Okay, it's six o'clock and we can begin our meeting. Welcome, everyone, who's here tonight for the special council meeting on the rezone request. I have to confess to you all I've done this. I've chaired this. My council colleagues know this in the last couple times. I've said this without any apology. I've chaired these meetings now for about a year and a half, and I confess to not remembering the procedure each time, and that's why we have a council staff. So I just confess that right out front. There are going to be times when I say, now, Susan, will you please tell me where we're supposed to be next? And she is very generous and very gracious, and she accommodates that question. And Jimmy Emmons, Jimmy is with our planning staff, and he knows the protocol, and he knows the procedure real well, too. So I ask for his help. So to begin with, the first on the procedure is a roll call. That's good. We've got to confirm a quorum, right? Yes. Okay. And then we will have, after that, the second reading of the zone change. Right, Susan? Thank you so much. So you'll give us a roll call for the council. Okay. Mr. DeCamp. Mr. Ellinger? Here. Ms. Gorton? Here. Mr. Gray? Here. Ms. Henson? Here. Ms. James? Here. Mr. Lane? Here. Mr. McCord? Here. Mr. Myers? Dr. Stevens? Present. Mr. Stennett? Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Blevins? Here. Mr. Blues? Here. And Ms. Crosby? we do have a quorum we have 11 so yes okay I will record that and then the first reading of the ordinance is an ordinance change in the zone from an agricultural urban a u zone to a plan unit d development one pud one zone for 24.88 net 27.7 gross acres for property located at 4500 old Schoolhouse Lane, subject to certain landscape and buffering restrictions, imposed as conditions of granting the zone change. Kevin Krause, Premier Villages. Thanks, Susan. The next item on our procedure is that I, as a presiding officer, need to swear in anybody who's going to testify, and that includes anybody who's going to speak. Is that correct, Susan? Anyone. So anyone who intends to come up to the podium and speak on behalf of the issue one way or another. I need for you, if you would please stand and hold up your right hand and say, yes, I hope after I give this. Do you promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you very much. Anybody said no, I don't know what exactly we'd do. All right. Okay, Jimmy, I'm going to ask you to help me with the procedure going forth because you know how to kind of shorthand it better than I do. Yes, sir. Just a few general comments about how the zone change for a council zone change goes. First of all, the presiding officer, which will be Mr. Gray, he can make evidentiary decisions so that if it is decided that there is irrelevant or repetitious testimony given, that they can go ahead and stop that testimony and say that we've already heard this or it is irrelevant. Also council members, if any council member feels that there is irrelevant or repetitious testimony they can bring that up for the chair's decision. The chair also kind of has the right to set time limits for the speaking as long as they're fair time limits. The kind of the order of the hearing first the staff the Division of Planning will present and then it'll be the applicants time to present and then opponents time to present. That will be followed up with a a staff will have an opportunity to make additional comments after the original comments, the petitioner, and then finally the opponents can have summary, a summation, and then the petitioner gets to finalize that with their summation. Then finally the council can ask questions. Of course throughout the hearing they can ask any questions they want, but there will be a time for questions after that and then the hearing is closed. And then the Council will make two votes. They can either vote to adopt the findings of fact recommended by the Planning Commission or adopt their own findings of fact. And then they can vote on the actual zone change. And of course, myself and other staff members will be here if there are any procedural questions that come up for us during the hearing. All right. Thank you, Jim. If that is, unless you have any more questions for that, I am ready to proceed. Well, as we go through this, I'll probably be asking you to confirm our next step. We have counsel representing both the applicant and the petitioner. Do we have counsel representing the petitioner? There is no council. Okay. So no council is representing the neighborhood? Correct. Okay. All right. Okay. Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. All right, Jimmy. Okay. So on behalf of the, Mr. Emmons will present on behalf of the planning staff and the committee Commission. Thank you, sir. To start. Excuse me just a second. Let me ask just for expectations so we can get a sense of timing. Mr. Lear, about how much time do you think that you can expect. Okay. About 20 minutes did I hear you say? 20, 20, 20, 20, 30 minutes, right. All right, sir. He's smiling, y'all, on this side. All right. I was going to say, my presentation, I expected to be about 20 minutes. I'll try and shorten that to 15. Okay. Well, we don't want to try, by saying that, we're not trying to shortchange anybody because we know that these are meaningful issues to everybody. We're just trying to get an expectation sense of how much time. Thank you. As mentioned earlier, this is MA. First of all, before I get started, my name is Jimmy Emmons. I'm a senior planner in the Division of Planning. I also have with me here tonight, and in case there are any questions, Tracy Wade, senior zoning planner, also in our division. I wanted to introduce her to the council. This is a zone change request for MAR 2008-14 for Kevin Krause for Premier Villages. This is a zone change from an AU, an agricultural urban zone, to a PUD1 zone. A PUD stands for Planned Unit Development. It's for about 25 acres of property, and it's located on two pieces of property, actually, 4,500 and 4,524 Old Schoolhouse Lane. Before, as I start my presentation, I do need to go ahead and submit a few things for the record, as always. First of all, a copy of the legal notice for tonight's hearing. An affidavit from Bill Sally saying that we did send out the notice for tonight's hearing. A copy of the Planning Commission's final report on this zone change hearing, which will be the primary document which I'm speaking from tonight. The 2007 comprehensive plan. Current copy of the LFUCG zoning ordinance. And finally, a current copy of the land subdivision regulations. I'll turn the lights down. This is to first orient everybody to the – to this. There we go. Is it on? Thank you. The two properties are located off of Harrodsburg Road. They're actually located on Old Schoolhouse Lane, which is a service road that was built by the state during the recent renovations of Harrodsburg Road in the area. They are practically directly across from the realigned military pipe as it comes along in through here. We've got Harrodsburg Road, Old Higbee Mill Road to the north. Stubbing into the subject property from the east is Twain Ridge Drive, a collector road that stubs into the property. We have a vacant piece of property directly south of the subject property that's known as the Hampton Springs development and then the existing English station development. There is an undeveloped piece of property that is still zoned agricultural that's commonly known as the Kamek property. We have the Dogwood Trace subdivision. Across Harrodsburg Road we have the Firebrook subdivision and Old Bridge and you can Palomar subdivision to the north on the top of the screen. We also have the Clemens Heights just to the east of the subject property. The comprehensive plan land use map recommends medium density residential for the subject property. Medium density is defined as 0 to 10 units per net acre or 0 to 8 units per gross acre for the land use residential density. As you can see the subject property is recommended medium density as are the properties directly to the south, the two undeveloped pieces of property in English Station and the undeveloped properties just to the north. The area in red is the Elkhorn Shopping Center, I'm missing the name, it's Elkhorn Something Shopping Center located at near the Palomar subdivision that's across the road you can see low density recommendation for the fire brook or the other surrounding subdivisions there also on this we have two this is a this shows it very well there are actually the confluence of two streams on the subject property about 20% of the property is in the floodplain towards the rear of the property in here this is the drive-in tributary and this is South Elkhorn Creek as it flows on. All of this property flows this way towards Harrodsburg Road and goes under Harrodsburg Road and then continues on along Bowman's Mill. The existing zoning for the subject property as we've mentioned several times is agricultural urban. Some of the surrounding zones you can see in the brown areas the two We've got at the Hampton Springs development is zoned R3 as is Firebrook. We also have the AU portion the green lot here is the Kamek property with the R1E being English station. Dogwood Trace is zoned R1C as is the Clements Heights and the red is the area for the B1 for the small shopping Center. I wanted to start off, this is the best overall picture of the property in our pictometry. And I just realized I've been pointing everything for the council. I'm going to point on both of them for the audience also. Subject property is essentially bounded right here. And for that's Harrodsburg Road. There's the property line along those trees. This This is the creek. The actual back property line is just off of this picture, and then it comes up in through here. So this is the Hampton Springs and English Station. This is a nice pictometry picture of looking at the road system in the area. We've got Harrisburg Road heading south, right here. Military Pike as it was realigned to come in and that's directly opposite of the subject property. And you can see the small shopping center just on the upper right hand corner. I do believe that there will be a, there was much discussion at the Planning Commission's hearing about a bur oak that's on the property. and it was, so I wanted to kind of show you that on pictometry. I have some better pictures of it also. That's basically right in front of the existing house right in here. This is the neighboring property here, and it's essentially kind of almost lined up with the military pike. Once again, we just zoomed in a little bit to show the burrow. These are some pictures from the ground level. This is the truck is parked in the driveway. These are two pictures from the old schoolhouse lane that show Harrodsburg Road to the far left side of the picture. Then you've got the service road, old school house lane, and you can see up at the top of the hill on the far right-hand side of the picture of the borough. Also, if I can switch over to the Elmo. The comprehensive plan land use element, the first, also has a recommended transportation aspect to it. It shows the continuation of Twain Ridge Drive, a collector road, through the subject property to come out to Harrodsburg Road. It also shows the connection of Agape Drive, which is coming north from the Dogwood Trace subdivision up to the subject property. And you can see the two tributaries or the two creeks right there. Okay. Turn the lights back up. The Planning Commission, after their two and a half hour hearing on this, they did vote to conditionally approve the proposed zone change to the PUD1 zone. and they voted 7 to 2 with some conditional zoning restrictions based off of buffering. I'll go over that at the end of my presentation. They also did consider the preliminary development plan in association with this. This is the preliminary development plan that was presented to the Planning Commission. Ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended, after recommending approval of the zoning, they recommended to indefinitely postpone the decision on the development plan until after the Council's hearing. According to the zoning ordinance, after the Council, if the Council were to approve the PUD1 zoning, the applicant would have six months to come back to the Planning Commission to get their plan approved and certified, a final, their preliminary development plan. To orient everyone, we've got Harrisburg Road, Military Pike. They are showing the extension of Twain Ridge Drive, which will include a bridge that goes over there to come out to Harrisburg Road. They are showing the extension of Agape Drive to go into that. They're showing 193 townhouses, which for the most part, most of those townhouses, instead Instead of being served by public streets, instead of fronting on a public street, these townhouses are oriented so that they will be facing each other and they will be fronting on an open space that's in between the townhouse units. Those units are served by a series of alleyways that go through the subject property. Everything except for the Agape Drive connection is proposed to be an alleyway that runs perpendicular to the two streets, to the two public streets there. There was much discussion about the tree preservation. I've also included the applicant's tree inventory map with those trees colored in there so that if there's any questions I might refer back to that if there's any time. I want to explain a little bit of a general explanation about the PUD zone. Article 22 of our zoning ordinance, it was written about 25 years ago to allow plan unit developments, and the idea on those are for innovative developments that can't be accomplished through our traditional zones and our zoning ordinance. In this particular case, the applicant is proposing to front those townhouse units on that common open space. And since they will not be fronting on a public street, that was what was found to be the design innovation. It would not be allowed by our normal zoning ordinance regulations, and it was suggested that they do the PUD 1 zone change to accomplish that particular design. The Planning Commission and the staff did recommend approval of this zone change after several months of working with the applicant and several revisions for the subject property on that development plan. The PUD1 zone also has several other little requirements. In particular, a development in a PUD1 has to be prepared by two land use professionals, say a civil engineer and an architect, or an architect and a landscape architect, or a civil engineer and a landscape architect, or a professional AICP planner. So the idea was to have a multidisciplinary approach in looking at a site. And also, we, of course, do have copies of Article 22, should you have any questions for me. It is something that I don't believe that the council has had a PUD zone change in front of them for about 25 years or about 20 years since the only other development that was ever proposed. I do want to go a little bit over the Planning Commission's findings. The Planning Commission did recommend approval, and they found that the requested planned unit development was in agreement with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The density that was proposed for the property was at 6.97 dwelling units. That's well within gross per gross acre. That's within the zero to eight dwelling units that were recommended by the comprehensive plan. Also, they found that this request substantially complied with the requirements of the PUD1 zone. And I want to explain just a little bit about that substantially requirement. And it's essentially relating to the Twain Ridge Bridge. That's hard to say. But the Twain Ridge Bridge, the applicant's estimate is that that bridge would cost about a million to a million and a half dollars. and there was some case law in the near vicinity on this one that basically says that the government cannot require the developer to build that bridge because the expense of the bridge far outweighed their proportionate share of building that bridge. However, we did find that in order to enable the bridge to be built at a future date, that the alignment of the roads and the collector streets on the property leading up to the bridge were required in the PUD1 zone. And that's because in Article 22 of the zoning ordinance, any streets that are shown on the comprehensive plan are required to be developed as a part of that PUD1 development. And that's a special requirement of a planned unit development zone. So that's the reason for the word substantially. It's because the applicants were not building the bridge, but they had lined up the road so that the bridge could be built in the future should that occur. I believe then also there were the conditional zoning restrictions. they did find that it would be necessary and appropriate to do some landscape buffering, which would essentially be a 30-foot, average 30-foot and width tree protection area along the common property line of the stranger property. And that if, and it's an either-or, and that if they're not able to do that, a solid wall or fence minimum 7 feet in height shall be installed with the required landscape buffer. They found that those were necessary and appropriate in order to protect the historic structure, which is listed on the Kentucky State Registry of Historic Places, the old schoolhouse, which old schoolhouse lane was named after. That essentially concludes my presentation. If you'll notice in your packet, like always, you have all of the standard stuff, the minutes and the planning staff report, but you also have some additional things in there because of the unique nature of a planned unit development zone. You can see in your packet they had the land uses proposed by the applicant, which sets forward their minimum requirements. I can tell you, and just to sum it up, they are very similar to our requirements of an R1T or a townhouse zone, because it is essentially townhouses that they are proposing. One of the big changes is that the required 20 feet of frontage can be on open space rather than on a public street. Also in there, you can see you have miniature copies of the tree inventory map and the development plan that was proposed. If you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer those, and of course I'll be available throughout your hearing if you have any questions for me. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. The procedure calls for council members asking questions at the conclusion of the presentations, but I've got to ask a little bitty one right here. I'm sorry. Do you have a picture of the schoolhouse somewhere? You don't have to give it to us now. Later we can see it. All right. Okay. I at least have a pictometry picture of it. I brought all of my exhibits over. Thank you. Okay, at this point, at this time, the procedure calls for the petitioner's presentation, Mr. Lear. Go ahead, please. Mr. Gray, I think I'm putting the – or we're trying to put the pictometry picture of the old schoolhouse property, the adjacent property. I don't want to see it right now. I just want to do it when we get to time for questions. Oh, thank you. Thank you. If I can have that. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the council. My name is Bill Lear, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Premier Villages, and Kevin Krause. With me is Kevin Krause, the two principals of Premier Villages, Kevin Krause and Matt Holland. I'm sorry, Howland. I apologize, Matt. Kevin has been involved in a number of developments here in central Kentucky. This is his first one in Lexington, though he's done housing developments in Danville and Nicholasville and Wilmore. Matt has done a good bit of development in the Pacific Northwest and is with Kevin on this proposal. Mark Brueggemann with CDS Associates, our engineer, is also here. I had all of them stand. I'm not necessarily planning for them to speak. I had all of them stand and take the oath, however, in case questions come up that they need to address. The proposal that we have to present to you tonight is, as Jimmy said, for approximately 25 acres for a PUD development with essentially an R1T overlay, meaning that the primary uses and the primary allowances and the primary restrictions are taken mainly from the R1T, the townhouse zone. It's a neo-traditional alley-serve townhome development that features a 7.3-acre greenway floodway, which represents a little more than 30% of the site. It's a significant portion of the greenway system, and I'll show you some pictures of that in a moment. We're here tonight not just to present this application, but also to allay some fears and concerns. I will give you two or three of those really quickly. Probably half of the Planning Commission hearing was devoted to issues related to the bur oak tree, or at least a significant portion, if not half. And as you'll hear in a little bit, the road plan that threatened that tree is a result of the developers attempting to comply with various government requirements. Since then, as a result of the Planning Commission's reaction to that road plan, we've been back to the Transportation Cabinet with a different road plan that avoids that tree and allows it to be preserved. You'll hear more on that later. I can also tell you that we have spent a considerable amount of time since the Planning Commission hearing working with our properties immediately, our neighbors immediately to the north, the Stringers and the Porters, and have reached an agreement with them that actually enhances some of the buffering that the Planning Commission provided. and Mr. Simpson will be here in a bit to advise you on their behalf that they do not object to our proposed development. I also need to explain something about the Planning Commission's reaction to the original development plan and this bridge. The Planning Commission, if you listen to the comments concerning this plan, Their primary objection revolved around this road connection right here. The Planning Commission members, I would say to a person, do not believe that this bridge is necessary. Moreover, they're not very confident that it will be built. It is probably a $3 million bridge. People that live over there don't want the bridge. This developer would just as soon not have it. It's not necessary to serve this property. The folks down here don't want the bridge. The folks over here probably don't care as much about that because they are not expecting to be connected to the road system. But the general consensus was that this bridge is not only unnecessary, but it's inappropriate, as is this fairly high-volume roadway that has to come up through here, and it is the potential elimination of this collector link here that allows the new road plan that you'll see in just a moment. So the folks in the back can also see this. I've got a version of that that I'm going to put up on the ELMO in a moment. If you would go ahead and put the first one. Yes, that one. That is the revised plan for the proposed development. It has two or three fewer townhomes than before, but the marked difference is that it allows an entrance in this area, which is near to the existing driveway on the property. This is the bur oak tree in this vicinity. There's military pike, which if you had to come straight in would, as you'll see in a minute, require you to do some cut that would make it impossible for that tree to stay. This is one of the other things that was possible with this revised plan. is to pull the development further from this property line, which is where the Stringers live up here, and Vice Mayor, that's where the old schoolhouse is, which is now a single-family residence occupied by the Stringers, and further from the Porter property back here. And a little bit later, I will tender some proposed revisions to the conditional zoning buffering requirements that address those areas in there. Go ahead. I won't – you've seen something like this from Jimmy, so I won't belabor that. This is an aerial photograph showing the entire vicinity. And my purpose is not just to locate the property, which has already been done for you, but my purpose is to show that this is essentially a developed-out area. And you will hear, I am confident, because we heard at the Planning Commission concerns about traffic and some concerns about storm and sanitary sewers and maybe some other things coming from all of the existing development. And as you can see, there's a lot more of that than there is of this, either in terms of acreage, numbers of units vastly different, and the like. For example, in this watershed, there are 11,100-some properties. We will have 190. We will contribute 0.3% sanitary sewer flow to the 42-inch main that runs down through here. That's one of just many ways in which you can see that this is really a very small piece of a very large puzzle virtually all of which is already developed in this area. Can you do the next one? This is just a little, move it just to the side a little bit if you can. There you go. This tells you why the tree was in jeopardy in trying to do a collector street that tied in here. This is the tree right there. This is obviously a lower level. The property goes to right here. This is Twain Ridge. This is where, if it's a collector, the Department of Highway says it has to come out and has to come back straight 150 to 200 feet from that intersection. You can see the Planning Commission. We spent a lot of time on this. I should tell you that you'll hear in a moment the planning for this development started more than a year ago. There are some notes from September of 2007 from Bill Salley that he – reflecting his work with the developer and the planning staff's thoughts about the various road connections. It was November of 2007 when this developer first went to the Department of Transportation with what they preferred as a transportation plan down in this area. Go to the next one. Just wanted to show you this. This is the seven-acre area at the back of the property that's to be dedicated as a greenway. Sometimes you, I guess, have a concern that some of that is not really usable. There's a lot of this that's very usable. This is the South Elkhorn branch. There's a pedestrian bridge that already crosses, actually farm vehicles, I'm sure, cross that. But you can see there's a fair amount of usable space back in here, And this, of course, is the