down and the faded photograph fell out and hit the ground and I picked it up he said thank you bud I put it in his hand he said I probably ought to throw this one away cause she's the reason I feel this way I hate everything I hate my job And I hate my life And if it weren't for my two kids I'd hate my ex-wife I know I should move on And try to start again But I just can't get over her Leaving me for him Then he shook his head He looked down at his room Said I hate everything Said that one bedroom apartment Where I get my mail Is really not a home It's more like a jail With a swimming pool And a parking lot view Man, it's just great I hate summer, winter, fall, and spring. Red and yellow, purple, blue, and green. I hate everything. I hate my job, and I hate my life. And if it weren't for my two kids, I'd hate my ex-wife. I know I should move on And try to start again But I just can't get over her Leaving me for him And then he shook his head And looked down at his ring Said I hate everything So I pulled out my phone and I called my house. I said, babe, I'm coming home. We're going to work this out. I paid for his drinks and I told him thanks. Thanks for everything. Process from there, though, if you want to come into a salon, you're more than welcome to do that. Sometimes we even will hire in part-time. If we do hire in the part-time, that just gets your feet wet until the process goes through of you becoming a full-time employee. Great. What is the starting salary for each of your all's divisions for new hires? If you're a 911 operator, the starting salary would be $18.62. cents. That's our lower end. And if you come in as a dispatcher, which will dispatch the first responders of police, fire, and EMS, you start out at $20.56. Okay. And what about in corrections? For us, you're going to start off day one at $20 an hour. If you get assigned to second or third shift, you get a shift differential, which will bring you up to $21 an hour. Okay, great. And if each of you could give one piece of advice to someone considering a career in public safety, What might that be? Major? If you're considering a job in public safety, I really suggest that you give it a shot. It can be a very rewarding career, a very stable career, and you can help out your community as well. That's great. So kind of exactly what he said, it's a great job to be able to help out the community. I would suggest if you come in, just be prepared to hear anything. When that phone rings, you just never know what you're going to get on the other end of that line. Well, we really appreciate the services that you all provide to our community, and thank you for joining me today. Thank you so much. Thanks. I would like to thank all of my guests for joining me today. I'm really excited to see what this public safety kiosk can do for our community. The kiosk is located right inside the main entrance at Fayette Mall, and someone would be here most days of the week. For specific departments, fire will be here on Wednesdays, police on Thursdays, E-911 on Fridays, and community corrections is here almost every day of the week from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. For more information, you can visit LexingtonKY.gov for application information, or you can always reach out to me in my office. My email is wbaxter at LexingtonKY.gov. And please let me know if you'd like to subscribe to my weekly newsletter. I hope you have a great day. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. This is Council Member James Brown, and I'm doing another council comment. Today we're at Grayline Station, home of Julietta Market, and I'm with Chris Woodall, who is in our planning department with the city. Thanks for joining me, Chris. Yes, sir. Thank you for having me. So, Chris, what's your actual title? I'm the manager of long-range planning for the city of Lexington. So what does that mean? We're looking out into the future, how we grow and develop in Lexington. So our job is to sort of look at the vision that the community has for how we grow and then figure out how we get there. Okay. So today we're going to talk about the comprehensive plan. Now, the comprehensive plan, and Chris, correct me if I misstate anything, it's our 20-year plan that includes growth strategy and talks about how we want our city to grow. But we actually update that plan every five years, correct? That's right. Okay, so this is the time for us to start to get working on the next comprehensive plan. And can you tell us a little bit more about what that plan is and what it means for our community? Yeah, so we know Lexington's a growing city. I mean, you don't have to look too far to see the growth and development. Like the place we're in right now is a good example of some recent developments that we've seen. But the data also that we've been collecting shows us that we're a growing city. And we think that's a good thing, but we've got to be able to leverage that growth and make sure that it's working for our existing residents as well. So we develop a comprehensive plan that looks into the future, as you said, the next 20-plus years for how we grow and develop. And we look at everything, as the name suggests. It's a very holistic plan where we look at our neighborhoods. We look at our natural environment, economic development, transportation network. basically we're looking at how it all plays together, how it all interconnects. So I'm glad that you said that because I think most people that are familiar with the comprehensive plan... Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. We have actually a short body today for agenda, we'll see . Our politicians while we . The item for the second item on the agenda is approval minutes, but we don't have those ready yet. Thank you. Was I speaking too softly? Thanks, I forgot about that. We don't have the amendments ready yet, so we'll get those next month. The next item on the agenda is swearing of witnesses. So those of you who anticipate that you may testify, and that includes all the applicants, please stand and raise your hand. Do you swear the testimony that you may give in these matters will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thanks, you may be seated. What I do is I go through and call each case and make sure the applicants are present and also to make sure that to determine whether or not there are objections to the application. And then as soon as I call the agenda, we'll go back through and call the ones in order. The ones that have been recommended for disapproval by staff will be last on the docket. So let's begin. PLN BOA 22-7, Karen E and Michael Pruitt, are the applicants present? Yes. Okay. Is there anybody here in opposition to this application? I see nobody, but this is recommended for disapproval, so you'll be heard at the end of the docket. The next is PLN BOA 22-8, Anita K. Sexton is the applicant present. I see so. Is there anybody in the audience who is in opposition or in favor of this application besides the applicant? I see no hands. So Ms. Sexton, you'll be first on the docket. Let's take that up right now. Your Honor, my name is Peter Eckevert. I'm an attorney. I represent Ms. Sexton. And this is for a variance to allow for a setback of 25 feet as opposed to 65 feet required by the ordinance. The staff has outlined the reasons for this and the fact that there's no jeopardy or any issue with respect to public safety. As a matter of fact, this sort of enhances, well, there's no real negative things that happen by allowing this variance. It does allow for a section to put up a two-car garage. Without this variance, the expenses involved would be astronomical. It's bad enough with lumber costs and everything else that have doubled and tripled at present. But if we weren't permitted this variance, we would have to take the foundation. And because the way the land is the topographical area that involved, it would require a significant expense to prop up a foundation and do all the rest of it it would be necessary to put up a garage. So as the staff has very articulately summarized the reasons and the facts in this case, I think that it's clear that this does warrant a variance. Thank you, Mr. Eckebert. I have, and we'll have questions from the board, if any. One of the questions I had, looks like the property line has a little jut out. was that original or did you all That's original your honor we had that surveyed because of the fact that it seemed odd to us that it didn't go in a straight line and that's that we confirmed through the camp survey that that is actually the way the property is is laid out. And it looks to me like the the numbers are faint, but it looks like that the distance from the edge of the proposed garage to the property line is 18.6 feet. Is that correct? No, Your Honor. It's actually I mean, I think it's you're talking about to the property line to the neighboring property line that I think you're right. To the north or northwest perhaps. Right, yes. But then it slopes down, it goes over that many feet, but then it actually goes down, and then that is partially my property too, next to their driveway. It's really confusing the way the property is laid out. Well, I mean, the drawing is not that confusing, I don't think, but is there any difference in the property other than what we're presented with here? No, Your Honor, that's correct. That's accurate. That's what you're looking at. Yeah, that's accurate. Okay. Any questions from the board to Ms. Sexton or Mr. Eckebert? If there are no questions, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLNBOA 22-8, Anita K. Sexton's request for variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 65 feet to 25 feet in order to construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling unit in a single-family residential R1A zone on property at 1843 Parkers Mill Road, based on staff's approval recommendations and subject to the two conditions the staff's outlined. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Is there a second? I second the motion. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Motion's been made and seconded. Let's see if we can get our electronics to work here and we'll vote on the motion to approve. It's unanimous. The motion carries. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, certainly. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next matter is PLN BOA 22-7, Karen E. and Michael Pruitt. Applicants are present because the staff has recommended disapproval. The staff goes first, and then we'll hear from the applicants. So, Daniel? All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. Good afternoon. All right. So the next item on the agenda is BOA 22-7. the request by Karen E. and Michael Pruitt. So this is a requested variance in order to reduce the front yard setback from 150 feet to 107 feet in order to construct a new single-family residential dwelling unit at the property located at 351 Canebrake Drive. Here we have a vicinity map showing the location of the property outlined in that light blue color. This is part of the Canebrake subdivision. These are some large rural residential lots that were platted in 1988. In the vicinity, you have 8th and Spoonsboro Road to the south, as well as the interstate I-75 to the west. Zooming in a little bit closer, you can see an aerial view of the property. And I just want to touch on a couple things here. The site has some interesting physical characteristics. Essentially, it's divided between the western and eastern portions of the site. The western is undeveloped and is wooded, whereas the eastern portion previously, to my understanding, had been used for agricultural purposes. and so is a little bit flatter and has been previously cleared. There is a creek that runs diagonally southeast of the site, located in the middle, and there is some topography that is somewhat unique for this property that I'll touch on a little bit later in the presentation. The applicants have submitted the following site plan. This details an approximately 3,000 square foot single family residential dwelling as shown on the property. Here you can see on the plat there is a 150 foot platted front setback line. This was done at the time of the 1988 original plat. And the applicants are proposing to construct the dwelling in front of this line. Within their submitted letter of justification, they cite a couple of reasons for this. The first is that they contend that there's not sufficient space between the creek that runs the property and the building setback line in order to construct the houses proposed. The second is they fear that the elevation, getting any farther close to the creek, may present some issues as far as flooding with that elevation. And that they would like to avoid building further north, closer to the 25-foot side yard building setback line to the north in order to have some additional space from any prospective future neighbors. So the zoning ordinance refers to the platted building line. So this is a 150-foot front building setback line that will apply in this case. So in this instance, the applicant wants to build farther forward than is permitted by ordinance. Now, staff has taken the site plan that's provided by the applicant and overlaid it with some GIS imagery to kind of provide some context to the site. So we actually have a couple handouts here that we can provide to the board, but I'll just progress through those. So in yellow, we have the outline of the parcel as well as the applicant's proposed structure and parking area. You'll note that that 150-foot building setback line is shown. And that blue line that is run diagonally through the property is the location of the creek as mapped in GIS. Here, we have the same property shown, the same proposed layout, this time with the added context of contour. So this is showing the slope of the property. Each one of those lines that you see represents a two-foot change in elevation. The property is at its highest at that northeast corner and slopes down, kind of following the creek, meets in the middle and slopes southeast. Here in the pink is the contour line that denotes the current location of the structure, the closest contour line. So that's 968 feet is what the applicant's proposal. That's where their structure is cutting through. And then the closest area of the creek is located at 960 feet. So there's 8 feet of elevation between those two levels. And so the pink line is showing basically the closest contour to the applicant's current proposal. What's the distance between the contour lines? Two feet. Each one of those lines is two feet change in elevation. So, yes, starting with the highest point is in the northeast of the site, working its way down to where they meet in the creek. And finally, this is kind of the last of the site constraints overlaid. So that dashed line at the top of the screen there is the 25-foot side yard building setback line. That is as close as the applicant can come on the northern portion of the property. Shown in white is a polygon that shows the layout and the proposed size of the applicant's proposal, but shifted to a location that meets both the side yard setback as well as the plaited front building setback line. A couple things to note with this proposed location is that if you look at its relationship to that 968-foot contour line, the pink line that we noted as where the original proposed structure was designated cut through, this is actually located at a slightly higher elevation and is at a pretty consistent distance to the creek. So you've got about 150 feet, give or take, from that proposed structure to the creek itself. So there is sufficient space on the property to both abide by the setbacks, have a good distance to the creek, as well as provide a higher elevation that provide a more suitable barrier between any potential flooding than the original proposal. So here, staff is recommending disapproval of this request for the following reasons. The first is that there doesn't appear to be special circumstances that justify the need for the variance. So while the creek does limit the applicant's ability to develop some portions of the property, there is that section farther north that the applicant could construct the house as proposed without a need for a variance. The second reason is the requested variance could impact future development. There are several lots in the immediate vicinity that share this same 150-foot plaited building line that haven't been developed and that granting this variance could alter the character of the existing development in this vicinity. Finally, the applicant hasn't provided sufficient information to justify that this is an unnecessary hardship because, as we stated earlier, they could construct the home at the same size by shifting this a little closer to that northern property line. At this time, I would be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff. Any questions from the board? Yeah, I have a question. So the alternative location is what you recommended? So this is a location that meets all the required setbacks. This is where the applicant, if they filled out a building permit today, could construct without needing any type of variance approval at all. You just used kind of the factors around that to kind of put it in a spot that made the most sense. Yes, that line could be shifted any further back, but this is sort of the confluence of that. Any other questions for Daniel? Thank you very much. We may have some questions for you later, but we'll see. Now we'll hear from the applicant. Mr. Pruitt? Ms. Pruitt? What makes this property special? Hi, Your Honor. My name is Chase Jones. I'm the builder for my client. We're opposed to the alternative placement there for a handful of reasons. One being, as you see the property next to it, it would put you pretty close to the neighboring property. From what we're told, that person intends to build the house pretty close to that neighboring property line. Also, my client intends to, in the future, put a pool behind the home, which would obviously, for privacy reasons, they would prefer to keep the home where we originally applied for the variance. As well as the flooding, the creek runs, as you see, diagonal, so it renders a lot of the property for a potential pool or whatever other structure useless if you just keep shifting it further back. 150 feet is not a massive amount of distance for a pool. So we're hoping we can get the variance for our original location. There are no structures on the property right now. Correct. You've seen a copy of this? Yes, sir. We have one in front of us. and that white outline that staff did, that means nothing to you, I mean, other than what he described it, right? Correct. That's not your plan. Your plan is the outline in black. Correct, yes, sir. And, well, I know there's a reason why you'd like to build it behind or in front of the platted building line, but is there any reason why you cannot build it? Physically, there's nothing limiting us to it. It's just more so for the future development of my client's property with a potential pool and privacy reasons not being right on top of the neighboring property. Well, I mean, you could just, you wouldn't have to move it any farther north. You could just move it west and not be any closer to your neighbors. Is that right? Well, but then if we move it further west, we still have to move it further towards the rear of the property to be within the setback. If we move it further west, we're even eating into our rear yard more and more and more because of the direction of the creek. Right. But the creek doesn't impede your building, would not impede your building. If you moved it further west, it would, yes. How so? Because if we move it further west and we continue to move it further towards the rear of the property, we would then be getting closer and closer to the creek the further west and rear we go. Well, sure. But if you moved it just within or just outside the plaited building line, you're not going to be butt up against the creek. No, you're saying where their alternative location is drawn? Yeah. No, we wouldn't be butt up against the creek there, but we would be really, really close to the neighboring property, and like I said, for privacy reasons with a pool going in there in the future. Well, I mean, my question really has to do with instead of moving it to the north, you could simply move it to the west, move the proposed building to the west, and that way you would not be any closer to your northern neighbors. Well, and that's what we're saying. So the pool, if you see on the alternative location, the furthest rear portion of the house, that is going to be like a rear patio. So the pool will come directly off of that. So if we move it further west and