# Special Urban County Council Meeting - June 10, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · June 10, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/520 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/520?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-06-10 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: March 2, 2026 - **Length**: 20,672 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council convened on June 10, 2008, at 6:00 PM with Vice-Mayor Jim Gray presiding over the session. The meeting focused primarily on a single agenda item involving a zoning change request for property located at 2040 Sandersville Road. Council members conducted 2 formal votes during the proceedings and heard from 9 members of the public who provided comments on matters before the Council. The primary business of the evening centered on an ordinance to rezone 2040 Sandersville Road from R-3 (residential) to I-1 (industrial), which ultimately received approval from the Council. The meeting provided an opportunity for significant public input, with nearly a dozen citizens taking advantage of the public comment period to address the Council on various issues of community concern. ## Attendance The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council meeting on June 10, 2008 had ten members present and five members absent. **Present:** • Jim Gray • Ellinger • Henson • Lane • McChord • Myers • Stevens • Beard • Blues • Crosbie **Absent:** • DeCamp • Gorton • James • Stinnett • Blevins No council members arrived late to the meeting. With ten of the fifteen council members in attendance, a quorum was present to conduct official business. ## Votes and Decisions The Council conducted two roll call votes during the meeting, both related to a zoning change request for property at 2040 Sandersville Road. **Motion to Adopt Planning Commission Findings** [timestamp: 08:34] Councilmember Blues moved to adopt the findings of fact for conditional approval of the Planning Commission, with a second by Councilmember Myers. The motion passed unanimously with a 10-0 vote. All ten council members voted in favor: Ellinger, Gray, Henson, Lane, McChord, Myers, Stevens, Beard, Blues, and Crosbie. No members voted against or abstained. The approval included a specific condition requiring "a minimum 100' buffer and landscape area adjacent to the existing R-3 zone, containing a 10' tall earthen berm and passive recreational use, shall be provided." **Motion to Approve Zoning Ordinance** [timestamp: 08:47] Following the findings adoption, Councilmember Blues moved to approve the ordinance changing the zone from R-3 to I-1 for 2040 Sandersville Road, again seconded by Councilmember Myers. This motion also passed unanimously with a 10-0 vote. The same ten council members voted in favor: Ellinger, Gray, Henson, Lane, McChord, Myers, Stevens, Beard, Blues, and Crosbie. No members voted against or abstained. Both votes demonstrated complete council consensus on the zoning change request, with all present members supporting both the conditional approval findings and the final ordinance approval for the property rezoning from residential (R-3) to light industrial (I-1) use. ## Public Comment Nine residents spoke during the public comment period, all expressing opposition to a proposed zone change. The speakers raised consistent concerns about health impacts, noise, traffic, and property values. Pat Jones opened the public comment period [timestamp: 02:00], expressing concern that promises made to the community have not been kept and that the zone change would present health issues. Cynthia Bryant [timestamp: 02:30] opposed the zone change, citing the comprehensive plan and the impact on community activities and health. Sherry Potter [timestamp: 03:00] raised specific concerns about the health impact of asphalt fumes and noise on children, as well as potential effects on property values. Steve Bowen [timestamp: 03:30] presented a petition from residents opposing the zone change due to traffic, noise, and property value concerns. James Monroe [timestamp: 04:00] spoke on behalf of neighbors, expressing concerns about noise, lighting, and property values. PG Peoples [timestamp: 04:30] expressed disappointment that athletic facilities were not developed as previously planned and opposed bringing industrial sites closer to residents. David Cozart [timestamp: 05:00] opposed the zone change, citing the need for affordable housing and appropriate development instead. Ray Stumbo [timestamp: 05:30] focused on concerns about noise from industrial activities and questioned the adequacy of the proposed buffer zone. Mark McGowan [timestamp: 06:00] concluded the public comments by raising concerns about noise from industrial activities affecting property desirability. The public comments revealed unified community opposition centered on health concerns from industrial emissions, noise pollution, traffic impacts, declining property values, and disappointment over unfulfilled promises for community amenities like athletic facilities. ## Contested Items The Council meeting featured one significant contested item that drew substantial community opposition. **Zone Change from R-3 to I-1 for 2040 Sandersville Road** The primary source of contention during the meeting was a proposed zone change from R-3 (residential) to I-1 (industrial) for property located at 2040 Sandersville Road. Despite having received approval from the Planning Commission, the rezoning request faced significant opposition from area residents. Community members voiced strong concerns about the potential negative impacts of converting residential property to industrial use. Residents specifically cited worries about health implications, increased noise levels, and the potential decline in surrounding property values that could result from introducing industrial activities into what had been a residential area. The opposition highlighted the tension between development interests and community preservation, with residents arguing that the industrial zoning would be incompatible with the existing residential character of the neighborhood. The concerns raised by citizens focused on quality of life issues and the long-term effects such a zone change might have on their community. While the Planning Commission had already reviewed and approved the rezoning request through the standard review process, the substantial community pushback demonstrated the controversial nature of the proposal and the residents' determination to protect their neighborhood's residential character. ## Ordinance changing the zone from R-3 to I-1 for 2040 Sandersville Road [timestamp: 00:30] The Council considered an ordinance to rezone 13.63 acres at 2040 Sandersville Road from Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) to Light Industrial (I-1) zoning. The proposal included specific conditions for buffering and use restrictions. Multiple speakers participated in the discussion, including Jimmy Emmons, Jon Woodall, Cynthia Bryant, Pat Jones, and Sherry Potter. Additional input came from Steve Bowen, James Monroe, PG Peoples, David Cozart, Ray Stumbo, and Mark McGowan. The rezoning request involved changing the property from residential zoning that allows planned neighborhood development to light industrial zoning that permits manufacturing, warehousing, and similar commercial activities. The proposed conditions addressed concerns about the transition between industrial and residential uses through required buffering measures and limitations on certain types of industrial operations. The ordinance was approved by the Council, allowing the property owner to proceed with light industrial development under the specified conditions and restrictions. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Adopt the findings of fact for conditional approval of the Planning Commission - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approve the ordinance changing the zone from R-3 to I-1 for 2040 Sandersville Road --- ## Full transcript Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. We're waiting on Commissioner Askew. Is that working or is it shot? No, that's okay. Now it's going. Commissioner Askew is making a copy of the procedures. But I think I'm right. Susan, the clerk? Okay, Susan. You're going to read the order? The rule says that you read. Okay. Okay. The clerk will read the, give the first reading of the ordinance. Don't, don't. Do we need a roll call? Okay. We need a roll call first. We need a roll call first. Madam Clerk. Okay, I'll call the meeting to order and then we'll take a roll call. Do we need a roll call? Yes. Yes. Okay. Will you oblige that request? Yes, sir, I will. Thank you, ma'am. As soon as that thing stops squealing at me. All right. Okay, Mr. DeCamp. Mr. Ellinger. Here. Ms. Gorton. Mr. Gray. Here. Ms. Henson. Here. Ms. James. Mr. Lane. Here. Mr. McCord. Here. Mr. Myers. Here. Dr. Stephens. Present. Mr. Stennett. Mr. Beard. Present. Mr. Blevins. Mr. Blues. Here. And Ms. Crosby. That constitutes a quorum. So we have a quorum. You'll give us a second reading on the zone change. Susan. Now. Ordinance number one, an ordinance changing the zone from a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to a light industrial I-1 zone for a 13.63 net, 13.63 gross acres of property located at 2040 Sandersville Road, a portion of, subject to certain use and buffering restrictions imposed as conditions of granting the zone change, Woodall Realty Company, LLC. Okay. Thank you, Susan. Next on our procedure is swearing in of all the witnesses. So everybody who's planning to testify, if you'll just stand, including the staff, thank you. Raise your hand, please. Swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth. Yes. Thank you. All right. If y'all just stay with me for a second, I want to explain the procedure. I'm the presiding officer, and I'm able to make decisions that will exclude irrelevant and repetitious testimony from the record. That's part of the rules here. Council members can inform me when they believe testimony is irrelevant or repetitious, and I'm looking at this as we're talking here. Just stay with me for a second. All written materials have been submitted, right, to the staff. You all have got everything. When you speak, if you would, anybody who speaks, if you would identify yourself name, where you live, address, please. And first, the planning staff will first present the position of the staff. And you will also, is it true, Jimmy, the planning commission findings or not? My presentation, I'll be representing both the planning commission and the division of planning. It will be one presentation on the staff part. So you will share with us, then, the --? Thank you. I'll explain that during the presentation. Okay. And then the Petitioner, after the planning staff presents its position and findings, its case, and then the opponent will present their case, then the staff will have an opportunity to make additional comments. And then the Petitioner will, is allowed rebuttal evidence. And then there's a closing summation by the opponent and by the Petitioner. At the end of that, the counsel will ask questions of the staff, the Petitioner and the opponent. The Petitioner and the opponent are entitled to rebut any new evidence that's brought up by the counsel questioning. After that, the hearing is closed, and the counsel votes to adopt findings of fact. The counsel votes on ordinance by roll call vote. Okay. Have I forgotten anything? You all have been here a lot longer than I have on this. And, Logan, you've been, you said you've been, you were counsel for the City of Hopkinsville and for the Planning Commission for nine years? Eight. All right. So I'm sure that you'll correct me when I'm out of line. Okay. So, Jimmy, I think Mr. Vice Mayor. Yes, sir. Do we have some timelines for the parties to make their testimony? Good point. Traditionally, we have asked for 15 to 30 minutes. Isn't that right? John. Vice Mayor, I'm glad that you've been to a 15-minute limit. And I don't intend to introduce any witnesses, although I've identified some on my witness list. And unless something comes up at the council and members have questions, ladies and gentlemen, 15 minutes is fine with me. Fifteen? Yes, sir. Great. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lane. All right. Jimmy. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the council. My name is Jimmy Emmons. I'm a senior planner with the Division of Planning. I'll be representing both the Planning Commission and the Division of Planning in my presentation. Before I get started, I need to submit a few documents for the official record. First, I have a legal notice that this meeting has met its legal notice requirements. Next, I have an affidavit from Mr. Bill Salih stating that the required mail notification went out, and not only went out to surrounding property owners within 400 feet, but also to three neighborhood association areas that were on record. That was the Highlands Neighborhood Association, the Cold Stream Station Neighborhood Association, and the Oakwood Neighborhood Association. I also want to submit a copy of the 2007 comprehensive plan, the current zoning ordinance, and subdivision regulations. Finally, a recommendation of the Urban County Planning Commission, and a staff exhibit that I've already passed out at your seats with the yellow highlighting on it. I'll refer to that briefly during my presentation. This zone change request is MAR 2008-2, and as mentioned previously, it's a zone change request from an R3 planned neighborhood residential zone to an I1 zone, which is our light industrial zone. This is for about 14 acres of property with an address of 2040 Sandersville Road. However, the property is not actually, you can't actually get to it from Sandersville Road. We're putting up on SAM just kind of an aerial view of the overall area. I think it needs, ah, there we go. This is just a real quick aerial view of the property. The property is located north of New Circle Road. It's in the Georgetown Road corridor. We've got Georgetown Road going north, Sandersville Road along and through here. The subject property is also generally bounded by Jaggie Fox Way, which is an industrial collector which comes down and stubs into the southernmost portion of the 14-acre property. The property is actually bounded by industrial uses to the west, residential uses to the north, a church, and some vacant properties, not vacant properties, but some yet undeveloped properties. These properties, if we can flip that 90 degrees, there we go. I've got up on the board and also on the overhead the surrounding zoning of the adjacent properties. The subject property, as we mentioned, is zoned R3. The properties to the north are zoned R3. To the east, we have a single property that is still zoned AU, Agricultural Urban. We have properties, the undeveloped properties that you saw along here are currently zoned I-1 for light industrial and I-2, which is heavy industrial, to the west. The comprehensive plan, which we have both up on the board and on the overhead, the