Twain Ridge development, the part of Clemens Heights that comes over. Now, I'll just take you really quickly through some slides that show the property. They're not as light as I might like, but this is taken from Military Pike. You can see the very high wall. That's rock wall across there. That's the bur oak tree. this road just runs straight in there, and if you have to bring a connection down from that direction, end up at this level and go back 200 feet straight from that, there goes the bur oak tree, and there's no way to do it. I sat in a room with some of the planning staff, and we played around with how you might be able to adjust it, and actually, for a while, the more you adjust it this way to the south, the more into the tree you get, but you can't go left of the tree because of the old schoolhouse. It's a little closer up version. Go ahead. Same general view. Now, that's the existing driveway, and you can see how it curves in a little bit more gentle fashion. It still has to cut into the hill, but doesn't have to cut into it as much. but most importantly, it enters on the south edge of the property rather than near the north edge. This is a view looking into the English Station is tucked away behind this hill, much in the same way that the development we propose is going to be tucked away behind this ridge that runs all along the top. You can't quite make them out because they're light color, but the tops of the houses in English Station are visible right here, but only the tops of the houses, and none of the development that's on over the crest of the hill is visible from Harrodsburg Road. The next several pictures, and you can just kind of flip through them, are all the fence row, hedge row that is on the north edge of the property that adjoins the porters in the back and the stringers in the front. And all of this area, as a result of the agreement we've entered into them, will be preserved either intact or virtually intact. We've created up at the front a non-disturbance area of some 25 feet from their property line. There's provision for fencing and so on and so forth. Now that one, I'm going to come back here because you probably can't read that tab, and I'll just mention that very quickly. What that is, Jimmy already showed you that. That's what I call the R1T overlay or the nuts and bolts of the allowances and the restrictions in the zone. I can tell you just running through it fairly quickly that the restrictions in the zone are either the same as or in some cases a bit more restrictive in this development than in a typical R1T development. The minimum lot size is the same. The lot frontage is actually five feet greater than a typical R1T, which is 15 feet. The front yard is the same. The side yard is in one category, R1T is six feet. In the infill area, it's three feet. This is five feet. Minimum rear yard is the same except that 20 feet that's in ours because of the way we're oriented is slightly more. The open space, we actually have 30% of open space, although this calls for 20%, whereas the R1T has 10%, but it only relates to private open space. Building height is the same. Lot coverage is the same. We provide for two parking spaces minimum. R1T provides for one. The special provisions, the no more than three contiguous on the same setback is the same as R1T, but there is not a requirement for a homeowners association in the R1T. There is a requirement in the PUD, and you're required to file, and we have filed proposed covenants and restrictions in recordable form with the Planning Commission and a homeowners association, which is modeled after some other townhouse developments that we have been involved in here in Lexington. The why for the PUD is fairly straightforward. It allows design flexibility. In this case, it allows us some flexibility with open space. It allows us to use the neo-traditional type of alley-served development layout. There are two or three places where, because of topography, we need to just put two units rather than three units together. I didn't know if you all knew this. It's a flaw, in my opinion, in our zoning ordinance. For townhouses, typically you have to have at least three together. You can't build a townhouse development with only two. So if you've got a lot that will only accommodate two units, like a lot of them downtown or in some places here, you can't do a straight R1T development. The comprehensive plan, as Jimmy has said, calls for medium density residential. Medium density, and I've put in some in the next section of your book. You can probably read it better in the book than it's under tab 7. You can probably read it better there than up on the board. But it tells you what you already know. The current comprehensive plan is a no-expansion plan. A fundamental premise of that no-expansion plan is that we have to follow density recommendations to the maximum extent. We've got to grow up and not grow out. I've heard that said many times in this chamber and outside. This is not a plan that pushes the comprehensive plan density. You could argue that it is not as dense as it should be. The way the rules are is if you're in medium density and the – if you will use the gross acreage calculation, it's up to eight acres. This one is about 6.8 or so with the new plan. It's five to ten units per net acre where net is less than gross as it is in this case. and this is 7.7, so it's right at the mid-range of medium, so we're not pushing the density whatsoever. The comprehensive plan also says we need to, in order to get the maximum density in our available land inside the urban service area boundary, we have to be innovative, and this is an innovative plan. Jimmy at the Planning Commission said they had only been able to find one other example in Lexington of a development that is served by alleys on the rear and faces each other, and that's a small development down on Central Avenue. And it's a very nice development called St. Something or Other, I think. I have some friends that live there, and it is a very attractive development. Other than that, Jimmy could think of no example. So we are in agreement with the comprehensive plan, And the next tab, tab 8, shows you that the density we propose should not be a surprise to anyone. This property has been in the urban service area since 1967. Since 1973, it has had at least some medium density proposed on it. At that time, it had some high density. The 1980 plan, the front portion was high density and the rear portion was medium density. Since 1988, the plan has recommended medium density residential on this property, so no surprise to anyone. The next tab and series of tabs explains a little bit more what occurred in relation to the tree. And I have to tell you that what happened in relation to the tree, in my view, is nobody's fault. It is a result of some decisions that were made years, in some cases decades ago, with Twain Ridge Boulevard going through the property. The original part of Clemens Heights, which was zoned in 1976, was the very first zone change I handled. So I've watched a lot of this grow up. So the rerouting of Military Pike, to put it where it was put, was a very good conscious decision, but nobody stopped to look at what happened if you drew a straight line between the end of Twain Ridge and the end of Military Pike. When the developer began, they had to go two places, and the first place they went was to the Urban County Council staff. Now there's some notes from a Thursday, actually dated Thursday, September 27, 2007, from Bill Salee to various parties and a lot of people that were in a meeting. There must be 15 staff people mentioned, and Kevin Krause and Rena Wiseman are mentioned. This was not the first meeting. It refers, this refers to a meeting the prior week regarding the extensions of Twain Ridge Drive and Agape Drive recommended by the comprehensive plan. And then it says that they, the developer needs to connect to Twain Ridge. So then the developer goes to the Department of Transportation. It says, and this is in November, we're in the early stages of putting together a development plan with our client premier villages, that's our engineer. We still have to go through the zoning process. The primary access is proposed on Old Schoolhouse Lane with proposed future street stubs both to the north and south property lines. The intersection on Old Schoolhouse is currently proposed near the southerly most end of the property, roughly in the same location as the current driveway. That's what they went to the transportation cabinet with. with the transportation cabinet comes back and says for your street, quote, to extend at least 150 to 200 feet straight back from Harrodsburg Road intersection and then branch out to your streets. So you've got the planning staff saying, here we go, we've got to connect up in the back, And the transportation cabinet saying, we don't like this entrance down in this area. And that's what happened. And that circle shows you where the tree is. So if you turn to tab 10, you can see just another version of what we went back to them with and explained to them the Planning Commission's position on these issues, and we have received approval from them. The final details have to come with the encroachment permit. And by the way, the DOT actually owns a service road here. Now, they're negotiating with our engineers to turn over control of it to the urban county government. But at this point, they own not only Harrodsburg Road, but they actually own that service road as well. Some other things that have been raised concerning the development, I think I can move through these fairly quickly. Sanitary sewers is, I've got three exhibits in your packet that deal with that. We had our engineers do the calculations of flow in the area. There's a 42-inch main that gravities to the South Elkhorn pump station. The contribution at full development of this property to that would be 0.3% of the flow. I think that's 0.003 anyway. It's 0.3% of the flow. The Division of Sanitary Engineering, as you can see in your book, and this will be too small to read on the screen, indicated that that would represent a nominal percentage of the overall flow of the trunk, and therefore we anticipate adequate safe wastewater conveyance capacity. Now, they also point out what we all know, and that is that the pump station has experienced a number of surcharge situations, primarily wet weather surcharge. I think you all know that even though the consent decree is not in effect, That construction item was number one in the consent decree. The bids have gone out. They're in the process of selecting the contractor. The work is going to commence. This is Charlie Martin this week. It's to commence in January. Under the consent decree, if it were in effect, it would have to be done by about September 14th of 2010. Charlie thinks it will be done as early as June, but certainly by that date. He's proceeding as if that decree were in effect. As our development plans go, very few of the units in this development would even come online before then, maybe as few as 30 at the earliest, and if they came online, they would come online in the dry weather season of July, August, and September of 2010. It probably is not as necessary, since we have worked out things with our neighbors to the north, to go into this. I'm going to talk about the revised conditional zoning restrictions in a moment, but if you look at the perimeter boundary requirements zone to zone, there really aren't any that require you any special screening when you're doing any residential development next to an AU development. The reason for that is that the expectation is that all AU development is eventually going to be developed in accordance with the comprehensive plan, which in this case would be residential. So you typically don't have that kind of screen of zone-to-zone screening. The closest you might find is if you put R1T next to R1A, and that would require a six-foot boundary around where it comes together. or you might say if this were AR, which it's not, it's a big difference, if this were on the urban service area boundary, again, for a residential zone, you would have a five-foot boundary with certain plantings. Now, the planning commission on the Stringer property in the front had adopted conditional zoning, which provided for a 30-foot buffer back a certain distance with a 20-foot, I believe, undisturbed zone, meaning you don't – a buffer, sometimes you can grade in, but at the end of the day, it has to be a buffer and it has to be planted. An undisturbed zone means what it says, it's undisturbed. Since that hearing, as a result of our work with the Stringers and the Porters, we have agreed that there will be a continuous 30-foot buffer along the Stringer property all the way and a 25-foot nondisturbance area within that buffer adjacent to their property line. And there won't be utility lines in that except there are some that the Stringers would be allowed to connect onto utilities in our property if they so chose. The developer will install a continuous eight-foot tall solid fence along the edge on the developer's side of that boundary, which effectively gives the stringers the ability to maintain and control what's inside the boundary. the porters which are in the back a 15 foot buffer which would be a non-disturbance area and on the developer side of the buffer a six foot high diamond mesh fence which is the porters do keep some horses on the back of their property and that's the preferred horse farm fence of that type. In our revised plan, we show distances from the Stringer's property line and the Porter's property line in the front. The houses closest to the front are now 84 feet from the property line and they go 66 feet, 54 feet, and then all the along the back line with the porters it's 44 feet and we'll keep those distances and use our best efforts to keep those distances but in no event will those distances diminish by more than five feet. We've provided there won't be garage openings facing them and we provided for directional lighting. Those I've got just a single copy of that if Bruce is here he may have some others, or when he gets here he may have some others, but we would recommend that at the conclusion of the hearing, this set of conditional zoning restrictions replace the set that the Planning Commission adopted. I also have in your booklet, in case you're interested, at tab 13, what the typical rear yard requirements would be for properties. And again, you can see that these rear yards that we're now proposing, even the ones we originally proposed are significantly greater than what the rear yards would be in zones from R1A on down. The largest of those is a 25-foot rear yard requirement for R1A. Tab 14 does show you a depiction of what the Planning Commission's conditional zoning restriction would do. One other significant thing I might mention, looking at that, in the earlier plan, if you look at this version over here, we had the clubhouse over in that area, which was the part closest to the Stringer property. In the new plan, you can see that we have relocated that to where it's down in the middle of the property. So it's just about the maximum distance from both the north boundary and the south boundary of the property. Mr. Lear? Yes. It's from up here. Yes. You're looking all around the room. You are. I noticed that you were observing the clock there, so I was just going to encourage you. I was, and I started at just almost exactly 30 minutes ago. Okay. And I'm just about done. All right, sir. Thank you so much. I just want to touch storm drainage real quickly. There's a major retention basin at the rear of the property, even though this property does drain immediately down into a major waterway. Still, there's a significant retention basin planned at the back. Traffic, the traffic generation for townhouses is in the ITE manuals about half what it is for single-family detached. And to give you some order of magnitude, the traffic generation projected for this development was not even at a level so as to require a traffic study to be submitted with the zone change. And those numbers were reviewed by and approved by the planning staff. The last tab I've got is, and there's no need to show them, you've got them in your book, is three aerial photographs. And I included them for a very specific reason. We're proposing townhouses out here. and lo and behold there are significant amounts of townhouses in Harrods Hill development on Harrodsburg Road and it works very well. In Palomar Hills development on Harrodsburg Road and it works very well or they work very well and there is significant apartment development in Rabbit Run. All of these are very successful developments on Harrodsburg Road. All of these show that townhouses can be a significant, positive, contributing factor to a neighborhood. Yes, they are typically on a given tract of land at a higher density than some single-family, though not all single-family developments. but they are one of the types of housing units that is specifically called for in the comprehensive plan in a medium-density development. And we are confident that this development will be a quality development of townhouses that will contribute to the area, fulfill the comprehensive plan and create the same kind of good relationship with neighbors all around that those townhouses and the other developments on Harrodsburg Road have experienced. We request your approval of the zone change, and we'll be happy to answer questions and respond later. Thank you. Okay, I just want to formally enter the photographs and the affidavit on the posting of the sign. I tendered them earlier, but want to make reference to the fact that they are in the record. I also ask that one copy of this booklet be placed in the record at the conclusion of the hearing. Thank you. Okay. Okay, thank you, Mr. Lear. The next on our agenda will be those who are opposed to or against the zoning change. And since those who don't have counsel, I have a list of about 20 folks who have signed up here. And what we ask is, everyone gets a chance, everyone who's signed up. And if you haven't signed up, if you would, there's a sign-up sheet in the back, I believe. Is it still back there? It is, Susan. Okay. If anyone else wants to sign up, then you can. So we'll just ask if you would come up to the podium and give us your name and where you live. And I will call you, and you might be standing up here beside. This is John, Mr. Yoswick. John Yoswick. Yoswick. Thank you, sir. I was going to say beforehand that if I mispronounce or I can't read your handwriting, please just blame my head and not my heart. All right? I've had this happen several times, and forgive me right out of the gate. Okay, and what we ask is you all, since there are so many that are, we want to hear everybody, but if everyone takes three minutes, then that's over an hour, and the petitioners had 30 minutes, And I also have the unwelcome task of being timekeeper. So I'll just hold my hand up, and I won't holler anything like that, if you all just forgive me, though. But that means that three minutes is up, okay? And the next one, and I'll say your name. So Mr. Yoswak and then Kim Crosetti. Kim. We have a. You may. You may. Sure. Beth Chambers then. Beth, so if you want to go after Mr. Gray, we have an order since we're limited to three minutes per person we want to make some issues known, we don't want to be repetitive so we've kind of got a batting order here and we want to go by that if you don't mind and we'll tell you who we are when we come up if you could scratch out our name Vice Mayor can you give us your batting order since people are signed up in a certain order on the list so the vice mayor will know. I think it's John Yoswick, me, then Marvin Mills, Lenita Clark, Dan Danforth, Lauren Rich. Okay, so, but after the first two or three, it's okay. So second will be Mr. Mills, right? Okay, great. And then Lanita Clark, and then we can go back to the regular order, right? No. No? Well, you all just come up then. Just come up and line up and then state your name. No one will remember three minutes. Thank you. No one will come up twice. Okie dokie. Jimmy, can you put that picture up that shows the old movie? And, yeah, there is this issue about trying to avoid repetitiveness, if you all please do that, because nobody wants to holler about that. Thank you. Yeah, I said it, but I'll say it again. Well, it shows. Yeah. All right. I'd ask him to put the picture up that shows. That's the one you're talking about? That'll work. that shows Dogwood Trace's relationship to Premier Villages and Agape Drive. Okay? He did. That's all right. My name is John Yoswick. I live at 4860 Bud Lane in the Dogwood Trace subdivision. I'm president of Dogwood Trace Neighborhood Association, and I represent the board and the residents of Dogwood Trace opposing the zone change. Tonight, like I mentioned, I'll lead this off for several other people who will be presenting issues to the Council. The first issue I'll present, and that's one of housing density, we realize that the comprehensive plan calls for medium-density housing in this area. However, our issue with Premier Village's proposal is that the density, the computation, the calculation to satisfy the medium-density requirement was met by including 10.1 acres of usable land. So in fact, that's 10.1 out of 27.7 acres. 36% of the gross acres are unusable. So the point is we think that is excessive amount of unusable acres in satisfying the medium density requirement. Basically, this is really almost now, if you consider 17.7 acres, you're near 11 units per acre, which now we're approaching high density. So you're going to hear, I'm sure, from Mr. Lear in his rebuttal that he'll want to dismiss this point by saying we've always done it this way. And that may be so, but I just think 36% out of the total acreage being unusable is excessive, and we've got too many units trying to be built here. Thank you. Mr. Mills. Good evening. My name is Marvin Mills at 2441 Dogwood Trace Boulevard on the corner of Agape. Mr. Gray, members of the council, we, the citizens of Agape Drive and Dogwood Trace community, respectfully request that no street connection be made to Agape Drive. Currently, our street handles traffic from 63 single-family homes to the north of Dalway Trace Boulevard, a distance of two-tenths of a mile. Therefore, connecting Adopi to proposed 193 or lesser Premier Village, England Station 40, Hampton Springs 37, will give us approximately 333 single-town home units. This is a five-fold increase over current traffic load on Agape Drive. We believe, therefore, that opening Agape Drive to this level of traffic constitutes a serious and undesirable volume of traffic that may lead to many accidents, injuries, as well as serious traffic flow problems. Mr. Lear stated that there was no traffic plan study developed. That clears it up right there. So based on the above, we suggest that you judiciously consider closing a Garbage Drive to other connections for safety, security, and tranquility of the residents of Garbage Drive and Dalgwood Trace community. Thank you. Okay, y'all, excuse me just a minute. This is another one of those things that's kind of irritable for me to have to ask y'all. But over time, we've found that the applause and things like that really kind of compromises the proceeding. So if I can just ask you all to please refrain from that, then the other council members won't holler at me. Okay, thank you very much. Yes, ma'am, go right ahead. My name is Lenita Clark, and I live at 4728 Matthew Court. I have lived in Dogwood Trace Subdivision for 18 years, and I have served as a volunteer member of the Neighborhood Association Board for 10 years. I only tell you that to show you that I am committed to this neighborhood and am very interested in what is best for the neighborhood, to the best of my knowledge and my understanding. My husband and I chose to build our home here because we believe that it's a very special area. The men who developed Dogwood Trace, the developers saw that as such as well. The street layouts and the names were planned for specific reasons. One street, Agape, means love. I'm sure you know that. And it's significant that it runs right through the middle of our subdivision. To me, that's significant. All that being said, I feel passionately that the proposed development of medium-density housing next door to us, essentially, and the plan to connect this development to Dogwood Trace by opening Agape Drive would create a thoroughfare and would thus have a substantially negative impact on our neighborhood. Potentially, this connection could add approximately 500 cars or maybe more, when you consider the numbers that Marvin just gave you, to the current traffic flow, thereby increasing safety concerns in the residential neighborhood as well. A factor inviting that would invite this increased traffic flow is that the other end of Agape is a Kroger store and a small shopping center. Now, we all go that way, too. We cut through Agape to go to Kroger's. We're not going to go out to Harrodsburg Road and go around the long way, and neither are these people. So all these people will be coming across the Gopay to go to Kroger. That's just reality. The proposed connection would provide a virtually straight path to the Kroger complex. Traffic safety in our area was improved when we got the traffic light at Dogwood Trace Boulevard a few years back. And when Harrodsburg Road was recently widened, it improved the safety of the whole area, Adding the potential for 500 or more cars onto Harrodsburg Road in the area from an additional so-called medium-density development seems to be counterproductive to the problems that we just corrected in the traffic in the area. And I'm concerned about other related issues as well that I will not go into, but they do concern me. The burrow, the potential blasting damage, the traffic flow, safety, greenway compliance, compliance as well as other issues. The development plan is not what we would like to see happen in this special partial of land, but it's one of the few remaining green spaces along the Harrodsburg corridor. Much more is at stake here. Are we trading permanent changes to our wonderful city for a temporary benefit to just a few people. Good evening. My name is Dan Danford. I'm at 4709 Scenic View Drive. I am an attorney with Tyson Arbison, but I'm not here in a legal