Music Thank you. Thank you. We're going to be running a meeting tonight, and we're going to go over some rules, and then we'll go from there. First of all, I want to tell you the first rule. We're going to have Law get up and speak for a few minutes to talk about what we can do as a council and what we can't do. And then I'm going to have the side over here speak for 30 minutes, and then I have you all speak for 30 minutes. I have your president of your neighborhood association who's going to speak first for 30 minutes if he don't use all of it. Those who are going to come behind him will, if you want to yield your time, let me know who you yield your time to. You can yield up to five people, can yield up to one person, get 15 minutes. for those who are going to speak behind the President of the Neighborhood Association. So I want everybody to know if you've got somebody you want to yield a time, let me know. So when I call your name up and you're going to yield a time, let me know immediately when you come up, and I will have that person come up. And if you've got other people that are going to yield their time, let me know too, so I can go on and get the time for that person. So the first thing we're going to do is roll call. And I'll let you all go do the vote call first. Mr. McCurn? Mr. Maloney? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Plowman? Here. Ms. Reynolds? Here. Ms. Sheehan? Here. Mr. Worley? Ms. Baxter? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Fred Brown? Here. Mr. James Brown? Here. Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Kay? Mr. Kuiber? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Lamb? Here. And Ms. LeGree? Here. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right, now I'm going to have those people who are going to speak. Would you please rise? And put up your right hand. And I'm going to have you all promise me I'm going to say, do you swear or affirm that any of the testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? Thank you. Okay. Okay, so I'll go ahead and let the law department come up first and give us some what we can do and what we can't do. My name is Tracy Jones, and I'm with the law department. And I just wanted to give you all a little bit of information about what's going to take place tonight so everyone starts on the same page. The council is the final vote on any zone changes that come before the urban county government. So they're here tonight to talk about changing the zone that you'll hear more about from the staff and from the attorneys on both sides. And so that is what they'll be considering. The zone change just changes what the zone is for a particular area, and that defines what the uses are in that area. Some of the conversations may go a little bit around some other things that will be handled at a later date by the Planning Commission, so we wanted to be clear with you on what those are. The zone change really just talks about uses. Once a zone change is approved by this council, then it will go back to the Planning Commission, and they will consider the development plan or the subdivision of the property based on what the zone has been changed to. And so the planning commission will then decide what does that look like? How are the lots laid out? How are the access points granted? What do we do with streets? What do we do if a house is on the corner, if a house is straightforward, where the driveways are, and some of those types of things. So the council's really just hearing tonight what the use is, is that use appropriate for the zone, and do they have enough evidence to make the decision to change or to not change the zone. The other information that the council can hear and then make decisions on are what we call sometimes they can add some additional conditions. But those are limited. They're limited to things like buffering, screening, certain types of uses, and density. And so they really can't get into the things that they're going to go back to the planning commission. And the Planning Commission will not get those things back to consider unless the zone change goes through. So that's kind of how things work tonight, just so we're clear. And then also so you know, anything that takes place if this zone change were to be approved tonight that goes back to the Planning Commission also will take place in a public meeting. Thank you. Next, we're going to have the second reading, and then we'll go on into the discussion. Yes, sir. Ordnance number one, an ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone for 14.773 net, 15.519 gross acres for property located at 4630 Old Schoolhouse Lane, Cowgill Development, LLC, Council District 9. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Tracy, if you can come up, we'll appreciate that. good evening councilmember Maloney members of the council my name is Tracy Wade and I am the planning services manager for the division of planning happy to be here tonight to present to you a zone change request by the cowgill development LLC before we get started I do need to enter a few things into the record of tonight's hearing which you all are used to hearing me do so the first item is the legal notice that was printed in the Herald leader for tonight's special meeting the second item is an affidavit signed by myself and notarized indicating that we did mail the required notification to all of the property owners within 500 feet which is 221 property owners as well as two neighborhood associations the third item which you also have at your seat is a copy of the final report which includes the Planning Commission's recommendation to you the applicants justification and application our staff report from the division planning as well as the minutes of that public hearing the fourth item and is available if we need to pass that around were some of the exhibits that were presented at the Planning Commission's hearing and I think you might receive something similar tonight so those are for the record as well the fifth item is our 2018 comprehensive plan titled imagine Lexington the sixth item is our current zoning ordinance for Lexington Fayette County seventh item tonight are land subdivision regulations and then the last item which you also have at your place is a copy of the staff's presentation tonight the requested rezoning for tonight's hearing is a request from a agricultural urban our a u zone to a planned neighborhood residential r3 zone for 14.773 acres that property is located at 4630 old schoolhouse Lane and the request tonight is to rezone the property in order to construct or prepare the land for the development of 88 single-family lots at a residential density of 5.9 dwelling units per net acre and that's just a straight calculation of how many units based on the net acreage to orient the council to the location of the subject property i'll point up front but also on the overhead here the subject property is located just to the east or it's bordered to the west by harrisburg road although it does have an old schoolhouse lane address and as we zoom in i'll point that out it's bordered to the east by a tributary of the south elkhorn creek and then it's bordered to the north and the south by existing single-family residential. As we zoom in a little bit to the north, we also have, in addition to single-family residential in an R1E zone, beyond that, a church as well as some multifamily residential in the general vicinity. Across the creek, South Elkhorn Creek to the east, is additional single-family residential in this neighborhood. And then to the south is the Dogwood trace neighborhood and again this is all built out with single-family residential there is some change in the zoning in this immediate vicinity some of it is r3 which is our brown color on the map and what's proposed today for this site in addition we have some single-family r1e and r1c and d zoning in this general vicinity so again all surrounded by residential and immediately adjoining all single-family residential. The next thing I would just point out for the subject site is I mentioned the South Elkhorn Creek and its floodplain is to the east of the site or along the rear property line of the site. You can see from this aerial photograph that the site is encumbered by floodplain in that small area to the east of the or that small end of the property that flood plain also encumbers several other lots within the general vicinity that surround that flood plain we just mentioned in the planning commission hearing that water quality controls are required for all development in fayette county and that means that any development created for this site would have to have their stormwater managed on site so they do the applicant is proposing stormwater basins on their site for that purpose in terms of the surrounding properties or the area surrounding the subject property old schoolhouse lane is what provides this site its address it's a bit of a frontage road to harrodsburg road it has an intersection at military pike and then old schoolhouse lane accesses just along the front edge of harrisburg road for a short distance so from these photographs you can see it's a substandard road and it does stop just as it adjoins the site the proposal for the applicant is to continue old schoolhouse lane onto their subject site across from the site you can see harrisburg road and the adjoining or nearby residential firebrook neighborhood and then looking southbound on harrodsburg road and then also northbound with old schoolhouse lane and then harrodsburg road shown the subject site does have four stub streets that stub into it meaning four local streets that don't currently continue but were planned to continue and those are rosetta way to the north as well as larissa lane to the north and then agape drive and rima way from the south so here's part of english station and rosetta way and then Larissa Lane for these two and adjoining neighborhood areas Agape Drive this is pointed towards the property and then away from it and some of the existing residential net area and then lastly Rima way again away from the property into the property and the adjoining houses a long room away the applicant proposed and justified their proposal that it was in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan both the goals and objectives as well as the development criteria which we know as the place builder they chose or proposed their development under the enhanced neighborhood place type and then propose their development under the low density residential development type and the low density residential development type is the lowest intensity category that we have for development type it includes the single family both attached and detached residential so this proposal is as pretty much as low density as it as it comes in terms of the comprehensive plan the applicant is proposing the r3 zone which is also a recommended zone from the comprehensive plan for this for those two to place type and development types the Planning Commission held a hearing on April the 28th of 2002 22 excuse me there was opposition to the proposed zone change that was expressed by by count of our final report 13 citizens that spoke although there were more citizens in attendance that evening and they spoke concerning the need for larger lot sizes impact of traffic on area greater access to the greenway connectivity of the roadways as well as the density of the proposed development the staff after well there was a three hour public hearing the staff did proposed findings to the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the requested rezoning and the Planning Commission did act that afternoon to approve the zone change and they voted nine in favor and zero opposed the findings of fact were adopted at that time and they recommend approval and the reasons are on the screen but also in front of you in the final report the proposals in agreement with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and it mentions being utilizing vacant and underutilized property also the proposed rezoning does provide for infill and redevelopment and specifically within an established single-family residential neighborhood it's tying into existing roadway and trail networks the proposed development does respect design features of the area although it's different lot sizes it is substantially the same use proposed as nearby neighborhoods the proposed development will connect with the greenway and hopefully the nearby park system to provide safe and well-designed pedestrian and bike systems and then the proposed rezoning will uphold the urban service area preservation strategy for by providing an appropriate and sustainable development in addition the R3 zone is in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan for three reasons it provided or provides a proposed connection for the trail network through a dedicated easement the Planning Commission acted and adopted this finding for 15 for a 15-foot easement and later acted to require a future bicycle and pedestrian accesses that ended up being larger but this was adopted prior to that decision the proposed project will provide a connected street system by connecting those four stub streets I mentioned the proposed rezoning is sensitive to the surrounding context of the adjacent neighborhoods and is similar in built form to the adjacent developments and then lastly the justification and corollary development plan are in agreement or in this case subdivision plan or in agreement with the policies and development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan and then these three are the three concepts that we break that down into the site design building landform and location the transportation pedestrian connectivity and also green space and environmental health the Planning Commission always makes their recommendation subject to certification of the plan which did occur within two weeks after the planning commission's public hearing so let me show you the plan that they adopted it is again a very linear site so their proposal is quite linear as well with a local street running down the center of the site and then connecting the four stub streets Larissa Lane to Rima Way to the east and Rosetta to Agape through the center of the site. There are proposed again 88 single-family homes I believe it's 41 on each side of street and five or six along the creek with an access into the greenway a little bit closer view i mentioned the storm water the storm water basins are located both on the west side near harrisburg road as well as here at the east end near the storm water or the existing creek and floodplain i i think i mentioned through my presentation but i wanted to spotlight the planning commission adopted the findings that you see and there was mention of a 15-foot access that was really a minimum that they hoped to have and what the applicant had agreed to prior to that action then during the course of the next action which was adoption of their or approval of a subdivision plan. They indicated they wanted to see, quote, meaningful access to the greenway. And then through the sign-off process after the meeting, that two-week window, the applicant agreed with the Division of Planning and Environmental Services to provide a 30-foot access to the greenway. Also, traffic calming based on the hearing. There was a request by the Division of Traffic Engineering to provide traffic calming within the neighborhood at large as well as on the site, and the applicant also agreed to provide that. At this point, I would be happy to answer any questions about the Planning Commission's decision or if there's any questions about my presentation this evening. Does the petitioner have anything that you want to add to planning staff? Do you have any questions for her? Does the neighborhood start to have any questions? Okay, thank you. Okay, the petition is you can come up and do your presentation. You have 30 minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Tracy. Thank you. Good evening. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant Calgil Development. with me from Calgill is Carson Boffman and Joe Brumley and Matt Carter is here from Vision Engineering. For the record I am submitting my witness list that has us listed. I suspect I will be the only one that's talking today. The verification of the sign posting that shows that we posted notice on the property and the surrounding streets as required and also a copy of the presentation I'm about to give. Again, as Tracy kind of pointed out, the specific request that we are here to talk about today is for 15 acres of property that is currently zoned agricultural urban, and we are requesting that that go to planned neighborhood R3 for 88 single-family lots. The place builder place type that was selected was the enhanced neighborhood, and again as Tracy said the development type is low density. Here is the location of the kind of dedicated greenway access point that Tracy was just talking about. We wanted to go ahead and put that in the kind of greenway color so it was very obvious that is a hard dedication. That is not something we're going to be able to change at later adoptions. That is a guaranteed access point to the greenway. Before I get into the kind of the main justification of the zone change, lawyers kind of can't help ourselves when talking about kind of the parameters of why we are here. I think Ms. Jones did an excellent job at kind of teeing this issue up, but truly the only question that we are here today is to ask, should this property be R3 or should it stay agricultural urban. The urban county council is not authorized by Kentucky law to talk about the hard infrastructure of this subdivision plan outside of the conditional zoning restriction kind of areas that Ms. Jones went through. The Kentucky legislature did this on purpose. There's a reason we call this process planning and zoning. The planning commission handles the planning aspects of it and they are the kind of final voice for the plans themselves the urban county council handles the zoning side of this you all are the kind of final word on what the property is actually zoned it is a legislation or legislatively driven separation of powers and outside of tonight the council has other general powers with regards to how we treat street right-of-ways but that is not part of the division of planning's power that we are here to deal with tonight that is a separate or separate division through public works that is an ongoing process well after tonight and i know that everyone here has heard this before but i do just want to reiterate it because a lot of what i'm going to be talking about tonight is going to be different from what i talked about at the planning commission i'm not going to be talking about reem away and agape and some of these side streets i'm focusing on should this property be r3 or should it remain agricultural urban i will refer to aspects of this to talk about why we believe that this plan is in compliance with the comprehensive plan but the thrust of tonight again is very limited now the principal argument of course is that the proposal before you is in compliance with the comprehensive plan we believe that r3 is the natural zone for this property it is in this immediate area it is up and down the entire harrodsburg road corridor and it is intermixed with different r1 zones just like we are proposing today we are activating a track of underutilized agricultural land entirely surrounded by existing residential development and we are matching the uses that are surrounding us this is your typical leapfrogged piece of property development started in the 80s and for whatever reason the property owner at the time did not want to sell did not want to develop but all of these surrounding areas did develop now why not come in as an r1 that conversation has come up a lot with the neighborhood as urban county council is aware an overwhelming amount of the residential projects that you all see in the past decade have been r3 it provides the flexibility that developers need today to build the modern neighborhood it is also the development in the zone that you have approved throughout this kind of area as you can see you have basically just to the south of us r3 you have the tracery that is r3 you have parts of firebrook that are r3 you have parts of palomar copperfield and rabbit run that are r3 and mixed with r1 just as we are proposing to do today we believe that this is an appropriate density to remain respectful of our surrounding neighbors and also the community at large and make no bones about it folks this is a zone change and this is a hearing that we have to consider the community at large as well that is what the comprehensive plan main mandates that we do because at the end of the day we cannot continue to whittle down infill development and solve lexington's affordable housing problem those two concepts are in opposite of each other and so at the end i'm going to be asking you all to approve just a single family development as we are proposing it today with the 88 lots. That's exactly what we are proposing. This is the density. Here are the surrounding densities and the surrounding lot sizes. The R3 zone is offering Lexington a perfect opportunity to absorb this much-needed density while maintaining the adjacent single family nature of the surrounding neighborhoods i was in this room for the tracery i remember all of the concerns that dogwood trace and english station brought up i was ecstatic when this plan came in and it was single family i know for a fact that if i was up here asking for townhomes asking for apartments asking for quads or tries or any of the type of uses that our comprehensive plan is specifically telling us we need more of i think the staff would be supporting it i would be up here absolutely saying the comprehensive plan is stressing these are the areas we have to put density if we're going to maintain our urban service boundary and i can easily say that because we've been talking sustainable growth task force all day anyways and what we are talking about is what was identified as the status quo scenario. We've been developing out for the past decade whenever agricultural land is coming in as residential at six dwelling units per acre. We're just under that in what we're proposing to do today. This is truly the status quo. We are in keeping with the, basically, the lot size to our north, and we are keeping with the zone to our south. Now, as far as the goals and objectives go, Ms. Wade did an excellent job, and so I will try not to take too long on basically the justification from the goals and objectives side. But theme A, goal one, is to expand housing choices. We think that this is exactly what this development is doing. When you look at the east side of Harrodsburg Road Corridor, that is what the comprehensive plan basically describes as the enhanced neighborhood. The neighborhood in the comprehensive plan isn't just a neighborhood association. it is the development that functions together as it basically approaches our artillery or artillery artilleries and the collector road system and if you look at it from the multi-family perspective that the tracery has brought in the different single family that dogwood trace has that we are proposing that english station has these are the mix of uses that is encouraged we are offering different lot sizes without a doubt but that is exactly what we are told to be doing we've even heard about a recent push to try to change the minimum lot sizes and frontages to reduce down the requirements from what are in our r1 r2 and r3 zones because some of lexington's most desirable neighborhoods today could not be built under today's zoning ordinance the perfect example is like South Mill Street, the Kenwick neighborhood, most of those are not 40 feet and would not be able to be built today. And so we believe that by what we are offering today with the lot sizes, this is bread and butter what theme A goal one is about. We are supporting infill and redevelopment by activating a tract of underutilized agricultural land that has been inside the urban service boundary for 55 years now we think we had problems with overbrook we've been here since 1967 and this is time for these type of tracks to come online if we are going to meaningfully address our housing needs it's a well-designed neighborhood we are matching the zone we are matching the type of use with what is existing we are providing safe interactions for pedestrian facilities we are addressing the traffic concerns by adding the traffic calming that the neighborhood requested we agreed to do that after the planning commission approved us we're basically i think it's 36 000 32 36 000 have been committed in writing on our subdivision plan to put traffic calming on our site and in the surrounding neighborhoods considering this is just 88 lots and we are surrounded by much larger developments I have a feeling most of the traffic calming will not be on this property itself as far as the community facilities we are tying into the existing infrastructure and providing a trail connection in order to ensure that we are adding to these areas community facilities I know there has been some confusion about whether or not the Greenway lot is dedicated and whether it's can be changed in the future. I will say it many times tonight. It cannot. It is hard. It is guaranteed to be at least 30 feet in width, and it's going to be in addition to other access points to the Greenway Network that environmental quality has already been provided or planned to provide, and that kind of leads into protecting the environment. We have made sure that all of the floodplain is off the single-family lots. We understand that there is a creek in this backyard. We understand that there is a large floodplain that does flood we are asking for exactly what has been approved right next door to us in dogwood trace and english station and the tracery and we have the most rigorous floodplain regulations of all of these developments that we will have to prove compliance to you all to lfucg environmental quality and to i believe also water quality desirable community it says we have to provide an effective transportation system and we are doing exactly what is required by the rules we understand that will be discussion point for times to go for time to come but we are doing exactly what the rules require and we are providing the effective transportation system called for by the comprehensive plan we've also made sure to add separate pedestrian facilities with both the sidewalks and the trail system and the dedicated access all while doing it in a manner to protect the flood plain and also the perimeter tree stands as part of our conversations with the neighborhood and the urban forester we heard that there wanted to be some type of buffer both hardscape and preserving the trees so we agreed to a 10-foot tree protection area we also agreed to move the utility easement outside of the 10-foot tree protection area this guarantees a 30-foot setback where structures cannot be from both property lines the basically the hard landscape gets a little tricky when you are trying to do a tree protection area as you all know especially a property that's been agricultural for its entire existence the trees don't exactly respect property lines and so putting up a what we are proposing is a six foot fence on the property line and protecting the trees can be difficult but we've committed to doing it we're going to we're going to work with the urban forester if the tree is basically right on the property line we'll have to fence around it do whatever it needs to be done but we are are protecting the trees and we are had adding the requested fencing now this is the fun one a lot of people don't think that upholding the urban service area has anything to do when you are near a county line we are required to look at each property that is inside the urban service boundary and look at it as if it is like every other piece when it comes to should this property be developed with appropriate density if we believe in protecting the rural area we have to zone this type of property and we think we are doing it in a very reasonable matter with regards to density we're adding it at a respectful level for what the community demands are that we are hearing but we are also listening to the neighborhood in order to add all of the buffering and landscape to it i have to stress these points because i mean if we are getting to the point where we're going to turn down single family on single family r3 on r3 for property that's been inside the urban service boundary for 55 years i don't think we know what we're doing with regards to urban service boundary if that's the case because it is declaring war on it we have to look at this type of property as where development can and should go because that's what the 2018 comprehensive plan maintains we have no choice but to do at the planning commission meeting some neighbors made an argument that since our proposal was not matching lot sizes on lot sizes or at least transitioning two different lot sizes that our development was not a context sensitive design this was this was the first time i've ever heard that single family on single family is not respecting someone's context it is one of the reasons that you have heard me in the past talk about the dangers of using subjectivity the inner feelings that one has about the context of a project about the property that surrounds it is very much based on one's own feelings and objectives objectives and where they are coming from and so i always worry when i hear that this is clearly not meeting a context sensitive