The End ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ORCHESTRA PLAYS Mr. Hensley, here. Ms. Henson, Mr. K, Ms. Lamb, here. Mr. Maloney, here. Ms. Masati, here. Ms. Gutchfield? Here. Mr. Stinnett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Akers? Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? Here. Mr. James Bown? Here. Ms. Evans? Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. And Mr. Gibbs? Here. Thank you. All right. Clerk, will you give second reading to the ordinance, please? an ordinance changing the zone from an expansion area residential one ear one zone to an expansion area residential two ear two zone for 46.64 net 47.18 gross acres for property located at 1551 deer haven lane a portion of north 40 properties llc council district 12. thank you clerk we'll go ahead and begin the hearing i'll go ahead and swore swear in all the witnesses if anyone wishes to give testimony tonight please rise and do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true and to the best of your knowledge i do thank you all right at this point the plaintiff has agreed to a 30-minute time limit as long as that's okay with council members. The opposition, is that time limit okay with you? Those two that have stood up 30 minutes or less. Okay, thank you. I'll go over some of the basic ground rules for the hearing so that everyone understands the rules in which we go by. As presiding officer, I shall have the power to make evidentiary decisions to exclude irrelevant and repetitive testimony from the record. Council members, you may also inform me when you believe that there is irrelevant or repetitive testimony and I will issue a evidentiary ruling to exclude any or limit such testimony if I agree with you. The petitioner and organized opponents shall submit a witness list to the presiding officer at the beginning of the hearing or at such other time as the chair designates and we'll do that here in a second. All parties in favor of the zone change shall submit all printed materials to be tendered for admission into the evidence to council members, council clerk, and the Department of Law at the beginning of their presentation, and any opponents must do the same at the beginning of their presentation. Each witness who is identified on the witness list of the opposite side and who testifies shall be subject to cross-examination. Any witness called by the petitioner or opponents will stay in the public hearing so they may be questioned by the petitioner, opponent's attorney, or a member of the council later in the hearing. 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 into the record by the council clerk assigned to tape record the meeting. The tape of the meeting shall be verbatim without interruption. Architectural renderings of developments will not be permitted to be introduced into evidence at the council hearing for the reason that 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 the zone changes which show building footprints parking and other basic information may be accepted into evidence and then it'd be up to that point of council accepts any of those drawings and we will take a vote and put those into evidence now the order of the hearing first we'll begin with the planning staff presentation and then we'll proceed to the petitioner mr. Sally are you ready to go as counselors have any questions before we begin okay mr. Sally thank you thank you councilmember stent members of the council good evening as is required at the start of your public hearings on zone changes there are a number of items that I need to enter in the record for tonight's hearing they're all assembled here to my left first is the legal advertisement placed in the local newspaper advertising tonight's public hearing the next is an affidavit that I have signed regarding the mailed notices that were sent to all property owners within four pardon me 500 feet of this location and also to a number of property owners within 2,400 feet of this location and also the nearest registered neighborhood associations. I'd like to enter into the record the recommendation from the Urban County Planning Commission from their public hearing held last July. This was distributed to council members, and a few folks in the audience have it, and there are a few copies directly behind me on the counter for anyone that would like a copy of that. I'd like to enter under the record a copy of the 2013 comprehensive plan, which has been adopted by the Planning Commission, and also the 1996 Expansion Area Master Plan, which makes specific land use recommendations for the area involved with the property that you're considering this evening. I'd like to enter in copies of the current zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations in effect for the urban county. And then finally, two items, a PowerPoint presentation that I will present to you in just a few moments, and also a document entitled Staff Exhibits with tonight's MAR number on it. This has also been distributed to council members, and like the other item, there are additional copies behind me on the counter for anyone in the audience. I'd like to begin to orient you to the location of the subject property for tonight's hearing. The property has an address of 1551 Deerhaven Lane, a portion of. However, this property has no frontage along that roadway. Using the zoning map, it does have frontage along Polo Club Boulevard, which is to here on the map. It is directly north of an old railroad line that is now known as the Brighton East or Brighton Rails to Trails Project. That trailway crosses Polo Club at the southwestern corner of the subject property. This area for the zone change is about 46 to 47 acres, whether or not you include the right-of-way for the property, and has much more frontage along the trail, these two locations, than it does along Polo Club Boulevard. There's only one other street that currently stubs into the subject property, and that is Blackford Parkway, which stubs in here and extends further to the northwest off the map and eventually into an intersection with Manowar Boulevard, as is Polo Club Boulevard. I'd also like to show you some aerial photos of the subject property, again, to try and orient you to this area. This is a view of the same map we just reviewed and an aerial photo of the property. As you can see, there is some residential development in the immediate area. Immediately to the south is a property that is owned by the urban county government and was purchased over 15 years ago for a future park. and you can see in the lower right-hand portion of this picture where Deerhaven Lane and Walnut Grove Lane end. That road used to connect through there, and part of the public improvements in this area when this property was purchased was to truncate or interdict that roadway. This is an oblique view of the same property. It's outlined in red. It shows very well the trail and the interdiction in the bottom part of the photo. You can see a portion of the Blackford residential development immediately to the north of the subject property and its orientation to Blackford Parkway. Blackford Parkway is one of the planned roads that was done during the master planning effort for this part of the what's called expansion area that was done in 1996. it is an exacted roadway, meaning exaction fees have been collected to help pay for that roadway ultimately. The Clark property is outlined in red, as is an area just to the north and east of it that is part of Unit 4, and I'll present to you a little later the development plan that's been filed for this area. Just a view of the subject property as seen from Polo Club Boulevard. This was back in July. And this is the rail trail, very near its intersection, or pardon me, its crossing with Polo Club Boulevard. It is tree-lined, as it, again, used to be a rail line, active rail line, and is now a paved facility that both bikers and joggers and walkers frequent. Here's a view of that same crossing across Polo Club. Subject property is to the right in the slide. and this is a view on Polo Club looking to the right where the subject property is located and at further development of the Clark property in the distance. This is looking in the direction one would travel toward Manowar Boulevard, so this would be looking northwest. This is a view looking the opposite direction, and the subject property here is on the left-hand side of the slide looking in front of the treed area. Again, another aerial photo of the subject property. The planning staff, as we always do, looks to the comprehensive plan recommendations when making our staff report and recommendation for the planning commission about a particular zone change. We did so in this case as well, and we looked at the 2013 comprehensive plan. Generally, the comprehensive plan no longer has a very detailed map element, but obviously it does promote infill and redevelopment and approving greater residential density in locations that are appropriate. As I mentioned, though, earlier, there was a master planning effort done for all of the 5,400-acre expansion area approved as the last major expansion to our urban service area almost 20 years ago. The map for that area is shown on this exhibit. This is called Expansion Area 2A. It was one of five expansion areas that had similar plans made for it. The subject property on this plan, again, this is the rail line that is now the trail here. It's crossing here of the interstate and approximately here of Polo Club Boulevard. So the subject property for the zone change is in this area right here. And it was recommended for a combination of Expansion Area 2 and Expansion Area Residential 1 land use. Expansion Area Residential 1 land use was defined as