You might have run on a little tough luck, baby, did you? Hey, everything is waiting inside for you. You know I got it, so come and get it. Who's your daddy? Who's your baby? Who's your buddy? Yeah, who's your friend? And who's the one guy that you come running to? Hey, when your love life starts tumbling, I got the money, you got the honey. Let's cut a deal, let's make a plan. Who's your daddy? Who's your baby? Who's your buddy? Who's your man? Who's your daddy? Who's your baby? Who's your buddy? Who's your man? Who's your daddy? Hi, I'm Kathy Plowman. I am the council member for the 12th District. And the 12th District has so many horse farms out in it, and so I'm very, very excited to be able to represent. I have Anne Hardy with me today, and Anne is the executive director of Horse Country. And I'm going to let you tell us a little bit about Horse Country. How did it come to be, and what's it all about? Well, thank you for having me. We're excited to be able to share with our community about what we're trying to do. Visit Horse Country is a not-for-profit organization that was developed by the farms, many of them here in Fayette County, to open up and really invite the community and the leisure travelers that come here to come in and experience what our thoroughbred and horse culture is like, to experience the land and the horses, connect with them, really just invite people in and open the gates. So that is what our not-for-profit does, by helping to itinerate plans, book tickets, help support and just market our beautiful horse country. Well, we are the horse capital of the world, so it makes sense for us to open our farms. How many farms or entities participate in this, Anne? We have 39 members that are a part of the organization from the beginning, which is really overwhelming, and about 30 of those give tours on a regular basis. So Darby Dan, where we are today, is one that offers tours, and many other locations around the Bluegrass area. And if someone wants to tour, how do you do that? We have a website, so people can go to VisitHorseCountry.com any time they're interested in looking at availability. We also do have a partnership where you can book tours at a kiosk out at the horse park, or we have a phone number that people can call, and we're always happy to help them plan a trip or schedule a visit. We do groups as well, so guests can come just any day that they want for an individual ticket, but we also work with a lot of groups and businesses that host visits as well. So if someone tours a horse farm, what do they do? What do they see? The great thing about Visit Horse Country and our various members is that every experience is going to be a little bit different. We can really develop an itinerary or an experience that's tailored to every guest that comes in. At a stallion-focused experience, you're going to learn a lot about the breeding operation that happens, the economic impact of that. You'll also get to see some of the stallions. Typically, those guys are a little bit more hands-off because they have big personalities. At a nursery farm, you're going to go and get to see mares and foals or maybe the yearling prep for the sales coming up at Keeneland or Fasig-Tipton. You can go to a sale company and see them behind the scenes while it's happening. You can get a backstretch tour at Keeneland. You can have an owner-led experience at a different location. We also work with Clinics and Hallway Feeds, which is a huge company here in Fayette County. They provide feed all over the world for thoroughbreds and sport horses. I heard about that once, and I didn't realize it was that big of an operation. I always thought that it was just horse farms, but it sounds like you go out and anything that has to do with a horse, that's what you're going to get access to. That's right. You said, do you have a lot of local folks that go on the tours? We do. We want our local community to know that they're invited and to be a part of all of these experiences. But about 30% of our guests are local in the state of Kentucky versus 70% or more who come from outside of the state. That's a big number. It's great because, of course, we want our local community to feel invited, and we do an annual event just for locals. But it's really great to be able to have the farms and clinics and everyone participating in an initiative to bring people to our community, spend those tourism dollars, come in and be at the hotels and restaurants, shops, that sort of thing. We love those out-of-state and out-of-country visitors. Do most of those visitors come via our... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ This is a special hearing for the continuation of our discussion on ZOTA 2019-5, the amendments to Articles 1, 3, 8, 5, 22, and 23, in regards to accessory dwelling units. I was, before we get started, I was made aware that we've got two interns here from the Moore College that's here on internships for a year. We'd like to welcome them very much. Appreciate you being here, and I don't know about today learning anything, but I'm sure at the University of Kentucky and the Moore College that you will. I was reminded that Jim Duncan got his master's from there as well, so I'm sure you're learning a lot there. Thanks for being here. And welcome to everyone else. Let me start by saying that I was not in attendance on September 26th. However, for the reasons I was not, I did enjoy those reasons very much. I would like to thank Mr. Penn for chairing the meeting and Mr. DeMovlin for acting as his sentry, calling everyone to speak at the meeting. Both did an admirable job, and I must recognize our other commission members that were in attendance that day as well. We sometimes quibble over long hearings, but we do realize the need for them to allow our citizens to be heard. I would also like to state for the record that I did watch the video in its entirety, the hearing that was on September 26th, and I have read all the printed material that was presented during my absence. I believe everyone else here today was in attendance at that meeting. The meeting in September was specifically to allow the public to address the proposed text for accessory dwelling units. With any supportive comments or concerns, the public comment hearing was concluded and closed at the end of the meeting. A continuation was allowed by the staff for any comments to be sent to them either in person or digitally through October 7th, closing at that time so that they would have an opportunity to disseminate and provide all the comments to the commission and to the general public, which they did post on the October 14th on their website. And even though it did close on October 7th, we do have 15 additionals here that's going to be passed out to the commission members to let them review those as well. The commission had a work session on October 24th as a follow-up where all items were discussed at length at that time. So that brings us to today. First and foremost, even though we do not have minutes from that September 26th for approval, we have had one correction asked to be noted, and I'll let Mr. Penn make that statement. Oh, he's letting me make that statement. No, I'm not. Oh, take my sunglasses off the head. Okay. Mr. Penn. I was trying to do that pretty discreetly, but you didn't want it to happen. On the paper that was sent out to the commission, we have one neighborhood representative that was listed in support when actually he was in opposition. His name is John Hackworth, and I want to correct those minutes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Penn. And as mentioned, those minutes will be before us, I think, next week for approval, possibly next week. But that correction will be made in those minutes at that time. So today we're here to consider language that Mr. Taylor and his staff has drafted, reviewed, amended, and redrafted, I dare say, numerous times. Before Mr. Taylor presents the latest revision, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the many long hours of research, discussion, meetings, review, and revisions to present the draft today. This was first discussed, I remember it last week I was saying eight years ago, I got reminded that it was ten years ago. And now the staff and the commission has been working on it for the past 18 months. So I would like to commend Jim, Chris, and his entire staff for not only their efforts to get us here today, but their patience on this project as well. So with that, Chris Taylor, you're more than welcome to come and walk us through this. Oh, let me say, I kind of covered it. The public hearing was last week. We took all public comment. Today is for the commission to hear revisions and our discussion with the staff, and possibly at the end, possibly a motion. So, Mr. Taylor? All right. So just may reiterate a couple of things you mentioned real quick, just to be safe. The first thing was that after the meeting on September 26th, we did take public comment. We did consolidate that public comment and summarize it, and we sent that back out to the planning commission on October 2nd. That is one of the handouts that is in front of you today. It does summarize the concerns and opposition. We did not summarize and consolidate comments in support. We felt like that was already done through the proposal that was in front of you. And so in an effort to, again, on a short timeline, in order to address concerns with text, we wanted to quickly get those back to you. In advance of your work session, the staff on October 14th submitted back to you, again, a couple of clarification points that I'll go through in this presentation, as well as some recommendations from the planning staff, as well as some optional language to put in front of you with the intention of, as we did last week at your work session, going through that, talking about those types of changes and seeking to build a little consensus within the group prior to today's meeting. And I'll go through that here in just a second. And the last thing that you have in front of you is a packet of the full text of the ordinance, all the different sections that would be impacted, and the red text in there is the text that was originally submitted. The blue text are the changes that have been made subsequent to the public hearing on the 26th. So we wanted to be real clear about what is new, what is previous language, and then as going through quickly on the presentation here, we'll highlight some of those sections that are