# Council Planning and Public Works Committee - April 17, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 17, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2473 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2473?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-04-17 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 13,641 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning & Public Works Committee met on April 17, 2012, at 1:00 p.m., with Farmer presiding as Chair. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, taking four motions and votes. Two members of the public provided comments during the meeting. The committee approved three items: the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives, a proposal to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) regarding Adult Day Care Definition, and a matter concerning a Fencing Issue. One agenda item, Items Referred to Committee, was deferred to a future meeting. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on April 17, 2012: * Farmer * Ellinger * Gorton * Kay * Ford * Blues * Lawless * Beard * Martin * Henson * Benningfield No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included four motions, all of which passed. **2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives** [timestamp: 1:01:16] A motion by Gorton to forward the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives as drafted by the work group to the full council for approval passed by voice vote. **Dashboard Issues** [timestamp: 1:03:02] A motion by Gorton, seconded by Kay, to forward the dashboard issues to the full council for approval and to the Planning Commission for consideration passed by voice vote. **Adult Daycare Definition Zoning Text Amendment** [timestamp: 1:11:15] A motion by Ford, seconded by Kay, to forward the adult daycare definition zoning text amendment to the council for initiation passed by voice vote. **Revised Fencing Height Text Amendment** [timestamp: 1:35:17] A motion by Blues, seconded by Kay, to forward the revised fencing height text amendment to the full council for adoption passed by roll call vote with 8 ayes and 2 nays. Voting in favor were: Farmer, Ellinger, Gorton, Kay, Ford, Lawless, Henson, and Benningfield. Voting against were: Beard and Martin. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the committee regarding land availability and economic development opportunities. **Scotty Basler** [timestamp: 0:13:51] Former mayor Scotty Basler urged the committee to reconsider the prohibition on expanding the Urban Service Area. He emphasized the need to allow expansion to support job creation, citing a shortage of available industrial land in the region. Basler noted that he had received letters from economic development leaders supporting the need for additional developable sites to attract businesses and employment opportunities. **Knox von Nagel** [timestamp: 0:52:55] Knox von Nagel provided data on manufacturing land availability, noting that Fayette County currently has 1,500 acres of vacant employment sector land. He highlighted the strategic opportunity to attract small-scale manufacturers to the region through the BEAM initiative. Von Nagel referenced available land data in surrounding counties as part of his discussion of regional strategy for economic development. ## Contested Items **Urban Service Area Boundary Expansion** A significant debate occurred during the meeting regarding whether to allow future expansion of the Urban Service Area for economic development. The discussion centered on balancing industrial growth with the preservation of Lexington's unique character and rural areas. Former Mayor Basler advocated for flexibility in expanding the Urban Service Area, supporting the potential for future economic development opportunities. Council Members Martin and Blues presented opposing views, raising concerns about how expansion might affect the community's identity and rural preservation efforts. The nature of this discussion was characterized as a heated exchange, reflecting the depth of disagreement among participants about the appropriate direction for the city's growth and development policies. ## 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives The committee reviewed and discussed the draft 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:06:36]. **Development Process** The goals and objectives document was developed by a workgroup under the direction of Vice Mayor Gorton. The workgroup refined the initial 19-page draft into a more concise 5.5-page version while incorporating feedback from the public and adding new elements to the plan. **Document Revisions** The refined document includes additions such as public art and tourism promotion initiatives, reflecting input received during the development process. **Committee Action** The committee unanimously approved the draft 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives. Key speakers in the discussion included Farmer, Gorton, Basler, and von Nagel. In addition to approving the goals and objectives document itself, the committee also approved forwarding associated dashboard issues to the full council for further consideration. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved without objection, allowing the comprehensive plan goals and objectives to move forward in the process. ## Adult Day Care Definition Initiate ZOTA Council Member Ford introduced a proposed zoning text amendment to define "adult daycare center" as a conditional use. The amendment aims to ensure that neighborhood notification and public hearings are required for such facilities within the city. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Council Member Ford, along with speakers Salee and King. **Proposal and Discussion** The proposed zoning text amendment would establish a formal definition for adult daycare centers and classify them as conditional uses. This classification would trigger required neighborhood notification procedures and public hearing processes before such facilities could be established in residential areas. **Committee Action** The committee approved forwarding the proposal to the full council for initiation, moving the amendment forward in the legislative process. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved [timestamp: 1:04:03]. ## Fencing Issue Council Member Blues reintroduced a revised fencing height text amendment during this agenda item [timestamp: 1:11:47]. The proposed amendment aims to improve sight distance and safety by limiting front yard fences to four feet in height. The committee voted to forward the amendment to the full council for further consideration. The vote was not unanimous, with two committee members voting against the proposal. The amendment was approved for advancement to the full council. ## Items Referred to Committee [timestamp: 1:35:48] The committee reviewed its referral list and removed several items that had been acted upon and were ready for full council consideration. Speaker Farmer presented the status of the following items: - **2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives** — removed from referral list - **Fencing issue** — removed from referral list - **Addressing ordinance** — removed from referral list - **Adult daycare ZOTA** — removed from referral list All items were cleared for advancement to full council consideration. The outcome of this agenda item was deferred. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Forward the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives as drafted by the work group to the full council for approval - **Motion** — passed: Forward the dashboard issues to the full council for approval and to the Planning Commission for consideration - **Motion** — passed: Forward the adult daycare definition zoning text amendment to the council for initiation - **Motion** — passed (8-2): Forward the revised fencing height text amendment to the full council for adoption --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Yeah. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to thank you for... Yeah, yeah, running this one down, aren't I? No, we're good. Good on quorum. Vice Mayor? Vice Mayor? I believe we're ready. That's no problem. I want to welcome everybody to our April 17th Planning and Public Works Committee meeting. I apologize. We started a little bit late. We had a confirmation hearing upstairs that went on a little bit long. First item on our agenda is the 2012 Comprehensive Plan, Goals and Objectives. This is an item that I placed in committee after the Planning Commission had worked on goals and objectives. and I've asked Stafford Committee, who is now Jennifer Benningfield, rather than Paul Schoenacher, Paul, thank you for your 20-plus years of service to the planning committee. I appreciate it very much. In everyone's box should have been a two-page, I call it a narrative, of the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives Workgroup. And this is a report back to this committee. and it's well written so I'm going to read parts of it just to brief you all on what our process was in taking the Planning Commission's work and turning it into our own. The Conferency Plan Goals and Objectives Work Group was formed by Vice Mayor Linda Gorton on November 28th to review the draft Conferency Plan Goals and Objectives document prepared by the Planning Commission over the Urban County Government. There is a list of our membership which includes the Vice Mayor, well, really all the at-large people in Districts 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11, as well as Todd Clark, Stan Harvey, Todd Johnson, Darby Turner, and Knox von Nagel. We were supported by staff, and we met eight times between December 5th and March 22nd, and we received a detailed review of the purpose of the conferencing plan by the Division of Planning. At our first meeting, the goals and objectives document is the only element of the conferencing plan is adopted by the Irving County Council, which made the workgroup's effort vital to the comprehensive plan preparation process. Thank you, ma'am. If you'd hand those out, make sure everybody has them, and those in the audience, too, please. The comprehensive plan, the draft document that was presented to the workgroup from the Planning