Certain to state your name, phone number, the problems you are calling about, and its location. We can be reached by contacting LexCall at 311. Please keep sidewalks clear and adopt a fire hydrant if it is located near your house. Residents are asked to clear their sidewalks within 24 hours after a snow and ice event. The hydrant is there for your protection, and it may be several days after a storm before they can be cleared. By following these recommendations, you will be assisting us in providing you with safe and efficient snow removal operations. As always, for more information, please visit our website at lexingtonky.gov or call LexCall at 311. I'm Katherine Minton and thanks for watching. That's the measure of a man You come home, sir, but now you're home Without the gold, without the gold This is where you've always been You had to lose so you could win And rise above your troubles while you came Now you can love, now you can lose, now you can choose Like the measure of a man It's the fire in the ice, the light on the hand It's the thing you understand The worldly ties from which you are grand That's the better of a man You come full circle Now you're home Without the gold Without the crown This is where you've always been You had to lose So you could win Rise above your troubles While you can Now you can love Now you can lose, now you can choose That's the matter of a man Thank you. Thank you. We all have a face that we hide away forever And we take them out and show ourselves when everyone has gone Some are satin, some are steel, some are silk and some are leather They're the faces of a stranger but we'd love to try them on You know we all fall in love, but we disregard the danger. Though we share so many secrets, there are some we never tell. Why were you so surprised that you never saw the stranger? Did you ever let your lover see the stranger in your cell? Don't be afraid to try again Everyone goes south Every now and then You tell me, why can't someone else You should go by now Jubilee yourself Once I used to believe I was such a great romancer Then I came home to a woman that I could not recognize. When I pressed her for a reason, she refused to even answer. It was then I felt the stranger kick me right between the eyes. Welcome to the Urban County Planning Commission meeting of February the 22nd, 2018. Welcome to those of you in the audience. Welcome to the staff. Thank you, commissioners, for taking time out of your busy, busy days for public service. Approval of the minutes coming up. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Move approval of January 22, 2018. Second. Okay. It's been moved by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve the January 25, 2018 minutes. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Any postponements in our withdrawals? Okay, moving on. First item on the agenda then will be the development plan for PLN MJDP 18-1 Harper Woods. So, did you all prepare for that? I expect everyone to be in a very good mood. The University of Kentucky is on a two game winning streak. Nothing else to do except see what they do here. And we got it. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item on your agenda is a major development plan and a subdivision plan. It is 18-01 Harper Woods, property located Armstrong Mill in Kennesaw Drive. And we have, for your review, revised staff conditions on a yellow sheet. This is property that you saw some time ago for a zone change on the property. Now we have the final development plan and the preliminary subdivision plan. It is located, again, at Armstrong Mill and Kennesaw Drive at this intersection. Heartland is in this direction, Manowar is in that direction. You can see that they're proposing a street in this location to serve the development. They are proposing it to be a private street along with a series of access easements. These are both the subject of two actions you're going to be required to take today, one being a waiver request as well as a finding on the access easement. They are proposing 31 lots. You can see how they're situated in relative to the street. Here we have 10 townhouses. These townhouses are 2,400 square feet apiece. They're two stories. They are close to Beringer. I'm sure you all recall the controversy, if you want to call it that, or the issue with Beringer, and it will be terminated in this location. They have actually purchased a lot to make that possible. So again, they're terminating legally in conformance with the subregs. Beringer Road will be terminated in that location. And of course, that removes that conflict that existed, not only for this property, but for the church property as well. This property is dominated, as you all are aware, by a drainage area. And a study was done, and this is floodplain. Much of this is floodplain. So it's an environmentally sensitive area, it's heavily treed, and of course it's governed by not only Article 19 of the zoning ordinance, but also your stormwater manuals. And you all have heard this discussion, I know, on the vegetative buffer. And we've highlighted that for you, as well as the 25-foot floodplain setback. So again, you can see that they have worked to adjust their plan to accommodate this environmentally sensitive area. In conjunction with that, of course, the shape of the property is somewhat unusual and had to be accommodated. And as I stated, this is the existing house, single family homes. You can see there's some uniform lots through the development, and there's few that are somewhat oddly shaped. There is a utility easement in this area here that borders the property. This property is also impacted heavily. You may recall, we discussed this as on change, with easements that come through here and easements in this location. These will all be altered with the infrastructure, the new infrastructure that will go in. they will be relocating infrastructure and recreating these easements where the conflicts will be removed. For instance, there's one right here on this slide as well. In reviewing the new submission, staff has given the Planning Commission some new conditions. You can see that the first 11 are very standard development plan conditions. All the various agencies are involved in the review and approval of this development. We have number 12, which is, of course, provided the commission makes a finding for the access easement. That's one of the actions I was referring to earlier. And the last condition, number 18, is the waiver as well, and I'm going to deal with those shortly. Very briefly, I would just note on 14, revise the note on timing of construction of Behringer Drive Cul-de-Sac to include a minimum of four single-family lots. We've worked extensively with this applicant. We've met with them, and both sides, I'd be happy to say, have worked together and addressed a lot of issues. Staff was concerned about the timing of Beringer, and we were concerned that it may only be tied to the townhouses. And it's staff's understanding that that's not correct. It's staff's understanding the applicant intends to build townhouses in conjunction with the single-family homes. So staff wanted to tie the timely construction of Beringer to a certain number of lots. and the way the condition is phrased is that we're asking that a minimum of four single family lots be included and that allows them then to choose you want to build these six then we have four single family lots will be part of our pardon me if you want to build yes the total is 10 i'm confusing myself wanted to explain it to you. The issue is to have 10 lots. If they build six and leave four, then we only need four. I mean, we only need six single-family homes. If they build these four and leave these six, then we need the minimum in your condition of four single-family lots to go with the six to equal 10. I got that. You get that? I got that. Six plus four is 10. Four plus six is 10. So the condition reads as a minimum, at least a minimum of four single-family lots. They can always add two more and go to six if they want to build these. And we're leaving that option open to them, to what's best for them when they develop the property, get the infrastructure in, marketing the property, whichever bank of townhouses is suitable to them. So we're good with that. We just want 10 lots, however they're arranged, with that minimum of four tied to the construction of Beringer. Is that as clear as mud? Actually, I kind of understand it. 10 lots are going to be tied to the construction of Beringer in some combination of townhouses and single-family homes. I'll move on to condition 16, denote the location of the required street trees in their cross-section. It was part of the discussion that we had with the applicant on whether or not this was going to be an access easement or a private street. At one time, the applicant proposed this entire thing, everything to be an access easement. And staff really felt that was very highly inappropriate under these circumstances and recommended they avail themselves of a private street, and they agreed to that. And private streets have to be built to public standards. And with that, that's the subject of your waiver that you have in front of you today. And we pass that out to you. There's the waiver report. They're requesting a waiver to the cross section on the private street to reduce it from its standard 50 by 12 feet. They want to reduce it by 12 feet. They also are proposing an 18-inch strip between the street and the sidewalk, the four-foot sidewalk. It's another reduction in the cross-section, and it's a result of reducing the right-of-way. They seek to do this, again, because of the site constraints. They have to deal with this. They have to deal with the vegetative buffer. They have to deal with the floodplain. And yet they also have to build infrastructure, and they have to build the street. There's a lot of challenges associated with this property in the grading, getting the building platform, located where they can build. So they do have some challenges in this site. And again, it's complicated by the odd shape of the property. So they've agreed to build a private street, but they are asking again for a reduction in the size of the cross section. There's one other caveat in their waiver that staff was concerned about. And that is, and I know you can't see it very well, but they're showing a four-foot sidewalk on one side, and then they're proposing to build the other sidewalk, which is normally required in a cross-section, two sidewalks on either side of the street, along this western boundary. But they're only proposing to build that if they don't get permission to build their private trail through the property. Now, this is an amenity for the use of the residents here. It's not connected to the purpose of a street, and streets are intended to carry traffic and pedestrians safely. Staff believes it's important to have, we're going to reduce the size of the cross section, and staff is comfortable that this street will function. And we've talked at length with traffic engineering as well. They're comfortable. the street will function as a local street with a reduced width. However, we believe that we do need a sidewalk on both sides of this street, independent of this trail, because this trail can't be built unless they're granted relief from the vegetated buffer requirements in the stormwater manual. Neither your planning staff or this body have any control over that approval. It may or may not happen. And again, above and beyond that, our street system is designed to be fully functional for everyone. And that's pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, emergency vehicles. And our experience with one-sided sidewalks in a lot of areas has not been as successful as we would hope. So in that regard, staff is recommending that they build a sidewalk on both sides. of the private street. We are recommending approval of the reduction in the width of the cross-section. The second aspect to the street waiver is one I know that's obvious to you. There's no cul-de-sac here. They're transitioning into the townhouse area with an access easement. That will function for all practical purposes as if it was cul-de-sac because people can get down in there and turn around. emergency vehicles can get down in there and turn around public safety vehicles and this is actually not unusual and we've done this in other locations where we've had townhouse or apartment develops developments and we've transitioned into their parking lots because there's room there's adequate space for vehicles to maneuver and function so they are requesting that waiver as well staff is recommending approval of the waiver request subject only to the one item i mentioned, we believe it's important that they go ahead and build both sidewalks. Now, that leads us back to the access easements. As you can see, and I'm headed back over now, we've passed out another sheet of paper with a report on the access easements. You are required by your ordinance subdivision regulations to approve the use of an access easement. And they are asking that you approve this area that I just mentioned as part of the waiver as an access easement. They're also asking that you approve these areas as an access easement as well as this area. These access easements will provide the frontage and the access for six lots. This lot, this lot, that's one, two, three, four, five, and six. Six single family lots will be served by the access easements that they're proposing, should you all make a finding in that regard. And again, you can see the challenge of the site, pushing everything this way, the shape of the site. But there are certainly site constraints that have impacted this development and help justify the use, particularly in this area and this area, of the use of an access easement. I mean, it would be extremely difficult to orient this number of lots onto a private street in this area. Granted as well, there's a challenge here. There is one item, again, that staff has been uncomfortable with from the initial submittal of this plan, and that is the orientation of these two lots, principally lot seven utilizing an access easement for lot seven. Part of their justification is to protect these two burr oaks, and these are fine, very nice specimen of borough. It's very large trees. And we certainly support every effort that can be made to protect the trees. And they're protecting a large number of trees on this site. They are. There's a few here and there. They're going to have to go. I mean, that's just sometimes what happens when you build