Why can't we be friends? I've seen you around for a long, long time I remember you when you drank my wine Why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends? I've seen the water down in China now I called you but you could not do too wrong Why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends? Why can't we be friends? I pay my money to the welfare line I see you standing in it every time Why can't we be friends? I can't really fail, I can't really fail, I can't really fail The color of your skin don't matter to me As long as we can live in harmony Thank you. so guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. When we're ready, I think we'll get started. Both clocks say it's a little bit past now. So I will call this meeting of August 23rd to order. First on our agenda would be approval of minutes. Minutes from July 12th and July 26th were emailed to the commission members. And if everyone is okay with those, I'll ask for a motion. Yes, Patrick. I was just going to make a motion to move on. You ready? Yes. I'll move approval of both sets of minutes from July 12th to July 26th. Thank you. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of the minutes. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Next would be postponements and or withdrawals. Do we have any from anyone in the audience? Seeing none, staff? Mr. Chairman. Yes. Staff has received a verbal and e-mail communication from the applicant on page one of your agenda, DP 2012-60, Sebastian Property Unit 2. They are requesting a two-week postponement to your subdivision committee meeting. I think three. I'm sorry. We have an extra week. That's correct. The meeting is on September the 13th. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of DP 2012, Day 60. to the September 13th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until September 13th of 2012-60 Sebastian property. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Do we have other postponements? Mr. Chairman, the staff has two items we'd ask the Commission to consider postponing at this time. The first appears on page 3 of your meeting agenda, item number 1, ZOTA 2012-4, text amendment to amend the definition of banquet facilities. The staff would ask that this item be postponed to your September 27th meeting. That's five weeks from today, and that is the last day by which this item could be scheduled by the Commission. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move for postponement. Thank you. COTA 2012-4. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until September 27th. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Mr. Selle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next item on your agenda, the staff would also ask the Commission to consider postponing. This is ZOTA 2012-9, an amendment to Articles 1, 8, and 12 for modifications primarily to the B-1 neighborhood business zone. We discussed this at your work session last week. At this time, the staff would ask the Commission to consider postponing this until your December 13th meeting. In December, you have one combined meeting scheduled due to the holidays. Anyone in the audience that wish to speak in regards to this request for postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion from the Commission. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of ZOT 2012-9 to the December 13th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Do we have a second? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Any other requests? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that's it from the staff. Okay, thank you. We are at a special request going to take an item out of order. We have some guests that need to catch a plane a little bit later. we're going to move to page 4 of your agenda, section number 3, ZOTA 2012-11, Amendment 2, the Special Provisions of the CC Zone. And we'll let Ms. Wade get us started with this. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. I will direct you to two items that we've already placed at your seat today, and that is a stuff exhibit packet. It has a golden rod cover sheet to it, as well as a letter submitted today to the staff related to this proposed ZODA. And it appears on just a white sheet of paper, but because it had so many pages with it, we did make a copy for each commission member just to facilitate you being able to look at that during the course of the hearing. As Chairman Owens said, this is ZODA 2012-11. It's an amendment to Article 29 to the special provisions of the community center zone, and it is behind tab 3 in your notebooks today, the staff report. This is an application made by A&M Hamburg LLC to revise, again, the special provisions of the expansion area community center CC zone to allow buildings larger than 50,000 square feet under certain circumstances. In particular, the applicant is proposing that one building be permitted under the following circumstances. If there's a minimum of 30 contiguous acres present of CC land, if the property in question is located adjacent to an interstate interchange, and then third, that it be part of an integrated development governed by a single development plan. in terms of the community center zone this is a zone that's only permitted in our expansion area and to provide the commission with a little bit of history i'll just make five points um here we'll start with the expansion area master plan and that is part of the staff's packet the expansion area master plan was developed and adopted in 1996 as part of the 1996 comprehensive plan it was something that the community worked on for several years and had much facilitation and and support from the community this plan established a new approach to development within the expansion area and in particular divided the land that was brought in into separate communities and each Each community was supposed to have a mix of uses with housing and then land set aside also in some cases for economic development as well as community facilities and commercial development. Within the expansionary master plan there were seven land use categories and one of those categories is called the community center land use. There were four designated community center areas on the expansionary master plan on five separate properties you can see those listed there Hamburg property the secure justice property our Blackford property guest property and Newmarket property there were two areas designated within expansion area 2a and they're shown with the red shading on that map and both were located along Manowar Boulevard as planned second and expansion area 2b is located along Todd's Road at the point where polo club will intersect with Todd's Road and that's the new market property and then a fourth area was shown in expansion area 2c and again shown in red on the guest property along Hayes Boulevard as I mentioned this expansionary master plan was incorporated into the 1996 comprehensive plan and shown on page 7 of the expansionary master plan there is a land use category that's defined. This definition has carried forward into the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, which we're operating under today. But it does address the idea that community center zone have a mixture of uses, including retail, office, and residential, as well as institutions, either horizontally or vertically integrated, and that there be public spaces as well. In implementing the community center land use category, the community center zone was developed, and actually all of the zoning definitions and sections of the ordinance related to the expansion area fall under Article 23. That would be the next section of the staff's exhibit packet related to Article 23 of the zoning ordinance. In particular, the community center zone falls under 23A-9. But the intent of the CC zone is defined as a land use or implementing the land use category by providing a mixture of residential and non-residential uses which serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. The commercial retail uses in the CC zone are permitted by right, but buildings are limited to a particular size. Any use can be up to 15,000 square feet in size unless they are providing a mixture of uses, in which case there would be no limit. So if you have a mixed-use building with residential uses, there would be no size limit. And then there's a second exception that's in the special provisions of RCC Zone, and that allows for a grocery store to be up to 50,000 square feet. Since the original zoning ordinance language in 1996 was designated to create a