# Urban County Council - Zone Change Public Hearing - February 9, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 9, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4169 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4169?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-02-09 - **Last revised**: February 9, 2017 - **Length**: 25,031 words - **Speakers**: Chad > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a meeting on February 9, 2017, at 7:55 PM in the Council Chambers in Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice-Mayor Kay presiding. The meeting focused on a single agenda item involving a proposed zone change from A-U (Agricultural Urban) to R-3 (Residential), which was ultimately denied by the council. During the proceedings, the council heard from six members of the public who provided comments on the matter under consideration. The meeting concluded with one formal vote taken on the zoning proposal, resulting in its denial. ## Attendance The meeting on February 9, 2017 had 10 members present and 5 members absent. **Present:** • Vice-Mayor Kay • Gibbs • Henson • Lamb • Mossotti • Plomin • Scutchfield • Bledsoe • F. Brown • J. Brown **Absent:** • Evans • Farmer • Higgins • Moloney • Stinnett No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted one formal vote during the meeting on February 9, 2017. **Ordinance 1400-16** [timestamp: 10:32] Ms. Bledsoe made a motion regarding an ordinance to change the zoning from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) for property located at 3455 Saybrook Road. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mossotti. The ordinance failed by a roll call vote of 0 ayes to 10 nays with no abstentions. All ten council members present voted against the zoning change: **Voting Against:** • Gibbs • Henson • Kay • Lamb • Mossotti • Plomin • Scutchfield • Bledsoe • F. Brown • J. Brown The unanimous rejection of this zoning ordinance indicates the council was not in favor of converting the agricultural property to residential use at this time. ## Public Comment Six community members spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to a proposed zone change and development project [timestamp: 00:00]. **Kathleen Donovan** opened the public comment session by speaking against the zone change. She emphasized the importance of adhering to the comprehensive plan and maintaining the existing character of the neighborhood [timestamp: 00:00]. **Robin Young** followed with concerns about the neighborhood impact of the proposed development, specifically highlighting issues with lot sizes and density that could result from the project [timestamp: 00:00]. **Walt Gaffield** provided historical context regarding previous zoning decisions in the area and expressed his opposition to the current proposal based on this background [timestamp: 00:00]. Infrastructure concerns dominated the remaining comments. **Evan Belt** shared personal experiences with sewage backups and flooding, arguing that the proposed development could worsen these existing problems [timestamp: 00:00]. **Scott Warner** presented visual evidence of infrastructure issues by showing a video of sewage overflow. He expressed concerns about how additional development would impact the already strained existing infrastructure [timestamp: 00:00]. **Renee Park Mooney** concluded the public comment period by addressing community engagement issues. She criticized the developer's lack of outreach to the community but indicated a willingness to work toward finding a compromise solution [timestamp: 00:00]. The public comments revealed consistent themes of opposition centered on comprehensive plan adherence, neighborhood character preservation, infrastructure capacity concerns, and the need for better community engagement in the development process. ## Contested Items The February 9, 2017 meeting featured significant community opposition to a proposed zone change for 3455 Saybrook Road. The contested item centered on concerns from residents regarding the potential impacts of increased development density in the area. Community members voiced strong opposition to the zone change proposal, citing multiple concerns about the project's potential effects on the neighborhood. The primary objections focused on three key areas: the proposed increase in residential density, potential environmental impacts from the development, and the adequacy of existing infrastructure to support additional development. Residents expressed concerns that the zone change would allow for higher density development than currently permitted, which they believed would be incompatible with the existing neighborhood character. Environmental impact concerns were also raised, though specific details about the nature of these environmental issues were not specified in the available information. Infrastructure capacity emerged as another significant point of contention, with community members questioning whether existing roads, utilities, and other municipal services could adequately support the increased development that would be permitted under the proposed zone change. The strong community opposition demonstrated the level of local concern about the potential impacts of the proposed zoning modification at 3455 Saybrook Road. The nature and extent of the opposition suggests this was a significant issue for area residents who attended the meeting to voice their concerns about the proposal. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, participant names, and the final outcome of this contested item were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## Zone Change from A-U to R-3 [timestamp: 00:00] The council considered Ordinance 1400-16, a proposal to rezone 3455 Saybrook Road from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3). The zone change would have allowed for higher density residential development on the property. The proposal encountered substantial community opposition during the meeting. Multiple residents spoke against the rezoning, raising concerns about several key issues: **Community Concerns:** • Increased density that would be incompatible with the existing neighborhood character • Potential negative environmental impacts from the proposed development • Inadequate infrastructure to support additional residential units • Traffic and safety implications for the surrounding area **Key Speakers:** Vice-Mayor Kay led the discussion of the agenda item. Community members who participated in the debate included William Sallee, Jacob Walbourn, Kathleen Donovan, Robin Young, Walt Gaffield, Evan Belt, Scott Warner, and Renee Park Mooney. These speakers represented various perspectives on the proposed zoning change, with the majority expressing opposition to the measure. The extensive public input reflected significant neighborhood engagement on the issue, with residents voicing concerns about how the zoning change would affect their community's future development patterns and quality of life. **Outcome:** After considering the public testimony and discussing the merits of the proposal, the council denied Ordinance 1400-16. The property at 3455 Saybrook Road will retain its current Agricultural Urban (A-U) zoning designation, preventing the higher density residential development that would have been permitted under R-3 zoning. The denial reflected the council's consideration of the substantial community opposition and the various concerns raised about density, environmental impact, and infrastructure capacity. --- ## Decisions - **1400-16** — failed (0-10): Ordinance changing the zone from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) for property at 3455 Saybrook Rd. --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End We begin the hearing itself, starting with, actually I believe I'll ask the clerk to give the second reading to the zone change, and then I will add some more information about how we'll proceed. Madam Clerk? Yes, sir. An ordinate change of zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone for 10.14 net and gross acres for property located at 3455 Sabrick Road, Lex Properties, LLC, Council District 9. Thank you. Thank you. Now, for all of those who plan to speak or who might be speaking, I would ask you to rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in. You just need to say I do at the end of this. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? I do. Thank you. I have spoken both with representatives of the neighborhood and the representative council for the petitioner, and both sides have agreed to do their best to limit their initial remarks to 30 minutes. As the presiding, I'm Steve Kay, the vice mayor. I'll be the presiding officer. And as the presiding officer, it's my responsibility to make what are called evidentiary decisions. So I have the opportunity to exclude irrelevant or repetitious testimony. I usually don't have to exercise that. I want to let you know I can do it. There are sign-in sheets. If you have not signed in and you intend to speak, I think they're at the back of the room. please do that, and I'll get those sign-in sheets sent forward after the presentations. If you have written materials, you can submit that to the clerk, and if it needs to be circulated, they'll handle that. Everybody who testifies at this hearing is asked to remain for the full hearing because there is an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and obviously you need to be in the room if that's required. When you speak, if you'd identify yourself with your name and address for the record and come to the podium and speak into the microphone. The order of the hearing will be first a presentation by the planning division staff and that's subject to cross-examination by both petitioner and opponent. then presentation by the petitioner, which is also subject to cross-examination. Presentation by the opponents, also subject to cross-examination. At that point, there will be an opportunity for staff to make additional comments and then for petitioners to present rebuttal evidence, then closing summation by the opponents and closing summation by the petitioner. At that point, council will have the opportunity to ask questions of staff, petitioner, and opponents, and petitioner and opponent will have the opportunity to rebut any new evidence, not to repeat what's already been said, but to question new evidence that's been brought before council. After all those questions, I will announce that the hearing is closed. Once the hearing is closed, no further evidence can be entered, and the council will then deliberate and offer motions, and will take vote on motions, both on the findings of fact and on the underlying resolution. If there are no questions at this point, I think we're actually ready to begin. So we'll go back to the beginning and ask staff to present their information. Mr. Sully, welcome. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye. Council members, good evening. For the record, my name is Bill Sally. I'm the planning manager of the planning services section of the Urban County Government's Division of Planning. It's my pleasure to be here this evening and to present to you the Planning Commission's recommendation on this zone change that you're about to consider. As you know, at the start of your public hearings, there are a number of items I need to enter into the record of your hearing this evening. The first is a copy of the legal notice that was published in the local newspaper advertising the date and time of your hearing this evening. The second item is an affidavit that I have sworn to regarding the notice that was sent for the zone change to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property you'll be reviewing and also to the nearest registered neighborhood associations. I'd like to enter into the record the final report from the Planning Commission to you about this zone change. This has their recommendations, copies of the staff report, application, and the minutes of their public hearing. Need to enter into the record a copy of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, which the Planning Commission has adopted and which the Council has adopted the goals and objectives for. We need to enter into the record a copy of the zoning ordinance and also the land subdivision regulations that are in effect for the urban county. This time, I'd like to enter into the record a number of email communications that the staff has received. I believe the count is eight. We will circulate a copy to the council and also give a copy to the clerk at this time. I think it's fair to say those are in opposition to the zone change that you're reviewing this evening. Finally, I'd like to enter into the record a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that will serve as my outline to you this evening. As was read in the ordinance, this is a proposed zone change from an agricultural urban AU zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone involving just over 10 acres of property, the property having an address of 3455 Saybrook Road. The subject property is outlined in this aerial photo in a roughly rectangular shape. being almost square, but it is found at the southern terminus of Saybrook Road. Saybrook is accessed from Halifax, which accesses Boston Road, which is an area collector street, here. And for members in the audience, that road is here. Boston Road, Halifax, and Saybrook Drive. Boston Road, Halifax, and Saybrook Drive into the subject property. The subject property is surrounded by single family residential development on all sides with one exception. And that's better seen really from the zoning map. But if you look to the southwest of the subject property you'll see there is a very small parcel that is zoned agricultural urban and is not part of the zone change request you're reviewing this evening. That is a parcel that's owned by the urban county government, which has a creek traversing through it, as does the creek through much of the subject property. Basically, the eastern and much of the southern portion of the subject property, almost 50% of it, is in a floodplain associated with this creek, which is a tributary of the South Elkhorn Creek. In just a moment we'll show you a few photographs of that creek. Again, the subject property is agricultural urban, as is the small parcel owned by the urban county government immediately south of it that is not part of the zone change. The surrounding zoning to those two parcels is entirely R1C, that is single family residential, and the C refers to the minimum lot size requirements of that zone. R1C requires lots of at least 60 feet in width and size of at least 8,000 square feet. This is a view of the subject property from the terminus of Saybrook Road. There's a paved roadway here through the center of the property and a small lawn area, but much of the property has been overgrown over the past two decades. This is a view from the same location looking to the east, southeast I should say, in the direction of the creek. You can tell from the elevation that the property does fall off, and as you can imagine at the bottom of this elevation is where we would find the creek and the floodplain area that I've described to you. This is the same location looking up the hill, if you will. This is looking almost westward, due west, at the end of Saybrook Road, again at the subject property in the center left of the photograph. You can again see the vegetation that has really taken over this property in the last two decades. This is a view of the creek. This is a little bit farther north of the subject property than we saw on the map. This is very near where Halifax Drive crosses that creek. And this would be looking as it flows southward toward the subject property. In this area, the creek really was probably channelized in the 1960s with the development of the subdivision that surrounds this general property. Here's a view really at the opposite end of the creek. This is near where it goes under Cromwell Way, a short distance south of the subject property. Again, in this area, you can see the slope to the creek. Also notice in the center left of the photograph, we do have some sanitary sewers that parallel the creek in this general area. This property, for being only 10 acres in size, has a remarkably long history of rezoning. And this slide really summarizes that history. In 1964, we had what I think you could consider a very unusual zone change. The initial zone change for this property rezoned it from residential 1 to heavy industrial, I-2. And if you're familiar with zoning in town, you know we do not have a lot of heavy industrial zoning. That is because a package treatment plant was proposed for the subject property to serve the residential development in this area. It was privately operated and placed on a portion of this 10-acre property. A short time later, five years ago, pardon me, five years later, not five years ago, in 1969, the city of Lexington and Fayette County adopted an entirely new zoning atlas for the entire county, including the city of Lexington. And in doing so, there was an accompanying rewrite of the zoning ordinance, and many properties, the zoning for those properties actually changed. And that is the case for this 10-acre property you're reviewing tonight. At that time, the zoning was changed from heavy industrial to agricultural urban, which it currently has as a designation. The agricultural urban zone did not exist prior to 1969. And it's of interest, the treatment plant was in operation at that time at this location. In 1994, there was a subsequent rezoning application from AU to R1D, single family residential. The D meaning a different lot size requirement was proposed. This was made by Ball Homes. And by that time, the treatment plant had ceased operation. And the urban county government in the intervening years had operated a neighborhood park at this location, which no longer was in operation in 1994. This proposal was made but was withdrawn prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission. And at that time some 22 homes were proposed on the subject property. Nothing happened for the next two decades until 2015. The subject property was subject again to another rezoning application from AU to R3, planned neighborhood residential, by the same applicant that is proposing the zone change tonight. At that time, 27 single-family lots were proposed, and this application did receive a public hearing at the Planning Commission, but was withdrawn prior to its consideration by the Council. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of that rezoning. Finally, late last year, there was a second rezoning application by this petitioner, again requesting a change from agricultural urban to neighborhood residential R3 involving the subject property. And some 32 single family dwellings were proposed on the property. So we thought it was important to share with you this history tonight because it's our anticipation that based on what the Planning Commission heard, you may hear some of the history involving this property in terms of different applications and development proposals that has been involved with it. As you know, the planning staff always reviews applications and makes a staff report to the Planning Commission anytime we have a zone change. and we did the same on this one. The planning staff's report is included in the center of your packet, as you know. The planning staff recommended disapproval of this rezoning to the planning commission. We did not believe that it was in agreement with the comprehensive plan. Of course, those reasons are listed in our staff report. The planning commission, at their hearing on November 17th of last year, 2016, heard not only from the planning staff, but also from the applicant and their representatives and from several objectors to the zone change at that time. Following the conclusion of their public hearing, there was a vote. There were really two votes by the Planning Commission regarding this zone change. The first vote was to deny or recommend, rather, denial of the rezoning. That motion failed by a vote of three to six. Subsequently, there was a second motion made by the Planning Commission, and that motion passed 8-1. And if you look at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, you will find that recommendation to the Council. The Planning Commission voted 8-1 to recommend conditional approval of this rezoning application from AU to R3 to the Council. And their findings of fact are listed on this recommendation. The first is that the proposed planned neighborhood residential zone is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan, and three reasons are listed. The first is that the proposed development will support the goals of infill and redevelopment, and the proposal respects the area's context and design features by proposing single-family residential use that abuts existing single-family residential uses. The second finding was that the proposed development provides for additional density in a desirable neighborhood, which will assist in reducing Lexington-Fayette County's carbon footprint. The third finding that they made was that the proposed development helps to encourage compact, contiguous development to accommodate future growth needs. This recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission was made subject to the submitted development plan. As you know, most of their hearings also encompass the application of a development plan for the property. And I'll explain that exhibit to you in just a few moments and show you the development plan they reviewed. Also, the Planning Commission included in their recommendation to you that conditional zoning be employed to restrict the possible uses of the property should it be rezoned to R3. The applicant had already proposed a listing of use restrictions at this location as part of their application. The Planning Commission took those restrictions and added to it through this restriction. Under the provisions of conditional zoning, the Planning Commission recommended that the subject property be restricted only to detached single-family residential use on this 10.14 acres. The reason they did that is encompassed in the finding. These restrictions, the Commission felt, were necessary and appropriate to protect the neighborhood from uses that are too intensive or too out of character with the existing area. So again, to summarize, the commission has recommended conditional approval to you of the zone change with this zoning restriction on the subject property. The R3 zone, of course, would allow uses in addition to single-family detached housing, including townhouses, apartments, and a number of other conditional uses. As I mentioned, the commission reviewed a development plan at their public hearing, and that exhibit is on the board to my left. And again, to orient you, we have Saybrook Road that really serves as the only street access to the subject property. and again this shows you how much it is surrounded by existing single family detached housing and the urban county government property that is not proposed to be rezoned from its current AU designation. This plan very well shows the creek traversing through the property, again from northeast to southwest, and the associated floodplain with the property. Again, the property is close to 50% in the floodplain. There is a very small area along its easternmost border, backing to homes on Boston Road, that is technically not in the floodplain. But as you can see from this development plan, there is no proposal to gain access to that portion of the property for any development. The plan depicts an extension of Saybrook Road into the subject property, terminating in a cul-de-sac that location, and having a reverse curve at this location. The development plan that the Planning Commission reviewed proposed two different types of housing for the subject property. 15 single family lots were proposed along the northern and western property boundary and across from the proposed residential street attached single family dwellings 17 in total were proposed between the proposed street and the existing floodplain area by the planning commission's recommendation these 17 units are no longer possible to be developed if the property is rezoned as it's been recommended to you with that conditional zoning restriction. The Planning Commission did not place a restriction on the number of detached single-family lots or homes on the property, but in making their recommendation to you, they have decided that townhouses will not be a part of the property should it be rezoned as it's been recommended by the commission. As such, the commission did not approve of this development plan. Instead, they postponed further consideration of this plan, knowing that it would need a fairly substantial revision to eliminate the townhouses and replace them with detached lots. So they have voted to postpone further consideration of this plan until the decision on whether or not the property is rezoned R3 is made. If it is rezoned by the council, then at that time this plan will be re-docketed on the Planning Commission's agenda and they will further consider whether or not to approve this plan or a version of this plan following this decision this evening. It's a little bit unusual. I wanted to take a little extra time to orient you to this exhibit just for that reason, especially given the conditional zoning recommendation that you've received from the Planning Commission. Finally, I'll close by just putting the aerial photo back up on the screen for your consideration as the hearing progresses. That concludes my prepared remarks, Vice Mayor. Thank you very much, Council. Thank you very much for your kind attention. And as you know, I will be available for your questions later in the evening. Thank you. Thank you. Let me just see if either petitioner or the opponents have any cross-examination questions. Mr. Gaffield. Walt, you have to come to the microphone, please. Thank you. Now at the 2015 hearing, Mr. Murphy, representing the developer, essentially said that he would concede at that time having single-family detached units, and he made that concession in the hearing. So that very much makes what was approved 8-to-1 this past year very similar to what was disapproved in 2015, both by 8-to-1 margins. In both cases, is that right? I think that's fair, yes. Okay. And staff disapproved or recommended disapproval in both cases because it violated the 2013 comprehensive plan, correct? With other reasons. Let me expand on that. The planning staff in 1994 recommended approval of R1D zoning for the property. That was the Ball Homes application. In 2015, we recommended denial of the R3 zone request, favoring instead an R1D designation for the property. Like last year, that was essentially the same staff recommendation. It was disapproval of R3 with a preference for R1D. Okay, thank you. Another question. The AU zone, I've seen a difference of opinion in the records, and staff is of the opinion that an AU designation is appropriate for the property when there's an appropriate project for the property. Is that correct? Well, I'm looking at the staff report so that I can report accurately to the council what the staff had to say about the AU zone. We found in finding number two of our staff report, the existing AU zone remains appropriate for the subject property because the intent of the AU zone is to be a holding zone until appropriate urban development is proposed. Thank you. How long have you worked for the planning division? I have been employed by the division of planning since 1987. Pardon me. 1984. Okay. I'm older than you are. Okay, a final question. So this is not really the plan that the Planning Commission approved. It's the original plan, and it doesn't really have any conditional zoning on it or anything. In effect, it's not a plan. So what we're really looking at is not what you're asking the council to vote on. Now, in your time on the council, how many times have you seen that, approximately? Well, let me correct one thing you said, and then I will answer your question. I don't admit to being a complete expert on this. That's quite all right. Again, I told the council this is a somewhat unusual circumstance. This plan was not approved by the Planning Commission. The development plan was not approved. It was acted on to be postponed until the decision on the zoning is made. Now, to get to the heart of your question, how many times? This is a fairly rare circumstance where the commission has recommended approval of a zone change, but not of the development plan. I would say a handful of times I have seen that. What is much more common is if the planning commission recommends disapproval of a zone change. At that point, they almost always will table or postpone consideration of the development plan until the zoning decision is made. Would you say maybe less than five times? I would estimate five, maybe seven times. Not very frequently. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Next, I believe we have the presentation by the petitioner, Mr. Wahlburn. Excuse me, I forgot to grab one thing. Hello and good evening, Vice Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jacob Walburn, and I'm an attorney for Lex Properties, LLC. Much as Mr. Salee did, I have a few items that I must introduce into the record. The applicant is required to post a sign on the property notifying the public of the Council's zone change and file an affidavit recognizing the same. I'm holding that affidavit which was executed by Rory Cayley who was our site planner and would submit that for the record. Additionally for the record I'm submitting an environmental report from the firm of Childress and Associates LLC regarding a phase one and phase two environmental assessment that was done on the subject property. Finally I am submitting a printed copy of my PowerPoint which will also serve as my outline for my remarks to you this evening. I did want to take this opportunity. I brought a complete copy of the Childress and Associates report for the council to review. I would advise you that it's 36 pages long, and 32 of those pages are simply data that was done from testing. So I've brought a whole copy, but I've also brought what I would call the top sheet. That is the first four pages that summarize the report, and I've brought sufficient copies for council to each have their own copy, which I will distribute to you at this time. It's always an honor and a privilege to be able to present to the Urban County Council. And I understand that I might not be the most popular man in the room this evening. And frankly, I'm okay with that. That's what's great about our democratic process. The petitioner in this case was able to persuade eight members of the Planning Commission by a vote of 8-1 that this zoning was appropriate. And I think by the conclusion of my remarks, you'll understand why that was done. and why the zoning proposal is appropriate. It's not that we are here to belittle or minimize the concerns of the neighborhood. We're certainly mindful of those concerns. We have attempted to take some steps to mitigate prior concerns that were raised on the 2015 application, and I'll go over those with you. It's not my intention to waste your time. I will try to be efficient with my remarks, but I would, of course, encourage you if at any time you have any questions, please feel free to stop me, and I'll do my best to address them. I want to remind everyone while we're here, there are three ways that you can get a zone change pursuant to Kentucky law. One is to demonstrate compliance with a comprehensive plan. That's exactly what the Planning Commission found that we had done, and I think the evidence that I'll present to you this evening will demonstrate to you why we're in accord with the comprehensive plan. The second way that a zone change can be achieved is if you demonstrate that the existing zoning category is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning category is appropriate. I would submit to you that we're also able to meet that. What I'd submit to you that we're not able to meet, and nor are we required to, is that there have been major changes in the area since the comprehensive plan was adopted. We did not do on that. We did not attempt to meet that. You're able to sustain on either ground. If you find either that we're in agreement with the comp plan or that the existing zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate, under Kentucky law, you can sustain the zone change. I think we can do either or here, but I think mostly we're in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Bill did a good job orienting you to the zone change generally, so I won't dwell on this. We did receive a condition to limit the development to detached single-family dwellings. We agree to that. We are completely in agreement and find that to be an acceptable restriction that we do not challenge. that passed by an overwhelming margin of 8 to 1 in the planning commission. Bill did a very exhaustive planning history application on the site. I want to hone in more on recent history. As was mentioned in the cross-examination, I did not represent this applicant in 2015. In fact, I was in service of the Commonwealth of Kentucky at that time and not in private practice. Since I've come into private practice, I've become acquainted with this developer. I've worked with him on several projects. He brought to me this application in 2016. informed me what had happened at the 2015 hearing where his proposal for 27 single-family lots was defeated. We reviewed the proposal and came up with what I thought was an effective compromise plan. This is unfortunately what happens when lawyers get smart. I said if 27 single-family units were not acceptable, perhaps if we provided a variety of housing choices, single-family mixed with townhouse units, the Planning Commission might look upon that more favorably. That's how you get the plan over here that Bill demonstrated to you. That's what that plan reflects. We go before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission says, well, we can probably agree with you that R3 zoning is appropriate, but we're just not wild about the townhouses. Would you consider taking the townhouses away? Well, certainly we would. This is the proposal we wanted to do in 2015. So we were agreeable to that. Now, there are some minor differences between what we proposed in 2015 and what's before you tonight. We've taken floodplain off the single-family lots. There's a slightly different lotting pattern. And I'll show you a visual aid here in a moment to reflect exactly what I'm talking about. This is the old plan. It's up on the board. This is a flash to the new plan, so you can see how it changes. I'll bounce back and forth a couple of times. You're simply removing the 17 townhouse units and replacing them with single-family residential lots. You can see the lotting pattern, how it's proposed. This is not a final development plan. There could be some minor tweaks to this plan. But this is essentially what we would propose if the council were to see it clear to give us our R3 zoning. This is the amendment to the development plan that the planning commission would see as this one was not approvable. Just a reminder, this one was not approvable not because it was an objectionable plan, but because it no longer complied with the zoning restrictions that were put on by the commission. to which we agreed, there's no way this plan could have been approvable under the conditions we agreed to. That's why you see the difference here today. You look at the area broadly, you see that this is primarily a single-family residential area. R1C, R1D zoning, some R3 zoning to the south. The fairly large AU swath there coming down is Shelatoe Park. The mall property back over here, Fayette Mall. and then of course you can see Manowar Boulevard cutting across the bottom there. My point here being that this is a predominantly residential area. We're proposing residential zoning. We think it's generally in agreement with what's already on the ground. You might hear some tonight about environmental concerns. That's why I distributed that report to you. I want to go over what we did to investigate the environmental concerns and what are a search uncovered. We first did a Phase 1 environmental site assessment. A Phase 1, it's been explained to me, is best described as a paper and eyes review. You walk the site, you look around, you investigate property records to determine if there is any potential contamination that people need to be worried about. We completed a Phase 1 review, actually the applicant completed a Phase 1 review prior to my involvement, and it uncovered that no Phase 2 or no further investigation was necessary based on that review. Nonetheless, the applicant went ahead and did a phase two because of concerns about the site for residential development and the fact that it was a site of a former wastewater treatment plant. And so we did a phase two. That's the report that you received from me this evening. What a phase two is, is you go around and you take