Commission, is a very different document than the current comprehensive plan goals and objectives. It is a much shorter, more concise document. The Planning Commission condensed 19 pages down to four. They spent nine months finalizing the document. There was a general consensus among workgroup members that the shorter document will give the Planning Commission more flexibility while still providing a strategic framework for decision-making. The workgroup worked through the Planning Commission's draft linearly, making changes as we, they, deem necessary. Encouraging accessibility was added, as well as placing a larger emphasis on preserving Fayette County's unique landscape, while planning for compact and contiguous mixed-use development within the urban service area. As the workgroup's process developed, we called upon the Division of Planning to draft a preamble stating the importance of reviewing the urban growth boundary policies and other long-range planning issues every five years as mandated by state statute. The work group also addressed in the draft comprehensive plan goals and objectives the dashboard that will be presented to the Planning Commission as an addendum to the proposed comprehensive plan goals and objectives. Is that document in the packet? I would like for us to have that to show to everyone, either for this meeting or if we're lucky enough to forward this to the full Council. People need to see what is on that document. Thank you. Additionally, the workgroup used our last two meetings to compare the Planning Commission's draft document to the current goals and objectives document. Through this process, the workgroup added elements such as public art and the promotion and enhancement of our tourism industry into our draft. Included in the Planning and Public Works Committee packet are both the workgroup's draft, conferencing plan, goals, and objectives, as well as a strikethrough copy to illustrate changes between the Planning Commission's draft and the workgroup's draft. The timeline of the workgroup was extended beyond the original deadline set by the Vice Mayor. However, adding additional meetings allowed for open debate as well as communication with the public. The document, as presented, was unanimously supported by the workgroup. So if you'll take the packet, which the goals and objectives runs from pages 2 through 11, and I read that because it was very well prepared and it really encapsulated the work of the group that we did. The planning commission really struck a completely different tone, and I think part of that has to do with the discussion we had as a community to not change the boundary at this time. So we got to move away from having a boundary discussion to having a discussion about the plan, how it works, what its working parts are, and how they all go together. The planning commission kind of stepped out in a leadership position and coming up with a very concise goal and objective package, which I will just tell you at first blush, I didn't trust it because I feel like over so many planning iterations, so many stakeholders always come to the table and need to get their little part, their important piece, into the Golden Objective pages. going from 20 pages down to four and us taking it back up to about five or five and a half is a tremendous departure in terms of a vital document that a whole lot of Lexingtonians, Fayette Countians, Central Kentuckians feel like they personally have a part in. However, when we began our work and we began to look at what the differences were between a very large document that said a whole lot of things over and over again and sometimes not very well to a very concise document, and I will take a moment to thank the vice mayor in drawing up the personnel that volunteered or were drafted in some cases to be part of the work group. Taking nothing away from planning staff or the planning commission, we got to have a really good discussion about where Lexington is, how it got here, and what we want to use to drive it forward. And I think we came up with kind of a euphemistic term of having staff in this instance, Mr. Duncan or Mr. King, do homework between meetings because we would ask for drafting of certain things or redrafting of certain things. And between meetings, they would do that work very expertly. We would look at it, sometimes change it or not. And that's what led us to the draft, so-called clean version that you see dated March 28, 2012. Boy, that's saying a lot, isn't it? Yes. Okay. Unless there's early questions from the committee itself, I was going to see if there's any comments from the public or those here and take those first, and then we'll see what committee commentary we would like to have, make any changes, have any conversation, and then see about potentially forwarding this legislation to the full council. So, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak about goals and objectives at this time? It is my pleasure to recognize former mayor and our former congressman, Scotty Basler. Welcome, mayor. Thank you, sir. Well, if you haven't been here in 10 years, it's almost like... Vice mayor, I know there's not a whole lot of noise anymore. That's good. You're doing good. Thank you, mayor. And welcome. Yes, sir. See if everybody's got a copy. Mayor, usually we limit people to three minutes, but I'll give you as many minutes as you serve. You better give me more. I won't come back if you give me more. Please. Make sure we've got enough copies. I've got plenty of college. Ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate you allowing me to talk, and whether or not this is the appropriate time, I don't know. But I do know that you are going to make a recommendation to the full council when you finish your deliberations. That's what I understand. My main purpose today is to talk about one issue. Yes, sir. In your goals and objectives, I think it might be page two, you have a statement. There will be no consideration for moving the urban service boundary, number one, or move the rural activity centers, number two. It also says something about no new activity centers. My position today is I'm going to ask you to reconsider or you consider amending that portion of the comprehensive plan to allow businesses who might be used for job creation activities to apply. Remember, I say to apply. If it's not, there will be no opportunity for that. Now, if you'll follow me along, I will take a little more than three minutes, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. First thing you have is a map. You all might have seen this map before. I don't know. I didn't make it. Good people in planning made it. But look at your map. Those sites there, as it says up in the corner, are five acres or more. Five acres or more. Now, all of them are not zoned for light industry or manufacturing. In fact, very few of them are. You'll see a lot of Hamburg in there. You'll see a lot of other things in there that is not zoned. They did a study and said here's what vacant land we have in Fayette County that consists of five acres or more. So if you look at it, you'll notice something fairly obvious, and I'm glad to point it out. and so nobody misunderstands. I have property on one of the interchanges, so no misunderstanding. Not very much anymore, but I have some. All the interchanges are developed, except one. And that's the one that's next to Blue Sky Activity Center. But I'm not here to talk about the day. I'm talking about trying to get an opportunity for some people to come, not only me, but other people to come and present an argument to you, to the Planning Commission, and to you in the future, say we have land that maybe could be used for job creation activities. All of you are the same as mine. Everybody here is worried about jobs. There's nobody here that doesn't worry about jobs. I know you do. We all wish we could take a magic marker and do it all, but we can't do it. It's tough. Now, if you look at that map, but I'm going to quote Bob Quick's letter to the staff a little bit but the Chamber of Commerce has done a they took all these plant sites and they sort of wiggle around came all back and they came back up that point of 75 acres in Fayette County is all we have available for the light industry or manufacturing type jobs this map shows everything's vacant but when they did all that they came back with 75 acres and it's all over the place it's all over the place. You don't have any big sites anywhere. Well, there's one, if Dennis Anderson has one out there, big site, but whether it's available or not, I don't know. But that's what you have. Now, I'd like for you, on the second part of my folder, look at where it says Available Site List. Okay? This is prepared by Commerce Lexington, and What it shows are the sites that when people come, prospects come, these are the sites we work from. I'm sure they work from more of this summer. But what you will notice here more than anything, number one, is how many other counties have compared to what we have. I couldn't count all we have in there, but it's three or four, maybe five in total. that's the other kind right around us. So they're trying to get geared up to take business. The other thing you will notice, which is the price. The cost of Lexington's, Fayette County's property is unnatural, but maybe so much higher than other counties. And price does play a part. So, I think it's a very good information And I'm sure there's more. Now, third part, you see in there a letter from the Commerce Lexington, from Bob Quick. I didn't try to rewrite a letter. That's a very good letter. I didn't have to say much. Look down to paragraphs three and four. What does Bob say? Bob says, particularly, to that extent, we find ourselves in a difficult situation when we are recruiting new industries and businesses, as well as when existing businesses want to expand. Down to the next paragraph, after a thorough review of available industrial land for sites, this is where I came up with the 75 acres. But on the second part of that paragraph, I think it's very significant. It says, It is an understatement, last sentence, It is an understatement to say that we need to have sufficient supply of land, which is readily available for economic development opportunities. This is from Commerce