Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh You see your halo Halo You see your halo Halo You see your halo Halo You see your halo Halo You see your halo Halo You see your halo Halo Now the night has gone, now the night has gone away Doesn't seem that long, we hardly had two words to sing Hold me in your arms for just another day I promise this one will go so We have the right you know We have the right you know Don't say the mornings come Don't say the mornings come so soon Must we end this way? Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the February the 28th, 2019 Urban County Planning Commission. We'd like to welcome all those of you who are guests in the audience. We'd like to welcome our staff and thank you for our commission members. I think we're 100% in attendance today. Before we move forward, we'd like to recognize a special guest of people that we have here with us. With all those students from Dr. Lynn Roche-Phillips class, please stand. That's it. We've got a whole group of students. Thank you. Dr. Phillips will be here shortly. She's got a class. Dr. Phillips, in case you didn't know, she was a member of our planning commission and, in fact, acted as my mentor when I first came on to this planning commission. So if she mentors you all and provides instruction as well as she mentored me, you will be okay. Now, when she comes, I'll make sure that you all get A's. Now, let me be clear about this. That means A for attendance. and so you still have a lot of work to do and what have you but uh hope you enjoy yourself and uh feel free to uh come and go as you need and that's be uh feel necessary but thank you for coming and we're glad to have you with us approval of the minutes we have the minutes of the january 24 2019 meeting miss plumley thank you move approval of january 24 2019 minutes second okay it's been movement miss plumley second with miss monday that we approve the january 24 2019 minutes any discussion on the motion hearing that would you please vote when it comes up on your screens okay the motion carries postponements and our withdrawals good afternoon nick nicholson here on behalf of clover communities on page four of your agenda item number four of the zone zoning items i'd like to request a postponement for one month to the march 28th meeting we are still working on the development plan and hope to be able to uh you know basically come to agreements with staff and whatnot i have contacted all of the neighborhood associations that i've met with to let them know that we were planning on postponing i know there are several members of the community that are present today but we would request one month postponement to the march 28th meeting okay is there anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular recommendation for postponement anyone on the commission if not miss monday thank you mr chair at this time i'd like to move for postponement of pln mar 19-1 clover communities for a one-month postponement for the reason stated till march 28th of 19. okay it's been moved by miss monday second by miss plumley that we postpone pln mar 19-1 clover communities for one month or until march the 28th any discussion on the motion please vote when it comes up on your screens motion carries thank you good afternoon mr chair members of the commission jacob wahlburn here on behalf of wendale development this is page five section c item one the only text amendment on your agenda i'm going to request postponement i'm going to do something a little unconventional i'm actually going to ask you to postpone it for three months the reason i ask you to do that is i think we've worked out a solution that will allow me to withdraw that application but we're going to go through the permitting process to make sure we don't have a hitch so i will postpone it three months and if if i intend to have the hearing i'll let staff know otherwise i will withdraw it within two months time so everybody has adequate notice on what we're doing but that takes you to your late may meeting and i apologize i don't know the date okay the date is may 23rd thank you may 23rd thank you anyone in the audience like to pick uh speak to this recommendation for our postponement anyone on the commission if not would you please vote when it comes up on your screen well wait a minute i'm sorry i gotta have a motion first miss plumley oh mr forrester i was going to be kind i'd like to make a motion for uh zoda 2018-5 for three month postponement which is may 23rd 2019. okay now we have a motion mr brewer has seconded the motion that is the motion has been to postpone zoda 2018-5 amendment to update article 5 15-4 to increase the allowable height of front yard fences and multi-family developments. The postponement is requested for three months or until May the 23rd. Any discussion on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay that motion carries. Thank you. Thank you all. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you turn in your agenda to page 3, item 3, MAR18-00023, LATO LLC, and the Associated Preliminary Development Plan 18-00088, Bryant Property, Lot 2 amended. I'm asking for an indefinite postponement for this. we're looking at amending our application to include some adjoining properties and we don't know how long it'll take us to work through that but we would like an indefinite postponement anyone in the audience like to speak to this suggestion for an indefinite postponement anyone on the commission have any comments about it if not then we'll entertain a motion Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Mr. Penn? I move for indefinite postponement of PLN-MAR-1823 for indefinite postponement. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Mr. Brewer, that we'll have indefinite postponement for PLN-MAR-18-23, latter LLFC. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Let me see, I've got to get mine. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're getting ready to complete. We had a motion for continuance from our December the 13th meeting. We had had a meeting on December the 10th in which we opened up the hearings about this comprehensive plan on December the 10th. and then after that we close that portion of the meeting and so we're going to continue and it goes into commission discussion at this time at this time we're going to open up with uh mr duncan or mr woodall whichever good afternoon mr chair members of the commission i'll start this meeting as i start almost every meeting and tell you that it's a good day to be talking about the comprehensive plan imagine lexington and especially as we come to the conclusion of this rewarding but admittedly demanding process first i'd like to personally thank you all for all the hard work that you've put in throughout this plan but i'd also like to especially thank the public for their unprecedented response to our call to action throughout this process when people ask me what the most rewarding part about developing this plan has been i can unequivocally say that it's been interacting with the public we asked for their input the public responded and imagine lexington is unquestionably a better plan for it it is fitting now at the conclusion of this public hearing to recap the many ways in which the public has answered the call to help define its own future now i know you've heard this before numerous times in fact but it bears repeating because this is the public's plan we began with the premise that their voice matters and it's important to illustrate that we have heard that voice loud and clear at every turn so let's start with a simple number 11 000. this number represents the thousands of individuals who live work and visit lexington every day people who are committed to and invested in making their community a better place these voices were raised at 17 public input meetings in addition to the hundreds of on the table conversations in march of 2017. nearly 70 expert advisors were consulted representing the public and private sectors dozens of opportunities were made available to community groups for direct presentations to staff we employed public online public input forms in-person meetings a dedicated website educational videos presented at countless neighborhood meetings attended existing community events through imagine lexington week created press releases and appeared on radio and television. We created a public input report that was over 100 pages long to summarize that input. And not to toot our own horn here, but imagine Lexington, the public input process has won awards, including a Kentucky American Planning Association award for outstanding public engagement. And a fun trivia fact, we were even nominated with LexTV for a regional emmy award for our educational video on the comprehensive plan now we didn't win but it was an honor just to be nominated we've also presented this process to national regional and local conferences and have inspired similar public input processes in places as far away as georgetown texas and as close as marshall county kentucky now i tell you all these things not to brag on our staff accomplishments but to drive home the fact that this is the public's plan this plan is built on a bedrock of public input it's crucial to remember that the broad concept shown in the goals and objectives the policies that resulted from them and the criteria that summarize those policies in the place builder have all been formed with the benefit of 11 000 individual voices these concepts were not developed in a vacuum but have been thoroughly and publicly vetted since we began this public hearing on december 10th we've heard from the public on four different occasions revising the place builder three separate times and have conducted an exercise at your request to illustrate how it would work in practice We took the place builder from a concept and turned it into reality and in doing so highlighted that the zone change process fundamentally does not change. The inputs and review may be different, but the process and development timeline remains the same. Our exercise provided comfort that the pieces are in place. the guidance for applicant justifications, the staff report template, the revised application materials, the schedule of the staff education opportunities. All of it serves to show that the place builder works, it's ready to go, and it's right for Lexington. Again, all the pieces are in place, and staff is at the ready to begin implementing the whole of Imagine Lexington. This plan is built from the ground up with the best interest of the public in mind. There is a lot that I could say about Imagine Lexington, the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. For public input, it is the most inclusive plan ever undertaken in Fayette County. It is a bold response to the needs of this unique community. It has been our foremost endeavor for over two and a half years. But perhaps the most important thing I can say about the 2018 Comprehensive Plan is that it is a plan for growth. growth in housing and growth in jobs. This plan has some constraints. Namely, it does not offer fresh land for new development, which was the unanimous decision of the Urban County Council. But the Council's action had nothing to do with squelching growth. So this plan has to offer options for growth that can be understood, agreed to, and implemented. As an exercise, we searched the plan and found that the word growth is mentioned on average 1.6 times on every page. And as you have heard, this is a hefty document, so that turns out to be a lot of references to growth. But declaring that the 2018 Comprehensive Plan is about growth does nothing to guarantee growth, particularly in the face of neighborhood opposition. To be sure, this is a neighborhood plan too, as also directed by Council. So these two concepts, ensure growth and enhance neighborhoods, put us in a challenging position. How do you grow an economic base and provide housing for your residents and bring along the ones who have already made the investments and built the neighborhoods? We believe the sensible response is Place Builder, a tool of transparency that is easy to understand, easy to use, and easy to implement. Place Builder offers a clear process to acknowledge the entire comprehensive plan, not just the goals and objectives in zone change applications. We demonstrated how Place Builder works and we stand firmly behind its intentions and expected outcomes and showed that the zone change timeline does not change. With Place Builder, everyone knows what is expected. won't guarantee that everyone likes the outcome because, to be honest, no one wants any new development in their backyard. But it provides a certain path for review, a path that applicants, neighborhoods, staff, and the Planning Commission can walk together. And as a reminder, the question before you is what kind of growth policy do you, the Planning Commission, want for Lexington. We have developed Place Builder so that it is both pro-growth and pro-neighborhood, and your legal counsel