actual soil samples from the site. You ship them to an independent laboratory. Ours was Environmental Science Corporation in Mount Juliet, Tennessee. they analyzed the sample independently from the organization that collected the samples and provides you with a report. The top page report that you see is the summary of that from Childress & Associates who was our local engineer. The fairly extensive data that is attached you can see came from Environmental Sciences Corporation. What did they find out on that phase two? There was not a single concentration of anything in the soil that you would not expect to see in general Kentucky soil. and most importantly that there was no remediation whatsoever needed on the site. So simply stated there are no environmental concerns on this site according to an independent laboratory retained to test that. Again, returning to the zoning here and looking at a little closer up of how this has come out, we're not contesting that this is a sea of single family. That's why we think single family is a good proposal here. It's why we proposed it in 2015. It's why we were agreeable to the conditional zoning restriction from the council. As Mr. Salee mentioned, R1C is 8,000 square foot lots. Those are pretty good sized lots by modern standards, 60 feet wide. You also have some R1D in the area. Those are smaller lots, but the width is the same. They're both 60 feet. What did we do in response to some of the concerns that were raised by staff? Well, all of our single family lots, with one exception, and I can point it out to you if you'd like, It's the corner lot that comes around the turn over here. All of those lots are at least 6,000 square feet. That means that they would comply with the area requirements of R1D. We have instituted a tree protection area along the borders of our property that border existing single-family residential. And I want to come up and show this a little more closely. we are preserving all of the trees that run along this border of the property to here. None of those trees will be removed at all. So that can serve as a buffer area to the existing neighbors on that side. If you'll notice, the floodplain makes it so that we cannot develop, it's actually 46% of this property cannot be developed due to floodplain concerns. So though this proposal is a 10-acre proposal, we're really only talking about slightly over five that's able to be developed. That's the area that you see up there. It is exceedingly costly to cross the creek with a roadway, and we have not proposed any development on the kind of separated piece of the property, nor could we get access to it from Boston Road. So the area that we're proposing for develop is all that we would practically be able to develop. Now I wanted to look at the area generally. It's a case study of some of our existing lots to see, do all the lots in the area conform to that R1C or R1D standard? So I looked, 3449 Wallingford Court only has a frontage of 40 feet despite being in the R1C zone. 588 Saybrook Court has a frontage of 44 feet despite being in the R1C zone. 526 Fogo Court, 44 feet despite being in the R1C zone. Monticello Boulevard, almost all of the lots that border Monticello Boulevard are less than 8,000 square feet. despite being R1C zoned. What's my point? It's okay. That's okay. You're allowed to have a little bit of variation in your lot size. It's not a big deal. It doesn't drastically impact the neighborhood. If you drive down Monticello Boulevard and then turn on Saybrook, I think you would not notice an appreciable difference in the lot sizes or the value of those homes, because a little variation does not harm you. Our proposal is going to provide comparable housing in price. It's difficult to be a development that is infinitely more expensive within an existing neighborhood. We're trying to get our values to be comparable so we can sell those homes. And our proposal reflects modern practices regarding the development of neighborhoods. And I'll provide some additional evidence on that point here in a moment. That was recognized by the planning commissioners in the hearing. And they made some quotes to that effect that I'll share with you. Flexibility, bottom line is flexibility aids development. There's an elephant in the room here tonight, and that's that you all will be considering whether or not to expand the urban services boundary in the coming weeks as you adopt goals and objectives for the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan that we operate under right now, however, says that we are not to expand the urban services boundary and should increase density within the urban services boundary. Giving developers flexibility to make their projects viable and appropriate is a way to meet that goal of the comprehensive plan. Now, we did offer several conditional zoning restrictions at the hearing when we had proposed the townhouse plan. R3, formerly known as or colloquially known as the apartment zone. Let me be abundantly clear. We have no intention and will never construct an apartment on this property. The conditions that we offered restricted multifamily dwellings. Those are your apartment buildings, dormitories, boarding houses, assisted living facilities, and community residences, or otherwise maybe known as a group home. And the Planning Commission added one more, and that was that we would be restricted to houses, single-family, detached residential. We gladly accept that restriction. Would invite you to impose the same on us. Let's look at the comp plan briefly, because I think that it's important to show where we demonstrate compliance with the comp plan. And I've actually taken snips of the comp plan. It's not my summary of what I think it says. I'm going to show you the text, and you can be your own judge about whether we comply with this or not. Theme A, goal one, is to expand housing choice. That's exactly what we're doing here. We're providing another opportunity for housing in Fayette County. Theme A, goal three, says to provide well-designed neighborhoods and communities. And the objective A, the sub-objective of that goal, is to enable existing and new neighborhoods to flourish through improved regulation and other things. Through a public commitment to expanded options in both existing and new neighborhoods. I think our proposal does that today. Let's look at what strategies they recommend. I thought this one was a very good one. collaborate with financial agencies, home builders, and affordable housing providers to identify incentives that enable the design of a great neighborhood. Not only are we supposed to endorse this, we're supposed to incentivize this. We're supposed to make this kind of proposal easier. That's a specific strategy recommended by the comp plan. When we look around our community, we do see examples of zoning diversity in existing neighborhoods. I'm a Masterson Station resident. If you look at Masterson Station, you see a mix of R1D, R1E, R3 development, side by side, next to each other, functioning just fine. When you drive through Masterson Station, in some areas, you can tell a marginal difference between homes. But by and large, Masterson Station is a unified community. And the R3 zoning does work in accord with these other single-family zoning categories. Same in Beaumont. There are areas of Beaumont with R3 zoning, both single-family and multi-family in Beaumont. Kirk-Levington, I thought, was a fantastic example. We throw in R2 and R4 in the Kirk-Levington neighborhood. We see that these neighborhoods can function as a unit without having exactly uniform zoning. The comp plan explicitly encourages us to do this. We see successful examples in our community all over the place. We're to encourage infill development. In fact, we're to encourage compact, contiguous, and sustainable development within the urban services boundary. Essentially, to keep the urban services boundary where it is, we need to find opportunities to increase density. Now, if we take that to its illogical extreme, we should have proposed building Park Plaza apartments in the middle of this development. We didn't do that. We're trying to find reasonable increases in density. I would submit to you that under R1D zoning, which is what planning staff had considered an appropriate zone, you could get 22 single-family lots. Under our proposal, you can get 27. We're essentially talking about five houses, guys. It's a very, very small increase in density. If we look at, again, just underlining that urban services boundary concept, if we encourage urban infill that moderately increases our density, it helps us to preserve that boundary. It's very important. Now, I understand there may be a debate about whether or not to expand that boundary. However, again, under the current comprehensive plan, there is an absolute preference to not do so. But in order to maintain that boundary, we have to increase density. People have to have somewhere to live as our population continues to grow. If we look at the infill strategy, I thought there were several that we hit here. We're stimulating economic investment in an established community. We're allowing for flexibility in housing types, densities, and configuration. We're ensuring the compatibility of new construction in a context-sensitive manner. We're providing a mix of housing types, densities, and land uses. And I thought this one was particularly important. We're supposed to give developers more options to make development more financially feasible. I would submit to you that a 22-lot development is not financially feasible when you consider the massive infrastructure costs that have to go into creating a neighborhood. The urban county government doesn't pay to pay for these roads or to install storm sewers, curbs, sidewalks, those are all costs borne by the developer. Providing us a marginal increase in density helps make this project more affordable for the developer to do. You know from the comprehensive plan that our urban services land is dwindling. We were actually, frankly, getting tight at the time of the 2013 comprehensive plan. I'm here to tell you that that number has only gone down. We are simply running out of green space to build within the compact urban services boundary, which is what we're supposed to do. we've got a hole in our zoning map here. We've got a place where there simply has been no development. It's basically the only area in town, in this area of town, where additional density is possible. But I wanted to make sure before I represented that to you that it was actually true. So I looked at all of the large lots that were on here that might have qualified for more dense development. Maybe they could have been redeveloped to more effectively deploy some density. When we take out the schools, the parks, the churches, things that I think we can reasonably assume would not immediately be redeveloped, we're left with five example parcels. And I'd like to go over with you what the opportunities are there. Parcel one is nine acres. It's on Winthrop Drive. It's already zoned R3. A substantial portion of floodplain makes that lot undevelopable. 3650 Boston Road is actually part of a Kroger shopping center. It's AU zoned, so I guess theoretically it could be rezoned, but I think it's unlikely that we're going to be able to put single-family houses adjacent to the parking lot of a Kroger. Also, they've recently proposed a ride-in, ride-out through that zone, which would make residential development more challenging. We look at 3801 Boston Road. This is the one that frankly worried me when I was putting this together because it's a pretty large, contiguous parcel. It's almost entirely floodplain. We have regulations in the urban county that prevent us from building in floodplain, not a developable parcel. 1,400 Higbee Mills, much smaller, three and a half acres. As best as I can tell from that, it is entirely floodplain. Could not support any additional density. If we look at these large lot residential areas that are along Higbee Mill Road, there are nine lots. Eight of them already have single family houses. The one lot that doesn't is actually owned by the adjacent owner. I think they probably use it as additional yard space. And again, substantial portion of floodplain on these lots. The bottom line is the 4.5 acres, I think it's 4.69 acres actually, that is developable on our parcel, is one of the only areas in this part of town where you can find an opportunity for additional density. There have been some allegations that this is an inappropriate use for the middle of the neighborhood, and I'd like to submit to you very simply that this is not the middle of the neighborhood. This is at the end of the cul-de-sac. There is but one way into this development. It is off of Saybrook Road. We have no access to any other roads, cannot get any access to any other roads, completely surrounded by single family. None of the residents that are here today will ever have to drive by these houses if they don't want to. It's at the end of a cul-de-sac. There's no reason for anyone to go by them. We've screened it with trees. We've screened it with the creek. If they don't want to see it, they'll never have to look at it. Again, we've mentioned that LFUCG parcel. It's almost entirely floodplain. I don't think that's likely to develop either. So we're buffered by a tree protection area, government-owned property, and floodplain that is not buildable. Again, pointing out those areas of tree protection. There have been some critiques about the economic viability argument that I've raised with you earlier that were to incentivize economic viability of our housing projects. Is it a part of the comp plan? Well, yes, we've already covered that. The comp plan does encourage us to give more options for financial flexibility. But shouldn't it be something that we value? Shouldn't we encourage stability and investment in our communities by providing some flexible options for our infill development? And finally, I do want to go over this concept that the parcel is presently zoned AU. That is a snip of the zoning ordinance with regard to the intent of the agricultural urban zone. essentially what the AU zone's purpose is this it's a holding pattern until urban services are available those aren't my words, that's the zoning ordinance's word we have sanitary sewer, utilities, storm sewers all available in this area this property is ready for development thus making AU zoning inappropriate and I think we've submitted evidence to show you that R3 is an appropriate zone it provides us with that flexibility Our conditional zoning restrictions are going to ensure compatibility with the already existing neighborhood. And the Planning Commission has recognized the modern environment and appropriateness of R3. Already submitted into your record were the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting. I want to provide you with two quotes. Will Berkeley, who was a Planning Commissioner that voted in favor of this proposal, said the following, I do feel like in today's market that R3 zoning is probably most appropriate for this property. But this quote I thought was very telling and I think instructive about what we need to consider in this zone change. And this was a quote from Planning Commissioner Mike Cravens. He said that I don't think it's reasonable, excuse me, I'll try again. I don't think in this day and time it's reasonable to have 60-foot width lots unless it's in an estate. I mean, that's an estate-sized lot today. That's a $75,000 lot in most cases. I said in our committee meeting that I'd like to see all these lots 40 foot. but I guess that's just me. But I think most of our zone changes now for single family houses are R3. I haven't seen anything come in here that's R1D in years or R1E. Everybody does the R3 and then we put conditions on the R3 that limits it to something like this. So what's the summary here? This proposal is in accord with the comprehensive plan. I've shown you numerous locations where our proposal is checking significant and important sections of the comprehensive plan. It's adding reasonable density. It's encouraging feasible infill. It's a reasonable final piece of the puzzle. There's not going to be additional redevelopment in this area. It's a sea of single-family homes. There's no availability to add additional density. And this proposal considers both financial viability and the character of the neighborhood. I think I've also demonstrated to you that AU zoning is no longer appropriate because urban services are available and that the R3 zoning is appropriate, as is evidenced by the quotes of the planning commissioners. And so we'd ask for your approval of exactly what the Planning Commission did. No more, no less. We don't want you to lift any of their restrictions. We're more than happy to provide 27 single-family homes, which we think is a perfectly reasonable piece of this puzzle. With that, I'll conclude my remarks. I'd be happy to entertain any questions that you may have. I also have a representative of the developer here with me who may be able to assist me to the extent that I'm not able to address your questions. But thank you for your time, and we thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Thank you. Let me see if the opponents have any cross-examination at this point. Mr. Gaffield? If you could kind of share the mic. Yeah, I have very little in the way of cross. However, I wonder if you knew that Mr. Murphy had already conceded in the 2015 hearing that an HOA, in essence, would be formed and take over the bulk of the floodplain. So that wasn't really a concession made in 2016. I did review the 2015 hearing, if that's the question. Okay, so the answer is yes. Second, I think just to take something off consideration, the two neighborhoods have gotten together, and we can see that there's not a hazardous waste hazard in the location. Were you aware of that? I was not. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I have a cross-examination question. Question one. About what he said. That's appropriate. If you identify yourself, you can ask your questions. My name is Molly Franklin. I live at 556 Merrimack. You had a slide addressing environmental concerns. Those are soil concerns, is that correct? Correct. So your environmental concerns do not address the impact on the creek, the wildlife, or the air quality of the environment in the area you wish to develop? Well, the environmental slides were regarding an environmental site assessment, which is in regards to soil samples. That's what an ESA is. The title of your slide said environmental concerns, though. Correct, and they discussed the environmental site assessment, which was performed in response to neighborhood concerns. Okay, so they were soil concerns, not environmental concerns? They were, I would consider the soil part of the environment, but they do not address wildlife or I'm not sure what the other issue you'd said. Creek? No, they don't consider the creek. Or air quality? I'm not sure how air quality would be applicable, but no, there was no air quality testing done. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Seems to be all. At this point, we'll have the presentation by the opponents, and I understand someone is going to represent the neighborhood and call people up, or how do you want to, or people, if I can have the list, actually. There should be a sign-up list. Can I get that from the back of the room? And if you have an order, we'd be happy to oblige you. We have six people. Thank you. Yeah, if you would, please give your name and your address. Sorry. I'm Renee Park Mooney. I live at 3437 Wallingford Court. Sorry, could you say your last name again? Mooney. Mooney, thank you. We have six people designated to speak. And then after that, I mean, I don't know, you said you'd like to give us 30 minutes. It may take a little longer in that we've got other people who said they would give their minutes to us to extend our time if we need it. Is that okay with you, sir? That's fine. Okay. So the first person that's going to speak is Kathleen. She's standing up here right now. And then next would be Robin Young, who's right here, followed by Walt Gaffield, who's already spoken a few times. And then Evan Belt, right there next to Walt. Scott Warner. Sorry, Scott. There he is. Don't go away, Scott. followed then I will make the concluding remarks. Okay. And then if there are other people that want to see. They'll come up and again identify themselves when they come up and I'll check them off this list and if you need more time I'll ask if there are people who yield time. Perfect. Sounds great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody on the city council for allowing us to voice our feelings. Yeah. Could you come a little closer to the mic or bring it up? Thank you. I'm Kathleen Donovan. I'm the current Secretary-Treasurer of the Robinwood Neighborhood Association. I thought you might notice that we're wearing yellow ribbons. Can everybody here who's wearing a yellow ribbon, who objects to this development, please stand up. Yellow ribbons are the years, the number that each of these individual residents have lived in the neighborhood. There's nobody here who is in favor of this. Thank you. I've lived at 3473 Ipswich Court for 15 years. I came here because I'd grown up in California in a small town that's now unrecognizable. And having lived in Northern California, Southern California, Arizona, and Nevada, I've seen... I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Can I ask the clerk? Give me a 30-minute clock. Thank you. I've seen what growth without proper planning can do. I love that Lexington takes its growth seriously. I chose my neighborhood because of the large lot sizes and mature trees nestled conveniently near well-planned shopping and thoroughfares. Lexington's unusual in America because the planning staff here looks at progress as healthy growth that's planned with careful deliberation. They're not paving over every lot they find. Zoning is adhered to strictly, and it shows in our vibrant neighborhoods and stable property values. We've seen our police and fire departments react to crises in ways that cities larger and smaller want to emulate because of how well we have constructed the city and managed our density with our need for housing. We're not lawyers speaking here tonight. We're residents. We've juggled jobs and family to remind the Council of zoning ordinances that normally should speak for us. The neighborhoods of Monticello and Robinwood would prefer not to have any development on this green space in our midst. However, we defer to the experts on the planning staff, with decades of experience among them. We ask that the Council and the developer, Mr. Perry, also listen to what our planning staff has recommended. The Lexington planning staff did their due diligence, and we rely on them for their impartiality and their depth of knowledge. They reached a determination of disapproval for a zone change from AU to R3, have done so more than once with different developers. Previous developers sought a zone change before buying the property and withdrew. Mr. Perry did not. The site has not changed. There's been nothing substantial offered by the developer to meet standards for approval. So why would there now be an approved zone change on this area of limited size? The reasons given by the planning staff for disapproval were not subjective. They deal only with facts, which I'll cover now. 2013 Comprehensive Plan's mission statement is to, and I quote, provide flexible planning guidance to ensure that development of our community's resources and infrastructure preserves our quality of life and fosters regional planning and economic development. This mission statement notes that this will be accomplished while protecting the environment, promoting successful, accessible neighborhoods, and preserving the unique bluegrass landscape that's made Lexington Fayette County the horse capital of the world. The 2013 plan's goals and objectives emphasize the importance of growing successful neighborhoods, Theme A, by expanding housing choices, goal number one, supporting infill and redevelopment, goal number two, and providing well-designed neighborhoods, goal number three. It also recommends protecting the environment, theme B, by supporting the community's green infrastructure program, which is goal number three, and by implementing the adopted environmental policy, goal number two A. Lastly, the plan advocates for compact, contiguous, and or mixed-use sustainable infill development to accommodate future growth needs and sustain the urban service area concept, theme E, goal number 1B. The planning staff accounted for balancing all of these objectives, not just the ones that the lawyer here chose to mention. When it declared that the requested R3 development, which is actually on far fewer than the 10 acres presented, is not compatible with the surrounding R1C neighborhoods. These are the reasons they gave. Infield development can have a positive impact on neighborhoods, but only if it respects the scale, massing, and size of the surrounding buildings. Mr. Perry's spoken plan does not. We don't actually have a plan right now to look at that he's presenting. The site is still environmentally sensitive and requires protection to the greatest extent possible. Subdividing on the floodplain, even if left to an HOA, could have unforeseen ramifications. Being adjacent to a greenway, the development should be on a single-loaded street, according to the existing comprehensive plan. The 2013 plan recommends single-loaded streets when development is adjacent to greenways and open space throughout the community. The developer intends to build along the floodplain and within the greenway around the creek. There's no way to get around the number of units he wants to build without going onto the floodplain or building at a much smaller size than the comprehensive plan deems appropriate. An R1D zone would more appropriately fit with the lot size of the adjoining neighborhoods. The site is located interior to two established, low-density residential neighborhoods, and there's no R3 zoning anywhere in either neighborhood. An R1D zone would provide lots that are more in character and similar in size to the adjoining neighborhood. The R3 zoning would allow for lots as small as a quarter the size of existing properties and allow half the frontage that we have even on cul-de-sacs. The planning staff, whose sole purpose is to make such determinations, saw an R3 as detrimental to the area, not an improvement, not progress, not healthy growth. The planning staff has urged R1D as a compromise with this developer. Remember, that would already be 25% smaller than the existing neighborhood. The R3 could allow for more than one development on a lot of this size, which was the developer's request, so he could make the profit that he wants. We feel he should have thought of that before purchasing a property that a major development corporation like Ball Homes had already determined couldn't be developed profitably if you follow the rules of the comprehensive plan. The staff asked that before a zone change to R3 be allowed, that the urban city engineers look at the plans and the property and accept the drainage, storm and sanitary sewers, and floodplain information first. Additionally, the staff asked for the urban city traffic engineers to approve the parking, circulation, access, and street cross-sections first. The urban foresters must approve the tree inventory map, and the green space planners must approve the greenways. These agencies have not given final approval on an R3 zoning. The staffs suggested R1D would require 60-foot frontage on minimum 6,000 square foot lots. We feel this compromise allows him to build larger, perhaps two-story homes that will deprive existing long-time residents of their view and add to plumbing issues, but if built on only one side of the street could offer profitability and the neighborhood will not suffer as much. The neighborhoods are willing to sacrifice our wish for no development and risk more flooding and other issues in order to listen to the research and knowledge of the planning staff. We feel Mr. Perry should also respect the planning staff experts and be willing to compromise. Surrounding neighbors submitted more than 400 signatures on a petition to stop development on this small parcel a year ago, and again last fall. they're the ones who will live with the consequences of your vote not the developer. These facts have not changed so we don't see a reason for the disapproval to change. We feel the city council should not waste the time and money taxpayers put into having the planning staff investigate and write a reasoned report only to be ignored nor should the council set a dangerous precedent in overruling these experts to bail out a developer who made a poor investment. I thank you for your time. Thank you. This is Kathleen. Whoever's next. I didn't get all the names. There you go. I have extra copies if you care to have it. My name's Robin Young. I live at 3525 Berwyn Court in the Robinwood neighborhood. And I'm presently and actively the president of the Neighborhood Association, and I hope to represent my neighbors well tonight. Thank you so much for being here, and I know it's late and we'll try to move on. This first slide is a calculator on the Internet, and it's the average lot size adjoining 3,455 Saybrook property. And it's three-tenths or one-third of an acre. Let me see if I know how to use this. An R3 zoned lot size is 2,500 square feet. Probably most people live in a house that size. is five hundredths of an acre or one-twentieth of an acre. In other words, Robinwood and Monticello subdivisions have homes, have basically three homes per acre, where the developer would possibly build 20 homes per acre, you know, if it's cut up that small. So here again is the map, which, you know, everybody's seen enough of this map, I guess. So I'll move on. He did talk about the frontages on these pie-shaped lots. But do you see where I penciled in like .4396 acre region, .400.39? I got that off the PVA. This map came off the PVA, and that picture of that house came off the PVA. So here's Boston Road. reed track there's this one lot that jets into the 3455 Save Brook has 1.1478 acres .6 so and this is a picture of a house on reed track and I randomly just picked out houses this is lots and houses on Fogo even though they got kind of a little front they're a fourth of an acre in size. And this is Crude Court and Cromwell .4, .48, .4. So they're pretty good size lots that are touching the property to be developed. This is the Robin Wood Backyard Stroll that the Neighborhood Association organized a few years ago. And these are different backyards. The first one would be on Berwyn Court. The second one is on Tisdale which actually backs up to the property and then Maidstone Court and Merrimack. The pictures didn't come out very well but I want you to see that this neighborhood really utilizes our property and our lots. It's not just boundaries, it's actually places where we associate and associate with each other. So I was going to make this short for you. Lastly, okay, this is, I copied off of the website the general provisions and definitions for the zoning ordinances. And I did, well, I don't know what I can say up here, but I kind of highlighted the, this is 3-1, I mean 1-3 down here, and it says to regulate the density of population and intensity of land use in order to provide for adequate light and air and it goes on and promote the aesthetic appeal, character, value of the surrounding neighborhoods. So that's our zoning ordinances. That's why we have them, so you would have guidelines to go by when you decide on a zone change. I did have some questions, and I don't know if it's time to say them right now on the other side. You'll have an opportunity at a later point if you have questions. So that's all I had to share with you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. that I'm about to give and my presentation. I'm Walt Gaffield. I live at 2001 Bamboo Drive. I'm the president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. This is really the first time in that capacity I've ever presented for a neighborhood at a zoning hearing. But the neighborhood asked me to do it because I was present at the November 2016 hearing, and I observed it and I really didn't like what happened. So they asked me if I would speak on their behalf. I'm going to start really with the 1994 hearing. Ball Homes proposed R1D zoning. Planning staff recommended approval at that time. ball dropped out because of potential hazardous waste on the property, and that's already been dismissed as an issue. I'm going to go to the August 27, 2015 hearing, which the Planning Commission turned down the proposal 8 to 1, and it's under remarkably similar circumstances as what happened in 2016. I can see you can't read the black print very well. Once staff had made a very lengthy presentation on why their recommendation was to disapprove a zone change from AU to R3, the planning commission started asking questions of staff. One question was, can we restrict lot sizes and still keep R3? The answer was no. The next question was, can we restrict the number of lots through conditional zoning? Staffing said because there wasn't a land use map, they were uncomfortable doing that. Next question was, staff also suggested that the developer could add lots at the final development plan level because of the R3 zoning. the commission continued to talk Mr. Drake, a member of the commission said that all of the zoning options were limited by economics and that there is a minimum rate of return to make a development profitable that's what he said in 2015 the staff responded that it does not crunch numbers to determine a return on investment because planning does not include calculating the economic success of the developer. And I agree with that statement. Mr. Penn, who is also a planning commissioner and probably has more planning experience both on the commission and off than anybody in the room, with the possible exception of the vice mayor and Mr. Salee, Mr. Penn stated that the hearing was an example of trying to push the development through without using the commission's committee system or being responsive to the staff concerns at that time you'll find that there really was no particular discussion in the commission of the staff's concerns I'm labeling what Mr. Penn said development on the fly That relates to this quote. He went on to say that the commission should be prepared to either support the staff or oppose the staff based on zoning law rather than designing a development on the fly. And I've entitled my whole talk on that statement. And I think everybody knows Mr. Penn, and I don't know of anyone else who has had more planning experience. The November 2017, 2016 hearing was very much like the 2015 hearing, remarkably so. I want to start with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 7, infill, page 97. And we're really talking about an infill development here. The first point on page 97 in talking about infill is to ensure that infill opportunities throughout the urban services area is sensitive to the character of existing neighborhoods, especially by the citizens. That's the first point. You can see the citizens do not believe that it is sensitive to the character of the existing neighborhood. In addition, planning staff said the same thing. It wasn't in character with the existing neighborhood. Second point on page 97, 2013 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 7, again on infill. It said that the developer would seek neighborhood input early in the infill projects. That's a planning suggestion in the Comprehensive Plan. And the developer not only did not seek neighborhood input early in the infill project, it didn't seek neighborhood input at all, either in 2015 or in 2016. And again, as head of the neighborhood council, that's just not the way to do planning. And that's led us into other problems that you can see with infill. It's one of the things that needs to be corrected. Also, page 97, the comprehensive plan says that infill projects should be creative and innovative with infill proposals. and I don't see anything creative or innovative in this proposal. It's just kind of cramming smaller lots into a partial floodplain area. Now, what really annoyed me really occurred after the hearing. The chair, Chairman Wilson, closed the hearing and the Planning Commission more or less started negotiating with a developer. Mr. Drake asked, what would be the least density the developer would need to make a profit? And if you recall from the 2015 hearing, staff said that really was not an appropriate way to do planning. I realize there's a statement in the comprehensive plan, but there are a lot of statements in the comprehensive plan. This is called rate of return and profit question mark. Example number two, negotiations with the developer. The answer, by the way, was they needed 27 lots, just like they'd asked for in 2015. Which raises another interesting point. In the 2015 hearing, both