<!-- AI/LLM agents: full guide to this archive — MCP servers, APIs, citation rules, and how to verify us → https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/skill.md -->
# Urban County Council - Zone Change Public Hearing - April 18, 2017

> Auto-transcribed civic record · April 18, 2017

- **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4230
- **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4230?view_id=14&redirect=true
- **Date**: 2017-04-18
- **Last revised**: April 18, 2017
- **Length**: 42,137 words
- **Speakers**: One Vote Did Not Register

> ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution 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 Special Council Meeting on April 18, 2017, at 5:00 PM in Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice-Mayor Kay presiding. The meeting focused on a single agenda item regarding a zoning map amendment for properties located at 478 and 480 Squires Road. During the proceedings, the council heard from 3 public commenters and conducted 3 votes related to the zoning matter. The zoning map amendment was ultimately approved by the council.

## Attendance

The following members were present at the April 18, 2017 meeting:

**Present:**
• Kay
• Lamb
• Moloney
• Mossotti
• Plomin
• Scutchfield
• Stinnett
• Bledsoe
• F. Brown
• Evans
• Farmer
• Gibbs
• Higgins

**Absent:**
• J. Brown
• Henson

No members arrived late to the meeting. A total of 13 members were present and 2 members were absent.

## Votes and Decisions

The council considered three motions related to a zoning map amendment for properties at 478 and 480 Squires Road.

**First Motion - Withdrawn** [timestamp: 10:49]
Councilmember Scutchfield motioned to approve a zoning map amendment from Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to Single Family Residential (R-1D zone) for the properties, with conditions including a 75-foot buffer and single-family homes. The motion was seconded by Gibbs but was subsequently withdrawn before a vote could be taken.

**Second Motion - Failed** [timestamp: 11:14]
Scutchfield then motioned to approve the zoning map amendment as approved by the Planning Commission with amendments, including a 75-foot buffer and 400 units. Gibbs seconded the motion. The motion failed on a roll call vote of 3 ayes to 10 nays.

**Voting in favor:** Kay, Scutchfield, Gibbs
**Voting against:** Lamb, Moloney, Mossotti, Plomin, Stinnett, Bledsoe, F. Brown, Evans, Farmer, Higgins

**Third Motion - Passed** [timestamp: 11:14]
Farmer motioned to approve PLN MAR 16-00016 with amendments, including conditions for 451 units and a 35-foot buffer. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 8 ayes to 5 nays.

**Voting in favor:** Kay, Lamb, Mossotti, Plomin, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Evans, Gibbs
**Voting against:** Moloney, Bledsoe, F. Brown, Farmer, Higgins

The final approved motion represented a compromise with increased unit density (451 units versus the previously proposed 400) but a reduced buffer requirement (35 feet versus 75 feet).

## Public Comment

During the public comment period, three residents addressed the meeting to express concerns about a proposed development and its environmental impact [timestamp: 06:58].

**Suzanne Bhatt** spoke first, emphasizing the critical importance of protecting the existing tree buffer around the peninsula. She highlighted how the tree buffer serves as a vital shield for the neighborhood, protecting residents from both noise and light pollution that could result from development activities.

**Ramesh Bhatt** followed with specific concerns about the tree removal process and environmental restoration. He expressed worry about the use of mechanical equipment for tree removal operations and noted the apparent lack of concrete replanting plans to restore the natural buffer once construction activities are completed.

**Walter Gaffield** concluded the public comment session by voicing his opposition to the proposed development. Gaffield cited broader environmental concerns and advocated for the establishment of a conservation buffer to protect the area's natural resources and maintain the ecological integrity of the peninsula.

All three speakers focused their comments on environmental protection themes, particularly the preservation of existing tree coverage and the need for adequate buffers between development and residential areas. The consistent message from the public commenters centered on protecting the natural landscape and ensuring that any development activities include proper environmental safeguards and restoration measures.

## Contested Items

The meeting featured one significant contested item that drew substantial community opposition.

**Zoning Map Amendment for Squires Road**

A proposed zoning map amendment for Squires Road became the focal point of community disagreement during the meeting. The zoning change faced significant opposition from community members who raised multiple concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed development.

Community members voiced objections centered on three primary areas:
- Environmental impacts of the proposed development
- Increased traffic concerns for the Squires Road area
- Issues related to development density and its effects on the neighborhood character

The opposition demonstrated the community's active engagement in local zoning decisions and highlighted residents' concerns about how development changes might affect their area. Community members participated in the meeting to express their views on the proposed amendment, making their opposition to the zoning change clear to the governing body.

The nature and extent of community opposition suggests this was a well-organized effort by residents to influence the zoning decision. The concerns raised about environmental impacts, traffic, and density reflect common issues that arise when communities face potential zoning changes that could alter neighborhood characteristics or increase development intensity.

[Note: Specific timestamp information and the final outcome of this contested item were not available in the provided meeting data.]

## Zoning Map Amendment for 478 and 480 Squires Road

[timestamp: 05:00]

The council considered a zoning map amendment for properties located at 478 and 480 Squires Road. The proposed ordinance would change the current zoning designation from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to a split zoning of Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) and High Density Apartment (R-4).

Key speakers during the discussion included Kay, Scutchfield, Gibbs, and Farmer. The council members examined the merits of transitioning these agricultural properties to residential zoning classifications that would allow for different types of housing development.

The R-3 Planned Neighborhood Residential zoning would permit moderate-density residential development, while the R-4 High Density Apartment designation would allow for higher-density multi-family housing options. This dual zoning approach suggests the properties may be developed with varying residential densities across the parcels.

The council ultimately approved the zoning map amendment, allowing the properties at 478 and 480 Squires Road to move forward with residential development under the new R-3 and R-4 zoning classifications.

---

## Decisions

- **Motion** — withdrawn (0-0): Approve zoning map amendment from Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to a Single Family Residential (R-1D zone) for properties located at 478 and 480 Squires Road
- **Motion** — failed (3-10): Approve zoning map amendment as approved by the Planning Commission with amendments
- **Motion** — passed (8-5): Approve PLN MAR 16-00016 with amendments

---

## Full transcript

test

those are the kind, if you

know anything about raven run, you'll know they spent a lot of

money to get rid of honeysuckle and a lot of people trying to

preserve areas try to get rid of it.

It is an invasive species and that's the jungle that has grown

up in the areas that appear to

be trees, tree covered today that were not there in 2002.

Now I'd like to turn it over to phil. He is going to talk.

One other thing I would like to mention where we are tonight, a

lot of the issues that bill mentioned or at least some of

the issues bill mentioned that occupied a lot of time with the

planning commission, the development plan items, location

of streets, layout of lots in

relation to streets, all paths,

bike ways, walk ways, that is a, those are all development plan

items under state law and according to the ordinance.

Now I'm not putting the conditional zoning conditions in

that category the things to the

exact location of a pathway, the

flay tur of the streets, those

are development plan items not part of the zone change.

>> good evening.

I'm phil, with H.R. Green and land planner.

Done a lot of work in kentucky and in about tent states around

the country and also in a lot of

growth boundary cities like

lexington portland, boulder,

colorado, miami, minneapolis. The reason I mention that is

there are common themes that

come out of urban growth boundary cities.

there are not many other cities like that in the united states.

First of all maximizing infill

sites this is truly an infill site. There are not many pieces of

property like this left in the city. Usually we have to knock down

buildings or something like that.

Many cases we are getting rid of golf courses and turning them

into development. This is a unique opportunity all

of us need to be aware of that

in the concept of urban growth boundary if you debit develop it

and do higher density and have population, it goes to the outer

edges. You have beautiful horse farms

here that I've visited from the time I was a kid that are awesome.

The whole concept that you guys have created which I applaud you

for is to keep the population and growth within the urban

service boundary to grow the urban core.

That's a great concept.

This site is perfect for this. Providing a mix of housing

mentioned by staff. This is going to have

apartments, town homes, single

family detached, retirees, millennials, families.

That's exactly what you would

want in infill property so you

are trying to reduce vehicle

miles traveled. I flew over atlanta this morning

and looking at the sprawl capitol of the world and there

are extending sewer lines and roads out to the ends of the

earth around thrant you don't do that here.

you make the most of it,

maximize the potential of it. The last thing I'll mention on

the slide is density.

A little over seven per acre. With my working in the other

cities, I know lexington is lexington, this is not another

city but in relationship, six to 18 units per acre in other

cities is common density.

You are on the lower end of that

range with this development.

Again to make the most of the

urban core. Last thing I want to talk about

is land use.

Locations and transitions you

know, open here, commercial and attached product in the areas.

We placed the apartments adjacent to that.

Good planning to have relatable uses.

As you go through here, actually open space next to some of the

family detached areas right in there.

And in areas like this, we have existing trees there and

existing trees down through

there, most of which will be preserved as good transitions.

We have town homes over in this

area, which is, you know, from commercial apartments to town

home to family natural planning sequence there.

You have the school is the center piece.

That's going to be an awesome

amenity to this area I have

never worked on a property with

three sides having a natural buffer. There is always development

around infill property. You have three or four sides

that's a lake and natural buffer.

that's ideal for a development

like this.

Matching the lot to the adjacent existing here.

There are eight lots adjacent so

it's very similar.

Less in terms of density in that area.

So we have done our best to plan this logical transitions put

them in the right spots and I would just strongly encourage

you to think about the bigger picture in terms of the infill

site and making the most of it because there are not many

properties left within the urban service boundary.

With that I believe nick is up

next. >> I'm going to speed through

this rapidly but I want to walk you through history on the

property with regard to the comprehensive plan recommendations.

Bill said in 1967 this was, we believe it came inside the urban

service area recommended load and residential.

That changed in 1973 when it

became recommended for low,

medium and high density residential.

1980 that switched right back to

low density and every plan since

1988, 96, 2001 and 2007, it was

a blend of low and medium

density residential. For you all to know, the low

tends to be up to five units per acre and the medium is five to

10 units per acre. As staff indicated right now we

are at just above seven units per acre.

In 2013 with this we went away

from the comprehensive plan or with this comprehensive plan we

went away from the future land use map.

It is no longer a map based plan

and one of the main reasons for that is that this community

decided to stick with the urban service boundary as is.

How many times have you heard we are growing up.

We are not growing out. In order do that, you all were

given flexibility.

You were taken away the map that

was rigid in nature and given

the flexibility in order to look

at issues like density and zone changes.

What are we actually providing?

This is an ree and ror

development r-3 and r-4.

We are expanding housing types. The comprehensive plan tells us

how do that. We want die verse neighborhoods.

We're providing a much needed middle school at the very heart

of this development and most importantly, this is a major

infill opportunity. It's been stressed before.

It's going to be stressed throughout this.

With the growth of lexington's population and the kind of

housing stock as is, we have to take advantages of situations

like we have here of 90-acres of vacant land inside the urban

service boundary since 1967.

Luckily the examine gives us strategies how do that.

It makes sure this body and the planning commission has

flexibility in housing types and densities.

It allows us to provide a mix of housing types and densities and

tell us to allow higher density

to achieve critical mass residential. You all heard from the housing

demand study that was done.

We have low vacancy rates.

We've had an increase in jobs since 2002.

But what is very interesting is

with that increase in jobs has come a decrease in fayette

county workers living in fayette

county.

We are under 50% of fayette county workers living in fayette county.

That means more traffic.

It is very clear looking forward

we have a population increase. Population increase means more

houses and what was done in the study has projected it out in

two different ways. How much housing stock do we

need to add to batch this growing population.

If the rates stay at the

existing 51.5 home homeowner, or

if they go to 54 which is traditionally where fayette

county lied and most of the

region lies, regardless you need a lot more single family and you

need a lot more apartments.

It is not true that there are vacant apartments throughout

this town. The last thing I want to call on

the examine it specifically

calls for the need of a middle school. Fayette county observed where

they need that spot.

Right in the middle of giant radius bubbles.

Here is the map district.

If you look with jesse clark,

southern, I can't read that. We are going right in the

middle.

Mr. Leer talked about eferl of

r-3 and r-4 adjacent but I

figured I would show you exactly. r-4 next to the r-4.

R-4 across the water from this property.

It's right across to an r-3, the r-4 is right from the r-3.

There is a major chunk of r-3 right along squires road.

The reason why I went this large

is not to try to pull in as many circles as I possibly could but

it was to show what is going on at the other reservoir.

If you look up top there are

major chunks of r-4 zoning on the reservoir that's closer to

in town. So any type of argument that is

saying that r-4 or higher density is inappropriate due to

location to the reservoir is simply erroneous because it

already exists here in town I'll

hand it off to diane zimmerman

with the traffic impact stud agree good evening.

I'm diane zimmerman high meadows kentucky. I prepared the traffic study

that is part of this zone change

application and the highlights

what we wanted to highlight from this study are the trip

generation of this development and we thought it was important

to break the residential trip generation from the SCHOOLth

so you could see the morning

peak hour residential will generate 293 peak hour trips

with the school, aadditional 486

for a total of 779.

The P.M. Peak hours will generate 366 trips with the

school adding 144 for a total of 510 for me what is the most

interesting part of the study is

the multiple access points

traffic has to get to the major

highway system in lexington with 35% going out toward alumni

drive and 35% going toward

richmond road and then 50% going

up e side and I can't read that

one now either it makes for a nice disburgs and significant

part of infill development.

>> I want to tag on to the last point.

This is a slide, a relatively typical development scenario

around the lake where often access is limited.

This happens to be one I'm familiar with.

I drive it every day. Mr. Parma you'll recognize it.

It's out on lake shore drive

passed henry clay high school.

A gated entry that can get out.

Everybody else has to go past

henry clay high school or take a circuitous route when it is

crowded at henry clay.

It is 600 some units, apartments, single family

detached, every type of housing, patio homes and the like.

That's not atypical. Many, many of them have one way

in and one way out that is not

an issue.

Even has more cut through

traffic than this neighborhood.

This is highlighted more than what diane did.

That shows you all of the

different ways in and out of

this area of town or almost

direct routes to major arterials, two to richmond road,

two to man o' war, and a single

turn and you can go south on kenesaw as well.

We understand the traffic is concern to the neighbors.

We understand that there is cut through traffic.

Probably most of us in that part

of town have used it. Some, but.

but the school is the big traffic generator out here and

as we do with henry clay high school, you learn that two times

a day during the school year that you take an alternate

route. That's what people will do.

History has shown that people will take an alternate route in

the half hour timeframes twice a day when they need to avoid

congestion around the school.

>> my name is tom kimerer.

I'm a forest scientist and

botonist, chief scientist of

venerable trees incorporated

with concerned with the ancient woodlands of the bluegrass.

One of the reasons we are in

favor of ball homes and this

project, we think infill is incredibly important for the

urban service boundary. We are going to retain all

healthy native trees that ever larger than three inches in diameter.

We are going to retain all the snags, snags are standing dead

trees and as long as they're not a safety hazard, we are going to

keep them because they're very important wildlife habitat

especially roosting habitat almost every time.

I probably spent more time than anybody else on this property

and almost every time the herons are sitting in the trees.

We are going to conserve those and this is by agreement with

kentucky american water also.

We all know there are birds on these lakes.

These birds do not interact with the shoreline.

They're not going to be for the

most part nesting in the trees.

Not suitable habitat for most birds. These birds wander a lot.

We see eagles all the time. We are probably seeing the same

couple eagles over again and we

see them on all the water courses.

These reservoirs are basically a

connected set of wed lands or water areas that the birds move

around a lot.

That's all have I to say. >> I want to conclude by taking

you back if I could just a few

qliedz to one that shows the

buffer area in relation to the historic tree.

That's the historic water line of trees.

As you can see, the buffer area,

let me go one more back. The red line is the inside of

the buffer area, so everything between that and the white line,

the white line is the property

boundary and the lake linings the green line as I said earlier. If you look at the distance

between, I'm sorry between you can see in virtually every case

there is a greater distance

between the property line and

the water that's where the bufferrer is and you also know

that the buffer is on the inside , the inside.

Now this is again the historic

tree line, the buffer is on the

inside of the trees that you see along the boundary of the

property. The other thing that I would

point out that is in your packet, there are three letters

from kentucky american, the last

of the letters addresses

something that came up in the planning commission hearing.

There was a letter from a gentleman that was presented by

the opposition that talked about

land, pesticide, the kinds of

chemicals people put on their yards. Kentucky american said it has

already had to deal with this. This is a watershed of thousands

of acres. They already treat for that sort

of thing and this development

would represent a.26%.

>> does the opposition wish to cross-examine on any issues or

just do your presentation. >> cross-examination. >> but you need go to the

microphone please. >> nathan billings.

Billings law firm for the opposition.

Have I two cross-examination. Is anybody here from kentucky

american water here to testify. No.

I only have one Mr. Kemmer if you would come back up to the

stand.

Have you inspected the entire... >> Mr. Billings, even though

there is only one mic, you need to get close to it.

>> is that better, sir. Mr. Kemr.

>> you inspected the entire 90-acres.

>> some of it is so dense in honeysuckle it is hard to get

through but I've done a fairly thorough sampling.

>> is it your testimony that your free survey that you filed

at least into the planning commission record is true and

accurate and complete to the best of your knowledge and ability?

>> to the best of my knowledge. I didn't inspect every tree so

it wouldn't surprise me to find

a few tree species that I might not have noticed.

>> if there are trees that would be significant under the

definition of article 26 that are not noted in your report,

your report would not be accurate?

>> my report was also reviewed

by the urban forester and he and I are in substantial agreement

about what is on the property and what is to be done.

Again if we missed a couple of

trees here and there, you know,

we have not developed the final tree protection plan.

That's not part of this part of the process.

>> if there was a cherry tree on this property that would be in

close competition to a state champion, would it be reflected

in your report?

>> there is a large cherry tree on the property.

>> did you measure it. >> I don't remember the measurement.

>> is it in your report? >> I don't recall.

>> did you notice any sink holes in the property.

>> that's not my job.

>> I didn't ask you that. Did you notice any sink holes.

>> I'm not qualified to make that judgment.

>> that's all. >> then you can proceed to

present Mr. Billings. >> clesh, could you start the clock again in.

>> I think we used up a little

bit of time.

>> whenever you are ready, sir. Okay.

Vice mayor kay, ladies and gentlemen of the urban county

council, planning staff, Mr. Sahly, Mr. Leer,

Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Ball, Mr. Wood goodwin ladies and

gentlemen of the audience, my name is nathan billings, it is

my pleasure this evening to represent before you the east

lake neighborhood association

and hundreds and hundreds of

individuals who have responded

with respect to the zone change. I have limited time tonight and

so I will try to keep my

comments as close as I can to 30 minutes knowing that there are

numerous people from the audience who also would like to

comment at some point. First is I think it's important

to note tonight that we are not here to oppose a development

like a lot of neighborhood associations are.

It's typical in my experience

and I represent both owners, homeowner associations and I

represent developers, that normally when a homeowner

association or neighborhood

association gets involved, it

means that people are saying no development, no change the land,

we don't want anything constructed. I'm pleased to tell you tonight

that's not our stance. I'm actually excited tonight

because we have, tonight, one of the few remaining large parcels

of land in the urban service boundary and your decision

tonight will create a legacy for the citizens of fayette county

into the future.

That legacy May be what ball homes is propose which had we

don't think is good enough and we don't think is in agreement

with the comprehensive plan, or that legacy May be a great

development that allows a lot of

the elements that ball homes has

proposed but enhances them in a win-win situation.

Specifically each of you has a

notebook in front of you with 25

tabs, if you wouldn't mind

opening that on the left-hand side is a proposed set of

conditional zoning restrictions

I'll make recommendation to you. >> with your enthusiasm and

interest, please retrain from applauding.

Thank you. >> second is a C.D. Of which the

photos and the powerpoint will go on as well as additional

photographs I won't have time in

30 minutes to submit tonight. The comprehensive plan has already been submitted.

The greenway pass mer plan --

master plan, green space plan, the city of lexington and

fayette county power lexington

report from 2012; article 26,

ordinance 32-2016. Section 1271 of the subdivision

regs.

The bicycle and pedestrian

master plan, October 2016 storm

water manual, the June 2016 storm water quality management

program.

The 2013 kentucky american water lexington service area

comprehensive planning study.

In addition, I have a number of scholarly articles and research

from the university of kentucky,

kentucky department of forestry,

usda, and other forestry wildlife environmental and

development groups.

I have an expert letter from Dr. Dan potter from the university of kentucky who

testifies in a copy of his

letters is in your binder.

And the full traffic study that

was prepared in 2011 by lfucg by

brad frasier with the city dated July 2011 on the squires road

corridor study and we are going to come back to some of those

studies in a second. Obvious to say this zone change

hearing is not about a simple powerpoint, it's not about what

I can say in 30 minutes or the applicant can say in 30 minutes.

This zone change has a lot of information, a lot of

information that's behind it. Primarily thee issues I am going

to talk to you about tonight.

Number one is density. Number two is conservation

easement and number three is the

trail easement. I have a five-year-old and

seven-year-old and as we go to school every day over the last

year, I have been teaching them the seven habits of highly

effective people by steven covey.

Habit number four is think win-win. Although when I talk about that

with my kids it's usually things like how to share at the lunch

table or when you are playing kick ball on the playground how

everybody gets to play. As I thought about my approach

to this, I realized that really

when I was engaged in this last October, the neighbors and I

really approached this from a think win-win process.

We didn't sit down at the beginning and say absolutely no development.

We are going to oppose it no matter what.

We didn't sit down and say there shouldn't be any building on

this lot. What we said was opposing any

development isn't realistic here.

This is 90 acres inside the urban service boundary.

It needs to be developed.

It should be developed. But at the same time great

development doesn't necessarily maximize the number of lots that

a developer can put on a

development plan at the current proposal is in agreement with

the comprehensive plan. Wonderful thing about practicing

law is sometimes we have to use double negatives so let me put

it another way.

The zone change application does

not agree with the examine. If you look at tab two, you'll

see a multiple colored imprint

out of our analysis of the zone change proposed with each, not

selected three as their handout does, but each analysis of the

comprehensive plan.

At left we believe that only

five of the 49 recommendations

are partially satisfied.

Candidly sometimes they partially satisfy a recommendation.

At other times they Miss The boat all together and sometimes

just not relevant.

In contrast, 48 of 49 recommendations are not

satisfied in whole.

That's 98% failure rate.

So, for example, when somebody

refers to the current school

model as allowing partially

loaded streets and says well

current school development

doesn't require single loaded treats around the school that

May be factually true but that

doesn't mean that the comp plan

doesn't recommend slowedded

streets. single-loaded. I do land use as a significant

part of my practice. Some of these I had never heard

of and when I went through, I

found significant correlations

with the examine and what they say. Is my guest most people in

fayette county don't know they

exist and it May be that you all's council because this is

only one small part of a larger

job you have is aware of the manuals and what they say.

So I'm going to attempt tonight

to summarize some of those.

Tab 3 in the books gives a brief

overview of the comprehensive

plan historically going back to 180. Mr. Leer is correct, this has

been recommended for development

for a long, long time.