residential development of any type, apartment, townhouse, single family, but at a density not to exceed three units per acre. Expansion Area Residential 2 land use was, if you will, the next step up in residential density. It was planned for development of between three and six dwelling units per acre. So the subject property has some EAR1 recommended land and some EAR2 recommended land. The original zoning that was approved in 2003 for the subject property closely matched that depiction of the expansion area plan. There is, if you will, one unusual item about the plan's recommendation involving the subject property. The conservation area that you see here just to the north of the railroad line, the rail to trail. Conservation land use was intended to be land that was covered by the EXACTION program that could be acquired for future parkland. And a portion of this area was acquired for that purpose, about right here. However, the majority of it was acquired to the south of the rail line. So one of the issues in 2003 was what should the zoning be for that area that was not acquired by the urban county government for parkland. In 2003, it was rezoned to EAR1 zoning. I have a few other exhibits, some of which I've handed out to you, that can help explain the staff's review of this in light of the comprehensive plan. We'll put these on the overhead. the first one is this same map just with a little additional information added to it This is expansion area 2A, and I've identified the subject property here. But this includes much more land than just the 46 acres that you were reviewing this evening. This is the entire Clark property that was rezoned in 2003. And the basic issue from the staff's perspective with this zone change tonight is how do you interpret the expansion area master plan in terms of residential density for the subject property? And these two exhibits show two different ways that that can be interpreted. This exhibit shows it being interpreted as the minimum and maximum density that is recommended by the expansion area master plan, which is still in effect for the entirety of the Clark property. And you can see on this exhibit that is 403 to 953 dwelling units. And that does include the conservation area that I mentioned that was not acquired, that, again, land was further south. Excellent. Another way that this could be interpreted is that each land use category has a separate recommendation for this property. And a way to interpret that would be that this area should be for 403 to 806 dwelling units, 3 to 6 units per acre, and this area be up to 3 dwelling units per acre, or a total of 146 for that portion of the property. These two ways to look at the comp plan, I don't ordinarily go into this level of detail with the council. in my estimation identifies the basic issue that's before you this evening. After hearing the Planning Commission public hearing, those in favor of the zone change view the interpretation one way, those opposed view it differently. Two other maps that I'd like to show you from the Expansion Area Master Plan are this land that was acquired for the park. Most of it was recommended for residential use. So the park location shifted a little bit with the acquisition of what was the King property, most of it being to the south of the former rail line. So that has impacts as well. And then the last map is important. This is expansion area 2A. The one we just looked at was 2B. So these are three of the five expansion areas. The staff wondered if this issue had ever arisen before since the expansion area plan was adopted in 1996. And this is on the board because in one instance, it did manifest itself in very similar circumstances. In 1999, the entire guest property, which most people know as the Childsburg subdivision, was brought in for rezoning to EAR1 and EAR2, Expansion Area 1 and Expansion Area 2 residential. However, the developer desired more EAR2 zoning than was depicted on the Expansion Area Plan. The main difference was the roadway location shifted, which was the land use boundary, from a hilltop to a low area near the creek, where it ultimately was developed. So they wanted more land in EAR2 and less in EAR1. In looking at the records, the staff and the Planning Commission did interpret the plan for that property in its entirety. And so you can see there the plan had recommended over 1,100 units up to 3,300 units for that. where some 2,700 units were approved. So this was an important fact in the staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission. We did find precedentially that this had been done once before, basically what the petitioner was requesting, to have an entire property reviewed for density. And this is significant because a section of the zoning ordinance, although the ER1 zone doesn't say has to be all single family or townhouse, it can be apartment, it does not allow the density to be shifted, and that is the ultimate issue with why they've made this application for this 46 acres this evening. The Planning Commission heard not just from the staff at their public hearing in July, they heard from the applicant, and they heard neighborhood objections that were voiced at their public hearing. At the conclusion of their public hearing, they voted 7-2 to recommend approval of this zone change to you. I think it's fair to say the two members who voted against were viewing the comp plan issue that I've reviewed with you tonight in general. I don't think it may be with the specificity that I tried to bring to you, but my belief is that was their main objection to the zone change. The Planning Commission approved it 7 to 2 for these findings. The requested zone change is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan and in substantial agreement with the more detailed recommendations of the 1996 expansion area master plan for seven reasons. The first, the 2013 plan recommends increased residential densities in appropriate locations within the existing urban service area, and it was found that this development is consistent with this plan theme. Secondly, the Clark property in its entirety is recommended for between 403 and 953 residential dwelling units. Thirdly, because the petitioner proposes to average residential density across the entire development, Article 23A2M of the zoning ordinance requires that the land be located within the same zoning category. Fourth, across the entire Clark property, a total of 879 dwelling units are now proposed, which remains in agreement with the EAMP since up to 953 dwelling units are recommended. Fifth, the petitioner intends to develop 403 to 807 units on the proposed Expansion Area Residential 2 portion of the property, which is at a density of 3 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre. Number six and seven relate to the development plan that I'll present to you in just a moment. But number six is that the greenway recommended by the EAMP is proposed on the corollary development plan as was recommended by the expansion area plan. And number seven, the park road, which is also known as Blackford Parkway, is proposed to be extended through the property as recommended by the expansion area master plan. as is the Planning Commission's routine when they hold a zone change public hearing. They also consider the proposed development plan that's been filed, and we do have that exhibit here. This plan proposes 356 residential building lots on the area that is part of the zone change, which includes about two-thirds of this property and the northwestern portion that is already zoned EAR2. The typical lot size proposed is 40 feet by 115 feet in depth. Blackford Parkway is proposed to extend from its current terminus through the subject property and intersect with Polo Club Boulevard to the north of the trail crossing that we saw in the diagram. They are proposing a boulevard type of setting with medians and sidewalks, of course, on both sides of the street. The other item that I mentioned in the findings was a greenway. There is a drainage area through here, and this area is recommended by the expansion area plan for a greenway treatment, and they have extended it through this portion of the property, which was part of the conservation area originally recommended by the expansion area master plan. Also, this development plan does propose linkages at three locations, one, two, three. to the rail trail, so future residents of this area will have fairly easy access to the trail and to the parkland that is owned by the Urban County Government. The roadway will be built in such a fashion where access to the park will be permitted from Blackford Parkway at its northernmost point. This development plan was certified two weeks after the Planning Commission's hearing so that the recommendation could be forwarded on to the council. That concludes my prepared remarks, council members. Thank you very much, as always, for your kind attention. And as you know, I will be available for questions that you may have later in the hearing. Thank you. Mr. Salley, thank you. Next, we'll have the presentation of the petitioner. And if you'll tender to me, Mr. Murphy, your witness list. Okay, Kirk, you have it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be representing North 40 Properties, which is the applicant in this zone change request. Rory Cayley, who's landscape architect with EA Partners, is handing out some of our exhibits, which include some excerpts I prepared from the Comprehensive Plan and the Expansionary Master Plan and also a cross-section of our proposal for Blackford Parkway. I have also introduced into the record the affidavit we're required that we posted the sign that's required for notification. I've given that to the clerk already, Mr. Chair. I want to note also that we prepared notification letters that have to go out to the notification area that Mr. Selle mentioned. We sent letters to 137 properties. 