has told you that you can illegally implement Place Builder as a policy. We have spent the past two and a half years with you, with thousands of citizens, with stakeholders and vested parties, developing the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. And we have provided a plan that is responsive. But this has not been an easy ride for us. We could have likely found a smoother road, one that would have gotten us to an end that was perhaps good enough, but that shouldn't be our standard. It shouldn't be what we have to accept to quiet the few loudest voices. Generally you leave it to others to determine your character. But because of words and actions of people beyond my control, I must declare for the record that the integrity of the staff of the Division of Planning is unimpeachable. And I stake my own good name and character on that declaration. Planning Commission members, this community has asked a lot of you. Through Through this planning process, many of you have been looked upon by our stakeholders more like elected officials rather than community volunteers. Many of you have near perfect attendance records for not only the comprehensive planning process, but for your ordinary work with planning as well. And from the staff, that has not gone unnoticed. We have a tremendous amount of respect for your position and the charge bestowed upon you and we express our heartfelt gratitude for all the extra work you have done for the plan including the extra public input meetings, the extra meetings with staff, the time for preparation you put into this process. We share your passion for our community which is why we believe Place Builder and the development criteria are integral to the success of Imagine Lexington that you have so carefully overseen. The discussion doesn't end today. We're committed to training the community about Place Builder, to implementing the plan, to completing the studies and updating the zoning ordinance, to keeping our citizens apprised of the achievements and the shortcomings of the plan. More succinctly, we're committed to Lexington, to its growth, to its enhancement and to the good people that call this beautiful place home. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. And now what I'm going to do is open it up to the commission for additional discussion or comments. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll begin with one comment. I'll reserve most of my comments for later. One comment, a couple of questions. Since I was one of the ones that asked for a continuance of this a month ago or longer, I feel compelled to, at this time, try and move it forward. So if I may, I will reserve my motion until everybody's had a chance to talk and speak about the 2018 comprehensive plan. I do have two questions that I'd like to put forth that has come up in our work session and then also since our work session. One of them would be Ms. Mundy's question as far as context sensitivity, compatibility, clarification on that. And then the other would be more recently this week a question has come up for clarification on a statement in the comprehensive plan as to low density housing so if I could ask the staff for clarification on those. So I'll address the first one in regards to context sensitivity and Tracy if you don't mind. Staff has some some clarifying language as Miss Mundy alluded to during our work session we had some conversations about how we could fit compatibility into the definition of context sensitivity and I think if we can get that up on the screen there we go I think we we've found an opportunity to do that that actually clarifies the intent of what we mean the the very last two sentences or the last sentence there says this could include among other considerations compatibility with scale massing height step downs between existing and proposed buildings but does not necessarily infer replicating adjacent development characteristics so at the heart of what I think the concern was was a misconception that context sensitive means mirroring what is directly on the other side and I think the language that we're trying to propose here will help alleviate some of those concerns. So we'd like to add this clarifying language if you all see fit. So we can either talk about that one now or we can move on to the next. Let me compose. Ms. Mundy, do you have any thoughts about that? I know he spoke on your behalf. I usually don't need that. I know that. Yeah, I think this softens and clarifies again trying to go back to to your terminology that you're using this makes it more transparent and I think should help my concern was communication between the neighborhoods and the developers or the builders that context could be construed either way depending on who was construing so this does soften that for me and I'm satisfied with this thank you. Ms. Owens you had a second question speaking for someone else on your second question you have a second question of clarification did you get that? The second question simply rose in the last week and see if we can get a scale. Go ahead. Oh I'm sorry yes um one question I have is how do we incorporate economic sensitivity when we're talking about context sensitivity? For example, high-end townhomes may not work well in a certain scenario where affordable housing may work better. So how can we address the economic issues when we think about context sensitivity? Well, I think for a lot of different reasons, the market will sort of dictate what happens around other developments. I don't completely understand the concern, I guess, with having different types of economic incomes next to each other. I guess if you could kind of clarify exactly what the concern is. Well, sometimes we might find that the context leans more towards a higher end product, but we need to take into consideration the fact that we may want to do an affordable housing project in that area. If I may add something to that, it's not going to directly answer the question, but it will provide more information about that. There is another group in town being led by the vice mayor, and several in this room are on that, called the Neighborhoods in Transition, that is looking at issues of gentrification and displacement. And it could very well be that some additional policies and recommendations for changes come out of those discussions. And at that time, we would certainly look and see how that can be incorporated either into the regulations or to the plans if necessary. So I believe those issues are being discussed on another front, and perhaps more detail will come out as that process moves along. And I also would like to add to Ms. Nicholson, also, this plan is not cast in stone. So as it relates to the commission, we can make amendments as we see necessary fit. Okay. Any other comments? Second question. Oh, second question? I'm sorry. Yes, right. i'm sorry the second question as i stated for clarification uh there was information that came out this week asking about uh low density housing the statement regarding that and if anything could be done there sure um and so the the concern that we heard was basically that our definition of low density residential basically was precluding a development that was exclusively low density residential from being approved that was the concern so staff felt the need to add some clarifying language that that's not really what we're talking about here what we're talking about the clarifying language comes more the distinction between housing developments and neighborhoods so what we're trying to do in in our complete neighborhoods concept that is found throughout the comprehensive plan is to make sure that within our neighborhoods we have a wide array of housing types and differing uses. So while that may be where, you know, it could be accomplished through a development that is only single family, you have to look at what else is around that, how it fits into the neighborhood. So we changed the language here from homogenous housing developments that do not include a mix of housing types should be avoided to homogeneous neighborhoods that do not include a mix of housing types should be avoided we thought that a bit of clarifying language actually better got to the heart of what we're talking about in terms of creating complete neighborhoods and at the bottom here too we we did notice a shall that should have been replaced with should and so we took that opportunity as we said we would as we go through the plan to change those as well so again we think this language more clearly states what we were trying to state and so if if you all are amenable to it we'd like to include that as well anyone else on the commission have any thoughts Okay. Well? Okay, Mr. Barkley. I've got a question. Yesterday we were sent some additional public input. Nick, you had prepared some changes that came from a group that I guess you're representing. Can you tell us a little bit about this, who you're representing, and kind of a little rundown of what you guys have proposed as stakeholders? Sure. I wouldn't say that I'm representing anyone. I was amongst a group of individuals kind of that were centered around BIA, which is the Building Institute, and that was looking at what the conference of plan was and what some of the concerns that we had about the conference of plan, specifically coming from how we are going to implement some of the themes and goals that are throughout the conference of plan and how that will impact infill and how that would impact things like a single-family neighborhood. we felt that three changes could be made that would make it a vastly better plan that would not be as we feel restrictive that would also make it flexible for the people that are trying to do infill development which is one of the crucial themes of the goals and objectives I know staff has said several times that they want flexibility for the developers trying to do infill redevelopment we just felt that this plan actually takes away the flexibility and makes it much more rigid and difficult to do and certainly more costly from an infill and redevelopment perspective so we recommended three changes one of which is to basically delete appendix a which is the multifamily design standards we did not believe that that is an appropriate part of a comprehensive plan those are specific standards that detail out changes to development plans and how it should go forward and that's just not what a guide is supposed to be there was language that was just kind of pointed out by mr. Woodall we have alternative language that we would recommend that you all adopt that just basically clarifies that single-family housing is a part of Lexington's future if this is the community's plan how often have you heard from the community in opposition to apartments and different zone changes that they don't understand why single family can't go here it's a reality single family is part of the dream of most lexingtonians and so we felt that that language needed to be clarified finally the last option that we would put before you all is to get rid of the individual development criterias in the place builder it would keep the place builder shell that basically would allow you all to look at the different types of basically places throughout town the place types i believe it was and also look at the groupings of the types of development in those uh in those place types without the taking out the basically staff's interpretation of what the comprehensive plan says with the development criteria we think makes it more flexible and also as you've probably heard many lawyers say the text speaks for itself the comprehensive plan speaks for itself and we thought that the development criteria were not accurate many times and we felt that it is part of the Planning Commission's job to basically hear the staff's interpretation of what the comprehensive plan says what a applicant's interpretation of the comprehensive plan says and what the neighbors interpretation of what that comprehensive plan says and then apply it by adopting these development criterias it is unilaterally adopting the staff's position of what the comprehensive plan says and that's wholly inappropriate and we thought that that was basically an abdication of what the Planning Commission's fundamental role in job is and so we would ask that you take out the development criteria leave the shell it still has all of the references that sends you back to the text and would allow you to interpret the text of the comprehensive plan directly as opposed to just adopting the summary that the staff had provided you all Thank you. As it relates to that, does the staff have any comments about that? I'm not trying to engage in debate here, but. Sure. I mean, I think to the overall grander point about the flexibility in the place builder, there is flexibility within the design guideline, within the development criteria. I mean, it's built that way to provide a focusing of the efforts. I mean, I think the way we see it is we've actually done a lot of the hard