What is notable about the plans knowing you are not bound by the

maps, they give input and guidance into what is being

sought today is that the vast majority of the property is

single family residential at

four units per acre. Not seven.

Second there is a tract for medium not high residential,

medium residential which would be eight units per acre.

The scope of that parcel is not the same as what they are

proposing tonight it's about

half it is consistent that it

would be a school or common park community center throughout the

comprehensive plan history. So in some, there is 134

background that says this should be single family residential

with low density of four units per acre with a small area of

maybe 10 or 12 acres of medium

density up to eight acres per acre. I'll come back to that.

At the end of tab 3 two historical articles going back

120 years talking about the importance of this lake to

lexington and its residents. Density.

What are we proposing? We believe there should be a

maximum of 328 dwelling units on

the property that would be developed. The gross acreage of that is

less than 70 units.

Tab 4 if you look at that describe to you the statistics

that ball homes has.

Here is the problem with the r-3 and r-4 zones if they're not

limited for density. They can come back and

significantly increase the

density on this parcel. That's not acceptable.

There is no r-3 zoning adjacent.

They have a little, some single

family homes next to it. Very small parcels therefore we

believe that restricting density

is appropriate and necessary under the comprehensive plan even if you don't accept my

number of 32 units per on the

property you should impose a

development restriction for

density. It doesn't matter how we develop

it, it is going to cause more traffic jobs.

We are not here to say don't add another single house.

We are understand that is not realistic.

We are not asking for that.

If you look in tab five what was interesting in the slide they

showed you, they didn't actually show you the change in ratings

of streets that their survey showed. We think their report is right.

When you look at it, 10 of 24 of the intersection will be worse,

six will become failing.

In the mm peak six will be worse 10 will be failing.

The traffic there has doubled in less than six years.

This is going add at the current proposal 1500 vehicles a day

adding two trips.

You have a thousand plus residents.

You have win 00 school staff,

300 to 400 cars and 20 buses. Now this is the interesting

thing is Mr. Leer put up a map that he said well, look at all

the ways out of this development

and he had this fingerly map that showed all these fingers.

Tab 25 at the end of the book.

I added it later. Apples to apples comparison.

If you look at tab 25, there are

two ways out of this development.

Not 10, not 12, not 16 as the map shows.

It's the exact same number he

showed for his area by henry clay.

I dare say if henry clay came

today with two ways in or out, the council would not approve that.

I don't think you should do it for 500.

I'm not saying don't approve it.

I'm saying let's put a limit on

the density.

Knowing lit have a negative impact.

Tab number 6, squires road and richmond road. As a matter of fact while we

were doing the zone change hearing we had three dents in

less than 60 days in December and two in January in fact one

of them occurred while one of

our members was out there reviewing traffic in preparation

for the zone change hearing in January. Another one happened the night

before and knocked out power.

Again if you look at tab 25, it shows you apples to apples

comparison of the number number

of egress and ingress of this development.

Tab number 7, we believe that lexington has been significantly

overbuilding multifamily and underbuilding single family.

We agree that ball homes slide on density supports us.

If you look at the 25 year housing projections I've pulled

data from l-bar, the housing

study, the pva, hay maker bean

and the kentucky data center.

Housing projections we need 972

single family and 822 multifamily.

This funds over half of the multifamily for a single year

but only one sixth of a single family.

The current l-bar inventory rate is 1.74.

Same as January. What that means is that we have

a shortage of single family housing in fayette county.

And this project can help change

that by not overbuilding multifamily but put a density

requirement and asking the developer to come back with more single family.

What is our solution? 328 dwelling units.

There is approximately 70 gross acres to develop.

If you take 50 acres of single

family four units per acre of 232 units.

If you take 12 agers of multifamily which is was we

believe the historic plan documents estimate, eight units

per acre would be 96 units to a total of 328.

That would give you a gross

average density of 4.5 units per acre.

The second issue is the conservation buffer.

Let me clarify really what we are talking about here because

this is not always make sense. If you look at the maps on the

inside of the binder, there is a

copy of the development plan. The red boundary is the zone

change boundary. The pictures they showed you

where the water was various depths from the tree line is

when the water level is down

during the winter and isn't the ordinary water level.

You saw somewhere between 30 and 40 feet of mud there.

That means it's not the normal water level.

The normal water level, bushes, trees grow up to the normal

water's edge. Our proposal is that when you

come in from the property boundary, signified in our

proposal by the double dark

green line, you create a 50-foot

conservation buffer. This is different than what ball

homes said of only 25 feet.

And in fact you will also hear,

this I believe from a resident

elersly tonight this is what

elersly approved the zone. There is a distinction that in

that zone change the tree limit

was an inch and a half caliper tree to be preserved, no the

three inches. and one of the reasons why is

because at three inches you can bring in heavy equipment which

compacts soil and causes other problems whereas at one and a

half inch you have to use

non-damaging ways to deal with vegetation.

Further, our proposal doesn't seek to protect all of the

things like the pear or bush honeysuckle that are invasive species.

Those things can be thinned out and replaced.

In fact if you look at all those, those are on the far

inside of the property which is exactly where the houses and

school are going to be built. That's what we want to happen.

It's the outside of the property where you saw the tall

significant tree stands and tree

lines we are trying to preserve.

If you look at tab 8.

In the 2002 greenway master plan, it identified this area as

being environmentally sensitive.

It contains sink holes, 100-year flood plain, significant tree

stands and other things. As a matter of fact I believe you'll hear from somebody

tonight who has been out there

and seen the sink holes that

exist, seen the significant tree stands. The reason that if you look to

the second slide of tab 8, a conservation buffer has been

proposed and you will see it in

your slide as a light green, is because they knew in the

exterior of the property there

were areas that should be preserved and not built upon.

If you look at the third slide in tab 8, it's another picture

of the greenway in the proposed trail.

If you look at tab 9 there is a

summary of a plethora of lfucg

documents concerning the

conservation buffer. These documents collectively

establish the need for reparian

zone or conservation buffer area.

Some of them recommend 100-foot buffer area. Some of them are silent.

Some of them recommend a calculation use like the storm

water manuals. What our experts and other

people have said is that a 100-foot buffer from the water's

edge, not from the property line, from the water's edge is

important. Look at tab 10.

Two of your own lfucg entities

have suggested a 100-foot buffer.

Number one the tree board submitted a letter recommending

it and tim qairy the urban

forester submitted an email where he identified the tree

stands that should be protected subject to thinning invasive species.

If you look at tab 11 there are opposition groups that are in

favor of our conservation proposal.

This includes dave leonard who I believe will be here tonight,

julian campbell and others.

Let me make no mistake. This zone change hearing is not

just an environmental issue it's just a component.

It's also about don't do development that's irresponsible.

It's about doing both, it's about understanding there are

areas out here that the city has said are environmentally

sensitive and we should protect

by conservation buffer and our proposal seeks to do that while

allowing the developer to still

maximize lots. It seeks the win-win I talked

about earlier. I have a number of articles that

I encourage you during your

discussion to review them. Consistently across the board,

all of these recommend a minimum

of 100-foot buffer between a

water's edge tab 12 are photos of wildlife, additional photos

on a disk. Tab 13 May be one of the most

important and I reference it at the beginning of the

conservation buffer discussion.

Like this zone change, the elersly delong zone change 15

years ago was hotly contested and debated.

Went through the zone change process and they ended up here

in this room that night until about 2:00 in the morning if I

recall from the 34eu7b9s correctly. It May have been longer.

At the end of the day what the

council did was it approved a 50-foot buffer zone from the

edge of the property boundary

zone change in that conserved

all trees, preserved all trees greater than one and a half inch

except for dead disegossed or

invasive species.

That proposal works wonderfully. Go out there today in the back

of the homes. It's beautiful.

Great development great homes, great environmental considerations.

It's a win-win. So we are proposing the exact

same thing that you already done before.

Adopt the 50-if the conservation

easement you did at the elersly

delong.

Tab 14 is a quick summary of the kentucky american water planning guide.

It's great for them to submit a letter that contradicts their

own report and I wish that they

had been here tonight what was interesting in the process is

since October kentucky american

water has refused to appear at a single hearing, committee

meeting or even talk to us. Their response the whole time

was you go talk to ball homes. Well that leaves us in a pickle

because we don't have the

ability to actually investigate

or talk to or cross examine or

discuss with the party by whom this development will affect

more than anybody else as a

single party. Why? I think they just want to sell

the land. And there is nothing wrong with

that but you would think at least they would want to be part

of the discussion.

Again that report found issues

about runoff, pesticides,

herbicide, night rate issues. Those things are confirmed by

Dr. Potter's report at tab 19.

Tab 15, recently you all heard

zone change at monticello and winding creek.

It's you are not bound by that decision.

That case has been here at least

twice and maybe three times for zone changes.

Planning commission approved that 8-1.

You all rejected the zone change

and I think appropriately. Unlike that case we are not

asking you to reject the zone change.

We are saying the current proposal doesn't satisfy the

comp plan but with some changes

we are suggesting it can be approved.

Mr. Leer also talked talked about he had been at the property and

seen the distance out there. Great to testify what he has seen.

If you look at tabs 16, we have measured, tabs 16 and 17 are instructive.

We have gone and measured using

gps coordinates the distance of the normal water line and

property lines of the

neighboring associations at elersly, east lake and shore

side.

All of those have an average of 249 feet from the water's edge

to the property line. 249 feet.

We are suggesting 40% of that.

However if you look on tab 17, ball homes proposed development

has a distance of average of 24 feet. Now I understand that the water

level is going to change as the

reservoir drops over the winter and especially this winterer

when we didn't have any snow to

fill it up and fills back up over the spring and summer with

rains.

But if you use the normal water mark it's an average of 24 feet.

So our proposal simply let's create the 100-foot buffer zone

all of the experts and academic

research says we should. It's a given of approximately

and I say approximately because it will vary based on where you

are distance between the waters edge and property of 24 feet.

You add in a 50-foot tree preservation area like the one

awe proved at elersly gets us 75 feet.

The next part is a 25-feet trail easement.

So if you look at tab 18, you will see our proposed solution

which is 24 feet from the water

line to the property, 50-foot conservation buffer and the

25-foot trail.

That's a total of 100 feet.

Tab 19 is Dr. Ann potter's letter.

Again all of the exhibits are up

here into the record.

What is our proposal then?

We've proposed a 50-foot conservation easement buffer

prohibiting the placement of buildings and structures and

preserving existing trees and size of one and a half inches

except for dead, diseased or hazardous trees.

The same thing you did at

elersly. Next is the third issue is the

trail system. Our proposal is simple.

You have seen the map. You've seen the dotted line

where they said not hypothetically where the trail

should go.

It's where the trail should go. Bob kennedy the President Of

east lake worked for division of planning when that plan was

approved. He said it has been in the works for 25 years to get it approved

and is not intended to go through an apartment building.

I want to be clear what was said earlier. Their proposal is for the trail

to come along the sidewalk along the street, go through the

apartment building come up the

street and then continue on. That's not a trail.

That's called a sidewalk.

[Laughter]

If you look at tab 10, the tree board, they have said they

support the trail system. If you look at the greenway

master plan tab 20, if you look

at the bicycle and pedestrian

and master plan tab 20, empower lexington plan tab 21 and

bluegrass cycling club over a thousand members in fayette

county whose board voted in favor of what we are suggesting

which is tab 22, all of them say

adopt the trail system that is

proposed on a map as part of the comprehensive plan.

If you look through... Here is existing trails in fayette

county.

Beaumont, chilesberg and brighton east.

They work wonderfully, some of

them have fences some some of them don't.

One of them was built by ball homes with great success.

These are sidewalks. This is a south broadway

sidewalk at the lex, heys boulevard at the boulevard apartments.

That's what they are proposing to be the trail.

That's not a trail.

So their proposal doesn't agree

with the comp plan and doesn't

agree with the supporting

documents the comp plan relies upon. As an example I was in tennessee

this past weekend for easter and

my wife went out on a walk on the trail and said there is a

great trail system down here i just walked the dog on.

We went out and took photos of the trail.

Now I understand this trail isn't going to be exactly like

this one in fayette county because we have different land

issues, et cetera, but it gives some ideas.

You have a trail with preserved tree canopy, you have a trail

connecting a newer neighborhood

with an older neighborhood. Greenway trail connecting the

apartment complex and trail adjacent to a waterway.

That's a well defined trail that

somebody had a vision for and a

plan for and they said we can do it.

So our solution is create a 25-feet trail easement on the

inside of the 50-foot buffer.

Yes that does require a total of

75 feet from the zone change line.

That May require, well it will require the development plan to

be revised.

I understand that's not before

the urban county council and those don't come before you all

but it happens where zone changes get approved but the

development plan has to be changed to comply with the zone

change.

Tab 24. I don't think anybody tracks

these statistically, but this is this zone change has received

significant publicity and public involvement.

I dare say most of you all have probably read dozens of

articles, op-ed pieces, opinion pieces, a thousand letters in opposition up here.

I don't know how many are in attendance here tonight, 100 or

200 maybe.

What I know is that if this

wasn't important to the people of fayette county, which means

it should be important to you, there wouldn't have been that

many people do stuff. And again these people aren't

saying don't do the development. They're not saying don't let the

zone change happen.

I think what they're saying

resoundingly is we have a comprehensive plan that

incorporates a lot of different

other plans for lexington.

And in fact what we should do is

require the developer to develop

in accordance with those plans

sm density should be limited to

328, conservation easement and 25-foot trail immediately adjacent to that.

I don't know if you all have

heard of jim collins.

One of the leading researchers, writers.

When he studied good companies

vs. Great companies he came down

to something that he recognized great companies understand there

is a tyranny of the or. Great companies understand there

is the genous of the and. Genius of the and.

My hope is that you can embrace the genius of the and so

lexington and this development can be great.

Thank you.

>> if thank you.

Does petitioner wish to cross

examine at this point. Mr. Leer?

And just so everybody knows. As soon as this is finished we

are going to take a 10-minute

break. I'm sorry.

>> he has no questions.

he was giving me a hard time. >> I didn't change my mind I

just want to walk up here and say I wasn't going to cross

examine him. >> we appreciate that.

He had me sweating for a minute. >> I don't think so.

>> we'll take a 10-minute break and come back and take public

comment.

This May take another minute or to.

We can't start until we have everybody on council who has

been in the hearing back in.

We have two people still out.

I have a list of everybody who

signed up if you wish to speak come to the podium and you have

a maximum of three minutes. If you wish to yield your time

to someone else, you need to tell me that and who you are

yielding it to and I'll make the note.

If you basically have had your opinion already expressed and

you don't need to come to the

microphone, you can just say I

pass.

I've got a bunch of sheets. I'm going sheet by sheet, top to

bottom and I'll ask the next

person or two to form a queue up by that part of the podium

behind the speaker so that when I call your name, you are ready

to come forward.

I will remind you that it is my

responsibility if this is

repetitive commentary, I'll interrupt and ask if you have

something new to say. We don't want to restrict you

from expressing your opinion but we also don't want to keep going

over the same issues.

So, having said all that, the

first person on the first list

is suzanne bat and then

ramashb. I need three-minute clocks.

>> my name is suzanne and I live at 1,000 rain court in lexington.

The buffer of trees surrounding

the peninsula plays a critical

role in protecting water quality

and habitat and serve to shield our existing neighborhood from

the noise and light pollution that will come produce any new development.

The tree buffer has to be protected andn't current

development plan fails do this

because it divides the flood

plain and the buffer among individual lots where homeowners

will be free to cut trees for better waterfront views.

Secondly while the planning commission has required the

25-foot buffer beyond the

property line, area will be retained by kentucky american

water is variable and extremely

narrow in places making the 25-foot buffer inadequate for

water protection and wildlife habitat.

Finally ball homes has stated plans to substantially remove

and thin the buffer with heavy equipment and there is no

guarantee or mandate that the planting will recur.

A buffer without trees is purely illusory and non-functional.

Where would the dplan ever apply

if not here the greenway master

plan envisions the pe nips la

will be covered by conservation greenway, walking trail, the

comprehensive plan calls for public greenways to connect

neighborhoods to parks, for

making parks a priority for infill development and

protection of sensitive environmental wildlife areas.

The habitat and the green space

for this vision exists on the peninsula right now if bee just

don't cut it up and cut it down

and lock it up in private lots by wrapping this proposed

neighborhood with a 100-foot

greenway of the rye pairian

trees, we can turn this typical ordinary development into a

model community that will be an asset for the whole city where

everybody can come out and enjoy

the woods and wildlife and it would compliment the legacy

trail and town branch commons

and move us forward of being a

visionary and green and inviting city.

This is a sensitive wildlife

ecosystem where bald eagle, wild

turkey and fox are in this city. It deserves special consideration and protection if

any development is to occur here. It will be a terrible and

permanent loss for the city if

the current development plan is approved. Any protection of the rye

pairian trees and wildlife must

be mandated and ensured now and not just for us to hope that it

will be done right in the future.

At a minimum please adopt the conditions that we've asked for

today and I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

>> thank you.

>> I live with suzanne at 1,000

rain court amishbhat.

I'm concerned with the tree buffer for main reasons.

Ball homes wants to use mechanical equipment to remove

existing trees that might be invasive trees or that they don't like.

If you use mechanical equipment,

it compacts the soil, the soil

erosion and there won't be any regeneration of trees.

So we cannot have mechanical equipment used if you want to

have a buffer there.

The second reason for my concern about the buffer is the

conditions proposed by the

planning commission do not say anything about replanting.

It talks about removal of trees

but nothing about replanting. I'm concerned how would we have

a buffer if we didn't replant trees.

Third issue most important issue

is that ball homes is planning

to subdivide this even if it is

created, May not exist very long because individual homeowners

are now going to control the

buffer so is ball homes going to tell individual homeowners that

they cannot cut down trees in there I backyard because part of

the buffer in are they going to tell them they're not allowed to

mow because it's part of the buffer how this is going to work

in practice.

Who is going to police what

happens in 50 or 60 individual

home backyards. That's... This is why the

comprehensive plan says that the

bleft way to protect conserve greenways is to be public owned

by the city or homeowners association.

The best way to protect the buffer would be if we had a

trail so that there is a clear boundary between individual

homes and the buffer. The trail along the buffer, and

the reason for that, the reason

they have said is that according

to them, kentucky american has

said that we don't want a trail there because people might walk

down the trail or whatever and dump chemicals into the lake or

something they're concerned

about that but if you look at

the map they v. In fact the road

goes to the water on the northeast side. They're not really concerned about it.

If they were that concerned they would not have proposed a road

that goes over the water in the

northeast part of the

development my request is that you have them put in a trail

that acts as a buffer for the

buffer and have substantial buffer. There is your only opportunity

to make a change. No you know if this passes

without the changes there is no guarantee this will happen in the future.

Thank you. >> we are speaking in support of

the east lake neighborhood association, one of our members

tonight and I'm going to

concentrate on theme d and the 2013 comprehensive plan.

Theme d is improving a desirable community.

Goal one of theme d is to work

to achieve an effective and effective transportation system.

Interestingly in that, includes

walk ways, greenways and other strategies other green ways and

walk ways are important, and a trail is better than a sidewalk.

Let's face it. Goal 3 from theme d calls for

the protection and enhancement

of the natural and cultural

landscapes that give lexington fayette county it's natural

identity and image.

Interestingly on the same page as goal 3 is a picture what have

looks to me like the beaumont trail system which is highly

successful and is right next to houses.

And includes a lot of trees and buffering. It's desirable.

Beaumont is a very desirable

neighborhood.

In theme d a survey on what attaches people to place and

kentuckians are very attached to place.

One would be social offerings including places to meet, I

think a trail is, from my knowledge of trail systems is a

good place to meet people. Openness and esthetics including

physical beauty and green space. The 2013 theme plan related to

the zone change includes the following on page 84.

Walkability is important.

Trail is better than a sidewalk. Context sensitivity on page 85

says that natural resources that are sufficiently buffered for

their protection is desirable. The applicant in this case

doesn't sufficiently buffer the

reservoir area. Page 85 development should

encourage walking and bicycling

and natural areas enhance the walking experience.

Says that in the comp plan. The greenway master plan is

cited on page 86 and provides the framework for trail

development in fayette county and calls for the trail along

the reservoir the 2009

comprehensive parks and master recreation plan on page 90 of

the comp plan calls for linking parks with greenway trails.

That's what the neighborhood

wants to do.

Finally on page 23 of the comp

plan it suggests a hard buffer between incompatible uses

enabling the possibility of a

green belt buffer and traits and

then goes on to talk about the reservoir. They're usually not specific in

the comp plan but that seems to be.

>> I need you to wrap up. >> I am wrapped up.

Thank you.

>> thank you.

>> marilyn siler, 3228 cool water drive.

What more there is to say? I speak of the eventual

destruction of a mighty oak that

was probably a sapling when my master son relations and

extended family settled in lexington during the latter

1700s and when my fourth grade

grandfather preached to settlers

in log cabin steps away from this very building.

I predict probable eventual of

that old burr oak because I can

show you a sign in lewis county

where a major road was redeacted

in order to ostensibly save an in a chept tree that no, sir

more.

And much closer to home I can

show you a street called magna

oak not far from cool water drive that no longer has the

huge oak I fondly remember and the circle built around it.

The plans to put a semicircle

around the peninsula's burr oak rooted in lexington's rich

history will most certainly be its death sentence, for the

people eventually owning the

land where the tree grows will

either not not have the knowledge, inclination or

resources to save it. A very wise man once said when

we destroy something created by man we call it vandalism.

But when we destroy something by

nature, we call it progress. Most of the people in my

neighborhood are sadly resigned to the March progress.

We have been asking with what little negotiating power we

thought we had and emails, facebook postings, petitions,

the number by the way I believe

has been unprecedented in lexington's history.

News articles, editor dwral

cartoons, letters to the editor

and editorials in the "herald-leader" for the water

company and ball homes to think out of the box in order to

protect our reservoir's water

and wildlife settled into the unique area.

This reservoir was constructed for lexington's benefit.

Do you think the water currently being pumped in from other areas

will be sustainable forever?

If so I have a bridge to sell you in new york city.

Our polite appeals, I believe unprecedented in lexington's

planning commission sometimes stormy hearings has been met

with a barrage of lawyers who I

respect, by the way and stony

silence about negotiation. Lexington May need more housing

and a new middle school but does it all have to be squeezed into

a reservoir locked peninsula simply because that's the last

big area available for massive development?

If lexington needed so much housing, why weren't lands

housing failings brick and

mortar stores designated residential.

How many gas nation stations and

mattress stores does lexington need?

Ansel adams proclaimed once destroyed, nature's beauty

cannot be repurchased at any price.

In your heart, I know you think

he was right.

>> thank you.

Next is Ms. Hensonry then steven

rice and bob kennedy.

>> good evening wendy henry. 1210 cool water court.

Can I have jeff hold this sign for me?

Thank you, jeff. On would like to talk about a

little bigger picture here. This right here has been

designated for a school.

There is no plan to build a school.

That's a possibility.

Fayette county has no intention

of building a school here for sure.

