of the tree. with that placement of the tree and the roots as they are supposedly distributed according to the lay of the land. So removing between a quarter and a third of the root system of the tree, the 50 foot would remove a third, so the 70 foot would remove a quarter of it, which is forgivable, I suppose, but it is a stress on the tree that I wouldn't like to see happen with the combination of the road being built and then salt was mentioned as well, which is going to be an issue, too, on that slope, something that would really be needed. And in England, they try and save a lot of trees. And Tom mentioned they save them until they're 1,000 years old and they fall down. And we don't do a lot of that, and I'd like to see more of it or give them the opportunity to do that. But to do that, we need to allow trees to grow. And the root system should be expanding as the tree gets older, not be more confined. Right. And in England, they have the rules that we have the one times. Okay, then we have the one and a half times, which is the hundred feet. And they actually go two and a half times for tree root expansion. So they're thinking that far ahead. And that's how they built a history, and that's how they retain thousand-year-old trees. So minimum 75, preferably? Preferably. And I suppose that can all be worked out down the road. I don't know. Well, you have a glove on your shirt. Can you come here? I do? It's all right. He's just probably one of my friends. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. A ladybug larvae crawling on my shirt. I didn't really intentionally bring her in. Was it a ladybug? I think I'll let her go out. Did you have anything further, Council Member Henson? Is there any further questions from Council Members? Seeing none, I wanted to ask our attorney, but I'll ask you, Mr. Soutley. I'm going to close the hearing here in a minute, but I want to just kind of go over the next process that we're going to be going through. And could you go again over what the vote was in the Planning Commission and how it will proceed from here with the vote so everybody in the audience understands? Certainly. The Planning Commission at their hearing voted 11 to 0 to recommend approval of this unchanged. with conditional zoning restrictions, there was one member of the 11 who, rather than voting to approve the zone change, abstained. And under the ordinary rules and abstention counts with the majority. So that's why it's reported as an 11-0 vote. The development plan that you have reviewed this evening is a preliminary development plan. It allows no development of the property to commence. It is, in essence, a conceptual plan that indicates how the property would be developed should the rezoning be approved. In order for the property to develop, either a final development plan or a preliminary subdivision plan would need to be approved by the Planning Commission. In this case, one of each would be anticipated, the development plan for the apartment complex portion of the application and a preliminary subdivision plan for the streets and the lotting pattern for the single-family area. Those would both go to the Planning Commission. The development plan would require an advertisement in the newspaper in advance of the Planning Commission hearing, and those are public meetings, which are eligible for public participation and comment on the proposals. If the Planning Commission were to approve those plans, There would then be a period of time up to a year for the plans to be finalized, in essence, certified by the Division of Planning Director, Mr. King, and copies forwarded to the Divisions of Engineering and Building Inspection who then govern the permitting process for the property. Thank you very much. I want to thank everybody for coming tonight. I think you all have represented yourselves very well, both sides. I want to thank you for that. At this time, I'm going to close the hearing, and we'll take no more testimony. And at this point, I will open up for a motion for Council to adopt some findings of fact. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. I hereby move to adopt the following findings of fact in support of disapproval of the zone change requested 4500 and 4524 Old Schoolhouse Lane. Number one, the requested planned neighborhood residential R3 zone is not in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan's recommendation because the medium-density residential land use proposed is not compatible with the current collector street configuration adjoining the property, which is inadequate to support the increased traffic from the proposed development. Number two, no evidence was presented before the Council that the current AU zoning on the property is inappropriate. Number three, insufficient evidence was presented before the Council that there have been major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature within the area where the subject property is located, which were not anticipated by the comprehensive plan. Number four, the proposed planned neighborhood residential R3 zoning will adversely affect the existing single-family residential land uses in close proximity to the subject property due to increased density, inadequate street system, and the inability to sufficiently buffer the high-density use from the single-family residential uses. So move. Second. We have a motion and a second. And I would ask our legal counsel, if you would, kind of explain, because we always get double negatives. It will take eight votes to adopt the findings of fact. And this is to disapprove what the Planning Commission? And the findings of fact, if these are adopted, would support disapproval of zone change. So would you say how you'd vote if you vote yes or no, just to go through and make sure council does it the correct way here? Well, the motion says these are to support disapproval. So if you are in favor of them, you would be in favor of disapproval. Okay. Everybody understand that? Here, go ahead and ask your microphone, because this always gets a little confusing, because we do opposites sometimes. So we would be voting to adopt the findings of the Planning Commission, or to not? If you vote yes, you'd be voting against the Planning Commission and voting to disapprove. Okay. Is that correct? And at this point, I'll ask for a roll call. Council Member, we've got a discussion. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. I'll echo what Council Member Hansen has said. These zone change hearings are never easy. In fact, they're always very hard. And I have tried my best to listen to what the people who've come before us on both sides have had to say. I already mentioned that I served on the Planning Commission, so I may have a slightly different perspective on the way they function and how they make their decisions than some of my other colleagues, but that's neither here nor there. On the substantive issues, I believe that the question of sewer capacity and stormwater issues, there's sufficient protection for the neighborhood, given the way we are now constructed. On the question of the Burr Oak, I think there can be additional conditions put on that would provide the protection that would ensure that it would survive. On the question of the burial mound, I think what I've heard is if there is a burial mound there, then it's out of our hands and state or federal regulations will prevail. On the actual findings, for better or worse, I believe that the plan is in agreement with the comp plan. I don't see how it's not in agreement. I think there has been no significant change. I agree with that. I do not believe that the present zoning is appropriate. I think a good case can be made that that's not farmable land at this point. And so I'm going to – one other point. I guess the last point was about increased density. And this gets to the larger issue of essentially what kind of community we want to have. And I think we're going to be saying this kind of over and over and over. But we have two choices. That is to increase density where we can and where it's appropriate as much as possible. all we can expand into the farmland that we now have. And I, for one, have been an advocate of not expanding. I believe we need to grow up, not out. And I believe this is an example of a density that is appropriate in that space. And so I will be voting against the motion. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing none, Council Clerk, would you take a roll call, please? Ms. Scutchfield? No. Mr. Beard? No. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? No. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? No. Ms. Henson? No. Mr. Kay? No. Ms. Lawless? Yes. And Ms. Massotti? Yes. that fails four to six with five absent do i have anybody else who has an an affirmative yes if i may remember i believe it's appropriate well it gets a little complex if the if this council takes no action then the decision by the planning Commission prevails I believe it's more appropriate for us to take an affirmative action and see if we have sufficient votes and so I move to approve and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and to adopt the findings of fact included in their report and I would add a condition and that is that we require that there be a minimum of 75 feet around. Mr. Gardner, can we make that condition without both sides agreeing ahead of time? Yes, that is within, it would be my opinion, that would fall within a buffering, which is one of the things that can be subject to conditional zoning. If Mr. Lear totally disagrees, I guess he can argue about it. Mr. Lear, do you want to? It is my opinion that the screening and buffering that is allowed is allowed to buffer the development, not buffer vegetation that's a part of it. For what it is worth, I have a little bit more insight into the intent of that language than most because I wrote it, and I sponsored it in the legislature successfully, and then I got this, asked this government to put it into your regulations. If the Council wanted to express an opinion on that outside of a condition, I think a simple resolution independent of the action on the zoning to suggest that to the Planning Commission would be fine, but I don't think it's the subject of conditional zoning authorized by the statute or the reg. And I would respectfully disagree. In that case, I'd like to ask a question. which you may or may not want to answer, and that is, would you be willing to agree to a 75-foot buffer around that tree? I'll tell you the same thing we indirectly told Mr. Leonard today, and that is we will engage in a good-faith discussion of that. That's the kind of thing that's hard to sit and do by committee, no offense, because to do that you have to change the location of the road, which means you have to change the location of buildings, and there are a number of moving pieces that relate to that. So to simply say, okay, we'll do 75 feet, 100 feet, or anything else without the kind of discussion that we anticipate going into it, I think is asking more than we ought to have to do on the fly like that. Thank you. Then I'll have given the opinion of law and the response to that question, I'll let my motion stand as it is. And could you repeat your motion just to? I