part for the applicants in taking all the different concepts throughout the comprehensive plan and placing them in a two-page summary that says, here are the things that need to be discussed and need to be talked about in a plan. Rather than having to go through the however many pages the comprehensive plan is, you can go to two pages and see exactly what needs to be addressed and we feel like that's good for an applicant we also feel like that's good for the neighborhood so they understand what it is they're trying to address what what are the parameters what are the where's the discussion here and ultimately it's good for the Planning Commission because this is what you asked us for this is what the council approved in the goals and objectives development criteria to to understand how to apply the comprehensive plan at an individual development level. And that's what this is. And trying to put it in a succinct document that makes it very easy to understand and to follow. There's a lot of benefit in making that easy to follow and understand. So that we can send out a two-page letters to the neighborhoods so that they know offhand, what is the place type and what are the things we're gonna be talking about. So I guess that would be my statement about, I mean, I think taking the criteria out of the place builder undercuts it and removes the full benefit of the criteria and what they're really intended to do, which is funnel conversation and focus conversation. I think Chris was going to speak to the multifamily design standards. Regarding the multifamily design standards, again, I think we acknowledge the difficulty in getting multifamily developments approved. That's absolutely the case. you guys see it every month. The concern though, the contradiction with that is removing the document, the appendix that actually helps the staff get those developments to a yes recommendation and get them to you guys. That's pretty important. And we see that as a critical piece in the future as a way to help get multifamily developments over the line with the Planning Commission. So again the difficulty in getting them approved is absolutely true, but the contradiction there is that if we take them out, it makes it harder. It makes our job and your job, I think, harder in getting to an approval on some of those sites. Okay, anyone else? Ms. Mundy? Yeah, and this is for staff. I don't know which one of you, but I have a real concern, of course, about affordable housing. You know, Habit Hat for Humanity I'm told is on their last house that they have. They have no idea where they're going to go so I'm real concerned about affordable housing and from my observation and study of this plan and what you're putting forth or possibly we're putting forth is the higher cost not only for folks like Habitat for Humanity or folks like a builder that maybe builds lower income housing and that but I'm real concerned about these the small lots it appears to me that the all the criteria and the questions that are being asked or put forth are for larger parcels of property so how how are we going to deal with small lots are we going to treat them like big developments or are we going to be able to work with say somebody like you know Mike Cravens who buys up a small parcel of property and he's able to put several houses on it so I'd like some answers on that. Ms. Mundy I'll start and certainly if the other staff have had things to add I would encourage them to do so. Many times particularly on the single lot redevelopment for an agency like Habitat we're not faced with his own change so this process would not apply to them then so they would they would go through their ordinary building permit process and we would encourage that to continue. I also do know that from talking with some of the officers of Habitat that they are looking at perhaps introducing different models of affordable housing besides the single family detached or maybe even just single attached house. So we're happy to work with Habitat and any other affordable housing provider to look at the zoning ordinance to see if there are impediments to the regulations that keep them from doing some of the things they're wanting to do and to help them with that. And certainly I believe the same would even apply on a larger, still small scale, but larger situation where it may not be so much that the comprehensive plan is the issue, but it's actually the regulations and the zoning ordinance that are the impediments to the types of affordable housing or small lot housing that we're trying to develop. So I think we're still very much committed to looking at what kind of changes need to be made to make that a better process even if the place builder does not apply to that and I would encourage the others to add on to that too. Yeah so a couple of things we're the plan is trying to address affordable housing in a number of ways there's several policies within the plan that address affordable housing directly and and talk about increased funding and trying to look at the different ways that we can try to supplement that affordable housing, but also looking at housing affordability on a grand scale. I mean, as Jim mentioned, this plan is a pro-growth plan. It's a growth plan. We're talking about adding additional units. I mean, the B6P ordinance change, the text amendment that just went through that allow multifamily residents now on the corridors. I mean, we're trying to increase the number of units in order to attack this thing from a supply side. And as the new units come online, the rents will trickle down the other existing units. So this is a pro-growth plan. We're trying to address housing affordability on that front as well. And then to get to the point about the smaller lots and how the place builder applies to the smaller lots, You know, I think that, you know, what the place builder does is focus the discussion. Every site is different. Every site has different constraints. We've tried to be upfront about that. There's a number of criteria that just flat out won't apply because of the constraints on a specific site. So you look at each site as an individual site and apply the place builder to it. I think that's why it is flexible. That is, that's the whole point is that it's flexible. adaptable to every scenario that we see come in it's adaptable it's flexible and provides the guidance that we need to focus the discussions silence is a wonderful thing in that mr pole oh did you have any okay i don't mean to call if you don't go ahead i could speak um i might start by addressing mr nicholson's remark that the the guidelines belong to the staff and i think that you're giving them way too much credit i think the guidelines belong to all of us I'm going to go ahead and read a prepared statement. So I want to express my full support for the comprehensive plan and in particular for the place builder component of the plan. It's interesting to note that after months of discussion, not one of the place builder guidelines has been questioned for its wisdom. This is largely because the guidelines are generated in response to the attitudes and aspirations expressed by members of our community they are a unique response to a unique place and time in developing the place builder planning staff has done an exemplary job of listening to all parties and they've applied their findings with inspiration of improving planning strategies i've heard three major concerns about the place builder and i want to speak to each one of them the first concern is that there are too many criteria in the place builder There are a lot of criteria, but the number is appropriate for our city where we have a wonderful variety of places from densely urban to completely pastoral. Each condition demands different considerations. We saw in the sample project presented in our work session last week why the number of criteria will not be an issue. A limited set of criteria relevant to the project at hand will be identified in preliminary meetings with planning staff, so the unfolding discussions will be informed by an easily manageable set of considerations. I think the number of criteria is an advantage. It will make it easier to properly address the diversity of conditions found in our city. The second concern I want to address is the place builder items will become a checklist making for a tedious set of yes-no tests for every decision. the reality is that the the items are guidelines not prerequisites they're suggested methods for achieving best outcomes and they'll function as a way for all of us to consider proposed new work with a common language and common objectives by establishing a common language the guidelines will make design issues more accessible and a more natural part of our development process this is this is important because development always involves a design process but it's often too abbreviated and the more consideration given to design generally speaking the better the outcome i come to this concern about the nature of guidelines with perhaps a unique perspective i have represented developers and neighborhoods in front of the planning commission i have represented homeowners and neighborhoods in front of the board of architectural review and i was a member of the board of architectural review for over eight years Not long after I started my architectural practice, I ran headlong into the historic preservation guidelines. At first, I found them annoying, and that's probably an understatement. But with a little exposure, I came to realize that they improved the work we were doing. Any design professional will tell you that constraints are good for the design process. When the sky's the limit, we are apt to get lost in the clouds. With limitations, our work becomes more down to earth. The place builder guidelines will work that way. They'll help start conversations about issues that matter, they'll help to keep us from making destructive decisions, and over time they'll become familiar to us as we engage them in the design and development process. As I said, the guidelines will give us a common language and a foothold as we climb to a better place. the historic preservation guidelines used to decide cases in h1 overlay zones are far more stringent and complex than the guidelines in the place builder many of them are imperative not just suggestive and yet most of the cases brought to the board of architecture review are brought by homeowners representing themselves they are able to navigate these complex guidelines without legal of professional design assistants in most cases. So the message here is that there's nothing to fear about the place builder guidelines and much to look forward to. The third major concern that I've heard is about the potential for inconsistent administration of the place builder guidelines. In considering this issue, I rely again on my experience as a board member administering the historic preservation process. The issue of consistency was a frequent topic of discussion, and there was always a conscious effort to be fair from project to project but it's important to understand that every project every site every neighborhood is unique and no matter how similar there will always be differences between every project considered by the board that's why there is a board of architectural review and that's why there is a planning commission so we members of the planning commission are charged with considering each project on its own merits and in the interest of fairness we must always strive for consistency this is simply part of the challenge of the position it's our responsibility with or without place builder guidelines the planning commission is up to the task the place builder by giving us sets of recognizable criteria will make our work more clear and ultimately more fair as we move toward greater density and as our agricultural lands and our existing neighborhoods become more and more precious the question right now is do we want to consider more carefully how we continue to build out our city the answer is an emphatic yes and now we have the tool to do this and to do it well i hope that my fellow commission members will join me in voting to support this auspicious and complete comprehensive plan thank you mr fan i've been frustrated for the last four years ever since we did away with the maps and if you remember back we did away through maps because they were too rigid they were five years mapped you had to map amendments it was cost more money it was more another hoop to jump through all the reasons that we got rid of but we haven't replaced them with anything and so for the last four years if by opinion we have been like a ship with no rudder we've done this over here and this over here and that over here we've been either excited about the development plan or excited about the zone change but very seldom have we been both And this city is too good. It's too important. It's too unique to continue to go down the road we've gone down the last four years. It's not sustainable. We won't get