comprehensive plan recommends medium density residential for the subject property, located right here, as it does for the residential neighborhood. It recommends semi-public uses for the Imani Baptist Church, light industrial for the vacant properties, heavy industrial for the properties just immediately to the west and the south, and light industrial for the properties along Jaggie Fox Way. And we do have, it doesn't come across very well on through here, but we do have just a couple of pictometry pictures of the existing site. This is the 14-acre site right here. As you can see in the picture, we've got Jaggie Fox Way, which currently comes and stubs into the property. It is planned to continue through the subject property, and it is planned to eventually work its way out towards Georgetown Road. The properties, the uses right over here are an existing asphalt transfer station. That's where you can see the big tanks. Those properties are currently zoned I-2. This is not a facility where they actually create asphalt, but they do store the asphalt and transfer it onto trucks so that they can take it out to job sites to build roads and pavement. You can see up in the upper corner the edge of the Connor Woods subdivision as it's still developing. As of the time that we took the aerial photography, not all of the houses along this cul-de-sac, which is Polk Lane, have been built. I do not know today whether all of them have been built or not. There still might be some undeveloped lots in the subdivision. Just to the east of the subject property is the edge of the Imani Baptist Church property. If we can look at the last picture, this is just going a little bit north and looking at the Connor Woods subdivision. You can get the edge of the industrial area towards Sandersville Road and Georgetown Road. We've got the Connor Woods residential subdivision and Polk Lane, which is the cul-de-sac that comes down here. This is the site of the Imani Baptist Church, which was under construction at the time of the picture. The subject property is clipped a little bit on the bottom corner of this picture. The Planning Commission, as they were reviewing the zone change, they also reviewed the associated development plan, which we have on the board. Once again, to orient everybody, Georgetown Road, Sandersville Road, and Jaggie Fox Way. The subject property is located right here. The applicant is proposing uses that would be in association with the asphalt transfer station that are next door. They were proposing a large warehouse facility, a building where they could clean off their large equipment, and essentially a large parking lot where they can park the large equipment that they have. Also important with this development plan, there is a detention basin and a buffer that was adopted by the Planning Commission. This buffer is about 100 feet wide. It includes a 10-foot tall berm and some landscaping that will be in and along through that area. It also has a significant feature. The Planning Commission recommended through conditional zoning that a passive recreational component be a part of this land use buffer. Right now in the Connor Woods, there is the beginning of a pedestrian walkway through the HOA area, which is the buffer between the industrial and this portion of Connor Woods. The applicant is proposing to extend that trail facility, that pedestrian facility that can go down and through there, so you can start getting a longer loop in through that area. A little bit of the history on this proposed zone change. This portion of the property, this 14 acres, was actually included in a larger tract of land, the entire tract of land that included the existing Connor Woods subdivision, the Imani Baptist Church, and the subject property. At that time, whenever the Planning Commission, I think it was 2003, rezoned this property from I-1 to the existing R-3 zoning. At that time, on this portion of the subject property, was proposed a large athletic facility that consisted of about three or four baseball fields and some associated buildings. It was going to be an athletic complex for that use. Important to the Planning Commission's decision was that that proposed athletic facility created a buffer between the proposed residential at that time and the existing heavy industrial uses along the way. The Imani Baptist Church was already approved, although it wasn't in existence. It was already approved. Whenever the property was originally zoned I-1, they went in front of the board. The Imani Baptist Church, as a church use, was an allowed use, whether the property was zoned I-1 or whether it was zoned R-3. The Planning Commission at that time found that the R-3 zoning was appropriate and rezoned it to R-3. The applicants submitted this zone change because, in reality, the athletic club facility, the large recreational facility, has just not occurred, and it doesn't appear that it will occur. So the applicants came in with the proposed I-1 zoning use along with the 100-foot buffer through that area. Staff met with the applicant for several months in order to try and come to an agreement on some sort of use for the proposed property. Ultimately, it came down to the point where the Division of Planning could not agree with the applicant's proposal, and the Division of Planning had recommended disapproval, and our findings for that are in the staff report in your packet. The Planning Commission, after about an hour hearing, eventually voted 5-3 to approve the proposed zone change to I-1. They did so with some new conditional zoning restrictions for the I-1 property. Those would be a buffering restriction that they would have a minimum 100-foot buffer along with the 10-foot tall berm and the passive recreational use and a list of prohibited conditions. They found that that zoning would be appropriate The major justification was that the land use buffer for the athletic facilities that is no longer going to be constructed on the property and that the applicant's proposed buffer would be a beneficial land use buffer provided between the proposed area. And also that the property currently has industrial zoning on three sides of the subject property. All in all, the Planning Commission did recommend approval. I won't go into any of the specifics of the staff handout that I did hand out, but it essentially goes through a little bit of the history of the subject property. And on the last page of this handout has an exhibit that shows the existing allowed and prohibited uses on the subject property should the zone change not be approved. And essentially everything that is in a box is permitted under today's zoning and everything that is striked through is limited through there. In general, the uses that are allowed on the 14-acre use property are uses like churches and athletic facilities and schools, things that don't have a permanent residency there. If you have any questions for me, I'll be available for questions at any time throughout the hearing. And, of course, I'm available for any questions now. So the Planning Commission did recommend approval subject to the findings on your report. Yes, sir. I've got a quick question, Jim. When would be the time that we would ask the question? I've forgotten. When would we ask, drill into more of the planning staff's objections? You sort of referenced them and you said they're in our materials. It's hard to say because ultimately we did come to this approval recommendation as the staff. It's hard to say whether we would or wouldn't be able to get to an approval recommendation, but at the heart of the matter was how big of a buffer is proposed. I have an exhibit that I can show you that kind of visually illustrates the staff's concern. So you're sort of answering my question. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. No, I didn't mean to say that you were not. I was asking when would we be able to ask that question later or now. I mean, it's good for me now. I'm curious as to, you said you all met for months and so you're going to now tell us what. I can. Okay. I believe the council can ask me questions at any time during the proceedings. Watch your head, Dr. Stephens. Thank you. This is just a graphic that we had prepared for the planning commission hearing. It shows visually the staff's concern. This is the existing Connorwood subdivision. The area that is bright green is an existing HOA area. It is not a part of today's zone change request. But it does factor in as an important thing because it created a buffer between the industrial uses here and the residential uses here. The existing conditional zoning restrictions on the property as it's zoned R3. Yes, sir. What's HOA? I'm sorry. Homeowners Association. Okay. Thank you. The red line on this property represents the existing conditional zoning restrictions. Any residential use, even though this property is zoned R3, along with the rest of the 60 acres of the original zone change, no residential uses were allowed to get any closer to the industrial uses than this red line. And so from the planning staff's perspective, we did spend a lot of time talking with the applicant because the area that's highlighted in the turquoise is the applicant's proposed land use buffer. And as you can see, some of the industrial uses will be getting a little bit closer to the residential than the residential could have gotten to the industrial. That was one of the things that was discussed at great length with the staff and the applicant. And so essentially, this area and through here, the planning commission did feel that the proposed buffer here in the turquoise, as proposed by the applicant, which will also include a 100-foot distance with a 10-foot berm and much landscaping through there, that is, they felt that that was appropriate and that there had been substantial changes of an economic nature on the subject property in order to recommend approval of the requested light industrial zoning. Did that answer your question? I think so. I just maybe just summarized. Is the white space between then the red line and the turquoise, does that represent, does that white space represent where the delta or the difference between what you were recommending and what the applicant was offering? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That is a very good way to sum up. Like 75 feet at that? About that. Okay. The existing light green buffer area, it, at its smallest point, is about 130 feet wide. At its largest point, about 300 feet wide. It averages out to about a 215-foot buffer versus the 100-foot buffer that was proposed by the applicant. I can turn that, if you want me to, I can turn that back over to the proposed development plan. Is that good with you all? Okay. I believe that concludes my prepared remarks. Should the council have any questions of me now or later, I'll be happy to be available. Okay. Anybody have any questions of Mr. Emmons now? All right. If not, then we'll. Mr. Woodall. Mr. Vice Mayor. Mr. I believe under the, under council procedures, if Mr. Woodall had some questions of Mr. Emmons. Oh, is that right? Yeah. All right. That's fine. Or if someone else had questions of Mr. Emmons that was going to make a presentation, that would be appropriate at this time. I don't know if anybody had any other questions for Mr. Emmons. Or they could either come now or later, right? That would be up to you. But, yeah, since he just got finished, if you. Right. Okay. That's fine. What was that? No, that's fine. I don't see anybody saying that they have a question for Mr. Emmons. But he is available. Right. I mean, we can ask questions of Mr. Emmons later, and the council can as well. Council may. Ladies and gentlemen of the council, thank you for hearing me tonight. Dr. Stevens, I'm sorry I shaded you out with my exhibit. I very much appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation to you. I understand you've had a long day. And I will do my absolute best to make my comments as brief as possible. As Mr. Emmons indicated, we had a fairly detailed hearing before the planning commission. Let me give you a little bit of the rest of the story on this property. This particular property, Vice Mayor Gray, you'd requested kind of some other information on how we got where we are. The actual, the subject property is in a foreclosure action currently. Okay? The residential property over here, many of those homes are also in foreclosure. Same developer had the entire project. The applicant was involved in the construction of all this, so was, you know, possessed with intimate details of what was going on along the way and so forth. And that's really how we got from here, or there to here, so to speak. The bank, just to be perfectly candid with you, agreed to carve this property out of the foreclosure. We had a use for it that made a lot of sense. We had a user for it that made a lot of sense. And really, we took it from there. Now, I wasn't involved in the original zoning of this property, and I think the process worked the way it's supposed to work in the course of the planning commission, but the zoning and subdivision committee meetings found out that the Imani Baptist Church wanted to have something to say about how this property was developed, because apparently, you know, Mr. Miller, the former developer, he'd worked with them in trying to come up with his own development plan. But what we were talking about was roughly 13 acres that at one particular time was supposed to have ball fields and an athletic facility. I mean, that is a very, very costly thing to do, especially the athletic facility. And for whatever reason, I mean, it's just not going to come into fruition. I don't know, can't speak to what all happened there. I know it's a multimillion-dollar effort, but it's not going to happen. So the question becomes then, what do we do with this? I mean, it's a 13-acre parcel. It, you know, very recently was industrial. It's bounded on three sides, all three sides by industrial property, and I, too, here. So the question becomes, in working with staff, is there something that we can do to come to an agreement as to how this property might develop that would satisfy everybody? And staff made it very clear right off the bat. Their issue, they understood fully that the athletic facility wasn't going to happen. But their issue had to do with, what are you going to do to break up, what are you going to do to transition between the houses right here and the property that you proposed to put back to I-1, which is a light industrial use? They were very concerned with the size of that buffer. Well, very frankly, I mean, the rubber has to meet the road somewhere on, you know, how big that buffer can be so you can determine precisely how much property you're going to be left with, how much usable property, okay? This is a 13-acre tract, 13.6. So instead of negotiating back and forth and going with them and saying, well, we can do a one-acre buffer or we can do a two-acre buffer, we just went right to brass tacks with it. They knew where we were as far as what the user was going to have to have to utilize this