capacity. I'm here just as a resident of this neighborhood. As you've heard today, the comprehensive plan supports this project in all ways. except one. And in that way, the comprehensive plan is irrelevant and it's wrong. And that way is what I get to talk about, which is literally the bridge to nowhere, the Twain Ridge Bridge. Now what you've also heard today, what we understand is that this is not a standard zoning request that has come before you. This is the PUD1 zone, which is a very special request. And as Jimmy has said, with that special request, that special designation comes a special requirement, a set of requirements. One of those being that collector streets have to be extended as per the comprehensive plan. That's the part that they don't want to do. Instead, what we're going to have is a stub on the other side of the river and a stub on this side of the river and no bridge in between. But folks, the classifications for this special PUD1 zone do not call for stubs. They call for collector streets to be extended. Now, frankly, the fact that that will not happen in this case, and that's acknowledged on all sides, will not happen in this case, means that what the Planning Commission should have found was that this application does not meet the qualifications for the PUD1 zone. It's clear as a bell. Now, the only way they get around that is the Schneider case, and I've read the Schneider case, and ironically, it's almost exactly the same bridge from the Clemens Heights neighborhood, just off a different road, decided a number of years ago. But in that case, totally different circumstance than in this case. In that case, you had a very standard zone, single-family residential zone, that did not require that collector streets be extended like this special zone classification does. All that case says is that the Planning Commission, in addition to whatever that zoning classification requires, If they add on to that a requirement that the developer build a bridge and it's not economically feasible to do that, then that's arbitrary and capricious. And that's what the case says. It says what it says, and that's all fine, but it has nothing to do with the issue in front of you. Because in front of you and in front of the Planning Commission was an ordinance, a classification that says you must extend the collector's streets. That will not happen here. They do not meet the qualifications for this zoning type. For that reason, this should not happen. Now, the practical impact of that is where the comprehensive plan may have the – now I'm a lawyer, so three minutes means a little bit. I'm sorry. I am wrapping up. The practical implication of that is where the plan calls for traffic to be dispersed in a number of neighborhoods, including Clemens Heights, that will not happen here. All of the traffic, additional traffic that doesn't go out this main way, is going to be funneled straight through our neighborhood. That's a big issue. It does not meet the qualifications of the zone and should have been not granted, and we ask that you overturn it. Thank you. Thanks, Sam. Thanks, sir. Good evening, Mr. Vice Mayor, Council Members. My name is Mark Sock. My wife, Geneva, and I have resided at 4752 Agape Drive in the Dogwood Trace Subdivision for over 10 years now. And like many of our fellow neighbors on Agape and throughout our subdivision, we vehemently oppose the opening of Agape Drive to English Station and to the new developments which are being discussed here tonight, which are being proposed for that area. With just the existing residential traffic already crossing the intersection of Agape and Dogwood Trace Boulevard, there certainly will be a need for extensive traffic study and how hundreds more vehicles per week on Agape will affect traffic for the entire neighborhood. The math is very simple. Adding nearly 200 more two-car families driving on our street daily would put an end to the peace and quiet that we now enjoy at our home. Other considerations are the increased wear on Agape Drive itself and the city's need to repair potholes and resurface more frequently. And apparently the new urbanist philosophy that narrower streets actually slow through traffic as a matter of their design is really a philosophy awash in poor judgment when a child is struck while running out onto Agape Drive because of speeds that will be attained on a through street. We searched for a home for over three years with neighborhood in mind and found a wonderful home with a great friendly neighborhood where neighbors help neighbors. This is the street where our children played ball on and were able to play outside without the fear of being abducted or struck by speeding cars that were more likely to happen on a through street. There is nothing positive to be attained by not only developing the development of the 190-plus units in Premier Villages, but allowing the opening of Agape Drive and turning it into another thoroughfare that will add noise pollution, chemical pollution, and greater risk of accidents to what was once a quiet, peaceful, residential street is even more disturbing. This is not what my neighbors and I bargained for when we were looking for a place to make our home. We are voicing our concerns because they are real. And we, the residents of Dogwood Trace, expect you to take them seriously when you consider these matters and ask that you vote no. Thank you very much for your consideration. I also have a petition of 266 names of people who want to save this Baroque tree. Am I ready? Okay. My name is Lauren Larson, and I'm a physician in this community. I've been raised in this community. I've gone to school in this community for many years, and I have chosen to raise our family. Could you give us your address, please? I'm sorry. My address is 4796 Reema Way. Thank you. And could you pull the microphone down so we can hear you? Did you catch the first part? Okay. I want to formally submit my disapproval of the zone change from AU to PUD-1. This is an environmentally restricted area due to the tree and a creek, which we see because they're above ground. but there are also the possibility of underground waterways, which we don't see in the limestone. In fact, we know this already, for a spring was found on a property adjacent to this. Blasting, filling, and grading can affect this entire area if intruded upon. We are concerned about the impact of traffic, the density of housing, preserving the natural beauty of the greenway, as well as preserving the survival of the 300-year-old Baroque tree, which is a significant tree as defined in the Zoning Ordinance Article 26. This tree sprouted in approximately 1708. It was 84 years old when the Commonwealth of Kentucky was named and Frankfurt became our capital. Just recently, this tree remained unscathed during a wind assault of Hurricane Gustav when it hit our area. The tree remained intact, even sitting on a steep hill of limestone. This tree has also survived two wars, the Civil and the Revolutionary. I do not want to see this tree unprotected from nearby development that could damage its extensive root system. I do not want to see this tree removed for a road that will never be connected by a bridge that should never be built. Conditions pending the outcome of this zone change should include preserving and protecting this tree to ensure its continued survival. According to the Zoning Ordinance Art of 26 of the Tree Protection Standards, for every one-inch diameter of the tree, there should be 1.5 feet radius of critical root zone. We expect that this radius should be a little bit greater for this tree because this tree is also bordered on one side by a steep ridge, which the roots can't go. So we expect that 150 feet radius should be buffered, that this land would not be disturbed. Although keeping this existing road like Mr. Lear suggested, there is also going to be future development to widen the road if you're counting 193 townhomes and the traffic associated with this. but a no-traffic study was performed. Lexington has been a part of the tree city since 1989. We were the first city in Kentucky. We need to protect this tree from nearby blasting and development. We also need to protect the historic South Elkhorn area where the tree grows. We should not relinquish this historic area to developers with no concerns about the beauty of our community with plans for high-density housing. This is an extremely environmentally sensitive area, and according to Article 611-A, subdivision regulations is defined as an area due to its natural and physical setting. We may have environmental problems with regard to development. It also states that detailed site planning will be necessary to overcome the physical limitations of the land. Environmentally sensitive areas should be subject to more restrictive regulations. As I said, I've got an unpopular job of being the timekeeper, but we really have to stick to it. But I also want to make sure that you all understand that no geological surveys have been done, no hydrogenic, no hydraulic calculations, no post-development floodplain, no post-development stormwater analysis, no blasting analysis. Thank you. Thanks. All right, sir. Yes, Jeff Monti, 4801 Charisma Court. Just a couple of simple concerns. Number one is I really don't think that anyone can honestly expect that a retention basin at the end of a 25-acre development can save Ramses from having three feet of water in it again like it had a couple years ago from the development that's already happened. I think that it exacerbates the problem from all the development that's already happened down there. Number two is I wonder if there has been any sort of concern to the Dunbar School District and whether or not that any sort of redistricting, because the Dunbar School is already overcrowded and above design capacity. And depending upon the number of occupants, number of children, you know, That was one of the reasons that we moved into this neighborhood, is that we could stay in that Dunbar district. And I don't know what sort of impact that it has, but I think that it's a viable question. Thirdly and lastly, one of the reasons that I moved into this neighborhood was because of the exclusivity of it. It didn't have a lot of flow through traffic. I'm very concerned, number one, about increased activity through apartment complexes, condos, whatever you want to call it, and my safety concerns because we're on the very outer edge of the service area for the urban county government and also the police department and fire department. So I'm just concerned about the impact that would have the increased inflow and safety for our neighborhood and our children in the area. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Monti. Mr. Wrights, Mayor and Council Members, my name is Roger Marion. I reside at 2430 Dogwood Trace Boulevard in the Dogwood Trace subdivision. I'm a retired geologist and a resident of the Dogwood Trace subdivision. I've been over 30 years' experience in geology, seismology, mining, blasting, and have worked in Kentucky and with development proposals involving blasting and excavation in limestone rocks and karst environments. I received extensive training in karst geology and associated surface structures and groundwater flow. I have taken blasting certification training and helped professional geologist registration. I am concerned about a number of possible effects from construction-related drilling and blasting for recontouring and leveling at the subject site. These can range from ground vibration and air wave blasts to effects on groundwater and karst features. Other possible effects are noise and interruption of traffic. The first point, as a minimum, I believe development plans must include a pre-blast survey of adjacent properties and plans to monitor and record findings during and after blasting to demonstrate compliance with governmental standards. There should also be required a detailed characterization of the site and area geology with attention to car structure, surface and groundwater flow, and interconnections of these features with the surrounding area. This is especially important considering the historical nature of several adjacent properties and buildings. There are reports of damage and firebook and blasting associated with the widening of Harrodsburg Road a few years ago, and specific comments on that point are going to be presented here today. I am concerned also about the possible effects from blasting and construction on water, specifically groundwater and surface water flow, contamination or alteration of potential delicate subsurface water chemistry. Karst structures frequently protect the delicate balance of water and associated flora and fauna, and any intrusion or change in the balance of water flow rates, chemistry, or pollutants can be disastrous. Stormwater infiltration and runoff can be affected by blasting activities and, in turn, can seriously affect the balance I previously discussed. In a broader sense, the general viability of the surface resources, the environment, if you will, and the adjacent green space could be diminished if the surface and groundwater were disturbed by blasting and construction activities. One additional factor that concerns me is a possible effect from blasting on any car sinkholes or overburdened arches as a matter of safety in contribution to changing the delicate balance of water quality established over time. The last point I'd like to make is that drilling and blasting the native limestone on site will create noise and interruption of traffic during certain periods of the day. Heavy traffic on the adjacent roads will be inconvenienced, and drivers and nearby homeowners will need to be aware of the potential for dust and flying rock particles. In conclusion, not only might blasting result in some or all of the effects I have discussed, but following your consideration, anticipation of these effects may well affect the very nature of zone change stipulations in any approved development plan, including the number of units, the density of development, the buffer or buffers required, the location and configuration of ingress and egress roads, and other environmental mitigation requirements. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Marion. That was helpful. We had the entire text right there before us, so you came very close to that finish line, and we let you go on. Yes, sir, go ahead. My name is Bob Patti. I live at 2500 Sungale Court, directly across from where the project's going to be. Sungale runs parallel to Harrisburg Road. I live in the next-to-last house on Sungale at the military pike end of it. I came to talk about blasting, just like he did. I'm a retired State of Kentucky employee, and thank goodness I did not work in construction. If I had, I would have killed a whole bunch of them. But anyway, during the blasting that went on, I suffered damage to my house, which I tried to get some reimbursement from the contractor. I tried to talk to the individuals in our district office in Lexington and then also in Frankfurt. And being that I had about 25 years, I didn't want to take a chance of losing that, so I backed off and am continuing to fix blessing damage. The thought of anybody blasting on that hillside directly across from my house absolutely just blows me away. I didn't know something until just a few days ago. The lower lake in Farbrook has been leaking ever since the third day of blasting on Harrisburg Road. I realize that's not Charles' problem. That's not Charles' problem. But that's what's happened when you have blasting. You don't know what's going to happen. There's some extremely deep rock, and they do tend to vibrate. They do tend to have problems. I just wanted to bring them. I cannot prove anything about the Firebrook Lake, but that is something that you need to think about, damage to surrounding situation. Also, one other little thing is the fact of the South Elkhorn Creek. it does not need any more water from anywhere because of the Hertzberg Road project and then they built behind Ramsey's and they said it would never flood again. Huh? Eight foot of water in Ramsey's. So we do not need extra water coming down that hillside to go into South O'Connor Creek. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Patty. Hello, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Alana Ventura, and I live at 4708 Matthew Court. And I'm just here to talk about the tree again. All I want to do is just read you my heartfelt letter that I wrote to the editor of the Herald Journal, so that it won't take three minutes, I promise. As my children have said, wow, it looks like the tree of life. Well, it is. It's Lexington's tree of life. It has been there on top of that hill before Lexington was even founded in 1775, which was 17 years before Kentucky even became a state. It is a true symbol of our history. How can we allow it to be destroyed by man for any reason? Can you put a price on the life of something that has endured such significant elements over the past 300 years, not to mention two world wars? I don't think so. My husband and I moved our family here four years ago, having the feeling Lexington is so clean, so green, like a breath of fresh air. We didn't believe in blue grass until we actually saw it for ourselves. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the beauty of the area is quickly being destroyed without a second thought by man. What right does man have to destroy this precious tree God put on this earth for us to enjoy? That's not all. The wildlife being fed by this tree, this tree's acorns, is incredible. We must not let this tree that is so cherished by our community and wildlife be destroyed. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Gray and members of the Council. My name is Jan Geddes. I reside at 4764 Rima Way. I'm a 17-year resident of Dogwood Trace. As a native to Southern California and participant in local city planning in the state, I have been witness to projects similar in scope to premier villages, the impact of which resulted in stressed infrastructure. The burden of this development will adversely impact the overwrought South Elkhorn watershed and sanitary sewer systems. The environmental consequences of this project may be extreme. Topographically, the said property contains one of the low points in the area. Indeed, the FEMA preliminary digital flood insurance rate maps indicate that a special flood hazard area exists on the subject property associated with the South Elkhorn Creek and drive-in tributary. Based on this report, it is estimated that the floodplain covers 20 percent or more of this site. The confluence of these two streams occurs on the subject property near its northeastern corner. Known flooding occurs along the South Elkhorn Creek and its tributaries in the immediate area. As an owner of property which includes an unnamed tributary of the South Elkhorn Creek, I can attest to the frequent flooding and overflow of the creek's shallow banks with even limited amounts of rainfall. The development of the subject property will most certainly exacerbate the known flooding problems on the site and nearby. Of equal concern, the recent improvements to Harrodsburg Road in the immediate area most likely changed the floodplain. This is believed to be true because in some instances the old roadway acted as a dam during previous flooding events. To date, the urban county government does not have conclusive data in the form of a flood study to document how the special flood hazard area may have changed on the Krause property or in this immediate area as a result of improvements made to U.S. 68. Furthermore, the South Elkhorn pump station has experienced overflow problems during peak flow times in the recent past. Extraordinary measures and improvements will likely be required to service the property with sanitary sewers. This remains unknown as a drainage study and report in relation to flooding and stormwater has yet to be presented to the Council. I have been unable to contact Engineer Charlie Martin to determine what improvements are being made to South Elkhorn Pump Station and Bowman Mill Pump Station to make them comply with federal EPA, which has fined the city for infractions to these said pump stations. Unless or until these pump stations are compliant with federal FDA EPA regulation, extension of the sanitary sewer system to provide for this development should not be a consideration. Lastly, in my experienced opinion, this project does not merit further discussion until such time as the impact studies are complete and demonstrate little or no consequence to the existing infrastructure. Thank you for your time. Hi, my name is Kim Crosetti. I'm the chair of the Dogwood Park Committee, and I have a picture for you. Is that up there? Okay. And this is similar to what you've seen, but my main concern is how this will affect the South Elkhorn Greenway. And what I've done is I've outlined in yellow where the greenway is. It connects at the bottom of the picture where Dogwood Park is. And our neighborhood got together and wrote two grants and got over $70,000 worth of grant money to start the trail system for the South Elkhorn Greenway. And it's going to continue from the park down at the bottom up through this territory here. And it will go right through what we're talking about now I outlined in red where the property we're discussing right now. Now, my concerns are that the South Elkhorn Greenway is both a conservation area, and it's also to provide for a trail system. The trail will go all the way up, and there's already a section. There's a section started in Dogwood Park, but there's also, we see where it goes underneath Harrodsburg Road at the top of the picture? There's already a trail underneath the bypass or the bridge on Harrodsburg Road. So we already have part of the end of the trail built, and we have the beginning of the trail built. So this is a very important greenway system. It's one of the few ones in the city that actually has a possibility to be completed. And a great, well-planned greenway can be a great asset, but a poorly planned greenway can increase crime. It can be areas where if there's no visibility, there can be people hanging out and causing problems, and it's hard, difficult to patrol. My concern is not just that a PUD1 might be bad for this area. A PUD1 might be what we need for innovative solutions. But since there is no attached development plan, you're not going to have any voice on what this final development is going to be. It's been indefinitely postponed. And so if I read from Article 22, it says because, and this is talking about the PUD 1, because customary standards are to be relaxed in these zones, close government scrutiny will be necessary. Well, if you guys go ahead and approve the PUD 1 with no development plan, you'll have no say in how this is going to affect the greenway and how it's going to be finally set up. Because there's no development plan, I'm against approving the PUD 1 today. Also, if you read in a comprehensive plan, there's a whole section devoted to environmental and green infrastructure, which the city is moving in the right direction, but it also says there will be a greenway manual to guide us in how to build these greenways. Well, the greenway manual is not written yet. So if the PUD 1 is passed, we have no development plan that's already decided on, and we have no Greenway Manual to guide the development. So if I would ask you not to do this, but if you are going to pass it, I have some conditions I would like to add, because if you can't have any set guidelines, then you need to have something in foresight. There's a large retention basin. Because of the number of units in a small area, there's a very large retention basin. and I noticed on the new proposal it went the whole length of the greenway. So I have proposed that we have two buffer zones established, one buffer zone established in the greenway that there will be minimal disturbance of existing natural contours and vegetation are preserved. I can't. I'm sorry. I have a copy of my. We've got it. Okay, you've got it. Pass it out. Thank you very much. So I would. We've got it. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Beth Chambers, and I live at 4756 REMA Way, and thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns about the zone chains to PUD. As Kim stated, Article 22 talks about PUDs being particularly scrutinized. One of the things it says, it is further intended that the planned unit development zones are established to ensure that the development is responsive to the natural and man-made features of the site. So as far as the spring, okay, let me put one up there. As far as access to the Greenway, that is my main concern today. This is Dogwood Hills, which was built about four years ago. Access to Dogwood Park was required, and it's that little double line down at the very bottom. The park is kind of the triangular area. but there was no provision made for homes on the north of the park on Train Ridge and Matea Courts which are the two streets up above. Instead, pedestrian and bicycle pathways in these areas would have provided neighboring Clemens Heights and more direct access to the park as well but instead all must travel the road along Twain Ridge and Desdemona. Consequently, neighborhood children end up taking a direct route through private yards to get to the park and these shortcuts would not have been needed if appropriate access trails had been required when Dogwood Hills was developed. So could you put number two up? That's just sort of my possibility of the kinds of trails I would like to see between houses to provide access to the greenways in the new PUD as well. Greenway access is not available to most of this area either to Dogwood Hills, except for the homes directly bordering on the greenway. If access can be easily addressed by providing pathways between homes to provide an integrated access to the park and the greenway. And my concern, again, is that this deficiencies in Dogwood Hills not be repeated in this PUD development. The first PUD in the city, which was mentioned earlier by Jimmy Emmons, also had these same problems. Can you put up Exhibit 3? That, turn it sideways. That shows the Wyndham Downs area, and you'll notice that all the houses are off to one side, and the park's over. I would be on your right. Go ahead and put up Exhibit 4. Only the houses bordering the park had access to the park, whereas if they had put pedestrian pathways in between, there would have been access for the homes without going through the main streets. So there's a significant opportunity today by using appropriate pathways in Premier, along with the easement behind Dogwood Hills. Go ahead and put back up five. And that's our park, Dogwood Park. Okay. Placing easement behind Dogwood Hills to make an integrated greenway with the bicycle and pedestrian trail. This would provide both premier residents access to the greenway and a direct link to the park and it would provide existing residents a link up also as Kim mentioned the bridge under Harrodsburg Road. You would have pedestrian and bicycle access from this whole residential area to the commercial area up there. And since it's not a part of the development plan now that is why I'm concerned that we do not approve this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Dave Leonard, 1302 North Limestone, the other side of town, and still concerned about the tree. I suppose I'm the Lorax tonight in that I get to speak for the tree. And I've been on the tree board for many, many years, almost since its inception, and we're We're trying to guide Lexington and what they should do with the trees, and we're just trying one more time. I wanted you all to have a more intimate view of the tree. It's actually not dormant here, just bare branches. It actually has some foliage. It's home to many, many living things. In fact, I believe a skunk from Friday when there was a hole in the ground that my dog really liked. But the tree is one of the few remaining heritage trees in Lexington. We're currently trying to develop an ordinance to protect these trees. It stood for approximately 75 years before Lexington was settled, so it's been through quite a bit. Just to give you some parameters, it's 95 feet tall, which is taller than most of the trees in Lexington, and it's still up there. 