infrastructure and develop property. You're going to lose a few trees. In this particular instance, and we've drawn a red line around these trees. Here's the green circle that kind of shows the location. This red line circle shows the root zone for these two trees under your ordinance. And you can see the impact that six and seven have on these trees. And I want to point out to you because it was my mistake. Cheryl did a beautiful job, by the way, of coloring this up. And then I got on here and do these circles and said, oops, I drew them both the same size. Well, I want you to know they don't, they're not the same size. This tree is larger than this tree. So this root zone is actually smaller. And I kind of highlighted a little bit. It impacts six and seven more at the outer rim of this green circle as opposed to the one I drew. So that was me and my excitement trying to get the scale as correct as I could. But again, our point is we are concerned with the impact on these trees, and we believe if you were to remove this access easement, you gain 20 feet. And there's that little line right there to give you an approximation. You move these lots 20 feet, and you have six, six, and seven. They front on the private street, just like all these lots, just like all these lots and these lots, they front on the private street and no real need to have this access easement. So with that, again, we're recommending that you make a finding on the use of the access easement with the exception for lot seven. And we're recommending that those lots be reoriented to the private street. And I would add, in conjunction with that, the last condition on your finding report is that we are recommending that certified arborists submit a report on the best management practices to protect these trees. Because, as you all are aware, during construction, the root zone needs to be protected. And that's the most dangerous time for these trees, is that they get damaged during construction. And then you lose them over time. You don't even know that you've killed them. And we've done that in other cases. You all are well aware out on Harrodsburg Road and the bur oak and the zone that was established around that tree as an example. And we believe that that report could be submitted to our urban forester for his review and approval, which is actually keeping in conformance with Article 26, which is your tree protection ordinance. So again, I will summarize. Staff is recommending approval of the plan subject to the conditions on your yellow sheet. We're recommending approval of the waiver subject to one condition, that they build both sidewalks on both sides of the street. And we are recommending that you do make a finding of appropriateness for the access easements, with the exception that lot six and seven be reoriented to the private drive, along with a report by an arborist. and I apologize for the length of my presentation but there was a lot to cover here there's been a lot of work by the applicant and your staff in this plan so I wanted to be sure we we covered everything for you I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff Mr. Lawrence thank you mr. chair thanks Tom I think you touched on everything pretty much I just want to clarify a couple of things first and foremost as far as the cul-de-sac termination on Behringer Drive am I understanding you correctly when you say that a minimum of 10 of something 10 lots yes sir which equates to 10 permit 10 building permits. So the Behringer court has to have a cul-de-sac built prior to the last 10 building permits. Last 10, not first 10. Last 10. No, they need to develop property and market the property, and we don't mind them building it. Why wouldn't they go on and build the cul-de-sac when they're putting the rest of the infrastructure in? They may. And they'll have to tell you what their timing is. But, again, there's no vehicular access here. There's just pedestrian. So, you know, staff. To me, that was a major point of contention, as you said earlier. and I feel like that should be built before much it may be in there even later I'll put it that way and and you're offering your suggestion is sidewalks on both sides sidewalks on both sides and then term removing the access easement and a tree arborist let me ask you this considering the fact that this came back before us for a early rehearing and we granted that with the condition not with the condition but with the suggestion that everybody play together in the sandbox so to speak how has that gone we have worked with them extensively staff has and they've met with us on numerous occasions and we've worked these things out and i probably left something out i should have added to because they have worked with us uh you may recall the uh extra landscaping that they've done that. They've gone to the private street. They wanted an access easement. They felt that was important to how they developed. So I think it's gone well, considering the... Where are they with the sidewalks and the access easement and the tree arbors? I think they're going to let you know that shortly with their presentation, because obviously they have proposed not to build the sidewalk unless the trail is not approved. And so we're saying we don't believe that's appropriate. We want the sidewalk. So there's a difference, obviously, of opinion there. Okay. In subdivision, as you may remember, these items went from discussed to resolved with the thought that they were going to be resolved. And essentially this could have landed on a center agenda. I think we've moved much closer. And I would add a private street has to be built to public standards. We're talking about curb, gutter, depth of pavement. A lot of items are addressed that way that staff thinks are very important. Thank you, sir. Mr. Berkley. I want to talk about the sidewalks just a minute because when we met in subdivision, we discussed this quite a bit. and the conclusion that I came away from that meeting with was that if the path was not built or could not be built then there would be an agreement to put the sidewalks on the other side of the street that's not what you're saying that is what we agreed to in subdivision that's what we voted on it's not my memory I understand that the person that makes the determination of if that path can go there or not is in our Planning Department who does that then they will if they want to be released from the requirements of the stormwater manuals they have to go to the Commissioner of Public Works which is outside public works so they're they're the ones that have to make that determination on the term why can't they go ahead and make this determination i believe it's going to be contingent upon infrastructure plans they're going to have to see the actual grading plans the infrastructure how this is going to work and the vegetative buffer is stated you shall have one and you don't penetrate it you don't mess with it you don't cut things down so they're going to have have to have special dispensation on that. I understand that but I made the motion and I know what motion I made and the motion was was once that's that was determined that would that would tell us if they would have to do sidewalks on the other side of the street or not I just want that on the record. Ms. Bundy. I have a question too sorry about my voice I have a question too with regard to the sidewalk also this is a private street we recently did a development that had a bur oak tree that we protected in that and we granted in that situation also on a private street to only have sidewalk on one side so I'm I guess I'm still struggling with the fact that if they're if they do do the trail and they are allowed to do that trail will that second sidewalk go away then that is their proposal staff supports a full sidewalk on either side we think the relationship of the sidewalk is relative to the street to the use of the street well then why well I can't go back and review another plan but anyway we did it on another plan and in which plan might that be where the bur oak tree yes ma'am that's not a private street that's a public street with a tremendous great private street my apologies yes and we did grant a waiver in that regard to protect that tree the waiver in this regard is not relative to the trees it's the access easement to protect the trees it's relative to the trail I think but yeah okay thank you anyone else Okay, Mr. Cravens. Is there a right-of-way on that private street? Not in the typical sense of being dedicated, but there is right-of-way in the design. Okay, but there's no government right-of-way. There's no government right-of-way, no, sir. Okay. Mr. Plumley? There may be in the future, by the way, if they decided to dedicate. the surface is what your mic's not on Mr. Plumlin the the private trail that they're proposing we can't we don't know what it's going to be until it gets approved through the stormwater management process through the design of the property one of the issues is they may be able to put a grass trail in there easier than they could a paved trail and the vegetative buffer for obvious reasons one being vegetative in nature and grass as opposed to actual pavement as part of the challenge that they face in in dealing with the the site anyone else applicant thank you applicant Good afternoon Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant. I appreciate your all's indulgence in postponing. I needed everyone to be in a better mood after Kentucky had won a couple of games, so I think we're there. Stealing the chairman's joke. The good news I have for you is that I do think there's a lot more agreement here than maybe even that presentation led you to believe. There were several items that we, and we had a meeting with staff after our postponement to discuss several items. a majority of them, and Tom or anyone else can correct me if they think I'm misrepresenting things, were resolved to the planning staff's satisfaction. To us, an access easement versus a private street is really effectively a distinction without a difference. To staff, it means something else, and so we were more than happy to try to accommodate that concern. Other things that we resolved, the additional buffer space, the timing note, which I know reads very confusingly, but I think we're all on the same page we are in agreement with staff we just need to make sure the wording is buttoned up we we're gonna construct Behringer to address mr. Owens question I can't speak to the exact timing at this time the hope was to give us some flexibility to let some other of these units be developed and have some money rolling in before taking on a significant public expense on the street that's already functioning that there is no cul-de-sac there now but we know we can't I think there was at least some level of concern that the way this is laid out with there only being 10 house 10 townhome units was that effectively you could build out the single-family portion never build the townhouses and then you never have to build Behringer I want to make it unequivocally clear on the record that is not our intent and not only do we contend to co-develop the townhomes at the same time as the single-family homes we're in agreement with staff on their recommendation about the timing notes so there are a number of things that we have been able to agree my issues are really very limited here today and they've already been somewhat discussed I'll start on the one that you all just finished discussing which was the sidewalks our request was very simply this that if we are able to build not only a trail but an ADA accessible trail within the floodplain buffer zone that we would prefer to do that over a sidewalk on both sides understanding that if we're not able to get that special dispensation we're agreeable to a note that says if we can't build the trail we will build the sidewalk on both sides that simply was our request staff has not been comfortable with that they want a sidewalk on both sides regardless we think that because of the nature of this development it's very small that that that trail could effectively move people in the same way that a sidewalk would. I think that's a reasonable request. I wasn't at the subdivision committee. I had the flu that day, so I don't know what was contemplated in the motion. But that, to explain what our request was, it was very simply that. If we're not able to provide ADA compliant ability to move people, be it in a trail system or whatever we're going to call that, we understand we have to build a sidewalk on both sides. would ask for your indulgence there. We know staff has a slightly contrary opinion but we thought that that could be a very significant amenity to our development and because effectively we're providing the same service the ability for pedestrians to navigate through the community it's only 41 units we think that's a reasonable alternative so we would ask you to consider that. I know there's been a lot of concern about whether that trail is actually buildable or not and maybe it's not buildable but in that case you will be protected, your interests will be protected because we're more than happy to include a note that says if that doesn't get built out to standards that we'll do the sidewalk on both sides. That's what we're asking you to entertain there. The other significant issue that we had revolves around the burr oaks. We have no problem with the arborist. We'll make sure those trees are protected. I want to tell you how important those trees are to us. We actually oriented lots six and seven so that they could be the front yard for those units that's why that goes that way now i have been provided by my client and i'll put it up on the board for y'all While we wait on technology, okay, well, a very shadowy drawing here. We want this to be an amenity for the community. We want these houses on both sides, if you'll actually look. I could quit talking in abstract. These lots will effectively have those trees as their front yard. We're asking for these lots to do so as well. Could those lots be turned and oriented towards the street? I guess technically you could squeeze it that way to do it. I don't think it's necessary. I think it does a couple of very good things for this development. One, we think it allows us to utilize the Barroques as an amenity. Two, it provides us some architectural variety in how we're orienting these lots. This provides for a rear-loaded garage versus your standard front-loading garage. It gives us a little bit of architectural variety. I think it's innovative design given