planning staff, the planning commission, and the neighborhoods all said that the density proposed at 27 lots was too high. so the developer then came in with a proposal for 32 lots making it even more dense and I think frankly that was a bargaining chip rather than an actual proposal that would generate a positive response from either the planning commission, the staff, or the neighborhoods I just think it was a chip the commission asked if eliminating townhouses to bring the development back to 27 lots and single-family detached homes would be acceptable to the developer. And that was the same thing they proposed. If you look at Mr. Murphy's statements in 2015 in the original proposal, the Planning Commission had turned down 8 to 1. And the answer was yes, they could do that. And then Mr. Cravens, I think it's probably the same quote you've already seen, basically said something to the effect that developers are getting R3 zoning and couldn't we not just make that work? And that gets back to development on the fly again. That's why you don't have a map there that's real. And it maybe occurred, as Mr. Solis said, six or seven times since 1987 on an approved zone change. I'm bringing Mr. Penn up again because I think that's something you really need to think about he said that you basically don't create a development after something is proposed and gone through the planning committee system and then you try to push it through by just making changes to it to the point where you don't have a map or it doesn't exist and you deal with it later because you're not really sure what you're voting on We don't know entirely what we're complaining about because it's not there. And also he said, in 2015, the commission should be prepared to either support the staff or oppose the staff based on zoning law rather than designing a development on the fly. and as Mr. Solis said the planning commission voted 3 to 6 to not deny the zone change and then voted 8 to 1 to approve it what I saw wrong with it really it was the same exact plan as 2015 very little difference if you consider the concessions that Mr. Murphy made in 2015 you added 8 to 1 against and 8 to 1 for between the two hearings really without an explanation I thought the only thing I saw the planning commission talk about in this hearing, they didn't talk about what the staff said they ignored the staff and they basically talked about profit, profitability would the developer have to wait a year if they turned it down and the answer was yes and then the kind of notion that everybody gets R3 zoning so shouldn't we make it be R3 zoning and that's kind of how we end up with bad infill I think I don't have a lot more to say to that but I just think it kind of went off the rails the way the planning commission handled this second hearing in particular we have a professional staff we should listen to them it doesn't make sense to disapprove at 8.1 and then approve at 8.1. And I think, again, it was sort of gamesmanship on the part of the developer to propose higher density and then compromise it down to lower density. And I think you need to listen to your staff. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kay, members of the Urban County Council, my name is Evan Belt, and I live on 3439 Saybrook Road, a mere 100 feet from this proposed development. And I'm one man that's going to see, I know they mentioned that nobody will see this, but I'll see this every day. My lovely wife will see it every day. My wonderful neighbors that are all in this room will see it every day. Because it's not just one street, it's two neighborhoods that abut this property. I respectfully request that the council oppose the zoning change to R3. Such a change does not fit the context of the existing Robinwood and Monticello neighborhoods as it fails to comport with the goals of the comprehensive plan, which recommends infill and redevelopment that is compatible with a context sensitive to its environment. Page 98 of the comprehensive plan clearly states that infill is to have positive impact on neighborhoods as it respects the scale, massing, and size of the surrounding buildings. Ms. Young depicted the appearance of our neighborhood, but what I've handed to you actually represents the character of our community in the form of the petition. That was mentioned, and there's 400 signatures on both Robinwood and Monticello neighborhoods. This is a small section of who's opposed to it, but many of our neighbors flat out reject it. Our neighborhood submitted these in 2015 at the original rezoning proposal in opposition to the R3 zone, and we just don't believe that this is context sensitive to the surrounding community. Allow me to illustrate why we believe this is from the perspective of density. The proposed rezoned lot is 10.14 acres as you've heard, but the floodplain is approximately 5 acres. By itself on 5 acres, the applicant's proposed development of 27 homes will be crammed into half of the actual property, thereby creating a medium-high density development. Our surrounding Robin Wood and Monticello neighborhoods are zoned as R1C, which requires a minimum, minimum, of a lot size of 8,000 square feet. The R3 zone requires a lot size of 2,500 square feet, which is less than a third of the size of the lots that abut the property. So R1C and R1D are compatible, but R1D is still 25% more dense than R1C. R3, the applicant discussed that you have 40-foot frontage on some of the homes in our neighborhoods, but the R3 zoning gives you 25-feet frontage, and I'll illustrate why that's a lot more dense than what we have in our neighborhoods. Such a significant subdivision-wide variance would threaten the character and fabric of our long-established neighborhoods. As Mr. Gaffield discussed, the Planning Commission auspiciously approved the zone change to R3 without approving the applicant's proposed development plan. What alarms the community is that we simply don't know what is to be built on the property. What we do know is that the R3 zone was conditionally approved for only single-family detached homes. This runs counter to the spirit and tenor of the multi-used R3 zoning, unless the auspice of obtaining the R3 is for the construction of significantly smaller plots. If so, this is not in concert with the long-standing Robinwood and Monticello lot sizes. To further illustrate Ms. Young's depiction of our neighborhood, Saybrook Road is a dead-end street, but would be a cul-de-sac under this plan. That means there's one way in and one way out. We don't live on a thoroughfare like Boston Road on the other side, where there's two distinct lanes of traffic. Parking on both sides of the road significantly narrows the slightest flow of traffic on Saybrook. With only one point of entry or exit, adding such non-standard density to Saybrook Road would create traffic circulation and parking problems. For example, increased R3 density would appear to have double-wide driveways so small that cars could overlap the sidewalks, or at best, a garage could be the entirety of the plot's front yard, less 25 feet, as I had mentioned. As such, the smaller R3 plots become more problematic with the lack of parking on an already substandard street size for traffic, or even the fire department. Therefore, the R3 zone would compromise public safety. the comprehensive plan further recommends that areas near open space and greenways should have a single loaded streets on one side with the other side providing open access to the green space for all to enjoy again we simply don't know how the applicant means to develop the area but on both proposals from 2015 and 2016 he has both sides of the street developed even the one that was produced tonight the applicant's proposed development on Sabrick will replace part of the rest of the floodplain that cannot be developed with impervious surface. In doing so, this increases the amount of water that can get into the sanitary sewer lines through infiltration. Infiltration means that the lines leak and take in water. That increases the potential for sewage overflows. And it's an older subdivision, so the roots can get into the old clay lines. And I bring this to the council because our home experiences this on what is starting to become an annual basis. And as recently as last month. In short, our bathtub starts to pack up with standing water or sewage. And we have to wait to use any running water or plumbing until the city can come out and investigate. The proposed R3 zone change removes more of what is necessary for the floodplain by adding much more impervious surface, which is bad for those of us in places with infiltration and sanitary sewer overflow problems. While I have complete faith in the engineers who verify capacity assurance, it is not appropriate to treat this issue as a mere checkbox to fulfill a requirement. Maybe the existing data does not conform to minimum levels of capacity insurance. Further review is necessary prior to any development going in there. Again, we don't know how the developer intends to handle the floodplain without a furnished plan. This is all conjecture. But there is no telling what additional sewage problems may occur by adding uncharacteristically higher density to older infrastructure not designed to accommodate the added waste. Combine that with less surface area for absorption, the unknown effects increase at an exponentially higher rate. If some of our neighbors already can't handle three inches of rain with our current density, how will they handle it with a medium to high density accompanied by the R3 zone? Thank you. Thank you. And I don't mean to rush the rest of your presentation. The half hour allotted is gone, but please proceed and keep it as brisk as possible. I think you've got two more people to speak. Is that correct? Thank you. Vice Mayor Kay, Council Members. My name is Scott Warner, and my wife and I are the homeowners at 533 Cromwell Way. If you remember Mr. Sally's presentation earlier, the last picture he showed of a home along the creek, where he said it had sewage lines parallel to it, was my front yard. Just to give you an idea of where we're located. We're basically downstream from this development proposal. I would like to thank you for giving this time to voice our concerns. I'm going to go as fast as I can because I have a short two-minute video I'd like to present that sort of reinforces what Evan just said. Our home has been flooded with raw sewage from the neighborhood at least five times since 2008. We have lived here 25 years, however, and I did not document the earliest occurrences, which started around 1998. There have been many more. In addition to the other concerns expressed by my neighbors here tonight, I object to any development on the former Monticello Park area. If 27 more residences are built there under the designation R3, I fear my sewage problems will get worse, as will problems for several others who live downstream for this project. The rain runoff from such a large development will no doubt increase during heavy rains and increase the chance of potential dangerous flooding of South Elkhorn Creek, which runs right by our home. Many of the young children in the area play in that creek quite a bit. In addition, the impervious surface could cause infiltration into sanitary sewer lines, increasing the potential for further sewage overflows. I understand the Division of Water Quality has taken steps to prevent these sewage intrusions by implementing the sump pump redirection program, specifically on Cromwell Way. I thank you for those efforts, and I hope they will stop the sewage from coming into our homes. I understand, however, that the program is not complete. Additionally, I've been told before that my problem should have been taken care of. Back when the city hired contractors to repair the runoff from sewage lines in accordance with the EPA's suit involving the Clean Water Act, I watched them excavate my entire yard, dig up all the sewage pipes. This was, I believe, in August of 2010. Repair it all, and less than 12 months later, I had another sewage flood in my home after the lines were supposedly repaired. The last occurrence of sewage intrusion was the day of the record rainfall on April 3, 2015. It was so bad that the sewage flowed into our home for 13 straight hours and shot up through the sanitary sewer manhole cover, sending contaminated debris flowing into South Elkhorn Creek. I realized that this record rainfall was called a 50-year event. and there wasn't much we could do about it. But as I stood there in my boots pumping water sewage out of my bath tub out the window, I was wondering why my neighbor 30 feet away wasn't having a problem. I was glad for him. My mother-in-law up the street on the same street had no problem, but here I had sewage pumping into my home for 13 hours. Probably most of you in this room had no sewage coming into your homes on that 50-year event April 3rd. Maybe some of you did. I talked to one other neighbor on Cromwell that I know firsthand did have this problem on the same day, but many others did not. I've not had any events since then, but I'm asking you, can you assure me it won't happen again? Has the sump pump redirection program been completed on all of the homes in the Cromwell area? And if 27 more homes are allowed to be built in this small piece of green space, Won't the chances of a recurrence be increased? I know you can't assure me, but I do know that this high-density development will increase sewage use and rain runoff, and once again we'll be left to wonder, when will it happen again? This is why I'm asking that no residential development be approved. Here you go. My house is flooded again. And we got raw sewage coming up. Supposedly after the city has already fixed this. Thank goodness we had put our own little device to help get the water out into the driveway instead of the house. But you can see it pouring out. And you can see that this is raw sewage. This is the highest I've ever seen this creek. Rain came out of nowhere here on August 10th, Sunday. Moving pretty fast. It's gotten over the stone retaining wall there. You can kind of see it. Covering up some trees. Thankfully I've rigged up my own system to help sewage be pumped out of the house instead of going into the house. You can see its steady flow. It's been going that way for about three hours now. It comes up out of this drain so I rigged that up and saved it from going into the house as best I could. But you can see this is raw sewage coming into my house. Here you go. Here's raw sewage. Here's the nice part about having this rain. It's April 3rd, 2015. All that raw sewage coming up in my bathtub. I've got a small pump rigged up to it to try to help, but I can't keep up with it. Hi, my name is Renee Park Mooney. I've lived at 3437 Wallingford Court since 1986, 31 years. I oppose the R3 zoning on this property and we do not have an attorney to represent us because we're a working class neighborhood so here we are trying to show our opposition to this development to add to what Scott was saying 25 inspections have happened over the last year or two in our neighborhood because of this raw sewage and flooding issue and I just ask that anybody in here that's had any raw sewage flooding on their property or in their home, would you please stand up? I'm raising my hand because I have and I'm already standing. Okay. All right, thank you. I'm going to give you just a little history of this property because I've lived here this long. My family chose to live in the desirable Monticello neighborhood because of the exceptional school district. Stonewall then, now Wellington Elementary, ranked 10 out of 10. Jesse Clark Middle ranked 10 out of 10. Lafayette High ranked 9 out of 10 on great schools and Zillow websites. Monticello Park was one block over from my court at the end of Saybrook Court. A five-minute walk. The playground had swing sets, slides, merry-go-rounds, a basketball court. There was plenty of open green space, and the South Elkhorn Creek was ideal for playing poo sticks. None of you have heard of that. Catching crawdads. Our little park was perfect for all ages for Monticello Neighborhood Association events, Easter egg hunts, picnics, parks, and recreation. Even had a summer program there. Monticello Park, believed to be owned by the city of Lexington, in fact, was owned and leased to the city by Ted Osborne for $1 a year. He operated a private sewage treatment plant on this property which closed in 1984 for EPA violations, resulting in the removal of the sewage treatment facility and tanks in connection to the city's sanitary sewer. In 1993, the city government ordered the park equipment dismantled and removed due to a concern, I suspect, over the contamination from raw sewage and the former sewage treatment plant on the site. The fact that the city never owned a Monticello Park property, which was on all the city maps when I moved here, they realized they didn't own it and they didn't want the liability. The former Monticello Park has remained an unofficial wildlife preserve, forest, and trailway for over 20 years, with deer, groundhogs, all kinds of interesting creatures down there, until the Ted Osborne estate sold the 10-acre property to the current owner and developer in 2015. On more than one occasion, I witnessed raw sewage flowing in Monticello Park during heavy rains. A manhole cover on Halifax Drive upstream from the creek routinely blew off due to the pressure from the fountain of stormwater and sewage, resulting in feces, toilet paper, and tampons in the street. When the city connected the Monticello neighborhood to the public sewer system, that particular problem seemed to have been alleviated there, but obviously not in other people's homes and neighborhoods. Ted Osborne owned and developed the Monticello neighborhood, which I live in, as well. The sewer lines from the houses to the main line under the street were made of clay tile, which cracks very easily. Osborne planted two water maple trees in the front yards of most of the houses he built. Water maples. These water maple roots easily cracked through the clay tile pipes and continually clogged the pipes, resulting in sewage backup in our homes, as well as leaking into the storm sewers under the streets, which continues to be a serious problem in all parts of our neighborhood today. Most of the residents have had to cut down their water maples to try to alleviate the problem. I have had sewage backup into my garage and bath laundry room in the basement starting in 1986, right after I moved into the house. And I call wastewater management approximately two