property. They already operate the transfer station here, so it made all the sense in the world that they could utilize this property. But there comes a point that it just doesn't make economic sense, folks, and that's just the name of the game. I'm sorry. And really what it came down to was the staff wanted a 200-foot buffer, which would leave us with roughly six-and-a-half acres remaining. The buffer that you see up on the screen here is a little smaller than that, and it leaves the site at 8.63 acres. I will tell you at the Planning Commission that Commissioner Penn and Commissioner Ayton, generally some pretty tough cookies when it comes to criticism of development plans, seized upon that on the principal issue here, which is what is adequate, what's an adequate buffer. And, you know, we had several meetings with staff, and don't fault them one bit, but we just couldn't come to an agreement on what adequate was. That's all there is to it, Mr. Emmons will tell you. They wanted that section in red there, and frankly, you know, 75 or 100 feet may not seem like much, but when you go around that entire property, I mean, and you take two acres out of this as usable, it just makes it not feasible. And so what we came up with is this particular plan, which you can see is a 10-foot earthen berm and equates to just about five acres. So we're cutting that right off the top of this as a developer in an effort to compromise. And we met with the church on it, and I think we're okay there, we'll see. But we made every possible effort we could to come to an agreement on this thing. Like I said, we didn't haggle back and forth with anybody. We came in with our very best effort right off the bat, and frankly, I really think it's a good one. The other arguments that we heard at the commission against this particular zone change were that there are other uses within the I-1 category, conditional uses, that we could look to. And frankly, we just don't think that's genuine. When you're talking, and Commissioner Penn seized right on it, you couldn't put a kindergarten or a nursery school or a fraternity house or a child care center in this area. You wouldn't want to do that with these types of uses already next door. What makes the most sense is what we've proposed here, which is a light industrial use. And what we're talking about is an equipment storage yard. We're storing heavy equipment in the off-season when it's not being used. And at the planning commission hearing, I can't say about tonight, but at the planning commission hearing, we didn't have, I think we had one objector that lived in this area right here that didn't like the idea of this. Nobody came to speak out against it. Frankly, to me, that makes sense, because I would rather have a property with this buffer, equipment stored over here, part of the year, than ball fields and lights. My kids are right in the middle of that, and I can tell you what that's like all summer long. So the planning commission, as Mr. Rimmons indicated, voted five to three in favor of our plan. We think it's a very good one. And, you know, I think the system worked here as far as the effort of compromise, and we really tried to put our best foot forward in good faith to do something here that not only made sense, but that did adequately buffer and transition this residential property here from the proposed use. From an economic development perspective, we just think this is a win-win. We're talking about increased property tax value on this property for the city, the employees that will man it, and it just makes a lot of sense to have this here and used in conjunction with the current facility, and then, you know, that user will be responsible for building Jaggie Fox Way as part of our development plan. It just makes all the sense in the world. And really the only issue we had with staff, frankly, was the buffer, and the buffer that they wanted to use was, frankly, it was just too large. And when compared with what we've come up with here, which is 10 feet with trees plus all the land behind it, I just don't think in good faith anybody can say it's not adequate. I'll stop it there. And like I said, I have witnesses here. If there are specific questions that I can't answer, but I know you've been here all day, and I could talk all night. We knew we were going to be here. Okay. Okay. Vice Mayor, let me enter our sign notification affidavit in the record, if I may. I'd move introduction at this time. Can you give it to Logan? Is Logan behind there? He's still there. Oh, you're over here. In Block 2. Okay. Logan, this says presentation of direct evidence by Petitioner subject to cross-examination and redirect. What does that mean? That means that folks that are opposing the application may ask questions. Can I ask now of Mr. Woodall? I think it would be appropriate for the counsel to ask Mr. Woodall questions first, if you have them. All right. Okay. At the conclusion of all presentations, the counsel will ask questions of the staff, Petitioner, and opponent. Right. So we can do it now? Yeah. All right. With Mr. Emmons, you all went ahead and asked questions. Well, we might as well. I mean, while it's fresh, right? Yeah. Mr. Woodall has just made his presentation. He's up. I think it would be appropriate to ask questions now. Okay. It's fresh. Okay. Council Member Crosby. I'm not sure, Mr. Woodall, if you know the answer to this question regarding the former developer and the athletic facility, but with the former developer, was that something that he was going to develop? Was the athletic facility, or was that a partnership that he had with somebody else? I know that sounds like a major athletic complex, and that's not something that you typically hear. It's my understanding that it was a situation where I believe he had talked to certain private investors who either committed or didn't commit. Clearly, I don't think it was something that he contemplated taking on on his own, but once again, Council Member Crosby, I was not involved. But I would say, just knowing what I do about what these cost, I mean, I would say he was going to have to take on a partner. And then I will have a follow-up question probably for the church regarding the use of this and maybe a relationship they had with that developer later. Okay. All right. Other questions? Mr. Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Woodall, the berm will be planted with some type of vegetation, I understand. When that has an opportunity to mature to some level, what would you say the visual barrier will be from the residents into this property, roughly? Well, Mr. Emmons will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the landscape ordinance will dictate what has to be planted in this berm. But if it starts 10 feet tall, let's just say it's evergreen trees. I mean, how tall does your tallest evergreen tree get? It will be a large buffer. Very high. Higher than any equipment. Fairly soon, though, it will be a 20-foot barrier in total, probably. Yes, that is absolutely a reasonable statement, I think. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Sorry, he cut me off. I wasn't done. Terrible. I'm so sorry. Just what would be considered off-season? Well, I think in the asphalt business, off-season means when it's not 45 degrees and rising, correct? Thanksgiving. I know it's hard probably to get specific months, so that would be typically November and April. And the same in our business. When it starts getting wet and cold, you can't do much. That's all. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Woodall, just getting back to the size, shape of the buffer, it would be 10 feet high and 100 feet wide, all landscaped. Well, some of it's 10-foot tall earth and berm, and then some of it is in the form of land use. It's not all berm. So there will be a walking, see that's actually, Councilman, that's actually a sidewalk that goes down through there. It's a walking path that goes all the way behind it. And there will have to be a fence back here as well. So there will be, the buffer then would consist of a sidewalk, a trail paved, I gather, probably what, 8, 10 feet wide, something like that? Something like that. That would be behind the berm. On the residential church side. Yes, sir. And then the fence. And what would be the height and, you know, composition of the fence? As far as the composition of the height and composition, I think that is also spelled out in the ordinance as to what that has to be. And, in fact, 6 feet, I believe that might even be one of the conditions that the Planning Commission placed on the project, which we had no problem with. But it's typically 6 feet. And then beyond the fence would be the berm where there would be a berm. Is that? That's right. So you would have the fence right here up against the properties, and then the walking area, and then the berm. And, you know, I tell you what, they'll also, most likely I suppose the fence will be on the inside of the berm as well. Just to keep people off the property. On the outside? Inside. Inside the berm. So the berm, I'm sorry about that, for the confusion. The fence will be on the inside, and the berm and the walking paths will all be on the outside. But all this is built by the developers. So that the residents of Connor Woods would have access to the berm, in effect. The walking path. Well, the walking path. To the walking path, yes, sir. But they could get on the berm, too, I gather. I suppose. If there was no other, I mean, if you wanted to. I mean, if there's a kid around and there's not a fence, they'll be on the berm. I suppose that's a possibility. But I just wanted to get that. Now, there would be some un-bermed section of the buffer. Am I right or wrong on that? The berm, as it was approved by the Planning Commission, goes all the way around this part of the property to transition it from the residential. Okay. Now, originally, the entire property was considered to be a buffer, as I gather. In other words, all of the 13 acres of the subject property, as a sports complex, that was to be the, you know, the buffer or the continuation of the buffer from Sandersville. I mean, that was the original premise. Correct. And one of the basis for approval of this zone change by the Planning Commission was that that's not going to happen. Right. And a last question for now. You said, and I think, you know, quite correctly, that the allowable uses under R3, such as kindergartens, daycare centers, and so on, would not be appropriate for the area because it's surrounded on three sides by industrial. Your solution is to bring industrial closer to the residential. I wouldn't call it a solution. I don't know if that's the right phraseology for it, Councilman. All I know is this. Somebody had a grand plan along the way to put an athletic facility here, and, you know, I wasn't privy to that, and maybe it was a fine idea, but it's failed, and it's not going to happen. So we've got a serious land crisis in this county. All right. We just went through a very exhaustive comprehensive plan process, and we decided not to expand the urban services area. And one of the reasons is we said that we've got land all in and about the current urban services area boundary that needs to be developed. Well, this is one of those properties, and the plan that's been proposed and that you have before you is an absolute win-win for everybody because we take land out of non-usable inventory that is going to be used for a productive purpose and still have a adequate, what we feel is an adequate buffer, between the current residential uses and the proposed use. It's five acres all the way around it, and we'll just have to agree to disagree that that's not an adequate buffer. Well, you know, I don't want to come to a conclusion about the adequacy of the buffer at this juncture, but just pointing out that the, you know, that the solution, the alternative here is, from the applicant's perspective, is more industrial in an area that was intended to be a buffer. So, and I understand the position you're, you know, you're arguing from. I just wanted to see it a little bit from a different perspective. And I think this is, this was the staff's concern as. Well, and I think the original, the original intent of this land use buffer to begin with was to protect this residential area from spills from these storage tanks over here. And with the proposed use, that's still accomplished. Just a small question here. Mr. Woodall, what is the large building just above the tanks, that right there, yes? That is a machine garage area. Thank you. Mr. Woodall. Oh, okay. Right here. I have a couple questions. You stuck up on me last time, too. I'm wearing two hats this evening. I'm Cynthia Bryant. I live at 2009 Polk Lane. There was some concern about the runoff from the industrial uses that would run into the Connor Woods neighborhood as well as the detention basing. And looking on your plan here for your additional detention basing, it looks as though it abuts up to the houses as well as into our current retention basing, the residential basing. Okay. The detention, what this particular exhibit is supposed to show you is simply how the land use and landscape buffers lay out on the property. The detention area is part of the original development plan, and all the stormwater issues and so forth will have to be, if there are any, and to date I don't know that there are any, will have to be worked out. And the development plan itself comes back before the planning commission for a public hearing. Right. And all those particular issues are on the table. And, you know, if there are any, they'll be worked out before then. But the rework of that detention area, to my understanding, is all part of the development plan. Also, have you developed a criteria for sound screening? A criteria for sound screening? I don't know that, just to be frank with you, that our landscape ordinance requires us to develop a criteria for sound screening at this point. I know that that issue came up. Mr. Ayton raised it at the planning commission level. And, you know, frankly, a 10-foot earthen berm together with trees all across the top of it, I think it's going to address any sound issues, if any there are. But, once again, you're not talking about a proposed use here that is equipment 24-7, 365 days a week or a year. Excuse me. Okay. I have additional questions later. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Mr. Beard. I have a question, and I'm not sure whether it's for you, Mr. Woodall, or whether it's for Mr. Emmons. In my vague memory, and it is a vague memory, the Polk Lane portion of the residential development was not included in the preliminary development plans initially. And that area was also used for ball park and the whole athletic complex, as I remember. And most of the residential development was along Georgetown Road and a little bit of Sandersville around the corner on Sandersville. And the rest was dedicated to a very, very complete, maybe more than four ball fields. Softball fields and baseball fields, and tucked in somewhere, hither and yon, some soccer fields. And then, of course, an indoor facility also. So, you know, I'm not sure what we were buffering from what when is where we were leading. And some of this was brought about by the questions Council Member Blues brought up. You know, the time and place of the intention at one time changes drastically when this whole thing gets reconfigured. And that's our point. Is that correct, Jim? Do you remember? Your memory is very accurate. I have an exhibit of what the- Thank you. I have a lot of history on this particular piece of property. At the time that this property was requested for the original athletic facility, it did have four ball fields and a large athletic complex that went in through there. This that you see highlighted is not the entire- then it's included more property because as time went on, this entire 60 acres was limited to 100 residential units, and this plan did not have the full 100. Things that have changed since the time the original- Oh, are you okay? I'm sorry. The things that have changed on the final development plan, the Imani Baptist Church was reoriented. The Polk Lane was continued on down with the cul-de-sac that you see in the pictures, and this went from essentially a four-ball field to a three-ball field facility. This baseball field and these facilities that you see down in through here were originally associated with the church. That was their recreation. facilities not part of this property. But with the development plan that was approved by the Planning Commission subsequently whenever they extended Polk Lane down into the cul-de-sac, that did use up the full 100 dwelling units that this property was limited to. I'm not sure where we exactly where we got from that, except I just wanted to clear that up in the minds of some of the individuals here on the council that weren't around when we went through this process once before. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, sir. Next on our procedure is a presentation by those who oppose the plan. Our procedure calls for an opening statement by the opponent. And typically that is if there's counsel representing the opponent, but I don't believe that's the case here tonight. So everybody who's signed up, if it's okay, I'll just call y'all names and you can come up to the platform. If you'll just give your name and your address, and we'll ask if you can limit your comments if you can manage it to three minutes. I sort of have the unpopular duty of being the timekeeper. So we also have a clock up here. Is that right? Is that working tonight or not? All right. Okay. And the other thing that I said the unpopular duty of is asking you if you would, if somebody else has said something already and it's repetitious, then try to avoid that if that's possible. So thank you very much. First on our list is Pat Jones, and then Cynthia, you're second on the list. And then Mr. Potter. Ms. Jones, and if you would, just introduce yourself, plus your address. That's for our records. Sure. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Vice Mayor, members of counsel, my name is Pat Jones. I live at 1660 Atoma Drive in Connorwood Subdivision. I was one of the first few residents in Connorwoods. One of the things that attracted me to Connorwoods was the athletic complex that was proposed, the space between us and the industrial complex behind us. And I feel one by one our promises have gone by the wayside. And I think this is yet another effort by the builder to save himself. And I feel that allowing this complex to move even closer to us is going to present more health issues and just complicate things. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Cynthia Bryant. Ms. Bryant, you're next on their list. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm Cynthia Bryant. I reside at 2009 Polk Lane. I have someone here that's going to yield their three minutes to me, so I'll take six minutes if you don't mind. I have a video I want to show you our community. Turn the lights a little bit, please. This is where I live at 2009 Polk Lane with my grandsons. This is our community. We have a mixed community. It's very diverse. It's grown since 2005. And we have a lot of kids that live in this community, and the community is steadily growing. So we just want to show you our homes and our community. We're very proud of them. And this is our church, Armani Baptist Church, which I'm a member of. And this is the property that we proposed to add the t-ball fields, soccer fields, tennis courts. We have a summer camp that's taking place now. There will be a playground for our daycare facilities and family activities. This is the asphalt company that's currently zoned I-2, heavy industrial uses on Jaggie Fox Way. As you can see, this is a high security facility, and these are the type of vehicles that they store there. This is the view from Jaggie Fox Way of our church, the property in question. This is also some of their storage as well. And once again, this is the type of vehicles they store on their property. This is the buffer area in the back of our neighborhood that is from the existing I-1 uses. They're not high security, and we really don't have a problem with them. This is a part of the development area where they want to put 50,000 square foot storage bays, steam facility to clean their trucks, a paved parking lot. This is from the Planning Commission meeting in 2004 where Mr. Emmons gave his presentation and the R-1 zoning, R-3 zoning was approved. For the aquifer than either heavy industrial rather than an industrial use or an intense residential use. So we feel like this is best for that portion of the property also. Obviously, the last proposal had houses built right up against our line, and we felt like we're familiar with what the church is trying to do, and Butchco is very supportive of that and felt like this proposal sort of blends in good with what the church has there and what the community is trying to do and for most part is open space and would probably be less hazard there than an I-1 user. I mean, you know, if you had another I-1 user there that they clearly could do. I just don't think we're any kind of a hazard, but I think this is a good plan because it doesn't put a lot of density of residential people living right up against us. As you can see, I've included the video from the Planning Commission meeting in 2004. Basically, what I've asked Mr. Cosart to pass out for you is information that includes Mr. Woodall's application for the zone change as well as the minutes from the zoning minutes of March 2008. Basically, I'm saying in my proposal that their request is inappropriate. It does not agree with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The things that they have asked for definitely goes against the plan, and if you look in the minutes that was provided from the zoning meeting, it addresses some of their requests, but we do not believe that this is appropriate for our community. It's a planned community. There's a lot of activities going there for the children, for the families, for the church. One of the things that attracted me to this community was the activities planned by the church. I am a member of a Monte Baptist church, and I don't believe that the I-1 zoning is appropriate for this neighborhood. Do you have any questions? Thank you, Ms. Bryant. Next on our list is Mr. Potter, and who was it that granted ... What's your name? I'm sorry. Matthew. So, Matthew, were you down on the list before ... Okay. Okay. All right, sir. Thank you very much. Excuse me one second, Mr. Vice Mayor. Yes, sir. I think it would be appropriate if Mr. Woodall has questions for the folks as they present testimony to ask them questions if he wishes to. If you want to. Okay. Okay. All right. You have that option then. Okay. Ms. ... Hello. My name is Sherry Potter. I live at 1645 Atoma Drive. I have some ... Me and I think the other residents have some serious concerns about turning this from an R-1 to an I-1. My primary issue is the asphalt. I do not believe that it's going to stay solely for trucks during the off-season. It's going to be connected to the asphalt plant, and if you look at the individual components of asphalt, they're toxic. I know there's EPA restrictions, but every single ingredient that is listed in asphalt, it's toxic, be it fumes or dust. No tree is going to stop the fumes from emitting into our environment and infecting our children. Our children are going to be the ones at the highest risk. Elderly people who have impaired health, they're going to suffer. It's going to increase COPD for people that are exposed to those chemicals. It will cause increased cardiovascular issues. Some of the chemicals, there's one called PHA, and volatile organic substances are known carcinogenics in asphalt. So you're asking them to take the buffer that we have that is a very good buffer and asking us to turn that into a facility for trucks so they can rinse the asphalt off these trucks, which are volatile, because asphalt is a volatile substance, and ask us to have all those substances near our families. It's not good enough to put a child care center there, but it's okay for our children to go outside and play in this environment, and our children are going to be the ones with the highest risk if it can cause learning disabilities, the chemicals in the asphalt. It can cause diabetes when they're older. Along with that, we will have a noise factor from the traffic, from the trucks. I mean, I hear it now. So if it's in my backyard, which it literally will be, we're going to hear it whenever the off-season is available. And it's also going to do significant damage to our property value, which has already been destroyed, but I've heard of at least 25 percent due to the foreclosures of Mr. Mill's properties that are already in foreclosure. So I really think that you need to consider, would you want your children and your family members having to be exposed to this for the next 15 to 20 years? Because I do believe that it will eventually hold asphalt. I've been told that eventually asphalt will be in that area. It will not just stay as storage facility for trucks. And that's all I really have to say about this. You can review what I have. Everything I have is cited from the CDC, ASTRA, the EPA. It's all credible sources. So if you have any questions, feel free to ask. All right. Thank you, Ms. Potter. Mr. Bowen is next on our list. Go ahead and start. Mr. Bowen, if you'll just give us your name and your address for the record, please. Thank you. My name is Steve Bowen. My address is 1993 Lost Trail Lane. I'm having Joe Smith hand out an exhibit that I wanted the council members to see. I am the president of Cold Stream Station Homeowners Association. We're located at the intersection of Georgetown and Sandersville Road. Our subdivision is located approximately about 300 yards from the parcel that the petitioner is requesting to be rezoned. Several of our association's residents have told me that they disapprove of the zone change from residential to light industrial. Specifically, five residents signed a disagreement notice indicating they disagreed with the proposed zoning change. You've been given a copy of these. They include Sondra Coleman of 1824 Arbor Station Way, Thelma Gerkins of 885 Hidden Stream Drive, Ryan P. Geron of 1996 Arbor Station Way, Ed Owens of 1857 Sandersville Road, and Douglas Seahorn of 1901 Lost Trail Lane. I'm just going to briefly summarize their comments, but they include, number one, they believe this was zoned residential and it should be kept that way due to the fact that the parcel borders a residential subdivision and a church. This rezoning may devalue the property values in our area. Another industrial building will increase the already high volume of traffic in the area. There are concerns of increased noise, smells coming from the asphalt equipment, and increased activity in the area late at night. The council needs to reconsider the recreational facility plan for the proposed area. We have very few recreational facilities within walking distance of our neighborhood. And number six, this area of north Lexington particularly within the second council district already has a high concentration of industrial zones that are located in close proximity of residential areas, which one would not find in other parts of our city. Therefore, we would like for the council to carefully consider these issues before deciding to rezone this tract of land. The issues I have just listed need to be addressed. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Bowen. Next on our list is Mr. Monroe. Jeff Monroe. I yield to James Monroe. Okay. And Gwen Monroe is also. Gwen. All right. James, you're up. You're on. My name is James Monroe. I live at 2000 Willis Drive. I also own 2001 Polk Lane, 2005 Polk Lane, 2020 Willis Drive, and 2016 Willis Drive. I am currently a director of the Connor Woods Homeowners Association, which was not notified with the other associations that were notified. I'm here to speak on behalf of my neighbors who were unable to attend this meeting. Like my neighbors, I chose to invest in Connor Woods as a place to raise my family because the master development plan was very appealing initially. We were all attracted by the lure of a multimillion-dollar sports complex and a large community-oriented church to surround our small neighborhood. This made our neighborhood very attractive for the young families with children. Although hopes for the athletic complex has been lost, the proposed asphalt vehicle storage facility is not at all compliant with the family-friendly layout we were promised in the master development plan. The proposed facility raises concerns about noise, lighting, odor, and traffic that would be detrimental to the peace and well-being. We have many small children living here, and adding this facility to our neighborhood raises serious concerns for their safety. The facility will not only take away from the characters of our neighborhood, but will also further diminish the values of our home. Connor Woods is a small neighborhood with only 100 homes. The property values in our neighborhood have already been plagued with 23 foreclosures, and that number continues to rise each week. Over half of these foreclosed homes border the property in question, and we raise the question that if the developer-builder is having such difficulty selling his properties with the current zoning the way it is, surrounded by the industrial zone, what hope do we have for the future if you approve this proposal and we have an asphalt plant 100 feet from our back door? I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and on behalf of the neighbors of Connor Woods, I respectfully ask each of you to vote no to this zoning proposal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Monroe. Did you also speak, James, for Martha Monroe? Okay. All right. And Mr. PG Peoples, you're up. Looks like I've either been talking to people or watching you all on the TV all day. PG Peoples, president, CEO of Urban League Lexington-Fayette County, and chairman of the Fayette County Local Development Corporation that's a component of the Urban League. That's our development corporation. The Urban League Development Corporation started working with the initial developer in this project way back at conception. We had a pretty integral role in working with the developer. First, we played a role in working with the neighborhood associations around in Oakwood, selling them to the idea about what the Connor Woods project would be about. We then proceeded to make our own investment in the Connor Woods property by acquiring 10 lots to develop affordable housing. I would tell you that one of our major attractions that made our corporation look at being a partner in this were the athletic facilities, because we thought that they would be a magnet for joining young families. Unfortunately, that has not come to pass, and Connor Woods itself, with some of the spite of the original developer, has fallen on hard times. I don't think Connor Woods has a monopoly on that in our community right now. I think there may be some other people who are having some struggles. I would submit to you that the remedy to this problem is not, and Councilman Bluth said it as well as it could be said, the remedy to the issue of us not being able to have the athletic fields is not to bring the industrial sites even closer to the people, because the baseball fields were going to, in fact, be a buffer. We still have five lots that we're in the process of developing there. We have no intentions, and we would say this to homeowners in that area, as a secondary developer in there, and James, we have no intention of abandoning the Connor Woods project. We're going to be there. We've talked to our bankers about being with us through it. We think we can ride this thing out, but we certainly would hope that you guys would consider going with the original recommendation from the council to vote against, I mean, not the council, but planning commission, to vote against this zone change. You mean the staff, right, PG? You mean the staff recommendation, right? Because the commission actually voted. Yeah. The recommendations of the staff. I want to make sure that I'm not asking you all to vote for the wrong thing. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. Next on our list of those wishing to speak against the proposal is Mr. Matthew Comstock. Oh, that's right. Thank you, Matthew. And next is Mr. David Cozart. Dave. And then after David is Mr. Stumbo. After David, Mr. Stumbo. Good afternoon. David Cozart, 1665 Connorwoods Drive, which is very close to the proposed development, and I don't have a great deal. I probably won't use my three minutes amazingly, but I was just talking to the gentleman that is our association president who reminds me a lot of that creative class that we just got through talking about that will progress Lexington, and I just don't think that this is the sort of development that they look forward to and prove positive by his comments. I would take some exception with some of the things that were said that were a bit challenging to me when we said that economic development or economic progress is the bottom line, particularly as it relates to areas where residents with children, and that would be my child on the burn, by the way. I've got a five-year-old and a ten-year-old, so that would be my child on that, so that's very relevant to me. Also noted that one of the primary things that was mentioned by the petitioner was that he has spoken with the minister of the church, spoken with the church, but obviously the balance of the church, there are some that take exception with that, proved positive by Ms. Bryant's very articulate presentation as well. We're in the midst of an affordable housing trust fund. I know that the mayor has just commissioned that we'll be seeking areas for affordable housing, and if this land were to be used for light industry or anything else that was originally designed for medium density, it seems that we would be subtracting from the potential stock of the affordable housing. And, you know, coming from places, Boulder, where they had picturesque trails, and Austin who had nice trails, and that being an initiative that we're looking to move forward here in Lexington as well, I saw nowhere where they were looking to construct those things in light industrial or through light industrial areas. While the trail is appealing, I didn't see that that would be highly recommended. There may be some places where they are, but it's not optimal. So I would, as others have said, ask that the council strongly consider going with the original consolidated plan that had it as with residential and not change this zoning. And I appreciate you guys' time, endurance, and patience. Thank you, Mr. Cozart. Mr. Stumbo. My name is Ray Stumbo. I live at 1465 Georgetown Road, which I live right next to the property. The property backs up to my little farm. I've got about two acres plus. I've got about another acre going down to Georgetown Road. And what I'm concerned about is the noise making that's going to take place. All the noise that's going to take place, not only regarding me and the Hancocks, which is the horse people, is my next-door neighbor, but the fact of it is the subdivision that's already built right outside of it, the Lawson has the Leonard Lawson, the paving people, also have a building out there, one of the new buildings on Jagged Fox Way right at the end of it. And you can hear them all night long working on the equipment. At 2 o'clock in the morning, they're banging on the equipment, working on the equipment. And I'm sure some of the neighbors in that subdivision has heard that banging. Now, if we're going to have an asphalt trucking company next door inside of a warehouse, they're going to be working on the equipment. So to me, it's going to be a disruption to the neighborhood and the surrounding properties. And I don't think it's a good use. This type of use is a good use for that particular property. Beforehand, it was zoned R3 residential or industrial, R1. And then the planning commission recommended it be zoned R3. Then they let the subdivision go in. Then they come back and let the subdivision. Then they're going to put in a lot of industrial next to the subdivision. That don't sound right to me. To me, it's not good planning, not good planning at all. No respect to the planning commission, but no disrespect. But I think it's a bad way to go with the planning development. And then I want to speak on the berm and the buffer. If you go out there and look at that property, this property sits about six foot down in a hole. They've taken out about six foot dirt. And how they can get a berm around that property, I don't know. But if you go out there, an awful lot of dirt has been moved. Around my property and around the church property, which my property runs on both sides, there's about a six foot drop off. And that's how they're going to get set back 100 feet and put a berm in. I don't know. They're going to have to move a lot of dirt in there. So before you make a decision, I think some of the council members should go out there and look at that. Because I'll tell you what, we need a better buffer than 100 feet. Not only from the Hancock and my property, but also the residential subdivision next door. Because they're going to be banging all night long, making noise, and you know it and I know it. So anyway, I hope that you, you know, table it until you take a look at it. Thank you. Just out of curiosity, Mr. Stumbaugh, would you show us on this aerial here where you live? Well, you've got it right over here. It's right here. So orient us to where you're talking about you live. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, I think we got it. Thanks, Jimmy. Thanks, Jimmy. I think we understand what the question was. Yeah. We wanted to get oriented to where you were talking about. Okay. So now we understand. Thank you. All right. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Okay. Well, Mr. Woodall, do you have any questions of any of those who spoke against the proposal? Okay. Next on our agenda is the opportunity for the staff to make any additional. Yes, sir. I didn't get any spare time to sign. I need to walk now. I wonder if I can have a ticket. You can. Yep. Yes, sir. My name is Mark McGowan. I reside at 1690, or excuse me, 1644 Kilkenny or Conwoods Drive. My house borders the Sandersville Road and the cul-de-sac. But the first bin as you come in. And speaking to the quality of the noise, since the paving company has been working with improving the interstate or whatever project that they're working on, their trucks run all hours of the night. I foresee that with the increased workload and capacity that they could have with the increased property size, I see that this being a continuing problem since my house backs right up against Sandersville Road. Currently, myself and my wife live in the house right here, and there's another family next door to us. But the property to the right of me and the house that's to the left of that is not developed, but there's no family that's going to want to buy that property. If this project goes through that the paving company is trying to seek approval for. So that's all I have to say, sir. Thank you, Mr. McGowan. Thank you very much. Okay. So, Mr. Emmons, does do you have anything, do you all have anything to offer after this testimony or just additional comments after having heard from both proponent and opponent? No, sir. I was going to say it might suggest if there's anyone else in the audience that didn't sign up that wanted to speak. Yeah. That's a good idea. Thank you very much. Anybody else that would like to speak who hasn't had a chance to? Okay. Staff would just say that we don't have any rebuttal comments. Of course, we realize that this is very complicated issues we're resolving with this, and if we can be of any service to you in coming to your decision, I'll be available. All right. Vice Mayor, I do have a question for Mr. Emmons. Me too. Okay. Whenever it's appropriate to ask. Why don't you hold that for just a minute and let me just go through this. What we now have on our typical or our regular agenda or procedure is the Petitioner's presentation of rebuttal evidence. Mr. Woodall, do you have something to offer in rebuttal? Mr. Vice Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the council, just brief rebuttal comments. Issues like this are always contentious and bring out a lot of emotion, especially the people that are directly involved, and that's the way it should be. My kids are five and six. I'm in the same boat with you. And it makes all the sense in the world to bring up issues about the fence, but frankly the reason why we don't talk about them at this particular level is because it's a development plan issue. Whether that berm has a fence on the back and a fence on the front, those are all issues that are going to come up in the development plan phase and that will come before this plan is approved, before the first spade of dirt is turned. The Planning Commission has to see this plan again, as you all well know, to sign off on it. I believe the engineer would tell you that the reason you would typically just show the fence on the side of the berm that faces the user is so because the whole idea is to have a user-friendly walking path so that everyone can access it. Here we may have other issues that need to be considered, and these same folks will be part of that process. And if the Planning Commission determines that we need to have a fence on both sides, that's something that can happen there. So that's not a dead issue here tonight at all, and I certainly understand it. There's been a lot of muddying of the waters with the issue of asphalt, and this property is going to be nothing more than a continuation of the use of the property across the street that's owned by ATS. That is an I-2 property. The uses that are allowed on that property are not allowed on this property. And I think that, at least in my personal experience, anyone would tell you that our building inspector and so forth is generally pretty aggressive about enforcing those types of things, especially when people complain. This particular user that we'll be talking about here, ATS Construction, is a very solidly and well-run company. And you look at the buildings that are on the I-2 location, and you look at any other building that they have on Old Frankfurt Pike or their new offices at Hamburg, this is not a slack company. They're a community success story, and they're ours. This is a Lexington company. And it will be them and not some out-of-state company locating there on this particular property across the street. And the idea is not to put paving equipment over there. It's to put Central Rock Company equipment over there, which is grading equipment. I know that the plan that's shown here or was up on the screen has been talked about. It mentions a building being built there and so forth. That long-term or mid-term will probably be done. But right now what we're talking about is the storage of grading equipment. We're not talking about the storage of asphalt equipment. We're not talking about the storage of emulsion, asphalt, oil, petroleum, anything of that nature. You couldn't do it, ladies and gentlemen. You can't. It's against our ordinances. That's why we're asking for I-1 and not I-2. So please understand that. I also understand all the issues that have gone into this regarding foreclosure and whatnot. But as Councilman Beard picked up, this property was I-1 before. And the fact that what this buffer was designed to do was to buffer the homes from the I-2, from the asphalt storage. And that goal is still achieved with our plan. That's why we came to the table willing to give up so much of the property. Five acres is a lot on a 13.63-acre property. This is a good use. It's good for the community, and it's a win-win for everybody. And as far as how the site lays and whether a berm will be effective, Well, I believe I can submit to you that in the course of the construction process, the site will most likely be leveled so that it can be used for its intended purpose as a vehicle storage yard. And I think a 10-foot earthen berm all the way around this thing is going to absolutely achieve its purpose, intended purpose. That's all I have. Thank you. All right. Next is a closing summation by opponent. Again, okay. Cynthia, did you raise your hand there? All righty. You're going to represent the you're going to represent for the closing statement, right? I just have a statement about the process. We have not been included in the process. That has been part of the problem. We have not been notified because we are out of the 400-foot range. The individuals that were within the 400-foot range that were notified are renters, and they rent from Mr. Miller. We only have one resident here within the 400-foot range that was notified. And when he kept calling down, he was told that the meeting had been postponed. He was not even aware of the March 27th meeting. And we're afraid that we will not be included in any of the talks or any of the meetings that take place in regards to this development plan. Thank you. Our procedure calls for a closing summation by the Petitioner. Mr. Woodall, do you have anything more to say? Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. It's now opportunity for the council members to ask questions of the staff, of the Petitioner, or of those who oppose the plan, the proposal. Okay. So the floor is open to council members' questions or comments. Dr. Stevens. Mr. Emmons. Okay. It's a little unclear to me why there's a limitation on residential use for this property. You said that no further houses can be built there, and I don't understand that. If it's a separate piece of property, why can't houses be built there? The conditional zoning restrictions applied to the original 60 acres, which included Imani Baptist Church, the now residential subdivision, and the subject property that you're as development has occurred. The 13.6-acre tract that's before you today is essentially the remnant tract, but it was subject to the original conditional zoning restrictions of the entire 60 acres. That entire 60 acres was limited to 100 residential units because, at the time it was zoned, it was actually against the comprehensive plan, and the planning commission felt that it was important to limit the residential density on the overall property. Since that time, the developer has developed all 100 of their allowable residential uses, so the remaining 13 acres doesn't have any, can't put any residential use on that property, although there are some of the conditional uses in that staff exhibit that I handed out that would still be available under the existing zoning. Did that answer your question? I believe so. I remember the original zone when we approved the athletic facility here, and I guess it got rezoned again after that. It's since the — I've just been here too long, I guess. It's the third time I've been on rezoning here. I've been here for almost every one of those zoning changes, too. I remember the night the person came down. I think he was from Dayton, Ohio, or maybe Cincinnati. I forget where. And he had great plans for this and beautiful pictures and all that kind of stuff. And it was — I'm sorry that he didn't get the money he needed to develop it, but — So you're saying that that conditional limitation of residential development still applies to this property? Yes, sir, under the existing R3 zoning. So the only option would be those conditional uses under R3? Yes, sir, under the existing zoning. To me, I think our job is to support the best use, the highest and best use for a property, and I don't see that any of those conditionals would apply, and I support the zone application. Okay. Mr. Beard. Okay. Mr. Beard, then Mr. Blase. I'm not sure. Maybe Mr. Woodall can answer this. Access to the property will be from where? Jaggi Foxway. That's what I thought. I thought I — you know, we'd heard on several occasions the increase in traffic on Sandersville Road and such, and I didn't see that here in anything that I had. And that's not the way you'd be getting into the property or out of the property, That's correct. Jaggi Foxway will have to be constructed before the property can be accessed. And in looking at this, the planning commission, the prohibited uses, major automobile and truck repair, the question about the banging on the vehicles, the equipment, probably doesn't apply then if that's not — I don't think any of those arguments apply. Okay. I just want to be clear in my own mind what that was. Thank you. Mr. Beard. Mr. Blase. I'm sorry. May I clarify? Yeah. Could you go to the mic, Mr. Monroe, please? Jaggi Fox is only accessed by Sandersville Road, which would go right in front of the subdivision, which is accessed by Georgetown Road. It would not be completed all the way to Georgetown Road, so the traffic will actually drive completely around the neighborhood, going down Georgetown Road to turn onto Sandersville Road, then to get to Jaggi Fox to come in the back way, unless the other gentleman who spoke sold his property and it was developed, would be the only time that Jaggi Fox would be connected to Georgetown Road, for the traffic clarification. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Blase. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Woodall, I wonder if you could just list all of the, you know, the various activities that would take place on the, you know, on the subject property and when they would take place. By when, I don't mean, you know, in terms of the season, but at the time of day. Councilman Blase, let me introduce Harry Burchett with ATS Central Rock, and he can answer those questions for you directly. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Basically, what, as far as the work on the equipment, there would be no additional equipment being worked on that's not being worked on there now. The proposed use that we have for this property at present would basically be to store equipment there. We don't intend to work on equipment on this property. The place where we, the building where we work on our equipment now is where we intend to keep working on our equipment. So, I don't see any more, we won't be working on equipment any more now under this proposed use than we are now. This property, we intend just to store equipment there. Because ATS just acquired, as Mr. Woodall said, Central Rock Mineral Company. So, we have much more equipment now than ATS has had in the past. So, basically, we're looking at places to store this equipment. So, that's the proposed use for this property at this time. We won't be working on equipment on this property. We have no plans to do that at this point in time. Can I ask, since you're there, when you say store, does that mean it will? A piece of equipment would be driven in and sit there for several weeks or days? It would be. There may be times when it may be there for two or three months. And generally, when that occurs, it will be, as Mr. Woodall said, probably between November and April. It depends a lot on what kind of winters we have. If we have a mild winter, there may be very little equipment parked there. It also depends on our workload. There will be times probably in the summer where there will be equipment stored there if we don't have a job to put it on. So, there will be times in the summer where there will be equipment stored there. There will be times in the winter when there may not be equipment stored there. It's hard to say. It depends on the workload and what kind of weather we're having. Thank you very much. Thank you. I've got a question for Mr. Emmons. From the staff's perspective, what would constitute an appropriate buffer? In other words, too, why is the 100-foot buffer that the Petitioner proposes inadequate? We feel that it's inadequate. The Division of Planning felt that it was inadequate because it was about half of the otherwise buffer of the Homeowners Association to the north and that it was about half of the buffer of the original conditional zoning restrictions where the residential uses could not come any closer to the heavy industrial uses. So, we didn't think that the proposed light industrial uses should come any closer to the residential. Thank you. It's hard to say, though, because I just want to clarify. It's hard to say where we were. But that was the number one thing that the applicant and the staff were discussing was what was an adequate buffer. So, it's really somewhat difficult. It's hard to say how things would have turned out if we did or didn't get it. But that was the number one issue between us. Thank you. Kennedy. I kind of have a continuation question. Most of the opponents have cited various and sundry reasons why they're against this project, none of which I can see that a width of a buffer helps. If, in fact, they're hearing the sound of banging on equipment over at the I-2 site, the buffer being 200 feet wide isn't going to change that in the least. If the concern is the asphalt, the asphalt and fumes are going to find their way through a 200-foot buffer as easily as they would a 100-foot buffer. So I don't see that, in relationship to what's been brought up today, that the buffer is at all applicable to be part of the consideration. Would you? I mean, who? The planning staff did feel that it was still applicable. Some of our hardest land use decisions that we have to make is when you've got an industrial residential that's essentially your most intense uses and your least intense uses whenever they come together, unlike some other zone changes that you see. Mr. Woodall was correct on that the number one thing that was concerned, the number one question is what is adequate. Some of the uses, just to clarify, and Mr. Woodall did mention this, the actual asphalt plant use, I mean the actual tanks and stuff like that, would not be allowed in the proposed I-1 zoning. And I tried to say this in my presentation, it would be uses that were associated with the adjacent asphalt plant. So their warehouses, their buildings for cleaning off their equipment, the storage of their large equipment, those types of uses would be allowed under the proposed I-1 zoning. Okay. Thank you. One final question for Mr. Emmons. Yes, sir. Finally, Mr. Blues, and then PG Peoples has a question back in the back for Mr. Emmons, I guess. Is that right, PG? Is your question, PG, for Mr. Emmons? No. Okay. But wait just a minute. Mr. Blues, is it no? Yeah. Well, give us a minute here. We'll come back. Okay. I'll come back to you. Mr. Blues. Now, from the staff's perspective, the whole character of the area, the residential area would be adversely affected by the zone change. Is that right? The staff recommended disapproval of the proposed zoning. Right. Could you go into a little more detail on, you know, on that, the nature of your concerns? Well, as it's, I'm talking about the Division of Planning, not the Planning Commission action. The planning staff felt that we looked at the three reasons for a, to approve a zoning. We could not find that it was in agreement with the comprehensive plan, which recommended medium density, which talked about the decision that was made in 2003. Then we looked at the appropriateness of the existing zoning and the inappropriateness of the proposed zoning. And finally, we did recognize that the fact that the athletic facility was not being built was an unanticipated change. However, we did not, the Division of Planning did not feel that that changed the basic character and nature of the area and that the proposed I-1 zoning was still inappropriate because an adequate land use buffer was not proposed. The, of course, the Planning Commission found, had different findings. Thank you. And I have one more question for the audience. Actually, for the residents, Connor Woods, a few of you mentioned that, what it was that attracted you to the, you know, to purchase homes in the subdivision. And those were the church and the proposed athletic facility. I wonder to what extent that, you know, that's the case for most all of you. Would you just, you know, raise your hands if that, if the planned athletic complex was a major attraction to the neighborhood? Thank you. No. I'm sorry. Just so, let me confirm the protocol that we've got, y'all, and then please understand, if you can, that these, okay, these, let me just, let me do explain it, though. We try to give everybody the chance to make comments, and then we give the council the chance because we're actually having to make this decision. That's where we are right now. We need that chance for us to ask questions. All right. Okay. Council Member Crosby, then McCord, then Myers, then Henson. Thank you. Mr. Ammons, I have some questions for you, please. Can you please tell us, is Jaggie Fox part of the master plan to be connected to Georgetown Road? Yes, ma'am, it is, through the undeveloped properties. Thank you. Also, we've heard some comments regarding some of the neighborhood people suggesting that they were left out of the process. Can you please explain what that process is for the viewing audience? Because would you all go through to notify and who needs to be notified? I would be happy to. Thank you. The legal required notice is mailed notice by letter to all the property owners, according to the PVA record of the property owners, for all properties within 400 feet of the zone change. That was accomplished. The applicant prepares those letters. They come in to the staff. The staff checks to make sure that all of the letters and all of the property owners are accounted for, and we put the notice in the mail, and it's mailed through the U.S. Mail. In addition to the required legal notice, the Division of Planning has a longstanding courtesy notice to the closest neighborhood association. We use our neighborhood association list, our official listing that we have, to look for the closest neighborhood association. In this instance, we had three that were in all close proximity. The Connor Woods Neighborhood Association was not on our list of neighborhood associations. I believe it's a fairly new neighborhood association list, and so they did not get a courtesy notice. But I would like to extend to our neighborhood president. I was going to do it off the mic, but I would like to extend to him. I'll be happy to work with them and facilitate getting them onto the list for any future courtesy notices. Thank you. I think that's all I have for you. And then I have a question. I'm not sure if this is for ATS or Mr. Woodall. You might be able to answer this. You mentioned that, I mean, obviously we all know now that this is strictly going to be a storage facility for these trucks and that they will be just stored there. But in season, when they're Principally grading equipment. equipment in season will there be will they be running every day when it's what you consider to be in season creating some kind of noise factor or when they're when you're in season will basically just what's not being used be stored there and then those the grading equipment that is being used will that be off-site the grading equipment that's that's used will stay on the job it won't come so it won't be going back and forth I said there won't be any increase of noise of you know 4 a.m. things coming and going from the property it will basically stay on-site yes ma'am we take the equipment from this site to the job and stays there the jobs done hopefully goes to another job but it'll be then moved to again thank you very much councilmember McCord Thank You vice mayor mr. Emmons this question is for you you don't have to come around you can just stay right there on the mic if you want to that dr. Stevens questioning I wanted to make sure that I caught that correctly you're saying that there is no that we cannot put any residential any more residential units on this land even if we wanted to because of it was a part of a bigger piece that was that was zoned a different way and 100 units were the allotted amount so there there is no way to make it residential