# Urban County Council Meeting - Zoning Public Hearing - April 15, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 15, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3334 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3334?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-04-15 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 11,037 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council met on April 15, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, located at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507. Council Member Ellinger presided over the meeting. The council considered one agenda item: an ordinance to change the zoning of a property from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) with conditional zoning restrictions. This ordinance was approved by the council. During the meeting, the council took five motions and votes and heard nine public comments from members of the community. ## Attendance **Present:** Ellinger, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Beard, Clarke, Farmer, Ford, Kay, Mossotti, Myers **Absent:** Akers, Gorton, Henson, Lane, Lawless **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Motion 0173-14: Adopt findings of fact to disapprove the zone change request** [timestamp: 01:19:30] Motion by Stinnett, seconded by Scutchfield. This motion failed on a roll call vote with 6 ayes and 4 nays. Voting in favor: Scutchfield, Stinnett, Beard, Clarke, Farmer, Ford Voting against: Ellinger, Kay, Mossotti, Myers **Motion 0173-14: Amend conditional zoning restriction to cap units at 45** [timestamp: 01:21:05] Motion by Stinnett, seconded by Scutchfield. This motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote with 10 ayes and 0 nays. Voting in favor: Scutchfield, Stinnett, Beard, Clarke, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Kay, Mossotti, Myers The amendment added a condition limiting development to no more than 45 single-family residential units. **Motion 0173-14: Adopt findings of fact for approval as amended** [timestamp: 01:23:19] Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Beard. This motion passed on a roll call vote with 8 ayes and 1 nay. Voting in favor: Scutchfield, Beard, Clarke, Ellinger, Ford, Kay, Mossotti, Myers Voting against: Stinnett The approval included the condition of no more than 45 single-family residential units. **Motion 0173-14: Approve the ordinance changing zone to R-3 with conditional zoning as amended** [timestamp: 01:28:48] Motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Myers. This motion passed on a roll call vote with 8 ayes and 1 nay. Voting in favor: Scutchfield, Stinnett, Beard, Clarke, Ellinger, Kay, Mossotti, Myers Voting against: Ford The ordinance approval maintained the condition of no more than 45 single-family residential units. **Motion 0173-14: Reconsider findings of fact to add traffic impact study requirement** [timestamp: 01:26:06] Motion by Ford, seconded by Myers. This motion was withdrawn and did not proceed to a vote. ## Public Comment Nine residents provided public comment on traffic, safety, and environmental concerns related to the proposed development. **Traffic and Road Safety Concerns** Hart Graves [00:34:28] expressed concern that 45 new homes would increase traffic on Grafton's Mill Road and Liberty Road, particularly near Liberty Elementary School, creating safety hazards and congestion. Karen Eagle [00:37:25] shared personal experiences of dangerous traffic conditions on Grafton's Mill Road, including multiple accidents and long waits to turn left. She warned that adding 90 more cars would overwhelm the area. Miles Magyar [00:46:24] described personal experiences with dangerous speeding and accidents on Grafton's Mill Road and questioned whether the developer would maintain roads during construction. **Access and Emergency Services** Steve Goss [00:39:14] raised concerns about evening traffic and sun glare on Grafton's Mill Road, and noted the lack of alternative access to the proposed development, citing the current private status of Woodward Lane. John Arriballo [00:48:41] stated that Grafton's Mill is the only access point to the neighborhood and warned that additional development would worsen congestion and hinder emergency vehicle access. David Royce [00:51:09] provided legal documentation proving that Woodward Lane is a private road and argued that the city should purchase the road to improve safety and access. Larry McCaslin [00:53:18] warned that on-street parking on Grafton's Mill Road could block emergency vehicles and delay response times during emergencies. **Environmental and Infrastructure Concerns** Samantha Frederick [00:40:51] highlighted congestion at the New Circle-Liberty Road intersection due to buses and proposed traffic, and expressed concern about potential contamination from a high-pressure gas line. Jimmy Eads [00:44:38] expressed concern that the land may still be polluted from Columbia Gas's past operations and warned against building near a high-pressure gas main. ## Contested Items **Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns** Residents raised significant concerns about traffic congestion, safety, and inadequate infrastructure during the meeting. Multiple speakers cited personal experiences and safety risks, with particular focus on Grafton's Mill Road and the area near Liberty Elementary School. The community opposition centered on whether existing infrastructure could adequately support the proposed development. **Environmental and Safety Risks from Gas Line** Several residents and the Danby Corners Neighborhood Association expressed opposition regarding potential environmental and safety hazards. Their concerns focused on the risk of contamination and the proximity of the proposed development to a high-pressure gas line. Residents cited past incidents involving the gas line and noted the lack of public access to relevant safety information, raising questions about the adequacy of safeguards for the nearby community. **Private Road Access and Legal Status** A procedural dispute emerged regarding the classification of Woodward Lane. Property owners provided legal documentation to support their position on the road's status, while the city confirmed that Woodward Lane is a private road. This disagreement over whether the road is private or public had direct implications for access rights and the feasibility of the proposed development plans. ## An Ordinance changing the zone from an Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone, to a Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone with conditional zoning restrictions The Urban County Council held a public hearing on a zone change request for property located at 690 Woodward Lane. The proposal sought to rezone 9.77 net acres from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zoning, along with 0.0 net acres from R-1B to R-3. [timestamp: 00:14:22] The Planning Commission had previously recommended approval of the zone change with a conditional zoning restriction that would limit development on the property to a maximum of 83 units. **Public Testimony and Concerns** Multiple speakers participated in the public hearing, including Bill Sallee, Jihad Hallany, Hart Graves, Karen Eagle, Steve Goss, Samantha Frederick, Jimmy Eads, Miles Magyar, John Arriballo, David Royce, and Larry McCaslin. Public opposition to the proposal centered on several key concerns: * Traffic and safety issues * Environmental concerns * Access-related problems **Outcome** The ordinance was approved by the Urban County Council. --- ## Decisions - **0173-14** — failed (6-4): Adopt findings of fact to disapprove the zone change request - **0173-14** — passed (10-0): Amend conditional zoning restriction to cap units at 45 - **0173-14** — passed (8-1): Adopt findings of fact for approval as amended - **0173-14** — passed (8-1): Approve the ordinance changing zone to R-3 with conditional zoning as amended - **0173-14** — withdrawn (0-0): Reconsider findings of fact to add traffic impact study requirement --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. We need 10 people to start the zone change. Presently, we do not have a quorum, and when we do get a quorum, we will begin. So bear with us. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Good evening. We will begin the hearing. Would the clerk please give second reading? I'll need to call the roll first. And give the roll call, please. Ms. Scutchfield? Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Here. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Here. Ms. Gordon? Ms. Henson? Mr. Kay? Here. Mr. Lane? Ms. Lawless? Ms. Massadi? Here. And Mr. Myers? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. We have a quorum. Would you give second reading, please? Thank you. And anybody who plans on speaking needs to please stand up, raise your right hand, and I need to swear you in. You swear, please stand up. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Are you planning on... I'm deaf. You got to speak to me a little loud. If you're planning on speaking during the hearing, you need to stand up and be sworn in, please. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. At this point now, I have to go over some rules, and they are kind of tedious. It will take a few minutes, but please bear with me. I am the presiding officer, and I shall explain the hearing rules and shall inform those present that the presiding officer has the power to make evidentiary decisions to exclude irrelevant and repetitious testimony from the record. Council members may inform me when they believe testimony is irrelevant and repetitious so that I can rule on that evidentiary and exclude that if possible, if necessary. The petitioner shall submit a witness list, and I think, Mr. Helani, you're going to be the one that's going to be for the petitioner, and I don't think the opponents have anybody that's going to be attorney or anybody representing them, so when we get to them, we'll just have you speak individually for three minutes. All parties in favor of the zone change shall submit a printed materials to be tendered to the admission to the evidence of council members, the council clerk, and the Department of Law at the beginning of their presentation. And since the opponents don't have any, they won't be doing that at the beginning of their presentation. Each witness who is identified on the witness list of the opposite side and who testify shall be subject to cross-examination. Any witness called by petitioner or the opponent shall stay in the public hearing so they may be questioned by petitioner. all persons speaking shall identify themselves by name and address for the record all documents considered by the council shall be marked and numbered as exhibits and entered to the record by the council clerk assigned to to tape record and the taping should be a verbatim without interruption architectural rentings of developments will not be permitted to be introduced into evidence at council hearings for the reason that the council has no power except in h1 overlay zones to bind developers to construct the buildings as depicted. Preliminary development plans filed in conjunction with zone changes which show building footprints, parking, and other basic information may be accepted into evidence. Now, I'll ask the planning staff if you would summarize the record, please, Mr. Salih. and after Mr. Sally then we'll have a presentation of the petitioner and then we'll have open it up to the witnesses for the opponents. Mr. Sally. Thank you Councilmember Ellinger. Members of the council good afternoon. For the record my name is Bill Sally. I'm the planning manager in the urban county government's division of planning for planning services. As is our custom, there are a number of items I need to enter into the record here at the beginning of tonight's hearing. The first is the legal notice that was printed and published in the local newspaper advertising the date and time of tonight's hearing. The next is an affidavit that I have signed about the mailed notices that were sent for tonight's public hearing. That includes letters to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, to a supplemental notice area to the northeast, and also to the two registered neighborhood associations closest to this vicinity. We'd enter in the record the recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission regarding their public hearings in December and January on this zone change request. copies of the land subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance that are in effect for the urban county government and then two other items a copy of the goals and objectives that have been adopted by the urban county council from the 2013 comprehensive plan and then a copy of the 2007 comprehensive plan that the Urban County Planning Commission adopted a number of years ago. This zone change was filed before the conclusion of the 2013 comprehensive plan, and so that is why we're entering the previous comprehensive plan. This is a zone change for property at 690 Woodward Lane. I'd like to take just a moment to orient the council members to the location of this property and to the rezoning that's being requested. I'm going to use the overhead. The subject property at 690 Woodward Lane is situated here. It is to the east of Liberty Road, this location, and it abuts a railroad spur that is parallel to Palumbo Drive. Both of these roads, of course, intersect Manowar Boulevard and also New Circle Road. Subject property is about midway between both of those facilities. It has an address of Woodward Lane here, although other streets stub into the property as well. It's a little closer view of the subject property. is just shy of 10 acres in size. Again, we have the frontage of Woodward Lane, which bifurcates at this point. There are two parallel portions of that roadway here. Subject property is bounded here, but excluded from that are three residential lots that are zoned AU. Those lots are not part of this zone change request, but other than that, the property is almost entirely vacant. the next map is the existing zoning we have a larger version up on the board to my left again woodward lane is here the subject property is almost entirely agricultural urban as are other properties to the north and east of that location there is a very small portion of the property frontage here that is actually in an r1b single family residential zone the zone change requested as an R3 planned neighborhood residential zone for, again, almost 10 acres. Now I have some oblique aerial photography to view. This is from the south. We have Liberty Road here. Woodward Lane is here. And this is the subject property. It's surrounded by subdivisions, by homes on Woodward Lane here and also here on two sides of the property. by the three lots I mentioned just a moment ago, and by the Danby Woods subdivision immediately to the south. This is another view now looking from the north to the subject property. Again, we have Woodward Lane. Liberty Road is just off this photo here. The three homes and the subdivisions on either side. This is a little close-up of the three homes, not part of the zone change that front on Woodward Lane. There is a median in this portion of Woodward Lane here. And then one other close-up of a portion of the subject property. There is a gas utility facility here. This used to be much more intensely used by the gas company many years ago, but a portion of this property, mainly inside this fence, exists in an easement that is to remain regardless of whether the property is rezoned or any residential development occurs here in the future. This is a view of the land use recommendations from the 2007 comprehensive plan. And again, to orient you to the property, this is Liberty Road. Woodward Lane is here. All of the existing homes on Woodward Lane are identified in an area of low-density residential development, defined as 0 to 5 dwelling units per net acre. The subject property has a split recommendation. About two-thirds of the property are recommended for medium-density residential use, defined as 0 to 10 dwelling units per acre, while the rear third here is recommended for low density. Low density is also the same land use recommendation for the existing homes on Wilderness Road, although the other newer subdivisions in the area are also shown for medium density residential use. And then finally, a larger version of the comprehensive plan. Again, to orient you to this location, we have Richmond Road, New Circle Road, Winchester Road, Liberty Road is here. Subject property is here, generally in an area of residential use, save for the Fayette County Public Schools bus garage facility, a short distance down the road on Liberty Road. The comprehensive plan's recommendation for the property of both low and medium density residential would suggest that this 10-acre subject property be used for residential use of between 34 and 83 dwelling units in total. The petitioner is asking for 45 residential lots, although their initial submission was about for 48 dwelling units on this property. Planning staff, in reviewing this application, found that this proposal for R3 zoning is in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan, and that led the staff at the Planning Commission hearing in December to recommend approval of this proposed rezoning