new. Quickly, we'll go through a couple of clarifying items on some pertinent issues that we heard from the public input. We'll touch on the staff recommendations, and then at the end we'll highlight an optional element that we've put forward to you and then also, like I said, discussed at your work session. The first thing was that there was sort of a misconception about a 2012 ordinance that allowed attached ADUs, and that was not something that was correct. There was an interpretation that was made in 2012 that allowed for a second kitchen in an existing and attached dwelling unit. It did not create a second unit. In fact, that's the entire purpose of the ordinance was to define and ensure that it was not. If it did create one, then it was not permitted or would have to go to the Board of Adjustment for an administrative appeal. But there was no ordinance change in 2012. It was just an interpretation of the existing language within the ordinance as it was. One of the other things that we heard in the public hearing was that the impetus for this was on senior housing. The concept for this, for accessory dwelling units, long predates the Senior Services Commission coming to us to do accessory dwelling units. Again, this was one of the recommendations from the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee in the late 2000s, around 2008 and 2009. Bringing it back to the Planning Commission was done in partnership with the Senior Services Commission. But, again, as we talked about Thursday at the work session, when we do text amendments, we have to address those from a global perspective, how they address everybody. And we are not able to do ordinances that only allow for certain types of folks or certain classifications of folks or certain age or other types of factors. And so it's very important to note that while the Senior Services Commission and that constituency was the driving force behind bringing it back to you again, we draft text that is in effect for all citizens of Lexington. And, as well, it was brought up through the Comprehensive Plan, the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, both for senior services as well as for providing additional, more affordable forms of housing within Lexington. The last one that we wanted to bring up was the comments about it needing more public vetting. We're really in the midpoint of the public vetting process on this. It started, again, with the Comprehensive Plan, which was a two-year process, and talking about the policies there. It's been an 18-month process, working with the Planning Commission, going and speaking with neighborhood groups and civic organizations. We've done that on the regular for the last 18 months, and while we understand that there's always new people to the process and we fully expect that there will be more new people to the process should this move forward, that this has been a lengthy, deliberate process of education to date. But the final point was that, at a certain point, once the text was out in the public and we've gotten it to the Planning Commission, we've sort of shifted our mode to being an assistant to the Planning Commission and helping you guys get to a place where you're comfortable as well as the public. And so we know that the compromise in the text and the language that we're providing you is part of that process. And so we want to make sure that it's understood that the compromise and changes that are proposed here are, again, reflective of that public process that is still ongoing. A couple of the recommendations that the staff brought based on the comments at the public hearing. There was a concern about up to eight unrelated people. Again, because of our existing definition of family in the zoning ordinance, up to four unrelated people can live in a residential structure. So in order to address that concern, the staff proposed an amendment to Article 3-12 that would cap the occupancy of an accessory dwelling unit to two persons plus any children that they may have. Again, this is within an 800-square-foot structure. Data regularly shows that the occupancy of most of these structures are studio and one-bedroom units, and that the likelihood of ever having more than two people in one of these dwelling units is highly unlikely. But the staff was very comfortable providing a maximum occupancy for accessory dwelling units. The other concern that we talked about, and it was heard a lot within the public hearing, was related to short-term rentals. So the staff proposed two alternatives to the planning commission, again, and we discussed at your work session. One was that making short-term rentals be a conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit. That would, again, provide an avenue for relief to the Board of Adjustment for a conditional use application. Or providing language to the planning commission that would disallow, ban short-term rentals in an accessory dwelling unit. I'll come back to sort of where the commission went with that when we get to the end and talk about the text that's in front of you. But we thought it was important to provide options to the planning commission to see where you all wanted to go with that. The staff is comfortable with either proposal because, again, it