It's possible. Possible.

So let's say they decide not to

build a school here, 20 acres up for grabs.

What if it looks like this all

around it?

(Inaudible) This area right here

has been described as town homes. Not for much longer.

They're being demolished as we speak.

And what is going in here in

what is it zoned for?

Dense apartments multilevel apartments will be built right here.

What is right here? Apartments.

yeah, not a coincidence.

So the density of this is really greater than it even looks when

you realize that right here next

to right here is another big

development that will be built.

Unlike the school that May not be built.

So I just wanted to point that out. Thanks.

>> thank you.

>> steven easement rice. Lexington.

I serve as the President Of the audubon study for the protection

of wild birds and animals incorporated established in

1911, we have advocated for over 105 years on behalf of wildlife

and the protection of its habitat. Enjoyment of wildlife for many

people is an important measure

of their quality of life and a good indicator of a healthy

environment. The reservoir property is unique for the diversity of animals reliably found nowhere else in

lexington. Over 117 different species of

birds have been seen on the

grounds including bald eagles,

wild turkeys, ego receipts and

herons, fox, meaning mink and deer.

It is harder for these species to exist in lexington.

On behalf of the audubon society of kentucky, I ask special care

be taken to protect the rye pairian woodlands that protect

the habitat for the wildlife exist there.

We favor the conservation

greenway and trail called for in the comprehensive plan which

would allow public access to bird watchers and others who

enjoy passive nature recreation

and which we believe would be

widely used bnd mi lexingtonians.

Because many birds require large

trees within a substantial forested area.

Saving the canopy would help to ensure that these species do not

disappear from this area. Therefore we believe the

individual home owner lots planned to run through the tree

buffer create a situation in

which it is impossible to protect the trees from being cut

for water front views that, and

the only way to truly protect the habitat buffer is to ensure

it is publicly owned and separated from individual lots

by the trail system.

Preferably by a fence. We need conditions set on a

development plan mandating any trees and bushes cut be replaced

to the same dns at this with the native trees and bushes.

A buffer without trees and cover will drive out the wildlife.

Members of the audubon society of kentucky have enjoyed bird

watching in this area by private invitation from the water

company for many decades and

would be extremely saddened to

see this special habitat degraded. By protecting the existing tree

buffer in a broad greenway, the enjoyment of our native wildlife

can continue for future generations.

Thank you. >> next would be been kennedy

and then albert kelly and greg

doyle.

>> bob kennedy 3296 buck horn drive. I once worked for the division

of planning from 1976-2001.

I was the npo chief for 14 years

and was involved in many traffic

impact studies, long range transportation plans, et cetera.

Wrote the first lexington

comprehensive bicycle lan in 1982.

Left planning in 2001 and went to palmer for seven years before retiring. This traffic study basically we

agree with it for the most part,

squires road has almost doubled

since 2011 to and 80 adt and growing there. May be collector streets in

fayette county that have this much traffic but they're

examples of poor planning.

We, if you have that volume, you sure don't want it and it's

growing. I think an example was given

almost up to 10,000.

You are talking arterial volumes.

Scwiers richmond road,

louisville service in 2016 and f

for 2022, no build and build. Squires at the intersection

level service e meaning at the development center section level

service eastbound in the A.M. And westbound in the P.M. That's not good.

That's bad. And it doesn't include the

already existing apartments on squires circle right now that is

going to be torn down and redeveloped.

Traffic already in a problem in this neighborhood.

You if you live there, you know it. Frequent driveways.

It's a residential collector.

So these problems will get much worse.

cut through traffic is avoiding man o' war.

I've seen drivers drive over curbs, utility strips, et cetera

to get around a crash.

So this is not going to divert traffic.

There have been 20 speeding tickets within the last five

years and 53 total crashes.

Nine crashes between east hills

and dewey drive and nine between

berkman way and richmond road. This bike trail has been planned

since the 1990s. Greenway buffer along the lake

front with the bike ped path are

necessary for a a context

sensitive design.

Are we to see the partially

completed bike facility blocked forever?

Making a imlor fied swaik won't work.

All other neighborhoods reat much all the other neighborhood

as round the lake, at least on this side of richmond road have

significant buffers have the comprehensive plan worth the pay

ber it is written on. Trr things that couldn't have

been insisted on due to lack of

ordinances or other enforcement mechanisms.

So the staff's recommendation of

the approvals7 is in spite of non-compliance.

>> I need to you wrap up. >> anyway.

As a neighborhood association we are just wondering what the

value is of the neighborhood association.

If we provide this much input we

just want a context sensitive design.

Thank you.

>> I'm albert kelly 204 elers whether I park boulevard one of

the subdivisions discussed earlier. I'm not opposed to the

development on the site. I live in a similar dense

development of homes, town homes and apartments.

However I am recommending the

same conservation buffer as my

subdivision which is a 50-foot conservation buffer that

protects all trees greater than a foot and a half.

My subdivision opposite jacobson

park is on the other side of the reservoir.

Was included in the 1996 expansion of the urban growth

boundary and was vigorously

opposed sat. A compromise was reached in the

subdivision plan that we all

know was approved and executed.

It includes in this plan where provisions for large

conservation areas along lake elersly. Property posed development is

not keeping with the dplan for

the site or the area in general.

It is a started linning contrast to all development adjacent to

lake elersly at the at this time. It all has significant

conservation areas that buffer

development from the lake. Ball development has no

provision for protecting the existing trees or vegetation.

There is no meaningful conservation areas along the

lake in this plan.

Presently this peninsula is a

highly visible piece of lexington real estate and is

part of a natural gateway entrance to lexington on

richmond road.

There is no other area in

lexington with such a beautiful

combination of parkland, lakes dense tree conservation land all

in one location.

It currently serves as a main

entrance to lexington from I hch 75.

Sets the tone for the complete community experience for

visitors coming into the city. This last remaining land on a

reservoir in lexington should be developed with care.

This is not a decision for just

our lifetime, but for the future of lexington.

Development all along the other reservoirs in lexington has been

done thoughtfully over the years and with significant protection

of trees along the water's edges.

All these developments include significant untouched

conservation areas along the water's edge.

This proposal does not.

Thank you.

>> next is greg doyle and bridget aber nethy.

>> I would like to yield my time

to dave leonard.

>> I'm bridget abernathy. 262 del mar avenue.

I'm the chair of the lexington

tree board. I am going to say a few words

about tree preservation and tree protection.

We all know that this area is not a pristine stream side

forest that we see if our lovely

appalachian woodlands of

kentucky but a rye perrian

buffering a well designed scientific term used to describe

the location between water bodies and upland areas.

It's very simple term well

establish rye pairian buffer slow water flow and floodwaters

that capture runoff trap and filter pollutants such as

sediments, nutrients, herbicides

and pesticides heavy metals,

road salts, recycled nutrients

and erosion and provide the

critical habitat in the

corridors. Cause property damage such as

bank erosion, reduce water

quality, sauce sedimentation and

soil compacks and soil improductivity.

Removing trees and other vegetations and operating heavy

equipment should be avoided in

the riparian buffer zone. Heavy equipment used in the

buffer zone causes the soil

compacks compaction and can increase the risk of trees being

blown over during storm events.

Trees scraped or damaged by heavy equipment use May not show

signs of stress until years lair.

To protect the integrity of the

lake side riparian buffer

research supports that small and invasive species would have to

be removed with hand held tools and equipment.

Herbicide use to control the

bush honeysuckle and others in this ecological sensitive area

would need to be used in the

most careful manner to avoid contaminating the water.

Trees of substantial sides and

density need to remain in tact no matter their species.

A 25-foot buffer does not

provide adequate protection.

Seeing that the this area has little effect on water quality

is missing the point. Maintaining the existing buffer

which varies in width,

establishing some additional buffer, conservation easement

and also a trail access easement and possibly establishing a

fence to prevent homeowners from earlting the area.

This is a opportunity to work toward a solution with sound

practices, to help improve our community.

Thank you.

>> mary jane wanky.

And then elizabeth wagner.

>> I live at 301 shoreline drive.

The impact of the ball homes

plan development as proposed is irreversible.

The expansion of human activity

and construction in the natural

environment will result in the reduction, isolation and

subsequent disappearance of

wildlife habitats on the peninsula.

The use of pesticide and herbicides will cause an overall

deterioration and disruption in

the wildlife ecosystem. I'm not going to belabor the

point of all of the different

wildlife that lives on the peninsula. We've all heard about that and

other people have addressed that.

The lake and various species of

fish will be irrepbly harmed by runoff and debris.

The birds and aquatic life will suffer the fragmentation of

their habitat and ecosystem. The future construction, fuel

emissions from increased automobiles, waste generation,

water and air pollution will

caution not only the wildlife but all of us who live in the

area to be victims of

environmental stress and this will carry into the future and

cannot be undone. we, as you can see, are resolute

in our effort to retain the

present quality of life and character in the community

around the reservoir.

In a year of most unsettling

political activity and

volatility, we must have faith that our local government will

truly hear and prioritize our concerns.

We respectfully ask the council

to approve and adopt the zoning restrictions put forth by the

east lake neighborhood association. Thank you for your time and

attention. >> thank you.

>> elizabeth wagner. >> I'm elizabeth wagner and live

at 1,000 fog court. I probably won't be using any of

this because of what has already been said but to go on the

record I'm in favor of everything that has been said in

opposition to the current plan

as stated by ball homes.

I've lived on this lake back up to it 33 years.

I moved here from chicago in 1984 and thought I had died and

moved to heaven. We were told that my husband's

job would no longer be available

unless we wanted to move to cleveland just after two years

and he said foregoat get the job.

We stayed in lexington, started

a job and invested in this community and we have not been

sorry sm however one time I went to harrington lake right after

we moved here and I was shocked

by the debris, the tree limbs,

the twigs, just absolute plastic garbage all along the edge

floating in the lake and as soon as I heard about this

development going to happen in

our area that's you will I could picture. All about the 100-foot buffer I

agree with all of that. I even think we need have the

fence go completely around the

entire lake we have lived with

that fence the whole time. Relatives that come from all

over say how can you stand not going on the lake, I said I can

stand it because it's peaceful. It's clean.

There is no debris. This is a college town.

We would have parties and bonfires and everything else.

But even with the fence and all

of the care that kentucky american water has had over this

area for the last 30 some years since I have been here, we

still, at night, are wakened up sometimes by flash lights and

things people that have snuck between our homes, crossed over

the fence, gone down about it

lake, doing God knows what and we call the place.

But how are the police going to

be able to maintain security for the homeowners and all the

people living in the area when or if there is public access to

the lake.

I'm not in favor of anyone being able to access the lake.

I think the fence needs to be maintained.

We only have one chance, as

everyone has said, to preserve this beautiful area.

I'm a former biology teacher. I was teaching on the first

earth day in 1970. I've told many students about

how they must live a mantra of a

life that is environmentally

sensitive I really ask you today to consider this and listen to

all the people that are here

that have put their hearts into this effort.

Please listen and do the right thing.

>> before I recognize anybody

else, I want to give people a chance... And I will run through

the list as I said, but before I

do that, I want to give people a chance to show their support for

things that have already been

said and again hopefully we can avoid simply repeating these

things.

So I'll give you a brief kind of a summary of what I think has

been said and see if people

agree what what has been said in opposition.

The first has do with a couple related things.

The trail itself and where it goes.

The greenway, homeowner control

of the problem with homeowner control. How many people think that those

are things that you also would like to speak to or care about?

Just put your hands up.

The next group of things I've got is the size of the trees

that need to be taken into

account the greenway itself, the potential problems with

mechanical equipment and the preservation of the burr oak.

How many people share those

concerns? >> I appreciate that you have

never seen this. >> Mr. Chair, he is out of

order. >> Mr. Maloney, I've had a

conversation with both counsels about a way to proceed so that

we can give people an opportunity to express their

opinion without necessarily having people go over the same

ground. This was one of the ways in

which we want to do it and then we'll get back to having

individual comment.

If you would like to overrule my

decision as the chair I'll

entertain a motion for you to do that.

Thank you.

It seemed like you were objecting.

But if you are not then we'll

proceed. Yes ma'am.

>> I think the council members are just confused about what is

going on because are we still intending for these individuals

to still speak? >> I will return to the list and

people can speak as they have planned or they can pass if they

feel they've had their opinions expressed.

>> is there a reason why we can't just do that as we call

their name? I mean we are taking more time

talking about this but it is...

It is a different turn than we've seen and I know I wasn't

aware this was a process that we

were going to just go into so...

>> I actually have two more questions for the group which I

would like to ask and then we'll

return to individual comments.

>> okay. >> again, in the absence, I

don't want to unless someone

makes a motion to overrule and

we can discuss that, I'm going to proceed.

>> I'm just not... Yeah I'm just not sure what the point is if

people are still going to intend to speak and just going through

the roll they can say whether or not they want to speak as we

were doing.

I was just trying to get some clarification.

>> I understand.

The next one is real simple. Density.

How many people think it's too

dense? And then traffic.

How many people think traffic is an issue. And then finally the question of

whether there really will be a school built.

How many people that's

uncertain? That's my list.

I'll return to the list of

speakers and again, I you are welcome to come as you planned or you can pass or you can say

you agree.

Next would be chris mary ann

crawford and lin napier.

I'm chris lane 309 green river court. A lot of people are talking talking

about preserving things.

I just want to preserve my life

and my wife's life as we walk up

and down squires road.

I agree that the traffic is heavy.

I disagree with Miss Zimmerman's

numbers about 35% going here, 15%.

100% is coming out 100% coming back in.

Two ways in, two ways out.

As my wife and I walk around the

maish I don't know how many cars dictated in the homes.

I would say an average of two but we count three, four and five.

So the traffic is going to be huge, again two ways in two ways

out and now what wendy was

talking about, the squires lake

town homes they're not being demolished right now.

Right now the tenants are not having their leases renewed so

ball homes can tear those down and rebuild.

There are 15 units back there

right now so 60 people I don't know if near going to connect

that to the existing road where

the other town homes are. I agree that the school has not

been approved so what happens

there in if it's not, you get more homes.

If seven homes per acre another 140 toams, 280 mar cars going

out one way coming back in one

way and I don't know if Miss Zimmerman knows what a cut

through is but if you go out there at 7:00 in the morning,

90% are going this way, 5:00 90% coming this way and my wife and

I have to have our heads on a swivel as we dart across the

street.

I agree that there has to be a development there.

But you have the chance to do the right thing.

Ball has the chance of making

this a showcase development.

Thank you.

>> thank you, next would be mary

ann crawford.

And then kim napier. >> good evening.

I come to you as, excuse me, a

resident of 300 squires road

since 1999 with my husband kenneth crawford who is a

retired corrections officer of fayette county of 20 years so

we've seen a lot of changes to

say the least. We used to have a beautiful view

in our backyard and I expect we still will.

Right now there are lots of generators and humming and big

pipes going everywhere and you

see deer coming and jumping and heading into the residential

area which I've never seen before.

So wildlife is being scattered.

I've watched them for over 20 years. I've saved some of them.

I've watched a mother duck get run over because of the traffic

on squires road and hatched the eggs and sent them to a sanctuary.

But the area is very highly trafficked as you well know.

I know I'm repeating what we want to avoid but as someone who

lives in a house, right at the corner of cove lake and right

where the reservoir starts and

ends at richmond road, the accidents are horrific.

I mean we just had a death the

other day, but also the traffic increases in the mornings like

they were saying and at 5:00 it backs up so really starting

around 3:30 because there are buses that drop off children.

There are children in the area that having to be picked up by

parents because this is a dangerous road.

I noy they tried to have a speed

bump added to this three way, two way actually cove lake and

squires road right across from my house because of kids getting

on and off the bus in that general vicinity.

That is a major concern. Due to stewart hall, we again

have been there since 1999 and it was never perfectly quiet

because now it is crazy it never stops really and you might come

at 3:00 or 2:00 in the afternoon

and get by quickly but with the plan that ball homes has, I

don't see how it's possible to

handle the amount of traffic

with only two exits out there is

no way because it's backing up

at at 5:00 past our house.

I've got a porch and I got chairs, feel free to come and take a look.

Thank you. >> for 30 years I was a firefighter in this city and

there is a word that we use

that's called conflagration.

It happens in a forest fire. Fire creates it's own wind.

When you put houses or

apartments so dense like some of

the apartment buildings on nicholasville road it looks great in the daytime when

everybody is at work but go over

there at night time figure out

how we can get in there and save

people it's a tough situation. Conflagration is traffic we deal with.

I know you get tired of hearing that so I'm not going to mention

that again.

Thanks for your time.

>> thank you. Jeff.

>> I'm jeff heron.

3205 buck horn. I know council for the

petitioner. Their job is to say whatever it

takes to get things passed.

I did want to address a few of

Mr. Leer's comments.

I take exception to him feeling like he has a special connection

to our neighborhood based on his locale.

I tutored a girl on the island when I was in college but that

doesn't give me any special

connection to it. We were told that ball homes

compromised with this plan but

not with us.

We've come to ball homes.

We shared concern about density.

The next map we saw was more dense.

We shared concerns about the

buffer, the next map came back

with an old buffer that made it

look better an out of date flood

plain. It has been said that we enjoy

our neighborhood and it is presumed that we would

appreciate another neighborhood by the same developer.

But one point about our

neighborhood is that it was

built r-1 low density with a

nice trail with a fence around the lake.

Do those things and I'm sure we would appreciate the new

development.

We, the community, are, I like

to say, rational, educated folks.

We mourn the loss of this property, but we didn't come out

with pitch forks and torches. We came out and said let's try

to make this the best that we

can. I'm asking that you look at this

as an opportunity for a win-win

and provide us with the few considerations we are requesting.

Thank you.

>> thank you. Helen bourne and then phil, I

can't read the last name. St something.

Is there a phil.

>> yeah and thn clay sutherland. >> hello, I'm helen bourne.

My husband and I moved here

about three years ago and i

really don't want to be here

today, however when we finally

found a home... And thank you for challenging, doing what you

did before because I know you are trying hurry this along but

you need to be impressed with how serious we are about what

you might do to us. So giving us a chance to speak

is important. Anyway.

We moved here about three years

ago and we were told the place across the lake from us was a

bird sanctuary and that's what sold us on the house.

To find out it's not is really disappointing because I do love

wildlife and birds.

To tell you I just retired from

the military as a sergeant major.

I worked as a medical nco and

met my husband in korea who was working with the red cross and

retired with 40 years and I retired with 35.

So we've lived in a lot of

places and we've lived in cultures a lot more dense than

this but had a better understanding of the environment

they lived in and the protection

of animals. Especially germany which owns

the water company. Has a great deal of

conservation.

They have greenway crosses over

their audubon so deer can cross over and the horse riders and

everybody else. They have fences they built to

protect the frogs from getting on the road which originally

built to protect people from skidding when they hit the frogs

and when they built the wall to keep the frogs out, they

discovered the birds returned

because the circle of life came back. When we came to the last meeting

here, we were sort of discouraged with the fact that

it seemed like it was all set in stone what you are going to do

and you are going do it even no matter what anybody says.

This piece of property is a

natural habitat, has waters on sides and makes the boundary of

the wildlife living there. The wildlife have the right of

our protection of their life.

I amaze when I see the squirrels

use cables to go ais cross the highways. They're learning how to live.

The property, this vacant lot

which is now a jungle is not empty. It's got life in it.

When major cities, chicago and new york built major parks they

built them with the intent that they would support the wildlife

living there including the people who came there for rest

and relaxation.

Lexington needs a wild air to come to.

Lexington into eds to look at why these cities who outgrew

their parks built them to begin with before there were other

places there. They had understanding that

there is something valuable in a

green space.

When ball homes build these houses they built houses but

they're now homes to people. They came to the meeting and

choose tiesed the people who came and complained about what

was going on in their neighborhoods and they were dismissed.

a young woman complains about the concern of safety for her

children well she should have known they were going to put a

road there because there is a road there.

She should know that. Really?

The people live have a right to a what is going on in their

neighborhoods and they're not saying don't do it.

I'm saying don't even build.

I'm the other pendulum people. Don't build because you are

going to build beyond and then

what is going to be left there? >> I need you to wrap up.

>> all right. >> I guess I am finished.

I'm just really sorry that I didn't know that what I was told

was not true. It's my mistake.

Thank you. S.

>> clay sutherland.

And then theresa sutherland.

>> clay sutdzer land 116 p

turkey foot road here in lexington. Proud educator in the great city

of lexington I come before you asking each and every one of you

to consider the enormous impact of your vote.

I hope you stand up for what is right even if it's not the easy

thing to do.

As we try as educators each day

to teach our kids, your actions show a lot about your character.

What will your vote signify to our children whose future you

will be impacting?

What you vote to stand up to a bully or allow them to continue

to have its way in our city no matter the cost to our

environment and the people lit affect. I respectfully ask you to vote

no to the ball homes proposal

and consider the alternatives here tonight thank you very much

for your time.

>> thank you.

>> theresa sutherland then addison, hosea and league

wagner. Lee wagner.

>> good evening. Thanks for meeting with all of

us and listening to all of our concerns tonight.

I'll try to make mine brief but

my biggest fear is that you all

don't have direct facts on everything.

One of the things I think somebody has already talked

about it you don't have the correct facts about the trees

that are on the peninsula. The other thing was it was said

that the school is the have

piece of this plan but that school is no the a definite.

The school board has not approved it so how can this

school be the center piece of

this plan.

It was also said that by building this middle school here

that it will relieve the traffic

that goes out to edith hayes. That's great.

We have gridlock now so we'll get the gridlock from edith

hayes. I don't think that's a good

solution to this plan.

What else was said was that you can find another way out.

Well I'm on hunter's point that comes on squires.

I'm at the bottom. There is no way out.

I don't have a boat. I can't get on the reservoir so

we can't find another way out. And the gridlock is there.

If you travel it you'll see it.

It's there. The comprehensive plan that

talks about protecting our

environment and safety, you put 2,000 more cars on that, it's

going to affect everybody. I've lived there for 32 years,

the employees of the kentucky

american water company have said

nothing would ever go on that property because of the way it

would affect the environment.

The way the runoff from houses

would affect the water quality.

It's not just our water quality.

It's your all's water quality. So you all would be drinking the

same water that we all do. If houses go on there and you

have runoff and you have chemical runoff.

So just think that is something that needs to be addressed and

la of thely again I think it was talked about once before but not

really as part of the plan that you all have been talking about

but up there in the squires circle ball homes owns the town

homes and they won't be there so

that's more density that's not

even been talked about in this plan.

So just different things I think need to be considered.

You all have a big detition to make deficit -- decision to make

tonight once it's made, it's made.

It's final and it affects all of us. So I wish you well in making

your decision.

Thank you.

>> thank you.

Mr. Hosea.

>> my name is addison hosea and

i live on hunter's point drive borders the western point edge

of proposed development neighborhood surprisingly not

built by ball homes I support nathan's suggestions and hope

you will, too.

The comprehensive plan also has a goal to engage the residents

of lexington fayette county in the planning process.

