# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - June 25, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 25, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3702 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3702?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-06-25 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 19,012 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on June 25, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included nine agenda items and resulted in seven motions and votes. The Commission heard six public comments during the meeting. The Commission approved the minutes from the previous meeting and took action on several zoning matters. Two significant zoning amendments were approved: ZOTA 2014-4 regarding Recreation and Tourism Land Uses, and ZODA 2015-6, which amended Article 17 concerning Construction Screening Signage and Identification Signs. The Commission also considered a zoning map amendment and subdivision zoning development plan for Dr. Michael Gentry's Cadentown Subdivision, which was postponed. Additionally, the Commission addressed postponements and withdrawals, reviewed land subdivision items, and heard informational reports on Commission and Staff items. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 25, 2015: * Will Berkley * Patrick Brewer * Mike Cravens * David Drake * Karen Mundy * Mike Owens * Frank Penn * Carolyn Plumlee * Carolyn Richardson * Joe Smith * William Wilson No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **MARV 2015-8: Dr. Michael Gentry Zoning Map Amendment & Cadentown Subdivision Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 0:19:37] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson, to postpone to July 23, 2015. Outcome: Postponed by voice vote. **ZOTA 2014-4: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses – Continuation Motion** [timestamp: 0:30:55] Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee, to continue to September 24, 2015. Outcome: Failed by roll call vote, 5 ayes to 6 nays. Voted for: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Richardson, Joe Smith Voted against: Patrick Brewer, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Mike Owens, William Wilson **ZODA 2015-6: Identification Signs in Business and Industrial Zones – Postponement** [timestamp: 0:37:43] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson, to postpone the portion related to identification signs in business and industrial zones. Outcome: Postponed by voice vote. **ZODA 2015-6: Amendment to Article 17 – Construction Screening Signage and Identification Signs** [timestamp: 1:30:08] Motion by Carolyn Mundy, seconded by Mike Cravens, to approve the staff and applicant alternative. Outcome: Passed by voice vote. Condition: Signage shall not be displayed along an agriculturally or residentially zoned property boundary. **ZOTA 2014-4: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses – Amendment** [timestamp: 2:16:15] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Mundy, to amend to make six specified uses principal permitted uses and all others conditional. Outcome: Passed by roll call vote, 6 ayes to 5 nays. Voted for: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Joe Smith Voted against: Patrick Brewer, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, William Wilson **ZOTA 2014-4: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses – Final Approval** [timestamp: 2:31:51] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Mundy, to approve as amended. Outcome: Passed by roll call vote, 6 ayes to 5 nays. Voted for: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Joe Smith Voted against: Patrick Brewer, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, William Wilson **Subdivision Regulation Amendment – Environmentally Sensitive Area Definition** [timestamp: 2:33:35] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Mundy, to approve amendment to subdivision regulation to define environmentally sensitive area. Outcome: Passed by voice vote. ## Public Comment Six members of the public provided comments on three separate agenda items. **MARV 2015-8 Postponement Request** Richard Murphy spoke at [0:18:59] representing Dr. Michael Gentry, requesting a one-month postponement of MARV 2015-8 to allow time to pursue the purchase of adjacent property. **ZODA 2015-6 Construction Screening Signs** Jacob Walburn spoke at [1:00:09] in support of ZODA 2015-6 construction screening signs. He argued that such signs enhance safety, security, and community aesthetics while providing useful information about upcoming developments. Mark Yates spoke at [1:14:23], seconding Walburn's remarks and emphasizing the practical benefits and business value of the proposed signage. **ZOTA 2014-4 Text Amendment** The proposed text amendment to ZOTA 2014-4 generated divided public opinion. Frank Penn spoke at [1:31:16] in opposition, arguing that the amendment fundamentally alters the intent of the A-N zone and calling for a postponement to reassess its impact. Patrick Brewer spoke at [1:38:14], also expressing opposition. He raised concerns that the amendment changes the intent of the A-N zone and undermines environmental protections by allowing commercial uses by right. Carolyn Richardson spoke at [1:49:19] in support of ZOTA 2014-4, defending the proposed text amendment as consistent with the intent of the A-N zone and emphasizing environmental stewardship and responsible development. ## Contested Items The June 25, 2015 meeting included two items that generated significant disagreement among commissioners and staff. **ZOTA 2014-4: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses** This amendment proved deeply divisive among commission members. The core disagreement centered on whether the proposed changes altered the fundamental intent of the A-N zone. The commission split nearly evenly, with six members voting to approve the amendment and five opposing it. The close vote reflected fundamental differences in how commissioners interpreted the amendment's impact on the zone's character and permitted uses. **ZODA 2015-6: Construction Screening Signage** This item generated heated discussion focused on practical design concerns. Commissioners, staff, and the applicant debated three key aspects of the proposed construction screening signs: their size, their placement, and the potential for visual clutter they might create in the area. Staff and the applicant put forward different solutions to address these concerns, indicating that multiple approaches were under consideration to balance the need for construction screening with aesthetic and visibility considerations. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Chair Mike Owens in the Council Chamber at the LFUCG Government Center. [timestamp: 00:00] ## Approval of Minutes A motion to approve the minutes from the May 28, 2015 meeting was presented at this June 25, 2015 meeting. [timestamp: 00:18:27] Karen Mundy made the motion to approve the minutes, and Mike Cravens seconded it. The motion passed unanimously. ## Postponements and Withdrawals During this agenda item, the board considered three motions related to postponing and withdrawing applications. **Actions Taken** A motion to postpone MARV 2015-8 was approved. Additionally, a motion to postpone part of ZODA 2015-6 was approved. A motion to continue ZOTA 2014-4 was defeated. **Key Participants** Mike Cravens, Frank Penn, and Carolyn Mundy were the primary speakers during this discussion. **Outcome** The overall outcome of this agenda item was deferred, with mixed results on the three motions presented. ## Land Subdivision Items The meeting included a review of Subdivision Committee recommendations [timestamp: 0:31:25]. Key speakers on this agenda item were Karen Mundy, Joe Smith, and Frank Penn. The discussion was informational in nature, with the Subdivision Committee's recommendations presented for review. No action was taken on the agenda items during this session. ## Dr. Michael Gentry Zoning Map Amendment & Cadentown Subdivision Zoning Development Plan [timestamp: 00:19:37] A petition for rezoning and variance was presented regarding the Dr. Michael Gentry property and Cadentown Subdivision. The petition requested rezoning from R-1D to B-4 zoning classification and a variance to reduce the setback requirement from 100 feet to 50 feet. Richard Murphy addressed the agenda item during the meeting discussion. The petition was postponed to July 23, 2015, pending the acquisition of adjacent property. No further details regarding the specific concerns or conditions requiring the property acquisition were provided in the available meeting materials. ## ZOTA 2014-4: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses The Commission discussed and voted on proposed amendments to zoning ordinance text regarding recreation and tourism land uses. [timestamp: 2:16:15] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Frank Penn, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, and Carolyn Richardson. **Action Taken** After extensive debate, the Commission amended the text to designate six specified uses as principal permitted uses, with all other recreation and tourism uses classified as conditional uses. The Commission then approved the revised package. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## ZODA 2015-6: Amendment to Article 17: Construction Screening Signage and Identification Signs The Commission discussed and approved an amendment to Article 17 regarding construction screening signage and identification signs [timestamp: 1:30:08]. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Jacob Walburn, Mark Yates, and Tracy Wade participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Proposal and Outcome** The Commission approved a staff and applicant alternative proposal that establishes parameters for construction screening signs. Under the approved amendment, construction screening signs are permitted to cover up to 20% of a fence face. The proposal includes specific restrictions on the placement of these signs and requirements for their removal timing. The outcome of the discussion was approval of the amendment as presented. ## Commission Items This agenda item (VI) was presented as an informational discussion focused on internal processes and staff reports. No formal action was taken during this portion of the meeting. The discussion centered on matters related to commission operations and administrative updates, though specific details of the presentations and remarks were not documented in the available meeting materials. **Outcome:** The item concluded without any formal votes or actions. The purpose was to inform commissioners of ongoing internal matters and staff activities. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 0:31:25] Staff presented activity reports covering multiple departmental functions. Chris King and Tracy Wade led presentations on the following areas: - **Planning Services** — Activity report presented - **Zoning Enforcement** — Activity report presented - **Long Range Planning** — Activity report presented - **Transportation Planning** — Activity report presented This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action or debate recorded. The presentations provided updates on ongoing staff activities across the planning and zoning divisions. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone MARV 2015-8: Dr. Michael Gentry Zoning Map Amendment & Cadentown Subdivision Zoning Development Plan to July 23, 2015 - **Motion** — failed (5-6): Continue ZOTA 2014-4: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses to September 24, 2015 - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone portion of ZODA 2015-6 related to identification signs in business and industrial zones - **Motion** — passed: Approve staff and applicant alternative for ZODA 2015-6: Amendment to Article 17: Construction Screening Signage and Identification Signs in Business & Industrial Zones - **Motion** — passed (6-5): Amend ZOTA 2014-4: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses to make six specified uses principal permitted uses and all others conditional - **Motion** — passed (6-5): Approve ZOTA 2014-4: Recreation and Tourism Land Uses as amended - **Motion** — passed: Approve amendment to subdivision regulation to define environmentally sensitive area --- ## Full transcript ...are good. It'll end up in town. So please, don't trash the bluegrass. Thank you. I'm out. I raise my whiskey glass and give them a toast. I'm sure they know it's true. I got the rabbit piece of southern states. Every time I've been there, it's been great. But now I'm leaving and I can't be late. And to myself be true. That's where I'm going to Kathmandu. Up to the mountains where I'm going to. If I ever get out of here That's what I'm gonna do Cat-Man-Doo Really, really what I'm going to If I ever get out of here I'm gonna Cat-Man-Doo I got no quarrel with the Midwest The folks out there have given me their best I've lived there all my life I'm tired of looking at the TV news. I'm tired of driving hard and paying dues. I figure, baby, I got nothing to lose. I'm tired of being blue. Oh, it's worth going to Kathmandu. Up to the mountains where I'm going to. If I ever get out of here. That's what I'm gonna do Cat-Man-Doo Take me, baby, cause I'm gone with you If I ever get out of here I'm gonna Cat-Man-Doo Take it away! I ain't got nothing against the East Coast You want some people where they got the most And New York City's like a friendly ghost You seem the best right through I know I'm gonna miss the USA I guess I'll miss it every single day But no one loves me here anyway I know my plane is due One that's going to Kathmandu Up to the mountains where I'm going to If I ever get out of here That's what I'm gonna do C-C-C-C-C-Catman do Really, really, really going to If I ever get out of here If I ever get out of here If I ever get out of here I'm going to Catman do Oh! Ooh, ooh, ooh Ooh, ooh, ooh Ooh, yeah, yeah, yeah Thank you. I'm out. I'm out. Yeah. Oh, na, na, na, na, na, yeah. Don't you believe that I want you? I need you here in my arms. Oh, no, you won't have to worry. I'll spend each day in your charms. Oh, I want to kiss you all over Running my hands through your hair Oh, I know a place where love is I'll keep you warm night and day In the love zone You don't have to be alone Together we can live and learn In the love zone Come rest your head on my shoulder And we'll count the stars in the night I want to see you beside me Oh, just holding you tight Oh, oh I want to give you a little tenderness Letting you know that you're love Oh, I want to hold you close to me To keep you warm Night and day In the love zone You don't have to be alone Together we can live and learn In the love zone Oh baby don't you know I'll do the best I can to be good for you But for love's a guarantee There is no mystery You'll never be a stranger Out there on your own In the love zone Come with me, baby Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It is June 25, 2015. First on the agenda are approval of minutes from May 28, 2015. These minutes were emailed to commission members to date. I have not heard of any changes or corrections. If there are any, please let it be known now. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval of those minutes. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move approval of the minutes of May 28, 2015. meeting. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of those minutes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Good afternoon, Mr. Murphy. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing Dr. Michael Gentry on the first item on your agenda, MARV 2015-8, Dr. Michael Gentry, property at 2833 Liberty Road. You may recall at the zoning committee there was some discussion about it would be nice to be able to acquire the property to the town side, and we are in discussions about doing that, so we'd like to postpone this a month to give us the opportunity to pursue that. Thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement. Seeing none, Mr. Murphy, it looks like you're looking to what, July 23rd? July 23rd, I think would be. Thank you. Commission members? Mr. Chairman. Yes. Move postponement event, MARV 2015-8 to July 23rd. Thank you. Motion has been made in second for the postponement of MARV 2015-8 until July 23rd. I presume that's with the associated ZDP. Yes, sir. Okay. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman. Yes. Before I make the motion, I want to say that I think where we are on this ZODA text amendment is to the point where we may be changing the intent of the AEN zone. Therefore, I move that we continue the hearing for ZODA 2014-4 Recreational Tourism Land Uses to the September 24th meeting. Thank you. Do we have a second? Maybe I should have asked anyone in the audience who would speak to this request for continuance. Seeing none, the motion has been made and seconded for the continuance until September 24th of the REC ZODA. Any discussion from commission members? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, we have spent the last two work sessions, probably, I don't know, I didn't count them, but at least six hours discussing the A.N. zone. And we've been, we spent the last meeting, three, over three hours, coming to a compromise. and I really don't know what postponing at this point. We have spent hours and hours discussing that, and we all know how the intent reads and have all come to our own conclusions about what things we think are appropriate or inappropriate as conditional or principal uses, and we did come to a compromise, and I think everyone left on, well, last week, with the feeling that we had reached a compromise, that we were going to vote, and that we were going to move this on to the council so that they could begin to deliberate, and they will have their own issues, I feel certain. But I don't know that having any more discussion on this A.N., I don't know what there is left to discuss. So I guess to make a long story short, that is the reason that I will vote no on postponement. Thank you. Mr. Berkeley? I'm going to echo Carolyn's comments. In 2014, we met on this 16 times. We've met five times in 2015. I realize we have some disagreement about principal uses and conditional uses, but I suspect that the council will also have those concerns and issues. But I do think it's time that we vote. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee? Yes, I think with the Zota, we've kind of boiled down to the agriculture zones. And in this county, the horse industry, the ag industry, has survived many things. Floods, droughts, tent caterpillars, recessions, casinos. but one thing it will not survive and that is irresponsible zoning and I think the way we've left this zone at the time has not lived up to responsibility so I regret that we have to spend more time on it but I think we need to step back and breathe a little and maybe like a pan of bread let it rise and see where it's going to be. But the way it is now, we're burning the factory floor, and we cannot do that. Thank you. Thank you. Patrick Brewer. Yeah, Will and Carolyn, with all due respect to you guys, Mike, everybody that seems to be on the opposite side of this than I, last week at the end of the meeting, I think we did get to a point where everybody was ready to do something. I think everybody was tired of it. We wanted to move on. And the motion or the discussion on horse trading and voting one versus the other and all the things that went on toward the end of it left me with a lot of disappointment in the way the process had ended up. At the end of the day, I did. I didn't vote or voice my concern I should have. But after spending a week thinking about it, looking at the intent, consulting with people that know this actually better than I, I think we're at a place where this one's broken. And I think we do need to step back and take a breath. And we postponed to 924, give us time to talk through it. If we don't get anywhere with it, we don't get anywhere with it. But after having spent this long on it, what's another couple of months? I mean, I don't think it's that big a deal. This is too important to the region to put a product out that's not fully baked, that's not ready. And certainly don't give it to the council where you have the political issues that will be pulling people to do things with the document. We're here supposedly without those to vote what we all think is best for the community. and we can disagree on points, reasonable people can disagree. And at the end of the day, we all walk out of here and there's no, or there should be no animosity from different sides of the fence. But again, due respect to all of the others, I think we do need to look at this again because I think what we've done in the last couple of months has changed the intent of an important part of the zone. Thank you, Patrick. Anyone else? Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I think it's all been said. I've got a list here of all the meetings we've had on it. We've been continuing this, continuing this, continuing this. It doesn't seem to change any. I mean, we've all offered changes. I haven't seen it change a whole lot. Maybe it took out bird watching. I think let's just go on and finish this off today. Anyone else? Patrick? I'm sorry, Frank. The one consistent theme that we've had through three years of this is we have held the stash feet to the fire on not changing the intent of the zones. and when I looked at this on Friday morning after our Thursday thing I looked at that 10 of the AN zone and I believe with what we talked about doing we do change the intent of the zone if you want to change the intent of the zone let's work on changing the intent of the zone let's don't do it by selectively putting the prohibited uses or permitted uses in it and I think therefore we do We need to look at it. Thanks. Others? If not, I'll conclude with a couple of thoughts of my own. At present, I'm going to concur with what Patrick said in the fact that, you know, throughout the last work session, and I expressed my thoughts several times as far as how to take a vote and move this forward. It didn't end up that way. I'm not sure how it ended up. I was much like Patrick. Maybe I should have continued. However, we were all tired of talking about it, and we left it at that. And, Mike, all due respect, I'm going to take exception to the fact that when you say this hasn't changed in a long time, except for bird watching, I'm going to take exception to that because, you know, when we came in here a couple of months ago, you know, after meeting for two and a half years or something and much discussion, and I mean to the minute details, And if something wasn't right, if there was a concern, Tracy Wade would take it back, work on it, and bring it back to us. And when there were no concerns, no heads nodding in objection to it, we moved on. And we came into a meeting. It was my take that this was going to move forward with a draft. And things changed abruptly. And since that time, going into the last work session, after the staff been asked to take a survey, according to the tally sheet that was gave to us the other day, it changed again, practically reversed. So, you know, quite frankly, I'm at a loss right now as to exactly where we are, what everybody's thinking. And, you know, I myself, if it's at an impasse, it's at an impasse. But I really don't want to lose, you know, what we've had, what we have worked on for a long time. I would like to back up, take a break from this, and give it one more shot, quite frankly. So if there's no other comments, I'll call for a vote. and motion was to continue this until September 24th, Frank, and the motion was seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Call for votes. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion fails. so we will unless there's any other motions we'll move on and what's next on the agenda is our Zota 2014-4 recreation and tourism land use Mr. King. Mr. Chairman, for a couple of reasons. Staff would suggest that you reverse the order of these two remaining items. Okay. Folks here that may not want to sit through the lengthy discussion that we are likely to have on this, that will also give staff a little bit of time to organize as well for the presentation to come. i think that's fine uh we'll we'll move on to the bottom of page three zoda 2015-6 amendment to article 17 construction screen signage and identification signs in business and industrial zones I'm going to make a lot of the ingredients. I'm going to make a lot of the ingredients. I'm going to make a lot of the ingredients. I'm going to make a lot of the ingredients. I'm going to make a lot of the ingredients. I'm going to make a lot of the ingredients. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Wade. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. Our first item today, did you want to mention something about postponement, is ZODA 2015-6, and the applicant wanted to ask, has a small request to the Commission at this time. Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Jacob Walburn, and with Chris Westover, I'm here on behalf of the applicant. This proposal actually has what I would call two major parts, one related to construction screening sign, one related to identification signs. We've been working with the staff on both of these. We would ask you for a motion to postpone for one month the section of the proposal related to identification signs, and that we would move forward with the construction screening signs today. okay i think staff's been made aware of that they have and tracy any comments we're amenable to that request and we understand that their desire is to move forward with the construction screening piece because it relates to actual construction that would occur on their property or other properties i guess whereas the other piece would be something you'd install at the end of your project after construction. I guess procedurally, since both are under one text amendment, Zota 2015-6, can we postpone part and move on with part? We have done that in the past on at least one occasion. Okay. It's possible. Okay. We need to postpone the piece related to project identification signs. Okay. Any other questions before we move on? do we need to take official action to postpone part of it right now? Yes, please. Okay. Mr. Chairman, before the commission votes, just to let the commission know how this procedurally goes forward from the staff, in such cases like this, we end up sending two final reports to the council for the two separate items. so the part that we would be postponing is any piece related to project identification signs it's actually their proposals to add that particular type of signage into article 7-7 I believe it's maybe F and G this proposal for construction screening signs also makes changes to those two sections. So we wouldn't want you to postpone those particular sections, just the more overarching topic of project identification signs. Project identification signs. Okay. So anyone in the audience want to speak to the request for partial postponement? If not, I'll entertain a motion. excuse me that's what I was yeah do we have part of it in our report in the original staff report or does the motion just need to identify project identification signs I would say just the piece related to project identification signs okay so motion yes ma'am Okay, Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone the portion of ZODA 2015-6 related to identification signs in business and industrial zones. Motion to be made and seconded for the postponement of the identification signs in business and industrial zones. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. So this appears on the Planning Commission's agenda on page 3, the bottom of page 3. It is item number 2 under ZODAs, and it can be found behind tab 5 in your notebooks. Behind tab 5 in your notebooks, you'll find the staff's original staff report, which was prepared for the zoning committee three weeks ago. The applicant has submitted revised language since that time, so there's a supplemental report from the staff, also on a tangita paper, and then a staff alternative text. We understood that the applicant wanted to move forward today, and the staff wasn't 100% in agreement with their text, so we drafted a staff alternative that we could recommend approval of. So this is ZODA 2015-6, a request to amend Article 17 by MIA Brookhaven, LLC. This is an amendment to create a definition for construction screening sign and then permit this new type of sign within several of our more commercial zones within the urban county. As you heard, the petitioner desires to have the public hearing about this proposal in order to begin construction really on their site. And this particular text amendment relates to construction signage. The current sign regulations do permit construction signs in our county up to 64 square feet in size. And that is prepared or installed usually on a piece of plywood on a site. and that would apply to office, business, and industrial zones. In addition to a construction sign, you can also have a real estate sign to advertise what's for sale or lease on a property. A construction sign can include a project name, contact information of the professionals, or businesses involved in work on the construction site, but it can also include information related to a graphic depiction or rendering of the building being constructed. Both of these types of signs, the construction sign and the real estate sign, are temporary signs, and they are permitted through building inspection. Regulations for these signs have been in place since the mid-'80s. So the applicant's proposal is to be able to provide signage surrounding their site on this new type of sign, a construction screening sign. So part of the issue is we have construction sites, and they can install construction fencing around their sites. That's typically installed surrounding the entire site if it is used. And it provides security. It can provide windbreak at some point for properties. And we understand the desire to utilize the construction fencing. In addition, on top of the construction fencing, you can also currently provide a screen on that. These are examples of screens attached to construction fences that are either blank or have some sort of graphic that doesn't have any advertising value, so that doesn't include any particular signage. That's also permitted to be utilized in our community. So the fencing is not an issue, and installing some sort of mesh screen is also not the issue. What is at issue is the applicant's desire to print information about what's coming, the name of their development, et cetera, on the face of that mesh screen. Since the zoning committee met three weeks ago, the petitioner has amended the request for the text amendment to Article 17 in an attempt to address the staff's concerns. And their amendment did alleviate some concerns, but there were a few that still remained, hence the need for the staff to draft an alternative text. So these are examples that I found that vary in terms of their impact in terms of construction screening. Some of them are more plain and just include a logo and a name. Others include just generic graphics. Others include photographs, information about what is coming, information about the building shown. So there's a wide variety of what could be placed and meet the definition as proposed by the applicant on that particular screen sign. The applicant is proposing or requesting that this type of sign be allowed in addition to a typical construction sign. So they are also proposing to utilize the board sign at their location. Their proposal would permit the mesh or fabric material, as a typical example shown here, attached to the construction fence and to be utilized up to 20% of the face of a fence along all street frontages to provide information above and beyond that typical construction sign. Let's see. So the construction screening sign, as proposed, the definition would also include, In addition to the construction information, artwork, logos, pictures, words, and other graphics related to the project under construction. Their proposed definition also limits the sign or requires the sign to be removed at the same time as the fence is removed or when a fence permit is issued, whichever occurs first. And the staff does understand the desire to have this additional signage and flexibility in how construction information is displayed for a site in addition to just the plywood freestanding sign. However, there are still a few issues. The staff was originally concerned about the timing of the temporary sign as well as the size of the temporary sign. the staff really feels that the timing of removal is more appropriate at the issuance of a permanent sign rather than when the fence comes or goes. The staff could see a possibility where you'd want to maintain a fence but don't necessarily need the screening attached to it anymore and you'd like to get a permit issued for your permanent sign. So the staff, in our draft, we are recommending that the language associated with simultaneously removed with the fence be removed, be taken out, and just tie the removal of this type of signage to issuing a permanent sign. Building inspection issuing a permit for permanent signage. Does that make sense? The second issue related to these types of signs that the staff brought up early on was the zones in which they were permitted. The applicant originally suggested that they only be allowed in a few of our business zones and the industrial zones, and those were B1, B3, B4, and then I1 and I2. That eliminated a large portion of the community as well as the expansion area, And the staff would suggest or did suggest to the applicant that there be additional zones added to where these would be allowed. So the applicant in their revision now proposes allowing construction screening signs in the R5 zone, which is our high-rise apartment zone, our professional office, mixed-use zones, all of the business zones, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5P, B6P, and the industrial zones. The staff still believes that these should be allowed in our expansion area for the CC and the ED zones. We understand that those would be or could be helpful, similar to the other business zones in our community. So the staff alternative addresses allowing these in the CC and ED zones as well. Lastly, the staff is agreeable to a portion of the applicant's request in terms of the 20%. But we're still concerned about the large amount of signage that could be tacked onto these signs. And although we recognize that they are temporary, the staff realizes that construction sites can be active for a long time, even years, and a large site with multiple street frontages could have signage the size of four, five, six billboards. And that was concerning to the staff. So in terms of the size of the signage, the staff is agreeable to the 20% allowance only if the signage is calculated based on street frontage only, so that there wouldn't be this construction screening along adjoining property boundaries, that it be facing the street right-of-way, public or private street right-of-way, rather than facing adjoining property. And there are some examples that we found where we were concerned about the impact that that could have on the adjoining property owners, or really the fact that it's not necessary. One example was Maple, and there's numerous in the community, Maple Leaf. You would have the frontage along Maple Leaf Drive to provide your signage, and then there's really the staff feels it's unnecessary to advertise your project to a parking lot, to the adjoining development that's already there, or to the adjacent residential zones. In addition, the Tattersalls development that was built within the last few years, you'd be advertising, again, to the right-of-way, but not to the adjoining businesses or adjoining, in some cases, residential along Curry Avenue at this location. So those were some of the examples we could find. The other kind of restriction associated with the staff alternative would be that you wouldn't be able to combine street frontages either. I believe that agreeing to the 20% gives them that, what they desire in terms of the frontage of the streets, although I understand that they're concerned about not being able to put their sign screening along all sides of their property and that they have an alternative to the staff alternative to present to you today. The staff does recommend approval of the staff alternative at this time, and that's for two reasons. First, the petitioner's proposal to permit a new way to display construction sign information on a mesh or fabric material attached to construction site fence will enhance the overall appearance of active construction sites while permitting announcements about future development. We think that is fairly common sense. However, in addition, the staff alternative will also eliminate any duplication in Article 17 and will be more consistent with Article 17 formatting. And then lastly, we'll allow this type of signage in both the CC and the ED zones. I can walk us through the staff alternative text briefly related to that. It's a white sheet in your notebook. the top indicates the staff really just tweaking a little bit of information and striking the whichever comes first and information about simultaneously with the fence removal. Again, we think that removing this type of sign should occur when a permanent sign is permitted at the site. And then in terms of Article 17-7, the zones where it's included, there were some formatting issues with the applicant's submittal. It wasn't consistent with Article 17 and how it's worded today. So the staff is suggesting that those changes, but also listed under R5, P1, and B1, you'll see the language we're suggesting, which is construction screening signs, which would be a new type of sign, limited to 20% of the total square footage of the face of the construction screen, that would be the fence. Signage shall only be permitted along the property's street frontage. Each street frontage shall be calculated separately and cannot be combined. So we understand that that is more restrictive than what the applicant is suggesting, but The staff felt it was a bit of a compromise to allow the 20 percent but have it be more restricted about where it's located. Then the other option would be reduce the percentage was what we considered. Questions? Yes. Yes. Tracy, is there anything in there that controls whose sign they can put in there? I mean, could that be an income stream for the development? They're only allowed to permit, according to the definition, information related to either construction on the site or what is coming for other, what's related to the project under construction. Otherwise, they can add photographs that have no advertising value. But, I mean, if you had a development and you were going to rent space to somebody, could they advertise on that sheet that they're going to be there? Right. That would be the purpose. So that could be an income stream. Well, I think I would think of it more as the developer of the property. You're announcing the coming businesses, not that it's an income stream. So if McDonald's is coming to that site, you want to let people know before it's completely constructed that they're coming. I'm not against it. I just want us to know what we're going to see when we pass this. It should be only business information related to what's going to be on the site or the businesses currently constructing the site. Landscapers, construction companies, contractors, exactly. Yes, ma'am? How was the 20% determined? The applicant proposed 20%. Okay. Other questions? Tracy, just one. And when you were talking about when the signs would come down, from where I understood it, it was once they had the permit to put up the permanent sign. Yes. on a new construction it seemed like a new sign would go up but maybe before construction was finished is there concern there that the construction signs temporary signs would come down before all the construction was finished well and i think that was the staff's thought process as well so we assumed you would take down the mesh screening but you could leave up your fence to provide your security on your site and so forth. Just asking. And again, this is not in lieu of a construction sign, so they'd still possibly have the 64-square-foot wooden sign installed that would still announce who's the developer, who's the active contractors on the site. Other questions for Tracy? Yes, one comment. Let's have a comment. I'd rather see that mesh stay up there than see that tacky, messy construction site until they're ready to take the fence down. I assume that when you are trying to get a permanent sign on a property, you're probably pretty close to opening. And our assumption was that the fence probably wouldn't be there any longer. It could be, but we're more comfortable with a trigger that the government has some control over, which is issuing a permit rather than whenever the developer chooses to remove or keep a fence up. I mean, that's not something we're going to track here downtown. But if you have issued the permit, the sign may not be here yet. That's okay. So you've triggered it that they've got to take it down, but the sign may not be here, be on site. It may be being shipped. It may not be on location ready to go. But if you've issued a permit, it's eminent. I think it's within a week or two is our, I think, what's reasonable. Okay. All right. So two weeks without a screen of some sort shouldn't be problematic. Anything from the audience I'd like to add? I can't see Jacob, but anything to add? No? He has his own presentation, so. He's got his own presentation? Bring it on, then. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Jacob Walburn. I represent the applicant in my Brookhaven, along with Chris Westover. Really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. I've gotten the opportunity to meet some of you in subcommittees, but this is my first appearance in front of the entire Planning Commission, so kind of a big day for me. Thank you for your time. I want to spend a moment. I won't dwell on the same things. There's a lot of things, frankly, that we agree on with the staff. And at the outset here, I want to take a minute to recognize Ms. Wade and Mr. Salee. They've been outstanding to work with. We've traded drafts. We've had meetings. We've really tried to proactively address this process to alleviate as many of the concerns that they had as we could. And I think we've made a lot of progress. We have two very minor disagreements that I want to go over with you today. And at the end, we're going to ask you to pass an alternative version of the staff's alternative that I will provide to you. What are we talking about? Where did this come from? There was a zone change associated with this client and a development plan that you all have seen before. Our site is located on Nicholasville Road between Malibu and Surfside. It's the former Rafferty's and Circuit City property. Nicholasville Road is a very busy industrial corridor. A lot is going on. There's constant development, redevelopment, businesses coming and going. And the question we started to ask ourselves was, how do we build excitement about our development? How do we get people interested in what's coming? And one of the thoughts that we had is to provide this construction screening sign. A lot of times you'll be driving past a construction site, maybe not the commissioner so much as you all are more in tune with this, but what's being built there? What's going on there? People want to know. This is a fun and effective way to use something that we need to put up anyway. A construction screen is very, very important to the site security and site safety, but it gives it some utility. It gives it some value to the developer. We think this is an effective way to combine those uses. This is a limited size. We're only asking to attach to the construction fence, which is typically six feet tall. It's limited duration. We only want to display it during construction. So we think that this is a very good proposal. We think it could have a lot of really good benefits for Lexington. As we've gone over, as staff has gone over, we're talking about construction chain link fencing. This is movable, adjustable fencing to be able to get equipment in and out, have deliveries made. We want to attach a screen to it. What do these screens look like? Well, Ms. Wade had several examples. I'll provide you with a few more. We're talking about a mesh or a fabric material. It affixes to the chain link itself. We're asking for it to contain logos, pictures, text, et cetera. These are some examples from throughout the country to give you an idea of what we're talking about. this isn't specifically what we're going to propose ours is still in the works and obviously want to wait for your approval before we do anything like that but this is what we're looking to put up this type of signage to give idea give people an idea of what's coming what it's going to look like and particularly how they can get more information about it we intend to put the name of our development a website and some photographs what's the danger with not putting up construction screening well in addition to just simply attractiveness construction sites I would agree with the commissioner's comment, are not particularly attractive. But additionally, there's some safety and security concerns here. As you can see on this particular one, metal, copper thieves, things like that, we don't want public looking in. Additionally, on our site, where it's adjacent to Nicholasville Road, we don't want debris coming out. We don't want dust and debris going across Nicholasville Road. So screening is effective. Benefits are security. People aren't going to thieve. Site safety keeps kids out, and it's a windbreak. It provides some relief from gusts coming through the construction site. A staff has proposed, and this is on a paper in front of you, so don't feel like you need to read the whole thing, an alternative definition. We are perfectly in agreement with the staff's alternative definition. In fact, we would ask that you approve the staff's alternative in regard to the definition. Where we have a little difference of opinion, we had originally proposed language regarding how to calculate how much signage we're talking about. Staff has provided an alternative. I would suggest to you that there's actually a flaw with both of these definitions. So what I'm going to ask you to do at the conclusion of my presentation is pass a very simple definition. And that is we want the signage to be able to occupy 20% of the face of the construction screen. Very simple to understand, very easy to calculate. That's what we're going to ask you to approve today. What are the specifics of our proposal that we agree on? Well, let's tick through these pretty quick. We originally thought about this in regards to our site, which is a B1-slash-B3 zone property. The lots actually under construction are B3 zoned. There is an existing Rite Aid on the site that is a B1 zone. But our original concern was we want these in business zones. Because of the way that Article 17 is organized, that actually would also put them in I-1 and I-2 zones. But our original proposal was for all B zones. In consultation with staff, getting some of their feedback, they suggested that this might be appropriate in some other areas. So we've added several zones where we think this would be appropriate. These are predominantly commercial areas. We don't think that this is something that necessarily needs to be going in our neighborhoods. But on large construction projects, commercial construction projects, this can be a very useful type of sign. Again, our request was simply for B, but we think that this could be very useful in many zones throughout Fayette County. We agree that the material should be fabric or mesh. We agree with what the content of the sign should be. We're talking about text, design, art, pictures, logo. Some of it will be without commercial value. The commercial value will be limited to 20%. We talked a lot about timing. I understand that you all have some concerns about timing as well. We're okay with the staff's proposal regarding the permanent sign triggering the removal of the construction sign. Our original proposal was simply to remove it when you removed the fence, but we're talking about a matter of a couple of days. Our purposes are accomplished if we remove the screen when the permanent signage permit is issued. We're also in agreement regarding coverage. I know there was a question regarding how we arrived at 20%. I'm going to demonstrate here in a moment some math. We're trying to keep it in line with approximately what the permanent signage permits in the zone. 20% is kind of the middle of what B1 versus B3 allows in terms of permanent signage, and I'll demonstrate that here in a moment. This is our site. Again, text amendments are global, so this would apply to all of Lexington, but our site can serve as a very useful example. As I've mentioned, we have an existing Rite Aid, Nicholasville Road, Surfside Drive, Malibu Drive. The areas in red and blue are where we would propose to erect our construction fence. This is the area that we would need to fence off from the general public to prevent access to the site while it's under construction. That's where we would propose to put our fence. If we look at the zoning ordinances that exist today, what permanent signage we can get under B3. The ordinance reads that you can have two square feet of signage per linear foot of street frontage. That's Article 177G. If we were to total up our site, we have approximately 1,440 linear feet of street frontage. at 2 square feet, we would be allowed, subject to other limitations within the zoning ordinance, 2,880 square feet of gross signage. In our proposal, we would have approximately 1,860 linear feet of fence. If you total up those red and blue segments, that's the total you get. If our fence is 6 feet tall, we would have approximately 11,160 square feet of construction screening material. At 20%, that gives us 2,232 feet, approximately 2,200 square feet of signage. Compared to the permanent signage, we're actually asking for less. This kind of occupies the midpoint. It's actually a little closer to what would be allowable under B1, which is a foot and a half square, one and a half square feet per linear foot. We're aiming on the low side. As I mentioned, we have two very minor issues with the staff's alternative proposal. One is that it only allows this construction screening material on street frontages. And the other is it doesn't allow us to transfer between our street frontages. Those are two minor issues, and I'd like to demonstrate them with a site that isn't ours to give you an idea of the problem of applying this globally in a way that works. This is the Lexington Mall site where Southland and Home Depot is currently located. The left is the PVA records. The right is an overhead shot. If we consider this site under the staff's alternative proposal, we would be allowed to put signage on our street frontages, which in this case would be New Circle Road and the divided part where it's screened by trees and fencing to keep people off of New Circle Road, and the very top of Wood Hill or Life Lane that runs behind the complex. Those would be the only places that the staff would allow us to display our construction screening sign. Well, if we look at this site from a practical perspective, if the Home Depot were to be renovated or redeveloped, it seems reasonable that they would put a fence approximately where the red would go. It provides them latitude to get equipment in and out, but it doesn't occupy more of their lot than is absolutely necessary. Well, if we look at our street frontages, our fence does not coincide with our street frontages. There's an existing tree line, and if you're familiar with the site, the rear of the property is actually much higher in grading than the bottom of the site. So we would be able to put screening signage only in these very isolated areas where it's not effective. Lest you think I've picked the only site in Lexington where that would be true, here are just a couple of other examples. This is Oxford Circle at Versailles Road, a partially developed shopping complex in B1. If in the area that's occupied by the Red Square up here, if they were to want to build something there, the way these properties are laid out, that property actually has no street frontage. It could not display the sign at all, even though I think we would agree that in a predominantly commercial area, that would be appropriate. This is the Leastown Road Kroger. I picked this one because I happen to live near here. Recently, the Leastown Kroger added a gas station. I know for a fact that they had construction fence around the area while they were constructing it. Based on the layout of the Leestown Kroger, they don't have a street frontage at the area where they constructed the gas station. They would not have been allowed to put the signage up. This is the Beaumont Kroger. This is an interior parcel on the property. It's occupied by a shopping center. That property has no street frontage. If they wanted to put up screening material and advertise on it while that site was under development, they couldn't do it under the staff's proposal. Our definition that we're proposing today is a little simpler. It gives the property owner and the developer an opportunity to deploy this signage where it's going to be effective. We'd ask for the ability to transfer, and we'd ask not to be limited to the street frontage because we want to put this signage in the area where it's going to have the most impact. We would not put this signage directed towards a residential property because that wouldn't get us a lot of views. We want to put this in the area where it's going to be seen, where people are going to be able to understand what's being built. So that's why we're asking the minor difference from the staff's alternative language to what we've put in front of you today. So we'd ask you to adopt a simpler definition. It overcomes the individual lot problem. Ms. Wade cited some examples of properties where it would be a poor idea. I've given you the opposite. This gives the owner latitude to do it in the way that makes the most sense. And so our definition is very simple. We're asking you to permit this in zones and simply state construction screening signs limited to 20% of the total square footage of the face of the construction screen. It's a very simple definition, and it remedies the transfer issue and the locating it on street frontage issue. You may not think that sign ordinances are a real hip area of the law. I'm here to tell you that you're actually wrong. A week ago today, the United States Supreme Court weighed in on sign ordinances. And the courts have consistently recognized two interests that you have in regulating sign ordinances. That's community aesthetics and traffic safety. So I think it's appropriate to look at our proposal in terms of what difference is it going to make in terms of community aesthetic and what difference is it going to make in regards to traffic safety. I think it's important to realize that if you think you've seen this signage before, it's because, yes, you have. This signage exists in Lexington today. This is a photograph that I actually took. It is of the UK Dormitory Project. UK is obviously exempt from zoning regulations, so they're not in violation. There may be some contractors or developers who have put this signage up in defiance of the ordinance, but it's around. It's becoming very, very ubiquitous among construction sites. It's a good way to convey information. Since this signage exists in Lexington today, I would suggest to you that it's not creating traffic problems. We haven't heard about a rash of accidents from people looking at the construction screening sign. And it's not significantly changing the community aesthetic. This is a temporary sign. It's standing in the stead of permanent signage. So we don't believe it would significantly impact traffic or the aesthetics of the community. There are several things. Obviously, art's not subject to regulation, but if we're talking about community aesthetic and the effect on traffic, five-foot-tall murals have a significant effect on community aesthetic. These are not regulated and are permitted in Lexington today. I suggest that a six-foot-tall sign running along a construction site for a limited period of time is not substantially changing your community aesthetic when this is out there. As Ms. Wade said, we could put up signage now that does not have any advertising value. Our proposal is simply to allow this screening material to have some advertising value, to have some utility. We could put these up now, and they're not covered under regulation. We're just asking you to let us let the screening be a little bit more useful. If we look at the site, this is standing on the corner of Nicholasville Road and Surfside, looking north and then south. If you look at the area, the corridor that we're occupying, putting up a six-foot-tall construction screen with a website and the name of our development is not substantially going to alter the character of this. It's not substantially going to alter the character of the zones where we propose. These are commercial zones predominantly or high-rise