mixed-use neighborhood with the possibility of this small grocery store, the idea was to implement the CC areas to be located internally within neighborhoods, primarily planned to have residential surrounding those. In terms of the rezoning to CC and further development, not all of the rezoned properties were as planned for in the EAMP. The first one is Providence Place, which is out in Newtown Pike. That one was unplanned but was passed by the council to provide a CC area on Newtown Pike for expansion area three. That parcel or area remains undeveloped except for a small parking lot for an adjacent hotel. and then the second diversion I guess from the plan was it on the Hamburg property and the CC land moved to an alternate location and that property remains undeveloped and the staff would just note that the remaining CC land has developed slowly and in our assessment not to its full potential so let me just for a moment go through where the existing CC lands are the first in Expansion Area 2A is located on the Hamburg East property at the intersection of Polo Club, Man of War, and also the interstate, Interstate 75. The acreage of that area, developable acreage in total, is 37.5 acres, and it's currently vacant. The second community center area is split on two properties, the Secura Justice property and the Blackford property. The area on the Secura Justice has 8.21 acres, and there's a bank, pharmacy, and gas station that's currently constructed with residential and further retail planned. And then the second portion of that same CC area is on the Blackford property, and they have 29.8 acres, and it is currently completely vacant. It's also in Expansion Area 2A. the third or third area is on the new market property at todd's road and what will be polo club boulevard and they have 4.27 acres there's a medical office development underway and the townhouse residential has already been constructed that's an expansion area to be the guest property has 9.36 acres of CC land. It's located on Hayes Boulevard, where it intersects with Sperling Drive. And there's a multifamily residential development underway for a part of that area. It's an expansion area 2C. And then lastly, the one that was not planned for in the expansion area master plan is located on Providence Place Parkway. They have 6.95 acres. Currently, it is mostly vacant, but it does have development plans for retail, gas station, and a residential portion. And that's in Expansion Area 3. In evaluating the applicant's proposed text amendment, the staff looked at a few things. First, we found that there had been the realignment of at least one CC zone. And in that case, the property now adjoins the interstate. I guess that's point number four down there. It's bordered on three sides by significant roadways. First, the interstate, second Man of War Boulevard, and third, Polo Club, urban arterial and major collector streets. Also, in that case, it's no longer internally situated to the property in order to serve the surrounding residential, but now on the fringe. and also it is no longer integrated into the greenway system, which is meant to connect the neighborhoods. So that pulls that particular CC apart from the rest. The staff also considered that the applicant's proposal is not altering any of the other special provisions, namely the requirements for open space that would remain, as well as the requirement that 40% of the total floor area for development would still be dedicated to non-commercial land uses, so either residential, churches, schools, or other public uses. In addition, the text amendment would limit a larger building to just one big box establishment or anchor store. And lastly, that the large commercial buildings proposed here should adhere to the design guidelines for big box establishments. The staff felt after 16 years of somewhat minimal development in the CC zones that there should be a change to the zoning regulations. The applicant's proposal is quite limiting, and they are agreeable to providing big-box amenities for the development when it is proposed in the future. So the staff does recommend approval of the proposed text amendment with a few changes, and I would direct the Planning Commission to the agenda, pages 4 and 5, to see the staff alternative text and recommendation. It would be including big-box standards as required for other business zones for buildings that exceed 80,000 square feet. There were two big box guidelines that the staff felt were contrary to the other special provisions of the CC zone and felt that those shouldn't be adhered to in this case. They are number 6 and number 14 related to parking, location of parking, and also buffering between uses. And the staff, again, and the zoning committee in evaluating this do recommend approval of the staff alternative text for two reasons. The proposed text amendment to the special provisions of the community center will allow for the option of one larger retail establishment that would still meet the criteria, their criteria, and still comply with the intent of the community center land use category. And secondly, as defined in the 2007 comprehensive plan and then previously in the expansionary master plan, a mix of uses will still be required in a CC zone, and that is important in terms of meeting the neighborhood's further needs. Staff would conclude their report there, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. If you'd like to know specifically or see specifically what the design guidelines are, I have that as well. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Mr. Penn? This text amendment is aimed at the whole 37 acres, not just at the part that they want to develop? Correct. It would apply to the whole CC zoned length. So in other words, if you put a big box anywhere on that 37 acres, that would limit the 37 acres to just one big box? Correct. Thank you. Other questions? Ms. Wade, one question. And could you explain how you came, or I'm sorry, the staff came to the recommendation as far as the big box guidelines in kicking in at 80,000 square feet? In the B6P zone, the guidelines are established to start at 80,000 square feet. So for other business zones in our community, a big box is almost defined as anything over 80,000 square feet. And my understanding is when the design guidelines were adopted that there was dialogue between property owners and the staff and the commission to establish that number. So for consistency, we felt that the big box design guidelines refer to 80,000 square feet that we should be consistent with that. With this being CC land, I know most big boxes are in other zones. With this being CC land, the language already talks about a grocery store or one large building in the 50,000 square foot range. Do you see a problem with the big box guidelines for CC only to be set at 50,000 square feet? No, I don't see a problem with that. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll ask for Ms. Weisman to come forward, I think. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I'm here on behalf of A&M Hamburg LLC, and several members of the family are here today. Pat Madden, his folks, most of you are familiar with Preston, Anita Madden, and other family members. Another Preston, his namesake, Osbrook, and her husband, Kevin Osbrook. I was pretty clever, and I checked with Pat, and A&M does stand for Osbrook Madden. So that's how they came up with that. Before I do anything, I want to thank the Pleasant Green Baptist Church, who I also represent, for allowing us to switch ahead to accommodate Mr. Frank's travel plan. So we do appreciate this, and we will try to keep this brief. We agree with the alternate language that Tracy went through just now, and I do think that those were appropriate changes to the text that we submitted. One thing I do want to emphasize, and she pointed out that the restrictions such as the 40% requirement of residential and the 25% open space is not being changed by this. So this still doesn't envision a mixed use in any CC zone, including this particular property. But one thing I think it's important to keep in mind is that this text amendment does not allow for more retail square footage in the CC zone. by asking for the ability to have a building larger than 50,000 square feet. In effect, what this will do is allow the developer to reconfigure retail space that could otherwise be in a grocery store and several other shops, but do it in one location. And as Jackie Frank from Costco can show you graphically, there will in effect be in this one location many of the goods