be within that, be past that 150-foot setback building line, the pool would be right on top of the creek. Sure. All right. Any questions for Mr. Jones, right? Yes, sir. Jones, any questions for Mr. Jones? I do. I have a question, Mr. Jones. And I'm not a fan of moving it over to the side setback either. I'm having it all pushed to that one side. But if you just go directly back, now can you share with me the main issues? And I'm no good with northwest. Sure. Go back towards the creek. Sure. Behind the building line, what would be the issue in that case? It doesn't present as much of an issue doing that, but it does limit the rear yard. My client does have children, so they'd like to keep as much of a rear yard as possible. Obviously, the pool will eat up some of that, so we'd still like to keep as much physical ground as possible with the pool as well. And is this property in a flood zone? Do you have to have flood insurance as it is? I'm not aware. I don't believe so, but I'm not fully sure. Okay, okay. Because that would be my concern more so, not even just the flood zone issue, but are you putting a basement or anything? Yes, ma'am. So the closer you get back, that would be a concern, but I'm not a fan of pushing it over all the way just to the right. But coming back a little bit, I think there might be some compromise there. Right. Look at that and find a way. Sure. So we're currently, we have a proposed at 107 feet back. So in order to be past that line, we have to shift another 43 feet back, which is almost the full depth of the house, which would then leave us about 100 feet from the house to the creek if we were to go straight back. Which, you know, by the time you put a pool, if you put a 20-foot wide pool, you know, it doesn't leave much space. Understood. Your Honor, I would like to add, in the HOA requirements, lot one and two have been waived from the 150-foot rule. And the creek, whoever, they dammed it up. They didn't put a drain tile in. They've just taken in field dirt, so it does flood a little bit back towards the back of or the rear of the house at the proposed parks. They didn't properly make a bridge. They just dammed through it. So we are going to fix that, but until that time it does flood on the right side of the property. And I'll just, this may not be a question, but just looking at the similarities between, and maybe this is a staff question, between the two cases that we've heard. I mean, we just approved the Pruitts for similar or lesser reasons. I mean, the creek is the issue in building and in your yard. Even if you could build back closer to it, like you said, when you go out, is that going to be water? Is it going to all be soggy? So there are some issues. I think the creek is a mitigating factor. I don't know how much of so, but we didn't have that piece on the last one and we actually just approved it. So that's where my concern is on the equity in these two cases. Well, we like to take into account the equity in all the cases. All the cases we've heard or ever heard, quite frankly, in dealing with each case as it comes. But each case is its own case. There are reasons why the staff recommended approval for the first one and disapproval for the second one. Any other questions for Mr. Jones? Yeah, I'd like to have some clarity if I could, please. Building the house, simply moving where your plan is directly west toward the back of the property. That's one of the things you said that's not good because of how close you get to the creek. How close would you be to the creek? Do you have a measurement there, not counting the pool? I don't have an exact measurement at the moment. I did know, Daniel had noted, for their alternative placement, would put them about 150 feet from the corner of the house to the creek. So if you put it there, like I said, 150 feet is a decent amount, but on the other side of the token, it's also not. And then you take into effect being right on top of the 25-foot side yard setback as well, which is obviously not desirable for anybody. Yeah, I was just suggesting that if I was asking the question about if you move that if you took your plan and your position and moved it directly west, how much room would you have between that and the creek? It looks like it would be pretty much in the middle of that property between the creek and the road. Is that about right? Again, I don't have an exact measurement, but taking into account where Daniel had said 150 feet, if we just shifted our proposed location, I'm assuming correct, just straight back in line with his, it would be less than 150 feet because of the direction the creek runs. So I would assume somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 to 110 feet. How much room would a pool take? It's hard to say, honestly. I ask that simply to know how close the pool would come to the creek. Sure. I don't have an exact figure for you. I would say somewhere along the lines of 20 by 40 or 25 by 35, something along those lines. If you take into account a pool deck, again, we'd just like to keep as much rear yard as possible for my client's children to play as well. Good. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Just one more question. This may be in here, but what's the total? Oh, 10 acres. I see. No, no. What's the total acreage? Ten acres, yes, ma'am. All right. Mr. Jones, how deep is the house? You're not the architect, you're the builder. I'm the builder, yes, sir. You mean depth front to rear? Yes. I can pull it up and tell you here. I want to say it's about 65 feet front to rear, from the furthermost forward point to the most rear point. Sir, you were asking about the width of the pool. I was hoping to do a 20 by 40, but that would have the, I mean, that's the size of the pool. Of course, we would want at least 15 to 20 feet of deck before we start the pool. And then I would like to have deck on the other side and then green space if possible. That'd be great. It's about 60 feet, give or take. Okay. And what Mr. Clark and I both were suggesting is moving, one thing you could do without changing the plans of the house and to be within the requirements of the ordinance is move it, simply move that house design west 43 feet, which is the difference between what you're requesting and what the ordinance requires. The difference between 107 and 150. So that was the suggestion. One of the questions I had, perhaps this was for our staff. the planted building line is at 150 feet. Do you know why that is? I mean, is that just the developer of this subdivision's idea, or is there some method or madness to that? There currently doesn't, there currently is not a 150 foot corresponding setback line in the zoning ordinance currently, so at the time. So 1988, all of the subdivision, all the lots within the subdivision were platted at that building line at the time. Don't think that that corresponds to any current zoning, but let me check with Anna. I didn't mean to stump you on that. I'm not 100% certain of why 150 was chosen at that time, but the current standard would be 300 feet for a lot in this zone. Of course, it wouldn't be a 10-acre lot, either it would be a 40-acre lot. So these lots were established prior to that 40-acre ag minimum and the 300-foot required setback. So that's kind of what we more typically will see in rural areas, but in this particular neighborhood it was platted at 150. Are there any houses in this neighborhood that are closer than 150 feet to the road? No. Directly across the street is a house that appears to exceed the 150 platted front building setback line. The majority of the lots within this subdivision are currently vacant and haven't been developed as of yet. Okay. Any other questions for the applicants? One quick question. Any history of flooding that you have documentation of any kind? Not necessarily documentation, but aside from my client noticing that the creek does flood on hard rains in the further most rear right portion of the home or of the property, aside from her noticing it, no, we do not have any documentation. This is the only lot in the subdivision that has a creek that goes through it. Like I said before, lots one and two in the HOA restrictions do waive the 150 line, and I have a copy of those in my email if you want to see a copy of those. I don't know if you were able to pull those, but one and two do waive it. This is the only lot that has the strange topography, I guess you could say. So the homes that have been built around it probably do, they are set back 150 feet. We did speak with Mr. Basler, who is the owner of the property. He's also the president of the HOA. He told us he had no problem whatsoever with whatever we wanted to do, wish to do. He even wrote a letter to Mr. Jones and told him, you know. We just obviously had to go through the proper channels to be able to do that. Sure. So you got permission from the Homeowners Association or the Neighborhood Association. Correct. But you also have to get through us, and that's your problem today. I don't have any further questions. Does anyone else on the board have any questions of the applicant before we proceed further? I have one question. How many other lots are there in this subdivision? 