the product we want at the end. When we expand, we will expand not because we run out of land. That will certainly be a part of it. But we'll expand because we want to do another adventure somewhere else. and there's no continuity to any of it yes we have zoning yes we've had meetings yes we've done a lot of things but there's no rudder behind this this 2013 comp plan it was a great plan it had great ideas but there was no accountability there was no reporting back and we were accomplishing the goals or we were not accomplishing the goals it was comp plan light and it was too light to do anything with other than just float around on the ocean is place bill the right idea well we're not going back to maps anything in my life i've ever done in my 73 years worth doing was hard if it wasn't hard you didn't put much effort in it and turned out it wasn't worth doing so i took a leap of faith on these goals and objectives and i had some real problems with them because i thought they were way too idealistic and with no plan we couldn't implement them this is not a perfect plan but it's a whole lot better than what we've done the last four years now those of you on the development side you've liked it because you've come in here and depending on which one of us were here that day you got what you wanted but there was no consistency down the road there was no plan and that's why the people came out and did what they did on this plan because they could see that so i would ask my fellow commissioners to take a leap of faith like i'm going to do and to say anything worth doing is hard and we're up to the task and our staff is up to the task but remember we're the ones that make the decisions we're the ones that vote on the plans one way or the other the staff doesn't work we don't work for the staff the staff works for us so the the plan is just as good as the people sitting in these chairs but my the consistency is what i want to see doesn't have to all be alike didn't have to all be cookie cutters but i'd like for people on one subdivision to see that the same consistency on another one on another infill project at least the process was the same so that's why i'm going to vote for this thank you Yes. I, too, would like to echo my appreciation for everybody's work on this thing, because we've all worked hard on it. Staff has worked very hard on it. There's been a lot of after hours. We've put in a lot of time. You as a community have put in a lot of time. Change is always negative. And as I told Jim Duncan and Chris Woodall in a meeting we were having, any time you look at government, you think of the IRS. None of us really like the IRS. So we immediately want to mistrust the process because of things we've heard about government. So, you know, change is always negative. But I have some concerns about this plan only because, and I've expressed this before, 11,000 people is a lot of people. And I commend those who came out, and I commend those that were involved. But for me, that is not a quantifiable number. So I struggle with whether this, what we're looking at, is what the community wants or not, when I see that the builders and the neighborhoods and other stakeholders in the process are not on board with it. I don't expect everybody to be on board with it. Again, it's change. It's negative. But I do take some comfort in the fact that we all have to work this plan. And I know one of the things that Frank has said oftentimes, and I wrote it down so I try to get it right, is if you cannot support the program, then you'd better not vote for it. So for that reason, because of all the confusion is the wrong word, but the conflict, I guess, is the word that I have. I can't support this program with Place Builder in it. I feel that there are too many criteria. I think it creates issues where it could become unfair. Our staff is great. Our staff could change tomorrow. We could have somebody else there that's not as great as Jim or Chris or Chris or Tracy. So we have to think about that, too. And I just feel like that this many criteria and putting these kinds of constraints on building and development create issues that could come back to bite us down the road. So for that reason, I cannot support this plan. Okay, thank you, Ms. Munger. Any other comments? Ms. Plumlee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I plan to support this comprehensive plan, and I give thanks to the staff for all their work and for the public with their contributions and opinions um i i have a few things that maybe i don't really care for in the plan or i question and one is transportation uh it depends a lot on multimodal transportation and those exaggerated they have exaggerated expectations it's always already proven the public will only board a bus under highly specific conditions. Cycling is a fine mode of transportation but a large percentage of folks will never get on a bicycle to go to work or any or anywhere else. I have concerns about the canopy. It mentions grouping trees in in groups that that's more effective. I trust the tree canopy requirement will be increased beyond the present 30% for residential, 10-20% in many zones, and a dismal 10% in mixed-use zone. A third concern I have, and we all have this perpetually, is about neighborhoods. Once again, neighborhoods will be challenged to maintain livable and desirable. However, dialogue will be improved between developers and neighbors and documented by staff. The feeling of neighborhood infringement could be an everyday occurrence, but eventually we will learn to accept that from both a developer standpoint and a neighborhood standpoint. Potentially, R1 will become an extinct existence. At the beginning of his comments, Chris mentioned a public plan. This is a public's plan. And so in that light, I would determine that the public is the one that will live by this plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Plumlee. If you don't mind, I'll get Mr. Owens and see if there are any other. I just got a quick, I think we've come a long way. When Place Builder was first put before us and it was full of what I would call mandatory criteria, I was completely thrown by that. And I think that the staff did an excellent job of recovering from the comments that came back and turning that into good suggestions rather than mandatory requirements. requirements and that's at the point that I turned from throwing up on it to appreciating what they had done. I think we had some good comments that came in from the development community this week. I wish it would have been earlier and we could have had a longer term longer time to discuss it because I think some of these points definitely need to be addressed particularly the low density part of it. So from my perspective, I think this is a classic. It's not perfect. It's never going to be perfect. I think we can live with it. I think it takes us down the right path. But I have just a little bit of confusion now where we stand as far as the comments that were made about addressing the shall versus should. So what text are we actually working on right now we have we need a motion to change the the should and shall if i don't know how the motion is going to actually come but what we would do in a motion is adopt the recommendations related to what mr woodall put up there with the changes in other words moving there are a couple of changes we can put back up and the clarifying language in other words we would adopt or work with the motion with these elements added to it okay so so that taking that in consideration and once again trying to to strike a balance that everybody can live with i'd put i guess the question back to nick as the person who was up at the podium the changes that have been made do they they address some of your concerns they do not Well, that was simple. Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Owens? Bruce? Mr. Nichols? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to start off with, I guess when you offer to go last, you run the risk of being redundant. So I apologize if I'm being redundant in any of this with what some of my colleagues had to say. For me, this is the second comprehensive plan sitting here where I am today. 2013 comprehensive plan as Mr. Penn said we saw the land use map go away to allow more flexibility throughout Lexington and within the various zones. Myself I'm more of a traditional sort of a person who is a little reluctant to let the map go away. However I felt like we could do better in Lexington and and therefore I was willing to let that happen. With the 2013 comprehensive plan, we also saw the plan itself shrink from 280 pages in 2007 to 123 pages in 2013. I believe this was also an attempt to provide flexibility. I felt that in 2013 we could have done better. not with being flexible, but with providing more guidance and transparency along the way. As Mr. Pan said, some called that the Comprehensive Plan light. Our 2018 goals were passed unanimously by the council asking for more development criteria. And that's what we have. Mr. Duncan mentioned it and referred to it as being inclusive and bold and that's exactly right. It is very bold. I don't think anyone would have thought of it going to that detail, but it's not a bad thing. It gives Lexington the transparency and the guidance throughout the process. The criteria meant to be suggestive started out with language that offered it more mandatory and regulatory the staff heard that loud and clear and made necessary changes to the text where it is suggestive a guide for all of lexington to be better as we continue to grow spoke with mr forster before the meeting and we referred to a vote a week two weeks ago i guess the staff and let me back up just a little bit throughout this process I've often heard that the staff is overstepping and trying to design a plan I don't I don't see it they're wanting to do what all of us want to do is and that's make Lexington great but at the end result as was shown a couple of weeks ago it's the 11 of us at the planning commission that makes the decision that's where the vote lies or with the council you know on his own check so you know bring it to us we've heard from our legal department in regards to the legality of this plan that is who defends our decisions and as As far as I'm concerned, that's who we should look for to guidance as to the legality of this plan. So we've been at this for two and a half years wrestling with this plan, and I want to, as well as everybody else, thank everyone, every person who's participated at each and every level. We do all want Lexington to be great, and I believe that that is why this is a difficult task. and it's not easy. And I think with this, at the end of the day, this will help to make Lexington a greater place to live, work, and play. That's what we all want. Mr. Chair, if you're ready, I'll move for approval of the Imagine Lexington 2018 Comprehensive Plan with the associated appendices as written and presented along with the clarification on the low density and the context sensitivity. So, okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we adopt the 2019 implementation plan with the associated corrections along with the information on the density. Any other discussion on the motion? Yes, Mr. Nickel. Procedurally, can you help me if I want to make a motion to amend the main motion? How does that take place? Well, you can do that now if you'd like. Okay. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. Before there are amendments, could we fulfill the fullness of this motion and ensure that the changes that have been made since December 13th are also incorporated into that motion? and then any subsequent motion to amend would reflect this as well. Okay. So stated. Yes. Mr. Chair, that's what I was referencing to as written and presented. Okay. So the motion on the table and second is, of course, that we approve this particular plan with the proposed changes made here today as well as the changes that have been proposed through the 125-19. Now, Mr. Nickel. I would like to move to amend the main motion. And the document that I'm going to be referencing is from the applicant working group. We've all received this from Nick Nicholson, but I'll pass it around just so that everyone has it. So I would like to make a motion as a whole and then make a motion in part to see what parts of the compromise that's been presented to us could be accepted or voted on by this group. So I move to amend the main motion by, as we're looking at this document, A, or excuse me, one, remove appendix A, the multifamily design standards for the comprehensive plan. Two, remove the development criteria and place builder from the comprehensive plan, and recommend that the staff consider incorporating the development criteria into the existing zoning ordinance. three to adopt the language as provided to us in this document as regard low density residential development type so those are the three as a whole i would like to amendment has been made by mr nickel is there a second second okay a motion has been made to amend the original motion by incorporating the three elements that are presented by mr nickel and i I think those three elements are outlined in writing as is as you have them as such. Any discussion on the motion? If not, first of all, we have to vote on the motion on the amendment. And please note that if you vote yes, then you're voting for the amendment. If you vote no, you're against the amendment. Chairman Wilson? Yes. If you vote electronically on the amendment, you won't be able to vote on the main motion. so we're going to need you to take a roll either do a roll call vote or hand vote on the amendment okay isn't that amazing it is amazing transparency okay well the latin term is viva voca so for those are in favor of the amendment would you please raise your hand okay for those opposed to the amendment would you please raise your hand if that motion fails. Now we're back to the main motion. The main motion is, again, as a clarifying thing, if you vote this time, if you're voting for the 2000, yes, now I would like to propose, I want to move to amend the main motion with these three items individually. So right now I'd like to move to amend the main motion to strike Appendix A. That's a discussion. Second? Second. Okay. So the amended motion now is to remove simply Appendix A? Okay. Any other discussion on the motion? I'd like to ask you. Okay. Okay, what question here from Mr. Bruce, I'd like for you to give me reasons why you want to take Appendix A out. I think Appendix A does not meet our objective to provide a flexible plan, and this can be read in such a way that these 38 recommendations could be added on to the external policy issues of the place builder, which has 138 itself. So my concern is that too many restrictions would deter development and affordability. And I recommend that the market determine the building type, specifically the architectural design that is outlined in Appendix A. Let me clarify. Hello. Let me get clarification, Mr. Nickel. You're suggesting your amendment is to remove Appendix A, but keep the other two? No, I'd like to vote on all three separately and see how many we can get voted as approved. So I would like to vote one Appendix A to be removed, and then we'll do another vote, and then a third vote. Okay, so the first time we've indicated that we're not interested in all three out. So the next question is, you just want to amend with this particular motion in. Is that right? Okay, now, Mr. Owens, do you have a question? Would it be appropriate to ask staff for response to that? Well, first of all, any commission members have any questions? I think Ms. Owens' point is well taken. Does staff have any issues with the number of removing Appendix A or what? Thank you, Mr. Chair. We believe the multifamily design guidelines are important to the plan because this is, as has been noted, is one of the most contentious land uses when it is applied for, particularly in the vicinity of single-family housing. And so we feel like that the design guidelines, which were created as part of a small area plan for a neighborhood as part of the developers and the neighborhood's involvement in that. We believe that these can be applied to various multifamily development sites across the urban service area in such a way that would make these proposals more acceptable and better integrated into existing single-family neighborhoods. Certainly increasing multifamily housing within our neighborhoods is something that we as a staff are very much in favor of. And you have seen that we have recommended those kinds of things to you. But it's also a very, very difficult fight with the neighborhoods. And so we believe that the multifamily design guidelines will go a long way to ensuring that the neighborhood is aware of what they'll be getting and can expect in the way of multifamily. But then also the bigger goal of achieving more multifamily housing throughout the urban service area. Okay. Any other questions? Okay, I have to do it by voice again. All those in favor of the amendment, including Appendix A, the Multifamily Design Standards. No, no, no. I'm sorry. Removing it. Oh, removing it. I'm sorry. Oh, this is a long day. Okay, removing Appendix A. All those in favor of doing that, would you please raise your hand? Okay. Those opposed, raise your hand. Okay. Next, Mr. Nickel. I'm going to do this two more times. I move to amend the main motion by striking the development criteria in place builder from the comprehensive plan and recommending that the staff consider incorporating the development criteria into the existing zoning ordinance. Well, Mr. Nickel, in this case, we've already voted down that particular item, number two. that has already been not individual that's correct but I guess my question is why would you go back and re-vote on something that has already been okay someone might support okay that's fair enough so now you want to remove number two right? okay is there a second on that motion? second all those in favor of removing the development criteria and place building raise your hand okay opposed? Okay, the opposition has it. Next. All right, the third one. I move to amend the main motion by incorporating the language provided to us from the applicant working group in the low-density residential development type, as you see on our page here. That's number three. Okay, do I have a second on that? Second. Second. All right, let me ask, as a clarification from the chair, to the staff what they're recommending of these changes in the definitions or things like how do you feel about that I mean this is number three as we said with the concern that we thought we were addressing is that there were there's no reason that single-family development cannot be approved without other uses or multifamily housing options and so the language that we put forward makes that clear that a single development could potentially be approved with that one type of housing option what we're talking about is neighborhoods this concept of complete neighborhoods that we've talked about throughout the plan so what we've proposed is is simply that to clarify but also staff still contends that multiple uses and housing types should still be included as part of a neighborhood so the the suggestion that it says that that they can be supplemented with a variety of uses and housing options to create sustainable places i do not think is consistent with what we've said which is it should be supplemented with with additional housing types and uses as part of a complete neighborhood so we've we've tried to address the the primary concern at hand and this is the language that we're comfortable with okay any other questions now don't call for the question all those in favor of deleting the low density residential development type from the motion please raise your hand those opposed Okay, opposition? Okay. We're back now to the main motion. The main motion, let me go back and review. The main motion is to approve the 2019 Comprehensive Plan with the changes as proposed in 1-25-19 with the suggested changes that we have to the associated plan there on the screen. other discussion on that motion if not would you please vote when it comes up on your screens okay vote is eight to three in favor thank you now ladies and gentlemen let me say one other thing i have been meeting with people all over the community and they have some concerns and my my colleagues here have expressed some of my concerns uh miss uh monday here expressed the affordable housing issue i'm very concerned about that because i'm on the transition in neighborhoods meeting this plan has to have that type of flexibility as far as i'm concerned as it relates to support and primarily because we have not had a chance to put forth what we think of some policies related to gentrification and displacement and those two things matter a whole lot to me as it relates to that so i i want to say that for the most part i do want to also thank the staff for your work on this. I also want to thank the people in the community. And I'm going to single out, and I know this is bad, but I'd like to thank you, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Todd Johnson, personally. He got a group of men and women together, and we had a long session. We didn't always agree on everything, but I enjoyed drinking his water and cokes and what have you. But I think in terms of a good dialogue and a robust dialogue, we had one. But I thank all of you for your participation in this. And the other thing I want to emphasize, one of the unique features of this plan is a transparency for the neighborhoods. And I think that is important. And I also think the continuing education is also important. Now, we have some dates coming up here for the applicants because we know that change is challenging. As Mark Twain once said, that he's all for progress. It's change you can't stand. We understand that the change is significant and needs to be processed. So we have some dates that will be outlined for the applicants on the 25th of March, the 29th of April. This will all be on the web, May the 28th and June the 24th. This is for applicants so that they can have a sense of what this is all about and, again, give some assurances as to how the place builder and other things would work. For citizens, we still want to keep you involved. The idea of 11,000 people I think is really good, but we have a community of 321,000. I think we have an opportunity to continue to keep people involved. So we'll have a training date on March the 19th and June the 18th, and possibly more in the future as we move along. Let me again thank everyone for their participation and for their passionate, sometimes, expressions here. But I think we've got a plan that moves forward, and we understand that it's not perfect, but for the most part it's something that we can work with and once again this same body that we've been discussing here can also amend activities as we move along with that i thank you and again thank the staff for your work mr woodall this is your first uh activity in a comprehensive plan hopefully it won't be the last as such okay we will now move to the other parts of our agenda oh do you want to take a break okay let's take a five six minute break then and then we'll thank you we're ready to reconvene I think the first up is Raymond Allen staff presentation Raymond Waits Raymond Allen Waits good afternoon mr. chairman and member members of the Planning Commission we're now shifting to our regularly scheduled program this is mar 17-0 0 0 2 9 Raymond Allen weights up and now we're working the petitioner has requested a zone change from the agricultural urban zone to a single family residential r1a zone for approximately 1.25 acres of property the requested zone change will cover the northern portion of the subject property approximately 40% of the total property area. The proposed zone change has been made in an effort to modify the property boundaries and allow for a later consolidation of the remaining southern portion of the lot to the neighboring 2100 Old Higbee Mill Road. In the existing agricultural urban zone, a minimum lot size of 10 acres is required for single family homes, which is why the applicant is seeking the zone change today. Here's the overarching view, zooming in. Subject property is bounded by a mix of residential and agricultural zoning, including planned neighborhood residential R3, agricultural urban, and single family residential R1D. West of the subject property is a blend of agricultural zoning and residential zoning. However, the majority of the land that is being utilized is being utilized as a greenway due to the presence a special flood hazard or floodplain associated with the confluence of the South Elkhorn Creek and the drive-in tributary. You look here, you can kind of see where those are coming into confluence, right in that area. The subject property is located along the south side of Old Higby Mill Road, a collector's street that connects Harrodsburg Road and Man of War Boulevard. the improvements made to harrodsburg road by the kentucky transportation cabinet the portion of old higby mill road directly north of the subject property and extending northwest to harrodsburg road was redirected from its original orientation and widened in an effort to create a safer area for the roadway and upgrade the roadway to modern standards the remaining portion of old higby mill road extending to the east and intersecting with man of war boulevard has been widened and improved as a as new subdivision has occurred you can see this is the redirecting area right in there and then this area out this way is the original orientation of the roadway there are numerous amenities in the area including the first alliance church across the from the subject property clements park which is located to the west of the property there is the old schoolhouse oak tree located right down here which is a very large oak tree and to the west of the property is the South Elkhorn village