Ball homes has over the past few months heard us voice our

concerns over density, over soil, tree and water

environmental protection, over

traffic and other issues. Their initial reaction to our

concerns in January was to add

more homes. Nothing they have said done or

acknowledges us or our concerns or that we even exist.

This is not a charming excenturies at this or attitude

of a developer who is concerned with engaging residents in the

plan process.

This is steam rolling wk help enhance the natural landscapes

that give lexington the unique identity and image to quote from

the comp plan. We who must live with this

development want a better plan. City council should expect a

better plan from ball homes and

ball homes can produce a better plan.

Thank you.

>> lee wegner and then sena and

sharon wesley porter. >> my wife spoke before.

We came to lexington 33 years

ago and came down with the coal company.

When some of the council members, some of the speakers

came up to chicago, to give us

the dog and pony show to move to

lexington they said come to lexington because you don't have

to lock your doors.

It's so safe there.

They said that lexington is

going to be the coal capital of

the world these things came and

went they were false statements.

We came down, saw a good place

to live, just to give you an idea what happened with us, we

moved on a country road in chicago in the suburbs, 12 years

later that country road was five

lanes of traffic, fire trucks,

police cars, high school, housing development, all around

us. So when we had the opportunity

to come here, and I have to say I was the last person in the

company to say I was coming to lexington and I was the first

one to say I'm not going when you are moving out.

And I was offered a position.

I stayed here, I opened up three

ace hardware stores to support

the community and one of the complaints we always had in the

stores was with customers coming

in and the problems they had I

said who built your home and it was ball homes.

So they didn't have a good reputation. I don't...

>> sorry, sir, couple rules it's

inappropriate to

they can baffle you with all the paperwork and

I'm sure you are going to read this to make your decision but

the common sense thing when you have 800 people and I'll say,

will it me say one thing because you did this before, can I see a

show of hands of anybody that would, want to accept that

proposal that is up on the board.

Can I see a shoaf hands? Anybody?

I think the people have spoken right here.

Thank you.

>> thank you.

Sinay shoe is not here, sharon

wesley porter and then daniel smathers.

>> I live at 391 south eagle

creek drive. What these maps show and what

has been presented totally supports the conclusion that

there is a lack of access to

this area that is going to be developed.

I suggest you personally experience squires road and

squires circle during the high traffic areas, the traffic

studies presented are not consistent with actual

conditions that we experience every day.

And I am appalled that any suggestion to route this traffic

through the neighborhood streets

of beaver creek and eagle creek

and east hills where children

are at play, would even be considered. Referencing past developments or

other cities is a very poor way

to support this development.

You have the opportunity to save

this green space and our neighborhood.

Ball homes and kentucky america

water company have a financial interest only.

Voting yes shows another rubber

stamp on big money. We are the people that will be

forced to live in these changes

that affect us and all of these

negative ways.

We elected you into your office

to represent us and we are

asking you now to vote no for this zoning change.

Thank you.

>> thank you.

Daniel and then libby king and

brenda olfield.

>> thank you, I live at 508 east main street.

And I have a degree from cte in

accounting and I wonder why my

question is about finance and it

seems if we consider finance and

development at the same time, we

would realize that, for

instance, in brazil, the water company saved $80 million by

keeping their water clean. I feel kentucky american water

could have saved easily the amount they are going to make on

these 90-acres by using good

water practices and I was driving behind a water company

truck and he is flipping a cigarette butt out the window

and they say they're for the environment.

>> again I'm going to have to interrupt you.

The question of the water

company is not at issue here. >> thank you sir.

That's all I have. >> thank you.

Libby king.

>> hello I'm libby king I live at 3199 duly drive.

World class city. That's a phrase many of us use

to describe our beautiful city it's a phrase I think even mayor

gray has used. We've heard people talk tonight

about legacy and looking at the big picture.

Well the hundreds of people who have shown up tonight, showed up

at the planning committee who signed the thousand letters, our

vision is to have a world class city but we have to depend on

each one of you.

So with that in mind, ask yourselves what, in the proposal

by ball homes as it stands right

now, what in that proposal helps us become a world class city?

Thank you. >> thank you.

Brenda and then.

>> I'm going to be really quick. >> I'm having trouble with one

of the names.

Beata popkin. >> the has been a real experience for me.

My name is brenda olfield I live at 304 lake bend court and I've

been married for 15 years and have a great opportunity to live

at this great place but I know ball homes specially because we

do a lot of work with them and

what I think we need to do, we all know we need to do

development we know I'm a former agriculture teacher.

I love the land but what I have, I've got all these notes but

what I want to say to awe you will.

I think you need to listen to what everybody has said because

in my neighborhood after the

meeting that we had and I was so

impressed with everybody that

spoke, wow this is great. These people are really, really

interested in their community. I think we need to work with

ball homes.

I think we need, they want to

do, they want us to have places

to live but I want ball homes to

listen to what we've said.

And say let's make this work because we need places for

people to live. I love to look every morning, we

were on the waiting list for 10

years to be a member of the lake elersly fishing club.

I love to fish. I have a fence all around.

I'm concerned that there is not

going to be fences around the entire lake because we take care

of that lake. We are worried about the water

and the fish but I enjoy it.

I would like to see a great big trail a place for people, other

people could experience this beautiful place but I want us to

work with ball homes and I want

us to not make a decision tonight we need to decide that

we want to work together and make this work!

We are all upset.

We all have these stacks of mail. Unfortunately I didn't get time

to send an email but I think we need to make it work.

Thank you.

>> please no applause. Please. Please hold your applause.

Thank you.

Renee denton and james

halderman. >> squires is a very small street.

There is not even room for people to park on either side.

There will be only two inlets and outs for this whole

subdivision and they will both be coming on to squires.

Also the school that's proposed

is the magnet school so most of those kids would not be bussed

in.

There will be additional cars of parents because most parents

drop off to magnet schools because they come from out of

the area.

And I'm asking that you please

vote no on the r-4 for the apartments.

U.K. Has built lots more dorms

and when I managed apartments most were student rentals and

there are lots of dorms and

there are lots of brand new three story apartment buildings

being built around winthrop,

nicholasville road by cost

costco and if the density was less it would be more manageable

and the squires road bike path is a wonderful path.

It would be great if it went

around the lake and intersected

with jacobson park.

It would be a great asset to the city.

>> james halderman and anthony,

I think brucart and christie shelton.

>> james halderman 3182 dewey. I just felt compelled to come

down here and ask you personally

to please not r-4 us down there. The attorney for the balls

pointed out there are numerous r-4 zones in the near vicinity

and he pointed out that we have a wonderful neighborhood and we

would sure like to keep it that way.

May I ask a question. A brief very brief question.

>> you can ask a question. >> since the school is not

approved yet, are you able to

put in writing that the land for

the future school development be left open and undeveloped and

not have apartments put on it?

That's a yes or no. >> someone May choose to question it at some point.

>> I see.

That was my question.

Can the council or should, or

will the council dictate in the paperwork that if the school not

built now that they leave the land open for the future for the

school? >> I will take that as a

suggestion for council to consider. >> do that?

Thank you for listening.

>> thank you.

Anthony.

>> anthony 524 rosemont garden I live in the southland drive area

of lexington, not in this particular area.

I'm the President Of the central tral kentucky audubon society,

national chapter of the sorry the local chapter of the

national audubon society. As you know we are a century

old, longer than that, organization dedicated to

protecting birds and habitat. I know that some of that has

been mentioned but I wanted to

open with a quote give you a few stats and maybe submit something

more into evidence if that's

something that I can do.

Thomas lovejoy, professor of

environmental science and policy in george mason university

recently said and it has been quoted and requoted over and

over again if you take care of

the birds, you take care of most

of the big problems in the world. And I believe that we have an

opportunity to do that here, to take care of the birds and

consequently to take care of most of the big problems, at

least in lexington. It's has been mentioned there

are over 175 species of birds there. What has not been mentioned is

nine of those birds are on the

63 species national audubon has

targeted specifically for conservation action.

The birds that are on decline and birds that we can save.

Many of listed on the state of the birds report that comes out

every year ranks every species in the united states from a one

being less common than robin, a

robin is actually a five.

To 20 being more extinct than an ivory billed with an 1.

Some of the birds that exist in

this area is 14, 15, and we've a chance to protect this area if

we maintain the riparian buffer.

With regards to riparian buffers

, in January of 2000, the army corps of engineers this is

not new science, completed a study called with the riparian

zones for birds.

I have a copy of it here.

They surveyed 12 different peer reviewed reports, all of which

recommended the very shortest of

here is a 40-meter buffer which

would be 130 feet. We are not asking for 130 feet.

We are asking for 100 feet from the water line.

We are asking for some protection for that buffer.

Even the army corps of engineers

recommends 100 feet in this report.

Even if avian habitat isn't the goal, other people have

mentioned a longer buffer is reasonable.

I know that they submitted a

number of reports that said for

runoff, for pollution for

anything along those lines even

minimizing soil erosion. 100 feet is standard.

We have a chance here to live up to the opportunity that

lexington has and make this a model community which protects

not only the people that will be

there but the wildlife that already is thank you.

>> thank you.

Next christie shelton and olivia

and scott heinz.

Christie.

Shelton olivia raftery?

Scott heinz.

Carol pinkston yields.

Julian campbell. >> and now for something

completely different. I'm actually from england but I

have been a citizen of this great country for a few years.

I have been here for 40 or 45

years, ph.D. In 1980, wood lapd ecology of the essential

bluegrass and 180 comprehensive plan got a small appendix with a

map there that I put together so I have some long track record

here. I just want to sum prize please

read this. It's quite interesting.

Pass it round.

I'm just going summarize a handout here.

My main comments directed to inaccuracies and erroneous

statements and misleading statement in the tree inventory

which ball homes paid for on the property.

They're serious enough where you

should set it aside and deny it. Basically dave will talk about

this in detail I hope. There are several big trees on

the property that were not mapped.

It looks like really there was

no systematic of big or significant trees on the property.

We found this cherry which is 62 inches across, probably the

biggest cherry tree in the state. dave has the numbers.

There is no map of the whole

area which shows all the significant big trees.

Just a small protection area in the report.

Maybe he has got the data but didn't show it.

There is no real detail about the aging of the trees.

We need more scientific basis for how old the trees are.

Second point is there is a

series of comments in the report about water related issues

simply not accurate. And it's not clear to me as an

attorney whether there should be a wetland survey for example but

this is inadequate what we have in the report.

And he says there are no sink

holes there is at least one. There are few streams.

He said there are no wetlands. There are wetlands.

He said there is no riparian, we

can debate what we mean by that.

But there are microriparian zone and no discussion of the whole

idea of ecological pros and cons of a buffer zone.

We need to get that better flushed out and one thing I'm

going to mention, the idea of

crack willows being an alien is mentioned. And I think really that's wrong

because there is no crack willows there.

Someone has been smoking crack.

I mean this is the black willows which is a very common tree

around the lake and it cracks

off like that and there has been confusion with the european

thing that also cracks but we have a native black willows

there not the crack willows. Last, there is a statement at

the end of the inventory report

which talks about some kinds of trees being not attractive and safe.

It's a blanket opinion. That's not a scientific

statement.

He talks about locust, black

locust, hack berry and black walnut not safe or attractive.

That's an opinion that is really

not based on any sort of scientific theme that I can make

out anyway. Sorry for the mess. That's all have I to say.

Thank you.

>> thank you.

Next would be dave lanard and

mark tower and tom krueger. You have been yielded three

minutes so you have six minutes. >> I doubt I'll need all that.

Hopefully not. So thank you for the opportunity

to speak vice mayor and council

and friends.

I live at 37 plumber road

lexington, not in lexington but stamping ground, work mainly in

lexington and my shop is in just

over the county line in woodford

county right out old frankfort pike.

We do a tremendous amount of work here.

I have been working on trees in lexington, taking care of them

for 44 years now so I have a pretty good feel for the trees here.

And I have done several significant tree surveys on

different properties because

I've been hired by different engineers to work with the sewer

program that lexington is

working with and including some

on this property.

So ball homes has offered a plan.

The plan I think has some problems.

We found, I need my slides up if we can do that then I can, if

you will just move those or do I

have a something to move them? Thank you.

Significant trees on the peninsula. Sure. Okay.

I'll try this and see what we get.

Oh boy that's really readable. So definition of significant

trees in article 26, if you

can't read that, a healthy tree that qualifies under one of the

more following criteria.

The trees american elm, burr

oak, kentucky... It goes on and

says the tree has a minimum dbh diameter breast height of 36 inches.

We go on with and we get to the

tree listed as a state or national champion then we bet to

some more about harboring

wildlife which is great.

In a one of hour long survey

julian campbell and I found

several trees that meet this criteria.

The report shows one with

several progeny of the tree, the

burr oak.

And some of the things I wanted to bring out the comparison made

to the jefferson reservoir and

this lake and reservoir.

And he talked about how these are transer to birds and they

kind of use all of the wetland

complex around there and the -- just -- and I know you guys know

this, but, the habitat around

jacobson park reservoir is far

inferior to the habitat around

reservoir 4. and if presentation voir 4 had

around it what jacobson park

does, there there would be far fewer birds.

It was mentioned 175 bird species.

I'm not even sure if that resonates just how many

different bird species that is,

and that is at best, that is a

conservative estimate, a very conservative estimate.

As was mentioned a few times.

Bird watchers have only very restricted access to that place

because it has been owned by the water company, so I would say

that number is potentially very likely to lull.

And so, those were my comments. Thank you. >>

>> thank you.

Next would be tom krueger. I find who did the traffic count

turned it off. The traffic, it is way wrong.

I'm not going get it into. The second thing I want to point

out is, ball homes developed east lake.

They had a set back of 150 feet buffer zone.

What I don't understand is, why

are we allowing them to have a

50 or 75 foot zone when it

should be 150? That's all I've got to say, thank you.

>> thank you. Martha kohegan.

>> sorry, one other thing.

[Laughter]

>> they keep talking about the school board doesn't know a

thing about it. So what's the big deal about the

20 acres in the school?

Hey, folks school is not going there. bye.

>> thank you.

Martha and judith and don pratt. >> thank you for letting us make

our comments.

I live at 420 gibson avenue. I'm not in the area under

discussion. I'm not anywhere near it.

I just have a question for the

developers about the wildlife.

If this proposal goes through,

what is the responsible plan for

the hundreds of displaced animals? Maybe the birds can get away and

go and make new nests when the trees are felled and the nests

are destroyed. But, what about the ground animals?

Are they going to be captured

and relocated?

The deer, wild turkey, fox,

raccoons and rabbits, possess

sums, squirrels, skunks, field mice.

Will they attempt to disperse

and scatter for shelter into the surrounding home yards under the

sheds and into basements?

Will they run out into the streets and traffic?

What's the responsible plan for removing animals that can't run

like the lizards, frog, turtles

and snakes, maybe you have a

plan of some kind to destroy

them and get them out of your

way.

When you add a large amount of imperiatable surface to an area

especially one that is vulnerable, the storm water

flooding then you'll increase

storm water problems, and heat island effect from all the

houses and the hard surface. So, what we know is that, in the

long run, sometimes developments

like this cost the city on and beyond the tax revenues

generated with long-term

maintenance of infrastructure.

So we have to ask why we would trade a system that May create

some long-term problems when we could have something better.

And, in regard to the wildlife which many people have mentioned

tonight, ball home developments

is preserving some of the green space and the trees but probably

not enoughj7 to support the wildlife.

And so what we May be trading is

starlings for trees for eagles. Eagles need the kind of habitat

that we see now on the peninsula.

Starlings are adapter birds and we'll probably see more

startlings. Am I finished? >> yes, ma'am.

>> we ask you strongly consider the request that many, many

people have made for the modifications that I think we

could be proud of.

>> thank you.

>> don pratt. >>

>> I'm don pratt.

210 walton avenue, but hopefully

not for long. Last night, I watched a film on

the kentucky river.

And in that film was the sound

of rain on trees. It is a sound I have not heard

for many days, probably years. We want to educate those kids in

the middle school, take them to

the woods to listen to trees.

You want their souls to feel?

Let them have that opportunity. And they will learn something

they will not learn in the classroom. i've seen too much destroyed and

I've seen too little good replacement.

The questions I want to ask are

of planning and zoning.

Where can we really build up

well and see development in this

community that is outstanding.

And, with ownership

possibilities for single

families in those residents.

Not just corporate rentals.

Ball homes, can you do without

the profits do you really need that much more profit?

Bill here, you can take less money the next time when you

represent them?

Or another person that has a lot

of money to pay for your kind of salary and the testimony of the

different type of peoples that you bring in?

I was amazed at the presentation

of this community and their lawyer. I compliment them and I couldn't

see what he had to say.

I say, let's do something better, not less.

Thank you.

>> thank you. That concludes the list of

people that I have who have asked to speak.

And before we proceed we'll take

another ten-minute break.

And when it's half frozen or

otherwise thought to be safe that they'll fall in.

There isn't a swimming pool in

the city that isn't fenced so

why would we not fence this lake

which is the greatest attractive

nuisance to children that I could imagine.

I favor 100-foot buffer but I strongly knowledge that it has

to be fenced and that is a matter of safety, not esthetics

or anything else.

I believe it has to be fenced. So and the other, one other

thing I'd like to say because I

followed on the heels of so many

outstanding statements that I

hope council will take the

opportunity to consider all the

scholarly papers and statements

that have been submitted tonight

before you make your decision.

>> next would be next is staff

additional comments.

Mr. Sahly. >> there are three issues I

would hope to address with you and I thank you for the opportunity.

The first was the conversation about density in the proposed

development the proposal on the

development plan totals 501 dwelling units between the

mixture of townhouse,

multifamily and single family detached.

In doing the math, that works

out to a density of 5.59 dwelling units per net acre and

that does cover the school site,

I believe, about I my calculations.

The neighborhoods have asked

that you restrict the density to 328 dwelling units for

comparison, and again by my

rough math that's 3.66 dwelling

units per net acre just for comparative purposes.

The second item that I had hoped

to aaddress with you, Mr. Billings conditional zoning restriction that he has

offered to you, item c, which is

toward the bottom of the page,

there is a lot of discussion in

that wording about timing of

different things developing on the property.

The concept of timing is possible but, in my experience

it's almost always been done as

a restriction on the development plan.

And rarely if ever done through

a conditional zoning restriction.

The very last sentence of c by

my review would qualify as a potential conditional zoning

restriction zoning if you were interested in that but as far as

conditional zoning goes, restricting timing of things

through conditional zoning is very difficult so I think I

would encourage you maybe to

maybe not consider that.

The third thing, there was a question about the possibility

of the school site of 20 acres

in the center being an open space.

In the past on a few occasions

the council has restricted the

use of property based on areas

depicted on a development plan

and so that, again, that is an area depicted on the development

plan that could possibly have conditional zoning restrictions.

But if you recall my early comments in tonight's hearing

when I shared with you the planning commission and the

planning staff's recommendation

about conditional zoning, I refaced that by saying every

time conditional zoning is employed, there is a requirement

that a finding be made to do so.

In this case, I've not heard anything tonight that would seem

to present itself as a finding to eliminate the use of 20 acres

of the property through a

conditional zoning restriction if that makes sense.

There has to be a finding any time you employ conditional zoning.

So I wanted to remind the council of that as well.

Thank you. >> thank you.

Next would be petitioner's rebuttal? >> thank you, I'm going to run

through a number of things

fairly quickly.

I'll play off what bill said and

I want to add one thing to it. Screening and buffering does not

include a trail.

A trail is not a condition that

can be imposed in conditional zoning.

I say that with some knowledge

as I think you know I wrote the statute. I sponsored the statute.

I passed the statute and helped

put it on your books.

A trail, and as I said at the outset, the location of the

trail is a purely development

plan item under your ordinance. The same would be said for

attempting to impose a conditional zoning restriction

that took a 20-acre parcel and

said you can have zero development on it.

That will never fly as a

conditional zoning condition.

And even council for the opponents has not argued that we

ought to be able do that. The school board has this site

as part of the facilities plan.

They went to the agency, the

kentucky department of education that's a multistep process.

They proposed this site. They got preliminary approval

which is what you get in the first instance.

They came back as a result and

wrote a letter to kentucky american.

this letter is being sent to communicate the interest of the

fayette county public schools in purchasing a parcel of kentucky

american water for use in constructing a school facility.

So this school site is as far along as you would expect it in

this process so the notion that there is never going to be a

school site there is simply at odds with both their facilities

plan and steps they've taken up

to this point. Compliance with the comprehensive plan.

The only thing, I don't want to

go through the myriad of things

that Mr. Billings threw into his exhibit except that I will

say this: the planning staff, which participated in the

development of the comprehensive plan and the planning

commission, which adopted it and

has a primary initial responsibility for reviewing

applications and acting on them

voted 8-1 that this proposal is

in agreement with the

comprehensive plan. Distance to the water.

It was suggested that we fudged because there is all this space

out that we are counting that

was in the low pool area.

I can tell you, I'm under oath, I took my measurements out there

and the water is up against the

trees now, in fact it's too high. It's up against some of the

trees on the edge.

That area that you saw on the earlier photographs that existed

at low pool was not what we

measured to. So the suggestion that our

measurements are off because we included this beach looking area

are simply incorrect.

I've got two quick overheads,

well, that's not good. Let's pull it down.

What I will tell you, you see it in the book that you've got

there of one of the books, you

will see Mr. Kimerer's picture

in the back of the book.

One of the last slides that he

took is a view from this property that we have looking

toward east lake. You can see the character of the

lake front at east lake.

It's got almost no trees on it either by the reservoir or in

many of the yards, the owners of which have been here to complain

that they're going to lose their view of our trees.

I'm sorry if that doesn't, but

we've had people talk about you

can always plant your own trees. You've had people talk about the

value, if you look at the first slide we had, you would see that

the tree line along all sides of

the lake was very much similar

back before development began. So it just so happens that this

one is the last one in but most

of the tree lines across the lake in the developed area have

been eliminated.

Kentucky american... Yes, sir. >> you've got about 10 seconds

left on a five-minute rebuttal.

>> all right. I'll catch some of this in

followup there are three kentucky american letters in there.

They do not a fence is appropriate in this location.

The other distances where there are fences they did not own the

property at the time they were developed.

So those are old property lines

and that's the reason for the

more significant setbacks.

>> thank you.

Mr. Billings, rebuttal.

>> vice mayor kay, ladies and gentlemen of the council,

Mr. Sahly, staff, again,

Mr. Leer, Mr. Nicholson Mr. Ball, Mr. Goodwin,

members of the audience I have

now four minutes and 40 seconds

to try to summarize four hours

and 7 minutes of testimony and to rebutt that.

>> if I May intrude. >> rebuttal of evidence.

You'll have a chance to recap. >> there are five points that

were raised... Six points raised

in the last 10 minutes of the rebuttal.

On density Mr. Sahly gave you numbers that included the

20-ache school property. If you turn to tab 4 in the

books, you will see two charts that says ball homes proposed

density.