design we usually hear that term when larger buildings are coming into the development into the neighborhood we hear that on blackburn avenue when we're putting apartments next to single-family houses we even heard that on tate's creek when townhomes were being introduced but i do believe this is the first time we've heard it on single family and so i wanted to kind of dig in deeper into the conference of plan after the planning commission to try to kind of address those two concerns where is this document telling us it wants density and is there any guidance to context since context sensitive design especially in this regards Luckily, we have two design policies in the plan that get right at this. The highest density of our residential development should be directed to our major corridors. We even have a handy map that identifies what acreage should we be putting our most intense development. Lo and behold, we are highlighted. We are flagged. This is where the plan is telling us we should be focusing density on. on now when we're talking about infill residential redevelopment it should aim to increase the density as the first point we have to do it in context sensitive way I absolutely agree this is why it's highlighted there luckily place builder gives a set of definitions it specifies what the context sensitive concept is all about and I'm not surprised whatsoever that it talks about massing scale and height step downs between existing and proposed buildings we're not talking about lot sizes it even says we are not replicating adjacent development characters this is single family on single family i do not believe what the context sensitive design talked about in the comprehensive plan is related relating to the different types of lot sizes or else it would not reiterate time after time that it wants the variety of housing of housing inside each neighborhood so in kind of quick summary we believe that this is well designed kind of project that upholds urban service area preservation strategy it is an appropriate development of an underutilized agricultural parcel that has been inside the urban service boundary for 55 years is on a corridor where we're supposed to be increasing density it's providing additional housing units to complete the mix of housing types in the area. We are encouraging community interaction through proper connectivity, all while respecting our neighbors from a massing use and buffering perspective. We're able to do that while protecting the landscape, or excuse me, the environment with the landscape buffers and also the dedicated green space. And so I certainly believe that this is in compliance with the 2018 comprehensive plan. The second legal justification that I'm not going to spend much time on at all is that the existing AU zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. By its very intent and language of the zoning ordinance, the AU zone is no longer appropriate for this property, and it hasn't been for about 30, 40 years. The zoning ordinance says that land should only remain in this zone until public facilities and services are or will be adequate to serve urban uses. we have passed this point back in the 80s and 90s and so I do believe that without a doubt AU is inappropriate I've kind of talked the entire time about why R3 is such an appropriate zone for what we are proposing here today it is the right zone to allow for the housing chise to have housing choices we are offering it is matching the residential zoning scheme throughout this entire area and along this corridor and this body has clearly agreed that R3 zoning makes sense in this surrounding area for this type of development and even in the density that we are requesting you all to use today we are matching the zoning right to our south and our lots that we are proposing could be built in the r1e zone right to our north here's just a quick kind of slide that talked about the neighborhood engagement meetings that we had prior to the planning commission and to i just want to basically say one comment from the planning Commission itself that the Dogwood Trace presentation had because I think it kind of stresses what the question is that we are here to talk about today. Mark Amon at the Dogwood Trace President who's about to speak stated that Dogwood Trace is in full agreement that Lexington needs more affordable single-family housing in Lexington. We are not opposed to the R3 development. We are not opposed to single-family detached housing. We have some other concerns with the specific implementation but I just wanted to be clear that we are in agreement with that aspect of the application that is the aspect of the application that is before you all today and I just say that because I understand the kind of additional concerns and we've kind of specifically addressed many of those concerns where we could with regards to the traffic safety again we pledged $32,000 for on and off-site traffic calming with the fencing we agreed to a six-foot fencing it's my understanding they're gonna ask for an eight-foot fencing today we still think that that should be six feet it is the most common fence that is throughout all single-family areas and also eight feet becomes a basically a a upkeep kind of nightmare because of the condition of the wood that comes from the wind we agreed to a tree protection area at their request we have dedicated a greenway access at their request we even put it next to the dogwood trace neighborhood what this comes down to is a concern over densities and lot sizes i think everybody here knows that and in kind of closing i just want to give a kind of quick real estate kind of 101 type situation for this type of single family development that we're dealing with the land acquisition costs they are set the infrastructure costs they are set when you're dealing with a long narrow only single family development you still have to build the roads no matter how many lots are on them you still have to provide the exact same level of retention basin and water quality devices the infrastructure and the costs are set the only thing that altering the density does is increase the cost of the lot that is it i had our team take a look at what the proposed 40 foot lots look like in comparison to the 50 foot the kind of next logical step up for widths and what we're talking about is an increase per lot of thirty thousand dollars before you sell to a builder we are tacking on thirty thousand dollars by just increasing the width by 10 feet. That's before you get into material costs, labor supply for building a larger house. So when we see headlines that talk about median housing prices in Lexington, outkicking what the median house in Lexington actually is making in an income, here are the decisions that are affecting affordable housing. Here are these decisions right here. it's why I said at the very beginning if we're serious about the urban service boundary and I think this community is and I know that the 2018 comprehensive plan is these are decisions we have to look at we are not talking about multifamily we are not talking about attached townhomes we're not talking about triplexes and quads and anything else this is straight single-family on single-family doing a lot that is built throughout our entire community and And it's still talking about home sales to Lexingtonians. So I would ask you all to approve this with the 88 requested lots, because that is exactly what the comprehensive plan calls for this property to be. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have them. But we can also save it for the end. We'll get back with you on the question. Is there anybody who else who signed up in favor of this? you're welcome to come up to speak. I said no one there. Now I will go on with the neighborhood association if they would come. You have 30 minutes. Thank you. Good evening everybody my name is Mark Amon I'm president of the Dogwood Trace Neighborhood Association. We represent about 430 homes in our neighborhood. I I just want to thank everybody for being here this evening to give us a chance to let our voices be heard and help us work together so we can come up with something that's going to be the best solution for everybody involved. And I was told that I'm supposed to submit evidence in my presentation. And I just want to acknowledge, not just thank you guys, but thank planning staff. They've been really helpful throughout this whole process. we've been working with Calgill during this and thank all the members of the public that are here in support of my message and are going to be also providing some additional thoughts and feedback as well so I feel like Mr. Nichols has already basically given my presentation so I'm going to give the same and give my spin on it a little bit. So you'll have heard some of this from Nick, and sorry, you're going to have to listen to it again. So the first thing I want to mention is the Doggo Trace Neighborhood Association is not opposed to developing this land. We've been in this neighborhood for 30 or so years with this beautiful 15 acres of woods behind us. I moved into the neighborhood about three years ago. We knew this land was going to get developed. it's a prime spot that needs houses Lexington needs additional affordable single-family housing we understand that we're not opposed to developing it we're not here to turn down single-family on single-family we're not here to turn down R3 on R3 really what we're here for is to ask for conditional zoning associated with this property so here's a summary of the things we're going to be talking about it's on the the front page of the handout that you've received it's also in there a second time as well but the front page It just has it in a little bit bigger font. We're going to be talking about density, the need for single family detached housing, lot size. We're looking for larger lot sizes for the transitions to be contextual to both surrounding neighborhoods. In terms of neighborhood identity, we are asking for the fence that we've talked about to be increased from six feet to eight foot in conjunction with the tree protection area. And the greenway, it sounds like that might already be covered. There was some confusion about that coming into this meeting. but really we're very interested in that 30-foot easement for better access to the greenway so as we talk about density the comprehensive plan talks about it a lot again we're in favor of the proposal for single-family detached housing Lexington needs it this is a great spot for it and there are other different housing types in the area we're fully in support of the single-family detached housing here. One of the big things we want to talk about is lot size as Mr. Nichols had mentioned. The comprehensive plan does talk a lot about context sensitivity. There is no clear definition of it in in the comprehensive plan from what I've been able to find. Place Builder mentions the section that Mr. Nichols quoted didn't specifically say that lot size is not to be included. It said among other considerations here a couple of things that could be listed in the planning staff report when we've been going through this process there's many mentions of the proposed lot sizes are similar to the surrounding neighborhood it's mentioned several times in there really where we're at is we agree that the proposed lot size is in similar lot size to the property to the north in english station it's drastically different in the property to the south and dogwood trace and this is just a graphic of what's being proposed here so on the this is just north to south looking at the property in the north you see english station and then old schoolhouse both sides of the housing development and dogwood trace in the south at lacrosse court so there's a couple different ways you can slice lot size that's what the chart to the right is looking at you can like edit from a lot frontage perspective so in the north at english station the lots are 60 foot frontage and the proposal at old school house is 40 foot frontage and in dogwood trace we have 100 foot frontage lots you can look at square footage the lots in english station are approximately 4 500 square feet i think mr nichols said it's 4 700 and change the proposed old school house is 4 500 again i think it was i think they'd quoted 46 and change and in lacrosse we have 100 by 100 foot lots at 10 000 square feet you're going from 24 houses in the north to 41 in the middle and 18 on the bottom so there really is no transition here when we're talking about lot size let me acknowledge this is a really long and narrow piece of property it definitely limits the options it's it's unfortunate that it's kind of just been stuck in the middle there so there's not a lot you can do but really what we're asking for here is just larger lots for transitions to be contextual to both english station and dogwood trace and when we're talking real estate 101 talking about 30 000 to increase the lot 10 feet and that doesn't sound like a lot the preliminary development plan has a proposed layout of about 3 000 square foot home in today's market that's three or four hundred thousand dollars so thirty thousand dollars to increase your lot 10 feet wide doesn't sound like a lot when you consider 6% 7% of the property value to increase your lot by 25% kind of puts in a little bit different perspective next thing I want to talk about is neighborhood identity the comprehensive plan talks a lot about enhancing existing neighborhoods strengthening existing neighborhoods to build a sense of community and connecting in meaningful ways that bring a higher quality of life and really no matter how you slice it removing a beautiful wooded section of land is going to be a detriment really all that we're asking for here we've talked to the applicant about constructing a fence previously the conversation had been focused on the six-foot fence and really what we're asking for here is solely to increase that from six feet to eight feet again I believe we leading into this meeting we've had many conversations with planning staff and with several other members of city government and various environmental groups and everything trying to talk about the greenway I believe this has been covered and is official and formal based on what we've talked about tonight but just in case it's not because it's part of this process has been really confusing we do have that greenway off to the east section of the property and we're just we want to make sure that we have at least a 30-foot wide section there because it can get pretty steep and we want to make sure we have good access to that if it doesn't get built now it's never going to be we're never going to have the chance to build it in the future so again i think that's that's already on the preliminary development plan so that might already be covered might already be