12. I want to say there's about 12 of them left that have not been sold off. Okay. There's 17 total. Okay. I am getting ready to, I'm building for this client and I have another client in the same neighborhood as well. And that other client, their property does not have the creek that runs on it. So obviously, you know, they have no need for a variance to be within that setback. But as my client stated, the way that the creek runs on this, it really affects your usable space on their property. And this lot backs up to the interstate right away, doesn't it? Yeah, so it's a good thing actually that you have that. I like the trees. I like the trees back there. It's a good thing you have the woods back there to separate you from the noise of the interstate. That's another thing on the proposed plan that they've created. This side of the lot is obviously closer to the interstate and it is louder. I don't know why that is, but the farther left you go on the property is more quiet. Yeah, understood. Any further questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion of some kind. Or we could just sit here and get older, I guess. Well, if no one's making a motion for disapproval, I'd be happy to get with legal to do a motion for approval if I need to have particular findings. Thanks. Okay. Shall we take a recess for a few minutes while you work on that? I'm not sure what we feel. Okay. If that's the case, let's take a 15-minute break, and we stand in recess for 15 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. There we go. Okay. We have five in favor and two opposed. The motion carries. Your application is approved. Good luck with your project. You may. All right. Yes, sir, we have a couple of presentations, right? Yes, sir, we do. So what's the first one? So we'll be starting with just an overview of the zoning ordinance and Lexington's future. This is a training opportunity for you all and also an opportunity for me to come and present in front of you. My name is Hal Bailey. I'm the zoning planner. I typically deal with zone changes, zoning ordinance, text amendments. Real quick, does that mean we get to count this towards our CE? Yes, you do. If you have not signed that piece of paper as of yet, which you might not have, we do need you to sign that by the end of today so that we have that in our logs. so clicker hey you're going to stick around for this all right well this presentation is really focused on four things it will be a brief overview of the history of zoning ordinances and their tie-in with comprehensive plans a quick review of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances in Lexington. Some of the changes that have been made over the years that have hopefully made your jobs a little easier, while also amplifying some of the intents and goals that are represented within the comprehensive plan, and then a brief discussion about what changes might occur in the future. This will then tie into our second presentation about what is going on currently with our zoning ordinance text amendments and the changes that are being proposed. So really quickly, this is my 5,000 foot kind of look down. What is planning? Planning is just the application of forethought to action. What is land use? It's how we use the land, how human beings use land. We break it down into agricultural, residential, industrial. These are different land uses, not to be concerned with zoning. Zoning is actually the restriction of land use and is really focused on health, safety, and welfare of our community. This is a brief overview of really the major changes that occurred to start zoning. One thing that us in the planning services side would like to point out is zoning came first and then our comprehensive plans came second because we wanted to talk about first how we are promoting health, safety, and welfare. It really started with the tenement housing laws in New York City, making sure people had access to light and air. They were building buildings that were way too close, didn't have any light and air aspects to them. And then the city of New York started to say, hey, we're having some real problems here. It wasn't until Cincinnati in 1925 in which we get our first comprehensive plan actually implemented. And then we get into Euclid versus Ambler Realty. This is a really important aspect in how we zone, why we can zone. And then a few other really important dates in just how these things have been established. In Lexington, we have gone fairly lock and step with a lot of other larger cities in our community in that we were focused on adopting zoning ordinances and bringing in planning commissions, board of adjustment groups, and boards so that we can go through the implementation of zoning and seeking to control our land uses in a way that is complementary to the plans that get established, like our first comprehensive plan that was adopted in 1931, and then adheres to our other documents that are supporting of that master plan, those comprehensive plans. The two most recent that are really important is the adoption of our modern zoning ordinance that was last done in 1983, and then our adoption of the comprehensive plan most recently in 2018. While the 1983 date looks very old, it actually is a little less old than you'd think, largely because we are constantly changing our zoning ordinance. It is meant to be a living document that is reflective of not only our historical values, how we have developed as a city over time, but also meant to change with new technologies, with new concerns, changes in the environment, things that we would like to promote in our community that is outlined within our comprehensive plan. Many of those things that Ms. Goddard-Weiss will talk about here shortly. In terms of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance for us to act as a city and restrict land use, we do need a comprehensive plan. This is laid out within the Kentucky revised statutes and is part of the enabling legislation that the state has implemented to allow for local municipalities to go ahead and implement these restrictions. So there is a strong tie at all levels when we're looking at these two very important documents. A lot of times we talk about the comprehensive plan being the mind and the spirit, and then the zoning ordinance being the muscle behind it. This is how we form our kind of urban locality. With all comprehensive plans, we go through the process of adopting goals and objectives. This is being done in consort between the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council. If you haven't been part of the on-the-table experience, that is going on right now. And I hope that you would have the opportunity to lend your voice to the upcoming comprehensive plan and our update to that. But we go from our goals and objectives to policies that clarify and kind of broaden the perspectives of the goals and objectives into criteria. We've been utilizing this within our newest element, the place builder, which helps advise what might be important for low, medium, high density development in different aspects, as well as industrial kind of places, which are really focused on our jobs producing lands, as well as trying to protect our environment the best way we can. All of these are meant to lead to the modernization of the zoning ordinance. And again, this goes back to the fact that our zoning ordinance was adopted in 1983. So we're constantly updating it to seek to promote the wants and needs of our community, as well as make sure that we're ensuring a harmonious development and one that is protecting the environment. So the first thing that we really look at with any real connection between the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance is the intent of the zone. That's not in a tent, nor is it the tense rockability of Dave Grohl. It is the intent or the harmonious development of our community. The intents are supposed to provide that connective tissue between the mind, the comprehensive plan, and move into the zoning ordinance. If we're looking at a neighborhood business, what is a neighborhood business supposed to be comprised of? How are we trying to promote that within the regulations that are within the B1 zone? So this is an important aspect of it. It provides the structure to those zones. It also allows us to modernize, to increase the different types of uses, to say maybe this use is not appropriate, maybe to add restrictions. And then it can support and direct future conversations about the appropriateness of zones. This is particularly important with the amendment requests and the zone changes, but is equally important when you're reviewing conditional zoning, conditional permits, conditional uses. So that does get us into the levels of our different uses within each zone. We have our principal primary uses, which are the main thrust of the development of a zone. They're meant to be complementary and create a same level of nuisance impact. That is a very wordy way of saying we want everything to be in line so that we are not creating any health, safety, or welfare impacts on one owner greater than another. It is meant to be produced in a harmonious sense and is done as of right. If you are allowed to do this as a principal primary use in that zone, you do not need to seek the Planning Commission BOA's approval for that specific use. Now, there are different aspects within our community that lead to further review by a discerning body, and that includes our conditional uses. These are really meant to be reviewed to make sure that they are harmonious not with just the surrounding development, but with the regulations that have been installed. There are meant to be a fair amount more restrictions, standards that are meant to be hit for these types of uses. I did skip accessory uses. This is just anything that is incidental and subordinate to the primary use. Now, I added in the parentheses there. It's also permitted by right. However, there needs to be a principal use. All too often within planning services, we get a phone call and someone says, I'd like to put a garage on a property. We said, oh, okay. Well, do you have a house? No, I just want the garage for storage. That is an accessory use. If there's someone living at that house or above the garage, that's okay. But just having that accessory use is not. That might kick you into a conditional use if we're just talking about parking, but that's a whole other route to go. And then finally, our prohibited uses. These do not conform with the intent of the zone. They create nuisance effects on neighboring property owners and can be a detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of our community. There are a few aspects of our zoning ordinance that we were asked to touch upon, and I've highlighted a few of them because you hear about them quite a bit. The first is the infill and redevelopment area. The infill and redevelopment area was established in 2002 and was meant to allow for the development of small lots, really. This was an area of our city that was built prior to 1932 that was not encumbered by zoning restrictions. So with the 2002 text amendment, we allowed for a fair amount more special provisions to allow for flexibility of owners to go ahead and develop these properties. We also added in the ability to go ahead and ask for variances specifically tied to parking. We talk about different variances are allowing them to meet neighborhood character in these areas. So this was meant to provide a fair amount of flexibility, especially to our small lots. It also was meant to have new construction and modifications