# Urban County Council - Zone Change Hearing - July 2, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 2, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4786 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4786?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-07-02 - **Last revised**: July 2, 2019 - **Length**: 25,081 words > ⚠️ **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 Urban County Council convened on July 2, 2019, at 6:00 PM in the Council Chambers in Lexington, Kentucky, with Steve Kay presiding as the meeting officer. The council addressed one primary agenda item during the session, focusing on a Zone Change Ordinance that was ultimately approved. The meeting included one formal motion and vote, allowing the council to take decisive action on the zoning matter before them. Three members of the public participated in the public comment portion of the meeting, providing community input on the proceedings. The council successfully completed its business for the evening with the approval of the Zone Change Ordinance, demonstrating efficient handling of the single agenda item presented for consideration. ## Attendance **Present:** Mr. Gibbs, Vice Mayor Kay, Ms. Lamb, Mr. Mccurn, Mr. Moloney, Ms. Mossotti, Ms. Plomin, Ms. Reynolds, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Ellinger, Ms. Evans, Mr. Farm **Absent:** Mr. Worley, Mr. Fred Brown **Late:** None Twelve members were present for the July 2, 2019 meeting, with two members absent and no late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted one roll call vote during the July 2, 2019 meeting. **Ordinance 0601-19** [timestamp: 09:20] The council voted on an ordinance to change the zoning from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Expansion Area Residential (EAR-2) for property located at 2020 Russell Cave Road. Mr. Gibbs made the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Ellinger. The ordinance passed by a vote of 8-4 with no abstentions. **Voting in favor (8):** • Mr. Gibbs • Vice Mayor Kay • Ms. Plomin • Ms. Reynolds • Mr. Worley • Mr. James Brown • Mr. Ellinger • Ms. Evans **Voting against (4):** • Ms. Lamb • Mr. Mccurn • Mr. Moloney • Mr. Farmer The approved zoning change includes a condition limiting development to single-family detached units only. ## Public Comment Three residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to a proposed zone change and development project. **Catherine Perkins** [timestamp: 00:30] addressed the board first, voicing concerns about environmental issues and density related to the proposed zone change. She expressed opposition to the project based on these environmental and density considerations. **Patty** [timestamp: 00:45] followed with comments focused on flooding and environmental concerns in the area. She discussed existing flooding issues that affect the location and emphasized the environmental sensitivity of the proposed development site, suggesting these factors should be considered in the decision-making process. **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 01:00] concluded the public comment period by raising concerns about the density of the proposed development and its potential impact on neighborhood traffic. She highlighted how the increased density could worsen traffic conditions in the surrounding area. All three speakers appeared to be in opposition to the proposed zone change, with their comments centering on environmental impacts, flooding risks, development density, and traffic concerns. The speakers focused on how the proposed changes could affect both the immediate development site and the broader neighborhood. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that drew substantial community opposition. **Zone Change for 2020 Russell Cave Rd** The proposed zone change for the property at 2020 Russell Cave Road encountered significant resistance from local residents during the public hearing process. Community members voiced strong concerns about two primary issues: potential environmental impacts and the likelihood of increased traffic in the area. The opposition centered on residents' fears that the proposed zoning change would alter the character of their neighborhood and create additional burdens on local infrastructure. Speakers expressed particular worry about how increased development might affect the surrounding environment and whether existing roadways could handle additional vehicle traffic. Multiple community members participated in the public comment period to voice their objections to the proposal. The residents' concerns focused on preserving the current neighborhood dynamics and preventing what they viewed as potentially harmful changes to their area. The structured opposition from the community highlighted the tension between development interests and neighborhood preservation that often characterizes zoning disputes. Local residents demonstrated organized resistance to the proposed change, indicating the level of concern within the affected community about the potential impacts of rezoning this particular property. *Note: Specific timestamps, final outcomes, and additional details about the resolution of this contested item were not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## Zone Change Ordinance [timestamp: 00:10] The council considered Ordinance 0601-19, which proposed changing the zoning designation for property at 2020 Russell Cave Road from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Expansion Area Residential (EAR-2). The development plan called for a mixed residential project featuring both single-family homes and townhouse units. Key speakers during the discussion included Steve Kay, Tracey Wade, and Nathan Billings, who presented details about the proposed zoning change and development plans. The speakers outlined how the EAR-2 zoning classification would accommodate the planned residential mix while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area's development patterns. The ordinance represents a transition from the property's current agricultural designation to a residential classification that permits higher-density housing options. The EAR-2 zoning would allow for the construction of both traditional single-family homes and townhouse-style units, providing diverse housing options within the development. Following the presentation and discussion of the zoning change proposal, the council voted to approve Ordinance 0601-19. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with development plans under the new Expansion Area Residential zoning classification, enabling the construction of the proposed mixed residential project at the Russell Cave Road location. --- ## Decisions - **0601-19** — passed (8-4): An Ordinance changing the zone from an Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to an Expansion Area Residential (EAR-2) zone for property located at 2020 Russell Cave Rd. --- ## Full transcript >> good evening. Good evening everybody and welcome. This zone change hearing on pln-mar-19-0002. July 2, 2019 first order of business for the clerk to call the roll, please. >> Mr. Gibbs. >> here. >> vice mayor kay. >> here. >> Ms. Lamb. >> here. >> Mr. Mccurn. >> yes ma'am. >> Mr. Moloney. >> yes ma'am. >> Ms. Mossotti. >> yes. >> Ms. Plomin. >> yes. >> Ms. Reynolds. >> yes. >> Mr. Worley. >> Mr. Fred brown. Mr. James brown. Here. >> Mr. Ellinger, yes ma'am. >> Ms. Evans. >> here. >> Mr. Farm. >> yes ma'am. >> thank you, sir. And now I would ask the clerk to please give second reading to the zone change ordinance. >> ordinance number one, changing the zone from an agricultural urban a-u zone to expansion area residential zone for 8.48 net acres for property located at 2020 russell cave road trust equity council district 1. >> thank you. >> now there are a few preliminaries. I'm steve kay, vice mayor. I will be chairing this meeting. i want to run through a little bit of the procedure so everybody kind of knows what we are doing. First I guess I don't know which order to do this in. I guess I'll swear people in first. If you are planning to speak or if you think you might be plan ning to speak, if you would either stand or raise your hand, I'm going to ask you to be sworn in. That's everybody from the public who might be speaking. >> I know there are other people who... I need to swear in anybody who is planning to speak so if you would simply listen and then give your assent if you agree. So do you swear or affirm -- you can raise your left hand my right hand. Do you swear or affirm any testimony you will give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge. Just say I do. Thank you: okay. Now preliminaries. For the initial presentation, each side has agreed to limit its presentation to 30 minutes, the petitioner has counsel present and I believe there are three people who will be speaking primarily for the neighborhood and other people have yielded their time so that they have r can can have their 30 minutes. My job as itself chair -- as the chair, if it arises what is or is not permissible in terms of evidence. I don't exercise that much but I May have to. Each person who speaks is subject to cross-examination so we ask if you speak, that you remain throughout the whole hearing. If you have printed material, if you would give them to the clerk if you haven't already and they'll circulate them to all of us. When you come to the podium to speak, please give us your name and address and then whatever remarks you have. The order of the hearing will be as follows: first a present ation by the planning division staff. And they are subject to cross-examination by both petitioner and opponent. Then a presentation by the petitioner subject to cross-examination. Presentation by the opponents, also subject to cross-examination. At that point staff will have the opportunity to make additional comments. If there are people who have signed up who either have not spoken or have not yielded their time and you wish to speak, we'll make some time for that at that point then there will be an opportunity for a rebuttal by the petitioner and an opportunity for rebuttal by the opponents. Following that closing summation by the opponents and then by the petitioner and at that point, council members May ask questions of staff, petitioner or opponents. And there is an opportunity for rebuttal if any new evidence is introduced. At that point, I will announce that the hearing is closed and there is no further evidence to be taken by the council. The council can deliberate on the evidence that is heard and May ask further questions. Council will spen take votes to adopt findings as presented or alternative facts and then there will be a motion to approve or the resolution. I believe that's the preliminar ies. Let's go back to the beginning. We'll start with the present ation by the planning division staff. >> good evening vice mayor, members of the council I'm glad to be here tonight to present to you a recommendation by the commission related to a zone change request made by trust equity llc, the planning %-`commission held a public hearing for this item in April and they're recommending to the council a zone change for this particular item tonight, I need to introduce myself and then enter a few items in the record. My name is tracey wade, division of planning manager for planning services. Items I need to enter into the record for tonight's hearing are a copy of the legal advertise ment for this particular public hearing. Second a sworn affidavit stating that mailed identification was sent to the 500-foot notice area as well as to neighborhood associations within the notice area by the required notifies deadline. Second a copy or third, a copy of the final report which the council members all have at their seat and there are extra copies in the rear of the room. This was forwarded to the council members in I believe early June. In May. Fourth a copy of the 1996 expansion area master plan which is an adoned element of the 2013 comprehensive plan. 5th, a copy of the 2013 comprehensive plan which was adopted by the planning commission and at the time of the application for this particular zone change was the most active and current comprehensive plan. At that time the 2018 goals and objectives were also adopted so we would enter those into the record for tonight. 7th, the copy of the current zoning ordinance. 8th: a copy of the current land subdivision regulations and 9th: a copy of the exhibits presented to the planning commission at that evening's hearing. We did receive one email since the planning commission public hearing in May and I'll distribute that for review by council members and then last, the 11th exhibit is the presentation our staff is presenting tonight and I distributed that the to council members at your seat so you were able to follow along with that. First we'll start tonight with a description of the area to be re zoned. This item or property is located at 2020 russell cave road and the request tonight is to rezone approximately 8.5 acres from an agricultural urban zone to an ex bangsary residential 2 zone which is termed ear-2 zone. the request is to rezone for a mixture after tached single family units which are townhouse s and detached family units at a density of approximately 5.92 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is located along russell cave road, front age on russell cave road and it also, going to zoom in a little bit. Has some frontage along russell cve road but also has a stub street from the joyland neighborhood association called eden court. The subject site is surround on ed by a number of different zoning categories currently. There is economic development zoning to the west of the subject property as well as a small piece of agricultural rural at the corner of the interstate I-75 and 64 and russell cave. Of course russell cave is a bridge that crosses the interstate here. There is no interchange. To the south of the subject property is r-2 zoning which is our two family residential zon ing allows single family and duplexes. To the east is single family residential zoning in the r-1d zone and then to the north there is a mixture of a-u, auguster agricultural urban and agricultural rural zoning and they have not been further developed. They remain in an active farm or a small acreage with a single family residential home. As I mentioned just a minute ago , the joyland neighborhood association is the primary neghborhood association in this area and it exists and encompass es both the shan dig park subdivision as well as foxboro manor. So those two subdivisions are encompassed within the joyland neighborhood association which exist primarily to the east of the subject property the subject property is primarily principal ly covered by existing vegetation. It has in the most recent past been used as a landscaping business and single family home. And again you can see that there are. There is an active farm to the north as well as some active agricultural uses to the west and mostly single family and residential to the east and south of the subject property. Primary corridors include the interstate just to the south and russell cave road which borders the subject property to the west the site does have one driveway from russell cave road as well. There are a few ground level views of the area around the subject property. The entrance and bridge across the interstate. The entrance to the subject rot and you can see there is much vegetation on the property both trees as well as shrubs that have overgrown. This is a view from the joyland neighborhood association -- neighborhood. You can see single family and duplex dwelling units very near the subject property and this would be eden court. The stub street that stubses into the subject site. And lastly in terms of photographs to orient the council to the site, it is again covered by quite a bit of vegetation that is over grown. Trees and shrubs and ground cover this is expansion area 3. On our map expansion area three is the north side of fayette county but adjacent to our old urban service area on the north side of the interstate. And that particular expansion area includes approximately 500 acres. Primarily the expansion area 3 was for economic development future land use but on this side of russell cave road there was residential recommended. Expansion area 3 had recommendations for both ear-1 andeer-2 -- ear-2 land use and this shows you the economic development land use on the west side of russell cave and then residential land use on the east side of russell cave and our subject property is at the very southeast corner of the expansion area 3 area. Since the subject property was brought into the expansion area in 1996, it actually has been proposed for rezoning four times first in 1996, part of the over all zone change proposed for the entire expansion area that was over 5,000 acres at that time, the planning commission recommended overall zone change but the council felt it wasn't the right time to move forward with that for the entire area. So in 2005 an applicant request ed rezoning of 140 acres and that included the agricultural farm to the north. So 2200 and 2020 russell cave road. The planning commission recommended approval of the request but the applicant withdrew it prior to the council receiving that recommendation. The third time was in 2006, the applicant asked to again rezone the same two properties and requested a text amendment at the same time to modify part of the zoning ordinance to allow for a bit more flexibility and how the properties were developed together. At that time the planning commission recommended dis approval of the request based on the evidence that the hearing related to environmental concerns. As well as infrastructure. Whether there was adequate infrastructure to serve the property. And then the fourth time was in 2007, an applicant asked to re zone just this parcel, 