137 properties got letters and notifying them of our hearing. and the clerk's office also prepared the legal advertisement, which went in the newspaper. So we have the sign on the property, 137 letters, and the legal ad, which complies with the required notification procedures for a zone change request. As I said, I do represent North 40 Properties. North 40 Properties is a family-owned company. It's owned by Marion Clark, who's on the front row with me today, and her sister, Sarah, and Marion's children. Also on the front row of the property is Donald Cowan, who is Marion's husband. And on the second row with me is Ralph Rochelle, who is the development manager for North 40 Properties. And, of course, Rory Cayley, who is with EA Partners, our engineering and landscape architecture firm. Mr. Cayley, Mr. Rochelle, and I are honored to have been working with the Clark family for over 15 years on this development. We have, this has been developing for 15 years in this community, and you may not have heard of it. It's sort of under the radar. We do it according to plan, according to the expansion area master plan, and we go by the home place. So if you talk to somebody who lives in one of the houses in our subdivision, they will say they live in the home place. They won't say they live on Clark property, which is the technical name of the property here. The name we go by is the home place. As an overview, we're asking for a zone change from the EAR1 zone to the EAR2 zone for about 47 acres of land. This development plan, this is our development plan we had to submit with the application, and I'm sorry it's behind some of you all. I hope your necks don't get too tired looking at this, but the point I want to make about the development plan is part of this is already in the EAR2 zone because it's an integrated development. We show on this development plan a larger land area than the part we're requesting. The current zone boundary starts about here on what's the Blackford property, the neighboring property developed by Ball Homes, and comes through the property something like this. So the part on the left is already zoned EAR2. The part on the right is what we're asking for EAR2. It's zoned EAR1 right now. Why are we asking for this? We're asking for it because in the expansion area, this is the expansion area, which is treated a little different from all the other parts of Lexington. It's the part that was added to the urban service area in 1996, 19 years ago. It's the first part of our community where in developing residential, you had to meet minimum density requirements, not just maximum. You had a floor level and you had a ceiling level of density. We tried to go right sort of in between the minimum and the maximum that were required. As Mr. Selle mentioned to you, we're somewhere between 403 and 953 units, not just on this property, but the other portions of the property, which some of them are up to the left here, which have already been developed. We've been developing at less density than we were approved for. And there's a couple reasons for that. One is on our property, the EAR2 property, we have a lot of green areas, a lot of green space, greenways, which cannot be developed. So that takes away some of the acreage we're allowed to use. And it's not just here. You can see up on the property we've developed. There is a greenway up there. There are others around the property. So that has taken away our density in the EAR2 spaces. The other part is we're doing single-family detached. That has been very popular out there, and the development so far has been single-family detached on the Clark property. So that comes in at a little lesser density than we would be allowed. What we're asking for tonight is to be allowed to continue to develop our property the way we have been developing it in the EAR2 zone. If you're familiar with the property, I'll show you a few pictures. We want to continue developing it in the way we have been. We have a diversity of residents out there, diversity of housing types, and we just want to be able to continue to do this on the property to the east. The thing I want to emphasize to you, as Mr. Selle mentioned, we were allowed a maximum density of 953 units on the Clark property overall. This zone change tonight will not increase that maximum by a single unit. We will still be under the maximum we agreed to in 2003 when we got our zone change. It's just going to be arranged a little bit differently because, as I said, we're coming in lower density than we thought we would on the EAR2 portions. as Mr. Selle mentioned we have an address on Deerhaven Lane but we do not touch Deerhaven Lane this is part of the Clark Farm the closest Deerhaven Lane on this map is running right through here the closest we are is about 200 feet from Deerhaven Lane and we are as I said the park excuse me, as Mr. Silley mentioned, the Park Road, which was originally planned to come in on this line, has actually come in farther to the east and has been developed north of us by Ball Homes. The Clark family has built Polo Club Boulevard through here, through the exaction fee system. There's about 1.2 miles that the Clark family built themselves, paid for themselves. They do get exaction credits for it, but the way the system is worked out, it cost the urban county government nothing for them to build that. It was paid for by the Clark family. I have a few photographs in here, and we wanted to show you. And I'm just going to put the numbers on the back. We can focus on that. We just wanted to show you a few things. We have a broad range of residents who live out here. We have people who build their first home here. We have people who this is their second home and they want to live here the rest of their life. We have people who have retired and want to move back here. We have people who like living near Hamburg. We have people who like living near the interstates. We have people who they have especially sales jobs throughout eastern, northern, southern Kentucky. They love living here because of the access to the interstates. This first picture, I wanted to make a point about the greenways. This is one of the greenways on an existing part of the Clark property. So far, we have 38 acres of greenways in here, 38 acres. And those are areas where nothing can be built upon. They may remain green. They're used for stormwater, partially for cleaning stormwater. They're used for trails. Some of them link up to the Brighton Trail here. And I would point out that on those 38 acres we have so far, we're going to have more than that. We still have to account for our exaction fees. Each of those 38 acres of greenway that we cannot build upon is responsible for $36,000 of exaction fees, $36,000 per acre of exaction fees. And we're responsible, the Clarks are responsible for that, for every acre they own, whether it's greenway or whether it's developed. When I first started doing this, developing the land didn't cost $36,000 an acre. We're at a point now, exaction fees they're responsible to this government for are $36,000 per acre out there. And not many people know that because the system is very quietly working very well. And the developers out there have cooperated, and it works real well. This is one of our green ways. If you go to the second picture, we're showing we have a lot of tree preservation areas on here. We're just showing this is an area that's going to be built up, but the trees remain behind it, as I want to point out to you. Next is Polo Club Boulevard. Just to point out, this is part of the 1.2 miles of Polo Club Boulevard that the Clark family has built. Every square inch of asphalt and concrete you see was paid for by the Clark family. It was originally built as a four-lane boulevard. The traffic engineering division has recently re-striped it to the complete streets model, where you can see we have a turn lane, one through lane on this side. We have a bike lane here, a parking lane, and we have the sidewalk over here on it. Next picture, I think I'm showing you that that is indeed a bike lane on Polo Club Boulevard. The next photograph, we have a few examples of houses we've built in our existing subdivision, which is just up to the west and north of this. As I said, we have a range. Our houses range probably in sales price from $170,000 to $270,000. This photograph shows some of the houses that have been built a variety of styles. The Clark family does not build houses. They sell lots to builders. This is one of the few subdivisions in Lexington where independent builders can build lots. It's important to the independent builders. The subdivision right to the north of us is being done by Ball Homes. they build their own, that's fine. We don't do it that way. The Clark family doesn't build their own houses. They have independent builders. And with the result of that, we have a variety of architectural styles in our subdivision. If you could show the next picture, this shows some of their houses. It shows the green area behind them. We want to get that tree area in there. The next picture, we have smaller houses, one-story floor plan houses, such as this one. Going to the next picture, we have other models on, this is, I thought, a pretty creative design by the builder on that for a house on a smaller size lot, if you can go to the next one. Again, another creative house we have, these are smaller lots, as it's called for in the expansion area. The lot sizes go down to 40 feet, and we have very creative builders who do very good houses and selling for good prices out