even if we want to make it residential and that you have these other uses that can be used in the r3 fashion but it's not homes that I can actually go there is that what you're saying yes sir and just to clarify you do have I passed out the staff exhibit the last page does have the for this particular piece of property under its existing conditional zoning everything that's striked out would not be allowed and everything that's boxed would be allowed so that I think you've got it 100% okay mr. Woodall were you going to speak to that I apologize for not making that clear I've not done my job in that regard exactly the the hundred houses that were platted on the adjacent property were platted that way and as a condition no more residential property could be put in that on the acreage adjacent to it the 13.63 acres we're talking about the conditional it's zoned r3 but the conditional use that is to be made of it at this point was a for an athletic facility so you got r3 for a hundred units only and then r3 no residential only athletic facility okay so that's how we got here and I apologize if that wasn't clear that's fine I just wanted to make sure and you know I know mr. Monroe you and mr. Miller came to see me when I first got on council and we're talking about this and and you know I was extremely excited about by the opportunity this presented and just and probably as disappointed as every way in this audience that we don't have enough recreational facilities across this town especially on the North End and connectivity being chief among them the other thing though that I just want to go on the record and say that it is bothersome for me I'm sitting here looking at this and and from a how do you vote standpoint the fact that you cannot put residential things units on there is is is what it is but council member Myers and I talk about this all the time when I look at the at the Planning Commission's vote of a five to three in favor of there were three members that weren't there that day and my question in the back of my mind is how would they have voted had they been there and and and so those are the types of things that I just want you to know that this is this is a real struggle for for us as we weigh as we weigh through this and what's being decided tonight and you know that's that's why I wanted to ask that specific question I appreciate the clarity thank you councilmember Myers Thank You vice mayor and he stole my thunder on the whole piece about the Planning Commission and I think that you know I tried to put this issue in the committee maybe a year ago and we haven't figured out a way to address it in committee but I think what I'd like to do is I know the mayor probably watch this tonight he's probably sit home tonight watching this but ask him to have a conversation with the Planning Commission members and do a gut check and see what their level of commitment is to their job and if they don't want to attend the meetings and they can't attend the meetings then maybe they should look at doing something different because it really troubles me when we keep having these own change hearings when just like councilman said we've got a 5-3-3 and if the three that weren't there had voted against then we'd have a 6-5 against this and so the whole different makeup and conversation here tonight so I think the Planning Commission if they're watching they really need to a gut check and see what their level commitment is to what their responsibilities are that being said mr. Emmons and you can stay there that's fine one thing that no one's really talked about is this berm being built and and maybe there's a current berm there and they're just going to add to it maybe that's what's going on but my question would be is if you build a 10-foot berm does that create any problems with water runoff or anything like that that needs to be addressed or is that not an issue it I don't want to belay the terms it's not necessarily an issue because our engineering manuals will still require and all of the storm water drainage to be controlled and so if you think about I'm not an engineer but a typical berm has essentially a four-to-one slope so a 10-foot high berm would be approximately 40 feet wide and a hundred foot buffer so there's going to be 50 to 60 feet within that hundred foot buffer that you can play around with it's not going to be it probably will not be berm for the entire 100 feet of that proposed buffer okay I guess one of the drawings that you showed I think if you flip that first chart over it had a red line on there we've heard a couple questions about whether or not any more residential use residential homes can be built there the paper on your left that red line there I thought I thought I understood you to say that you could still build residential residential to that point but not beyond that point under the r3 existing conditional zoning restrictions on the property today the residential could be built in this area just could not be built any closer than that however since they have built out their full 100 residential uses that that land is it can't be used it's for residential now it's currently situated so that you couldn't really build exactly it's it's been excluded from being used for any more residential although the conditional zoning would not prohibit it and so as with all conditional zoning restrictions the Planning Commission can be more prohibitive then they just can't be less prohibitive than any conditional zoning restriction okay could you elaborate one more time on your the staff's position that if you weren't going to allow residential homes to be built closer to the industrial use then it makes sense then that you wouldn't put industrial use back in the other direction closer to existing homes could you elaborate a little more on that well it's it's really just basically that simple the the staff saw that the athletic facility that was proposed was not just a space buffer but it was also a land-use buffer but planning staff hedging our bets like we like we tend to do we said that okay if even if that land-use buffer isn't there then there was still a spacing buffer that we were comfortable with and that's indicative of the existing conditional zoning restrictions in the red line on there so looking at that from that perspective if and I understand that the conversation is about a 200 foot wide buffer sort of excluded the property from being used for what the petitioner intends to use it for but what if you extended out maybe 25 more feet or 50 feet the the council has the you have the authority to change any of the proposed conditional zoning restrictions that were recommended to you by the Planning Commission I believe that you would just propose that in a motion and the council would vote to either change the change the conditional zoning or not and then you could vote on the overall zone change okay I have one final question for you yes sir and that is and I think I know the answer but when you look at the berm and the landscaping and whatever else is on top of the berm to help with the noise and and help me a buffer when if we approve this today we don't have a way to affect what that berm looks like is that correct well let me before you answer that here's what I'm really trying to get to we all know that there's going to be trees built on the berm or plant on the berm and I think you talked about pine trees and 20 foot tall that kind of thing but what happens if the pine trees all die and the property owner decides not to replace them once we do this there aren't any restrictions that we can actually place in here that will extend out the life of how that berms actually going to look when it's completed or the original intent of the berm it's designed the way that the Planning Council's at at our recommend at the Division of Planning recommendation is that the actual amount of landscaping and the species of trees and everything like that certainly the Planning Commission and the Council has the authority to get into specific number of trees and types of trees and everything like that but it's been our experience that you know sometimes if you say white pines or something for that matter and then years down the road we get a white pine disease then with that we have to go through the whole zone change process again just to change the type of tree so the Division of Planning recommended and and I I failed to mention this during my presentation I apologize for that the Planning Commission put a specific condition on the development plan that at the time of the final development plan that the details of the landscaping and the trail and and the berm would be would be detailed on the final development plan should the council approve the zoning okay and then what would happen if if the fence blew down it was just never put back up there's there's no way to there are if it's on the development plan our Division of Building Inspection does have the enforcement powers okay and to to handle that when it comes to the fencing it's I find it I it's most likely that the applicant would want to fence off their I-1 their their uses so that they wouldn't have a liability issue that was mentioned earlier about possibly fencing off both sides of the berm and and I would just caution you that if you did that then that's you would want to make sure you've removed the passive recreation we don't want a recreational area that's fenced off from anybody and being able to get to it so of course I'll be if you have any if you would like to amend any of the proposed conditional zoning restrictions I'd be happy to try and help you work through that wording okay thank you I have a question for one of the two I'm sorry sir in the blue shirt I didn't get your name hey mr. Burchett yes sir thank you mr. Emmons could you flip that chart back for me please I'm not sure how much the development plan we can or cannot get into here but because the points been raised that this is just going to be a facility for storing equipment I have to ask it looks like there's three buildings out buildings on the property are those am I correct that those are buildings those are buildings and there was a point in time when we first discussed this property with the with the owner that that we that we may build some buildings on this on this piece of property we have since decided to expand the buildings that we have now and not not construct any buildings on this proposed property at this time it would just be used for storage so there was a time when we when we when we did first start talking to these folks about buying this property that we were thinking about putting some structures on there and I was kind of surprised when I saw that there because that's that's no longer the plan but yes at one time it was okay do you envision that in the future there may be a need to house some of your equipment rather than just store it in open air right now I would say no but you know it's it's I never say never as they say but right now no we have no one and no intention of constructing any buildings on this property at this time okay the amount of equipment that you have and I know that your company could expand and I hope that it does and it grows and you hire more people and very successful in the process though of looking at this property now if the three buildings are out of play because it makes sense when you look at that and you talk about if you increase that berm if you double the size of berm to 200 feet with that with those two buildings there that might create an infringement on your ability to put those buildings on the property but if you're not going to build any buildings and you don't foresee a need for them in the future and I wouldn't suggest that you go all the way to a 200 foot berm but would you entertain maybe 150 foot or 125 foot berm well that's that's something that we would have to look at and talk to the and talk to the to the to the sellers about it at this point it would be hard to say but you know the value of property in Lexington and as you shrink obviously decreases the value of the property okay thank you that's all I have councilmember Henson I just I wanted a clarification on the use of the property will at in the future I know you said it's hard to say but will asphalt be stored it can't it cannot be okay it cannot be so then the individual that talked about the harmicle harm from chemical you know from the asphalt that would not be an issue no man I don't see how it can be any more than if even if it is now the only place that I'm aware of and Jim mr. Evans correct me if I'm wrong that you could store asphalt is in an i2 use and this is not an i2 use it's an i1 use okay I think every other questions have been answered because you're not gonna have obviously no not a lot of noise not gonna have any hours of operation really I think if you asked ATS what their preference would be would be that that equipment never be there okay thank you okay I have a couple questions perhaps my question regards the Jimmy can you come up to that map the eight the homeowners association area it's on that other if you'll flip it right the existing light green yeah the existing homeowners association area what's what's tell us a little bit about that and the history that's in almost all of our residential developments in the last 20 years right it's an area set aside right the fact that it's a homeowners association isn't any different than most that's just the ownership mechanism what's important is that it's a common open space that wasn't used for residential actual house and who's responsible for the maintenance of it the maintenance of that that would be the homeowners association it's a legal entity that's set up by the developer and right now today that is is that an open field or is it a wooded area is what kind of main how is it maintained today I believe it was I believe it's an open it was an open field that they planted several trees in and I think that if you remember this site was once Hillemeyer nursery stock and I but if I remember right the developer had taken up some of the trees that were the nursery stock and replanted them in this area along with the paths that they the walking paths that they built I believe they're just like kind of like sidewalks essentially through that area developer did that right I believe so okay this is this office this question is also for you you'd you'd mention and tell me if this is a question that's awkward but or inappropriate but in the Planning Commission hearing remind us again of the decision or the the yes votes the those who voted in favor of the plan and against your recommendation what like Frank Penn was one what were the what were the reasons that were offered those are the findings for approval right at the right at the start of your packet okay we just go over it tell us and give us the headlines that the headlines conditions one and two is that essentially speak to the fact that the Planning Commission felt that there was an unanticipated change in the basic character and nature of the area and that change was that the