Lexington. Not for me. That's a good letter. I thought I'd include it. They're the ones on the front line trying to get us jobs, and they do a lot of work and do a lot of research. So you can see whether they think, you all might have seen this letter before. I don't know. If you have, I'm sorry to be red editor. But that's important. Now, look at the next paragraph, the next to the last. I think you all have put a lot of weight on the Angelo study. I believe you had an Angelo study and talked a whole lot about Lexington Fayette County. What did the Angelo study recommend? They recommended you need to address the lack of available land for job creation projects. These are out-of-town people coming in. That's what they recommend. I think you all thought a lot of the report, and I think it's important. Okay, the next thing you see is a letter from Jim Host. Why Jim Host? Well, he's the chairman of the Bluegrass Economic Advanced Manufacturing Board, a long name. That's in a cooperation with Lule. you'll note one of the points in Jim's letter he thinks we need 600 acres of contiguous land in one place so we might be enticed a large manufacturing base. That's hard but that's what Jim thinks. And I think Jim knows, most of y'all know Jim and I think Jim knows what he's talking about, especially since they're spearheading this activity. So, now, the other letter. So let me say what other professionals. I've already talked about Bob Quick, talked about Jim Holt, and Angelo. Now, you also got a letter from my friend, of course, Doug Gibson, who does a very active job in trying to recruit businesses. history, he points out clearly that most of the time he has to go out of county. Now, Doug is one of the more active ones in that type of real estate. Most of the time he has to go out of county. Now, to show that Doug is not by himself, look at the next letter from Coleman Group. In their paragraph, we have been forced by my search to go beyond Fayette County due to the shortfall of inventory available. I don't think anybody can question that a lot of people think we just don't have the land necessary in this type of zoning to help us create the jobs that we're going to need. I don't think it's any secret. Everybody knows. It's just a question of how do we get about it. Okay. Now, one thing, I'm asking you to amend it so you can allow people to come in here and ask for Jones chains. That would accommodate job creation, manufacturing creation opportunities. The only thing that's certain, if we don't get amended, they can't come. But if we get amended, there's no sure thing that's going to happen. Why? First of all, you've got to pass the plan of commission. And second of all, it's got to pass you. So nothing just happens because it's out there. I'm sure if it happened, you'd want to make certain criteria and different circumstances. You'd say, we have to follow before anybody can bring it. I'm sure that's what you'd want. But keep that in mind. Oftentimes people say, well, there's something going there we came to. You are the governing body. You are. Everybody else can bring it all they want to. You say, no, they go home and they tell between their legs. That's all they do. but that's why it's important not to just cut it off just like that you're not talking about just one year you're talking about five seven years first of all comprehensive plan never gets done in five years unless you really streamline it so we're not free with this one yet if you're going to try to wait to the next one you know we're talking five to seven years some of us might not be around that time but the same point is we can't wait now last I want to reemphasize all I'm asking is in the goals of checkers work with the staff or other people and make provision for people to be able to bring their property to the planning commission and to you to accommodate this vast need you're not zoning one thing when you do it you're not zoning one thing you're letting us letting people come but if you don't we can't come so I appreciate your opportunity to let me speak I know it might be a little early but I figured we'd get in first as you go along so we don't try to catch up in the rear that's I think a very important issue that I feel pretty good about and I'm sure other people do But I think without question, I don't think anybody can deny that we don't have the land. Now some people might say, well, let's go take the land somewhere and rezone it down. Hmm, hmm, hmm. You have to talk to the owner about that. That's not going to happen. But that's what I'm asking. As you go along in your deliberations, I hope you will work with the staff and others and say, how can we amend the goals and objectives to not be so final? It's final. No means no. and you the only one votes on the goals and objectives, as you well know, the Planning Commission does not. So you are going to set the standard of what the community has. I think you've got some good goals and objectives. You know, I've got a chance to read them all, and they're short, which is good. So that's what I'm asking as you go along in this process. Please consider how are we going to get in motion some opportunities to create more jobs from Lexington and Fayette County. Thank you very much. Mayor, thank you. Thank you for the testimony. Thank you for the letters, some of which I hadn't seen completely. And certainly thank you for the binder when a staple might have done. Well, at least I didn't make it too big. Thank you for considering. As you go along now, folks, this is very important. You know that. Very important to have you out. Thank you. I'm glad to be with you for the first time seeing you all. Thank you, sir. I might be back. I don't know. I do have several council members signed up for commentary if you would like. Is there any more public? Well, I guess do any of the council members who have signed up have comments or questions for the former mayor before he leaves? Yes. All right. Mayor, I'm going to turn this over to Council Member Martin who signed up first, and he may have a question or a comment. you might want to react to. But Jessica does. Council Member Doug Martin. Thank you, Chair. Mayor, thank you for coming today. I couldn't agree with you more. You and I don't know each other, but I was Gene Strong's first general counsel of the Economic Development Cabinet, so I share your views. there's many things i think about uh... concentrating manufacturing a single location that makes sense first of all it's cheaper because we don't have to run water sewer gas rail to five locations we can run to one location um... it preserves more of our rural landscape if we have instead of having it spread out we have it in one place So that preserves the key from having manufacturing spread out all over the city as opposed to in a more defined area. My question to you, sir, is do you have specific changes for the goals and objectives that we could change here today? Because that's what we are doing is we're adopting the goals and objectives. And if I might, this is what we have in here currently. is to protect and provide readily available economic development land to meet the needs for jobs. And on down, you have no expansion in that. I don't have the word because, very candidly, that would be something you have to work through. You don't want to open up Pandora's box. We're talking about one specific need this community has. I think with the staff and other people that could come up, you can't just say, don't expand urban service boundaries except for. I mean, you've got to put some qualification, except for these jobs, you've got to have a little better so you don't get everybody to come run over you, come down here and do it. You know, the first thing is, it ought to have a sewer. You don't consider it. It ought not negatively impact neighborhoods. But, you know, it ought to cost you much to do. And, you know, there's places out there like that. We had some fairly lively conversations in the work group about this issue. And I think I see the issue more as you do, that it's hard to attract advanced manufacturing if we don't have a place to put them. And so the question is, how do we do that in a way where we continue to meet all the other things we want to do? And I think putting them in a single place, as you have suggested, as Mr. Host has suggested, is the most logical way to do that. Because if you go to some other counties in Kentucky that don't have as strong zoning laws as we do, they're spread out all over the county. Some counties are divided up into one-acre lots, and we don't want that. No, you don't, and you don't want zoning that has all the trucks coming through the middle of town. Yeah. They need to go that way, not this way. That's why you've got all this stuff, whole streams on the interstate, the other on the interstate. Yeah, so for me, where can we find 800 acres or whatever the magic number is near I-75 or I-64 where we don't have a negative impact on our horse farms and our rural agriculture, which I know you do because you were a tobacco farmer for years. And so all these things have to be balanced. And so what I was hoping is that you had some language changes that we could consider today. I'd be glad to get some, but I thought that was sort of presumptuous. Actually, we appreciate it. If it's okay with Mr. Chairman and Ms. Vice Mayor, if it's okay with the committee, I would like to work with the staff trying to come up with some language. Well, I was going to dovetail over and maybe ask Mr. King potentially for some verbiage. There's nothing going to stop you as a well-done citizen of Lexington to work with the planning staff if you want to. I would just say to you that in the draft goals and objectives, and this doesn't speak to yardage, This doesn't speak to acreage, but under C, Goal 1, Subsection D, and this is under Creating Jobs and Prosperity, we have said in here, foster the success and growth of large employment sectors, protect and provide readily available economic development land to meet the needs for jobs, and enable infill and redevelopment that creates jobs where people live. That's a good statement. In the 30,000-foot variety that these goals and objectives are, I think that says what you're trying to get into a 500 or 800-acre box. That says it, but