for that reason. The Planning Commission reviewed that recommendation in December and also heard from citizens in this area and from the applicant. And at the conclusion of their deliberations that day, they voted to continue their public hearing to January. They did not vote at their December meeting. Between their meeting on December the 19th and on January 30th, the applicant had a neighborhood meeting with many of the residents of this area, and also they revised their development plan. And I'll present both of those to you in just a moment. The Planning Commission resumed their public hearing on January 30th for this zone change, heard additional testimony from the staff, the applicant, and from other citizens who were present. And at the conclusion of their meeting on January 30th, they voted 9-0 to recommend approval of this rezoning to the Council. The reasons were that the requested R3 zone is in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan, really for three reasons. First, the plan recommends medium density and low density residential use of the subject property. And secondly, it recommends a density of between 34 and 83 dwelling units on the subject property. Finally, the commission found that the petitioner proposes 45 single family dwellings on the subject property, which is an agreement with the comprehensive plan's recommendation. The Planning Commission did adopt one conditional zoning restriction for the property, and that is a cap on the number of dwelling units possible in this R3 zone of 83 units. That is the maximum number that the comprehensive plan would recommend at this location. They found that that use restriction was necessary and appropriate to both implement the comprehensive plan and also ensure that any residential development of this property remains compatible with the area in which it's located. As I mentioned, the development plan, which is really a preliminary subdivision plan, changed between the Planning Commission's two hearings. And I need to introduce those to you for the record, but also show them to you as exhibits. In December, the development proposal for the property involved 48 lots. and the street pattern was one where there would be a new street constructed off of Woodward Lane, the end of Woodward Lane in this location, Woodward Court, with some of the lots fronted here. The utility facility that I showed you in the photograph is at this location, and it is common to both plans, and it is to remain because it is an exclusive easement owned by the gas company. The other access would be from Checkerberry Drive to service a number of lots here, approximately 30 of the residential lots at this location. There is currently a fence at the stub of Wilderness Road, and that fence was to remain in place on this plan, as was a barrier at the end of Woodward Lane that currently exists at this location. It was to be relocated here. So there would be no connection from Woodward Lane into Wilderness Road into the subject property. There was detention proposed in this general area on the property as well. But as I mentioned, this plan changed between mid-December and late January. And the version the Planning Commission reviewed at their January 30th hearing was significantly different. It was three units less, but no longer was the access proposed to Woodward Lane. That is because it was determined Woodward Lane was a private road along this entire frontage, and that therefore there was no agreement or ability for this development to access that proposed roadway. Instead, the access on this plan is entirely from Checkerberry, which is a public street stubbing here from the Danby Woods development, and 45 lots were proposed. The three existing homes are in this location. Those are to remain in an AU zone. The detention basin is still approximately in the same location, as is the Columbia Gas Facility on about that portion of the property. In addition, access controls are still part of this plan. The fence that currently exists at the end of Wilderness Road is to remain. Again, a relocation of the fence at this location is proposed to remain here, although there is a proposal to connect the two spines, if you will, of Woodward Lane, because the city does maintain this median, and that would allow for service vehicles to enter one side and exit through the other. It was determined through the technical committee meetings that this would be a huge safety benefit to those service vehicles. and this property would then have a street stub into undeveloped property here this location that concludes my prepared remarks i thank you very much and of course i'll be available for questions later in the evening should you have them thank you thank you mr sally at this time we'll have a presentation of the petitioners rk holdings and i believe mr halani is going to be doing the presentation i think you said you keep it to 10 minutes or less yes sir thank you And if you would just give an opening statement and a presentation of your direct evidence. And do you have any witness lists or any printed materials for the counsel or the clerk that you're going to be giving? We have, for the record, my name is Jihad Hallani, and I'm with Vision Engineering. For the record, we have affidavit that the sign has been posted and with some picture of that. And in regard for the zone change, Bill explained it extremely well. And what's happened in December 30th, we had a public hearing, and there was a lot of objector. And this objection was based on the status of Woodward Lane, if it's private or public. There was some concern that there may be more traffic on Woodward Lane. There was concern that Woodward Lane is a narrow street, cannot accommodate traffic. There was concern from the neighbors that the soil on this property might be contaminated with mercury due to the operation of Columbia Gas. And there was some concern about stormwater that some residents experienced some floodings. so after we met on December 30th we had another public hearing with a neighbor and we took note from December 30th meeting and we came up with a new layout that addressed a lot of their concern so basically the first concern we eliminate the stubbing to Woodward Lane which addressed the traffic, the width of the street and also we did research and we determined that in 2004, Columbia Gas hired a consulting firm to do a soil investigation of this property, and they determined there was some contamination of mercury. And what they did is they came back and removed all this material, disposed it into hazardous landfill, and replaced it with a good material. And they did the test. All the samples showed that below detective limit or below federal regulation, So that addressed the environmental issue. On the stormwater, basically what we made a commitment during the public hearing with the neighbor is that we're going to oversize our detention basin so that it will make the situation better. And we're not saying that we're going to remove or eliminate any flooding issue, but it will help. So we made a commitment to oversize our detention basin. And also during that public hearing, we made a commitment to install a berm around the detention basin and fence it with trees in order to create a buffer between the proposed site and Woodward Lane residence. And I believe after that meeting, we addressed every concern from the neighbor, from traffic, environmental, stormwater, and buffer. And basically, that's not my presentation. and if you have any questions, we'd be more than happy to address it. At this point, we'll go ahead and do you have anybody on this list that wants to speak for the petitioner? Seeing none, then we will go now to the presentation of the opponent. And since we don't have anybody representing them, we'll go ahead and just go down the list, and we'll give you three minutes if you would give your name and your address and keep your comments to three minutes. Unfortunately, I'm the person who's going to be keeping the timer, so I might have to stop you if you go over three minutes, which I don't want to do, but that's just the rules. And if we could try to exclude irrelevant and repetitious testimony, that would be great. And the first person I have is Hart Graves. And the person on deck would be Karen Eagle. And once again, your name and your address, please. Okay. My name is Hart Graves, and I live at 1306 Fincastle Road, but I am the president of the Liberty Area Neighborhood Association. I have a couple things to say, and I won't repeat. I do understand infill, and I approve of infill, and I understand how hard it is to find an area to put infill. However, I think if you're going to do infill within the urban service