official but i just want to mention that as well and that's really it that's what we've got like i said we're not opposed to a lot of the things that are in the proposal we are fully in support of the single family detached housing really we're looking for larger lot sizes to to be contextual to both the north and south neighborhoods, and the fence that's being built to be increased from 6 feet to 8 feet, and the greenway, I think, is already pretty well taken care of. So that's it. If there's any questions, we'll have you come back up, Councilman. We'll be glad to ask you. Okay, next we're going to have folks who signed up. Like I told you before, you will have three minutes. just come up and tell your full name. We already know where you live, but just still put down your district, what district you're in. And those who are yielding their time, please let me know when I call your name and let me know who it is, and that person will come up and speak, even though they may be down on the list. We'll still go ahead and do that. So first on the list is David Coler. and ask that we try not to come on up. Try not to repeat the same thing that the neighbors are saying, because a lot of you may repeat the same thing, but we understand. But just try to keep them up from repeating the same thing. I'll try. I'm David Kolpeck. I'm a resident of Dogwood Trace, have been for 31 years, and I understand you're our council and new council member. One thing that I'm not in favor of you guys giving approval tonight, and for one reason, is because I believe we're not, you know, I've kind of, I've got this feeling that the planning commission decides one thing and the council decides another thing. And the problem I have is that several years ago, when the tracery was developed north of this property, the council, some of you were members of the council at that time maybe, voted to put a blockade on Agape. because Agape is a street that was supposed to be a connector street and connector street was supposed to be 40 feet wide but it was allowed to be developed with 29 and a half feet wide at the narrowest spot so what that means is it's not a through way it's not wide enough to only to have one car on each side of the road and one car driving been in the middle as opposed to two cars with two cars passing back and forth the council saw in its wisdom saw let's put a blockade a permanent blockade at the end of agape just past scenic view so what I'm what I'm seeing happening is we're not going to address that right now we're gonna wait till this thing's developed and then the council's gonna have to come back and make a decision to open that again so So part of their presentation is you're going to connect to Agape. Well, there's a blockade there, and you all put it there. So you all have to decide then to remove it. So I think I have the concern that you all will, after the development is in place, open, take that blockade down. And so I am asking you to consider that decision in the overall plan to develop this. I feel like we're not doing an overall plan of what's best. we're avoiding talking about certain things so as long as you guys would be comfortable of leaving that blockade in place and perhaps adding a blockade to rima then you know i think the neighborhood association would have a lot less problem or at least i would personally have a lot less problem a lot of my neighbors that i talked to would have a lot less problem also so that's why i think you shouldn't go forward at this point with the development until we're We're considering things like the access. To me, it's like I see the writing on the wall. What's going to happen down the road is it's going to be developed, and then now all of a sudden we need to have access. Let's get rid of that permanent blockade. Does anybody have any questions for me? No. Thank you. Next is be patient with me, Kim. Okay. Crossett, what is that? I'll be yielding my time to Kim. You have your time? Okay, what's your name, please? Okay. and i'm coming today to represent the citizen support for the south elkhorn greenway trail it's a beautiful setup and we're thrilled that we have a larger access to it but i wanted to take this opportunity to increase the awareness of this trail the importance and also ask for your support to make sure it becomes a reality um sorry i didn't bring my mat fast enough i was I was gonna talk you through the map. The first one? Yes. Okay. Anyway, Dogwood Park, I've been involved with the development of Dogwood Park. We have a trail system at Dogwood Park that is ADA accessible, that goes from the parking lot all the way down to the creek. So Dogwood Park is set and ready to be an entry into this greenway. There we go. And I don't know if you can see well enough, But at the bottom of the map is Dogway Park, and the red is where the trails already exist. Then there's a yellow dotted line that goes up where the trail will go north in between the back of the homes on Desdemona and in between the creek. And that's the creek that you guys just named. It's Brandon's Run. And then you go on up farther and you'll see that there is a dotted line that goes in between the two dead end roads. That is the Tracery Oaks on the left, and on the right is Twain Ridge. There will eventually be a bridge connecting those two roads. And the plan is for the trail to go up to that bridge, come up off of being in the greenway, come up and cross over with that bridge and then go back down into the greenway. The greenway will then continue north. It kind of hooks around, and then it comes up to, and this is a part I love, it actually goes underneath Harrodsburg Road. That's the red section that crosses Harrodsburg Road. But there's a tunnel underneath Harrodsburg Road that is the end of this trail section. And that's what's such a huge asset to this area of the town, is that we have a way of getting across Harrodsburg Road in a greenway trail. We just get away from the traffic, and it'll be great. It'll be a huge asset. So what I wanted to look to next is the entries to the trail. You have Dogwood Park, and then you have – oh, you don't have to take it yet. Sorry. I marked the greenways in green. The two circles by the bridge, that is an access area that you can get onto. But the main idea of, you know, often greenway trails have a motorized bridge with sidewalks and bike lanes to cross the body of water. But these injuries should not be the main access points. The main access points need to be in low traffic areas away from the busy streets. And especially for the safety of families and children on bicycles. So if you have to access a trail on a busy road, then you've lost the whole idea of being on a safe trail. So the one access there that are by the bridge, those accesses mainly just across the water, not to be getting to the trail. There's another access. It's a small little green arrow. I don't know how well you can see it. Above that green arrow, the next one up there. That is on English Station. When English Station was developed, they were looking ahead, and they have a 15-foot easement that goes into the greenway. But it's very steep, and there's no way you could have that access without stairs. So if you're a kid on a bicycle and you lived in the Calgill plant or north of that, you really have a choice of going to a busy road or going down something with a lot of stairs. So that's why the importance of the entrance on the Calgill plant is so important. Initially, it was only going to be 15 feet and steep also, but after talking at the at the planning commission meeting they did decide to make it meaningful and and the whole idea of it is you need to have a way for bicycles and strollers to get to the the greenway and onto that trail but at this point we have a 30 foot wide which i'm thrilled that it went from 15 to 30. i'm thrilled with that i wish it was bigger but i'll take 30. but what my big concern is that it is so important to have that entry and it's on the plan which is wonderful but from my understanding of asking my questions is that if the zoning passes the zoning's passed but the green the subdivision plan that has the 30 foot entrance on it is a plan and it isn't forever and it may fall through you never know i mean with covid and you've had the the difference in the housing market and a possible recession, you just don't know the future. So my fear is if this plan doesn't go through and there's another subdivision plan in the future, maybe five, six, seven years in the future, who knows, will we still have an entry? And that's what I was asking is that there's a way to add a reservation. I don't want a restriction. I want to agree with what we have. But is there a way to make it permanent so that if the subdivision plan does fall through, that we don't lose our entry? and it doesn't get shrunk down to 15 feet or just gone. And so that's my question. Is there a way that we can ensure what the plan is will carry through no matter what the future holds? And I don't know what you call that in the legal department, but that's my request. I think planning, when they come back up, may be able to answer some of your questions. So they'll come back up and ask something, so they may have an answer for that. All right. Thank you. Okay, next is Erin Goldson. Hi, I speak my time to Mark Scott. Okay, if you can come on up and. She's giving her time to ask her who. Who'd you give your time to again? So you come on up and speak. And I believe you got somebody else to give your time too? Yes. And who? All the way on my time to Mark Scott. My name is Dave. So we got all of you. Okay. David Dickey? My name is Terry Wilson-Dickey. I yield my time to Mark Salt. Okay, thank you all. And you, my friend, have... A half hour. Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. I'm submitting paperwork that has passed around the neighborhood the last week, and that is our petition that we've had residents sign. And as you've heard so far, and by the way, my name is Mark Sock, 4752 Agape Drive. Lived there for about 23 years now. And really, just like everybody else and everybody you see here has enjoyed the quiet nature of our neighborhood for over 30 years that it's been there. And that's what I'm going to be speaking to tonight because we have great concerns about the safety of our neighborhood. Not necessarily because of the development, because of the potential of the traffic that could carry through our neighborhood if REMA and Agape are opened. So this is our collective voice here tonight. And in one week, literally in one week, one week and one day, I should say, around a dozen neighbors knock on every door in Dogwood Trace, asking neighbors to sign a petition that in part read, quote, We, the undersigned residents of Dogwood Trace and Dogwood Glen, respectfully request that Agape Drive and Ream Away at their northern terminus not be open to the new development of the Kammack property. We do not oppose development, but when the development significantly and adversely affects the character and quality of life in adjacent areas, we believe action must be taken to protect the adjacent neighborhoods. And we respectfully ask you all to maintain the current permanent barricade on Agape and add a permanent barricade on Rima. And as of late last night, we still had people texting and calling, my wife and I, who were kind of spearheading the petition, saying we want to sign on. We've also missed a lot of folks because it's vacation. It's time to get away from the neighborhood and go to the favorite vacation spot. And we know we would have had a lot more than 522 signatures had it been the middle of winter, let's say. So in the comprehensive plan, it states that great care should be taken to guarantee existing neighborhoods are enhanced by this growth. And to create vibrant new ones with a high standard of design and focus on community building amenities. Well, with the new development, a total of 368 residences will sit just to the north of Dogwood Trace. So that's the Cowgill Development, as well as English Station, and the Tracery. Many, if not all of these, are now and will be two-vehicle residences. And if connected, the potential for an additional load of 700-plus vehicles could be added to the streets of Dogwood Trace. so we know the comprehensive plan talks about connecting to stub streets well if stub streets are required to be connected then why are some like twain ridge not included this non-connection it's been sitting there for a long time places the burden of traffic on dogwood trace and when stub streets were constructed in our neighborhood over 30 years ago I don't envision Mr. White really saw that there was going to be a shopping center on one side of his subdivision and another 368 residences on the north side of his subdivision. So that's why we address the situation of safety. And safety of our neighborhood cyclists of all ages are of our concern. You know, a high priority has been placed on making Lexington more bicycle friendly. And on any given day, this is a typical scene you see, especially on Agape Drive and all through the neighborhood. Children and adults cycling through our neighborhood and their safety is our concern. Also high on our list of concerns, Agape's has been expressed and decided upon with previous Council's overwhelming decision to permanently barricade, and I think a few of you sitting here now voted in favor of barricading, permanently barricading Agape several years ago. Agape is narrow width that does not lend itself to the flood of traffic that would pour on the Dogwood Trace from the new development, English station, and the tracery. Ream Away is even narrower than Agape and less conducive to the volume of traffic that would flow down it. And the reason for the increased volume of traffic sits at the southern end of our subdivision, and that's the Bell Reef Shopping Center. But that's not the only destination, because people will also be making a left turn at the end of Agape Drive to cut through Clay's Crossing to get over to Brannon Crossing, which is a desired destination now. Sam's Club, Kohl's, is also down Route 27 as well. So, you know, we're talking about tax dollars that are leaving Fayette County and going to Jessamine County. Pinch points at Agape and Rima may slow traffic here, and I know that traffic calming measures have been discussed so far tonight. So they may slow traffic at these pinch points, but once they pass those pinch points, the larger safety issue lies right here. This is the intersection of Dogwood Trace Boulevard and Agape Drive. And any of these people right here will tell you they probably go through this intersection at least twice a day, if not three times a day. And if you're like me and my wife needs something to add an ingredient to, I'm running up to Kroger probably four times a day. so the person who lives in there's there's a house