there. And it's a community that's very popular with our residents out there. If you can go to the next one, just have a couple more shots. Well, we go on to the greenway. This is the Brighton Trail. This property was formerly the railroad bed. It was, much of it was on easements that the railroad had, obtained from the Clark family 100 years ago. and as the railroad left, that property reverted to the Clark family. They dedicated that over to the urban county government. The urban county government has built this wonderful feature out there and if you haven't been on it, I hope you will, especially as the leaves turn. It's absolutely beautiful. It's very popular here. We've got a shot here with nobody on it. That's one of the few times. If you go to the next picture, we just have another shot of the trail and if you go to the next one too, we have this is where it crosses Polo Club Boulevard. Mr. Sally had a similar picture of that. Next we're going to, this is just to remind me, we're going off our property on Bay Springs Drive. Bay Springs Drive is located to the north of us. And I took some pictures to show you that what we're proposing on our property is going to be exactly compatible was what is north of us on the Blackford property or Ball Homes property. And I'm going to take the microphone over here and flip this over here. We have a, oops, I'm sorry. That didn't get on you, did it? There's a pin. Okay. Didn't stab you. Sorry about that. I'm going to flip this over here. And EA Partners did us an aerial exhibit that shows, again, this is our property here. We've shown the zone change request property. Here is the Brighton Trail. Here is Polo Club Boulevard up here. Here is Deerhaven Lane coming down here. And here is the street. I'm going to tell you, this is not part of the Clark development. It's called the Blackford property. It's north of us. If you could show a couple pictures on there of the properties. As you'll see, these houses, my point is that they're very similar to the pictures of the houses I just showed you. Again, another one. These are a little darker. I'm sorry it's not showing up as well. This is street frontage on Bay Springs Park. Again, it's very similar to the houses we're building. Those are already north of us, between us and Greenbrier Subdivision. If you could go on to the next one. Again, another street scene on Bay Springs Park. Another one. And again, I'm showing this just to show you that these are the same type of houses we have. And then I wanted to show you the interdiction. This is the interdiction of Deerhaven Lane, which runs right here. It breaks right here near the rail trail. As you all know, it used to be Walnut Hill-Charlesburg Road. the north part is now Walnut Grove Lane the south part is now Deerhaven Lane and the two shall never meet again because they've been interdicted and if you could show a couple pictures of the interdiction there well that's our property go back one bill again if you would I wanted to make a point about our property or one more from that go back one more from that if you would Our property, the Clark property, not part of this zone change, but near it, is on the left. This is the east side of Deerhaven Lane. Our property is on the left over here. Under the expansionary master plan, we have a 200-foot setback along Deerhaven Lane, which cannot be built upon, cannot be developed. We've retained the very extensive screening along Deerhaven Lane, which screens us from Deerhaven Lane. So go on, Bill. I'm sorry to go on there, go on to the next one. And this, our property on this one is on the right side. This is the other, looking the other way on Deerhaven Lane. This is our screening along Deerhaven Lane. And Bill, if you'd go on to the next one, this is the interdiction and the point I'm making here. You see these boulders here, and that is, I assume they were put there to prevent people in SUVs SUVs from driving over and getting from Deerhaven Lane to Walnut Grove Lane. The point is here, you can't get there from here because of these boulders. And the next picture, the last picture we have is the, you can see the boulders and gates and all that sort of thing around there. The Walnut Grove Lane is just on the other side of those trees, real nearby, but you can't get a car. You can get your bicycle, but you can't get a car from one to the other. And the reason I showed that is because I know there was some discussion at the Planning Commission among people from Greenbrier about the proximity of this property and whether it had an impact upon Greenbrier. On this aerial photograph, here is Winchester Road. Greenbrier is down here. There is a body of water down there. This is the Blackford property. and you can see the EA Partners has drawn in. If you can see it down here along our little neck of property, they have put in with white lines lots that have been approved but not yet built upon by the Ball Homes development. So all along our northern boundary here are lots that have been approved through preliminary subdivision plats similar to ours, similar to what we're going to have on our property. And the Bay Springs place is right there. those houses have already been built. So between our property and Greenbrier is the Blackford property, which is already being developed in the matter which I showed you on the pictures. That's not, and most of their entire property has been approved on preliminary plans. You probably can't see it from where you're sitting, but there's lines on there showing the lot lines on here. Now from this point, the closest point by road from us to Greenbrier here, It's such a, this is a 400 foot scale. That's about 2,200 feet, about two-fifths of a mile from here to there as the crow flies. Now, as you drive here from Greenbrier, though, it's about three miles. To get there by car, the closest way is about three miles. You have to drive up from our closest point where we're going to be constructing Blackford Parkway. You go up Blackford Parkway. You get up to Manowar. you've got to turn right, you've got to go up to Winchester Road, you've got to turn right, and then you get in there. And that's about three miles from this point by the road system over to Greenbrier. And I think I may have done the road system wrong, but it's about three miles. Similarly, I know Mr. and Mrs. Booth are here who have objected to many of the developments in this area. They live south of the interdiction. Our traffic does go south. You can't drive from this property up to Greenbrier because you can't get to Wallet Grove Lane. You have to go to Deerhaven Lane. The booths who are here are about here. They're about 500 feet at the closest point. But again, we have the groves screening between us. And to drive there from here, it's about 2.2 miles eventually because you have to go down Deerhaven Lane, turn on Polo Club, come up Polo Club, cross the trail, go back through. And to drive it, once these roads are built, it'll be about 2.2 miles on this property. I don't think we have anybody here tonight objecting to us who lives in our subdivision. And Clarks have probably built, what, 400 or 500 houses, not built houses, but sold 400 or 500 lots which have been built upon. And I don't think we have anybody here tonight who lives in our subdivision who's objecting to this. And we're very proud of that. The 2003 zone change, as I mentioned to you, is where we agreed to the density limitations on this overall property. And in that, we had to stay between, I think, 405 and 953 units. As I mentioned to you before, we are staying with that density. We're not adding a single unit above the maximum that we're allowed. We are not, as you are in some of the zones in the old area, as opposed to the expansion area, you can average densities. We can't do that here. so in order to be able to shift our densities around slightly, we need to get this zone change. We will still be coming in on this property at about 4.7, 4.8 units an acre, so we're still well below the 6 units per acre figure for EAR2. As I said, I think this is appropriate for this property because the property surrounding us to the north is being developed in a manner similar to what we're proposing. When the original plan was adopted back in 1996, I'll move this panel again, And the boundary between the EAR1 and EAR2 zones was right here because that was where the Blackford Parkway was coming in. When the developer to the north developed, Blackford Parkway was moved down here. That has been a change since the 19-year-old plan was adopted coming down here. Our zone line now bisects this property coming down here. we're asking us to develop this in a consistent manner, consistent with the way we have been developing in the past. As I said, our lot sizes are comfortable. Sorry about that. It's the Ball Homes development, which is next to us to the north. And the properties north of us here, our median width of those is about 40 feet on the Blackford property to the north of us. We agree with the Comprehensive Plan. As Mr. Silley mentioned, I put a little short little handout to you, two pages of excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan. And as you know, the Expansion Area Master Plan is part of the Comprehensive Plan. It was adopted in 1996. And I'm not going to put you to sleep by reading all these things. I'm already successful enough in doing that. But I'll try to keep you awake a little bit here. I want to emphasize to you that in the expansion area, they do emphasize modes of transportation other than the private automobile, which we certainly do with the Brighton Trail and the trails that feed into it, bicycles and walking and jogging. We need flexibility to have density in the expansion area plan. We should