The first chart is what is in the most recent proposal by ball

homes and you exclude the 20 acres.

That's a total of 6.64 or 6.6 p net.

The second chart is the one that

actually shows ball homes justification in their written

proposal which is 7 units per acre. Under either of these scenarios

you exclude the school and it's

clearly more than four ache units per acre.

Number two.

The proposed zoning restriction,

you can pull out my proposed zoning restriction.

I understand Mr. Sahly does

not like my first sentence of subc.

let's just add the last sentence of subc.

I think that the conditions in d

give you more than sufficient reason based upon the evidence,

testimony, disumentsz, most of which you probably have not even

seen or read tonight because of the volume of material to

support a decision that we've recommended to approve the zone

change with these proposed zoning conditions.

Or absent the zoning conditions it's not in agreement with the plan.

Number three on the school. I don't know what fayette county

public schools is doing. I've not suggested that you

restrict the 20 acres. What I've suggested is limiting

the density of the entire

boundary serves as a precaution

that if the 20 acres is not a

school it protects the future. They could come back with

another zone change to increase density but the density we

proposed serves as a protection if it is not developed.

We are not asking somebody to build the trail.

That's a different question.

What we have asked for is for a trail easement to be created.

That's an important distinction

that was left out of the rebuttal a minute ago.

We are not asking for the developer to spend money to

build a trail. They might understand the value

it would bring to their homeowners and cities like they

have in the other number of dessmentsz. We are not asking them to be

forced by you all tonight we are asking you to require as a

conditional zoning restriction

which is appropriate, to create the buffer, the easement for

that trail system.

The examine, if you turn to

exhibit 2, you will find a comprehensive comprehensive

review of the comprehensive plan.

That didn't quite make sense like I intended it but it came

out anyway. You will see a summary of where

it doesn't meet the comprehensive plan.

We have vetted facts, we have

vetted plans, we have vetted

manuals, their hearing didn't rely on any of the other things.

They've pulled out three

sections from the comp plan and tried to wholly rely upon those

and ignore the rest; that stack

of documents that you all have

adopted for the city. Number 6, the issues about

distance, if you turn to tab 17, it's great for someone to come

up here and say in person they've been to a place and

measured 60 feet in one area. What we are telling you is we've

actually done the math based on gps and have coordinates that

show you based on each of those distances, there is one that is

60 feet. We are not disputing that but we

are also tell ug other places

it's 0 feet 5 feet or 10 feet. On average we come up with

24 feet. I'm not telling you that is

going to be to the precise calculation but I'm telling you

it is much more reasonable data

to rely upon than Mr. Leer's personal testimony that he has

been out there and he thinks

it's 60 feet.

with that, I told you tonight

that I was cans sighted.

A little bit fearful but excited.

A zone change is not a small event.

This zone change is a huge event for fayette county.

You all have a choice tonight is

it going to be the tyranny of

the or or will you all embrace the genius of the and.

Thank you. >> thank you.

>> there was always some time for summation if you wanted to

add anything.

That seemed like your summation.

You're good.

Do the proponents want to summarize?

Again not new evidence just,

yeah. >> sure.

This is more a time for big picture and that's what I'm

going give you because that's

really what is at stake here.

One is history.

Other developments around the

lakes in fayette county with no

fences have worked well.

Wildlife exists there in abundance.

The same wildlife except for the deer and the turkeys that exist

this o this property.

History shows that other quality neighborhoods not far from this

one and all over lexington have functioned very well with the

same mix of housing types that

are proposed for this property.

The win-win that was mentioned earlier, what is proposed is not

a win-win for the property, for the development of the property

or for the community.

100-foot buffer eliminates 40

some single family residential lots.

The number of units that they

suggest is 173 below what is proposed and that leads me to

the third big picture item and some of you have heard me say

this before.

Those who say we have a world class city because of what we've

done with our rural area, preserving it are almost never

in the room when we have

neighborhoods near to a bypass

tract who don't want something

built on the last remaining

tract near them. Even though it's to be built by

the same entity that built the

neighborhoods that they love maybe we'll never solve that

because you are sure going to hear from those people when the

time comes to talk about whether

we expand the urban service area boundary.

Now you May not think it's a big deal.

This is one tract of land.

But they want to suggest that

everything ought to be built at

less than five units and acre. We are not going to build up

instead of out at 4.5 units an

acre just eliminating the units

that they propose to eliminate

and if, let's assume that

wherever these other 170 some

units go, the same attitude persists that has permeated the

discussions tonight, that means

we are going have to find another 38 acres of land

somewhere to put those same number of units.

You know we need, you've seen the housing study.

You know we need to provide for additional single family homes

and additional apartment homes. You know that.

you commissioned or participated

in the study that said that. That's what this is about.

This is one of those watershed

not inappropriate term to use, watershed moments where we come

face to face with what we've

seen we want to do as a community.

Use flexibility, integrate housing types, put the density

at appropriate, not a draconian

level as a way to help us grow up instead of out.

The planning commission saw that and they recommended approval.

We respectfully request you do the same. Thank you.

>> thank you.

At this point if council members

have questions of staff,

petitioner or opponents please log in.

Just to remind you after a round of questions, after all

questions have been asked, two things. First both the petitioner and

the opponent will have an

opportunity to rebutt any new evidence that is brought out by

the questions.

Not to go back over old ground.

New questions. And then I will declare the

hearing closed and then council

members will be free to make

motions about the matter before us.

So first, I got all kinds of people signed up. Here we go.

Council member gibbs. >> thank you vice mayor.

I'd like to bring bill up to the

microphone and I don't imagine we'll finish this in five minutes.

We'll have to come back later.

>> I have a bunch of questions. Need clarification on some

things. For one thing the present proposal is 501 units. That's roughly 5.6 units per acre. >> yes.

>> but that includes the 20 acres for the proposed

school, is that correct? >> I think is that correct.

>> so if you took out the

20 acres, what would the actual

density be?

>> we can do that math. >> okay.

>> other questions.

Let's see.

20 acres for the school.

Is the school board insisting on 20 acres.

Can they do it any less? >> our understanding that is

that the local and state requirement is a minimum of

20 acres for a middle school today.

We obviously have some in town

that are older that don't meet that but I understand that's for

a new school. >> Mr. Leer said we would lose

40 units if we put in 100-foot buffer but I'm kind of curious

about the size lot for the r-3.

My calculation, you said the

average proposed single family

was 55 feet x 125 feet which

comes out to a footprint of 6900 square feet.

What is the minimum for an r-3?

>> the minimum r-3 is 2500

square feet for single family detached unit.

>> they could shrink the sides of the lots and get the same

number in if they so choose. >> if you did the buffer it

would be the depth of the lot although yes it would be the width.

>> they could still have r-3 in

the same number of units should they choose.

Council member gibbs, to answer your question.

The density calculation without

the 20 acres 7.30. >> and I think I heard that

earlier, didn't I?

Another thing.

Bill, I'm still confused on the buffers.

So ball homes is proposing 25 feet, is that correct?

>> yes. >> now there is a proposal

somebody wants, the other side

wants make it 75 plus 25, is

that correct? And something related to that

before you explained it, Mr. Billings and Mr. Leer

seem to have a disagreement

about putting the trail in like

Mr. Leer said you can't mandate that and Mr. Billings

said you are not necessarily

mandating it but leaving open the possibility if you have a

wider border. >> I think to answer the last

question first, the issue was whether the council through a

conditional zoning restriction

could mandate it's construction. And I would agree with both of

them, I'm not sure, I know we

have not had a condition like that before but I'm not sure

that meets either the use buffer historical cry criteria.

>> if we chose to go with

100 feet it would open up the possibility of a trail through

there but we could not mandate it. >> that's accurate.

>> the 100 feet if I can go back to that.

My impression of the

neighborhood's proposal was a 25

plus a 50 total 75. Not 100.

That was my understanding. >> is that right Mr. Billings? Is that right.

You are talking about 75, not 100?

Where did I get the 100 number.

>> May I vice mayor? Yes, council member gibbs.

This is where the discussing the buffer is probably the most

complicated portion of this and I probably did a poor job of

explaining it. What our proposal is that there

is a 75-foot buffer created by the conditional zoning ordinance

which includes a 50 if the tree

conservation buffer and

immediately interior or adjacent 25-foot trail easement buffer

for total of 75.

When you add the approximate or

the average 24 or 25-foot depth on the outside of the property

line gets to you 100 feet but as

far as ball homes property we are capturing as much as we can

on the water side to minimize

how much property is being taken

but still be the minimum that

what all of our research says is

should be required to accomplish

some of the things we've talked about. >> thank you.

That helps. >> thank you. Council member mossotti.

>> thank you vice mayor. If you don't mind coming back up

to the podium. Thank you.

With the planning staff's

measurements consistent with the

petitioner's measurements kerning the buffer zone?

>> we have to be careful when you use the term buffer zone.

As Mr. Billings just answered

there is really two areas an area on the water's edge to the property line.

>> I'll take that question first.

Was that consistent with the petitioner? >> I think it is pretty

consistent. The planning staff measured I

think as close a point as maybe 25 feet and the furthest

distance about 100 and a shoreline that's going to do

this all the way around however many acres that is?

>> okay.

And I've got google maps up here and I'm trying to find the fence

that exists. Where does the fen currently

exist? >> I have not been on the site.

The only fence I'm term

personally aware of is along the frontage of squires road and

then there is a fence on the

very northern part of the property. I'm not able to tell if you

there is a fence separating the subject property from the water

or the sliver of land around the water.

>> I'm assuming that's kentucky american water fence. >> it is.

>> and that line is fairly

recently created, only in the last couple of years.

That line did not exist to my knowledge before that.

>> give me that location again please? >> I'm trying to find on it.

The two areas I know.

again squires road is here. Squires circle intersection

here, squires circle around stubbing into the property here.

There is a fence here along the

line and there is a fence here along squires road.

I'm certain there are fences there. >> that would be kept there,

correct? >> yes.

Throughout the development or not? >> it would not be possible to

keep the fence here because their plan is showing a

relocation of the road way and this was a recommendation of

their traffic study so this

fence would have to be relocated in some fashion.

Plus the fence I think is really

to secure the entirety of the property. If the property were developed,

the need for a fence would be gone. >> thank you for now.

That's all vice mayor. >> thank you.

Council member plomin.

>> thank you vice mayor. Obviously this is an infill and

redevelopment and I'm a big proponent of that.

I would question is it the right infill and redevelopment.

I think a lot of issues have

been brought up tonight and also

the idea about growth and is

this the smartest growth and use

of this area, so with that said,

a couple things I was also going to mention is that we are

getting ready to put into

committee a way to look at better engagement between

developers and neighborhoods. >> council member plomin if you

have a yen comment you can hold those. This is questions only.

>> this is a question. So we had some of the

neighborhood folks tonight talk about some experiences.

I was wondering Mr. Leer, and

Mr. Nicholson what was the process that was gone through

and the timetable on the

process? >> help me understand what part

of the process you are talking about? >> I believe they were talking

about the neighborhoods were talking about a knew months ago,

I just didn't know when all of the communication with the

neighborhood began and how many

meetings there were or what was the process?

>> I was not in attendance. I know there was one

neighborhood meeting, Mr. Nicholson attended the neighborhood meeting.

There was a fair amount of communication after that back

and forth with their legal

counsel, Mr. Billings. >> so one neighborhood meeting

and then communication back and forth via the legal.

>> essential will I as soon as we filed we scheduled a meeting

once we learned that east lake

was represented and I think we

met shortly after we filed. >> okay.

Thank you.

>> council member scutchfield.

>> thank you vice mayor. Bill, I think most of these

questions will be for you. One of the things that was

brought up was that this school

that will go in is different

from what we've done in other

places? Loirlly. >> frontages?

>> yes.

The staff early on in our review and we probably had at least two

meetings with the applicant,

maybe a third, maybe more, about

this very issue and the school as itself focal point of a

neighborhood, the staff and I think I showed you the comp plan

reference earlier, has a

electronic prerchesz for those -- preference for those types

having street frontage.

The staff and developer really narrowed our differences as this

plan evolved. This is probably the third or

fourth generation development

plan that went to the planning commission from the initial

filing. As you can see on the school

site now probably 50 to 60% of the property proposed for the

school does have street frontage.

Obviously that's not what williams brown is but it is one

of the better examples probably

in the last 50 years for a school here locally.

>> I guess I'm wondering because

I'm concerned you have elementary, the new school

elementary built, all of these have roads all around them built

directly into neighborhoods. Did you all take into account

what the parking is around that

area when a school is having an

8:00 A.M. Event which they have

or they have a graduation where

you have 800 parents that bring grand parents in and everything

and how that parking is going to affect this area?

>> very much so the staff did and that's why you saw the

transportation staff

recommendation that either the

streets that front on the

proposed site be collector street width or that that issue

be looked more closely should the rezoning occur at the time

of the final development plan and that's with, for instance a

school like ace in our history.

>> because I know cars were

threatened to be towed and were

ticketed on ace's streets. >> and that was an issue we

learned from because they're the streets that were approved first

and the school came in later. >> we talked about improvements on squires.

What is the current width of squires? >> according to the development

plan a 60-foot right of way with

a 40-foot pavement curb to curb.

Their frontage their half is unimproved. The northern side is center line

to curb. The southern half is no the that wide.

However the remainder of the

road through hunter's point

subdivision and dewey drive and

greenboro drive, I would expect 60 and 40.

>> how wide is squires road at

richmond, squires road to the service road directly from the

signal is fairly wide. It's improved on both sides,

probably, I would guess the same width maybe wider because it's

commercial on one side. From that point to where it

starts to curve and head back towards going over the lake,

again, we are dealing one I improved property on both sides. Narrows significantly beyond that commercial service road heading in a south westerly direction. >> so can those improvements be

done without buying or purchasing property from

existing homeowners? On squires where you all said

you would be doing improvements

on squires? >> on the subject property

that's before you? >> yes. The development plan actually

shows the developer will improve

and relocate that short portion

of squires on this end.

Here it's just a stub street.

There is one off site intersection recommended and I

think the study is silent as to who would make that.

It's an existing street. I presume it would be the urban

county government responsibility.

>> the squires road from richmond road bordered by

residents, businesses who are getting ready to put a sidewalk

in there so you are not going to be able to expand that at that

point because you also have the lake and bridge right there.

>> exactly.

It does narrow. >> and that is ours.

>> and then the other, I had a couple questions I'm going to try.

What is the average width of the existing properties in the neighborhood.

>> the lot widths? >> uh-huh.

>> the r-1 d zone in hunter's

point requires minimum 60-foot

wide lots, so same with green bow and dewey drive.

I expect those to be 60 or wider.

The other in r-3 and r-1 t and

even the one in the r-4, there

is no way to know because those widths are not mandated by the

zone. The developers of those chose to

develop wider lots than that.

It would take detailed analysis to answer your question. >> thank you.

My time is up. Thank you.

>> council member fred brown.

>> bill, just stay there let me

ask you when you all had this under planning and then it went

to the commission did tim query, was he involved did y'all have

questions for him?

>> as I recall Mr. Query did attend the technical committee

meetings on this and perhaps even the subdivision committee

of the planning commission meetings. >> my understanding he is not

here for us to back up some...

>> I don't think so. >> alluded to looking at the

property and the trees and that type of thing.

>> the preliminary subdivision... Or pardon

preliminary development plan, the requirement out of the

zoning ordinance is that a

detailed tree inventory be done. Again should the property be

rezoned at the next stage of the development, then the requirement would be a tree

preservation plan for some of

the larger species. So at this point it's negotiate.

>> who gets involved in that? Planning commission? Will that be part of the

development plan? >> it will.

we. >> yes.

>> we will not see it again. >> prior to this I meant to

comment on and commend the

people out here attending, the

civility of the property owners

representing and others that are interested in this.

I think great, I appreciate that. Being on the council and we hear

a lot of zone hearings and, you know, it's nice to be able to

get the type of discussion and the intelligent questions that

you all had so I appreciate that

from my perspective.

Back to bill, was kentucky water

company involved in any of this discussion when y'all did the

planning commission or your area? >> as far as I know, they didn't

attend any of the committee meetings or certainly not the

planning commission's public hearing. >> is that normal?

I mean why wouldn't they? They're the seller of the property.

They own it. >> in this case the planning

staff did reach out to the water company and we did have one

meeting with I believe two of their representatives.

So we asked them questions about what they wanted along the

water's edge and things of that nature.

>> I'm concerned about that and

two concerns is the water quality.

My understanding and they're not here to answer that, my

understanding is that that

reservoir is a water supply for fayette county as well as some

of the other reservoirs. And they take water out of there

a lot of times before they go to kentucky river.

They still have to process it. But they take water out of that

because I know for a fact that the water levels sometimes will

go down two feet when if we haven't had much rain.

So I don't know that that has

any bearing other than I'm

concerned about water quality

and, you know, runoff from any existing or new properties,

especially if we don't have that

additional footage buffer.

And did they mention anything about fencing?

Did you talk with the water company about fencing because

they have a fence completely around that property.

That is a private area.

They've got fencing, a nice chain link fencing around all of

it that borders around the lake. Now on this particular property

here, there is some fencing that they didn't need to do because

they fenced the outside of it but my understanding that they

fenced that for security reasons

and for liability purposes.

And I would like to have an answer from them as to why they

would not fence this particular

around this particular peninsula

if they did sell it and it got rezoned?

>> I don't recall any specific discussions with the

representatives about fencing. What the planning staff was

talking to them about more was

the orientation of streets to

the buffer to the water's edge versus rear yards to the buffer

to the water's edge. Those types of issues was the

thing I remember staff talking about.

>> was there discussion about if

the homes on that water edge, they would be able to have

access to the lake? >> there was some discussion about that, yes.

>> and they would be able to have docks?

Around the lake and... >> I don't remember discussion

about whether docks would be permitted.

>> well who can answer that?

>> I don't know, sir.

I'm not sure anyone tonight. >> can Mr. Leer or ball homes

answer that at all?

I've only got 20 seconds.

>> well, Mr. Brown... (Slow motion). [Laughter]

First yes they would have access

to the lake and would be able

potentially to have docks.

They the letters that are in the packet indicate that they do not

believe that a fence is necessary; that they would like

the individual lot owners to

have the ability to pick up trash and there is a lot of

trash out there.

I want to correct one thing that you said.

We take very little of the

water, less than 13% of our

drinking water comes from this reservoir in any way, shape or

form. It almost all comes from the kentucky river.

There are two pump stations as you know.

There is another letter, the

fifth letter, the fifth letter

under tab 5 specifically addresses what you said about

water quality. and that's the letter in which

they said they already treat for everything that comes in and

they point out that there are 7,680 achier in this watershed

almost all of which develop and are already coming into the lake.

They have to treat for everything that is coming in

that's in the letter. >> so maybe that's what is

happening now but last year when

I talked to the vice President Of the water company, they told

me they were taking quite a bit

out of reservoir 4 and I know they did because the water

levels just really fluctuated last summer.

So maybe they've changed their direction.

>> 2016 the number was 12.7% of

the total water came out of that reservoir Mr. Brown. >> my time is up.

>> thank you, council member lamb. >> thank you, vice mayor.

I have a question for

Mr. Leonard.

You mentioned several trees that

you had identified on the

property I know it's craze toe ask this but do you remember

where they were located? >> the state champion possible

tree that is to be measured

later this week was about

150-foot from the shoreline and the new sewer temporary sewer

line that is laid there right now above ground went right

under the drip line of the tree

so it is and would be in

violation of a tree production zone.

Just very lucky that it wasn't a few feet over or we would be

missing a very large tree. but the others were scattered

over the old property. Julian campbell knows the

longitude and latitude of the

large tree. >> kentucky american water

didn't feel like that a fence

was appropriate, but would property owners that are

abutting the water, would they be able to have fences in their

backyard for children or for their pets?

>> yes.

I mean there wouldn't be a prohibition.

Its just that kentucky american

what they said in the letter a uniform fence blocking all

access along there was not something that they felt was

necessitied needed. >> all right.

Now you mentioned that if there

was a 100-foot buffer, that it would eliminate approximately 40 units.

Is it fair to say if you have a

50-foot buffer it would eliminate 20? Is that a fair statement?

>> what I did and this is a very

quick analysis. I took the layout and I roughly

counted the number of lots that

would essentially have to be,

with 100 feet. I would have to go back.

It's a straight math mat dal. Part of the problem is the

school site and the land between

the school site and the lake is compressed so you can't say well

you just can move it up and pick

it up because the land is not there to do it. >> okay.

>> unless you went to really small lots and I'm not sure the

neighbors out here would like

the really small lots, to be perfectly honest. >> that kind of takes me into

the next question.

Obviously once your homes and apartments and town homes are

built, obviously you don't know when the school is to be

constructed so who is going to be responsible for the 20-acre

lot in that meantime? >> still be owned by kentucky

american and they would have I

assume they would maintain it. We have the right to zone it all

and the reason for putting it it

all in is so the council would

know what the zone is going to

be but kentucky american would

continue to own the 20 acres

until the school purchased it. >> the next question is you

mentioned at a letter from fayette county public schools to

the kentucky american water company. You had something you were

reading from? >> yes. That wasn't included in the

packets and I didn't know if there was a reason that...

>> no, it's not. I would be happy to put a copy

of it in the record.

The reason until tonight we hadn't heard the argument that

there is never going to be a

school there.

Because the whole way the entire

way in which this development

has been conceived is based on a pre-existing commitment from the

water company to sell 20 acres. We did meet with representatives

of the school board to work with

them on the configuration of the 20 acres.

It changed slightly from what kentucky american and they had

originally talked about. But it's news to me that there

is an issue about whether the school board intends and I'll be

happy to I'll put a copy of that in the record for you.

Happy to do that. >> thank you. That would be great.

Thank you, Mr. Leer.

Thank you vice mayor.

>> council member farmer. >> thank you vice mayor.

Mr. Leer if I could have you

back for just a moment.

I appreciate your entering that

item into the official record. In talking about all the

reservoirs which you used an illustration of the one that is

in the fifth district, and I'm

asking you in essence on behalf of kentucky american since we

have no other opportunity

tonight do they draw water from

any of the reservoirs or just

reservoir 4 occasionally? >> none of the other three.

Reservoir number one is the one you would think of of being

across from what used to be

lexington mall now southland christian church.

Reservoir number 2 is, they're

divided by causeways.

Reservoir number 2 sits between part of the development known as

the island and part of the development that's inside on

lake shore drive including the

area that's got the lake park apartments and town homes and

all of that and then reservoir

number 3 is on the other side of

the road and it is bounded by

lake side and a couple of other developments.

>> I'm just asking to your knowledge does kentucky american

draw water? >> they don't draw water from

any of them.

They don't own any part of them.

They still own reservoir number

one, the rest of the reservoirs, the other two and three I

believe are owned by something

called lela. Lake area lake association. >> I'm very familiar.

Thank you.

So you are saying the only

reservoir they draw any water at any time potentially is number

four. They own the one next to their

station but don't use water from it to your knowledge?