the unique constraints of this site. We want to preserve the trees. We're really impacted by the floodplain area. We think this is an effective way to utilize these trees as an amenity. So that's why we're asking for a finding on lot seven. Yeah, I guess we could have folded on that point, but this is a very, very important feature for the developer. He really wants and thinks that this could be a community asset. As you can see, the way these are oriented, it's almost like an open area, open space, that we think could be a valuable addition to the community versus having it just sit on the side of somebody's house. That's why we're asking, and that's all we're asking for, is a little indulgence, a little variety. your subdivision regulations permit waivers to the subdivision regulations for things like innovative design and variety. And so we'd ask you to consider that. The only other issue that I have to bring up to you is with regard to the Armstrong Mill Trail, which actually hasn't been discussed very much. But I do think it's important that we discuss it because there is a resolve condition about trail accessibility. That trail is a proposed mixed-use trail, comes down Armstrong Mill, ultimately crosses Manor War, and heads up Pickman Creek. our frontage here would only involve about 250 feet of the trail the church property next door doesn't have trail on it the property immediately across kenesaw from us is largely a floodplain lot we don't think it's a development if we we don't think it's a developable lot we don't think it's likely to develop the point here being we think a lot of this trail is going to have to be constructed at urban county government expense expense and we're not aware of that being done so far. Under the subdivision regulations, and I've brought a copy of those for your reference as well, it says that when the comprehensive plan asks for a shared use trail in lieu of sidewalks, which is what we're talking about here, that the developer is required to dedicate right-of-way or an easement for construction of that. I think there's sufficient right-of-way here for Armstrong Mill already. We would be happy to do that if they needed a little bit more space. and that we would only be required to build the cost of a conventional pedestrian sidewalk. They've asked us to construct a 12-foot wide shared-use trail. That's significantly larger than the sidewalk that we would be required to build under the subdivision regulations. When we said that we would build out what we were required to build out, and they could add on to it later, they raised a valid concern of, well, you kind of can't hybrid it that way. You can't have a four-foot section and then an eight-foot section. That would be unwieldy. What has been permitted on other developments and what we would propose here is we'll provide a fee in lieu of providing that sidewalk. We will pay for the cost of the sidewalk that we would be required under your subdivision regulations to install. And then when this trail system comes through and is completed, it could be utilized for those purposes. So on the litany of issues that impact these plans, I'm really down to three. That is, we're really hoping you will consider our either-or proposition for the sidewalk, either the trail or the sidewalk. We think functionally it accomplishes the same thing. We're asking for your indulgence on the finding for the access easement serving lot 7. We think it permits those trees to be an asset to our community and provides for some architectural variety. And we're asking just for clarity on the requirements with regard to the Armstrong Mill Trail. other than that everything staff has told you we're in agreement with we've come a long way on this plan staff and I would echo mr. Martin's comments we have worked with staff we're kind of down to these last couple of issues they just don't like our lot seven we really like our lot seven we were asking for your guidance on that the other issues we just need you to resolve but I do think the majority of the issues that were raised we have tried to deal with proactively and productively and cooperatively and I think we've accomplished a lot of those goals we're really down to the very very minor issues here with that I'd be happy to entertain any questions that you might have my friends from EA partners are here that prepared the plan as is my client Mr. Atchison if any of us can answer any of your questions yes we have some questions The first open lot will be in HOA. There are trees under that jurisdiction. Yes, ma'am, that's correct. There is, to be frank, a lot of HOA open space on this lot. That's largely the result of the floodplain. As you know, it's preferred that the HOAs hold that lot. But, yes, that space specifically would be HOA maintained. It's not the actual lot. Those trees are not on the lots that we're proposing here. Ms. Mundy. Thank you. Jacob, you said that possibly you could do away with that easement back to Lot 7, and that would possibly give you enough room to make two lots there. But that would also definitely put two driveways more backing out onto that street, whereas as you have it now, those two driveways would really be on that access easing. Yes, ma'am. That's accurate. Thank you. Mr. Owens Thank you Mr. Chair Ms. Walbrook the as far as the sidewalk staffs wanting to you're saying one and you know unless the trail doesn't get built who would if it gets built who would build that trail We would You would Paved? Concrete? The way the note reads on the plan we've submitted, it would have to be paved to be ADA compliant. Grass trails or mulch trails, to my knowledge, and I'm not an expert on the ADA, but I believe I'm telling you correctly, would not be compliant with ADA standards. So essentially, if it doesn't look like a duck, act like a duck, and walk like a duck, if it doesn't resemble a sidewalk, we would realize that we would have to put the sidewalk on the other side. When would you make the determination or give up on the hope of building the trail and go back to building the second sidewalk? I would think it would be in fairly short order here. In the way these things are done, at least my understanding of them is after final development plan approval and certification, you really start to get into your construction plans. As part of our construction plans, and Mr. Martin touched on it, we do have a number of easements to deal with. I think we would consider the waiver to the vegetative buffer requirements at that time. If it could not be accommodated, we would do it as part of the installation of the private street. So, you know, by the time half of the units are built or final development plan? I think with the construction plans, I think it would be before the units are built. So before permitting? Before building permits, yes. A question as far as the bur oak trees, the orientation of those units. You're saying you've got one, two, three, four, five units that you're going to orientate towards the bur oak trees? Yes, sir. So the parking for those, any visitor parking would still be in the rear? Yes, sir. So all of these being single family lots, this access easement serves these lots, this access easement serves here. So they would have rear loaded garages and driveways back here and back here. And then there's additional overflow parking reflected in this area. So I'm asking, how would the guests get into the house if they're getting to the front door? They could presumably walk on the sidewalk we've proposed for that side of the street. If you put up your picture again, there's no sidewalks going to the front of the houses. I think there is you put in street lights and lamps and so forth but you didn't put any sidewalks in I'm looking at the picture right there Jacob what are we looking at Use the mic. Get the mic, please. I just want to clarify which ones we're talking about. We're talking to these three houses here. Yes, sir. There's a walk there. Do you see any walks going to the houses? Not. I wouldn't call that a sidewalk. I would call that an access to the house. They're not depicted on this. Clearly, there would be access to the fronts of the homes. Okay, yeah, I'm asking questions, you're all proposing something and I'm not seeing it, so that's where I'm coming from So, and you're wanting to, nothing's been said from staff or anybody on the Armstrong Mill Trail It was a note that we discussed and I think there is a resolved trail accessibility note That's what I'm concerned about But it was discussed extensively in the meeting that we had, and I'm just looking to be sure that the ask or the, so a lot of, as you all well know, on these resolved conditions, the applicant and staff gets together after the Planning Commission has said, and staff says this is our intent, and you try to work it out. Staffs informed us that their intent was to ask for us to construct a 12-foot multi-use trail, and I wanted to ensure that the request was going to be in conformity with the land subdivision regulation that I cited previously which is 6-8 in 3. I'm just making sure that that's clear on the record in advance. Thank you sir. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay thank you for now. We'll get the lights back up. Thank you. Is anyone here would like to speak either on this particular agenda item from the audience. Okay. Mr. Walton, do you have any other final points that you'd like to make? Anything else? We're in the rebuttal phase, so to speak. On account of I don't know anything I would have to rebut unless there are specific questions. And reserving the right to address any new issue that's brought up in rebuttal, I don't have anything to add. Okay. Staff have any additional comments? I have one about the clarification on the accessibility trail, number 19. We didn't discuss that, or you all did not as a staff address that particular issue, and the applicant brought it up, so where are we on that? Our pedestrian planner has been requesting 12-foot construction of public trails. because that's the public standard your subregs do not require that so that that is a provision in the subregs it is a collector street they will be required to do improvements under the approval of their cross section through traffic engineering if any are required okay i got i got a question for that mr berkeley you said that 12 foot is a public standard i don't sure do we have that It is in the road. There's a design manual that are adopted by reference in both your subdivision regulations and the stormwater engineering manuals, pardon me. Have we built any that big? We have seen that built. The public has built them at 12 feet. Where? Here? In Lexington, yes. Not here, which is why we asked for 12 feet. No, I'm saying in Lexington. where where have we built them 12 foot wide because that the legacy legacy trail is 12 feet wide yeah that's our newest trails are all 12 feet so that's public yes it is and it is in the roadway in in the manuals it that is the recommended width for a heavily used trail mr bell For my clarification, this trail, it's a stand-alone trail. It doesn't complement any other feeder trail. Along the front of the property, the public trail? Yes. That complements the trail system that will eventually run all the way past the peninsula, through the peninsula and to Jacobson Park. It's part of a public system. Other than, I guess, the environmental side, is there any reason why, realistically, it's not going to be approved? that you can think of is there any reason why the internal trail yeah this trail here that the amenity the bright well again the vegetative buffer in the stormwater manuals is held up as something that can't be the right word messed with violated and destroyed you know the only thing that they can do is if they had to run required infrastructure through it required infrastructure stormwater drains and head walls and that sort of thing are allowed to penetrate the vegetative buffer but it's supposed to remain purely as a vegetative buffer so they're going to have to ask for special permission to put a trail in that vegetable buffer and this trail that they're asking about is different from yeah yes this is a private amenity it's not a public system No, it's not part of the public system. Thank you very much. It's just this piece right now. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Cravens. I can't see anything in here. Jacob, can I ask him a question? Yeah. Jacob. I want to speak to Jacob. You can step. Yes, sir. I mean, I'm sitting here. Why do you all want to fool with this internal trail and go through all that trouble. Why not just put the sidewalk on there and go on out? We think it's a superior amenity. We think our residents would like it more. We think it makes the properties more marketable, and that's why we're asking for it. I mean, I do feel like, and in the interest of candor, I would tell you, I think staff's attitude probably correctly has been there is a small chance that that will be approved. Okay, let us take our chance. And if we can't do it, we'll give you exactly what we've told you we would give you. That's that's our request Why aren't we doing it? We think it provides a superior product for the market that we're trying to attract here Maybe we're right. Maybe we're wrong, but that's the thought And and up there where that lot seven is I've seen it I mean, that's you're trying to create a community green up there more or less for out. I think that's a fair way to describe it Yes, yeah, I mean I've seen that At this stage of the time, we're going to just let the Commission ask questions of either the applicant or the staff for a minute or two before we close it off. Ms. Monney, do you have a… I think there's some confusion, and so I'd like to clear that up. We're really talking about two trails. There's a trail along Armstrong Mill, which staff is asking to be 12-foot wide. Yes, ma'am. then our sub regs don't require to be 12 foot wide yes ma'am okay and then the other trail will meander through the green space there or the floodplain or whatever you want to call it the vegetative area and we are there standards on how wide that trail has to be no because it's a private trail I think we've proposed six feet okay but there it's not so the sidewalk This gets a little touchy and I might be able I've done a poor job of explaining it so let me clarify that The private trail amenity I think it's colored Here Is purely for this development, it's just a purely private amenity that that does intersect with the public trail but is not considered part of the public trail