have neighborhood and community facilities to serve the residents. which we do with the Brighton Trail and our greenways. Principle four, we should have a minimum gross density, which we are doing, and we are attempting to keep that. The rural character of roads should be maintained. Deerhaven Lane has kept its rural character, as you saw from the pictures. Last two relate to fiscal impact, especially the bottom one. Development in the expansion area should bear a fair share of the costs of public facilities necessary to serve that development. The expansion area was designed so that it wouldn't cost this government anything with the exaction fees that are required through these. Every time we close a lot in this subdivision, an exaction fee is paid to the government, some by credit, some by cold hard cash on this. These improvements, which I mentioned to you, the Polo Club Boulevard, the greenways, have not cost the government anything. the government did pay for the paving of the Brighton Trail. That's been a wonderful community-wide facility on this. In the 2013 comprehensive plan on page two, I'm not going to, again, all these goals and objectives support what we're doing, but I'm not going to read them all to you. But the overriding feature of the 2013 plan was to support infill and redevelopment in the urban service area as a strategic component of our growth in this community. And the last one is to encourage compact, contiguous, and mixed-use sustainable development within the urban service area as guided by market demand to accommodate future growth needs. And we're certainly doing that. Just want to mention a couple, or one development plan consideration. We handed out to you a streetscape along Blackford Parkway. We hope you have it in front of you. It's the colored one, about 11 by 17. We're not required to do that, but we came in with our development plan to tell the planning commission that we wanted to go over and above the requirements on Blackford Parkway, which comes right down there and will be coming through our property. and instead of just doing a collector street, which is required, regular old collector street, we're doing a boulevard with a median and a bike lane and a sidewalk, as you can see on that plan. I'm going to conclude right now. I want to emphasize that granting of this zone change will allow us to continue to develop the Clark property or the home place in the way we have done it. And we're very proud of the development that has come in there. We're very proud of our residents, and we think our residents are proud to live there as well. We will not increase density at all over what was approved 12 years ago. It's just going to allow us to increase the minimum a little bit, as Mr. Silley and I have mentioned to you. I do want to emphasize too that any zone change goes through a number of levels of review. We were found to be in agreement with the comprehensive plan, first of all. Second of all, your professional planning staff recommended approval of this. Third of all, it went through the zoning committee of the Planning Commission, which recommended approval. And fourth of all, it went through the Planning Commission itself, which recommended approval. There was some discussion about whether this should have been postponed because of people in an area away from us didn't get noticed. One of the members who voted against us said that he didn't have anything against our development, but just thought that the notification issue ought to be discussed. So we have a plan that agrees with the comp plan. Your staff and your planning commission have all recommended approval of it. and it's not just something that we're showing you on paper. This subdivision has been developing for 15 years, and you can see what's out there. You can see the variety of house styles that we have. You can see the creativeness that the independent builders in this community have put into building houses on smaller lots, and you can see the number of people who live here, and we can tell you that the residents come here with a number of different life goals and lifestyles and find this a very good place to live. And we thank you very much for your attention and we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. We have other people here and for time-wise, I'm not going to call them up, but Rory Cayley, Ralph Ruschel, Mary and Clark are all here and could answer any questions you have too. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Next, we'll have a presentation of the opponents, and I don't think there's any formal representation by an attorney or one spokesperson. I think there's a number of people signed up on our list, so we'll take them individually if that's okay. And our normal time frame is three minutes for individual comment, but if you need additional time, we can definitely grant that to you as well as needed. First on my list, I know you're standing there. Are you Mr. Booth? Oh, no, sir. I'm sorry. I'm Steve Richter. I'm sorry. Okay, Steve Richter, you're actually first. I wasn't sure. You're first, Mr. Richter. Steve Richter was first on our list. My name is Steve Richter. I'm representing the Greenbrier neighborhood, which has been referenced several times. Who gives us your address for the record? Oh, 3660 Cayman Lane. Thank you, sir. Is three minutes okay, or do you need a little bit longer? Is three minutes okay, or do you need... I'll try to get it within three minutes. Okay. Okay. Greenbrier has been mentioned. We are up here in this portion, and the area is down here. Our concerns when this was presented is that the address was on Deer Haven, which has been mentioned is down here. And so several of our residents attended the Planning Commission meeting asking for a post-fundment to clarify the situation. I don't understand and no one has sought to explain why the property in white, which is hundreds if not thousands of feet from this Deerhaven address, would be presented as being on Deerhaven. Now, I personally drove along Deerhaven. I drove along Walnut Grove. I drove along Polo Club trying to find the sign to get some information about this. I actually did pass the sign on Polo Club, but it was so far from Deerhaven. I didn't recognize that it was the property that was in question. But basically, we have petitions. Do I give you the petitions, ma'am? Yes, if you'll give them to our clerk. Thank you. We have about three dozen people. I counted 37, but maybe I didn't count so good, who are opposed to the zoning change. We feel that we're not anti-development. We feel like the ER1 development is appropriate for this area. There are a number of reasons. Why should we engage in high-density development at the perimeter of our county? You know, when you talk about high-density development, you're generally talking about more affordable housing. Is it really more affordable for someone to be located at the perimeter of our county where they have a lengthy commute and have to pay for an automobile, pay for gasoline, so on and so forth, and contributing to the road. Those of us who live east of I-75 oftentimes feel like we're in a separate time zone from Lexington. We really do feel like we are in a rural area, And it is very disturbing to think that high-density development would be taking place in terms of fire protection. There are two firehouses that are located east of I-75. Let me see if I can locate them. Engine company number 17 would be about here. And then there is an engine company at the depot, at the Bluegrass Depot. And so there are a total of three pumpers that are east of I-75. Okay. The interstates, they're a blessing. They're a curse. When the interstates don't work, we're isolated from the rest of Lexington. So my primary concern is the inability of the fire department to respond to a fire. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, sir. Next on the list we have David Booth. My name is David Booth, 1940 Deer Haven Lane. You had some nice pictures of my property. Thank you. I'm actually on Deer Haven Lane. I am the closest piece of property to this. Me and my neighbor would be the two closest people. And we're agricultural rural. Okay, so when he says I'm 500 feet from the development, agricultural rural is 500 feet from this development. When the EMP was laid out, specifically they talked about buffer zones. That's why they put EAR1 here. This is the buffer between higher density development. Then we go to EAR1. As you step across Walnut Hill, Charlesburg, the parts that were in expansion area 2A that did get developed, those are EAR1 with scenic resource overlay. They are three houses per five acres, so it's a transition. To skip that transition, to go bring EAR2 right up to the edge agricultural world, the park is still zoned AR. So it is the buffer of agricultural world. I am directly across the street from the park, as are four other people, and the rest of the expansion of the urban service area ends at the park. Beyond that is agricultural rural. So we have a piece of property in front of us that is two-thirds of it per the expansionary master plan, which I was involved with in 1996, as was my wife. I have a record letter from here. We were all here in 96. We have this entire area was set up for EIR 1. Two-thirds of it was. Suddenly we're going to say, well, you know, we didn't quite develop our other property quite dense enough, so we're going to go there. We're going to now give them more here on the edge of the property to allow it to go to ER2. My real objection is that road that was drawn in, the park road, was to be the divider. That road goes through here. I understand it moved. That's something we know it's not cast in stone. It moves. I don't understand why that road