move to adopt, to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt their findings of fact for reaching that conclusion. I don't know if that's close to legal language. I apologize. I was speaking to Bill about something. Please repeat your question. Just repeat the motion, if you will. I just want to know if my language is appropriate. I think so. I think so. I'll have to add it to the ordinance, and we'll have to have a new first and second reading on the ordinance. Did you add the 75 feet yet in that condition? I cannot. Okay. I can't do it. I cannot. Okay. So why would he have to have it? He is not adding, so he would not need a... I apologize. I got lost. If you are not adding the 75-feet condition, then the motion would be the first part of what you said, which would be to approve the zone chain based on the findings of facts and conclusions of the Planning Commission. And then we would just vote on the ordinance as is. We have a motion. We have a second by Council Member Beard. Council Member Siding. I need some clarification here. So our counsel says that we can impose the condition. Is that correct? And you're saying that? I wasn't there when Mr. Lear wrote it. But the way it reads, I think it is a defensible position to say that it would cover this. But it's not been litigated. If it were serious enough to them and they wanted to take it to court, I cannot tell you how it would come out. But I don't think Mr. Lear could either. Okay. So there can be a condition put on if Council Member Kaye chooses to do so. Is that correct? We have the ability. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, sir. I think this tree is more than just a vegetation bill. I think it's historical, and it needs to be. Oh, sorry. But, you know, I do think that it needs some protection. And so I would like to see a provision placed on that so I would amend the motion. Our law department said that he could. So we have a motion to amend. For 75, we have a second by Council Member Scudgefield. And it's due to the fact that this is not just any tree. It is a historic tree. And if it were a historic structure, I think we would do the same thing. Now we need discussion on the amendment. I also would like to add that there would be no... Let's deal with this amendment first. Should we do this in front? Yeah, this is for 75 feet. Any discussion on that? Council Member Beard. I'm not going to support it if we can get... 75 feet, some people like. Dave Leonard, like 100 feet. Somebody else might like 65 feet. I don't think this is our job to do that up here. We actually know nothing about it, and we're sitting here making a guess. And we've got a lot of smarter people in that arena than those of us that are sitting up here. Council Member Scotchfield. This is when we've got to do it. If we're going to get it to stick and we're going to protect some, I mean, obviously all the residents from this area have legitimate concerns. I have them too. But I also know that we do have a comprehensive plan. But we do need to take opportunity right now to make conditions so that their area that they do love is protected. This is a tree. Yes, it's just a tree. but it's just a graveyard. It's just something else. I mean, we have to make a stand now or it goes away. Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, could you put the Council Member Lawless? Mr. Lear, Did you say that the way the development plan, as in its current form, that there would be areas that would be much larger than 75 feet, and then some areas might be 60 feet? I don't know about tree roots, really. No, I didn't. Here's, I don't have all my notes. This is the tree, so think of 360 degrees around the tree. You don't have the topo lines on here, but you've got about 30 feet before it goes, this is the property line, you've got about 30 feet here beyond the 50, So potentially there's 80 feet here. If you go down here in this direction, what I'm pointing out is 360 degrees, there's about 30 of the degrees where it's 50 feet. This direction, it's 200 feet. This direction, it's about 170 and so on and so forth. So the way the 50 feet was expressed was a minimum. So what I was saying earlier about why it's hard to do this on the fly is to do a larger area requires modifying more than simply saying, okay, the road goes over because there are other components of the plan that have to be modified as well. So perhaps a compromise to that would be that a section of that road be a pervious surface concrete-type product? Yeah, Eddie will agree that that's not buffering. um you know i suppose i don't think we've ever built a public street with with that on it uh it the the way the note reads is additional protection measures or something like that i mean so i i suppose that would be fair game for consideration okay i'm just i'm curious yeah i don't i will have to say nobody suggested that up to now we'll see i think outside the box Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for, and I support the motion to amend out of the tree. I have a question in regards to the development plan. And I do believe, I agree with both what Council Member Beard and what Council Member Scutchfield said. To a certain extent, a large portion of what this relies on in regards to the development plan is at the purview of the planning commission. That's if this is approved, if the zone change is approved. If we adopt this amendment and this amendment were to pass, is it still under the, would it be, are we basically setting a minimum? I guess my question is, if we were to pass this 75-foot buffer, that does not prohibit the Planning Commission from, in the deliberations