2020 russell cave road and again the planning commission held a hearing and at that time did not recommend approval though made findings that the a-u zone remained appropriate at that location because the infrastructure necessary to develop the site was not available. They determined it was inappropriate to move forward at that time because it was pre mature for development at that time. The question we posed to the planning commission and ultimately for you tonight is what has changed since the previous zone changes were proposed by different am cantsz and in this case there have been storm water projects and other requirements that have improved the areas around the subject property. It is 8.5 to 9 acres, existing flood plain. The government has purchased 11 houses and removed parts of really the built infrastructure in the neighborhood so alleviate flooding issues. And the expenditures are about $ 1.8 pll. In addition, sewer infrastructure has been install ed or is in the process of being installed in the immediate area. This is a graphic from the division of water quality for cane run and our subject site is located again north of the interstate and east of russell cave road very near where this demarcation shows line 6 and I'll point to it as well. So the subject site is here. There are two projects that very directly impacted the subsite and they're project 7 within the joyland shan done park area as well as project 5 which includes the trunk line over across to new town so those infrastructure improvements have been made in the immediate area since the previous four zone change requests. Something that was brought forward from the 2007, most recent zone change was that there was environmentally sensitive areas on the site and as part of the expansion area master plan, natural resources map series provided by the consultant at that time. It identified flood plains, water courses, sink holes and geographic hazards, tree stands and woodlands. In this particular case, the subject site was identified as having a tree stand that was of some significance and it should be protected. So in our zoning ordinance article 23, it actually requires that tree stands, as identified in the natural resource map series be identified on development plans and preserved to the greatest extent possible. This mapping was fairly sketchy, not as precise as we probably would hope but for 5,000 acres, it was the best that they had at that time. So the tree stands shown were on the western portion of the property very near the entrance to the site again, this de piblghts the driveway, another location of a tree stand very near the structure, residential structure on the site. And another piece of tree stand to the east or rear of this 2060 russell cave address. There were tree stands identified as part of the thran process, the applicant is required to provide a tree inventory map and they provided more information about trees within the general vicinity of where those tree stands were identified in 1996 mapping series and identified a few general areas of trees that could be or should be considered in development and again the ordinance directs the planning commission and applicant to preserve them to the greatest extent possible expansionary and master plan recommended ear-2 land use for this site and that is shown in the yellow and the applicant is requesting an ear-2 zone consistented with the land use element for this particular site and the density that they proposed on their associated development was consistent with that density range recommended and required in ear-2 zone. Based on their acreage, they would be permitted to build between 26, I believe, is that right? 27 and 53 dwelling units. Between three and six units per acre. The applicant did depict 53 dwelling units on their development plan with a mixture of residential types, both townhouses and single family dwelling units right at the 53 dwelling units per acre. The applicant in their justification directed the plan ning commission to consider the expansion area master plan information but in addition to that, they cited the 2013 comprehensive plan as well as the 2018 goals and objectives. They mentioned that their particular application was consistent with both of these documents because it supported maintaining our urban service boundary while increasing density for housing. It would accommodate the demand for housing, prioritizing higher density and a mixture of housing types. It supported infill and re development. The development would provide a neighborhood which would be connected for pedestrians both to the south to the joyland neighborhood association and as well as stub street to the north if the farm were to ever develop to the north of this site. In addition, the proposal maximized development on vacant plant up to the highest density possible in that zone and utilized the vacant property and lastly the applicant also cited the 2013 goals and objectives and comprehensive plan where they overlapped. The staff made a recommendation for approval of the rezoning and concurred with the applicant's justification. The staff also recommended conditional zoning restrictions to protect tree stands in line with the expansion area master plan as well as to limit density very near those existing single family homes. And those had been recommendations of those previous four changes so for consistent, the staff continue to recommend that there be no principle structures located within 50 feet of a property platted as part of shan shan done shandon park as well as the lot at 2060 russell cave road. 300 feet of property platted at shandon park, that there be only single family detached and townhouse residential lastly a 25-foot buffer yard immediately adjoining the single family subdivision as well as 2016 russell cave road and the staff made a recommendation what the buffer would include and that's listed on the recommendation. Planning commission held a public hearing for approximately two hours. They heard from adjoining property owners and four individuals spoke in opposition to the request. The planning commission saw a development plan associated with this particular zone change and i'll show it to you I'll caveat it a little bit. The existing eden court comes in from the south and stubs into the subject property so the applicant provides a nice render ed version of their development plan for the commission to consider. It shows single family residential lots ajoining -- adjoining the single family and two-family subdivisions and townhouses on one side of a local street. This shows the local street network. And then two single family lots adjoining the existing single family -- win single family lot, large lot. The planning commission in reviewing the zone change considered the testimony both. Applicant and their attorneys as well as the engineer and then the information provided by neighbors and they made a slightly different recommendation than the staff made. They modified three things and that is shown on your final report from the planning commission. First they made a change to finding 1c where they removed any text from the staff recommendation about mixed hous ing types and townhouses then in the conditional zoning restrictions they reduced the width of the buffer from 50 feet to 35 feet and in conditional zoning restriction 3b they restricted the property to only single family detached, which would not allow the townhouses shown on their development plan. So while the planning commission made a recommendation to the council for approval of the zone change, they restricted it in a manner or recommended restricting it in a manner that was not consistent with the associated development plan and for that reason, the planning commission elected to in definitely postpone the development plan. And they would take this up, the development plan again if the council approves the zone change so if there are only single family homes permitted the site, the applicant would modify their development plan and the plan ning commission would re consider that within 60 days of council's action. So these are the same findings that you'll find on the final report to you from the planning commission and I would note that they do those conditional zoning restrictions associated with density or land use and buffer ing to protect trees, tree stands in the area. Planning commission made their recommendation to you, again on April 25 after a fairly lengthy public hearing and at this time I would just conclude my remarks and be available during the rest of the public hearing to answer any questions by the council. >> it is subject to cross-examination at this point. Does either the petitioner or audience like to ask questions or make a presentation at this time. I'm sorry, I'm not asking for public comment. I'm asking for the people -- there are three people... As I understand it, there are three people representing the neighborhood who will speak on their behalf. And then and petitioner has attorney representation. >> I have one other question and what you said in 2007, you said that it was disapproved because of. >> there were other reasons, the environmentally sensitive areas identified on the site were also a concern. >> thank you. >> thank you. If there is nothing from the petitioner at this point, then we'll have a presentation by petitioner. >> good evening ladies and gentlemen of the council. My name is zach cado, attorney from the billings law firm. We represent the applicant. It's a pleasure to be here with my boss nathan billings and with the applicant, Mr. Johnny bruce and Mr. Ryan foster. I would like to begin by turning over a couple of documents for the record. One of which is the affidavit of posting of a sign for the hearing tonight which was required. I would introduce that and in addition to that, there are a number of documents which are referenced in the presentation tonight which were introduced at the April 25 hearing as well so they're probably already in the record. But for the sake of precaution, I'm introducing digital copies of that into the record on this thumb drive. To the extent that Miss Wade covers, she did a lot of my job for me it appears from listening to her presentation so I'll thank her for that and you as well because it will shorten my part effort presentation a little bit. I believe we are oriented sufficient sufficiently to the part of town that we are speaking about tonight. Just to reiterate, the property has been recommended for expansion area residential 2 zoning since 1996, so going on a quarter of a century this has been in the pipeline at some point. It's going to be approved for this zone that we are asking for tonight. It's currently put on no use because of the condition of the property so it would be a higher and better use to put it to allow some medium density residential which lexington needs and would fit into the existing neighborhood nicely. And just to reiterate, both zon ing committee and the plan ning staff have recommended approval of the zone change that has been pretty consistent throughout the process that the zone change is appropriate and you are going to hear some more about that shortly again this is a map from 1996. This is the area we are talking about, expansion area three right here. Miss Wade covered the history of the property pretty well. The only thing that I would point out in addition to that is that to the extent that the application from 2007 was one 69 issues were some environmental concerns out there, we have had surveyors out there, we've look ed at the flood plain map. Several concerns were raised. we have confirmed through process that there are no sink holes, which is one of the concerns and it is not in the flood plain. The flood plain map shows that clearly. I will say to the extent that there is a sink hole on the property discovered at some point in future development, we would be required to remediate that before doing anything on the property so I just wanted to add some, a little more detail on that point about the environmental issues out there there property is ready for development. The staff said it pretty clearly in their report and that's why we have an application in front of you now. We think it's ready for development as well. This is the original plan that was filed with our zone change application. I just want to point out a few changes that haive made and explain why they were made to give you a little background information on this. Originally you could see there are townhouses located down here along, this is russell cave road here. Eden court here. The townhouses were here originally with we were told there was an issue with circulation for first responders, fire, that kind of stuff getting in this tight area so we have moved in the plan that was considered by the plan ning commission, we relocat ed the townhouses here and provided and drive back here which we maintain by townhouse association to improve circulation. The effect of that is that it changed the layout down here. One of the good things it allowed, you see this odd shaped lot over here to the west, that would be an hoa lot that would preserve as much of the existing tree stand as possible in keeping with the requirements of the expansionary masser plan to preserve as much as practical that document the legal standard is that the map is in agreement, the map amendment is in agreement with the comprehensive plan which in this case is because when we filed it the 2013 comprehensive plan and goals and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan or that the existing zoning is in appropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. In this case both criteria are satisfied by the application here. As Miss Wade said, we agree with staff that this application is in agreement with both the 2018 and 2013 comprehensive plans. And the appropriate zoning is the -- proposed zoning is appropriate and existing zoning inappropriate. This is a snapshot, I don't expect you to be able to read it the green represents areas that meet or exceed the criteria for an element of the comprehensive plan. The gray represents something that is not responsive to it. So you can see where a criteria and objective or goal applies. It meets or exceeds the standard and the same thing with the 2018 plan. i want to highlight a few areas of the staff report to drive this home briefly the planning staff's report indicated as I said the area is ready for development, that the existing zoning is inappropriate because of the improvements to infrastructure in this area and that the expansion expansion area master plan has laid the groundwork. The and we are finally here and ready to develop it on those basis, staff recommended approval. Found the density was proposed was appropriate and that the accommodating demand for mixed housing types supporting infill and development maxes myselfing density was all in keeping with the comprehensive plan. Reiterating what I said briefly. And that I've gotten through that as quick as I cannot to bore to you tears I'll turn it over to Mr. Billings. >> Mr. Vice mayor, ladies and gentlemen. Council, nathan billings with billings law firm 145 constitution street in lexington two additional exhibits would I like to introduce to the exhibit tonight, the charts you saw on the powerpoint a minute ago. We have the breakout of the 2013 comprehensive plan goals and objectives and how this application meets those as well as the 2018 goals and objectives that were adopted prior to the findings of this -- filing of total comoon are comprehensive plan 2018 was after the plan. You have the entire 2013 plan and 2018 goab. I will introduce them into the record if. and you can pass them around. So there is really two issues I think the council needs to take up tonight for this presentation and staff did a really good job of walking through the history of the prior zone changes as well as the justifications for the zone change. What would I do is classify the decision today as first is the zone change toeer-2 appropriate. Staff recommended yes all of the planning commission numbers said yes. Planning commission while it was 4-2 the vote, all six of them a of proked the zone change two of them did not like the conditional use restrictions adopted and I'll talk about those as the second bucket bull all of the planning commission was in favor of the zone change. While there was a vote of 4-2 don't misread that to think, all six wre in behavior. Two thought the conditional use restrictions went too far and they were against the conditional use restrictions. They thought the applicant should have more use of the property. If you ask staff that, they would echo that. So the second bucket, the first bucket is the zone change to ear -2 appropriate? The second bucket the council should discuss tonight is the conditional zoning restrictions specifically if you recall Miss Wade's presentation, she said staff recommended certain zoning restrictions and the plib at its hearing recommended changes. We were going to ask the council tonight specifically, I mean I've passed out a revised ordinance to you with red line changes for two purposes. Planning commission eliminated townhouses on this project. It recommended it for single family detached dwellings only and eliminated attached single family also known as townhouses. We would like the council to re consider that and to vote tonight to overturn the planning commission and to reinstall or reinstitute approved attached and detached single family on this property. Not apartments, not condos, only single family attached or detach ed. The second concerns a buffer, I'll show you a second more detailed about it. The second subset of the conditional use restrictions is they recommended a buffer yard restriction on the property and that buffer yard does not create an issue except one area. The lot directly north of this is 