Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Music Music Music Music Music Music the approval of our draft minutes from our last meeting. And I would just say to you all that if you're looking on page four, there's a nice subdivision of all the things we'll be talking about potentially when we come to the B-1 ZOTA, which is later in our meeting. But for now, I'd ask for a motion to approve these minutes as they've been submitted or any additions or corrections. We have a motion by the Vice Mayor and a second by Council Member Kaye to approve them as submitted. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, sign. Thank you. It takes us to item number two, which is on page 10, which is a returning favorite here at the planning committee, the so-called adult daycare centers, which the timeline is there on page 7. It brings us up through really, I guess, our last meeting here, although we had a conversation about it at work session that returned the item to this body. I know that this is kind of tandem back and forth, I guess, between Councilmembers Kay and Ford and Councilmember Henson. Where is she? Well, hello, Peggy. I looked for you and you were not there. Pardon me. So you had tendered in the meantime to the council some potential substitute verbiage. Would you like to take that up first in our conversation? I can, if you would like. I had said all along that the adult day centers, for anyone that's worked in the field, is separate from a drop-in center for someone that, you know, perhaps homeless. So, and I wanted to separate those two. And so what I proposed and had sent out to you was creating a new definition for a day drop-in center. It would be separate from adult day center, and it would have some conditional uses in my proposal, but the adult daycare center would not have a conditional use, and I proposed changing the required parking spaces to 10 rather than 4. The new proposed definition, day drop-in shelter, and this would be where a person could go in and get out of the weather or possibly eat or shower or whatever. and there are some really good facilities in our community plus in surrounding communities that I've visited, there would be a conditional use of 500 feet. And I felt like because individuals that typically go to the drop-in centers are transient in nature. You don't know anything about them. much different from an adult day center where you've got documents, there's a provider there, they're in a protective environment, so the day drop-in shelter would be much different. But I proposed a conditional use of within 500 feet of a school daycare, child daycare, adult daycare, or residential zone. And then again, the parking, I would recommend one parking space for every ten persons. Now, I would like, I guess for our planning division, they have a copy of this, and I would like for them to comment on how, if we chose to do this, how we would move forward. if it goes back to planning commission or... O.Y. of the Great Triumvirate. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Sally, always a pleasure, sir. Oh, he's going to read Director King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Council, good afternoon. We have reviewed this draft, and we have compared it with some information we received since the packets went out for this item. And I do have some information to distribute to the committee at this time, if you'd like. Please, sir. It looks suspiciously lengthy. Surprising. Thank you. and planning have consulted the American Planning Association for different definitions. What we've received more recently are kind of information from them about the latest trends in the regulation of these uses. And the use that Council Member Henson has described is somewhat akin to what American Planning Association has described to us as a social service facility where the focus of the use is on the provision of services and support to indigent and homeless persons. And APA also recommends that they should perhaps be regulated differently than community centers or adult daycare centers, and I think that gets at her issue as well. From what we've received from APA, they are generally regulated differently in most zoning ordinances that they have reviewed. For instance, social service facilities are generally a conditional use in commercial zones, but not allowed at all in a residential zone. Community centers are often conditional uses in residential zones and permitted in commercial zones, and that's exactly how they are regulated here as well, our definition of community center and how they're applied throughout the zones. And then the third class of use being an adult daycare center, from their review are mostly permitted uses in residential and commercial zones. So they do find that other cities regulate these three different uses. We did review some other definitions, and like the others we found, there are other cities that have divined this term similarly to that that's on the draft that's before you. I don't think planning has any concern or issue with the parking change that's been discussed at the committee prior. We understand that the Council's direction is to have more, pardon me, to require less parking for these uses than the original draft did. The one question, though, that planning still did have after reviewing this draft is if the use is more than 500 feet from a school, a daycare center, an adult day center, or a residential zone, would they be permitted or not? That was the one uncertainty we had looking at this draft. But two of the three pages that we've handed out to you, I think the first page summarizes what I've just mentioned to you about the recent research we've had. The second and third page, the third page being the folded page, are just comparatives of how we currently regulate somewhat similar uses, like family child care or child care centers, medical clinics. Community centers, of course, are in that listing. So that's a little bit more reference information. But the top page, the yellow sheet, is really what we wanted to share with you today in anticipation of this. That's kind of an encyclopedia of all of our zoning designations, isn't it? Just for seven uses, though, thankfully. Okay. So were there any other, I mean, other than the subject conversation, are there any other delineations in here that we find interest in for the future potentially on your yellow sheet? Well, the one that is probably regulated in a different verbiage in our ordinance would be the first, the social services facilities. We've not done extensive research about where those fall into the current ordinance, but I have a feeling if we looked at past occupancy permits and rulings of the Board of Adjustment, there would be a myriad of different uses that are already in our ordinance or those that are located in over the history. But then back on point to the red and yellow version of this, the only question you had based on the council member's input was if it's more than 500 feet, then what? Exactly. Okay. Before I go on to the council members, I'd like to go back maybe to Council Member Henson. If you'd like to, do you want to wrap any comments up before we go to other council members, or shall I just take them? Well, the only thing that I would say is if a proposed site was 500 feet or closer, then it would require conditional use. Other than that, it would not in the zones that it's allowed in. Thank you. You're saying that's the way it is? Well, currently there is no conditional use, right? That's right. So from what you're saying then, in the four zones that the council initiated, which were P1, B1, P2, and I believe B2A would be permitted when it's more than 500 from those? If it's more than 500, it would be permitted. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. Next up is Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. I'm still puzzled, Council Member Henson or Bill or whomever. Why the move from 4 to 10 on the parking space? Typically, anyone that adult day centers, for instance, the participants, they do not drive. They're not able to drive. They don't have a driver's license. They don't own a vehicle. And these would be adults with significant disabilities that, for one reason or another, are not able to drive. I did put in there and mention that there would be one space per caregiver on a maximum shift. So the caregivers that work at the facility would be required to have a parking space. and perhaps one space for every ten participants would be for a caregiver or a guardian, someone to come pick them up or visit or something like that. Well, if it was the picking up part, you think it might have a little clog. Well, the majority of them, of the day centers, the participants are transported in on buses. Like wheels, for instance? Right, wheels or FTSB or... Well, it was just a 150% increase, and I thought either that was wrong or the floor was wrong for as many years as we've been utilizing it. One of the two. Right. And I think in both cases, for both definitions, even the homeless population, the majority of them do not drive. They do not own a vehicle. So there would be no need for parking spaces. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next up, Council Member Ford. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. I wanted to share with the committee that, again, this is an issue that I initiated, and I'm here this afternoon in the spirit of compromise. I do regret and acknowledge the unintended consequences that may have arisen from the term adult daycare. I want to ask Bill to come up to talk a little bit, and I thank Council Member Henson for championing that cause, and for allowing us to be here in discussion today. The definition of a social service facility, that is more in line with what my initial intent was, to be able to provide a definition. The issue that allowed this to come to the forefront in December of 2011 was just this, but the occupying facility identified itself on the occupancy permit, I believe it was, as a community center. And I still contend that it doesn't fit. So that's what we've been here trying to identify appropriate definitions. So, Bill, per your coupling with Council Member Henson's revision that she's brought forth and your research of the American Planning Association's information. Are you guiding us to consider the definition of the social service facility as being more appropriate? Or talk a little bit about that definition per se and how it plays into all of this. Yeah, I don't think that planning with this text amendment is saying that we need to go down the route of the social service facility definition you're seeing here. I think either the drop-in shelter definition or maybe the day shelter definition that's kind of in the middle of the page, those seem to be more in line with Council Member Henson's suggestion and also probably more in line with the original use that kind of prompted this text amendment a year and a half ago. It's a narrower use than the social service facilities that we've received. Some of the focus is the same. But the day shelter seems to be more like the use that was originally permitted as a community center. Okay. I guess, Mr. Chair, I've conceded that the adult daycare center definition is not what I intended. And I think we've resolved that I, and hope not to offend anybody, but I kind of term those clinical services that are provided. But I guess now our focus, my focus and our focus ought to be on what is the appropriate definition of the social service component that's going to be provided. whether or not we accept Council Member Henson's drop-in definition or whether or not we do the additional day shelter definitions that Bill has brought us forward. And I'll leave that to the committee. One thing that is of concern to me is the conditional use and how we would actually apply that in practice if it's only a 500-foot buffer. I really want to ask that question about, and I believe that's some ambiguity. You guys want to clear that up, too. Yeah, I think that would be a determination made at the counter when someone would come and ask maybe for a zoning compliance permit or an occupancy permit. that determination would have to be made at that point as to whether that permit could be issued in short order or instead whether it would have to go to the Board of Adjustment for approval of a conditional use permit. So we would have to rely on the resources we have, you know, mapping, GIS, lists, and so forth, to make sure that the location that they're asking for is farther away than that 500-foot distance. Thanks, Bill. Mr. Chair, I'll conclude with hopefully asking us to adopt the appropriate drop-in or homeless day shelter definition. And I would also urge us to keep it, to expand beyond the 500-foot border. I contend that conditional use throughout the applicable zones would allow for better insurance of the proper notification to the neighborhood proper and extended. All right. I believe we can take it either way. We can decide to act on this legislatively or ask the staff to comb it more based on the information that's been received here so far today. But for now, Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was one of the points I was going to make, is I would like to see this again. With all of this incorporated into the strikethrough underlying version, I think it's very difficult to It's good that we've come back with revisions, but I think ultimately we're going to need to see the document as we want to consider it. And then I wanted to just put a fine point on what Council Member Ford said about the neighborhoods. Yes, ma'am. And I'm not sure what that would look like, whether planning can come up with something a little different. I presume the 500-foot issue is the way it's done with every other conditional use, and the notification is the circles drawn around it. And then that's how you get your notification. Is that? Radius. Yes, the radius for the notification area. Tracy's shaking her head just too. So I did have a little bit of concern about that. So just those two points. Thank you. Very good. Next, Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. Again, just to follow up on comments that have already been made, I think what I heard is that there's agreement that the parking spaces Spaces ought to be increased because that's not an issue for people driving a lot of cars. They're not going to have an impact on the neighborhood in that way. What I'm not yet clear about is whether there's agreement that the conditional use as proposed should stay as it is, with no boundary. Just leave it as a conditional use in all those zones. And then I would also say my last remaining comment on concern is that the definition, whatever it is, be one that is in fact more appropriate than anything else for the kind of facility that we're talking about because that's what the initial interest was. But if we can kind of resolve all that and have staff come back with a draft, that would be great. Thank you. Agreed. Very good. Member Henson. Yeah, I just had the question, if we create a new definition, how do we go? Do we just need to make a motion to do that, or does it need to go to the Planning Commission? We both jumped at that one. Unfortunately, we've not had – Tracy Jones has been out the last few days, so we did not have a chance to vet this with her. I know at some point she will say this is significantly different enough potentially from what was heard by the Planning Commission that it might have to be remanded. Since it looks like we're at least going to have a little time to do some redrafting, we would also check with Tracy and see where that line might be, whether the Council could just go ahead and make revisions and go ahead and enact the ordinance, or whether you would have to remand it back to the Commission. Thank you, Chris. And I guess I would agree with my other colleagues about the 500-foot distance and how that may pose problems in determining, especially like can you draw the 500 feet. But you also need to know, according to what I've written, where the daycares are, the adult day centers are, the residential, which is fairly easy. So if we just go a conditional use across the board, maybe that would work better. So I'm assuming now that law will keep this in committee and law will draft something and we'll have it at our next committee meeting? Our next meeting will be in August, and we would probably ask staff to kind of vet through our conversation here and then come back with some recommendations to be included in an iteration for law looking at it. Okay, thank you. That's where I think we're going to go. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Chris, would it be possible to get a map that shows 500 feet from any of these areas to see where they really could go if we adopt that definition? because we did this on the food trucks, and we found out there was probably very little space in the whole city that could really go. I'm just concerned, can they go anywhere? Well, let me put it this way. Doing a map that shows the 500-foot buffer around residential zones is easy. We could do that. But if we had to drill down and research every school, every daycare center and everything, that's not something we could do. What about just schools and residential for now? I'm sure we have the schools pretty well mapped. We'd be public schools or private schools. I just want to see it visually because I just don't think there's any room left for any of them. 500 feet is a pretty good circle. I may have misunderstood, but I thought the last decision was really more conditional use everywhere. Well, then that defeats the purpose. You take out the 500. Still excluded because, of course, you can ask for a variance usually from those distances unless to the Board of Adjustment as well. Okay. Mayor, you're trying to reach an adult daycare consensus, as it were. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Chris, have you all seen the list of schools that the local emergency planning committee keeps? They have every one. And this may not even answer your concern, but I know at one meeting it was stated by someone that we don't have a list of schools. There is definitely a list because they have to look at hazardous spills and hazardous equipment at different businesses. So Steve Jackson and some of those folks have that list, and it's quite extensive. I mean, Council Member Stemmett might actually be accurate on that. Once you look at the school list, it's huge, not just public schools but all schools. But they have a pretty comprehensive list is all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Now back to Council Member Ford. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I really think that we're very close to solving this. I'd like to bring a series of motions. The first motion would be to adopt and accept a revision that increases the parking from 1 to 4. So moved. I mean from 4 to 10, excuse me. 4 to 10. We have a motion. You motioned. Who was second? Council Member Mazzotti. All right. We have a motion and a second. We're in discussion on that. Anyone? All those in favor? Opposed? Like side? Your first in a series is complete, sir. My second motion would be to accept the definition of an adult daycare center as provided per Council Member Henson's handout. So moved. Motion by Council Member Ford, second by Council Member Lawless. This says adult daycare center, any adult daycare facility which provides part-time care day or night, but less than 24 hours, at least for adults who must be in a protective environment, time care day or night, but less than 24 hours, at least for adults. Is that repetitive? That's why we came to the point. There's something missing or the cut and paste was done. And something didn't get pasted. We don't know. We didn't do it, but it doesn't follow the language, that particular language. Now, if the intent is to insert the who must be in a protective environment into the language that the Council initiated originally, we would be glad to take that and fix it. All right, so really we're altering the motion then to add the term that's been highlighted in yellow. It strikes me from the conversation. Proposer in second. All right with that? That was the two of you? Yes, sir. Council Member Lawless? All right. So now we've changed our motion up to ask the staff to add the term who must be in a protective environment at its proper place in our current adult daycare definition. So we're in discussion on that. Anyone? All right. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, like, sign. Motion passes. House member Ford. So we've addressed the adult daycare, which wasn't the true intent of the ordinance, but we've addressed it. We've addressed the parking. I'd like to bring forth a motion that we adopt a definition per what Bill has offered us this afternoon. I'm looking at the three examples. Yes, sir. Bill, if you could help me here. Not to grab straws, but looks like I was going to suggest the options look to be the example from Boulder or San Diego or St. Cloud, Minnesota. There have to be three options. I would make a motion that we adopt the definition of a homeless day center. As proposed in the June 18th staff exhibit. That's correct, and I think that the St. Cloud, Minnesota example would suffice. So the third one down on the page. That's correct, and I think the definition there ought to be a term, the homeless day center, Mr. Chair. So I tender that motion respectfully. So the motion to adopt this homeless day center is defined by the example from St. Cloud, Minnesota. So to any facility whose primary purpose is to provide service to those experiencing homelessness, such as a day center, free meals or snacks, free clothing, personal hygiene facilities, information referral, counseling, mail and or telephone service, overnight shelter is prohibited. So that's been tendered as a motion. We're awaiting a potential second. A second. Now we have a motion and a second. We are truly in discussion because this would be a new addition, a new definition for us. All right. First up, Council Member Kaye. Thank you. I like the direction it's going in. I'm not sure this is, I guess what I'm uncomfortable with is limiting it to a definition of homelessness. There are a lot of people who are not classically or traditionally homeless who nonetheless take advantage of these services and need them. So I would be interested in, I guess, first of all, changing the heading to day shelter and leaving homelessness out. And I guess using the bolder definition, which is not have homeless in it. I think that provides the, I think it's consistent with the intent of the original proposal, and it provides more protection for the neighborhood. I hear you're making good commentary, but I don't hear an amendment just yet. Well, so I'll move to amend. Very good. Actually, it would be easier, I think. If we. I can withdraw. Mr. Chair, I will withdraw my motion to accept the definition of the homeless day center per the St. Cloud, Minnesota, APA definition. Motion to remove. Who was our second? It was Peggy, wasn't it? You agree with that, Council Member? Yes. All right. So we withdraw that motion. I want to come back to Council Member Kay again then, please. So then my motion would be to adopt the first definition, the day shelter, as the definition that we insert. So move. I have a motion and a second by Council Member Henson. So this is day shelter, a facility providing basic services generally during daylight hours, which may include food, personal hygiene support, information and referrals, employment, mail and telephone services, but excluding overnight sleeping accommodations to people with limited financial resources, including people who are homeless, period. And now we're in discussion of that, and I see Council Member Ford. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I thank Council Member K for bringing that forward. The last few words of that definition sum it up. It says including people who are homeless. And so Councilman Bacay is correct. We do have people that visit some of these centers who are not technically homeless, but they take benefit of these services. Thanks for bringing that forward, Steve. Good comment. Others on this motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign? That passes. Are we good or do you have more? Come again. The last thing I think that will really help us bring finality to this is the issue of the conditional use. Very good. And I believe that for consistency of notification and for the opportunity for folks to, it ought to be a conditional use throughout the zone. Again, a conditional use is an additional requirement. It does not automatically guarantee a denial per the Board of Adjustment. It just requires a little more due diligence on the part of the applicant, and it ensures the opportunity for input from those neighbors that may be impacted. So I would make a motion that this definition of the day shelf to be a conditional use throughout the applicable zones that pertain to the original ZODA. Second. Motion and a second on that. So that kind of includes the four areas that we have tried to cover with the original verbiage. That's correct. Very good. Other discussion? The four were? Go ahead, if you would. P1. B1, B2, B2A, and P2, P2 being the Office Industry and Research firm at Coldstream. All right. All comfortable? Comments or questions? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Can you clarify then what this would mean in a residential area? The original Texas Amendment from the Council did not address these uses in residential zones, so there would be no change. This use would not be eligible, in essence, in residential zones. So it would be prohibited. Right. I see. Okay. And you could, I mean, you're still hoping, Mr. Chair, to get all of this consolidated into one change that we can look at. We're going to give them two months to work on it. Yes, ma'am. Yes, thank you. All right. Anything else on the current motion on the floor? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed like signed. Motion passes. Are we good, Council Member? Council Member? All right. Staff, do you need anything else from us on this issue at this time? Just to clarify, so at this point, the 500-foot distance thing is off the table since it's conditional use in all of these. I believe that's correct. Thank you. So we won't have to make a map. Thank you. GIS loves that, too. All right. So we have given you the tools to perform with between now and our August meeting on this issue. Very good. Anyone else here? Very good. Thank you. Excellent discussion. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Customer Beard. I thought we had agreed that we were going to wait until all of this was incorporated into one document, as opposed to voting now. We're not. We're not voting now. We're just not having staff. We're making motions. Well, I mean, on adoption, we're not. I think we had motions as to form and substance, but not to adoption today. Okay. The only thing that's finished here today is the discussion about how we want to recraft this. We're giving staff a couple months to redraft it and bring it back to us, having run it through their auspices as well as the law departments, and bringing it back and putting it on hopefully our August agenda. Okay, that's fine. Very good. Anyone else? All right, next up is our also returning B1 Zota, which takes up a fair amount of the packet. And this time I asked staff, and they have, what's in here is the actual, you know, provisions and definitions themselves. and you can start and go through them page by page, and I'm open to the council's pleasure here. If we have specific questions, we can go into them in terms of things that are added through this or subtracted through this, but we've had a lot of committee discussion about some of the outcomes, and we asked last time for folks to submit questions to staff if they had specific nuances or background things. I know that that has happened, and I think comments and conversations have gone on. So I'm not going to ask for a motion specifically right now. I'm just going to see what is your all's pleasure in terms of looking at this from a legislative standpoint. Do you all want to do this page by page? Do you want to look at it briefly? Very good. All right. Then we're going to start on what is the package, page 11. what is identified here as Article I, Section 1-11 definitions. Under the ZODA, there are several definitions added here. Animal grooming facility, cocktail lounge, mail service facility, nightclub, primary entrance, tattoo parlor. And then there are some other subsequent changes on that page under some of the zoning in terms of some changes there under industrial and residential. Unless there are questions on these on a page-by-page basis, I'm going to keep moving. But I think those are definitional and pretty easy to look at. When you go to page 12 of our packet, we've now moved to Article 8. And it should come down through 8-15B under number 11. It adds hand-assisted living. Further on down under 19, it adds hand-barbershops, behind beauty shops. and further down, and or barbers are the same. And then the number 20 eliminates assisted living facilities and starts with rehabilitation homes. And at the bottom of that page, an 815C under accessory uses adds a ninth one, drive-through facilities for the sale of goods or products or the provision of services otherwise permitted herein when approved by the Planning Commission on a development plan. Council Member Lawless? Thank you. I have posed this question and gone back and forth on number 20. Yes, ma'am. The strikethrough of assisted living facility in addition of rehabilitation homes, but only when more than 500 feet from a residential zone as a primary use. And I have concerns about that. I certainly don't have concerns about assisted living facilities, but rehabilitation homes can have a lot larger definition of what can be there. And for it to be a primary use, I feel like it needs to be a conditional use in a P1 and a B1 zone. In our conversations back and forth, you said it would continue to be a conditional use as it is now. but because it was changed to rehabilitation homes and the assisted living facility was marked through because they're in the requirement of the more than 500 feet from a residential zone. And assisted living was moved up to number 11. Yes, ma'am. Also listed as a conditional use. If it's less than 500 feet. So it's a conditional use if it's less than 500 feet from a residential zone. Correct. And both P1 and B1. That's correct. And that's something I think both those need to be conditional uses. Sure. I mean, that's a position that can be taken, but that's not the way the law is now. And when we reviewed it as a staff, we did not make a change over the way this is now, other than that we made the determination that an assisted living facility is really much more like a hospital or a nursing home or a rest home. And so we put it in that group. Okay. Certainly, council could make this or choose to make it all conditional, but that is much more restrictive than it is today. Right now it's based upon the distance