apartment that tend to be in larger areas, commercial areas. This six-foot tall sign is simply not going to make a huge difference. To give you an idea, though, this is actually an international trend. Construction screening material is a huge deal internationally, and I'd like to demonstrate the reasonability of our proposal by showing you what's going on in some other communities. This is becoming a very effective way to help fund your development and advertise your development. They're called building wraps. They go around sites while they're under construction. They help offset some of the costs of construction or give an idea of what's coming in that area. These that don't contain text arguably would be permitted under this I-Nord right now. So we think this is an opportunity to let you all proactively regulate something that's probably coming to your area anyway instead of react once it's here. So to sum up, we think screening is very, very important for the site safety, security, integrity. We're going to have to put up construction screen for the safety of people driving down Nicholasville Road. We simply want that signage to have a little bit of utility and advertising value to us. We're not intending to advertise Coca-Cola or Pepsi. and we're only wanting to tell you what's coming to the site, what you should be looking for. Our proposal, we tried to work with staff to limit it in size, scope, and put it in appropriate zones. I think we've effectively done that. We don't think it's significantly detrimental to the community aesthetic or traffic safety, which the Supreme Court's recognized are the two areas that you can regulate. And we think it recognizes a national and international trend with regard to the way construction sites are going. As a matter of business, I would like to enter into the record our proposed alternative and the presentation that I just gave. And I'd also like to give you an opportunity to hear from a representative of the applicant who's here today. Good afternoon, Commissioner and fellow Planning Commission members. My name is Mark Yates. I serve as Director of Development for 123 Development Company. on behalf of our company and Royce Pulliam, the owner. I want to thank you for your time and your consideration and also for listening to Jake was first, but definitely not his last presentation to you. And I just ask that you give us consideration for this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, anything else? I was going to provide you all with a copy of the language that we would ask that you propose, so you can have it in hand and look at what we're talking about. With that, we'd be happy to entertain any questions that you have and sincerely appreciate your time. Thank you, Jack. Questions? Yes, Mike? How problematic is it, the timing of taking the fence down when you get the permit for the permit signed? I don't think it's significantly problematic. I would agree with Tracy's assessment that it's probably the matter of a couple of days. this is we're looking at a long play here we're going to be developing different parts of our site at different times i think it's appropriate this is standing in the stead of permanent signage we don't want to over sign lexington any more than anybody else does we think it's appropriate for this to be present while prior to the permanent signage being erected on the site we would certainly appreciate additional latitude but we have no substantial problem i guess i would as someone who gets permits sometimes when they catch me, I guess not. Well, that's on your record. Yeah. I would want it. I mean, I wouldn't want it tied to that. I might get that permit to build that sign while I was getting all my other permits to start the buildings and everything because, I mean, there's foundation work you've got to do for some of these signs. And, you see, I mean, if you got it when you got all your other permits when you first started. I would say that our original proposal was to remove it contemporaneously with the fence, to pull the sign down when the fence came down. Staff had some concerns about that, how that could be triggered or controlled with the government. This is the proposal that we agreed on them with. We thought it was the best compromise. So in the spirit of compromise, we did agree to the staff. Certainly there are technical issues that could impact this, but we would frankly be fine either way. I just think, being global, it could be a problem. Otherwise, you just have to wait to get your sign permit until you're ready to take down the other one. And that's true. But I think you might be building the signs. A lot of those signs are involved with a lot of foundation work and that sort of thing. And I think it's a problem. Any other questions? No. Thank you, Jacob. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? If not, and there's no other questions, we'll move to rebuttals. I think in terms of the construction of your foundation for your sign, that and the pole could be constructed at any time. It's actually installing, when are you installing the sign that becomes more of an issue for the staff. The permanent and the temporary, in our opinion, should not both be on site at the same time. But you can't do all that work on that sign unless you have a permit. The foundation for it? I would just say, again, our concern is the overlap of the temporary versus, and again, it's their example, 2,000 square feet of signage times two, because you have your temporary up and your permanent could be at the same time. Now you're up to almost 5,000 square feet of signage, and the staff's just not okay with the overlap of that happening. Well, no, I wouldn't want them both up at the same time. But that's what? No. I mean, you're tying it to when you get your permit. I'm just saying you might get your permit when you're down there getting the rest of them because it'd be simpler. in terms of the amount of signage that the applicant's asking for and the 20 percent the staff would just note that temporary signage is typically a temporary sign allowed on a property at most is typically 100 square feet so this goes above and beyond what is typical in terms of temporary signage or construction signage for the for the property. So that's, if the applicant really wants to average across sides and move it around, then the staff believes it should be a smaller percentage. Anything else, Tracy? Nope, that's it. Hold on, we've got a question. Will? Can we talk a little bit more about the street frontage? Is there a way, I think the intent is to not have it towards residential areas and things like that, but he gave some pretty good examples. Is there a way to work this where we could maybe put some additional language in there that would limit it from being exposed to residential areas or something of that sort? yeah it gets complicated i think to do that with the text that they have and that we brought forward today um in one case you're already in a residential zone so not aiming it towards a residential zone might be i think the compromise would be to reduce the percentage if they're going to they want it everywhere and average it because if you're moving even on the beaumont kroger location they're only fencing a portion of their the property for construction and i understand limiting the construction fencing amount because obviously they lease that and reducing the screen printing amount but when you move your 20 from the back side and the other two sides to the front now you've you could basically cover 80 of the front of the sign of the screen and i guess the staff becomes concerned about the impact of that. And I would argue that that does affect the aesthetics of the community. Temporarily, but when you have 80% of your screen covered with a sign. Other questions? If not, thank you, Tracy. Thank you. Jacob, anything as far as rebuttal on that? Very, very briefly, just to the two things we touched on here. With regard to the residential, and I appreciate that concern, there's no incentive for somebody to put a construction screening sign aimed towards a residential neighborhood. They're not going to get the views. If you think about our site, there's a very obvious area where we're going to want to put the majority of our signage, and that's on the corner of Nicholasville and Surfside, because that's where it's going to get the most traffic. We're trying to let people see what's coming. I think that, in a way, it self-regulates. There's no incentive to put this towards places where people aren't going to want to see it because we don't want them to see it. We want the most people that possibly can to see it. And with regard to the street frontage, I think I've addressed that pretty well. It's just not a workable solution for a lot of our commercial lots in Lexington. So that would be what I would add. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff or applicant at this point? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion. We do have two alternatives, the applicants and also the staffs. And it's your wishes, and you can modify those if you'd like. Yes, ma'am. I just have a comment. I'm the one that asked how you calculated the 20%. I don't really care how you calculated the 20%. I just don't want signs toward the residential part of it. And I know you're saying no one is going to do that. Somebody will. I feel like somebody along the line somewhere is going to want to put some signage, whether it's a contractor like Mike, maybe they got angry with a neighbor who fought him on the project or something like that. somebody's going to throw a sign up toward a residential area. And I don't want it. I mean, I don't want that to happen. So, you know, I don't really care how you calculate the 20%. I just don't want signs toward the residential area. So, other comments or thoughts or motions? So they can't have screening with signs unless they have a street. Is that correct? Unless they front a street. Somebody doing construction in the middle of a shopping center would not be able to do that. That was related to their original proposal. It had language in there about street frontages. So the staff was amending or rewriting the section that they proposed because it specifically talked about street frontage. And then our concern became, well, if they're moving signage from this location to this location, we were concerned about once Nicholasville Road being covered 100% and the Malibu and Surfside locations having very minimal. It just does, I believe, become a community aesthetic issue. And could be a traffic engine, too, really. And that's accurate. We are at it, as I suggested to you at the start of the presentation, I think there's problems with both of our definitions. When we're writing this amendment, we're thinking about our site. But this is a global text amendment. It needs to be applicable everywhere and on every property. So when we wrote it, we were thinking about where are we going to want to put the signage? Well, yeah, we want to put it along the street frontage. That makes a lot of sense. But when we started to get into the discussions with the staff and think about it, that's how we've arrived at our alternative, is it addresses more of a global thing than our site specifically. In terms of your question, I do think fence location isn't always going to be on a street frontage. And this language, our language does address street frontage in reaction to their original proposal. So what would someone do that was doing construction work in the middle of a subdivision that wanted to put up mesh on their construction site? What would their process be to be allowed to do that? They would probably install just a regular construction site, the 64 square feet. And then if they wanted to use mesh screening, it would have to be one of the generic greening. That answered my question. Thank you. Other comments or motion? Everyone ready for a motion? Motion of approval, disapproval, continuation. Nice kids. Yes, sir. I don't know about the motion, but it seems like you all are so close on this thing, you all could have worked that little minor thing out. Both of your presentations were great. I appreciate your presentation. It was probably, in terms of presentations that I've heard here before this council, it had the right tone, it had the right tenor, and it had good content. And based on the staff, I see that position, too. Can't you all just work this out like good folks? respectfully we've tried um we're kind of on well and and and in staff's defense in staff's defense we are wanting to get construction underway and every day that goes by that we can't get this approved we can't hang up the screening that we want to hang up so that we've worked with staff really up until i think the day before yesterday we've given take a lot i'm very very appreciative of the way that staff's worked with us but waiting is really detrimental to our project because we'd really like to get our sign out. Thank you, Jacob. I would say that my comments are really, I think Ms. Mundy totally expresses my comments related to that. I mean, for what you're doing, I don't have an issue, but we all have people who just don't always do the right thing at the right time. So that's the deal. And I think we'd be. Jacob, excuse me, we really don't want to open this back up, okay? This is more common section at this time unless unless mr. Wilson's got a specific question Yes, no, Dan. Yes. Yeah, to mr. Wilson's question The I think the staff acknowledges that the street frontage could be an issue as Jacob mentioned But we are still concerned about the combination and transferring it around to different sides so we would ask that that still be included if we struck information about not only along the street frontage the staff is still concerned about it not be combined so maybe signage shall only be I don't know we'd have to maybe talk for a minute about how that would read are you saying you need a minute Why don't we take a brief recess and let you talk and He's present so miss Wade Thank you Commissioner Owens the staff met with the applicant and we think we've drafted somewhat of a compromise and we think this addresses some of the Planning Commission concerns we feel like it would be important to strike the R5 zone if we're going to limit the direction of the signage and then add instead of the second sentence which the applicant wanted to delete the staff would add signage shall not be displayed along an agriculturally or residentially zoned property boundary that way you could face it into a parking lot if you so chose you can face it to a right-of-way. If there were residential across the street, that would still be okay. This would be on a joint property line. Okay, so that's mutually agreed upon. Okay. Very good. So, we've got a possible here. Any other questions from the commission? Yes, sir. Before we vote on this, can we ask the questions that come up every time we've seen this? Where's Rafferty's going? That's up to Rafferty's, I understand. I guess with that question. Could that be a sign? So are we comfortable with a motion? Anyone would like to make a motion? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, I move ZODA 2015-6, the part that we're voting on today, we approve staff and applicant alternative as proposed recently. Thank you. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the recently revised staff alternatives for ZODA 2015-6. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Now we can move back to our recreational Zoda text amendment. I had a couple of questions as to how do we start this. I'm not quite for sure. Possibly. Yes, sir? I have a question for Mr. Penn related to this. When Mr. Penn asked for or requested a postponement, the question that immediately went through my mind was, obviously the positions have been established in terms of the way people feel that they should vote on this particular issue. but the good reason for a postponement would be if there's additional or added information for which the council had no knowledge. And I guess my question is, what would have been the new or added information? What is it that you wanted to pull to the committee that we had not discussed that may have helped us in some deliberation? I think that's agreeable with you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson, the way I would answer that is to say to you that of the three years that the staff went through this with us, we held firmly to the fact that we did not change the intent of the zone. If we were going to do something in ABA, U, AR, whatever, we went back to the intent of that zone, and we made our votes to include or not include based on did it change the intent of the zone. What was the intent of the zone? When we had our work session and we went through all these things that we were doing, we never talked about, we never laid the intent of the zone out in front of all of us and said, does this change the intent of the zone? And that is the purpose of my motion to postpone, was the fact that we didn't have the intent of the AEN zone, and yet we were sitting there, and to use somebody else's word, horse trading, back and forth on these principle permitted uses and did it affect the intent of the zone. And that is what I offered for the postponement reason and why I thought we ought to do this in a work session. So, I guess at this point in time, The easy way would be just to ask for a motion. It's possible that staff catches up as to where we are exactly. Anything, Ms. Wade, to bring forth? the staff has prepared basically a draft of the motion that mr cravens made in march for you to be able to see that in paper and we also have a draft of the same or similar a end zone related to the discussion last week, as in those are labeled alternate number one and dated March 26th and is again reflective of Mr. Craven's motion that passed. So it would be your entire packet except exchange Article 8.3 for these two pages. Then we have the compromise, if you will, that was discussed last week as alternative two, and then it's dated today. We can hand those out if that's of assistance. Okay. I think that would be a good place to start. While you're doing that, can staff tell us, in your all's opinion, have we, with what we're doing here, changed the intent? Because I agree with Frank. I think that's something we shouldn't do, and I think we have. I don't know if I'll answer that directly other than to say I think the staff has been pretty clear what we feel. We feel that all these uses should be conditional uses in the AN zone. We have expressed that to the commission many, many times. As you know, also, to be an irritant to the other side, perhaps the staff feels that in the AR zone, there perhaps should be some additional limited conditional uses added, and we've made that clear, and that's part of the record as well. That is where the staff stands on these issues now, and regardless of what the commission's vote today is what the staff's position will be going for. Other questions? The staff also has the minutes from the two portions of the hearing that the Planning Commission has held, March 26th and then October 23rd, if that is of assistance. I can also distribute those. Thank you. Mr. Brewer, well, since no one else has spoken, I do think it would be fine and perhaps advisable to put the language of the intent of that zone up there. I think there is one key sentence, and each member will have to come to their own decision as to whether they feel that this meets this. We can put that up. and I would direct the commission to the one key sentence that says because these lands are environmentally sensitive special care is needed to ensure that the uses that are permitted are compatible with the goal of conservation and preservation of these lands I'm not sure where we are in the process on this. Mike, it seems to have taken quite a left turn from what I would have expected, but that speaks volumes to me. I pulled it out and looked at it this morning myself for about the 15th time this week, I just can't justify the things that we're talking about putting into this zone as being consistent with the intent of this zone, as it's stated right there. This is like legislating from the bench, and I think that that's the wrong thing to do. I realize that the vote's been made and that I'm on the losing side of it, but I can't in good conscience try to push this forward. I think we've made something that has spent an inordinate amount of staff time, our time, others' time, into something that does harm to the intent of this zone. It does an injustice to the process of what we're supposed to be doing here. because if you look at what we added in Mike's motion last time, there's a lot of that that's absolutely inconsistent with the intent of this zone, and I don't think that's something the body should be doing. Personally, I tend to agree with Patrick in looking at, and I appreciate these languages. it helps. And in looking at the June 25th draft, we've added two lines in principal uses. I do not even remember the educational classes related to agricultural products or skills. What is key to me is the commercial hiking and biking trails, equine trails, tree canopy tours, canoe and kayaking launch sites, and nature preserves. Those are commercial uses. You're looking at putting them into what would be deemed an environmentally sensitive area. We had talked about putting those as conditional uses. They could go as conditional uses. A person could operate a business getting a conditional use for that. and as a conditional use, I simply feel that it would give the security to everyone that environmentally sensitive land is being protected. We had them as conditional uses, and quite frankly, I think that would be a very good way to go. Yeah, I don't, I mean, some of this intent, like building a house, has always been a principal use in this. I don't know why, but it is. So if you apply your sentence to that principal use, and somebody's going to build a house on environmentally sensitive land, And there are all kinds of engineering manuals, permit requirements. We have an environmental specialist up there in planning that used to be there. I don't know if he's still there or not. Redmond. And all that's vetted before you go out there and start building something. I mean, you can't just go out there and build a house where you want it. You'd have to go through some sort of environmental review or something. I mean, we've had subdivisions that all the lots were tagged before you built the house. They had to go before the environmental review, and you had to get an engineer to certify it and all that sort of thing. And I don't know why that wouldn't apply to a lot of these uses. I mean, it applies to a house, and that's always been a principal use. I mean, a house could be more destructive than a lot of these things. You've got to dig out a big hole. You've got to run roads. You've got to run water lines. You've got to run sewer lines. septic tanks, cut down trees, and then that person living in that house, we were kidding about last week, but he could then in turn put big speakers out on the back porch. I mean, you know, all those things can happen, and it's my opinion that these things are protected under zone changes and conditional zoning when you applied for a zone change. but mike the difference is this man's building his house for his own use we're talking about commercial uses we're talking about bringing commercial uses into the a in zone without the conditions once you get past the original zone change it's by right and with no map amendments anymore with where we are we did away with the map amendments and so you can technically apply in the AR zone for an AN and have the same right of use. If you grant these principal permitted rights in the AN zone without a MAP amendment, there is no reason that you cannot apply in the AR zone and have those same principal permitted rights. And that is, without the MAP amendment, that gives you another level of, or it takes away a level of oversight. Yes, ma'am. I guess I don't really understand why it is so essential to put these as principal uses when they in themselves could be destructive when you think about the possibility that actually we would need more oversight, not less. And I know that folks don't like some of the restrictive portions of this, But I think it's essential because, as Patrick and so many other folks have stated, we're messing with the intent. And the staff is our professional advisor. They say we're messing with the intent. So let's not do that. Let's stay on just our two principles, the house and the winery. Well, as a follow-up with that, my discussion as far as intents and so forth, our charge was to look at recreational activities throughout all zones. It never was, and I've mentioned it a couple of times, it never was meant to change the intent of the zone. If you want to change the intent of the zone, to me, that's a discussion for another day. That's not part of this text amendment. Let me ask Tracy Jones a question. I put it in her ear a moment ago, never to get the response. So let her think about it with what is either one of these showing principal uses in the AN zone. Tracy, we've had our public hearing. when we had the public hearing, we had drafts that, if I'm correct, showed these, you know, it was put out and published, that, you know, going forward they were being considered as conditional uses. If we do something like this at this time, does that fundamentally change, substantially change the text to the point where we should reopen and have another public hearing? I don't think so, after thinking about it and looking at it, and for two reasons. One, because you did have a public hearing. You're not required to have more than one public hearing. But also, when you all discussed and made that vote to make them principal rather than conditional, that was also in an open planning commission meeting where people could have been here to, you know, they were here to see what you did. So, and you all are making a recommendation. The final action on this is going to be taken by the Urban County Council. Yeah. I understand that you want to send them a product that you feel is consistent and that's up to you all to decide. But if people are concerned with what gets recommended, they also have another possible hearing. But I don't think this requires you to have another public hearing. I'm just asking to, if nothing else, have everything on the record. One point of clarification. you were talking about the decisions that we made afterwards were open to the public. Anyone could attend and be present, but the comments section had been closed after the public hearing, and we were not taking public comments after that. So, yeah, I just want to clarify everything. Well, you all had, for purposes of it, it was being a continued hearing. You had closed it. You could reopen it, or in my mind, the bigger issue is they were here. I mean, it wasn't done privately so that no one notices a big issue, knowing what's going on, hearing what you all are discussing. I mean, you all close hearings all the time and then have comments amongst yourselves before you vote. So I don't think that requires a public hearing. I mean, I'm not saying you all can't make decisions to handle things however you choose, but I don't think it's required. Okay. All right, then. Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. But in regard to what Tracy passed out on Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, the Alternative 2 is actually what I thought we had concluded or compromised on at the meeting last week, and that we were, because I do agree with Patrick, that there are some things in Alternative 1 that should not be included. And I think we came down to a good portion. I read the intent, and I understand that it is a sensitive special care area. And that is exactly why they're going to be, why that we should allow people to be able to go into these areas. And the six that we came up with, to me, if you're going to be a developer, or if you're going to open up one of these businesses, the money you're going to put into it and then again take out of it in profit is going to depend on how well you take care of the land in which you are developing. If you go in and destroy everything, then you're not going to be in business for very long. And yes, someone could do that. the possibility of somebody doing almost anything with or without permission happens all the time. So, you know, I don't think you can. It's almost impossible to cover every single solitary exception or possibility that could happen. But the people that are, you know, I think this is a, the AN zone is a wonderful area. And I think that there's so much that can be done there that can be done properly and safely and with attention to the environment. And it does not have to be go through all, jump through all the other hooks. And like I said, I really do feel that the people that are interested in doing educational type of activities are allowing people to canoe or kayak. These are nature lovers. These are people that really want to take care of the land. I'm not against, I mean, I'm not for going out and destroying beautiful property, but I would like to have it exposed for people to be able to use and enjoy and see and learn from. And I cannot, I can't find that we are, in fact, going against the intent of this amendment. Patrick. Thank you, Carol. Okay, well, I'll go back to the reason people can agree to disagree on things, and I think we're there. But I keep coming back to the intent, which I do believe has changed here. I come back to the staff's very diplomatic but clear indications that we've made a mistake. and I come back to what's gained by making these things principal? Why can't you just keep them conditional? So if somebody wants to come in and do it, if somebody wants to go in a canoe, they can do it now. But what we're talking about here is a commercial entity that has a profit motive that may be in exact lockstep with what you said, Carolyn, or it may not be. But if we make it a by right principal use in this zone, we've changed it forever. We no longer have the opportunity to put conditions on it that we or our people who succeed us or other bodies feel are appropriate for this area. So I have a real disconnect. I don't understand what the benefit that you guys see in making these principal uses. I think we're better off leaving them conditional. Thank you, Patrick. Yes, Mike. Well, if these things are so against the intent of the zone, why would we even allow them to be conditional? Why wouldn't they just be prohibited? I don't know that we really want to start down a rabbit hole like that, Mike, but I don't think there's any reason to prohibit it. I think there's a reason to have the option of looking at a conditional situation and not making it principle by right allowed regardless. Nobody has any oversight on it. Either they meet the intent or they don't. I mean, that would be my, I mean, if they're not, if they don't meet this intent that you all keep saying that they don't, you say they don't meet the intent, then how could you even approve them conditionally if they don't meet the intent? I'm not saying I would, but at least we would have a chance to, we would have a chance to review it. Mike. Yes, sir. You know, it's one thing for me to allow people to canoe and hike on Elkhorn Creek that I own both sides of. Family, friends, whatever else. Because the intenseness of it is what makes it different. If I'm going to run a commercial operation, I have to put people through there. It's a volume business. and the intent of harm in the sensitive area is not the use it's the overuse and to not to be able to look at this after it's zoned when the next person comes in and has it by right is a big deal and and that's where i think the intent of the zone that plus it can be transferred to other zones by right, which needs to be very much debated. And that's why I wanted to go with the intent. Carol, I'm just like Patrick. Reasonable people can disagree. But we spent a lot of time on these intents, and the staff really and truly brought some things to us in AR zone and in other zones that we thought didn't fit the intent of the AR zone. And whether it's Vice Mayor Gordon or whether it was Don Robinson that chaired this too all the way through we did not change the intent of the zone and as I reiterated before I think this does because of the commercial part of it if I keep them coughing at the moment you know the intent of residential zones primarily for residences but there are various conditional uses that are allowed as well whether it's a church or whatever if if it's deemed appropriate Carolyn mentioned you know should not have to jump through all the hoops you You know, I think, you know, some hoops are reasonable. And, you know, I'm in favor of these activities as much as anyone else in these areas. I just think there needs to be some opportunity to put some regulation onto them and have them vetted, so to speak. and I think with that it would work. I'm all for it as conditional uses. I mentioned earlier when our meeting started today that I wasn't for sure where we were at this point because we'd flip-flop back and forth thinking, I thought our original draft was ready to go forward. All of a sudden it changed. We took a month off or whatever and asked the staff to survey the situation. They came back, and last week they showed us a tally sheet where things were reversed except for educational classes and commercial hiking and biking trails. Everything else had gone back. The majority, I'll put it that way, the majority, everything else, as far as tree canopy tours, canoe and kayaking, nature preserves, those things had gone back to conditional uses. And, you know, that's where I'd like to go. I never like a six to five vote. But, you know, at the end of that day, that's where we were. If we need to put up that tally sheet, I'm sure we can. And I'm sorry for my hoarseness all of a sudden. Mr. Craven just said we're not getting anywhere. We may not be. I don't know. Sorry. Yes, sir. One more question for staff. I had asked earlier a pointed question. and I understand, Chris, your answer, and I appreciate it. Looking at conditional uses and why conditional uses would be more appropriate than principal uses, I guess, is there anything from the staff that could help us understand more about the difference and what conditional use in the statutes and current rules are? Well, again, the theory of conditional uses are that first and foremost, they are permitted uses. They are a class of permitted uses. But what it's saying is that there may be special circumstances either about the nature of the land, a particular location that would warrant a review as to whether that use is appropriate at that specific location or whether that use can be made okay with special conditions and things like operation and other things that aren't normally inherent in the zone. So that's why the state statute sets up the class of conditional uses to be a class of permitted uses, but with that additional level of review beyond the permit counter and allow people also nearby to weigh in on their feelings about that. So from my perspective and given that, I see that these uses are allowed as long as they're able to be reviewed. So what do we gain? Well, what are we risking? We're risking the intent of the zone. We're risking the area. What do we gain out of it? I see nothing that we're gaining by making them principal uses. I see it's a big risk and no gain. Do you, I mean, what's the gain that you see in this? We've talked about this in work session. You know, I personally believe this can be handled through the zoning process. I don't see, you know, necessarily the need to go through the conditional use process. I have, I guess, an issue that there is the conditional use process, the only route of appeal is through the courts. There is no route of appeal through the government. Everything else we do has an appeals process through the government. And you're talking about property rights here. Yes, ma'am? I guess my question to Will is then why are you so fearful that it will not pass? Because with more eyes looking at it, more judgment as to whether it really fits the box. So what's the fear? I mean, I guess I'm thinking about, like, when you have small children. They try to do sneaky things, and so you wonder what's up. And I guess that's my question. Well, there are no properties zoned A-N. So every piece of property that wants to be A-N is going to have to go through the zone change. And I think a zone change will be more of a process, and there will be more review than a conditional use. But what about after that zone change? And we've talked about that as well, that there are ways in the zoning process to limit uses. First of all, you don't have to approve the zone. You don't have to approve the zone change. Chris, let me ask this question as far as limiting uses. You know, in other zone change requests in the past, sitting behind here and looking at conditional zoning restrictions as far as uses, whether it was a drive-thru or a liquor store or whatever, depending on the zone, to me it seemed like what I heard often was that, yes, you can, but you don't want to be too restrictive for fear of not allowing a person to operate within that zone. and you know is there you know i just counted it it appears that there's you know 10 uh uses that we're talking about overall where does it get too restrictive you know if if somebody wanted commercial hiking can we eliminate the equine trails tree canopy tools canoe and kayak and nature reserves. You know, past history tells me that might be too restrictive. Well, you're asking me to opine on a scenario not of my making. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how to respond directly to your question. But I will say what I've told you before. That if a zone, you look at the zone and you said that all of these uses are principal uses. As you are dealing with the zone change process, there's two things that come into play. One, the basic premise will be, is that zone appropriate on the land? Not the use. You've already said these are the appropriate uses. So the question will be, is that an appropriate zoning category? And as it goes through the process, it will be judged in light of those three statutory reasons you can do a zone change. One, is it agreement with the comprehensive plan? Two, has there been a change unanticipated by the plan that makes it appropriate? And three, is the existing zoning, is the zoning appropriate, you know, the appropriateness? You've heard those. I don't need to reiterate those. That's what the zoning will rise and fall on. So that'll be the yardstick, not the individual use. So then the second question, when you're faced with the zoning, will be can you or should you use the conditional zoning power that you have in Fayette County to restrict any of the uses that are allowed. And as we have told you before, primarily that is an on and off switch type of thing when you're dealing with conditional zoning restrictions. and Ms. Jones can read that statute to you, or we can put it up if you'd like. But again, the conditional zoning power is generally described as being used sparingly and in special circumstances, if I recall correctly. But also, it does not allow you to delve into the kind of very specific operational details that generally and often go along with a conditional use. And as we've told you, that is one of the things that we are concerned about. We've talked that, yes, there are some things that can be dealt with through the development plan that would be required. But again, that is more the physical arrangement of things as opposed to specific detailed operational matters. Thank you. That pretty much answered the question. It did. Thank you. Yes, sir. So if we were doing a zone change to AEN and they were going to do a youth camp, which is a conditional use, looks like, in this thing. Okay. Couldn't they do that right at the zone change and not have to go to the BOA? I mean, we've done that before. Two comments. I don't know that they have to tell you what they intend to do. If they have a development plan, they could tell you they would have to show you any arrangements of buildings and parkings. But again, coming in, the assumption would be that any of the uses allowed in the zone would be allowed to occupy those buildings and facilities, unless the Planning Commission said you cannot do a youth camp, you cannot do this, and you'd have to have good reason why you were restricting those uses relative to the others. Well, I don't know if we're talking about the same thing. I mean, the youth camp is a conditional use, right, in this proposed draft? In the draft, okay. Okay, yes. In the draft that is not on the table officially yet, I like to write, but is officially on the table is all of those uses being principle permitted. uses. Okay. Okay. I'm not talking about that. Somebody takes a vote to put something else on the table. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about I come in here for a zone change and I want to do a youth camp. Okay. I want that, what we've done in the past, we've approved conditional uses as a planning commission. Yes, you can do that. And they haven't gone on to the BOA. They've approved that we've approved right there. You can do that. Okay. Our local law allows the planning Commission to take on the role of the Board of Adjustment on a zone change application. Does the applicant have to agree? Yes. If the applicant, again, if the applicant so chooses, which is usually the case. I think when people know what they want to do and if they know it's a conditional use, typically now we see that request made in conjunction with the zone change in front of the Planning Commission. Let me ask this. Is it possible to put the, what did we call it from last week, the tally sheet up on the screen? And consider that? Thank you. white seemed pretty simple and came to terms. Those in yellow were the very close ones. Two of them were six to five as principal and the other four were six to five as conditional uses. That's where I've come back to and say once again there was a change of opinion in regards to the majority. Is it possible to consider each one of those items individually from the commission and look at them as a principle or conditional use and move on? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I can't speak for the rest of the commission and what was going through each individual's mind as we responded to the staff's request that produced this list. For myself, I didn't view it as a vote on principle or conditional. And I tried to convey it. I couldn't talk to Tracy directly, but I tried to convey it through another staff member. And I don't even remember what the items I cited were, but that they were, to me, they were just things that were examples of the kinds of things, kinds of economic opportunity that could be appropriate in the AN zone. And I want to clarify that. as I say, I don't know what each other commissioner was thinking about when it fulfilled that request, but I certainly wasn't voting on these as either conditional or principle. I was talking about items or activities that could be compatible with the purpose or the intent of the AN zone. Yes, sir, Mr. Cravens. You ready for some kind of motion? I mean, we can sit here all afternoon. I did it last Thursday. I'm not going to sit through it. Unless there's other discussion, I think I would say yes. Okay, I'm not sure exactly parliamentarily how to make these motions, But I would like to amend the motion that, make a motion to amend my previous motion made, I guess it was on March 26th, in the ADN, changing the principal uses of that motion. And I would like for it to use this staff alternative. Huh? Staff generated. Staff generated this. I didn't. The staff generated exhibit alternative to June 25, 2015, and it lists the principal uses that I would accept as principal uses, taking all those other uses out of that motion that were, and moving them back to conditional, but making these on this, making it read like this. The motion has been made and seconded as far as question and clarification. Maybe, one, we need to put this up on the screen if we could. Two, Tracy, this text, alternative two, all the other uses that's in the white there, as far as this text, they're listed as conditional uses. yeah they they got moved back okay all right and and then the six that's in yellow or is what's under number three and number four on in column one okay that's right yes three b number three and number four okay all right then very good um any other discussion on the motion yes yes sir turn your microphone on does that motion have a second Yes, sir. We will work this second. All right. So basically what we've done, we're back to those six uses. We're amending the Cravens motion and getting it down to the six that we had at the end of the work session. Is that correct? That's my intent. I think the correct way to express what this would do would be to amend the package of text amendments that is pending before the commission to make this specific change. and that would be before you take a final vote on the whole package. I would agree with that, and I wasn't sure how to do it. If we need an amendment or if we can just start over with this newest. I think it's to amend the text, the language of the text that is currently pending before the commission to make these specific changes. Okay, to amend the whole recreational soda making these changes. I'd do that first. Okay. Just the A-N zone. I made the motion. It reflects alternate 2. It reflects alternate 2. June 25th. That makes, okay, what it does, if you're more comfortable to understand what you're doing, put the yellow page back up there. What the version 2, alternative 2, whatever you want to call it. Understand that right now the text that is before you, as per your vote in March, every one of these uses is a principal permitted use. Okay. So what this would do is the uses highlighted in yellow would remain as principal uses, and all the other uses would revert to conditional uses, and that is what the specific legal language as drafted by staff in Alternative 2 for you to consider does. So, okay, hopefully we're clear on that part. Mike Cravens, as far as what Mr. King was saying, as far as the language for your motion, as far as clarification, are you straight on that? I am. I mean, I agree that those six things, and I see them here in this alternative as principal uses, and the rest of the items up there would go back to conditional uses. And that's also the way I understood the motion. Okay. Thank you. Clear as mud, Mr. King? I hope it's clear. I just want to make sure that before all commission members vote, if there are any questions as to this motion and what the implications of it would be, that we've had an opportunity to clarify that for you. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am, any questions? Just a quick. Remember Mr. Wilson's committee. What happens to all that work? The ad hoc committee regarding environmentally sensitive areas and their recommendations. Mr. King, to my knowledge, that at present time would follow as a separate text amendment? Yes. Not, and the intent was never to have it associated with this. I thought this would be done long before we got even recommendations of that. But at the present, that is a separate text amendment that will follow. Well, we'll be separate from this. Yes, sir. But we did pass it, didn't we? Didn't we have a motion to? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Yes, sir. So that is. So, in essence, we're with the original draft with Mike Cravens amending his last motion to put everything as principal and now going with staff, I'm sorry, not staff, alternative number two dated June the 25th. Everybody clear? Yes? Okay. If everybody's clear, vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. so that to my knowledge we've amended the original draft Mr. King do we need to do something on the original draft as amended now yes right now you have an entire package in front of you all the other items that were in the text amendment you have changed what you had before you to what you just passed and now at some point if you so choose you need to make a recommendation on that entire text amendment package onto the urban county council I've got a question before we go any further so what we're going to do as a body is we're going to vote up or down whether these six become a principal permitted use you just did that You just did that. That's what's before you. But what I'm saying is that if we're going to move the whole package, we're going to move it with these six as principal permitted uses. That is correct. That is before you right now. I just wanted to be sure. So, again, what you're looking at, which is the entire package with that change that you just made. Now, if I want to comment on that, should I wait until the motion? Yes, I would say so. So moving forward, do we have a motion on the original draft as amended today? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I'll make a motion to move the, I don't know what you call it, recreational ZODA. Zota 2014-4 move approval as amended. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the Zota 2014-4 recreational and tourism land uses as amended today. Any discussion? Yes, sir. I never thought I'd get to this point, but I never thought I'd be 70 either, so it doesn't matter. But I am very concerned about moving this forward. I think it does exactly what we don't want to do. It changes the intent of the zone, whether it's 18 or whether it's 6. It's still commercial use as principle provided. It is the only intent in the whole package that we are going through the back door and changing. And there's only one thing worse than a bad piece of legislation, and that's to pass it. And even though I put three years' worth of work in this, the unintended consequences of this are way too much for me to vote for it. and I hate to say that because I've been to way too many meetings on this, and I really like what some of the things that's in here will do for tourism. But what is happening right here today will come back and bite us big time. None of us sitting here, it'll probably bite, but it will come back and bite us big time, and it will affect not only the AN zone, it'll affect the AR zone too. and therefore I urge my fellow commissioners to not send this forward. Other comments? Yes, ma'am. I agree with Mr. Penn exactly. I think he has sage advice and I hope that we heed it at this point. Other comments? Yes, sir. Just a question. clarify the I guess the spillover effect or the effect between these principal users in AN and AR if we send this forward and I will yield to staff on this in a heartbeat if they want to comment on this because I'm commenting from what I think I know and if staff would comment on this it would be a lot more authority, David. I don't mind commenting on it, but let's give them an opportunity to say what could happen here. If not, I'll tell you what I think could happen. I'm sorry. I think I'll need a little more clarification. Mr. Pan, are you just indicating that, of course, anyone can ask for a certain zoning category in any portion of fayette county and might find it being approved that is a possibility that's exactly now that we don't have the map of the map of the maps to go by we don't have that hurdle to get through if you find some place in fayette county that you want to do a commercial activity and it will fit in an an zone you ask for the an zone and the ar for that zone for that purpose That was not allowed until this happened. And that concerns me greatly. It concerns me not for the first zone change because you have a chance to condition it. It really concerns me by right use in the AN zone. If you get that AN zone, you have that by right. And this was not something that was ever intended with this whole thing. This thing was to bring recreation into Fayette County, and we agreed starting down the road that we wouldn't change the intent of the zones. We have now changed the intent of the zone in my purpose, and the AEN would be applicable anywhere in Fayette County you could apply for it. It doesn't mean you'd get it, but you could apply for it. And that's what really concerns me, David. Penn, I would just say one thing, and I'm not debating this with you, But I would say that we believe that the Rural Land Management Plan maps would still be applicable, and the staff would certainly bring those to bear if there were an application. As you know, again, though, that we do expect that the Rural Land Management Plan would and should be reviewed, and I cannot predict the outcome of any such. And I'll respond to that by saying it's 15 years old. It needs to be reviewed. but you can rest assured that we will not change it to the point to where this if we have the opportunity we will not change it to where any kind of recreational uses that are by right i mean that's you know we're putting up two different things here and using one as a chalk and that's not i go back to my original premise this is bad legislation right now and don't send it forward expecting a council to fix it. Send forward something that the council can adopt and move forward with. Don't pass your responsibility on to elected officials. Any other discussion? Patrick? Yeah, I just would come back to I don't see the urgency of passing this today. I think we would all benefit from taking some time and reassessing. I think there have been valid points made that, in my opinion, haven't been fully considered by everybody. So I would urge, at the very least, if we're not going to vote this down right now, which it appears to me we're not, that we take the time and consider this thoughtfully. With that said, Mike, any comments? I was vote. Okay. I don't guess I have to answer that question. Well, I'm not going to belabor the point. I'm going to have to agree with Frank Penn in that. After three years, I want something to go forward. and, you know, unfortunately this isn't what I would have liked to have seen. And, you know, unfortunately at this point in time I cannot vote for it. So any other discussion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, let's just assume this got voted down. Where does it go there? Is it dead, started all over, or what? No. Or it goes to the council? What it would be, if this gets voted up, your recommendation on this, and this is your application, this is your text amendment, will go to the council with a recommendation of approval with all this discussion and the vote all recorded, all that information. if this motion goes down the recommendation will be that you are sending this text amendment on to the council with a recommendation that it not be approved but it still will go on to them unless you take a motion to withdraw your application is the other option that the commission has i stated that correctly council you okay Anything else before we vote? I'm going to say real quick, this has not been an easy task, especially the last few months. It's been a long task. Everybody knows it's been three years into working. With that said, I've got to say I appreciate all the concern of everyone on both sides of this. It is heartfelt, and it's heartfelt for everyone. I've always said that we have 11 free independent thinkers here, and I still believe that. Staff, they've done more work on this than anyone could imagine, and I appreciate what they've done as well. So with that said, I'll call for a vote, and we'll go forward. Motion first. Well, motion, I'm sorry. No, the motion was made by Mike Cravens. Will you repeat your motion? Wow. Hand me that paper back. Here. I made a motion to move approval of Zota 2014-4 Recreation and Tourism Land Uses as amended. and it was seconded by Ms. Mundy. So with that said, please vote when it comes up on the screen. One, two, three, four, five. We, it passed on a six to five vote. With that said, let's see here. Do we have anything else? Yes, we do, Mr. Chairman. There is another element of this, which is the subdivision regulation amendment, which is cleanup that went along with this. So since you did not include that in your motion on the zoning ordinance text amendment, you need also to take action on the subdivision regulation amendment that was a part of this package. Okay, I'll still move. I don't know where it is. Can I just still move that? If you would like to. If you'd like a refresher, we can put it up and show you what it is. Yes, please. Yeah. Yeah. The change is to add or use into the third line of the definition for environmentally sensitive area. So it will read any area which, due to its natural or physical setting, may have environmental problems with regard to development or use. That makes it consistent with the rural land management plan. Questions before motion? Hello. Actually, we did have a motion. So, Mike's motion was for approval of this language, correct? That's right. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval as the language presented. Any discussion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. why not motion passes so anything else Mr. King no other business Mr. Chair this is what the end of the month so we got subdivision coming up our committees next week yes Mr. Chairman Okay. Thank you. Any audience items? Thank you for your indulgence. Commission items? If not, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? I think that passes. Thank you.