does not remain the boundary. to suddenly throw that all the DAR2 opens the entire area to the north and west to be rezoned to AR2. That was the boundary. That's what stopped it. That was the whole point. That was a clear, nicely drawn line. If you look at it in the AR2 maps, if you look at it in the oblique view, all of that property, while it may have a zoning plan up there or a plan, a development plan up there. That development plan was placed four years ago with not one house in it built. What do you think they're waiting for? You open the door, you're setting precedent. Now, all of a sudden, they say, well, wait a minute, you let them all go EAR2, why can't I go EAR2? I'm matching the houses next to me. Well, he's matching the houses next to him on the side that was EAR2, but not where it was shown as EAR1. Last couple of quick points I'd like to make. absolutely everything the presenter made. It was a very nice presentation. The clerks have done a nice job developing. I don't object to them at all. I'm not against development. But every single thing they said would be true if it were remaining as EAR-1. Matter of fact, it would be more true if it remained EAR-1. It would provide more diversity. It would provide better building lots for independent builders to have. Independent builders can only build on small lots. This would provide it, if we were to keep it the way it was, EAR-1 makes sense. It's a buffer. Mr. Sally's right. The real line is where do we divide the AR1. If you shift it all to the AR2, that tells me where we divide it. None of it will be AR1, not one bit. And we will suddenly have our densest population up against the edge of the urban services area. Bottom line is I also like that he said we had to find a precedent. One time in 16 years, we decided to shift densities around. 16 years ago, he had to come up with 1999 was the last time we did something like this. So now we're going to do it a second time. How many times in that 16 years did we make the right decision and not allow a change like this? That's my point. Thank you. I would like to enter into the record. My wife would say pretty much the same thing. Please give it to the clerk right there. I assume that was Liz Booth. That was Liz Booth. Okay. And is there anyone else on the opponent's side that wishes to speak tonight? I don't think I swore anybody else in. Okay, then we'll move to our—Customer Bleslow, did you have a question before we moved on? Okay, we'll get there. So you're on the list. Okay. Next, we'll have staff. Do you need to make any additional comments? No, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salee. And then on the petitioner, do you have any rebuttal? No, sir. and appreciate all the comments and everybody neighbors it's good to see neighbors concerned but I do want to point out to you that nobody from the approximately 500 houses that have been built on the Clark property is here to object and I think that makes a tremendous statement about how well this this development has proceeded this is not a high density development This is, we're coming in at about 4.7, 4.8 units per acre. An apartment complex runs 15 units or 30 units per acre. That's high density. Medium density is somewhat higher than we are. We're generally in the 4 to 5 units per acre. That's often considered low density. Somewhere between 4 and 5 is usually low density. Some people consider it medium density. but in the scheme of things, it's a very low-density development, and I want to keep that in perspective for you all. The fire department, we have the station at Royster and Winchester Road, but I want to point out, too, the fire department comes to every review meeting at the Planning Commission. They come to the technical committee, they come to the zoning committee, and they come to the Planning Commission meeting as well, and they have a sign-off on these plans. And we have had no objection on this plan from the fire department. They want to make sure they have access. They want to make sure they have street access to fight fires on individual bases and that they can do it. And they have expressed no objection at all to this. I've always wanted to have a zone change where I can say we don't add traffic to neighborhoods that come up. And we don't add traffic here. As I've mentioned to you, because of the interdiction, there'll be no reason for a person from our subdivision to even drive in Greenbrier unless they're going to visit somebody in Greenbrier. That's when they come. But there's no through traffic, no cross traffic, and there'll be no reason for anybody in our subdivision to drive up to the interdiction of Deerhaven Lane past the Booth property unless they want to come up to look at the nice scenery up there, which we hope they will, or if they want to ride their bike up there as well. We do have a buffer zone here. We have, as I mentioned to you out here, we have to keep 200 feet away from Deerhaven Lane at all points, which we have faithfully done throughout this entire subdivision. We have single-family detached residential use, single-family detached residential use coming up to this boundary. These zones, both EAR1 and EAR2, allow not only single-family detached, but duplexes, townhouses, and apartment complexes in those zones, EAR1, EAR2, EAR3. We have single-family detached coming up to this roadway system. Again, we're very proud and pleased to have worked on this development over 15 years. We're still coming in below the density we promised in 2003 on the original zone change on this property. We just want to continue to be able to build this subdivision the way we have in the past that has been very popular and very well-liked with the people who live there. Thank you very much. Mr. Murphy, we'll take that also as your closing summation. Okay. And if there are any closing comments from the opponents. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Go right ahead. Steve Ricker, again, I guess reasonable people can disagree on dimensions. You know, this has to be described as high density. Okay. To give you an idea of the lot size they're talking about, this room is basically 40 feet wide. We're talking about a 40 foot by 115 foot lot. Was that presented correctly? We're talking high-density lots at the outer boundary of our county. Now. This is perhaps the best representative view. If you go back to the Herald-Leader, September 3rd of this year, there was a fire. in this area here. Okay, the fire truck that responded, our local fire truck, I believe it was from Engine 17, the fire truck suffered a mechanical failure with the pump. So the first fire truck to arrive could not do anything to put out the fire. They had to wait for another fire truck to arrive. The fire truck that was pictured in the Herald Leader is fire truck number six, which is from way over here, way on the other side of I-75. Now, they had to use that fire truck because it's an aerial truck. It's a ladder. So the fire that started the back of the house was so intense, it could not be reached by the people with the rural fire truck, with the pumper. They had to park the truck one street over. They had to elevate the ladder. they had to put the hose in an elevated position so that they could spray over one house to reach the next house. Okay? That fire occurred at 530 in the morning. Now, what if the fire had occurred Monday through Friday during the morning commute, during the afternoon commute? What if it occurred during one of those days when I-75 is a parking lot? That fire truck would not have been able to reach that property, and certainly more than one home would have been destroyed and more than five homes damaged. If we are going to go to high density, if we're going to use the building codes that the Herald-Leader says has a one-hour burn resistance time, we need additional fire station support. Okay. Now, one thing we could do is increase the building codes to require a two-hour fire rating. That would be a help. Okay. So we need to do something about the fire. Thank you. Thank you, sir. At this point. Sure. Dave Booth, 1940 Deer Haven Lane again. Just one quick comment. All I ever hear when I come to these meetings is maximum density. Maximum density, maximum density, maximum density. The EAMP was very clear in what it laid out. And we even brought it up. We bring it up to start, and then we always ignore it. They also said a minimum density. The minimum density for the Clark property development was 403 units. They're already over 500 on it. This development allows them to go to 879 with a slated maximum of 953. Leaving it EAR1 would still keep them well over the 403 minimum. Building not one house here keeps them over the 403 minimum. We can't ignore that minimum number that the EAMP said. We keep saying, well, let's just put the maximum. We're at the edge of the urban service area. Putting your biggest, putting increasing density at the edge makes little to no sense. The boundaries were laid out with a plan for EAR1 here. I'm asking you to stay with what was laid out originally. Thank you. Thank you, sir. At this point, we'll open up the floor. Yes, if it's new evidence that you're responding to. The statement about we have already built 500 units, That counts property to the south in a separate subdivision called the New Market property. We haven't built 500 units on the Clark property. We're not near up to that. There's another area which has a different name south of the rails trails, which is the New Market property. And I was counting properties that have already been built, 500, but not in the Clark property. I wanted to emphasize that to you on that. And some of our house lots are 40 feet wide, but the reason the density is so low is because, unlike older subdivisions, our open space is in greenways, open spaces, setbacks from the roadways. So although lots themselves are smaller, our residents are getting much greater amenities, much greater areas where they can get out of exercise, bicycle. That's the way the expansion area is set up. densities are still pretty low out here. Under five is still pretty low. Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll help the floor to Council questions of the staff, petitioner, and opponents. Petitioner opponents shall be in talitory, but any new evidence that is brought up during the Council questioning. First up, we have Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation tonight, and thank you all for coming down here. I know you obviously care about your community, and I appreciate your taking the time out just to be here. I have some questions specifically for Mr. Slee. I think he said there was 4.8 units per acre for density levels. We've done a lot of this kind of small development in my area as well. What is the high density for townhomes? What's the density average? If you were to make this a townhome development, what would that number be? Excellent question. It's a little more difficult under the current comprehensive plan because we don't have density ranges that we've had under the past several plans. So if you'll allow me, I'd like to go back to the 2007 comprehensive plan. In that plan, we had low-density residential, medium-density residential, and high. Generally, low-density was considered detached, single-family, or townhouse development, and it had a limit of five units per acre. In medium-density, that was five to ten units per acre. That was generally considered very small-lot single-family, but more often duplex or townhouse development. And then high-density development was 6 to 20 units per acre, and you could get some integrated developments on the lower end of that, but if you were into an apartment development, you were pushing 13, 15, 18 units per acre. Generally, a townhouse development, most of the time on the zone changes I recall, would probably average between 7 and 10 units per acre in a townhouse development. Okay. So there is space between these single-family homes of what? Is there anything by deed restriction that says it has to be X amount of feet, or is it? There is a building code that generally requires a separation of at least three feet from the sidewall of the house to the property line. So then you mirror that on the other. Generally, you can count on at least six feet. Okay. So this property right here, we keep talking about the area south of that has not yet been developed. It's plotted right there, right? Yes, a portion of it has. Let me point out this was Mr. Murphy's last point, I believe. Polo Club is here. This is Deerhaven Lane, which ends here. This area has been developed on what's called the New Market property. However, less than half of that land has developed. You see here there are plans approved for future lotting, but that hasn't happened yet. And that's zoned what? All of the New Market property south of the trail is zoned EAR2. It is already, okay. Yes. And the Ball Home Development, where exactly is that? It is immediately to the north of the subject property that you're looking at. Subject property is here. This area exists here. This area is approved but not yet built. This area is under development currently. Again, next to Greenbrier, a couple of the holes of the golf course here in the photo. This portion, let me get, I'm going to flip to this map here. I think this will show it a little better. About not quite half of the area immediately to the north is zoned EAR-2, and about two-thirds of this developed area is EAR-1, as is some of the undeveloped area in the Blackford property. They have in this area, generally those are 40 to 45-foot wide lots, but perhaps some as wide as 50 feet. And again, the reason they remain in the density range is because they have a lot of open space areas there as well. That averaged out, okay. Yes. And then one last question. If memory serves me, is there an elementary school going out here in the planned development? There is. It is just off the zoning map here at this location. It's on Passage Mound Way. This is an existing street. It's the first existing street south of the subject property. There will be others, probably two other intersections once development concludes, but this is the nearest street to the south currently, and this is the school site. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Councilor Massadi. Thank you, Chair. Bill, if you don't mind, I've got a few questions for you. Tell me about the notification process that's been brought up this evening. It has. At the Planning Commission, the staff informed the two neighborhood associations that, by the mapping, were shown to be the closest to the subject property. What the staff didn't anticipate is the third closest neighborhood, which is Greenbrier, is the one that was most interested in this zone change. So they received no mailed notice because they're farther than the 2,400 feet. They did not receive a neighborhood mailed notice. So they learned about it when the sign was posted on the property approximately two weeks prior to the hearing. Generally, those notices are mailed about a month ahead of the hearing. So legally, the obligation was fulfilled? Yes. Okay. Yes. It's unfortunate the staff didn't send three letters instead of two. We would acknowledge that as well. The parcels that you just pointed out that Councilmember Bledsoe asked you about that are currently ER1, would they have the ability to go to ER2? Well, they could avail themselves to this same process. Same process. File its own chain. Okay. They probably would not have incentive to do so in the areas already approved for 40-foot lots, again, unless there was a density issue that would arise with that. Because overall, that EAR1 area cannot exceed three units per acre. Okay. And I know you've got some historical knowledge here. I remember. I have a little bit, too. And I think in 1996 when we were all discussing this, we did talk about the expansionary master plan and what the premise was. And we were going to have a buffer. Have we not followed it or have we followed that in your estimation? I think the community can be proud with how we have followed it. I think it does bear a little noting of how the buffer was planned to be done in this area. Again, if I can go over here and just describe that a little bit. In this expansion area, the boundary was on the opposite, or pardon me, to the east of Walnut Grove Lane. However, just to the south of the subject property, the roadway is the boundary here. So I think that's the issue Mr. Booth is describing is the boundary comes into the road here but extends further east. The area that has density restriction that he mentioned is a step down from the rural area, which of course at the time was 10-acre minimums, now is 40-acre minimums, to an area restricted to development of no more than three units for every five acres, which is larger than one-acre lots. to an area that has large setbacks from the road to EAR1. To the south, in this area, this entire area is EAR2, so the density restriction is not quite the same. Across, in this case, Deerhaven, you do have land similarly situated that has the three units per five acres restriction on it. So the area I think that he's speaking of is this small area here that was not included in the expansion area where the road serves as the boundary rather than the restricted density area that the rest of the expansion area plan provides for that change in land use. I hope that answers your question. It does. And the last question is infrastructure. Can we handle this amount of single-family dwellings or the density? There's a lot out there, and we're all concerned about sanitary sewers. We're concerned about public safety. We're concerned about all that kind of thing that goes into new areas. The expansionary master plan had an assumption of approximately the midpoint of development density throughout the entire expansion area. So things like the roadways and the sewer lines, which are detailed in the expansionary master plan, unlike any of our other past comprehensive plan efforts, the size of the lines and their general location, were all premised on the midpoint of development. Generally, because so much of the expansion area has developed for single-family detached housing, the midpoint has not been quite attained. In this particular area, this particular Unit 4, obviously it will go over that. But the expansion area as a whole, including all of expansion area 2A, the infrastructure has been planned and programmed to handle higher levels of development than have already occurred. So repeat what you said about the number 4. It will exceed, you're saying? This will exceed the midpoint, yes. Because, as we mentioned, 953 units are recommended for the entirety of Unit 4, where 879 are proposed. So obviously that midpoint is 400 or 500 somewhere in there. This one area is really an anomaly density-wise for the rest of the expansion area in that regard. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Solley, the green space that's on the development plan here, is that undevelopable, or is it intended to be a retention? What's the green space? I don't believe it's shown as a retention basin, but it's a very good question. It is a drainage area, so the water generally would drain to this area and then flow to the north. The nearest detention basins are off-site. I believe perhaps at this location might be the nearest one. This is a preliminary subdivision plan, so engineering did review that. But stormwater is done regionally in the expansion area. So generally, they're larger basins rather than the very small basins that prior to 1996 were very common. Okay. What level of responsibility, will that ever become a responsibility of the city to take care of that green space there, or will it automatically go over to the neighborhood after the development is complete? I think both of those are true. I think in the initial phases, it's likely that the neighborhood may have to maintain that. I think the long-term vision of the expansion area was that greenways would eventually become under the control of the government. Do you know if on this map, the water that's down behind Greenbrier? Here? Yes, sir. Would any of this water impact that area? Do you know? I do not. I believe this area drains entirely this direction, but perhaps Mr. Kaley or someone else might know that answer. Okay. I would like for the, if you wouldn't mind to address that, please. Yes. All right. Drainage-wise, this is not set up right away as a basin. Expansionary Master Plan has an overall detention basin, and it is established up here at Manowar. Water from here will follow this greenway system down this greenway. All this that I'm showing you through here has all been reserved, set aside as Greenway until you get to the regional basin. And that man-of-war created that. It's actually off-site on the Blackford property. Okay, okay. All right. Thank you. And then I guess, Mr. Salee, if I don't know if this is something that we know. You know, there's obviously concerns about response time from the fire department. Are there any new fire stations that are going to be? I mean, this area out here has obviously been expanding a lot. So I don't know if there are new stations that are proposed for out this area. There is one in the vicinity. I was hoping it might be on this map. It's just off this map. There has long been talk about a new station on the opposite side of the interstate on the south side of Winchester Road. And locations for the planning of that have kind of hopped around different portions of the Hamburg development. But that's the closest one I'm aware of. That you're aware of? Okay. All right. I think that's everything that I can think of. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Hensley. The question on the fire station, I understand there's plans to put one on the Winchester Road side, or on the west side of I-75. I don't know in one of our committees if we could review that placement to the other side, considering the input that we're hearing tonight with fine citizens from Greenbrier. just a thought because i agree that it's personally it's an issue that there's not a lot of fire protection on the east side of the interstate is we have a county out there i live close to one off of old richmond road myself and often experience gridlock when the interstate corridor shut down like he's expressing so that's an issue that i'll explore another venue um and Going back to the density, so the proposed area to the south there, it is EAR2 now? Yes. Okay. The zoning south of that line that you're seeing on the map there on the right that's in the urban service area, except for the park. Except for the park. Park is still AR, as it has been for many, many years. Except for the park land the city has, the rest of the property is EAR2, all the way to Deerhaven Lane. Okay. And then going back to the issue of the notification going out with this other address, was that discussed in the notes in the Planning Commission session? That may have led to some of the confusion because the notice we sent to neighborhood associations does include a map. So the map would have shown the same map you're looking at or a different version of that. However, the standard notice letter that's sent for a zone change only lists the address and does not have a map. Is that a business address for the development? What is that address? The address of the property you're reviewing tonight is a portion of 1551 Deerhaven Lane. And as we mentioned, it has no frontage on that road. It's 200 and some feet away from the road at its closest point. It's probably the vestige of an old address for the farm would be my guess. which is exactly it's probably led to some of the late understanding of this zone change request in my opinion questions I have thank you thank you sir Councilman Maloney Bill I've got a couple questions it may be premature what I want to ask but keeping compliance with Charlie and the EPA we have that CAP program are they up in compliance with this? Would that be something that we'll go as we go along to trade off? A very good question. The Capacity Assurance Program was approved generally with an exemption for its applicability to the entirety of Expansion Area 2. That's Area 2A, 2B, and 2C. The reason that was done was really twofold. So much of the infrastructure was already in place a little over two years ago when the cap went live. It was already in the ground, one, including the sanitary sewer. The pump station on Winchester Road was under construction at that time and is now operational. The other reason was the exaction program exists to further supplement the funds needed to complete the system that isn't already there. So it was specifically exempted from the cap program. And the other question I have is, and I know they're willing from E1 to E2. What is the maximum that they could have put in the E1 for residential, if they stick with the E1? The ER1 zone? Yeah, what was the maximum that they could have put in there? It looks to be about 146 dwelling units. 146 houses? Yes. And now they're wanting with the E2, they're able to put in 500? That includes the larger development. It's probably a difference of about 120 units, roughly. So additional 120 compared to it. So they really wanted to make everything E2. They got part of it E1. They want to change that to E2. That's right. That's the zone change you're looking at. And, you know, what the plan would suggest under EAR2 and EAR1 is that the density not be similar throughout the development, but that it have a higher density area and a lower density area. And with the zone change, they're really asking that all of the area be allowed to be built in the 40-foot wide lots. And looking at the property behind the red line up there, are those EAR1 or EAR2? What are they zoned for, one directly behind that property there? The properties to the north and east are zoned EAR1, including— But the ones that are already built, the houses that are built on the others behind it. These here, I'm sorry? Left. The left, I'm sorry. Yeah, what is that? These are all EAR2. EAR2. Yes, sir. So the other question I have, the property that have not developed, is that going to still be the main entrance of what these houses are coming off of, or do they have to come off another route to go the road behind where if they develop, The ER, the zone ER1. Yes. Can they come up this main drag or they have to come up another road? They have a choice. They can either, let's say this area, can either go to Blackford Parkway and head northwest to Manowar Boulevard, or if this property develops and Blackford Parkway extends, they could choose to come west to Polo Club and then go either direction on Polo Club, either toward Manowar to the north or towards Todd's Road to the south. They would have a choice. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other council members have any questions? All right. Seeing none, I'll pose the hearing close. and before we do the findings of fact and render a decision, we're going to take a five-minute recess, so council members, and we'll reconvene at 7.40. The intent of the master plan, not the urban service boundary that I misspoke, but looking at the planning commission's notes thoroughly and hearing everybody's input tonight, I move approval of March 2015-2010 North 40 Properties LLC petition for a zone map amendment from an expansion area residential one EAR one zone to an expansion residential area two EAR two zone for 46.4 46.64 net 47.18 gross acres for a property located at 1551 Deerhaven Lane a portion on a portion of based on adopting the final effects of and recommendation of planning commission so moved i have a motion by councilman hensley a second by council member gives discussion on the motion any discussion okay seeing none i think we're ready to vote and that's a roll call vote actual action yes sir mr hensley Yay. Yay. Ms. Henson? Mr. K. Ms. Lamb? Yes. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Massadi? No. Ms. Gutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stinnett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Ms. Evans? Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. And Mr. Gibbs? Yes. Thank you. Okay, that passes. Now the council will vote to approve the zoning ordinance. Do I have a motion? Approval. Motion by Council Member Farmer. Is there a second by Council Member Brown? And this is the ordinance, Council Members, that the clerk read at the beginning. Any discussion on the motion? Okay, if you'll take a roll call vote, clerk. Mr. Hensley? Yeah. Ms. Lamb? Yes. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Massadi? No. Ms. Gutchfield? Yes. Mr. Stinnett? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Gibbs? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That passes. Seeing no other order of business before the council, do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Motion is second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you all. I'm sorry. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh We'll be right back. I'll call the lights up your face. Let's sway. Sway through the crowd to an empty space. If you say run, I'll run with you.