90-foot spread, has a 70-inch diameter, which really needs a minimum of a 105-foot radius protection zone, and that's a critical root zone. that's what it needs to keep it alive, not what it needs to thrive. It would certainly do much better with a larger root zone. It's well known that contractors like to park in the shade. I'd like to make sure they don't under this tree, and the tree will need protection such as fencing to prevent extensive soil compaction and the eventual decline of the tree. That's something we do on a lot of development plans, and they're usually ignored and not supervised, and we see them broken down on every one I see. I'd like to see that not happen. It would be good if Council would note the difference between trees that grow on old soil. This is trees in general. Like in Chevy Chase, we have pin oaks that live to 75, 80 years, 100 years, and then we have trees that are already dying in Firebrook that are the same species and planted on the same soil. Not the same soil, I'm sorry. Developed soil. So there's a huge difference in soil between old soil and what we're seeing in the compacted clay stuff that doesn't really call soil, but you can build a house on it right now. So I've consulted with many trees on Firebrook that are already dying, and they're 25-year-old pin oaks, and that's just not cool. There are also many more majestic burr oaks on the site. This site, there are like two more. I don't know if any protection has been offered to them. I'd like to see that if we could. It's time that I think that Lexington see a development plan that works with the land, not against it. And I have top ten reasons we need trees. up here. You can't really read it. Rats, too much trees help do all this. We can just leave that up for the next couple speakers if they're not doing any pictures and maybe we can read that. I'll be glad to furnish the council with copies. Thanks Dave. Anytime. That's all. Thank you sir. As I said earlier I believe y'all said that I had the unwelcome task of timekeeper and I also had the unwelcome task of the repetitious testimony rule. And so if you all, we will probably, I'm sure there will be more conversation from the council or questions regarding the tree. So if anyone else has comment, has testimony regarding the tree, at this point in time, it'd probably be better to hold that for questions later. All right. All right. Not talking about the tree. Fred Wolstein, 4765, Reem Away. I'd like to refocus this back to the PUD. As Jimmy pointed out, it's a unique designation. As Bill Lear pointed out, it's a unique designation. I find it odd that we keep referencing R1T. They're not requesting R1T petition. So I don't know why we keep going back to that. We're looking at the requirements of a PUD. I'm going to read a paragraph. I gave everybody a copy of my notes here. In accordance with Article 22, which states PUD zones were established to allow for innovation. We made reference to Innovation Bill Lear and their innovative plan. Contrary to that, a member of the Planning Commission stated they saw no innovation. It's one of the requirements of a PUD. This may not be accomplished using traditional techniques. And because customary standards are to be relaxed in these zones, close government scrutiny will be necessary to ensure that the overall standards for the health, we're talking about watershed and water treatment, safety, we're talking about increased traffic, and welfare of the community will be maintained. We're talking about negative impact on existing residents. Additionally, PUD1s must be, by definition, responsive to the natural and man-made features of the site. Now, we've been going through a list of various things that we are concerned about. Well, we feel it necessary that if you will not vote no to PUD, then we want to have restrictions or conditions added to the petition. And I've outlined them on this paper that I passed out. One, no street connections to Agape. Two, medium density defined as 6.5 units per net acre rather than gross acre. Also making consideration for the preservation of the existing natural areas, providing an even higher ratio of open area and limiting disruption to the natural hydrology. And then on down, we also talked about the bridge pretty extensively, but if we're not going to build a bridge, then we think we need to remove from the plans and the qualifications for the plan be reexamined. The mature burro, Jim Gray says don't talk about, so I won't. I think it's been overdone. We know that it's important. I don't mean to diminish it. I don't mean to diminish it. I totally understand. As I like to say, I'm not an attorney, but I'm trying to point out the issues that are the most important to us as a community. The South Side is an entity. It is a community. Bill Earhart also said how the townhouses help a community. Well, the references he gave you actually are townhouses within a single-family housing development, a planned community. This one is totally outside that. This is a townhouse, straight community. It doesn't have any single-family homes in it. So we urge you to vote no. And if this cannot be done, we carefully and want you to consider adoption of these conditions to a potential zone change. Thank you. Thanks, Fred. My name is Cindy Rollman. I live at 609 Price Avenue downtown. And since I was this close to the podium, I just could not make myself turn and walk away without saying something about the Baroque. But it's from a completely different perspective. So may I? Different perspective works. May I? Okay. We're patient beyond measure. I had not planned to say anything until I got here this evening. I just wanted to hear what was going to be said about it. So I don't have notes, and I'll just ask you to bear with me while I try to bring this in for a landing that makes sense. But I was thinking as I was sitting in here that if you will imagine standing in one of the great art museums of the world and you're looking at your favorite work of art, and it may be a Monet or a Van Gogh or a Da Vinci or a Michelangelo, and you're looking at that work of art and you're inspired by the subject matter. you're moved by the beauty of it and you are in awe of the one who created that work of art and then imagine that a vandal comes in between you and that work of art and while you're standing there looking at it that vandal hacks it to pieces right in front of you you would be filled with such a sense of outrage I think over the senselessness of it and over the waste of it and over the destruction of something that is priceless and one of a kind and irreplaceable. That's how I felt when I drove to work a couple of weeks ago at the Kentucky Horse Park and I saw the bur oak at the hotel on the north side of town and saw that it had been hacked to pieces. I was outraged, and I know a lot of other people in the community were too. So I'm just asking you to please consider this bur oak tree and all of the other great trees around Lexington as the priceless works of art that they are. They are irreplaceable. They are one of a kind. We are inspired by them. We are moved by their beauty. We are in awe of the one who created them. And so please protect them. And thank you for letting me go ahead and say something. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor and Council. My name is Cynthia Day. I am a resident of the South Harrodsburg area, and I am reading this message on behalf of Ann Faulkner at 4769 Rima Way, and she's a little bit mic shy, which I am not. So Ann says, I realize I live in a house that was built on land that was once part of a beautiful farm. All of us in Lexington do. I realize that if you denied all requests for zone changes which come to your desk, that we would all be living on the streets, nowhere to shop, and nowhere to eat. The parcel of land found at 4500 Old School House Road, which is currently under consideration for a zone change, is not part of a beautiful house farm. It is land, though, that boasts several other unique natural resources and is quite different than just another strip of land waiting to be developed and thus proud to be called infill. If you take a closer look, this land is actually even more unique than the beautiful rolling hills for which you have the unenviable task of approving for zone changes on a very frequent basis. This land and the surrounding area as well has a unique historical heritage along with unique natural resources. This land, I believe, deserves special consideration, more thought, and more input than is normally given to all the land which must be developed in order for all of us to have roads and homes and shopping centers which comprise the backbone of our daily existence. existence. While drawing up the 2007 comprehensive plan, on paper this land would likely easy to be stamped as medium density. This land is not on paper, though, and I do not believe it is the job of the LFUCG City Council to take off the blinders, step off the paper, and take into consideration the many factors which should truly determine whether or not zone changes should move forth as proposed. No doubt the vast majority of the time these zone changes are a matter of a formality. I implore the Council, however, to take this opportunity to give greater thought and consideration regarding the negative impacts the zone change will bring to the area. This zone change is extremely out of character with this area and it is radically different. I implore the Council to step out of your normal mindsets with regard to formal procedure and give this zone change a very careful thought and consideration. Thus far in the process, most of what has occurred seems to me to have been mostly a matter of formality. In closing, I implore you to make decisions which take into account the many factors of which often need to be dismissed in order to proceed with what we call progress in Lexington. The City of Lexington is nothing more than a series of zone changes. Not all zone changes have been for the better, and we all know this to be true. No doubt there have been many City Council members who have granted zone changes, for which they have later come to regret. Please do not let this happen here tonight. And that's on behalf of Ann. And as I mentioned, as a resident, I would also like to add that I noticed the pictometry that was shown tonight, and I don't know when these were taking place, but if any of you have driven down Harrodsburg Road from Dogwood Trace on the way to Man of War, on the east side of the street, I counted this morning 15-plus signs at a new development that looked like it was being advertised for a yard sale. buy here, office sales, rent now, come see us, whatever the slogans were there. And so when Mr. Lear says he quoted, I would like to quote him as saying that Helmar Hills is successful, I really don't see people beating down the doors to be a resident of one of them. Thank you. Thank you. By the way, for those of you all who have prepared your remarks, they will be entered into the record. So, thank you. I'm Patty Ruff. I live at 2309 Dogwood Trace Boulevard. Could you tell us again? I'm sorry. I'm Patty Ruff. I live at 2309 Dogwood Trace Boulevard. I oppose a copy drive being open to other neighborhoods. There is a sense of security in recognizing the people who live here. That familiarity creates a community atmosphere that offers a level of safety for its residents, particularly for its children. We in Dogma Trace find that community atmosphere appealing and comforting, an asset to living here. We would hate to see it destroyed because a bunch of people who don't live here think it is a good idea to open Agape traffic to other neighborhoods. When neighborhoods are connected to one another, it's harder to know who is supposed to be here and who is not. It adds more strangers to the mix. Please insist the developers come up with a plan that does not connect Agape, a plan that keeps Agape just the way it is, terminated in Douglas Trace. Thank you for listening. Thank you. My name is Tianxian Li. I live in 2116 Latteralee. And I'm not talking about the tree, talking about the school overcrowded problem, which the developer didn't mention. They will build 192 townhouses. If for average, if two children per family, there will be 384 children increased in this area. If one third of the children go to elementary school, one third to middle school, high school, there will be 128 children go to elementary school, and 128 children go to the middle school and high school. If in average 20 children per class, there will be six classes added to the one elementary school because of this area. It's similar. Three classes will be added to middle school. Three classes will be added to Dunbar High School, which is already overcrowded. So I will ask this developer, do you have any plan, a future plan, for example, donate $10 million to Fiat County to solve this school overcrowded problem which are created by your development? And also I ask the council, since they don't have this plan for the school overcrowded, don't have a plan for the traffic problem. Our hope will help us. Another hearing say what is their development, and at this time I hope that the council not granted this plan. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor and Council. I'm Christina Dudak, and I live at 2604 Waternole Court in the Firebrook Subdivision. And I'm here representing our homeowners association. We presented hundreds of signatures against this development. And I just want you to know that our subdivision is also concerned about the flooding issue. There's already flooding that's going on in that South Elkhorn Creek behind the Old Bridge subdivision. The water's already coming up into their yards. it's going to affect not only that, but also our property values when the townhomes go in here. And also, the developer's attorney said that, well, there's a lot of development here, and so basically we're just infilling. And I just don't believe that because there's a lot of development that the area should not, you know, that should give us a green light to just go ahead and obliterate the green space that's left there. You know, there are, I looked on L-Bar, and there are over 100 townhomes in Area 4, which is this direct area, that are for sale right now. And those are the ones that are just listed, you know, with realtors on L-Bar. And also, as you can see up here above this pink area, you'll see the condominiums at Palomar, right there at El Hooping Mill. There's supposed to be, I think, seven buildings there or six more buildings there, and they have not built that because they can't sell the ones they have now, the condominiums that are there. They've lowered the prices and lowered the prices. And so my concern is when is it going to become Section 8 because we can't fill the buildings, and that's going to affect everyone around those property values. also you know I feel like the old Hibby Mill property and the old school house would be lost in a sea of town homes I think it'd be better if you have to develop there to make it low density housing so that you can at least make it a park like setting around that school house like Henry Clay's home or something like that if you have to develop you know how long until we justify the dozing of those areas because oh well you know we've already developed around it so let's put a speedway here. You know, we need a gas station. I just don't think that to develop because we've already overdeveloped is a good reason to do that. And neither does my community or my neighborhood. Thank you for your time. I think I'm last, so I'll try to be brief. I'm David Kolpeck. I live at 2408 Doubletree Court, which is just off of Agape Drive in Dogwood Trace. I'm opposed to the connection of Agape Drive to any new developments north here, and it's for a very practical reason. If you drive up Agape Drive from Dogwood Trace, right where the A is in Agape, and you start up Agape, it starts narrowing down, and it's by the time you get to Doubletree Court, it is only 30 feet wide at that point. That's basically three cars, and two cars on each side, single lane of traffic. One car can pass through there. And I think you heard a lot of other testimony about how not having an additional Twain Ridge Bridge and the other connector feeders and the fact that there's a shopping center south in Chessamine County that this new development will start using this as a thoroughfare through there. That's just not going to be a practical aspect. There's safety issues associated with that, and so it's basically going to impact the quality of these houses and that safety on that road. So I'm opposed to the opening of that, and again, I think a traffic study might have pointed this out, and I think it's unfortunate that that wasn't done in this case. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kolpak. So, Mr. Simpson, are you going to speak? All right, okay. All right, all right. So if you do, then I've got to swear you in. I'm reminded. Yes, someone else wishes to speak? Oh, yeah, please come right ahead. Didn't Was anyone else? No? Okay. Vice Mayor, we have to make sure that they have been sworn in too, that she was here at the time. You've already, were you here when we swore? I didn't, I wasn't on the list, but I will. Do you swear to tell the truth and the whole truth? As far as I know. Thank you, ma'am. That's a very good answer. I'm very nervous, but this. That's usually monosyllabic. Go ahead, please. I'm Janice Parsons. I live at 4797 Reema Way. And I hope I can get this out. My concerns, I can't let them go. I have lived in Dogwood Trace for almost 20 years. And there was a business that was operated on this parcel of land that has me concerned. It was a mulch topsoil. I'm sorry. I'm a nervous rat. It's all right. We understand. You're doing fine. Thank you, ma'am. They sold mulch topsoil and that sort of thing. This was, I assume, brought in from other places. And I'm concerned about any hazardous chemicals that might have been in this stuff that might still remain in the soil. So if this zone change is approved and the development is allowed, I would love to see some soil testing done to assure us that there isn't anything hazardous to the people that might live there or to surround the people in the surrounding neighborhoods. That is all I have to say. I would just hope you'll take that into consideration. Thank you so much. Mr. Lear, the procedure now, for those of you all who aren't familiar with this, the procedure now allows for the applicant to respond. No. Yeah, staff can comment. Just a minute. Actually, staff should be next. So, Mr. Lear, that wasn't too far a trap for you. So, Mr. Emmons, thank you. And then after Jimmy, then, Bill, you're back up. And then the closing, any closing comments by the opponents, if anyone wishes to, from the opponents to have a comment. And then again, the petitioner. So go ahead, Jim. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking at all of the testimony that came before you today, There are a few things that I feel that I need to rebut and clarify. First of all, as a clarification, I do want to make it clear that the revised development plan that the applicant showed you today, this is the first that we've seen it also. So the Division of Planning reviewed the development plan that went in front of the Planning Commission, and not the one that was in the packet that was presented at tonight's hearing. So seeing it at 6 o'clock was the – I saw it at the same time as you did. So some of my comments, of course, are on the fly and just my experience in reviewing numerous development plans. The next thing that I need to clarify is that – and this is just a simple one, but I think whenever – Bill will correct me if I'm wrong here, But whenever he was saying that some of the floodplain area was usable, I believe he was intending that it meant that it was usable as recreational open space, usable open space for recreation, not that there could be any buildings or anything in the floodplain. I wanted to make that clear because we have very strict floodplain regulations. I want to get into just a few of the, kind of the, but before I get into, of course I'm going to say something about the burrow and about the streets. But before I get into those, I just kind of want to first get over some of the, should the Planning Commission, I apologize, should the Council approve the zone change as it's requested based off of the evidence that was presented at the hearing? I think it would require some changes to the findings that the Planning Commission submitted in their final report. And I just want to – I'm not trying to – at this point, I'm not really trying to say that you should or shouldn't approve the zone change. But if you do, I want to try and make sure that all of the bases are covered. The first one, based on the Planning Commission findings, under the second finding, there was mention about the Twain Ridge Drive being connected. Now that the applicant has presented at this hearing a development plan that does not have the Twain Ridge Drive coming across, I think it would be wise of the council, should you approve this, to just strike that sentence that refers to Twain Ridge Drive. I believe that the sentence, should you choose to approve it, the finding sentence before that could still apply. The second thing to point out is that new conditional zoning restrictions, which were agreed to by the property owners and the applicant, were presented tonight. And, of course, this is the first that we got to review those. For the most part, I don't think that the staff has much of a problem with the conditional zoning restrictions that have been agreed to. So if you did want to accept the applicant's proposed conditional zoning, you would need to replace in your findings the conditional zoning for the applicant rather than what the Planning Commission did. I would like to present, should you do that, we've also prepared for you an additional finding or a replacement finding. should you accept the applicant's conditional zoning restrictions. And that basically because the Planning Commission's findings and the Planning Commission's conditional zoning restrictions only apply to the stringer property and not the porter property. So we have combined that so that if you do, the new conditional zoning restrictions would apply to both properties, and we've provided a justification for those. I did say that... For the most part, the staff is in agreement with the conditional, or is not opposed to the conditional zoning restrictions that have been submitted. the staff would recommend that based off of this discussion that an exception be placed on the Porter property that would essentially allow any required stub streets should they be required in the future. And I'll explain that in two pictures. We can zoom in. There we go. Hello. The Porter property is this property right here. And as you can see, South Elkhorn Creek comes right in through there. They have apparently direct access to Harrisburg Road. If the Porter property were to develop in the future, they would need to build an expensive bridge across South Elkhorn Creek to develop the rest of this property if a stub street is not proposed into the subject property. Is that the old schoolhouse? No, the old schoolhouse is a small property here. The applicants property, the old schoolhouse property which is the Stringer property and then this larger property is the Porter property which has a significant amount of floodplain on the property and as you can see this map only shows the creek, not the floodplain that's with it. Most of their developable area is up in here bordering the subject property. And on the applicants now we have to zoom back out again. On the applicant's proposed development plan tonight, they were showing a stub street into that property. Should this property ever develop, at least that access would be available. So I think whether you accept the staff's exception for the Stub Street exception or not, to the applicant's conditional zoning restrictions, the reasons for the appropriate and necessary, I believe that those would apply in either instance. finally for the burrow tracy on that one if you can just kind of focus in a little bit more moving over and focus it in on the burrow i definitely agree jimmy just a second are we going to be able to come back to this or is bill lear going to speak to this issue the everything i'm