located across Harrodsburg Road right in this area over here various shops and restaurants here we get a better look at the property itself the picture here is looking west towards Harrisburg Road east towards Man of War so you can cut you can see the differences in the roadway since the improvements on this section on this side and then narrowing back down to the original orientation and the original road width this picture is looking straight into the property itself again looking into the property and then you can see this structure right here which is a used as a workshop for non-conforming use i'll bring that up just in a little bit here so again we're looking at this portion of the property for the zone change just the highlighted in yellow this back portion is planned to be reconfigured and subdivided and connected back into the side the neighboring properties you can see here there is a structure over where the rezoning line is at this point in time that is not an issue for this zone change as they are not subdividing the property while the applicant has indicated that the proposed rezoning is in compliance with the 2013 comprehensive plan the minimal changes in the use at the site indicates that the shift does not constitute compliance or connection to the 2013 comprehensive plan or the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan however the intent of the agricultural urban zone is to manage the growth of the community so to avoid premature or improper development until public facilities and services are adequate to serve these urban uses in this case the infrastructure is available to the property and results in the agricultural urban zoning being inappropriate and the rezoning of the property to a single-family residential r1a zone appropriate additionally the subject property already functions as a residential property and has not been utilizing the land for agricultural uses with the rezoning we will also need to discuss the non-conforming use on the property and the eventual discontinuation the applicant has recommended a note be added to the plan that states that the owner raymond allen waits agrees that the current non-conforming use on the property involving a welding business that has been operating it has been operating for approximately 100 years by the family will will discontinue upon his retirement or death. If you have any questions at this time, staff is recommending approval. Your zoning committee has also recommended approval for this zone change. Any questions? Thank you. The development plan will, okay, Ms. Scott. Good afternoon. We're looking at MJDP 17-81, Waitsmore Partnership property. Here's a copy of the development plan. This is all of the property on the development plan for including the property being zoned and the adjacent property. This portion here is the portion that they are looking to rezone. Right here is what Hal was explaining. So with that, we have typical conditions, having the council approve, and then a couple sign-offs from different governmental agencies. We also have delete note number six. This is a note from somewhere that just makes reference to removing about signage. Then we have to note, Old Higby Mill Road improvements shall be determined at the time of the final development plan, preliminary subdivision, or final record. This is a preliminary development plan that they have submitted for today's plan. and to be able to, typically we ask for improvements to be done at time of the final record or preliminary subdivision plan so that we can make note of that. We have two discussion questions. Discuss status of sanitary sewer system and service to the proposed lots and discuss discontinuation of the non-conforming uses. Both of these conditions can be resolved or changed to resolve because before the property can be planted, they would have to meet the sanitary sewer requirements. And as Hal had discussed earlier, there was a note that was agreed upon that will be added to the plan so that if to discontinue the nonconforming service. And if there's any other questions. Any questions for Ms. Gallup? Okay, applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Steven Vicroy for the applicant. We are in agreement with all of the conditions that have been placed on us by the staff. We have worked together to come up with a note with regard to the nonconforming use. It will be discontinued upon Mr. Waite's retirement or in the event of his untimely death before that. I know I talk about morbid things like that, but either one of those events could cause the business to stop, and at that point in time, it would just be wound up, the affairs would just be wound up with the paperwork and sales of assets and things like that. So hopefully, with these changes and with the staffs working with us to get everything addressed, I know that the sanitary sewer issue, if you have specific questions, Matt can address them but I understand that the current septic and and leach field are all within the property so there's no issue of obtaining an easement from any adjoining property owner to allow the septic to go and then at some point in time if there were future developments then septic is or excuse me sanitary sewers are available to the property and would be required for any kind of further development of the property but at this point in time where we do not intend obviously to develop this we want to remain a single-family home so thank you if you have any questions I'll be glad any questions for the applicant thank you is anyone in the audience like to speak mr. Billings good afternoon mr. chairman members the Planning Commission and staff mr. Vickroy my name is Nathan Billings from Billings law firm I represent Pauline Moore if can put the development plan back up i represent pauline moore and i'm going to show you where her property is who owns this property here i represent um melinda mclaughlin and her husband brian melinda is the applicant's sister they are co-owners of a piece of property here and i represent the weights more partnership which rep which owns a lot here and a circle lot here We are in favor of the zone change, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. However, unless we need to discuss the background of how we've gotten here, we do have two notes that we would like to submit to the Planning Commission that should be added to the development plan. Specifically first is that, as is typical, that all of these people, all of our clients be notified at the submission of any future plan, development plan, subdivision plan, or final plat to be filed. I talk with staff about that. I understand staff does not have an objection to that note. The second one is that this zone change is brought about as a result of a lawsuit that Mr. Waits brought against my clients regarding title to this property. This property was his grandmother's at one point. His grandmother had two daughters, Mrs. Moore, who's alive, who owns this parcel, and Mrs. Waits, who owns this parcel. and Mrs. Fain lived in the house in the property here. There's a lawsuit pending that has an agreement that settles this case that Mr. Waits gets ownership to this parcel, but there has to be a subdivision plat filed so that he can actually get deeds to own the property. And so we have to have a subdivision plat to complete that lawsuit in order to accomplish deeds to him for which he owns the property. So we have three conditional notes that we would like the plan to adopt at this time so that when he comes back for the subdivision plat, which I hope is soon, those things are addressed. And specifically the one thing is you'll see there's a driveway here. That driveway actually is used to access the property here. So we'd like to make sure that this driveway would reflect ultimately an access easement. It doesn't need to be noted on this plan itself, but we'd like a note that says when it comes back for subdivision plat that easement is added. And I'm going to pass out this in writing to you all in just a second. The second part of that easement note is the back parcel of here is served by this driveway. Second is the actual property itself for this lot is a three-acre tract that extends out. So this 1.2-acre parcel will need subdivided from that overall tract, and it will leave a remnant 1.8-acre tract here. There is a development plan from 2002 that requires this 1.8-acre tract to be consolidated with the partnership tract here. And so we just want to make sure that that consolidation remains legally binding and that that one-acre tract is consolidated. And number three is there is a structure that staff noted that crosses the zoning line. And therefore, when the property is subdivided, it's not appropriate to have a property division running through the middle of that building. So what we'd just like to ask you, if I may approach and pass these out, Mr. Chairman, is that the Planning Commission adopts these two notes, and the second note has three subparts. I'll pass this out. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Oh, sorry. I just forgot. While he's passing that out, let me defer to staff. Is what you're all thinking about this, the proposals that he's made to it, do you need to get a legal department involved? These would be suggestive notes. The first one, considering the outreach or the contacting the neighbors or the other individuals involved in this process, is not outside the realm of possibility we've done that other plans. And then for the other aspects of this, it would go through with any type of subdivision plat or final record plat in this case. But staff doesn't have a problem with adding those on to a development plan at this time. They just don't really carry the same kind of weight or legal kind of emphasis that it would have on a plat. And we understand and recognize this. This is one of those cleanup things that in the future staff may change, planning commission members may change, attorneys may change, and that way we just have a record of these things need to be accomplished. The final point I would have, Mr. Chairman, is just that there's a nonconforming use that is on the property. There is sort of a tension among the family regarding that nonconforming use. We would generally like that non-conforming use to cease sooner than later because it could affect our ability to market and sell the partnership property. I know the staff has worked on a note with the applicant and his attorney regarding that non-conforming use. On behalf of the family, we oppose an ongoing non-conforming use, but we do recognize that the language staff has suggested if the Planning Commission is not willing to stop the non-conforming use, that at least the language does protect the adjacent property owners. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, let me go back to staff. Is that okay? Mr. Wilson, I don't believe the Planning Commission can force the property owner to stop a non-conforming use. That's really not within the realm of your authority, in my opinion. Tracy Jones will correct me if I'm wrong. So the applicant is offering to end the non-conformity and not continue it beyond his retirement, whenever that might be, or his death. and I think that's pretty reasonable. Okay, so the first two conditions are okay that they propose. The third is out of our purview. The conditions are notes. These are notes is the way I understood it, notes to the final development plan. Is that right? The one question was about the nonconformity, and the staff worked with the applicant related to a proposed note for that, and then Mr. Billings just expressed some concern about that. The two items on the screen, the staff doesn't have a specific concern about, as how mentioned notice is fine. And then the third is, again, another note to be put on the preliminary development plan, more as a reminder because, again, we can't dictate a decision in the future. I got you. But we can remind that these were the interests of the parties when this zone change was approved. Okay. Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this particular zoning issue? Did you have something else you wanted to add? Yes, I just wanted to clarify, and I don't think Mr. Billings is actually aware of this, and I apologize because I just became aware of it. That structure that's shown with the boundary line going through it is actually not a permanent improvement. It does not have a foundation. It's actually a mobile type of home that can be moved. It's on a trailer and wheels and actually can be moved at any time. So with that, I had already discussed that with staff as soon as I learned of that issue. And so with that, we don't believe that it's a permanent improvement that would even prevent the development plan or a plat from going to record because it could be moved at any time. So with that said, I don't know that that's as much of a concern than was actually presented to the commission by Mr. Billings. Thank you. Mr. Billings, you want to respond? Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that information being shared today. I didn't know that before today, that it's a temporary structure and not a permanent structure, and therefore I don't see the reason why it couldn't be moved today. However, I still think that the note would be appropriate that even if it's a mobile structure, once the subdivision plat comes, you shouldn't have a property boundary run through a structure, whether it is a temporary or a mobile or a permanent structure. That is not permissible under the zoning code is to have building structures upon property lines. And so it would be appropriate, whether it is a permanent, a mobile, or a temporary structure, at the time of a final record plat or final subdivision plat to require that structure to be moved off the property line. okay thank you any other questions any other anyone else want to respond or comment okay if not i'll close that part of the hearing and come back to the commission yes mr mr owens i'm sorry mr chair um question in regards to this temporary structure what boundary line is it on and then also what are the what would the applicants intentions be is it movable now it is movable now right it is it yes it could be movable now it's actually on the southern property line so it'd be to the very rear from Higby Mill Road okay and with that but mr. Waits is also a one-sixth owner of the property behind I mean he owns both tracks you know the issue of whether he has to move it I don't believe is a an issue that this body has to worry about right if if we need to do it obviously you've been told there's a lawsuit going on perhaps a judge will tell us we okay with that said I want this body to know that it shouldn't prohibit your consideration of this issue because it can be moved today okay thank you sir thank you staff mr owens it may be appropriate when we get to the final record plat stage for the planning commission to decide at that time that the structure must be moved prior to recording of a flat with the county clerk's office that eliminates the problem at the time it's platted thank you ma'am thank you okay thank you i think that that movable structure will become my adu you know some people got the joke on that but uh any questions from the commission if not we're ready for a motion let me see well somebody mr pen mr chairman i move for approval they get over on the right page of pln mar 1729 reasons provided by the staff okay yes wait a minute I'm trying to find who put the second okay Mr. Brewer okay it has been moved by Mr. Penn second by Mr. Brewer that we approve PLN MAR 17 days 29 Raymond Allen waits with the conditions provided by staff are you for discussion any discussion on the motion yes question yes Mr. Penn would that include the uh offerings by mr billings uh particularly i'm interested in one two a and two b at this time uh that's a good question should we pick that up at the end is that isn't that a development plan i'm sorry that's what i thought yes that would those would be notes on the development that's what i was thinking too i had to go to my mentor here double check things out here okay uh any other discussion on that if not would you vote when it comes up on your screen okay that motion carries now we go to the development plan all right sir i move for approval of pln mjdp 1781 with the nine conditions changing number eight to be resolved and nine to nine and i guess number nine resolved also and that the notes as requested by mr billings be included on that. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Brewer, that we approve PLNMJDP 17-81 Wait-More-LTD Partnership Property with the nine conditions provided by staff. We're substituting the word resolve for discuss in number eight and substituting the word resolve for discuss in number nine. And also included would be the notes as provided to us by Mr. Billings. any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please? I'm sorry. Once again, simply with C, remove the structure, is that appropriate at this time? That's C, question. Is that appropriate at this time? All the notes said was they're reminding that at the time they apply for a final record plat that they would be removing that. So that is appropriate. That's okay. they're just notes okay and we're there we're good to go the motions are important now just they are okay i think everyone knows the motion are you ready to vote yes please vote when it comes up on your screens okay that motion carries and accompanied with the notes provided by mr billings okay okay next page two okay miss tracy miss wade good afternoon chairman wilson members of the commission our next item is on page two and it is a request actually an amended zone change request for Justice Plaza LLC and this is a case that's been lingering for a few months from last year. It's PLN MAR18-15. This is an amendment as I mentioned. The new request is to rezone about four acres of property located at 1916 Justice Drive and 1715 50 excuse me Pleasant Ridge Drive from an interchange service business zone which is our B5P zone to the commercial center B6P zone this is an amendment to allow for a greater or broader list of uses for a property in the Hamburg area so the subject property is located on Pleasant Ridge Drive and Pleasant Ridge Drive is in is opposite of Sir Barton Way out out near Hamburg along Manowar Boulevard, Pleasant Ridge, is the collector street that connects back over to Todd's Road eventually and into the Andover and Autumn Ridge areas. It provides frontage for some commercial properties in this quadrant of the interstate interchange from Manowar Boulevard and I-75. It's a mixture of B5P, B6P, and I-1 uses in that area. If we get bit closer you'll you'll notice the i1 uses are along mostly along the interstate frontage here and then they wrap around along this is bryant road to the rear of the subject property pleasant ridge again is the collector street that connects the hamburg area over to todd's road and then justice drive is a small connector street between bryant road and pleasant ridge drive and it's it probably from your standpoint all looks orange but the darker orange is b6p which is the commercial center zone and then the lighter orange is b5p which is the interchange service business and the difference between those zones the b5p zone is fairly restrictive it allows hotels and restaurants and gas stations but really not much retail beyond that whereas the b6p zone allows retail uses as well as athletic facilities some just more general commercial uses and the applicant has already redeveloped the site at the corner of Pleasant Ridge and Justice Drive and now they're seeking to broaden the allowable uses at that location and then they are currently in the process of constructing a hotel on the second site and with the recent change to the b6p zone actually also initiated by the applicant and supported by the Planning Commission and the council hotels were added to the b6p zone so that allowed for this particular site to be incorporated into the broader commercial area in this section of the community just in terms of what's around the site specifically number one down here is the monkey Joe's athletic facility geared towards children number two here is Malone's and Drake's restaurant and again our site is outlined in yellow number three is the Lexington mini storage four is Harley Davidson and these are our I1 uses five is pet suites and then six is Lexington Motorsports there's a few other hotels I think a hyatt place and then a brand new holiday inn also adjacent to the subject property just a few views this is the subject property looking from pleasant ridge and justice drive that has a vacancy that the applicant is looking to fill at this point and there's some views of the adjacent roadways and then the site that's under construction for the an ex a hotel that's proposed and then the rear view along Bryant Road. These are Bryant Road. The initial application was only for the one parcel, and it was to request a B1 zone, and we worked with the applicant to reconsider that. Actually, we recommended disapproval. I'm not sure if we worked so closely before that, but once the recommendation for disapproval was out, the applicant wanted to discuss other options for their property that could still expand the commercial uses for the site. As we saw on the zoning map, this area is predominantly B5P and B6P and has historically had that recommendation from past land use maps. So the B6P was considered to be consistent and compatible with that zoning in this area. In addition, the applicant is proposing uses that are, again, consistent with the context and the design features of the area and the b6p zone also provides for businesses that serve both the traveling public as well as the nearby residential neighborhoods there's a residential neighborhood to the south there timber creek and then also i mentioned nearby autumn ridge is not too far away so this zone change the staff believes is now in agreement with the comprehensive plan for several reasons first the b6p zone is compatible with the existing zoning and land use that's currently established in this vicinity for Bryant Road Pleasant Ridge Drive secondly the historic future land use map has recommended a mixture of commercial zones in this area and specifically that's been implemented with the B5P and B6P zones third the character established by the B6P zone is in keeping and consistent with the context of the area which is in line with goal number two of theme a from the 2013 and 2018 comprehensive plans fourth the b6p zone also includes requirements for transit and multimodal accommodations which the applicant has worked to include on their development plan and then last the subject property although is it is less than 10 acres is being incorporated into a larger area of b6p zoning that is over 10 acres which allows for the hotel site to be a principal permitted use our staff recommendation is associated with the subject development plan as well which mr martin will present and that it be approved and also certified within two weeks happy to answer any questions any questions for miss wade okay thank you mr martin Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page 3, item B, this is Major Development Plan 18-60, Manowar Development, Unit 2A, and Lot 10 amended. And again, this is the development plan that is associated with this zone change. You can see Pleasant Ridge in this location. This is the lot that is under development with the hotels. This is the commercial structure that actually generated this entire process and the zone change that you've been through in order for them to make use of that building in the fashion they desire. This is the area of the preliminary development plan that's been added, And this is so they can benefit and staff can evaluate the status of the B6P to meet the new requirements of the B6P zone. As you all are very well aware, by loosening up the B6P for additional development, maximums and minimums were developed, one of which was a minimum FAR. But we have to evaluate the entire area to ensure that they are meeting that. They do have a maximum lot coverage as well. and then as miss wade already mentioned there are multi-modal plans that were are required by the ordinance and again that when we increased the ability to develop b6p and put more residential we also stressed certain transportation components to be included to assist in that development including number seven, denote required transit facilities. You can see they have provided the entire area, the entire plan. Staff has reviewed it. They do meet the B6P requirements in terms of FAR, lock coverage. I will state that staff's math and the applicant's engineer's math is off a little bit on lock coverage, but they do meet. Both figures fall within the requirement. It's just a matter of reconciling those numbers with the applicant. In addition, they have submitted the multimodal plan. It is on file with the staff. And adjacent with that, denote required transfer facilities. That, again, is a requirement of your B6P. They have done so in this area of the plan. Staff is recommending that one be denoted along Pleasant Ridge as well. It's a collector and it is a transit route. Now, however, the caveat there is these transit stops are to be to the approval of Lex Tran. So if Lex Tran wants one, they'll put one in. If Lex Tran does not need one or not want one at this time, they won't have to put one in. But that is one aspect that staff wanted to bring to your attention on the condition number seven. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Oh, and by the way, staff is recommending approval of the plan. Your subdivision committee had recommended postponement because at the time, they had not included the entire area on the plan. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, applicant. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. Rain and gross on behalf of the applicant. I don't have a whole lot to add, except for just to let you guys know that the property that is being rezoned today is pretty much as is. It's not going to be changed. The hotel, the one hotel to the north has already been built. The one to the east is, I believe, at this point, a gray shell should be finished in the next couple months. And the existing retail space is already in place. so we're not really changing anything on the property at whole. We have the engineer and Mr. Martin will be getting together to tweak what needs to be done on the development plan, but if there's any questions you may have, I'm here to answer them at this time. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to comment on any of these issues? Okay, it's back to the commission for additional discussion and our motion. Ms. Mundy? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay, someone give me something. Okay, Mr. Nickel. Motion to approve. Lata LLC zoning map amendment. That's not the right one. It's on page two at the bottom. I'm not ready for Justice Plaza. Yes. You do it. You do it. Justice Plaza. All right. Sorry about that. Two, Justice Plaza LLC AMD Zoning Map Amendment and Manowar Development Unit 2A Lot 10 AMD Zoning Development. Approve. Wait a minute. Mr. Nickel, will need to take those as separate motions? Yes, we will. Would be a motion on item 2A and then 2B separately. Okay, a motion to approve PLN MAR18-0005, Justice Plaza, LLC. Okay. 1-5, yes. 1-5. Okay. With the conditions provided by staff, right? Is that okay? Okay. Mr. Nichol moves. Mr. Larry Forrest seconds that we approve PLN MAR18-15, Justice Plaza, with the conditions provided by staff any other discussion on the motion please vote when it comes up on your screen okay the motion carries now the development plan Mr. Chair, I'll try and substitute for very capable Mr. Nickel here. for the development plan, plan MJDP 18-60 Men of War Development Unit 2A, Lot 10. Recommend approval with the seven noted conditions. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Mr. Larry Foster that we approve PLN MJDP 18-60 Men of War Development Unit 2A, Lot 10 with the seven conditions as provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. I'm sorry who seconded that motion Mr. Forrester yeah by the way Mr. Owens is saying I mean Mr. Penn saying that it's not recording his voice okay okay that motion carries thank you uh while we're getting ready for the next small thing i'd like to recognize dr flynn lynn roche phillips is in the hit audience today thank you you uh for those of you who were not here earlier she was on this planning commission and dr. Phillips I the reason I sit here today is because you mentored me well you know frequently when we came up with these difficult situations mr. nickel and mr. pole dr. Phillips would lean over and give me a little advice the rest of us we're really really sorry that you did that lynn see what happened to get that by the way your other students were all here you can take attendance by looking at the television in terms of what was but we asked them to stand and be recognized and we thank you for coming back and feel free to always come back and join us uh with that we got one other item i think small we have a commission item that appears on page five of the agenda this is a request from the urban county council to initiate a text amendment to article 6-4 through 6-6 of the zoning ordinance and i believe we placed the proposed text at your place this is an item that the planning and public safety committee has discussed numerous times and it's It's an implementation of a portion of KRS 100. KRS 100.2111 titled Alternative Regulation for Zoning Map Amendments. This will allow for once the Planning Commission's process would not change, the exception would be then once you act on a request instead of every map amendment being forwarded to the council for action. Only those items that are requested in writing for the council to take action would be forwarded for a specific action from them. All of the other zone map amendments that you act on would be determined to be final within 21 days. And so that will, in essence, eliminate some of the items that they are doing first and second reading on on a regular basis from their dockets to free up some of their time and then they would only act on the items that are specifically requested to act on. They would not necessarily have to have a public hearing even if someone, an aggrieved party, requested their action. And so the portions of the text that are being amended are 6-4, which Section D starts with the recommendation of the commission and then talks about, continues to, certification of development associated with that and then planning commission action considered final so unless there's a request then the Planning Commission's action is final and we will work with the County Clerk's Office if this goes forward to find a way to document those for the public at this point the council referred this to the Planning Commission for initiation and for it to go through the text amendment process. Any questions for Ms. Wade? I got one. Yes, sir, Mr. Berkman. Who would be parties that could make the request that the council hear? The state law says any aggrieved person. So to date the discussion has been rather broad and liberal in that because the KRS does not define what an aggrieved person is. So I think it could be anyone who came forward within the 21 days after the Planning Commission acts and submit something in writing and it does say to the Planning Commission but But as the planning commission's full-time staff, we would be obviously there every day to accept some sort of written request. Okay. Ms. Clark? Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'll be very brief. This is a proposed amendment, a change to the zone change process that has received a lot of debate on council and in the council planning and public safety committee. And what I'm putting on the overhead here is the minutes, the record of the last council planning committee to take up this matter. And there has been no further action that I could discover, that I could, in inquiring of the council clerk, discover or in fact the person who staffs the committee. And you'll see what it says is, Masadi, Council Member Masadi said, this looks like it needs some changes and asked if Council Member Stinnett would like to leave it in committee. This was a June meeting, I believe. It says at the top of it. I'll give that into the record. Council Member Stinnett said he would to have it modified and bring back a draft that incorporates Vice Mayor Kaye's and Council Member Lems' suggestions. They had some concerns that I thought were very important to all of us, especially citizens, constituents, and so Vice Mayor Kay asked if what would be coming back would be a zoning text amendment. And Mr. Duncan said that they will incorporate recommendations and bring that back to committee. I don't see here any request by council that the planning commission initiate this text amendment. be my preference to leave it with the committee where there is a public process going forward. Citizens know of it. They can take part in it. It's for you to decide whether you can do it, whether the council requests it or not. But I would invite you to consider that the council took no action to request an initiation of this text amendment at that time. In fact, there's a whole record which, if you want, I can get you copies of it, but there was quite a lot of discussion, and this was not the first discussion on council about it. Since it's fundamentally a text amendment that abridges the powers of council to take final action on a zone map amendment, that's to say they sign away, they themselves, and it would come to them for a vote. but they would sign away their power and opportunity to take action on a map amendment if it hadn't already, within 21 days, had an aggrieved party make a formal request. Since it does belong to the council, my preference would certainly be that it remain with the council for further deliberation, for initiation, for action, whatever. and as a citizen I think that better public notice is appropriate because there's a clear expectation in that record that it would come back to the committee so I appreciate your hearing me thank you okay thank you Miss Wade oh I'm sorry Mr. chair I have been a part of all of the discussions with the council about this issue and it may not be crystal clear what their intention was, but we believe that this is the best way to get information back to the council. You do not have the final authority, the final say on text amendments, and it doesn't really matter whether the council has initiated a text amendment. You have the authority to initiate any text amendment you want to. We have presented this information to you before. The council has discussed it on numerous occasions, and I believe they're looking for more clear guidance so they can take further actions. So we believe the best option would be for you all to go ahead and consider this text amendment at a public hearing and advance your recommendations to the council at which time then they can accept them they can reject them they can do nothing at all with this text amendment it's entirely up to them okay thank you any other questions okay what do we want to do with it i would just clarify their questions had more to do with how we were going to document in the end because the council clerk has always had an ordinance and they they consistently documented how the zone changes were they're the holder of that final record as the council takes action so councilmember lamb being the former council clerk was concerned about that continuation of documentation in the count in the council clerk's office and realm and you know our staff has met with the council clerk's office since that meeting to discuss what the appropriate manner for that to occur is and so i don't think there are lingering issues as was suggested miss plumley has a question oh yeah okay thank you any other questions okay ready okay miss i'll give you another shot at it go I appreciate it. Ms. Wade is quite right that Council Member Lamb had certain concerns, and apparently they've been working toward resolving it. It doesn't change the fact that it didn't come back to committee. But the other thing was, and it's in the report there, Mr. K had concerns. Vice Mayor K had concerns, and they had to do with the length of time available within 21 days for people to be aware or review a zone change and what kind of record could come to the council members to review to be aware of it because typically it takes three weeks for that record of the planning commission action to actually even get to council and what happened if people were on break and could something just bump along before anyone was either aware of it or aware of the actual contours of it. So there were substantial and interesting concerns. And as I said, you know, it was because there was this record of the committee meeting where citizens were present, it was our expectation that it would continue along that course or we'd have some notice. And I have no information as to whether Mr. K's concerns were addressed or resolved or whatever, what I do know is that no council action was taken. And it's quite right. You can, as Mr. Duncan said, you don't need me to tell you, you can initiate a text amendment. But not at the bidding of council, to my mind. I got you. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Penn. I don't understand what the problem is. If we initiate a text amendment, it's going back to the council. I'm not addressing that to you, Amy. I'm addressing that to my, to Ms. Wade. If we initiate a text amendment, we're going to work on the text amendment. It's going to go back to the council. Yes, and it will, absolutely. And during our normal text amendment process, we send notice to all the neighborhood associations. So I don't see what the issue is here, who initiates it. If the council wanted to initiate, they'd have already done it. Right. And so they kept it in committee. So if we initiate it, they still got to see it. So I don't understand the problem here. So if the rest of the commission is ready, I'm ready to initiate this thing. You should not tell me. Okay. You get to second, Mr. Brewer. I move that the Planning Commission initiate a zoning ordinance Texas amendment to update articles 6-4 and 6-6. Second. Who seconded it? I did. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, that the Council, the Commission, initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment to update Article 6-4 through 6-6. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Great, thank you. Is there anything else to come before this body, Mr. Duncan? Anything else you need? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to remind you all that next week you're back on your committee schedule, so next Thursday you'll be in the Phoenix Building. Okay. Any other business to come before this body? Without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.