major justification for the original r3 zoning was that athletic facilities were going to be constructed on the site and that and it is a fact now that the athletic facilities were not going to be constructed on the site they also found that the proposed i1 zoning was an appropriate alternative once that once that change once that change had been recognized that's okay sums up all right can you take us through take us hypothetically through the next steps if for example if this if the council endorses the Planning Commission decision what's the next steps for for the for the applicant for the applicant for the petitioner right since the since the Planning Commission did recommend approval the development plan which I was showing you today was a certified preliminary development plan which is conceptual in nature the applicant before they could do any development on the property would have to come back to the Planning Commission and have a final development plan approved issues such as the details of landscaping within the berm and the timing of when Jaggie Fox were to be built and the placement of any buildings on the property all of those issues the storm water and detention all of those issues will be on the final development plan okay so for example that would be that would give you sections and and sections on the property where the berm would be located and it would give you full pretty much pretty detailed engineering drawings right yes if you adopt the app if you adopt the Planning Commission's proposed conditional zoning restrictions the things that could not be varied would be the 100-foot berm with the 10 I mean the 100-foot buffer with the 10-foot high berm and the passive recreational use okay all other details would be worked out through the final development plan stage okay are there any examples of this having been done where you felt like it was successful let me think I didn't I didn't expect that question I was trying to anticipate most of them well the reason I'm asking is that the reasons that we're often here is that we don't have a lot of examples perhaps in Lexington of this sort of thing being done excellently and therefore there's often a lot of tension in my view at least and distress and anxiety among neighbors and neighborhoods and people in the city because we haven't done it as well as it can be done so again you know I'll just ask if you've seen from the plans that you all have adopted done by landscape architects you know was the homeowners association was that area it was that designed by a landscape architect or was it just kind of put together by the developer I'm not saying that disparagingly I'm just asking if you know no that I don't believe that it I can't answer that for certain I don't know the potential to do it well exists is that a fair oh yes sir okay okay so again the any examples of where you think a buffer like this has done has added has been done well and actually perhaps added value we we've had so in and I've been with the division of planning for about 11 years and we've had so few industrial zone changes during that time because we have a large amount of usable industrials the whenever we looked at that I just can't think of very many of them the one that does come to mind with an industrial and residential meeting is a essentially the Timber Creek subdivision off of man-of-war in Pleasant Ridge Drive but that's really an instance much like this one where you had existing industrial and the residential grew and encroached on the on the industrial now in this case what happened is the residential grew into the industrial now the industrials coming back and essentially looking for that balance okay is what we're talking about today the example it comes to my mind is the patch and Wilkes development on Winchester Road where they constructed about it looks like about a 10-foot berm with trees on top that buffer of the this fairly expensive neighborhood from the traffic on Winchester Road I think that's what I vision would be on this property alumni road also alumni off Tate's Creek maybe where you've got the the pine pine trees yeah right okay we were talking about the pension Wilkes just a minute ago okay does anybody else have any questions mr. Stumbo yeah okay just for protocol here where we are right now is we've had the council ask questions and just a second hold stay with me just a second the procedure that has been adopted actually at this point the we the council members have asked questions and the petitioner and the opponent are entitled to rebut any new evidence that's been brought up so what where that's where we are right now any new evidence that's been brought up in these last in this last conversation of the questions that we've had now is the opportunity for any new evidence that's been brought up for you all to rebut that or challenge it okay so I think mr. Peoples you had a okay and mr. Stumbo those of you were here and we came down to ask for this public hearing would remember that it was the the group asking for the hearing consisted of the urban league and the neighborhood associations and the church mr. Woodall you earlier made a statement relative to having met with the church and you feel like we're okay there I'm curious I'm curious about what that means and I'm also very very you know surprised the absence of the church here this evening we met with the church on numerous occasions as to to reach number one to show them what our proposed use was for the property how we would alleviate the transition between the boundary of the church property in our property and had had meetings on more than one occasion there and I know that you weren't present for any of those but we've continued to have those those communications and continued as I've said here tonight we move from here if we're successful with this request we'll go to the development plan process and you know have committed to I know with Reverend Polk that he will continue to be a part of the process and that's exactly what I mean are you presenting proof are you asking questions because I'm a little confused your mayor's what we're supposed to be doing timeout all right I'm gonna because the time to ruling here what we've got is what we've got now is any new evidence that that has been presented in so far okay don't mean to truncate anything unnecessarily mr. Stumbo vice mayor can I ask a question from our legal counsel I think I would just like to ask the council to a point of order I think it back to the planning commission to get the berm get mr. Stumbo just a second if you'll hold on just a second council member has a protocol question I believe you got it here is my understanding we are at this point or at the end of the process we're not bringing a new testimony is that correct it's correct he just the the objection that he just raised to mr. people's questioning but based on the procedure you previously adopted in which you operate under all the testimony is over except if there was something that came up during the council's questioning of witnesses that was new that had not been previously addressed then either mr. Woodall or somebody that had spoken previously would be able to ask about that and that only you don't reopen and go back to to do another direct and another cross-examination so I don't know what mr. Stumbo's questions about but mr. Stumbo as I understood you were suggesting that the council appeal this back to the to the planning commission not appeal but channel it back whatever the language is refer back to the planning commission for it our our role is now and correct me if I'm wrong Commissioner but our role is to is to review the planning committee it's been appealed to us and that's the process so it's now our the judgment must come from out from from this body now yeah and let me if I might just to kind of explain what happens going forward that's good that'd be great i'll let jimmy jump in here too you have a a recommendation from the planning commission to approve the application subject to the conditions that are in the recommendation that recommendation will be adopted by this body unless there are eight votes to reject it in the event that you wish to reject the planning commission recommendation it will be necessary for you to make your own findings of fact we will help you do that if you decide that's the way that you wish to go so those are really your options but the planning commission under law is entitled to that deference and in order to overrule a recommendation the planning commission it requires eight of you to vote in favor of rejecting that recommendation yeah and that's always kind of cumbersome to articulate so once we get to the motion but Mr. Beard Mr. Adams one further question if i might if this is not approved this land can be used for this land can be used for what it can't be it's presently R3 but we can't build on it so it sits idle ad infinitum or until somebody else comes up with another daycare center or something else I believe that's the question that the planning commission had there are a number of conditional uses that could possibly go out there but those have been talked about the daycare a different athletic facility other than what was proposed but they are very few uses so we have a piece of property that's in foreclosure yes sir and in all probability will then not be mowed or tended or whatever and it becomes an attractive nuisance for the rest of the neighborhood as a possibility I don't know how that would turn out I don't know that either but I think my guess might be fairly good if in fact it's just sitting there 13 acres just sitting there and nobody's taking ownership of it except a bank somewhere that is surely not going to have anybody on site taking care of it day in and day out you know if not this then what I guess it's very convenient to say that we'd like to have all this empty property behind us but it may be something that is wished for the consequences might be worse than what has been proposed in my opinion anyway thank you is there any other comments from the council if there are none then the chair will declare the hearing closed entertain a motion yes sir I move that we recess for about 5-10 minutes you're asking for a recess for 5 minutes the chair declares a recess for 5 minutes for a recess for 5 minutes all in favor aye, opposed no motion carries 5 minute recess music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music to adopt the findings of fact approved by the Planning Commission at their March 27, 2008, hearing and which are on the listed on the first page of our document. The motion and a second to adopt the findings of fact approved by the Planning Commission at their March 27, 2008, hearing and which are on the listed on the first page of our document. The motion and a second to adopt the findings of fact approved by the Planning Commission at their March 27, 2008, hearing and which are on the listed on the first page of our document. The motion and a second to adopt the findings of fact approved by the Planning Commission at their March 27, 2008, hearing and which are on the listed on the first page of our document. The motion and a second to adopt the findings of fact approved by the Planning Commission at their March 27, 2008, hearing and which are on the listed on the first page of our document. The motion and a second to adopt the findings of fact approved by the Planning Commission at their March 27, 2008, hearing and which are on the listed on the first page of our document. to roll call vote for the ordinance on the docket for second reading. Mr. Ellinger? Mr. Gray? Gray, yes, but I would like to comment on it. I think one of the opportunities that we have in sitting on the council, we sometimes think it's not so much of an opportunity, actually, is to listen to these appeals, because we, in the process, ideally, the Planning Commission will take these issues and will resolve them to the satisfaction or general satisfaction of everyone. But when it doesn't work that way, as it often does, it then is appealed to us. What's revealed in something like this is the opportunities as well as the difficulties or the challenges. But for me, when I heard tonight and listened to the Mr. Burchett, when I understood that the, for example, that the Lawsons are involved in this, along with the Woodalls, and I see the map or the plan up here, and I ask the questions to Mr. Emmons about any examples of this having been done well in Lexington. The reasons I was asking that question, those questions, is because having known the Lawsons for a long time and knowing that they can do an extraordinary job of making this neighborhood better, that that's the real opportunity we have. We have an opportunity here to make an asset out of this property and to really increase the value of the property. And where today, as Councilmember Beard was saying, there's really a challenge to economic value. No one has a real incentive today to take care of this property. And tomorrow, someone will have that opportunity, perhaps, if this goes forward. But that is a challenge to you all, and that's the reason I decided to take these two minutes, because I know if anybody would take a challenge on like this to include the neighborhood and to do this well for all the right reasons, the Lawsons will do it and the Woodalls will do it. So I'm voting yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? I agree with the statement that the Vice Mayor made, and my vote is yes. Dr. Stephens? Mr. Beard? Aye, also. Thank you. Mr. Blues? Mr. Blues? Oh, I'm sorry. I heard you, Susan. Thank you. This is a difficult vote for me, because it's a neighborhood in my district. It's a neighborhood that has not gotten the best deal in terms of the expectations that the neighbors had when purchasing their homes and then having a change that was not only unexpected but also not desired. At the same time, we face the situation of a piece of land that cannot be, we cannot put houses on it, we cannot find some other higher or better use. In supporting the Planning Commission on this and in voting yes tonight, I also feel the obligation to work with the owners, the operators, Mr. Woodall, and the neighbors to make sure that we do make of this property a use that is non-intrusive and is compatible with the neighborhood. And on that basis, I vote yes. And Ms. Crosby? Thank you. Motion to adjourn would be appropriate. All right, thank you. The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Motion and second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Thank you all for being with us tonight. If, based off of Mr. Woodall's, I'll facilitate anybody who wants to give me their name and address to be notified at the final development plan stage. Yeah. If you want to do that, I'll be happy to facilitate that over here. Did you all hear what? Y'all heard what? Harry? Harry? Harry? Harry? Hoshly sage, rosemary and thyme. Remember me to the one who is dead. He once was a true love of mine. Are you going to school again? Hoshly sage, rosemary and thyme. Remember me to the one who is dead.