>> they do not. >> so when I look at the master

plan in here, it shows all the lots on the outside edge backing

up to the lake which would be

similar to what we see in across

the causeway in the fifth district where the land goes

down to the water and in some instances yes, there is use,

there is a dock and other

instances there is nothing. >> right.

>> so how is... How is that contemplated at this new

potential development that everybody would have that

potential option, too, to go down and use the lake then so to

speak? >> yes.

>> and how would that impact the

talked about lake elersly fishing club?

Do they maintain any specific

use of that lake or is it... >> they fish.

They fish in the lake. According to, you have to

understand kentucky american, the letters that are in there

say they understand the development concept. They support it.

They do not believe it would compromise the quality of the

water in the lake. The other setbacks if you want

to call them that, number one

this is the only property around number four that they owned at

the time it was proposed for development.

East like which was developed by ball homes, where the fence line

is was the old property lines and they retained it because

there was a road that went through there and you could see

it on the photographs to get back to their dam.

>> it was beautiful.

I agree and the other all of

that area is under the lease to

lake elersly fishing club because those were the boundary

of the american kentucky property at the time all of those others were desmed.

In this case they own the

property, they can set the boundary really wherever they

want and that's the boundary that they set is the boundary,

and they set that boundary before we negotiated for the

purchase of it. >> and my time is running out,

too.

So would there... This would

still remain a very fenced waterway except on the peninsula

that you are talking about.

Would that be correct?

>> unless in working with the other neighborhood associations

they agree to remove part of the

fence and I can't speak to that,

although we would support it.

I think they would probably not

in the area where lake ellerslie fishing club is whether they

would do it in the other areas, I don't, I can't speak to that.

>> I May come back but thank you, sir. Thank you vice mayor.

>> thank you.

Council member evans. >> thank you vice mayor.

I think the questions are for

Mr. Sahly. I'm going through the traffic, I

guess the impact study, talking

about I can't tell if you factored in the students that

would be coming because there

was a comment that if it was a magnet school there would be

much more traffic, cars, as opposed to anyone walking and if

there is an estimated 900

students that would be project,

how was that calculated into the number for vehicles because I

don't see where that would be factored in.

>> cloorly the school was taken into kentucky with the traffic

study if you look at page one of

four of the report.

I thought there was a separate

number for the school here but I'm not seeing it now that you

are asking so you May need to

ask the traffic consultants

here.

>> 55 feet wide across with a

depth a range of 110 to 130 feet so when I presented early in

evening I just averaged the two

for simplicity sake.

In the r-3 zone there is a

required 20-foot front yard

setback so now that lops off that part of it.

The rear yard has to be at least 10 feet of setback so just going

from front to the back of the

lot say 110, you are down to

80 feet front to back on a house. the setbacks from the sides have

to be at least three feet each side.

So 49, that leaves an envelope

if you will on the lot for each

house of 49 width and, what did

we say that was?

80 front to back I believe.

So obviously not every house

will fill that envelope.

I would expect there would be a variety. >> I'm simple so I don't know

what that... What would a real estate agent say the square

footage of that home would be? >> I don't know about the home.

In planning we deal with the lot

sizes.

Those are the issue the planning looks at rather than how many

square feet.

>> Mr. Leer can you give me an

estimate on, I just need to conceptualize it.

I'm not trying to pin anybody

down.

Gl what is anticipated around

the lake is 3,000 to 5,000 square feet.

And price ranges of 300,000 to 500,000.

I mean this is not intended... This is intended to be a high

quality residential development. >> that's what I needed to know.

Thank you. >> thank you.

Council member bledsoe.

>> thank you vice mayor. Mr. Sahly.

Two quick questions. One this is not the same but

similar to the development out

by dogwood trace that was a one

entrance one out property development.

That had how many units in

it-ish the development next to dogwood. >> oh yes.

One further north.

I'm going by recall, again the applicant May know exactly

because I think they developed it.

As I recall, around 250

apartments and roughly 50 single

family homes.

And that development is 500ish

with two exits. >> uh-huh.

>> plus a school.

If the npo and bike and pedestrian master plan suggested

we do this. >> the trail? >> the trail.

And if we did make it an

easement for it would the kentucky american water still

hold liability for that...

>> the trail that has been talked about tonight is going to

be in one form or another on the

land you are considering for rezoning. You know, there still will be

this buffer that we've talked

about that is not proposed to be

rezoned that will remain in the zone that separates the

development from the water's edge.

I don't know if that distinction

between private property and kentucky american home

properties has liability. Some of the americans May be

able to answer that. >> do you want to take that

question Mr. Leer?

And I only ask it because this is a fence that blocks the

private property from the property we run on and in this

case the fence would be opposite. It would be closer to the water

and the trail would be outside of it closer to the homeowners property.

Does that make sense? If it was done in this

particular way as people

suggesting it happen.

>> I guess I'm not grasping your question. I apologize for that.

The issue, if the trail were as

they have proposed, who would

have liability?

My guess is it would be whoever

owned it. >> the private property.

>> and the way they've proposed

it, it would probably be individual homeowners that would

have liability.

That's my guess but I don't know. >> I guess I thought there was

already an agreement that kentucky american water would

continue to own the liability of the lake no matter who backed up

to the property. >> that's the lake but what

they're talking about is having

a 50-foot buffer that would be on the buffer would be located

on the individual homeowners property and the 25 feet would

be located on the individual homeowners property as they have

proposed it.

And liability is only one of many issues associated with

that, I think. >> okay.

Thank you for that. I'll hold the rest of my questions.

>> thank you. >> council member stinnett.

>> thank you vice mayor.

Bill 5ley, I'll start with you. Where the current trail

proposed?

You stled was one already

propose proposed a second go? >> a trail. Preliminary plan.

What route would it take? >> I think I understand your

question.

The trail on this plan is shown

along the relocated squires road

here crossing and along the northern frontage of the

extension of squires circle

crossing and along really a greenway tract that is

associated with the pool and

clubhouse heading north to this point and presumably it would

then continue along for a block

and a half to squires road and extend out squires road in the

direction of rich 3407bd road. >> I assume this is something

the staff was in agreement with? >> the staff reviewed this, yes.

>> that's right. >> and storm water, we didn't

talk about that tonight but is there storm water controls

within the development or were they using the lake?

>> a very good question. This is third or fourth

generation plan. Early on one of the early

version proz posed retention

basins in what I'll call the low

areas of the property in close proximity to the lake but they

would still have an area where they're collected and treated

for quality and drained to the lake.

Not depicted on the plan but generally for instance, this was

an area I recall here I think

there was another area here and possibly another here.

There were several around and

that's the conceptment again at this stage it's a conceptual

plan, not calculated engineering.

>> on the density you mentioned seven units per acre if you take

out the school, if you include the school around six.

What is the maximum they could do?

Under the r-3.

>> r-3 and r-4?

>> there is no density limit or

minimum in r-3 and r-4.

It's always been a function of

parking... There are four area limits to the amount of building

you can build but a per unit number in these two zones has

never existed in my experience.

>> so it could be a lot denser. >> it could if the single family

went away and it was multifamily. >> you mentioned this was at

fourth iteration of the plan? Was it denser before and they've

come down. >> my impression is that it has

been pretty constant.

There have been tweaks but not in my recollection material

changes. >> okay.

Mr. Leer. You mentioned other properties

abut the lake. Do other neighborhoods have

access to the lake currently? >> no. Other properties, other lakes,

they all do or at least two and three. This, as of this point the

others do not.

On reservoir number 4. >> the peninsula will be the

only development allowed access

to the lake at this point. And. >> yes.

>> kentucky american will still own the lake. >> and they will own property

that is next to the lake,

remember where the property line acts they would continue to own

the shoreline. >> and would they own, who would

own the 25-foot buffer?

>> the 25-foot buffer as approved would run from the

property line, which ball homes would purchase into the lots so

that buffer would be owned by

individual lot owners but kentucky american would continue

to own the property between the property line and water's edge

as well as the lake itself. >> you mentioned earlier about

road improvements. What intersections would be

improved as part of this? >> I don't think I'm the one

that mentioned them but the principal road improvement would

be one that we could control which is the point at which

squires road hits old squires road hits squires circle and

that is to be, I think a

three-way stop as I guess you

would call it a traffic control

facility there the other side of the loop would be connected to

the street that is currently a

stub street. >> all right sir. Thank you.

>> council member mossotti. >> thank you, mayor.

Mr. Billings I'll give you a chance.

You haven't been up here yet.

So I understand this correctly, Mr. 5ley, we are talking about

the fence and the proposed trail

, the fence will come down

and there will be a proposed trail around where the area he

said is at the top half or top end of the map.

you are in the residents are requesting a 75-foot buffer

around the whole property, am I correct?

>> yes. >> so in that 75-foot buffer

that would eventually lead to a proposed trail.

My concern is as everyone else is liability about that because

here you've got a water feature

where you are going have john and mary think what a beautiful

place to bring my picnic lunch

and walk through this neighbor's backyard.

I as a homeowner don't want john and mary having their lunch or

worrying about john and mary and their dog and children falling

in the water. So help me here.

>> that's a terrific question.

And the answer is really simple.

Have you been over to chilesberg? >> yes.

>> what is in the back multiple

trails and basin owned by a homeowners association.

>> that's not really a water feature.

This is a beautiful lake to look at.

>> you asked who would own it. It is not our position to say

who should own or who should not own the property.

I can tell you about 20 different examples of how it can work.

At the zone change under the comp plan I'm not sure that I'm

allowed to say to ball homes you have to x regarding the

ownership. What I get to do and what ball

homes has to do is say what is the if it satisfies the comp

plan and if it doesn't and create conditional zoning restrictions with respect to

your question about the ownership and the liability this

is why we've requested one of

the reasons we've requested the

buffer. Along the exterior boundary of

the property here, this is

houses here, all along the lake here. There has been a lot of comments

about a fencing requirement. The primary reasons because if

you look over here on east lake around the property line that

sets about 60 to 100 feet back from the water's edge, if you

look over here on shore side it

sets about 450 feet back. All along the other you don't

have a map, actually you see it.

This is ellerslie at the long.

You have significant distances

between the water's edge and the property boundary.

Not only do you have a significant distance, you also

have a fence.

When we made our proposal for conditional zoning restriction

and I'm going to be very transparent I thought we were

asking for too much to ask for a

fence in addition to the buffer because I felt like the more we

asked the more we ask we become unreasonable so we believe that

if you have conservation area

that it creates a buffer that is

an impediment for people,

seven-year-old kid to come back more impediment for the

seven-year-old kid who lives here to get to the lake.

Is it absolute? No. If somebody wants to get to the

lake these people come over and jump over the fence and come

over here and lake ellerslie fishing club people run them

off. For liability purposes we are

not saying create the buffer on

the individual lot homes. What we are saying is ball homes

May have to adjust their development plan to do that.

And I don't know the exact answer of how they do it but

I'll give you one example.

This row of houses this gets rid of and this is back.

It is more complicated than I understand but it doesn't cost

them 40 houses to do it.

It requires ingenuity and creativity but allows this emto do it.

Inside the buffer they could put a fence along there.

There could be a development plan requirement for fence.

I just didn't want to be greedy May not be the right word but I

felt like as a homeowner I had

to come up with proposals that I felt were realistic and

reasonable without saying we need to do 50 things to make it

work because that wasn't going to work.

We were growing to be the bad guys and that's no what treer

tying to trying to do.

If I'm going to spend half a

million dollars on to be on that lake I'm not sure I want a fence

in front of me either. >> I'm not disagreeing.

The there is a buffer here, there are two ways to do a

fence. There could be a fence construct

add long the property boundary

line on the other side the water's side of that buffer.

Or there is a fence along the trail system.

there could be different solutions to how that works for

liability purposes.

What this doesn't resolve is on the apartment complex we've

asked all long why is there an inconsistent position.

You say you don't want public access to the lake with what we

are suggesting an we are not suggesting public access but

they create this trail right here.

Does that need a fence right there? Absolutely it does.

And I'm not trying to short circuit the discussion on a

fence but I'm not sure that I would have been taken seriously

if I asked for all the little things we thought were important

but we had to think of was was most important. >> this is important though

because there is a liability issue here so thank you vice

mayor. My time is up. >> thank you.

Council member brown.

Follow up questions for bill. >> cowrl brown.

>> this is my second time. >> and council member moloney

has not had a chance to speak so I'll recognize him and come back

to you. >> thank you.

Could I have Mr. Leer come up. >> so they're willing to take

that risk and maintain it.

The problem I have with a trail

going back there if they put this trail in, first of all

nobody knows who is going to pay for it.

Nobody is going to know who is

going to take care of it. And the water companies saudi

said they don't want a trail

there and my question is the water company May want to put a

fence up because we went against what they were asking for

because they don't want that much traffic going into the

property so I want to be careful

what we ask for here and if you

do put a fence up and put a

trail up which we'll never use

and Miss Mosotti, you are a

realtor and would you buy a

house that you can't use to go

out to the lake and you spend

$750,000 or $500,000 on a house

that, to me is going to be the

prime and that, to me, is the

question that we have to ask here, who is going to maintain

that bike trail and I don't...

Eye mean I understand that the

folks living here, they they are not going to be the neighborhood

association. The neighborhood association is going to be the people that are

moving in right now that are

going have to take on the

responsibility of the bike trail

I'm being a council member lot

of these folks that May live

three or four or five streets up May not want to maintain the

bike trail. I didn't buy the house to

maintain a bike trail.

I didn't buy a house to maintain common grounds like that but we

have a chance for the people who are going to buy half a million

house or whatever, they're going

to maintain that yard for us and we don't have to have a

liability issue on this.

So before we put the trail in, I have not heard one person say

they're going to pay for this trail.

And I'm going to be honest with you.

I have never and I go back to all the years that I've been on

the council, I'm not a big fan

of putting bike trails behind houses. I've never been a big fan nor

will I ever be a big fan of bike trails behind houses because we

have council members that have

had that in their districts and they have concerns about that.

So I just want, I don't want to be everybody think this trail is

going to be a golden thing when

nobody has yet to tell me who is paying for it so I have some

concerns about that.

Thank you. >> that will I respond?

>> I'm not sure that was a question.

>> go right ahead.

Can I do this now or I can do

this later because much new information I think has come in

about the trail and I can do it

in response to the question or I

can wait until the last rebuttal and I'll be happy to do either

one but there is a lot about the

trail that I think is misunderstood or not understood

at all and I can clarify it I

think. >> go right ahead.

Number up with the trail, as it exists today, the trail I've got

slides I can put up, the trail, the only place that it is

anything other than sidewalks is old squires road.

Throughout much of this

neighborhood, the trail is on

public sidewalks as it's shown here.

The trail already does not go behind the first group of houses

that it is shown on the map to

go behind which would be I think it's hunter's point.

It would come down past hunter's... I already doesn't go there.

The trail cannot go any further

than the area where we show it next to the reservoir unless it

goes through the lake ellerslie

club property and then the end point of the trail and this is

something you should know about, shows the people on their bikes

and on foot crossing richmond

road to get to the other side, the lake side golf course where

there is no traffic light.

That trail was put on a plan in 2001.

That is 16 years ago. The 2013 comprehensive plan says

that it needs to be updated. That was four years ago and it

hasn't been updated yet.

So the notion that this trail is somehow sacrosanct and is

supposed to be where it goes, it

can't go, it cannot go where it

is shown right now and the notion that absolutely has to go

on this piece of property when

it's not going the other places that they say it is going to go

is just wrong.

>> thank you. >> council member higgins.

I've got a couple people who have not spoken yet.

I'm going to recognize them and then come back.

Council member higgins.

>> thank you vice mayor. Mr. 5ley.

What is your -- vision of the viewing spot.

And also what is the size of it and would ball homes be liable

for that property?

>> it will be privately owned is our understanding.

It is not proposed to be dedicated as a mini park or anything.

The staff reviewed that and we

did question the applicant about that early on about that.

I think we reached general agreement that the planning

staff had no objection to that, that it made sense as a

neighborhood feature to allow folks as they come down that

street to have a view of the lake rather than maybe looking

at the fronts of houses that might block that view.

If you'll allow me to go to the map I'll try to estimate it's

size for you it's the same as the lot depth.

So it's 120 deep by about 170

wide on average.

I need my calculator.

Well, it's obviously the size of

1, 2, 3, four residential lots.

>> since it's privately owned, that means that there probably

won't be any park benches or

anything like that.

>> if they would go there again it would be private.

>> got it. Okay.

Thank you.

>> thank you.

Cowcialg brown was next -- council member brown was next in

line and I'll go back up. >> thank you.

Bill and maybe legal. I'm a little bit confused on who

is requesting the soap change?

>> the applicant is ball homes llc.

>> well how can they, so they're requesting the zone change for

the entire property but they're not going to buy the entire

property? >> I think that's correct.

They currently have permission

for both lotses, which I believe are still both controlled by the

water company.

>> how does that work from a legal standpoint.

>> it's really pretty typical.

With a zoning application, there are only three entities that can

begin the zone change. Property owner, this council and

planning commission so when a person wants to propose a zone

change on a property they don't

own, they must submit to our office a written agreement from

the current owner giving them permission to seek the zone

change and that's what has happened here.

>> so is this normal? >> yes, sir.

>> it's normal from your standpoint even though you have

two parcels of land here and you

answered there that that

20 acres would not be sold, that kentucky american water was

going to retain that. >> I think Mr. Leer made that

statement earlier. I did not recall that.

>> that's what I don't

understand. >> yep. >> either ball homes is buying

the whole parcel or they're not.

They're getting the whole parcel

zoned so they've got to... And I don't know maybe Mr. Leer can

you clear that up from a legal

standpoint?

>> 90% of the zone changes maybe

more that you've ever heard are

processed by a person that has

either the right to zone

property or a contract to buy it contingent on zoning.

And this case... >> I understand that.

So what I'm asking is ball homes wanting to zone the entire

property? >> yes.

>> so they will own that 20 acres? >> no.

The zoning does not carry title.

>> so that allows joint ownership or...

>> and it is not terribly

uncommon to have a person buying

a piece of the property and the staff to say well, you are not

bringing in all of it. We'd like to see what the zoning

will be on the rest of it so it's all brought in even though

the contract isn't for the whole thing.

>> and it bother mooz me a little bit that kentucky

american water company is not

here to answer questions because

they're a participant.In this

zone change whether you agree or not.

>> I think you've made that point. >> I wanted to.

And let me ask you this other question.

I know... I don't think you were involved but the ellerslie

delong development over there. >> yes. >> which abuts up to the lake

but there is a lot of footage,

buffer area. Why didn't, why wasn't the

approach taken on this development like it was over

there because oom it was hard to

get that in but it has been 15 or 20 years ago because you've

already got something established a precedent has been set.

It would have been easy? >> well, there are a couple of

things.

one if you look, one of the reasons I mentioned earlier the

water company owned up to the

top of the bank so the applicant

was not zoning water property company. The property line was kept where

it was. The topography is much more

sleep over there. It doesn't roll down to the lake

like it does here. And the other thing remember

that's in the expansion area and there are different sets of

rules for open space, design

criteria and the like that apply

to expansion area properties that aren't a part of the design

and the standards for... >> and one other thing.

Water company is no the here to

answer, but they have... That's

a private fishing lake out there, kentucky water owns it.

There is a contract there that

with the club, how does this new

zone change affect that? >> they'll still have the same

rights under their contract to fish in the lake to maintain the

dock area that they have. >> all right.

Thank you.

>> council member farmer. >> Mr. Leer.

This is what I was talking about before.

One of the things we can

contemplate but we can't necessarily do anything about

are some unintended consequences. Won't this change the entire

character of this lake?

I mean will it undermine the fishing rights of the fishing

club and won't it cause the people across the other side to

want to take their fences down

which you alluded to? >> well, number one, no.

I don't think this is not the predominant shoreline of the lake.

It's a very small piece of it so

I don't think it will, you are asking... That's more of an

opinion than anything else. >> you are qualified.

>> in my opinion it will not materially change the character of the lake.

It doesn't impact the license or

lease rights, I'm not sure

exactly what the legal

instrument of the lake ellerslie fishing club.

So no, I don't see that and the

second thing I would say is

maybe this sounds like I get

frustrated but it's your district.

The lakes that have already been

developed around are beautiful.

They have wildlife they're not

overrun with parties.

I mean this is not some sort of evil thing that is going to happen to this lake.

If you look around what has happened to the rest of the lakes.

They're some of the most attractive beautiful welcoming

neighborhoods in lexington. I don't think this is going to be any different.

>> you know this is the only place I ever see you late at

night so it's fun to hang out, right?

[Laughter] >> well I'm happy that that's

the case.

>> I was just... Let me ask you this.

It would strike me that the

potential buyers for these lots

that back up to the lake want a lot that backs up to the lake

not one that backs up to a fence. >> I agree with that.

>> and if there were a fence or

a setback or offset would that

not impact each lot value that would have backed up to the lake

that does not now? >> yes.

>> thank you, sir. Thank you vice mayor. >> thank you.

Council member gibbs. >> thank you vice mayor.

Several questions I will start

with a nice easy one for bill.

Most of my questions I'm concern about ecological concerns primarily.

That cherry tree is there any way to protect that.

It is in the development zone. >> ordinarily how that would

happen is at this stage it would

be identified and should the property be rezoned the next

stage would either be a final development plan say for the

apartment complex or a preliminary subdivision plan

that would propose the street and lotting pattern that you are

seeing tonight.

Either of those plans requires the commission to consider and

to ultimately approve a tree protection plan.

Those trees in my view, would be

candidates for some specific protection under that scenario.

It doesn't require all the trees

to be protected but that is the

type of analysis that is done

kind of at the next stage after

they're identified. >> okay. So you can probably handle the

next one, too, I think.

I'm interested in that 75-foot barrier or whatever we are calling it.

>> buffer. >> tup. It doesn't necessarily have to

have a trail.

I think there was an old plan from 2001 which called for a

trail but no need to have that, correct? I think some people are

concerned that if we did create that buffer we are automatically

creating a trail or something and that's not the case.

We're just... I'm interested in increasing that buffer for ecological concerns.

I don't care, it would be nice to have a trail.

I don't care if there is a trail or not.

>> I agree with your statement. I think we are talking about two different things.

One is a buffer and it's width. The other is whether or not there should be a trail.

>> I was afraid some of the comments we heard if we approve

the buffer we are pushing for a trail and I don't think that's

necessarily the case. Another thing I'm confused about

is clearing the buffer. I'm not sure these are actually

in the proposals or not but my understanding is the current

proposal is to allow mechanical

clearance of the buffer zone and maintaining only trees of three

inch caliper.

The opposition proposal calls

for non-mechanical clearing and

preserving any trees that are one and a half caliper and higher.

So those are the two proposals? >> yes, that's my believing of

the two proposals you are being asked to review tonight.

>> thank you.

Now I still have two and a half

minutes so I want dave leonard -7d tom kimerman to come up at

the same time and I want them to arm wrestle.

[Laughter]

>> I put my money on tom. >> it would be easier if I had

you both up here.

You look primarily at the 25-foot buffer.