district, you have to consider the neighborhoods around where you are putting it. I would hope that infill would enhance neighborhoods, but sometimes it might hurt the neighborhoods. In this case, all of the traffic from these 45 houses is going to go down Checkerberry Lane and then down Grafton's Mill Road and empty onto Liberty Road. The only way to get out of Danby Corners or this subdivision, proposed subdivision, is down Grafton's Mill Road, which goes into Liberty Road. At a curve about a block from the Liberty Elementary School, the Liberty Elementary School parents, when they leave the school, they are not allowed to turn left toward Todd's Road and Manowar. So they turn right, go to Danby Corners, turn left, turn around in Danby Corners, and come back out and head toward Todd's Road in Manowar. That has caused a lot of traffic problems. If there are 45 houses in this new subdivision, there will be close to 90 more cars using Grafton's Mill Road, which is very hard on the people who live in Grafton's Mill Road. And so that is, though I think the people who would like to do this development have done a very good job, I think that there are problems that are beyond what they can do, and that is the traffic problem. Thank you. Thank you. Karen Eagle and Steve Goss, it would be next. My name is Karen Eagle. I live at 796 Grafton's Mill Lane. My husband James and I have lived there for 15 years. We have seen the development of our subdivision plus the addition of Danby Woods and the Liberty Elementary School being built. We've seen the impact of the traffic coming and going out of our subdivision, even with the widening of the road at that area. It is a very dangerous area because of that curve. We have, over the past 15 years, have had at least three to four incidences of cars landing in our yard because of trying to avoid an accident. There is no stoplight. There's just a street sign. And the turn lane coming into the subdivision is not adequate when you have the elementary school people taking up a lot of the traffic. Between 7.15 and 7.30 and 2.30 and 3, it's just a madhouse there. You cannot get out. I have waited at least 10 minutes to turn left onto Liberty Road. Besides the fact, and I think it just was mentioned, the number of cars coming in and out, I believe there are all total over 300 households in that one particular area. If a household has two cars, that's 600 cars possibly going in and out of the subdivision twice a day. I think that the road and the area that it is is just too small and confined of an area to add more cars and more traffic for the safety of the people who live around and in that neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Steve Goss and Kevin Frederick would be next. Good evening, Council. My name is Steve Goss. I live at 2472 Checkerberry Drive. I've lived there for 12 years. I do go in and out on Grafton's Mill is how I get out of the subdivision. I don't want to reiterate the traffic issue, but one other thing to consider there, in the evening traffic going into the subdivision off of Liberty Road up Grafton's Mill is directly into the sunlight, and we do park on the road there. And that even congests it even more to get even into the subdivision because it becomes a one lane at that point when cars park on both sides of the road. and with the sun directly into your eyes, it's a safety concern. A lot of children, it's a residential neighborhood with a lot of small children. I'm concerned for safety there. This is the first one of these meetings that I've been to. I'm a little bit out of the loop as far as why this subdivision, the new proposed subdivision, has a Woodward Lane address, but it's not going to allow access off of Woodward Lane. And to me, that seems like it. I understand now it's a private road, the Woodward Lane, but it would have been nice if they would have had another access there. A lot of homes in there, like the other folks have said, in our neighborhood. And it's just a lot of, it's hard to get it out of there. I'm a working guy like a lot of people there. I just want to get to work on it in a timely manner. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Kevin Frederick and then Samantha Frederick. No, not yet. I think that's Samantha Frederick. I'm Samantha Frederick, and I live at 716 Wilderness Road. And in addition to the traffic impact that was already discussed, we actually exit very close to the New Circle-Liberty Road intersection. And as you know, there's a bus garage down Liberty Road. So if you can imagine us trying to get out onto Liberty Road in the mornings for school or in the afternoons after work with about eight buses back to back, So, again, having possibly 90 cars onto that already congested area doesn't sound like a very good idea to me or the rest of the residents in this area. The other thing is several of my family members have lived there for the past 40 years. And we just thought that we would go knock on doors this past weekend and let people know that didn't seem to know in the Danby Corners area. And just so you know, we knocked on about 100 doors. We caught about 30 people at home, and every single one of them was opposed, except for two people that didn't want to sign because they were renters. And the other thing that we found interesting is there were several vacant houses. So I've been hearing a lot about the comprehensive plan and about infill and the importance of providing additional housing, but there's plenty of vacant housing in the area as it stands now. there was one person that we talked to that almost had tears in his eyes when we told him about the development because he's got two young children i think he maybe was from uganda he said his kids can't even play in the front yard as it stands with the traffic so he wasn't excited at all about additional traffic going through his neighborhood and most people aren't aware because it's a 500 foot distance that you have to be told so just about every single person that we talked to was it was news to them thankfully some of them are here today I don't know if this is redundant but we still have concerns about the gas line the pressure of the gas line and possibly the contamination I would be interested for you to look at that study in more detail to make sure that that has been resolved and then certainly I don't want to see this pass but if you do choose to do so I would ask that you make it a conditional use that they are limited to the amount of houses that they say that that they're going to build, and also, let's see, that you would restrict it to single-family housing. So those are two of the things. I think the last thing that I had on my notes was that I just wanted to make sure that there is not a construction entrance on Woodward any longer, and we're not a big fan on Wilderness Road of having the access to our street. There is a gate at the end of Wilderness Road between Wilderness and Woodward, and I think currently it still is supposed to be maintained as an emergency access. So the reason that we're opposed to that is because the purchaser of the land has already jumped the gun and had a cease and desist to stop grading before he got the permit, and he was using our street to go in and out of that area. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Kevin Frederick, did you want to speak? Okay, she spoke. Jimmy Eads, and then Margaret Eads. Thank you. My name is Jimmy Eats. I live at 703 Wilderness Road, and I'm also representing my mother. My mother had some property on Woodward Lane. I've lived on Wilderness for approximately 30 years, and I've been there since even when Columbia Gas had the propane plant on the property that you're wanting to develop. I think Columbia Gas decided that it became too dangerous to keep the propane tanks on the SID property because of the development that was going on at that time. So they decided to take the tanks out, and then they decided they were going to sell the property. And I think what they did is they gave it to or donated it to Habitat for Humanity, which may have been for tax purposes. That's my own opinion. And I think after that, the developer, who was also the, I'm pretty sure is the people that put the sewer line down Wilderness, bought the property. and then they started putting infield out of the sewer line ditch that run down through wilderness into the property, kind of smoothing it out and this and that. And I think at this time, I think they got another company where they're wanting to develop it now into low-income housing or housing. But if it was my kid or your kid or a young family, I'd say don't build there. I think the ground is still polluted, and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that 