2022, I'd like to call this meeting to order. First on the agenda, we have the approval of minutes. This is the July 28th, 2022 minutes. The floor is open for a motion for the approval of minutes. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Move for approval of the minutes. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Mr. Pohl. please vote via Granicus when it comes available you want to raise your hands? okay all in favor please raise your hand okay motion passes unanimously thank you any postponements and withdrawals Okay, not seeing any. Thank you, thank you. Okay, so put us on agenda item one, development plans, PLN, MJDP, dash 22, dash 43. Staff? Good afternoon. This is Ethington and Ethington, Track 1, amended. There we go. Okay, sorry about that. This is Harrodsburg Road, Madrone, the Ethington and Ethington property where we have business up in the front. We have townhomes and then single-family dwelling units, detached single-family dwelling units to the rear. Currently, they have a Chick-fil-A here. They are coming in with a proposal to add a drive-through type of a restaurant. They still have their retail shops, and they also have, over on this end here, is a Kroger's gas pump. with that we had several conditions this plan was originally by the staff and the technical committee recommended for approval but when it went to the subdivision committee they recommended postponement because they wanted to see a traffic study done for the future drive through. The plan has 13 conditions. The first 10 conditions are our typical sign-offs. Then we just had a couple cleanup conditions, which was to mention all buildings, denote the drive-through, and order points for the menu board on the proposed new restaurant that they're looking at. And the last one was to discuss additional drive-through lanes for the undevelopable lots. They've done a traffic study, and our staff has worked and reviewed the traffic study and so if there's any other comments or questions I can have Mr. Martin answer them or our staff, Stuart. Any questions for staff? Miss Ms. Worth. Steven here. Steven. Are you satisfied with the quality of the traffic study? yes yeah because we had a lot of conversations in the subdivision committee no no no no no mr stewart kerns is the individual who reviews the staff traffic studies for the planning commission okay um yes uh long story short um i'm satisfied with the the quality of study. They looked at several intersections surrounding the property. Everything is operating at a, currently operating at a generally good level of service. The only intersection that's having any issues is just the approach to 68 on Madrone. Occasionally in the peaks, you can get a little bit jammed up there, especially the left turn, but that's not uncommon for left turns from side streets. In my memo, I just make the recommendation that if we're going to, in the future, if they want to add additional drive-throughs, that we probably need to go back and look at it again just to make sure that we're not oversaturating that approach. But generally, everything else is working well. Okay, I just want to put on the record that at the subdivision committee, one of the commission members who's not here today and who used to live in that part of the city He said that traffic was already a problem even before any increased development. So you've done the study, which is what we requested. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Yes, Mr. McClure. Well, this is maybe just a background question because I wasn't here. But this basically doesn't connect to any of those residential side streets except Madrone, is that correct? No. Is that, so that's, so I guess, so where are the connections to this? Connections to? I guess what are the entrances and exits to this? They have a proposed right in right out off of Harrodsburg Road. They have a connection coming in off of Madrone that will come back here to this alley way back here in the rear that will have all the townhomes fronting on it. They have another, if you go down Madrone a little further, then you have another street back here that has all the detached single-family dwelling units, And then it's supposed to propose to circle back around and connect up into the neighborhood over in this end, Syringa Drive. Sorry, thank you. Syringa Drive. But at this time, this area has not come in. We've just seen the single-family dwelling areas here, the townhomes, and the businesses on the front. Okay, thanks. Any further questions for staff? Thank you. Mr. Mark. I'm going to elaborate briefly on the traffic study and the reasons. And by the way, the traffic study is in your information. And to answer Mr. Mickler's question specifically, the diagrams show the intersections that were evaluated in the streets. So you can see, and here's one of the examples, this is what was studied. Now, the reason the subdivision committee, we believe, asked for this study was the concern for traffic, a concern that staff has had, staff has expressed this concern about development along this corridor now for several years. It is an ongoing concern relative to access management and to traffic. Now, the good news of this study is that it says that the worst-case scenario right now at build-out in 2024 is a level C, which is a perfectly acceptable level. And what a lot of people may not realize is we're talking about seconds of delays when we talk about levels of traffic. That being said, your staff has always been concerned about drive-thrus, and we know all drive-thrus are not equal. that it tends to be fast food, coffee shop, those, and they're equal the same time periods that create most of the problems. So with that in mind, you have a condition, 13, on the second page. It says discuss additional drive-thru lanes to the undeveloped lots. The applicant has agreed to place a development plan note stating there will be no more drive-thrus on this development. Now, in the future, if they want to come back to this body and ask that that note be removed, then again, you have the ability, and staff would recommend it to you, that you ask for another study. You want a drive-through, you justify that it will not have a negative impact on the traffic. And again, this is something I believe staff would recommend you keep in mind as we continue to review development along this corridor. And with that, I would be happy to answer your questions you may have. Tom, what's the enforcement mechanism for ensuring in the future that a requirement like that is followed? Oh, your authority, subdivision committee has authority to ask for it, And your staff is certainly going to look at every proposal and bring it to your attention as well. So a note regarding that restriction appears on the development plan? It will. It will. And again, we think this is fair. When they go to market that site and they say to a potential purchaser, leaser, here's a note, by the way. You need to know that there's a restriction on this property. So don't ask. Or you take it back to the Planning Commission and seek relief and then justify it. Thank you, Tom. Any more questions? I'm seeing any. All right. Applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Mark McIntosh with Division Engineering. I'm here on behalf of the owner and the applicant, and I prepared the traffic impact study as directed by the subdivision committee. And we were agreeable to changing note number 13 to providing a note on the development plan that limits the number of drive-throughs to two. The zoning development plan actually had three when it went through and was certified, so now this property only has two. But we are agreeable to the 13 conditions, and that's through your approval. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant from the commission? I see any. Thank you, sir. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there any citizens that would like to make any comments, either for or against this particular application? Please do so by stepping up to the podium. Okay, not seeing any, so we'll bring it back to the commission for a vote. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. DeMovlin. Thank you. I move for approval of PLN, MJ, DP 2243, Ethington, and Ethington with 13 items. I need to change 13 to add the note. And number 13 will be adding a note that there will be no additional drive-through in this development. Second. Thank you. No second. I'm still in further discussion today. motion all right next up Could you have revised staff recommendations on the Purple Machine and also updated staff findings as well? Could you hand it out to us? I'm sorry. We have the Purple revised staff recommendations here and also updated staff findings. Thank you very much, sir. We are now moving to PLN MAR22-11, the 8th and Schoolhouse LLC. I have some letters of support associated with this application, a total of 99 that I'll hand to you now. this zone change is for a parcel of property uh located at 6270 walnut eighth and walnut hill pike uh the applicant is seeking to rezone the subject property from an AR or agricultural rural zone and a single family residential R1D zone for a total of 5.69 net and 5.85 gross acres. The applicant is seeking to rezone this property from its current state, which is a agriculturally zoned commercial operation. This operation was a school for an extensive period of time. Following its closing and its sale, it has transitioned through the Board of Adjustment action. They have been able to operate an antiques sale operation and a small restaurant. These different activities have been approved through the Board of Adjustment as they were substantially similar to the original school use. The applicant is seeking to expand that use at this time. So they have reached out to staff. They sought staff's information about whether or not they should go through the BOA process to try to expand the use through that avenue. The BOA had given all that they could at the time. They had indicated that the applicant was now seeking to go beyond what was the traditional use of the property as a school and the activity that would have occurred there. And the applicant is coming in today to seek fuller use of that property to allow for a neighborhood business or those uses associated with a neighborhood business zone. Just to give you an idea on where we are located, we are located off of Athens Boonesboro Road. We have the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center here, and we are located within the Athens Rural Settlement. Just in terms of zoning, you can see there is a bit of R1D located there, that's single-family residential. This property and surrounding properties outside of the rural settlement area are zoned, agricultural rural, and there are six properties on one side of the road and another six on the other side of the road that are zoned B1 or a neighborhood business zone. Just jumping in a little closer, you get an idea of how this property is laid out. The portion of R1D zoning is located right here. It's just that small corner. The rest is currently zoned AR. Jumping to the aerial photography, you get an idea of how the land use has developed over time. This gives you also a great idea of that rural settlement, some of the boundaries that have developed historically. Our rural settlements are identified settlements that were established prior to the merger of the government in which we had smaller communities throughout the county that provided their own kind of insular kind of services. It created its own smaller community. The Rural Land Management Plan of 1999 and 2007 really pushed for keeping these things active and trying to preserve them for the future as well as for the individuals that live in this community. What we are looking at right now here is the old schoolhouse. The old schoolhouse was initially constructed in 1920s with this building located right here. At one point in time, that roof over the gymnasium was not there. It was an open-air gymnasium that was enclosed. And then later in time, they added in what is nicely called the spaceship. It is the add-on, 1960s add-on to the school that really functioned to allow for greater amounts of student activity to occur on site. Jumping into the site itself, this top photo is a great picture of just looking into the building itself. This is the original structure. You can see a little bit of the spaceship off to the side there. then down looking down Athens Walnut Hill Pike towards Athens Boonesboro Road out the roadway kind of leading more into the county and then the opposing property this opposing property was utilized for parking for both the school and the facilities associated with the current conditional use with the rezoning this property would not be able to be utilized as parking for supportive uses for what is happening across the street. Another photo of the entire property. Again, this gives you that picture of the ancillary building that was added on. Here we're looking into the side of the property. This is actually going to be an important conversation point as we move forward as the applicant is seeking a variance to their site layout, specifically the property perimeter screening requirements. I will be presenting that after Mr. Martin goes through the development plan. Here we again have the rear of the property with that mature tree growth and understory growth with the hedges that are in this location. One of the major aspects that allows for this property to go ahead and seek a zone change is the fact that it is located within that rural settlement area. As you can see in this top corner, the rural settlement area was expanded in 2007. This was specifically done to pull in properties that had historical context and important structures associated with this rural context. One of those properties, as you can see in the corner, is the schoolhouse. We look at this and a lot of times we have heard some conversation points about precedents being set with a rezoning of agricultural area. There is no precedents being set with a property being rezoned in a rural settlement area. This property is located in the rural settlement area. The comprehensive plan supports the rural land management plan, which calls for these areas to be supported with mixed uses or the increases of uses to make these areas more viable for the future, while also preserving the structures themselves. The applicant has indicated within their application that one of the major contributing factors for the rezoning is the preservation of the structure itself. They would like to keep it active and there. That is why they are seeking to expand the uses that are allowed in this structure and seek this zone change to a B1 zone. So just to highlight this, this property is right here, is in the rural settlement area, is appropriate for a zone change. This property across the street that was used for parking in the past, outside of the rural settlement area, not in the urban service area, and therefore not appropriate for a zone change. during the review of this application at the sub the zoning committee and in consistent conversation with the applicant and their representatives there was a need for staff and the applicant to get together and have a further discussion about the conditional zoning restrictions that would be applied on this property as you can see in your handout findings that are in front of you now there has been a shift in the amount and the type of conditional zoning restrictions that are applied or recommended to be applied on this site. These conditional zoning restrictions are specifically laid out to preserve the historic character and support the Athens rural settlement area. There is a shift in the way that we looked at the prohibiting of uses on this site. Specifically, there are just straight prohibited uses. There are 20 of those that are recommended by staff, and I know that 19 are supported by the applicant. And then there are five that get into an area of excess, getting beyond what might be carrying capacity for this building or the infrastructure on site. This is a rural cross-section for a road. There are no sidewalks to this facility, and there are some limiting factors overall per infrastructure. So staff does feel comfortable and does recommend the 20 prohibited uses and then the five restricted uses to a certain size. Staff is recommending approval of this zone change, specifically getting into how this is enhancing the area of the rural community, highlighting the fact that this is along a nearby a scenic byway, the fact that the applicant is seeking to provide some more resources to the Athens Rural Settlement, adding in that they are not seeking to change any of the structures, subdivide the property, or demolish the property. Mr. Martin will talk a little bit more about how we have dealt with that on the development plan as well. And then getting into how this will promote a context-sensitive agro-tourism amenity for this rural service area around the rural settlement. It is currently being utilized by individuals outside of the rural settlement. It is an amenity for those in the rural areas as well as those traveling through. The justification and the corollary development plan are in agreement with the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan as they are trying to add some amenities for those areas without expanding the existing building footprint or modifying the structure in a substantial way. Additionally, staff is recommending the inclusion of those 20 prohibited uses and the five limited uses as this would protect the character of the Athens area, a rural settlement. And then finally, all of this is incumbent upon the approval and certification of PLN MJDP 22-000044. If you have any questions for me regarding the zone change, I'd be happy to answer. Any questions? Mr. Nichols. All right, I do have a question about, so we're looking at the rural land management plan that was adopted most recently in 2017. Yes, sir. You also referred to the rural settlement area in 2007, that this parcel was added to that. So it was added in 2007, then re-approved in 2017 per the RLMP, is that correct? So there was a fair amount of research that was done about the rural settlements leading up to the 2007 comprehensive plan. During the adoption of that comprehensive plan, that's when some of those rural settlements expanded, added in properties in some cases and constricted in other cases. That rural land management references all those older documents, including the 1999 rural land management plan, and that has been carried forward in the comprehensive plan. So it is recommended for that area as outlined in red. Okay, so 2007, this was approved to be added to the rural settlement area, and then re-approved, re-approved, re-approved, re-approved, and here we are, correct? Once it was added in, it's there. Unless there was another plan to take it out, that's when it would be taken out. Okay, thank you. Yes, Ms. Worth. I'm not sure this is the time to ask this, but it did come up in the subdivision committee. Is there a PDR farm adjacent to this property? Yes, ma'am. Would you mind putting that back up? Thank you. see i threw him for a loop i got quiet for a little bit uh so just jumping over to here this property you can see located right here is the pdr property so it is located neighboring a pdr property again this gets into why the rural settlement wouldn't actually expand in that area and it would not be proper for any type of rezoning down the way, beyond the fact that it is outside the urban service area and outside the rural sediment. And it would be protected by any buffering requirements for PDR farms, right? There are buffering requirements, property perimeter screening requirements for all urbanized zoning against agricultural zoning. In this case, there is a 15-foot buffering requirement, as well as hedges and trees that are required between the property and the PDR property, as well as any agricultural property. And the applicant is seeking to add a note to their development plan associated with the variance on the other side and just trying to be good neighbors along the boundaries of the property, seeking to preserve the tree canopy in those locations. Thank you. Okay, all right. Thank you. Thank you. I'll hand it over to Mr. Martin. All right, you'll be back up for the variance? Yes, sir. All right. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, The plan that you see before you today is a preliminary development plan. They had originally proposed a final. They backed off, and so you have a preliminary development plan. You will see a final development plan on this property as well, as you all are aware. Now, as Hal explained, well, and by the way, you have revised conditions. They're on this lovely lavender sheet of paper. You know why they do that. So again, here is Athens Walnut Hill Pike right in this location. The existing school, the addition that Hal described from the 60s, the existing parking lot here, there's some existing parking in this location. This is one of those plans that's got very little physical changes added to it other than this additional parking that they had to add to this plan. You all may recall when this was initially filed, they had included the lot across the street, but that is an AR lot. And they couldn't utilize that parking that was there for the school. It is not a principal use. So they have a proposed parking lot. The school itself is 31,500 square feet, including the addition. They are required 112 parking spaces. They have met the criteria on this preliminary plan. You can see the tree protection area that has been proposed. They've added a note, it's a fairly standard note, that they're required to protect the trees, replace dead ones, and that sort of thing, which is standard, again. The area, the variances are the most concerned is through here near the R1D. They have actually quite a bit of space along the perimeter of the property. Now, again, this is a preliminary. At the time of the final, we can refine that protection. We can add to it. We can develop a note on the development plan if deemed necessary to increase the protection. To Ms. Worth's point about the PDR plan, there's no PDR zoning protection, no buffering required. Most of your, there's a ranking system for PDR farms, and most of them aren't close to urban development in that sense. So, again, but we can certainly, at the time of the final, if it's deemed necessary, we can explore that further. Along those same lines, part of the discussion was the historic nature of the school. And at the time of the final development plan would be a time that your staff would encourage a discussion about development plan notes to protect the historic integrity of that school. Because you may recall a discussion that there's not going to be an H-1 and that sort of thing and the difficulties associated with that. But the development plan is certainly an appropriate mechanism that would allow discussion of that topic and allow appropriate protection. with that. Again, with this revised plan, your staff is recommending approval. One last note we added was the evaluation and approval by the Board of Health of the septic system prior to an issuance of zoning compliance permit for any new use or expansion of an existing use. So again, that's just something we think is necessary because this area is dependent upon septic tanks. And speaking briefly to the possibility of any kind of split subdivision of the property, it would be difficult to meet the frontage requirements. Things can be done. I'm not going to say things are impossible, but that septic tank requirement would also be an added impediment to any kind of subdivision proposed in this area. Frankly, the Board of Health would probably just say no. They take a real hard stance towards that for commercial uses in this area. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have on the development plan. Any questions for staff? Not seeing any. Thank you, sir. Okay. Half? Ladies and gentlemen, this was the original variance request. The applicant supplied greater information and has removed the majority of their original request. We are really just focused on the property perimeter screening requirements between the R1D zone and the proposed B1 zone. Specifically, they are seeking to reduce the requirement from a double hedge to a single hedge between a neighborhood business zone and a single family residential zone. Mr. Martin pointed this out. This is the area that we are specifically concerned with. It is the area that is proposed to be the buffer between that neighborhood business and single family residential zone. The applicant provided their information as to why they were requesting this, part of that being that there is a significant tree line that kind of borders the entirety of the property as well as hedges that are established along the edge of this property. In review of what is established on the property, There is more tree canopy coverage and a less spacing that is typically required between a B1 and an R1D zone. Specifically, the distance requirement for trees is typically one per 40 feet on a linear distance. So in this case, the applicant has a denser tree canopy and a denser coverage overall. They do have a single hedge that runs along the perimeter of the property. These were really established during the construction of the school in the 1920s and have grown quite well over time. To do any type of variance request for the landscape buffering of a property or the landscaping general, an applicant must supply information that goes to the Landscape Review Committee. The applicant submitted all their information. Staff provided an overview of the request to the Landscape Review Committee at their August 23rd meeting. At that meeting, they discussed some of their concerns about this buffer, specifically looking at invasive species, making sure that the trees were going to be maintained, as well as making sure that if a tree does fall down or if there is some sort of landscaping that is missing, that it is replaced over time. Mr. Martin has noted that there would be a note on the plan for the tree preservation area. This was also requested by the Landscape Review Committee at their meeting. They do recommend approval of this variance request, and staff is also supportive of this variance request. Staff found that granting the request would not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor would it change the historical character of this property or those in the vicinity. Furthermore, staff found that the current buffer for trees exceeds the current regulations for the buffer between a B1 zone and an R1D zone. And staff found that this was not a willful violation of the zoning ordinance by the applicant. they are going through the proper channels to achieve this variance prior to modifying the zone at the site or doing any modification of the site, including the new potential uses. So staff does recommend approval subject to the following conditions, the first being that the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council recommend or approve the zone change to the neighborhood business zone. Next being that the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved and certified final development plan or as amended by this body. And that a note referenced the tree preservation area along the R1D zone, which shall be added onto the plan. And then that all necessary permits be obtained by the applicant from the requisite divisions, and that the action of the Planning Commission's approval of the variants be noted on the development plan. If you have any questions on this portion of their application, staff is happy to answer them. I guess that's my question, Day. If we wanted to request the same kind of protections for the border next to the PDR, is this the time to do it or is that the development plan discussion? The way that they have noted the plan, it covers all boundaries of the property, including the buffer between the B1 and the AR. The interesting thing about the buffer between a B1 and an AR zone would be they're meeting it and exceeding it with their tree canopy and tree spacing. So it is covered by the note that will be added to the development plan or is added to the development plan. And it will preserve that boundary. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, Helen, not seeing any other hands raised. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. My name is Nathan Billings. I'm with Billings Law Firm and it's my pleasure to represent Athens Property LLC and its members the Mathis family and Cox family. Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, staff, members of the public, thank you for being present today to consider our request for a zone change of this AR property to a B1. Before I go into my actual presentation, if I may ask for an indulgence from the chair, just ask members of the audience who are in support of this project to stand up. As you know, not to clap or cheer, but you know, zone changes are usually attended by those people in opposition. And my hope is by doing this, when you ask people to speak at the public, we can actually eliminate people who may otherwise want to speak and abbreviate the process. I like that idea. Okay. Thank you. If you're in favor of the 8th and zone change, please stand up and just raise your hand. All right. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Some of those may still have comments to say, Mr. Chairman, but as you know, with zone changes in Fayette County, typically it's the objectors who show up, not the supporters. And I'm pleased to echo Mr. Bailey's comments that not only do we have some supporters here, but we have nearly 100 letters of support, 99 in the record. We actually have three more letters we received this afternoon, but I couldn't get delivered down here to put into the record. So we have 99 letters of support for zone change. And I'd ask the commission, when is the last time that you remember getting that many letters in support, not in opposition, in support of a zone change? With that, we're in large agreement with everything the staff has said except for one comment, which I'll cover. As a result of that, I'm going to try to make my comments in the PowerPoint as abbreviated as possible. I need to at least introduce some things into the record because this still goes to the Urban County Council. But I want to make sure that I'm respectful of time because I think we've walked through the overwhelming concerns of this project. And therefore, I don't need to belabor points that have been discussed and hashed out. First, I'd like to introduce into the record a number of LFUCG historical documents that are in the PDFs we've given to staff for the record, such as the rural management plans that Mr. Nickel asked about. I also have several articles about the preservation of historic schools going on across the country, including two in Kentucky, one in Bentham, Kentucky, and one in Owensboro, Kentucky. and how the adaptive reuse and protection of historic structures like schools is critically important. So our vision for the property is very simple. It is a historical school of which multiple of the client group went to school there. Members of the public here went to school there going back into the mid-1900s. The goal of the project is to preserve the school building and to preserve the lot. It is not to demolish the school. It is not to change the school. It is not to change the lot. Everything we have done through this process has been intended to preserve the character of that building, to preserve the character of the lot. The challenge is we're in an AR zone, and how do you do that? The only way is to increase business uses. The problem in Fayette County is this. We don't really have a good zone that's fit for this property. So while there's no technical name for this, I call it the B1 light. Because if you looked at what staff recommended and you look at what we're agreeing to, you basically take the B1 use and you cut it in half. I don't know what else to call it, but a B1 light. The only exception to that is outdoor live music, which I'll talk about here in a minute. So the goal, again, is long-term preservation of the property and structure. And we're adding not only conditional uses to achieve that, but we're also adding development plan notes. A brief history of the school. Mr. Bailey talked about some of this for you all information. Notes, this 2007 date is when 8th and School closed and sold to the first property owners when it was added to the rural settlement area. Mr. Nickel, I believe, I don't know for sure, but one of the reasons it was added in 2007 is because the Lexington County Public Schools stopped using it as a public school, and therefore the next year it was added as part of the Athens Rural Settlement Area. My clients purchased the property in 2019. They sought additional use of the restaurant operational hours, which occurred. And critically, and I said this at the committee meeting, we didn't rush down here to file his own change on this property. The Athens property went to the city or came to the city to the Board of Adjustment staff last year to seek potential increased use under the existing Board of Adjustment variances and appeal approvals. At that time, the staff suggested and recommended that zone change would probably be the appropriate path because they didn't feel like the Board of Adjustment could give additional uses based on the historical use of the school by the school system. When I was retained earlier this year in April, we went through the same process again. I said, instead of starting with a zone change, let's go back and talk to staff again to make sure that we haven't rushed to do a zone change to a property, which could entice, could elicit response and objection from the community. So again, we came down, we met with staff, had a very good, vigorous discussion, and the conclusion was the Board of Adjustment really wasn't empowered to allow the additional uses of the property, to allow the business expansion that's needed to allow the economic engine for the school to exist. So instead, we decided to file the zone change. And in that process, we acknowledged, even before the pre-app meeting, even before the zone change, that we were going to have to significantly limit the uses on the property, which you've seen in the packet front view and on the screen we are doing. You've seen sites of the school. Now, this is the interesting thing. This is a 1950 photo we found of the school. arguably and there are some notes from the school system we found the school's property itself actually probably had a more intense use of the property when it was a full-blown school operations certainly than it is today and possibly as it is after the zone change and the reason is the property across the street which is agricultural it will remain agricultural zoned it is not part of the zone change process it is not part of the required parking for this property those buildings are now destroyed. They're now demolished and gone. You'll see the circle is about the only remnant there. But the property here is not a gateway to other development. It is going to stay, Mr. Bailey corrected me. I said, well, it's green space and it's going to stay green space. Mr. Bailey corrected me. He said, no, Mr. Billings, it is agriculturally zoned and it's going to stay agriculturally zoned. So green space may be the common term, but it is an AR zone property and it's going to stay an AR zone property because it is not inside the RSA, the rural settlement area. Historical use of the property. This is the staff report from 2008. Talked about how the daily activities generate the school. The gym was used after hours by local community people. Book fairs were often held. An outdoor festival was held at least once a year. It was attended by several hundred people. Saturday activity included sporting events, academic tournaments. Clearly, the property has been used for significant uses for a long period of time, other than just 830 to 3 school hours. We think that while it is a different type of use, the limited business uses that we're suggesting and asking for in this zone change are accommodating to the historical use of the property in a similar, although not exactly the same manner. This is information from the Board of Adjustment about the current use of the property. It has very limited hours on retail sales, has limited hours for the restaurant unless the antique sales are there. It talks about existing limits to the restaurant that can't be expanded. no alterations to the building, which we are still complying with. We have the legal standard for a zone map amendment is that the existing classification is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate. Another standard is that it's being recommended by the comprehensive plan, in agreement with the comprehensive plan. We think it's appropriate under either of those standards. As set forth in the staff report and in the proposed findings from staff, and what I'll pass out in a minute, We think that it's in compliance with the comprehensive plan, including theme C, goal one and two, theme D, goal three, themes D, goals three, objectives B and C, and theme E, goal two. I'm happy to go back and review those in detail if you'd like. Again, I'm trying to be more abbreviated for the presentation. It's also consistent with the role in management plans, goals and objectives, including goal B, C, and D. so we think that and staff is in agreement with us or we're in agreement with staff depending on how you look at it that this is in conformity with the comprehensive plan and the rules land management plan now with respect to this the b light i call it and that's just because we don't have a zone of this category there's i believe 46 or 47 principal uses in the b1 zone we're agreeing to limit 20 of them almost half the only exception that we would ask you all to consider is staff has recommended that we prohibit outdoor, live entertainment, or dancing. I'll come back to that in just a second. Staff has also recommended, and we agree, that five of the uses that are permitted in the B1 would be limited to the square footage. And that's because if you were to expand the full facility to this use, it probably might border on not being consistent with the historical character of Athens. And so, for example, athletic club facilities. We don't want a 31,000 square foot Gold's Gym. But would it be appropriate to have a 3,000 square foot orange theory? Possibly. So that's an example of why we have suggested, and we agree with staff, to limit these five uses to only 5,000 square feet on the property for each one of those. Coming back to the only change, the only disagreement we have with staff, and we understand why staff has recommended this, but on the outdoor live music, outdoor live entertainment or dancing is currently a conditional use in the B1 under subsection D. This means that the use is not a permissible use by right. It means that the applicant, the owner, would have to come to the Board of Adjustment and to seek the conditional use. Second, there's also a dimensional aspect. It cannot be within 100 feet of a residential zone. As you know, as Mr. Bailey talked about, there's an R1D property that borders part of the east of this property. Because of that, the applicant would also have to get a dimensional variance. So there's two things the Board of Adjustment would have to approve for there ever to be outdoor live music under the B1 zone. So as a suggestion, as a request, we would just ask the commission that in approving the restricted uses to keep Section 19, cocktail lounges and nightclubs as prohibited uses, but to strike out outdoor live entertainment and dancing. Now, with respect to this, we have talked to the two immediately adjacent property owners. And this is the PDR farm that you asked about, Ms. Worth. The same owner owns the PDR farm, owns the two farms to the south here. These are not PDR farms, but it's the same owner. He's here today to speak. We've asked him if he has objection to outdoor live music as a conditional use. He has told me no, but you all can ask him that. Ms. Eads lives in this property here. She has submitted a letter in support of this. We've talked to her directly. She has also said, I don't have a problem as a conditional use because it requires a public engagement process. That's not by right. And of course, we own the property across the street right now that remains AR. So you also know the applicants live down the road this way and live next door to the property here. So the clients, the applicants, are neighbors to this property. So we're not asking for outdoor live music by right, but we are asking that it be kept in as a conditional use permit that would still require public hearing in process and require two findings by the Board of Adjustment to ever allow it into the future. but at least the applicant can still seek to have that in the future. You've seen the development plan up here in the notes. Specifically, there are four notes that we have agreed to in this process. Mr. Penn asked us about subdividing the property at the subcommittee meeting. He's not here today. But we have agreed to add a note that says no subdivision of the lot without Planning Commission approval. We've agreed to add a note that says that this health department has to approve any septic of the property. We've agreed to a note that says the building footprint shall not be changed without Planning Commission approval. And the fourth one is, also to your question, Ms. Worth, we've agreed to a tree preservation note, not just along the R1D boundary here, but to preserve the existing tree line along the entire boundary of the property, both along the PDR AR property here, along the AR property here to the south and to the southeast, as well as to the east. so that, as Mr. Bailey informed you, not only do we meet the 15-feet buffer, we're actually keeping the existing tree line, which you'll see in the dark green, which exceeds, we think it actually almost doubles what is required under the existing landscaping buffer ordinance. With respect to the variance, we're in agreement with staff. We have modified the request to basically get rid of the double row of hedges along this area here, And that tree preservation note and maintenance note will be on the development plan to protect that area. With that, here's some historical photos. Although we are not inside the urban service boundary and therefore place builder does not apply, we have done significant public engagement. The owners of the property began engaging members of the public on this back when they purchased it about increased uses. That continued in multiple meetings, including people like Gloria Martin, the old Richmond Road neighborhood. In fact, the clients had two different meetings with Ms. Martin, and she provided comments and feedback that we've gone through and added the conditions and the uses to help address those concerns. We had a, this was discussed in April at the on the table discussions. This came up in several of the table discussion groups. We had a public meeting with the Athens community several weeks ago where we had about 30 people out there. And we also met last week with the old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association, of which we got over 20 letters of support from that neighborhood association. I understand from Mary Diane Hanna that old Richmond Road neighborhood, while they probably don't vote to support things, they are not opposing this project because the vast number of their, I should say vast number, a large number of their members have written letters to support the zone change because of the care we've taken to preserve the structure, preserve the lot, add prohibited uses, add a tree preservation, the things that you all have heard about today. there's some stakeholder concerns that we heard in the process i've sort of got our responses or myth busters i'm happy to address those if you all would like in in the question session otherwise i probably won't go through each one as we said are nearly 100 letters of support the two of jane some property owners mr harrell is here owns the big pdr farm over 200 acres this is mr sharp's property that he placed the pdr on and went through a sale process a couple years ago He also owns this property, and Ms. Eads owns this property. Both support the application, of course. The property owner should be most impacted by the zone change. At this point, we have not received a single letter in opposition to the zone change, which, as you all are aware, is, we think, fairly remarkable. We think it's because of our public engagement and the accommodations we've made to add notes to the development plan and restricted uses to address concerns in the process to meet the end goal, which is to protect and preserve 8th and Schoolhouse and the 8th and Schoolhouse property. I'm happy to answer any questions that the commission may have for me. I hate to do this. I feel like I'm functioning as the subdivision committee light today because we have three members who are not here. But when we had the meeting, Mr. Billings was asked, I think, in response to Mr. Penner, you volunteered it, that the owners had no plan to sell the property. And so Mr. Penn, I think, indicated