>> I interviewed the entire property. I sampled the entire property

using standard forestry measurement techniques.

The burr oak the only significant tree in the 25-foot buffer.

>> the cherry is within the area

that we are protecting. >> no.

>> dave seemed to think it was 150 feet in.

>> dave said he thought it was 150 feet in from the lake.

Didn't you, dave? >> yeah.

>> there is one... The old

cherry close to the burr snoak. >> yeah, there is that one.

>> but that one is not in good shape. >> that's right but the other

one is down in that...

>> take this mic please. >> there is another area we are

protecting down in here which is where the cherry is.

>> okay. But then there is another cherry

you are talking about, displect.

>> there May be more.

I only know the one I found.

>> I know I know you can't answer that but if we increase

the buffer by 50 feet would that

... That's... >> if the buffer is increased

that is certainly going to help

the existing trees along the shoreline because I said 25-foot

in my mind is not sustainable for a tree.

I mean if you develop that lot clear that grade anything you

destroy the root system of the tree.

So 25-foot buffer is no go. >> okay.

Wider is preferable. I don't know how wide.

>> about out of time so I'll let you guys go. >> council member gibbs.

If I could readdress your question.

I May have misunderstand some of it.

The applicant is not proposing non-mechanical removal of things

like honeysuckle and things like that.

I thought that the neighborhood

had suggested that but I May have misanswered your question

just a little bit earlier.

I wanted to clarify that.

>> council member moloney. >> followup what council member gibbs is talking about goes back

to the thing I said if we build

a house within and they have

these trees on their property, they're supposed to be there the

owners will maintain those trees the only thing is in cleaning

the lake all the way to the end.

Now if we were to put a buffer

in there, forget the bike trail. Who is responsible for the

buffer? I mean is that become right now

we have property owners

responsible all the way to the lake.

If if we put a bufer in there and the property owner is going

to say why am I going to

maintain all this and not be able... I'm just wondering how

the difference?

How that comes in play? >> council member moloney May I

take a stab at your question. >> that would be great.

>> that was one thing that the planning staff reviewed.

If you remember early on I told you we changed our

recommendation about this buffer.

Initially it was based on the flood plain and then eventually

after talking to our zoning enforcement people, we decided

to make the recommendation from

the property line instead and I showed you a map that said yes

in some places the flood plain will be further into the property than that.

It was over this very question. The enforcement staff was

concerned that it would be

difficult in the field to accurately identify exactly

where the flood plain is say on the back of a residential lot

whereas the property line is measurable in almost every

instance. That's one of the reasons the

staff recommended the change. >> the change to buffer the zone

and let the... 25 feet instead of the flood plain plain we

initially recommended. >> so that answers my question.

Thank you. >> council member bledsoe. >> thank you vice mayor.

Very quickly Mr. Leer. Just are real fast.

Unless I missed this.

Are you going have a planned hoa

for the entire development? >> yes. i believe we will.

I mean that's... >> hoa will.

>> I would assume with the

clubhouse and the amenities?

>> the only thing I can answer

for the club area and the apartments.

We have not gotten to that level of detail.

>> that's okay.

>> it's obviously a big enough climb to get it zoned.

>> apparently. Last question.

I serve on that bike and pedestrian master plan.

We are doing the update right now so we are in the current

discussion of whenner the bikes

or trails should go and updating the master plan.

And it has been too long. I concur with that.

I want to make sure I understand what you said.

The way the old map showed going like this is not physically

possible anymore. >> that's correct. >> thank you.

Thank you vice mayor. >> I see nobody else signed up

for questions that allows us to

go to rebuttals for any new evidence that has been

introduced petitioner. >> just only two points.

And I think bill sahly corrected this one but there have been

lots of statements that the

applicant has proposed

mechanical clearing of trees. We have never said that.

We have never proposed it in any forum anywhere. I don't know where that came

from but it is not a part of the proposal.

Number two: google is a marvelous thing.

While we have been having this hearing, diane has googled the

fayette county website.

This is not shown as a magnet

school on the fayette county website.

It is shown as one of the four

schools that is their number one

priority for construction.

And the last thing, I want to add one more thing.

And that is you'll see one

photograph in the slides of an elderly gentleman in a ball cap

that is standing at the edge of

the buffer area and if you look in that slide, you are going to

see you can add an extra 25 feet away from the lake and all you

are going cover is grass. And that's pretty typical out there.

The places you don't cover grass

in that next 25 feet are what I

call the honeysuckle and jungle

that has grown up in the last 10 or 12 years since they stopped

mowing. >> thank you.

>> opponent. Rebuttal.

>> council members. Mr. Moloney, there are three people on that trail in the

buffer system. Kentucky american water can keep

it, the developer can keep it or

an hoa can own it. Every other development in

fayette county in the last 20 years has ult mally been owned

by an hoa and without exemption is every one of those has a

planned trail system through it or a trail system.

Some of them are behind the

houses and success is an under statement. Chiles berg is a recent example

of that. Right now some of your council

member people are acquiring

trail systems aright along old

chilesberg road that go through

still meadows dennis anderson property, that's who is go for example to.

With respect to fencing, turn to

pab 13, the second documents

titled den ton reservoir protection agreement john ball

was made to sign with kentucky

american water in 2003. Five paragraphs.

Paragraph number 1 is a phased

approach storm water management, erosion settlement, five is

pesticide to all types of questions have you asked about

tt today. Kentucky american water said

before every one of the issues is important. Why aren't they here saying the

same thing is this we've asked that since October.

I don't know the answer to that. We didn't hear the answer to

that tonight we think the testimony has been very

beneficial to do what we've suggested to do tonight.

The fencing can be on the exterior of the property and give it protection that you

would like and creating the

buffers thank you.

>> thank you.

At this point I will declare the

hearing closed. There will be no further

testimony from the public. All additional conversation will

be conducted by council and it

will be appropriate to entertain motions.

So I will open the floor for

comments and/or... I'm sorry. Exactly right.

we'll come back. We would like to reconvene if

people will take their seats.

I believe we are ready for a motion. Council member scutchfield.

>> thank you vice mayor. I want to first tell everybody

that has come here today thank you.

We do listen and I know it has

been a very frustrating process for a lot of you all.

I know you have reached out to me and I haven't been able to

discuss it with you because it goes through the planning

commission first and then comes here.

I thank you as do my colleagues for your patience and for coming

here today.

You know this is the way the process works and we are really

glad that you all became a part

of it and I do think wur unof the largest groups that has come

out here to give their thoughts

on a development.

As we take a look at any of the developments in lexington we do

pride ourselves on our farmland.

We do pride ourselves on our green space.

But I also know your community. I know those streets that go

back there and I know those

streets are going to have major issues. When the petitioner to this

brought up the fact that these

neighborhoods like tuscany like waterford, that had huge

developments with houses and

mixed use, they all exit on to a

main street.

This development exit on to your

street which isn't a main street.

I am going to make a motion now and it will be up to council at

that point how we go from there.

But... I make a motion to

approve a zoning map amendment

from agricultural urban a-u zone

to a single family residential

r-1 d zone for 89.59 net, 89.8

gross acres for properties

locate at 478 and 480 squares road finding it is in

substantial agreement with the comprehensive plan based on the

following findings.

Growing successful neighborhoods ... I can't read

the hand writing.

Growing successful neighborhoods

theme a and chapter 3 encourages infill redevelopment and

adaptive reuse that respects the

area's context and design

features goal number 2 a and providing well designed

neighborhoods including neighborhoods connected for

pedestrian and various modes of transportation.

Goals number 3 and 36. Protecting the environment theme

b chapter 4 by encouraging sustainable use of natural resources.

Goal number 2 b and management of green infrastructure which

includes the protection of environmentally sensitive areas

before development occurs. By providing a conditional

zoning restriction for 75-foot

buffer along the a-u zoning boundary near the water's edge

of reservoir number 4 to protect

the shoreline and maintain a

healthy ecosystem around the

reservoir and c the 2013 plan recommends compact and

contiguous development within

the urban service area theme e goal number one met by the

petitioner's proposal within the urban service boundary.

Conditional zoning restrictions

a: along the boundary of the subject property which is shared

with kentucky american water

reservoir number 4, there shall

be a 75-foot with a fence landscaped buffer area

established from the zone change boundary within the buffer area

all structures including accessories structures fences

and place structures shall be prohibited.

Existing trees with a one and a half caliper or greater shall be

preserved except for dead, diseased hazardous trees or

invasive species. All other trees May be removed

only with the written concept of the division of environmental

services if deemed to be necessary for the overall health

of this environmentally

sensitive area. 4: 25 feet of the proposed

buffer shall be reserved for the possibility of a trail.

This buffer restriction is appropriate and necessary for

the subject property in order to

more fully protect the adjacent reservoir and fully implement

the principles of the 2013

comprehensive plan so moved.

>> I have a motion by council member scutchfield second by

council member gibbs. Is there a discussion on the motion?

Council member lamb? >> thank you.

Council member scutchfield would

you mind the very first part of

your motion, where it spoke about the change in the zone

from a-u to r-3 and the acreage?

Can you just did it address the r-4 or are you?

>> no. Basically what the motion is

doing is making it awm single family residential.

>> I just want to make sure I understood the motion. >> thank you.

>> for the clarification.

>> council member farmer. >> so the effective your motion

is to change everything to r-1 d

is that it?

Tell me or renum rate for me about the set back and the fence

and the buffer?

Give that to me one more time.

>> moving the buffer zone to the 75-foot buffer from the 25-foot

and including, hold on...

>> that's all right. >> 25 feet of the proposed

buffer of 75 would be set aside

as a potential walking path all

purpose trail if the hoa, if

whoever controls it move forward with that plan.

>> so does this mandate that

there is a fence there then? >> yes, part of it does mandate

that there is a fence as part of the buffer.

>> thank you. >> council member mossotti.

>> one question. Excuse me council member scutchfield.

The fence goes around the entire property.

>> my intent of the fence is the other side of the lake was

required to have a fence between

the neighborhood and the lake so it would be around the water

edge area, yes. >> council member moloney.

>> my question is can you do this?

I mean can you legally do this?

>> can we get law and/or

Mr. Sahly to respond? >> we are probably going to tag team on this.

We are having a discussion about this right now.

I don't think that the planning

commission considered r-1 d in

the course of their review.

So if we May need to reevaluate this motion in terms of if the

goal is to limit density, I think we can probably do that

but I'm not sure since they

haven't considered that in their discussion when we went back to

try to see, we May not be able

to change the zone to a

different zone. So if that... I'm not sure

exactly what the intention is and Mr. Sahly May have another

comment but it can be a conditional zoning restriction

that relates to density, relates

to the type of housing if it's

single family. But because to avoid a snag with

the planning commission because in a further review it looks

like they didn't consider this at all.

And so I don't know that we want

to necessarily do that.

So I don't know if I'm not sure exactly at this juncture where

you want to go or if you would like to take a five-minute break

to try to get, what you want to

do.

>> to finish up on that, I cannot, I don't think we can

legally do this because planning commission they didn't come

close to what the planning commission and I think from my

understanding is you can talk about making condition changes

as long as this has been discussed by the planning

committee. I didn't see any of this

discussed by planning so I can't

support this motion.

>> thank you.

>> council member scutchfield.

Can you explain what the intent

of changing of the change to an r-1 d what it does and what it

doesn't do? >> one of the reasons I did that

is for the increased density in this small area.

So I mean my intent was to limit

to, I guess under one of the,

let me get the numbers.

The r-1 d with this acreage

would limit it to 347ish properties and so I did have an

intent to limit it from, you know, what would be possible,

you know, 1400 properties.

>> so then... We go back to law

and/or planning what is possible here.

>> I think that we can limit the depends at this based on the

units as a conditional zoning restriction and that will be

permissible. But I don't know that because

the planning commission did not

consider this zone that we can

do it in that fashion. The other things in terms of the

buffer and those types of things would be permissible.

>> so if I May ask, if I changed

it to r-3 but limited to 350 single family homes, that would

be permissible? We would have to probably rework

your motion a little bit because

part of this is for r-4 and you would be, I'm assuming based on

what you said disapproving that

portion and approving an r-3

zone. Or you could just limit the

density in general. >> well, before we, let me make

a suggestion.

i would like to I'm going to make a comment then I would like

to hear from other council members.

I'm not comfortable with that

kind of a dank in the density.

I think it's way too dramatic.

We've talked about this informally and we've talked

about it formally.

We have to do more density

within the urban service boundary.

Now we May want to move it down

a little bit but I think that the change is more than I would

be able to support. And I, before we have to hash

out the legalities, I would like

if possible to hear from other council council members their views on

the question of the density

issue and leave us for a moment

focus on that piece of the

motion and then go back and talk

about the setback and so on if

that makes sense. Council member gibbs.

>> thank you, vice mayor. I tend to agree with your

position.

I think we need the density. I know you people are ver

concerned about traffic patterns

and I am as well but if we don't expand the urban service

boundary we need to have the density so I could handle some

reduction in density but my main

concern is the ecological concern, that buffer.

I would like the buffer idea a lot. That's where I am.

I go for some reduction in

density but hesitant to go too

far.

>> council member farmer. >> similar.

if there is a way to craft this

to reduce the density in some capacity and I don't know how

much and I'm not trying to set a

standard; however, I just don't

believe people want sitting here talking about right now is

talking about something that's

out there and we are down here. At some point something is going

to get developed there and I

just don't think in the final market capacity of this people

are going to buy a lot that

backs up to a fence that lets them look out at water.

I don't think that is real. I just do not believe that that

is real. I do not.

>> I'm sorry. I still don't.

>> I would ask you not to comment.

Thank you.

>> council member bledsoe. >> thank you vice mayor.

I get very nervous about going

changing a zone at this stage of the game only because we are at

the end of a not justice a long

day for us for all of you but a long time of just considering

this development in general. And I just question about if we

do that do we open ours up

ourselves up to litigation in

the future?

>> if you change the zone

entirely, yes, you probably do but I think you can do

conditional zoning restrictions

to limit it in such a way but

still use the same zone that was considered by the planning

commission to get possibly where

you are trying to get to. >> okay.

I guess my only thought is here

we have asked a number of neighborhoods and I sympathize

greatly because my strbt has a

lot of one acre and the properties have been developed

and it has been painful, they

backed up to properties that

would never be developed and it stinks.

It absolutely stinks and so I sympathize greatly with it and

yet I feel like if we are going to ask other neighborhoods to

bear that burden everyone bears

that burden as we do infill and development.

And I agree that the density is high. I'm not sure moving to that

single family is the best is where I would be willing to go

at this point. And yet I get nervous about the

amount of people in that shared

space and I really wish we had a

running trail back there and I

just want to make that clear.

Thank you. >> thank you.

Council member evans. >> taking a straw poll so I'll

give my two cents.

I'm not opposed to necessarily reducing the density for the

mere fact of the traffic impact. I think council member

scutchfield is right that the

comparison that was given with

other neighborhoods, they all

empty out to a much larger road

so I would, you know, I know squires. I grew up over there and

familiar with the area.

So I would consider a reduction

for that reason, the traffic

impact that such a high density

would have.

>> councilcouncil member scutchfield. >> I think can I expedite.

I'm going to withdraw the motion

because law had helped me draft

with the thought that that zone

could go so let me take a quick break, get with them and then

come back. >> if there is no objection.

Aprfed by the planning

commission and add and amend the

following zoning restrictions.

Amend zoning restrictions a to

75 feet buffer and changing a to one and a half caliper and add

following conditional zoning

restrictions number b density to 400 single family detached

units. These use and buffer

restrictions are appropriate and necessary for the subject

property in order to more fully

protect the adjacent reservoir to address concerns of traffic

and the area based on the traffic impact studies and to

fully more fully implement the principles of the 2013

comprehensive plan so moved. >> motion. There is a second.

Motion and second. Discussion on the motion?

Council member farmer.

>> so lower density buffer, no fence. >> yes.

>> roll the dice.

Thank you. >> council member stip.

>> how did you come up with the 400 number?

>> new york state with council in order to get it approved.

>> with council. Meaning law department.

>> no, I mean just I think with

the people on couple from what I was hearing in the discussion

earlier, they were not going to go less than that.

>> 400 came from where?

how did we get, arrive at that number. >> below what was originally

proposed but it's above what was

asked for by the residents and I

came up with a number. >> okay.

I mean I'll give you the honest ...

>> Mr. Sahly, this change, how

many agers is this with the 75-foot buffer slink it down to

be able to be developed?

>> shrink it down to be

developed and what... It all depends on the lot sizes.

I would say with that same

street pattern it will have an impact on the depth of the lots

but the r-3 zone that all of

those on the southern half of the property would allow lots of

that size and depth. >> okay very good sir.

>> thank you. >> council member mossotti.

>> so I'm understanding this correctly.

We are pulling out r-4 zone completely. The apartments?

>> no, still zoned r-3 and r-4. The conditional use on it would

be the single family residential$x .

>> so you are going to have in

the r-4 still a 22.01 net acres. Okay.

Thank you.

>> other council members?

I see nobody else signed up. I'll comment.

I guess I'm concerned about

limiting it to single family.

I can see reducing the density

but it seems to me we really handicap the developer if the

requirement is that they're all single family homes.

I don't think there has been an

objection to having multifamily on that property.

It's a question of how many.

So I would would move to amend

the motion to eliminate the

restriction to single family

homes... I'm sorry, I can't do this. Council member stinnett, would

you take the chair? >> vice mayor.

>> thank you. So now I can.

I would move to eliminate... To amend the motion to eliminate

the restriction on the property

to only single family homes so moved. >> second.

>> we have a motion and a second

to amend the motion. Discussion.

Just raise your hands since I can't control the voting screen.

Council member lamb.

>> can you repeat what you just said. >> yes.

The original motion reduce the density and restricted the

development to single family homes.

I am moving the to amend to

eliminate the restriction so that the developer has the

capacity to do single family and

multifamily as originally proposed.

>> at what density?

>> the same limit for 00.

For 00 units -- 400 units. >> anybody else have any

discussion on the motion? All right seeing none.

All those in favor say aye. Any opposed?

>> no. >> no. Two nos.

Is there in the no. >> three nos.

Four nos. That still passes.

>> I think we need electronic

vote so we can see who is

voting. All right that passes.

Vice mayor is there anything else?

>> no, and if you'll yield the chair back. >> you can have it.

Thank you.

>> council member evans. >> I'm trying to visualize what

that would look like even as

amended with as an well maybe it

doesn't matter anymore so do we

still have the r-4? Okay. Okay. Sorry.

Can you just say that on the mic so they can.

>> I believe that in essence the amendment made it so that it

could be 400 apartments,

correct? >> yes.

>> okay.

>> because you still have r-3

and r-4 in the zone but you are

limiting the units to 400. >> okay.

I feel like perhaps that might

go against the intent of an r-4

if we are limiting it?

I guess I need more discussion

but I don't know how to

facilitate that.

So it's still a total of 400

regardless of the zone whether

it's r-3 or r-4 and I guess I'm trying to figure out what it

looks like but I think council member scutchfield May have just

answered it.

I'll sit back and let you all have some more discussion on

that.

i need y'all to help me out. >> thank you.

Council member moloney. >> thank you vice mayor. I understand the motion and I

understand the situation with the developer.

I don't think this is going to

help him a great deal but his

original motion really shattered, they May just pull

out and lose the school and lose it all.

I personally believe that the comprehensive plan and the

planning did their job and I

support the density because as you know, the less density the

more expensive a house goes and we have been fighting trying to

keep houses affordable and now that we are putting taking out

these homes, I know we are going have some expensive homes on the

front there, but inside there, there could be some reasonable

homes that people can afford and

by allowing these homes to go and lowering the density I think

we are defeating the purpose of

what we did the comprehensive

plan and the we are going back

to I know the neighborhood association and all that,

nothing against... Some of them I have problems with and for

instance if you can have one person take care of the whole

property and not have to have the whole neighborhood

association vofd with it I think

that's a better saying because I think what we are going to do

here is cause problems with the buffer. That's just my opinion.

I think we had a chance for the

person who owned the property to

be responsible all the way to the creek now we are going have

a problem who is going to be responsible for the buffer which

they agree the neighborhood

association and I just think it's easier.

I cannot support any of this but

I do understand your intention but overall I still do not support it.

>> thank you. >> council member mossotti. I have.

>> I have a quick question. What was the original number of

units the petitioner requested. >> the development plan that

planning commission saw was 501...

>> so we are doing almost 25% reduction.

>> 25% reduction.

>> that's a big reduction to take.

Thank you.

>> thank you, council member lamb. >> thank you vice mayor.

I appreciate the intent of this

and I definitely support the 75-foot buffer and I definitely

support all of the concerns that

have been stated today but what

does concern me is that how that

we have phrased this with the

r-3 and r-4 with 400 units. I just, I have to be honest

about it. It does concern me.

But I definitely want to take into consideration what, you

know, the buffer, so I'm not

sure that I can support this

motion at this time. But I am trying to find the

middle here just so you know. I mean I want you to understand

because I know there is. We've said it all day long or

all night long here we've talked

about you are not antidevelopment.

You just want to make sure that some of your concerns are met

and so I think that we still can

do that but I'm not sure that

this motion is the right avenue do that.

So thank you. Thank you vice mayor. >> council member stinnett.

>> thank you vice mayor.

Bill, Mr. Sahly, how many did the planning commission limit

the number of dwelling units? >> only through the development

plan, not through conditional zoning.

>> so they didn't set a number. My concern is how we are getting

to the 400. You know, this could actually

hurt the neighborhood because you could do 400 homes, you

could do 400 apartments you could do town homes.

I think it takes away the develop's ability to be

creative, make it look right and flow right and could backfire on

the community especially with the 75-foot buffer.

That really limits your space

and then to put 400, which is a large number, it could be anything.

I can't support that.

>> further discussion on the

motion as amended?

>> I think I concur with council member stinnett I think the goal

of the buffer was to protect the water, protect the habitat and

decreasing the density puts a limit on the ability to do both

of those things and I think

that's where my concern is. >> anybody else wish to speak to

the motion as amended? Council member scutchfield.

>> I guess I'm trying to figure out whether the prus straition

is the 400 is it the 400... I don't know.

You know, I have a concern with

it being changed from to be

anything in that 400.

A real concern.

You know, my motion was single family residential because I

don't think we are protecting

our current constituents which is you.

And I understand the urban service boundary.

I understand but we are paying I'm I live in this area.

We are paying the price for something that we don't know

what is going to happen there.

We can't change it back after we do this.

And they're going to live in it forever and they're going to

move because they're going to get frustrated with the traffic

and we are going to spend how

much the roads that are already

in bad shape and you all, trust me I'm trying to get you paved,

but it's not cheap.

I just... Let's cut off our nose

to spite our face and we keep doing it.

>> thank you.

>> council member farmer. >> thank you vice mayor.

This is a very frustrating time

for council and constituents because we have reached a late

hour where we are trying to make

some very serious decisions in a

rapid fire setup here. And I appreciated the first motion.

I appreciate this one.