times each year due to sewage backup in my house until 2001, when I paid to have my pipes replaced privately, paid out of my own pocket, but the roots still got into the VC pipe after that. But then eight years later, from June to August 2009, a two-year period, the city came out five times. And finally, they said, Mrs. Mooney, we're going to put in a work order and have your pipes replaced. And that's what happened. And I've not, knock on wood, had any more problems on my property. Now, a lot of people have talked about the comprehensive plan, Greenway Master Plan. I'm not going to go over some of those same issues. But one thing that I read, page exhibit, I guess it's exhibit three. The primary focus of the conservation greenway corridors is the preservation of floodplains in rapidly developing areas and restoration of floodplains in older developed sections of the community. That's us. To date, the existing greenways have been acquired when there has been an opportunity to obtain the land during new development, associated with a park, a road project, or through buyouts for flood control. This approach has resulted in small isolated fragments of greenways. In this document, it even talks about our neighborhood, the South Elkhorn Creek is in a suburban area that provides opportunities for water quality enhancement and habitat, as well as a pass of recreation and educational prospects. to homeowners' investments through greenway acquisition areas identified as needing flood control. Promote the value of greenways regarding savings associated with water quality improvement. I would summarize what everybody else said, but I'm not going to go there because it takes time. In closing, I want my sweet Monticello Park back. I oppose the R3 zoning for all the reasons mentioned by the previous objectors. They are all important. This floodplain is full of wildlife and plant life and should be preserved in accordance with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and Green Space Master Plan. But the greatest concerns are about the raw sewage overflow and backup into our homes. I would prefer no development on this property, but I am willing to compromise to get our public green space back. I am willing to compromise not all my neighbors are. I would like this developer to sit down just once and talk with the residents of Monticello and Robinwood in good faith to design a plan that deeds to the city, if the council chooses to accept it, the floodplain as a public greenway or park to be maintained by the Division of Parks and Recreation and Environmental Services. rather than the homeowners who buy these houses or the HOA, if they have one, that will be responsible for flooding, sewage, liability if some kid climbs in there and drowns. I mean, it's serious. I would think that they would not want that responsibility. But then the planning staff, which I'm so impressed with, in their report on petition for zone map amendment, page 3, it states, and somebody mentioned this once before, The comprehensive plan further recommends that near open space and greenways, the streets should be single loaded, that is, only developed on one side, with the other side providing open spaces to green space for all to enjoy. An R1D zoning will accommodate this recommendation. The developer's attorney just told us. He said, well, he has some plan that we've never seen before. But we need to make a new plan because we haven't seen one and we would like input on it. And he asked the question, what's really the difference between Ball Home's proposal of 22 houses back in 1994 and 27? You know, it's only five houses, but five houses along that greenway, that's a big difference. Take away those three houses. Go back to 22. Give us the park. Give us the floodplain to have as a park and as a greenway. Sit down and talk to us about it. We can sit down and talk about it and see if we can come up with an agreement. And then my final point is this. It seems that the developer values this green space and wants to promote the waterway as well. After all, he named the proposed development Winding Creek at Monticello. Thank you for agreeing to hold this second hearing that we requested and allowing us this time to express our objections regarding this Saber zoning issue. Thank you. I'm going to assume that the other people who have signed up have yielded their time. If there is anybody who has something new to add who has not had the opportunity to speak in opposition, please come to the podium. My name is Jason McCurry. I live at 529 Crew Court. As you can tell from my sticker, I've only been a homeowner there for 13 years. But my wife and I purchased the house from her parents who built that house in 1974, so her sticker would be a little more impressive than mine. What I wanted to point out is the flooding that we've talked about. From this map that I know we've pointed out, the incorrect part of the development, Crew cord is this bottom left cord. I don't have a laser pointer. There's one on that. That little. Right here? Yeah, that. The mic. This one. See? Take the mic. There's a pointer on there. Okay. How about we just get the pointer? Mic, here's a pointer. I don't think we need a mic. I don't know how it works. Me neither. Okay, so this is crew. This is my house right here. And so I certainly realize that what we're talking about when we hear one guy say that his house floods way down this creek could be pretty easily dismissed as you live right beside the creek way downstream. But this court actually floods all the way up out of the sewer. So when you looked back down his video of this creek bed and those giant sewer drainage storms coming out and overflowing, it's because this court and FOGO that back up to it. So when the attorney for the developer stands up and says, this is not the middle of a neighborhood, it's accessible by one street only, it's only going to affect Saybrook. Please understand that as far as I can tell, that is very much in the very center of a neighborhood. And not only does it back up to my house, but the flooding is going to be severely impacted when you take all of this extra development to the left of the creek and add to it. So what you're really talking about is not just the number of houses going to be an inconvenience for the residents of Saybrook. I think we can all agree that's definitely going to be the case. what we're talking about is the flooding going to be increased for not only the people downstream my house thank goodness is elevated so i don't get the flooding in my house but the cars do flood the street floods and we're going to continue to see increased problems here so i think that we certainly have a right to look at what we're doing to the floodplain for these houses and to discuss this, but you are impacting severely the people who back up from other streets. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Again, my name is Molly Franklin. I live at 556 Merrimack, which is on the corner of Merrimack and Crew. And I wanted to talk about our school, Wellington Elementary. I have two kids that go there. I also happen to teach fifth grade at Wellington Elementary. We're a school of distinction, and we're full. And the school district just rezoned, and we got a bunch of kids from Stonewall into Wellington, which is not a huge school, but it is a new school. The rezoning numbers were done not based on a new development in the middle of our neighborhood. And so I would like to know where 27 new houses worth of kids are going to go to school. because what it's going to result in is portable units put in the back of Wellington because there's no room in the building. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Janet Cabanis, and I live at 704 Cumberland Road, which is in Stonewall, which is right across from this Monticello area where the controversy is. If I have the situation thought out correctly, I think all that you are here to do tonight is to accept the rezoning or to disapprove the rezoning, not accept the rezoning. And that's what my remarks are going to be based on. Mr. Gaffield has given me a lot of help with this by quoting Mr. Penn's remarks. And most of what I'm going to say is just a short way of looking at what I feel Mr. Penn was saying much more eloquently than I do. But I'm the neighborhood representative who has worked through about four changes, four infill plans in the past year. That means that I've been to at least 12 official meetings which dealt with zoning redevelopment. And I know that what Mr. Penn said makes a whole lot of sense from a practical standpoint, from having been through that sort of thing. The difficulty here is, what I'm going to say to you is that I think we are doing this in the wrong order. We should not rezone and then do a plan. I know the importance of the plan. The plan goes to the neighbors, and a plan is something that you can see and look and consider the implications of what's down there in black and white. It gets tweaked all the time as planning's input changes it, as neighborhood input changes it, as developer compromises on what they are willing to do to meet the expectations of the neighborhood of the neighborhood that is going to host this new development in infill. I don't think that good development is achieved by rushing it. And I know that there will be another year on this because that's the rule. If you don't get your zone change one year, you have to wait another year to try it again. Can I interrupt that, please? Yes. Because the planning conditions are approved. Well, can you, if you want to speak again, you'd need to come to the podium, but let me let her finish. Thank you. Okay. Well, where am I? I think that you can't really make a good judgment based on the gentleman who is the attorney for the developer having put up a plan that is somewhat preliminary for the small amount of time, maybe two minutes, I saw it, especially when my brain was trying to figure out the other important things he was saying. I just didn't have a time to look at it. Likewise, the technical committee hasn't looked at it. The whole neighborhood hasn't been able to look at it. Subdivision, zoning, planning commission, and you don't know for sure. It's just doing things with the cart before the horse. I would certainly urge you to not accept this zone change with the suggestion that it be looked at again in the appropriate time, whatever that is. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. And Janet Kavanis just said about half what I was going to say, so that makes it quick. I want you to think for a moment about the zone you're asked to change this to, the R3 zone. It's called a planned neighborhood residential zone. and Ms. Kavnis has explained how it's important for an R3 planned neighborhood residential zone to have a plan. The plan is missing. Look for a moment at the intent of it. This zone is primarily for multifamily dwellings. Not. That's been eliminated. That's offered by the applicant as a restriction. We're not going to do that. And other residential uses. There's a list of them, the principal uses, below. The only one that's even pertinent is number one. those allowed in the R2, the duplex zone, well, actually you have to go to the duplex zone and see that R1, a single family detached dwellings, essentially what you've got is you've taken an R3 zone and you've hollowed it out with conditional zoning restrictions until one single use is left, the single family detached zone. I don't think that's appropriate. I think you ask for an R1 zone if you want single family detached. Now, what the R3 zone offers if you're doing nothing but single-family detached is the small lot size and frontage that people have already detailed. It offers flexibility to pack in density of dwellings. And I think you've heard from a number of people, and I agree, that the number of dwellings the developer intends, says he intends, and wishes to pack in 27 is inappropriately high. To do that, he needs the R3 zone and then hollow out all its uses. I think an R1 zone, in fact R1D, as the staff recommended, works better. Could you put up just the other one about conditional zoning? This is the zoning ordinance on attaching conditions to the grant of the zone. You're not going to give him his R3 unless he says, we'll take out all the uses, but in this instance, single family detached. Now, the zoning ordinance, and it follows KRS, is telling us that such powers at the star there should be sparingly and thoughtfully used. They have to have findings of fact. The finding of fact is the developer is offering it, the neighborhood wants single-family detached, but the neighborhood doesn't want that many single-family detached. Thank you very much. This is not a planned neighborhood zone. It's a crammed neighborhood zone. I think it's inappropriate. Okay. I believe that's all who wish to speak in opposition at this time. I guess there's an opportunity for cross-examination by the petitioner. Not okay. Ms. Young, there's going to be an opportunity for a summation. I don't know if you mentioned before that you had a question. I did add a few of what you mentioned earlier. I've got four little things, and I'll bring it up and then I can't. Okay? That's fine. Go ahead. My name is Robin Young, and I live at 3525 Berwyn Court in Robinwood. I just wrote some notes down as Mr. Perry's attorney made a few comments. He said that AU zoning was inappropriate for that piece of property, and I'm not sure why. And he said all the lots but one are 6,000 square foot lots. So I don't know why if they are, isn't that what an R1C is? 6,000 square feet? Pardon? R1D, yes. So he said all of these lots were 6,000 square feet but one. So it sounds like to me he's almost there. and again the street parking was an issue because if they got little fronts and people don't have room where they got company they're going to encroach on their neighbors up the road for parking and he said somebody mentioned that at that size there's $75,000 lots well I'm thinking well why doesn't he just sell the lots and he'd be rich so those were my thoughts when he was going through those That's all I had. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, it would be an opportunity for staff to make additional comments. Mr. Silley? Thank you, Vice Mayor Kay. There are just a few items that I would like to offer as a rebuttal, strictly for the record, just to clarify the record. Two were very technical issues raised by Mr. Walburn. He mentioned that there were some lots, I believe on Monticello Drive, that were less than the 8,000 square foot minimum of its R1C zoning designation. Those lots were developed prior to 1969, and in 1969 is when the R1C category was created with its current restrictions. So it's very likely that the explanation for that is those lots were developed before the zoning went in place and they're of a non-conforming size. Similarly, he offered a few examples of lots in R1C zones where the frontage did not meet the 60-foot minimum of the zone. The areas that he showed, I believe, have been developed since 1969. However, on those curved lots, especially on a cul-de-sac, under the zoning ordinance, lot frontage is not measured where the sidewalk is, the back of the sidewalk, which is usually the right-of-way line to the property line. Instead, on a cul-de-sac lot, it's measured at the building line, which is 30 feet into the property. So if you consider you have a very odd-shaped lot that narrows at its front, the measurement at the front will not be as deep as long as the measurement further back into the lot of the building line. This would be my contention that those lots probably do meet the R1C minimum of a 60 foot lot frontage at the building line. So they are not non-conforming in my estimation. Just for clearing the record. And then finally, or two other quick items that were mentioned from different representatives of the neighborhood. One item mentioned by Mr. Gaffield, I don't think I have a quibble with the timeline or the events or the statements, but I'm not sure it's accurate to call the Planning Commission's discussion with the developer as negotiations. I think, and from my view, it looked very much like what the council does occasionally after you close a hearing where you may have questions of either the staff or the applicant or folks that have addressed you during your hearing where you may be working on conditional zoning restrictions or the like. That's how it struck me. And so I'm not sure it may have seemed like negotiations. I can certainly understand that from the neighbor's perspective. But being in attendance at the hearing, that was more what my recollection was of that discussion. And then finally, there was one other statement about having to wait a year should the council deny, and I think that was what Mr. Gaffield was trying to address earlier in the hearing. Because the planning commission has recommended favorably this zone change, their bylaw restriction of the developer having to wait a year to make another application, it does not hold because they have recommended favorably this zone change to you. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. Thank you. At this time, there's an opportunity for a practitioner to present any rebuttal evidence. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and I'll try to keep it very brief. Obviously, we've had a lot of information that has come out here, but I would like to just try to limit it to the things that I feel are relevant to your considerations here today. If I could ask you to put my PowerPoint back up, and I want to make something abundantly clear. The fact that this plan doesn't match what we're asking for is an intent on no one's part to hide the ball. It's simply a way that the planning process works. And so I want to put up the plan here. You'll have to forgive me. And just for everyone's satisfaction, it's that lot right there that does not meet the 6,000 feet. Everything else is 6,000 feet. There's been some good points and there's been maybe some misleading points here. And so I just want to try to set the record straight. This was called a bargaining chip plan. I can personally testify that that is not the truth. And I'd like to tell you what I advise my client, which is not something I typically air publicly, but why we got this plan. Because one of the assertions that the neighborhood has made is absolutely correct. There was a plan for 27 single-family houses that had been disapproved by the Planning Commission in 2015. I would remind you that the members of the Planning Commission in 2015 are identical to the Planning Commissioners in 2016. So it's possible maybe we just changed minds. Maybe we made a better case. There hasn't been turnover in personnel. My advice was to do a mixed-use development. Why? Because of some of those things I pointed to you in the comp plan about mixed-use and mixed-type housing adjacent to one another. My client has always desired to do single-family houses, but I didn't think it was appropriate to bring forward an application that had been previously turned down. Now, that may be my mistake as an attorney, advising him to bring forward a different plan, because clearly there was something about this that did not strike a chord with the planning commissioners. But I think they recognized the appropriate nature of the R3 zone and the reasonability of R3 zoning. Now, there are some questions, if we're almost at 6,000 feet, why don't we just do R1D? The answer to that is lot width. It's not lot gross size, it's lot width. We are trying to match generally lot sizes. Some of these lots are actually quite large, much substantially larger than 6,000 feet. But to get 27 lots, you have to go narrower than the 60-foot lot, which, if you'll remember, is what Planning Commissioner Mike Cravens told you was an estate lot. It would be great to sell estate lots. The problem is development is exceedingly expensive. You buy curb gutter sidewalk by the foot. It's sometimes in excess of $10, $12, $14 per foot, two feet on each side of the road, just to lay down the roadway. That does not count other infrastructure expenses. It's nice to think that these numbers work out. There's a whole lot more investment in here than merely what was paid for the property and chopping it up. There's been a lot of discussion about the planning staff's recommendation, and I submitted in that hearing, and I believe persuaded the planning commission, that I think planning staff just got this one wrong. The planning staff's advice was you can have any zone you want, as long as it's R1D. And I'd submit to you that flies directly in the face of what the comp plan says we need to do, in regards to flexibility. It's just not in there. So I think that's what persuaded the planning commission that R3 zoning was appropriate because otherwise we were locked into R1D and frankly that flies in the face of the goals and objectives of the comp plan. Now just to correct a few other minor issues. Yes, the minimum lot size in the R3 zone is 2,500 square feet. I unfortunately didn't bring my printout up but I think our smallest lot is 5,700 square feet. And I'd ask you what would happen if after affirmatively representing to the planning commission that we were going to build 27 single-family lots, if we came in with a plan with 2,500 square foot lots, we'd be laughed from the room. We can't do that. This is the plan that we want. We're not trying to hide the ball. This is what we want to build, 27 single-family houses. There was a suggestion that we should dedicate the floodplain to the urban county government as a park. Nothing would make us happier. please take the floodplain from us. It's extremely expensive to maintain. We don't want the liability. The simple fact of the matter is the urban county government does not accept floodplain because it's expensive to maintain. But if that is a condition the council would like to impose, I feel fairly confident that we could reach an agreement regarding that. It's just not something that you all entertain. If there's a time in the future where that changes, believe me, there's no developer in the world who wants to increase his maintenance costs. That's just not true. We'd be more than happy to work something like that out. It's just not something the urban county government's doing at this point. Our lots are not in the floodplain. We're not impacting the floodplain. 46% of the lot you're looking at will be untouched. No development. The groundhogs can still have a place to live. We're trying to preserve the area. We had heard about ruining people's views. We understand that when you develop an undeveloped parcel, views are going to change. What I would tell you is we've done what we can on this plan to protect the viewshed of people who live there. We've put a tree protection area where we're not allowed to cut down trees along the borders of the property. We're buffered from a number of these places by natural features. So we're trying our best not to impact it, but when you develop property, things happen. Now perhaps the most concerning thing, and I do feel deeply terrible for these neighbors for their sewers problems, I think that's a terrible situation, and I have sincere sympathy for that. I would tell you two things. Number one, it sounds to me like there's a lot of aging infrastructure in the area. I think some of the neighbors' testimonies demonstrated to you some of the problems that are existing there with old materials, root infiltration, that may be exacerbating their problems. There are two things that we're required to do. One is install modern infrastructure for our development. We'll be putting in modern materials, not clay pipes. The second thing I would tell you is, in order to get building permits, as you all are certainly aware, because I watched you do some change orders on it this evening at your council meeting, the urban county government's under a consent decree, and you're not allowed to approve development that would overburden your sanitary sewer system. We're required to demonstrate capacity before we can get building permits. So while I'm deeply sympathetic to the neighbor's plight with regard to flooding, and I certainly hope the urban county government will make investments to help them, It is certainly not within our ability to overburden that system. We can't get a building permit if we did. So in summary, I would just like to say that we're certainly mindful of these concerns, but there are several folks here who just don't want to see anything developed. The urban county government did operate this as a park. It elected to let it go. It decided that private ownership and potentially development was the course. 23 years ago, Ball Homes brought forward a development plan that called for five fewer houses for this. Under a comp plan that was 23 years older, that had different goals and objectives, we're within five houses. Things changed in 23 years. We're running out of space. This is an exceedingly modest increase in density. And the Planning Commission overwhelmingly found that it was appropriate by a vote of 8 to 1. We'd ask you to uphold their recommendation. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Is there someone who would like to do a summation for the opponents? Not at this point. No, ma'am. I'd like to say that the lots butt right up against the 25-foot line from the flood plain. and there's no real plan as to what to do with a runoff that would add water and water leads to infiltration which leads to sanitary sewer problems particularly because of the old infrastructure, the clay pipes and probably cracks in the city's line. There needs to be work done on it. It's also clear that this can go right back to the planning commission so that would give time for the neighbors to maybe work out something mutually acceptable with the developer. and obviously that hasn't been done there's been no contact at all despite what the infill part of the comprehensive plan says so I think there should be an opportunity to do that I'm not sure I don't know what the developer is going to do with the runoff other than put it back into the flood plain which exacerbates things downstream I don't think there's a sanitary sewer overflow map and I'm not sure it shows incidents in this area or in this region. I also want to compliment the Division of Water Quality because as has already been said, they've conducted 25 inspections in the area and that means they're on top of it, they're working on it and they know about it but it's not completed yet and they're working very hard. I think in the sump pump redirection program they have two inspectors for the entire county. I think given just the nature of the problems in this neighborhood, that's something the council should look at in the way of adding staff and funding because it's a really economical way of stopping flooding and sanitary sewer overflows. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ms. Mooney, if you have a question, understand that no one is obligated to answer it. I have two points to make. He brought up money, so I decided I was going to. In the 2015 plan, they said that they would sell these houses for $240,000 a piece. So times 27, that's $6.8 million they would get from this. So that's the money issue. The park issue, he said he would give the park to us. Thank you, thank you. I've submitted to the council two emails, three emails, two from Susan Pluger, who's in charge of environmental services, who said they'd be glad to take over that green space, make it a passive green space, and manage it. And you've got the emails that say that. So thank you, sir, for offering us the park. Thank you. At this point, there's an opportunity for council members to ask questions of staff, petitioner and opponents and petitioner and opponent shall be entitled, it says, to rebut any new evidence brought up on council questioning. So I'll open the floor for council questions starting with Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I've set in on a lot of zone hearings but this one is a little difficult and a little different. And I don't remember ever getting the cart before the horse on the type of zoning that we're supposed to be doing up here or what we're supposed to, I guess, as a group, decide whether the zoning is good or bad. I don't think the Planning Commission really gave us adequate information for a zone hearing. I think they've talked about the plan up there, but that plan obviously is an old plan and doesn't even rely on what we need to make decisions about. And I realize there's a development plan that goes with this, and a development plan goes back to the planning commission. But it seems like they want a zone change before they even address that. and that's unusual because usually it's been different from that. And you've been on the Planning Commission before. Well, is that a question you might want to ask Mr. Salee? Yeah, Mr. Salee, because I've got a couple other questions to ask him. So along with that, Mr. Salee, is the question that it's very rare that the planning staff and the Planning Commission are so far apart. and so you can answer that as part of the question I have but as far as the type of zone that we're addressing here it's just unusual and different. Well again, you're correct about the development plan being postponed rather than approved on a zone change that's recommended for approval to you. Again, in my recollection that's happened just a handful of times. I had estimated five to seven during my career. I think it's less unusual that you have a recommendation from the commission that's different from the staff. That does happen more than once a year on average. What may be rare is that you're holding a second public hearing on that, and perhaps there's so much focus about the history of the zoning on the property. A lot of those, though, yeah. That answers my question. This is probably addressed to you, too. Do we have sanitary overflow problems in this area? Obviously we do. Did you all address that when you were in the discussion at all? I'm not sure that the technical committee who reviewed the development plan ahead of the planning commission's subcommittees discussed that much. I think there was some discussion about whether or not this sanitary sewer bank had any capacity, according to the Capacity Assurance Program. And I don't believe this is a bank that's either at zero or negative. Did the staff consider this at all? Absolutely. Problems we're having with overflow? Members of the technical committee absolutely do want to discuss those types of issues. Who keeps this area up now? Because there's maintenance of that stream and the green space and all that. Who's cutting that grass and taking care of that property now? Well, it's currently the responsibility of the property owner. As I recall from the Planning Commission hearing, there was some testimony of adjoining neighbors on Saybrook actually mowing a portion of the subject property. I think the photos that I showed you at the end of the street had kind of a mowed lawn area. I would believe that that's probably the area they're talking about. I know in my district, it's occurred more than once that I have an HOA, and all of a sudden, that HOA, just after 10 or 15 years, you don't hear from them. And the property owners just don't take care of the property. And was this considered in planning in your staff meetings? I don't believe so in the staff meetings. Long-range maintenance and plan? Well, the future of the Greenway and the floodplains certainly has been a staff consideration, both in 2016 and then in the previous hearing in 2015, because we had great discussion with the developer about how that area would be lotted and how it would be transferred. And it was much the staff's preference that it be an entity where it could remain a single ownership rather than have all of those lots extend across the creek. One other concern or question is there's the tip of the property. Who owns that little green space that's up there? Isn't that still the property owner? Mr. Brown, I'll... I've dedicated to... Are you speaking of... Down at the bottom here. This? Yeah, that section. Yes, this is actually owned by the urban county government, and it is zoned AU and not... So it was deeded to us? I presume that it is. It's shown on the PVA as being owned by the urban mechanic. So it's just passive land then that we take care of. And how many acres is that one? Just a half acre? No, I believe it's larger than that. I would estimate maybe two acres, three, two to three acres. Oh, that large? Okay. I believe so. It's just a fraction of the size of the property you're looking at tonight. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bill, I have questions for you. Yes, sir. That recommendation for single loading on just one side of the street, how important is that for you guys? Well, the staff mentioned that in our staff report, and that is what I'll call a new recommendation as of the 2013 conference plan. And so we did cite that. That is a general policy statement of the plan that prefers streets that have one side open to open space areas. I don't know if you can answer this. Would that be enough for you guys to turn down a request if it was loaded on both sides? Well, I think that's a fair issue in understanding why, one of the reasons why the staff recommended disapproval. I think the difference came from the hearing, if, again, I can refer to the development plan, you know, it's an interpretation. I believe the Planning Commission viewed this as allowing that type of orientation that's in the comprehensive plan. And I think that's one of the reasons they were comfortable saying this agrees with the comprehensive plan. Okay. And again, I don't know how much you can answer about this stuff, but Mr. Wellborn's development said minimum of 5,700 square feet. You guys recommend the R1D, and the minimum on that is 6,000? Yes, sir. Is that right? Okay. That's right. I'll make sure I have that right. Because comprehensive plan, the key thing I look at is density. and so I found it very interesting that you didn't like the R3. You guys would probably be okay with the RD1, though. Is that correct? Yes, we've, as a staff, consistently recommended that zone. So I think what Mr. Walburn's told you tonight is their development will generally meet those size requirements and the difference then is the lot front. They'd have to go a little bit bigger. One concern I have is about, I like that they've got the tree protection zone. Is that required? Again, if I can point to the development plan, they are proposing a tree protection area along these two property lines. I failed to mention that in my earlier presentation to you. That is not required by the zoning ordinance, but I think the developer is recognizing there's a substantial tree stand there, and they are intending to preserve that. Okay. One of my concerns would be that if we did R1D, they needed more space, might they take out the tree protection zone? that is theoretically possible, yes sir to get the lot sizes just one more question conflicting, I don't think the visibility from a neighborhood is that big a deal but we do get conflicting claims, Mr. Welborn says people won't be able to see the neighborhood, the neighborhood said they will maybe you can answer this for me could you describe what's in that tree protection zone right now? Are these mature trees you're going to leave? They are. The Monticello plant closed, and Bill may be able to correct me, but I want to say in the late 80s. And since that time, it's more or less grown unrestricted. So you've got close to 30 years of mature trees in that area. Some of it is what I would refer to as thicket undergrowth and things like that that would probably need to be cleaned up. But in terms of high mature trees, there are several, and we would intend to preserve those with the R3 zone. Okay, is there any plan for additional screening? There's not at this time. There's no zone-to-zone screening requirement, unlike commercial zone changes where you may be used to, you know, you need to buffer commercial from residential. We don't have that. We think that this is the equivalent of a zone-to-zone screen by placing the tree protection there. Okay. Well, thank you, Chief. Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Brown. James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Brown and Gibbs asked a lot of the same questions that I had. I think it's a beautiful thing when neighbors come together and come out and advocate and use the tools of the system that are put in place to try to do what's best for their community. And I think it's a hard job for us to make a decision on this because as our community grows and infield opportunities are maximized, it's just a tight balance between making the most out of the space that's available, but at the same time accommodating the residents or neighbors that currently live in the area. The sanitary sewer concerns are something serious, and I think they may be a whole other problem other than this development. I know it's something that we as a city really have to take a look at and address because that's really unfortunate that you have raw sewage backing up in your house. But another part of the whole problem, or not problem, but part of the process that I think needs to be improved on, and it's not mandated, but I think the developers have a responsibility to try to engage the neighbors that are already in these communities that they're coming and redeveloping in. because from what I'm hearing tonight and what I've consistently hear is that that engagement is not taking place. I think some of the things can be worked out on the front end because, you know, I don't know. I guess I kind of feel like we're the judge between, you know, the big bad wolf and the nice innocent neighbors or so to speak. And I guess I'll end with that. I don't want to go on the ramp, but I just think that if we try to do some of this engagement on the front end, that we can try to get some of these things rectified before we get to this point and come to a satisfactory conclusion for both parties. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bill, I wanted, as you look at the map there, and the proposal would be to develop on both sides of Saybrook, correct? Yes, they are proposing to develop on both sides of an extended street, yes. And single-family homes? Yes. Even their proposal was for single family on both sides. Just on one side they had them attached. Right. That's what the planning commission has not recommended that be allowed. Because I was looking at the way the stream runs, and I thought you mentioned the fact that those lots, it's a huge problem if those lots extend on the other side of that stream. That was much more of an issue in the Planning Commission's hearing in 2015. Okay. Because, again, at that time, the proposal, again, on this side of Saybrook, was for single-family lots. And so one of the issues as that development plan progressed through 18 months ago was how far back those lots would extend into the floodplain. I believe the initial proposal was that they were proposed to extend all the way to the property line on the rear lots of the Boston Road homes. But I believe by the time it advanced to the Planning Commission's hearing that it had been pulled back to, in essence, the creek, where these lots would lot to the creek, and then this would be maintained with an access to the street extension. In this instance, it was not the issue because only two lots were proposed on that side of the street, a lot for the townhouses and a lot for the open space and floodplain. I just know if you don't have access to the other side of the creek, you can't maintain it. And I've got some issues like that in my district. So that really concerned me. and these proposed lots are going to be the very small lots with the houses extremely close together. Well, the R3 zone requires a minimum separation from the wall of the house to the property line of three feet. Right. So then the other lot would have that at a minimum. We've not talked with the applicant to see if they're proposing something any different than that, but that's the minimum requirement. And I see that as a real public safety issue. Believe it or not, that three-foot separation, the entire rationale for that is that it purports to the Kentucky Building Code. The Planning Commission has reviewed that issue twice in the past 20 years, and both times that they have done so, that three foot has been decided on because the building code allows a wall of a structure to be that close to a property line before, let's call them, unusual improvements in terms of fire separation have to be applied to that wall. And do we have to follow that code or could we increase that? Well, the building code I don't believe is subject to your augmentation, let's call it, But our zoning restrictions do not have to match that. They can be greater than that. But that's the rationale for why it is 3G. I always see that as being real problematic. Okay. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And first of all, thank you all for coming down this evening. I know it's late. I know it's cold. but I appreciate your concise delivery and being here on behalf of those neighbors that couldn't be here. And based on that, I'm going to make a motion. Council Member Massardi, we're still in questions. I'll wait until we're finished and then we'll go ahead. I'm sorry. It's okay. Does anybody else wish to ask questions of any of the participants? If not, I have a question for Mr. Sully. I presume when the, well, I won't presume anything. I'll ask the question. If this particular parcel was owned R1D, the maximum number of single-family detached units, houses that could be placed on it? I guess I started by saying I presume the staff thought about it. that since that was the preferred staff zoning. So what would that allow? Because of the difference in the lot width requirements, it probably would be very similar to, if not exactly match, the 1994 proposal involving the property, which was 22 lots. 22 lots. Yes, and that's due to the fact that the street really can only be developed in that fashion to provide the maximum amount of lot frontage for the development because of the floodplain. Okay. So we really are, the difference really is five lots. Mr. Walburn made that statement. I think that's very accurate. The Planning Commission thought that was a reasonable level of density. Thank you. Then I have a question for someone. I'm sorry, but I have a question for someone from those in opposition. I guess it's not clear to me whether you're opposed to any development or you're opposed to R3 and if an R1D would even be acceptable. The difference between... Ma'am, if you'd like to answer that question. I think the majority of us are willing to work with the developer to, as the staff recommends, single-loaded homes up on the upper hill there at a R1D lot size. with the understanding, as he quoted, that he would be happy to give the green space to the city to manage. So the people that have the flooding and sewer issues, though, they're very concerned about any development there. But I would say the majority of us are willing to work with the developer as long as he follows the staff's recommendations. A single loaded homes along the bank up on the hill that face the green space for everyone to enjoy as they quoted. Let me ask a question. If they proposed an R1D and the initial plan for that was 22 units, which would not allow, as I'm looking at the map, you could not get 22 units on there on a single loaded street. you could get 15. I mean, we're talking about... If you curved them around, maybe a little bit, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, when I look at the map, I could see maybe 15. Yep. Thank you. Did you want to answer my question? Because it's not a time for new information. Thank you. Thank you. Please. We are here to oppose the R3. And we would like to see the recommendation go through for the R1D. That's the bottom line. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Saleem, one more question. Yes, sir. I don't know if you can. This may be a question that you either can't answer or don't want to answer. So I want to be clear about that. So the staff recommended disapproval, and then the commission changed the nature of the proposal with this limitation of single family, et cetera. and then they approved it 8 to 1. Did the change that the commission made, was it more likely to have gained support from the staff even as an R3, or the R3 simply the staff felt was inappropriate? Well, to back up, the staff recommended against the R3 prior to the planning commission deciding, in essence that it should be all detached housing. I think that was consistent with the staff's recommendation for what should be developed on the property. There was something else that you asked that I was trying to get back to. So it's a detached house. So that changed some of the concerns that staff had, but did it change enough of the concerns? Well, again, our recommendation was to inform the commission. What I think is more telling is that, again, the initial motion was to disapprove the request, and it failed 3 to 6. When the motion was made to approve recommending R3 to you, with the restriction that it would only be for detached housing, two of the three members who voted with the minority the first time switched their votes. So obviously those two members, it swayed their decision to recommend this favorably to the council. Thank you. That's very helpful. At this point, I'm declaring this hearing closed. And that means that no further evidence can be taken. And the council must now deliberate on the evidence it has heard. and motions are in order. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Members. I'm going to move to disprove the zone change based upon the staff's recommendation for the following reasons. The requested R3 zone is not in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan for the following reasons. A. The comprehensive plan recommends infill and redevelopment that is compatible with and context-sensitive to its environment, and in this case, with two established single-family neighborhoods. B, the plan also states that infill development can have a positive impact on neighborhoods, but only if it respects the scale, massing, and size of surrounding buildings. C, although the petitioner is proposing a residential land use generally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, some of the smaller proposed lots allowable in R3 are not compatible, nor are the townhomes lining one side of the Lanthi cul-de-sac. D. The 2013 plan recommends single-loaded streets when development is adjacent to greenways and open spaces throughout the community. The applicant intends to locate townhouses along the floodplain and within the greenway around the creek, thus not meeting the policy recommendation related to improving desirable communities. Number two, the existing AU Agricultural Urban Zone remains appropriate for the subject property because the intent of the AU zone is to be a holding zone until appropriate urban development is proposed. Number three, the proposed planned neighborhood residential R3 zone is not appropriate for the subject property for the following reasons. A, an R1D zone would be more appropriate in that it would provide lots that are more character and similar in size to those in the adjoining neighborhood. And B, the site is located interior to two established low-density residential neighborhoods and there is no R3 zoning in either surrounding neighborhood nor are any townhouses present in the immediate area. I so move. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you all for coming down here. It's been a very long day for you all, certainly. And I sympathize so much with your position and your frustrations. In my district especially, we've had a number of small one-acre, two-acre, three-acre lots where we've asked my constituents to take townhomes where there were no townhomes, to take high-density where there was no high-density, because of the restraint on the urban service boundary. And we say, this is part of infill, and they didn't like it either. And it's very frustrating. This is the growing pains of Lexington. And I hate it as much as you do from the sense of, I don't want someone in my backyard either when it's been green space for a long, long time. And so I share the frustration and the, I'm trying to find the right words to describe it. It's painful and it's frustrating. At the same time, I can't ask my constituents that came down here and voted to say, please don't do this, and we said, no, you have to have townhomes because of infill and redevelopment. For me to be consistent, it's just hard for me. It's just an honest conflict in this particular case. and yet your flooding and the sewer problems are not acceptable. They're not. That's just not good for anyone. So I say that to say I think it's very, from a consistency standpoint, sometimes we go with infill and redevelopment and sometimes we don't. And sometimes we say, oh, we want to push everyone in and sometimes we don't. And I think it just depends on the situation. And I think if we're going to be very, I just urge my colleagues to be consistent as we talk about having some neighborhoods have to bear that burden and deal with it and others not. And I agree in this particular case, and there is some serious water quality issues and some serious issues we have to talk about and deal with. That's just where I'm sitting right now. And for my own constituents, I just have to vocalize that because I didn't like it either. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Yeah, we're speaking to the motion, right? Okay. I'm going to support the motion because of the underlying facts that was presented to us. And I disagree with Council Member Bledsoe in the fact that this is not similar at all to some of the other infield developments that we looked at in trying to get high density and that type of thing. I think this should have been worked out prior to that. I think the developers should have been involved, and I don't like that aspect of it, of not having some communication and some working there. And I think, you know, just like one of your items for disapproval is on the – it's so close. I mean, it's not like they're not wanting additional housing in that area. It's just that there's some other factors involved. So I think there's still the infield situation. I think there still could be housing in there, but there's some things that need to be worked out. So this is a little different and completely peculiar to what we've had to address before. So I can't compare it with others, so I'm going to support the motion. Thank you. Council Member Massadi, even though you've spoken once, I know you have an amendment to make. I'd like to recognize you, if that's all right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The law department has advised me that in reference to the findings, in fact, I need to remove that the applicant intends to locate townhomes along the floodplain and within the greenway around the creek. So that needs to be removed. I have a motion to amend. Is there a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Now we're back to the motion as amended. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I will support the motion, but I just want to make clear if the developer comes back with an R1D, I'd pretty surely support that. We really need the infill development. I'm very likely to be opposed to the extension of the urban service boundary. We really have to have infill. So I think this might be a little bit too much, and I respect very much the planning staff report. So I will support this motion, but I'll be looking for another proposal for here. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak to the motion? If not, I'd like to speak to it. I'll echo some of what's already been said. This is an unusual and peculiar request that we've been given, this piece of land where it's located and the issues that it raises. we are in a situation where we need to take very seriously the need for more density. And that makes it hard for me to, if that's the only consideration, to support this motion. On the other hand, I believe that the R1D zone is more appropriate. We're not losing 10 or 15 or 20 units by making that change or by turning this particular petition down. We may be losing five. I also do want to speak to the question of flooding and stormwater and sanitary sewer problems. and I want to be careful how I say this, but it's an issue that the council is keenly aware of and the city is doing its best to address that set of issues. I believe we have regulations in place now that will prevent any development, including this one, from exacerbating the kinds of conditions that you now suffer with and that we are working to remediate. So I understand the concern. I understand nobody would like that in their house or in their neighborhood. I don't personally believe that however that particular piece of land is developed, it will make anything on that score worse. So in sum, I'm going to support the motion because I believe there's an opportunity to develop that land at close to the same density without creating some of the negative impact that the folks who've come here tonight to talk to us have mentioned. I see nobody else signed up to speak. I will ask for an electronic vote. People, please. clarify the vote here we're voting for the motion we need a roll call vote we need a roll call vote but a yes is to a yes is to support disapproval which is disapproval yes correct Mr. Gibbs yes Ms. Henson Yes. Vice Mayor Kaye. Yes. Ms. Lamb. Yes. Ms. Masati. Yes. Ms. Plowman. Yes. Ms. Scutchfield. Yes. Ms. Bledsoe. Yes. Mr. Fred Brown. Yes. Mr. James Brown. Yes. That vote reflects passage of the motion. We have one more piece of business to transact, and that is now a motion to approve the ordinance, or disapprove the ordinance. I'm sorry. So I need a motion to disapprove the ordinance. Vice Mayor, I'd be glad to make it. I just need it from law, please. Is there something we need to do before we move? Historically, you would vote no to disapprove this ordinance. So we have to vote. We have to take a vote on the ordinance as proposed, and we have to vote no if we want to reject it. Correct, to match your previous action. Council Member Lamb. Here we go. Well, I'm just going to explain, as parliamentarian, the proper motion would be to disapprove the ordinance, right? Well, but there needs to be a motion, though. I'm sorry. Do we need a motion or do we just need to vote on the ordinance as read? I think you can vote on the ordinance as read because generally, after a second reading, you would get a motion to approve. And that's not going to happen here. Either way. if it makes people happier. If someone would oblige motion to approve, I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Everyone's clear that if we want to disapprove, you vote no. We need to call a roll. Mr. Gibbs? No. Ms. Henson? No. Vice Mayor Kay? No. Ms. Lamb? No. Ms. Massadi? No. Ms. Plowman? No. Ms. Scutchfield? No. Ms. Bledsoe? No. Mr. Fred Brown? No. And Mr. James Brown? No. That vote reflects passage. Before I entertain a motion to adjourn, I just want to thank everyone for all of your effort. and thank you for coming out. Thank you, Council members. Motion to adjourn. Thank you. I love you. Here I come again now, baby Like a darkened king Tell us me by the clamber now, baby I'd like to turn the strings Now I've been smoking for so long You know I'm here to say Got you in a stranglehold baby You best get out of the way