you undo it. Another line, you say there will be no expansion of the Rural Activity Center or the Urban Service Area. And you're not going to get enough land inside the Urban Service Area. And that's my position. So you undo it. That's good language. If that language was by itself, you could operate. But you're all down that road, they say, I can't bring a zone change, because I might be outside the Rural Activity Center or outside Urban Service Boundary. So I can't bring it to you. I understand, and I'm also mindful of Jim Ho's letter and the work of BEAM and the fact that the two mayors are involved in it. I also know that during our deliberations, we had commentary more than once. I know one time I remember Darby Turner talking about what can we do if the home run comes along. If the home run comes along, we're not ready. That may well be the case for these goals and objectives because we as a community over a year ago, in my estimation, came together and said given the economic layer that we're all laboring under, There's really no viable reason to change the complexion of the boundary at this time. However, if you want to spend time with staff, I'm glad for you to. We have done our work here, and if they want to talk, if you want to spend time with them, I would be cognizant of whatever conversations you have, and if we can weave it in, and the council or the committee so chooses, we will. But I think we've tried to satiate both need and opportunity, and those are very tough things sometimes to reconcile. I think your language you just read would cover it if you didn't have other paragraphs. I understand. You've got several places in there you referred to as jobs. I've read several places. That's good. That knows everybody means business. But we've got to be able to do it. I understand, sir. And you don't have enough land in our presently. I hope I will. Thank you very much. I might work with somebody on the staff. They might be biased. Well, I think Julian Beard may want to talk with you too, sir. Thank you. Council Member Beard. No, please, Mayor, don't go away yet. We have some ED land out in Newtown Pike, between Newtown and Russell Cape Pike, that I think you mentioned Dennis Anderson et al owns. And it's been sitting out there for 10 or 12 years, zoned like that, and has not been attractive to anybody. and we've had several people that have gone up and kicked tires and looked at what it was, because the price is never right. And you can have all the land on earth, but if you can't get that other component of the price down, when you're comparing someone with Rockwell, who's giving land away in Clark County, for the benefit of Clark County, you really can't get anywhere. You can't jumpstart anything. A. B. The next question I might have or ask is, is there such a thing as a home run anymore except for Indonesia, China, wherever, Central America, South America? There is where the new businesses are going from the get-go. I was in China driving down the road in the bus, and I look out the window and I see the Lexmark sign. and it was a shock to me. I knew it was there, and it was there somewhere, but to drive by it, it is a shock. Yes, we need it. Without a doubt, we need it. We can't afford to go by it at the prices that are being asked. So how do we get through this process of freeing the land up and getting it ready? without having to write a big check or somebody needs to write a big check to implement it and get it started and i just don't i don't know who's who can write those kind of checks i think there's two ways number one if you had more land the land that's already available is going to have to compete so therefore the price when you're the one on the on the block you can ask what you want And number two, which is hard, I know, and I've thought of this before, the Commerce Lexington Park did a good job. They still got some acres to go. I don't know what's feasible to put together government resources or something to be able to come in and secure a large tract of land for use. Some people in the past have sold their land, and you pay a little down payment, and as the lots are sold, you pay somebody back. I mean, something like Innovative, that might work out. I don't know who would do it. But we've got to have more land because just as you pointed, it's so high, nobody's going to buy it. And we keep talking about a home run, I understand. We need some singles and doubles, folks. You don't need all the home runs. I mean, you know, 250, 300 jobs here and there. That's not a Toyota that's pretty good. And those are the ones we probably will end up getting and let them grow themselves here. I would agree with that. And that's my point. Whatever we do, we just need to come in here and show you. A legitimate question would be, how much are you going to charge these people? Whether or not that's allowed in zoning, I don't know, but it's a good question. You going to try to hold them up? Will you work with us? You know, I think that's what we'll do. I'm going to try to work on something to bring back to you, Mr. Chairman, or get to you. I appreciate it very much. You're not wasting our time. We appreciate your time. I like you one paragraph, but I just like the last. I understand. Thank you for anybody else. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Blues. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And listening to this conversation, I'd like to comment on a couple of things. One, the decision not to expand the urban services boundary was not simply made by the committee that drew up the goals and objectives. This has been an evolving decision, as all of us know, over many years, over many debates, every time we update the comprehensive plan. And it's a debate over not whether Lexington should grow, but how it should grow. It's a debate over whether a home run really does constitute making more room for manufacturing and industry. It's a debate over what will be the basis of our economy. And I would submit, and I think this is no new news, that manufacturing and industrial growth and making space forward and outside the urban services boundary needs to be put in the context of other ways we're growing. I think of our agricultural economy, of our equine industry, of general agriculture, of tourism. Nobody comes to Lexington to see, however important they are, to see a factory. We have high tech, which is very promising. We have health care. were interested in attracting those young professionals and those entrepreneurs who are interested in a unique environment with a high quality of life. And so while, Mayor, I respect your perspective on this, I think it's an important one, but it's one that has to enter the whole debate of what the character of Lexington is and how it will grow, and I think it's not simply a question of opening up some space for further industrial growth, as if that defines home run. I think in the minds of many of us, it may be simply a long fly ball. So, sorry, I just couldn't resist the baseball metaphor. Thank you. Excuse me. But I appreciate your being here, and it's proof, again, that we're going to keep discussing this issue for a long, long time. Thank you. Thank you. You have to have, you all say balance, balance, balance. You're right. Let me give you one story and I'm leaving. Yes, sir. I don't know how long ago I was mayor, maybe 30 years. At one time, we had a car manufacturer group come into Lexington that wanted 900 to 1,000 acres out in the rural area. And we said, we're not interested. So, you know, what you're saying has been put to the test before. and I think nobody, me, nobody else, would want to do anything that hurt the ambiance of Lexington, or it's important. Like you said, they don't come here to look, they don't come here to look at a horse and whatever. But a lot of people around here just need a balance. That's all I'm saying. I appreciate your comment. Mayor, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Pleasure. Appreciate your time. Be back. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. I just want to respond very briefly to Council Member Blue's comments, I guess, sorry. And, Council Member, I just, you know, with respect, I just couldn't disagree with you more. And I've talked, and let me just say my piece, though. And I've mentioned this, although it's been a little while on Council, but in my view, economic development is kind of like filling up a fish tank with water. and it's actually bringing money to Kentucky. It's as if you fill up the tank with water, and you have to fill it with water from someplace else. Ron Crouch, who is one of the most respected people I know about demographics, thinks that Kentucky, and particularly Lexington, we need to make things and sell them someplace else because that transfers the money from someplace else into our economy. Lexington has a fundamentally service-based economy, and in a service-based economy, we're taking dollars from our town and moving it around, or we're taking dollars for health care for other places in Kentucky and bringing it to Lexington. But in my view, Lexington's long-term prosperity can't improve if our customers, if you will, are some of the poorest people in the United States, in the counties outside of Lexington. And so the question is, is how do we bring dollars to Lexington, to Kentucky, that aren't already here? Well, people can move here. We can improve our quality of life, and they can pack their money up in suitcases and come here. but we can also sell things either through software which is a different type of manufacturing but it's a creative thing where we make it here and we sell it to someone in China or someone in Europe or someone in South America but we can also make widgets which we do with automobiles and printers and things like that and so the idea about manufacturing isn't because it's just a sexier kind of business it brings dollars into the fishbowl that aren't already here. And so the question is, in a health care economy which relies on insurance and Medicare-Medicaid dollars, are those sources of revenue going to be predictable enough in the future to continue to fund our service economy? And I don't know if they are or not. But the idea about manufacturing is that we make something here and we sell it someplace