2060. Agriculture and there was an access road proposed along the boundary line from our initial plan all the way through the planning commission hearing. And one of the proposed conditional use restrictions would require 25-foot buffer yard between 2060 and our property. Buffer yard is not defined anywhere in the zoning ordinance it's not defined in our land use subdivision regulations. It was not defined by the planning commission. And so when at the planning commission hearing, we were told that while everyone had approved the location of the road on the development plan, the language of that buffer yard would prohibit the road. We said well hold on a second. We have inconsistency here, a road that is recommended for approval but a buffer that says it can't be approved and I'll show what you that means on a slide in just a second. The two issues tonight are the zone change and what we would ask the council to do with the ordinance we've tendered to you all is to overturn the planning commission with respect to those two changes to the conditional zoning restrictions as you are probably aware, the zoning ordinance 6-7a allows certain conditional zoning restrictions for certain purposes and basically it's an additional restriction on the property that , the zone change should be allowed but we need more pre caution on here. There are three conditional use restrictions we've agreed with. We just don't agree with the scope of what the planning commission did. Specifically you'll see here this was the staff recommendation initially no principle structure within 50 feet. The planning commission changed that to 35 feet. This is the one we've asked to change 300 feet of any property platted as any unit of the shandon park or foxboro park at 2060 russell cave road would prohibit the road so we are suggesting it read the western boundary of the property and I'll show you exactly where. It would prohibit a road in certain area. And finally it says down here the we have this buffer yard. This is what is a problem. The other thing here, it says single family detached or attach ed staff recommended approval of townhouses and the planning commission struck out that phrase or attached townhouse and we ask you all to put it back in tonight. So again staff recommended a 50- foot buffer setback on all lots-for-building. This is a much larger setback than in all of the existing neighborhood some homes are built as close as 50-foot on the boundary. Some have accessory structures as close as six feet to the boundary and the planning commission ultimately modified that to 35 feet. We don't have an objection with that. We are okay with their 35 limit and the draft I have given you includes that in there. I'm going to move ahead. These are pictures of the accessory structures to show you why any prohibition on accessory structures is not really appropriate because close to a market of the houses out there have sheds out there already. Limiting this does not make sense. Next is there was a comment by the planning commission that they thought this was too dense they didn't limit the density. It is still up to between three and six units per acre. What they limited was the type of housing. What we suggested is we should be able to have single family and multifamily because if we have townhouses, we can make the single family lots bigger. And, in fact, we designed the single family houses in the development plan to approximate the same size as lots that exist in the joyland neighborhood today. If we are not allowed to have townhouses and we are only allow ed to have detached single family, by necessity, the single family lots out there will therefore decrease. It is a question do you want single family lots that are smaller and not in conformity with the existing lots about a mixture of some townhouses or do you want to have townhouses that are away from all of the exist ing single family and around the buffer that touched the existing neighborhood the same approximate lot sizes. So this is the original development plan that we had filed there was a copy of it earlier in the present ition. This road has been proposed by us. This is where at the planning commission hearing there is a reference that the 25-foot buffer yard which would run the entire length down here it would prohibit this road. What we have just said is we are okay with the 25-foot buffer along here, all along here to here and okay with it being along here. We just don't think it should be prohibited along the area here so in the ordinance we've given you, we have added the word that buffer should exist along the existing neighborhood and along the western boundary of russell cave road for context. This is our current development plan, same location of the road. Additional stub road that staff wants and we agree with for interconnectivity. That's one of the conditional use restrictions that we would like you to revisit this evening approval history trc recommended approval, staff initially recommended postponement and wanted followup with tree negotiate issues. We completed those things as typical in a zone change staff recommended change toe approval and none of those processes ever noted that conflict between the buffer set yard and the road and so we are here tonight to tell if you everyone is in favor of a plan with a road there, that language should not be added in now after the fact to prohibit a road. This was the commission's motion at the end of the day. It limited the structures with the 35-yard backyard and struck out the attached townhouses and approved the buffer yard in 3c we think the planning commission acknowledged their obligation `under the 2013 comprehensive plan and 2018 goals and objectives to maximize residential density and this is what has been proposed for over 20 years and provide for mixed housing types and commissioners berkeley and mundy specifically said they supported the zone change which would make it 6-0 on the zone change but opposed to the motion because it would eliminate houses and it would get rit of the proposed right of way the motion carried before the planning commission 4-2 and this recommendation came to you all which is why we are here this evening. So there May be a number of neighborhood concerns. What I would like to do for brevity is with hold those for rebuttal period and see which ones we have to address or not address. I want to make one anecdotal comment. I received a call monday from an adjacent property owner and for context, as you all know, I do a lot of development work on both sides of this. Homeowner and development work. Planning staff encourages this. We sent letters out to request meetings with the owners. So we went letters out in February 8 and 25th. We had meetings in March, March 4 and 11. Another meeting in March scheduled and the neighborhood it cancel. Following the planning commission hearing. We sent another letter out to the neighbors saying we are still willing to meet with you to talk about these issues and we had a meeting on June 17. Four orns showed up on June 17 representing three different individual lots. We get three calls from owners, one of whom says I live out here and I'm a builder. I'm okay with this. I just wanted to let you know I won't be opposing you. More people showed up tonight but they don't participate in the public process when we invite them to come to meetings. So from an attorney standpoint who is charged to engage the public before we get here, I'm frustrate that we don't have an opportunity to have discussions with owners because they don't show up at the meetings to let us talk through those things. That's not going to resolve the issue but I don't want to be surprised tonight by issues that the we haven't heard about because we tried to give them enough. This week I received a call from another owner. She calls me and says hey, a tree on the property fell down over the weekend and I need you to cut it up and remove it. So I had my staff call her back and say why this is an issue? It's an overgrown agricultural use piece of property that hasn't been used for anything in about 14 years. Of course it's over grown and of course trees are going to fall down. What is the produce be? She said it is overgrown and snakes calm 23r from it to my backyard. Here is my challenge as an attorney doing a zone change, I have an owner angry at us for letting a free fall on a piece of property that we can't develop that is overgrown and has snakes on it that we are trying to move forward and develop. >> Mr. Billings, I'm going to ask to you cut this short. >> so my point is this. We have people who don't want development which I'm on the other side of this frequently. But ask yourself what they're opposing it, what are they really opposes? We have an owner who wants us to do something on a piece of property that without air air zone change, we are under no obligation to go remove dead limbs or trees because it's agricultural urban and it will stay that without a zone change. With that, I have a number of slides we could potentially deal with for neighborhood concerns. I would like to appreciate those for rebuttal and see what we May or May not need to address and we've kept our comments well under at this point 25 minutes. >> thank you. >> thank you, vice mayor. >> Miss Perkins. Any cross-examination, questions for Mr. Billings or other presenter? >> I don't need to state my name again? I'm kathy perkins. I didn't know I got to ask Mr. Billings questions. So I'm not prepared for that. I do have a little bit of a rebuttal. We tried to work with you... >> I'm sorry. If you have questions. >> I don't have a specific specific question for him on his presentation. If you have other information you can present that in a minute when you get to present. >> I guess my only question is when he said there was no definition of buffer yard, there is an ordinance that says rural service area agricultural use buffer yard in our ordinances and I was wondering why he said there was nothing. That defines that and it also says that it gives what the buffer yard should be and I wonder where he says there is nothing in our ordinances. That require a buffer yard. >> I think that definition deals with the ear not in the area. >> thank you. >> okay. Miss Perkins. Now it's time for those in opposition to present, my understanding there are three poom who will present and I'll ask you to keep your time to 30 minutes, also. >> and I believe there is a fourth person, the owner of the property next door who is presenting as well. >> good evening council members and staff, my name is catherine perkins, representing many of these neighbors here and many more in our neighborhood who signed the petition. I believe some have even sent petitions signed petitions into council member brown. I presented them everything I have given you in the packet and I will also be referring to a few other things that staff has presented to you as well. I'm not happy about being here but I want to you know that I'm not against infill and re development. I'm all for it. I'm not against it none of our neighbors are, to my, the ones I've talked to but we believe it should be done in ways that are respectful of the people in the neighborhoods and donna cording to our ordinance, comprehensive plans, small area plans, inter local agreements and our expansion area master plan. These are the reasons I'm here. I, too am in disagreement as m r. Billings is with what happened on happen 25 with the planning commission at the plan ning comish public hearing and that it was a very late night and planning commissioners stated they did not like density for this development but they did nothing to condition density and I find that 20 be a bit of an error. And then lowering buffering and changing the conditional zones, I thought was wrong. They could have proposed an ear- 1 or capped density then and there. And kept the conditions that staff had, capped density and sent this on to and there would be little argument. Now I'm not against density. But I am on a piece of property that has environmental issues. We know that it has environmental issues. It's in the minutes of 2007. It is one of the reasons it was disapproved in 2007, and also in our 2019 urban service report and the minutes from planning commission. You can read all about environmentally sensitive issue with this property. I might add this is the first attempt that has made it to this point. It has been either disapproved before so I know density is an issue. You don't want to discuss and I know it is one of the most important needs in lexington but on properties our environmental issues such as this one I would think you would be more than eager to discuss density of housing of any type to be built in environmentally sensitive areas. And that the 2007 readings as Miss Wade stated inappropriate at that time due to the inadequate treatment. I knowledge this zone map amendment is incomplete. There is no traffic impact study with it as recommended by our articles and ordinances to ac company a zone map amendment. There is also no preliminary or final development plan as per our laws you have article 21-3c in the handout I gave you of articles and amendments. It would be there on page 5. And I'm not bringing it up for you. I figured you could read. I didn't have the technology down too well. But that article in itself says number 1 after it says development plans required in conjunction with zone map amendments authorized by krs-100 .203.2 whatever. Development plans shall be required to accompany any zone map amendment. Any request to non-agriculture. You don't have a preliminary or final development plan in front of you. You are supposed to have one and then it says the commission May require at its discretion the preliminary development plan or final development plan or both for the subject property of any zone map amendment proposal if commission finds there are exist ing or potential substantial flood, drainage, traffic, topographic or other similar problems relating to the development of the subject property that could have an adverse on existing or future development of properties in the neighborhood. You don't have a development plan. so how do you know how they're going to address any of these issues and according to this, main brain says commission should have asked, not sent this without a final development plan but we can go on to appendix 23b expansion area requirements. 23b-2, dlim and final development plans are required a preliminary that will be requir ed as specified in article 321-3 in conjunction with any zone map amendment in the request in the expansion area. Where is your plan you've got pictures of a plan that was not approved. Why wasn't it approved? If you ask staff, they're going to tell you and I would tell you myself the right to send to you a zone map amendment they have learned more about the soil as stated on page 1 under the heading of stomple sewers, these properties are located within the cane run watershed, in the property that lies just outside of the royal springs well head protection area it goes on to say fema digital flood insurance rates indicate a special flood hazard area exists near the punt property to the north and east, although no detailed study has been completed for this property Mr. Billings and Mr., they stated that they did a tree inventory map. They did not but we are not here for that. That goes with a development plan. I don't need to tell you that I'll tell you they didn't. It includes many other things, it includes the sink holes. I've walked the property. I've seen the massive basin. i don't walk it all the time because it is over grown but we are not here for that. We are here for a zone map amendment no development plan. So those of us who have trespass es the property, we have seen a lot of that stuff. I'm not going to go on for that. Maybe this property is not suitable forreer-2. That ear-1 might be a better zone offering developers the ability to build with attention to canopy tree stands, buffering suitable for homes, according to our ordinances, buffering buffer ing that our staff has worked on and restrictions that our staff worked on, you know, different years this has all happened over many years and we have buffering restrictions. I don't believe there is any in the krs 100 that allows the comp plan to strait jacket any parcel of land into a specific zone and if density was an issue, planning commission should have capped density or told the applicant to dumb back with the ear-1. Why do I have a blank page here? Even under article 23 for the expansion area master plan categories ordinance 23-a-3 list ed other zones A.M. Applicable for this parcel expansion area ear-1 is one of them. So I'm just saying. They are greater today than they were in 2007 and that was one of the main reasons for disapproval I'm asking just to recap reasons , I think you should be disapproving this zone map amendment is that the planning commissioners in attendance did noted like density. page 23 of the minutes but they did nothing to address density. In fact they changed buffering which is buffering that is required by our ordinances for this property and little for -- and also for the neighboring property and farm. There is no accompanying traffic impacted study, numerous goals and objectives of the 2018 plan that it did us not comply with and someone else will speak to you about that that the applicant paid no attention to environmentally sensitive areas required by law in our ordinance s and in the eamp. In your packets if chris wants to bring up from a jump drive, the eamp that I have, there is on the first page of the eamp, it talks about can't find this stuff. Under natural environment you can see that mature woodlands should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Environmentally sensitive areas I'm not going to spend the time reading. It does not comply with this when they