of the landscape to be in line with the historic construction of the area. Now I bring this up largely because you often hear about 10-foot driveways, especially in the infill and redevelopment area. This ties both to the small lots. There are a lot of small lots within the infill and redevelopment area, but also to the historic character of this area. So when you hear some variance requests to increase the size, to have double 20 is typically what people want to see with a newer lot. It's probably what you're seeing more with the real estate industry, especially outside the infill and redevelopment area. It allows for two cars to be parked next to each other. With this area, it is focused on continuing that neighborhood fabric, that consistent character of the infill and redevelopment area, by keeping it limited to that 10-foot area. The neighborhood business, or the B1 zone, specifically some of the setbacks associated with this. This was modified in 2013 and was a major component of the 2007 comprehensive plan. It was focused on creating a form that was more consistent with walkability, that was more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood fabric. So there has been a fair amount of conversation about why we chose as a county to have that build-to line, the 10 to 20 foot setback. setback. It is really focused on creating a more walkable design, and that is heavily tied to the economic viability of areas, as well as protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the neighbors who might be walking to these locations. If you look at the intense sections of the B1, it is focused on neighborhood supporting uses within the comprehensive plan and within the zoning ordinance, protecting pedestrians within these types of zones, within these types of areas is at the forethought of the development in these areas. So we are kind of tying these to get to a safer setback that produces a little bit more of a walkable community. averaging of side yard setbacks now this is my house so this was an easy enough one to do i i do live in the infill and redevelopment area so i have an older house but it is a good way of viewing just how close some houses are historically uh the house does not conform with the zoning ordinance currently because it doesn't meet the five foot side yard setback however within a lot of our zoning ordinance, we talk about providing flexibility. In 2003, the Planning Commission recommended and the Urban County Council adopted the ability to average this side so that you all weren't getting inundated with constant variances to try to move the side yard setback. This provides some flexibility that allows someone to get a little closer, at least at the most, three feet, that's how close you can get. That's per some fire regulations. And then half of the otherwise required side yards. So there are some larger setbacks that we have in our community. The AR being one of them. We just talked about that 25 foot. If someone had to move their property and they wanted to average, they would only be able to go 12.5 feet into that side yard setback and then bring their house back in to allow them to average to that total 25 feet. And there are plenty of calculations with that that building inspection plays into and then planning services plays into quite a bit and essentially gets to an area of the side yard to make sure that it's consistent. But this does allow a fair amount of flexibility while keeping to the spirit or the nature of the law within this area. So this has been a very quick presentation, but it does bring us back to what is working, what's not working, and what can be done. The zoning ordinance is a living document. It is meant to be changed. There are three to four ways that you can go ahead and make a change to the zoning ordinance. The first being the comprehensive plan. We have implementation items that are laid out in the comprehensive plan that push for new changes to our zoning ordinance to comply with the hopes, wants, and needs of our community members that are reflected in that document. The next is a planning commission initiated text amendment. This includes any boards. So this is one sell to you all. If you are seeing something in our zoning ordinance that you have been hearing about consistently and you believe is something that might need a change, we ask that you tell us these things. We can bring you all in with a work session with the planning commission, have a discussion about this, and then possibly change the text. Again, we would like to see less variances or less kind of challenges to conditional uses so that we're not overburdening this body. However, some of them are required. If you need greater information for some of our conditional uses, there are standard kind of things that you would like to see. If there is too much flexibility, there's not enough direction. That is something that we could work with you and the Planning Commission to recommend to the Urban County Council. The other aspects are Urban County Council-initiated tax amendments. These are often driven by people from the public. However, we do, out of, this is actually a very unique aspect of Lexington, have a community-driven tax amendment process. And any individual, and Chad, you've experienced this in the past, has the ability to go through and ask to amend our zoning ordinance to change our law. From our planning staff's perspective, we believe that this is actually one of the most democratic ways that we can possibly include the public in the review of a change in law. All too often, you have to go to the planning commission or to the urban county council to request them to initiate. We allow for members of our community to come in and say, look, this isn't working for us. We are looking for a new technology. We are looking to try to do something in our community that we believe fits in the overall intent of the zoning ordinance or meets with the comprehensive plan or clears up an issue. And we would like to make this change for the future. So there are several ways to go through this process. and we review them quite often. We actually have an equal amount of text amendments this year than we do to zone changes this year, which is abnormal. But I think it is also representative of a very active and involved public. So that was a quick overview of a few different things. We are happy to come back and have more of these conversations, whether it is a quick overview on a lot of different things or a deep dive into specific things. But if you have any questions about what I've just reviewed or any questions in general, I'd be happy to answer them. Can you give us an example of just one that's changing this year? So I can give you... Some of them are in the... Oh, yes. Actually, that's Autumn. autumn is about to do that um so she can go over that uh we do have a few that have been applied from the public or you can go over some of those so um real quick uh digital signage in downtown zones someone came in with a text amendment for that uh a distilleries in the light industrial zone someone has come in seeking to do that uh barber shops and beauty shops uh one thing i'll say is we have a variety of language with all these. They are restricted in our professional office zones and in the amount of employees that they can have and the size of the facility they can have. We are seeking to remove those restrictions. That was applied by someone who has seven employees where they were only allowed to have five and they want to be able to operate their business. And then the last one that we have going on right now from an applicant-driven side of things is someone has come in with a planned unit development or a PUD off of Main Street. This is a unique aspect of zoning. A lot of communities just do PUDs, but it is a way for someone to create their own zoning for a master planned development. We have two of them currently in our community, one on the south side, most recently the one on the NOLI CDC. That is a planned unit development that allowed them to create more of a live-work environment. So when someone like the applicant presents that text amendment, what's the life of that? What's the time period, the path? Yes. To show my age, you know, like when a bill becomes a law, you guys remember that? Anybody remember that? You don't remember that. You're too young. The after school. Okay. Okay. The schoolhouse rock. So it's an interesting process. The Planning Commission receives the application. They have six months to review it. The Planning Commission, if it is an easy text amendment, and I will say easy is in the mind of the beholder because some things are very, very easy text-wise and very, very hard to get through the process. But they typically have six months there. And then it would be moved along with a recommendation to the Urban County Council. The Urban County Council can either read that into law without having any further discussion, and that would just be typically another month, or they can put it into committee and have greater conversation. Now, with all laws, as we know, they can sit in committee, it can languish in committee, and then it could fall off of committee and never be read through as law. However, in many cases, if it is applicant-driven, they want to give this applicant some sort of end note, some closure on it, so they'll make an action. You're welcome. Okay, go ahead. If we do another one of these, it may be interesting to go through PUD, since it's kind of its own thing, and I don't recall us ever seeing a PUD. So it would be interesting how that, with the NOLA, and how that kind of worked and got put together. And with PUDs, the interesting thing, they are setting up all their design standards, their setbacks, even their conditional uses. I would think that any time you would hear about a PUD coming to you, it would be with a conditional use more than a variance. Because most of the time, they're setting up their design standards to be either conforming to the area. With the NOLA CDC one, it was a built context. So they were applying a fair amount more flexibility to the uses in the area and then redeveloping some of the homes to make them more livable. With this current PUD, we're looking at more of a greenfield development, which is from a planner's perspective, and I know from the designers that work with us, it's a little bit more fun. I mean, we're