else because they've got more money than we do, and we're going to make widgets and we're going to trade it for gold. And so I think that is the long-term piece of our economy is manufacturing. And I don't want us to become Toledo. I think we are one of the most beautiful places in the world. I, like you all, have been many different places throughout the country and throughout the world. And there's no place I'd rather be than right here. But we still have to bring and track money to our economy that is going to raise the quality of living of all our citizens so that we can have the revenues to do the things socially and through the arts and for the poor and for our quality of life that makes it all work. And so I just wanted to really talk about why manufacturing is so important, I think, to me, but also to our future quality of life here. Because it brings money from someplace else to Lexington as opposed to just moving it around in Lexington. Because we don't improve by just moving it around. We have to bring it here from someplace else. Chair, thanks for indulging me in that. But I think it's a really important concept. Thank you. Council Member Martin, thank you for your point. Council Member Blues, counterpoint. Well, I just wanted to say that I agree with my colleague, Council Member Martin, that manufacturing is important. I never said it wasn't. I think that it's a wonderful thing that we have Toyota in another county. which benefits our community. A number of satellite industries right here in Lexington doing well and doing well for us. I think that we need to think more broadly than just Fayette County. That's why I commend the mayor's initiative to think regionally and with regard to the super region, the Louisville-Lexington link, that industrial growth, manufacturing growth is all part of our regional progress and prosperity. But against that, we have to look at the uniqueness of our special community, of the kind of space we have, and what it can be for. There are many, many small businesses, I think, that really are going to bring the jobs to our community that can fit within our community. So I'm not against manufacturing. God forbid I would never say that, as you know. But I think we have to look in a larger context than just we have to have it, we need to have it right here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir, very much. And that brings us to Councilman Rebeard. Thank you. I'm right in the middle of a debate, I guess, for lack of a better term. And we'll use Georgetown, Scott County, as an example. I've heard this number. It almost drives me insane to even try to contemplate the fact that there are 92 counties that are feeding people to Georgetown to work. Not very many of them come from Fayette County. They're coming from Ballard County, and that's about as far as you can get before you get into the Mississippi River. But, I mean, it's a totally different environment. And if they don't live in Fayette County and if they don't work in Fayette County, I don't see how we benefit unless we have a local option sales tax. we would be the attractive place to go for all of those people, and for that matter a much broader spectrum of people, if we had a local option sales tax. We don't have it. It takes a constitutional amendment to get it, but 35 states out of the 50 in the United States have local option sales tax. I found out that Nashville has a pretty healthy one. I think it's 2.25% on top of what the state does, but they have no income tax in Tennessee. This whole thing gets, there's so many moving parts that it's kind of hard to get your arms around, But it all is not just pure manufacturing is good and something else isn't. It's like knitting a sweater or making more and more accurately a quilt, a patchwork quilt of some sort. The end product is going to be beautiful, but when you're in the process of doing it, it's going to be less than beautiful. So thank you for me jumping right in the middle of the debate and confusing everybody with my thoughts. Thank you for adding your perspective to the conversation, sir. I appreciate it. At this point, I was going to ask, are there any of the members of the public who wanted to give input or conversation to the goals and objectives package? And I see Knox von Nagel. Please join us, ma'am. And thank you for your service on our work group. I appreciate it. We all do. Thanks so much, Chairman Farmer. I really appreciated being a part of the process. I thought it was a wonderful, collaborative, diverse process. I'd like to thank the staff. I think the staff did a great job. And I think it's a great work product that speaks to the diversity and the land use challenges and opportunities that face Fayette County. And I don't, you know, I'm going to speak very, very briefly, and I would just like to speak to Council Member Martins and Council Member Blues' comments. You know, I agree. I don't think it is farms versus factories, and I think we had a really healthy debate and discussion about this particular issue. And what's so exciting about this particular comprehensive plan is how do we focus our calories in using and making shovel-ready the land that we ostensibly have for manufacturing and industrial and economic uses. According to the staff, we have around 1,500 acres of employment sector vacant acres within the urban services boundary. We have the Kingston Hall Farm that was let in in 1996. That's over 300 acres for economic development, and it's sitting there. And as Councilmember Beer noted, how do we make this competitive? How can we, the various members of the community, work with the chamber and work with government so that we can have attractive, markable land for manufacturing uses? It's incredibly important. I think the BEAM initiative is an exciting regional opportunity. and in looking at the BEAM initiative and the super region between Lexington and Louisville, you know, I just did some very early research on available acres for manufacturing development and the counties between Lexington and Louisville and the counties that touch Jefferson County and the counties that touch Fayette County, there's nearly 9,000 acres of land currently zoned for manufacturing development in the Beam region. So not only do we have an opportunity to look regionally, but we also have an opportunity to look locally at how we have shovel-ready land available for manufacturing. And Fayette County is unique. We have to play to our strengths. And many economists that I've spoken to have said because of Lexington's land prices, but also because of the amenities that our citizens are afforded. Because we have rural assets in close proximity to urban assets, we will be able to attract a certain type of manufacturer. So there's a whole strategic planning opportunity within that issue of what type of manufacturing are we strategically going to try to recruit, and how can we then be a regional partner in the BEAM effort. So last but not least, I wanted to mention one thing Council Member Martin noted, Toledo, Ohio. And, of course, they have a really robust manufacturing economy, as does Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Waco, Texas. These are some areas that are of similar size to Lexington. And last year, Toledo, Ohio actually published a report on manufacturing. and how do they recruit their manufacturers. And they said, quote, It was suggested that the city go after 10,000, 20,000, and 50,000 square foot users, as those are the size of firms driving business growth. It was advised that the city should have an inventory of developable three- to four-acre sites. So, yes, there are some big fish out there, but the vast majority of manufacturing that's happening in the United States are small-scale manufacturing acreages. If you look at Waco, the average acre size for a manufacturing piece of land is 42 acres. So we have 1,500 acres of economic sector land. We have Kingston Hall. We have areas out around Hamburg that are zoned ED that are relatively large parcels. So I just want to say that I'm excited about the challenge. I'm excited about the opportunities, and I appreciate you all very much taking my comments today. Thank you. Thank you very much. I can stay if anybody has questions. I think less is more. Thank you. Other comments from anyone in the audience here today? Thank you all. then I would turn to the Council and say that pages 2 through 5 reflect what is the unanimously approved version of the Conferency Plan Goals and Objectives from our clean version dated March 28, 2012, and is Section A, B, C, D, E, and F. And I wanted to see if there's any questions or comments about that. and or the so-called dashboard issues, which were also delivered to us, which is a very small sheet of included items that I think we want to forward back to the Planning Commission for their consideration in drawing the plan. I'll turn now to Vice Mayor Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. first of all I would like to thank you for being willing to chair the goals and objectives work group for those who haven't been around a while Mr. Farmer chaired the working through of the goals and objectives in 2006 I believe to work to the 2007 plan the last time we did it yes yes the last time we did it, and I want to thank all of those who serve, noting that not only is Knox the Noggle in the audience, so is Todd Johnson. Thank you for your service. And to thank the planning folks who really did wonderful work and homework to help us along. For purposes of discussion, I think this has been a really good debate, and the public always enlightens us by uplifting concerns, and we rely on those to see if we are moving in a direction that the public may want or not want. But with that, I will say that when you sent out the call to workgroup members in the end And for final comments, questions, changes, I believe edits, I believe you have told me that there were none. There were none. Okay. That's the way we left it was hearing none. And we had great debates all the way through this work group. So with that, I'd like to make two motions for purposes of discussion. And the first motion I would make is that, pardon me? We'll do one at a time. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. We're good. Yeah. Mr. Beard, are you still with us? So my motion is, my first motion is to forward the 2012 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives as drafted by the work group to the full council for approval. We have a motion and a second. We are in discussion. Any comments, questions, further points of interest? Hearing none, I would call a vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Please continue. And then my second motion has to do with the dashboard issues. I think this is a relatively new or never before done document, and I think it's a really good one. The dashboard issues elevate issues that the work group felt we wanted to put on the radar of the Planning Commission. and so the list of dashboard issues, I move that we forward these on to the full council for approval in thinking that we would forward them on to the planning commission. We have a motion. Second. And we have a second. We're in discussion. I've asked staff to place this memorandum on the overhead. I will just read it, though. Conferencing plan, goals and objectives, work group, dashboard issues. historic preservation, mixed-use activity centers, open space, green housing, adaptive reuse, regionalism, who will take the lead, encouraging job creation while ensuring a balance between urban and rural space, the restrictive nature of getting a text amendment or zone change passed, identifying barriers to land suitable for employment. and we had a couple of glossary terms that are reflected in the goals and objectives proper, one of which is the definition of complete streets, and the other one is the definition of secured by design. Comments or questions on this? I think this is part where if there are issues that this body or the full council feels that have been left out of the goals and objectives or that we want for the Planning Commission to look at with enhanced interest, we could change this as need be, but I was just giving a background to it. The vice mayor has made a good motion and a second. Are there other comments or questions? Hearing none, I would move to the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Congratulations. We just had the smoothest comp plan golden belt of hearing ever. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My pleasure, ma'am. All right. That brings us to item two on our docket, which is adult daycare definition included in the ZOTA. This was brought to us by Council Member Ford. It appears on page 12 of our packet, and at this time I would call on Council Member Ford. Welcome, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. This is an issue that I've had the fortune to work with our law department and our division of planning on an issue. And just for the committee, again, I'll give a little background reference. What we're hoping to do is to initiate, asking Council to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment to create a new definition, a definition that of an adult daycare center, and to apply that definition to applicable, as a conditional use in applicable zones. And I'll ask the planning staff if they would, if it's okay, Mr. Chair, prepare to come to the podium to give the technical background. But just a little reference in regards to the issue at hand. as it relates to constituency in the 1st District. In early December, there was a new entity that moved into a location at 224 North Martin Luther King Boulevard, and that entity is the New Day Life Center, an entity that is designed to provide services to our homeless population and do so in a daytime setting. My understanding is that when they applied for their certificate of occupancy, the definition that they used was that of a community center. And that itself allowed them to comply with the zoning ordinance as we stand here now. Long story short, but which should not be taken lightly, is the lack of community engagement that was able to ensue prior to. and we have some constituencies, fortunately, who are here with us today in observation and I hope in support of this step to, in future times, provide that proper notification. And that constituency includes, of course, in the downtown, the fabric of our downtown, residential neighbors, business neighbors, as well as educational neighbors, who, in short, due to the lack of engagement and notification and the requirements thereof, were not allowed to express their concerns in regards to safety and otherwise and just have a better understanding of the new neighbor that was fortunate to join our community. So as such, we want to initiate that process by which our planning commission will provide that ordinance text amendment. and one of the major components of that process is that it will allow for a public hearing to ensue at the Planning Commission to allow both supporters and opponents, if they exist, to speak to this issue. And I would ask Bill Salee of our planning staff if he can come and just give us a little bit of the technical components of this. And if there's any questions from the committee, I'd be glad to try my best to answer those as well. Mrs. Helle, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Council Member Ford, members of the committee. Good afternoon. I'm here to talk to you about page 13 and 14 of your packet and introduce you to this text amendment proposal that Council Member Ford has described. The planning staff met with Council Member Ford and with members of the Law Department late last year to discuss this issue. And as Council Member Ford said, his major issue with this was to allow these uses to have the benefit of notification to area neighbors prior to their commencement. Really, through the zoning ordinance, there's only one vehicle that allows that to be done, and that's through the process of a conditional use permit. As you know, principal uses and accessory uses in the zoning ordinance are allowed by right, so there is no avenue through either of those to allow for prior notification of a use to area neighbors or to area neighborhood associations. In drafting the items that you see on page 13 and 14, the first task was to define what in essence is a new use in the zoning ordinance, and you see that on the bottom of page 13. The staff in drafting this definition for an adult daycare center looked at the definitions from four different cities around the country. We looked at Blacksburg, Virginia, Durham, North Carolina, Wheaton, Illinois, and Boulder, Colorado. and this definition is really bits and pieces of some of all four of those definitions, it would provide that a new use for providing care, protection, and or guidance for adults in a protective setting would be this use, provided that it's only done for part of a 24-hour day and that there are no overnight accommodations associated with the use. There's also an exception at the very bottom of the page for this new use. In looking at page 14, this part of the text amendment would then apply it to the different zones that exist in our ordinance. And as has been mentioned, this use would be a conditional use in all of these zones. The zones where this initial draft is proposed to add this new use would be our professional office, the P1 zone, the B1 neighborhood business zone, B2 and B2A, the downtown business and downtown frame business zones, and also in the P2, the office, industry, and research park zone. So this text amendment proposes to define a new use and to then apply it as a conditional use in all of these zones in the community. In addition, in the middle of the left-hand column on page 14, this text amendment would also provide a new parking standard for this use that is not currently in the ordinance that would require one space for every four persons in an adult daycare center and then also a parking ratio based on the number of caregivers provided. I hope this helps introduce you to this text amendment concept that's been drafted over the first part of this year. and of course I'm available for any questions you might have about this draft. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it very much. All right, Council, committee questions? Council Member Ford. Mr. Chair, I would just ask, excuse me, you guys, I thank Bill for his assistance on this. I would just ask if he could briefly describe to us and for those watching the process going forward if the council were to initiate this text amendment via resolution? Certainly. If the council were to initiate this text amendment in this draft or a revised draft, it would be forwarded to the Planning Commission, and ordinarily they hold a public hearing within 60 days of that action by the council. We notify all the registered neighborhood associations. The Planning Commission then submits a final report back to the council after the conclusion of their hearing. That's 60 days. It's come up a lot today. That's right. Councilman Ford. That's right. If there are no other, if there are any questions for the committee, I think that staff and myself will be able to answer those. But seeing none, I would make a motion that we would forward this issue on to council to initiate the appropriate zoning tax ordinance. The zoning ordinance tax amendment. I have a motion and a second by Councilmember Kay. We're in discussion. Questions, comments? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Council Member Ford. I appreciate it very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That brings us to item three on our agenda, the fencing issue, which Council Member Blue has brought to us before, and we sent it to Planning Commission. They sent it back to us, and here we are again, sir. Deja vu. All over again. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, you are correct. Something over a year ago, I think last February of 11, somewhere in there, we sent a text amendment forward to the Planning Commission on fence heights. with our main concern being safety issues and visual field issues created by, in some cases, very tall, up to eight-foot fences in front yards here and there in Lexington. The Planning Commission, within the 60-day period, did consider this issue, and for a variety of reasons, it was rejected. There were aesthetic concerns, which was not our primary interest. There were concerns about opacity, whether fences should be so constructed so that you could see not only above them but also through them. There were questions about how you distinguish between a fence and a wall and various other concerns, such as, well, there was one Planning Commission member expressed ADA concerns and the question of whether if there's a fence next to a sidewalk, whether two wheelchairs going in opposite directions could pass one another and so forth. So that text amendment was not approved for recommendation to the council. Now, that being so, it becomes the council's issue entirely. In other words, the Planning Commission issued a recommendation, and now it's up to us to either accept that recommendation as a council or to go forward with a text amendment. As the one who initiated this process and worked with the Division of Planning with Director Chris King, we consulted and decided that it was best to go forward with it. This is a significant issue. We reviewed the Planning Commission's concerns. We simplified the proposed amendment to focus even more directly on the prime issue, and that is the one of providing more visible access in frontage areas and have now brought that back to be reconsidered by the planning committee. And Chris King is here again to explain the revised version which you have in your packet. I'm sure he'll explain it. And if there are questions from committee members, we can try to respond to them. Mr. King, welcome. I know you probably expected to speak on item one. Welcome to item three. I'm always glad for the opportunity to not have to speak at the podium, Mr. Chairman. Well done, sir. Please proceed. Thank you. And I think Dr. Blues has done an excellent job of explaining what has occurred. This is one of those ones, as you just talked about initiating, this has gone through that process and come back to you. And as Dr. Bluth said, it is within the prerogative of the Council now to either accept the Planning Commission's recommendation or proceed. And then after a number of months of conversation on this issue, I think there are a lot of good reasons to go ahead and proceed. And I want to say I don't think the Planning Commission was opposed to what was being proposed. My sense of their conversations is they had a 60-day window, which did not give them time to do exploratory discussions. I think, if I recall correctly, the discussions at the Council that led to the initiation of the text amendment were well over a year at various times, I mean, maybe 18 months' worth, we started out looking at creating a special site distance review situation. Because there were two core issues that the council decided as you narrowed down the issue that you wanted to deal with. One, the allowable but rarely implemented extremely tall fence is allowed right up to the street, up to six feet high by the zoning ordinance. It doesn't happen very often, but it happened in one or two cases in Dr. Blue's district, and it creates not only an aesthetic, a very extreme aesthetic issue, it creates a sights-distance issue when a car, kind of back out of the joining driveway, cannot see around that six-foot-high fence to see what's coming down the street. And that was an issue of public safety concern that the council wanted to address. The second item, again, those were really what the council's focus was on, was on those safety concerns and decided to propose mitigation of that fence to do that. As Dr. Blues indicated, one of the things the Planning Commission did say that we felt was readily able to be addressed is simplifying. we had kind of set a two-step front yard within 20 feet of the street. It had to be four feet. After that, it could be six feet. And then in the rear and side yards, continuing the currently allowed eight feet in height. And what there was a lot of unanimity at the Planning Commission about was, let's simplify it and basically say from the front face of a house to the street, four feet. regardless whether you're right at the street or whether you're back on the sides and the front. Four feet would be the maximum height of the fence. And the language that is in your packet that is highlighted is different from the language that was initiated by the Council originally would do that. We've made no other changes. again in reviewing the other comments that the planning commission had which had more to do with aesthetics questions of opacity those could still be on the table for future discussion but we do think it would be important to proceed make this one change which we think handles most all the concerns that the council was addressing I do have if you have any questions a couple of illustrations we could put up on the on the Elmo if my words have failed to describe the situation as it would be allowed. We do have some illustrations if you would like to see those. I think that would be good just for the public discussion part of it. Yes, sir. Let me pick through the ones that are relevant here. Your indulgence. I think there were some with the original package when this came through a year ago. Correct. With exceptions of one, these are all ones that you saw originally. Pretty good. This illustration shows two residential lots located, one of them on a corner and one immediately adjacent to a corner, because we do have kind of an odd situation when you're dealing with corner lots. And what this shows is the current regulations, the existing zoning in the kind of yellow area, which is the front yard area in front of the building line. You can have a six-foot high fence or wall in all zones. The blue shaded area, which is behind the building line in the front and rear yards, you can have an eight-foot high fencer wall. Again, you typically don't see that, but that's what the ordinance does allow today. The next picture, we'll move away from the corner. And what this drawing shows is what was recommended and initiated by the council, the effect of that regulation. You can see we've drawn a house in there at the typical building line. And in the yellow, we have indicated where you could have a four-foot high fence, which was 20 feet back from the street. And then any area between 20 feet and on back to the face of the house could be a six-foot high fence. and basically from the front plane face of the house on back around, the eight foot would still rule. The Planning Commission thought this was a little overly complex and on reflection think that may well have been true. So what we have proposed here is illustrated in the next picture, which basically indicates that wherever that house may be, the area between the house and the street, there would be a four-foot high fence, and anywhere else, eight foot, would still be the rule. So the difference between those two drawings is the sole difference between what the Council initiated about a year ago and what is proposed in your packet today. Yes. Very good. The last one I'll show you is just a refresher again of what was decided about corner lot situations. And if you picture corner lots, you know it's very common that people will put a fairly large fence on what we call the side street side yard. In this illustration, the fence is actually, picture the house facing downward. to the street at the bottom, and then the area on the side is a side street side yard. In order to create some privacy, you see it very typical that you would have a higher fence close or near the sidewalk on that side street, a wall or fence, so that you do create some backyard privacy. What was determined there is that anything three feet from the right-of-way would be at four feet, which would allow, as the car was approaching, if you had a driveway along that side, you would have a clear area where that could be, you could see around or over much better with the forefoot. And then in the remainder of that side yard between there and the building line, it would be six feet. This exhibit, I apologize, was not updated to show what I showed you in the other one in terms of the street facing. You would only have the four feet basically between the street and the front of the house right in there. We didn't have time to correct that quickly, but I think you get the idea. Yes, sir. And, again, you know, this was a little problematic. We did not want to take away the right. Some planning commission members were comfortable with this. Others felt like, you know, maybe it should be more than three feet. Maybe it should be five. Maybe it should be six. maybe it should be some felt shouldn't be anything higher than four feet in the side yard. But then again, it would create myriad non-conforming walls, much more than the proposal would. And so we felt comfortable after talking with Dr. Blues and leaving this as originally proposed by council. The other thing I want to comment on, of course, that no matter what, on any of these rules, any property owner would have the right to appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a variance on the height. So it's not like you are totally precluding someone. What you are doing is setting what the new norm is and what would require some kind of variance with notice and going to the Board of Adjustment. Thank you, sir, for your presentation. on anything further right now council member i was going to go to the i was going to go to the list unless you had some other just a quick question chris no no wait julian i was asking what were you asking i was asking the presenter if he had any comments before we moved i have no further comments comments i'll be happy to participate in the qa thank you sir first is Thank you, Chair. Hi, Chris. Afternoon, Council Member. Thank you. This would not do, we couldn't do anything about existing fences? That is correct. Since this is a zoning rule, what it means is that any fences that did not meet this new restriction would be non-conforming fences, and they would enjoy both the restrictions and the grandfathering rights that state statute and local ordinances give to nonconforming structures. I have some fences, like a corner lot, where they pretty much encompass the entire yard. Yes. And they're probably at least six feet high, taller than me. So that would be grandfathered in. Yes, and they would be able to maintain and repair, but there would be no new ones. If the fence came down, they wouldn't be able to put it back up? It depends. If it was abandoned due to a gross lack, let's say one was torn down, they let it sit two or three years, they didn't try to get anything done, they would lose that right. They would have to comply with the new rules. But if a storm came through and knocked it down and they came and applied for a permit right away to put it back up, they would be able to do that. We'd, of course, advise them of the new regulations and encourage them to meet the new regulations, and I expect a number of them may well. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Next, we have Vice Mayor Gorton. Vice Mayor? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one quick follow-up to Council Member Henson's question about grandfathering. so all those folks who currently have fencing, they can keep their fencing as nonconforming uses unless they decide to tear it down and make something different? Is that correct? Or do they, with the nonconforming use, can they still build back what they had? Yes, they can. Okay. I think of a number, I can picture neighborhoods, and I expect you can too, that you've driven through or are familiar with where maybe there's a brick wall six feet high, one foot off the sidewalk along on a corner lot. This is where you see these most often. A car crashes through that. I've actually seen this happen. I can name a place. And they could repair that. they could build it back, they could take it down and put it up again. But if that got torn down, they tore it down and they let it sit for five years and didn't try to do anything, then when they came back, I think they would be told they needed to comply with the laws as they are now. But again, they would certainly have the right to even go to the Board of Adjustments to challenge that interpretation or to seek a variance, either one. Is there a time limit on that if they've torn down their fence on that nonconforming use? It's actually a combination of tests on nonconforming uses. It's actually a two-part test. One, there's a one-year rule. So if you basically do anything within a year, you're assumed to be okay. The second thing, and the courts have ruled this as a second test, is a gross lack of diligence. That is, if you lost the right, it was torn down, and yet didn't try to do anything about it, and it was over a year, then it would be questionable. But if you had been trying to get the money from your insurance company and you could document for a year you've been trying to do that, or if you documented that you were trying to get a permit or you had done this or done that, then we have to look at that and judge that it has not been a gross lack of diligence in trying to keep the nonconforming right. And, again, it's kind of a difficult test, but that's what the courts have given us. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ma'am. And next is Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Chris, your last slide projection that you had up there. Yes. I don't know why I'm having trouble. That might help a bit. Where does an automobile actually enter that property? Any number of ways. For instance, if the house was facing the street on the downside, it could be a driveway along the side to the right. It could be a driveway coming off the other street to the rear to a garage or to a carport or just to a driveway. We've seen those. There could be an attached garage in either direction. So you really don't know. Any of those could end up having a driveway, either street. You just couldn't have it in the radius of the curb. I guess my point is, though, if the setback is only three feet and someone is backing out of a driveway, the car, it's the tail end of the car that comes first. They're not going to be able to see anything at all, I would think, until the driver got up to the four-foot portion and could also have gotten T-boned meanwhile. We understand that, and again, we looked at that a lot. Now, in most cases, since you do have the right-of-way, it's more than three feet, actually, that you would have clear because there wouldn't be any fences in the right-of-way. And when you look at that and you consider backing out, which you're not supposed to do really anyway, but you actually have not only the three-foot area in the yard, you have the right-of-way, the area between the curb and the sidewalk as well. And when we did some measurements of typical cars and where the driver sits, and again, knowing that so many things can affect sight distance, such as vertical curves on the road, shrubbery, signs, things like that, our bottom line point was this seemed reasonable, and it also seemed to improve the situation greatly over what is currently permitted. I can see where people would want some type of shrubbery of some sort to break up the monotony of a wall, especially right on the corner. The utility strip in front of my house is maybe this wide, maybe a little bit wider, and the sidewalk is probably a 30-inch sidewalk. I don't have a fence out there at this point. I don't intend to put one, but at the same time, if somebody's sailing along at 10 to 15 miles above the speed limit, as they normally do, I can see where somebody might get nailed if the setback was only three feet. but you all have we've gotten this far I guess I don't want to complicate things by any means it just concerns me somewhat thank you thank you sir there's no one else signed up to speak so I would dovetail back to Councilmember Blutis thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Chris for the presentation and all of the help over how many months, years has it been since we tried to start this process. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would move that this proposed text amendment be forwarded to the full Council for its consideration for adoption. Again, if it is adopted by Council, it would not go back to the Planning Commission. Second. It would become law. That's correct. We have a motion and a second. We're in discussion on ordinance change rather than a text amendment. Hearing no comments, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. We have one no. Two no's. We have two no's. Councilmember Beard and Councilmember Martin were no. All others are yes. Is that correct? Am I right? All right. So that is referred to the council, and thank you for your presentation and for both of you using the word opacity. Now, turning to the last page of our packet, page 17, this is our committee referrals. I was just going to ask to make a couple of motions to kind of clean some things up here. I believe we've dealt with the conferencing plan goals and objectives, so I'd like to remove that from the committee list. Move to remove. A motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you. I think the same thing is true of the fencing issue we just dealt with. I'd like to also. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. You're going very fast, and I can't hear you. Oh, that's all right. Thank you. It's worked for me for many years. I'm trying to clean up the committee referral list. I'm saying we have dealt with the 2012 Conferency Plan goals and objectives. We have just now voted to remove them from consideration further. I was looking down at the next item that I had marked as something that we have now dealt with in terms of moving it on to the full council, and that is the fence issue. So I ask for a motion, and Council Member Blues motioned, and Council Member Kay seconded the idea of removing that issue from the committee list at this time. Other comments, questions? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Third, I was going to move down to the addressing ordinance, which is something that we have acted on but hasn't been reported out to the full council, but it's not coming back to this committee, so I was going to ask for a motion to remove the addressing ordinance from our committee referral list. Move to remove it. A motion from the vice mayor. Second. And a second from Council Member Kay. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, sign? No discussion. I'm sorry. Discussion, excuse me, sir. Just for clarification, have we moved that to the full council? I didn't make the report out of it last week because all the documentation wasn't correct. So I was going to do that probably today, but in the absence of Council Member Lawless, I was going to defer that until next Tuesday, but I don't anticipate the issue coming back to the committee. In my opinion, it has been dealt with, and we're ready to report it out to the full council. Okay, but have we voted to forward it to the full council? We did, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay, thanks, sir. And glad to have the discussion. Thank you. Other discussion. Excuse me for going so fast it's been pointed out here today. All those in favor of this removal? Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you. And then I was going to go to the bottom issue that was Council Member Ford's that we dealt with, the ZOTA for the adult daycare definition. I was going to ask for a removal of that at this time. We have a motion from Council Member Ford, a second from the Vice Mayor. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Like sign. Any other issues on the referral list or other topics we would like to take up at this time? Council Member Henson. I'll just have a quick question regarding the itinerant merchant. It is in planning? It was referred to us, but it has not appeared on this list. I'll make sure that it appears. Okay. No, it's not ready to be on the agenda or anything yet, but I was just curious if it should be on here. Did we motion to put it in committee? I honestly don't recall, but we're in transition on staff, so we'll make a follow-up and a determination. I'll follow up with Melinda and we'll see. Okay, thank you. We're glad to take it in any capacity. Because originally I think it was in public safety. Vice Mayor. Mr. Chair, I think this is one of the items that when we changed our structure last year, it got moved from a previous committee to this committee. So that would be something to check out. We just want to make sure and put it on our referral list so we can make action on it. All right? Thank you. Any others? Any other comments? And I would ask for a motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you all very much. Thank you.