he would like to hear from the owners that they have no plans to flip the property should they receive the zone change. Sure, I would be glad to have him step up. I would say first, as a legal matter, it is not an element of a zone change process regarding the intent to sell the property at all within the comprehensive plan or CARES 100. However, I'm glad to have, and I don't know which one of you all wants to stand up. Dave, do you want to stand up? If you all have any intent to sell the property, if somebody was to step here. We know it's not a legal requirement. But I want to satisfy your concern. If we just need one of you to stand up here, you'll need to say your name and your address for the record. We don't need to hear that. We don't need to hear that. You don't want to do that? No. Okay. That's not our position. I'm happy to have them stand up in a minute and speak if they need to. We were told it during the subdivision committee. And that is still true. They don't have that intent. I'm happy to address that however you'd like me to. I don't want to open up something. We don't need to start. Okay. Thank you. I have one question about this DP. We've got clouded trees throughout the boundary of the property. Are those clouded trees going to be the tree protection area? We say the clouded trees. As you look at, okay, so clouded would be the darker color green. That's correct. So it's clouded in a black and white DP. That's correct. So the DP itself, you'll actually see there's the same line. It's just in black and white or grayscale instead of color. It's not noted as the TPA. So you're going to add that notation on something? That's correct. The final development plan will have a TPA. And we've agreed with all of the staff recommendation on the revised notes for the development plan. Okay. Thank you. I have a question, Mr. Chair. On the live entertainment or the music, are there any restrictions on amplification or anything of that nature? I'm not really sure. It's a good question, Mr. DeMoviland. The answer is during the application process to the Board of Adjustment, it is empowered to put such restrictions on place like music has to stop at 6 p.m. during weekdays or 9 o'clock on the weekends or at dusk, so that the Board of Adjustment can add restrictions to any outdoor live music during that public engagement process that is adequately used to protect the public and to protect the sound from the neighboring property owners. So it might be hours, it may be you can't do certain days, it could be dusk. They could say you shall project speakers to the south instead of to the north. again that's why the conditional use process is used to to create or craft the conditional use and the restrictions and window that under which that conditional use can be used for today's purpose all we're asking is just that you would leave as a conditional use not that you would even say today that whether it could have outdoor live music all you're just saying is it could but you have to go through the board of adjustment process and whatever they require in order to have that. Well this may be more a question for staff but since you note that your one requested change is the outdoor live entertainment and dancing and as you note it is a conditional use and I'm not entirely sure why on the property you couldn't find a spot that was a hundred feet from a residential area necessarily. So the language actually says not just the use is located, it means the lot itself. It's not just the band is 100 feet from it. It means the lot. Okay, I get it. So our whole lot is within that 100 feet. Because it boundaries, I understand. So you could situate it 100 feet, but you just can't change your property boundaries. So under the conditional use, whether the band would be 50 feet from the neighboring property or 900 feet, it doesn't matter under the way this reads. It says you can't use it on a lot within 100 feet of a residential zone without going through the Board of Adjustment process as a dimensional variance. Mr. Billings, you were giving incorrect information by the zoning planner. If Ms. Wade, you want to answer that question? I just want to make sure that we understand for the Board of Adjustment, when the staff evaluates the use proposed, the use has to be 100 feet from the zone line. So it could be if your property were 100 or 200 feet deep, it would be possible on the lot to meet the requirement. So that could. Your entire lot doesn't have to be. You don't necessarily need a variance if you have a large enough lot. Correct. But we still have to go through the conditional use process with the Board of Adjustments. Yes, the ordinance was amended a while back for indoor live entertainment. There's some accessory if it's not near residential and conditional if it is. But for any outdoor live entertainment, they always need to go to the Board. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Okay, not seeing any more questions Mr. Billings. Thank you. May I pass out proposed motions to the commission? Yes. Approach. Yes, ma'am, I'm coming. I'm getting there. So while we're waiting, I knew we had the audience that were here in support that stood up. Do we also have anyone that has any objections to this application? Sorry. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay. Are we in fifth grade? No. I didn't think so. I thought we were in a hearing. A court, quasi-court hearing. Okay. My name is Dottie Bean. and I live at 1364 Deer Lake Circle near Richmond Road and alumni. I'm here to comment not to support or oppose the zoning map amendment or the development plan, this one in particular. We want to instead raise community awareness that the decision today is not as simple as it may seem. We attended a meeting yesterday of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, where a simple decision was made to add a traffic control feature at Jacobson Park, which of course would impact traffic on Richmond Road and Athens Road, but learned that it was but the first step toward possibly the most major decision this community has made in a while, and very few people know enough about it to have formed an opinion. Since this is on Athens Road or Richmond Road as we call it, and this property is apparently involved in several ways, we want the community to understand the long range implications could well include turning that rural road into a major highway with a bridge over the Kentucky River to Jessamine County and Nicholasville. That would be a huge undertaking or it would have already been accomplished. The expense would be enormous and the impact on the fragile area of both of those counties immeasurable. We're not ready to support or oppose the decision yesterday, but this decision, but the decision yesterday would put that project on a long-range transportation plan and it can't be removed without a fight. Does this sound familiar? Look at Newtown Pike Extended, all the development at Coldstream Farm, Then look at Clay's Mill Road, where the fight took years, but the character of that road has been forever altered. Taxpayers are tired of being kept in the dark about long range implications of these decisions. And that concludes my comments. Thank you, Ms. Dottie. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this particular application? Yes, sir. I would like to speak in support. You can step up, Napoleon. My name is George Whitehead Menkel III. I live at 6377 Athens Boonesboro Road, which is the main intersection of this little area. We are in a historic district. I own one of five buildings. I maintain my property quite well. Not everyone in the historic district does. That's separate from these fine people. This is a wonderful thing that they're doing. They are not just property owners. They didn't just go to school there. They lived in other places in this town, and they made the decision to move back to Athens. Why? Because they love it. They want to take care of it. They're bending over backwards to make people happy. I don't mean any disrespect to you all, but within the community, people that aren't even close to living out there. We trade vegetables. We trade flowers. We trade cats and dogs. There's a lot of love in this community, okay? And I think it's amazing the amount of support that is already in your all's presence. And I'm just going to ask you to just do what they're asking, because they deserve it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Can I not see any? Yes, sir. My name is Dan Graves. Some of you all know me behind that counter there. I live at 3500 North Cleveland Road. This Athens is the opposite end of Cleveland Road. I'm on the side closest to I-64. Born and raised a farmer out in that area. My brothers and sisters and I still farm 1,200, 1,500 acres. Not so much at that community, but Fayette-Clark and Berman counties. I would, being born and raised in this community, fifth generation, I would just implore you all to not look at this as a slippery slope. I would implore you to look at this as an opportunity, as a group that's giving LFUCG, Fayette County, and surrounding areas a new vision, a new potential. We all know this is really not AR. There hadn't been any corn or beans or cattle or horses put on that property since that school was built. I think it's a misnomer that is being required to go from AR to business. It's been, it hadn't been AR. It's been a schoolhouse. And they're not looking at doing much more than what it has already been, even taking the septic tanks into account. There were, I don't know how many children in that school and teachers for years working off the septic system. They're probably not even ever going to have that many people there. Lastly, I would say I can't think of a better example, not just for Lexington, the state of Kentucky, but for the United States of an adaptive reuse of an old schoolhouse. It has great potential to set a standard, given the people that I know that are going to take it on and sink their own personal money into it, which they already have, to keep it from falling in and becoming a pit. I can't think of better people to take it on that want to make it into something that we would all be proud of, being Lexingtonians. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And that's anyone else? Good afternoon. My name is Mike Harrell. As a farmer who typically works alone outdoors for much of the day, I generally don't seek out public speaking opportunities. I do, however, feel strongly about this matter and want to show my support in person. My wife, Lindsay, and I own three properties adjacent to the school building that essentially wrap around the, let's see, the west, south, and east side of the building. So we're probably going to be impacted by this as much as anyone. I grew up in Lexington and have been a member and supporter of the Athens community for the past 16 years. During that time, I've gotten to know many people in the area, including the school property's current owners. I have done business with them, employed their children on my farm, and gotten to know them on a personal level over the past decade. They have roots in Athens, currently reside there, and are incredibly well respected not only locally but throughout greater Lexington. We couldn't ask for better neighbors. We appreciate the efforts they have taken to preserve a historically significant building, bring community and life back to it, and pursue a zone change that will bring healthy convergence to the very center of Athens. We wholeheartedly support the zone change from AR to B1 based on the numerous factors we've heard here today. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, all right. We'll bring it back to the commission. Any further questions, comments? If there aren't any, Mr. Mickler? I have one comment. One of the neighbors who stood up there, Mike, has provided live outdoor entertainment with Tatiana, with their group One Lane Bridge. And as neighbors at Kentucky Native, my business, it's always been a pleasure having them play music there. And as their neighbors to this project, I certainly think that we should give them the opportunity to play on the neighboring development to them. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you sir. Any other questions, comments from the commission? If none, the floor will be open and we will have three motions. Mr. Mickler? You might have to help me through this here, cuz. So, all right. We got the zone change first. I got too far ahead. Okay. So I'd like to make a motion to approve the zone change for PLN MAR 22-11 from Agricultural AR and Single Family Residential R1D to B1 With the four staff recommendations deleting the restriction of outdoor live entertainment and or dancing, is that a reasonable? That's right, number 19. Okay. Yes. Okay. So we have a second. Mr. Nickel, did you second it, Mr. Nickel? I thought I saw it. Okay, great. Any further discussion to that motion? All right. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. All right. You want to take the development plan next, then the variance? Okay. Okay. So, the, where is the? It's this, we're going to use it. Want to use this one, please? Okay. But now, the applicant. The, so let's, I'd make a motion to approve PLN MJDP 22-44. With the seven conditions removing the place builder, discussed place builder criteria. Okay. We have a motion, do we have a second to that motion? Second by Mr. DeMovulin. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. And all the variance. And then motion to approve the variance with the stat How do you have the text for that revised variance? Yes, sir. You can reference the updated staff findings from the variance request. Yeah, that's it. Okay. And it would be reducing the property perimeter screening requirements from two hedges to one for an R1D and a B1 zone. The staff findings that I have here, I see the, I'm not. Okay. There you go. All right, there we are. So I have motion to approve the variance to reduce the hedge requirement from two hedges to one hedge along the residential R1D zone. Subject to the four conditions from staff. It's got short. Thank you, Mr. Michler. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, there we go everybody. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Billings, bring 100 votes next time. Stop that 99. I mean. I've done that before, they don't fit in the room. Who stops at 99? Okay, next up will be Zoda, PLN Zoda, 22, that's six. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We are moving on to our next case. Just as a heads up, with all zoning ordinance text amendment applications, the Planning Commission has a six-month review time period. This application is at the end of their six-month review period. So we will need to make some sort of finding today to recommend this text to the overall Urban County Council. So this is PLN ZODA 22-00006, an amendment to Article 22, Appendix C, to create a planned unit development. Excuse me. Planned unit development three or a PUD three zone. So with the establishment of a planned unit development, we have certain regulations that are associated with the zoning ordinance in Article 22, in which there are different aspects of their development or of the intended zone that are required to meet. In this case, this slide lays out the different things that an applicant must submit in association with an application to create a planned unit development. Staff will be going through each of these different portions of their application so that you can have a better idea of how this goes or has been presented by the applicant prior to staff presenting our findings. You should also have the paper copy of both the updated staff report or the supplemental staff report with the proposed language by the applicant in front of you today. There is also packets in the rear of the room if anyone is looking for them. So just jumping into the intent of this planned unit development, the applicant is seeking to both support the 2018 comprehensive plan while also innovating some redevelopment and reuse of property within the area. They are specifically looking at leave where you work opportunities that promote entertainment or a blend of entertainment, industrial, residential type uses. This type of shift is something that has been going on in our community for some time now, the adaptive reuse project being one of the most apparent. This would be a different process from an adaptive reuse because it would require an applicant to go through a zone change and a final development plan. However, whereas the adaptive reuse also has to have older buildings, this application and any use of this zone would not require those older buildings to be adaptive reuse. They're really looking at a redevelopment of the site. The applicant is proposing a heavy list of potential uses. While there are 22 on the screen, the first use of principal permitted uses in the light industrial zone includes extra uses. So it is greater than 22 uses, approximately closer to 32 uses within this zone. However, it does cover those kind of mixed type developments that you would typically see with an adaptive reuse project, blending those light industrial uses, residential characteristics, and then neighborhood and supporting uses. The applicant is also recommending accessory uses and conditional uses as well as prohibited uses. In this case, the accessory really focusing in on parking and amenities and then getting into drive-through facilities, and then the conditional being those where you typically see a conditional use in a B1 zone like tattoo parlors. And in this case, they've added in the establishments and lots for display rental sale and repair of farm equipment or other types of vehicles. That's traditionally a principal primary use in our B3 zone. The applicant has proposed prohibiting mobile homes in this location. Currently, mobile homes are only allowed in two separate occasions. The first one being the M1P zone or our mobile home park zone. The other one being as an accessory use within the AR zone. Commercial woodlots and then crematoriums and then we're getting into the establishments for the display or sale of trailers and mobile homes. The applicant has provided site criteria. Initially the applicant was seeking to really focus in on their proposed development, which is off of Lee's Town Road that stretches between Lee's Town all the way up until New Circle Road. However, as they evolved with their application and worked with staff and the neighborhood, they also sought to look at this as a potential use that could be used throughout all of the urban service area. So when looking at planned unit developments, It can be specifically located, much like our plan unit development two with the Ligert area, in which it was associated with the no-lie CDC and a specific area that they were requesting for the plan unit development. The plan unit development one was different in that case, in which it could be transferable. It was not bound to specific locations and could be moved to other areas throughout the city. It has not developed in other areas of the city and was not actually developed to its fullest form. It just developed primarily as a residential area. That was the PUD1. So the applicant is suggesting that it has to be within the urban service area. This is a requirement of a more urbanized zone. The parcel that would be directly adjacent to a major arterial or corridor roadways. the corridor is specifically connected to the comprehensive plan. That is where those corridors are actually mapped and identified. The parcel would contain at least 10 acres, so they are looking at a larger site or a master planned site, and then the parcel is currently zoned either business or industrial uses or zones. The other locations, the applicant is making a way for the ability for the property to be expanded at some point in time or expanded through association with an established PUD3 zone. This is what we might connect with our B6P or our commercial center zones in which the property being added on needs to be adjacent, needs to be connected to. So the applicant within their review of the site criteria have really made a lot of connections to the current regulations in the zoning ordinance to provide consistency between what they are proposing and what can be developed over time. They are required to make connections to the current comprehensive plan to review what they are intending to develop and review the comprehensive plan and see how they interact. Specifically, the applicant has called out this as being a potential infill and redevelopment adaptive reuse and mixed development type development. This is outlined in theme A, goal two, objective A, and is a major component of some of the changes that staff has made within our zoning ordinance over the past four years. The applicant is also seeking to enable the establishment or create new neighborhoods that flourish through different types of regulation changes, as well as expanding opportunities for preservation, amenities, new elements to a neighborhood that could develop through the inclusion of a more live, work, and play type environment. The applicant is seeking to strengthen the efforts between different job opportunities and prosperity for all. They see this as an opportunity to blend those light industrial job producing type uses and integrate it with some of the residential characteristics, something that you might connect with an ED zone or the adaptive reuse. They are seeking to promote tourism, some of the uses that they have included within this, including the light industrial zones like a distillery or like some event spaces. They are trying to include that in their potential site and then adding potential entertainment opportunities that are within a walkable distance to their proposed residential or neighboring communities. With all PUDs, they do need to go through a site design review. They have provided some fairly flexible just site criteria or site design features within their table. These are congruent and exceed the current I-1 standards. In terms of the height, their property and many industrial properties are allowed to build up to 75 feet. They are seeking to bring that down to 60. There are some buffering requirements between established neighborhoods that they are requesting with this proposed text amendment. And then differing situations between how it would situate or set back from the roadways and other constructed space. They are proposing a 10% open space and a 15% canopy coverage. In regards to their design, they are focused on having some complementary materials to the established neighborhoods or the established construction nearby, and then looking at how it would be oriented towards