system. The public trail is envisioned to go, not going to get too far ahead because I have nothing to do with this case, but I imagine you've already heard the rumblings about Overbrook Farm, from past Overbrook Farm all the way down through Manowar, actually curls around past Center Parkway and then based on my reading of the Greenway Master Plan, curls up the Hickman Creek. I'm sure Tom will correct me if I'm incorrect, but I don't think much of that trail has been constructed yet. In fact, has any of it on this side been constructed? Okay, in a handful of places it's been constructed. On either side of us, it hasn't been constructed. So our proposal was, let us give you what we would be required under the ordinance. We'll give it to you in money that you can use that when this trail is ready to come through. This is that church lot you all may remember from the zone change. We've kind of taken them out of the equation here, but I don't know that they're going to have any reason unless they were to redevelop to come in and build the trail. And then after you get beyond that, it's actually the backyards of a number of houses that are part of this development. So all of that's going to have to be done as part of a public expenditure. So our thought was, well, let's just do it in one fellow swoop versus, as I sarcastically call it, the trail to nowhere. But that's really what we're discussing here. But to be clear, the trail envisioned as part of this is not proposed as part of the public system it's just something that we've proposed as amended to our development this trail has been contained on the greenway master plan i only checked the most recent incarnation it may have been there before but we've known about that thank you very much mr martin if i may i'd like to clarify a couple of things and it has to do with the trail So 6-8N3, and Jacob mentioned this, is in your subregs, the shared use path standards. I want to be very clear about this. What it says is that the developer is the maximum obligation of the developer shall be the cost of a conventional pedestrian sidewalk. In other words, and I'll make this simpler than the 6-4 lotting explanation, They're either obligated to build or pay in lieu of for a four-foot sidewalk, because that would be their normal obligation. Twelve-foot is recommended for a trail, and that reference is the shared use path shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the roadway manual. So, Mr. Berkeley, so you'll understand, we've got a lot of design standards referenced in our regulations. They're not pulling them out of the air or anything. There's tremendous amounts of technical manuals that everyone has to follow, you know, applicants, our engineers. and that sort of thing so and that reference has been in here for many many years but just again to make it clear that the regs only require them to be financially obligated for four feet of that trail which would be a normal cross-section requirement or improvement in half section so my question is then are we trying to obligate them to 12 feet we ask we always ask because we would like to see the public not have to pay for something if the developers willing some are some aren't we're always going to ask mr. what we want people understand we're trying to be good stewards of the taxpayers dollar okay mr. Owens thank you mr. chair Tom while you're there as as far as the staff's wishes of having a sidewalk on both sides of the private street in lieu of the trail that may or may not be built what's your thoughts as far as tying it to this that side sidewalk shall be built prior to permitting if the sidewalk or trail in the open area doesn't get approved. Mr. Owens that's that's all part and parcel of the same process when they design and they submit their infrastructure plans or grading plans they're gonna have to propose a design for that trail they're gonna have to ask so if that if they don't get that permission I think it's comfortable they'll just turn around and and build the sidewalk and they'll be all part of the same process they have to submit plans for the street so I'm not concerned that there'll be a problem there we just again staff and you all been hearing more of this lately and in a lot of conversations with your staff I know the way we view streets and their total functionality for everyone pedestrians vehicular traffic etc so we see a complete cross-section just as part of that functionality so you would be asking that if the third trail the other trail gets built then there would be a trail plus the two sidewalks yes sir and it's a private amenity and we think that's wonderful. We like private amenities. Okay, good deal. Thank you, sir. I have one question. I'm waiting for my commission members to ask if they have any additional questions for you. I have one. Let me go back to the findings related to lot seven. You all want that reoriented. Yes, sir. Explain to me why you want that reoriented. Very simply, we believe that by removing this access easement and putting the lots this way, it will actually better accomplish the goal of protecting the trees in their root zone. And it also just removes the need for an access easement because they can front on a private road. I mean, this is going to have to be maintained, et cetera. It's hardscape and it's really in staff's estimation not really necessary. And it's not that we're adverse by the way to developer vision and design and that sort of thing. We appreciate creativity. Well I was just trying to make a determination whether this was a style issue or whether or not it was something substantive. Now let me get clarification for my sake. sake you're saying that the reason you would like that is from the staff's position to reorient that lot those two houses would be because it would be better protection for the trees I believe that is one of their that's one of their reasons for requesting it is that this will protect tree and our position is well if you just create a pretty standard layout like you've done elsewhere, you'll even better protect the tree. And again, remind you, they are asking for permission for these access easements. These aren't automatically allowed. That's why they're... I got you. So there needs to be a reason for them. Mr. Cravens. Tom, aren't you also asking for an arbiter to... We felt that that would be appropriate. Wouldn't he take the lot configuration into consideration? We would be comfortable with all that, I believe, if we got a report on best management practices, which are encouraged. I mean, an arborist might say that's okay to leave 7 the way it is. Yes, sir. And we would recommend that if you find in favor of the applicant's request and you allow the slotting pattern, we would think it prudent to require an arborist report be submitted to our urban forest. But you're already requiring that aren't you in here somewhere? Well that's our recommendation. That's up to you at this point. This is what we're recommending to you. They agree to that? Pardon? Well they've agreed to that. Yes. Okay. So now let me get clarification. What we're saying is that an arborist comes in and reviews that lot configuration and indicates that it's better to be one way or the other, the staff is okay with that, and the applicant's okay. Well I think staff would be okay with that at that time. okay Mike not yet any other questions okay I think we've got enough thank you I hate to say this this is kind of a little bit of levity here but happy trails to all of you Mr. Chairman do you need to get clarification on that last question that you asked the Tom from there yeah and well he's The nod from the crowd isn't good enough. We're happy to involve the arborist. We're asking that this be approved. If the arborist comes back and says, no, no, heck no, then we get it. They're Barrokes. We know how important Barrokes are here. We're not going to take them down. The way I understand it, Mr. Commissioner Haley, is that they want to deal with the way they have designed it, but if an arborist comes in and says that it's better another way, then they're willing to deal with that. Mr. Martin. And just so the planning condition knows, Because if the arborist came in and said change the lotting pattern, that could then be reflected on the final record plat. Okay. That would then come when they recorded that. That's a good point too. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee, you got it? Do we have anybody from our environmental here? The arborist was out of the office today. Our urban forester, Mr. Query, is out of the office. We do have someone here from environmental, but that's not their area of expertise. No more questions, then I'm going to close off that part of the hearing and then bring it back to the Commission for a motion or additional discussion. Let me clarify a couple of things. We've got possibly three things to consider. First of all, the plan itself, we'd vote on that. Then we would vote on the waiver, and usually I would take the waiver and the findings together, but because of the complexity of this, depending upon which way the Commission goes, I'm going to break it up. and take each piece separately as such so Mr. Cravens yeah I'm gonna try and stumble through all this we'll help you it's not gonna be exactly like the staff said anyway I want to move approval of the development plan 18-1 for the findings by staff recommendation Well let's take the plan itself first and then break up the other two. But I just did. You said something about the findings. Findings right here. Oh, you're the conditions. 18 conditions. Okay, I'm sorry. The reason why there's another specific set of findings that I was connecting with. Okay, with the 18 conditions provided by staff. That's right. Do I have a second? We have a second for Ms. Carolyn Richardson. Mr. Cravens moves. Ms. Carolyn Richardson seconds. I want to talk about number 17 in that because that affects the 12-foot path down front there at Armstrong Mill. Is it your intent to require them to do the 12-foot, or are we going to go back to just what the subregs say? well it's my intent or way 17 reasons that they still have a chance to resolve that right but we need to give some direction I think as to the way we would like to see that part resolved since we well I think disgusted I think mr. Martin stated that they were only obligated to four feet of that trails that pay for four feet of it that's right is what he stated so I'm going I I mean, he stated it right here. So that's why I'm saying that. I just want to have that part on the record, too. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Craven, second by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve PLN MJDP-18-1 Harper Woods with the 18 conditions as identified by staff. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when that comes up on your screen? Okay, now let's go to the waiver. Okay. First one I'll do, I guess, is the finding for the use of the access easement. And I'm going to move approval of this, but I want the access easement to remain as plans, including lot 7 facing the way that is shown on that plan right now. All the other access easements that's shown. So moved. Arbor's done this. On this one? Okay. I'm okay with that. The main thing I want to say is I want to Move approval of the access easements the way they are shown on that plan, leaving Lot 7 with that orientation. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we grant the waiver with the conditions as identified by staff, adding, of course, the fact that we would employ a certified arborist to report to our urban forester related to number 17 and the orientation of that particular lot. Any discussion on the motion? All right, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Now for the waiver. Okay. Now the waiver for the, I guess it's for the private street. The waiver has to do with the sidewalk. Okay. The sidewalk, they should build the sidewalk in front of the houses if they're not able to secure the private trail system behind the houses. That's the way they want to do it. I don't know why they want to do that, but that's what they want to do. You all understand the motion. The motion, I think, if I could clarify the motion on that. Yes. I do. I've got these findings right here. Well, let me ask Ms. Jones that. What Mr. Cravens would like to do, Ms. Jones, is to modify the findings. In other words, to suggest that the trail, the only requirement would be to build a sidewalk, the double sidewalk, if in fact it did not get the trail system set up. Now the findings are set up in a different way. That's what Mr. Owens is indicating. So we need to help us get somebody. In my mind, some of that's on this development plan. That double sidewalk is on this development plan. I think the emphasis is different, Mr. Martin. I believe you, if it sounds like what you'd like to do, Mike, is approve the waiver per the applicant's request. And what that means is the second sidewalk will be built only if they do not get approval, which is what they propose. So I think it's as simple as that. It's approving the waiver per the applicant's request. Because we conditioned it with our recommendation. Okay. So I said I don't know why they want to do that. That's okay, Mike. Your motion now is to approve the applicant's request. Is that correct? That's right. Okay. And Ms. Richardson, again, seconds that motion. Any discussion on the motion? Here in the way, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, the motion carries. So that's it. Okay, the next item on the agenda is the SOTA 2018 amendment to Article 8.1. Is everybody comfortable? We can continue to push on through. Good afternoon Chairman Wilson, members of the Commission. Our next item is found on page two of the agenda. Zota 2018-1 and this is an amendment to Article 8-1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 8-1 is the agricultural rural zone in our Zoning Ordinance and the request is from the Baharaja Temple and Cultural Center and they are asking to allow accessory structures for places of worship. and in more detail their request is to allow those accessory structures to not count towards the existing 10,000 square foot limitation in the AR zone this would allow for the accessory structures to be in excess of that 10,000 limit so the applicant is proposing specific language on the agenda as well as on a a staff report to allow those accessory structures to be up to 35 percent of an existing principal structure size whatever that principal structure size might be for the particular religious assembly and