of their development plan, from expanding that. They would not be able to constrict that, though. I believe that's correct, yes. They could expand it, but not constrict it. We're basically setting a minimum of 75 feet with this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Silley. Thank you. Any other discussion on this issue? If you could, let's take a voice vote, but if we could push in. Also, all those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. No. We have seven yeses, eight yeses, two more people, nine and one. That passes 9-1. Now we go back to the original motion as amended. Do we have any discussion on that? Seeing none, we need to... Council Member Rosati? A question about agape, since that is another point of contention. I'm not exactly sure I'm a big fan of one way in and one way out, but I'm also concerned about this being a connector and not having the same standards. When the Planning Commission, and I've heard a couple of different versions, Mr. Sally, when that was brought to their attention, basically they said they understood and they thought that was okay, or they understood and they thought it wasn't okay. I'm kind of lost there. I think the Planning Commission recognized that the street from English Station that stubs into the property is only a 5031 street and so it is permitted to extend through this property with the same dimensions 50 foot right away with a 31 foot pavement width in dogwood trace north of trace boulevard it has a similar configuration 5031 and in south it is more typical of the collector width, the wider street, 60 feet of right-of-way and wider pavement. So if we were to put a condition stating that that could not be a through street, it would be stubbed right there? Where's the map? It would dead end? I'm not sure that that would be an allowable conditional zoning restriction, but I believe that the council has the ability to barricade streets, so you, through a much simpler action, could achieve the same result. I'm not a big fan of that either. It's very difficult when you've got a situation like this, when the street is not complying, basically. And down the road, we may end up, as a government, we will end up dealing with this. We'll have parking on one side, or we'll have no parking, and then what does that do to the folks who live on that street who have their kids, So I'll have cars or friends come over. Then what do we do with that? I mean, I'll open the floor up to my colleagues on that. I mean, I think this is an issue. I don't know how or how we can resolve it. Any further discussion? Councilman Beard. I'm not sure who can answer this question. Is there such a thing as building channels under the street where water could be captured near the trunk of the tree and flows under the street and covers that 100 or 125 feet or whatever it may be? Council Member Beard, the only street I'm familiar with locally that was using pervious pavements was Rain Garden Way out off of Georgetown Street. I'm not familiar with any other local examples. This is not Port Pervious Way. This is similar to what they have all over Chevy Chase, clay pipe under the lawns and dumping the water out at the curb. it looks like that's a fairly simple solution to get the water where it needs to be and at the same time not blow the whole deal to the truth. I mean, I know you can't answer that. You specifically, and I didn't see, David Leonard didn't hear. I'm not sure if clay pipe is acceptable under the engineering manuals. I'm just familiar with them generally, but not with those kind of details about materials. Does it have to be PVC or what? I mean, there's some way that they could happen, I would think. Well, I'm sure that drainage is a consideration in the street design, but it's usually through the curbing on the street more so than the piping. and I'm just not familiar with those engineering specifications. I'm sorry. That's how we get innovative. Thank you. Thank you. Any other further discussion? Seeing none, then we will go ahead and take a roll call vote on the finding of facts as amended. Council Clerk, and I guess let's make sure that we know that the affirmative, if you vote yes, you'd be voting to approve the planning commission. What's the addition? with the amended 75 feet. Council Clerk, if you would take the roll, please. Ms. Cutchfield? Jenny? I'm 75 feet. Ms. Cutchfield? Ms. Cutchfield? If we could wait just a moment. I'm going to make a motion. Mr. Fulman has a... She wants to... I've got a motion. I want to see how Council would take the motion. Well, at this point we are voting, but if you're going to make an amendment. A condition. Okay. Go ahead. I'd like to make a motion to make a condition that Agape not be connected to the new development. Second. That is not permitted under the zoning ordinance. You have very limited things that you can do under the conditional zoning, and one of them does not include this. This is a transportation issue, a traffic issue. As Bill pointed out, I believe there's an ordinance that sets up a procedure by which streets can be barricaded, and there may be a public notice requirement for a separate type hearing on that. I do know that it's not possible to do that by conditional zoning. Mr. Salley, did you want to add anything to that? That's right. I couldn't add to anything Mr. Gardner has told the council. Thank you. Any further than the vote, please? Council Clerk? Aye. Ms. Gutchfield? Mr. Beard? Nay. Mr. Clark? No. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Ms. Massadi. Ms. Massadi. Thank you. That passes 7 to 3, and now we need to do a new first reading of the ordinance. It doesn't pass. Actually, the findings needed eight votes, so they did not pass. Okay. Sorry, may I have to? So based on that, you could go ahead and just read the ordinance, vote on the ordinance as it was originally presented, because no new findings were adopted. Okay, that puts a twist into it. So we'll do a second reading, roll call vote. No, because you said this would be as originally proposed then, correct, without the amendment of the 75 feet? Yes, to go against what the Planning Commission did, you need an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire council. And you did not get that. You got seven. So do we need a new motion then, or will we just take a vote now? Well, you would need a motion to approve the ordinance. Okay. Because that's the procedure now. Right. That's what I said. So we need a motion now. So moved. We have a motion. Second. And it's seconded by Council Member Beard. Council Member Rosati. So I understand this correctly. I know it's late and everyone's tired. We lost the tree buffering. Yes, because you needed it. It was 7-2-3. In order to have that passed, it would have had to have been 8 votes. I understand that. Council Member Lawless. This is a point of order. We could still make another motion on the findings of fact. We could. I'm accepting motions as we speak. Okay. I would like to make a motion that we accept the findings of fact with the condition that there be a 75-foot buffer around the tree or another alternative for a pervious surface street, if that would protect the... Did it have to come from the prevailing sign? She was not on the prevailing sign. Where's your call on the turn? She abstained. No, she voted no. She voted no. Oh, did she only immediately? She changed her vote and voted no. I think so, but I've never been good at Robert's rules. I think you need a prevailing side with how I'm going to rule on that. I think that we get very rigid and that there are ways to be creative and still save a tree. Council Member Siding. I have a motion. I'd like to adopt the findings fact, including an amendment that we have a 70-foot buffer around the tree. We have a motion and a second for a 70-foot buffer. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, now, okay, we'll take a vote here, and if you would, put the screen up, please. Since its findings will also need the roll call. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Scutchfield? Yes. Mr. Beard? No. Mr. Clark? No. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Ms. Massotti. That passes 8-2. So that means that that passes, and now we have to have a new first reading of the ordinance. Council Clerk, could you give it a first reading, please? We're just confirming our paperwork over here. Okay. It would just be adding an additional 70 feet in there to the findings of fact that the planning commission had. Would Mr. Kay and Mr. Beard want to withdraw their motion for that original ordinance? Because that's still on the floor. No, it should not be there any longer. We have a new... Go ahead and clear that one. Yes. Okay. We just need to do a new first reading of the ordinance as amended. Thank you. Thank you. October 21st. I believe we're ready with the title now. Yeah, we have 10. Yes, if you would give first reading, please. An ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone for 24.88 net, 27.71 gross acres for property located at 4500 and 4524 Old Schoolhouse Lane, subject to use restrictions as conditions relating to maximum number of dwelling units, buffering, tree protection, and screening. Ball Homes, LLC, Council District 10. Thank you. Do I have a motion to suspend the rules? I have a motion to suspend the rules. and I have a second by Council Member Henson. We need 10 votes to suspend the rules. Council Clerk, would you take the vote, please? Put it on there. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. We have eight. That's nine. Who's not here? Who hasn't voted? There's 10. That passes. Do I have a motion to approve? So move. We'll need to give a second reading. I know. I've got a motion to approve. We've got a second. Would you give a second reading, please? Mr. Gardner is taking my ordinance here. An ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone for 24.88 net, 27.71 gross acres for property located at 4,500 and 4,524 Old Schoolhouse Lane, subject to use restrictions as conditions relating to maximum number of dwelling units, buffering, tree production, and screening, Ball Homes, LLC, Council District 10. We have a motion to approve the ordinance. Council Member Kaye gave a motion to approve. Second. Council Member Henson second. Any discussion? Seeing none, would you take a roll call, please? Are you all able to vote on your screens? Mine's acting funny over here. No, ma'am. Oh, there we go. Now we can. Ms. Gutchfield? Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Clark? No. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? No. Mr. Ford? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Ms. Lawless? No. Ms. Massadi? Yes. That fails 7 to 3. Council Member Kay? Just to be clear, I believe what that means is that the original approval by the Planning Commission with its conditions now prevails. Is that correct? That's correct. So it passes. Well, in that case, are we done, Mr. Garner? Yes, sir. I believe you're done. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. We have a motion. And do I have a second? Do I have a motion to adjourn? I have a motion by Council Member Ford. Do I have a second? Second by Council Member Beer. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? We stand adjourned. Thank you.