I appreciate that it has been amended. However we have heard

conversation from other council members that they won't support

this for a series of reasons

which I understand because the time and place that we are

trying to do so many things to please so many people and we

don't really have that latitude

or that sure footing, I don't believe.

I want to do something like council member scutchfield said

but I'm not sure we have the

answer to program I'm glad to

have a boost of ca even if and keep rocking but bee have to

come up with an answer because the 60 days is going to run and

the time for decision is now.

We just have to... We have to

vote on this and see what else happens.

I just needed to say that.

>> seeing nobody else signed in to speak I'm going to comment

and call a vote. I think it's a legitimate

question where does the 400 come from and I think the real answer

is that as you have heard, there

are some people who believe it ought to be much more dense

close to if not the same as what

was proposed and some people think it ought to be less dense

so it's not ideal.

400 is just a round number.

And if you wanted to justify it

by the acreage and the layout of

the land and a whole bunch of

other criteria, you could not do that tonight.

You might be able do it given a

week or two so sometimes we just

need to put a number on there

because we have to make ay high a decision.

Despite the fact that some of my colleagues think it should be

more dense and some think it ought to be less dense.

I would encourage people to meet in the middle or close to the

middle and support this motion

as amended. Having said that, I'm going to

call the vote and I think we

need electronic vote for this. All those in favor.

>> can you restate the motion.

>> roll call vote. >> we need to restate the motion

as amended.

Is anybody prepared to do that. Council member scutchfield, can

you, do you have it in front of you?

>> I believe as you amended it,

you just amended density to 400 units. >> I think can you read the

whole motion again. As amended.

>> yes, moved to approve the zoning map amendment as approved

by planning commission and add

and amend the following zoning restrictions, amend zoning

restrictions a to 75 feet buffer

and changing a 2 to one and a half caliper and add the

following conditional zoning restrictions density to 400

units.

>> now I need to ask, we are first supposed to have a motion

on the findings of fact.

>> the findings of fact I think there is one more sentence at

the end of that. >> these use and buffer

restricks are appropriate and necessary for the subject

property in order to move more

full will I protect the adjacent reservoir to address concerns of

traffic in the area based on the

traffic impact studies and to

more fully implement the principles of the 2013

comprehensive plan. >> and those are the conditional

zoning restrictions that you are amending.

Otherwise the motion was to

approve what was set forward you

into toad vote on those separately. >> those are the amended

conditions and findings of fact.

We need a roll call vote and a

reminder that it takes eight

votes to oafort the finding of

the planning commission. >> the amendment is it still in

there that you can put 400 anything you want.

400 apartments or 400 this, so that is still in there.

>> that's still in there.

>> that's the amendment.

>> okay.

Mr. Clerk if you would call the role lease.

>> Mr. Kay. >> yes.

>> Ms. Lamb. >> no.

>> Mr. Moloney.

>> no. >> Ms. Mossoti. >> no.

>> Miss Diploma. >> no.

>> Ms. Scutchfield. >> no.

>> Mr. Stinnett no, sir. >> Ms. Bledsoe.

>> no. >> Mr. Fred brown.

>> no. >> Ms. Evans. >> yes. >> Mr. Farmer.

>> no, sir. >> Mr. Gibbs.

>> yes.

>> Miss Higgins.

>> that vote reflects failure of

the motion. I open up the floor for further

motions at this time. >> I would like to...

>> council member scutchfield. >> I'm going to move to approve

the zoning map amendment as approved by planning commission

and add and amend the following zoning restrictions.

Amend zoning restrictions to a

75-foot buffer and changing a 2 to one and a half caliper and

add the following conditional

zoning restrictions.

Density to 400 single family

detached or duplex town home units.

These use and buffer

restrictions are appropriate and necessary for the subject

property in order to more fully protect the adjacent reservoir

to address concerns of traffic in the area based on the traffic

impact studies and to more fully

implement the principles of the 2013 comprehensive plan so

moved.

>> motion is there a second? >> I'll second.

>> I have a motion and a second.

Discussion on the motion?

Council member lamb. >> maybe this isn't the more

time to do this but I'm looking back in the information that has

been presented to us today and the development plan as

submitted I think these numbers

are right, there were 156 single

family homes, 31 town homes and 308 multifamily residential

dwelling units.

That was the breakdown of the 501 units originally.

I would think that it would be

in our best interest if we are

trying to change the units the dwelling units that it would be

best to look at it from the three different single family

homes, town homes and

multifamily residential unit

figures that were in our. >> so are you saying to amend

each one of them by 20%?

>> I'm saying that I think that

would be that we would probably

be able to reach a better compromise at that point.

That's just my suggestion.

>> I guess make a motion to

amend.

You go from 500 to 400. That's 20%.

So it would decrease each one of

the numbers by 20%.

>> question for Mr. Sahly. When they applied for the zone

change and they submit those numbers in the preliminary

development plan are those hard

and fast?

You May want to borrow a mic.

>> the development plan numbers typically change from the

beginning of an application to the time of planning commission hearing.

>> so they're not set. They're basically to demonstrate

one way that that zone could be developed? >> exactly.

The primary purpose of the dermt plan is to indicate the property

can be developed in accordance with all the zoning requirements

if the zone is granted as proposed.

>> thank you. I think that suggests that we

don't need to, I mean we May

want the different categories as suggested but we don't need to

fool with numbers because that's

not, we can't mandate that anyway.

Council member moloney. >> I know it's late.

It seems like we are grasping

for manage to happen here and i'm going to tell you right now

I'm not an expert on this and we have the sta of that does that.

They've done a lot of studies on this. They know how much is the right

thing to do so to sit here and start doing this, pulling out of

the sky to make this thing work,

it defeats the whole purpose of

why we have the zoning and defeats the purpose of the

developers to do what they've done and worked with everybody

to make sure that they are in the comprehensive plan and done

everything correct. Now we are sitting here starting

to grasp and I just can't support something like this

right now because at this hour this late at night, I don't

think we are making smart

decisions.

>> council member scutchfield. >> nowhere in what you just

said, richard did you ever mention my constituents.

Where do they fit in?

>> let me... Let me clear that up.

First of all I care about your constituents. I care about the constituents

but I also care about our staff and what we do with the planning

commission and if you go back and look at the record, I

usually support what planning commission does.

And to sit here and say that I'm against these neighborhoods I'm not.

I'm for this neighborhood and I

think I'm here to work with

everybody but to sit here and

see a vote 8-1 and everybody and we are sitting here and nobody

coming to an agreement.

I think it's embarrassing them because they come here thinking

something was going to come out

of it and nothing came out.

>> thank you. Council member plomin.

>> thank you vice mayor. I'm listening to tonight density

was driving a lot of it because it was going to traffic it was

going to what it was going to do to the environment.

So I think we stepped off that level of density and we brought

it down. I do think it's important that

we have the mix, the apartments and the town homes.

Our latest study land use study

showed that we need to have the boomers aging and they want to

have smaller places and then also your millennials want to

have the apartments so that's a

nice combination.

Vice mayor my understanding is that we don't need to have that

percentage broken out right now we just need to make provisions

to have all three of those

different types of dwellings in there.

>> I believe... The motion on

the floor I believe includes the

two major zones is that right council member scutchfield, r-3

and r-4? So it includes the two zones

that would allow the development as proposed.

The mix as proposed. >> that's what I wanted to make

sure because then I think that's

a win-win for the neighborhood

association, for the development and we are decreasing the

density but not to the lowest

level but I think it's a win-win. I would support that.

>> thank you.

>> council member farmer.

>> vice mayor does the nature of

our deliberation allow for a question to Mr. Leer and

Mr. Billings? >> I have to defer to law.

My understanding is that once we close the hearing we can ask

questions of staff attorneys and

planning staff but that it is

not appropriate to do other include anybody else in the

conversation but let me ask a further... I already asked that

question of law and got an answer. Further questions.

Is it possible for this council

to suspend the rules and ask a

question of one or more of the

participants? >> yes. >> heads nodding yes.

You can suspend the rules.

>> if you would like to ask a question of either the developer

or the opponents you would need

to make a motion to suspend the

rules, requires 10 votes. Ed. >> then I would so move.

>> and I second. >> motion and second to suspend

the rules and allow for a

question of the either and or developer and opponent.

Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor

please say aye.

Any opposed? >> no.

>> I believe that motion passes. And you have the floor.

>> Mr. Leer first and then

Mr. Billings, please. I asked for the opportunity to

ask and y'all granted it so I'm asking. We are exactly where I don't

want to be and richard made

comment to it. Give me your opinion what we are

talking about here. Both of you.

>> that's a broad question. >> we've got plenty of time.

If you are looking for some sort of middle ground first I will

tell you that my experience with these kinds of hearings only

goes back to 1976, including 18

months where I was your law commissioner although none of you were here.

Some of the worst mistakes

council member councils have

ever is this kind of exercise at

this end of a long hearing and a contentious zone change.

That said, the developer can

agree to a modest reduction in

units and an overall cap of 50

units less than is proposed but

the extended buffer is a killer. >> okay.

>> we couldn't agree to that. >> your answer.

Now your answer, sir. >> council member fenway park, I

think the answer is very simple

that the density limit should be

in the number of dwelling units

and with the r-3 and r-4 zone it is defined by the map which will

be r-3 and r-4 but it will give

the developer flexibility within

those two zones about what they develop where again this is

conceptual, but they could

choose to do single family in an r-4.

They could do townhouses. They would be allowed to do

whatever the zoning ordinance

permits in that zone up to that

residential density. >> you represented well.

I appreciate your time.

>> thank you vice mayor. >> council member mossotti. >> thank you.

And thank you council member farmer. That's what I was thinking what

you were asking. I'm sorry I'm tired.

Can the two parties convene the two attorneys convene for five

minutes or so to see if we can make a compromise that both

sides can live with?

Is that a possibility? Law department?

I mean is that it?

Because I know that...

>> so I think the question... We

can call a 10-minute recess if

that would be... My question

would be to both attorneys. Is that something that would be

helpful at this point to have

some time to talk directly with

the opposing attorney? Mr. Leer?

>> what I heard the applicant

say is that the issue of a buffer is a non-starter for

discussion with them. And so I don't want to put words

in their mouth. If that's the non-starter I

don't know that I would delay this further if that's the issue on the table.

If the number is the issue I think there could be discussions on that.

If you recall my comments earlier about density, we have a

suggestion. What I said is just make sure

there is a cap on the property that you will debate tonight

which you are doing and I'm

thankful for that. >> Mr. Leer. >> Mr. Leer. I have twisted arms.

We can increase the buffer from

25 to 35.

>> shame on all of you... Shame on you.

Shame on every one of you!

>> out of order. >> I think we have the answer.

I don't think that's going to be

the way that we are going go.

Council member lamb.

Council member are you signed

in? >> I am but I don't know what to

say after all that. I believe there is a motion on

the floor I believe, right?

So I think that, you know, at this point I would see what

happens with the motion on the floor.

I don't know.

This is a very thing that I keep hoping that doesn't happen when

we are at these zone changes.

And it's very unfortunate

because we are trying to we are

trying to meet the middle here

and it just doesn't always work

out one way or the other. So perhaps we should just deal with the motion that's on the floor. >> council member mossotti.

>> I would like to make a motion to amend the motion that's

currently on the floor to increase -- to decrease the

buffering zone from 75 to 50 feet.

>> so moved. >> second.

>> motion and second to decrease

the proposed buffer now from 75 to 50 feet.

Discussion on the motion?

This is a motion to amend. Seeing no discussion on the

motion, I'm going to ask for an

electronic vote.

If you would register your vote.

That motion fails. That takes us back to the original motion.

There is any further discussion

on the motion on the floor and

just a brief recap.

It now would limit the number... >> point of order. >> sir.

Would it be possible to vote on

these separately, the buffer

separate from the density? >> I think would you have to

make a motion to separate the question and we would...

>> I was asking if it is possible.

Because I think there is controversy on what we are

looking at and the compromise. >> as I understand it, the

motion that is on the floor was

to amend the conditional zoning

restrictions to include a

75-foot buffer with 400 single

family detached homes or townhouses.

I think that's what is on the floor.

If you want to consider them separately in some fashion you

are going have to articulate a

motion to separate and how you

want them separated we don't have a motion for that.

Council member mossotti.

Council member diploma.  -- council member plomin.

>> does that include, thank you vice mayor did you tell us that

include the apartments?

The apartments we talked about

she didn't say the apartments?

The law did not say apartments.

>> I think the motion as stated

said single family homes and

town homes but did not include

apartments. Council member farmer.

>> I would like to call the question.

>> question has been called unless there is objection.

We'll take a vote on this motion

that's on the floor. The motion without all the

detail in it but the motion is

to a new set of findings of fact

to support a limit of 400 units that would be either single

family home or town homes. All those in favor I think we

need a roll call. >> Mr. Kay.

>> yes.

>> Ms. Lamb. >> no.

>> Mr. Moloney. >> no.

>> Ms. Mossoti. >> no.

>> Miss Diploma. >> no.

Miss Plomin no. >> Ms. Scutchfield.

>> yes. >> Mr. Stinnett.

>> yes, sir.

>> Ms. Bledsoe. >> no.

>> Mr. Fred brown.

>> no.

>> Ms. Evans. >> no.

>> Mr. Farmer.

>> no, sir.

>> Mr. Gibbs. >> yes.

>> Miss Higgins.

>> no.

One Vote Did Not Register: . >> vice mayor I wanted to make sure that council member evans' vote was reflected. >> council member evans? >> I know I'm just stating it so that, you know our deputy council clerk. >> you voted no? >> correct. >> so that reflects failure of the motion. council member farmer. >> vice mayor I would like to make a motion to pass plan mar-16-00016 based on the findings of fact as passed by the planning commission. Capping the total number of units at 451 and the buffer at 35 feet so moved. >> second. >> motion and second. >> discussion on the motion? Council member gibbs. >> got to be more than 35 for me. I voted against 50 a couple minutes ago but I would go for 50. >> make an amendment. >> I'll amend the motion to make the buffer 50 feet. >> second. >> motion and second to amend the motion to make the buffer 50 feet. Discussion on the amendment? Seeing none all those in favor please say aye. Opposed no. We need an electronic vote. Again. That vote reflects failure of the motion. Woe need eight votes we need a majority of couple not a majority of those present. Council member mossotti. >> no, I'm not. Council member evans. >> okay. This is usually my bed time so I'm not really tired I'm usually watching golden girls right about now so I feel like I might be getting a second wind but I feel like we have two issues and we are at a disadvantages in this instance that I think the shame is just part of the process is that the we get all this information now. we don't goat have it beforehand and so we have to try to take all of this in in a short period of time. But that's what we are here to do so it seems like that we've got the buffer issue and the density issue. To me it seems like can I try to talk to my council members. I need your alls attention please. >> council members. >> I promise I'm trying to get this together. So 35 and 50 is not going to be acceptable. Ite seemed like 75 was probably an acceptable number the density was an issue. The density was an issue. We've gone from 450 to 400 to 400 is not going to work. Let's just start plugging in numbers and let's have that discussion here. I guess we have been having it with each other. I don't know if we can do the straw polls like we were doing before. 75 feet yes or no. I mean I'm just trying to expedite this. I no we all feel defeated but we have two questions. What number is the buffer and what number is the density. >> council member higgins. (Inaudible) >> we had some council members that were okay with the buffer at 50 but the density they wanted to be brought down from 451 so maybe that's what we work on right now. And try it again. >> we need to have that work on the mic. I guess that's what we are trying to figure out. Let's just say it on the mic and figure it out. I make a motion for 430. >> there is a motion on the floor. >> 35 feet is my motion. >> that motion was defeated. >> no it was not. It was never voted on. >> we voted on the amendment not on my motion. My motion is still alive and ready to work. >> so the amendment failed so tell me again the motion on the floor is to approve mar-16-16 based on the findings of fact changing the total number of units from 501 to 451 and the buffer from 25 feet to 35 feet motion and seconded by council member stinnett and we are in discussion and debate on that at this time. >> councilcouncil member scutchfield. >> my biggest concern is that we are going to come here and be close to at least getting something as a relief for these residents and if we don't come to some type of an agreement it goes back to the original which, from what I can tell from everybody up here I mean we are not real happy with that. For the most part. There might be some of you that are fine with it but I think at some point we do have to come to a conclusion or we are going to end up with the worst of all scenarios. >> thank you. Council member stinnett would you take the chair again and. >> vice mayor kay. >> I would like to speak. Thank you. I guess I'm troubled that if we are going to be I don't know where to start with this. I thought there was sufficient support actually for the 400 number as a limit but that there was a question about the buffer and I can, I have been, as I said in the past, I've been advocate for density. I could be comfortable going to the 451 but not leaving the buffer at 34535 so I will make a motion to amend the motion on the floor to leave the density up as suggested at 451 which we've not considered before, but to include a 50-foot buffer. >> we just... >> we just voted on that it has been defeated. It has been voted on vice mayor and it has been defeated. >> they made the motion and I seconded. >> with the density at 451. >> yes, sir. So do you want to rephrase it? >> maybe I'd like to have council member evans who, this is her time of night to take over the chair. So the motion so I can't that amendment already failed. >> yes, sir. >> fine. Then the motion on the floor is density 451, buffer 35. >> yes, sir. We did not get a second. >> motion fails for lack of a second. Anything else vice mayor. >> no. I'll turn the chair back over to you. So now the motion that is on the floor is what I just said, density 451, buffer 35. >> yes, sir. Take a roll call vote. >> Mr. Kay. >> no. >> Ms. Lamb. >> Mr. Moloney. >> yes. >> Ms. Mossoti. >> no. >> Miss Plomin. >> no. >> Ms. Scutchfield. >> no. >> Mr. Stinnett. >> yes, sir. >> Ms. Bledsoe. >> yes. >> Mr. Fred brown. >> no. >> Ms. Evans. >> no. >> Mr. Farmer. >> yes, sir. >> Mr. Gibbs. >> no. >> and Miss Higgins. >> no. >> that vote reflects failure of the motion. Open the floor again. >> council member mossotti. >> okay. Let's try this. I move that we change the disens at this to 450 and the buffer to 50 feet so moved. >> succeeded. >> motion and second. >> motion to have the density at 450 units at buffer at 50 feet. Discussion on the motion? >> seeing none. >> if we need to have findings to support those... I. >> I think the same set of findings. >> that would include the townhouses apartments and single family dwellings in a density cap of 450 units with a 50-foot buffer zone and Ms. Scutchfield. >> the way it would read as she proposed it move to approve the zoning map amendment approved by the planning commission and add and amend the following zoning restrictions amid zoning restrictions to a 50-foot buffer, you did not include the one and a half trees in yours. >> okay. >> and changing a two to one and a half caliper and add the following conditional zoning restrictions density at 450 units. These use and buffer restriction s are aappropriate and necessary for the subject property in order to more fully protect the adjacent reservoir to address concerns of traffic in the area based on the traffic impact study as and to more fully implement the principles of the 2013 comprehensive plan. >> so moved. >> I have a motion. >> second. >> discussion on the motion? Council member gibbs. >> I just wasn't to make sure we are going have townhouses apartments and single family in there, correct? That was stated in the motion? >> yes. 4450 units. >> all three. Yes. 450 units. >> council member stinnett. >> thank you vice mayor. By adding another 25 feet to the buffer, how many acres does that come up to? Do we know? Right now we are at 90-acres net. >> the acreage of course wouldn't change the developable area. >> that's what I'm trying to understand. >> I don't think the planning staff ever measureed. I couldn't even guess it. >> further discussion? Seeing none. We need a roll call vote. Mr. Kay. >> yes. >> Ms. Lamb. >> yes. >> Mr. Moloney. >> no. >> Ms. Mossoti. >> yes. >> Miss Plomin. >> yes. >> Ms. Scutchfield. >> yes. >> Mr. Stinnett. >> yes, sir. >> Ms. Bledsoe. >> yes. >> Mr. Fred brown. >> no. >> Ms. Evans. >> yes. >> Mr. Farmer. >> no, sir. >> Mr. Gibbs. >> yes. >> Miss Higgins. >> yes. That vote reflects passage of the motion. I'm happy to say. And now we are not done I think as everybody knows. I think we now need a motion on the second reading. Is that correct? As amended? >> yes, you would need a motion on the ordinance to approve the ordinance as amended by the conditional zoning restrictions. >> and does that have to be read again? >> yes,. >> so if we can get a second reading. >> the title is not going to change but you've changed the text that will be within the ordinance so. >> we need a new second reading. >> yes. >> so Mr. Clerk when you are ready if you would read the ordinance. >> I move to amend the ordinance number one on the docket to reflect the conditions that we and the findings of fact. >> I second. >> motion and second. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. We need a second reading and we need a vote on that. Ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban a-u son to a planned neighborhood residential r-3 zone for 67.58 net and high density r-4 zone for properties located at 478 and 480 squires road as amended. >> thank you. Motion to approve? >> so moved. Motion and second. I need a roll call vote. If you would call the roll. >> cowcialg kay May we pause for a second please. >> yes. >> the title to the ordinance has not changed but we've made changes to the body by amending the conditions which is considered a material change which would require a new first reading. >> we have to have 10 votes to then suspend and have a second reading. >> correct. but so let's have the first reading so everybody will understand technically we have just amended this ordinance sufficiently that it needs, it has changed enough it requires to be read, it has to be given a first reading to be legal and then we have to if we want to move on it tonight, we have to suspend our rules which will require 10 votes and give it a second reading. So council member lamb. >> I move to suspend the rules and give second reading to ordinance number 1 on the docket. >> don't we have to get the first reading. >> he just did. >> steven read it, he read it and. >> he thought he was giving a second reading but he was gifg a first read so now the possession is to suspend the rules and give second reading to the ordinance. >> second. >> motion and a second. All those in favor say eye aye opposed no. No. I need a roll call vote. Council members need to log in. >> I was talking. Who made that motion and seconded? >> council member lamb and council member mossotti. Voting screen up. Council members if you would log in with your vote we got one vote missing. And eats a crucial vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Now we can have a second reading. And then we can have a vote. and then we can all go home. Ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural a-u zone to planned neighborhood residential r-3 zone for 67.58 net 67.65 gross acres and to a high density apartment r-4 zone for 22.01 net and 22.18 gross acres for properties located at 478 and 480 squires road as amended. >> thank you. Is there a motion to approve. >> so moved. Motion from council member mossotti. Second from council member plomin. We need a roll call vote. >> Mr. Kay. >> yes. >> Ms. Lamb. >> yes, sir. >> Mr. Moloney. >> no. >> Ms. Mossoti. >> yes. >> Miss Plomin. >> yes. >> Ms. Scutchfield. >> yes. >> Mr. Stinnett. >> no, sir. >> Miss. >> no. Mr. Brown. >> no. >> Ms. Evans. >> yes. >> Mr. Farmer. >> no. >> Mr. Gibbs. >> yes. And Miss Higgins. >> yes. >> thank you. That vote reflects passage thank you all for coming and sharing your views and have a good night. What is left of it. i need a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. Without objection we stand adjourned.