then also a restriction to prohibit permanent walls for such accessory structure these limitations are being proposed to prevent excessive use of those structures and then we mentioned in the staff report to prevent them from being enclosed in the future thereby circumventing the existing regulations in the zoning ordinance the applicants proposed text is an addition to what is currently a conditional use number 20 in the AR zone and that tacks on a short paragraph with the restrictions I just mentioned and does not add it as a specific accessory use so by allowing it as part of the conditional use or the list of conditional uses an applicant would have to go to the Board of Adjustment in order to be permitted to have this accessory use they would need to go through that separate process if this policy change were implemented by the Planning Commission in the council in terms of the 10,000 square foot restrictions I thought it would be useful to help the Commission in this recommendation to know where those were established and where they came from so in 1994 there was a an ad hoc group that made a recommendation to the council at that time to make some fairly significant changes to our agricultural rural zone their primary concern of the group was that land use incompatibilities were coming to the forefront in our rural service area and some of those had to do with conditional uses that was the first time then that they implemented the 10,000 square foot limitation for non agricultural conditional uses they also established a 10 acre minimum for single-family and conditional uses and then a 300 foot set so those were some of the more significant changes in that text amendment there were actually at that time four principal uses in our AR zone and two of them were moved to conditional and then there were a number of other conditional uses that were removed and made prohibited at that time there was extensive research done about places of religious assembly how many there were and generally how large they were not all of the information was available at that time but they they did the best they could with the information they had so they established that 10 000 limit based on the research they had since then in 2004 between 2019-94 i guess when the text amendment was first initiated in 2004 the board of adjustment was continually hearing cases related to religious assembly places of religious assembly in our ar zone and there came up a question of if an existing church or temple existed in in our agricultural rural zone and i gave an example on the overhead of one that was in existence in 1995 it was 5800 square feet the question was being posed to the board of adjustment do i get to get do i as the church body get another 10 000 square feet everyone who's coming in today with an empty lot would be permitted 10 000 would i be permitted 10 000 as the church body and the board of adjustment was making on a case-by-case basis determining that an additional 10 000 was permitted so that in this example gave that particular organization 15,800 square feet and this is a fictitious example but it what was what the board of adjustment was doing between 1995 and 2004 they had several cases that were came to them and they acted in that manner and that prompted a text amendment to change the language of the zoning ordinance to really clarify for everybody what that standard was so the language in the ordinance now indicates that a religious entity would have had to have owned 20 or more acres contiguous acres prior to the adoption of the rural land management plan and had approval from the board of adjustment prior to the adoption of the plan so there's some kind of some caveats that would put you in a category of being able to expand 10 000 more not every to clarify that and then in 2017 last year we had a text amendment that dealt with conditional uses more comprehensively and at that time we changed the language from churches and sunday schools to places of religious assembly so that affected this same second ordinance the rural land management plan is part of lexington's planning repertoire and we utilize that and recently was adopted to help us know really what the rural service area needs and direct decisions based in that area so chapter two of the rural land management plan that was just adopted last fall does provide some information about religious land uses so there's some existing religious land uses we know that in the agricultural area our rural service area this gave some detailed information about that and so 82 parcels were owned by religious organizations when they did the land use survey in in 2016 of those a number are not located in our ar zones they're in the rural activity centers or they might be in rural settlements like athens or fort springs so some of those smaller religious assemblies are not in ar zones the staff looked at in detail the information when we determined there were 45 ar locations with religious assembly within the rural surface area so ar zoning and rural service area something else the planning commission should consider when we assess changes for religious assembly is a federal law that was adopted in 2000 and that's called the religious land use and institutionalized persons act and it's for short they call it relupa and when that was adopted in 2000 it its intent is to protect and ensure fair and equal treatment of religious land uses and for institutionalized persons within a community and to protect those groups from discrimination by zoning specifically by zoning so our community other communities can't unduly infringe on religious practices of any group through our land use regulations in some cases that's we can't put a height restriction on church steeples that's would infringe on their religious assembly so that's just an example Lexington does allow religious assembly in every zone but in some zones its principal use and in other zones it's a conditional use and in the AR zone we've added that extra restriction of the 10,000 square foot total total floor area and we've done that knowing that there's a balance between the rural service areas needs and protection and the ideas that we are trying to promote in terms of balancing our agricultural and rural land preservation with also the needs and permitting uses in our rural service area and that's not just agricultural uses but also religious so there's always a balance with planning and in this case the balance that the Commission needs to consider and the staff considered is between the RLUPA what do we need to allow for religious assembly and being fair and consistent and non-discriminatory to those groups and then also what are the balances that we need to continue to promote for the rural service area so when the applicant came to meet with the staff we discussed those concerns and they proposed a text amendment that the staff is supporting we feel that it does restrict the ability to have unrestricted access to the rural service area but it also allows for a religious assembly to practice their religion in a manner that consistent with their denomination the staff doesn't believe that this this permission this accessory structure permission would unduly infringe on our rural service area we think it's consistent with the rural land management plan protecting our agricultural land the applicant noted in their justification that an increase for an accessory structure would have a very small impact in terms of land acreage on the rural service area and again with only 45 parcels out there that are using this particular or being used in this particular manner for religious land use the staff feels that that is a true statement as well the staff would recommend two changes to the text amendment that was proposed by the applicant and one is a correction really to the first paragraph of item 20 as a conditional use and that's adding a comma so just to clarify that um the i guess the caveat that's added in there the permitted use or the conditional use is places of religious assembly and then the the second part of that paragraph or sentence has to do with clarifying what you can do if you are a place of religious assembly so adding a comma in that the applicant's phrases that they added were the first phrase was fine the second phrase listed the accessory structures and the staff felt it should be these accessory structures and I know that seems like a small change but the staff wanted to make sure that the accessory structures that qualify under the first sentence are really what won't count against the 10,000 square feet so a a structure that is not does not have permanent walls could be in the 35% whereas a structure that does have permanent walls for instance a maintenance shed really the only one I can think of off the top of my head would count against their ten thousands so anything that could have restrooms and and store things would count against the 10,000 and open pavilion would not so that's how the staff clarified that with the change of word from the to these at this point the staff would just let you know that we are recommending approval of the text amendment to the Planning Commission and we cited two reasons in the staff report for the approval of a staff alternative text and that would be that the proposed text amendment will allow accessory structures in places or four places of religious assembly which are consistent with our community's goals of preservation and in terms of preservation of our rural and agricultural areas and then secondly that the proposed text amendment complies with the requirement of the federal religious land use and institutional layers I will note we did receive one email from an interested citizen related to this and I'll pass that around I will just note that it seems to be pretty specific about the applicant property and and I want to deter the Planning Commission from getting too tied up into the individual organization that's asking for the text amendment and concentrate more on the policy decision and there are some incorrect statements as well so if there are any questions about about this as it goes around I'd be happy to any questions from Ms. Wade Ms. Plumlee thank you As this reads, the accessory use, the openness, not count against the 10,000 feet. So you could build a ball field, whatever, without balls or anything, and they would not count against the 10,000 feet. that's right and that's the way it works today is an athletic field or recreational field is accessory to any permitted use so once a church or religious assembly has a conditional use they actually can put in a recreation field at any time if they chose to if it doesn't have a you know any impact to the square footage I feel this might be a little site-specific I know you don't want us to really look at it that way but it's a non-conforming use to begin no it's not ma'am the the lot was it's 20 acres it's not non-conforming it conformed at the time that it was i mean it's a legal it's a legally created lot and it's a conditional use that was permitted by the board of adjustment and that's a that's a permitted use it's not a non-conforming use so i was an impression was non-conforming in which case you can't do conditional uses no ma'am on a non-conforming lot that's not true and that's one of the i think the fallacies of the email so okay okay Mr. Lawrence. Tracy, in regards to the non-conforming use, this is a 10-acre site, I believe. Again, I've not researched the applicant's property because I don't think that that's where the commission needs to go today. It may not be, but we do have those in the rural area. Yes, there are a number of AR parcels that are less than 40 acres. A non-conforming lot is a non-conforming lot. A non-conforming lot in the rural area is anything less than 40 acres. It may have been a long time ago or now, but the minimum lot size is 40 acres. Yes, but that does not prohibit the Board of Adjustment from considering allowing a conditional use on those lots. I understand that. But we also have text and language that says that conditional uses on a nonconforming lot shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot. Or the use, if you dig down into it, of the use itself. We can ask the law department to clarify. Could we get maybe some help and assistance from the legal doing? We need to be careful in discussing this because although this is being proposed by a specific applicant, we have to remember it's a text amendment. So it's not a zone change. It's not specific to this property. So in other words, if you determine that you want to enact this text amendment and move it forward, it's going to be added to the conditional uses and the accessory uses in the zoning ordinance. And so it will apply across the board. So in that case, any types of these situations would have to be evaluated by the Board of Adjustment, which would then get into, you know, what type of a lot is it, what type of a conditional use is there already on there, and those type of questions. But in this specific circumstance, you're looking at a text amendment to the overall zoning ordinance and not just specific to the site. And Article 4 deals with nonconformities, nonconforming lots and uses and so forth. So if we need to have a separate discussion about that as a staff or as a commission, we could have a work session about it. Thank you, Ms. Jones. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. So this is essentially an accessory use if we pass the text amendment? They're asking for an accessory structure. And I think the assumption in the staff's mind was that the principal use, the place of religious assembly, is asking to construct a structure, if they go to the Board of Adjustment and ask permission to hold their existing conditional use in an outdoor setting, not that it's an additional use. They're asking for the ability to do a structure. support of their existing use that's how I read it but but like if we go back to like article 8 1d like 21 and going forward there's no use in there that describes a religious building that would that with conditions that you would have to have no ma'am our understanding was that the board of adjustment would consider that on a site-by-site basis then then why didn't why are why is not the Board of Adjustment addressing this instead of a text amendment right now the Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to consider text amendments that that falls to the planning or not the text amendment but the issue well it's a policy issue for the Planning Commission and the council to decide how the ordinance will read it's not a policy decision for the board of adjustment board of adjustment makes decisions based on sites for conditional uses and specifically to vary any requirement dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance again for a particular very particular site and this intent is for you to consider a policy change so the way the ordinance is written today the applicant if they went to the board of adjustment and chose to ask for something in addition to 10,000 square feet the board would have to say we don't have the authority to grant you more than 10,000 square feet you need to seek a text amendment which is what they have have done they've applied for a text amendment thank you you know the questions for miss Wade I have several but I'm gonna wait until I hear from the applicant first. So we'll put that applicant. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm very honored today to be representing the members of the Bharatiya Temple and Cultural Center, which is the Hindu temple for Lexington. As you all know, It's located out on the corner of Cleveland Road and Winchester Road at 3050 North Cleveland Road. I have a number of members with me today. Harish Patel, who's the president this year. Mr. Thakur Megan. Mr. Ron Patel. Vinu Patel. Ms. Saru Singh could not be here. She has been involved in the group, which is spearheading this effort as well. And we have some other members here, too. We didn't want to overwhelm you with people down here today, but I do have a petition signed by 356 people, most of whom were associated with the temple, that we wanted to put in the record because we wanted you to know how important this is to this organization. I wanted to give you a little background of this. I know just to tell you why we brought this in front of you, we're here because under the Hindu tradition, certain religious observances are required to be held outdoors, required to be held outdoors, particularly the Yibna Shala, which requires outdoor cooking and outdoor consumption of the food. The temple is now conducting these observances outdoors, but because of weather conditions, they are required to rent tents every time they do it. And they cannot hold the observances as often as they are supposed to because of the cost of the tents. They are paying right now about $12,000 a year to rent tents on the occasions that they are required to have these religious observances outdoors. So they obviously had the conclusion, well, maybe we could do a shelter, something that looks like a picnic shelter. And when they investigated that, they found out that a shelter is technically a structure in the zoning ordinance because it's something that's attached to the ground, even if it's totally open, like a picnic shelter with just a top on it, which is essentially what we're asking for. It is classified as a structure. As you know, in the AR zone, which we're located in, as I think Ms. Wade said, there's about 45 churches located in the AR zone. Churches are limited to 10,000 square feet, with a couple of exceptions. This temple is not eligible for any of the exceptions because they require that something had been built prior to 1995 or 1999, the temple was built in 2002. So you'll find out there, for instance, Cornerstone Baptist Church, which is right next door to us, is well over 10,000 square feet. There are a few others, a number of other churches in the AR zone, which are over 10,000 square feet, but the temple cannot be over 10,000 square feet as the ordinance exists today. So when they investigated getting the picnic shelter, and I call it a picnic shelter, but when I say that, that does not really connote the importance that this structure has to the temple. But it is like a picnic shelter because it would be open throughout. But when they investigated that, they were told they could not construct a permanent shelter shelter, even though they're covering the same land right now with tents every time they need to do it. And I personally think a shelter would be much more attractive than having tents out there every time they need them. And I want to clarify the size of the existing building. And I think there were some questions previously about this. Just to get this correction in the record, the PVA lists this property as having a 17,000 square foot building on it. It's not. It's not 17,000 square feet. It is about 10,000 square feet. I think the confusion is because the footprint of the building is a little less than 8,500 square feet. It does have a second floor, and if you multiply by that too, that's 17,000. But the second floor is a loft floor, which contains about 1,500 square feet. So we are total square footage in the building is just a little less than 10,000 square feet. So I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Now, we are very mindful of the need to preserve the agricultural character of the AR zone. So prior to starting this, we conferred with the staff to get their input on what we were requesting to do. So we put in some of the safeguards that the staff had mentioned about that. And one is, the biggest safeguard is that churches are a conditional use in the AR zone. And this is not listed as an allowed accessory use to a church in the AR zone. This is listed as part of the conditional use in the AR zone. And what that means is that even if you approve the text that we are requesting to you to approve, and we certainly hope you do, and if the city council approves the text, All that does is it says that we have the right to apply to the Board of Adjustment to build our shelter. We would then have to, and any church doing this would be in the same situation. If a church came in and wanted to build a pavilion next to an outdoor athletic field, and that pavilion put them over 10,000 square feet, and probably most of them are, they would be required to apply to the board of adjustment to build that pavilion and as you know at the board of adjustment for conditional use there's a required 500 foot notification with letters going out and all that sort of thing so everybody is notified so if you approve this and if the council approved this all this does is it gives us the opportunity to go to the board of adjustment to ask for this approval. And I think the temple here is in a little different status than some of the other churches are is because the religious observance that we're requesting is required to be held outdoors. This isn't going to result in a greater number of members of the church. It's not going to result in greater traffic to the church. It's just going to allow them to hold their religious observance in a structure which keeps the rain off them, if it's raining that day, or keeps the sun off them, if it's in the middle of July and very sunny out there. It allows them to comply with their religious dictates. As I said, another protection is that not only is it a conditional use, but that it is limited to 35% of the floor area of the principal structure. As Ms. Wade mentioned to the staff's further clarification is that this would not apply to a shed, like a maintenance shed where they store lawnmowers and that sort of thing. That would not be a subject of this text amendment because this has to be an open shelter with no walls. So that would prevent a shed from being built there. It would prevent anything from restrooms being built there. I know the staff was concerned when we talked to them that this provision would not be used by churches, for instance, to expand the size of their buildings. So that's one reason we put in there no permanent walls in the structure so that all it can be is a pavilion. and that's all the temple is asking for is a pavilion. We didn't, in our application, we did not mention RELUPA, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, because as a religious organization, we wanted to be in the position of asking you for this, not demanding something from you for this. But the staff brought it up and did want to mention that RELUPA does say that governments are supposed to make, cannot overly burden religious organizations unless there's a compelling governmental interest or unless it's the least restrictive means of complying with that interest. And that's why we met with the staff, and that's why we put so many restrictions on this, so that this would be what we're asking for is the least restrictive thing we can ask for, a totally open shelter just so we don't have to have tents out there. So that gives you a little background of why we're asking for this. And, again, our religious organization is in a little different position from a number of the other churches in the area because we can't use any of those two exceptions that other churches have used to build buildings that are over 10,000 square feet. As Ms. Wade mentioned originally, it was consistently interpreted that if you had a church of 6,000 square feet, the Board of Adjustment could grant you 10,000 additional square feet to build up to a 16,000 square foot structure. Then there was a further exception made saying if you had 20 acres prior to January 1, 1999, you'd be allowed an additional 10,000 square feet because you had essentially two lots, two 10-acre tracks. Now, I know the lot size in the rural area is now 40 acres. That's the requirement. But any lot that was approved prior to the 1995 Texas Amendment is a legal lot. and just as a person can go out and buy a 10-acre tract today and can build a 20,000-square-foot house on there, I'll remind you that the square-foot limitations do not apply to houses in the AR zone. If I buy a 10-acre tract, I can build a 20,000-square-foot house and I can put a 10,000-square-foot pavilion on it if I want to as a matter of right, not as a conditional use. churches have greater limitations on them in the ar zone than houses do churches are limited to 10 000 square feet and even if you approve this text amendment the pavilions outside are limited to 35 of that so it doesn't allow us to build anything any more than a house could be in the ar zone and we're still a conditional use. And we, unlike a householder, would have to go to the Board of Adjustment to get this pavilion built. So that's where we are, and that's the situation we have. And the temple is very sincere in its hope that you will prove this. It's important to Hindu religious practice and tradition, and we think it's a reasonable way to do this. And I hope you can see we have striven to meet with the staff and make this as limited as possible. So it does allow what we're requesting, but it doesn't go anywhere near overboard in changing the rural nature of the AR zone. So we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have about that. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Well, I do. Just a couple. Let me get clarification. What is the square footage of the church right now? The temple is 10,000 square feet. It is 10,000 square feet? Total square footage. Both floors, 10,000 square feet. Secondly, let me ask about the usage of the pavilion. I understand for the religious purposes, but is this your intent to restrict it toward the church activities and the religious activities? In other words, what if I wanted to come in and rent the space to do a wedding or do something else connected with that? You can see them shaking their head no. I asked them that question before that because I figured that might come up. And no, it won't be open for me to have my daughter or son's wedding there. It is available only to members of the temple. And that was the other part. It's only available to members of the temple. Okay. So someone else who is a member of another temple cannot use this particular activity. It would strictly be limited to the members, like members of this particular temple. Okay. Just for the record, they're nodding their head yes. Oh, yeah. For the record, they're nodding their head yes. Okay. Bill, can I interrupt you for a second? Yes. I think Tracy said this in her presentation, and I'm concerned with this because of unintended consequences. We shouldn't be making a decision based upon this. We should be making a decision based upon the totality of how it could be used throughout the urban county area. So the question about whether this temple is planning to use it for X, Y, and Z, I think that should be set aside. I think we should be focusing on the broader stroke here, that we're changing text that's going to apply to everybody, right? In this case, any religious assembly, not just specifically this one. Well, I understand where you're coming from. My thinking is that meanings are not in words, but meanings are within people. So I wanted to know what they meant when they said that they were doing that. So I was just getting clarification from that particular perspective. The point you were talking about, the unintended consequences, is another side issue as such. I mean, that could go in a long way. But I wanted to make sure from the people who were here what their intent was for that particular provision. I understand that it's a part of the religious ceremony related in some instances. With that, any other questions or comments? If I could respond to that, I just talked to Mr. Singh while you were discussing that. As it applies to everyone, we, for instance, would have no problem with a limitation saying that the outdoor structure would be available only for the religious purposes of the church or place of religious assembly to which it's associated. And I think that would, and from my perspective, that would be good. Now, it doesn't, you know, what's what? But the idea, because it doesn't say in here within the revised staff alternative tax. Well, that's another issue, because obviously if they did something on a Saturday or a Sunday or whatever the case may be, I don't know, but I know a whole ton of rules and regulations that we have. Unless someone calls in and makes the case, that's the only way that we would go out and deal with it. But all I'm looking at are the words here on paper, and all I'm simply saying is to say that this is intended to be used for noncommercial purposes by the church, blah, blah, blah. That's just my thought. I mean, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. I just got one opinion, but that's all. It's not to be restrictive other than the fact to be clear that this is what the intent is. That's all. Any other, anything else, Mr. Murphy? Not at this time. Okay. I just want to ask a question. It seems like the intent is pretty clear where it's right now. I don't understand, Mr. Chair, what you actually wanted