internal roadways. When talking about a 10-acre large site, there is an idea that you would have roadways that are connecting the different portions of your development. And we want to make sure that those types of developments are facing, or the structures in those developments are facing roadways and interacting with them. This will also be bolstered by some of the professional requirements that are associated with the establishment of a PUD and the review of a development plan. So that gets into their review procedures. It would include one architect that is registered in the state of Kentucky and then one of the following three professionals. So it has to require a larger team than what would normally be associated with a zone change or some sort of development plan. Now, I do put the plan and permit process as the same as the other PUDs here. It is the exact same that has been required elsewhere, and it is a fair amount of language. If you would like to go through that language, I would request that you look at the paper in front of you, and we can talk about those in a question period. So overall, staff looked at this application as being a major collaboration between the applicant, the neighborhood that is adjacent to their planned site, as well as with staff to create a zone that would be transferable across the urban service area and that would support many of the recommendations made by the comprehensive plan. Staff sees that the proposed PUD 3 would be able to create a unique neighborhood or create a unique zoning tool that could produce a unique development, which is what is called for within Article 22 of the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the proposed text is focused on industrial redevelopment, much like the adaptive reuse project. They are focused in on properties that the industrial landscape is no longer an appropriate use at that location. However, it does provide some more of the flexibility within the I-1 zones or the light industrial zones that are job producing. So matching, again, a more contextually holistic perspective of a live-work-play environment. The proposed text and the plan that they are seeking to move forward with would allow for a greater amount of design review that would incorporate a fair amount of extra professionals, as well as a fair amount of planning commission and planning staff review and input. Finally, the proposed PUD is in agreement with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan as it expands some of the neighborhood characteristics and preservation activities. It will allow for greater flexibility to be utilized within the zoning ordinance and by development. And then the zone will encourage development that promotes and enhances tourism and tries to get a little bit more going with job production and traction to young and culturally diverse employees as Lexington grows. So that is the staff's review of the PUD3. We are recommending approval today. If you have any questions, staff would be here to answer. Any questions for staff? I have one question. Yes, sir. An original request would have to be a minimum of 10 acres, and then any adjoining property in the future would have no lot size requirement? It would not have a lot size requirement. It could add on to it, but it does have the requirement that it be business or industrial in nature. It could not be a residential site that is added into it. That would be a concern for staff and for the public in that we would see just the growth of something that is primarily a blend of industrial, entertainment, and residential into what could be a single-family residential area or into something that is providing housing for individuals and replacing it with entertainment opportunities. So there is that restriction within their expansion criteria. I guess my only other question is with residential being one of the permitted uses and looking at number six, which is outdoor amusement, entertainment, rodeos. So they do have, I think I've ruined it. Don't say. So the applicant did include language in their principal uses of dwelling units of any kind except for prohibited, and that gets into the mobile homes. So an applicant with a development like this could blend a single-family, detached, attached, multi-family type development within their overall PUD. And that is an element that is called for within the comprehensive plan. And one thing that the Urban County Planning Commission, the Urban County Council, has been doing over the past years to incorporate a greater amount of residential activity into some of these spaces so that they're utilized 24 hours a day. What has happened historically with some professional office parks is individuals leave at 5, and they're basically empty. some of the changes within the B6P, the P2 zone, that incorporated a little bit more residential character so that we have that greater amount of activity while also allowing for a fair amount of walkability within some of these new developments. I guess my one question, I'm sure you've reviewed it, but if there is residential there, and down on 22 the veterinary can have animals inside the building with soundproofing, And yet, number six, we're allowing rodeos and horse shows outdoors. Does that element of animals conflict each other? We looked at that, and I know that Mr. Martin has often called me a killjoy at times for prohibiting outdoor live entertainment or something they're like. However, in this case, the applicant said that they were looking for something that had a little bit more flexibility to provide some outdoor entertainment. In this case, it would be on a temporary basis. They would have to go and get permits from the city to kind of operate those types of things. When looking at 22, the veterinarians, animal hospitals, clinics, that is really connected to the current zoning ordinance with the B1 zone, in which we want everything to be internal. We're not having kennels, outdoor kind of dog runs or anything like that associated with the vet clinics. Just a couple clarifications. What is, what's the tree canopy goals for Lexington in terms of percentage of tree canopy we'd like to see in our city? For the overall urbanized area, the goal is 30%. And why are we recommending this have 15? So within our different zones, we have variable levels of tree canopy requirements. This is actually an uptick of the tree requirement for the I-1 zone. The I-1 zone only requires 10%. So staff was reviewing this in consistency with those elements of it and saw that it was an uptick. Now, you will also hear a bit more on some of the potential changes to the zoning ordinance to increase tree canopy coverage in areas that are associated with parking. So we see some of those elements being coupled together as time goes on. So this would be 15% for the overall site and compared to the 10% that is required with an I-1. The use list looks pretty different from an I-1, though. It does. And that is an element that the Planning Commission can change. While this is the applicant's application, their documentation, this is a recommendation that the planning commission can move forward with any modifications that they see appropriate. Certainly from the presentations we've received in committee, the concept is pretty far from an industrial end result concept. So it seems like sticking with something more consistent with our overall urban goals of having tree canopy would make sense to me, but thanks. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Nickel. Oh, my comment was if this is approved, it can be used throughout the urban service area. Is that correct? That is correct, sir. And I know we're looking at different areas in our community to improve. This could be a way to get housing in a live-work industrial area. So it's intriguing. As I look through here, the principal permitted uses, we have I-1, and then it goes live-work space, dwelling units. From that, it looks like the intent is to allow dwelling units in what's quasi-industrial space. Is that a good characterization of what I'm reading? It is very similar to the adaptive reuse projects. The adaptive reuse projects allows for the change of an industrial space when there are buildings that are being preserved. In this case, there are no buildings being preserved, but it is a redevelopment of industrial space. So when we look at the light industrial zone, all too often we have been seeing a more cleaner industrial development for the past 10 to 15 years. So what they are proposing is closer to a blend of the ED zone, which is an outgrowth of the 1996 expansion area master plan, and then some of the changes that we have made relatively recently with the adaptive reuse. So it is adding an element of residential into a component that is historically industrial. Okay. Mr. Nichol, does that answer your question? Yes, thank you. All right. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Hal. Hold up. Let me call you then. Okay. You're good. Okay. All right. Thank you, Hal. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, staff. My name is Nathan Billings. I'm an attorney at Billings Law Firm, 145 Constitution Street here in Lexington. It's my pleasure to represent Turner Property 4 here today, and Representative Turner Property 4, Melissa Horn, is here with us this afternoon. Before I begin my PowerPoint, let me first try to address the last two questions that Mr. Mickler and Mr. Nickel asked, which are related, although they were different substantive questions. And that is, doesn't it seem like we're mixing sort of a residential and a business and industrial use, and isn't that potentially incompatible for either uses or other standards like tree canopies? And I think the answer is yes, we're actually trying to mix those uses together. And the reason is this. We have a property specific in this case that drove this Zota request but is not being rezoned today. And we have other properties across Fayette County that in our discussion with staff this could be applicable to. That looks at how to craft a new PUD that can be used across Fayette County with adequate protections that through the development plan process. and the zone change process, you, the planning commission, will be authorized to tell people you can't combine this use and this use and a building. So you couldn't have a rodeo on the first floor and residences on the second. As silly as that might sound, the goal of this is to create a ZODA that then during the zone change process gives you all control, gives you all influence. This is just to create the ordinance by which people could come to you all. This is also why we've required enhanced standards for the development plan process that is different than the existing zones in Fayette County, because there could conceivably be zones that a person could perceive as being incompatible. And again, in the development plan process with the zone change, you all could say, well, we want internal buffers. although you have a 10-acre or 15-acre site, we want you to create a buffer between a building that has a retail or restaurant use on the first floor and a light industrial use like a distillery, and we want you to at least have 500-foot separation or other types of internal screenings or bufferings that would allow this to be done. One of the important things to remember for this ZODA is that this is not going to be a small project. This is not going to be a single building ZODA. If you have a project, which we expect we would have one if this passes, you're going to have a zone change in development plan that's going to be complex, going to be multifaceted, and have a lot of different aspects with it. And in fact, that's why we're here before you today, not after a month of discussion with staff, not after two months of discussion with staff, not after three months of discussion with staff, but six months of discussion with staff as well as the neighborhood in the process. So why the PUD? We own, the applicant owns, an I-1 property inside the urban service boundary that is historically tobacco warehouses and storage, and it is severely underutilized. We have a concept to potentially revitalize the property. We have used the existing tobacco warehouses and have refurbished and reused those. But the existing zoning of the property would essentially only allow the continued light industrial uses, which frankly we believe in Fayette County is an underuse of the property should we do that. We just basically think that the existing I-1 regulations are inappropriate and are prohibitive, especially because this property is immediately adjacent to a well-established and very important Meadowthorpe neighborhood. And if this were to be only I-1 use going forward, we actually think it would create more friction, more contention with the neighborhood than what we're proposing here. Because, again, anything we could do right now in an I-1, we could do without a zone change. It would just require a development plan. But going forward under this ZODA, should we seek a zone change, we still have to come back to you all for approval of not just the development plan, but of the zone change and other potentially conditional zoning restrictions or other development plan notes that would protect the neighborhood. And basically the existing zonings in Fay County don't allow for the industrial redevelopment, not just reuse, which is to use existing structures in a new way. But it's actually redevelop the property. Basically, 75% of this property is concrete pads next to a railroad that is used for equipment storage prior to my client's purchase of the property about two years ago. We had extensive discussions with staff in this process as to the routes to go down. And the draft ordinance you see before you today has not been done overnight. It has not been done with the flip of a wrist to draft things. It has been done with substantial rewrites. I think in my computer system, we have version 20 as of two days ago. We got a final version back from staff with a couple more changes, so that's at least version 21, which shows that we have taken red pen to this numerous times over the last six months. The result of this is what we call is the industrial, not reuse, which you already have. It's not an adaptive reuse. It's really intended to be an industrial redevelopment. so this is the property in 19 i think it was 59 or 56 up here's the date this is the railroad track right here and you see it blown up this was these are the existing buildings that still stand today of course here's the meadowthorpe neighborhood here's news circle here's leased town or main street i'm not sure exactly technically where it changes and of course there's the railroad track right there you'll see back in the 50s actually both sides of railroad tracks had significant number of tobacco warehouses that were along the property those haven't been used in a long while for tobacco storage this is 2012 picture of the property from the overpass before these buildings were demoed you can see them start to be demoed in this picture that's what it was before my client bought the property in 2020 those warehouses had been removed and basically concrete pads inside not just inside the urban service boundary but inside new circle road it's just not being well utilized and we have a vision for something different so under krs 100 azota zoning ordinance text amendment can be done with the planning commission approval to the city council and the city council then would adopt the zone it is important and we've we've made sure we've discussed this at length with the meadowthorpe neighborhood and its leadership that we are not rezoning the property by this today all we're doing is creating a new zone by this process that if it's adopted by you all and then the urban county council then we would have to still come back and go through the zone change process which includes place builder analysis stakeholder engagement pre-app meeting application trc committee meetings and then a zone change hearing before you all and then again a zone change hearing before the urban county council. So today's is just one step in a much longer process that we're seeking to do for the property. And no use on the property changes by your action today. No use changes by the city council's adoption of this. We still have to go back through the full zone change public process, even if this were adopted. So this is not a zone change yet. Staff sort of covered a comprehensive plan, goals, and objectives that justify Azota. we believe that this PUD 3 incorporates the fundamental intent and objectives of the comp plan to provide flexibility and that what it does is allow you all to provide flexibility in the future for projects. Not only for this site, but one that could be, for example, along Old Frankfurt Pike or ones that could be off New Circle Road or other potential business or industrial areas without taking land intended for residential for this purpose, which I think is an important note. It is to allow those underutilized parcels to increase by adaptability of their use for light industrial, light business, and similar uses. We've had a significant amount of community engagement in this process. While we're not in a zone change stage, we have attended the Meadowthorpe Neighborhood Association meetings on a monthly basis for the last six or seven months. We've kept them up to date in the process, and they have representatives who are here today who will be able to talk. We've had multiple calls between Mr. Turner and those neighborhood leaders. In fact, we met with them again yesterday just to walk through the process again to make sure that we are being transparent, we are being communicative, and in a second I'm going to tell you some representations that I want to make into the record. We've attended multiple neighborhood meetings even recently this month regarding this issue. Specifically, while this is not a zone change process, The owners in the neighborhood have expressed a number of concerns. And so I wanted to make sure that I'm able to address them, not only at their meetings, but also on the record here today as I told them they would. The first one is the ZODA itself does not allow us to do anything on the property, and it doesn't approve a development plan. But they have a significant concern and an understandable concern about the gates and the access to the backside of this property through the neighborhood. And we have told them that the ZODA cannot prevent or do anything about those gates. But that I would state on the record, we agree and believe those gates should be shut in a zone change process and with development plan notes except for fire and emergency access. And I told them I would put that on the record, although it's not in the ZODA, for transparency and accountability at the zone change process. Similar, there are certain uses that would be allowed in the zone that they have objected to. They're on the slide up here. And we told them that we would agree to conditional zoning restrictions during the zone change process. Again, I'm telling you this not because it's in the ZODA. I can't put things into a ZODA that would prohibit that is conditional uses. But in talking with staff, we believe that there are certain uses in the zone that would be appropriate for the zone as a whole, but that this applicant would at least agree in the future that we would not do certain things. And we've also promised the neighborhood we will continue to engage the neighborhood throughout the zone change process to satisfy with other uses that may not be on this property but should be in the zone as a whole for other areas in Fayette County. With that, staff covered a number of the legal requirements. They covered significant background and the details of the ZODA. We do believe that this is a well-designed and heavily vetted, heavily edited document that has not been done in a quick process, in a 30-day or 60-day process, but we do believe that we have vetted it well. We have engaged the neighborhood. We have engaged staff. I'm not sure how many meetings we've had with staff on this, but there's a lot of detail I know. I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions for the applicant or commission? I have one question, and I know it's not in the Zota, but since the property you referenced does have train track and there's a setback of 15 feet along residential zones, in your case or in another case where the pud request is that adjoins a railroad track i don't know if y'all own the railroad track or not would that be considered and there's a residential on the other side of the track what is the buffer requirement so there's and i i don't this off top of my head i'll have to defer to staff but there's actually a separate railroad buffer that we would have to satisfy under i'm not sure which which article it is um i'll defer to staff on that is 18 i don't know i think it's 18 but i'm not sure the existing railroad buffer that we have to that's it's not in the zoda but we still have to meet regardless yes it's in article 18. i can find out what it is i don't remember hal says he thinks it's 15 feet with a fence does that sound right 15 feet in width with probably trees shrubs we usually do both and a fence i i can't remember what it is specifically but i know during the process that actually came up in one of our meetings is with the railroad what's required and we we actually looked at the ordinance to make sure that there's another ordinance that's not being changed by this process that we still have to comply with the truck you were referring to you all don't own the railroad it borders the railroad ownership is that right that Are you talking about the borders of the railroad? So the entire property borders the railroad from New Circle Road all the way down to Main Street. The east side of the property is the railroad. Yeah, but your property owner doesn't own the actual tracks. No, no, no, we only own to the railroad right of way. That's correct. That's my question. And we don't buffer, we don't actually, what the old Lorillard Lofts is, which is down in this area, which is a condominium complex, we don't actually buffer that property. We have whatever the railroad right-of-way with it, railroad right-of-way with, we don't buffer them right there. We only buffer the railroad tracks. I ask because I believe there's a lot of I-1 that borders railroad tracks. I think that's historically generally true. I'm going to come back to the same question I had with Hal, which is since we're expanding the use to include business and residential, why the proposal includes so little tree canopy when that can be achieved by planting trees in parking lots? So, Hal, sort of touching this, but our belief is that we're actually increasing the required canopy from 10% to 15% today, and that when we're taking a site like this, which is essentially concrete paths and asphalt, and we're having to redevelop the project to actually add tree canopy on that doesn't exist today that going from whether it's five percent or seven percent to fifteen percent as as a zoda is appropriate whereas we're not going to a full-blown residential area that that might be higher you also remember that the 30 percent average across the city is is intended to address also things like parks and raven drawn and other areas that are not industrial reuse. I'm also mindful of the fact that in a process, the planning commission could require us to do additional tree canopy if the site was specific enough that it was justified more than 15%. Well, in a similar line of thought, and maybe this is a question for Hal or Tracy too, but in the actual, if the PUD zone set a tree canopy coverage at the city's goal. Could an applicant in a ZODA apply for a variance at that time to reduce the canopy using an argument say that it's an industrial reuse or something like that? Basically can the actual ZODA then have a variance to reduce the tree canopy if the PUD required it to be at the city's average or the city's goal? I think the way the ordinance is written tree canopies are varied by the commission it's a waiver under article 26 applicants can seek a waiver to the tree canopy standards whatever whatever they're established at but there are some guidelines for that occurring trying to find it. I would just clarify that for the tree canopy standards that are in place, even our mixed-use zones only require 10%. Downtown, it's required to be 0%. Obviously, we can encourage more tree canopy in certain ways, like with the buffer along the railroad. They have a very long edge along the railroad so they're going to have to install quite a few trees there i don't know if it's although our overall goal and i'm a member of the tree board is 30 i don't think we're going to achieve the 30 or even 40 if we aim higher via industrial land we're primarily going to get further along towards our goal with residential properties just by the nature of how they work. A lot of our industrial land has large pavement areas for truck turnarounds and that sort of thing. And honestly, this sounds harsh, but the trees get in the way of operating businesses. And so they usually do better and thrive in our residential areas versus industrial. Could you put the slide back up? So, but what I'm hearing is that those are justifications that could be applied for a waiver with an actual application that showed industrial uses. Because by approving this PUD, we could be looking at an application that shows residential uses, which essentially then has a 15% requirement, whereas a residential development would normally have what requirement? 