change the buffering and lower it. And that the buffering itself is not in compliance with the ordinance so this zone map amendment is not compliant with the eamp as well. And if you deicide to approve, I ask you to please cap density as that was one of the main reasons that our planning commission did not like this zone change. If you cap density. It can allow mixed use. Right? I'm just saying. You the also that you require traffic impact study but if you cap density at a lower and the e amp does state a property needs to be developed to the minimum density. Doesn't state anywhere that we have to build every property to the maximum, especially environmentally sensitive areas. I think that this property needs to be conditioned that there are no A.D.U.S and in fact I think if I volt to approve this zone of staff's recommended conditions should be reinstated and I believe in conversations that I've had with Dr. John comings who owns 2200 russell cave road. >> she is testifying to somebody else... >> sorry. I won't say anymore. But I thought that his property, being a farm and because I used to be a farmer should be address ed in all the conditions. You hav 2860, the neighboring subdivisions that are included in the wording for buffering. I believe that 2200 should be included in any buffering as well. And I think any development plan that comes, if you decide to approve should have a completed traffic negotiate map and let me , I think I'm almost done and I don't believe that they have shown why a-u is inappropriate, either. Just because we now have almost completed sewer we still don't know if it is going to work my brain said it was laid in the flood plain as well but the proposed rezoning is inappropriate due to the applicant's inadequate treatment of the traffic as well. I give you my gratitude for allowing us to present our concerns with this zone map amendment and encourage to you keep this process as it is or make it easier because it is tough on citizens. And I also think that staff could have recommended a lower density as well as if ear-1 had been recommended, there is a good chance the citizens would have no dog in this fight. Thank you very much. >> next person from the opponent s. >> thank you, vice mayor and council members. I live at 689 kingston road. I'm a life long resident of the joyland neighborhood area. My neighborhood is well known for well documented for the flooding issues. I have a map of the flood zone to be put up as tracey said there, were 12 homes removed in the cab on the park side area and now there has been a remedial flooding project with rogers road which installed tanks on that property that will help our flooding issue. The urban service staff states the property is located within the cane run watershed and the royal springs water head protection area. We are still have the special -- is this the flooded one? It's the other one with the flood plain sorry thank you. We still have a fema flood map in our area. And according to other statement s from the staff presentation, this property that is being asked for rezoning has soils which indicate that there has been flooding on that property. it says it actually had 1.2 acres or 14% of the site had alluvialial soils. According to the tree map inventory submitted by the applicant, 5.7 acres of this property of 8.9 acres is current whether I a canopy of trees. That's 63% of the site. Removal of any of the current trees added roof tops and im permeable surfaces would only exacerbate this known flooding issues to the current neighbors. Removing any canopy would cause additional noise pollution from the interstate which I don't wish upon anyone. It's a 24 hour a day noise our air quality would be affected and our urban service heat effect would be created by removing trees. The expansion area map plan notes under natural environment mature woodlands should be preserved to the extent possible and lands with steep slope should not be developed. I dope know if you can see the slope numbers, the elevation numbers there. But beginning at eden road entrance it's 972. And as it goes towards the current homes on pierson and the courts, it is at 947 and this is where the alevial -- alluvial plain is. Also the property to the west near the entrance to russell cave road has a large sink hole or basin. They've spoken that they have not seen one but we've seen it and we can't even tell how big it is because of how the mature trees that have grown into that hole that you can't judge how keep deep it is. if you look towards russell cave road, you will see there is a circle of the elevation numbers and they they are tighter together and showing a deeper and large area and this is the sink hole area. According to the lfucg arborist, and environmental services staff , there are several inconsistency with the tree inventory map. Because of the sink hole, alluvial soils and significant tree stands on this parcel and it is considered environmentally sensitive and has been for a number of years now and should not be zoned ear-2. Also stated in the expansion area master plan, traffic to and from areas should be directed away from the existing residential neighborhoodss adjacent to the expansion area. Article 61b state those significant zone map amendment requests for residential zoning in conformance with the comprehensive plan shall file a traffic impact study along with other application materials for the zone change, ear-2 zone allows up to six units per acre so this development could produce 100 or more new trips through the neighborhood at peak hours no study has been done to see the effect of traffic on the neighborhood streets paris pike or russell cave road. There is a limited connector route more than half a mile from eden court but it's a very limit ed connector route. Without the traffic study and with the proposed plan feeding the traffic into existing residential neighborhoods, this ear-2 zone request should be denied also. Lexington fayette county urban county government has ordinances in place for reasons. This should be held accountable and follow the steps and ordinance and plans designate. If you should choose to allow ear-2, please restrict to the lowest density and reinstate the restrictions suggested by staff. Thank you for your time and attention. >> thank you. Next for the neighborhood. Opponents. >> good evening. My name is patty and I live at 408 allen court. Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to discuss the zone change. We appreciate y'all being here tonight first I would just like to make a comment about noise from the combined interstate 64 and 75 at 2020 russell cave road I understand that noise is not a factor in consideration of this zone change but I would like to briefly address this issue. That is a ridiculous amount of constant loud noise at this property. The noise comes off the combined interstates and some of it is due to the amplification by the russell cave road bridge that crosses the interstate. This property is right next to the bridge and of course right next to the interstate. So I purchased a new monitor a week ago. To measure the noise level at this property. It is measured in decibels. 10 December ills the quietest 80-decibels can cause hearing damage after a lengthy exposure decibels are a base 10 log rith loth rig mick log rhythmic unit that it doubles the bass sound soy it doesn't just increase by 10-decibels. Some values just to give us some reference points breathing is 10-decibels. Relaxed conversation or ordinary room noise is 50-decibels. Factory noise where have you to wear ear protection or food processors is 80-decibel as and a lawn mower or motorcycle is 90-decibels so by my unofficial monitoring of the noise level at this property, on the driveway and I walked not the full length of the driveway but maybe 100 feet or 150 feet of it, the decibels ranged from 62 to 80- decibels depending on the time of the day. The day hours daylight hours tend to be the highest in the 70 -80-decibel range. And closer to the highway during the daytime, it was 70 to 86- decibel so the noise is considerable I went over to eden court and where the stub is and in the circumstance there in the daytime hours, 1:00 today, it was 58-62-decibels so the noise is considerable there; however not to the point of causing problems with your hearing. Secondly I want to just go over place builder criteria and in the interest of conciseness just to list the things, the criteria related to zone density ear-2, that we will not meet these criteria with ear-2 density and then to go over things related not having a plan. So under growing successful neighborhoods we will not meet minimized disruption of natural features when building new communities, promote, maintain and expand the urban forest throughout lexington. development should work with the existing landscape to the greatest extent possible preserving key natural features. Under protecting the environment , the impact on environmentally sensitive areas should be minimized within adjacent to the proposed development site. Righted now kids play in the street. It's a very quiet little street there so there is one way in and one way out and to me that seems like a safety consideration. If this development were able to empty out to russell cave road you know, so that they had two access ways then really that would decrease my concern the things we don't know a plan will meet include establish and promote road network connections in order to reduce police ems and fire response trees should be incorporated into development plans prioritizing grouping of trees to increase survivability and we don't know if that will happen. Developments should improve the tree canopy. Minimize disturbances to environmentally sensitive areas by utilizing the existing top ography to the greatest extent possible. Should create and/or expand a connected multimodal transportation network that satisfies all users needs, schu ing those with disabilities dead end streets and cul-de-sacs should be discouraged except where connections are not topographically feasible and then one last thing. The development should provide multimodal transportation infrastructure to school sites including sidewalks, shared use path and roadways that can accommodate the bus and vehicle traffic aassociated with the site. One way in, one way out. You put 53 dwellings in there. Every family wants two cars so that's 106 cars. If each one of those cars goes out and in each day, that's a 212 trips on eden court: for these reasons, I believe there should be a plan submitted with the zone change request and that ear-2 density is most likely not appropriate for this piece of land. Gee gojic survey and tree survey and traffic studies should be done to make this determination. Noise mitigation should be considered in the plan although obviously not required by the city and I think that is it. Any questions? >> that really does use the entire 30 minutes al indicated to the neighborhood. But unless anybody on council objects, would I like to allocate five minutes to the person, the fourth person who wished to speak I would like to presentation entered into the whatever you call it. >> the record. >> and jessica glad everybody to the planning commission. I had a lawyer with the planning commission can't do that today katie my husband and I are the owners and residents of 2060 russell cave road which the border problem subjects. I'm against the zone change for obvious reasons. As proposed, would it have a serious negative impact on my home. I have a single family residence of 3100 square feet built in 1940 on three landscaped acres. We live on our property with our dog, cat, chicken, wildlife all kinds ever fun stuff. We raise a substantial vegetable garden, too. I work as a full time nurse and I love my house and property. It is my heart and my sanctuary. We intend to maintain the property in its present use and have no plans to develop it. I fully support proposed conditional zoning restrictions which have been proposed for this site since 1996. These conditional zoning restrictions are appropriate and necessary to minimize the impact of the new development. I understand the proposed development meets the recommendations of ear-2 but you must consider the relationship of the subject property to adjacent property owners or possibly environmentally sensitive areas. The expansion area residential zones was formulated in order to deal with new development and rural areas thoughtfully and respectfully. Just because you can change the zone area -- just because you can change the zone and develop an area doesn't mean you should. I think further work is required have a completed and accurate development plan just because someone on some committee didn't point out what did you wrong is not the was I to do it. There is a very large zoning ordinance with all the rules laid out. Read it and be prepared. don't try to sneak things through. That's part of the problem with the process. It was overwhelming the commission when we were there. That's not fair. And let's see what happens if we are all prepared. It's a game to you. This game in turn affects my life, my property, my sanctuary. You get to check a box and go home at the end of the day. Who is going to be responsible for fulfilling all these rules and following the ordinance. I'm the one stuck with the results. Procedures and rules are important here. Through this process I have met many neighbors and made new friends. Thanks for helping me through all this I appreciate y'all taking the time to hearing us. I don't expect you to fix the problems of the world or fix the problems addressed here today. Just be aware that just because things have always been done a certain way doesn't mean it's right. Lexington is a very beautiful city. Our farmland is part what have makes it beautiful just because we don't have million dollar horses on our property doesn't make it less valuable. Russell cave road has some of the prettiest land around if the zone change is passed, lit forever change the landscape and beauty of this area. Thank you. >> I'm going to ask to you hold it. Does the petitioner wish to cross eamine any of the people who have spoken in opposition? Straws. Had you one more thing you want ed to say. >> I just wanted to take exception to a comment that was made earlier that only 4 people were at the planning commission. We had the same number of people here; however, the developers requested that our time slot be used for someone else and we were pushed to 5:00 and then we were told to go to vine street. So people who wanted to eat and had families at home left and there were four of us left. That's correct. >> thank you. Staff, additional comments at this time. >> thank you, vice mayor members of the council. There are four items the staff would like to clarify or correct from for the record tonight, first has to do with the traffic impact study. The neighborhood association indicated to the council that one should have been done for significant zone changes and that is the wording from the zoning ordinance but in fact that paragraph goes on to specify or define what a significant development is and it's when a development generate s 100 new trips either in or out of a project. And so in this case, it only generated about 50 new trips, 25 to 50 new trips in or out during that peak period and did not meet the flesh threshold and in this case the applicant went ahead and did a traffic analysis anyway and they presented that to the planning commission and when they did so, they looked at the, I guess the greatest impact possible and so that information was presented to the planning cmmission the evening of April 25. Second in terms of development plans a number of have you sat through zone change hearings so development plans come up quite a bit. The council does not have the authority to approve or dis approve a particular development plan. We use that as an exhibit for you for the public hearing to give you an idea of how a development is proposed in the future. It's a concept conceptual plan. The ordinance does say an dislan is required. The applicant filed it in accord ance with the zoning requirements. This portion of the ordinance goes to say and I've drawn an arrow to the applicable sentence it starts mid paragraph "however in the case of a development plan filed in conjunction with a map amendment request, which is the case here, the planning commission May postpone the development plan until after the urban county council reviews the zone change request and as I mentioned earlier in my present ation, if the council approves the zone change, the planning commission will then docket that particular development plan and review it again in accordance with the recommendation or the decision of the council. And so our ordinances, both article 21 and article 23 refers back to this particular section, allow or require development they did so. The planning commission made the decision not to forward or recommend approval of the at this time. You also have the ability to restrict landscape or require landscape buffering as well as restrict use so the planning commission in this case recommended two of those things, restricting use so no town homes , only single family residential which does have the impact of most likely reducing the density on this site because single family detached lots take up more room than a townhouse lot does and then they've recommended a landscape buffer. Landscape buffers although not specifically defined in the ordinance, article 18 goes through what is required and that includes fences, walls and in the planting materials. Historically the planning commission allows for driveways and other infrastructure to cross those but not intended to have a street in it. It's intended to be a landscaped area. And then the fourth item that I'll want to clarify for the record, one of the neighborhood association