right inside that cluster of trees miss morton lives in that house and her kitchen window is the window on that intersection right there and when i recently talked to her she told me about how almost daily she hears school bus horns honking because people are trying to pass school buses. She says when the policeman sits right there on Agape Drive, he'll sit there for 15 minutes and write several tickets because people cruise through the stop sign. So safety is a major concern here and just this past Saturday when I was out collecting signatures, I saw two vehicles. I don't think they were neighbors. One was speeding at a very high rate of speed coming up from Dogwood Glen to get to this intersection. And the second one literally made almost no effort to stop and made just a very quick left turn off Dogwood Trace Boulevard to go up to Kroger or up to at least Belle Reve. So safety is a serious concern to our neighbors. And I know that for planning staff and for you all that you know are you know beloved fire police and emergency services folks need you know access so both fire and police have told us that they use gps to take them straight to an emergency situation no gps routing is going to have them pass old schoolhouse come down dogwood Trace Boulevard, either down Agape or Rima, then wind into the new subdivision. That would take valuable minutes more in response time. So I know that one-way in and out has been a concern before, and we addressed this several years ago in our Agape Drive presentation. We understand the concerns, but this is not a precedent. There are many one-way in and out neighborhoods throughout the city. So straight from the minutes of the April 28th Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Nicholson, who's the attorney representing Cowgill, quote, assured the Commission and those who are in attendance that nothing in this plan will remove the barricade from Agape. And the minutes go on to say, that he, Mr. Nicholson, concluded that development does not need these roads. They have an access point to Old Schoolhouse Lane, end quote. So the two parties who have the most skin in this game, Cowgill Development, Dogwood Trace, neither need nor want Rima Way or Agape connected to the new neighborhood. Let me repeat, neither Cowgill nor Dogwood Trace need nor want to be connected to the new development. We're speaking here collectively tonight, expressing to you our real-life concerns if Reem Away and Agape Drive were to be connected to the new development. Comprehensive plan stresses people first. That's what we're asking tonight. that you put these people first when you're considering opening up REMA and Agape Drive. All of these folks and the 522 that signed on to our petition are putting their trust in you to honor their request. And I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your time. Just for the record, we want to hold off on Clapton. That's one thing we don't allow here, but I appreciate it. Thank you all. And next I have Brian Gibson, and I think you may have somebody yield your time. I believe. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I also have copies. It's what's going to be up there. It's extra copies. Good evening. I'd like to address the safety and connectivity issue that would result from the proposed development plan, adding to what Mr. Sock already shared with you. I would again emphasize we're not opposed to this development plan, but we're concerned about the negative externalities that would be imposed on existing neighborhoods. So why is this an issue? The area in question is unique in connecting the stub streets as in the development plan, does not help disperse traffic, but instead creates a dangerous traffic funnel and overburdens a local neighborhood street. This is in stark contrast to the comprehensive plan, which states dispersing the traffic of an entire area onto multiple collector and local streets makes every street in a neighborhood desirable and none too overburdened. So why is this area unique? As you can see on the screen, it's shaped like an upside down U. On one side, you have Harrisburg Road with only two access points, Old School House Lane and Dogwood Trace Boulevard. The bottom and other side of the U are bordered by South Elkhorn and Brannon Run. There is no vehicular access because there are no roads built across these creeks. At the top of the U is the Belle Reve Shopping Center, with the anchor store being Kroger, and further access available to Brandon Crossing. At the bottom of the U, there are currently 277 households between apartments and single-family homes. The proposed development adds an additional 88 homes for a total of 365 households, or, considering two vehicles per household, a minimum of 730 vehicles. Therefore, the traffic review that was conducted for the development, which only considered the impact of the proposed 88 homes, is inadequate and vastly underestimates the impact of this proposed development. Between that higher density section at the bottom of the U and the shopping center at the top is Dogwood Trace, with only two street stubs. This raises serious safety issues. As currently set up, all that traffic would be funneled to Rimaway. You can see the connection there, given the current barricade at Agape. REMA is a narrow local street with blind curves, only 27 feet wide, with on-street parking, and is not built to the standards of a connector street. However, opening Agape Drive would create a direct straight shot, which is just as untenable as having REMA Way serving as the only connection. There are many families in Dogwood Trace, including my own, that walk to Dogwood Park, that have kids that play in front yards, and other outdoor activities. This would no longer be safe. Family and friends that visit would find it difficult and unsafe to park on a narrow street with the increase in traffic. To simply allow this development to proceed without addressing this issue would endanger the safety and welfare of residents at Dogwood Trace and fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood. I have a couple of shots of Arimale here, similar to what Mark showed. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I have Mike Crossett. Yes, sir. I'll keep my talk very brief. since the last two gentlemen hit most of the points. I'm Mike Crosetti. I live in District 9. I'm a long-time resident of Dogwood Trace and even a longer-time resident of Fayette County. First, thank you for letting me be here and being part of this process. I appreciate having my voice heard. To follow up with what the last two gentlemen said, I want to first thank you for your time and your service through our community. I also want to give thanks to the past community servants who developed the Comprehensive Plan for the future of Lexington. The beauty of the Comprehensive Plan is that it's not a sterile list of do's and don'ts, but it provides goals that we all should be working toward. The beginning of the mission statement reads, The 2018 Comprehensive Plan, Imagine Lexington, seeks to provide flexible yet focused planning guidance. With regard to transportation and pedestrian connectivity, one of the goals is, and this was mentioned by Brian, dispersing the traffic, making every street in a neighborhood desirable and none too overburdened. End of quote. So my hope is that there will be a creative, cooperative, and equitable solution to be realized in order to meet this goal regarding the stub streets in Dogwood Trace. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, I have Karen Springate. I'm seating my time to park. Is that Kelly? Okay, what's your name? Yeah, Kelly. okay okay and you okay you have all right thank you um thank you councilmember Baxter thank you councilmember Maloney the rest of the council can you all hear me okay I'm I'm shorter than some of these people. I really appreciate the time that you all are giving us to hear us and to your service. I live on Rima Way in Dogwood Trace, and I thought I'd just briefly tell you, without giving you a lot of history, why I chose to live in Dogwood Trace, because I think that's important. I was not born and raised in Lexington. I spent high school in Louisville. I went to graduate school out of state. I taught at EKU for almost 28 years. I was a professor in the College of Art and Design, the School of Art and Design. and in 1991 I realized that I needed to shall we say expand my my circle so I bought a home I had driven into Lexington occasionally to eat and to shop I was single and I drove in Richmond Road and I wanted to live there I wanted to live off of Richmond Road and believe it or not I could buy a home at that time for under a hundred thousand dollars in the Ashland Park area, which I did. And I could have lived in a lot of places, as you might imagine, because I commuted to Richmond for the remainder of that those years that I worked there for almost 26 years I commuted. But I was never sorry. I moved into that area. I met my husband here and we subsequently decided that we needed a larger home with more space for our growing family and pet. So Dogwood Trace, after looking at what I thought was 100 homes, we've selected Dogwood Trace. We have a beautiful lot near the end of Rima Way, 100 feet wide with gorgeous view of the creek and the surrounding area. But I want to stress that it was the area that sold us on that. It was not the house. We could have had lots of houses, and it was the lot and the area. Quality of life has been wonderful here. I've lived in a lot of places. I've lived out of state. I've lived in Louisville. Lexington offered the quality of life that I wanted. who have enjoyed games on our Stub Street played in the street kickball baseball there's been for all my neighbors a strong community spirit and as you might imagine we're kind of sad to see that change we understand the need for more housing in Lexington a lot of cities in the US are struggling with housing issues but we would argue that 88 densely packed homes is not consistent with the spirit of the comprehensive plan to enhance neighborhood quality of life we believe that the focus should be on safety and really for quality over quantity you know 40 foot lots versus 100 foot lots there is we question that transition and the number of lots per acre is significantly different in the new development so we would ask that there be some conditions placed on that density and there be more contextual sensitivity we really think that families people with careers people that are moving here people that we're wanting to house will seek out homes with some green space with some yard some lot size and we don't see this as a negative yeah we have apartments back there we have different densities back there and we think that that the quality of life will be better for these people families want yards also it will mean less cars and we are concerned about REMA being the only open connection currently this is was not stressed early on in in the presentation but it is there there are four sub streets but REMA is the only open connection currently proposed and as you might guess that is problematic for reasons that have already been stated we drove through back back through English station and made some turns to see how it would look going to the Bell Reeves shopping center and to Brannan Road and beyond and there was at least three or four turns depending on where you will live before you reach Agape and as Mr. Sock pointed out so well that intersection there's merging traffic there's cross traffic and lots of rolling through the stop signs which is problematic and then turning off of Rima onto dogwood trays there is going to be a merging traffic issue so obviously the property cannot remain agricultural but we do believe that these conditions limiting it to single-family lots greater than 40 feet and of course some greenway and green space access to accommodate we hope more multi-modal forms of transportation like bike trails and walking trails and such some fine cities in the US have dedicated more space to these aspects of transportation and I would hope that this will be strongly considered we really want to see Lexington and our area enhanced by this development and not diminishing what is already there we want to see Lexington continue to be a leader in the state or and even in the region incorporating more green space preserving the tree canopy as much as possible and encouraging well-designed housing thank you next is roger last board okay what's your name okay thank you good evening Nancy and I live on the Rima Way. I'm Roger Lashbrook. We've been there 22 years. And I'd like to just address something about our neighborhood and looking forward to the new neighborhood that we know is coming and we welcome. um first of all there are things that we don't have in common we don't have with the developer as the developer has the resources of an attorney to speak for us we don't have that as you the The council, you have the resource of a planning commission who are trained, experienced in what they do, and that's a real asset. And we don't have that to represent us. And so we don't have that in common. What we do have in common with you and what's been stated by others is our voice. and to, with due diligence, bring our voice before you, who we honor and appreciate your service, and make an appeal to you that you use your voices to deliberate at length and to speak to each other and consider this zoning request and to add a condition to it. We know that it's inevitable that land gets developed, but that you add a condition to it. And I don't stand here and speak at all wanting to maintain any sort of status quo. We are forward-looking people as we know Lexington is. That's the great thing about being in Lexington, is that you're not stuck in any sort of a tradition or status quo. I would say, though, that your decision is, as opposed to what we heard in the first presentation, is going to be somewhat subjective. It has to be. I mean, when you hear the term affordable housing, that's a subjective term. What's affordable here is not affordable there. What's affordable to one family or individual isn't to another. So it's going to be subjective. And you're asked to make an evaluation and use your experience. And what you can do, as we've been schooled at 101, that, you know, you don't deal with planning, you deal with zoning. but you can add a condition to the zoning. I'll get to my last comment then. You know, the beautiful thing about Lexington, again, is that it's been forward thinking about residential housing. If we drive in, say, Newtown Pike, which then turns into Oliver Lewis Way, and you look to your right after you cross Versailles Road, it's wonderful to look at that housing there, which I would think in some definition would be considered affordable housing or low-cost housing. And it's wonderful to look at. It's not been done in such a way where you take a piece of land and you just absolutely cram as many units as you can onto it and say that's what the urban county Lexington needs. So I appeal to you, I ask you to take the time to don't rush through this and think about a condition with this zoning approval that would be in keeping with the adjacent neighborhoods. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next I have on the list is Bennett Clark. You have three minutes. You want to yield your time to him, and your name is Morgan Clark. Thank you. My name is Bennett Clark. I live at 2441 La Crosse Court. I'm probably the newest resident of the neighborhood. I've been there two months. So after going under contract on the house, the day after we found out about the potential for a zone change. So it's great. I think I'd be incredibly repetitive, so I'll try to keep it short. Literally everything that I was going to say has been covered. but I did want to stress just the importance of looking at this specific parcel of land and how it relates to the adjacent property with anything that I've been a part of with development and building and renovating homes is just trying to make the highest and best use out of that property and I think it would be a shame to cram in the development with the 88 homes I think there's a lot of loose ends that haven't been tied up. Hopefully that will get worked out in the future. I definitely think that the single-family home proposal is about the only thing that really is the positive aspect of when you look at the comprehensive plan. I think everything else is kind of cut short and not thought through. through. I'd definitely like to see an improvement to the proposal of the border between the properties and the 10-foot tree protection area. That was something that they just kind of came up with. And again, if it's going to be approved as is, I'd definitely like to see improvement to that plan and design. But we appreciate your time and hopefully look forward to not having two and a half homes directly behind my house. Yes, I have on the list Matt Elliott. Hello. Thanks for listening to our comments today. My name is Matt Elliott. I'm a resident of District 9. I live on I'm Rima Way, and I'm a lifelong resident of Lexington. I'm also a product of our fine public schools. I went to James Lane Allen, Beaumont, and Dunbar, and I also graduated from the University of Kentucky with a degree in computer science. I'm speaking today to comment on my experience with this process up to this point. The Pew Research Center statistics show that trust in government has fallen dramatically over the last several years. Before I attended the Planning Commission hearing on the zone change, I hoped that the city that I called home my whole life would be a counter example. It did not turn out to be the case, unfortunately. My fear was that the planning commission hearing would consist of a well-paid lawyer in a nice suit saying anything that needed to be said to get the approval for the zone change. Well, that's what happened. It was actually far worse. One member of the planning commission appeared to fall asleep several times. Another one was on his phone virtually the whole meeting and seemed hostile to the fact that so many of us had shown up to be heard. All of them seemed rather annoyed to be dealing with us, and many didn't even ask a single question before approving the change. I will note that the city's planning staff was a bright spot. They were professional and helpful, and I appreciate you all being so attentive today. It's quite a different experience, I'll be honest. But if I found some frustrated, it's because I am. My neighborhood is full of smart, thoughtful people who have put decades of work into building a community. I've watched over and over as each one of their good faith proposals was cast aside with eye rolls and irritation. The zoning committee and you all are public service, and we look for you to help, and we want you to listen to this. And that's really all we're asking for. So my sincere plea is really that you just listen to my neighbors. Help us find a solution or a compromise instead of dismissing us as another annoying chore that you have to deal with. This is a group of people who truly want to build a community, and that's a far harder task than simply building houses. A community requires thought, planning, listening, and yes, sometimes even compromise. I'm a capitalist, and I'm fully supportive of building homes and making profits, and I know our city desperately needs more housing. You've heard people suggest proposing the lot sizes, the density just a bit, and this is the difference between building like 88 homes and maybe 70 or 65. And I'm sure some bristle at this suggestion, but keep in mind that this is not a hard change and the net difference would not make a measurable difference in the housing shortage in our city. But I do want to under, it will make an effect on someone's bottom line, but I want to underscore the fact that that financial impact should have no relevance or bearing on the conversations that we're having here today. We've heard about the comprehensive plan several times. I haven't read it. I've heard a lot about it. But in my career as a technologist, I've worked on many strategic plans. I understand how important they are. But I just want to point out that no plan, no matter how well written, is a replacement for common sense and decency. We hope our home on REMA would be our forever home. I really could work anywhere. You only get three minutes. But I appreciate your time. Thank you for listening to us. Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay, is there anybody that I missed that didn't sign up that wants to speak? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead and give your name and address, please. And you have three minutes. My name is Jerry Holbein, and I have lived in Dogwood Trace for 31 years. I feel like I'm going to cry. And I live at 4813 Matthew Court. I raised four children there, and I have wonderful neighbors, including the Maranottis right here. And I just want to tell you one quick story, and then I'll sit down. When Ball Homes built homes down below Dogwood Trace, my son, William's best friend's name was Nathan. He lived on the other side of Matthew Quartz. Unfortunately, one day, someone that lives down in Dogwood Glen was going too fast and struck Nathan. He was taken in an ambulance, and he has survived. His bike was destroyed, but he was not allowed to come play across Dogwood Trace into our cul-de-sac again. Thank you. Thank you. Since there's no one else, we're going to take a five-minute break and we'll be right back. And then I have somebody in the back. Okay, come on back. I'm sorry. Since you gave us your name and address, you have three minutes. Thank you. Sorry. My name is Chris Calder. I'm at 2429 La Crosse. Been there for about six years. This is our second house in Lexington. first starter home affordable housing was over there in the Masterson Station neighborhood and when my wife and I decided that we wanted to start a family we looked kind of in the outskirts larger homes larger yards and it's safe that is the main thing my kid is four he rides his bike up and down the street everyone knows him and cars don't fly by and the only reason I'm standing up here today is speaking on his behalf and my daughter that is due any day now. Their safety is my biggest concern, and I just wanted to say that. Thank you all for your time. Anybody else? Okay, we're going to take a five-minute break, and we'll be right back. And I have Tracy come up and speak. In fact, hold on a second. I have you speak when we come back to answer any of those questions, and then I give everybody three minutes for their closing statements. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. guitar solo We'll be right back. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, let's never die. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. some more information on there yes sir I actually don't have any rebuttal comments for you tonight no but I'm available to answer any questions I did here when the council opens that up I would have you back up okay okay I just giving you a chance if you had anything you wanted to say concern from the other one the only thing that you mentioned during the course of the comments was that somebody had a question about the 30-foot access and is that's the only one i would probably address that it is on their plan and the plan if the applicant gets their zone change we would foresee them following their plan but as you all know plans are not a hundred percent and so there's always a chance that the plan might change if there's unforeseen circumstances on the site for instance sometimes there are environmental issues that come up on a site that are unforeseen and so that might change something on the property that we can't anticipate today but our understanding is that the applicant today is willing to put in a 30-foot access to the greenway and we anticipate that that will happen okay thank you uh mr nicholson if you have anything you got three minutes if you want to add anything uh is this is it far just quick rebuttal points uh to miss wade's uh kind of question or answer to the uh greenway note so it is officially on a note that a 30-foot width access has to be given into this greenway even when you bring in amended plans those notes transfer along with those amended plans so that is in writing on that property as far as traffic i i understand there's a whole lot of conversation about traffic today cut through traffic is always going to occur whenever new neighborhoods connect together as called for in the comprehensive plan the question today is is this going to be our three zoning it is not whether or not these roads should connect I know that the council is listening on this issue and you all are going to take a look on what should happen with those roads but that's not exactly what we're here to talk about kind of today also I always have to point out the draw is Lexington here folks it's not Jasmine County we don't even know how long that Kroger's is going to be there with what we keep on hearing is coming right down the road the drawl is always going to be Lexington on agape my comment was that we are neutral it is in the minutes right by the quote that was read and so I did not say that we do not want the roads that we are neutral we truly do not care for 88 lots we do not need these access points we have four access points that we are currently showing three are open one is directly excuse me five total access points from a fire code perspective we meet all requirements on the trail i did want to point out that it was even shown that that was not even on our side of the creek but we are still giving those access points on the concept of conditional zoning restriction since the 2018 comprehensive plan the council has imposed 22 different or 22 times it has posed conventional zoning restrictions on properties that have come before you only twice have you all put a density cap on there and one of them was for more than what the actual application was traditionally we do not put density caps on single family developments the last density cap was for the peninsula and that was talking units upwards of 600 and that was cut down slightly i also have a point i was glad chevy chase brought up and i even talked about it in the break chevy chase is one of the best examples of the most connected the most dense the most walkable neighborhood that we have and there are tons of 40-foot lots throughout chevy chase thank you thank you uh the president neighborhood association if you have three minutes you want any closing okay the gentleman up there you can speak come back you have three minutes i just want to clarify something that uh mr nicholson i did take these comments straight from the commission meeting minutes and it says quote he concluded that development does not need of these roads. Okay. But that you have an access point to old schoolhouse lane. So I just wanted to do, I wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And let's have the council. If you have questions, just open up for council. So go ahead. I'll be, if anybody would like to have comments or questions. Okay. First, council member Brown, James Brown. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Chair Maloney. And thank you all, the neighbors that live in these neighborhoods and in this area. Thanks for coming down here and sharing your concerns with us. I think we as a council do listen and take all your concerns into consideration and try to address them per our purview. So, Tracy, I guess my first question is just to be clear. Right now, Agape has a closure at the end of that street, and that was put in place by the council? Yes. So that was an action by the council at that time to do that? Okay. Was it 2014? 14. 