30%. So a residential development, you could take an industrial use, you could come back here and propose a residential use and have a 15% requirement instead of a 30% requirement. Just in terms of a regulatory approach, it would probably be more appropriate to set it at 15% And then when the commission sees residential, require 30% for that particular PUD 3. And because the commission can always increase standards on a development plan. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your time today. This is time for citizen comments. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on this particular application? You can do so by standing up, coming up to the podium, one at a time. Mr. Daniels. Hello, everyone, I'm Rock Daniels. I live at 1519 Old Leastown Road in Meadowthorpe, and I'm the president of the Meadowthorpe Neighborhood Association. going to be very long i'm just going to state some things uh metathorpe was established in the 1950s and its former and current residents have a long storied past of being involved with the neighborhood and the responsible development of all adjoining properties it's actually part of our culture in metathorpe and if you remember back in the 1950s when it was first developed there was no new circle Road. And, you know, the property where Townley Center is, that was all farmland. So the people who initially lived here, you know, it was quiet, suburban enjoyment for them. There are numerous third and fourth generation residents in Metathorpe, some even in the same houses that their grandparents built. They have deep-seated roots here and are passionate about continuing to preserve the personality and the enjoyment of the neighborhood that their ancestors worked so hard to establish in the hopes that their children may have the same opportunities to appreciate and love the character and security of metathorpe as they did darren turner nathan billings and lfucg staff have all been very helpful and transparent during the creation of this pudd three and the metathorpe neighborhood association thanks them very much for that while we may have our differences in the next phase of the development of the property adjoining the neighborhood we expect to have continued communication and strengthening our relationship in what hopes that this development will not only be an asset to the city of lexington but also and more importantly to us as metathorpe a good neighbor with common shared interests. Okay? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Daniels. My name is Blake Hall. I live at 36 Richmond Avenue. I'm just finding out about this for the first time, so this is going to be kind of off the cuff. Typically, I'm against PUD zones, just on principle of it's yet another zone, and like Hal mentioned, they rarely get used more than a one-off. With this, it seems understandable as it being more of a transition zone. It's not going straight from all of the industrial use to going all to retail or residential. It allows for more of that transitional use like we have on National Avenue over where I live or the distillery district or things like that. The one thing I would say that I would like to see is I would like drive-through facilities moved from an accessory use to a conditional use. I'm hesitant to believe that this will be used in more than one place with the 10-acre minimum requirement. but with such a large mixed-use parcel if all of it gets rezoned then down the line if a drive-through wants to be added it would be by right and not require a zone change and as mr. Martin said what almost two hours ago not all drive-throughs are equal but they all pretty much suck for pedestrians so if If we are doing something to increase walkability, it seems like it would be something that would merit additional consideration at a time in which a drive-through is being added. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, and I wasn't planning on speaking to this issue. But I find myself, if the Meadowthorpe neighborhood supports it, then I'm convinced we would support it. And I find myself also agreeing with Mr. Hall that drive-through should not be an excess reuse. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Gabe Hensley. I'm a resident at 301 Pelican Lane, Meadowthorpe neighborhood, and I'm a member of the association, as well as the chairman of the MDRC, has an acronym for you, Meadowthorpe Development Review Committee. So it's a committee of the association that has historically been in place to advise, make recommendations to our executive committee on issues regarding development properties in close proximity to Meadowthorpe neighborhood with an eye toward safety, sustainability, and quality of life in the Meadowthorpe neighborhood. So I prepared a small statement. I want to say that the MDRC is not in direct opposition of the approval of the PUD3 ZOTA. However, we do have concerns about some of the principal primary uses being approved in the PUD3 being located so close to the Meadowthorpe neighborhood. In the coming months if the PUD 3 is approved and if Turner Property 4 LLC as expected applies for and receives a zone change to PUD 3 for the West Main properties adjacent to Meadowthorpe, we are putting our trust in LFUCG's planning and zoning system and in Turner Property 4 LLC to address the M&A's concerns through the utilization of of conditional zoning restrictions and restrictions that are established as part of the development plan approval, including a plan note that closes the gates at the terminus of Penrod and Townley Drive except for emergency use, as Mr. Billings mentioned before. When the time comes, we will also request and expect the LFUCG to study and address The probable traffic impacts this potential development will present to Meadowthorpe and the already hazardous Leastown Road corridor and if warranted, apply its influence where applicable with the Kentucky Department of Transportation to assist Mr. Turner in removing any hurdles that he may encounter in securing a traffic signal on West Main Street for safe ingress and egress to his property. Lastly, I want to echo one of Rock's comments on behalf of the Meadowthorpe Development Review Committee. I'd like to thank Mr. Turner and his staff, Mr. Billings and his staff, and the LFUCG planning staff for the time and effort that they have afforded us during this process. And we look forward to working with them in the future. Thank you. Okay, I see anyone else. Okay, they'll bring it back to the commission if there's any further questions. Staff, do you want to make any comments or? Yes. Sir, staff does need to make one clarification or one kind of broadening of the conversation. When we're looking at a zoning ordinance text amendment, it is not the appropriate time to designate certain conditional zoning restrictions that would be placed on a property. And I'm really saying this largely because Mr. Billings did show specific conditional zoning restrictions on the screen, which may or may not be appropriate either due to the location of the property, due to access to the property, or due to overarching concerns of agreement with various different protection acts of the U.S. Constitution. So I believe that at this point in time, staff just needs to reiterate, it is not the time to discuss conditional zoning restrictions associated with any zoning ordinance text amendment. Thank you for that clarification. Yes, Mr. Cole. Hal, would you mind answering a quick question? Could you address the concern about the drive-thru facilities being accessory use? Could you explain why that's in that category? uh drive-through facilities were requested as an accessory this is seen as a a little bit more of an intense land use uh typically with our b1 and below land uses a or even in the case of our downtown zones with the b2 zones it is considered a conditional use as you move into the b3 and above a drive-through gets into something that is a little bit more accessory if the applicant and And the planning commission sees that it would be more appropriate as a conditional use because of the walkability that they are trying to develop. Staff would see merit in that modification of this text. Thank you. Mr. Micklin. The other aspect of this, Mr. Martin wanted me to point out that with a B1 zone, it is conditional or shown on a development plan. So the planning commission has direct ability to go ahead and say, no, this is not appropriate for this location or yes, it is appropriate for this location. Yes, Mr. Billings. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I've just spoke with the applicant and we'd be okay to move drive throughs to conditional use as part of this SOTA. Okay, thank you. Okay. Yes. What you're getting the message from Mr. Martin is that if you do make it a conditional use in the text amendment, then you won't see it as part of a DP or conditional zoning restriction because it will go to the Board of Adjustment if you make it part of the text amendment. Okay. All right. So we'll bring it back to the commission then for questions. My comment is we have seen over and over again things get approved by the Board of Adjustments. Things get approved by council and then they come back to us. So that's just a comment that that happens. We're in questions and comments. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Polo. I really like this. I support this application wholeheartedly. I think it's a really good move for the city. I think it's a really good move for that location. And I just think it's an opportunity that we need to take. Thank you. Ms. Worth. I'd just like to say for the Mettathorpe folks, I know you all have a long history of working with developers. I know you worked with Anderson Properties across the street to get that development adjusted so that it worked better for your neighborhood. And I look forward to seeing you do that with this project. Thank you. Mr. Demo. I'm not sure if I quite heard what staff's recommendation is on the drive-through. So, sir, you could go through a couple of different routes. You can keep it as an accessory or if you were to choose to go to a conditional or like it is written in the B1, you could say it is a conditional use or as depicted on the development plan. This would need a development plan no matter what as this would be coming to you all as part of a zone change application. So I believe that if you wanted to go through with just as a conditional use, you would still see it because it would be a modification of the development plan and it would be caught within some of the restrictions that they have placed for a planned unit development. You could also leave it as an accessory and make the determination as it came to you with a development plan. There is also, we have talked quite a bit of conditional zoning restrictions. There is also the element of conditional zoning restrictions as any new planned unit development three that would come through to you would be reviewed by you and could be restricted. So that is a long answer to say you have many options. And staff has recommended to you a approval with it as an accessory use currently. So we would have to stand by our recommendation at this point in time. However, we understand a change would be appropriate if you would like. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional questions? Okay. The floor is open for a motion. Oh, no, I didn't. I thought you did. Okay, Mr. Pohl. I recommend approval of Plan Zota 22-6. Amendment to Article 22, Appendix C to create the planned unit development 3, the PUD 3 zone. Okay. Just a question. That's with no changes. No changes, right? No changes. Presented by staff. Yes. Right. Okay. As presented by staff. All right. And we have a second by Ms. Barksdale. Any further discussion to that motion? Hearing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Okay, next up, Zota 22 and 11. So in connection with this next item, we do have four letters of support as well as 44 letters of opposition that I'd like to provide. . Thank you. All right. Apologies for the delay. Daniel Crumb, planning staff. The next item on the agenda is ZODA 2211. This is an amendment to the agricultural rural zone in order to allow small farm micro distilleries. so to begin I'd like to have a discussion on kind of how we handle distilleries currently in the state of Kentucky so at the state level there's two licenses there's a class a license which is deals with 50,000 gallons of distillate produced annually and a class b license which is less than 50,000 gallons of distillate produced annually prior to this past year Fayette County if you did any sort of distilling activity, no matter how much you produced, you had to go into the heavy industrial, I-2, or economic development, ED, zones. Recently, there was a zoning ordinance text amendment that was passed that basically allowed us to match this state-level license. So we created a definition for the craft distilleries and matched it with a class B license. That allows producers who are making less than 50,000 gallons of distillate annually to operate in the light industrial zone as well. The applicant owns a small farm winery who wishes to utilize byproducts from his operation in order to distill in a agricultural rural zone. However, it is not permitted under the current ordinance, and so the applicant is seeking to come before you today in order to create a new definition, a new class of distillery that significantly limits the production in order for it to be appropriate within the agricultural rural zones. So here is the applicant's proposed language. This would be a conditional use within the AR zone, which I'll touch on in a little bit, but he creates a new definition of new use. So this would be a small farm micro distilleries. These would be distilleries that would have to be associated with an established agricultural use and the producing less than a thousand gallons of distilled spirits annually. So as a frame of reference with what's permitted currently in the I-1 zone. This is permitted at maximum 2% of the potential you could do in a light industrial zone. So significantly limited there. They would still have to match the requirements for the state license. So this would be a class B license, and they would be permitted activities that are also permitted for a small farm winery. So this would allow on-site, in conjunction with this operation, sampling, souvenir package sales, retail drink sales, and bottling. So within the letter of justification for this request, the applicant makes the case that this value-added process is appropriate in these agricultural rural zones because of ties between distilleries and agriculture historically. Staff in their research found that we agree that as early as the late 1700s, a small distillery operation could be commonly found here in Kentucky with these farm operations. They offered some benefits to these farmers in the ability to convert excess grain into a value-added product for additional income. It allowed them to take a perishable product, create a longer shelf life, a product that is more easily stored and sent from place to place. Within the conditional use process, which is what this would require, would require notification in a public hearing. So this would be heard, and if passed, would require going before the Board of Adjustments. So neighboring properties to the proposed site would be notified both via letter, there would be signage on the property, there would be notice put in the paper, and a public hearing would be held. At that public hearing, the site would have to get into the specifics. How is it going to operate? Where the buildings are going to locate? How site is going to be accessed? What screening is going to be involved? As well as operational specifics. So they would have to explain what their hours of operation would be, how many employees, what kind of land use impacts are we looking at. So scale, size, hours of operation, all of these would have to be detailed and documented within the site plan and operation plan. The Board of Adjustment is able, through their process, to alter site operations or additional conditions of approval if they feel that extra protections are needed for the operations of the use. And in doing so, they have to find that the use that they are approving, so this small farm winery, small farm micro distillery, rather, would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and that it has sufficient services in order to serve the proposed area. These would be, by ordinance, are limited to 10,000 square feet in structure space, and are reviewed on an annual basis. So staff would review these on an annual basis to ensure that they are meeting the condition of approval, if approved. and if not, the conditional use permit can be revoked. So all of this is to say is that this ZODA would provide for a very, very site-specific, a very, very in-depth review of any proposed site where a small farm microdistillery would like to operate. Staff as a whole is generally supportive of the language. However, we have made some tweaks to bring it in line with other ordinance requirements. So we have created a definition in Article 111 that goes into this a little bit more specifically. We also tie the phrasing of some of the language in this to better match our existing language regarding what is considered an active agricultural use. So this ties that language directly to existing language in the ordinance to the agricultural ties. So this is the same language found within our definition of agritourism. So when it speaks to an active farm, we've added the language, an agricultural, horticultural, or agribusiness operation. That's just to bring it in line with existing standards and to clarify the type of business this could be sort of accessory to and operate in conjunction with. As far as a comprehensive plan standpoint, this proposed text amendment does touch on multiple comprehensive plan goals. This provides these existing agricultural uses, additional opportunities to financially thrive. It adds that value-added product component to this. It promotes agritourism in a very context-specific manner, context-sensitive, and promotes sustainability through the ability to have these local agricultural uses create a value-added product at a local scale that is sustainable. Staff in their conversations with the zoning committee were directed to kind of take a look at the production limit. So as it currently stands, 1,000 gallons is what was recommended by staff and was fine with the applicant. There were some concerns by the zoning committee that that may be too low, and they directed us to kind of look and do some research to see kind of at a national scale, at an industry-wide scale, whether or not that level of operation is appropriate. The difficulties in that lie within the fact that these micro distilleries is not a nationally defined term. It varies from state to state, different levels of operation, different levels of permission. So while staff was unable to obtain that information, we have instead brought up an examination of how they are handled production-wise in Kentucky currently. So here we have three other counties who handle these farm distilleries slightly differently. We've got Bourbon County, Franklin County, and Lincoln County. Three perspectives, all of them touching on the similar, two kind of similar traits. One is what levels of production limits are appropriate, and B, what kind of ties to agriculture are necessary. So Bourbon County is probably the closest to what we are proposing today. They share that same 1,000-gallon limit. However, they require one natural resource derived from the property, which could include water. Franklin County allows for a significantly larger production, 50,000-gallon limit per year, which is the absolute maximum you can do