from residential. Okay. If it's less than 500 feet, yes, it is a conditional use. If it's more than 500 feet, then it's principle permitted. Okay. Are you saying that rehabilitation homes, when located more than 500 feet from a residential, are currently permitted? Currently, principal permitted uses in P1 and B1, yes. Okay. And all of these are with the infill and redevelopment? That regulation has nothing to do with whether or not it's inside the regulatory and filling the development area whatsoever. Okay, so this is just changing it countywide. Countywide, it is changing assisted living facilities, which right now are principal if they're more than 500 feet from residential. We decided that was too restrictive. You don't need to restrict an assisted living facility, in the staff's opinion, to that degree. So we propose that in P1 and B1, assisted living facility can be a by right use, whether you're 500 feet from residential or not. The rehabilitation home, since it does have that component of potentially involving folks that are there because of court orders or past criminal activity or behavior, we still feel comfortable with it the way it is now, that it's principal in these business zones. If you're more than 500 foot from residential, but if you're closer than 500 feet, you do have to go to the Board of Adjustment before you can be granted. I have concerns about that, and I think that this may be a time for us to look at that and change it to a conditional use in any B1 or P1 zone, 500 feet, because what it doesn't address is next to a school or a daycare center or any of those issues. So I'd like to make a motion that we investigate looking at number 20, or the rehabilitation as a primary use in P1 or B1 zones, regardless of how far they are from a residential to being a conditional use in those zones. All right. We have a motion about, as I heard it, investigating number 20 and the term rehabilitation homes within it. And at this point, we would wait for a second or move on. Second. Brave soul. We have a second from Council Member Ford. All right. If we're going to be in discussion on this, I'm going to ask the maker the motion to restate it just one more time. although this says investigate looking at rehabilitation as primary use in P1 and B1 zone, regardless of how far they are from residential to be a conditional use in those zones. I think it's pretty concise. Do you agree? All right. Discussion on this motion, then? Yes. So the both of you. I'll go to Councilman Rosati first, then. Thank you, Chair. Bill or Chris, could you provide me a specific definition of what a rehabilitation home is? The yellow sheet we handed out to you earlier on the second page, right in the middle of the page, is the current definition of a rehabilitation home. That's in the zoning ordinance currently. Thank you. I missed it. So a rehabilitation home, a building or a group of buildings providing a supervised residence for persons recovering from the effects of drug or alcohol abuse, psychiatric disorders, or as a condition of their parole or probation. Such homes may provide counseling in educational, vocational, or other areas by a paid or volunteer staff and generally have a 24-hour-a-day supervision. The definition does not apply to uses regulated by KRS 100.982. So, Mr. Chair, again, would you reiterate that motion because I'm a little unclear. Well, I'm just going to use the words that have been inserted by staff on our screens here. Motion on the floor. and we're using the maker's verbiage here, investigate looking at rehabilitation as primary use in P1 and B1 zones, regardless of how far they are from residential to be a conditional use in those zones. Thank you. You're most welcome. Next is Vice Mayor Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Chris or Bill, if I understand them, this definition is currently in our zoning ordinance, so it exists. Would this be like the Canaan House or Chrysalis House, some of those facilities? Is that fall under rehabilitation home? The distinction that we have to look at when we make the determination is whether it's more of a community residence, that definition or whether it's a rehabilitation home. So it just kind of depends. Okay, so the difference being the number or of persons receiving? No, it's also the nature of the care as well, supervision, level of supervision. Okay, and then if I could ask Council Member Lawless, Exactly what do you want to happen based on your motion? Well, a rehabilitation home could include a home that has sex offenders. They could house very violent offenders that are released from prison. and they could be 500 feet away from a residence, but they could be right next door to a school or to a daycare center. And under this definition, I guess maybe B2 and B2A, I think they should be conditional uses in all of these so that, just like we spoke about the daycare centers, so that the public, it would be upon the person opening it and the public would have an opportunity to vet these. would that be appropriate? In other words, would you want 12 people living, you know, generally by paid or volunteer staff and generally have 24-hour-a-day supervision next to a daycare center or a school. So is your motion to not allow them? I think they should... To make them a conditional use across the board? To make them a conditional use across the board. Okay. And I should have said B2 and B2A. So your motion is to make them conditional use in P1, B1, B2. And B2A. B2A. Yes. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry, so that would be an amendment to my original motion of P1 and B1 to also amend it to include B2 and B2A. And some of them may be very appropriate and some of them may not, and that's why we need the conditional use. Okay. So do you want to drop this investigate looking at verbiage and just say? Okay, I'll make a motion that rehabilitation homes will be a conditional use in P1, B1, B2, and B2A zones. I'll accept that as a substitute for the original, and we need a second. Second for purposes of continued discussion. You had seconded before. I appreciate that. All right. Can you? That's what I'm after. Very good. Next, Council Member Gordon. I'm sorry. Vice Mayor, are you complete? Yes, I'm finished. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Next, Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. Bill or Chris, I can't find in the document leafing through a definition of rehabilitation home. Does that include all of these? Where is it? The rehabilitation home definition we have for you on the back of the yellow sheet that we had on the last issue, and that definition is not... I already put that aside. I'm sorry. I understand. We just happened to hit two birds with one stone on this one. That is the definition currently in the ordinance, and it is not proposed to change under this text amendment. Thank you. That's all I needed. Thank you, Chair. And I think it's P1, B1, B2, and B2A. There's four different zones, if you'll so change on our screen. Next up is Council Member Henson. Council Member. Thank you, Chair. I would think the biggest fear would be with a sex offender in a rehabilitation home, home, but if I'm not mistaken, that would be taken. They cannot live just anywhere they want, so I think that would not be a concern. So I can ask, if I could ask Council Member Lawless that question, what, I mean... Well, you all sit next to each other. Go right ahead. Thank you. You can whisper. Go right ahead. There was actually an editorial, I think, in today's paper about that. And the law was first passed on sex offenders in 1994, and I was with the Rape Crisis Center at that time and worked on the legislation. And then it was overturned and rewritten and passed in 1998 and 2000. And the last rendition was in 2008. And I believe in 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that anybody, they kind of separated out some of it, and anybody who had committed such offense prior to the 2008 statute would not have these restrictions. So it's, but there are also other, there are varying levels of supervision and how something is going to be maintained. And is it going to be volunteer staff that's untrained? Are they going to be, regardless if they're mentally ill, whatever. I mean, not all things are run well. So I think it's important that these be a conditional use across the board. And Council Member Massadi also brought up the other zones, and I think it's going to make an amendment, which I would applaud. But is it a home where people who are psychiatric patients who aren't required to take their medication and have very loose supervision and can come and go all the time, again, some of them are outstanding and some of them are very well supervised, but not all are the same as we know. Thank you. Does that help? Thank you. You good? Thank you, ma'am. Next up is Council Member Beard. Well, I sit here and listen to this, and the 500-foot thing is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. If somebody is mentally ill and they want to harm someone, do you think a line drawn on a piece of paper is going to stop them from going wherever it is? Or if they're a sex offender, the same thing. And then who makes a judgment? Who makes a judgment on a conditional use? How do you vet what level of problem they would be? It's just like we're going through an exercise for absolutely no real honest-to-God reason. And anybody who wants to wrestle about that, I'd be glad to talk to you. Thank you, sir. Council Member Wallace, we had you sign up earlier. Do you have a comment at this time? I'll defer to Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you, Chair. I guess for clarification in reference to your amendment, I'm assuming in your rehabilitation homes conditional uses would not only extend to P1, P2, B1, B2, A zones, but it would also be in the ABAU, EAR2, and EAR3 as well, because you said across the board, correct? So I would offer that as an amendment. Second. All right, we have a motion. I'm sorry. Go ahead, sir. The rehabilitation homes already conditional in those zones. I understand that, but I'm not exactly sure about your motion then. I thought that's why I'm confused. They're already conditional and the way I'm reading this. A-R, A-B, A-U, P-1, B-1, B-2, E-A-R-2, and E-A-R-3. Correct, and I see B-1 is duplication, and I see B-2-A, but not B-2-A. I mean B2 but not B2A, so I wasn't sure when she meant across