when they're driving. I think one key is, you know, I love only you And I like my old guitar And I'd like to be a star and shine on you And I'd like to write a song The whole world can sing along About you guitar solo I love only you. And I'd like my old guitar. And I'd like to be a star and shine on you. And I'd like to write a song. The whole world can sing along about you. I like my old memories, the girls I used to know. Some of them still have a place my mind likes to go. Of all the ones I've cared for, Lord knows that's been a few. I love only you. Oh honey, I love only you I can't hide the way I feel about you anymore I can't hold the hurt inside keep the pain out of my eyes anymore my tears no longer waiting My resistance ain't that strong My mind keeps recreating A life with you alone And I'm tired of pretending I don't love you anymore Let me make one last appeal to show you how I feel about you. Cause there's no one else, I swear, holds a candle anywhere next to you. My heart can't take the beating Not having you to hold A small voice keeps repeating Deep inside my soul It says I can't keep pretending I don't love you anymore I've got to take a chance or let it pass by If I expect to get on with my life guitar solo Oh, my resistance ain't that strong But my mind keeps recreating Love with you alone And I'm tired of pretending I don't love you anymore Anymore Anymore There's a storm across the valley, clouds are rolling in. The afternoon is heavy on your shoulder. There's a truck out on the four lane, a mile or more away. The whining of his wheels just makes it colder He's an hour away from riding on your prayers up in the sky Ten days on the road are barely gone There's a fire softly burning Supper's on the stove But it's a light in your eyes That makes him warm Hey, it's good to be back home again Sometimes this old farm Feels like a long lost friend Yes and hey it's good To be back home again There's all the news to tell him How'd you spend your time What's the latest thing the neighbors say And your mother called last Friday Sunshine made her cry You felt your baby move just yesterday Hey, it's good to be back home again Yes, it is Sometimes this old farm feels like a long-lost friend Yes, hey, it's good to be back home again Oh, the time that I can lay this tired old body down Feel your fingers feather song on me The kisses that I live for The love that lights my way The happiness living with you brings me. It's the sweetest thing I know of, just spending time with you. It's the little things that make a house a home. Like a fire softly burning Supper on the stove The light in your eyes It makes me warm Hey, it's good The End Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. If everyone wants to take their seats, we'll get started. Thank you. afternoon ladies and gentlemen I'll call this meeting for February no it's not February March 26 2015 to order first on the agenda we do have minutes that have been emailed to the Commission members I have not heard of any changes these are minutes from February the 12th to the house 2015 and February 26 2015 if there are any changes please let it be known now or I'll entertain a motion for approval. Yes ma'am. Mr. Chair move approval of February 12 and February 26 Commission meeting minutes. Thank you. Do we have motions been made in second and for approval of the minutes from February 12th and February 26th 2015 please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes don't have many items on the agenda today so we will take everything in order first on first page one is dp 2015-18 it's fritz farm there is a revision before you that's on a blue sheet of paper Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Martin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The first item on your agenda is DP 2015-18, the Fritz Farm, LLC, and DMK Development. We do have revised conditions on a blue sheet for you today. This is for a 11-acre Thompson. This is a two over limited piece of property located at the end of the section of the of Crisfield Road and Manor Ward at this location. Toronto, right down here, Toronto Road, Victoria Way is open in this location. Of course, the summit development on the north of the Fritz Farm is located across Manor Ward in this location. This is the south portion of the Fritz Farm. They are proposing an assisted living facility on this property. is over 200,000 square feet of these buildings. This one is proposed to be three stories tall, this one one story. There are 253 beds on the plan. It's self-understanding that they are requesting two additional beds. It doesn't have a substantial impact on the plan. They are asking for two additional beds. Now, oh, there we go. Hold it down here. All right. You want me to start over? Yes. Okay. Access that is proposed to the property is a right in, right out on Manowar. There is an access easement that comes through the adjoining church property at this location. There is an existing access easement off of Nicholasville Road that currently serves the property, and we've outlined it for you here. You can see that there is a conflict with the building that will have to be resolved before they can build building number one. It does come over and is actually intended not only to serve this property, but the adjoining property. It's staff's understanding that when this goes away, they'll be working out alternate access to this property. Possibilities include new access off Nicholasville Road, possibly less likely access through this property off Toronto. But Again, the key to this plan is this conflict will need to be removed. You can see the parking layout that they have. And here are detention basins that are being proposed for the property. It will drain towards the summit property across Manowar. The plan that you see before you today has a waiver request as well, and that's for the write in, write out on Man of War. This plan was reviewed by your technical staff and had originally been recommended for postponement. We did receive a revised plan, and that's what you can see before you today. and you can see the conditions are your standard conditions on a final development plan and this is a final development plan they will have to go to various urban county divisions for approvals they are going to have a couple of cleanup items including denote the building height and feet They are three stories and one story. We need to know the height. They've denoted existing easements. There's a large gas easement that runs along the south part of the property. Any proposed easements that are necessary would need to be on this final development plan. They'll need to denote the Board of Adjustment approval of the conditional use. This is a conditional use in this zone. This is agricultural urban. So they are going to the Board of Adjustment to request permission. they have several other items one is to resolve the existing access easement to nicholasville road and the building conflicts which i highlighted to you earlier they will have to address those we have a condition to resolve the extent of excess parking they have 86 parking spaces over and above the required. We met with them and they agreed to address it and reduce it. They asked that it be a resolve so that they could work with staff and reduce the parking over the whole property and not in any one position. They want to be sure they do it appropriately and in conjunction with the Division of Traffic Engineering. But they do intend to address that excess parking. There is an item which is denote proposed landscaping adjacent to Manowar and Nicholasville Road. The presentation of this property has been very important to staff and to the applicant as well. Again, with this, a lot of frontage on Nicholasville Road and the frontage along Manowar, we were concerned, as we were with Summit, you may recall, with the presentation of that property to these roads, these major arterials. The property down the street, you may recall, on the Mahan property, there was a large setback in landscaping on that property that staff worked out with the applicant. What I have before you is a man-of-war ordinance, and that's the example of what the type of thing staff would like to work out with the applicant on this property. And we met with them, and they agreed to it. Staff reviewed all the major corridor ordinances, and there are several in our community. Georgetown, Newtown, Old Frankfurt, man-of-war, Richmond Road has an ordinance. and it's more specific for Richmond Road and is somewhat different. There was a key element to all of those ordinances, and they asked for mature trees 40 feet on center, a berm with smaller trees on the berm, and a horse farm plank fence. Those were the common elements in all those corridor plans. So we wanted to use that as an example of the type of landscaping we would like to see along the frontages with both Manowar and Nicholasville Road. The last cleanup item that we have is to note the height of any proposed retaining wall near the retention basin. And you can see this on the plan is a retaining wall. There's going to be a lot of work, a lot of grading. These retention basins are probably going to be very deep. They're linear. They're constricted by Manowar. we need the detention basin heights shown on the plan. And that is because anything four feet and above is an engineered structure and is required on the development plan. We have unfortunately had circumstances where these retaining walls have grown after the fact, and they've had to come back and amend plans to address those. Some have grown quite a bit, as a matter of fact, and so that is of some concern. They are showing one in this location as well. They would need to denote the height of that And this one, again, right here, there's two others. It's not just the detention basin. We'll need the height on these retaining walls if they are four feet or higher. The last major item is the waiver request for right in, right out on Manowar. And you have been handed that out. You may recall there's a right in, right out for Summit. And you can see part of it right here as it comes in. that's across from this. It was a modified design again, you may recall. They requested a waiver on this one and it was granted by this body. Now the spacing from this intersection to here is a little over 1,100 linear feet. From here to Victoria, it's about 1,075 feet. Our normal standards are 1,400 in our regs. And on Man of War, there's been a long time standard of about 1,200 feet. Now that has been reduced in some circumstances, and it was reduced across the street. So again, that's the key, of course, as always, to a good functioning, well-functioning right in, right out, are the median controls. There's a median. The original plan called for a right in, right out here utilizing this access easement. Well, the spacing here was much, much worse, you can see, and there are no median controls. And frankly, right in, right outs aren't going to work without median controls, unfortunately. So staff has reviewed it, worked out with traffic engineering, and we are recommending approval. There is a condition of approval, and it concerns the deacceleration lane that they're required to construct. A traffic engineer, our traffic engineers would like to approve this and the length of it. There are standards that apply. They are not absolutely convinced that it has to be the full length that the standards require, but they want to be sure that it's an appropriate length given the traffic and the circumstances. So that is a condition of approval on your waiver. and with that I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me any questions for mr. Martin yes sir in the case where an emergency vehicle would have to enter and you know that facility coming out they'd have to make the right turn as well and then they'd have to go down to Victoria will they then be allowed to make a u-turn coming up Yes, ma'am. But they can go out the back exit as well, right? Yes, ma'am. Through the church parking. Yes, ma'am. There is access there. Yes, ma'am. Any other questions? If not, thank you, Tom. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here. I'm on behalf of DMK Development. As you all are aware, we postponed last time in order to work out essentially an understanding with our neighboring Pox Christi Church. I'm standing before you all to say that we have indeed worked out in agreement with that. We are asking for approval of this plan and do so on the revised staff conditions. In full candor, I do want to tell you that the church is going to be bringing an amended development plan that will propose access to Toronto Road that this development would eventually be using as well. It would kind of extinguish the access across the church parking lot if this body chose to approve that. So we have essentially worked out a situation where in the instance where emergency vehicles were coming, they could still access our property through the church property. However, once the church brings their kind of alternate proposal forward, our traffic would not be using the church to actually exit onto Victoria Way. I know that's a little complicated, and I'm happy to explain further, if so be it, but the plan that we have today, we are asking for approval based on the staff recommendation, and any specific issues, I'm happy to answer, but in efforts to save time, I figured I would just take questions. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Nicholson, on that alternate plan that the church will bring, would they buy the two houses it takes to do that, or will your development have to do that? The church is proposing to buy that. Thank you. Other questions? No? No? Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak in regards to this plan? Seeing none. Yes. Okay. Love to have you come down. Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I have not seen this revised plan. I guess my one question, and we would love to see the access on Toronto. So if that access comes through, are we losing access through the church? We are not. Okay, so that stands. So then we'd eventually have three access points? Yes. Good enough. You're okay. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? Mr. Martin, let me ask. I'm sorry. Number 15, discuss access restrictions per final record plat. How do we need to address this? or did we? And I missed it. Thank you. Yes, I meant to go over that with you. There actually, when Manowar was platted, all the access points were fixed on those plats, but that access falls under the authority of the Planning Commission, so it's inherent in the waiver request that if you approve it, then you're approving the access, which is what was done on Summit across the road. Okay. We do have, what, number 14 that addresses the waiver. Will we need number 15 then? No, it will, in essence, go away with the approval of the waiver. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Very good. So, in essence, wow. Okay. Never mind. Thank you. Anybody else? Any other questions? Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate, you may wish to replace 15 with the one that Mr. Martin has described on the waiver report. That would then incorporate it into your development plan action, along with those findings. You're saying replace it? You could just replace the one that's at the very bottom of the waiver report for that one. Okay. That would be my suggestion and then the findings of the waiver in addition. Thank you. Okay, the one recommendation. Does everyone understand? Okay. So with that, if there's no questions, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it for any discussion and or motion. I would like a motion for the DP and a separate motion for the waiver as well. Yes, ma'am. mr chair i move uh... for approval of dp twenty fifteen dash eighteen fritz farm l l c and d m k development group uh... with the uh... nineteen uh... recommendations by staff eliminating number fifteen and replacing it with uh... this statement regarding the findings for the petition of waiver in that spot I think that's it. Motion's been made for approval with 19 conditions, replacing number 15 with the language that proposed acceleration lane for the right entrance must be designed to the approval of traffic engineering. Do we have a second? And seconded. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. And the waiver. I asked for it, didn't I? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the findings for the petition of waiver for DP 2015-18 Fritz Farm, LLC, and DMK. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the waiver DP 2015-18 Fritz Farm, LLC, and DMK. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. So thank you again, Mr. Nicholson. Next on the agenda, it's on page two. Jake Reardon and Mark Jeter, Zone Map Amendment, Liberty Heights Subdivision, MARV 2015-4. We have a zone change request. We have a variance, and we have a ZDP on this. uh there you got additional information on sheets of paper before you including a supplemental staff report that's on a manoa sheet the variance on a manila sheet of paper and the revised zdps on a pink sheet Good afternoon Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. Our first zoning case today is MARV 2015-4, and this is a request by Jake Reardon and Mark A. Jeter. Their request is to rezone property at Winchester Road and Detroit and a little bit of a few parcels on Dayton to a B3 zone. And I apologize, my presentation is wrong. It says neighborhood business, but in fact, it's a combination of B4 and R2 zoning. Let's go to the map here. So the two parcels that front onto Winchester Road are B4, which is our wholesale and warehouse business zone. And then there are four parcels that front onto Detroit Avenue. And those four parcels are R2. In addition to those six properties, the rear portion of four parcels that front on Dayton Avenue are included in the zone change. And it's approximately eight feet of the rear of those properties. And when we look at the development plan, it will become clear why that property is necessary for their zone change. It's approximately, I mean, literally just over an acre of property included in this area. Generally zoning in the area, the neighborhood to the south is R2, as you can see. But along Winchester Road from Midland to New Circle Road, it's almost entirely commercial, either business zoning or some industrial zoning. So within the immediate vicinity, there's B1, B3, and B4 zoning, as well as I1 to the north and, again, the residential to the south. Uses that are nearby include a Speedway gas station across Detroit Avenue, several small businesses in the B3 zone across Winchester Road, and to the west aways in the largest B4 parcel on Winchester Road would be, used to be location, primary location for big S fans. Just some information there. In terms of an aerial view of the property, there are still several structures on the property, three residential structures and then two commercial structures that face onto Winchester Road. Those are proposed to be demolished, and the applicant is proposing at this point in the B3 zone to build a fast food restaurant with a drive-through. Just a little bit closer view, looking to the south, you can see the adjoining neighborhood. the two buildings along Winchester Road do come fairly close to the road there. And then from looking to the west, basically towards downtown, again, the two buildings that face onto Winchester Road and then three houses that face onto Detroit are part of that. And then looking to the east, out Winchester Road. So the applicant, again, is proposing to redevelop the property in the B3 zone, and they contend that the B3 is appropriate at this location, and the combination of B4 and R2 are inappropriate. The B3 zone specifically has intent language that calls for providing for retail and other uses, which are necessary to the economic vitality of the community but may be inappropriate in other zones, and further states that special consideration should be given to the relationship of such uses in the zone to the surrounding land uses and to the adequacy of the street system that it serves. Of concern to the staff with the proposed B3 zone was the provision for any kind of buffering to the adjoining residential lots. Clearly, Winchester Road is a primary arterial, so having a street system that serves the traffic appears to be in place to the staff's interpretation. In addition, the applicant cited some issues with the current zoning that the staff took into consideration in making our recommendation. The B4 zone lots are situated at an angle on Winchester Road, and they are quite small in terms of what you would typically think of a B4 property for warehouse or wholesale use. So that was a factor. In addition, B4 adjacent to residential is often a concern, and that's what currently exists in this location. and then i think the staff in looking at this originally prior to the zoning committee which unfortunately was canceled because of a snow emergency the staff recommended at that point postponement because of two main issues there was concern about how the property would transition to the residential that would remain in that area and be adjoining and then also that the applicant hadn't provided any conditional zoning restrictions. That's often something that the applicants do provide and or the staff will recommend in terms of when a B3 zone does border or share a property line with residential uses. Since the zoning committee meeting or time frame three weeks ago, the applicant and the planning staff have met, and they did provide both a revised development plan as well as a proposal for conditional zoning restrictions. In terms of a revised development plan, they provided a plan that reduced parking. The first plan had an excess of parking, almost double what was required, and that was a concern for the staff in terms of amount of paving that would be utilized on the property. and it also, the revised plan also proposes a buffer, the more substantial buffer to the neighborhood than what would be required normally. So those, I think, address the staff's, one of the staff's major concerns. They also brought in a conditional zoning restriction proposal, and I believe that addressed primarily the second concern the staff had. the applicant proposed to permit only neighborhood business B1 uses on the property. Since those two zones are quite different and the number of uses are different, the staff felt it better to recommend a list of prohibited uses of the most intense B3 zone uses that wouldn't be appropriate adjacent to residential, and also to prohibit billboards at this location, partly because of the lighting that they provide. And then also to put into conditional zoning restrictions, they require the buffer that would be important to provide the transition between a commercial and a residential zone. So the staff at this point is recommending approval of the proposal by the applicant and that is because the B3 zone is appropriate at this location and the combination of B4 and R2 are inappropriate for five reasons. First, the restricted B3 zone is compatible with the existing zoning along Winchester Road because it is B3, B1, and also B4 in the immediate vicinity. And most of Winchester Road between downtown and New Circle Road is of a business nature. Second, the B4 zone at this location is not generally appropriate for small lots along a busy arterial urban corridor. The possible land uses for these tracks in a B4 zone are not appropriate immediately adjacent to residential uses. The existing R2 is no longer appropriate where it is directly across Detroit Avenue from an automobile service station, which has 24-hour lighting and high traffic generation. The depth of the business zone proposed at this location will mimic what's across Detroit Avenue in terms of distance back from the intersection of Winchester Road. It will be approximately 250 feet. And then lastly, the landscape buffer will provide an appropriate transition between the B3 zone and the residential zone that will remain. The proposed conditional zoning restrictions appear on the back of the supplemental report. There were a list of 10 prohibited uses, and those, again, are the, oh, you have a pink report. That's Tom's. Mine's a brown report, and I think it might be in your notebook. Is that right? Stephanie put it in the notebook. Found it. So, in terms of a list of prohibited uses, the staff suggests prohibiting the automobile display rental sales service and the list that goes with that. So, it's not just automobiles, but motorcycles, trucks, travel trailers, et cetera. cocktail lounges and nightclubs, motels and hotels, indoor amusement centers, drive-in restaurants, carnivals, business colleges, technical or trade schools, pawn shops, the adult businesses, and that's a long list, and then lastly, the advertising signs, which are also known as billboards. The last conditional zoning restriction that the staff suggests deals with the buffering. I believe there should be a 15-foot buffer along what is currently the rear property line of 916, 920, and 922 Detroit. So that would provide 15 feet here in width, as well as what is the side property line of 920 Detroit Avenue, and that would maintain, as long as the conditional zoning restrictions in place, no matter the use, a good buffer between the residential that will remain and the commercial use. Along the rest of this southwest property line, these four properties are currently owned by one of the applicants, and they plan to redevelop those. They have agreed to provide five feet of landscaping on the subject property and then a 10-foot easement on the residential piece as well, so that the 15-foot could be maintained along the rest of that boundary, even though there's a jog. And then up at the front, this is a business zone, so there wouldn't be any required zone-to-zone screening in that location. The staff recommends that there be a fence as well as the shrubs and trees to provide that more dense buffer for the residential since it is an infill area. And the lighting and noise from a drive-thru restaurant can be a problem. So I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposal. Lastly, I would say that we always recommend approval based on your approval and certification of the associated development plan. Questions for Ms. White? Yes, ma'am. Tracy, what are they going to be putting on the four lots that are facing Dayton Avenue? Is that going to be residential? Yes. Currently it's three single-family residences, and the property owner talked to us recently just about redeveloping it. It's an R2 zone, either duplexes or single-family. So is that five-foot buffer enough? Fifteen. Well, they would be keeping another ten foot here on the residential side. They discussed putting the fence up and the shrubs on the business side and then the trees on the residential side. Okay. I think that's probably a squeeze point right there because they feel, especially for a restaurant, it's important to have parking near the door, and so that's why they have parking on that side of the building. If it doesn't develop as a drive-in restaurant, obviously there's some more options that could come in, and the Planning Commission could require the 15-foot on this property at that point. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Mundy, if I could also address that, there is also a constraint on those residential lots because they're in the infill and redevelopment area. They have a greater rear yard requirement. It requires 20% of the whole lot depth to be rear yard, so they can't just move that line all the way to include that 15-foot buffer that we talked to them early on about. we thought this was a pretty creative way to get the buffer and allow the line to go where it could other questions let me follow up with that um i'm hearing just trees uh trees shrubberies maybe um you know i'm just thinking if you've got parking there you've got headlights that's shining into the and the fence as well there There will be a fence there. Well, the conditional zoning restrictions we're asking for the Planning Commission to approve would be a fence, shrubs, and trees. At this location, they're still on their development plan showing a fence as well. Okay. I think that's what their intent is. Okay. Mr. Martin has our presentation about the development plan, but then Jimmy Emmons is here as well to present a variance report. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, who's next? Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change is item C on page 2, ZDP 2015-20 Liberty Heights Subdivision Block C, Lots 4-10 and 44 and 47 We do have revised conditions On a nice pink piece of paper I guess you noticed we have baby boy blue And baby girl pink handouts for you today You didn't know I was that sentimental, did you? I'm just a big softy You see little boys, little girls, you know, they're all sweet. The preliminary development plan is, as Ms. Wade explained, the property's located on Winchester Road with Detroit Avenue. Speedway is right here. Here is Dayton Avenue with the residential that was just discussed that will be redeveloped by the applicant. This is the green space areas, the buffers highlighted in this location. And again, this is the fence and the buffer in this location. And there will be an easement across the rear of these properties to accomplish that landscape buffer. And that, as Mr. Sally explained, because it is infill and redevelopment, it won't penalize them with this lot depth because they're having to take a little bit of it to accommodate this parking, again, as was explained, so that people could park and go in the front entrance in this location. The restaurant is 3,652 square feet, 20 feet in height. They're proposing 70 seats. You can see how the parking is arranged again here, here, and in the rear. It is greatly reduced. in staff's estimation, the previous plan. There was just parking everywhere and parking in the front. There was just way too much excess parking. They have reduced it to where now it's just not quite double the required, which is based on the seating. You can see they have excellent stacking provided on the property. And again, it's a proposed fast food restaurant. The drive-thru is driving this site development. And that's, you can see as it comes through here. They have full access to Winchester Road. They'll have full access in this location to Detroit, which is well back off the intersection with Winchester Road. The waiver request that Mr. Emmons is going to discuss with you has to do with the front setback. Again, as you heard, this is an infill and redevelopment area. There are setback requirements in the infill and redevelopment that impact commercial properties, require them to average based on adjoining properties. You're going to hear a report they are going to request a variance of that setback to make the drive-through function correctly. That's, again, as I stated, what's really driving this layout is that need for drive-through with fast food. The committee, of course, did not, your subdivision committee was unable to meet due to the weather. Staff has reviewed this revised plan, and you can see the conditions that we have provided to you. They will need to denote stormwater detention will be decided or resolved at the time of a final development plan. This is just over an acre, so they will have to address detention, and, of course, water quality issues. And then the waiver, of course, will be, or the variance, pardon me, will have to be approved by the Planning Commission. And then item nine is to note that site lighting and exterior noise reductions for the menu board shall be resolved at the time of the final development plan. As this body is aware, staff raises that issue, particularly close to residential areas, about appropriate lighting, the appropriate noise reduction with menu boards. So again, that can be resolved at the time of the final development plan. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Tom, is a drive-through restaurant the same as a drive-in, or is there a difference? There is a difference in your ordinance, yes. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Drake, if I could further elaborate on that. A drive-in restaurant is a throwback term in our ordinance that goes back into the 50s to the era where curb hops came from the building to parked cars to serve food, and that in our ordinance is the real difference in the two. So we do distinguish between a restaurant with an accessory drive-through window versus a drive-in restaurant, and that's the main difference. Yes, sir. That's correct. Iconic Parkette. Yes. Other questions? No? Mr. Remans will be next to address the variance request. Glad to see him today. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the applicants have requested a dimensional variance request, which Tom has gone over. the article 15-2A6. I'm sure that you all have committed that to memory, but I thought I would explain it for just a little bit. That's a compatibility standard for business setbacks within our infill redevelopment area. It requires a build-to area so that you can build five feet in front of the adjacent building or you can build five feet behind. But you have to be within 10 feet of the setback of your adjacent buildings that are in the same block. That's not a, I don't think that that's a setback that you have often seen because many of our infill and redevelopment things are not coming before you as development plans. So I thought I'd spend just a little bit of time on that. It is a compatibility standard for primarily our infill and redevelopment area where a lot of businesses were built prior to our current standards, which are much more of a suburban style of looking at that. In this particular instance, there is one building that this Article 15 would apply to the setback on the subject property, and that's the building immediately adjacent to the left as you're looking at the development plan. That building has an average setback of 21 feet because it's skewed. Because of the lotting pattern along Winchester Road, it's skewed, so it has an average setback of 21 feet. So the applicants would be required a maximum setback of 26 feet, five feet behind that existing building. As it's been discussed multiple times, the proposal for this development is for a fast food restaurant with a drive-through that would circle the building. The original plan, as it came in, had a lot of parking spaces along Winchester Road and then the drive aisle, and the building was pushed even further back into the property. In response to our concerns and to decrease the amount of variance that they would need to request, they moved the building forward as far as they felt feasible and still be able to get an operational drive-through lane that goes around the building. Assuming that a drive-through lane is needed, this lot does have a unique geometry. As you can see, it's not a rectangle, and that's set up because of the angle as Detroit Avenue comes into Winchester Road. And as you can see along through there, it's an obtuse angle. It's about 135 degrees rather than a 90-degree angle. And that sets up the geometry in such a way that if a restaurant were proposed on this with a drive-through, and in order to meet the building, you would not be able to access all the way around the subject property. And that would mean that the drive-thru would have to come in and exit out closer on Detroit Avenue than would be safe, according to the applicant. As the staff was looking at the compatibility issues, we did note that the subject property currently has two structures on it, the two existing businesses along Winchester Road that are zoned B4 that do comply with the existing standard. But when you're looking at compatibility, it's how much do you focus in on. If you're looking at just the property next door, which the regulation does, it does require this building to be forward. But even within that block between Dayton Avenue and Detroit Avenue, there's kind of some gaps in that building wall. And as you get out a little bit further directly across the street on Detroit Avenue, you've got the auto-centric convenience store and gas station. And as we step back out even a little bit further and looked at Winchester Road, particularly the south side of Winchester Road where you have these obtuse angles of the streets coming in, basically from Midland to New Circle Road, we found that it's really about even. There are several, about half of the commercial development is right up close to Winchester Road, and about half of it is more of an auto-centric design with parking lots out front and more similar to this. In the end, the staff found that granting the request of variance would neither negatively affect the character of the neighborhood and the immediate vicinity, but it would also not positively. It's neutral as far as the character of the area. And so then whenever we looked at the unique circumstances, we did find that because of the particular geometry of this lot, assuming that there is going to be a drive-thru, which is a permitted use on the subject property, in order to safely design that drive-thru, the building does need to come back. Hence, the reason why the staff is recommending approval of the requested variances, granting the granting approval of the requested variances will not have a negative effect on the public safety, health, or welfare and it will not have a negative effect on the overall character of the Winchester Road corridor there are special circumstances and also in here that the granting the requested variances will not be an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance because this is a principle permitted use and because of the geometry of this lot it's a necessary variance to allow that use to be conducted on the property the staff is recommending approval with three of the normal conditions of approval the first three are the standard conditions that you have seen with every other variance request the fourth one is the unique condition with this particular request. The staff sees that essentially we do not want to bait and switch. The emphasis and the need for this variance is because of the drive-through circulation. We are recommending a condition that this dimensional setback variance will be conditioned upon a use that has such a drive-through facility. Otherwise, any other type of proposed development will need to comply with Article 15, and they'll have to bring the building up to comply with that section for the compatibility standards. I do believe that that concludes all of my prepared comments, and I think that concludes all of the staff presentations. If you have any questions for me or anyone else from the staff, we are available. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Any questions? No? I think I have not. Thank you. Applicant, anything to add? Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. With me here today are the owners of the property. it's multiple properties to make it up and it's jake riordan and mark jeter and we have reviewed all the staff's conditions and and the owners are both in agreement with all these conditions and at this time we would be happy to answer any questions if you have any questions of me or the owners Thank you, Mr. Carter. Any questions for the applicant? No? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Now, others that would like to speak. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Come up. This is my first time. That's okay. I promise, we really don't bite. Okay. Name, please, and address. My name is Judy Pugh. My husband, Paul Pugh, and I own the adjacent property at 924 Detroit, which is actually three lots lots 41 42 and 43 that Detroit Avenue I don't know if this is the correct form or not but I guess I'm looking for some kind of understanding or reassurance that those three lots that we have that are currently zoned R2, if we plan development, is there going to be a conflict in traffic flow and a buffer for this restaurant or whatever they plan to put in there if we were to, on those three properties, put multiple family dwellings? and is, you know, sufficient buffer for the traffic flow, wherever the dumpsters are placed in this situation, or wherever trucks that would be delivering product in and out would interfere or handicap or otherwise demise the ability to do something. Thank you, Ms. Pugh. Any other concerns? And we'll try and address those. I think that pretty much kind of covers our concerns at this point. I may let, that's more of a development plan issue, I think. I may let Mr. Martin come up and speak to that. You know, I think a 15-foot buffer with the fencing and so forth would be adequate. Is it privacy fencing or chain link fencing, or do we know yet, or is that something that would come later when they put forth an entire development plan? We've got someone coming to speak specifics. We can assure Ms. Pugh that the fencing is required on the ordinance to be a solid privacy fence. I'll let them address the other issues, but chain link fence is not compliant with the zoning ordinance for screening. It has to be a solid fence. Okay, and does someone then look at traffic flow if there were, like, multiple housing on the next three lots? because it looks like, what did they say, 15 feet from the exit there from the next property. I'm not sure of which, I couldn't see which properties that she's concerned with. Down Detroit. These? Oh, okay. This, well, okay. Now, okay. All right. Very good. Okay. Well, again, you can see from the development plan that they do have an exit onto Detroit at this location, and this is where, should this body approve the final development plan, it would be constructed. If they were to redevelop, we would, of course, evaluate their proposed spacing relative to this spacing. But the site functions fine as presented with access off Winchester Road and onto Detroit Avenue. I don't believe there should be any interference with any future development. But again, as development comes in, we always review spacing of access and that sort of thing. If something happens here, they will be allowed access. We will just try to work to make sure it's safe and functions as well as it can. So again, I think, and here's the dumpster, by the way. Okay. So they will, it's, it's right here. Here's their dumpster. So they, they'll pull in this way back out, come out to Dayton. That would be, that would be the one. Delivery trucks? Delivery trucks will have to come onto the site and, and drop off their deliveries and then pull out through the existing access points as you see on this plan. And, Tom, on the back end of that property, you've got a landscape buffering, and then you do have parking there as well. Yes. Which would, you know, keep the traffic away a little bit more. And as we pointed out in one of our conditions, in terms of lighting and noise and that sort of thing, at the time of final development plan, we're going to discuss that further and make sure it's appropriate for the site relative to these properties and other properties as well. And, Ms. P., we will be seeing a final development plan at a later date that you can be notified of as well. You may see some tweaks at that point, but I would dare say probably nothing major. And I would add that when we see the final development plan, if it's significantly different, we're going to be asking why it's significantly different and what those impacts would be. Okay. Anyone else that would like to speak on this plan? Any questions from the Planning Commission? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion and or motions. We would have three motions, one for the zone change, one for the variance, and then one for the ZDP as well. We're ready. I'll make a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of MARV 2015-4. including the 10 prohibited uses. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second Mr. Wilson. If there's no questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then for the variance? Yep. Move for approval of MARV 2015-4. The variance based on recommendations of staff, including the four conditions noted. Thank you. Do we have a second? and motion's been made also please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes and then for the zdp so moved do we have a second motion's been made and seconded for approval of zdp 2015-20 with the nine conditions please vote when it comes up on the screen that motion passes zdp 2015 20 i mean i stated it uh thank you sir next at the bottom of the page we move on to text amendments uh brief five minutes uh brief recess before we get started Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ The seats will resume. Thank you. Next on the agenda is the Recreational Zota 2014-4. This is something that's been in the works for quite some time. I would dare say there's been 30-plus meetings on this from Vice Mayor Linda Gorton's committee to the Planning Commission. And I would say that Ms. Tracy Wade and Bill Sally and Chris King, and I remember Barb Rackers being at some of the earlier meetings, they probably attended every one of them. I think I missed one. So it's been a long task, and we are getting close here. So with that, I appreciate everyone and all the work. And Ms. Wade? Good afternoon. Just want to do a little refresher since we left the public hearing in October. October 23, 2014, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing about the recreation and tourism land uses. And at that time, the staff did a presentation about the proposal, and then you accepted public comments. Since the Planning Commission met in October for a public hearing, you all have met again three times. in work session settings to discuss the comments that were brought forward during the public hearing both in person orally any that were printed in either a written letter or emails to the planning commission so as a refresher this is kind of where we've been starting in march of 2012 with the work group getting kicked off and then the Planning Commission really started looking at these text amendments in October of 2013 so from the start of the Commission's work until a hearing was about a year almost almost to the day and then where we are today again in purple for the Planning Commission's activity you have had three work sessions since the public hearing and And our next step, or the Planning Commission's next step, will be to take some sort of action, and then the staff would be forwarding that action or recommendation onto the Urban County Council, and then the council would consider this text amendment. Since the Planning Commission's public hearings, or let me refer to this as well, the staff did pull together just kind of a timeline of the Planning Commission's consideration of this text amendment, and then as I mentioned earlier, the October 23rd is towards the bottom there with the public hearing and then the three work session considerations that the Planning Commission had since then. Based on recommendations and consensus that the Planning Commission had over the last three months, the staff has made changes to the draft that was presented in October. and that those changes are distributed to the Planning Commission in what's covered in a green sheet of paper and those are also available in the back of the room the text within that packet anything underlined with kind of a dashed underline is considered an addition if it shows in black it was what was forwarded to the Planning Commission from the work group if it shows in red that was what the Planning Commission made some changes on prior to the hearing and then if it shows in green underline those are changes since the public hearing in October and just a run-through of what those changes include there were additions deletions and modifications to the definition section which is article 1 and then there were some deletions and modifications to the land use regulations which are spread across three different articles. In terms of definition changes, the commission added a definition for cultural tourism and also a new definition called farm gift shop, and they've deleted in this draft just gift shop and homegrown restaurant. Modifications came in both the recreation vehicle and trailer campground as well as primitive campground these are mostly minor wordsmithing changes in all of these children's rides country in ecotourism commercial farm market festival nature preserve recreational outfitter seasonal activities sportsman's farm tree canopy tour and then lastly the value-added product sales in terms of land use changes again these are the changes that are being highlighted in green in the packet. Farm gift shop becomes a new use and it's conditional but accessory at the same time so you wouldn't have it unless you had an otherwise permitted agricultural farm use. It would also be limited to 500 square feet. Zoological gardens were removed from all the residential zones. I apologize that bird watching is still up there Mr. Cravens that should have been a deletion. hiking and biking were allowed as accessory with other non-commercial recreation but added as commercial if they were conditional or prohibited by doing that you would you're separating whether it's a non-commercial hiking activity and a commercial hiking activity so the non-commercial the planning commission felt that could be accessory homegrown restaurants were removed from any zone where they did appear. Commercial farm markets, the use regulations and the definitions didn't quite jive, so it was taken out of the AR zone because the commercial farm market is what we see downtown, the farmer's market, and allowed in our business zones. A small tweak to kayaking and canoeing so that it doesn't call it operators but launch sites instead, where value-added product sales appear in our ag zones. There was just a shifting from it being grouped with general agricultural accessory uses to more the, I guess, with roadside stands is where it was grouped with. A few more changes. Botanical gardens were incorporated into the land use regulations, similar to nature preserves. There was a line added in the list of merchandise for sale in B1 to include sporting goods and recreational equipment. In automobile racetracks, where that appears in anywhere in the zoning ordinance, there was a clarification so that not just automobile racetracks is what we're talking about, but all other racetracks in similar uses like truck tracks, ATV, motorcycle, motocross, or any other vehicle tracks. so those would all be regulated similarly. Last few things. Light industrial zone, there was some confusion about how recreation uses were being treated there, so there was some additional language added, and the commission decided to move equine trails from conditional use to a prohibited just because of the conflict that could happen there. Removing the word agritourism from any of the non-agricultural zones, And then lastly, removing anywhere we saw bird watching from all the zones because the commission felt that that was something that shouldn't be regulated, which I think the staff agrees. That's sort of a summary of the changes that you should find in that green packet and for the public as well. um the staff i think we probably said this in october but we do recommend approval of the proposed text amendment as well as the very minor subdivision regulation amendment and there are four reasons listed in our staff report and on the agenda the first has to do with the 2013 comprehensive plan and meeting at least three of the goals and objectives of the plan second that the Rural Land Management Plan is also being bolstered with the proposed changes third and fourth the proposed changes and additions to the definitions will provide guidance and clarification to our Board of Adjustment this text amendment adds or modifies 38 definitions and that's still the right number I checked today related to recreation and tourism uses and then the proposed changes and additions to land use regulations will help to implement the recommendations of the 2013 comprehensive plan related to tourism and improving our community's overall quality of life at this point I'm going to turn over the podium to mr. King and he is going to run through shortly the staffs suggestion thank you miss Wayne Yes, Mr. King. Good afternoon, commission members and audience. We're ready for the next one. First of all, while things are getting up on the screen and alternative being passed out for you and for audience's information, staff wants to first of all thank and commend everybody that's had anything to do with this process. up to this point and yet to come. This has been a very good, a very in-depth discussion and clarification of a provision of our zoning ordinance and a few provisions of our zoning ordinance, particularly as it related to conditional uses in the agricultural rural and the agricultural natural zones. And as Tracy has already indicated to you, we are recommending approval of the text amendment. We think that regardless of what decisions you make on some of the tweaks, this is a much improved legislation that will provide great guidance to the Board of Adjustment and to others in the community in the future. That said, I think you all know that last summer, before the first hearing that was scheduled, the staff did put out an alternative text for the Commission's consideration. after discussion with the commission and others the staff basically pulled that back in favor of having the public hearing which was held in october and hearing all the information and all the work that you have done and i'm very pleased to report as you all know from the work session last week that we are now there are there are very very few and minor differences between the body of the text amendment as the Planning Commission has it in front of you right now in terms of other things we would like you to consider and I'm going to run through these very briefly again you have heard these but not everyone has first of all the staff just feels that a very small number of limited and very heavily restricted conditional uses should be considered by the Planning Commission for inclusion into the allowable group for the AR zone. Again, not as principal uses, but strictly as conditional uses, subject to Board of Adjustment approval and subject to some special review. Because of the nature of the AR zone and what we have out there and what it's trying to do, we are suggesting and recommending that before any of these uses, either the ones that you've got in there now or these additional ones that we suggest might be appropriate for inclusion, that there be a number of things that the Board of Adjustment look at as preconditions or requirements in granting and considering such an approval. And we have gone over these with you before, but again, basically they are things designed to make sure that what we are doing, first of all, does not harm agriculture, or what the board would be able to prove would not harm agriculture, would not cause a loss of prime soil, would meet a local need, provide access to a natural landscape feature, not an artificially or contrived attraction, that it be consistent with the major adoptive plans that have spoken and guide such these things, also include an operational plan, traffic management plan, an environmental assessment if necessary, and if the use does require some type of other certification by an organization, that that be provided as a condition of the approval or consideration as well. So again, these are things that are not in there. These are by and large things that the Board of Adjustment does have the right to consider in any conditional use. But we think, again, given the nature of this, this would be good to call out in specific language in the ordinance. Again, we are down to just a few uses that when staff reviewed this, and again, right now these uses are eligible to be considered by the Board of Adjustment, and I'm pointing to the map over here, to the land that is basically zoned AR, which is basically most of the rural service area. but particularly as you look towards what we would be suggesting in terms of where the appropriate zones are the olive green is AR again right now someone could go to the Board of Adjustment under a commercial quote unquote recreational facility and and seek conditional use from the Board of Adjustment in that area you have opted to primarily direct many of those to this area down here which is not zoned but is in the rural land management plan proposed as the Ag Natural Zone, which is where the predominance of natural features that we are talking about are located, although not all of them are located down in that area down there, which is basically why the staff just thinks a few additional ones could be considered. We do think that there