and services you would otherwise expect in a community shopping center. Grocery items, pharmacy, electronics, eyeglasses, those sorts of things that you would want in a community center can be provided. And again, allowing us to do this and reconfigure it allows us to do it in a more efficient way. And in the case of this company, provided it significant discounts to the members that come to our facilities. So I think it's important that we're not adding new uses to the CC Zone and we're not adding square footage. We're simply asking for the ability to reconfigure the square footage that's already permitted. One other point I want to make, and then I'll turn this over to Jackie, is that this is a good opportunity for this community to attract an outstanding company. And we don't usually talk about economic development in these forms, but I think in the times we live in, I don't think we can ignore that. And apart from what we think the land use considerations are, which support this amendment, is the fact that this company will bring good jobs, at least 200 at the beginning, of well-paying jobs to this community. Our economic development people work long and hard to bring manufacturers to this community that can employ 200 people. We have a press conference if somebody's bringing 25, and this company is coming without any local or state government incentives, although other communities have done so. So I think that's equally important to this application as well. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Jackie Frank, who is Vice President of Real Estate. He's here from Washington State today, and he's the one that has to leave because of the difficult flight arrangements that it takes to get from here to Washington State. So we appreciate your courtesy. And I'll turn it over to Jackie as a short PowerPoint he'd like to present. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jackie Frank. I'm Vice President of Real Estate Development for Costco Wholesale based in Issaquah, Washington. My thanks to other applicants, other items, and my special thanks to you for accommodating my schedule. It was much appreciated. A little bit about us. Who is Costco? We've enjoyed some tremendous positive press lately, but not everybody knows who we are. Costco is an international chain of membership warehouse clubs. We sell quality brand name merchandise and private label merchandise at substantially lower prices than are typically found at conventional wholesale or retail sources. We tailor our packaging and our product mix specifically to help small and medium-sized businesses reduce their costs. We sell products to them for their own use and for resale, and we also sell to individuals and families. So just as I said, we have high quality, high value, no seconds. Our goal is simple. It's really to bring the highest quality products, goods, and services to market at the best possible pricing, and we do find that it helps local businesses be successful. We also find that you will find, and this I think is a function of how we pay and treat our employees, and we'll talk about that in a moment, but we find that when we pay our employees a living wage, Number one, not only is there extremely low turnover, but our employees feel empowered to give back to their community through a variety of ways, either through charitable donations or volunteerism, and we're extraordinarily proud of that as well. Our mission is simple, as I mentioned. The highest quality products at the lowest possible prices. But we live by a code of ethics, and I want to tell you about those. Number one, obey the law. Number two, take care of our members. Number three, take care of our employees. Number four, respect our suppliers, our partners, if you will. And we believe that if we do all of these things in this particular order, we will inevitably reward our shareholders. Today, Costco, based on global sales, is the second largest retailer in the United States. We're the seventh largest retailer in the world. And we rank number 24 in Fortune 500. This past year, we finished the year at approximately $87 billion. I believe we're very close to finishing our fiscal 12, fairly close to $97 billion. Our warehouses, on average, do about $146 million a year, and we have nearly 170,000 extraordinary employees worldwide. I think we're at 607. We just opened a building this week in Sarasota, Florida, but you can see our distribution, nearly 440 in the U.S., a large presence in Canada, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and we're expanding rapidly in Asia, including Korea, Taiwan, Japan, and most recently in Australia. Today, there are about 67 million people walking around with Costco cards in their wallets. And what's extraordinary about that fact is that people do vote with their wallets. Costco is a membership warehouse club. We have two tiers of membership, $55 and $110 for executive members. And what we find is that we are enjoying a 90% renewal rate, which is a tremendous vote of confidence in the type of retailing and wholesaling that we provide. Our strengths are as follows. We are considered in the industry as an absolute pricing authority. We have, as I mentioned, nearly 170,000 extraordinary employees. Our merchandise is of the highest quality caliber, demonstrating tremendous value. But there's always surprises and delight when you go to Costco. You'll find things that you never expected to find, and that's what we refer to when we talk about our treasure hunt atmosphere. As a large company, we consider ourselves extraordinarily nimble, and our image as a quality retailer and a quality employer is fortunately very good. In addition to having 160,000 plus employees, we not only think that it's important to pay our employees well but to also provide excellent benefits. Approximately 90% of our employees are benefit eligible And of those, 98% are currently enrolled. On average, throughout the chain, our average U.S. hourly rate is in excess of $20 an hour, $20.51. For example, a cashier with regular bonus checks can be making nearly $49,000 after about five years. And what we find is that when you pay people well and you provide excellent benefits, and it's not a job, it's a career, and you provide those opportunities to grow a career within the company, people don't necessarily leave. Our turnover is, on average, about 10%. But for employees that have been with the company for greater than a year, it's actually right at 6% or slightly less than 6%, which is probably the best or lowest turnover rate in the history of retail. I'll tell you a little bit about our merchandise products. Costco sells a variety of things, all geared toward high value. Last year we sold nearly $2 billion in televisions. Costco is considered the largest seller of fine wines in the world. We did about $1.3 billion a year last year in fine wines. Costco sells apparel, high-quality apparel for men, women, and children. One of our signature departments that is really quite extraordinary is our meat sales. Last year we did about $4.5 billion in meat sales choice to Prime. and like I said, it is considered one of our absolute signature categories in the warehouse. We're known for our roadshows, seafood roadshows, as well as our scratch bakery that is on site. several years ago we introduced a very sustainable program for sourcing fresh produce from currently at about 41 countries we enjoyed produce sales fresh produce sales close to 4 billion dollars last year and as you can see last past year we sold 55 million chickens it's not safe to be a chicken if you're anywhere near Costco. Another extraordinary department that we have is pharmacy. We sell our pharmacy products, health and beauty aids, just like we sell everything else, constantly trying to push the cost down and deliver tremendous values to our members. Last year we filled over 35 million prescriptions. Costco Optical has been ranked repeatedly as one of the top opticians in the country. Last year we produced over 3 million pairs of glasses. And our $1.50 hot dog and a Coke combination is fairly renowned, and I have it on good authority that the price will never be more than $1.50. In addition to all of the items and products and services that we've discussed, our quality tires center sold nearly 6.5 million tires in fiscal 11. Brand names are important to us, but we've been able to develop a line of private label that is as good, if not better, than the national brands. This gives us tremendous flexibility, tremendous negotiating leverage, and it allows us to develop some