representatives mentioned something called the place builder and that is a portion of the 2018 comprehensive plan although this application was submitted prior to the approval of the full comprehensive plan and so the law department and they've always recommended that we make our decisions based on the regulations that are in effect when the application is submit ted and processed by the planning staff and the commission so on February 2, they made their application and it wasn't until February 28 that the planning commission adopted the rest of the comprehensive plan, which included the place builder. So at this time, although I'm excited about place builder, at this particular hearing it's not really appropriate to include information about that. That would conclude my comments. >> thank you. Does the petitioner wish to present rebuttal evidence? >> yes, Mr. Vice mayor. >> could you pull my present ation back up. I'll forward to the slide where we stopped. While he is pulling that up. There are a number of comments made by the neighbors and their public presentation. And the vast majority of those are actually development plan issues. They don't speak about whether the zoning is appropriate or inappropriate. What they do is speak to things that are considered by the plan ning commission when you are looking at a preliminary and/or final development plan and those things are not typically despot tiff of a zone change. For example, they showed you an area where there is a swell on the property. Our geotech has been there and said it is a swell by the natural drainage of the area and you can build on it. Now if he is wrong, he is the expert. And so this is where you have, i think, lay people being confused about the lay of the land and making a conclusion versus the technical data required at a development plan stage not zone change stage. I told you I had comments about the neighborhood so I'm going to flip forward quick and to address a couple of the comments sheer first one was someone came back up and made a comment about that I said there are only four people at the planning commission hearing. What I said there were four people at the June 17 meeting that we held at the puck neighborhood. I don't remember how many owners were present at the public hearing. I think four, five or six spoke but my comments were directed to the June 17 meeting when four people showed up. Not the planning commission hearing. First the flood plain map. The property is not in the flood plain. We think that's the end of the story that this property is not there. Before we can build on the property there is a manual called the storm water manual that the city has adopted that we cannot move dirt and build on the site until we comply with engineering manuals and calculations worked out by people much smarter than I am that we hire and work out by people much smarter the city hires to make sure the on site and off site water retention are handled. We don't think that's an issue. Second, the traffic study. we did not perform a formal traffic study because the ordinance doesn't require that as Miss Wade told you all. However we did do an analysis. We took the state department of transportation traffic studies located at the areas. And what we can tell you is this is the percentage of change, I'm going to, we have more data if you ever want to look at the electronic drive with all of the analysis we've done, the summary data is you have a 1.8% change worst case scenario. We did this based upon the uniform traffic manuals highest estimates of the da ily total traffic count at each intersection. If you are going to have 305 trips a day for single family, at most, you would have 421 new trips per day and this shows overall there is only a 2% increase in traffic through the area. That's by no means significant. We can't have direct connect ivity to russell cave road because it's too dangerous. It's 30 feet on the other side of the bridge. It has to connect north into the adjacent farm which will be developed at some point. I don't control when. And it needs to connect to the existing neighborhood. We can't connect right there because the bridge approaches the abutment of the property, it's too dangerous to let people pull out to russell cave road, therefore it has to be directed through the neighborhood. Taf staff has concluded this, engineering concluded this. Our engineers have concluded it. we wish we could do it, but we can't. Again this is if you look at traffic that goes out over on to russell cave road. It is greater impacted than broadway but still not significantly. Neighborhood uniformity. This is the average lot size for existing neighbors. Our proposed development as we proposes. What you are going see is if one way or the other our average lot sizes on the average are going to be the same. The decision I think is if you only allow single family, the lots of single family will be smaller than the existing families in the neighborhood. If you allow townhouses and detached single family. The single family detached that is around the buffer of the property, in other words the one s next to the existing property will be approximately the same size. Townhouse lots of smaller. Our suggestion is if the neighborhood wants uniformity, then you need to have a mixture of housing types which is what the comprehensive plan comments on finally. Talked about esthetics. New construction and these are things that can't be avoided with any new zone change or development thoor inherent in the development process this is a great zone change example for the city to consider. For 20 years the city has said this property is going to be expansion area. The broadest property to the north of us is a three acre parcel recommended for ear-2. The city has adopted a 2018 comprehensive plan that is very aggressive at understanding the need to protect the urban service boundary and so the question is for a zone change, are we going to follow what the comprehensive plan has suggested we do now with the 2013 comprehensive plan and in fact what the city said over 20 years ago this property should be designated for? With that I've got other slides. There is a plethora of evidence, photos if anyone wants to look at the electronic record, I'm not sure you do. But there is an abundance of photographs that the would show you the property, current state in the neighborhood. With that ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your time tonight and we have, again suggested to you all a proposed ordinance that is red lined from the one prepared by council that adds adds the townhouses back in and the buffer on the southern edge of 2060 russell cave road would be permitted thank you. >> thank you. Miss Perkins, do you have any rebuttal on your side? >> yes, I really don't like to rebut attacks made upon our neighbors that they don't care there are a lot of neighbors who abound this property who are elderly who are very concerned about it but are not able to get to the meetings and we also know that they're not connected. They do not -- it's not easy to get hold of them. They're not online, they don't have -- they don't text. They all have stupid phones. you try and call them and organize it and it's just sometimes not possible. They depend on us, I have their permission to speak. I have their signatures. I went to their homes,patty went to their homes. We tried to connect with with them. I don't believe that is a viable argument to put before you tonight. The other thing is I did mention to you that we had this article 2 is-4 that allows commission to wave having a approvalled final development plan. But we have ordinances from ar a-u that demand one be presented to you I think that is reason enough to disapprove this. I do not think, if you deicide to profited, that buffering that staff has worked long and hard on over years. I mean this buffering started in 2005-2006, 2007. We believe we know there is an easement on the property that would go with the development plan, they would have to litigate that with the lawyers but that buffering is very important to eamp. And those our ordinances and I beg that you please if you vote to approve, and also realize that with this property at ear-2 , I believe. So this property can be this property can be built to a higherrence difficult -- higher density. They can purchase density rights , transfer them, average them, there are so many rabbits in that hat of density I don't understand it yet. One day I might. but that is something that if you cap density or condition that there is no purchase of density rights. And there are pictures of the flooding. This is recent flooding. This is one of the reasons call ing out a neighbor as Mr. Billings did, who was upset about the tree. This is on June 6 in the neighbor's yard. You can go through them. This is on, I believe on allen drive. Yes, this is in a flood plain. This is in a flood plain but what you are going to build is going to come down, got to go somewhere. And then you can go to the next one on shandon osh pierson, it's this is on shan -- shandon and this is on June 27. So this is just the other day and this is the water flowing over the road. And you can go to the next one. That was all on shandon and this is, I know I'm not supposed to say Dr. John cummings name but or refer to hip. I don't know if I can say his name but this is his farm and this this is where our city has gone through to dump water from our neighborhood this is his farm and we are going to dump hiech -- we don't want to have a buffer from a development plan we don't even see between it. That's the rebuttal there. But that's flooding from just this month. This is just the other day. But we had a flash storm come through even tornado, we think, hit a few areas. Took down numerous trees and we have a lot of neighbors calling and, you know, who do we call? That's his tree and they didn't know what to do. And they knew that the only number we had was Mr. Billings and we told her to call her own insurance company but I thought you were the best man to handle her. >> glad to handle the call. >> I'm sorry. And I also wanted to say that this property has not been marketed since 2008. So it has not been marketed as a-u. It wasn't on the open market. We have neighbors who said if they knew it was for sale for $ 120,000 that they would have bought it. And this is what I believe the applicant paid for this property -- I just wanted to say that this property was not on the market either. >> okay. But I encourage you to reinstate the restrictions and conditions that staff has recommended. >> thank you. >> cross-examination. To the new evidence she just introduced. >> I'm sorry. Can you speak to the mic so can hear you better. What is your question? >> I have a cross-examination question because she introduced new evidence into the record of photos that weren't in her original presentation. >> fair enough. >> were the pictures you showed up there today pictures of the subject property of the zone change today. >> no sir, this they were a picture of the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> so I have a lot of people who have signed up to speak and I'm assuming that those who have signed up to speak from the neighborhood have had their time yielded and their views represented. Is there anybody who has not had a chance to speak or have their views represented from either side at this point? If this is rebuttal, I'll accept it if it is an additional comment, it would be out of order. >> so the information Mr. Billings presented on traffic and the percentages May be correct for the streets that he presented but I did not see eden court on there and that is the street that we are talking about having the greatest impact for traffic. Secondly, none of us, I think, have been speaking about neighborhood uniformity as an issue. We are speaking about environmental sensitivity, tree canopy and traffic issues. And thirdly, if that's not a sink hole, I am sorry, you need to get another geologist. That's a sink hole. >> thank you. Give your name and address. You'll have three minutes. >> my name is amy clark and I have a long standing concern with the environmental sensitivities and the beauty of our whole county and long standing friendship with a great many people in this area. I live at 628 castle road, which is not in the notice area. There has been a lot of talk about development plans and whether they do and don't belong here and I think you recognize that the question you have is is the zone change, the ear-2 zone proposed right for the neighborhood? That is a zone that allows a density between 3-6 dwelling units per acre. Each of the development plans and revisions that have come in have come in at exactly six units per acre times the scantly nine gross acres so 53 units. They don't seem to be at all willing to get any less than the maximum that they're entitled to by right if you grant this zone change at this density without making a restriction on the density. This is from the expansion area masser plan and when they reckon ed up expansion area 3, which this is in, they thought the average density, not the maximum, but the average density would turn out to be about four and a half units per acre so right in the middle of the three units to six units that is allowed to the ear-2 zone. There have been a number of requests to limit the density and the question here is is there enough buildable land? Are there adequate public facilities? Can you fit it all in and allow and offer a density of six units per acre? If could you now put up the slide with, yeah, this is all we've got for preliminary development plan and it shows a lot of green turf but that's because the lots aren't built on yet, only the townhouses are actually built on. the density is reckoned six units per gross acre. Before you have buildable land, you have to take out rights of way, greenways, sink holes, environmentally sensitive areas. I'm going have to ask for some more time from someone. Is someone signed up to speak? Thank you. And. >> your time has been yielded. Motion from council to give her one more minute to wrap up. >> actually I would ask for four more minutes. >> I'm sorry but their time has been yielded and you May -- unless anybody objects we'll give you one more minute to wrap up. Motion to give her another minute. Second? Second. Any objection? And 25% open space is required. The buffering is really required by the extension area. All of these things are not going to leave you enough room to build 53 dwelling units. 53 units is a great many units that will have to trickle through one way or another neighborhood streets in the opposite direction. There is no access. There is a stub but not a street. There are three stubs, that would have to cross another man's land to get access to russell cave. I would encourage you to limit the density to three unit percent acre which is within ear-2. Certainly not above four and a half units which is average they expect. Thank you. >> thank you. >> >> we're going take about a five-minute break and then come back and continue the hearing. Is that? >> I think it was -- >> can you go to the microphone. >> sorry, 421 trips in a day for the entire development. Over the course the day if it generates 100 trips during the peak hour or two hour. In this case it is usually of an adjacent road. In this case, russell cave and if we use even paris pike, the highest peak travel in those corridors is going to be in the evening, 4:00 to 6:00. So, 400 over the course the day is not in the peak. It has to be one direction. >> it has the be 2400 to makeshift can't so it is 100 an hour? >> no. >> if you have 400 but it could all be right during the peak time. >> it could. So there is an ite manual. It is a transportation manual that determines based on land use for single family residential. It usually doesn't hit that peak threshold in our ordinance unless there are 200 dwelling units involved. That's sort of a rule of thumb. >> can we have map for how it does feed out because it looks like it is going glow -- do we have we -- that shows how that works through? >> sure. >> because I think that that certain little we affect that neighborhood. >> >> >> under the current situation, it will feed through eden court and back to -- >> do you have a map? >> yes. In the future, the farm to north is available for development. And so the stub streets they are showing, are proposing, there would have to be a stub street to north connect that. >> so this is the only existing connection, eden court, besides the driveway which is -- >> you can enlarge that by chance? >> what? >> you can enlarge that by chance? >> it is a powerpoint slide so probably not. >> thank you. >> so this is the only existing stub sreet and this is not a viable connection to russell cave for more dense development. So yes, these vehicles will travel back down eden, and through to, I think this is pierson drive, is that correct? >> and thenning back toward% russ. >> you can do the thing again and show me how they leave. Any chance, the egress. >> egress.