2014, by resolution. And I guess, you know, I think that's something that we don't have purview. I'm just trying to get a holistic picture of the whole development. So was that something that came before the council by the neighbors? The neighbors requested that closure and council took action? Yes. Just to clarify, it wasn't, they didn't close, the council did not act to close the street. They installed a permanent barricade. Okay. So in my mind, that's a safety, something that was applied in that site as a safety precaution so that people don't drive down the street into a piece of farm land. Okay. Okay. All right. So then my next question is, so the 10-foot tree, was it a tree barrier tree protection area? So where is that located in regards to the lots that are planned to be built? Is it on the back side? Would it put a barrier between the existing lots and the new lots? It's basically around the entire site, or the north and the south borders. They were applying a 10-foot tree protection area. I don't know why that one didn't work. And I know it keeps getting referenced as a forest area, So is, I mean, are there so many trees that every potential backyard will have an actual barrier of trees separating them from the lots, separating backyards, so to speak? It is a heavily treed lot currently. It was utilized for agriculture in the past, but because it hasn't had crops more recently, it's been overgrown with volunteer trees. but the tree line or the shared property line does have a significant number of larger trees, and so that's where the 10-foot protection area was indicated and requested by the urban forester. Okay, okay. And the developer has already committed to that? They've agreed to that, yes. Okay. Now, in regards to the traffic mitigation commitment, 36,000? That's correct. Do we have any ideas on what that may look like, what that investment may, and what, you know, I guess we know the streets, but what are we talking about? Are we talking about traffic lights, speed hubs? No, speed tables in the neighborhood. That's the typical neighborhood traffic. device that's utilized and so traffic engineering has indicated three locations along this local street two in the front portion and a third in the kind of second third or last third of the street where they put in the traffic tables so the raised tables and then three other locations off of the property within the adjoining neighborhood okay and how did you come to that number was that just based off of what that was traffic engineering having a conversation internally amongst their staff both with the group that deals with new development with the neighborhood traffic group and then they communicated with the applicant to come to a consensus about six locations and so each of those locations is approximately six thousand dollars to install okay okay all right And just the other thing that I feel positive about, and hopefully it's been productive, is so there's been two neighborhood meetings as engagement opportunities. And maybe I missed it earlier. What was the attendance of those meetings? Was it pretty well attended? before we filed we reached out to the dogwood trace president and scheduled basically a neighborhood meeting i would say there was probably 20-ish people there i do not have an attendance kind of sheet and then after the fact we had a neighborhood zoom for any of the interested parties and i think there was probably 10 or 15 people on that zoom okay okay all right thank you Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Next is Council Member Bluss-Sowell. Thank you, Chair, and thank you. Stay right there, Tracy. Thank you to the neighborhood who have come and talked tonight. I know I represented many of you for eight years until January, so I'm very familiar with the development and the situation back there. In fact, the red squares at the end of Agape that have the reflector lights I placed there a number of years ago by the request of the neighborhood to show a physical sign of the barricade that was done by resolution by the council. I want to go back to a couple comments that were made earlier about the Sustainable Growth Committee and planning. When we adopted the planning commission, the strategic plan, they changed a lot of the density issues for us, meaning what was single family, our residential one, all the way up to medium density and high density changed. And so for a medium density R3 zone, Tracy, what would have been or what could be in today's document the highest density that would be allowed to be applied for under the R3 zone? The zoning ordinance doesn't specifically address density requirements, either minimums or maximums. It sort of depends on each site. if I were to I guess estimate I would say the highest density you could do in an R3 would be around 25 units per acre does that seem reasonable Mr. Nicholson he's been doing this a long time so apartments yes yes our R3 I'm just making sure we're all clear what that sounds like that's apartment complex Yes, and for medium density, that is, we're in the comprehensive plan, considers that three and four story, up to three and four story structures. So again, that would be multifamily. Which is a big shift from previous comprehensive plans, which is why I'm saying this. We're very familiar with this document, and you are not. And that's just because it's different. And so when we say medium density, we're talking about a three story apartment complex in an R3 zone. That's not single-family detached housing. I'll reference one of the developments we had over on Wellington by Sedona, if you're familiar with that area, right in front of the Taekwondo space. I voted against this, but we put a, the council voted to support a apartment complex that was three levels in that space, and it's medium density. So I just wanted to say that because single-family detached in this zone is much better than townhomes in an apartment complex, in my opinion, which could have been applied for. And this council has approved in previous years. So I appreciate the single-family approach. I think it's much better with a neighborhood than other alternatives could have been. I just wanted to say that. Two, the walkable trail, Kim, I'm glad you brought that up, because Council Member Sadi and I had worked on that for a long time, trying to make that trail continuous on Harrisburg Road, under the underpass, and around, to try to have safety for neighborhoods to get to the South Elkhorn area. And this is a part of that plan, and I appreciate the developers and applicants figuring out a way to make sure that's protected, because that's super important, especially for long-term growth, so I applaud that. The fencing and traffic calming are all really important things that, again, And we have been in a number of places where that has not even been an option by applicants. So I appreciate your intentionality, I suppose, with trying to help make some of that work. That being said, well, I'll reserve the rest of my comments for after people have had questions. I just wanted to bring those up and make sure I understood what the potential was. Thank you. Next is the Council Member Wentles. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, everyone, for being here tonight, taking so much time out of your day to talk to us about something that you care about. First, I just want to acknowledge kind of the predicament that we're in. And it's not a new predicament. It's a predicament that we've been dealing with for the past few years. and that is that our comp plan says one thing about density and what we should be doing, and the neighborhoods feel a different way about the density. So right now what's happening is the comp plan is saying that this is a good use for this space, that the density is appropriate, and that that's what the comp plan says for infill. And what the neighborhood is saying, which I think is very valid because I grew up in a neighborhood very similar to that of Dogwood Trace with lots of similar sizes, is you're saying this is a huge change from our neighborhood. It's a big difference from the lot size that we're living in, and therefore you feel frustrated because it's going to add a lot more people and a lot smaller space. And I wanted to say that I understand that, and I think it's very valid, And that I think as we look at infill, we have to say, how can we balance these two things? Something that we need, which is more housing, when we don't have a lot of space to do it in. And the developers have to make money when they build. And then preserving our neighborhoods and doing something that doesn't make us feel like we're getting overrun or that the construct of our neighborhood is completely changing. So I see that as a paradox of something that's really hard to figure out. And I want you all to know that us as council members, it's really hard to figure out because we are supposed to vote for something that, you know, is for more density. That's what we're supposed to do. And we're also supposed to represent the people that voted for us. And so we want to do the right thing. and i just want you all to realize that sometimes uh that's not easy and we don't always know uh what that is or what it looks like so i just want to make in my comments i don't know uh mr nicholson is there any possible way of having less houses at all i mean if if we are actually serious about the comprehensive plan no i mean i can be very blunt there the conference of plan is telling us point blank period even highlighting this exact parcel this is where the comprehensive plan is calling for density we try to do it in a respective manner by not bringing in apartments not trying to do higher types of uh kind of like attached townhomes or quads we tried to learn the lesson of blackburn avenue we tried to learn from tates creek and we brought in single family and we are getting the exact same pushback that they are and so the unfortunate part from the development perspective is you all told us here's your road map to how you can bring in houses and development this is what lexington as a community is saying please bring us this and we do it and we're still evil and it is unfortunate because it raises costs across the board the soft costs just for the entitlement phase has increased incredibly and we've seen lot prices skyrocket throughout the past two years and so with conditional zoning restriction if you all decide to go that route that is basically just telling you know the the average lexintonian that this is just not going going to be for you and unfortunately i understand that and that's a tough situation that you all are in i very much recognize it but we are following the plan that you all mandated we follow and that's what we're trying to do okay thank you i just didn't know if there was a possibility of making the houses smaller and more expensive or something like that but um and then just real real quick question with it is with the eight foot fence i cannot i cannot remember um is that something that's currently allowed in the zone like if we if we ask for an eight foot fence is that currently allowed or do you have to get a conditional use the zoning ordinance does allow eight foot fences inside and rear yards okay thank you that's all for now thank you very much thank you next on the list is the council member baxter thank you chair um first and foremost i want to thank everybody for being here tonight i know that a lot of you have invested many hours speaking with planning commission our planning staff public safety officials my office among among many other things and i just want to thank you for your involvement in our community we're only as good as our people and you guys have really shown your true colors that you are you are really invested in the future of our city so i want to thank you for that um i also want to acknowledge that zone changes are hard like council member reynolds just kind of you know alluded to it i'm stuck in a really hard place with with what is going on right now i I agree with the developer that they followed the comprehensive plan. I think that, as Council Member Bledsoe alluded to, the single-family dwelling offering is, I'm thankful for that. I'm thankful that we're not here talking about townhomes and apartments and things like that. I appreciate that that was a context-sensitive choice. but on the other hand I represent you guys and I represent your wishes so I'm stuck between a rock and hard place really to be honest and I want to do what's best for everybody you know we set up here and it's our responsibility to look at the future of Lexington so I'm still processing at this moment but did have a question for mr nicholson can you kind of give me an overview of what the timeline looks like on this development okay you know how long and how far out in the future do you think it would be before we have homes that people are buying i mean for homes we are talking easily next year that that best case scenario that that's that's easily next year in an ideal world we would be able to get some form of kind of ground disturbance permit done before winter that would be that would be absolutely ideal but the longer the process goes and if we end up having to amend the plan you know that that just pushes things back but in a dial in an ideal situation we would be able to turn dirt at some point this year but we're way off into next year until uh we're talking houses okay i appreciate that and the reason i ask that question is because everybody that spoke tonight well maybe not everybody but a lot of people that spoke tonight had a lot of concerns with connectivity and that's something that we're concerned with too i mean we obviously we want our neighborhoods to be connected you know it's my responsibility as a council member to take the concerns and the wellness of the entire community into consideration so connectivity is important however i feel like because we are a little bit off and because we can't make that decision tonight I think we can have that conversation at a later date well I know we can because we're gonna have to we can't tonight but I just want you all to know that your voices were heard tonight and we appreciate you sharing all of your concerns with us and then finally Tracy can I ask you a quick question as well you touched on it briefly when you when you first came up I was just hoping that you could elaborate a little bit on what the planning process looks like post zone change approval and how the neighborhood could still be involved going forward that's a bit of a difficult or a that's not a difficult question for me to answer it's it's just maybe not what everyone wants to hear so keep that in mind normally we have a preliminary development plan which might include multiple buildings or multiple lots and that will come to the council for approval and the next phase would be a final development plan for planning Commission approval and that would have a public hearing or public meeting in this case it's a preliminary subdivision plan which does not need another public hearing in front of the Planning Commission the next step is for the applicant to develop their infrastructure and improvement plans so they do those through the division of engineering they'll design the roadway the detention basins the curbs the sidewalks and how all those systems work together where the utilities are going to go and then they'll do a final record plat if the final record plat matches the preliminary subdivision plan that does come to the division of planning but it only goes to our technical committee because this is a ministerial process if it meets the subdivision regulations it has to be granted there's no there's no room for a lot of decision-making as opposed to on a development plan there's a there's more there's more I can't think of the word really just the ability that this isn't a development plan this is a preliminary subdivision plan correct so if they meet the land subdivision regulations a final record plat has to be granted by the Planning Commission they don't have a choice if they do amend the subdivision plan there would be another public hearing for that. That would be the, and again I don't want to, there's lots of if then's that could happen but I don't want to make any promises that there would be another public engagement opportunity. That's all my time for now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Allenthal? Thank you Chair and thank you all for coming out. I know this is something that you're all going to be dealing with every day, and I always try to defer to the neighbors. I like to hear what they have to say because you're the ones who are going to be dealing with it all the time. And I always like when the developers work