extremely high-quality products, and these are just a few. So, Rena talked a little bit about Costco as a compilation of a series of uses. Our grocery component is probably around 50,000 square feet. So you have the 50,000 square foot limit in the zoning. But when you look at all of the other uses that are embodied, the Freshline, the food court, the tire sales, the wine sales, optical department, hearing aids, which I hadn't even mentioned, And what we have figured out as a retailer and a wholesaler is a way to bring those goods to market with extraordinary efficiency and extraordinary economy, passing on the values to our membership. I think at the time that zoning ordinances such as this were developed, this type of retailing, wholesaling, and super economic value proposition really didn't exist. So we hope that you'll consider this tax change application as well. What's interesting about Lexington is, as you know, we have warehouses in Louisville as well as Cincinnati. Lexington actually has quite a large proportion of existing members here, Costco members, who currently travel to Ohio and to Louisville to shop. There's also a concentration of small businesses here that are prime candidates for membership. Plus there's a viable labor market here for our employees. When we look for a site, we look for a variety of things. We look for a property that has proper zoning, that has site services and utilities, adequate water, adequate sewer, etc., that is developable without extraordinary soils correction or grading solutions. And we always look for access to the regional roadway network system. Costco is a destination-type use. We're a regional draw. People will deliberately travel long distances to shop with us, so that access to the regional roadway system is imperative for us. We also find that not only do we become an economic engine, if you will, a catalyst for other development as an anchor, but we're extraordinarily compatible with other uses. We're in many higher-density developments along with commercial office, certainly other retail and residential as well as institutional uses. So we find ourselves extremely compatible with those who are around us. And Costco as a company, from how we procure our goods to how we make site selection choices to how we design and how we construct, how we package and how we recycle, illustrates a tremendous commitment to sustainability in all areas. Costco, at least in the construction area, Costco has been involved with sustainable development initiatives since long before it was fashionable. 7% of our roof area is day lit. We have an extremely complicated and successful energy management system for how we control our air conditioning and heating as well as day lighting. But we're also involved with the use of recycled materials and recyclable materials in our design, as well as stormwater management to the highest levels of responsible stewardship. So with that, I'll make myself available to answer any questions that you might have about the proposal or about our company, I did want to say that we have had an opportunity to review the big box guidelines and will be prepared to come back before you. We believe that we can comply with them and perhaps even exceed them, and it would be a pleasure to continue to work with you and your staff. Available for any questions if you have them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Frank. Mr. Penn, question? Yes, could I ask you, of that 37 acres, what part of that do you intend to use? Less than half. It takes about between 15 and 16 acres to site the warehouse, parking, landscaping setbacks, as well as storm drainage. Yeah, I know this is not a development plan, but of the 37 acres, I was trying to get in my head what you'd be using of that. Thank you. Uh-huh. Other questions for Mr. Frank or Ms. Wiseman? Thank you, Mr. Frank. I do have one for Ms. Wiseman in regards to my questions, staff, as far as setting the big box guidelines at 50,000 square feet as opposed to 80,000 square feet. Do you have any thoughts about that? We would be amenable to that change to make it applicable to that. Okay. All right, then. Any other questions? I would take it that that's pretty much your presentation, Ms. Wiseman. Okay, thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request? Seeing none. Staff have anything to add? No? Okay, thank you. I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion from the commission members. I would say, having brought it up, I personally do like the 50,000 square foot big box guidelines. that number as far as letting the big box guidelines kick in, I think it would be a benefit to the CC land itself and the general intent that's needed for that. So if there's no further discussion, I'll... Mr. Finn? I've got a question for staff, I think, Tracy. Mr. Frank testified that there would be about 16, 17 acres of this, 37 acres used for Costco. How do you envision the rest of that being used? I would anticipate, at the very least, some multifamily development. Other than that, I know that there was at some point interest by the schools to have a middle school or high school located in this general vicinity. In fact, the 2007 comprehensive plan listed a middle school on the Hamburg property, although when the rezoning came in, they declined making a reservation. Other than that, I can't say as to how Mr. Med might choose to develop that area. I mean, have you got something to add to that, Patrick? Well, I mean, there would be restaurants for sure. Obviously, we ought to comply with the 40% residential component in the CC as it's written right now, and we intend on doing that. I would envision that you'd have restaurants, and then I know that the CC Zone was designed to create a village-type atmosphere, and I would hope that with Costco that will help me maybe be able to bring the tenants in where we could create that type of atmosphere. But until we have the anchor, I don't know yet. But, I mean, that would be something we would try to do, but I know it hadn't been successfully developed in Lexington to date. Well, I mean, my hope is that you'll make this successful, and I know you'll try. My concern is that we will be able to, this is the EMP, and it changes our ability to change zones from a B6P to whatever would be a normal zone for that. So my hope is that you would look at that and try to create something that would fulfill the CCC because it is a model for us. Correct. And going forward, I think we'd like to use it as a model. Correct. Thank you, Mr. Madden. Ms. Phillips? I had a question for Tracy, follow-up to what Mr. Madden said. Forty percent of the CC district is supposed to be used for residential? Non-commercial. Non-commercial. Okay. How is that measured? Is that by acreage or by overall density? How exactly is the floor area? Floor area. So the floor area, total floor area of how would you compute then based on the balance of property that will not be used by Costco. How many of those acres do you think will be used for noncommercial use? I don't. It's really hard to know because there can be a vertical element. For instance, multifamily is often three or four stories tall, so you can see the impact. They use a smaller piece of land and can go up. I did do some math. If Costco is 150,000 square feet, then they would need 100,000 square feet of some other church, school, public, or residential use to create the 60-40 balance. So for each, again, 100,000 square feet, you need 60 to be commercial and 40 to be something else. Does that help? Yeah, it does. So then to get back to Frank's question about the balance of the property, we really don't know at this point. Will it be incumbent upon the applicant to create that balance now for the CC? When they bring in their preliminary or final development plan, that's when we would see it for the first time, see that mix. So that development plan that we see for the application that has precipitated the zoning text amendment, zoning ordinance text amendment, will have the balance of noncommercial land uses incorporated therein? Yes, I think it has to in order for the staff to say it meets the ordinance. Thank you. Ms. Beatty? Attorney C., this is also a question for you. I think you can answer this one. The document that you gave us regarding, it looks like it's written from Glen Eagles homeowners, residents. Yes. Did you or any of the staff, have you all met with that group and addressed their concerns? It appears that a lot of them are around safety. Or did they just simply submit this in writing? I noticed no one was here