may be appropriate locations for primitive camping. We are not talking about RV camping or trailer parks or anything of that nature, trailer camping, but perhaps primitive camping might be a use that would be acceptable to have considered by the Board of Adjustment in all of the rural service area. Second, rock climbing. Again, this is one that we note we really didn't get to the conclusion of talking about this last week. This is one use that is not mentioned in either AR or AN currently. Staff would assume that the commission might not have a problem adding it to AN, that is consistent with the other types of uses you have designate as conditional uses in AN, but staff thinks, again, that if there are a natural location in other parts of the rural service area, that that might be eligible to be considered. Launch sites for canoeing and kayaking, since those are functionally dependent on locations of streams and waterways, even though our major ones that we have accessible to us are located primarily in that AN designated area, there may be other places that could be appropriate for such use. And again, the board would have to review, subject to all those conditions, that potential. Likewise, for tree canopy tours, if there were a significant tree stand area worthy of such an operation in locations other than in that extreme southeastern portion of the county. And we also have noted that Eurtex does allow commercial equine trails in the AR as proposed currently in the commission's draft. The staff does think that bicycle or hiking trails would have a similar type impact, even though those uses are slightly different but properly regulated. I think those would be potentially acceptable to add as conditional uses in the staff's opinion. And finally, recreational outfitting. As you know, you have in your draft currently the gift shop associated with a farming operation. The staff thinks it's not unreasonable to have a similarly scaled outfitter for one of these other types of recreational uses if it's allowed. So you would not be able to have the shop as a principal use, but if you had, you know, the canoe outfitting and kayaking, you could have a modest amount dedicated to sale of those types of things. So, again, at this point that is the only, those are the only differences between where the current status of your, what we call your draft proposal, the Planning Commission's draft proposal, and ones that the staff would consider that you formally consider for inclusion into your text amendment. But again, what the staff really is here supporting is the entire process, the entire ordinance, and we do think it will be a better piece of legislation under which we are currently operating. And just if there are any clarifications, we have listed these two items as specifically prohibited in the staff's alternative as well. Thank you, Chris. At this time, I think it was touched on, the public comment section for this was back in October. It was closed at that time. Any discussion since has been with commission members, and that's the way it will stay since we've already had the public comment section. So at this point in time, I'll turn it over to commission members for any questions, thoughts, comments. I would suggest questions early. And, well, I'll open it up to the floor as far as commission is concerned. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, Chris, I had two comments or two, sorry, two questions about your presentation. Barb, if you can flip back one on the list. You don't have to. Chris. To flip, I have to go here. I was going to say, just hang tight. On this list, you specifically say commercial equine, but commercial is not identified anywhere else. How are you determining what's a commercial use and what's non-commercial and where that's acceptable? Understood. Because that's something that's important. Remember, as an accessory use, people can do these things on their property. If I want to have a bunch of people out and hike and bike and do that, that's perfectly within my rights. But if I set it up as a business operation, I get a business license, I charge a fee for that, then that is primarily what creates a commercial distinction. Okay, so commercial is done. And I have to make those determinations as zoning administrator on a case-by-case basis. But according to your explanation, commercial is included, implicit in these definitions? It's a conditional use, yes. Okay. So why is commercial equine identified? Well, again, if I want to have, if I have a farm and I have a trail, and I bring people out there and haven't let them ride around on my farm or whatever, it's not a commercial operation. But if I set it up as a riding establishment, charged by the hour, charged by the ride, or something like that, I am a commercial equine operation. Okay, maybe I'm just looking for too much clarification on a present. I realize this is not the text, but why is it commercially used here and not elsewhere, or why is it needed here? To make it clear, just for clarity, that what we're talking about is not something people have an inherent right to do on their property with friends or others, but to set it up when it is a business operation. Patrick? I think commercial would apply to everything behind it. All the bullets. Hiking and bicycle. Yeah, the commission earlier in your consideration decided that non-commercial hiking and biking could be accessory, so there was a distinction made. But that commercial would be prohibited. Okay, and so then launch sites for canoeing and kayaking, non-commercial or commercial, would both be conditional use? No, commercial. So commercial applies to everything on that list? Yes. Basically, yes. What I was trying to do, instead of dealing with a page of law here, simplify what we're talking about in terms of the difference between the commission's text and the staff's text at this point. Okay. And then again, I think it's on page two of your presentation, but what determines local need, which was one of the reasons that I think it was listed? Well, again, before these, we thought it would be good to establish that there is a need for that facility, and not that you can go to northern Ohio and ride a bike or something, but there is a local need for a facility to hike or bike or something of that nature. Okay, and so how would that be determined? Geographically? Again, through the board. These would be considerations the Board of Adjustment would take into account in making that determination, whether it was an acceptable conditional use or not. And are there guidelines for that? or just completely up to the wishes of the board? Right now, none of these guidelines are in the ordinance, and the board functions without those kinds of things. We think that this provides additional guidance and direction to the board. Okay, thanks. Other questions? Mr. Penn? Yeah, I guess, Chris, you can reply to this if you want to, But what my concern is is when you start letting the Board of Adjustment decide where commercial uses can happen in the AR zone and where they can't, then what happens is you take it out of the regulations and you put it in the hands of three people to decide. We're trying to drive our commercial uses to the B1 sites because that's what we think commercial uses should be. And so what we're doing, we're saying we want all the B-1 uses to go to the B-1 sites except the ones the Board of Adjustment decide doesn't have to. And that's where the rub comes in. Other questions? Let me touch on a couple of things then. And once again, this boils down to commercial activities versus non-commercial activities. Throughout the public hearing and so forth, we had one person from the bicycling community that wrote a letter. And she wasn't concerned about commercial bicycling in the rural areas. She says, I can ride on the roadways. Simply put, that's where I want to be. So, you know, that's the only one from the community we heard about hiking and bicycling trails. And she also added in the letter that, you know, to be conscious and not put commercial activities out into the area that would affect agriculture. To me, commercial, non-commercial agricultural activities are incompatible for the most part with the agricultural activities that, you know, as far as I'm concerned with, we've been charged with to promote, preserve, and give an opportunity for it to continue. I'm not going to get off too much but our mission statement that we adopted two years ago that we wrote and drafted if you look at it, about 40% of it speaks to the rural character and agricultural land that we have the City of Lexington's Visitor's Guide that is out now It's 50 pages. If you look through it, it's either devoted to every page, each page is devoted to a horse-related article, or it's being branded by the wonderful blue horse that the city of Lexington has to brand this equine industry. And therefore, I think that is a strong statement that we should do everything we can to protect that. A couple of things, equine, you know, equine is agriculture. You know, equine is agriculture, and it is not compatible with bicycling and pedestrians, simply put. But the couple of these items, as far as the conditions or prerequisites, you know, doing no harm to the agricultural community activities would not conflict with agriculture. That is subjective. significant loss of as long as it does not result in significant loss of prime agricultural land you look at that map, most of what's in that green is prime agricultural land and who determines that? I'm sorry to say but to me that is subjective once again I would agree with rock climate You know, we have tried very diligently throughout the three years to think of everything. Ten years ago, nobody thought of canopy tours. Up until about a year ago, no one thought of rock climbing. And I guarantee you, tomorrow, somebody's going to think of something else. You know, but in the meantime, you know, I think we've got a very good plan here. We've worked very hard at it. And, you know, we need to push it forward as far as I'm concerned. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow up on a couple of things you said because I think you've touched on some important and sensitive points. As we have deliberated, you touched on what I think was an overarching and fundamental theme that emerged from those deliberations. and that is that it is essential that we preserve and nurture the thoroughbred industry with which we have been blessed. And I think very few people would contest or dispute that objective. The question to me becomes how we do that. And I think that public policy and regulation has a significant role to play in that effort. I think it's important that that policy and that regulation strike a, what is a very delicate balance between the needs of the thoroughbred industry and the economic and social interests of other segments of society. So the question becomes, does this ordinance that we're considering strike that balance? During the public hearing, we heard testimony that was opposed to the ordinance simply because it was regulation. I'm certainly not one that subscribes to that view. We also heard testimony from people that supported the ordinance, and we heard testimony from people that were opposed to it for other reasons. And I thought there was compelling argument on both sides of the issue. If I had to draw a conclusion based on that testimony that was focused primarily on individual or specific sections of the ordinance, I'm not sure what my conclusion would be. I look at it from, I guess, a more holistic standpoint, and when I consider it in its totality, I am concerned that it is very narrow and restrictive, and I'm not sure it strikes that balance. I'm also concerned that it may have some unforeseen unintended consequences. And I think it's important or incumbent upon those of us that are entrusted with the power of governance to use that very judiciously. because while I am a proponent of government being a positive force in our lives, many people are not. And there are many people, I think, or at least a segment of society that sees government, which includes us, as an enemy or as an evil force that intrudes into their lives. and I think we have to be very careful so that we don't exacerbate that feeling. We try to moderate it and we try to preserve the prerogatives of government for essential and strategic uses. and I feared at times during our deliberations that we were attempting to craft such a narrowly drawn ordinance that I ask myself, do we trust ourselves and our successors or are we trying to make their decision-making cut and dried? I think that in its totality, this ordinance borders on that. And I think decision makers have to have flexibility and latitude to assess issues within the circumstances of the time and to apply judgment to obtain an optimum outcome. and for those reasons and recognizing that I am likely in a minority, I can't vote to forward this to the council. I want to assure my fellow commissioners and everyone else involved that I fully honor and respect opposing view or opinion and will certainly accept the collective decision of this body. And I appreciate yours and my colleagues' patience, and I apologize for the length of my discussion, but I felt that it was important that the record reflect the reason for my position. Thank you, Mr. Drake. Ms. Richardson? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think I can be quite as elegant as my commission member to my right, but I do, in fact, agree with pretty much everything that David had to say. I, too, have a really pretty big concern over how restrictive that this amendment has become. And while there's no one that loves animals or the farms, I grew up in rural western Kentucky, I think we have to be careful about the balance that we draw. I don't want to be the commission that squashed entrepreneurship. There are all kinds of people that have different feelings and activities and things than I do. As hard as it might be for most of us sitting here to believe, I bet there are people in this city that are not going to watch the ball game tonight. Or any basketball game. Likewise, there are those who are not going to run in any of the wonderful marathons that now have become quite popular. Or ever go to a U.K. opera or Kingland. They're not interested. That's not their thing. And our commerce, Lexington and the city, spends hours and hours promoting this community and trying to bring new blood and new businesses into this. And when new companies come in, they want good schools. They want to know what's there to do. And their employees have different sorts of needs. And I don't want us to back ourselves into a corner that we cannot get out of. And I think we need, because it's expensive to propose a new business, I'm afraid that because the restrictions are such and that there are so few principal uses, that no one is going to go to the expense of hiring attorneys and architects and all the different people that come with having to deal with starting a new business, no matter how big or how small. You have to have a business plan. You have to do all these things. And I think they might take a look at our ordinances and say, this isn't worth it. I can't do this. in Lexington, Kentucky, or Fayette County. And I think that's not right. I, too, am a great believer in the, and I love the horse farms and the quine industry, and I think there needs to be some regulation. I think this one has gone a step or two too far, and like Mr. Drake, I will support it, But if it passes, then it passes. But I do not feel that I can support it at this time because I feel it is entirely too restrictive. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. Mr. Penn, you're reaching. Yeah. There's very little I can add to what's been said here today, except I want to remind you of two things. had we done nothing in what we have right now, there are 50 different uses that can be done in the AR zone that were not able to be done before this was done. The zip line situation, or maybe 38, depending on how you want to count them. This matrix that went through this two-year process was mainly done to define what these definitions of these uses are. We chose not to change the intent of the zones. None of the zone changes. None of the intent was never touched in any of them. To do some of these things that are being proposed, the intent of the zone needed to be changed. That didn't happen. Commercial uses in the AR zone work if they're well thought out of. And I'll give you the restaurant out on Beer Station Pike is a good example. that was a B1 zone. The rest are there. It works. There are 23 other sites out there where those B1 things can be done. We haven't down zoned them. We couldn't down zone them. They belong to the people that bought the property. They need to be used and they need to be used for the commercial part of it. We think this will drive those uses. If that happens, there's 23 other things that can happen out there that aren't happening now that are commercial. Our concern is that commercial uses next to other agriculture is a commercial use. It is a factory. We produce a product. The problem is that product lives and breathes. You don't shut it up on Saturday afternoon and open it back up on Monday morning. So all those types of things are what makes us unique. and thoroughbred industry is just a very small part of it. The horse park and the show horse industry and the non-race industry breeds are what keeps our land values up. And to ask people to come in and make huge investments, they can't make it on an island. They make it because they feel comfortable where they are. We have people coming from other counties and buying farms. Dr. Yoshida is a great example of that to lift Bourbon County because of the three-acre house rule and move to Fayette County. Cost him a lot of money to do that. That's the type of thing we're trying to preserve. But tourism is what we're really, this community is going to have to make a decision right quick whether they're going to be a convention town or a tourism town. And if tourism is what it's going to be, then we need to protect the thing that brings the tourists here. And that is what this is designed to do. Thank you. Others? Mr. Craigins? Yeah, what are we supposed to do with this staff recommendation? I mean, do we need action on it or what? Can we just go ahead and talk about what I want? If the commission is ready, we can vote for the post-draft that Tracy has presented to us. We can vote on that. We can vote on the staff alternative as well. if the commission is ready. Well, but I guess before we get into that, and I've sat through all these meetings back to I don't know how many years it's been, and all these work sessions, I missed one. Well, and, you know, I offered solutions to a lot of things that were bothering me, and I didn't get anything put in there. Anything changed until just last week, and I guess I was kidding about birdwatching because that's how absurd some of these things work to me. I mean, I just use that as an example. There's other things in there seem just as silly to me in these definitions. We're down to defining what an RV is and what a kid's ride, if it can have music on it or not. I mean, it's like this thing goes too far. And to go to drive everything to the Board of Adjustment where you can't do anything with your land, I mean, you've got to get a permit. It's going to take 60 days to go to the Board of Adjustment. And when you do, these guys will be down there fighting you down there, you know, at the Board of Adjustment. And it's just, it has to do with personal property rights for me, a lot of it. But another thing I've been trying to get in here is some principal uses in the AEN. And I'd like to see youth camps, aquitourism, equitourism, commercial and non-commercial, outdoor recreational facilities added in the AEN as principal uses. I mean, the only principal use right now in the AEN is building a house, looks like to me. I mean, there's one other. I don't recall what it was, but you could build a house in it as a principal use. but to make somebody every time they want to do something have to go to the board of adjustment and get a permit i mean that's a 90 day uh operation so mr chairman i don't know if you want to discuss this a.n proposal i'm making or you want me to just make a motion and see if we want to discuss it there or what personally i would like to me personally i'd like to discuss and work sessions, I believe. But it's up to you if you want to make a motion. I mean, work sessions are over if we're going to vote on this thing. As I said, you know, we can, if the commission is ready to vote on this, we can. We don't have to. We can continue it to another day. Okay, let me just try this. See, that's what I got the whole time. Okay. I'm going to make a motion to add to the AN principal uses to include youth camps, agritourism, equitourism, commercial, non-commercial, outdoor recreational facilities. They're conditional uses now. And I want to just make the motion to add them to the principal uses in the AN. Let me offer this, Mike. you know, hearing what you're offering as a motion, I think we need language drafted for that, which I don't think the staff feels comfortable doing on the fly. Mr. Chairman, we didn't get a second on that before discussion. Okay. Do we have a second? Motion to be made and second it. Now then, as far as discussion, Mr. King, would you like to comment on that? Well, first of all, I would comment that the staff would be opposed to that. We think that that is entirely against what the thrust of this has been, in that whether this is an AR land or AN land, there is an environmental sensitivity that I do think warrants Board of Adjustment approval of any of these types of uses. So I just wanted to make it clear that in terms of the staff, that's where we are on that issue. As far as putting something together, you would be moving basically on page 8-14 of the packet. I'm trusting Tracy and Bill. they're in my ear on this. Page 815. Boxes 7. No, number 4. Pardon me. Number 4. Tracy's paper was over there. 4, 9, 10, and 11. Moving those to principal uses, I believe, would be the thrust of Mr. Craven's motion. 15. So am I hearing that you think this would be doable? Or you would rather? Again, we react. In fact, you've got a motion on the table. We're trying to help you get to a place not knowing what's going to happen. Again, we are, as a staff, opposed. to making that change. All right. Mr. Berkley, question? A question for staff. You said that this is a thing that you think that Board of Adjustment needs to deal with, and I tend to think it's a thing that the commission needs to deal with. And for the reason that we don't have any AN zone land in this county at this time, and it would require a zone change, wouldn't those same types of things happen on a commission level versus a board of adjustment level? Potentially. Remember, if the land is sought for zoning and someone wishes a conditional use, the Planning Commission, they can apply and have the Planning Commission hear the conditional use instead of the Board of Adjustment at the time of zoning. So, again, what's the point of having a conditional use if you've got to get a zone change, too? Why can't it be the same thing? I mean, essentially it is. You know, if somebody wants to do this type of use, if they want to do it in northern Fayette County or they want to do it in southern Fayette County, they ask for this zone. And then that is vetted. Well, that isn't that forever because use could change. Someone may come in getting zoning thinking they are going to do one thing. They may not get financing. The circumstances may change. Well, we just did a zone change today where we put 10 prohibitive uses on it. So, I mean, those kinds of things can be dealt with, is my point. Why do we need this extra layer of conditional use on land that, quite frankly, there's not a single piece of zoned that yet? Well, again, the Planning Commission's control would be at the time of zoning, but it could go on afterward. That's my point, though, is I think these are big enough issues that the Planning Commission needs to be dealing with it instead of Board of Adjustment. That's my point. And the other thing is that the Board of Adjustment has the authority to drill down into a lot of specific conditions of operation, things that the Planning Commission typically doesn't or conditional zoning restrictions are very limited under statute compared to what can be done with a conditional use permit through the Board of Adjustment. And we think you're going to need and want that kind of flexibility in these areas. Other questions? Yes, ma'am. I have a question. Why did you include number four? I'm sorry. In the, because that didn't have any of the, unless I'm overlooking one, have any of the things that Mr. Cravens was talking about. Did you? It did. Mr. Cravens mentioned commercial and non-commercial outdoor recreation facilities. I'm sorry. Okay. That's how it starts. Okay. we do have a motion on the floor which was seconded there has been some discussion anybody else staff swayed in on this and expressed their opinion yes ma'am thank you I kind of coming from a different corner right now with what has been said we're now talking about AN and in my view the way the document is written and now we are much too liberal with AN. We are not fulfilling the intent of the zone. We're talking about an area in the county that is environmentally sensitive, steep slopes. We're talking about an area of the county that there has been an ad hoc committee appointed for the subject of a study of a surety bond. the results of that committee and that work group we do not know yet the final report has not been issued but whatever they decide if they decide that it is too expensive for a developer to participate in this process to develop environmentally insensitive land, that tells me that that land, that indicates that it is so valuable that we shouldn't be developing it. What about a mitigation process? What about requirements for replacing the land should it fall to disrepair once the development is finished or if that happens. I just think that this is such a prized area that we need to offer the most protection there, and we definitely should not be any more liberal than we have at the moment. Thank you. Yeah, so we've got a motion on the table that I wanted to ask a clarifying question about. Is the motion, I understand what you want to include, Mike, but which version are you talking about? Are you talking about the one that staff has just proposed to us or the original, the one that was original before today? No, this is, well, I just want to add these things as principal uses where they're now conditional. I understand, but I'm not sure what text we're voting on. Has that been clarified? To add to what? Well, to the A and the staff is only in the AR, what they're proposing. As I understand what the motion would do, would take the version, what we call the Planning Commission's version, not the staff change, and make those changes that I identified, basically moving the boxes on page 815 that we identified from the conditional use category into the principal permitted use category. okay well um this gives me quite a quandary then because we're voting on on important issues but we're in doing so voting on the entire plan no well no that's not my intent my intention is to add this language on the an part of it so this this vote is not as i understand what this vote would do you this is not the final vote on the entire package that's right this is to amend what you have put in front of yourselves by making this change much much like your your staff proposal correct like and at some point you can choose to accept or not accept the staffs well i suppose if this if this passed it would be added to this if it were to fail uh then it wouldn't be in this draft you'll be voting on it one way or another you know and and okay i mean also in the in the an there's a lot of the kindergartens and nurse daycares and all that was eliminated out of that i know there's some flat places out there on streets that you could do some of that okay so we have a motion on floor which has been seconded uh are there any other discussion on the motion. If not, we'll take a vote. The motion is simply to add these four numbered items, taking them from conditional to principal uses in the AN zone. Everybody's already voting. So, it disappeared. Oh, there it is. 6-5. Okay. So the motion's been made and approved to change the language in the AN zone from number 8, 3, C, 4, 9, 10, and 11 from conditional to principal uses. That motion's passed. Mr. Berkley, do you have a question? No. Oh, okay. Yeah. I want to offer another amendment as well. This deals with all the agricultural zones, and what is right now defined as farm gift shop. this is only allowed for farm and agricultural type uses for them to have a gift shop. If somebody is doing ecotourism in accordance with our text here, they would not be allowed to have any kind of gift shop even being 500 square feet. So it seems to me that that's not equitable. So I would like to propose an amendment to Article 1-11 that redefines farm gift shop to accessory gift shop, and an amendment to Article 8-1-D in the AR, adding number 32 as accessory gift shops, limited to 500 square feet. Also in Article 8-2-D-A-B zone, it would be Item 20. Article 8-3-D in the A-N zone would be Number 12. And Article 8-4 in the A zone, it would be Item 17. They would all read, Accessory Gift Shops Limited to 500 Square Feet. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. I hate to repeat all that. Question for you, Mr. Berkley. In the definition, you're eliminating farm and just listing it as a gift shop. You know, personally, I think that's got implications across the board that would allow a gift shop to possibly go in anywhere. Yeah, my intent would not be to be a freestanding kind of thing that you can do. It would be accessory. That's why I'm calling it accessory. So if that was, that was not my intent. It would have to be accessory to one of the uses that would be approved or permitted. Accessory to one of the agricultural, agritourism or ecotourism? It would be any of the uses that would be allowed in the four zones, the four agricultural zones, whether they be principal or conditional, that this be allowed as accessory to that. Yes, sir. Will, are you agreeable with the fact they'd have to go to the Board of Adjustment to get approval for that gift shop? If they're going in front of the Board of Adjustment for conditional use, I guess that's the way you would go. But if it's in the AEN and what we have just changed, that would be an accessory use to that. I don't know that it has to go to Board of Adjustment for principal use. What's in the orders now is in order to get the farm gift shop, you have to go for the adjustment and get a conditional use. So are you trying to make yours less restrictive than that or more than restrictive? I guess what I'm saying is if it's a principal use, no, I don't want them to have to go back to Board of Adjustment. I'm not calling it principal. I'm calling it accessory. No. My intent is for this to be accessory to some other permitted principle. Well, I don't want to say principle, but the significant use that's occurring on the property. I'm just trying to get clarification. Accessory is the key word. At this point in time, I know we've got a motion on the floor. this is where I suggested a moment ago possibly continuing this, talking about it back in a work session and hammering these details out instead of asking our staff to work on the fly to try and get language that we could conceivably pass. Would you be acceptable to that, Will? Whatever the commission, I guess, decides on that as far as an outcome, but I would, I mean, I don't want to take my motion off the table if that's what you're asking. I mean, because in the event that we do vote, I want that to be considered. So I'd be willing to take it off unless we vote. My question is, would you be willing to withdraw it and let us go back and work on this some more to try and come up with proper language? I mean, I don't want to speak for everybody, so I'd rather just go ahead and vote on this, and then we can talk about that afterwards, I guess. Mr. Chairman, are you talking about continuing this hearing? Yes, sir. And then considering that? Yes, sir. Mr. Burr? Yeah, I quite frankly thought we were a lot closer to fruition on this two-year gestational period, But obviously we're not, in my opinion, and I would propose that we do take this off the table at this point and continue it. I think we're talking about incredibly substantive issues that should have been worked out in work session. So if Will is not willing to take the motion off the table, I'll just make that comment before we vote. I think that's the route we need to go rather than amending this on the fly. Mr. Berkley? I will take it off the table so long as we're not going to vote on the whole ordinance today. Well, I think with your interest in that, I don't think we can vote on the rest of it today. Okay. So with that, you're willing to withdraw your motion? Yes. Okay. So that motion's been withdrawn. It sounds like we're going back to the drawing board on some of these issues here, folks. I appreciate everyone's time on this part of it. So this part of the recreational Zota will be continued to a later date. Do you have a suggestion? Yes, ma'am. We were just going to suggest if there were any other motions that anyone was going to make, if you would let us know, we could try to draft some language so that you'd have a more effective work session. Thank you, sir. Anyone else at this time? Anyone else have anything else? No. Anyone else? Ms. Wilson? The question is, are you asking to table it, or are you asking for a continuance? What are you asking for here? I think you need to continue the hearing. Continue this part of the rec soda. Can it be continued in work session? Take it back to a work session. Continue it to another meeting and take it back to the work session. The formal commission consideration of the text amendment needs to be in the hearing. So you need to continue the hearing. But that does not mean you cannot have a work session to talk about it in the interim, because that is an open meeting. Chris, Mike, can I ask a question? At the same time we're doing this, you ask about another motion. I don't necessarily have a motion, but I think it would be helpful if we knew what Mr. Wilson's committee was going to come out with as far as protecting this environmentally sensitive land in the AN zone. So if we come back to this, it would be nice to have his committee's recommendation because I think at some point that needs to be folded in. That is very close to being completed for Mr. Wilson's consideration to forward on to the group. And that, I think, given the timing of a work session, yes, that will be possible. Well, I mean, that's one of the weaknesses that I felt in voting for the whole thing to go forward because we didn't know how that piece was going to fit. And I truthfully didn't know how you'd put it in if you'd send it on to the council. I didn't know what you'd do with that. I'm sure there's a way, but I didn't know. Well, again, staff's understanding that that was going to be treated as a separate issue, although it does somewhat inform what you're doing. but you will have the benefit of the recommendations of that group the next work session. Okay. Do we need a motion for the continuance? Legal, do we need a motion for the continuance? We need drafting, or they can tell us. If you have questions that you want to pose to staff so we could be better prepared at a work session, if you can't articulate them right this minute, it doesn't mean you can't articulate them to us before then, or we will be working on the fly in the work session. Thank you. Okay, but do we need a motion now for this? If you're going to continue it, and they need to continue it to a specific date. Your next scheduled work session, I believe, is April 30th. Okay. So, yes, sir. Just to remind everybody, let's be a little traffic management here. today you're going to be asked to set the hearing April 30th as a hearing date for two small area plans. Okay. So that would probably not be a good day the 30th of April. I think April is a five Thursday month. It is. So there would be the potential to schedule a work session on the 16th. Yes, sir. But again, you need to continue this hearing not to a work session, but to one of your regularly scheduled meetings. We have... So the 23rd would be a possibility. And you would be able to have the work session in the interim. Okay. April 23rd. Thank you. So our... Yes, sir, Mr. Drake? Mr. Chairman, I don't request that the commission revolve around me, but I have a previous commitment out of state on the 23rd. Well, that's just too big. And I recognize that it may be. What's the next one, Chris? Okay. With that said and that consideration, we do need a continuance of this. May 14th would be. one suggestion has been the 23rd, or we move it off to a later date, which would be in May. May 14th is what I've just been told. April the 23rd, or May the 28th, without their zoning, or May 14th. This thing has gone on so long already, I think we would be well adjusted to bring it on along in April. Okay. I disagree. Mr. Drake has indicated he can't be here then. So I think we need to move to May. I'm interested in a motion, folks. April 16th. What's May what? May 28th is the next zoning. if you go to mate we've been asked on the side to whether there what the next dates possible would be for a work session after the 16th it looks like the 21st 21st may that would be the next possibility for that for the year no for work session May 23rd. And then the call of the 28th would be there. And then the 28th of the hearing. Any Thursday. Okay. I really hate to kick this can, but I think it needs to be kicked down the road. So I make a motion for continuance to the hearing on May 28th. Okay. Second. Motion's been made and seconded to continue this Rex Oda hearing until May the 28th. If there's no questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. So that has been continued. Thank you, everyone. And we will continue working on this. Mr. Chairman, I have a commission on consideration. Not a problem. Oh, no, we are. Next on the agenda is our signed text amendment wherever it is. Here it is. We've got a brown sheet of papers, which is supplemental staff report. for Zota 2015-3. It's amendment to Article 17-7K to allow multi-tenant listing on freestanding signs and planned shopping center. It's tab three in the books and you do have a supplemental sheet before you. Tab three. Ms. Wade. Good afternoon again. As Mr. Owens, Chairman Owens mentioned, we're on page three of the agenda. This is a Zoda text amendment to allow multi-tenant listings on our freestanding signs in the shopping center zone, which is the B6P zone. The applicant is Ruggles Sign, and they have proposed a text amendment to Article 17-7K, which is the section of the sign ordinance that allows B6P signage and is very specific about one freestanding sign being permitted for a shopping center rather than each lot in a shopping center zone having their own sign. The intent there is to concentrate the signage in one location, identify the shopping center, so that each outlaw or each business use doesn't have its own sign. The intent, again, is to create a center, to create a place. And since the 1950s, our ordinance has required just the one freestanding sign for any shopping center. The applicant is proposing to add one line in that section of the text in order to permit, well, currently there is an allowance for a bulletin board to be attached to that sign. The bulletin board has to have changeable copy. I'm sure you've seen that places. Walgreens and some other businesses use them still to advertise specific. In this case, the requirement is to advertise specific sales or events on the property. The applicant's proposal is to permit tenant panels in lieu of that bulletin board, mostly because the bulletin boards have come out of fashion and the tenant panel listing is actually more on trend currently. So since that has been a problem for the applicant in terms of proposed signage in Fayette County, they are proposing to modify it. The applicant did provide some graphics when they made their application to the Planning Commission, and the first is a specific example where they're requesting a shopping center sign. It's Pleasant Ridge Plaza, and at first they provided a graphic or attachment, I guess, to the application that showed what the sign would look like. And that included the shopping center name at the top and then listing of eight panels. The second is a comparison. Once we spoke with the applicant and clarified that the language of the ordinance even today requires that a shopping center sign be at least half of the sign and that the bulletin board would be a minor or at least less than half. they provided the second graphic. So I think this actually is helpful in terms of the staff alternative as we're talking about this. On the right-hand side, left-hand side, the shopping center name is not as prominent. It becomes secondary to the panel listings. And in reviewing the applicant's proposal, we wanted to make sure the staff's feeling in general was that the shopping center name and the shopping center identity remain primary and that the tenant panels are secondary. So the revision that the applicant provided, I think, addresses that to a certain degree. And the second graphic comparisons there, again, the first sign shows a very large bulletin board and just the smaller name of the shopping center. and the second actually would meet the regulations currently. And again, it provides a more balance of a shopping center name and then what or who is listed in the shopping center. In staff's review of the application, there were a few concerns about their proposed change. First had to do with the number of panels that they were proposing eight panels most of the graphics that we handed out the applicant provided showed six panels in the packet mr sally distributed and the staff in looking at the the layout of all the signs within their submission felt that six panels was a better balance to the signs if you look at the square footage of what's permitted in the b6p zone that would equate to if you had six panels each panel being between five and ten square feet each or or larger if you were to share pan you know someone got two panels versus one so the staff