>> eden and it goes to paris pike or go north to swigert and falkner. There are a number of ways once you get out of this immediate area to disperse. >> thank you. that's all I have right now, thank you. >> thank you, councilmember gibbs. >> thank you. Chris, could you put that map back up. The last one that you had. I'm just curious and I don't know if you can answer it. The three acres to north, if that did get developed, is that far enough away from the overpass over the interstate that could have access to russell cave? >> I think from a spacing requirement the au May work but the vertical and horizontal curves wouldn't allow for enough visibility for higher density. I think that our staff would expect that connection to be somewhere on the shandon farm property. Probably in line with this collector street as opposed to here, that this property would connect here, and to the north. >> okay. >> environmental visibility problems there on russell cave. >> the planning commission's decision to change the buffer from 50 to reduce it to 35. And they were intending to reduce the density. Why more land out there for development. You can give me a clue as to why they made that decision? >> >> I'm not sure that I can answer that specifically. >> another question and these are all for you. We've had some talk about environmental sensitive areas. And it is not clear to me what is environmentally sensitive in that area. And I know, we're not too concerned about storm water runoff, and water quality. Those two things are taken care of by the water quality people with the water development plan. >> yes, all development plans. >> and will this get storm surge or that's yet to be determined in. >> yes, they would have storm sewers. >> storm sewers. I would say that's-that's a bit comforting. So, what are the other environmental -- I understand the trees. And, everyone around here knows I'm the number one advocate for trees on council so I care very much about trees but I do understand that we have new developments. Some tries will go. -- some trees will go is that one of the things that's environmentally sensitive? Are they mature? I heard the land has not been used for 14 years. That's not a very long time, is it? >> are these trees most of them just relatively you? >> they were identified in 1996 as a significant tree stand or wood land area. So, that indicates to our staff they have been there for at least 30 years and if they were thering likely another 30 before that so, their establishment as a grove, at that location I would consider a significant amount of time they are made up of some of the significant tree species like a oak. There were some other oaks identified within the tree inventory assessment. >> >> it is located within the balance marked on some of the stands, to be preserved? >> >> the urban forester was out for an extended period of time. But, arborist was able to visit the site, and he did indicate that the tree preservation or inventory map wasn't completely accurate. And so that was a concern for the planning commission as well. We need good information from applicant to identify where the trees are and which ones need to be preserved. >> we can address it on the final development plan. >> exactly. >> or really at the preliminary development plan if it goes back to the planning commission within that 60 day window. >> >> okay. Those are my questions for now. Thank you, vice mayor. >> thank you. Councilmember evans. >> >> >> going back to traffic study, what is the -- what are the trips based on or are they -- because talking about trips. It is just when car -- because -- I'm a little confused about that because we all know the households have more than one car at this point. So, what kind of household are these trips based on at this point? >> well, the ite manual is basic it give as rule of thumb for people to use and it give as number per dwelling unit. Based on the tripp type of dwelling unit. For sangle family home they estimate a certain number of trips during the peak hour. Four town houses, it is usually fewer and apartments sometimes, even fewer. >> what were the peak hours again? >> for adjacent roadways are typically, in our community, in the evening hours, at rush-hour for 4 to 6 P.M. But at peak hour, it can shift. Downtown sometimes peak hours are both in the morning and in the evening. For schools, the peak hours May be in the morning and then, two to three. Which don't correspond with the adjacent he roadways as much. Land use change, trip generation, and so, we have the engineer do a kind of real brief assessment and talk with our staff to determine if a traffic study is necessary. >> I'm glad you spined the school because there is a school in that neighborhood, that would impact all of the traffic. That neighborhood would come in contact with being that there would be only one way in and one way out. So, was that considered? >> >> no. Not generally because there was no traffic study required so I staff did not go to the extent that a larger government would require that required a traffic study would go and consider all of those uses. >> okay. >> and I know I'm talking about traffic and your answer might be the same but I have to ask that. So, again, you were talking about, traffic. Did you know what the dance is from this planned development from the -- we were talking about distances before or the route out do we know the actual distance would be? >> I do not. I think between russell cave and paris pike are about mile apart. The roadways are. Travel dance I'm not sure. Why and I'm speaking at the travel dance because I can't give testimony because I'm is that google would share that it is a long distance. Because, we talk about parkside, and the lane, those are in my district and very long roads. So, again wondering if that was considered and that there was discussion about that in the hearing about the distance and the time that it would for these in new residents to exit. >> that was actually discussed during the hearing and when the planning commission changed the recommendation, their recommendation from the staff's recommendation, that part of that was considered. With the traffic impact, and, how many vehicles would be traveling back through the neighborhood. From the staff perspective, that's a temporary situation. This roadway would connect through the farm. >> and said earlier, it is my understanding that you said that you don't think that the -- the other question is, the triangle. Sorry, I'm getting my shapes mixed up. it has been a long day. That's not part of this? >> no. >> okay, so that would have to be purchased, correct? >> the subject property is this l. >> right. >> so, you're saying, the possibility to be a an access road, the triangle would have to be purchased. >> rectangle. >> sorry. But you still are not sure that would provide a safe on the russell cave? >> there are preliminary development plan that -- >> I think I'm going in the wrong way. Again, this is eden court so that connects forward to the north. To the proposed street. And there would be a connection here to this parcel, which is a rectangle, 20-60 russell cave. As well as two connections, to the shandon cove. So that would line up with here is pierson drive, and allow for a future connection to russell cave. >> >> and I know my time is up but for clarification, those would still have to be two additional purchases? >> by. >> could be a different applicant. >> and I wanted to clarify and we don't know when that would happen. >> exactly. >> that's what I wanted to clarify. >> thank you. >> >> thank you, chairing vice mayor. So, tracy, this is for you. The 53 dwelling units was based on, all of them being single family? Is that -- no? >> if they do not have the town home units, and they have single family, loyal single family, how many dwelling units are -- is there an estimate of dwelling units? >> >> it really depends on the size of the lot and how large of a home you choose. The applicant would choose to build. >> okay. >> we've seen past zone change, different development plans and for all single family, it was in the range of I believe, 40 to single family homes were able to be fit on the property. >> >> on the recommendations from the planning commission, the lowest amount of units single family work be 26, and the most could be 53? Is that father? >> that's fair. That is in line with what the expansionary master plan recommends. Which which is raining three to six and the zone itself requires that between three to six dwelling units per achier. >> for clarification purpose, the recommendation refers to 35 feet but, for -- is it referred to -- it is a buffer. It is talking about, that buffer is also with the 2060 propert. And so looking at your paper up there, your exhibit up there, does that 35 feet include the roadway or, is that on the other side of the roadway, and then, 35 neat. >> there are two recommendation, three conditional zoning restrictions. One has to do with the land use and that's item b. 3a has to do with principal structures and where they would be located. So, they would have to be 35 feet from those areas. But, the buffer would only have to be 25 feet. >> >> okay. So, the -- >> and that's item 3c. >> but the road should not be within the buffer. They show some green area here. And I'm not sure, what the width of that is but, it should be 25 feet. >> okay, so that buffer, actually, between that property and 2060 is 25 feet. >> that's the recommendation. >> >> and I'm not sure if you know the answer to this, do you know where the house is located on 2060? >> is it at the in front of the property or is it toward the back of the property? >> >> I think that Miss -- >> >> right there. >> okay. >> >> my house is right there. Right toward the back of it. All right. >> and I have two in the front, and, the house is probably taking up a half achier and half achier in the back. >> all right, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> okay. My next question is for Mr. Billings. Do you have an estimate or price range if you have single family dwelling units, do you have an estimate of what the units will be sold for? >> yes, the attached or detached? >> detached. >> the detached single family are probably going be in range of, 140 to 200. Because of the lot sizes and the existing neighborhood, they would be of comparable square foot about, they are going to be different design, these are a lot of ranks horizontal and these are single story or one half story that go back instead of across. The town houses, would probably be, stepped just lower than that. The one of the reasons that we think this project is, is beneficial is because, it offers the mixed housing types, and the affordable range. We're not talking about 250 or 300,000 houses, which is one of the goals and objections of the plan. >> okay. The other thing is, I noticed on the development plan, that you have all of these town homes, it looks like they are in two different sets, is that -- >> that's correct. >> okay. >> you can't put all of then across there so you have to break them up into two or three for buildings. so that's where-owes that's why there is a breakup inside of the that. >> okay. Thank you. >> >> thanks. >> thank you. >> >> thank you. >> councilmember brown. >> >> thank you, vice mayor. And, I guess some of my questions are for you and I'll go the tracy. But befoe I go into that let me start by thanking the folks from the neighborhoods for reaching out to us and asking for the public hearing. The way the process goes, and I gis at s at the it is complicated and it is hard to keep up with, my understanding, a lot of felt like you did not have a chance to voice your concerns and opinions at the first public hearing, and, that just justified the reason for us to have one today. So thank you for responding to us and thank you for coming out. I'll start with the public outreach. One of the things that we mentioned a lot during the zone change hearings are, what efforts have you made to reach out to the public and to touch base and it seems like you have, reached out at least on three occasions, and I would agree with some of the neighbors just because you have a low turnout doesn't mean that people don't care, it is hard to find time and look for opportunities to voice your zen concerns. and sometimes it doesn't become real until things start moving. The 200 russell cave what at the same times were made to touch base with that neighbor since, sometimes you have property owners that have competing interests and they don't want the property developed at all. Right think rightly it is a very nice three acre parcel of land and they don't want a zone change because it will affect them. And we've notes the agreed that it will affect them what we've tried to do is to create, for example, this area, things like, the buffer zone here, and not putting the backs of houses along there. That would be in the backyards. We thought that along the staff, that roadway and a planting buffer that would create a screening buffer when that and the property is preferrable. And at the end of the day, I don't say it lightly is there is two competing interests, and, this is not one where, if there is no zone change this property doesn't get developed. If this property gets developed, they are negatively impacted. That's the way of land use and you can't change that but you can do is try to look at things like, you space the lots, create buffer zones between their house, and not maybe have other hoist house backs up to them so you have a very limited number of cars. I mean, for example, this is not -- this is not something that's for a zone change hearing but for conceptual. We're okay with that being a cul-de-sac not to let cars through long term there is a future agreement between them and us and the staff and that's what can be done, we're open to suggestions you can't do that in the zone change hearing is the problem. They are development plan plan issues and you have issues like, we need to make sure that we can turn around a truck and a balance says we need you were to around a buggy so it gets very new answered and detailed which is hard to cover all of that. Because, you don't sort of hear the development plan issues, but there is a lot of stuff that goes into that. >> okay. >> it is beyond their farm, the three acre farm. That's what we're talking about. >> yes, sir. >> the buffer, the 25 foot buffer that councilmember lamb asked about, I don't know if that was answered by tracy. Can the road be a part of the buffer? Is that what the answer was? Or is the buffer between -- the 25 foot buff veto be after the road? >> >> the planning commission has in the past allowed a road to cross a buffer but the road itself hould not make up the buffer. >> okay. >> so in this case, the road should shift out of the buffer. >> okay. >> it should be 25foot foot of green, and landscaping, and then a road, and then your lots. >> >> some of those are development plan questions. Council america's that took a lot of my time. So, I'm going to -- I'll ask another question and I'll chime in again, I May. It was said there is no density restrictions on the lot. But from what I'm hearing, the vonning being asked for in addition to the single family use that create as density cap with the 53 units. At max. With minimum of try three acre, three residents per acamporaer. And I'll chime back in. I have a few more questions. >> thank you, councilmember gibbs. >> thank you, vice mayor. Mr. Billings, a couple of prove brief things four. >> a single favor? Ly attached you said -- >> that's an estimate. >> and town homes. >> it would be slightly below that mark so probably in the 125 to 10 or 107 range. >> okay. And the other question that I have, and I'm not sure that you can answer this but you might be able to your developers May ball park. You have a detached one family about how many square feet and also, for a town home, about how many square feet? >> >> probably asked that questin before and I don't know but let me ask them real quick. >> okay, yeah. >> I would like to ask if you're present tonight and you're on the street as I'm go time in off streets and you live right next to this development this proposed development, I would like for you to raise your hand so that I can understand if you live right next to this development, that you're retonight, please. So, if you live on eden court and your property abutts this sum property, hold your hand up, please. >> two of U.S. Two on eden out. Foxboro court, okay, thawing. Pierson drive. Thanks you, and parkside drive. All right. Thank you. And I appreciate it because, it is hard off often times that we're sitting here anding looking at faces and we really don't know where you live. And, so it is not fair for you to not be represented to know where you are located in the proximity of all of this discussion, so I really do appreciate that thank you. >> >> thank you. Consul member brown. >> >> and I want thing that I want to get a better understanding of is the development plan process. And tracy, if we were to move important ward with changing the land use for this property, how does the development plan process play out going forward? >> so, in this case, where the planning commission indefinitely postponed it, the staff would notify the planning commission, and obviously the applicant would know it would be back on ageneral door review again that gives the an my can't an opportunity to make revisions, to the development plan and knit submit it to our photograph staff for review and send it back through the normal process which involves a technical committee meeting. Subdivision planning commission and then full and that needs to occur in 60 days. >> what opportunity during that process does the public have to the edge view the plan, or have some comments or suggestions to the development developer? >> the applicant would need to provide a digital copy into our online system, and then that makes it available to the public to view. And obviously we have copies in our office to be viewed as well if someone comes to the office to discuss with it planner. The technical committee and subdivision committee are public meet meeting us but they are not public hearings. People are able tie tend and the Chairman Opens I want up for comments but they are not make as decision so they are an open meeting at the planning commission, it is a public hearing and they would take public comments at that time. >> >> and the public has the opportunity to voice concerns or opinions about the development plan and have input into the development going forward? >> yes. And they can reach out to the applicant at any time if they choose to. >> okay. >> it was said the planning commission, although they voted for it, 4-2 that most, that all were in favor of the land use change. >> that's an accurate statement. We had a very busy afternoon that day. and, we started, I believe with 11 members, and by the time we finished the public hearing, it was close to 8:00 and we were down to six which was a quorum. But, two members indicated in the minutes, that they voiced their support of the change zone change but not in favor of the conditional zoning restrictions limiting it to single family, and then the buffer, of 5 feet. >> okay. >> all right. And that -- during the development plan process, that is where the trees stand. Issue can get addressed and the additional environmental concerns that May exist on the property can be addressed as well as some other issues that have been brought up. >> that's true. >> >> all right, thank you. Consul member maloney, you would like to take the chaste chai. I would like to be recognized. Tracy. >> .