to represent them. They submitted that this morning, and I don't think that that individual necessarily represents all of the Glen Eagles Neighborhood Association. It sounded like she didn't sign it as president of the Glen Eagles Neighborhood Association or anything. I thought it was just a personal letter of opposition or concern. But Mr. Selle did attend the neighborhood meeting on Monday night, so he may be able to reflect on that. Bill, can you? Certainly. The meeting lasted about an hour and a half. We met mostly with the neighborhood's board. I think Mr. Rittenauer is here, who is at the meeting as well. In addition, the applicant and their representatives were present. We gave them some base information about the text amendment, including our staff report, and some of the information that Tracy has given you today as well. The board members were concerned about the 60-40 issue that we've talked a lot about at this hearing. Also, there was concern about what the final development plan might look like, again, mirroring some of the questions that commission members have had on that as well. I did not stay through the conclusion of the meeting, so I'm not sure if the board voted or made a decision on whether or not to make a recommendation. I believe the email that Ms. Wade has circulated to you is the only communication we've had other than two of the board members did ask to be notified at such time as we would receive a final development plan. And we replied to that email by telling them we would place that in the file for the zoning development plan, which we did discuss at the neighborhood meeting, and that we would notify them if and when we get a final development plan submitted. I don't know if Mr. Ridenour wants to speak about the board or their opinions about it, but there was a good dialogue for about an hour and a half on the subject. Other questions? Let me just clarify one thing with Ms. Wade. When they were talking about the 60-40 commercial, non-commercial, follow up with what Ms. Phillips was saying, you threw out the number of $150,000 for Costco. being commercial and 100,000 non-commercial, that doesn't necessarily mean that that one building would be the only commercial there. No, I would anticipate there would be other accessory or complementary uses. With that number going up, so would the non-commercial aspect. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Any other questions? Statements? If not, I'll close this part and entertain a motion. Mr. Brewer? We had a lot of discussion on this at the work session. I think it was deliberate and necessary. I appreciate all the work that's going on with the staff and the applicant on this. I think we've laid a lot of concerns. There's still some process issues that I think we do need to address at a later date. But as I said last week, this is, in my opinion, not the time to do that. I think we need to get this passed, get this employment in place in Lexington. I move for approval based on the recommendations of staff of 2012-11. Second. Okay. Just a point of clarification. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. That would be the staff's alternatives? Yes. Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for approval with staff alternative text. Let me ask one question, if I may, Patrick. Any consideration of changing the building exceeding 80,000 square feet down to 50,000 square feet for big box guidelines? Would you be amenable to that? I don't have a great concern with that. At this point, it would be, to me, I'd like to see if the applicant is okay with that for this given situation. Are there concerns for future development? I just don't have enough information about that. That's where I'm coming from on it, yeah. Just for future development and with the intent of the CC land to make it more friendly, more the design of it looked better. I think that would be a benefit. Mr. Penn? Patrick, if I understand this right, that's just to trigger the big box guidelines on the 80,000 down to 50,000. Is that right, Mike? Yes. In other words, if they came with an application of 50,000 square feet, they would have to use the big box guidelines versus the 80. That's the way I I understand it, Mike. Is that what you understand? Yes, that's correct. Ms. Phillips, do you have something to add? There are no other points associated with the motion. I just wanted to apologize, first off, for coming in late. Secondly, I really can't support this amendment because it does fly in the face of everything that we try to do in terms of comprehensive planning. The CC district was intended to support village-type neighborhood development, not regional destination shopping. And so, therefore, because we are planners, we're supposed to be looking to the future. I think that this runs contrary to what our purpose is. So I can't support the motion. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Patrick, I guess I've got a question to you. Would you be willing to amend it? I don't have a problem with that. I'm happy to amend it. I just wonder if that's the sense of the commission fine. We've got applicants who are approving. Okay. So I guess my question, you are amenable to amending the motion. Okay. And Ms. Beatty, as far as the second? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Cravens. I don't know why you want to change that to 50,000. A 50,000-square-foot building probably is not big enough to handle the big box guidelines. I mean, it triggers all sorts of bus stops and parking and designs on the outside. Some of these designs on these big boxes look like tiny towns stuck on the side of a box. I don't like that. I think you can do it better. and a 50,000 foot building would, I think it's overkill to try to put some kind of phony design on the outside of a box. So, I mean, I hope you don't put that on there. I might have to oppose it. Well, this is where my confusion lies. We had a motion and a second as it stood. I am not, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the 50 versus 80. I think Mike has valid concerns that he just mentioned. I would be concerned about having this hamstring other development. With all due respect to Lynn's concerns, we've got the rules in place. I think with what happened on the previous action of this body, that we may have some concerns about what we did before, but that's the rules as we deal with it now. So just to clarify my point on it, Patrick, one, at the present time, as it applies to CC land, there's no big box guidelines in CC land for 50,000 square foot building or otherwise. And as Mike just said, he's concerned about a storefront look as opposed to a big box. Myself, I don't want a big box there. That's the only place I'm coming from. The decision is up to you as to what you want to do that. Staff, do you have any recommendations on this? Keep it at $80,000. Our staff recommendation was at $80,000. Okay, I've gotten on the hot seat when I didn't mean to. I think I'm going to have to leave it at $80,000, Mike. Okay, that's fine with me. So the motion has reverted back to the staff alternative as written. And I would agree with Patrick. Okay. Yes, as it is written. Well, good to go. Mr. Penn, a final comment? Do you want a member to the motion, or do you want the whole motion to depend on this 50 versus 80? I think we've got to decide this. I'll go with this right now. All right. I'll go with this original motion. So if there's no further discussion, I think we're pretty much done. I understand what my motion was. Your motion. Do you want to remind us? The motion was to approve ZOTA 2012-11, the amendment to the special provisions for CC land, with the staff alternative language for the reasons provided. Those are at the bottom of page 4 and at the top of page 5. So that's the motion. It has been seconded. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. I would like to take this moment to recognize and say it's welcome and a pleasure to see a former Planning Commission member in the audience with Mrs. Madden. She spent many hours behind this bench up here, I believe, so welcome. With that, we'll move on to back to the original part of our agenda in order, which would be page 2. Number 1, Pleasant Green Baptist Church of Lexington. their request for a zone change map amendment MAR 2012-11. But he didn't want an amendment, so what was I going to do? That's a, yeah, you could have done that, but that's what I thought he was going to do. So you could have taken me a minute. Well, you could have done that, but that's probably what he was thinking. Yeah. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Ms. Wade, you going to lead us through this? Yeah, the next item on today's agenda is found on page 2. It is item 1A and behind tab 3 in your notebooks. It's MAR 2012-11. This is a request by Pleasant Green Baptist Church of Lexington, Incorporated, to rezone three pieces of property from our high-density apartment, our four-zone, to the Lexington Center Business B2B zone. The property is located or includes 410 Patterson Street here, 522 and 540 West Maxwell Street. The property does, and three parcels do include the entire block bounded by West Maxwell, Patterson Street, Pine Street, and Dunaway Street in the western part of downtown Lexington. Just directly across West Maxwell is what's considered the high street parking lot for Rupp Arena, which is another block to the east, northeast. Also in this vicinity, you can see the shading on our map. This is the South Hill, Historic South Hill neighborhood, as well as the Woodward Heights neighborhood. Those are both H1 overlays in the downtown area. In the general vicinity of the subject property, there are some residential uses along Pine Street. The adjacent block on Patterson Street in West Maxwell is entirely zoned B2B, as well as the parking lot across Maxwell Street. The other faces of this block have R4 zoning, which is similar to the subject property, and then B4 zoning for warehouse and wholesale uses. This area does have a mixture of uses. As I mentioned, the Rupp Arena parking lot is adjacent, as well as several small warehouses on Dunaway Street. on the aerial, you can see they are the ones with the larger roofs in that area. Here. In that vicinity. And the current use of the property is by the Pleasant Green Baptist Church, and they occupy about half of the property for their parking lots and then the existing building. The rest of the property is currently vacant, but was until recently a warehouse that came right to the right-of-way of Dunaway and then up to the applicant's property. The petitioner is currently asking to rezone the property in order to construct a large addition to the church to accommodate a gymnasium, fellowship hall, kitchen, and some Sunday school classrooms. and the church's proposal does not include adding any new sanctuary seating space. But they also do offer or plan to offer space for community meetings, their youth activities, and then other outreach programs that they believe are consistent with the mission of the church in support of the surrounding neighborhoods. The B2B zone does permit churches and Sunday schools as principal uses, but currently does not explicitly permit a community center use. It would incorporate or allow for meetings to occur there, but not necessarily an outside organization to be located on the site. The proposed application also does include conditional zoning restrictions that would prohibit cocktail lounges, nightclubs, automobile service stations, and establishments for the display, rental, and sale of automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, and boats, and these are offered in order for the proposal to be consistent with the existing surrounding character of the area, including the residential uses, as well as to still be flexible and compatible with any future downtown development in this area. The 2007, excuse me, sorry, zoning color up again, just a few photos of the property. This is the current view from Maxwell Street of the church. The church has been located or meeting on this property since 1822 and the building has stood there since 1931. This also includes a small gravel or I guess concrete parking lot along Maxwell where part of the former warehouse was. This is the existing parking behind the church. So the photo is looking towards Pine Street. And this is from Pine Street. This is the location of the parking to the left. And then on the right-hand side, where there appears to be some equipment stored, was the site of the former warehouse. The comprehensive plan recommends two land use categories for the subject property. And again, the property has the frontage along Maxwell Street, Patterson, Pine Street, and Dunaway. It does have the split recommendation for most of 522 West Maxwell. It's recommended for high-density residential land use, while the other two parcels and a small piece of 522 are recommended for semi-public facilities land use. The semi-public facilities land use does appear to correspond with the area that the church currently occupies for parking lot and its building. This split recommendation was adopted as part of the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan, which was adopted by the Planning Commission in 2003 and then incorporated into the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. More recently, there has been a Rupp Arena Arts and Entertainment District Master Plan prepared. And although it doesn't specifically recommend land use categories for this property, it does speak to plans for the high street parking lot. There it states that there are concept plans for the high street parking lot to remain flexible, to address the demands in the market following implementation of what would be the higher priority aspects of the master plan, for instance, improving Rupp Arena. The petitioner has stated in their request that they believe the B2B zone is appropriate at this location and the R4 zone is inappropriate, and the staff agrees for several reasons. First, although the entire property is R4, the property has not been used for residential in a number of years. As we mentioned, the church has occupied this location since the early 1800s, And then the warehouse was situated on half of the property as well until recently, so that had been a nonconforming use in the R4 zone. Second, much of the property is already nonresidential in this area, including the large surface parking lot and warehouses on Dunaway Street and then proposals for a mixture of uses in the adjacent block along West Maxwell. Also, the B2B zoning is adjacent to the parcel on two sides, and B2B zoning exists a little bit closer to South Broadway in this area as well. So it's consistent with the existing zoning in the area. Further, the churches and accessory uses are principal in our B2B zone. In the R4 zone, churches are a conditional use. And the applicant has stated that they believe it's more appropriate for this well-established use to continue as a principal use at this location rather than a conditional use. and the staff would note that there are quite a few similarly situated churches downtown in the B2A and B2B zones, and that allows for some flexibility for the churches to use their land in an efficient way and considering that they're an off-peak use for the most part as well. And lastly, the staff found that the proposed use is supported by the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives as adopted earlier this year, and specifically three that we've listed in our findings. They are theme 2A2, which deals with context-sensitive infill and redevelopment, theme 3B, which deals with positive and safe social interactions in the neighborhood, and theme D2, which promotes accessible community facilities and services. and the staff believes that all of these are supported by the church's expansion at this location. The staff is recommending approval, as did the zoning committee three weeks ago, and this recommendation is made subject to approval and certification of the zoning development plan, and the staff also recommends the conditional zoning restrictions as proposed by the applicant. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this proposal. Questions from Ms. Wayne? Seeing none, thank you. Thank you. And we'll ask that. Oh, I guess before we get to that, I'm going to forget Mr. Taylor coming to join us. Thank you, sir. The development plan, the zoning development plan for this zone change is on page 3 under item B, CDP 2012-64. It's the Pleasant Green Baptist Church of Lexington. This is a preliminary development plan, as Tracy mentioned, for property at 522, 540, and 410, Maxwell Street, and 410 Patterson Street. The plan does propose a three-story addition. In this area, an 8,400 square foot existing church facility here. The rest brings it up to about 61,000 square feet. new canopy, access off Patterson, access off Pine, access off Dunaway, and the existing utilization of existing surface area but a new parking lot on Maxwell at Dunaway. The subdivision committee recommended approval at this last meeting subject to the 11 conditions as shown on your agenda, the one of significance being condition number 11 related to Dunaway Street improvements to be resolved at the time of the final development plan. The applicant is proposing on this plan their building to come all the way up to the Dunaway Street right-of-way. There was strong concern from Traffic Engineering Technical Committee about the lack of a full cross-section on that side of Dunaway Street. There is no sidewalks or curb. The nature and the scope of those improvements was something to be discussed, again, at the time of the final development plan. But with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Questions for Mr. Taylor? As far as the improvements on Dunaway Street, Chris, is that setting right on the edge of the street now? No, I believe that's what was there before was the warehouse, and that's the wall for the warehouse. That butted right up against Dunaway Street, is my understanding. Okay. There's room for improvements? There was traffic engineering's belief that there was some space for some improvements, be sidewalks and a curb. Okay. Thank you. There was another option mentioned where they could explore the full closure of the Dunaway Street through council. At some point, they could look to close that. It's not a full section that matches Dunaway on the other side of Pine. And it was more of an alley-type street. As our understanding, it was used to serve the warehouses. So they kind of had two options. but we felt if we were going to keep it as a public street to get some semblance of improvements in the full cross section on the other side, we would just seek to close it altogether on that block. Okay. Thank you. Applicant, Ms. Wiseman. Thank you again. I'm here for the very patient Pleasant Green Baptist Church. Walter Speed and Ben Brown are representatives of the church here. This is a real opportunity for this church to do its first major expansion since it's been on this property since 1822, long before we had planning commissions or boards of adjustment. When they were able to purchase the warehouse next door, that gave them ample land to do this. This will allow them now to be able to have a fellowship center, gymnasium. It will also much enhance the access to the church for members, especially the elderly members. It's very difficult to get in and out on Sundays right there on Maxwell Street. And with this reconfigured site plan, now we'll be able to have a covered canopy to drop off members to come to the church and go to the sanctuary this way. We're not adding seats to the sanctuary, but again, just adding things that the church has long wanted to have, such as a new kitchen, some more city school space, and continue to be what they consider to be. We were talking about anchors, but this is a different sense. They feel that they're an anchor to this neighborhood, and this will allow them to solidify that position, stay in the neighborhood for many, many years to come. We agree with the recommendations on the development plan as well. The issue about Dunaway Street, we asked to resolve that at final development plan as we get through more design of our building. As the staff said, that's an alley right now. It's not used extensively. There have not ever been sidewalks on that side. but it was a warehouse like many others where they were built up to the right-of-way. And I think the church is amenable to some additional dedication, but we felt it would be better if we did that at final development plan when we can match our architecture design for this building to what the city's needs are for the sidewalk. So we think that's a better time to make a more informed decision. With that, unless you have any questions, we appreciate your attention and ask for your favorable recommendation. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Wiseman? Mr. Penn? I guess, Ms. Wiseman, does the church intend to ask for Dunaway to be shut down, to be closed? No, that was brought up by Jeff Neal at the subdivision committee. That had not occurred to us. Okay, because if you're going to close the alley down, why force the sidewalk and the curb? That seemed inconsistent to me to want sidewalks and suggest we close it. Yeah, that was inconsistent to me also. Ms. Phillips? Ms. Wiseman, will this also require any kind of conditional use approval from the Board of Adjustment? No. Or is this it? Right. This would make it a principal permitted use, which we think is appropriate given their history there. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Staff, do you have anything to add? No? Okay. If there's no further questions, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Yes, ma'am. Move approval of MAR 2012-11, Pleasant Green Baptist Church of Lexington, for the reasons outlined by staff and including the prohibited uses. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded. So we have a motion and second for the approval of MAR 2012-11 Pleasant Green Baptist Church, Lexington Incorporated. No further discussion. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Yes. Everything working? Looks like everybody's voting. Motion passes. We now need a motion for the ZDP, which is ZDP 2012-64. Yes, ma'am. We move approval of ZDP 2012-64, Pleasant Green Baptist Church of Lexington, with the 11 conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Phillips for approval. There's no further discussion. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you for coming and for your patience and to let Mr. Franks get on his plane. Thank you. I think our next item is ZOTA 2012-12. Yes. off-street parking requirements in a pedestrian-ordinated business district. It's on page 5, item number 4 of your agenda. Ms. Wade. Thank you. The last item here on our agenda can be found behind tab 4 in your notebooks, and it is again the off-street parking requirements in a pedestrian oriented business zone we did receive one letter of support for this text amendment from the FAD Alliance and I distributed those copies to the to the Planning Commission this is a new section to article 16 of the zoning ordinance which deals with general regulations for parking loading areas garages automobile service stations and vehicle sales lots and stacking this would clarify that off-street parking requirements when the council designates a pedestrian oriented business district would be under the purview of the council rather than the zoning ordinance and the Planning Commission so this is not creating the pedestrian oriented business district that's already been done by the council in April what this does is just provide a clarifying statement in the zoning ordinance that would identify that any code of ordinance provisions would take precedent over the zoning ordinance by way of doing this the staff believes that it's a more efficient way to address parking in some of our older commercial areas such as Jefferson Street or Woodland triangle and even the College Town area on South Limestone because currently the Board of Adjustment deals with individual variances for parking or there's a process of tracking off-site parking that deals with leases, lease agreements that can be rather cumbersome. So this proposal that the council created can greatly facilitate redevelopment and revitalization of business districts without, in the staff's opinion, fabricating a demand for surface parking lots the staff also believes that it would be likely to reduce staff administrative time spent in enforcement actions and would minimize any possible confusion as to which standards would apply in these cases so the staff and the zoning committee recommend approval of this text amendment Questions for Ms. Wade? Nope. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Yes, ma'am, please come forward. Give us your name and address. Hello, I'm Diane Wallace, 3rd District Council person. And I started working on this with planning and law some time ago. looking mostly at that time at one of the areas in my district between Avenue of Champions and Maxwell Street. I'm directionally disabled, so I always get it. Anyway, for those businesses facing limestone, Some of them were grandfathered in and do not have the parking requirements, but the ones that have not been grandfathered in, there are parking meters on Jersey Street. There are empty parking meters on limestone. And for some of these businesses, even when they get the 50 percent reduction in seating, are paying $100 per spot per month to UK for the lot on Jersey Street, which nobody even knows is there. This amounts to several thousand dollars when you look at all the new businesses. So they have been reluctant, a lot of them, to bring in a lot of new businesses, have been reluctant to open a new business there because if you're talking about $1,600, $1,800 right off the top, that's revenue we're losing, people they can't hire, tax revenue we're losing, people they can't hire, and it is causing a great deal of difficulty for the revitalization of that area. And it is almost all walk-up business. So I contacted business owners in the surrounding areas. I contacted the neighborhood associations and almost all the business owners on that. And everybody was extremely favorable for this. So for that reason, I was looking at that particular block, and we talked about different ways we could do it. And Chris and his staff, we didn't want to change it from B1 so somebody could tear it down and do some large other type of business. So coming up with this zone ordinance text amendment that would allow for the, there aren't a lot of them in the city, but for these, this particular one, and there may be others down the road that would qualify. it's an economic development issue as well as it makes no sense that they're paying in UK for the Jersey lot that nobody has any clue is there so thank you very much and I hope you'll consider this I believe it passed when it was brought to full council it passed unanimously I do believe, is that right, Crick? Thank you, Ms. Lawless, and thank you for your insight. Thank you. We appreciate you being here. Thank you all for serving. I know it's a lot of work and often not always appreciated being on council. I get there. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? Anything left by the staff that they want to add? No? You're good? Any further questions? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any other discussion between Commission members and or a motion. Jump in there, folks. Yes, sir. Ms. Wade. Yes, sir. What does it take? Does Urban County Council have to designate a pedestrian-owned business district? Is that what you have to do, petition the council for that to happen? Yes. So like on some place like on Jefferson Street or anywhere else you might think they had a lot of pedestrian business, they would just appeal to council, the council would recommend it, and then what would happen to it? They would designate a specific parking requirement for that area. So we wouldn't have to see it every time they have one of these? You wouldn't have to see a parking variance, or they'd be able to document, if they did need a development plan, document on the development plan that there's a reduction in the parking requirement. Thank you. I might add, just to fill that out a little more, the council did set a process. They have to name and propose specific addresses, and they also have to send notification from that area around that it is proposed, just like if it were for a zone change. So that makes sure that it's vetted and people get to see it before the council acts. Any other discussion? Ms. Beatty? So this could occur at the time of a final development plan or an existing development. I would anticipate it's going to happen for areas that probably don't have development plans or outside of our normal review of plans. Most of these are areas that have been zoned for decades, historic commercial areas, and so there are probably likely ones that you will not see, although there may be the rare occasion that would happen. And again, it was not meant to be just spot properties, but rather a district. And generally you're supposed to, the council is supposed to use roadways, crossing streets as the boundaries and things like that. I think there's a linear number of feet of frontage. It has to have 600 or something. So there's kind of a minimum size, too. Okay. Ms. Phillips? Tracy, is there any way to incorporate these pedestrian, whatever we're calling them, pedestrian-oriented business districts as an overlay within our zoning? we considered that and since there was nothing else being addressed in these other than parking we thought by making it an overlay district would be much overly complicating both procedurally so that's why when we reviewed it with law they were comfortable with the idea of council being able to create a district like this rather than having to do it through the full zoning process So it was done in this fashion rather than creating a new zone. You can imagine if we were creating a new zone, we would have been six months or a year in that process, and then so this was a much quicker, cleaner way to do it. Other discussion? If not, I will entertain a motion. Yes? Mr. Chair, I move that we accept ZOTA 2012-12 off-street parking requirement for the pedestrian-oriented business district. The motion has been made and seconded for the approval of ZOTA 2012-12. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lawless. I think that takes care of most of the agenda items. Mr. King, you mentioned one commission item. On the addendum, on the back page of your agenda, please note cancellation of work session. We've got an extended holiday. Anything else? Any other commission items or staff items? Yes, ma'am. I have a staff item. Yes, ma'am. Before you do that, we do technically need a motion to keep us from coming down here, right? Motion's been made and seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Ms. Wade. I apologize for this not appearing on the agenda. It is a staff item to request initiation of a text amendment for the commercial wood lots. The commission heard some information about commercial wood lots and some of the enforcement issues we've had with those in, I think, a recent work session. And Mr. Marks has brought some text to ask the commission to initiate that text amendment today. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Faye. Mr. Marks, I was wondering why you were hanging around. Good afternoon. As Tracy mentioned, this has come up actually a couple of times at Planning Commission work sessions, so hopefully it's not totally new. It relates to the regulation of commercial woodlots in Fayette County. This text amendment proposes to add commercial woodlots as a principal permitted use in both the I-1 and I-2 zones. Right now it's only a conditional use in the rural area, which was a controversial issue about 20 years ago. The lack of addressing commercial woodlots in any of the other zones has resulted in a lot of confusion and enforcement issues. So this is basically an effort to clear up that confusion. The draft we handed out a month or so ago, this is basically the same. There's just been two changes based on the input we got at the work session. One change was to limit the processing activities at these areas, which involves chainsaws and log splitters and noise. We've changed that so that that can only take place between 8 and 5 on weekdays, not on weekends. The other change was to increase the height of allowable stock of firewood to 15 feet. The limit now in the rural area is 10 feet, but rural areas, as you know, are spread out. you can get by with that by spreading out your piles. But in the urban areas, it's kind of space limited. So we've added an additional five feet to the allowable height of the wood piles, and we've checked with fire, and they're okay with that. So we would request that you all would formally initiate a request for a text amendment related to this, and we'll move on. Thank you. Any questions, Mr. Marks? I think we would need a motion on this as well. So, if there's no questions, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that this by the Planning Commission initiate a tax amendment, as Mr. Marks has pointed out, on commercial wood logs. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for the initiation of this tax amendment. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Mr. Chairman, this will not be eligible for an electronic vote. We apologize. It's already gone. Okay. Just a show of hands, then. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mr. Marks. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Chris? No? Nothing other than to know that the Commission is getting the week off, and at least two of your members will have a busy week because we have the hired orientation sessions on Wednesday and Thursday for your new members. And we look forward to them suffering through what you suffered through when you all died. Suffer? So once again, a motion for adjournment? Motion's been made for adjournment. And second it. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you.