felt that limiting the number of panels to six was a better feel for the signs in addition the staff alternative text also wants to make clear that the shopping center identification remains primary as I mentioned so that part of the sign would be at least 60% and the tenant panels would be limited to 40% the third concern or second concern that the staff had was about defining tenant panel that wasn't part of the applicants proposal but we feel it would be a new type of sign so the staff is suggesting a definition for tenant panel be added to the ordinance and then the third concern the applicant contends that providing the tenant panels on the signs is important so that people can find that store business here in Fayette County. So the staff thinks it's important to put that it has to be legible from at least 200 feet away. Otherwise, as you're driving by, you really limit what can be or how effective the sign is. There's a diminishing point of diminishing returns there. If the signage text is so small, just to be on the sign, it doesn't actually really help. And then the last thing the staff wanted to make clear is since we are adding a new type of sign to these signs, that any sign getting new panels added to it should be conforming to the rest of Article 17 in terms of its size or location or height. I believe there are some B6P signs out there that are still non-conforming. So this would require that those signs come into conformity with the rest of Article 17 before the tenant panels are added. So the staff is, after further deliberation and meeting with the applicant further, we're ready to recommend approval of the staff alternative text, which we believe provides more clarity and also does address the new recent trend of adding panels but doing so in terms of balancing the aesthetic appearance maintaining the shopping center as a place by having that name be primary and also it does provide additional wayfinding for our citizens So the staff is recommending approval of the staff alternative, which I believe is in your notebook. Tracy, one question. Yes, sir. 60-40 percent in looking through some of these examples, if you could take like Andover shops or Park Hills. I'm trying to figure out the 60 percent saying Park Hills and 40 percent. These are the examples that Ruggles signed prepared, and they are saying that their proposal is, I think. These aren't? No, these are not the staff's proportion. So the existing ordinance requires that the identification sign remain at least half or more than a bulletin board. Is there a reason for that? what's the reason for more what's your reason for more addressing and identifying the shopping center as a whole as opposed to the tenants that's in it I think the reason for more than the bulletin board the way it is currently currently you could probably do 50 50 I think the reason the staff is asking for more is that the tenant panels are they're permanent versus the attraction board or the bulletin board being able to be changed on a on a semi-regular basis with just plain text it doesn't have much advertising value whereas the tenant panels are additional advertising and all the shopping center we're not we're not together on the same page evidently yeah I'm okay with that forget about the marquee board you know why 60 40 and not 50 50 yeah thank you I think by allowing that additional signage, the tenant panels, we wanted to make sure that the shopping center remained primary. And at 50-50, it's not. It's even. I mean, I guess we could go 51-49, but 60-40 seems like a better split to the staff. Personally, I would think people would be more interested in identifying Rite Aid instead of Park Hills Shopping Center. And I'm not picking on Park Hills by any stretch of imagination. But, you know, that's my two cents for it. Okay. Any other questions? I think the businesses certainly are more interested in that. But in terms of the community aesthetic, I believe having that shopping center, the staff believes having that shopping center name be primary is very important. Okay. Okay. Mr. Wilson? Just a couple of questions. In riding around town and counting panels now, some of the shopping centers already have more than eight. So would that be grandfathered in or would it be? Those are not in a B6P zone. Those are in B1 or B3. So this is only for these? B6P. Okay, let me ask the second question. If a person had eight panels and the panels were digital and they could flip, would that be permissive? No, the LED signage is not permitted in a B6P zone at all. Okay. Mr. Wilson? I'm sorry, Mr. Drake. I just want to follow up on your point, Mr. Chairman, and not that I agree or disagree. I just wonder what the logic is that the shopping center's exposure has to be superior to the tenants. Because the shopping center is the place that they're going to visit, not, I mean, I think the whole purpose of a shopping center and the shopping center zone itself is to create a one singular place. It's a shopping center, not a grouping of individual tenants. The idea is you're creating a place. You're creating Fayette Mall. Whether you know that there's 70 stores in every one of them who they are, people go to Fayette Mall. And we want to, yeah. I go to Fayette Mall to buy something at Macy's. I don't go to Fayette Mall. But that's me, and I don't mean to be contentious or disagree. I was just wondering. Other questions? Other questions? If not, anyone else like to speak on this? I'm sorry, do you have anything else, Ms. Wade? No, just that the staff's recommending approval of the staff alternative. Thank you. Thank you. We do have staff alternatives. Anyone in the audience wish to speak? Yes, ma'am? Thank you for your patience today. Absolutely. My name's Elizabeth Pitchford. I'm with Ruggles Sign. I'm happy to be speaking with you again on this issue. And I can tell you that I had the same question that you all had about the 60-40 versus 50-50, but we are very pleased that there's some alternative text in front of you for consideration for approval. I still believe that the use of the multi-tenant panels is going to be an incentive for businesses coming to town. I think it's going to be a wayfinding, a positive for your wayfinding issues, and it's going to be all in all a good text amendment to initiate in the B6P zone. So we are in support of getting this through. Thank you. Questions? No? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Others? Mr. Murphy, thank you for your patience today. I'm Dick Murphy here on behalf of Hamburg Development. We appreciate this. We were not the applicant, although we are impacted by it, and we appreciate the applicant working with us and the staff and keeping us in the loop. We were agreeable with the applicant's original application, which was 50-50. The staff proposal is better than what we have now, so we're okay with that. So we just wanted to express our support, and thank you for the participation here. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Anyone else? Any questions from commission? Yeah, I can find Hamburg. I just can't find the store I'm looking for in Hamburg. Any other comments? If not, I'm ready for a motion. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Move approval of Zota 2015-3 amendment to Article 17-7K with the staff alternatives. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. that motion passes thank you thank everyone we have two other items on the commission items ones on the addendum uh public hearing on two small area plans you can see it looks like uh for august 30th at 130 on that day april 30th what did i say august no i'm sorry gee i am jumping ahead. No, for April 30th. Any comments about that? If not, we can entertain a motion. Mr. King, do you have anything to add? No, sir. Okay. Motion? Mr. Chairman, move approval of the April 30th hearing. Okay, do we have a second? Second. That's a motion and second for approval of the public hearing on the two small area plans for April 30th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. I do have one other thing here. It was a resolution that was drafted by Mrs. Tracy Jones at the request of Commission Member Carolyn Plumlee. It was passed out to you all last week. It's concerning and encouraging the inclusion of an environmental inspector position in the Department of Environmental Services in December 2016 budget for Lexington-Ferritt County Urban Planning Committee, government, I'm sorry. I hope everyone had a chance to look at it. We can take action on it today if so warranted. And we have a motion, and it's read into the minutes. Can I ask a question on the next vote? Should this be something we hope we'll have to see about the mitigation type situation or are they related? No, they're not related. This is more of a tree can be. Okay. Mr. King? No? Okay. You wouldn't lean them back, you were leaning forward. I was wondering. I've got something else I'm bringing to you. Okay. Very good. Okay. Ms. Plumlee? I move that the Planning Commission sent to the Urban County Council a resolution encouraging the inclusion of an environmental inspector position in the Division of Environmental Services in the 2016 budget of the Lexington Fayette urban County government be it resolved by the Planning Commission of the Lexington Fayette urban County government section 1 that the position of Environmental Inspector in the Division of Environmental Services is encouraged to be included in the 2016 budget of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government. And Section 2, that this position is necessary and warranted in the Division of Environmental Services to provide compliance related to the commercial landscaping ordinance as well as to provide assistance in support of greenway maintenance. Section 3, that this resolution shall become effective on a date of its passage shall be forward to the urban county council as well as to the mayor of the lexington fayette urban county government thank you we have a motion on the floor do we have a second motion made and seconded for the approval of this resolution mr drake do you have a question yeah mr chairman do we know what the fiscal impact of this is is this goal impact as the budget impact but it's going to cost or is it going to cost I think it's already in the works in the mr. King or miss white Jones somebody this is not in the planning staff so I do not know what the budgetary implications it would be salary and benefits primarily for that position. There was a position previously before the, that did this type of work. Like many positions in government, they were lost through attrition during the fiscal crisis. And I do believe that that department is requesting this position in their budget this year. But I do not know the details or how much. And if I'm correct, Ms. Plumlee might be able to clarified better. They've the position they're already looking at filling the position this would just be adding to his position somewhat as far as job description. Exactly this would just be endorsing that position that I think they have been calculated to bring forward anyhow at this time. And I we have issues with commercial landscaping that we need follow up on what happens after we do a zoning and issue so I think this would just strengthen that aspect it's like nothing new to the table so the budget impact is really neutral correct okay thank you that's what that's what chairman I don't know why we're getting into endorsing or hiring or firing employees and determining what employees we need I I mean, that's not a Planning Commission purview. That's not land use, and I oppose this. Okay, very well. Anyone else? If not, I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Mr. King, you have something. Mr. Chairman, the staff would bring forth one more commission item based upon your discussion on the rec Zota. We would request that you schedule a work session. Oh, yes. On May 21st. Thank you. Need a motion for a work session scheduled? Yes, sir. I reluctantly request a work session on May the 21st. Okay. Do we have a second? Reluctantly, I will second this. Motion's been made and seconded for work session. Your hearing will be on the 28th, but in order to be prepared for that, as you discussed, you need to do a work session on the 21st. 21st of May, or were we looking at April? As I understood, there were key commission members who could not come on the 16th of April, so requested May 21st. So there's your motion. It was seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other commission items? Yes, I have one. Yes. I don't know exactly how to approach this, but on May 28th, I will be out of town, and it's been arranged for a year. So I don't like for the commission to get into the I'll be here, I won't sort of situation because we all have other lives. We all have other situations. We show up when we can. That's just my attitude right now. Okay. Thank you. I kind of tend to agree. and who knows when we get to that point we may hear it, we may not. Other items, staff items? Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly sympathetic to Ms. Plumlee's circumstance because I'm in it also and the commission accommodated me at the time, at least I wasn't aware of her dilemma. Is there any reason that we couldn't accommodate her dilemma? I think we could, yes. You know, as long as we get in a situation where it doesn't conflict with somebody else. Would the April 16th work session work, even though we couldn't do the other until later? Was that crowding you all too much? Doesn't me. Does that work for you, Ms. Plumlee? When would you vote? 28th. 16th to 23rd is my conflict. It sounds like everybody can be here on the 21st of May for a work session, but not for the hearing on either the April 23rd or May 28th. So you're looking for not a work session time, but a hearing time. Okay, well then. We'll be the hearing after the work session. All right. I would, you know, at this point. We took a break and let the staff make the changes. At this point, I'd offer let's leave it as is and get through the work session first. and go from there. Any other comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Thank you. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Thanks, David. Carol, why don't you bring that up?