under a Class B license. They do have some limits to the operations of the site that sort of attempt to address the intensity of such larger uses. While Lincoln County does not have a firm production limit, it does have requirements on the total number of employees that kind of serves to moderate the scale of the use. It also has language that involves agricultural products produced on site or within the local community. After having reviewed this, staff still stands by our initial recommendation of 1,000 gallons produced annually, mainly because of the land use impacts and the desire to keep it compatible with the AR zone. As the increased production of these distilled spirits, there is a real substantial land use impacts. for every barrel of bourbon or distilled spirit produced, you can expect somewhere in the ballpark of 800 to 1,000 pounds of produce being involved in the production of that, along with 600 to 700 gallons of water. So as this production increases, the land use impacts increase as well. So staff, in a desire to kind of protect the AR zone, but allow these AR uses to expand their uses in a context-sensitive manner, felt that the 1,000 gallons was the safest bet and could be most recommended of the different approaches that we've taken a look at. Staff is recommending approval of the alternative text to the zoning ordinance for the following reasons. One is the historical connection to agricultural uses. Two is that it allows for support of the local economy through tourism. The third is that the firm limits on production as well as the conditional use process provides safeguards in place to ensure that it's compatible with the surrounding area. The fourth is that this zoning ordinance text amendment is in line with comprehensive goals and policy relating to strengthening the agricultural economy, promoting agricultural tourism, as well as promoting sustainability. Staff is recommending approval and would be happy to entertain any questions you have with staff at this time. Okay. Any questions for staff? Mr. Nickel? I do have a question. And it's been interesting, we've been able to reference the rural land management plan today and now the AR zone again. In the intent of the AR zone, this zone is established to preserve the rural character of agricultural services by promoting agricultural related uses and by discouraging all forms of urban development except for a limited amount of conditional uses. Is there any way that what we're talking about can be considered urban development? So specifically, the direct connection and the direct requirement with this use that it has to be a part of those agriculturally-themed businesses and its close historical connections, I think fits within the intent of the AR zone. Thank you. Mr. Movala? In the proposal, in the staff's proposal, is there any requirement for natural resources to come from the property? No, not at this time. Our connection to the agricultural use is strictly through the use of the property. Other municipalities have looked at that, but our proposal does not go into that level of specifics. And so what, the word active farm is used, what determines an active farm? So that's the same language that staff uses, or the ordinance uses when evaluating agritourism. So within, I'll bring it up. and that determination actually would be made by the Board of Adjustment itself as a part of the review process. So this would be active farm or an agricultural, horticultural, or agribusiness operation. So that's the same type of evaluation that we've looked at elsewhere with agritourism that has yet to raise any issues of compatibility. But it would be the Board of Adjustment to make the determination that whatever use is on the property is in fact in line with the conditional use requirement. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Micklin. Well, I was one of the people who expressed concern that the limit was too low at the zoning commission. Was staff able to find in that in Bourbon County, for example, that sets that limit examples of businesses that have been successful under that thousand gallon limit? So let's see here. So there's one and a half barrels per month seems low. And 800 pounds a barrel meaning that does, I mean, for somebody that uses that amount flour to make pretzels in a small restaurant, I mean, that doesn't really seem a lot. Yeah, so based on the research, so at this scale, micro distilleries are very few in the States. I think there's about a dozen total. If my memory serves, I believe there's one in Bourbon County that sort of meets that threshold. But it is very small or a small scale of production, mostly because this is intended to operate as a part of a larger use. So this is not really intended to be a standalone, this is the sole use of the property, but rather to act in conjunction with the rest of the property to kind of give it an additional added value. So in the applicant's case, he has an existing small farm winery. He's using byproducts from that in order to kind of fuel that. And so that's sort of the smaller scale is by design in order to kind of protect against some of the land use impacts from that. But to your point, it's been limited so far. So you're aware of maybe one producer that is successful at that scale? Currently, Bourbon County only has one distillery. It is actually located in their downtown area, and it goes far above what this requirement has been set up for. But this is a relatively new change within their zoning ordinance. So there are no successfully operating distilleries at that level that you were able to find? Based off that, no. Yes, sir. Is there a reason you didn't include the language that Bourbon County used that says, must involve at least one natural resource derived from property, can include water? So when crafting this language, especially in regards to what can be grown on the property, so when looking at something like a small farm winery, for instance, they are able actually to import grapes that are not necessarily grown there. It was something that we looked at, but we thought it was too specific and possibly too burdensome when we already had the agricultural tie to the land or tie to the use baked into the use there. So while it is recommended, and I believe the applicant can speak to his particular intentions, as a whole we felt like that was not necessarily needed. Thank you. I'm not seeing any other questions. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter. Good evening, chair and committee. I'd like to thank you guys for considering this text amendment. And first of all, I'd like to say I'm the owner of Silver Springs Farm, equine, and vineyard. The equine comes from our breed horses also. and I really think that I've checked all the boxes to be approved for a small farm micro distillery. We do some of the best management practice on a farm. I'm on some agriculture boards, so I make sure that I do all the best management practices. We do rotational grazing for my horses. We plant cover crops. we provide supplemental forages for our horses, of course, hay, meaning hay. And we fence out the horses also from the historical spring where James Peppers and Henry Clay produced their bourbon back before Prohibition. And we also do soil and water testing also on our water. So we've got a great spring that produces, gosh, 200,000 gallons a day of water. And we also grow our own grains and grapes to produce the distillate for the wine and for the bourbon also. And I think that's one of the things that we're looking at is that we're touching all the bases that you need on a small farm winery to be approved. And I think that in the ending, I'd like to thank you guys for the consideration and approval for my text amendment. Hold on one second, just check and see if any of the commission has any questions for you. All right. I'm not seeing anything. Oh, Mr. Polk. Quick question. How big would a barrel house be? Would you even build a barrel house? You know, my plans right now, I would like to build a barrel house at some point, but it would be a while. But I've been doing this for about six years researching this. I started off, I've toured Europe, and I started off wanting to make a champagne. champagne and also brandy. And of course the best champagne from Europe comes from the champagne, right? Everybody understands that? And that's why I wanted to produce a distillate from my grapes to produce a brandy. And I also found out that I could, I guess I'm going inexpensive way. I was planning on using a container. They do that all over the country now as they use containers to store their burbs in and it's really a protect more protective than an open rick house right now. So that's that's what I'm planning on doing until I can you know get more income to build a small rick house. So you're talking about like a tank or something? Yes, yes a container yes they use containers now for store wine even to live in now small small houses so it's a lot of uses for it and it protects the leakage and everything also you can capture all that if it ever leaks would you have a problem with connecting the production of the distillate to production of a certain proportion of the agricultural product used to make the distillate would come from your farm? I'm sorry, repeat that again, please. Would you have a problem with a requirement that would link, that would say that a certain proportion of the agricultural product used in the production of, say, bourbon, would have to be produced on your farm? Well, I already produce wine, so that's already covered. I produce wine, I want to use the wine to make brandy. So that's one of the areas that will definitely be covered in a distillate, producing distillate on the farm. I already do that. So would your answer be no, you wouldn't have a problem with making a connection, a requirement? It's according to what the requirement is. Yeah. Yes, sir. Yeah. I mean, you know, I'm reading through the letters from people opposed to your application, and they all mention that there isn't such a requirement. And there is a concern that this could open the door to development of other kinds of sort of small industrial processes that are not really connected to the farm on which they're located. Right. I think it's right now, if I'm not mistaken, there's no farm distilleries in Lexington, Kentucky right now, correct? Correct, yeah, and I think it's something that I guess you guys can consider doing. But I probably don't see a problem in changing, but I would rather move forward like it is now. Okay, thank you. Mr. Poe? All right. Any further questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Carter. Thank you all. Thank you. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on this particular agenda or application? You can do so by stepping up. I know we have Ms. Rothenmeier. Thank you so much, Chair, members of the Commission. Brittany Rothenmeier with Fade Alliance. And I would request, and I'm going to try and keep it very short, and I think speak to some of the questions that were asked today and some of the exchange that was just happening with Mr. Carter. But I would ask for 10 minutes. I will try and keep it under 10 as much as possible, but if you all would consider, it's just some nuance that I'd like to explain because I think in many ways what we're saying is on par with what Mr. Carter is trying to do, but just trying to explain a little bit about the concerns that we have, if that would be acceptable to the commission. that was timing mr carter so 10 minutes would be appropriate they even swap skip maybe through this okay so so thank you members of the commission again brittany rothmeyer with fade alliance i just want to start by saying that that fate alliance is very supportive of revisiting this discussion about the expansion of agribusiness and agritourism opportunities that are permitted in the agricultural rural zone, and frankly, other agricultural zones as well, including the discussion of this small farm microdistillery. Frankly, you know, I've spoken with Mr. Carter, and I think that, you know, his specific proposal is an exciting one to have this discussion around. But we think that when we're talking about expansion of uses, and specifically an industrial use like a microdistillery, we should do it comprehensively, we should do it with time for some stakeholder input from people in the rural area and others with concerns about uses like this in the rural area, and that to a point where that was made before, that any new permitted uses like a small farm microdistillery should require this agricultural nexus requirement to tie the use to the land on which it operates. the last time that we did a comprehensive look at expanding uses in agricultural rural zone i think like mr nickel pointed out the ar zone the intent specifically is to preserve our rural character of course encourage agricultural production with this limited amount of conditional uses so back i believe in 2012 this predates my time at the alliance there was these conversations that began for the expansion of the recreation and tourism ZODA that looked at these agribusinesses and how can we continue to support the agricultural economy. In 2016, that ZODA was adopted and introduced over 50 new uses in our ag areas. And that was done with robust and significant stakeholder input. And I think that Mr. Carter's proposal and the small farm micro distillery idea and definition does raise this really important and worthwhile question for our ag areas. and that's what additional uses can support agritourism and agribusiness, and what should we permit in our sensitive areas. But by doing this ZODA, we're really talking about a countywide policy change. We're not talking about the merits of Mr. Carter's proposal, of which there are many. If we change the policy, then the next project and the next project are what we're going to have to evaluate. And we think that that, to the point that was made, opens the door to this question of if the only tie to agriculture is that this use has to be on a property where there's an existing agricultural use, there's no telling how small the agricultural use could be on this property if a distillery isn't also required to have this agricultural tie. I think if we add new uses, especially those nuanced ones like an industrial and commercial use that go along with the industrial use, so by KRS statute, you're also required to permit bottling and retail sales and package sales. And we do this zoda by zoda by introducing these new uses into our agricultural zone. We're simply chipping away at the agricultural area instead of looking at it comprehensively and saying, what type of uses, like a small farm micro distillery, could encourage agribusiness, could support the agricultural economy? I think, as was mentioned, distilleries are an industrial use. I think that regardless of how many gallons of distilled spirits are produced, a distilling operation is an industrial use. And small craft distilleries are certainly growing around the country. We all know the tie that Kentucky has with bourbon, but there's a reason that distilleries are considered industrial uses. Distillation requires heat and produces ethanol. That has a lot of environmental concerns. Another important factor is waste. In addition to the process, the amount and the type of waste that are produced by distilleries are specifically of concern. Distillery wastewater can be toxic. Research actually shows that per liter of alcohol, 12 times as much wastewater is produced as the amount of alcohol that's produced. So even with about 1,000 gallons a year, that could mean 45,000 gallons of wastewater is actually produced from that alcohol. If there's no required connection between the distillery and the land that it actually sits on, we're simply permitting an industrial use in the rural area. And there's no way, as I mentioned, in the suggested proposed ordinance to ensure that the separate active farm is the more prominent use. And it's pretty easy, I think, to imagine how a distillery with no connection to the land itself can become the principal use and an agricultural use can become secondary. So if we don't require that tie to prevent that from happening, it means that we're actually weakening the restrictions that promote the agricultural economy that's so critical in our AR area. So I think while staff has acknowledged that micro-distilleries can have agricultural connections, they didn't require in the text that they actually do have an agricultural connection. And if we don't require it, I do think that that opens the door to many other types of operations that can make that exact same argument. The way the proposed text is written, a distillery could technically ship in, I think as was mentioned, distilling products. And so that operation might be connected to global agriculture, but not particularly county agriculture, which is what our land, of course, is designated for. So there was some mention of other local ordinances that do tie the creation of alcohol to the land. There are also around the country farm-to-flask laws that I thought was really interesting that actually require distilleries to use local produce. So the other states like New York and Connecticut are also trying to promote their agricultural economies by making this requirement. Connecticut, for instance, requires 25% of the fruit or crops required to distill the spirits actually be grown on the premises. And then they can only sell by the drink spirits that the distillery itself produced. And then, again, New York has something very similar. So, again, just want to emphasize that Fayette Alliance does believe that there's a way to expand uses in our AR zone, specifically around agritourism and agribusiness. But we do think that there should be a broader, more wide community conversation about what those uses might be, what uses are compatible, and then what language should be required so that we address these policy issues now and don't allow the Board of Adjustment down the line to evaluate these projects proposal by proposal. And so I do want to highlight the recommendations, again, that we're making at this point to continue the discussion, and that is define and establish the term and enforceability of this term agricultural nexus that must be required for these additional uses in the AR zone, that there is this direct connection between the use that's permitted and the land on which it sits. Define the term active farm to better describe what a working agricultural operation is in the AR zone to which a use like a small farm distillery could be tied if there's a nexus between the use and the farm. Requiring that direct connection between the dispilled spirits generated by the micro distillery and the land on which it sits. Again, thoroughly evaluate the impact, I think, of industrial uses like distilling. Again, it's still an industrial use despite the quantity. And the product and the waste that's created by this use in agricultural areas. Considering expansion of the uses, like I mentioned, in the zones comprehensively as either part of the upcoming comp plan process or a separate effort similar to the recreation and tourism ZODA instead of ZODA by ZODA. and going along with that, establishing a stakeholder committee to evaluate these uses so we can maintain the intent of ARZone, strengthen our ag economy, as well as look at real uses that we do need to support our agribusiness. In 2019, staff had begun discussions with us and some other stakeholders like Visit-Lex and Horse Country that were also interested in some expanded uses. Those conversations continued in 2021 and stopped in about springtime. So it was our understanding that we were intending to pick back up the conversation. I know that the staff, as the comprehensive plan process began, got extremely busy. And so it was our understanding that the discussions about expansion of these uses in the ag zones was going to be picked back up. And with that being said, we're hopeful that we can have the robust conversation, I think, and the nuanced language, those discussions, as part of the comp plan process or as another stakeholder process that can get to the root of this. Because I think there's an opportunity, like with Mr. Carter's proposal, to see this happen in Fayette County. I just think we have to be really careful about the way in which it's done. So I mentioned some other stakeholders that we thought would be good to be a part of this conversation. But again, we think that there's an opportunity to do this. We want to do it right. I think we should do it comprehensively. and in a way that strengthens our agricultural foundation instead of weakening our ordinance ZODA by ZODA. And so I do think that there's a way to win here for all of us, and we're hopeful that you all will either recommend disapproval or at least postponement so we can continue these conversations and come to some sort of agreement on the way that a ZODA like this can be written to strengthen our agricultural economy. Happy to answer any questions if you have them. Mr. Pope, do you want to wait and ask them now or wait? Do you want to see if we've got any more? Yes, sure. Or do you want to ask them now? It's up to you. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to check. Do we have anyone else that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? All right. Okay. Staff, are you headed? All right. Daniel Crum, planning staff. So we just wanted to address a couple comments by Fayette Alliance, as well as some questions that the board themselves had with regard to Chairman Pohl, Mr. Pol's suggestion about percentages involved with the production of the micro distillery distillate. One thing to note with that is that that would be a disconnect from how we handle small farm wineries where we don't require a particular percentage. Furthermore, those percentages are actually very difficult to enforce as far as getting the exact amount of corn brought in locally versus brought in elsewhere and just kind of creates a disconnect from there. From the Fayette Alliance, some of the information presented there, a lot of that is spoken to with the conditional use process. There's questions about how much waste is produced when you have a use like this within the AR zone. That's handled as a part of the conditional use process and furthermore would be regulated through permits through agencies at the state and federal level. If you're emitting any emissions, if any contact is coming in with groundwater, there are agencies that review that. That would all be explained and that would all be handled at the conditional use level as a part of their review. As a part of the agricultural nexus and sort of the conversation regarding that and the timeline for kind of considering those uses, this zoning ordinance text amendment request was applicant-driven. So this was submitted in. We are required by law to follow the timeline from that. So postponing this or pushing it to a larger discussion to be had later on within the comprehensive plan process, unfortunately, is not an option. Staff is looking at the conditional uses in the AR zone and the AR zone as a whole as a part of this upcoming comprehensive plan. But we do have to take this particular application and follow it through its due process on that. As far as some of the mention between the state laws for a farm to flask, those are exactly that. Those are state law-driven initiatives from areas like New York, Connecticut, those types of areas. No such law exists at the state level here. So we are operating under the umbrella of existing Kentucky law, and we have to kind of keep that within the bounds of the power that they've granted from that. Let's see here. There was also, with regards to the conditional uses and the language on the agricultural nexus that we use in regards to permitting it as an agricultural, horticulture, or agribusiness operation, that was reviewed in 2017 and deemed appropriate to meet the agricultural nexus component that the opposition was mentioning with that. So at this time, I'd be happy to entertain any more questions you may have of staff. Any questions for staff? Mr. Nickel? I got one real quick. Sure. We saw something about wastewater in the air zone. That's a big problem. But do you know the average drinking water per cow per year? Have we looked into that? There are substantial land use impacts with most agricultural operations. I don't know that particular. Well, Michigan State says 30 gallons per day per cow. Just wanted to make that, make everybody aware. Agriculture takes water. Thank you Mr. Nichols for that information. How long has the Paris ordinance been in place now? I'm not entirely sure. What Paris? Paris. Paris. Or Bourbon County, excuse me. Sir, I'll research that and get you that information. Okay, because what I was hearing before is that at this level, at this size that we're looking at, there hasn't exactly been like a rush or a stampede of new distilleries in Bourbon County limited to this 1,000 gallon. And it seemed like their text was pretty flexible since water could be one of the ingredients from the farm where basically if they threw anything in, it would be eligible because it wasn't a percentage-based requirement. So it just doesn't, I mean, I guess I was just wondering how long, because if it's been on the books for a little while, it doesn't look like there's been a stampede of applications. Sir, it was last amended by their fiscal court in 2016. The initial establishment of distilleries was in 2013. This is in the unincorporated Bourbon County. So it's been allowed for a while at this 1,000 gallons, and it is not sort of taken off as a frequent thing. The applicant here today would probably be one of among very few, would be my guess, at 1,000 gallons. Okay. Ms. Worth? This is not a question. It's just a comment. And I would like to say to the applicant, I wish we were looking at this as an individual request through some sort of waiver process, because I wouldn't have any concerns about what you're asking in the specifics of your particular proposal, assuming that was okay. I am concerned about what looks to me like planning for the AR zone by ZODA. I mean, we've got this ZODA, we've got a light ZODA, we've got a sound ZODA. and we've started the comprehensive plan update and it seems to me like we and i understand the time limitations on this particular request but i think we're missing the opportunity to step back and look at a higher level of what we want our use in the ar zone to be and i feel like we're gonna if we're not careful we're in a position of building a house without an architect and a floor plan and we're going to build one room at a time and when we get to the end of the process we may want to get the house we want to live in forever or we may get a house where the roofline is not even where the floors are not even where the HVAC system and electrical don't support the house and we'll be sorry and I don't want to see that happen with the AR zone I would like to see us take a very thoughtful comprehensive look at what we do there that's my take keep some of your comments any any other comments yes i i echo that same sentiment okay thank you mr bill i'm not seeing any thank you sir okay all right mr michler i guess i just have one more thought which is I mean I guess I understand that fear but I'm also you know the applicant doesn't have a choice in this process and it is a logical extent extension that we've been trying to develop wineries it's a logical extension to allow them to distill the spirits they're making on site and what this applicant is proposing is extremely limited in scope. It's so limited that you couldn't even hire employees at this volume that we would be authorizing today. So it would be really families or individuals on their own land that are active farms, producing what amounts to one and a half barrels a month of distilled spirit. And that seems like a perfectly reasonable request. And I'm definitely going to support your application. Thank you, sir, for your comments. Mr. Polo, I know you have one. I agree. Okay. All right. All right. So we'll bring it back. Just kind of closing this part out, I guess. Seeing the floor is open for a motion. I think we have Mr. Mickler. I would make a motion to approve PLN Zota 22-11, to amend the article 8-1D to add small farm micro distilleries as a conditional use in the agricultural zone with the four conditions recommended by staff. Okay, thank you. And we have a second by Ms. Boxdale. Any further discussion to that motion? Hearing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, the ayes have it. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Next up, agenda item Zota 3. We got PLN Zota 22-14. This is the one I'm excited about. I think that's what the rest of the people in the audience are looking for. It's a big agenda today. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, I'm Chris Taylor with your long-range planning staff. The next item on your agenda is PLN ZOTA 22-14. This is an amendment to update the parking requirements in a number of articles throughout the zoning ordinance. Make no mistake. All right. Sorry about that. So you'll just have to pretend the tops of the slides say something. So this is an opportunity for Lexington to lead. This is a tax amendment that put Lexington at the forefront of innovative urban planning. It's a place we're familiar with. Lexington's first in the nation urban service boundary has served as a model for compact, sustainable development since the 1950s. And once again, we have the opportunity to be one of the top ten largest cities in the east and midwest to eliminate minimum parking requirements. We'd be the tenth such city, over 100,000 to do so, and currently the third largest. and many cities are currently undergoing a similar review of their parking regulations right now. And currently Richmond, Virginia is probably the closest to closing in on us and sort of taking that last top ten spot. I'll cover a couple of the reasons that cities naturally are moving this way, but first I want to make it clear what the objectives of these new regulations are. First is to provide substantially greater flexibility for development, to provide the parking that they need, and to allow more walkable development to occur naturally over time. And lastly, it's to mitigate the negative impacts of parking lots, specifically our VUA landscaping buffers, significantly improving the amount of our tree canopy and the standards so that they can survive, as well as improve the function of parking lots in order to make them safer for pedestrians and safer vehicular motions. Because our current regulations were never designed to serve those objectives, and the question is, what were they designed to do? Minimum parking requirements are about as old as zoning. these national policies have been prioritized over decades to make sure that every vehicle has a free place to park everywhere it goes. The first minimum parking requirement was in Columbus, Ohio in the early 20s. And over the decades, Lexington, like a lot of other cities, followed suit and added those in 1953 is when we added ours. The impacts of these developments, they're not felt immediately. Those negative effects, they take decades to turn into serious problems. And today's proposal, today's tax amendment isn't going to solve them overnight. But when we find ourselves in the hole that we've created from these types of regulations, this text amendment is about us stopping digging. So what is the hole that we've dug? So we've somehow managed to combine this unique feat of being both constrained in our growth, yet almost totally dependent on vehicles, based on the development patterns that we've had over the decades. So over time, we've clearly identified the root cause of sprawl. This isn't the hard part. It all starts with how we've regulated parking. And so the go-to resource for virtually every city in the country was something called the ITE manuals, and it has a parking generation rate. And planners and decision makers use those numbers and set them as minimums, again, establishing a policy priority of abundant free parking. And when you define how much can be built almost entirely on whether or not it can accommodate every car that might need a space, you see how a couple of outcomes become apparent. We lower our density or the intensity of a development. That spreads the same number of uses that a community needs over a greater distance. And doing so requires a car, which ends up increasing, ironically, the demand for parking. And so this puts us on a perpetual cycle of automobile-oriented land use planning that eventually just no longer financially holds up. Not for local governments picking up the spiraling infrastructure costs. Not for developers as land becomes much more expensive. and certainly not for the public and their transportation and housing costs as we watch them increase as well. But I want to go back to the premise a second because there's a critical point to be made about the parking generation rates that set all of this off. The entire premise of predicting parking demand based on the one thing that zoning regulates, the size and scale of buildings, is extremely flawed. For over 100 land uses, the ITE manual shows a chart that looks just like this, and it's probably hard to read from this distance. But there's some very telling information in these charts. For starters, it uses 18 samples to create an average parking rate based on leasable square footage. And on the surface, that seems like a pretty plausible and defensible way to measure demand for parking. Except the results make something very, very clear, which is that there's no statistical correlation whatsoever between leasable square footage and the demand for parking. without boring you on the details of what's an acceptable confidence rate or standard deviation that might indicate a strong correlation just trust me when I tell you this isn't it it doesn't take a mastery of statistics to see that the data points are all over these charts and further that the line that represents what becomes the average that you see in the middle of the graph it doesn't it doesn't hit a single application of a business that exists and this is routine throughout the manual and so the issue really boils down to the fact that we can barely define a range of parking needed which is what you see in the center of the circle and we definitely shouldn't be choosing with extreme precision the number you see on the on the left side what every land use is required to have because what that creates is only development that can occur above that line so you can see how we become essentially regulating out any possibility for smaller and more compact development and over building at least half of all parking lots we do build. So there's one last data point or one last point to be made on the flaws of this data which is that we have to stop confusing peak occupancy with demand. Demand is a function of supply and price. So my educational background isn't planning, it's economics and it's sort of painful to see a chart like this used to predict demand. There's no there's no price axis, no cost function, it's simply what's there and using it as a the determination of what should be. Parking has a cost. And to base our demand predictions on the assumption that it's free, well, then we shouldn't be surprised when we find out that demand is unyielding at that price. The factors that really influence the need for parking are not the ones we regulate in the zoning ordinance. As you see here, it's not square footage. It's not bedrooms. It's not dining seats. It's market demographics. It's location, location, location in all of these cases. so what's this led to for us it's sort of the environmental impacts of parking at the way we've regulated it they're not superficial an overabundance of parking is is created dangerous heat islands in our community that has a tremendous impact when we talk about you know the daytime temperatures are pretty equal across the board but the characteristic of an urban heat island is that those areas remain hot at night and we we see increased mortality due to nighttime heat related temperatures because of these urban heat islands. And Lexington's typical parking lot is a significant contributor to negative health effects. Our existing efforts at mitigation aren't working. If they were, you would see more trees surviving in our parking lots, you'd see more vegetation, but even if they were, under our current standards, it's not enough to overcome the amount of impervious surface that we require. After the environmental impact, our parking requirements are creating an issue for our housing needs. Not only does each space add to rents, but we're not even giving an option to people who don't have a car or are willing to forego one to save the money that the parking would require. We're eliminating potential projects based on our ability to provide a space for cars. That's not public policy that's serious about housing. That's public policy for parking. And so the question is, how are we proposing to end this cycle? Well, we start by reviewing the ordinances that have led us here and our current regulations. And you'll see a rich history of text amendments to parking in some form or fashion, all in an attempt to address some aspect of predicting parking demand through some metric that has no direct correlation to it. So again, let's talk about defining our priorities. We're talking about setting a clear goal here of improving conditions for motorists, for cyclists, for transit users, and again, for the development community who we need to provide housing. Our goal with these regulations is to make sure that everything that is put forward is a positive step for each of these users. Our task with zoning is addressing public health and safety and not the broad preference that parking should be free and available at all times. And so after starting this conversation with you in May of 2020, we started working on a first draft as well as public outreach. This first attempt included a parking framework that we developed into four parking types, each with its own set of site design standards. And we previewed this initial draft with you in the spring of 2021 and used it as a conceptual starting point with the community. At the same time, we started a social media stakeholder campaign on the need for parking reform. We hosted a very well-attended webinar with national expertise on the larger parking movement. And we shared a community parking survey, as well as a story map to attempt to visualize some of the issues that need to be dealt with. And lastly, we convened a parking focus group. And we got a lot of feedback, and it didn't go as planned. First, we realized that we created something that was too complicated. In the name of trying to address every situation, our current system does this with parking generation numbers. And an initial proposal eliminated that flawed system with a similar approach to site design. And secondly, we were told, plainly and no uncertain terms, that in most of our suburban areas, would most likely result in a very meager reduction in parking, but a significantly lower intensity of land use because of needing to meet the additional site design requirements. And then, sure, that's a very negative, unintended consequence that we didn't want to create. And so at this time, we were also starting to see data from Buffalo, New York, on their similar legislation where they had eliminated their minimum parking requirements, and it confirmed what we were hearing from those groups. So at that point, we decided to take the input and reworked the proposal around efficiency and simplicity. And after a break to get two other text amendments that we've been working on that you all had passed through council, in January of this year, we got started on a rewrite. So which brings us to the text that you have in front of you today. The changes here include 11 articles of the zoning ordinance. The first six you see there are articles 8, 9, 10, 11, 23, and 28 that are basically cleanup where we eliminate the minimum parking requirements in the existing zones and consolidate all of our standards in Article 16. And then Article 18, you see our vehicular use area landscaping requirements and perimeter buffing requirements. There's a change to Article 1 to revise driveway definitions, as well as cleanup items for the mixed income housing revisions in Article 3, and the change to Article 21 of the parking demand mitigation study. And to start with, each of the zones have been modified, again, to remove all the minimum requirements. The removal of the requirements for parking is a leading factor in all the little modifications that we've made in the ordinance. We had to go back in the ordinance and change terms that were everywhere it says required parking to provided parking. This change led us to change definitions for driveways, which again, heavily required on a required parking space. And we've maintained the caveat that the Board of Adjustment be able to establish requirements with their conditional use process and added a new use within our zones that allowed single-family attached developments to consolidate their parking onto a single lot. This allows for some more flexible design opportunities that our townhouses are really in need of on our small lot situations. For single-family detached, the proposal establishes limits on front yard paving and sets limits to driveway widths and provides shared driveway options, again, for sites on small lots. For all of our other low-density residential, we're looking to make sure that we also reduce paving in the front yard and make the structure the primary point and focus for protecting pedestrian mobility along that street. Again, this is also where we're including the first previously mentioned shared parking requirements or options. Similarly, in the higher density residential opportunities, we remove the parking again from the front yard areas. Again, the focus here is on providing walkable connections with the frontages of the property. And within the non-residential and mixed-use zones, the staff recognizes there are times where having some parking along the frontage is important. And so while also establishing standards for corners and intersections to improve access management. Again, our goal here is improving pedestrian and vehicular safety. And so when it comes to parking structures, we've provided basic minimum requirements in the form of options for ground floor space so that there's activity along the frontage that makes these places feel safe and that people will be willing to use them. This amendment also marks a first for bicycle parking. So where vehicular parking is provided, there is a requirement that a corollary 10% of that number be also provided for bicycles. Just like we're providing for vehicular parking, there's also requirements and regulations for bike parking to be located in safe, accessible, and visible locations. The site design standards also bring focus to the environment. We know that the quality of the environment has significant impacts to overall health and safety and welfare for Lexington. The new standards create greener parking lots that improve our urban forests and reduce our heat islands. They mitigate stormwater, and this adds up to all sorts of savings for both property owners and for the local government. These standards help us get ahead in preparation for national trends to increase the sustainability for our transit and our infrastructure. And again, a lot of future federal transportation funding is tied to us improving these sorts of green infrastructure standards. changes to the vua landscape requirements are intended to result in increased vegetation to meet our environmental goals and create more pedestrian safe spaces primarily the changes in article 18 are modest increases to the size and content of vegetated areas we can't create parking areas that are better state that are better shaded and handle more storm water without improving landscape areas that ensure the trees and vegetation can survive this zota increases the perimeter buffer from 6 feet to 8 feet and increases the perimeter tree calculation. For interior landscaping, we're also increasing the tree canopy based on vehicular use area now, not just the landscaped area. And that's a big change. That adds up to a significant shift in policy. Instead of just saying you have to provide trees for the areas of parking that are landscaped, you're actually providing on the overall of the total area that is provided as hardscape. We're also including requirements for topsoil depth. to help ensure the survivability of trees. There is a reduction in the maximum distance between the interior landscaping areas. Again, this is a safety improvement to provide continuous landscape areas for every other row of double parking. That delineation, which is also addressing environmental issues and opportunities to filter stormwater, also prevents unsafe vehicular movements across parking lots. So once this draft was public, after your June work session, and we began soliciting additional comment from other folks who had had a lot to say about it. The Planning Commission, you all gave us guidance back on providing innovative landscape design options. We worked with Traffic