now applying new regulations to virgin land that could fit into the context and support neighborhoods. But that is the big thing with a lot of our PUDs is we want to make sure that it's not only meeting the want of the individual that's developing it there, but we're also acting, having that proper transition to neighboring properties. Because with all of our zoning, we have either property perimeter screening requirements or we have distance requirements, fencing, things like that, that are meant to transition between higher intensity and lower intensity or density options. Cool. Any other questions? Al Bailey, thank you so much for your presentation. Thank you. Very nice. All right. So to follow up on. You've got to bring that same level of energy. All right. Well, I don't have as many pictures, but I'm hoping we can maybe be a little more interactive with mine. So let's see if we can get my presentation up there. There we go. So you all will remember that you had a presentation several months back on the comprehensive plan, and Hal talked a little bit about that. So I want to talk about some of those implementation items that Hal was discussing. So several of the action items in the comp plan called for updates to the zoning ordinance. So these are a rather lengthy list of things that the comp plan said we should do to make changes to our zoning ordinance, to make development better in some way to meet the intent of the comp plan's goals. So since 2019, oh, well, where did I go? Okay. So we have had some text amendments go through to answer some of these. Updating regulations related to home occupations and home offices, and to reflect the Imagine Lexington priorities. We've updated the adaptive reuse provisions. So since 2019, we have had the following text amendments approved, with the exception of two that I do still plan on talking about today. One was approved by council for a one-year pilot program, and then one is still in process but is moving forward later this month. So I'm not going to talk about all of these. I'm going to talk about the six that are most relevant to the cases that you all will see. And so since it is just six specific text amendments, I think that if we go kind of through each one and then I'll let you ask questions before I progress on to the next one rather than waiting until the end. And then, of course, if you have questions at the end, we can go back. So the first one that I'll talk about is the sign ordinance update. Then we have accessory dwelling units, home occupations and home-based businesses related to firearms and home-based processing, expanded notification, home-based businesses related to beauty shops and barbershops, and then family child care homes. So first of all, the signed ordinance update. This is our first text amendment chronologically that we'll talk about. This was related to a Supreme Court case that said that zoning ordinances cannot determine content of signage. So a large task force was formed within urban county government to look at our entire sign ordinance and to essentially rewrite it. The way that that affects you all typically is sort of with the transfer of signage. I think you're all familiar with how historically we have looked at administrative appeals to allow for transfers between two signs. if someone was allowed to have two freestanding signs, one on each of two different street frontages, they could ask to combine those into one sign. So instead of having 250 square foot signs, they would have one 100 square foot sign. This ordinance did formalize that, so we're actually looking at those as variances now rather than administrative appeals because we have that language there that gives this board the specific power to do that. However, they did limit the circumstances of which transfers could occur. So they have to be between the same signage type and along the same frontage. So that pretty significantly limits the ability for this variance to be requested. You have seen a couple of them. One was the Amazon property recently, and we were looking at several different types of freestanding signs. So we were able to sort of combine those. Another one was the main event project at the corner of New Circle and Nicholasville Road in the South Point Shopping Center, South Park. That one, they were able to request to move one sign from one side of the building, but only because they already had enough square footage on the side where they were proposing to put the additional sign. So it's a little bit more nuanced and a little bit more complicated as to where the board can approve signage appeals now. Do you have any questions about that one? Move on then. So this one was a pretty substantial change as well. Accessory dwelling units, this one went through. This is one of the ones, Hal mentioned how the process can take varying amounts of time. This one did go through the planning commission, but then got put into committee at the council level and was in committee for quite some time. But it was ultimately approved with some changes. So an accessory dwelling unit, typically you all have seen some appeals in the past related to second kitchens. And whenever staff sees a second kitchen, we're looking at whether or not that second kitchen constitutes a second dwelling unit or whether it's needed for some other reason, like maybe in a larger home, there might be a movie theater in the basement and someone wants to have their wet bar down there and have a fridge and a sink. And that constitutes a kitchen or zoning ordinance. So we kind of have been making that call as to whether or not it determines a second dwelling unit for quite some time. And sometimes there are a little bit gray areas where the board has made that call. But this is formalizing that to allow for any single family structure to have an accessory dwelling unit. So I've got up on the screen now the definition that was approved. So this is in our zoning ordinance now in Article 1. And then talking a little bit about how these are regulated further, which is in Article 3 of the zoning ordinance, they are allowed at a rate of one per dwelling unit per lot. They are subject to a maximum size to lot coverage, height, and yard requirements. And there is an additional occupancy limitation. It can be only two adults and any related children can live in an ADU. So that's a little bit different than what we have for a standard dwelling unit. But these are typically smaller than a standard dwelling unit. Another caveat is that the owner of the property must live in one of the two units. So they can live in either the ADU or the principal structure. There is a requirement for a deed restriction. The zoning ordinance did allow for one additional parking space where that really comes into play is in the infill area where we do have a limitation on the number of parking spaces that are allowed. If you have an ADU, you can have one more. And then where the board will be saying this, you will not see applications for ADUs typically. However, if the individual wishes to use their ADU for a short-term rental, so for an Airbnb or VRBO, that sort of thing, that will be a conditional use. If they want to use their principal structure for an Airbnb and live in the ADU, that would not come to you. So it's only if the ADU is being used for the short-term rental. And you all do not see any other short-term rentals. It will just be for accessory dwelling units. When did that go into effect? That went into effect in 20, let's see, I guess this was finalized in 2021, the ADU ordinance. So at that time, So we as a board haven't seen any conditional use applications for short term rentals. That's correct. But we expect that we will, right? I would expect that one will come up at some point. We have started to have pre-application meetings for accessory dwelling units, and some of them are going through the permitting process now. I don't think any of them have finally made it all the way through the process yet. There are a couple that I think are getting kind of close, and none of those individuals have expressed an interest in using them as ADUs. So we expect that it will happen as short-term rentals, but we expect that it will probably happen at some point. I think that what we anticipate the board will be looking at with those will be whether there are other short-term rentals in the area to ensure that we don't get an oversaturation of those uses in one particular neighborhood. And just the general things that we look at for conditional uses, What will the impacts be on the neighborhood? Is the site appropriate for that? And that sort of thing. I think the biggest thing that will be saturation when it comes to short-term rentals. Yeah. And what do you mean a deed restriction is required? What does that mean? So this is a little bit unusual. This is not something that is applied anywhere else in our zoning ordinance. But this is a deed restriction between the city and that is, I guess, to the benefit of the city. So the deed restriction is essentially saying that as the owner of the property, you agree to all of these regulations that are specified in the ADU text. And this is something that will stick with the land so that whenever you go to sell your home that has an ADU, the next owner will see that deed restriction and will be able to realize that they are tied to these rules and regulations. And if they're not agreeable to them, they would have to remove the ADU. And Tom, I can talk a little bit about. Well, so unlike conditional uses that are controlled by the planning commission, these will be recorded restrictions. Right. Okay. I think the idea was to make sure people didn't think this was a duplex. That there were more restrictions than for example, some duplexes over in my neighborhood, property zoned R1, but that's a pre-existing non-conforming use. But you've got a lot more wide uses you can do with the duplex that used to be R2 that's now R1 versus an ADU. And so part of it was so that any buyer would be aware of that. Yeah. They're restricted. So, yeah, and the difference being that you're required to record that deed restriction with the clerk. Right. Okay. Did the square footage change? The square footage is 800. Max. Max. for a detached accessory dwelling unit or for an addition. An addition is 800, but if it's in an existing basement, that's the only caveat, right? If it's in an existing