just confused so yes part of the talked about left and right and they are exactly so as far as the process goes it's the staff's opportunity to kind of respond to everything that came up in the hearing. At this point in the hearing, there shouldn't really be any new information from anyone, staff, applicant. It should just be comments on the information that you've heard already. After I get through with my comments, then the applicant will have a chance to get up and essentially rebut anything that the opposition has said and that the staff has said. But you're telling us that some new stuff has arisen tonight that that's where I'm confused, not where you are in the procedure, but what you're telling us. I'm responding to all of the testimony that you've received tonight. I'm responding both to the testimony that the applicant gave and some of the testimony that the neighbors gave tonight. So I'm trying to do it more topically rather than just trying to go. he said this one and then rather than point out more things, I'm just trying to hit the broad topics. I've got about six topics and I'm about on the third one right now. Okay, well, I think maybe what I'm getting at is you may need to come back to the first one or the second one. Oh, absolutely. I realize that this is very complicated and I'll say it now and I'll say it again. Especially in the PUD 1 zone, there are different regulations than you typically have elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. And should the council, during any time, your questions or comments, if there's something that you would like to accomplish or some questions that you have, ask me. And I'll help work you through those regulations, which is what I was trying to do on the findings. It's not saying at this point that you should approve it, but if you do approve it based on the testimony, I was trying to cover those bases so that it would be approvable. As far as the bur oak, I do want to say that the bur oak is very significant. I question whether the conceptual development that's in front of you is really a valid way to approve that bur oak. Bur oaks tend to have a large taproot, and I'm almost embarrassed to say this with Mr. Leonard in the audience, But essentially, they've also got an extensive root system that goes out in that, too. And, in fact, oaks in general and burr oaks, very little bit of compaction in the soil. And he mentioned the soil, a little bit of compaction and a little bit of disturbance around that critical root zone, which might be anywhere as upwards of two times the height of the tree, could be significant. And just my experience in looking at development plans, I think that in order to save that burrow oak, it would require a significant amount of open space around that burrow, probably more than what's shown on that conceptual development plan. Of course, if that is important, that would be one of the things that we would work out the details on at a later date. I also want to point out, I believe it was an overstatement by Mr. Lear, that the Planning Commission members comments about Twain Ridge? Tracy, if we can go all the way out on that. In reading the minutes, which of course have already been submitted for the record, if you read the minutes and look at the conversations that the Planning Commission had about the drive, the focus was on this right here, on how to, oh, for the audience, the focus was on the area towards Herod and Herd Road and how to realign the road so that it saves the tree, trying to figure out if there was some way to get the collector road and save the tree. There was one comment by one Planning Commission member about crossing the creek, Twain the bridge. So I believe that it was an overstatement that the Planning Commission was against the bridge coming across. I believe that's a decision, a community decision that needs to be made on the development plan should at a later date, whenever this, if this property is rezoned. And then finally, while we're talking about connectivity, This is very rough, but it doesn't have to be an either-or situation. It is possible that we could still get connectivity and bring essentially a collector street system to Plain Wedge Drive and down to Agape and have this come out here and possibly some improvements to the service road leading out to Harrodsburg Road. it is possible that we could still get the connectivity and save the tree. I just wanted to point that out. And in general, I wanted to talk a little bit about connectivity and environmental issues and all of those things. We take those very seriously in the Division of Planning. And you have to really, on each and every time you build a road, as you're developing any piece of property, you always have to look at the benefits and the costs. the environmental benefit of being able to keep that tree. I think if we're going to keep the tree, then we really need to keep the tree. We need to make sure that there is a significant amount of open space so that that's there. I would hate for the tree to just have a token saving the tree and let a bunch of development come up very close to it and compromise the tree just to stop the street. You know, it is a valid concern that the Planning Commission has to make all of the time about whether to cross creeks to continue on street connectivity, how to deal with the groundwater, how to deal with trees and significant trees and all of those things. And you have to look at both of those and weigh the costs and benefits of those things. So I believe that would conclude all of my remarks and comments. I will reiterate that should you all have any particular questions about something that you would like to do, go ahead and ask me. I'm not going to spout off a verse of the zoning ordinance unless you need it. Thank you very much. Thanks, Jimmy. Mr. Lear. That's the picture of the old school president. Would you put up tab two for me, please? Let me begin by saying I like Jimmy Emmons. I really do, but he's the fellow that recommended approval of the plan that took a road right through that burrow tree and cut a very wide and very deep swath. And you caught a little bit in his rebuttal how we've been whipsawed about this road and the tree by governmental agencies, and I did not overstate what the Planning Commission, I've been in front of the Planning Commission even more times than Jimmy has, and when one of them says, I don't think that bridge is ever going to be built, and the rest of them nod their heads, I know what they're thinking, and when they turn down a plan that has it on it, I know the effect of it. Let me talk a little bit about that. I have been down this road before, literally. I represented the developer in the Snyder case right up the creek. That's a case that made it clear that Kentucky followed the U.S. Supreme Court law that says you can't impose an infrastructure requirement, the benefit of which is over hundreds or even thousands of acres, and all of the burden of which is upon a single developer that in that case and in this case really doesn't need it in order to function effectively in the development. It's a benefit burden weighing. That's the reason for the exactions program in the expansion area. Because of that case, we recognized in that new area, if we're going to build these improvements that are on one property, we're going to make everybody pay for them. The government had the option to build that bridge, which was less expensive than this bridge, after the case was over. And instead of the government building that bridge, because, frankly, nobody on either side of the creek really wanted it, it was our version of the bridge to nowhere, they killed it. This is a $3 million bridge. A woman got up at the Planning Commission and said, I don't think that bridge will ever be built. Nobody wants it. It's very expensive. I agreed with her, and I've said that from the beginning. If the government wants to spend the money to build that bridge, it can do it. But in my experience, it will not be built. Once that need for a bridge goes away, it affects a lot of things about the transportation plan there. Now, this is sort of a replay. A lot of the statements that we heard tonight are sort of a replay of the Planning Commission. The difference between what we heard from those people tonight and what we presented is since the planning commission, we've tried to do something, tried to do something effective to save the tree. We've gone back with something close to the original plan that we presented to the Transportation Cabinet. We have argued with them, and it did take some argument because they initially were sticking with their initial position. They've come off of that after our explaining the circumstances. Now, let me try to hit a few of these things that were brought up in order, and I have to put up one slide because you're probably wondering why all these people are here. That's why all these people are here. before the last hearing and before the hearing tonight. There was a similar one that went out in that whole area out there. Number one on their list of concerns is not the bur oak tree. It's not the traffic. It's not the sewers. It's decreased property values. One lady who spoke tonight was candid enough to say that. That is not, you cannot find anywhere in the comprehensive plan, and you cannot find anywhere in the case law of Kentucky a reason for denying a zone change because of fear of increased property values. The fact is this development is not going to affect property values one whit. But that's what's driving a lot of the comments out in that area, and some of these other things are red herrings. Now, close scrutiny, the PUD and the requirement for close scrutiny. This process began more than a year ago. The developer went to the Planning Commission with a development concept that's unique, that's different, that provides appropriate density. The Planning Commission said you can't do that in an R1T. You can't do that in an R3. You should do a PUD, P-U-D. So the P-U-D and all the requirements that go with it and all the time that it's taken is a result of the planning staff suggesting that we do that. And we have done that. And when I say time, innumerable meetings with the staff, several zoning committee meetings, several subdivision committee meetings. Over time, the hearings were postponed as we worked through the issues that were raised and resolved with all the various government agencies, fire, and so on and so forth. Now, you can try to kill the Stub Street, and Bruce and I will talk about that in just a minute. The sub-street going north really is not – there's not that much developable land. The property owners don't want it. We're willing to submit our plan that doesn't show it. There's not much there. If you kill the sub-street going south, you'll have Chief Hendricks on your doorstep because the fire department does want there to be connection at least to the property next door. Whether it goes all the way up to Dogwood Trace may be another issue, but the fire department will want that connector. PUD does not require the extension of the collector streets. Does not. It says they'll be extended as shown on the comprehensive plan. But then you read the comprehensive plan and it says good connectivity throughout all levels of the transportation system is essential. However, connectivity is not appropriate in all cases due to safety and other unique considerations. That Greenway, that Creek, that Burr Oak are definitely unique considerations. The comprehensive planning and development plan review processes in Fayette County are well-suited to assess the appropriateness and context of proposed connections. The one shown on the comprehensive plan, it says they illustrate approximate locations that will be refined during development and review process. The PUD ordinance says the applicant shall use the flexibility of the PUD1 zone to preserve such desirable natural and man-made features to the greatest feasible extent. Read the tree. The design of the planned unit development shall respond to natural and man-made features on the site. The design shall not necessitate excessive grading, filling, and destruction or other alteration of natural features. Now, all of that says you don't do a 20-foot cut and go through a 300-year-old bur oak tree, even though the planning staff originally approved that in the Department of Transportation. It says you don't do it and you don't have to do it in a PUD zone. The bridge I've talked about, the comprehensive plan, the gentleman who spoke first said that the density is figured wrong. And he said I would get up and say, well, we figured it like we have everywhere else. Would you put up that tab too? It's not just that we figured it like we have. Second one. It's not just that we figured it like we have everywhere else. It's that we figured it like we have everywhere up and down that creek. The unusual area that he's talking about is the greenway. And the same density calculation methodology followed for dogwood trace for everywhere else up and down that creek was followed in this case. And if you look at the last page of tab 7, at tab 7 in the comprehensive plan section that I gave you, you will see that those numbers, those density numbers for medium density and any of the other densities, assume that there's going to be undevelopable portions of the property, and that's taken into account. That's why it says you have up to eight. In there it says four to eight. It's up to eight in units per gross acre. On the traffic, I don't want to say much except that we did submit traffic calculations. We didn't do a full-blown study because the traffic calculations, which are per the ITE traffic generation manual, indicated there were too few trips in the peak hour even to justify a full-blown traffic. But we did submit the calculation. A gentleman said we did no studies, done any other kind of studies. We've done a Phase I environmental study, and it doesn't reveal the issues that the lady said she feared. We've done hydrological studies, volumetric studies, so on and so forth. In the revised plan, if you look at Tab 1, you'll see we have put pedestrian walkways down through the whole development that lead to the back street. and it's a short distance into the greenway. We've shown the pedestrian bridge that's down in the greenway. I dare say in some of those cases we've done at least as much, if not more, than any of the others did at the time of zoning to show what was going to happen in the greenway. School overcrowding. Can you find the aerial, Jimmy? The large-scale aerial is what I want. That's what Dunbar School was built for. Some of us can remember when there was a Dunbar School downtown. There's a Dunbar School out on the west end of Lexington because that's where all the growth is, and all the growth has come from this. And that's the last thing I want to say. The objections to this are an example of a very large pot calling a very small kettle black. Everything that was said out there, there's too much water in the creek. Well, it's too much water that we're putting in the creek. There's a lot of sanitary sewers. Well, it's a lot of sewage that we're putting through the system. There are kids in the schools. There are a lot of kids that we are all putting through. 11,000, 12,000 houses in this watershed, and this development represents less than 200. I do – Bruce wants to speak – I do want to say one thing about what Jimmy said. This is not really that complicated. The one – we can go back, if you want, later and look at the findings. They might need to be tweaked a little bit. What Bruce and I have agreed upon in the conditional zoning restrictions, though, is above and beyond what the Planning Commission proposed to provide additional buffering and screening and protection for the properties to the north. And frankly, I think it's significant that we have reached agreement with the most proximate neighbors, both of them, in a way that will ensure a development that's compatible with them. Thank you very much. Okay. Does anyone want, Mr. Simpson, you swear, I need you to swear in. I swear, Mr. Vice Mayor, to tell the truth. To tell the truth, that's good. And he said it. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of Jeff and Jenny Stringer and Mimi and Jonathan Porter. they own combined all the property that borders the subject property to the north. That's probably about 16 acres or so at least. I missed the first part of Mr. Lear's presentation, the staff's presentation, because up until about 4.30 this afternoon we were prepared to do battle once again after all these many years of not doing so. But we did, over the past couple of days, resolve our differences in terms of the buffering that's needed. I think Bill's introduced the conditional zoning language that addresses that in part. There's also separate agreements that conditional zoning does not address, can't address legally, that we have come to terms with that provide additional screening and buffering protection for the stringers and the porters. With respect to the staff's position about the Stub Street, the Stub Street is planned to go to the Porter property. The Porter is in the process of dedicating their property and the conservation easement so that it's never developed. There's no need for a Stub Street to go there because it can't be developed. It won't be once that process is finally consummated. So we believe we've crafted a conditional zoning provision that addresses, in particular, the properties most impacted by this development. And on behalf of the stringers and the porters, we're here to tell you that we're satisfied with our agreement, and we're here not to oppose the zone change. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Would anyone choose to speak on behalf of Mr. Fred? Fred Wolstein from Dogwood Trace once again. I just wanted to, I don't know if anybody can sum this up, because as you said, Vice Mayor, the confusion in this room transcends from what Bill Lear has said to some of what people have said for opposition to the members of the council. We raised buffering of the tree, as did the staff. The plan that Bill Lear threw up on the fly, the road goes right over it. It does not have the adequate buffering. So what you're doing is essentially altering a plan to run a road right over the tree root system, which will essentially kill the tree. So in effect, the people that have talked about the tree are talking about a tree that's doomed to death. So the plan on the fly, I don't think it is very – we're not wrapping ourselves around the tree, hugging the tree, because essentially we're putting a plan in place that will kill a tree. We raised the bridge. We talked about the traffic is not – or the connector streets or the collector streets do not have to be extended. Well, according to Article 22A6K, relationship to the traffic needs of the area, The plan unit development shall provide a road system which will be adequate to serve both the residents of the PUD1 and the surrounding residents. The design shall provide for the continuation of existing or dedicated streets on adjoining or nearby tracks and provide for the connection to adjoining unsubdivided tracks, especially those which would otherwise be landlocked. So I think there's also confusion as to whether we justify the PUD1 based on the traffic concerns. I just think there's too many details to work out tonight. I think we've had stuff presented. We've had the staff present, we can do this, we can do that. What I think really is clear is that we're not ready for a zone change and that we need to vote no for this zone change and let maybe these details be worked out over the course of another year. And if you can't see that decision as a vote no, then I believe that you should examine the conditions that we have carefully and respectfully submitted. We've looked at the various ordinances that apply. We've tried to draft them with a compromise in mind. In the paper today, Bill Lear was quoted as saying, you know, they redrafted this out of concerns that we have raised. We requested to talk to the developer. He's not returned our calls. But we would like to be good neighbors. Mr. Lear. Yeah. Well, we called Mr. Krause. And if we should have gone through Bill Lear, that's my fault. As I like to say, I don't mean to brag, but I'm not an attorney. I'm a concerned citizen that lives in Dogwood Trace. But anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. The final. All right. Yes, sir. Does anyone else want to speak? Okay, Dan. Marvin Mills again. Jimmy, I suppose it's his name. Okay. he stated that we will work out details later. What does that tell you? Let them work the details out, then come back. Mr. Lear stated that this is not a street. He did not address the traffic on Adopi. And I will read a letter I received from Mr. R. Stephen Ross, the Kentucky Transportation Branch engineer, and says Urban Collector Street. It reads as follows. I'll just read the first sentence. Accumulates traffic from local streets and channels it into the arterial system. Does that sound like dogwood trace? Does it sound like agape? Does that sound like agape? Does agape accumulate traffic from local streets and channel it to an arterial system? It does not. Therefore, it should not be included in the proposal. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Mr. Danford. And there's one other... Sorry, go ahead. I was just going to say, I really didn't plan on saying anything at all, but I've got to say, I'm not a zoning lawyer. I am a litigator. In my experience, that when a very worthy opponent stands up and impugns the motives of the other party, it is because they're losing. And what I was very shocked to hear was Mr. Lear stand up and impugn the motives of all these people sitting right here. Because I know I myself, as a resident in that neighborhood, have not spent three hours almost missing my dinner, coming here and preparing for this because I care about my property value. I care about my daughters who like to play in that neighborhood. and I don't want to see 333 homes worth of people funneled through that neighborhood that's not built for it. And the other thing I didn't like to hear, because it's not true, is that all of a sudden now the justification for let's get rid of the bridge, let's not worry about that part of the PUD because it's required. Let's not worry about that because, well, by golly, we've got a unique reason, and that is because we want to save this tree. Well, you look at their plan, folks, and it takes no genius to know their plan is a plan for a dead Baroque. No doubt about it. That is no justification. And finally, I would address the point that the PUD itself, it does not talk generally about the comprehensive plan. It says collector streets designated in the comprehensive plan shall be extended. not maybe, shall be. So general references to collector streets and the comprehensive plan, which Mr. Lear certainly knows better than I do, really don't make any difference here. What makes a difference, is my understanding, is that these two roads that we're talking about today are designated in the comprehensive plan. Both of them have to be extended. They are not extending one of them. They're not even trying to now. and for that reason, whether they might qualify for some other type of zoning or not, they do not qualify for PUD1 zoning. It's the only question in front of you on that technical basis and for the wealth of reasons that these good people have come here and spent this evening talking with you about passionately. For all of those reasons, we respectfully request that this be denied. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Danfoy. All right. Doctor. Yes. And sorry I can't keep my mouth shut. And this is not about the tree for me right now. What was said by Mr. Lear was he was talking about the density of the land. I'm also a mechanical engineer, and I've worked with numbers. And I've worked with their numbers. I've worked with lots of numbers in calculating what density of land with net acreage, what density of land with gross acreage. I can't come up with their numbers when you look at undeveloped, unusable land. You can't build on land that's unusable, and they count that as acreage that you can build on and use that in your density. So their density numbers are wrong. Now, you can listen to the ordinance, and I looked at ordinance changes and trying to appeal to changing the ordinance, and that costs money and that costs lawyers. And just because it's done that way since the 1980s, where they count unusable land in their calculation of densities, does not make it fair. And it's not looking at this land, which deals with creeks and tributaries to creeks and the possibility of flooding. Now, there's also the soil issue. This is limestone. This tree is growing on limestone. There's going to be blasting. There's unused waterways underneath this limestone because on an adjacent property, we found a spring. And this is not just a little spring. This is an annual flowing spring, which apparently is significant. And also, as far as traffic studies, according to the revision that was done by the staff, there was no traffic studies because they estimated that less than 100 cars for 193 townhomes would be necessary. So therefore, they didn't have to do a traffic study because there weren't 100 cars. Well, frankly, there are 100 cars, and I'd be surprised if there aren't 100 cars going in and out of that neighborhood on that road, which then you'll have to widen the road, and thus what they've said about the tree. And then he talks about, I'm sorry, the density of the homes beside. You know, the density of the homes beside is not the density of this. We live in relative low density. It was defined as medium density, but they built low density homes. So I can't control what the builders build when I move into the house, but the houses along that creek are low density homes, not what this is called by their definition, median density, which is actually high density. Thank you. Thank you. The closing summation by the petitioner is now ready for that, Mr. Lear. And after that, Council Members will have questions by Council Members and comments by Council Members. I'll be very brief. I said most of what I wanted to say in rebuttal, but this is the point of the hearing when you try to pull back out of the weeds and look at the big picture. The big picture is that we made a community-wide decision with the adoption of the 2007 comprehensive plan that we were not going to expand our urban service area boundary. And we did that very intentionally. We did that so that there would be fewer fire brooks, to be honest. Some of us can remember when there were horses and burrokes on the farm owned by the Firestone family. I can't. I drove by a lot. We made the decision to try to grow up and not out. That means there are going to be cases, and the Comprehensive Plan recognizes that, where there is higher density development in a corridor mixed with lower density development. It's not a bad thing. It's a good thing. The Comprehensive Plan has called for this density of development on this property for years. I mean, for longer than Dogwood Trace has been there, for longer than anybody that lives in Firebrook has been there. Everybody should be on notice that that's the kind of density that's anticipated for this property. The property next door is zoned R3, property two doors down. There are two properties zoned R3, I think, between this property and Dogwood Trace, and the other one is zoned R1E, which is the smallest single-family detached lots you can build. If we are going to meet the goal that was set in the 2007 comprehensive plan, we're going to have density. We're not suggesting higher than the comprehensive plan. We're suggesting in the mid-range of what the density shown for this property has on the comprehensive plan. And I'm sorry the young lady doesn't like the way we have calculated it. But we have for years and years, and it's not unique to this community, we have used all of the acreage on the property, and we've created these categories. And when you've got undevelopable land, just like you've got upstream and downstream, and it's been done all up and down that creek, you take the density you might build there, and you transfer it on to the higher property, the upland property, and that's how you get the density that is intended within the urban service area boundary. The planning commission that wrote that comprehensive plan and adopted all of it except the goals and objectives which came here recommended by a vote of 7 to 2 this zone change. They recommended this zone change. The planning commission has control over the road system. They will adopt the final development plan. There's been a lot of development plan talk tonight. The reality is, as you well know, the council does not adopt the development plan. It is a planning commission function to monitor, to provide that close scrutiny. Some of the comments tonight would suggest that the planning commission, when this goes back, as every zone change does for a development plan, a final and sometimes a preliminary after zoning is granted, the comments would suggest that the planning commission is just going to go to sleep and is not going to listen to concerns, is not going to address the details that they always address in preliminary and final development plans. They always address them, and the staff is going to be there, as they always are, to make their recommendations. The last thing I will say is I do want to address one thing that just came up a minute ago. So the traffic, nobody says there are going to be 100 cars produced by this. The standard is, will there be 100 peak hour trips? There are different categories of units that produce, according to all the studies, different numbers of trips per day, and typically 10% of those trips are in the peak hour. And they ran the calculations. I'm sure the calculations are founded on solid research like they are in the ITE manual, and that's what it was. This is not a heavy-producing traffic generator. Look up and down the road, and you'll see where the traffic is already being generated. There's no reason to not approve this zone change if you want to follow the comprehensive plan and the philosophies built into it. We have worked with the staff and the planning commission for more than a year to get here, and we respectfully submit it should be approved. I don't know a little housekeeping. I don't know if I've actually handed – I know that Jimmy has made copies for everybody of the conditional zoning proposed restrictions. Have you handed those out? Okay, so you've gotten the ones that Mr. Simpson and I have worked out and would propose to you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lear. All right, this point in the hearing is the opportunity for the council to ask questions of the staff, of the petitioner, or of the opponent. Now, sometimes at this point things get a little bit rocky. So I'm not a judge. I don't know about civil procedure, but I do know when things get out of hand. And so I'm just going to say I don't think that's appropriate, so let's just cut that out, okay? Is that fair? All right. First on my list is Council Member Gordon. Surely council members will behave, Vice Mayor. I was talking about myself, too. Sometimes it gets out of hand. We just get excited. We'll be calm. Well, thank you all for being here. This is a wonderful turnout. And I do appreciate, actually, the arguments on both sides. I'm a big proponent of infill and growing up. I do think we need to do it correctly, and we can't just have any infill and growing up. So a lot of my questions are actually going to be for Jimmy Emmons. To be sure I understand what all was said tonight, the first thing I wanted to address is something that Mr. Lear just touched on, but Mr. Yozwiak brought up the usable acres. Now, is our custom to use all acreage, even unbuildable acreage, in order to determine the density? Is that done on every single zone change? Yes. Gross density and net density are figured the same with every zone change that you see. Gross density is the entire area, including undevelopable areas and public right-of-way for the entire property because zone lines go to the center of the public street. Net is all of the property, which includes the developable and undevelopable portions of the property. So in terms of the density and the questions about the acreage, this was actually done just like every single, calculated just like every single medium density that we've heard for the last 20 years? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Council Member Gordon, let me just make a point of information. At this point in the hearings, the questions are asked by the council members, too. But we can't do that, sir. I'm sorry, Mr. Wood. We will ask the questions to the staff and to the petitioner and to the opponents. That's up to the council member then to recognize someone. Okay. Thank you. Jimmy, a couple of people, or maybe more than a couple, Ms. Dudik and several others, Mr. Monti, brought up the flooding issues. And it was stated that we all remember when Ramsey's flooded, and that was not a good situation. but the statement that was made was that since the improvements to Harrodsburg Road, there has been no study of the impact on the stormwater system. Do you know for a fact that that is true? I think whenever the Kentucky State Transportation Cabinet redid Harrodsburg Road, They would have been required to do some studies, but they did not change the FEMA maps. So there was no change to the FEMA maps whenever they redid the roads, and that's what is referred to in both our staff report and by the people there. So the FEMA flood maps that are shown may or may not take into account the hydrology. Now, I'm sure I'm positive that the Kentucky State Transportation Cabinet did some sort of calculations, but we don't have those here at the government. Would it have been normal for them to update the FEMA maps after a big project like that, If it was private development, yes, we would have been required to. At the state level, we can't tell them what to do. So we don't? Ultimately, though, I have looked at this, and you know I do a lot of work with the floodplains and everything of that nature. Ultimately, I do believe that the floodplain, most of the floodplain on this property is coming from the drive-in tributary and not necessarily South Elkhorn Creek proper, the main South Elkhorn Creek. I do believe that if there are changes in the floodplain because of the road construction, that it will have a greater effect on the porter property than the applicant's property in my review of the existing topography of the site. And we haven't had our, have we had our stormwater folks and our engineers look at that issue? I don't know if they have looked at that specifically. I don't know the answer to that. You know, we've been in more than one of these hearings where this has been an issue, and usually there's at least some information. I can tell you not dealing anything with tonight's zone change or this property in here, but Greg Lubeck and I are trying to get with the State Department of Transportation to get that information. Do you know when you might have it? No, ma'am, I don't. Okay. I don't know if we will or will not get it. Okay. Now, as far as the PUD1 zoning, I'm still a little uncertain about this because in the packet of information that you entered into the record. Yes, ma'am. which includes all of the minutes from the Planning Commission. On the page 25, which is the next to last page, one of the commission members, Ms. Roche-Phillips, talked about the appropriateness. And I think she's actually a planner. a professional planner or was in her life, and her question centered around the PUD zone as being one that had to show innovation. So can you explain to me again from the staff perspective how this is innovative in relation to the things that were mentioned, the natural features, the bur oak. We actually have talked about increased buffering for the schoolhouse property. I'm not sure whether that's innovative or just, you know, if that would qualify. But I'm still not sure that I understand how this zoning is appropriate. From the staff's opinion, the primary innovation in this development is the fact that the townhouses will be fronting on open space rather than public streets. They will be served to the rear by the alleyway system, so they don't have a public street in front of their townhouse, and that for the majority of the bulk of the townhouses in there. And that was stated as the primary design innovation that the staff agreed with, and ultimately the Planning Commission, in their approval, their 7-2 vote on that. So that's the innovation is the alleyways and the facing of the... Yes. Well, what is your response to Ms. Phillips' comment? the PUD is supposed to be used on pieces of property that have important natural features or historic structures that need to be planned around where traditional zoning patterns could damage those assets. Do you think that basically is correct? I do not disagree with her. The proposed development of this site, as it's proposed either as it was in front of the Planning Commission or tonight, could not be done with any of our other traditional zones, hence the write-your-own zone of the planned unit development. Has there been any discussion of since the only other PUD zone was, did you say, 25 years ago? It was about 20 or 25. I didn't look up the exact date. Has that ever been revisited? It was actually, if you look at the original plans for that development, They had many, many different types of housing units throughout that development. It's also on Plain Ridge, and they had many different types of housing units. And as the market progressed and they came back in and amended their plans, you ended up with a much more typical single-lot subdivision, which, of course, would be allowed in addition to the clubhouse. So when that zone changed, however long ago it was, whenever that zone change went through, it did have a multitude of housing types and variety. And as development progressed, you got much more of a single-family home in their response to the market. Would you, since you didn't necessarily disagree with this statement, I want to bring back the Burr Oak. How, and is Dave Leonard still here or did he leave? Darn, he must have left because I consider him an expert in trees. And so how can, if in fact what Mr., you know, if you don't disagree with this PUD statement that natural features are to be planned around, One would presume then that in regards to the Burr Oak, it will be around for another 50 or 60 or 70 years if it's planned properly and built properly around there. So if, in fact, Mr. Leonard's testimony is correct that the root zone radius needs to be much bigger, how can we how could we look at that? I mean, it seems to me that would need to be changed in order to protect the tree. And I know you've done some things to protect the tree so the road doesn't go through there, but that's not the total protection. The total protection is the space for the roots to continue growing, right? Yes, and if you remember in my final comments, I pointed out that I believe that in order to save the tree, I know that it would take a significant amount of open space, exactly what that would be. Without review of that, I can't tell you on the fly exactly what it is. I was concerned about what I was seeing on the development plan. At the time, but also in order to try and get rid of some of the confusion between what you're reading in the minutes and what you're dealing with, it was pretty much assumed at the Planning Commission that the only place that the Kentucky State Highway Department would allow the street to connect in would be right there opposite of Military Pike. And so something, and as Mr. Lear pointed out, they have been working since the time of that, and apparently they've gone through and gotten more of an agreement from the state about changing that roadway to be more on the old schoolhouse lane service road. That's part of the reason why in the toll looking at things that I kind of presented the possibility of still allowing that street connectivity and saving the tree because that's whenever you were in the either-or choices, whenever the road had to be directly across from Military Pike, so tree or road. Okay. When you say saving the tree. Yes. What do you mean? Do you mean taking it, being sure that the road doesn't go through the tree, or do you mean expanding the space so that the tree has appropriate space? I'm talking about using the general best management practices for saving trees. Because of my research on a burrow in preparation for today's hearing, I read that sometimes the expanse of the root system could be up to twice as much as it is tall. So if it's a 70-foot tall tree, you're looking at 140 feet of protected area. Or if it's 90, it would be 180. And then you also have to look at making sure that there are no – I've also read that even one inch of fill over the root zone could possibly kill a tree because in the roots, it's not just pulling in water and minerals. It also has to have air exchange. So whenever you compact the soil or you run trucks over it, you can very easily, slowly kill the tree. That's kind of what's happening just up the road on the Murray's site. There were several oak trees that were saved on that development plan on the Murray's site, and some of those trees have been slowly dying because they've been parking cars. Even though it was grass, they've been parking cars out there and compacting that soil, and essentially you're suffocating the trees. My last question has to do with the greenway. Yes. Can you help me understand, is the Greenway there? Is the Greenway part of the Greenway Master Plan? Those kinds of things. I didn't, but it was mentioned that the Greenway Master Plan was not done. The Greenway Master Plan was adopted by the Planning Commission. I believe what was meant to be referred to during the hearing was the Green Infrastructure Manual, and that is what is still pending out there. The greenways are a part of the comprehensive plan. The applicant is proposing to keep the floodplain as a greenway with their proposal. I believe that that portion of the development proposal is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. And people would have access at various points. I believe that Ms. Dietz is our greenway planner. I believe that it's intended to have a trail through that area, but I don't have that right in front of me. I didn't look that up before tonight. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I don't have a question so much as a comment, and that's largely to follow up on. Councilmember Gordon's questions and I too was compelled by that section of them of the minutes that referred to the to the essence of the of the PUD zoning which is to work as Dave Leonard put it with the land and not against it. And I know we've talked on maybe one or two folks have mentioned the Baroque, but I do need to come back to that because many years ago in the neighborhood where I live there was a historic tulip poplar tree, the biggest and grandest in Fayette County and it was to be saved in the in the development of the Meadowthorpe Manor shopping center well the way it was saved was was to kill it and the way this was done was to grade all around that tree at a certain radius when the land was graded down all around it. So what you had in the end was a tree isolated and elevated from the newly graded space. And so it remained magnificent for a few years, and then the limbs started dropping off, and it had to be taken down because it had become a hazard. And I am not, by the evidence that's presented here, been presented here tonight, I don't think we're saving this bur oak either. And before going forward with this zone change, I would really want to see some serious evidence that we are working with the land and not against it. that we are working with a zone, with the PUD zone, that is actually doing what it was designed to do. We don't have that many magnificent historic trees left. And so I think it is important that we take due note and move forward with due regard for these natural resources. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I, too, have concern about the bur oak. Jimmy, maybe I better ask you this question. I'm not sure whose responsibility this is. Maybe it's a team effort. Can we not get some qualified horticulturist, whether it be Dave Leonard or someone else, if preferable, to actually give us definitive numbers about how much space around the tree is adequate to keep it watered and fertilized, so to speak, and then adjust the development plan to that as opposed to or have the developers come back with a proposal to develop it in accordance with what the horticulturers say? Absolutely. You have just summed up what I, I mean, you have just said what I was trying to sum up, and we'll work out the details later, that comment, that we tend to rely on Tim Query, our urban forester, and other people in the government that have natural and those types of things. I, yeah, you're correct. we would be looking at those things. And in looking at what Mr. Lehrer has presented to us, there is a unit, or a couple of units, that are pretty close to where that tree is also. So there is some danger I guess if they in fact are going to extend the area that the road is going to have to be moved some and maybe those two units are going to have to go away. That's why I expressed concern And just simply from my experience in reviewing development plans, and as I mentioned earlier, this is the first time we saw that. My second comment involves the Agape stub. In the packet, it is described as a proposed temporary emergency access. Does that mean it's temporary now but it's going to be permanent later? There are several adjectives there strung together. I think I can explain that. Where that temporary emergency access is shown is the Hampton Springs property. That's under different property ownership than the developers. They don't have any control over that, but I believe that they have been in contact with those owners. And there is a pending preliminary subdivision plan in front of the Planning Commission that's been postponed for a very long time, six months or so, that would have that permanent street of agape connecting through there. But I believe that temporary was the applicant's response for fire protection with this number of units. I think that they were willing to try and work with that property owner to put in some sort of temporary connection for where the permanent street would go if approved on the Hampton Springs. I would like to point out on the Hampton Springs, there is an old plan that was approved that does show that street. Do you agree that it is a requirement that a permanent street be connected to Dogwood Trace? Our subdivision regulations would require it. In order to not do that, it would require a waiver of our subdivision regulations by the Planning Commission. Because a fire gate there could solve that problem just as easily as far as the safety considerations are concerned. And that has been done hither and yon here in Lexington, for that matter, but other places. And that might be something to investigate if, in fact, it's still up in the air, whether we're going to extend that or not, or if we would wish to get that waived. There was an approved plan that the Planning Commission approved that had a public, that on the Hampton Springs property that continued a gape drive into the subject property. So that was approved. The developer never went through all of the necessary steps to actually build that development within the required time frame. and now plans have changed by the Hampton Springs developer and they've filed plans that are pending before the planning commission to build that public street. Once again, I think the temporary was the applicant's goodwill to try and deal with fire access and emergency access for a large number of townhouses. I'm going to have to agree that the shortest and quickest route to Kroger's is going to be done that street actually through Dogwood Trace, I would guess. I can't imagine people choosing Harrisburg Road, especially if it's at a high traffic time. So that is a concern for me. Anyway, thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember James. Thank you, Jimmy. Don't leave yet. First of all, I want to tell the residents thank you, and I applaud you coming to council. It's not easy to speak at the mic, but I applaud, and this is a great showing, and you ought to be proud of yourselves for coming and speaking up about your neighborhood issues. Jimmy, in a PUD one, are the width of the alleys an issue? Like how wide are the alleys in this system? The alleys are proposed to be 20 feet wide. I know that the applicants worked with our solid waste department and our fire department to try and come to a width of that alley that would be appropriate. There isn't anything necessarily in our PUD regulations that would say what the width of that alley is. That's part of the flexibility. So it was designed by the applicants, but it was designed with them consulting the big truck people. Okay, so PUD doesn't have any requirement for street width at all? No, our subdivision regulations do have our street widths and everything like that. Typically an alley, 20 feet is a little bit wide for a typical alley, but the way that we've always viewed the subdivision regulations is that they set the minimum, and so if you get more than the minimum, then it's okay. If you wanted less than the minimum, that's whenever you have to get into waivers. Okay. And do you know where their trash and recycle collection would be? That was something that was negotiated with the Division of Solid Waste. The applicant, I believe, their preference would be to have rollout Herbys and Kirby's and things of that nature. I believe our Solid Waste Department on record is saying that how the government would service that would be with dumpsters and that the applicant could get private collection if they wanted that. Now, with that being said, there was a compromise reached where the applicant is providing the areas that dumpsters could go with no intention of actually putting the dumpsters out there. And I believe that if the applicant does get the zoning and does get the development plan approved, that they will be dealing with the solid waste at the commissioner and even possibly the council level to allow their townhouse development to get the Herbys and Kirby's rather than the dumpsters. But there has been a, that was definitely looked at. Okay. And there was a compromise reached on the plan that was approved by the Planning Commission. Okay. Do you know about Central Avenue? This might be off the, do you know how Central Avenue does it? I don't know how they do their trash collection. Okay. And also dealing with the width of the streets and such, what about visitor parking? Is there any allocated space? Or is there a requirement by the PUD1, actually? There is no requirement of the zoning ordinance to have that. That would just be whether the Planning Commission, through their review and approval of the development plan, required it or not. I think the applicant can answer better whether there was guest parking on that plan. And from here, my eyes are not good enough to see. Tracy was it? No designated guest parking. I don't believe the original development plan provided for any guest parking. It did have parking at the clubhouse. Okay. Thank you. With regard to the connector streets and the stub streets, have you answered clearly, and maybe I missed this, maybe Councilmember Beer touched on it, but is it that collector streets are required to be connected and through streets, or is it that the stubs are just required? Did you answer that yet? The zoning ordinance in the PUD one says that collector streets shall be continued through the property. I believe whenever you talk about any time that all of the collector streets that we show on the land use map, we've always viewed those as those are not engineered lines. Those aren't necessarily the detailed lines, but it gets you from point A to point B. And so, for instance, on another property, on the Mahan property, they had some collector systems. And then as the development plan came in, they had a collector system that worked. It might not have been exactly like it was on the comprehensive plan, but it had all of the connections and the connectivity that is recommended by the comprehensive plan. And that's that case study exception that we've referred to? Or that's the Snyder? That's the Snyder. No, the Snyder. Trying to confuse two things. I mean, two things have been confused. Okay. The – it's fairly clear from the Schneider case that the government cannot require the developer to build the bridge. Okay. But it was the planning staff's position that we could require them on their property to give us the collector street up to the bridge in an optimal alignment for that bridge, so that at some point in time in the future, whenever the need is great enough to deal with that expense, that we could complete our collector system. Okay, and that was because of the floodplain. That's why the bridge in both cases had been mentioned. Yes, it's crossing that. It's an expensive bridge because of the floodplain and because of just how much water there are in those creeks. Okay. And do you know if there's street parking on Agape? I don't know whether they have that or not. Okay. Both sides of the street? Okay. And let's see, where else am I going here? I will just put it on the record that I am for the protection of the Burr Oak with the required buffer for the root system and all that. So 150 feet out, 105, whatever Dave Leonard suggested, I am for that. And I'm a bit concerned at the development plan that we saw today that does not have that requirement. And I don't know if we know how far that distance is, and maybe someone can speak on that, but I'm interested in where the road is as compared to the current situation or where that tree is situated now. That would have to be a question for the applicant. Absolutely. And you did, one question for you, a last one, is you mentioned, I think Mr. Mills mentioned this in reference to you stating this too, community decision on development plan can be talked about at a later date. What did you mean by that? You talked about, after you put the legal pad up there where you were talking about existing tree stand, And then after that, you said, but these are decisions that the community could discuss at a later date. What I meant was that, point out that the Planning Commission indefinitely postponed the development plan until after the council's hearing on this. And so should you approve this zone change, the applicant will have to bring it back. And those discussions about the development plan issues, the roads and the streets and where to put the townhouses and how to save the trees and all of those things can be discussed again at the Planning Commission meeting. That's what I meant to, that's what I was trying to say. And should we not approve? Would that discussion still happen? Should you not approve this zone change, then the zone change is dead. The applicant's application is gone. they would have to file a new zone change application and new development plans. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I want to thank everybody for coming down tonight and spending hours down here and missing dinner and so forth. And I think we've been sitting in these seats or in a seat since about 9 or 11 this morning. So it's been a long day for everybody. I've got a couple of questions. Jimmy for you and Bill probably for you, so if you want to just get close to the microphone, I'll kind of go back and forth if that's okay. As far as the bike and pedestrian connectivity, Bill, you had mentioned on tab two, am I reading my map right, that there's kind of a space between four units at the top and four or five units at the bottom, and is that the access point that you're talking about? Yes, that's a pedestrian pathway. You'll have sidewalks on the streets, of course, but right through the middle, running, I guess, would be west to east. See where it comes into the club. And then goes all the way to the street in the back. And it's got a kind of divider so you can see the path. Okay, I thought I was reading that correctly. And then, Jimmy, just for clarity from what Council Member Gorton had said about that greenway, we do have a greenway master plan. It does tell us what we can do with it and so forth. But for us to put a trail into that, I mean, obviously we have to have that land acquired and so forth. We would either need to acquire the land or secure an easement. Okay. That's the typical. Right. Okay. One of the concerns that I had was the connectivity to the existing system, and more so from the standpoint of, I hate to say this, but we're all going to age in place. And the way we've built our city is not maybe very innovative, and we're going to have to change radically our thinking about the way we built our city. And when we start trying to get folks around, we're going to have to start thinking about other ways than just a car. So there needs to be much greater emphasis on bikeable, walkable communities. And so that tends to be where my eye goes first. As it relates to the guest parking, Bill, do you know how many spaces roughly at the clubhouse you all are proposing? I can't tell you the exact number, but what I want to point out is that all of these units have a garage. Most of them are two-car garages, and they also have a driveway. And although parking on the alleys will be problematic, parking on the main streets, there is enough width to park. So there are spaces at the clubhouse for guests to park, but there are also a lot of spaces throughout the unit, I mean, throughout the development for guests to park. And I know I could put my hand on at some point in time, what's the width of the street, of the main streets? Do you know roughly? Mark, do you know off the top of your head? And by the way, it needs to be a subdivision right away. Yeah, we are subject to the subdivision. I want to clarify that. Jimmy said that we aren't subject to, and that's news to me because as I read the PUD, we are subject to the subdivision regulations. We have to file a final subdivision plan at some point on down the way. So they would be in compliance with those regulations. Can I just say one other thing while I'm up here about this plan you asked me about? The key thing about this plan as regards the road system is that transportation has approved an access to the south end of the property. This road, when it's finally approved, the one that bends to the left, when it's finally approved by the Planning Commission, it can provide more room for this tree. This has to go back to the Planning Commission. The Council, as I said before, doesn't approve the final development plan, so it would be a mistake to sit here and assume that the Planning Commission will approve a road in the precise location that it's shown on here. The access, that's the key point. The access can go down at the south end of the property. It doesn't have to come through like a gun barrel from the earlier transportation decision. Okay. While you're still there, can you give me an idea what the price range is on these? Do you have any idea? I can tell you a little bit of the details. They will run from 1,500 square feet to 1,700 square feet. Most of them will be three bedrooms. Some of them will be two bedrooms. The price range is in the lower 200s. That's what's anticipated. Okay. All right. And then there was something in there in, I believe, tab two or something, talking about space between, that there was five feet space between. Does that come into play? I may have read that wrong, and that was early on in our comment. But these are all compressed together, four or five at a time. Yes. There are as few as two together in some cases, and there are as many as six together in some cases. And they range. The most that you can have in townhouses connected without a break is six. The most that you can have on the same frontage, the same face, is three, and the five feet is probably the minimum side yard that's in the R1T zone that's carried over. That's what I saw. Okay. And then the last question about widths and all that. Frontage from doorstep to doorstep in some of these green alleys, if we'll call it that, in the innovation piece that we've got where we're facing each other. approximate distance between doorstep to doorstep. Mark, can you tell me that off the top of your head? I would guess 30, 35 feet. 37. 37. Did you hear that? The answer was 37, but they stagger in and out. Okay. All right. That's probably comparable to what the one down on Central Avenue is, and it's not far. We're actually building one downtown on Lawrence Street similar to that, we being South Hill. You know, I think everybody in this room needs to see something that's playing out here. You know, you've got folks who, in a very tough economy, are trying to be very innovative and trying to do something. And what's really happening here is that we haven't been very innovative in our planning regulations. we've got a situation where we've got folks who are really passionate about this isn't good for us and we've got folks who are really trying to do something unique and different that isn't like everything else here in Lexington and what I find interesting is this council made these six pillars at the beginning of two years ago one of them was about innovative planning and that doesn't describe our planning department and I hate that that steps on toes but at the end of the day Kentucky isn't Kansas And we're treating you guys like it's Kansas. We're telling you to cut it up this way and just dissect it as if it were flat and everything was even. You know, here we're sitting talking about a very unique landscape that has some very significant pieces that if you all were given, I think, greater latitude or greater creativity, you probably could save these and make a whole lot more money. But we've hamstrung you. And everybody in here needs to recognize that there's no villains in the room, that really you've got folks trying to play by the rules and trying to do something right and innovative. But at the same time, we've created a bad system. And, you know, I think it speaks to that lack of innovation when you see that 20 to 25 years, this is the first one we've seen. how many unique features across Lexington have been lost that we all could have looked back on and said, boy, that would have been great to keep that unique feature. And again, it's not necessarily the developer's fault. They're playing by the rules we give them. And so I think that after tonight, however it shakes itself out, that this community ought to march in lockstep about changing that so that we can infill. Mr. Lear is exactly right. This community has to recognize that we've got to fill in the blanks, And we have to grow up instead of out and so forth. But we've got to do that wisely. And I don't like infill for infill's sake. But I want to recognize before I make any other comments that we've got people playing by the rules and the rules have hamstrung them. And so I find it very troubling on a couple of fronts. One is that we've got two cars for each house and no room really to park friends and family and so forth like that. We've got 25-foot wide streets, and once people start coming to visit folks who enjoy these new places, you know, you don't really have anywhere to put them. And we're dealing with the exact same situation over off Winthrop and all that stuff that was built by the railroad tracks behind Winthrop, and I get calls daily about people that can't get through there because people are parking on both sides and we've got a tremendous fire concern. You can't get into it. And again, there's nothing that's against the rules. That's what we have to work with. And so we put folks in a box in a lot of ways. So I have great concerns about some of these types of things. You know, Bill, I think I'm going to quote you. You said at the beginning, you know, when it came to the road thing, you said nobody stopped to look at what would happen if you drew a straight line and you put this one together with this one. And I think that just sums up my frustration tonight to everybody in the room, everybody watching, is that nobody bothered to look this far out. You know, we didn't bother to think, well, where would we be 20 years from now or 30 years from now when we started trying to put these streets together? And, you know, here we find ourselves in this situation. You know, some of the other concerns that I have with this, we just spent an hour talking about Man of War running at 120 percent capacity and what dumps out on it and how it dumps out on it and how we didn't go the extra mile and do what needed to be done and create limited access freeways from Justin County over Richmond to take off that pressure. So, you know, here we sit in a situation where we've been here for a very long time. You have people that have brought together a plan that they're trying to work with the neighborhood. They've got constraints for their interests, and we've got neighbors who say, you know, this isn't good. And I have some very serious concerns about this development, not about the intentions, but about some of the outcomes of what would happen if we build it this particular way. So I know that's a bit of a soapbox, but I think at the end of the day, I think that everybody in this room and everybody watching needs to understand that this community needs to put pressure to have a lot more innovation so that in the future that we don't have situations like this and we've got some latitude to work. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. McCord. Dr. Stevens. Mr. Lear, I had a couple questions for you also. The first question, Councilwoman Gorton mentioned, or was concerned about stormwater. But as I recall, when you started your remarks, you said that there was to be a retention or detention basin. Yes. But I can't see well enough to see you all the way over there. All of, if you, I think the same one is in tab one of the book I handed out, but all of this area back here is a detention basin. It sits above the flood area, which is down here, and of course it's different from the area that's in the field over here. So that is a – I can't tell you the exact number of million gallons it will hold, but this is a significant detention basin, and it will ultimately be sized. They've done preliminary hydrologic calculations to show it, but it will detain a huge amount of water. So that's designed to let any water that's accumulated gradually enter the – from about right here. The high point of the property is close to the front. And from about this point, it slopes down toward the back. There's a swale, actually, that comes down about where this street is. So the drainage can come from both sides into the swale, come down, and end up in this. And so the natural drainage, as you would expect, goes down toward the creek, and this would capture it, then release it slowly. And you also mentioned about driveways. Where are the driveways? Are they in the back of the garage, or is the garage facing the? No, the ones in the middle, the design for the ones in the middle is that the drives come here. All these are driveways coming in. And then the ones over here, the driveways come in to the front, and the garage is open to the front. And the reason for that, originally we had a roadway that served these from behind, and it created a roadway close to the boundary. So we've made them front entry for these so as to leave as much green space on the boundary as we have. And these, you probably saw in one of the exhibits, these units are now 44 feet and some inches away from this property line, not as far from this one, but what's over here is not as sensitive as some of the areas over there. So some of the concern was about where people would park. So is there room to park between the street and the garage then? There is in all of them. So there is a place for the mother-in-law to park while she's there? Yes, and again, most of them are two-car garages. There are a few of the smaller ones that are one-car garage planned, but most of them are two-car garages, and that means at least two cars can park in the apron out front in addition to some on-street parking. But the places where you won't be able to park on the street are the narrower of the alleys. Now, this is serving the rear of these as an alley, but it's to a wider street section because it's part of what's proposed to be a connector there. In addition to the innovative alleys, which I think are a good thing, you've also, I think, done an innovation in protecting a natural resource when you designed a plan that would help protect that tree. And we don't have any burrows left, and that one looks like it's in pretty good shape from the pictures. I haven't been out to look at it personally, And if I did, I wouldn't know what I was looking at. But would you be agreeable to whatever suggestions the forester would have about the arbors? We do have certified, genuine arbors who work for the government who would say that we need this much land to protect that tree because I agree that running bulldozers over it and things like that could be harmful. Well, we have the complete expectation and agreement that when this goes back to the planning commission, they're going to get the best expertise they can and tell us what sort of a safe area there has to be. And as you know from construction techniques, you don't just say that you don't get close to it. You actually put up a fence. I've seen trees protected that way. the topography here is not like the topography, Dr. Blue's, in front of Metathorpe. And I think any of us, that was not one of my zone changes, I'm happy to tell you. But I was aware of it at the time, and as soon as I saw the method that they chose to try to save it, I knew like anybody else that knew anything about trees, it wasn't going to last. Now, that's not what we proposed. I'm confident that's not what the Planning Commission would allow us to do if we did propose it. But at the end of the day, this time or whenever, this has to be done by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has to approve a development plan that has the restrictions in it, limitations in it necessary to preserve that tree. So you'd be willing to sacrifice some of the townhouses and maybe move that road a little bit if necessary? Yes. I think your plan is good and much better than what the commission apparently approved, which was to build a big cut right through that. No, they disapproved it because of the cut. Oh. The planning commission disapproved that plan because of the cut and some of the other things. But now the road will connect with the service road and still come out across from Military Pike. Yes, the service road will still come out across from Military Pike, But the key, as I said before, is what can happen by moving the entrance down there instead of having it come straight through there. But I meant you'll swing around and go out mostly at Military Pike where there is a red light. That is correct. It'll feed into what's called, I think, Old Farmhouse Lane, which is the service road, and then the access will still be at the same light. Okay. Thank you very much. Sure. Mr. Blevins. Bill, just stay there. Okay. We'll get you while you're up. I want to confirm what I just heard. You all are willing to accept a restriction regarding the burrow. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And I wanted to ask about stormwater at the far end. Are you proposing a detention or a retention basin? Detention. And is that located within the floodplain? All of the detention basin is outside of the floodplain. Tell us who you are too please. Mark Bruggemann with CDS Associates. We're the engineers on the project. The detention basin would be designed to meet your requirements. We would work with your staff to make sure we meet or exceed the requirements. Our intention is to have the pond so that it is constructed above the floodplain. All right. Thank you. That's what worries me, as you're working with our staff on that. Okay. Let's see. Bill, your agreement with the state, your new agreement with the state in regards to traffic, could you go over that in a little bit more detail real quick, please? Sure. We presented this plan to them. We went back, we met with them, we told them what the reaction was at the Planning Commission. We presented this plan or a plan very close to this plan. It was slightly different, but the gist of it was an entrance down here and not basically this road plan. They asked us to submit. We met with them after the initial, I think the initial one was sent to them sometime in September. Then we went out and met with them. They asked us to tweak it a little bit, and we did. And we submitted this, and we received an email saying that they were granting approval for the plan, but final approval has to come with the encroachment permit. Encroachment permit is the formal vehicle that allows you to encroach on a right-of-way, and that means get access. And we met with the district engineer as well as the more junior person that originally had told us to come this way. So I am very confident that they are supportive. They told us that they're supportive of moving it. Okay. All right, that's all I had for you. Mr. Emmons? Mr. Emmons? Just at a high level, it appears to me, I want to say this and see if you go uh-huh. It appears to me that the Planning Commission has opted to approve this application for the zone change with the idea in mind that the really hard work will be done at the development plan hearings. Is that sort of your sense? That is, and in fact that was by their motion. As Mr. Lear incorrectly said, that they disapproved the plan. They didn't approve it, and they didn't disapprove it. They indefinitely postponed it. Right. Right. I find it very interesting that several things weren't addressed via restrictions, so that's sort of the flavor of some of my questions. For example, greenway buffer. Was a greenway buffer considered for a restriction as part of the zone change? It's always been proposed as on the development plan, and so there wasn't any need for any further restrictions on that. Okay. You understand why I'm asking tonight, though, because once we approve a zone change, if we so choose to approve it tonight, it leaves our hands and we have no control over it ever again. The Planning Commission has all full control once it becomes a development plan. I'm saying that for the benefit of the audience, too. So this is why we're reluctant to approve a zone change without some restrictions that we feel comfortable with. I don't normally contradict you, you know this, but in the PUD1 zone, as I mentioned, there are a lot of little tidbits of different regulations. During a council hearing, you do have the authority, and I think Rochelle's putting it up there, that if there is a development plan issue that you wanted to make a declaration on, such as declaring that the tree will be saved or declaring this. You can either set us in a PUD1 zone, since the development is so related to the zoning, you can declare that either something specific or parameters, for instance, like on the tree, declare that it would be protected as recommended by our urban forestry department. And then that would go back to the Planning Commission with that declaration. It's not a conditional zoning restriction. But it wouldn't be binding. Is that correct? I believe it would be binding. I believe 22A. Well, you know, I don't really care because if I want to do those things, I'm going to do a restriction anyway. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you for clarifying, though. Let's see. Traffic. Is Agape a collector street, considered to be a collector street? It is by geometry, no, but by functionality, the connectivity functions as a collector street. Its width is a typical 5031 local street. Well, that's interesting. The answer is yes, it's both. The other question I had was why didn't the staff or the Planning Commission place restrictions with regard to the tree? I believe that that was one of the major issues that resulted in the indefinite postponement. So, again, they're thinking they're going to address that during the development, the review of the development plan. Okay. Pre-blast and geological impact, will that be considered at the development plan stage as well for blasting concerns, the issues addressed or raised by the residents? It certainly could be. we don't know whether blasting would or wouldn't be proposed on the subject property. Mr. Lear, are you going to be blasting? Part of the beauty of the different road, the reason I said not much, Part of the beauty of the different road plan is that it can largely follow where the existing driveway comes in, and it doesn't require the big bore through that limestone wall that the old road plan would. We have to submit pre-blast, what's the exact name of it? Pre-blast surveys before we can move forward with anything. There are details in the PUD about you have to submit your improvement plans, your grading plans, all of that sort of thing. So the answer is, yes, we will do the studies. Yes, we will submit it. But we should not have to do, sorry about the adjective, much blasting, if any. Okay, thank you. Vice Mayor, that's all my questions for now. I'll reserve comments for after the public hearing is closed. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Mr. Emmons, I want to make sure that I understand about Agape being a cut-through. So we have a lot of people here that's mentioned that, that would not like that street being a cut-through street. So this development would have one entrance onto Harrisburg Road if it weren't for Agape. Is that correct? That would be correct. So it can be done. It can be done. We don't necessarily have to use Agape. Yeah, there was a plan that was approved that stubbed a Goppe into there. You know, it would take a waiver of our subdivision regulations to not do it. But, you know, as we talked about, the reason for all of these interconnections in all of our streets are to partially take some of the traffic off of the arterials. I mean, we talked about the Manowar being overused. and that there were several collector streets down there that were not continued on, and that's contributed to the problem because the people couldn't take the intended collector streets, so they have to come out and overuse the arterials. I just know from experience in neighborhoods where there are collector streets, there's a lot of speeding going on. Every neighborhood I go in, that's a big complaint. and you're talking about a neighborhood, residential homes with children. Well, you know, it's human nature to drive as fast as you feel is safe, whether you're paying attention to the posted speed limit or not. In wider streets, people feel safer driving faster. So I think the local width of Agape will actually work in its favor because people will... But the... Well, I'm just voicing my opinion. I would be against that, just based upon my knowledge, what I know. And I just wouldn't think that would be a good idea. And there is no other alternative route or anything. Twain Ridge across the creek. Right. Okay. Okay. And then I also wanted to ask about the blasting. I know that blasting can be very damaging to other property that's in close proximity, probably to the tree. So I think, you know, we should. I would not be in favor of any blasting at all if it could be avoided. And I know it's damaged. I live close to the rock where I know it can damage your foundation, whatever. I think everything else. So one lady said something about the soil samples. I didn't know if that would be something. If additional environmental things are required, I say things because there's multiple requirements that they can do, the Planning Commission can require that at a later time. So in the development plan, water quality would be there. The Planning Commission has much authority to ask for those environmental reports. Typically, in most of your typical development, a developer is not going to pay for those expensive, detailed reports until they get their zoning and know whether they have the approval to do the project or not. Right, plus the flooding. You know, I've read the statement of Rob Ramsey, and I know that he has flooded. And would this, would water quality do a study to see if that would impact, this development would impact that more? I don't believe that this developer would be required to do a study that extensive. But we, would we be required? No, I don't think that we would be. Mr. Ramsey's site is actually in a floodplain. It was built in a floodplain a long time ago, and so it's expected to flood. In September 2006, we had a 100-year flood event, and so it was expected that it would flood. Okay. I just feel like, you know, when it comes to sewer or sanitary sewer and stormwater, it's Lexington's responsibility. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Beard. I get a second go around, correct? Jimmy, I'm going to wear you out. Or we're going to wear you out. If you haven't noticed, I need the exercise. You said it, I didn't. But I guess there's no way that we can say maybe. and that's kind of where I am right now. The lady that mentioned the soil situation, and you mentioned it again, Council Member Henson, there was a very extensive composting operation by Con Robinson done on that property, but he ceased doing that 8 or 10 years ago and moved to Leastown Pike, I believe, and there were soil samples. I'm looking here in the packet, there are soil samples, which are talking about Murray silt loam and McAfee silt loam and things of that sort. So I guess they didn't run across anything. It basically was Keeneland manure that they used as their base, and I guess that's about as natural as you can get. No other types of chemicals, I don't believe. I just wanted to set her mind at ease on that. I guess that's all I have. All of us up here are somewhat torn because we just think this is not a finished product, and we have so many ifs, ands, and buts hanging out there that we want to get in the middle of, and it probably isn't our purview until the development plan goes to the commission. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Beard. At this time, we'll have a five-minute recess or so, and let me caution the Council members. As much as we would like to talk to folks, we shouldn't do that, so y'all don't tempt us, okay? Thank you. We'll be back in just more of a rest. This is a, yeah, what did you call it? Amenity break. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll be back at 5 after 10. Thank you. If we're in the garden On the crowded heaven moon You are here, so am I Maybe millions of people go by But they all disappear from you Cause I only have eyes for you Thank you. Thank you. I don't know if we're in the garden Or on a crowded avenue You're here, so am I Maybe millions of people go by But they all disappear from view Cause I only have eyes for you I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ The End I love you. Thank you. Test, test. My light's not working, but this is working. Sir? Yes. Yeah. At this time, absent any other questions by the Council, we will close the hearing. And what occurs now is the council will adopt findings of fact and vote on the ordinance by roll call vote. I know, but we're going to get a motion. No, we don't have to vote on that. Are you ready, Mr. Vice Mayor? Well, for those of you that are biblical scholars, I'll tell you that Solomon had it easy. Solomonic. I've had a chance to chat with my colleagues, and we are very divided on this one. And for good reasons. The developer in this case has followed all the rules, done everything they're supposed to do, and gotten the runaround because of some conflicting things that have occurred. And it's not their fault or anybody's fault. It's just the way it is. In addition, I don't know how, but a burrow magically appeared. And as complicated things, no end. For 30 years, as Mr. Lears pointed out, we plan on developing this as a medium density property with the assumption that Twain Ridge would get extended and the assumption that we'd be able to get out on the Harrisburg Road in a reasonable fashion. Those two connections are very necessary to ensure that agape doesn't become a drag strip. I agree with that, and trust me, we get that on this council. That's our number one complaint is speeding through cut-throughs. So the decision that faces this is rather difficult. Eventually, this property needs to be developed probably as low to medium density. I'm not a planner, so I don't know what's the right thing, But if we want to preserve our horse farms like Calumet, that's what's got to happen here. And by the way, at the next two down. So eventually that's going to get filled in. Is it going to be filled in with as many as they're asking for? I don't know. Or fewer. But eventually that's what you all are going to have to face as residents. And that's the cost that we all face for having Calumet and so on. So I want you to know up front. Secondly, the other struggle that we're having as a council is the old, do we do this at the zone change level or the development plan level? Many of the issues you all have raised tonight have more to do with the development plan than they do with the zone change. So it's tempting for us to approve a zone change and allow the Planning Commission to do its work on the development plan in and solve most of the issues that you all have raised. That said, we've been burned before, and a number of us are a little bit touchy about letting something go and not having the assurance that things will be done the way we want. So I personally am very much straddling the fence on this particular one, and it's been very difficult to come to a decision. So I wanted everybody to know that up front. And with that, I'll make a motion so that we can have some debate and see where we want to go. My motion will be to fine for disapproval. Do I need to read them, Jimmy? All right, for the following reasons. Number one, the PUD zones are intended to encourage innovative design in part to ensure development that is responsive to both natural and man-made features of the site. The plan as proposed fails to adequately evidence whether the design follows the natural terrain and minimizes grading and filling. as set forth in Article 22A-6J. The development fails to provide sufficient detail to assure adequate protection of the significant bur oak. Number three, the preliminary development plan has proposed that this hearing fails to comply with Article 22A-6K by omitting any provision to provide a connection with Twain Ridge Drive. Therefore, the connectivity to be provided in a PUD is not provided. Number four, no evidence was provided of any significant innovative techniques used in this development to respond to natural features of this property or any natural or man-made features on surrounding properties. And finally, number five, as a result of the above findings, this proposal fails to substantially meet the intent and requirements of the PUD-1 zone. So moved. So there is a motion and a second. Now let's clarify. Susan, tell us where we are on the vote. This can be very confusing, so take us through. The motion is to disapprove. This is the motion to adopt the findings of facts, whether for approval or disapproval, and the motion he has made is for disapproval. Once that motion is made, then there will be a roll call vote on that motion, and then you will vote after that on the ordinance. Go ahead, Naz. So if you want to vote to disapprove, you vote yes. That is correct. Thank you. Everybody clear? Okay, is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Beard. I, too, am very conflicted, as I said earlier. and I think for many of the same reasons that Council Member Blevins is, I think that we, it's my personal opinion anyway, that this needs to go back to the Planning Commission. So I initially was going to vote no, but I believe I'm going to vote, well, I will vote no on this motion. and let the Planning Commission do their work. I think the reason why in this case they will be more attentive, not that they're disattentive, I don't want to even say that. It's just that things have happened in the past that the communications just weren't proper, I guess, and didn't work well. So the burr oak, I think, protects this project, though. And the planning commission will know that there's a lot of eyes on this one specific one just because of the burr oak. So I'm going to go in the opposite direction, council member, I'm afraid, and vote no. Can I ask a couple procedural questions? It's probably going to be for the attorney. Since this was approved by the Planning Commission, then can you tell what it takes to overturn the Planning Commission? It's eight votes. There had to be eight votes to, in other words, the majority of the council as a whole, not just a majority of those present. There has to be eight votes to overrule the Planning Commission decision. And then what happens? Normally it takes a year for them to come back to bring it back. And now that it's been approved by the Planning Commission, what is the procedure then? That is a procedure that one-year ban is a procedure within the bylaws of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission disapproves a zone change, it cannot come back substantially the same zone change. There may be some issues because this is a PUD and it's tied so closely to preliminary plan. However, in this case, the Planning Commission has recommended approval. So its own bylaws would not kick in to prohibit a reapplication in a one-year period. So when could it bring it back then? I do not believe there is any prohibition, no fine limitation, because of the fact that there was no Planning Commission disapproval. So there is no provision to delay reapplication. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Yeah, I've lost another legal question. If this did go back to the zoning commission, what would they do differently than they've already done? I really can't predict what they would or would not do. I would suspect that the application would include a little more detail in the preliminary development plan to try to address the concerns that have come up, which may end up, if there's another recommendation of approval, it may come to you with a more detailed preliminary development plan, which may change the situation. But that's not really a legal opinion. It's just speculation that the applicant would certainly respond to the concerns that have been raised. But I was under the impression that zoning is zoning and development plans are development plans. Are we supposed to make a decision on the zoning issue based on the development plan? The problem is with the PUD1 zoning, it's a very unique creature, and so much of whether this fits the criteria for a PUD zone relies upon the development plan because we've talked a lot about the intent for innovation, innovation that preserves natural and man-made features. So this really is very different from your other zone changes, as Jimmy Emmons has talked to you about. So, no, you don't usually approve a development plan as such, but they are very tightly interlaced in the PUD, and I think that's probably what's causing some of the problems here. And that's probably why, I mean, it's very unusual for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of a zone change without also approving the development plan, and I think that that's part of what the problem was here also. Okay. Yeah, I just feel this is very unfortunate. It's unfortunate for the neighborhood and for the developers and for our community because a lot of time and effort from the planning department, the planning commission, the neighborhoods that were involved, the owners and developers, the amount of money that's been invested, It seems to me there ought to be a better compromise than just a yes or no vote on this. You don't have any suggestions on what we could do to... That's what I was going to say. Could we put some type of restriction? Well, I mean, the only thing I can say is that, as Jimmy Emmons has explained to you, this approval of the zone change is not an approval of the development plan. That will have to go back to the Planning Commission. they discussed many, if not all, of the same concerns that have come up tonight, and obviously they felt that there needed to be some work on the plan, which is why they delayed it. Also, that provision that we put up does allow this body to put restrictions or parameters on at this time so that when it goes back down to the Planning Commission, they know that they are directed not to approve a plan that is in contradiction to your imposed restrictions. If they wanted to do that, it would have to come up to you to remove those restrictions. Could one of the restrictions be that the development plan would have to come back for a final vote and approval by the council? I think that would probably be too broad and would supersede the statutory scheme within planning. I think you could do things like you want the plan to show connectivity of this street and this street, if you chose. Then it would be up to the planning commission and the developer to work out how they would connect the exact configuration, things like that. I think you could put on, which I think Jimmy Emmons kind of discussed, say a provision that the final development plan should adequately show protective methods for the burrow approved by the Urban County Forester, or something along those lines. So there's still flexibility to work within the plan, and you're not really superseding the Planning Commission's authority, but there are some limits and parameters that you're providing for them to work within. Okay. All right. So, all right. I just wish there was some way we could come up with a compromise. I'd like to see you get a no vote on it. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Okay. Okay. Is it okay if I comment without seating the chair and all that? Council Member Blevins used the language I think all of us have been thinking tonight, the Solomonic. I think since I've been on the council, we've probably had 10 or more of these hearings. And at least for me, this is the first one where we've had so many people come with their remarks prepared. And so it illustrates the conviction and the passion that you all have clearly for your neighborhoods. We're all very sympathetic, too, with the developers' interests here. We have learned over time to get tough skins, especially when the room is filled with neighbors and friends who are also voters. and we've learned to watch out for not-in-my-backyard patterns and we've learned to watch out for the objections to density when we know that strategically in order to preserve the perimeter we've got only one way to grow and that is within the boundary. So what you all have seen and observed is the messiness of democracy in a sense, you've seen us talking among ourselves and trying to find a good answer for something that really there's not a really good answer for. I have not myself yet objected to any decision that the Planning Commission has made because we set this framework in place a long time ago. and many of us believe that for a good reason, so that there's efficiency at that level, and that's where the real digging gets done in terms of finding of facts. Myself, I can't today, I'm going to vote in favor of Council Member Blevins' motion, But it's a very difficult vote, and it is one that illustrates that our process today is not adjusting to the times. For many of us have been on this council now, this council, or I've been on for 21 months, some have been longer than that. In a year and a half of that time, some of us have been working on an infill and redevelopment plan. one of the 104 recommendations is something that sounds really simple. Bring the planning commission and staff together with the board of adjustments, with the council members, with the administration, and create a strategy that everyone can understand so the developers have a clear path. And we're still not getting very far with that. So everyone loses in that kind of situation. I can't vote anything other than to disapprove this tonight, but hope that the developers will still keep coming back to the table and that we will do a better job of finding a way to accommodate all of the interests. Not everybody can win, but try to accommodate all these interests. Thank you. Who else? All right. Are we ready for the roll call? Council Member Lane? I would appeal to my fellow council members to vote against the motion. And the reason I say that is I think there's a chance that we could work a compromise out if we disapprove Council Member Blevins' motion. And, you know, time is our enemy. Time is money. Time is energy. We have all these people that have come here tonight and have put their energy in. Our council has put our energy in, our planning department, planning commission, and all this energy will be wasted if we don't try to make a resolution of something tonight. And I would hope that there would be some compromise in here where we could solve some of the issues facing the neighborhood and the developer and get this off of dead center so we could get a resolution made on it. So I would encourage my fellow council members to vote against the resolution in the hopes that we could maybe sit down and negotiate a settlement after that. And if we can't, then I'll vote against it if we can't work out something. Thank you. Councilman Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. One of the big concerns has to be the connector there to Agabi. And I know Mr. Lear had made a statement about the fire department would want to make sure that was open. Is that a requirement to have that open? It would be required by our subdivision regulations. I'm sorry? It would be required by our subdivision regulations based off of the plans that have been approved. Okay. I've got to be concerned that since the hearing's been closed to ask any additional information. The only things I was trying to get at is if we look at putting declarations, I think that's what you called it when we looked at this kind of zoning that we could put on there. And those would be kind of things that I'd want to look at if I would be willing to support this zone change. I think one of them, obviously, has got to be the tree and protecting the tree. I think that's been a big issue. The other one is blasting. I think that's a big issue. And also the connector with the agave. Are those things that we can work out on declarations? I think certainly we could deal with the tree. I'm very concerned about dealing with blasting because that is not usually part of a development plan. that usually would probably come into impact when they submit an improvement plan to engineering, and engineering has to review their grading proposals and things of that sort. I mean, you know, it's kind of going to be hard to define. I mean, I know from having a farm, sometimes you have to blast a little bit just to set one fence post. So in essence, would you create a situation by declaring that there should be no blasting? Not only that's not usually relevant to approval of a development plan, but you could in essence be crippling the ability to conform to grading requirements in the subdivision regulations. So I think that might be difficult. Let me read this language for a minute again as far as – I mean, I think the problem – If your declaration were to prohibit connectivity, I think the concern from a legal standpoint would be, are you then creating a declaration that conflicts with the stated intent of the zoning ordinance, which talks about PUDs connecting the proposed road system? and that's going to be kind of the council's decision. I think that is certainly a strong element in the development plan. I think that's a declaration you could send back down. The issue is whether you put the planning commission in a position, well, we're not going to improve it without connectivity, so now our applicant is kind of in a stasis. I mean, I really don't know how this would end up coming out. I think it may be within your authority under the declarations because it is a planning development. Would or would not be within our authority. I think my concern is it may conflict with the adopted stated intent of the zoning ordinance. If the developer was willing to agree to it, then that would be within our authority? Would that be something that you all would be willing to accept? Could you come to the mic, please? Yeah, I don't think I'm – am I allowed to ask these questions at this point? Because I'm being questioned by my colleague about asking. I just want to make sure that this is still appropriate since we're dealing with the motion on the floor. And if I'm looking to make an amendment to the motion or looking at putting declarations, is that appropriate at this point? The chairperson is usually in charge of procedure. I really am not aware of restrictions upon discussion other than those set by the chairperson. Am I? If you're allowed to answer this, if you're allowed to ask the question, the answer is yes. So you're willing to not connect Agabi? Am I allowed? Yes. Okay, thank you. Council Member Gordon. And again, here we go again. I think that how many times have we been down this road on zone changes where we are sitting here doing a job that is part of the process before we get here. And here we are trying to negotiate things out. And what about this and what about that? Again, it's not fair to the developer. It's certainly not fair to these folks. And, again, what I think it shows is on that PUD zone that there needs to be very tight governmental controls. And what I hear us saying is we want to have that control, but that's not really our role. And so we have to decide tonight if this dirt is PUD or not. And, again, we keep coming back to this and back to this, where this body is trying so hard to do something it's not really supposed to do. It's not supposed to negotiate a better deal or something like that as much as we want to, Council Member Lane. That's not our role. And we are trying very diligently because we care very much. But I think that, again, it's just an epidemic problem of how broken the planning system, our planning department and planning system really is. Council Member Gordon. I call the question. Motion and a second to call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Susan. Okay. You want to read the motion back to us, please, ma'am? Can you? I do not have the language. Mr. Blevins does. Do you want me to read all the findings again? Is that the... Essentially, the findings are for disapproval of this zone change. That's the motion. And there are five supporting findings that I can read if someone wants to hear. I think it's... Do we need them? No. All right. I'll call the vote. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. And please make sure you vote on your systems, please. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. Mr. Lane? No. Mr. McCord? Yes. Dr. Stevens? No. No. No. Mr. Beard? Yes. Mr. Blevins? Yes. Mr. Blues? Yes. Mr. Ellinger, did you want to record your vote? And Mr. Gray? I didn't. How do I get this thing? I'll get this thing. Mr. Gray, which way did you vote? Yes. Okay, I apologize. I should have just... Okay, that motion passes. All right, now we need to... Thank you. Okay, now there needs to be a motion. You got me now. Okay, now we will just do a motion, a vote for the ordinance and a vote. If you want to disapprove the ordinance, you will vote the opposite way you just voted. If you want to disapprove the zone change, in other words, you adopted the findings to disapprove, you will now vote no as opposed to yes. Because a no, we'll disagree with the Planning Commission and disapprove the zone change. Is that clear? A yes vote will approve the zone change. We need a motion for that? No. Don't need a motion for it. All right. So just a roll call? Yeah, you do need a motion. We do need a motion. Yes. Well, there is a dispute here between the legal department and the clerk. We just have to vote. We just have to vote. She's already given its second reading. I'm waiting on the confirmation from the We normally have a motion for second reading of ordinances and resolutions in order to have the vote Vice Mayor I move for second reading of the ordinance Motion and a second Attorney, discussion So now we get a roll call, right? Okay, that's correct. All right. It needs a roll call. Mr. Ellinger? No. Ms. Gorton? No. Mr. Gray? No. Ms. Henson? No. Ms. James? No. Mr. Lane? Yes. Mr. McCord? No. Dr. Stevens? Yes. Mr. Beard? No. Mr. Blevins? No. Mr. Blues? No. Okay. The ordinance failed to pass by a vote of 9 to 2. All right. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for coming tonight. Is there a motion to adjourn? Second. A motion and second to adjourn? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Up, up and away My beautiful, my beautiful My love, my love My love, my love Thank you.