reinforces that this provision is about long-term housing options. It's not about providing additional short-term rentals within neighborhoods. And so, again, we provided text. The top part would be either the conditional use option, and the bottom part would be a shorter, simpler elimination of ban on short-term rentals within an accessory, again, only within the accessory dwelling units. The other thing that we heard, another thing we heard from the public, was that there was concern over the ADU manual that we drafted not having the force of law of an ordinance and regulation. So the staff looked for a way to further implement the accessory dwelling unit manual without going so far as to make it a regulatory requirement because it does overstep in a lot of ways we regulate other types of products in this community. And so we thought we would provide a text language for a pre-application requirement, sort of like when a zone change is done, where an applicant must come in before they file for their building permit, or in this case, their zoning compliance permit, where the staff goes over the accessory dwelling unit manual and all of the different considerations that they're going to need to go through, going through a division of water quality for their capacity assurance permit, verifying H1 or ND1 that may exist on the property, as well as letting them know that they will need to go to the county clerk's office and verify that they do not have deed restrictions on their property. But again, this was a good opportunity for us to work with applicants. Again, most of these are going to be homeowner developers. These are going to be people who own the home looking to build an accessory dwelling unit. And so we wanted to go through the neighborhood context aspects of the accessory dwelling unit manual with applicants prior to their application for a zoning compliance permit. And so, again, we provide a language in Article 3-12 and then a second piece in Article 5-4 that basically makes it clear that a zoning compliance permit is required before a building permit can be issued. The pre-application conference language, if it looks familiar to any of you, is largely lifted and adapted from our zone change pre-application conference hearing. The next piece that we did was to recommend that the restrictions in Article 3-12 be recorded in the form of a deed restriction in the favor of the urban county government. Again, the point being for that would be to notify upon the conveyance of the property when it's sold that these restrictions are in effect, that the regs and rules for an accessory dwelling unit, what they are, so that everyone is aware, and it does provide a method for those to be released if an accessory dwelling unit were to be removed from the property. And so, again, we provided sample text in Article 3-12, making it clear that a deed restriction would be recorded in the favor of the government, documenting compliance with the requirements of 3-12. And then the last element is one that we also heard from the public on as well, about the need for an owner occupancy requirement. The staff is offering the language to the planning commission as an optional amendment. It would require that the owner occupy one of the two units. The staff feels, and data largely supports this nationally, that it would limit the number of ADUs constructed in Lexington, but it is in response, again, to public comment. The staff is not in favor or recommending of this proposal, and I think we've made the case over the last 18 months as to why we feel it's not the best public policy. However, we understand that that is an important component and concern to many people in the community, and so we did want to provide language that makes it very clear that the owner must live in the principal or the accessory dwelling unit, and they should occupy that as their primary residence. In meeting with the planning commission last week, we went over and considered and discussed all of these revisions. The main purpose of that was to give us time to draft the document that's in front of you. We wanted to make sure that what you had in front of you represented what we took back from the commission as the consensus. We wanted to make sure that whatever was in front of you today represented what we talked about and considered some of those either-or scenarios. As far as the short-term rentals, the consensus that we heard from the planning commission, and again, today could go differently, but what we wanted to represent to you was the consensus that we heard, was that the conditional use route for a short-term rental was preferable to an outright ban, as well as a desire to include the owner occupancy requirement in the text. And so if you look on page five and six, on six, you'll see under item I, the short-term rental for a conditional use, item M, the maximum occupancy requirement, item N, the owner occupancy requirement, and item O, the deed restriction requirement as well. And then the only other changes that you'd see would be on page nine in article eight, where R1A carries forward the language for the short-term rental being a conditional use, as well as sort of some guidance on findings for the Board of Adjustment to consider should they include that, should they wish to approve that as a conditional use. Again, what you see in front of you here represents what planning staff heard from the planning commission at their work session last Thursday. Again, we're here for any questions or concerns that you may have in terms of text, if you have any changes that you want to discuss, but at this time I'll be happy to take any questions that you might have. Thank you, Chris. A lot of information, very concise. Thank you. What we'll do at this point moving forward, let me offer this. Let's go to questions, ask any questions from the commission. At that point we'll go to comments and hopefully a motion at the end. So anyone with questions? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Chris, on page six, number L, would you explain those two paragraphs a little bit more? On page six, which item? Alterations of existing structure on page six, L. Yes. So, again, that is original language that would allow any existing structure to be converted. That's sort of how we already treat the conversion of existing structures. They would be essentially grandfathered in without a change. That is, and I believe that language already exists. Again, what it states there is as per Article 4-4, 4-4 exists in the ordinance already. What we wanted to do was call attention to it in this section so that anyone who was converting an existing structure would know that that language was already in effect and applied to this scenario. But it does allow, again, conversion of an existing non-conforming structure. Let me follow up, Chris. With that conversion of a non-existing structure, cannot be made more non-conforming? Correct. But in this case, the structure, yes. And I think it's important to note the distinction between the structure and the use. The use is a conforming use. The structure may be existing non-conforming. The structure itself, it could not be more non-conforming. Correct. The non-conformity of the structure is separate from the non-conformity of the use. And in this case, the conversion of the use to an accessory dwelling unit, should this be passed, it would already be a conforming use, so that wouldn't change that. Thank you. Mr. Pim. Chris, before you sit down, in that same vein, if I'm going to convert my house and create an ADU in my house, do I still have to have the pre-application conference? Yes, any accessory dwelling unit attached or detached. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, sir. I've got a question for you, Chris. You stated here that the owner occupancy requirement would severely limit the number of ADUs constructed. In your estimation, how many do you anticipate being built without the owner occupancy requirement, and then how many with? Well, as we said on the meeting on September 26th, if it did not have an owner occupancy requirement, looking at two cities that we felt like had similar regulations or similar housing dynamics, anywhere between 20 and 100. And most cities, when these things start, it's very, very small. With an owner occupancy requirement, I think 20 would be the top end. I think 20 would be the high end. Okay. Normally I'm for as many housing options that are available to be an option, But I think 20 ADUs that can meet family needs is a lot better than zero. So that's my comment on that. Other questions? None? We'll be available if you need us. Don't go far. We may need you still. Let me ask, the e-mails, are they being circulated all the way around? Okay. They're coming back this way now. We'll continue to circulate those. And once again, this is time for questions. I'll ask any questions. If not, we'll move to a comment section. If not, okay. We've had a lot of information. We've had a lot of discussion over 18 months. Comments in regards to this? Any? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. First, I want to thank the staff again for their diligence in pursuing this these many months and to the point where we are today. My first recollection of a proposed ZOTA was connected to aging in place and a place to care for granny. An additional discussion also revealed, yes, there is ADU language in the comprehensive plan. Mentioned multiple times during the public hearing and during commission work session, the lack of confidence in code enforcement along with accountability and addressing infractions and possible and unintended consequences. Should this ZOTA advance to council, I strongly urge the council to craft a document whereas there is a rental registration license program. And this would identify properties. Neighborhoods need that security. The intended ZOTA has endured much, much tinkering as we've gone along. There have been multiple and complex concerns surrounding the proposed ZOTA. Many of those concerns have been addressed sufficiently enough to set this ZOTA forward. How accurate, how appropriate, how functional, how durable, this ZOTA will be, only time will tell. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Plumlee. Others like to make a comment? Yes, sir. If we look at the overall plan of the comp plan, of our new comp plan, the key purpose of that comp plan is place builder. Some of us understand place builder. Most of us don't, I included. It's something that's going to evolve as we go down the pike. But I think it's something that, if I can use an analogy, I'd like to use a pizza. I see the neighborhood associations, the neighborhood as the dough. They've been the dough in Lexington for as long as I can remember. They're the structure that holds this community together. They're the structure that elects people. They're the structure that comments one way or the other, and I hope that continues. I see ADUs as one small piece on the pizza because I think the point of the place builder is to shed light on the process on the front end and make them proactive rather than have to come down here and be reactive to something that they see when they think they should have seen it first. So if you look at it from that 3,000 feet, 500 feet, whatever you want to call it, I see ADUs as one small part, and I think what we've done over the last several weeks is define what that piece is going to look like, what that piece on that pizza is going to look like. I'm going to look at it as that. I'm going to support it because I think we have enough flexibility in it that we know what is actually going on the pizza. Thank you. Others? If not, yes, no. I don't want to twist your arm. I'll just agree with Frank. Okay. Frank comes up with a lot of analogies. This is the first time he's used the pizza, but I think it's very appropriate. Ms. Mundy? First of all, I again would like to thank the staff for being patient with us as we've hammered through this. I also would like to thank, and they're not here today, some of your representatives are, the citizens that came in to express their concerns and their fears maybe and those who came in in support. Again, I think this is, like Frank said, a small part of what we're expected to do to look at and try to move our community forward. This isn't going to fix the housing shortage that has been reported, but this is going to give us a different option, something that we've not seen in Lexington. I understand the scooters are coming today, and that's something else we've not seen in Lexington. And so I'm trying to look at it from my standpoint that this is a progressive way for us to add some additional types of housing. I really love the idea, because I'm getting old, of having a granny flat, that I can then be a burden to my daughter. No, I'm kidding, that I can then have my daughter take care of me or have a caretaker take care of me. I love that idea. Having had to deal with parents that were dying three hours away for about 10 years, if I had them in my backyard, it would have been a really great thing. So for that reason, and I like the changes that have been made, I am supporting the draft. Thank you, Ms. Mundy. Anyone else? If not, I'll close with just a couple of thoughts of my own. One, very good statements today. And once again, we've got to thank everyone involved, staff, commission members, citizens of Lexington on their input. This was described to me at one point in time as possibly one of two of the most difficult text amendments we've taken up. And I would agree with that. And through it all, I think we've hammered out the best possible language that we can. So once again, thanks to everyone who's offered their wisdom and also shared their patience with us during this time. With that, I'll close this part and open it up for a motion, if anyone so chooses. Anyone? I'm looking at everyone. Mr. Penn, you reached. Before I make this motion, I want... Are you ready for a motion? No, go on. I do not see you come up. That's right. You did before I did. We... Say. You give away a fake motion. Mr. Chair, regarding ZOTA 2019-5, Amendment to Articles 138, 15, 22, and 23, Accessory Dwelling Units, I move to approve the proposed text for the proposed ordinance. Article 1, Revision. We do have a motion that was seconded in the 12th, just for clarifications. Would you be offering a reason to recommend it on staff? Yes. Thank you. So we do have a motion on the floor that was seconded by Mr. Bennett for approval of Article 2019-5, Amendment to Articles 138, 15, 22, and 23, Accessory Dwelling Units for approval by staff. So with that said, if there's no questions, I'll take a vote when it comes up on the floor. Is that motion passed? Thank you. Thank you, everyone. That was a very long process, but I think we've got some good language to move forward. So with that said, Mr. Duncan, do you have anything to add? Mr. Chair, thank you all for coming out on an odd day to this meeting, particularly Ms. Monday, who had two reasons to not be here and showed up anyway. So thank you all for being here. I want to remind you that the Planning Commission meeting later this week, the hearing, the monthly zoning hearing, will be held at its regular time at 1.30, but will convene entirely on the third floor of the Phoenix Building. That meeting will be televised until 6 o'clock, at which time the television will switch to the council meeting, but it will be televised open to the public in the Phoenix Building third floor. Do you think we'll be going that long? No comment. Okay. All right. So thank you very much. Thursday is our next meeting. With that, if there's nothing else in you all's approval, meeting is adjourned. Thank you. .