basement, if that existing basement is larger than 800 square feet, the ADU can take up the entire existing basement. But if it's any new structure or if it's a detached structure, the cap is that 800. Additionally, I'll mention that one of the things that Council added was a provision that the only time that you could apply for a detached ADU would be if you had an existing detached accessory structure that you were converting, or if you had already applied for a permit prior to the adoption of these regulations. So no difference in the square footage between a two-story and a one-level? Right. Then the area requirement is only for the accessory dwelling unit portion. So if it's, say it was a garage with an ADU above, the ADU is limited to 800 square feet, but not the entire structure. Does this have its own chapter? Or was it tucked in somewhere else? This is regulated in Article 3. Okay. And then listed as a use throughout the ordinance. the definition is an article one so next this one will be familiar to you all a little bit because we have deregulated home based businesses related to firearms so you all for a little while we're seeing some applications with some frequency for home based businesses related to we had one for appraising firearms we had one for someone who was putting together kits. Sorry. I just said I don't think we got a choice there. Right. So the way the ordinance was written previously specifically said that if firearms were involved they were a home-based business so they had to come to the board as a conditional use. There's also a Kentucky regulation at the state level that says that local municipalities cannot regulate firearms any differently than any other goods. So we were a little bit astray of that. So you all were kind of in a tough position of sort of having to approve those, but still having to see them and review them as conditional uses. So this text amendment removes that language, essentially. So if it is a home-based job, we'll say, that involves firearms, I'll use our appraisal person as an example. He was having folks drop off their firearms at his home. He would appraise them. He would examine them, make sure they were in working order and that sort of thing. And then they would come pick them up. That was it. They weren't going to be in his home for any amount of time or anything like that. So typically that would be something that would not be at the level of a conditional use. But it still had to come before you all. But in another case, we had an individual who was going to be selling firearms from his home. So that was a little bit different because the individuals were potentially coming and spending some time there to determine what they were going to purchase. So that would still be a conditional use. So this change is intended to treat firearms in the same way that we treat anything else. And additionally, the other part of this, this was sort of an interesting text amendment because we had guns and we had cookies. At the state level, there was a new initiative for home-based processing and home-based microprocessing that changed the requirements for when you had to have a commercial kitchen to make food in your home for sale. So there's a pretty extensive list of things that you can now make without having to have a commercial kitchen. Cookies, cakes, jams, pickles, that sort of thing that are sort of less likely to have any foodborne illness or contaminants and generally be safer for consumption are on that list. And our ordinance had a prohibition that said that you could not have any kind of home cooking or catering as a home-based business. We did leave catering in there because that's a little bit of a different animal. but home-based cooking, home cooking was removed in order to allow for these individuals who are, I'm sure you all have, you know, seen them and maybe had some of their products, who make cakes at home and decorate them or those cute little sugar cookies that have the little illustrations and that sort of thing. This was a way to legalize those. We had about 57 or 59 of these that were operating in Fayette County that were registered at the state level, but were operating out of compliance with our zoning ordinance. So this has brought those folks into compliance, whether they know it or not. and has opened that revenue stream up for home-based work. Any questions about this text amendment? Well, Autumn, why are we going to see any applications regarding firearms at all? I would say it's unlikely that you will see any applications for that. But one circumstance that I could guess would potentially come would be if someone was doing some sort of training for getting a concealed carry license and wanted to offer classes to do so at their home. And perhaps they wouldn't be able to fire the firearms, obviously, in their home, but perhaps they were going to have folks coming two or three at a time to study the laws and things like that that go along with securing that license. That would potentially be something related to firearms that you might see because of the component of bringing folks to their home for an extended period of time. So that text amendment also included a small change to the language that said that if individuals were coming only to pick up or drop off items, that did not trigger the conditional use aspect either. So again, those folks who are baking cookies and that sort of thing or appraising firearms, you can drop something off or you can pick it up. But if you're coming to stay for a while, like our yoga instructor that we had a couple of years ago or our counselor or our Pilates instructor, those folks will still be coming before you because their customers are going to be coming and spending some time on the property and the traffic is expected to be a little bit more of a factor for the neighborhood. Let's see. I'm not sure I'm not out of order, but I think it just is a little funky here. So this text amendment, this one has a little caveat because it was approved through the Planning Commission, but at the council level, they decided that there was a little bit of more questions that we needed to answer. So it has been approved for a one year pilot program. And this does impact what you all do, but not as directly but perhaps will have an impact. Currently for the cases that you see, for conditional uses, there's a 500 foot notification area. For variances, it's 200 feet and for administrative appeals, it's 500 feet. So that is what determines who all gets notification in the mail about the applications that are coming before you. So the ordinance says that those are owners. Everyone who owns property within that 500 or 200 feet has to be notified. And the applicant puts together envelopes as part of their application to mail out to all of those individuals. We give them a list, and then they prepare the mailing, and then we put it physically in the mail. So this text amendment was meant to really add to the public engagement and to provide equity for folks who rent and businesses that rent their spaces so that they also can know about what's going on. And this is not just for board applications. This is also for zone map amendments. So Hal will be doing this as well. So this is, since the council approved the pilot program, planning staff is taking this on for the first year. So we will be, in addition to the mailing that the applicant is providing, we will be providing envelopes addressed to all of the address points, essentially. So any property that falls within that 200 feet or 500 feet, if it's not owner-occupied, which we can tell from PVA data, it will get a second envelope that will go directly to that address rather than to the owner's mailing address. That way, the individual who lives there or the business that's renting that space from a landlord will know about the variance or the conditional use that's being requested. So council wanted staff to handle this for the first year because they were anticipating that there would be some financial impacts as well as timing impacts. So we're going to find out pretty quickly how much time and effort and money goes into this. The next month will be the first month that you all will see cases that have this expanded notice. So hopefully there will be some more community input. So you may get some more emails and this room may be a little bit more full, we hope. but that will be going forward for the next year and then we'll see where it goes from there it may continue to be something that staff does or it may get handed over to the applicant in a year i have one question there is there any based on how we all got together with zoom is there any blended possible way for to have here and zoom i think that that is being looked at at a little little bit higher level than just planning. I know that the state has approved or there's some legislation that's working through that will be applicable, I guess, later on this summer to allow for some virtual meetings, but that still, for what we do, doesn't allow us to do hybrid because at our level, it's kind of also a logistical challenge of how do we make that work? How do we get Zoom and in person to everyone to be able to be seen and be heard and everything to be sort of legible and audible and that's what the city is still working through overall. I think there's some you know investment that would have to be made to get that all set up but ideally I think we would all like to see some some more hybrid type options to allow people to to provide their input in real time whether they be here or not. It does seem as though at times when you get a a postponement and it's somewhat of a, you know, it's maybe a defensive play or an even offensive play. And then everyone that showed up, it's a little bit frustrating. And we obviously feel that, but we usually, you know, give them the postponement. But, you know, for the John Q public to come in and kind of witness that online might be a little easier. I know Zoom is relatively easy to do, or much easier, at least for those working that can't necessarily get away at 1.30 on Monday. But, you know, everyone. Yep. Okay, thank you. We've got another ZOTA related to home-based businesses. So while the other one took some work away from you, this one will maybe add some work. This removed the prohibition on barbershops and beauty parlors as home-based businesses. This one actually