with the neighbors because it makes for a good balance. The last zone change we had, it was a win-win-win for everybody. Everybody stood up, everybody supported. Unfortunately, we're not in that situation tonight. One of the issues that we've talked about, and I'm not sure we have any control over it, is about the infrastructure in there. And we've talked about the zone change and the parcel, and you were kind of talking about right there, Ms. Wade. Could you reemphasize that? Because I'm a little confused on what the egress and ingress is going to be with the development and the zone change. And will that come back to us at some point, or were you saying that we at that point will never have that decision on that, if this goes through? A typical preliminary subdivision plan and then the next step of a final record plat would never have council any kind of input on how the roads are laid out or how stub streets are connected. That's the planning commission's authority. That's what they do. In this case, because the council has already installed a barricade per a resolution, it would take another resolution to remove the barricade. So it would have to come back to us? Only on that one particular location, correct. So the other streets will all be constructed as seen on the preliminary subdivision plan, unless it's amended, per the Planning Commission's decision. So right now, and I guess, Mr. Nicholson, can you talk about when you're talking about the zone change, and I think you made the comment in the Planning Commission about that it's not if you care or don't care about if it opens up. So what I was getting at that point is because Dogwood Trace has been very split on how we should treat these different roads. I have heard that close them both. I've heard open them both. I've heard keep those open but close the two different access points to English station. I've heard open them all. So, like, there is a wide kind of range of opinions on here. What we were saying is we are neutral with regards to what happens with the roads. We had to show them because the subdivision regulations require us to show all of these Stub Street connections. We have access to Old Schoolhouse Lane that goes to a lit intersection on Harrodsburg Road. We have three other access points that are open right now going laterally. And so we have plenty of access. And so if you all decide to open Agape, okay. If you all decide to close REMA, okay. We're okay no matter what because we're just proposing 88 lots. Okay, and I guess that helps a little. Now the next question I have. You mentioned that the lot sizes were 40, and if we went to 50, that it was going to increase the price to $30,000. Have you looked at, if you did that, what you could downsize from 88 to a number that would be for that? So you probably, if you are talking about a 50-foot lot, you are getting in the range of like 72 to 74 lots right around there. And that's kind of the number I had it to. Does that make it still financially viable for you all when you look at that? We'll be able to develop it. It just passes the infrastructure onto the lot purchaser and increases the cost of the lot. Because I think that the neighbors, I think we're trying to have their, that would be more with what they would be looking at. And then also with the six to eight foot fence, fence you said something about the wood at some point that it and I didn't understand why the difference when you go from six to eight what was what was your rationale for not doing that so there there are maintenance issues that come along with eight foot fences it is why they aren't very common throughout Lexington an overwhelming majority of fences all around town are six feet they are they tend to be kind of one of the more kind of difficult things to maintain over time and especially if what we're talking about is a long row of an eight-foot fence. I know it doesn't make rational sense as I say this, but that two feet causes a big difference in the impact that the wind has on the viability of the structure of the fence. And so there's a reason homeowners don't build them often. They have to get replaced, and you've got to keep on maintaining them over the years. that will be on the lot owners that isn't on us but we still are trying to say that's just not a smart idea especially when you're talking about the stretch that we are talking about going all the way back over what will amount to 40 lots or so thank you I see my time's up but I might have more questions so thank you please councilman the back thank you chair um nick just brought up something that i in regards to you you know i don't need you to get up i'm sorry this is referring to what you said um about connectivity and that you do have all of your access points and things like that so i have captain lingle the fire department is he still here there it is um i just wanted to ask you as far as on a public safety front um i wanted to make sure that this development had all the access points that you felt that it needed to move forward so i'm captain greg lingle lakes and fire department um when we're looking at this development we're looking at two neighborhoods tracery and dogwood tracery when it came through 2014 had three access points the one off old herr or herdsburg road the twain ridge and agape that plan was approvable to the division of fire after that plan was approved the twain ridge bridge I believe went to court and it was determined that the developer didn't have to build it it's going to lay on city government which may or may not happen then agape drive was blocked by council division of fire at that point we spoke on it saying we needed these access points the planning commission approved in 2014 and the council set up the barricade so we're here today we still support connectivity. These streets are designed to be connected. These streets are public streets designed to be connected. When I look at this map on the tracery, I'm talking about tracery, they got one access point coming in. I know with the new road, Mr. Nichols, will be an access point that will come down to old schoolhouse. But that's not the spirit of the fire code. The NFPA fire code states if you have between 101 to 600, you need two access points. That will show two access points. I agree with that. But I believe the spirit of the fire code is to have an access point maybe on the north side and the west side, south side, east side, something where you can get people in and out. I look at if there's a structure fire, and you all have probably seen it, it's a parade of trucks that could block that street. Hoses are down on the ground. People need to get out of their neighborhood. If they can't get out of it, what do they do? Or come home. Police issues happen. You have barricaded subjects where you shut down neighborhoods. You've got one access point going in there. You can have storm damage. I had a storm come through my neighborhood the other week, and it blew down a tree. Luckily, I had two access points going off my street to get off, but it was right in the middle. So that's what we're looking at. And when we're talking about public safety, I'm not necessarily talking about the needs for these access points to serve Dogwood Trace. I'm talking about for tracery. and i'll stop there and i'll feel free to ask more or answer any questions if you want me to elaborate any more but no i i appreciate that i just wanted to you know we're talking about his own change so there are going to be more houses and i just want to make sure that the safety of these new houses is taken into consideration as we move forward and my office has consistently supported connectivity i appreciate that's the way cars move in lexington Thank you. Yeah, so if anybody has any questions. I appreciate it. Thank you. There's no other questions or comments. I do have a statement. I thank all of you all for being here, and I echo on some of my colleagues, Council Member Blesso, what she's saying, what could go in there. And this is where a lot of places we have seen where they go in there. And to me, this needs to be a single residential housing. I don't question how many. I don't know. I'm willing to listen to what recommendations when we come up to the next few minutes. But I do want to thank all of you all because this is my very first zone change. Even though I've been here for a long time, I appreciate you all running, and I appreciate my staff for helping this and my colleagues for being patient with me. This is the first time I've ever been nice to them, but no, I'm joking. But I do want to thank all of you all, and it was a great meeting tonight, so I appreciate it. So what I do is I'm going to make this adjourn. The public hearing will be shut. We can't have any more discussion. All we have now is the council can make comments, and then we'll make a motion, and then we'll do discussion there. The hearing will be closed. The hearing will be closed. The hearing will be closed. I'm sorry. The hearing will be closed. Thank you all. Okay. Do you want to take a few minutes? We're going to take a few minutes break, so we'll be right back. in about how many minutes you need and and we'll be back at eight Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ The End . . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ The End ¶¶ Thank you. I will entertain any motion or any comments. Council Member Baster, you're up, please. Thank you chair Once again, I want to thank everybody that came tonight and spoke Like I said before I know zone changes are hard and contentious and nobody likes to have their usual Life interrupted with change, so I appreciate everybody coming and talking and staying very positive and articulating your concerns respectfully that that is something that we don't always see so thank you so much for that um you know you guys brought about four requests density lot size neighborhood identity and greenway so we addressed the or the developer addressed the greenway the 30-foot easement we've already talked about how single family detached housing is an appropriate use for this space and and the lowest use that we possibly could have. We've spoken a bit about lot size and what that looks like as far as density is concerned. However, in my opinion, I feel like the number of houses that were proposed is appropriate. It does not mean that that is how many will actually show up on land. There's a myriad of things that could come up between now and then, and that is yet to be seen. However, I do feel like the eight-foot fence is something that is appropriate. So I move to place the following use and buffering conditional zoning restriction on the property pursuant to Article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance. I'd like to change the note. On the subdivision plan to be an eight-foot wooden fence will be installed along the property line with existing adjacent single-family lots at the time of development, in coordination with the urban forester to minimize impact to the tree protection area. These restrictions are appropriate and necessary to ensure the new development has greater buffering from existing neighborhoods, all while increasing housing options so moved we motion a second is there any discussion none on there we'll take a vote we need a vote here I'd be great Do we need to do a roll call? Yes, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Are we just going to take a vote on the conditional change at this point and then we'll do a vote on the whole zone change? Yes, that's what you're doing right now. Thank you. And do we need a roll call on that or do we just need a voice vote in this? You can do a voice vote as long as it's clear that you have eight votes. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? That passed. Thank you. Back to you, Council Member Baxter. Thank you. I further make a motion to approve the zone change based on the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission as amended and give it a new first reading. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? You don't want to say something? My name is still on there, but no. But are you saying to do another first reading? Is that a material change? It is a material change because you're going to change and add something to the ordinance that isn't currently in there, but it doesn't change the title. Okay. Okay, thank you. do a new first reading. No more discussion I will have a vote on that. Do we just need another or do I need to just do first reading. This is the findings of fact. If you go ahead with first reading that'd be great thank you. Did they vote on the motion? I'm sorry. This is the findings of fact that we have to go and and have a roll call vote on and then you would do the ordinance, okay? Okay. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Plumman? Yes. Ms. Reynolds? Yes. Ms. Sheehan? Yes. Ms. Baxter? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Kuiber? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Lamb? Yes, ma'am. And Ms. Legree? Yes. Thank you. Passed or do I have a motion for a second reading? you'll have to give it a new for our new shot to give it a new first reading now okay an ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban a used on to plan neighborhood residential are three zone for 14.773 net 15.519 gross acres for property located at 4630 old schoolhouse Lane cowgirl development LLC council District 9. Thank you. I move to suspend the rules and give second reading. Second. So if you go on and do the vote, that would be great. We have a second and we are opposed. Thank you. We need to motion. We have to vote on it if we have the people to do a second reading. The vote is a voice vote for suspension of the rules. You want me to? A voice vote for the suspension. Okay, a voice vote for suspension of the rules. Thank you for being patient. All in favor? Aye. Anybody against it? That passed. Thank you. Go ahead with second reading. Yes sir. An ordinance changing the zone from an agricultural urban AU zone to a plain neighborhood residential R3 zone for 14.773 net, 15.519 gross acres. We're probably located at 4630 Old Schoolhouse Lane, Cowgirl Development LLC, Council District 9. So now you need to take the vote and it will be a roll call vote based on the motion to approve. Motion to approve the ordinance. Second. Okay, we have a roll call. Mr. Maloney? Yes. Ms. Plowman? Yes. Ms. Reynolds? Yes. Ms. Sheehan? Yes. Ms. Baxter? Yes. Ms. Bledsoe? Yes. Mr. Fred Brown? Yes. Mr. James Brown? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Mr. Kuiber? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Lamb? Yes, ma'am. And Ms. LeGree? Yes. Thank you. That passed. Thank you. Any more discussion? None? We'll go ahead and close this meeting. So I have motion to adjourn. Second. We have a second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you.