12-inch high-pressure gas main. Thank you. Thank you. Margaret Eads, did you want to speak or not? Okay. Miles Magne? And then we have John Arbarlow, and then I think the gentleman in the back of your right wants to speak, too, so we'll get him. Yes, sir. Miles Majar, 684 Grafton's Mill Lane. Two years ago, we bought the house. At 8 o'clock in the morning, I was sitting there waiting for the home inspector, and I almost backed out of the deal. The traffic and the speed that they drive are unbelievable. I've had heated conversations with drivers. I've had heated conversations with the police department to get them to come to shoot radar. They have never done it. They did put a box there that registers the speeds. I guess that was to appease me. My neighbor on Super Bowl Sunday had her garage and part of her house taken out by a drunk driver. They arrested him. He couldn't even get out of the car. I am a pessimist. So if you do go ahead with this redevelopment and putting the extra houses back to feed through Checkerberry, I would hope that you would have the developer fund and pay for a traffic light on Liberty and Grafton's Mill. There are many foreclosures still in our neighborhood. They definitely need to be sold and inhabited by owners and not house flippers and renters. I do not believe that this development will help our property values at all. I am new to this. I had just heard about it when the lady had come through the neighborhood on Sunday. And we originally had mentioned that there were two exits, but now they will all come through the Checkerberry area. And with the construction, if this does pass with the construction, the truck's going through, who is going to maintain our roads? Our roads, obviously, from the winter that we've had are in need of help and chuck holes to be patched and things like that. Will the developer take care of that? Will the Fayette County urban government take care of that? And I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. We prefer those to be called potholes and not chuck holes. I'm joking here. John Barlow. Evening to everyone. My name is Lieutenant Colonel Retired John Arriballo. My address is 701 Grafton's Mill Lane. One thing that has not been mentioned in reference traffic is that Grafton's Mill is the one and only entry and exit point into the entire subdivision. Building additional homes, having additional traffic in and out, as mentioned, is going to congest that area even more. There's a problem, not just with the speed, but also in the wintertime at that particular intersection of Grafton's Mill and Liberty with ice, snow, etc. And with the traffic combined, let alone additional traffic, we've had problems there during the winter. In the last five years, we've also had Starshoot Parkway that was constructed, or it goes through from Liberty Road over to the Hamburg Shopping Center. That's increased the amount of traffic that's on Liberty Road in addition to the construction within the last five years of the Liberty Elementary School. I believe in development. However, this area has been developed enough. There was a problem there at that area. In addition, when I was still stationed in Virginia, I wrote to the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, Division of Traffic and Safety, requesting that a traffic light be put at the intersection of Grafton's Mill and Liberty. It is on record. I never was acknowledged. My wife was still living there. I was concerned for her with the traffic. I also, after I retired and returned to Lexington, wrote again, was never acknowledged. So with those current situations, with the problems that you've heard this evening, we cannot have additional development. I thank you for your time. If you would give your name and your address, please. Yeah, my name is David Royce. I've got property at 691 and 687 Woodward Lane. And I've never been one to stand in the way of development. Progress is what we need. But I do have some evidence here. I've got the original plat for Woodward Lane. It shows that Woodward Lane is a private road. I also have two purchase orders from the city. when they bought an easement to go under my land at 687-691 to put in a sewer to hook up the gas company property. And I also have a letter from Ms. George, who's a senior attorney for the Lexington Urban County government, saying that I had the right to that road because it is a private road and everybody on Woodward Lane owns the road in front of their house. And if you all would like to buy the road, some property from us, I wouldn't mind at all having a traffic light at the end of Woodward Lane on the Liberty Road. If the urban county government would like to buy the property from everybody up through there and build us a real road, I'm sure we'd appreciate it. My mother lived there for 62 years. I lived there. I grew up there. I was born there. And it's always been a problem. There's always been wrecks at the end of Woodward Lane. Mr. Barber almost lost his life there, but that was 45 years ago. Had a side collision, and they pulled out. And I feel like the urban county government should have widened Woodward Lane a long time ago. But the fact is, you can do anything you want to on land you own. But on land you don't own, you have no access to Woodward Lane in any way, shape, form, or fashion because the papers prove that we own Woodward Lane. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wants to speak? I see none. At this time, I'll ask our planning staff if they would like to make additional comments. No, thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Okay. Since there is nobody that is... Yes, sir. Feel free to come here to keep it to three minutes. And your name and your address, please. My name is Larry McCaslin. I live at 605 Hugging Bear Drive. I'm currently the president of the Danby Corners Neighborhood Association. The only thing that I would want to add is, since we have on-street parking on Grafton's Mill Road, even for two cars to pass a lot of times, one car has to get behind a parked car and allow the other cars to come through. And I think what we have is a safety concern for emergency vehicles, for fire trucks and ambulances coming up through there. If we had a big fire, I just think it's going to deter the emergency vehicles from getting to where they need to go. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody who wants to surmise for the opponents? Seeing none, then I will ask the closing summation by the petitioner, please. You have an opportunity for rebuttal and then a close. Yes, sir. I have a couple of comments regarding about being consistent with the neighborhood. All the lot size that are proposed are similar lot size than all the neighbors around us. And regarding the density, as the planning staff mentioned, we are allowed between 36 and 83. We are proposing 45. We are on the lower side. So basically, we are on the low density portion. So we are consistent with the comprehensive plan. And also the comprehensive plan called for underutilized property to be developed. And this property has been specifically identified by the comprehensive plan as underutilized property. And talking about basically having this property as one access, basically this development will help in the future to have another access to Liberty Road. If you look at the east of the property, if this property developed east of our property, this is the only connection they will have again to Liberty Road. So this development will also set the path for future development to tie into Liberty Road, then they will have more than one access for this neighborhood. And speaking about emergencies, this development will have emergency access, dedicated access for emergency vehicle to come from this side and also for emergency vehicle to come on this side. So basically from emergency vehicles, they will add two accessibility to the resident. So this is we consider as an improvement as well. And speaking about traffic, A lot of neighbors mentioned 90 cars I just did the quick ADT traffic on Liberty Road As of 2011, there are 17,500 cars per day on Liberty Road Our development of 90 cars I mean, just math-wise, it's like a drop in the bucket Comparing to what's there on Liberty Road right now and regarding the low pressure or the high pressure gas line we met with Columbia Gas multiple of time on site they marked the property they marked for us the gas line and we met with them again and they said basically if the development should not have any impact as long as we are maintaining the cover on top of the pipe which is basically four feet as long as we have the cover on top of the pipe, it should not have any issues. We