the board. Well, I think they should be a conditional use in each one. This says that it's a principal use in P1 and B1. Well, from looking at that and referencing our list, we would need to pair it to just be P2 and B2A because those are the only two that are not listed currently under rehabilitation home as conditional uses. And P1, I think. Oh, she's got P1. Right here, if you look at the first page we were looking at, it has it number 20 as a principal use. when more than 500 feet from a residential zone. I don't know why it's not on the chart as a principal use, but what I'm hearing is it's already a principal use. That's correct. Some years ago, the Council tackled the issue of rehabilitation homes, which is not what this text amendment was about. And the Council determined they had previously been conditional uses in R3 and R4 zones. The council took them out, and the council made these changes. So this is where we are today, and our intent was not to look at rehabilitation homes. It was to look at the assisted living facility, which we thought was overregulated. I agree that that's overregulated. And I understand where you're going, but it's sort of a separate issue from the whole B-1 text amendment as to that. But I think the council can do what it will. Well, it's an opportunity to change something that may not be right. Correct. And again, whether or not, since it was not considered by the Planning Commission, this is something that would have to be sent back, something we'll have to talk to law about. Okay. Whether you can make that change without having to send it back to the Planning Commission. I just want to point that out. But yes, you do have the right to make that change. I mean, like I say, the whole purpose of this soda is to make things better. Eventually. Eventually, and this is something I think would make it better. So because it's listed as, I think it should be conditional use in every zone. Well, I think in order to accomplish that, this motion just needs to be rehabilitation homes as conditional uses, adding P2 and B2A because the rest are already conditional uses for rehabilitation homes. No, they're not. They're listed right here as principal uses. All I can say is if you look at Oh, Bill. Welcome, Mr. Chair. I'll apologize for the typo. Oh, now there's a typo. Thank you. All right. So is our motion in order in your estimation? All right. Councilman Wallace, you good? And Councilman McKay. Thank you, Chair. I thought in our last meeting I asked if we could amend without going back. And my understanding was so long as we stayed with this set of zones that we could amend and not go back to the Planning Commission. But is it the case that if we try to amend as this does in other zones, that then changes things and we would have to go back to the Planning Commission? Any per scissors rock, please? Well, maybe I misunderstood last month, but that was my understanding. I asked that question specifically to figure out what we were really doing. And again, there are, because of the way zones do allow things and cross over, there were some other zones other than B1s affected. I don't know that law would say you could make any change in any of those zones if you want to without going back to the Planning Commission, but if it were related to what had been discussed, what had been advertised, what had been heard by the Planning Commission, they would probably say the council is okay to go ahead and change it without sending it back to the planning commission. But, you know, again, just in caution, when you decide what you would like to have in front of you, we would check with law to see what their opinion is on that specific change that you would be proposing to make from what has been forwarded to you by the planning commission. Okay, so just to follow up. is it more likely that so long as we keep the changes that we're making within the specific zones, even though they may have implications elsewhere, that that's likely not to need to go back to the commission, or is there no way to know? It's hard to say. I would say if you are making a change in a zone that there was no advertisement that you were making that change in that zone, that would be an automatic red flag. I think you would have to go back. Let's say all of a sudden you decided to introduce some entirely new use in one of these zones or to eliminate 15 uses completely from that zone when nobody received any notice that that might happen. that might be an orange flag anyway to the law department. Again, I'm not comfortable speaking for the law department on that. We would confer with them on it. So I would suggest that the council see if you can find where you're comfortable, and then we can check with law before you proceed on. That would be my suggestion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Let's see. Council Member Clark, we welcome you to the discussion. Thank you very much. I apologize for extending this conversation, but it seems to me that the motion speaks loudly to a condition here that may exist. I don't see any reason why rehabilitation homes can't be conditional, period. I can't see any reason to have it as a principle if there could be a problem. So I certainly would support the motion. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Well done, sir. All right. Any others on our motion to take rehabilitation homes as conditional uses in P1, P2, B1, and B2A zones? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed like sign? Thank you. Which brings us back to page 12. Anything else on this page other than the discussion we just had from anyone? Thank you. On to page 13. We're now at 8-15D, conditional uses. And number 2, it's adding except as accessory uses herein. Again, in number five, strikes assisted living facilities. And then in number seven, adds mail services, except as permitted in a professional office project. Next down in 815E, adds number seven, tattoo parlors. All right. Are there comments, questions, or motions on anything on this page? Yes, Council Member. I don't understand where we're going with some of these things. It just absolutely... Well, I think in the broad nature of this here Zota, the staff was trying to add some definitions that had not been in there before. So as you look back to page 11, Tattoo Parlor. A commercial establishment whose principal business activity is the practice of placing designs, letters, figures, symbols, or other marks upon or under the skin of any person using ink or other substances that result in the permanent coloration of the skin using needle or other instrument designed to contact or puncture the skin. It's given me great pleasure to read that in public. So I think they're trying to define things that had not previously been defined. I don't know how that would overlap with a driving range. No, sir. But staff may want to give you a subsequent conversation point about it. I think they're just trying to. I believe that the underlying movement here was to bring the B1 into current alignment with what business practice is now. And I may be completely incorrect in that, but please do. Not at all. A tattoo parlor was a use that had been permitted by interpretation by the Division of Building Inspection. So the reason for inserting it into this ZODA was placing it in specific language into the different zones and creating a definition. Defined and placed. Yes. Clear as mud? No, it's clear. It's just I don't agree with it. Okay. Thank you, sir. Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you. So my understanding is that a tattoo power is considered a prohibited use in P1. That's what you're asking for, and I disagree. Thank you. Our disagreement grows. Council Member Lawless. Is there a reason they're prohibited? That's right. Hmm. Hmm. Today, under the previous page, number 19, a beauty shop not exceeding 2,000 square feet, that is how that use would be regulated today, consistently with past practice. And so this was a use, I believe, that was discussed by the Planning Commission at one of their several meetings that they had on this. All right. I guess the question that comes back to the Council, do you, I mean, from looking over at this, or to this committee, excuse me, from looking over at this page 13, The only thing that has brought continued conversation is the addition of number 7 under 8-15E prohibited uses, which is a tattoo parlor. If there is enough sentiment, a motion and a second will be proper here. If not, we would move forward. That's not a charge. Well, I guess in granting or potentially granting this ZODA, the effect would be for tattoo parlors to be prohibited uses in the P1 zone is what I see here. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And did we have an explanation of why this is recommended to be added in? And do I recall this was one of the reasons that a Planning Commission member voted no had something to do with tattoo parlors? I believe one thought it was too lenient in B1. Too lenient. Too lenient. If I recall her comments, she was not particularly fond of tattoo parlors. So she didn't have a problem with this part of it. Okay, I see. Right now they are allowed, again, as Bill said, the interpretation has been that a tattoo parlor was like a beauty shop, sort of. And so they are currently allowed by right in P1. And, you know, no comment on whether that's good or bad. When we looked at the list of the uses and the usual, what you used to encounter with a tattoo parlor, It was the staff's recommendation that it not be allowed as a principal use in P1, but instead be a prohibited use. I see. So along with banks, offices, schools, libraries, funeral parlors, that list, medical offices, ticket agencies, there would be tattoo parlors. That is what I see what you're saying. Okay. Even though it's not written out specifically, That was the interpretation that was made. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are welcome. All right. Unless there's any other comment or motions on this page, we will move forward. So does it stay? As of right now, it stays. You may. Yes, ma'am. The floor is open. Council Member Mazzotti. I don't know if I'll get a second, but I'd like to remove it as a conditional use and put it back as a principal use. I can't see a difference between a medical and dental clinic and a tattoo parlor. So your motion is to strike number seven, tattoo parlors, from the prohibited uses and, in essence, place it back in the permitted uses. Principles, excuse me. Principles, yes. All right, we have a motion. Second. We have a second from Council Member Beer. We're in discussion. Any discussion on that? Council Member Kay. Yeah. I guess I'm not. I don't understand. The tattoo parlors, are they a permitted use anywhere, in any zone? Where are they permitted? Are they? In zones where a beauty salon would be permitted. So commercial zones. So commercial zones. Commercial zones. Along with beauty parlors. Seems to me that's an appropriate place for them, not the P1, and that's why I presume this was brought forward as a prohibited use. It seems to me inappropriate, so I would vote against the motion. Thank you, Chair. Very good. Other comments on this potential change from the council? All right. Since there's some division, I'm going to ask that we vote using our monitor rather than by, I'm sorry, council member, excuse me. I was just going to agree with council member Kay. Very good. Thank you. So all those in favor of this motion to remove tattoo parlors from the prohibited uses on Section 815E, please signify by saying aye and oppose like sign. And we're keeping it in, taking it out, making it a principal use. Yes. Okay. Looks like that one falls short six to four. All right. Anything else on this page then before we move forward? Thank you all. Next is page 14, which I don't see any changes until we get down. We're under, these are lot, yard, and height requirements. And at the bottom, the provision is to strike professional office project out. I think that's the only change I see on this page. No, no, the addition of beauty parlors and their space requirements, and below that, male service facilities and their space requirements. Any comments or questions here from anyone? Hearing none, we'll move on to page 15 offers us very little. Then we take up page 16, which is special provisions. It looks like third of the way down the page is the addition of mail service facilities under accessory uses, the addition of shoe repair, clothing alteration, and tailoring service. services under conditional uses, beauty shops, and barbershops with no restrictions. Any comments or questions here? I was just reading A, as principal permitted use, B, as accessory, and C, as conditional use. I'm on page 16, 8-15O, number C. So below the halfway point of page 16, I thought you were going to say Yahtzee. Okay. All right, very good. Then, moving on to the rather rich page 17, I would just say to you, we have one other issue on the agenda. I think it will take about 15 minutes. So I want to continue vetting through this as far as we have time for, and then we'll rotate off to that before we're done here. But this gets down to kind of the nut of it, neighborhood business, B1 zone. Here under principal uses, this starts out and gives 16 brand-new principal uses. And I'm glad to read those. Yes, sir? Yes, sir. May I clarify? Please, please. These first 16, and as your previous change, I guess the first 15, because you've already voted now on number 16. Thank you. These are not new uses. Right now, the first line in permitted uses in B1 says, as per P1. So automatically, the entire list of P1 uses currently carry over. So what we did was, since we weren't doing that anymore, these first 15 are actually the P1 uses that are allowed today in B1 that we would continue to recommend being allowed in B1 as a principle permitted use. Excellent. So those are technically no change other than in format. I appreciate that additional clarity. Yes. And moving beyond those, the addition of number 18 of and brew pubs and word and between beauty and barbershops, the addition of clothing alterations and tailoring services, and the new number 24, some change parking structures provided such use conformance to the conditions of Article 16 and provided that at least 25% of the first floor is occupied by another permitted use or uses in the B1 zone. A little change for miniature golf down there. And the last one, number 30, limited to three screens or stages. So that really is a lot of the change of the whole thing right there on one page. Any questions or comments there? Thank you all. Continuing that list, at the top of the next page, page 18 of our packet, is one change in number 32, not to exceed 35 feet in height, which is a height change, and then adding 37 through 8 through 9 and 40, which is animal grooming facilities, male service facilities, tentative parlors, and form-based neighborhood projects as per 816-04. Anything there, anyone? Then moving on down to accessory uses. This strikes number four, the truck rental in all of its form. makes a little bit of change in the sale of malt beverages, strikes the previous number six, and seven adds sidewalk cafes when associated with any permitted restaurant, number eight, retail sale of liquid propane and its definition, and a number ten, drive-thru facilities for the sale of goods or products as what we have seen previously. And I have Council Member Lawless. Yes, I have a question about the height, striking the height requirement. Yes, ma'am. And I also have a question about the forum-based neighborhood business project as per 18-8-16-4. I would appeal to staff. Those two are related. The change on the very top of page 18 is associated with the change on the bottom of page 22 and the top of page 23. You're jumping ahead. I don't know how to answer the height question without getting into the others. That's where it is, though. Yes, sir. Thank you. Currently, the B1 zone has a height limit of 35 feet except for one conditional use. One of the major changes in this text amendment is to take out the conditional use that is referred to as a combination business office and residential project, which is number 7 on page 19 of the draft. And in essence, replace it with this special provision on the bottom of 22. So these three changes are all linked together as accomplishing the same thing. It would remove the height restriction in B-1 for that type of a project only. Adding some flexibility there. Yes. Yes. The height restriction would be a flat 35 feet in the B-1 zone unless you met the requirements of this special provision, which is a process that will involve a development plan review by the Planning Commission and extraordinary submissions by an applicant to demonstrate that they can qualify for that special provision. So while it's listed under principal uses, there would be restrictions around that being submitted and passing the Planning Commission? Yes, they would have to approve a development plan meeting the special provision conditions in order for use to exceed 35 feet in height in a B1 zone. Okay, thank you. Very good. Good. Thank you, ma'am. All right, anything else on page 18 from anyone? All right. Then moving to page 19, we are in the area of 8-16D, which are conditional uses permitted only with Board of Adjustment approval. And this, in number 4, at the top of the page, adds a brew pub contingency. In number 5, for outdoor live entertainment, adding the words and or dancing and striking brew pubs. and at the bottom of that, the board may also impose time restrictions to minimize nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood. A similar change in number 6 to add brewpub. And then a broad X out here of all of the combinations that were here with some specificity, it would seem. Number 7, A through R, carrying through to page 20 and down to the middle of that page. So I would take questions, comments. It just strikes it all out. Keep us moving on page 20. There's a numbering change there. And after the new number 10, the addition of extended stay hotels, parking lots provided such use conforms to the conditions of Article 16 and a similar one we've had before, drive-through facilities for the sale of goods or products or the provision of services otherwise permitted herein except as necessary use herein. Questions or comments? Stay there by anyone. Hearing none, we'll move on to page 20, 21. No changes until the addition of hospitals as number 21 under that list of prohibited uses. and then some minimum and maximum front. Let me see. This is 8-16H, minimum and maximum front yard, minimum 10 feet, maximum 20 feet. And moving on down, 8-16M, maximum building height, 35 feet, except as permitted by Section 8-1603, which I think is the special provision section. Questions or comments here, anyone? We're doing good, and all questions are good as far as I'm concerned. Page 22, which continues on with the lot, yard, and height requirements. And then, let me see, makes a change here, X-ing out barbershops, adding in clothing alterations, tailoring services, and tattoo parlors, and the number of space required are there. Next down, adding brew pub. Beyond that, any brew pub again. And then finishing that section with an X out for the number of spaces required for arcade without accessory billiard or pool tables. And the addition of animal grooming facilities, one space for every 200 square feet with a minimum of three spaces. Then we move into the actual special provision, which I think, again, is one of the areas of core interest in this soda. As you can tell in number one, you have a change there in some square foot overall sizes and then the dates, which would go in according to when this would be enacted. And then no such structure may seat 60,000 square feet in any event. And then the actual special section comes in number three at the bottom of that page, continuing and finishing at the top of page 23. All right. Council Member Clark. May I just point out very quickly, and I think I'm looking at this, but if you look on page 18, number 40, it refers to 8-1604, and there is no 04, I believe. That's right. It should be number 3. He's exactly correct. Well done, sir. Nice catch. Were you also noted? Very good. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Then continuing on to the downtown business or B2 zone on page 24. This principle uses, adds indoor theaters, strikes dressmaking and adds clothing alteration and tailoring services, adds telephone exchange, radio and television studios, and adds parking lots and structures provided, and this is a similar one for other conditions in Article 16. Then an accessory uses, 817C, adds parking areas or structures. Questions or comments here? Then at the top of page 25, Again, the same verbiage in number 6, striking assisted living facilities and changing to rehabilitation homes. And again, in 8, 17E, adding hospitals as a prohibited use in the downtown frame, or in the B2 zone, excuse me. Questions or comments there? Council Member Lawless. I'm curious as to why hospitals would be not allowed in a B2 zone. I would ask staff for their expression on that. I think with this text amendment, they're currently permitted in P1, B1, B2 zones. that probably has been the case, I'm guessing, 30 years in the ordinance. And I think all the expansions that have happened at hospitals recently and the amount of land they've consumed, I think that is the reason why in downtown and in the B1 zone they're being made a prohibited use and still left as the professional office project, which also has the highest floor area ratios allowable in the ordinance. So, for instance, would a urgent treatment center would not be considered a hospital? Right. That probably would meet the medical clinic definition. Okay. Thank you. You good? All right. I'm always good, sir. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Anything else on page 25, though? No. All right, then there are no, as I see it, no changes on page 26 as tendered here. Taking us to page 27, which is Lexington Center Business, the B2B zone. This has some similar changes, adding the word and between beauty and barbershops, changing dressmaking to clothing alteration or tailoring services, and then a number change after that. on the next page, page 28. I do not see any changes on page 28 in our packet. On page 29, under number 11, pardon me, number 10, and here we are talking about, excuse me, prohibited uses, the addition of animal grooming facilities, as well as tattoo parlors. Any questions, comments? There. Then at the top of page 30, we take in Highway Service Business, the B-3. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry, I didn't see you. Excuse me. So back to those tattoo parlors. I'm going to have to go get one. in the B2B zone. They're a prohibited use in the B2B zone. If we make this change or if we add this in, yes. And I'm kind of clueless as to why that would be. Don't play the clueless card so soon. Yes, ma'am. This is a downtown zone, correct? This is the Lexington Center B2B zone. Can you just refresh my memory on the boundary of this zone? The B2B zone was created at the time of the construction of Rupp Arena and the Civic Center. So it basically is bounded by Maxwell Street to the south, Martin Luther King to the east, 2nd Street probably between church and 2nd on the north and on the west probably to the historic districts western suburb I mean we have had tattoo parlors in those areas previously I'd like to make a motion Yeah, that's between Maxwell and South Lyme, I believe, between Maxwell and Maine is B2B, but I may be wrong. Well, do you want to make a motion? Well, I'll just make a motion that they be conditional uses. So that would be to change number 13 from a prohibited use to a conditional use in the B2B zone, correct? Yes, sir. So we have a motion? I'll second it. We have a second. We're in discussion. All right, so this would take number 13 out of the prohibited uses and I guess place it in somewhere as number 11 in the conditional uses, from what I understand. Any discussion of the motion? Yes, ma'am? Can planning speak a little bit more to this? I mean, it sounds like it's not real obvious why it should even, you know, why it should be prohibited. Again, I think this was one where the starting point was beauty shops and barber shops. It was regulated the same. The planning commission, I know, looked at tattoo parlors in all the zones. We can't remember if this was a staff or a planning commission, the details of that, which group suggested to be prohibited in this zone. But certainly conditional use allows for vetting and neighborhood involvement. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Any other discussion? All those in favor of this change signal, I'm saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. Thank you. You're welcome. That takes us to the bottom of page 29. On page 30, highway service businesses, the B3 zone. under principal uses this would add miniature golf or putting courses it would make the same changes for beauty and barbershops as before as well as shoe repair clothing alteration tailoring services and tattoo parlors here that's the only thing i see on this page seeing no comments from From the committee, we move to page 31, and we are in accessory uses. Number 11 is an addition to the retail sale of liquid propane. And that's the only change I see on that page. Then on page 32, I see nothing. Oh, no, I'm sorry, under number 10, except as permitted herein, and that is the above or below ground storage of any flammable material in gaseous form. Then on page 33, and we are in at this point, lot, yard, and height requirements, and this is car washing establishments with two or more stalls, two spaces for each stall, plus one space for each vacuum unit. further down the number of spaces for a miniature golf or putting course, and that's all I see there. On page 34, the wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone, adding a principal use of animal grooming facilities. On page 35, under accessory uses, adding number nine, the retail sale of liquid propane as we have seen previously. And at the bottom, under prohibited uses, restaurants, cocktail lunches, and nightclubs, except as permitted herein. On page 36, which these are off-street parking requirements, and this gives a definition for animal grooming facilities, one space for every 200 square feet with a minimum of three spaces. changes the requirement for bowling alleys from five and one for each employee to four spaces per alley. However, snack bars and food service provided primarily to patrons shall not require additional parking. Seeing no comments and moving on to page 37. I see no changes here. And running down through 38, I also see none. or at the top of 39, bringing us to page 40 in the light industrial zone. This ZODA affects nothing there in its current form. However, on the top of page 41, under accessory uses, again, this is in the light industrial zone, adds the retail sale of liquid propane, as we've seen, changed earlier. moving on to page 42 which we are again under conditional uses in the light industrial zone number 12 is stricken that's the only change I see there and unless I see commentary I'm going to keep moving on to page 43 where I see nothing on that page. And on page 44, pardon me, under conditional uses, the addition of cocktail lounges in number two near the bottom of the page there. How many people in the whole sheet? Seeing no questions there, that brings us to the last page of the ZODA, page 45 of our packet, which principal permitted uses. Are these still in the I1 zone then? 12-3 principal. This is now in B6P. The principal uses permitted B6P zones shall be as follows. The principal permitted uses in the B1 and P1 zones, except as restricted herein, adding indoor theaters and parking lots of structures, adding accessory uses. The accessory uses permitted in the B6P zone shall be as follows. The accessory uses of the B1 and P1 zones, as well as the addition of this drive-thru facility that we've seen previously here. And with that, there's one more strike-through at the bottom in the addition of the drive-thru under conditional uses, and I see Vice Mayor Gorton. I don't have any questions. Yes, ma'am. But a couple of, well, I have one question, but a couple of things. First of all, I appreciate the work you've been doing on these definitions. And, you know, through our recreation ZOTA work group, which this is what we did for months and months on end, we talked a lot about definitions. So thank you for that. And I guess I'm wondering how will the Recreation B1 ZOTAs, will they just come forward to fit into this? Yes. Okay. So eventually when you've crafted those and they come to us, they'll be worked into this language. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. All right, staff. I believe we've headed through this. I think we're in a position for do we need to take action or do you need to study anything we've done? Are we ready to move on? Mr. Chairman, I think there was only one change of substance, and that was to change the rehabilitation homes, if I'm not mistaken. I agree. To conditional. We can check with law and offer an opinion whether that would allow this to move forward or whether it would have to be remanded back to the Planning Commission. I'm comfortable with that if the council or if the committee is. I think probably since it's, you know, I would say my legal opinion for what it's worth, it's probably one you could go ahead and do. So if we so desired, we could check. We could place this on the docket for a first reading if we so desire. Or move it forward. Yes. Council Member Gordon. Vice Mayor Gordon. Yes, so your view is that it won't need a new look at the Planning Commission, or is that what you're going to ask a law? That would be my legal opinion for what it's worth. I think the good news is this committee is reporting out its recommendation, and that will be reported to the full council. And if the law department does have any issue or any clarification, they can report that to the full council. And if needed, the full council then would remand it to the Planning Commission. Okay, so would you like a motion? Love it. I move to forward this B-1 SOTA to the full council with the changes that have been approved here today. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed like sign? Well done. Excellent committee work. Thank you very much. Thank you, staff. Thank you. Engineer Frazier, welcome. And be brief. Thank you for spending your time with us. We appreciate it. No, no problem, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for having me. I'll give you a very quick and abbreviated tour of this. It's a presentation that's set up as an FYI, and it's basically to talk about the... Hold on a second. Yes, sir. I was in such glee over the Zota. I forgot to really place this issue correctly and call on you before asking Councilmember Senate to set the stage for this brief discussion. Councilmember. Proceed, Mr. Frazier, as quick as you can. I don't want to take up any more of your time, but Chair, just for clarity, this is just to get the information in front of the group, in front of the committee. I don't expect any action today. Very good. It could be an item to keep in committee for later. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Please. And basically what I'll do is I'll just quickly go through the process in which we accept sureties through the new development section of the Division of Engineering for Infrastructure Construction. If I can operate this. Chris, what have I done? Okay, there we go. Sorry about that. Basically just four points just to kind of quickly go over. You know, infrastructure, construction process, how do we receive it, the requirements of assurity, why do we require it, what does that cost amount, and what's the different types that we currently accept. Basically, when you typically subdivide property within Fayette County, you have to go through the subdivision regulations. And also with that, housing those regulations, you have to provide infrastructure. And usually, typically, there's the big three, which is roadways, sewer connections, and stormwater management. And in that process, typically you can have development plans which kind of show what it is that's being proposed and show how it complies with those regulations. And from there, engineering receives detailed construction drawings on how to construct those preliminary plans if it's in the form of a development plan and or preliminary subdivision plan. Surety, what is it? Well, basically it's funding. We have requirements that are in the subdivision regulations in Article 4, Section 7, that basically states that in completed infrastructure, warranties, performance, has to have some type of surety posted with the Division of Engineering. Greater details actually exist within our procedures manual within Appendix E of what we follow and what's required. Warranties. What are the warranties? As I was talking about, the three major types of infrastructure, roadway, sanitary sewers, and stormwater. Roadway warranties that we have to have is for one year, sanitary sewers for three years after they're constructed, and one year for the stormwater facilities. And how do we go ahead and calculate that? Basically, it's comprised of three components. One is items that are not completed by the time that we have record platter, when we can create the lots where certain infrastructure has to be in place. Those are what we consider punch list items. Things are not done yet. A big one, for example, would be final inch of surface. So it's 100% of those engineering costs to have that put down on the ground. And then as far as the warranties from the three that we were just talking about, is 10% of the actual cost to construct that infrastructure. And then after we sum those, we have a 20% contingency that applies to that amount. So basically that's the surety that comes to the new development section per development. The sureties that we received are in three forms. They're letters of credit, checks, and bonds. Letters of credit are basically just notes, promises that the warranties and the infrastructure that's not there, that's on the punch list, will be constructed and completed. It has to come from a bank that has a local office within Lexington Fayette County. Checks are basically just a cash surety. Some of the letter credits are so small, they just simply provide a check. Bonds. Bonds is something that we started receiving in 2011, and we actually have two forms that have to be followed as far as if a developer wishes to post a bond to go ahead and cover the requirements that we need. And it's based on if we have plats that occur that shows the infrastructure, or in situations or scenarios if we do not have plats. So we have two different types of forms that have to be filled out. They have to be filled out by the insurance company and by the developer, and we also have to have a general power of attorney listed on there in case there was ever a situation or a need that we need to visit those bonds as far as getting access to those funds. That's kind of a nickel tour real quick. Is there any questions, sir? There may well be. We have Council Member Stenet, I think, still on the sign-up. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. Now, Brad, what you did was just explain the process for new development, correct? Yes, sir. It doesn't apply to rehab of existing building downtown or other facilities or infill-type projects? No, sir. What that applied to was what went through the planning commission process. Okay, so just new, because obviously, Council, we don't have a lot of these type of projects going on currently, one given the economy, two, I think that the availability of land has obviously decreased over the years. And this issue came up about three years ago when we did have bonds back then, and we had several defaults, or they didn't renew the bonds. So one thing I think we've done to ensure that if they do get a bond, which that market is very limited right now, is we're a party to the bond now, correct? Yes, sir. So we're actually written in on the bond language, whereas before we weren't a party. We were just accepting a verbal, hey, I got a bond, I'm renewing it. But we found out on a couple cases they did not renew the bond, and we were left holding the bag on a couple projects. So the process has improved. I guess what I'm trying to understand, is this the same process that we would require, the same type of bond for a project we were doing from one of our subcontractors? Like a performance and payment bond, a P&P bond? I think that's different, sir. I think this one, as you said, this is more tailored to the fact that we are going through a planning commission process that infrastructure is being, I'll use the word, privately constructed. In other words, private funds are doing it. It's just the fact that they're being dedicated over to us to be maintained, and it has to comply with our manuals and regulations. So performance and payment bond, it would be something different or structured somewhat differently in the capital section. Okay, and on these developments, are we requiring one bond for all the different levels of work to be done in that development, or are we allowing them to piecemeal, let's say one bond for sewer, one bond for sidewalks, one for roads, so that once they get that piece of project completed, they can get that bond released? Council Member, the way that what I've seen how that works is it's all tailored and triggered to the plaiting process. For example, you can have a large development, let's just say Masterson Station. Well, there's different phases. You can have Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 2A, Unit 2B. It's basically, there's a lot of flexibility on how they want to go ahead and file that plat. If that plat shows that they have 12 lots that's going to be created and has road frontage for those lots, and of course they have to have sanitary sewer access. So anything for that need, for that plat that the developer wants to go ahead and go forward with, there will be a letter of credit or there will be a surety tagged to that plat. So it's kind of up to the developer. If the developer wants to do a large plat for a large number of lots, there will be a surety to encompass all that. Or if he or she or the company chooses to go ahead and break it up and do it through several phases, there will be one for each of those. So the answer is no. We won't allow them legally to do piecemeal the work, like the road work under one bond or letter of credit, the sewers under one separate one. Because the problem we're coming into is we're requiring one letter for the whole property, and they get the sewer work done. I know there's a warranty period and all that, but that bond can't be released until the road and the other stuff or other issues in the development are done, too. They also, in the procedures portion, they do have the ability to go ahead and reduce those as they work on the punch list items, and they're allowed to go ahead and pare that down once they see that the head walls need to be adjusted or if they need to go ahead and adjust manhole rings. Once they go ahead and do that, procedures call for and allow for them to go ahead and start paring that down. So, you know, we've done this work, therefore. You are letting them reduce it down as we go. Oh, yes, sir. Okay, but we were told that we were not allowing that. I'm just making sure we're going to allow them to reduce the letter of credit down or reduce the bond possibly, rewrite it. It is, Council Member, it's my understanding, and as I see in the procedures manual, that they are allowed to go ahead as they do various work that's on that punch list. It is recalculated, and they are allowed to have reductions on that. If I'm telling you something incorrect, I would be more than happy to come back and reiterate that. But that's my understanding. The language that we're requiring in the bond, is it the same as other cities around us or the state? Do you know where? I do not know. Can we find that out, how the other cities around us are operating in this same manner? Because what we're hearing out here is it's easier to do business in the surrounding counties versus coming to Fayette County, that we have a more stringent requirement when it comes to this type of development, which we all should be concerned about because it drives up land costs. And we have always heard Fayette County land costs are higher than surrounding. And so any effort we can do to make it less stringent or equal, I think we should. So if we can look at that, and Chair, I'll be glad to bring back any changes to our current policy if we investigate over the summer to the committee. Thank you, sir. You're quite welcome. Our next meeting is scheduled for August the 20th. I don't believe we're going to take time to go over our items in committee. However, I will point out to you all that we have changed the format of that so that items on top are what I'm calling current committee items. There's a break and there is a group of things I'm calling recurring committee items so that you can differentiate the things that are here for updates versus the things we're actually working on in an active capacity. Having made that point, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Motion to second. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. I got a piece of mail today. Look at the address. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Thank you.