came to us through council, but it does tie in with some of those goals and objectives from the comp plan that we talked about before. So this allows someone to do hair in their home as a home-based business so they can come to you and ask for conditional use. And that does also affect some of those other uses that you all have seen because folks have come to us and said, I want to do esthetician services or I want to do eyelash extensions in my home. And staff has said, well, we really think that that's a beauty parlor, but we'll let you ask the board if you want to, to make that determination. And in both of those cases, you all have made the determination that those fell into this umbrella of barbershops and beauty parlors. So next month, you'll have an application that was filed for an esthetician services business in a home. So you'll get one of these right off the bat. This was just approved pretty recently. So barbershops and beauty parlors as a home-based business has been prohibited? It has been since the 1950s. Interesting. Our understanding is that it was more of a concern for traffic and for people being there at long periods of time or for appointments stacking and you having folks kind of clogging up the driveway or the parking waiting for their appointment and things like that. So, of course, you all know that for home-based businesses, you have the authority to place those conditions that say you can only have so many clients per day or you can't stack appointments that closely together and things like that. So for staff, this was a pretty easy change because it's so similar to some of the other things that are allowed. Right. So they'll come to you all for any of these because folks will be coming to receive services in someone's home. It has. Correct. Yes. Yep. So, yes. So yes, for any home-based business, employees are only allowed to be residents of the home. And that's in the regulations for all home-based businesses. There are some other restrictions that cannot occur in accessory structures. They can only be within the principal structure. They're limited to 300 square feet, things like that. So barbershops and beauty parlors being prohibited in the past meant that people would come to you for an application and you'd say, no, that's prohibited. So we'd never see them. Right, yeah, you would never see them because we would say, no, the board can't approve that. Yeah, okay, all right, good. Are there any others that we wouldn't see that we don't even know about? Because I had no idea. That's a good question. I think that the cakes and cookies was one that we got questions about fairly often. The cakes and cookies and home baking, that sort of thing. We would get questions about that from time to time and tell people that they couldn't do it because the zoning ordinance expressly prohibited home cooking as a home based business. Yeah. I can't think of any others off the top of my head. How do you have any? Not condition, yeah. Okay, yeah. Just another one of the unknown unknowns. Sure, yeah. We never saw it, so we didn't know. Thanks. All right. And then we have one more. So this one is in process with the Planning Commission, but I wanted to go ahead and throw it out here. It has been to committees and was recommended by the Zoning Committee for approval last week. So this is, again, something that goes back to some state regulations. At the state level, some changes to KRS recognize that adequate child care is an essential business. And that's something that's been talked about a lot in the past couple of years. So that amendment is requiring local governments to specifically name family child care homes in their zoning ordinance. And currently we have one definition for in-home child care, but it sort of covers two separate categories in our ordinance. So in-home child care, and you had a case like this last month, for 7 to 12 children is a conditional use. For up to 6 children, it's an accessory use. So you don't see those cases. They're allowed by right, like Hal said. if you've got a house you can have a family child care for up to six kids. Currently that includes for both of those yes sorry I think we may have made some changes as part of the CURT which was the conditional use review team back back in about 2017, we, I believe, moved childcare centers, so not in-home childcare, but childcare centers that are commercial businesses devoted to childcare, out of the conditional use category and into the principal use category in maybe a couple of zones. But I don't know of any recent changes to family childcare. So currently, for both of those, accessory up to six and for the conditional use of seven to twelve that includes any children that are related to the operator that live in the home so if you have four kids and you want to do an accessory child care you can only take in two kids that are not yours and for a total of six otherwise you get kicked into that conditional use category so that is a bit of a change with this text amendment because of the way that the state defines these two uses so we are essentially eliminating our current definition that we use based on number as either an accessory or conditional use and using specifically the two definitions that the state uses. So they have a type 2 child care center, which is a licensed child care center, and that is for 7 to 12 children, so that will be your conditional use. That's the one that you all will see. And that does still include the children related to the licensee. Family child care home is defined by the state as that 6 or fewer children, But they do include a provision at the state level that says a provider can care for four related children in addition to six unrelated children. So that gives them a maximum of 10 children in the home at one time. So those will still be an accessory structure. Who came up with those numbers? That is from the state. That's from the KRS. Okay. So this is for, and another difference between these two is that the type two child care center is licensed and the family child care home is certified. So they do both have training requirements associated with them, but they are a little bit different. The license center requires a degree related to child care or a larger number of years in the field. The family child care home is a certified program instead of licensed, so it's a little bit easier to get that certification and has a little bit less of a training requirement. So those are just some sort of nuances from the state requirements. But again, we are still looking at these as 7 to 12 being a conditional use that you all would see. And then family child care home for up to six unrelated children, which may include an additional four related children as an accessory use. So we're loosening it up a little bit. So you may not see as many conditional use requests because you can include four of your own kiddos. So the case we had last one, that fall within one of these? I believe that that one would still fall into the conditionally. She was asking for 12 children total, and she had four grandchildren, I believe, that she was going to be caring for. So that would still kick into the type 2 child care. But that is a good example of when this might, if she only wanted to care for six additional kids and her four grandchildren, then she would be in the accessory use category now. And that is all I have for you. All right. I think these are- Thank you. I think these are helpful. Yeah, this is very helpful. I like it. I'd like to see this as kind of a regular basis, not necessarily every month. But anytime something like this comes up or anytime we have concerns, we'd like to be able to bring it to the staff and maybe you all can present something to us that is more focused like this today. We appreciate that very much. Thank you so much. We're happy to do it. And I will plug one more time. Hal mentioned on the table, the comp plan process is starting up again. And one of those first steps is the on the table, which is happening this week. That's a great way to get your opinions about how Lexington should move forward out there. And it will influence the comp plan moving forward. So take a look at that. Good. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. And speaking of services, this counts for team participation. Just so the rest of the board knows, the mornings with planning, and they have some other programs that I took the list to, they had a couple of weeks ago, but I believe it counts also, so we can get our hours throughout the year when we go into the one-day session with Mr. Pike. Yeah. Those are the mornings of planning are on the first Wednesday of the month, every month. And I think that, sorry. I'm not sure what happened last time. I didn't quite get the back story. Technical difficulties or something. I think Justin from LBAR was one, but I think it was the same time there was going to be a roundtable with Commerce Lex. I think there may have been a couple of. So there may have been some conflicts. Yeah. I thought it was in the broadcasting oven. I tried to get in. Mr. Duncan, we may have answers. Yes. I know the real background of why it was canceled. One of the panelists was in the middle of moving and kind of lost contact with them. So we only had our staff member and then our LBAR representative. So we just decided to cancel. And when we do those six, we can say that you would have a staff level. For you. Right. So Sylvia in our office would be the person. She is the new Pam. He's the man. There is one more board item that we have, and that is there is or is going to be. Is it is or is going to be a vacancy? There is currently a vacancy on the Landscape Review Committee for horticulturalists slash nurserymen. Okay. And so, and is that, and that's an appointment that we make as a board. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. Yeah. I have somebody in mind. I have a landscape architect I'd like to propose, but I haven't talked to him yet. So, but if you all have recommendations also for somebody to sit on the, to fill a vacancy on the landscape review board, that would be, that would be appreciated. And we don't have to do that today, right? Right, not today, but preferably soon since it is currently vacant. Yes, all right, very good. Any other items, any other board items, any other staff items? Hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.