>>,. >> I would like to go back of staff recommendation. >> the recommendation for buffering was,. >> it actually was for 50 feet, to strict the principle structures to not be located within 50 feet. And the buffering was -- has always been 25 feet. >> >> so the set back for your town houses would be at least 50 feet from the existing neighborhoods but the landscapeingwould be 25 feet. >> >> >> I guess I have a question for Mr. Billings and his client. >> yes, sir. >> just as a hypothetical, was the recommendation from the planning staff,, from your perspective, it would allow the buildings that upped to build. >> if I understand the question -- >> at the 50 foot with the 25 foot set back. >> single family and town homes. >> I can give one background piece of information to answer the question. The staff report originally said no principle or accessory structure should be located based on shed, et cetera. We showed an overwhelming amount of evidence the existing neighborhood had sheds so staff removed we suggested that the 50 foot by adjusted because when you looked at adjacent house, where the imof the house to the property lines they only had a 35 foot buffer and I don't know how to go the development plan from here, is it zoned here? >> there are areas where houses would be located here and potentially around in here. Where the 50 foot buffer could preclude the location of the house. And most of them along here, they would probably be okay along in here and along in here. But because of similar radiuses can the way the yards are laid out, we asked that 50 foot to be decreased to 35 feet. Because it mirrored the existing neighborhood and it would make some of the lots non-buildable and we would have to readjust plan accordingly. >> okay. and with that, if the 35 foot buffer were to stay in place, what impact does that have on the roadway? >> on this roadway? >> >> the roadway that's this question, yes. >> so, that is actually, if you look at the recommendation, 3c, 25 foot buffer yard, it is separate than this 35 foot principal structure buffer does that make sense? >> the roadway concerns the 25 foot buffer yard. Functionally if there is a 25 foot yard this green space moves out to about the middle of the right of way. The right of way moves down the here. And so you have a new road that. S could about here. And you would again push down the houses with some here that I have not fully analyzed because I don't know what the final result is. The road here, you don't have this intersection, but a road that comes up and across and another road that comes across, and so you have this instead of, I don't know what this is. I would say good design principle May not be the best. Instead of having a t, you get an odd shaped intersection which we think is not preferrable to a t. >> I see no one else signed up to speak and I'll give a last call. Anyone else? And I'll now declare the hearing lose closed and that means at this point only that councilmembers May speak, and, it is about -- our determination of what the evidence tells us, and, any motions at some point that might be appropriate so I'll open the floor for comments from council members. >>,,. >> I think the hearing is closed and unfortunately, it is us. Now. Councilmember gibbs. >> >> >> I'm not sure that we're ready for a motion. I'm ruinating here. I'm very concerned about what the planning commission did with getting rid of the town homes so I think that, comprehensive plan, does call for prioritizing a mixture of housing types and they have done that with this. I also think the town homes would have less environmental in pacts and significantly -- I don't have any figures in front of me but it would reduce the amount of impervious surface and people are concerned about runoff and so on. The original came from the staff, so, this development could allow both town homes and single family dwellings. Is that -- I would like to restore that language and make a motion to that effect. >> >> does that make sense? >> I'm sorry. I'm going to need advice from our counsel at this point. I believe that we we can have a comprehensive motion for a new resolution ordinance, that individual motions are not in order? >> we can propose and get a state innocent. >> I didn't hear the first part of Mr. Gibbs' question. >> what I was going to do is make a motion to put the town house option back in. But, if I need wait to do that, and I'm happy to do that. >> >> >> you're proposing changes the additional zoning. >> findings of fact or -- >> you don't have to have findings of fact to change conditional zoning restrictions however, because you are changing it from what the planning commission recommendation was, you'll have to have 8 votes to do it. >> okay. >> >> I'll take a shot. >> your question do you have to have a motion on the floor to adopt an ordinance before changing the additional zoning restrictions? >> >> I mean, potentially, you could do them together. I don't know if that would be more confusing or not. >> okay. >> so, if procedurally it is not a problem with this there is a motion to add back in the town houses when we get to a final -- renewable ordinance, is that correct? >> vice mayor, if I could jump in, it seems that, it seems to me that, if our options here, after our -- having our own look at that is to accept the planning commission recommendation, deny the planning commission recommendation or do a combination, I think there would be an initial motion of either to accept, to approve or disapprove, and then you could do something like this by amendment, to that motion. That is how I think it would be better stated. >> if there is not a desire to change the conditional zoning restrictions that you could do it intentionallily, because, I don't know how many of you want to change or if you want to change shove them or all of them, but yes, that might be more clear, and easier way to do it. If you are going to change the recommendation, on the zone change, from the planning commission, then we will have to provide you with some alternative findings of fact. In other words, if you're not going to adopt what the planning commission's recommendation is to you about the zone change, you want to do something different, other than what they have recommended, we have to provide you with new findings of fact that will justify whatever it is that -- differently you're going to do but that doesn't apply to the necessarily to the conditional zoning restrictions. >> okay. And that is what I want to take the question back because I tend to disagree with you on that I think that we can make our own finding of fact orally here. But, the -- now that we've heard it but, what I wanted to make sure that we're getting right is, what councilmember gibbs is wanting us to discuss here, when that is appropriately taken up and how, and I think that would go back the vice mayor's initial question. >> yes. And, traditionally we've done at this time other way, not taken individual motions. But, in fact, the rationale for this is that we don't want to vote up or down on the -- on the recommendation to come from the planning commission until we have an idea about what the form of what we might be recommending is. And so, we're kind of in a catch 22, but, I -- I would recommend councilember -- recognize councilmember lamb and then I think I'll make a ruling as chair. >> >> >> I was going to recommend, if we need to take a recess long enough to draft up the finding of fact based on what we're thinking, so that we can introduce them. >> okay. So, let me -- let me offer an alternative. I want to continue the inclusion of the town houses and I would ask councilmember gibbs to work with staff, to draft up something that we could then adopt as a new set of findings of fact. With this new piece. But I want to make sure that -- I want to see what else -- our councilmembers want to be recognized. Other councilmembers want to be recognized so just to try to simplify this, I'm simply going to rule your motion out of order tat at this point. And recognize other councilmembers and I think that, if you would z wouldn't mind working with council to get some language that you can put forward that would be great. >> >> >> thank you. >> (Inaudible) (Inaudible). >> thank you. Councilmember lamb. >> >> I agree with that, and because, I think that there is -- I think that there is a potential for several people having -- having options that we would like to bring forward now. I guess what you could do is, everybody could just individually say what they wanted to suggest, and then, we could go and draft it at that point so that it is all in open form. But, my suggestion is, is that, I would like to change under the restricttions, under the -- under item 3, the property shall be subject to the following use and buffering restrictions via conditional zoning usual c, I would like to change it to where that they -- it shall be a fence, right now currently it is a fence, hedge, wall or earth mound, or combination thereof of minimum of six feet in hide and I would like to change that to shall be a fence, of not less than 8 feet, and not less than a minimum of 8 feet in height. So, that -- I'm putting that on the table. I'm not making a motion right now but I'm just expressing what I would like to have considered in a sit of finding of fact. >> thank you. And I entertain other suggestions or thoughts from councilmembers if they are willing to share them, about what they would like to see if thinking that's different from what we have received from the planning commission. >> >> I appreciate it councilmember l llamb's comments, it needs to be in open forum. I was thinking that I did not have any concerns but I do at this point, I think the easiest thing, from prior experience just -- the easiest thing would be, to accept the recommendation from the planning commission which was in councilmember brown, help me to understand this. It is just the 53 single, so. >> so, if we do anything different than that, because I know this is where we always get caught up. If we do anythig different than that, how many votes do we need? >> 8. >> okay. >> we need 8 votes, we need a majority of council. Not of those present, and that's 8 votes to overturn any -- to make any changes at all, it takes 8 votes. >> okay, thank you. >> all right. >> >> okay. >> councilmember brown. >> >> thank you, vice mayor. I appreciate the conversation, and I agree with councilmembers that we need, I think some of the ideas or suggestions that May come forward we need to talk about in front of the constituents that have come and expressed their concerns and maybe draft an ordinance or whatever that captures everything that we're talking about. I think the reason that this one is hard, or, I this I the reason that all of them are hard, for us, is because, it affects real people in the every day lives and in their homes and the neighborhoods. But, I think that we have made a decision that as a council, about how we're going to grow as a city. And I think that, we have chosen not to expand urban service boundary and look for opportunities that exist, and right now, some of those options that exist, grow and develop are in the expansion areas, that, this one is, and, creating an opportunity and an existing neighborhood for single family houses, that the other reason is that the developer showed that they are interested in public comment and they are interested in knowing what the neighbors want, and don't want as far as part of the development. I think the other opportunity that exists here, we were to move forward with the approving it, I think it is the opportunity for public engagement in the development plan. And I think that, as a councilmember, I would have the opportunity to be a part of that development plan if it was to move forward and would do that to make sure that this development is something that the neighborhood appreciates, and, welcome into the neighborhood. i think councilmember lamb's suggestion just based off of the neighbor that's adjacent to property, if we can create a buffer that protects the integrity of their residents as well as the new development that May come, I think that it is a good start. I think we have to be mindful of the road, the other buffers and the development as a whole, and I don't want us to Miss The point that, the planning commission made by removing the up to houses. I wasn't there. I haven't watched watched the tape but think is now that is the comments that were made, is that if it is in a single family -- if it is a sing -- a neighborhood where mostly even there are duplexs I thissity majority are single family so, I really don't want to support introducing the town house aspect back into it. I think this development could be still maximized by single family detached residential. But, you know, on the surface of it I would support that because I think that it is an opportunity to create homeownership and development opportunities, in our city, and I think that the possibilities to do are limited and we as a council should entertain any opportunity to do such. >> >> thank you. >> thank you, vice mayor. >> thank you. Councilmember maloney once again, if you could take the chair, I would like to be recognized. thank you. I'm a little conflicted but I believe on balance, at first I would like to say I think that, I'm in support of the zone change itself. And, if I read my colleagues correctly, I think there is probably support for the zone change itself I. I think the question is, what modifications if any do we want to make. I see the issue of the town houses a little differently from my colleague james brown. I think that they allow that development to be really more reflective of the neighborhood. For the most part. To give the mere opportunity to develop the single family lots, at a scale that has been said, that is similar to adjacent properties. A little more green space. A little less land taken up, excuse me. For number of units. So, I'll be inclined to support amendments that would add back in the town houses. Thank ou. >> >> okay. I see -- no one else signed up to speak. I'll take the recommendation of one or more of my councilmembers to take -- I'll say five minutes but I really know it will be ten. I'll try to reconvene at 9:20. With specific recommendations. >> we're short one councilmember. And just so everybody -- if you're not familiar with these proceeding, we need to have everybody in the chamber at all times here hearing all of the evidence we can't proceed while that person is not entitled -- or that person is not entitled to vote which is why we need everybody. So I'm going explain a little bit about procedure. And then hopefully, we can then proceed in a way that make sense to everybdy. My understanding is that if there is support for the zone change itself, and if there are 8 votes in support, it would be appropriate to have a motion to adopt the recommendation from the planning commission and the findings of fact. If that motion were to pass, we would then consider approving the ordinance itself. At that point, any proposed changes would be appropriate as a motion to amendment amend. So, first, finding of fact. If we approve of what the planning commission has said to news terms of the zone change itself, second, any motions when we get to the approval of the ordinance, a vote on the ordinance, it would be appropriate at that time to introduce any and all amounts to the ordinance. If you make a motion to amend, the ordinance level, we ask that you explain the reasons why you think that is appropriate. So, I hope that's clear. And if it is, I would at this point entertain a motion, if someone is willing to make a motion, on the finding, approval of the zone change itself and finding of fact from the planning commission. >> >> I'll make a motion to approve the planning commission finding of fact and so moved. >> seconds. >> motion and second. Is there a discussion on the motion? >> we need a vote on the findings of fact first. >> motion and second. I want to know if there is further discussion on that motion. Seeing morning all in favor, please say aye. >> >> you're right. I need a roll call vote. >> thank you. >> >> >> Mr. Gibbs. >> yes. >> vice mayor kay. >> sorry. A question has been raised. What we're voting on, is adopting the recommendation from the planning commission and their finding of fact to approve the zone change itself. Which can then be amended, when we take a vote on that ordinance which accompanies it. >> you wouldn't have those amendments during the discussion of this notion. >> I mean, I just can't -- >> sorry. >> my understanding is that, the appropriate time -- a motion and second to approve if you feel that, you can't vote in favor of adopting those finding of fact without having further conversation, then you need to vote no. >> >> thank you sir. >> >> start the roll call again. >> >> which is to approve the zone change itself. >> subject to at that point, to the ordinance approval