just lost our quorum. If you could give us a minute to get it back, please. Yeah, please continue. So... Is that all your testimony? At this point, the council will ask questions of the staff, petitioner, and opponent. Petitioner and opponent shall be entitled to rebut any new evidence brought up on the council questioning. The first person on the list is Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Mr. Saleh, if you don't mind, the gas situation. Do we have our engineers, have they been out there, looked at the site to determine that there was no safety issues? I'm not aware that that has been done. Ordinarily, let me back up. The gas company is one of the members of the Planning Commission's technical committee, and they review all development plans and subdivision plans that come before the Planning Commission every month. I cannot recall whether the gas company representative was present the month that this plan went through late last year. But ordinarily, when we have a high-pressure gas line and residential development is proposed in the vicinity, for about the last 15 years that I can recall, usually that entails a 50-foot wide easement to protect that facility from the encroachment from residential construction. So that would be generally my expectation for a high-pressure facility like that. Okay. My second question is the developer has proposed 45 units. if he was to come back and say, okay, I'm going to put in 30 single-family dwellings, I'm going to put in a couple of four-plexes or eight-plexes, would he have the ability to do so? Under the conditional zoning that's recommended by the Planning Commission, that would not be possible because they have limited not just the number of units but also to single-family residential development. So apartment buildings would not be possible under that recommendation. No four-plexes, duplexes, or anything like that? No, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Telly on that same, where did the Planning Commission limit the number of units? On the packet we have, it doesn't have any limit on the number of units. If you look at the very first sheet, recommendation of the Planning Commission, about two-thirds of the way down under number two. It says proposes to construct. That could change, correct, with a new development plan? Well, the recommendation from the Commission is that under the provisions of conditional zoning, the property may not be developed with more than 83 single-family residential units. So this plan proposes 45. They would need to amend it to have more than that, but they could not have duplexes or any apartment buildings as part of that development. But again, they're not conditioned to only have 45. They could come back and have additional. You're correct. I apologize. I may have mentioned 45, but it is a higher number. Okay. And then also talk to me about density. When was the last time this area was changed for density on the comp plan, the color? I know it's been here at least since I've been on council. Wow. I have to admit, I did not look at the previous conference of plans. That's fine. Again, the properties next door are R3 already. This is proposed to be R3 as well. On the private road issue, what is legal? What is the law department standing on this? Do they agree it's a private road? Because I heard you say there's public, and I can assure you there's no public access on this road, being the councilman on the area, and put in that sewer line. I can assure you this is a private road. You are correct. We've been in this battle. You are correct. We have a memo from the law department from 1997 that states exactly as you have stated. But the memo does say that the median area, the question, I guess, from traffic and parks at the time was about the median area between the two roads where Woodward Lane splits. and the law department opined in 1997 that it was the city's responsibility to maintain that grass area but they did conclude that it was a private street. So how do we get to that grass area if we don't own the road? Well, the private street still is allowed to be traversed by the general public. It's just not eligible for being improved or maintained by the government, obviously. And during the zone change hearing or during this hearing tonight, they mentioned some access gates. Yes. How will they be controlled? I believe that it would be a fairly simple control with probably chains and padlocks to where the emergency vehicles, whether they be fire or ambulance, would have the ability to step out of the vehicle, open them, and swing the gates open. That's my understanding. Mr. Helani or Mr. Carter. Is that something the Planning Commission, during the development plan process, will dictate? Probably more if this development is authorized to go forward. it would probably be a detail at the time of the final record plat. There probably would be notes on the plat to that effect. Okay. And then talk to me about conversations during the hearing, because as I read through the minutes, I see very little conversations about traffic. And we've heard a lot about traffic tonight. And ironically, the state Senate is meeting right now to discuss the state road plan. And in that state road plan, we requested the state to fund Phase 3 of Liberty Road, which would actually widen the road there at the entrance that everyone's been referring to tonight. And, you know, maybe this is a good sign. Maybe we'll get the funding and maybe be able to wide it, but we don't know yet. So why wasn't that addressed at the hearing from staff and anyone else talking about Liberty is a state road. It's not a city road. Also at that point is the convergence of the improved Liberty Road with the older Liberty Road creates a very dangerous situation. I don't see a lot in the minutes discussed about that from traffic engineering. I can't speak for traffic engineering, but I do know that this development only was about 25% of hitting the threshold for a traffic impact study. And it may have been that factor that... So there was no impact study done? No, not for this own chain. Okay. And then for the capacity assurance program, this will have to meet those standards for the capacity assurance. They're not grandfathered in this lot, correct? That's correct. For the sanitary sewer? That's correct. There could be no home construction until the capacity assurance program was met. And then, Mr. Hellini, on the construction traffic, where do you plan going through Grafton's Mill for construction traffic? Checkerberry. Well, Grafton's Mill to Checkerberry. So it'll go through the main entrance of the neighborhood. And what assurances have you all made, are you willing to make once we get in, if we get to that point, on traffic construction, on mud on the roads, on the time of day, those trucks? Because we have school buses that let kids on and off in the morning. We have school traffic, as it was alluded to, that do U-turns in this area that we've had to police from time to time. What assurances do we have that that traffic would not interfere with school traffic and work traffic in neighborhood during those peak hours? That's true. Regarding dirt and debris, I'm not allowed on public right away. A contractor has to clean it immediately. And regarding operation hours, if we can get with the neighbors and we can specify certain operation hours, say after 8.30 or after 9 or something like that, or during certain times. I mean if. Okay, and then you said there's still easements across the property for utilities? Yes, sir. And you are building around those easements, or have you got permission yet from those utilities to? The only utility companies that we talk a lot is the gas company. All the other utilities, we can relocate them. like say, electric, overhead electric, we can be relocated. After we establish the roadways and the lots, we can establish an alternative route for the easement. We can retire this easement and establish a new easement location for the gas, I mean, for the overhead electric, and also for the small service line of the gas. For the other ones, we have been working the site around them. But you have not had those conversations yet? the only conversation we had is that through the TRC with the utility companies, but no further detail of conversation until we go further in this development. All right, very good. My time's up. I'll chime back in, Chair, in a second. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me ask a couple questions. Bill, if you would, why are the two different zones of density in this property? Why, are there two different zoning categories? Yes. Generally, we have a longstanding tradition here of rezoning to the center line of adjacent streets. So this property has frontage along Woodward. It obviously now has no access to Woodward and can't access Woodward since it's private. But that was done many years ago just for simplicity of our zoning atlas and zoning maps so that we wouldn't have properties with one zoning and a different zoning of our roadways. So that's the only reason that the R1B to R3 portion of this change is in, is because it would take the zoning to the center line of that street. I see. So where is the R1B property? It's not clear on the map. If you could show me that and how that's... It's probably best if I put one of the pictures I had on the overhead. Oh, yeah, okay. The R1B portion is this very small area right here. This is R1B currently. And so if you zone to the center line of Woodward Lane, there's a very small portion, about a quarter of an acre, that has no net acreage but does have what's called gross acreage, acreage in the right-of-way. I saw that. Okay. And who owns that land? Good question. It seems as if from the Platts that the individual property owners along Woodward Lane own it, and then there is a private roadway type of easement across that. Okay. All right. Let me ask this question. I'm not sure whether to ask you or the developer, But how in the world, according to the Planning Commission, how in the world can you get 83 single-family residents on that property? I mean, that's the maximum, but how in the world would you do that? The only possibility would be through an attached housing, townhouse type of development. But that's not allowed. The R3 zone would permit it, but the conditional zoning would also permit it. but it doesn't say that it has to be detached. Okay, single family but attached. Yes, that's the only way you could get anywhere near that number. Okay, are there any plans for that? Ask the developer of that, Mr. Henning. No, sir. No plans. So everything's going to be detached, single family. Is that the plan? Yeah, single family, single resident. Single and detached, not attached. You mean attached garage? Well, no. Detached building, yes. Yes, okay. All right. I'm going to ask how wide is Checkerberry? Because that's obviously a major, that would be the major road. Checkerberry is the new standard roadway. I believe it's at least 36 feet of pavement. 36? At least. And how about Granton's Mill? Can we verify the 36? Actually, I'm wrong. It's 31 feet. 31. Yes. Okay. So that's really not wide enough to be a connector street. Is that correct, Bill? It is wide enough to be a local street. It would not qualify as a collector street. And how wide is Grafton's Mill? It is not on their plan since it's several properties removed. I believe that that is a collector width, but we can't verify it from the plan. But that would be a collector of this subdivision. Yes, sir. Would it not? Okay, real quickly, I'm running out of time. What's the address of Liberty Elementary? I've seen it, but I'm not sure what the address is. Is it on Liberty or is it on Crafton's Mill? It's on Liberty. It's on Liberty. Okay, thank you. And that's all I have. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. Bill, I just wanted to follow up with one of the questions. I think it may not be clear to people what the thresholds are for traffic impact. Can you explain a little bit about how the city or the planning commission, whoever determines whether an impact study is needed? Certainly. That is a provision in Article 6 of the zoning ordinance. The basic threshold is if a development or a proposal for rezoning is of a size to generate 100 or more new trips to and from the site, then under the zoning ordinance that requires that a traffic impact study be submitted in conjunction with the zone change and in essence be reviewed at the same time as the zone change is going through its review process with the Planning Commission. for single family housing single family detached housing that threshold of a hundred new trips is about 160 new homes different land uses have different generators apartments would be higher be closer to 200 where there's an apartment proposal but that is the threshold that absolutely requires a study be submitted thank you that's helpful thank you chair thank you councilman forward thank you mr chair so i'm looking at the overhead and am i clear to understand that the only proposed access to the developed site if the zone change was approved from liberty road would be south on to grafton mill Yes, sir. And then north, and then make a right turn on the Checkerberry? Is that correct? That's correct. This would be the only access all the time available to the subject property. As we've mentioned, there are other controlled accesses for emergency vehicles just on a sporadic basis, but this would be the daily in and out to this location. Another question. is this proposed development a new subdivision in itself help me bill in regards to the technical yes sir yes it would be a new subdivision that's correct okay a new subdivision that but its main access would be through a collector that is located within the boundaries of an existing subdivision. That is correct. Yes, sir. And there has not been a traffic impact study performed to this date because it's not been required per the letter of the law of the zoning ordinance. That's correct. Thank you so much, Bill. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Are there any further council questions? Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Stormwater drainage, which way does the stormwater flow? Do we have a topography map or can you just kind of point the way the land is contoured, will everything flow into that basin that's being developed in this zone change? Or are you going to utilize other drainage systems? Yes. Basically, there is a small ditch line that runs along this corner here. And what we are proposing, we're proposing to take all our drainage to tie to this basin. And there's an existing detention basin in this vicinity here that drain along that area to this people. So we are proposing to have a detention basin here. And basically, technically, this basin and that basin, they run into together with the storm sewers and ditch line and go that direction north, I guess. Okay, thank you. And I know you weren't required to do a traffic impact study, but did you do one in good faith working with the neighborhood? No, sir. Okay. All right. No further questions right now. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Seeing no further questions from Council Members, at this point I will close the hearing, and Council Members will vote to adopt fines and facts, and then we'll vote on an ordinance by roll call. Do I have anybody who has a motion on the fines and facts? Council Member? If we could motion to have a five-minute recess and then re-adjourn. We'll take at 620. We're going to take a, we'll adjourn until 620. Thanks. Okay, we'll come back from recess. And I think, Council Member Stenet, you have a motion. Thank you, Chair. I'll say a couple comments before I read my motion. I'm a big supporter of infill and development opportunities. I think every time we don't expand our urban service boundary and put more money into our PDR program, we're going to have issues that we'll need to address and encourage infill and redevelopment in our city. It's important. We need to make sure we do it every way possible. We also need to make sure it's fair to the neighborhoods as well, as well as the developer in those situations. I think this is a classic example of bad past planning. and poor timing. I think there's an opportunity down the road that could possibly exist that this would be a good location for some type of infant redevelopment, but today I don't feel like it's that day. So I move to adopt, to disapprove the zone change as follows. Number one, that the proposed zone change is premature because the proper facilities are not in place to serve the necessary development and traffic needs of the area. Number two, there is not enough information to determine that the infrastructure will address all public safety concerns as a result of the proposed zone change. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second by Council Member Scutchfield. Now, do we have any discussion on the motion? Chair, you may want to explain to the public, because the Planning Commission approved the zone change, what has to happen tonight. Actually, I'll let the Law Department do that. Since this recommendation came to you as an approval from the Planning Commission, you all have to have a majority vote, but that means a majority of your entire body, which is eight. So even though there are only ten of you here, in order to approve the motion and adopt the findings of fact that Mr. Senate just made, there would have to be a vote of eight. If there is not, then that motion would fail, and you all may entertain other motions if you wish. And could you say, because this kind of gets kind of convoluted on the motion, sometimes we have to make a double negative in this situation, if you vote for the motion. Actually, what you're doing right now is you are voting for findings of fact that would support disapproval. So if you vote yes for this motion, you're voting to disapprove the zone change with those findings of fact, more or less. Thank you. Mr. Farmer. I appreciate the motion and the couching of it, and I appreciate the law departments giving us the understanding. And normally I, as most here, would always be in favor for the reasons that Councilmember Stenet gave for pretty much all infill and redevelopment. But I think you reach a certain point of this is unbelievable the way that this would have to work. And I'm very supportive of the motion, and I hope that there are eight of us in agreement. Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilmember Kay. Thank you, Chair. I think Councilmember Stinnett kind of put his finger on what the issue is going to be for this council and for the Planning Commission going forward. So long as we don't want to expand into the urban service boundary, we're going to have issues of density. To my mind, although I think some legitimate questions have been raised, the fact of the placement of this particular development and the essentially minimum amount of housing given what they could have put in there, I don't see how, I guess I don't see how a better proposal could have been brought forward. I understand what the limitations are. But given that the proposal was approved by staff and received unanimous approval from those who voted on the commission, I would have to see kind of stronger reasons for voting to not approve. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Any other council members? Do we need to do a roll call on this? We do. Would you do a roll call, please, clerk? And remember, I guess remember what a yay vote means. A yes vote is going to be to disapprove. Thank you. Ms. Gutchfield. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Yes. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? No. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. Mr. Kay? No. Ms. Massadi? No. Mr. Myers? No. That passes six to four, but it doesn't pass because you need eight votes. Correct. So now, do we need a motion? Motion. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair. Before we read the findings of facts as presented by the Planning Commission, I make a motion to amend item 2A. I move to modify the conditional zoning restriction to state that the property to be developed with no more than 45 single-family residential units. Second. Second. So moved. We have a motion and a second by Council Member Myers. Do we have any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, can you take the vote, please? And I guess from the law department, could you tell us what... You're voting to change the, or to add a conditional use restriction. The one that was recommended by the Planning Commission was 83. The motion is to modify that, which you all can do, to a conditional zoning restriction that would limit single-family residential units to 45. So you're voting on that at this point, and then you can... Then we do a findings of fact after that, then? Or you can move to adopt the findings of fact from the Planning Commission and vote on the ordinance. Okay. Take the vote, please. Ms. Gutsville? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Yes. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. Mr. K Yes Ms. Massadi Yes And Mr. Myers Yes, ma'am Thank you That passes Now do I have any other motions? Second We have a motion and a second That's a motion for approval of findings or Findings, yeah Well, I guess approval of the planning commission's fine. You might want to clarify the motion just for the record that you're moving to approve the findings of fact from the planning commission. As amended to the. As amended with the conditional use restriction. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Council member standing or did you. Okay. Any council members? Seeing none, would you take a vote, please? Ms. Gutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? No, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Yes. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? I will stand. Mr. Ford? Yes. Mr. Kaye? Yes. Ms. Massadi? Yes. And Mr. Myers? Yes, ma'am. That passes 7-1. Is that sufficient? Law? The extension goes towards the affirmative. It does, and you also will then have to vote on the ordinance. On the ordinance. With the amended conditional use. Do I have a motion? Second. We have a motion and a second to vote on the ordinance as amended. Do we have any discussion? Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not to belabor this any further. I just have one question, and I may be a moment too late. Is it too late to add additional conditions? You just voted on the findings to support the ordinance. With an amended condition? With the amended condition that was already approved. I think that horse is out of the barn. I don't think so. Any further discussion? Do you need to do a new second reading now it's been amended? That's what we're checking. No. No, we're okay. There's not a second reading, a new one required, because the conditional zoning restrictions are mentioned, but the number's not specifically mentioned. I have a question, I guess. Could he not make a motion to reconsider at this point? Yes, he can do that. Mr. Ford, would you want to make that motion? I would, Mr. Chair, and I thank the council for its consideration. We don't do this all the time, of course, with zone change hearings. I make a motion to reconsider for the purpose of adding another condition to the finding of the fact. So move. We have a motion seconded by Council Member Myers. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I make a motion that as a, and I'll ask planning and legal staff to help. I'm still yet concerned about the traffic. and absent of having this opportunity to address it, I could have easily just voted against the zone change, but I'll take a chance at addressing the traffic. I would like to make a condition, an additional condition, is for the developer to conduct a traffic impact study. So moved. I think we need to ask Law if we can do that. And I would argue, thanks Mr. Chair, I would argue this condition is worth requesting if legally permissible. Second. We have a motion to second discussion, and I would ask the law department if that is a condition that we can put. I don't think that it is, because conditional zoning restrictions are limited to the use under the zone, and also buffering. and I'm not sure how that fills in either one of those spots. However, you know, issues of traffic will be discussed at the development plan stage as well. I'm not saying you can require that, but I'm saying it will be discussed again at the development plan stage. Thank you. Thank you, legal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As such, I'll withdraw my motion, But I'll also state that in practical sense, this just does not, from a traffic standpoint, I just do not see how this makes sense. And that will definitely impact my final vote on this zone change. Thanks again for the patience. Thank you. Would you withdraw your second? Okay. The second's been withdrawal. At this point, we'll go back to, and you say we do not need to do a new second reading. In that case, would you go ahead and take the vote as amended, please? And would you say what a yay vote and a nay vote is, please? If you vote yes, you're voting to approve the zone change based on the findings that were recommended by the Planning Commission with the conditional zoning restriction that you all earlier amended to 45 single-family residential units. If you vote no, you're voting against that. Thank you. Would you take the vote, please? Ms. Scotchfield? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes. Mr. Beard? Yes. Mr. Clark? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Abstain. Mr. Ford? No. Mr. Kaye? Yes. Ms. Massadi? Yes. And Mr. Myers? Yes. Thank you. That passes, and that ends this hearing. Motion to adjourn. Second. We have a motion to second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, we stand adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you. To Glenn and down The mountainside The summer's gone And all the roses It's you, it's you, must go, and I must bite.