to. Okay. Well, here's what I was thinking. As I read this, based on the staff, it says places of religious assembly may erect accessory structures without permanent walls, provided that the size of the staff should not exceed 35%. It does not say here as to whether that it will not be used for commercial purposes. It does not say that. Now, you could do it. I mean, based on the text amendment here, if I were someone, I could say, well, there's nothing that says that I can't rent it out to someone for a wedding. or whatever the case may be. Now, I'm not trying to get into the police to understand the religion. I want to just make sure that we're clear on what it is that we're doing. That's all. So, Mr. Forrest, that's the point. Yes, Ms. Richardson. But as I understand it, what we're talking about is that the Board of Adjustments, in order to build anything on any of these properties, it has to go before that. and they are the ones that would determine whether something was how it was to be used. I mean, that's who that explanation would go, do the Board of Adjustment. This is just a guideline within the ordinance. Guideline is probably not the right word. Referring to churches within the AR zoning. Well, again, Ms. Richardson, again, I may be being a little bit nitpicky here as it relates to it, but not toward this particular church, but toward any church that would take advantage of this particular provision, we would want to make sure that what they did was not necessarily commercial in nature. That's the only point that I'm making. Now, let me put it this way. Do you agree or disagree? That's all. I mean, if you're not adding it, it's no big deal. then I think you're off the hook. Any other questions to go for Mr. Murphy? If not, that's it. Anyone in the audience would like to address this issue? Yes, sir. Okay. Anyone on the Commission? Yes, Ms. Mundy. I think the thing that's bothering bothering me on this is that we've been confronted with a situation but we've been confronted with a specific situation but we're having to look at it as an overall an overarching condition or conditional use or or legislative issue here and i think that's the part that's bothering me on trying to figure this out i have to step back from this group of people who i have great respect for but i have to step back from them and look at it as an overarching and that's where I come into some heartburn. Would you like to further explain your heartburn in terms of I mean well I've worked with several churches several different religious organizations over the years that have wanted to purchase land to build churches on or that have wanted to buy buildings to put a church in or have a church for sale and when you deal with that situation with different denominations it becomes a real bailiwick because of the 10,000 square foot restriction so what I'm wrestling with is stepping back from this and they have 10,000 square feet already which is allowed in the AR, but then now they're wanting more for their need, and I understand their need, but then we're going to have, you know, I'm a Baptist, so maybe the Baptists decide they want to start having a barbecue every Sunday because they want to have grace together, you know what I'm saying? You can change a church charter, you can change a church mission, so I just, I'm wrestling with it because I can just see it becoming as I think Frank would say unintended consequences I think that's what Mike used I'm a country girl I think it's a can of worms so that's where I wrestle with it okay mr. Owens thank you mr. chair yet or I guess we're oh I thought you were just asking questions I don't have any questions. I do have a few comments and statements. Okay, well, let's save it for a minute. Any other questions? Okay, we'll close this part of the hearing then as such. Okay, you can make some comments if you've got to file. Yeah, we're in the rebuttal. I didn't think we had much to rebut. Well, you know, we're mindful of unintended consequences. That's why we tried to think of what's available. and say if the Baptist church next door to us or the Christian church one door down, there's a few churches in this area. Macedonia has been there for 100 years. Cornerstone has been there for 20 years. The temple here has been here for 15 years. And all get along well, by the way. And say one of those other two churches wanted to have a pavilion out there, where they could do something outdoors well my number one i'd say well we have drafted this so it has to be an open pavilion so that retains the outdoor character of the area i'd say number two they're limited to the most they could have is cover one percent of a 10 acre lot if they have a 40 acre lot it's only one quarter of one percent of a 40 acre lot that they're covering here they'd They'd be limited to that under this ordinance. And also, most important, all the ordinance gives them is the right to ask the Board of Adjustment. It doesn't give us or Cornerstone or Mastonia or anybody of the other church the right to anything other than the right to apply and ask. And as you all know, going through the board, they ask a lot of tough questions. They will ask all these questions about particular sites. Why are you doing this? Where it's going to be? How often is it going to be used? Why is it going to be used? Are you going to let non-church members use it? You know, what hours and all that sort of thing. What colors? be painted and all that sort of thing comes through the Board of Adjustment. I know that there are other people who theoretically could apply and use this, but when we talked through all these situations with the staff and among ourselves and as we got ready for this, we thought this was a very minimal, very minimal change in the area and especially helps out the churches that haven't been able to use any of the exceptions and go beyond 10,000 square feet up there. We've hit the wall. We can't expand. We can't tear out part of our church in order to be able to build an outdoor pavilion on this. But still, when you think of the maximum coverage being on a 10-acre lot, less than 1%, keeping it open, the Board of Adjustment, having the ability to put many different restrictions on this. We thought it was something that was reasonable, and even if when applied for by another church, it's still a very reasonable and manageable way to deal with the situation. And it gives us the opportunity under Rulupes, as Ms. Wade mentioned, this is something we're a little different. I think if we go to the Board of Adjustment, we're a little different. We can say this is required by our religious doctrine. Not something this temple decided, but the whole religion, the doctrine of the entire religion requires this. This is an important part of the entire religion. Thank you. Okay. Anything else from the staff? Okay. If not, we'll close this part of the hearing, and then we're ready to have additional discussion or a motion. Yes, sir. Ms. Dolan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And in looking at this request, believe me, I'm looking at the global aspects of this, not one site. Way too often on tax amendments, we do end up getting site-specific. And, you know, the applicant has brought this forward. So you've got to look at it. But on a global type situation, you know, our predecessors that Tracy mentioned changed our language years ago, particularly in the rural area, to limit the square footage of a structure, as the ordinance says, of all structures to 10,000 square feet. We've talked about the 10,000 square foot limit before on other situations, and I think they put that limit in there for a reason. They're looking at, one, our comprehensive plan, current one, 2013, the revised rural land management plan that took place last year, the goals and objectives that we just passed the council just passed all say preserve and protect the rural character of the rural area and with that there's reasons for it you've got you you all know what you've got stormwater issues you've got sewer issues you've got rural roads that cannot handle traffic and so forth yeah it goes you know those reasons go on and on and on with that I do believe one myself that this is a non-conforming lot and the use of on it has restrictions we're talking about an accessory building here that mr. Owen our language right now i want to discourage you from being too specific about the applicant's property again okay that's not the planning commission we're not here for that i i can understand that okay um the 10 000 square foot limit is there for a reason simply put And, you know, the 10,000 square foot talks about all non-conditional uses in the rural area. Let me back up. It refers to non-agricultural conditional uses in the rural area. And, you know, when we're talking globally, I think this could have effect on that as well, not just a religious institution. You know, with this, if we're talking about an accessory structure for a religious organization, you know, we touched on it. What could happen there? Weddings could take place outside. Is it possible to provide seating with audio and video piped outside? But how do we regulate this in those situations? I don't see how we can. And we're talking about global, once again. We're talking about every place. If we're talking about an accessory structure, can we put restrictions on that? I have not found anything anywhere where we put restrictions on accessory structures. You know, the request is for an open pavilion, non-permanent walls. You know, the possibility of roll-up garage door type walls haven't been discussed here. There's just too many possibilities. With this, you know, I feel like the infringement is on the 10,000 square feet. It was the 10,000 square feet was put there for a reason and it states for all structures. And I think we should adhere to that at this time. You know you take it another step farther. There is the possibility of if this is allowed at 35 percent which I feel is excessive. if this is allowed there's another place that might be able to go up to 7,000 square feet simply because they've got the availability of 20,000 square feet so I simply put I just feel like this is is not correct and should not go forward I will stop talking and let somebody else but I am willing to make a motion when that time comes. Okay. I had Mr. Craven, Mr. Richardson, did you have any additional comments? Okay, I got you over here. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, I don't see any problem to not vote for this. You're talking about some of the uses with speakers and what else did you say? yeah okay so so I've been on many farms that do the same thing they don't have to get permission to do it they just do it it doesn't matter they do it they might be disturbing their outdoor meeting you know some of those farms but all those farms have parties and bands and people driving in there I mean so I don't see the difference this is a small structure. If you're 10,000 feet, you're 3,500 square foot. You could build that. That's about a 40 by 90. I mean, I've seen patios that big. I don't see any reason not to. And how many of the 45 churches in that area would do this? Maybe some of them already have them. I know there's some churches out there that on Hume Road, that one has one already built it even has some walls on it so and the fact that this goes to the board of adjustment should give you enough security on it anyone out mr plumley thank you mr chair i i want to be explicitly clear that i'm not against any religious freedom but i think as many people have mentioned already we have to think about this in a global manner and what can go wrong with this plenty enforcement and these folks play by the rules they're they're clean with it but maybe the next one and the next one and the next one there will be infringement there and how do they get reported the infringements get reported maybe by neighbors or something so there's there's not the control that we want on this. And I see that this seriously challenges the preservation of the rural area as we know it now and we would like for it to be. So thank you. Okay. Anyone else want to say anything? Yep. I'll be quick. I'm quite frankly torn on this one. I don't like the idea of making policy based on religion. or the use of it. We're talking about global planning policy. That gives me heartburn, as was mentioned earlier. The thing that I guess is sort of overarching to give me comfort with this is that our role here is really to give the opportunity for an entity to go before the Board of Adjustments. And I think at that point we have to trust our colleagues on that body to regulate what's going to be allowed. So it's a toss-up to me, but those are the two thoughts that I'd like to throw up. Any other comments? Mr. Forrester? Yeah, just Mr. Owens and Mr. Plumlee. Since I was a past member of Board of Adjustments, We've made restrictions with timing, and I know Tracy was involved there, on what goes on, the time that it goes on, how it's enforced. This is a tough situation, but I guess since I'm the most recent one that came off the BOA board, I do recommend that that does take place pretty conveniently. So just my take on that. Okay, good. We appreciate your insights, especially having been on the Board of Adjustment. Any other comments? I will just make one final statement from my perspective, and that is that I feel comforted, first of all, that the Board of Adjustments will be asking the same kinds of questions that some of us were asking here on the panel. I feel good with that. I also feel good, and I know it's a situation where people don't trust anybody nowadays, but our church members said that they would appear to the fact that it would be used for religious purposes and for the people who are a member of that particular temple. Now, they're nodding their head and we put it on the record that that was what's what. As far as I'm concerned, that's good enough for me. I mean, I know a lot of times people don't trust anybody nowadays, but I'll stick my neck out a little bit on that one. Anything else? Any other questions? And Mr. Owens, I guess you asked for the possibility of a motion, so I'll come back to you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. and noting what Chairperson Forrester said, he was on the Board of Adjustment. I was there. And, you know, as the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment does take everything seriously. My unfortunate look at this is that this is just the opening of Pandora's box with a ton of unintended consequences to go forward at the 30,000-foot level, 10,000-square-feet level, if you want to call it that. So my motion is going to be for disapproval of ZODA 2018-1 Amendment to Article 8-1 for accessory structures for places of worship for the following reasons. One, the proposed tax amendment does not support the intent of the AR zone because allowing increased accessory structures to religious organizations permitted as a conditional use with or without walls for use that does not promote agriculture or related uses does not preserve the rural character of the rural service area. Two, the proposed text amendment will create an additional accessory use to a conditional use. That will allow more structures in the AR zone which will not promote agriculture nor preserve rural character and therefore should not be allowed in this zone. So moved, and these reasons came from our legal staff. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens that we disapprove ZOTA 2018-1, amendment to Article 8-1 for accessory structures for places of worship. Second was by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? It's, wow. Four to four. What? Five. Five to four. It fails. The motion fails. Yes, we could. I would like that. That's what I've indicated. Well, all I'm simply stating is what the church members have agreed to, and that is not using that for any type of commercial use, which means they can't rent the space out. They can't do anything like that. That was the only suggestion that I had. Okay. So would a commercial use be in having a wedding? If they charge somebody, it would be. Not for their purposes, if it were. Don't churches charge you to use their facilities, even if you go to church there sometime? all right if if your intention is to change the text if anyone's intention is to change the text and approve it i think we should maybe state your intention and then give the staff five minutes to draft something rather than doing it on the fly okay mr chairman i'd like to make a motion to approve it As written, yeah. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Cravens and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson that the motion ZOTA 2018-1 Amendment to Article 8-1 for Accessory Structures for Places of Worship be approved. Any other discussion on that motion? I still think it ought to have something in there. Yeah. I still think it ought to have something in there that limits commercial use of that structure so that you don't have the Baptist people having flea markets or other things in a structure like this down the road somewhere. Mr. Chair, I would agree with that and also throw out the possibility of reducing the 35% because it does seem excessive in any stretch of the imagination. Well, the way you would do that is to make a formal motion to put an amendment to the motion that we have. I mean, we have a motion on the table to accept it as it is. You're asking for an amendment for this particular activity. Is that the case, Ms. Mundy? Yes. Okay. I'd like to defer back to the recommendation we just got from staff. Rather than try to do this on the fly, perhaps we postpone, continue, take a break, let them have 10 minutes. Okay. I'm not comfortable moving forward with drafting on the fly when we've been given clear direction from the experts not to do that. Okay. Let's take a five-minute break, and then we'll give the staff. And in the meantime, let's chat among ourselves, too, so that we don't have to have 15 amendments. We can maybe come together with the agreement on one particular motion if we could. Take five. I'd like to call us back to order after our brief recess. Without objection from our commission members, we'd like to give Mr. Cravers an opportunity to revamp or revise his original motion. Yeah, based on some new information, I want to amend the motion to say no larger than 3,500 square feet for any picnic or pavilions. No matter how big the church is, they can only go up to 3,500 square feet. I think Tracy has it. So moved. Ms. Richardson here. Okay. Mr. Mike Cravens has made a motion that, and Ms. Carolyn Richardson has seconded, that the 3,500 is the cap, that no matter what the size of the square footage of the church, the 35 percent, the 3,500 would be the maximum. Assuming that if it's smaller, it can't go. I got you. Any other questions? I would just like to ask Tracy, one of the things that we were discussing over here with the existing restrictions or prohibited uses in the AR. Could you put those above in the board or read off a couple of them? I think it will allay some concern. Okay. Tracy, we have that handy over here. We can do that. Did I leave it over there? Thank you. Thank you. ago. It might have just been a year. One of the restrictions that was added in the prohibited use list is number 25, and that is special events, parties, festivals, concerts, and children's rides related to a commercial purpose. So I think from the staff's perspective, of religious assembly, places of religious assembly, would not be able to rent out their facilities for a commercial purpose because that would be a prohibited use. It could be something the Board of Adjustments specifically adds to their restrictions. And I reminded Mr. Owens on the break, we're a cohesive staff, so even though the zoning compliance group is not here at the Planning Commission, we meet as a staff to discuss Board of Adjustment cases. We meet as a staff to discuss all of the cases that come to the Planning Commission as well. So your concerns that are voiced here are relayed back to the rest of the staff when we discuss Board of Adjustment cases. So I don't want there to be a concern about that. Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion passes, 7 to 1. Thank you. And thank you all for your patience. And please do understand that this has nothing to do with the religion. This has to do with the more technicalities and things that we get involved here. This sausage making up here is sometimes unbearable. But thank you anyhow. Thank you. With that, we have a couple of other things that we need to attend to, ladies and gentlemen, on the commission that we need to go into executive session on. I would like a motion for us to go into executive session. Mr. Chair, I move, pursuant to KRS 618101C, to go into a closed session for the purpose of discussing litigation matters involving the Urban County Government Planning Commission. I heard the motion. Give it a second. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, we will get into executive session, and then we will... I'm not standing at working with you. It didn't have an early job. Now you see, I was voting on your side. I'd like to call the session back in order. We've just come out of closed session. and pursuant to KRS 618101-C, we went into closed session for the purposes of discussion litigation matters involving the Irvin County Government Planning Commission. Let it be known for the record that that is what we discussed and that was all that we discussed. With that said, we have one business item that needs to be resolved in terms of Plan 215-93F. Is there any discussion? If not, we'll have a motion on this. Mr. Chair, I move we approve plan 2015-93F Ashland Park based on the staff recommendations, the five recommendations. Okay, Mr. Forrest, do I have a second? Second. Who are you going to give credit to? Give it to Mr. Forrest. Give it to Ms. Me. I will give it to Ms. Mundy here. It's been properly moved by Mr. Forrester, seconded by Ms. Mundy, that we approve Plan 2015-93F, Ashton Park Incorporated Subdivision No. 12, Lot 3, as amended, with the five conditions as identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Is there any other business to come before this particular body? We would like to ask if anybody in the audience would like to stick. We'd like to have a few minutes, if we could, for a work session on the computers. If without objection, he objects. It doesn't matter. I'm not going to. Anyhow, the meeting is adjourned. We're going to work session now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I hear you just got married Took a month long, honeymoon And you lost smiles at the wedding And you cried when you kissed the girl I got no invitation I guess the mailman didn't bring it to me But I see the whole thing in slow motion Every night as I try to sleep My buddy John said you look real pretty And you acted like you were in love He said the preacher asked for objections And he thought about standing up I told John he must have been crazy Cause you were just about to say I knew And he just gave me a wink and said all he could think Cause it could have been me with you It could have been me standing there with you It could have been me and my dreams coming true But those dreams move on And you wait too long You can't look from now to see It could have been me I don't guess I ever told you That I went out and bought you a ring I even carried it around in my pocket Waiting to say the right thing I pulled it out the other day But the diamond had lost the child Well, I know how it feels cause my eyes grow dim And I think you could have been mine It could have been me standing there with you It could have been me and my dreams coming true But those dreams move on You wait too long You take me from now to see It could have been me I know I've come just in time It'd be too late You know dreams move on If you wait too long It took me too loud to see That it could have been me Standing there with you It could have been me And my dreams coming true But those dreams move on If you wait too long It took me from now to see It could have been me guitar solo I'm on a cool water flow yard Let me remember things I don't know Stopping at the lower taxi back Walking along the railroad at night Baffle girls dancing in the moonlight I can hear the boat from calling me I'm going to get my road Hanging to the tree I'll take my feet Went down the shallow water Shoot my leg I'm going to give back to mother Give up the best thoughts Give it for a dream Yeah guitar solo Oh, holy Jew, you took me over. Said you want to find the well-being holder. And if you get along, come on to the river. Well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I would do anything for love I'd run right into hell and back I would do anything for love I'll never lie to you and that's a fact But I'll never forget the way you feel right now Oh no, no way And I would do anything for love But I won't do that No, I won't do that I would do anything for love. Oh, I would do anything for love. I would do anything for love. But I won't do that. No, I won't do that. And some days it don't come easy And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all And these are the days that never end And some nights you're breathing by And some nights you're coughing nice Tonight you're like nothing I've ever seen Before I will again Maybe I'm crazy Oh, it's crazy and it's true I know you can save me No one else can save me now but you As long as the planets are turning As long as the stars are burning As long as your dreams are coming You better believe it That I would do anything for love And I'll be there till the final act And I would do anything for love And I'll take the vow and seal the pact But I'll never forgive myself If we don't go all the way Tonight But I just won't do that I wouldn't do anything for love Anything you've been dreaming of But I just won't do that I wouldn't do anything for love Anything you've been dreaming of But I just won't do that Thank you. And some days I pray for silence And some days I pray for soul Some days I just pray to the god of sex and drums and rock and roll And some nights I lose the feeling And some nights I lose control So not to just lose it all But I will watch you dance in the thunder rose And maybe I'll be lonely It's all a while at night Hi, I'm Renee. And I'm Sarah. And we're the owners of Bluegrass Bourbon and Eats Food Blog site for the state of Kentucky. We're standing out here on this chilly November day getting ready to check out Lucy Brown Coffee Bar. I think we'll head inside and warm up a little bit. So this is a White Russian. What all goes into the White Russian? Well, the White Russian has cream, vodka, and coffee liqueur, which we actually use Bacala, which is actually a Louisville bottled coffee liqueur. So we like to keep as local as possible. But it also has cold brew, which we make in-house. We let it sit 14 to 24 hours. Then we pull it. We get all our coffee from Deeper Roots in Cincinnati. And then once the cold brew is done, we put it on a tap in-house and then we pull it from there. So it helps aerate it. Oh, wow. That's really nice. Yep. So we shake it all together and pour it in. And there's your white version. So you like to get all your products locally sourced, right? Yeah, so all of our products, as much as possible, we like to keep locally sourced. Like I said, our coffee is from Deeper Roots, Edison, Cincinnati. Even though it's Cincinnati, we still kind of consider it local. We do most of our syrups in-house. Our bakery items we get from Pig & Pepper, which is a local baker. And then we just opened to also include Copperhead Bakery, which is just starting. She's also in Lexington. And even down to the honey we use is from Midway, Kentucky. So we definitely like to keep it as economically local as possible. That's awesome. You guys just recently opened down here in June. What made you decide to open in this area in particular? The concept actually started from me and a co-worker I had. We used to work at Cafe, which is another local coffee shop on the corner of Euclid and Rose. right next door is actually a liquor store called Coliseum Liquors and we would close like really late at night and we'd go next door and get airplane shots of like Bailey's and stuff like that and we would put them in our coffee and then just thought of the idea like why doesn't Lexington have this yet and I mean we both lived here we've lived here for a while and so we of course wanted to start here and we looked around in a couple places and we started a kickstarter campaign that we raised the money for so we knew Lexington was really kind of looking for this type of thing and Olivia actually the other owner had gotten a big job and moved but I wanted to obviously keep it in Lexington because this is where we started and Lexington loves its cocktails and it loves its coffee so why wouldn't we kind of marry that together seems pretty like central to a lot of other restaurants is that factor into it at all so we were kind of almost to the point of being like, well, we tried.