which must follow that and be approved which can be amended. Please call the roll. >> >> Mr. Gibbs. >> yes. >> vice mayor kay. >> yes. >> Ms. Lamb. >> >> no. >> >> Mr. Michael cohen current. >> no. >> in maloney. >> no. >> >> sorry. No, sir? >> >> Ms. Mossotti. >> Ms. Plomin. >> yes. >> Ms. Republican reynolds. >> yes. >> worley. >> yes, ma'am. >> can we get a screen, please. >> >> >> Mr. James brown. >> >> I'm inclined to call a point of order. I'm -- my -- I'm just wondering why folks are voting no if they are not clear on what the motion is and if it fails, does the -- does the zone change the-zone change snail. >> my understanding is when we're in the middle of a roll call vote, it is not appropriate to interrupt and it we can then vote to reconsider or do what we want but we need to conclude the roll call vote. >> and then we can talk about everything else. So, I'm sorry. Where were you in the roll call. >> Mr. Brown. >> yes. >> Mr. Elinger. >> yes, ma'am. >> Ms. Evans. >> >> >> can't come back to me. >> yes. >> and Mr. Plumber. >> oh, yeah gentleman that vote reflects passage of the motion. And allows us to move to the ordinance itself. Is there a motion to approve the ordinance? >> >> we have to put the motion on the floor and then it can be amended. Motion to approve the ordinance. Councilmember lamb. >> I would like to amend -- this is so difficult. Because, it is such -- >> I don't have a motion on the floor at this point. >> no kidding. No kidding. >> we can vote to approve what the commission forwarded to us but move to amend but first we have to have a motion on the floor. Whether you're going to vote up or -- and now the underlying ordinance must be approved as it stand or, amended. So I need a motion. Sir. >> the ordinance is only had one reading right now. So, you can have a second reading of the ordinance and then a motion to approve it. Or, it is probably would be appropriate if you wanted to take motions to the amend the ordinance before second reading. >> >> and then amend it as the first reading, and we then allow -- allow first reading again. >> if it is. >> going to be a material change for the ordinance. >> thank you. >> >> so motion to approve at this point, we can take motions to amend the first reading of ordinances, which you heard at the very beginning of the I'll open the floor councilmember gibbs. >> >> this is where I should make that amendment. What I would like to do is, make an amendment to to the restrictions of part c-b, the second one, and the last clause, of the sentence, the property shall be limited to single and residential units only. So, is that clear? >> so the motion is to allow single family, and, town houses. So moved. >> second. >> motion and a second. And discussion on the motion? >> >> I would like to give my rationale if that's all right? >> yes. >> first of all, comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan prioritizes a mixture of prioritizes, a mixture of housing unit types, and we do that for reasons. And one of reasons is affordability. I'm not sure these people can't give us an absolute price, but, possibly as low as 125,000 dollars to get people on a home. You know, I talked to people all the time, and we're moving out to georgetown and we're moving out to versailles. And, we want to keep the people in this town, and I think the way to do it is to have affordable housing in the areas. I also very strong environmentalist, and I know that we have to have density. There is no -- if we're going to hold the line on suburban development, we've got to have density. But, if we have -- if we have these town houses, convince the environmental impact will be less. There will be less imper we havous surface. Many people have concerned about storm water. Less impevviou. And more room for trees WHICHs the hope and I would certainly work with -- on that final development plan to work on the tree aspect of it. So, that's where why we need this motion. So thank you, mayor. >> vice mayor. >> councilmember lamb. >> >> are you on for discussion of this motion? >> >> councilmember evan, discussion of this motion? Councilmember evans. >> councilmember, I appreciate your passion for density and you're right that, we generally have chosen. i don't think it is appropriate here. And I will say, my vote tonight, does not mean I really like what's going on here, but, given that, we do need development, and what was presented to us, by the commission, was what we said we wanted. However, this neighborhood, it takes ten minutes, where this location is going to be, for someone that wants -- and I don't mean it sar fastically but you want people to -- car spastically but you want people to drive less and, go on foot. But, this neighborhood, is not going have access to a main corridor. So they are all going to be driving. And they are all going have contacts multiple cars. And you towne talk about town homes, they are going to be parking on the street. It is going of be congested. And I appreciate your passion for it. But, it is not going to be your regular neighborhood that people are going to be parking in their driveways, and using their garages. It is going to be more of a congested area. And, it is going to rell literally take everybody at least ten minutes on a good day, to get out to paris pike. On a good day. So for people that are going to have to drive, and who are going to have multiple cars, I understand -- I think that we're going to con jest this area and enough by just having it exist. And having town homes, that are just going to be again, congested there is nothing wrong with town homes, when you have more space. When you have more area. But, they don't have it right now. Maybe, in ten or 20 years, when they get more land, but, right now, they just don't have it. We're talking literally we're talking about one, two streets. And, I just can't agree with that right now. Again I appreciate the passion for it but, I don't think that this is this is the place to do it. >> >> thank you. Get in line. Councilmember farmer. >> >> this afternoon. You, vice mayor. First of all, I need to say something in public I have never said before. I completely agree with everything that jake gibbs said. [Laughter] He made a great motion, at a time that we needed a great motion. And, affordability and density to protect the urban service boundary are the ultimate goals here. Yes, when I look at the map up there I see Ms. Packman trying to get out of there but I know that our actions here, deal with the eternity of the city. This is not about today, this is about tomorrow. And the stub streets there will not always be stub streets. The same way that the stub street that's here now, is not always going be a stub street. Tomorrow, we'll get there and there will be an easier way in and out. We have to think about the long game here and that's what this expansion area is about. I hope that there are votes for this because, it would be a great addition for the affordability of housing, in this part of city. Thank you. >> >> thank you. Councilmember moloney, you're not logged in but I'll recognize you. >> I wanted to, my question is, I understand where you're coming from. When do you put town houses, more dense ty. Now, the town homes going to be the same number of 53 threw the whole project? Not going to go higher than 53, is that correct? The town homes will be -- that you're adding will be more units in that unit or in on that property? >> >> 53? >> >> I'll support your motion if it was -- and I'm not saying -- when you downsize something and put something forward, you need to put more in there but you leave the same number and be compatible with the neighborhood in there I have to -- I agree with the uncoil member evans and I also -- councilmember evans and councilmember brown that, I just think that it should be the same. And, I will not support this motion. >> thank you. Councilmember mossotti. >> >> I understand what everyone is saying about the density issue. But the zone change that we have had in the past, I don't know, two years, ago,, small parcels everywhere from 49. Mixed density. They've had single family homes and town houses and sometimes, they even have had retail with them. So, my colleagues have expressed the concern about the compare ability of the neighborhood. The neighborhood are changing. And again, if we were to protect our urban service boundary we have to look in future to understand that if we want to keep the signature industry that we have in lexington, our tourism and our horse industry, we have to rely on infill and redevelopment. No one wants to have new new development next to their neighborhood that's been vacant for a long period of time. No one likes that. We've all appreciated that there is open space and green space. But, think that I we have to again, look forward to our future. And, if we can somehow make this compatible, and provide housing for all, I think this this is the best thing that we can do so I'm in support of your motion, councilmember describes councilmember brown. >> thank you, vice mayor. >> I understand the concern for dense ty. It make sense in certain areas of town but that I we are creating home ownership opportunities in a suburban neighborhood in lexington that already has an identity. And I think that support single family detached units in this neighborhood that is developed, in this development, is a -- it is what's best for this neighborhood and for this community. I think it is a tough appeal for the neighborhood to swallow that they're going to get this development going on in the existing neighborhood. It is going be increased traffic. I just think that we're making it a tougher appeal for them to -- pill for them to swallow adding town houses to this development. So I still support just single family detached units. Thank you. >> thank you. Councilmember plomin. >> >> thank you, vice mayor. One of the things that I actually concur with councilmember gibbs, county since member farmer, and councilmember mossotti, I do think that as we keep talking about that we have made a decision not to expanden the urban service boundary we do need to look at opportunity within, and obviously this does provide affordable housing which is a priority with. But with that said, I also like the opportunity to come back, since we don't have the development plan, to -- for the neighborhood, for the developer, to talk about, and to discuss and look at options that are a consensus or at least a compromise of the -- and, when I keep seeing the nodding of the heads of developers, I hope the that's the intent when we come back over, you come back that you can figure this out. Because, I this that I, that could be a win/win. So, with that, I will support the town homes as an amendment to the ordinance, so thank you, vice mayor. >> thank you. Councilmember gibbs. >> >> thank you, vice mayor. I wanted to answer some of the country critique of my motion. I didn't say anything about walk ability or bikable ty. I was doing -- (Inaudible) Maybe the echos from what I said earlier in the day. The issue is, the potentially 53 units no matter what. And yes, these people will be driving and they'll have to be driving out of there. If we don't allow town home, they May have to cut back on number of homes to some extent, maybe back to 46 but I think that that change is negotiable. Yes, certainly they'll have to drive out of there. There will be a lot of.Com driveingin and out whether it is 53 home or 46 homes. I don't think that make as significant difference but if we athrough town home, I think that does make a difficult can't difference for affordability and again from the environmental aspects. I would rather have those -- some of the town homes on relatively small footprints than say, 46 homes, taking up the whole space. And so, I think some of the criticism this has been misdirected. And so I wanted to throw that out there. And I'll stop right there and thank you, vice mayor. >> >> thank you. I see nobody else has signed up. Can we take a roll call vote on this motion. >> >> Mr. Gibs. >> yes. >> >> vice mayor kay. >> yes. >> >> Ms. Lamb. >> (Inaudible). >> Mr. Mccurrent. >> .>> >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. >> >> Mr. Moloney. >> no. >> Ms. Mossotti. >> Ms. Plomin. >> yes. >> Ms. Renaileds. >> no. >> >> Ms. Reynolds. >> no. >> >> Mr. Worley. >> no, ma'am. >> Mr. Brown. >> no. >> Mr. Ellinger. >> no. >> Ms. Evans. >> (Inaudible). >> Mr. Farmer. >> (Inaudible). >> >> that vote reflects failure of the motion. entertain further amendments. Councilmember lamb. >> >> thank you. Vice mayor. I would like to move forward with an amendment to section 3c under the conditional zoning, that the landscape buffer shall contain one tree every 40 feet of lippian bound -- line yard boundary of the plant list as referenced by article 18 of the zoning ordinance, and, shall contain a fence of no less than 8 feet in height and then go on further, the way that it is stated, existing trees dead, dying or diseased May only be removed with written consent of the urban forester are and I so move. >> second. >> >> >> motion is seconded. Is there a discussion on the motion? >> councilmember gibbs. >> >> on the fence part. Does the fence have to be impevvious, what are we concerned about with the fence. I'm sympathetic and trying to figure it out because it would seem like a hedge or an earth mound might stop sound better so why do you want to limit the fence, and if he can get a fence, do we need to have some sort of specification of the type offense? >> >> the type of -- fence. >> I'm just thinking about giving more privacy to the existing homes. That are there now. And the new development. >> >> thank you. >> >> councilmember reynolds. >> yes. Thank you. I also appreciate your concern for the neighbors. I think my concern is that maybe the neighbors wouldn't like that type offense. We don't really know if that is something that they would appreciate. They might prefer trees offer shrubs or, I don't know what. But, they might not like that. So, I hate to vote for something that -- in our intention to try to help them would be something that they would not want and I don't know. >> thank you. Councilmember brown. >> >> thank you, vice mayor. The reason that I support it or second it, that amendment is because, I mean, it was already requirement for it to be a six foot fence. I think the 8 foot fence will address some of the issues of why that was recommended anyway. And I think that, the target areas are the agriculture use zone that is adjacent to this property as well as the side of the development that it is adjacent to the interstate so I think that it could act as a protective barrier between the agricultural zone and a noise barrier between the interstate and this neighborhood. So that's why I support it. >> thank you. Councilmember farmer. >> and yet no one asked for an 8 foot fence. thank you. >> >> >> thank you. Councilmember moloney, if you would take the chair once again. Thank you. I guess my preference is to leave it to the development! Neighborhood to work this out to their satisfaction. I would hate to put this in, the ordinance, and have them can kind of be land cuffed by that. So I'll vote no. >> >> thank you. >> >> I'll take the chair back. I see no one else signed up to speak. I guess we'll get a screen and we'll call the roll again. Sorry. >> councilmember. >> county since member, it was a two-part motion and one was about trees, and at a certain area which I did support. But I did not support the other part of the motion. So, maybe we'll just -- so I -- I want to point that out, that -- >> thank you. Okay. All in favor, please I guess we need to call the roll. >> >> Mr. Gibbs. >> no. >> >> vice mayor kay. >> no. >> Ms. Lamb. >> (Inaudible). >> Mr. Mckurn. >> no, ma'am. >> Mr. Moloney. >> yes. >> >> Ms. Mossotti. >> no. >> >> Ms. Plomin. >> yes. >> Ms. Reynolds. >> no. >> Mr. Wholy. >> no, ma'am. >> >>,. >> Mr. Brown. >> (Inaudible). >> Mr. Ellinger. >> yes. >> Ms. Evans. >> yes. >> Mr. Farmer. (Inaudible). >> that vote reflects failure of the motion. Are there any other councilmembers who wish to offer amendments. >> I just -- I need to correct myself. I'm sorry. To cause you any frustration. The reading that you gave this ordinance tonight was the second reading I'm being told, not first reading. So, if there are no amendments, you can go ahead and take a motion to approve it. >> without U.S. In other action on it. >>- >> without any other action. >> can you repeat that. >> sure. The reading that the clerk gave the ordinance tonight was the second reading of the ordinance. Not the first reading. >> yes, it was. >> >> >> okay. so what we really have been doing is making motions to amend the second reading and so far, we haven't done anything. Are there any further amendments to be proposed? Seeing none, we'll take a roll call vote on the underlying second reading of the ordinance. As proposed and recommended by the planning commission. >> >> who was the mover and the seconder to approve? >> I didn't hear the motion. >> that would have been -- we did not get it back in the -- I see. I'm sorry. So, what I was asking for before, we need a motion and a second to approve the ordinance. Is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> and a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. >> >> Mr. Gibbs. >> yes. >> vice mayor kay. >> yes. >> Ms. Lamb. >> >> no. >> Mr. Mccurn. >> yes, ma'am. >> Mr. Moloney. >> no. >> >> thank you, sir. Ms. Mossotti. >> no. >> Ms. Plomin. >> yes. >> Ms. Reynolds. >> yes. >> Mr. Worley. >> yes, ma'am. >> Mr. Brown. >> yes. >> Mr. Ellinger. >> yes, ma'am. >> Ms. Evans. And Mr. Farmer. >> no. >> >> that vote reflects passage of the motion. Before we adjourn, if I May, I would like to thank everybody who came out tonight for your participation. And this will be going back to the planning commission for a development plan. Thank you all.