Engineering to give the Planning Commission and staff an opportunity to have a stronger review of what sort of parking might be necessary on a given site or development plan. So we included a parking demand mitigation study. Through public comment, and Ms. Clark, who I'm sure will speak in a little bit, She gave us a number of comments that we found very helpful in considering some of the things that had been removed from the infill and redevelopment standards from the 08-09 time period that we put back, as well as some language clarifications that were added. Those comments that you'll see in your packet are in blue, and some of them are in green based on the time when we received them. And then we continued to work with the development community. We had some concerns expressed to us on the language of some of these things, and as they come in for applications, it's important that we make sure we have a common understanding of how these things are to be interpreted. So clarifications like that are pretty important. We clarified and worked on some changes to the outside of the IR area driveway widths, as well as some corner lot parking setback, a provision that we removed, and we're basically relying on the VUA perimeter buffer requirement to be that setback. And so for the record, this ZODA has been discussed publicly for over two years through seven Planning Commission work sessions and again with the IR Steering Committee. The comprehensive plan obviously has quite a bit to say as it relates to parking and even in some ways you may not expect. But up front, the zoning committee recommended approval at their meeting three weeks ago. and the findings from your staff report are noted here but what the staff considers to be the most directly applicable goals and objectives that are listed here there are numerous probably too many to mention individually goals and objectives that are either impossible to implement without parking reform or are helpful immensely by just the passing of this text amendment and so with that if you have any questions on this text amendment I'd be happy to try to answer them but Hal also has some letters of support and I believe a letter of opposition that was received will enter those into the record. Thank you, Chris. Any questions of staff? I have one. This seems to be my day to hope I'm not out of step with everybody else. Just one question about law of unintended consequences. What we're looking at there looks like new development and do we have any protections in the way the new ordinance is written to deal with older neighborhoods established neighborhoods that as we do infill and redevelopment and a lot of the on-street parking goes away ultimately what i'm referring to specifically heard stories of people now asking to be able to pave their front yards so they have a place to park do we have anything built in here that allows for protections to prevent that kind of thing from happening well there's that you're talking about that don't have adequate off-street parking or places that were built before we had minimum parking requirements right those are also more desirable areas because they're more walkable so it's a matter of having it both ways is it desirable because it's walkable or is it more desirable to be somewhere else where there's abundant free parking i think what we're trying to do here is create some flexibility so that more of the areas that are walkable that are highly desirable can exist other places in terms of protections the planning commission for new development is obviously going to be able to review the parking provided on every plan that is your rights the protection there and we with the provision that we worked on with traffic engineering to include an opportunity for an applicant to provide justification for the parking that they are giving that is the planning commission's opportunity to respond review that for the the public to respond and review that and for traffic engineering and staff to respond and review that and i think that's a pretty important piece of uh you know balance to the process and i think it's helpful because it helps you make decisions by having some some piece of information and study to go on so we haven't lost the ability to make that kind of review absolutely not the planning commission never we would never advocate for the planning commission ceding its authority to make decisions on development what we want is to have give you all the flexibility to approve developments that the comprehensive plan says we want. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Thank you. Anyone from the public that would like to make comment? Nancy Barnett, 1105 Richmond Road. I think this is a wonderful idea. I say yes, please. and I'm proud to be from a city who would entertain a vision and advantageous thinking like this. Thank you. My name is Deborah Gerth, 461 Silver Maple Way. I support this plan for all the reasons that have been noted by the planners. Thank you very much for this work. Thank you. I'm Walt Gaffield, 2001 Bamboo Drive. I'm not speaking on behalf of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council tonight. I'd probably say tonight because this has been a long meeting, but I'm speaking for myself. It would probably take us another month to go through the document and speak to it. Personally, and that's how I'm speaking, Chris will probably be surprised to find out that he convinced me that probably having these rigid constraints on minimums and maximums is not a good idea for the city. However, I think there are parts of the city that are different parts of the city. They have different things going on. And I'd like some explicit language in this that said the Planning Commission really at any point in the process could take a look at a parking plan rather than have it handled by staff and then maybe coming to the commission. I'll give you some examples. For example, there is an issue at least in one neighborhood where people have been talking to us about needing a paved front yard because of things going on at certain times of the day or night, mostly at night, and they can't find a place to park in their own neighborhood. I mean, that's true. There are also issues in university neighborhoods sometimes. Now, that may or may not be getting better, but my experience with it has not been good at certain times. I think, let me just go through what I've got. What I like about what Chris is doing, I mean, from a business perspective, people need to right size their business. If there's not parking around them and they rely on customers who need parking, then they'll put in parking, and this would allow them to do it without constraint. At the same time, you see these huge parking lots, for example, Fayette Mall, and it's good if Fayette Mall ever decides to decrease the parking, and they're kind of doing that gradually. That's a good idea. One of the problems I see is with stormwater and flooding in neighborhoods. We have flooding in some areas that are pretty well known and sanitary sewer issues. And the ZODA would also allow people to increase parking. You know, there are violations of that now that we all know about. And I think in an area that floods, and not everybody really knows where that is especially, although if you've lived here long enough you have an idea. On the south side of town, in the old county before merger, housing was built on marshland and there are flooding problems there. Internally there's one big important neighborhood that originally before the consent decree the sanitary sewer system was actually connected to the stormwater system and that became illegal under the consent decree once it was separated there have been stormwater problems the the consent decree only covers the city's sanitary sewer lines it doesn't cover the old lateral lines going from the houses to the sanitary sewer system and that results in sewage in the water. We have E. coli in every watershed in Lexington going out from Lexington into the rural areas. And I think if a neighborhood has those kind of problems, the planning commission, one, staff should notify them that the problems exist and they should be able to make a judgment on whether the proposal from the developer is appropriate or not. I'm not asking, I'm I'm not asking that you put requirements back, I'm just asking that there be some clear oversight on it in case the developer makes a mistake. Also as we know there's very little enforcement of occupancy laws in rental properties. There may not be a sixplex there but sometimes there's just a whole lot of people living in rental properties and there's kind of a lack of enforcement. That's particularly in the university neighborhoods and in some cases on the north side. North side also, as you know, people don't even have driveways. And I think these are special cases, and I don't disagree with what staff's doing at all other than to say there ought to be something in here that encourages the planning commission to look into special situations in neighborhoods. I want to speak to Buffalo a little bit because that was used as an example of good things to do. I'm going to give you one more minute on your comments. Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. I appreciate that. I meant to speak last. Buffalo's use of public transit has decreased from roughly 31 million people to I think around 24.2 million people since 1992. too, and when they put in this new stuff where they're putting new stations and that sort of thing, two or three years later their riders decreased by roughly 27 percent because the buses instead of coming by every six minutes came by every 20 minutes or longer, so people stop riding it. So there are a lot of issues involved in that. I think relying on public transit is speculative at best. That's about all I've got to say. I really like what staff has done, but I want to emphasize that the planning commission has something written in this to encourage them to look carefully at things in neighborhoods where there are problems. Thank you. Thank you. the other people making comments if you all could please try to keep it to three minutes it would be appreciated. Blake Hall, 36 Richmond Avenue. I'm also here as a member of the Environmental Commission. The Environmental Commission did send a I believe an email in support of this ZODA for the main listed environmental reasons that Mr. Taylor went through but just to reiterate Increasing the tree canopy, but also increasing the survivability of those trees, and increasing the opportunity for walkable development when CO2 emissions are 30 percent, or traffic and cars are 30 percent of our CO2 emissions. Every trip saved is less CO2, less rubber particulates, and whatnot. It also helps with the stormwater mitigation just due to the increased tree canopy, but also the increased landscape buffer. I do want to speak personally. You mentioned infill, and I wanted to give some examples of how parking minimums actually hurt existing neighborhoods. Woodland Triangle, the old decorator's warehouse, it's now an architecture firm on the corner of Kentucky and High. obviously built before cars and when the architecture firm went in there they said they didn't need all this space they wanted to also put in a cafe or some sort of restaurant well because that building was grandfathered in to zoning it required it was required and this was a change of use it was required to meet the parking minimums currently that would have required 76 parking spots now luckily they're in the infill and redevelopment area but even then that only allows a forgiveness of up to 50 percent still requiring 30 some parking spots now they ended up changing the site plan and getting that down to not have to redo it but it still resulted in the loss of the neighboring building in favor for i believe a 15 car parking lot in if you build a single-family house anywhere in the city it doesn't matter if it is a six bedroom you know make mansion or a one bedroom shotgun you're legally required to have only one parking spot nothing precludes you except for being in the infill and redevelopment area and staff can mention if that parking maximum stays but there's nothing precluding you typically from building more but if you're to build a duplex you suddenly need four parking spaces plus all the maneuver area so when you hear all the complaints around UK about their paving over the backyard there's very little mention that the city requires that thank you thank you good afternoon members of the Commission my name is Clay Turner and I live at 3321 Lyon Drive and I am also a forest health technician at the University of Kentucky in the Forest Department and the director of a small nonprofit here in Lexington, the Hickman Creek Conservancy, which is trying to improve the water quality of the Hickman Creek watershed. And so I care deeply about both the tree canopy of Lexington and its water quality and I think the changes would improve both those things so I support those changes. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Good afternoon, Michael Potapa for 1105 Richmond Road. I serve on the board of trees Lexington. We sent a letter of support of the ZODA approval. And I just wanted to highlight the issue specific to us and that's planting young trees. We want to make sure that those trees survive and grow to maturity and that requires soil volume. So it's very important for us to highlight the new requirements of increased topsoil and area for these trees to actually be able to mature and contribute to reducing the heat island effect that we see in our parking lots. We included a picture, I hope you were able to see it as an example of what a tree, what happens to a tree when it's growing in a very constrained area. So we try to want to avoid that. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Dick Murphy, pleased to be here today. I'm basically here on behalf of myself. As you know, I have a lot of clients, but I'm generally supportive of this. I've talked to the staff. There are a couple little anomalies that they've said if they're an issue, they'd assist us in correcting those as it went through the council system. I thought about objecting to this because you're taking some business away from me. Over the years, I've done a number of what I call phantom parking agreements. And that's where, the example is a professional office building that the ordinance says needs more parking spaces. The owner says they don't need them. But they have to lease 10 or 20 parking spaces from the shopping center across the street. never use them never use them but they pay a yearly fee to to lease phantom parking spaces on that so I won't get to do those anymore which I don't mind not doing those I hated doing those anyway but this is a creative way of looking at a problem which has afflicted us for a long time just want to end staff has worked with us at the building BIA and other groups I want to thank them working with us on that thank you thank you mr. Murphy Okay. I'm going to start at the end, but I first want to start by thanking the staff for bringing forward this project and then fixing it and fixing it and fixing it. It has gotten materially better, and I think that's important. Mr. Taylor invited us to consider how wonderful it would be to be third in line among the top ten to remove the parking. But the part I really focused on in the staff report was the record of the outcome of removing parking, and the only study I found in that material was Buffalo. And to my mind, I'm all for it, I want to see parking pavement reduced and the land put to better use. So my question is, when you remove the parking requirements, does it work? Does it actually reduce parking pavement? So the Buffalo study was very interesting. They took the two years after they removed all minimum parking requirements. Buffalo's almost the same size as we are. It has a flagship state university. It's probably where the differences end. You couldn't call it a constrained growth environment because they had this terrible post-industrial decline. By 1950, they were half what they used to be. So it's not a great parallel, but it's what we've got. And what they found was, it was kind of funny, the conclusion deregulation allows people to choose. Some choose to give more parking than ever, and some less. And what they found was that in the mixed uses primarily downtown with a metro rail and buses, people provided 53% under what the minimum had been once they were free of those minimum requirements. On the other hand, for single use residential or commercial and especially civic developments, They provided 82% more than the parking requirement had been before it was eliminated. So I'm trying to put checks is what I like and arrows are what I'm concerned about or would like to see changed or amended. Okay. They lost, and this is like losing weight. Aren't we glad? It's a tough thing to do. They lost 301 spaces net over people providing the minimum requirement across the board. But you can see that the single-use places really piled on the parking still, and I will say that's also my experience with student housing. They park in the duplexes even more than the two per unit, so four required. They tend to park six the maximum and then probably two more than that. Okay, so my caveat here is the public expenditure in a transit infrastructure was extraordinary. Your three minutes have completed. I'm going to beg for your indulgence, and it's because I've put a lot of time and care into this, and I do want to make it just a bit better yet. I'll give you an additional minute. Thank you. I'm not sure that will do me, but I thank you for one minute. Buffalo has, let me stop talking about Buffalo, I don't have time. The public investment was extraordinary. If Lexington means to move to that, we also need that transit infrastructure. In the infill and redevelopment area, it's great that you restored the cap on parking for single family detached houses. I would ask that you restore it also for other types of housing in the infill and redevelopment area to a maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit as a cap. And that's because we'd rather have space for houses and people than cars. It's great that parking would still be regulated by DPs and the BOA. And you have this 5,000 square foot lot coverage as the threshold for needing a demand study. And the point here is that when Shoup offered his much cited study and cited by Mr. Taylor. That's your time. That's your time. Okay. The rest you'll find in your message and it's in the record. I appreciate it. I'm sorry. Good. Starting on evening. Nick Nicholson here as just kind of a land use practitioner. I want to echo Dick Murphy's kind of comments with regards to how great Chris and Autumn and the planning staff have been. Kind of working with us, working through some of the concerns. And so I am really happy to be able to say that I completely support this. There are some minor nitpicks that I think we're still kind of working through with regards to just how complex this is. But by no means is anything that I think that should stop this show or slow it down in any way. I think this is a wonderful improvement to the zoning ordinance that's long been needed. And so I would urge you all to adopt it. Thank you all. Thank you. I think Ms. Clark raised a real interesting point about the Buffalo study that I wanted to add some additional insight on. There is some concerning data out of the Buffalo study that talks about the over-provision in the suburban areas, and that's, again, led to us going back to do a rewrite. What we think we are providing in this ordinance to combat that situation where someone would come in and do 82% over what our previous regs are is that we've increased the landscaping requirements pretty substantially, and that adds a cost. And so there is now a cost equation that has to be calculated. When somebody wants to go in and over park a site, they're going to have to decide if that provision is worth it. And if they are, they're going to mitigate it with the additional landscaping and tree canopy. So again, we did, we looked at the impacts of what we saw in Buffalo, and we tried to incorporate a solution that would take that into account and provide a disincentive. That if they did do it, we would at least have some mitigation opportunities with that. Thank you. I'll bring this back to committee for discussion or a motion. She asked if you'd allow for rebuttal. Ms. Clark did. I'll allow two minutes. Regarding the reckoning of parking and how Buffalo found that some people did not stay within even what were limits removed. But I'd like to say that I think it's great that the staff, and especially through traffic engineering, made provision for traffic demand studies, which are far more up-to-date than SHOOP's study, which was based on a traffic engineering manual to wreck and trip generation that was in a 6th edition. Now it's in an 11th. And traffic engineering is going to bring much more to bear to it, and I'm sure the individuals with studies will welcome that opportunity as well. I would ask that in that process, you restore 217A5, which is the text you find before you, deleted in 2014 so that you can ensure that in amendments to development plans, all the parking earlier planned and provided gets the review of the planning commission and a vote. Since the minimum requirements are removed from all zones, and if you look at the text of this earlier ZODA, which is now in force, What they struck was that if you're dealing with changing parking spaces, as long as all you're talking about is parking above the minimum requirement, it's a staff sign-off. It's a minor amendment. It has to follow the rules. But it doesn't have to come before the commission for their discretion. You had a lot of discussion in your meetings about the subdivision committee saying we need to see a parking demand study, saying that zone changes have to provide that. This would ensure that when all the parking is surplus, it doesn't mean you don't have planning commission review for surplus parking. Thank you. For parking provision. Thank you. Thank you so much. I'll bring this back to the commission. Could we have staff respond to Ms. Clark's most recent recommendation? As it relates to an inclusion in 21-7 on the minor amendments, I think there's an opportunity for every minor amendment to be referred back to the Planning Commission. and that's standard provision that we have now. If there's a situation where we're dealing with something that is complicated or there's a documented issue, I mean, that's something that we would probably hear from traffic engineering about if a plan came in. You know, if there's a site to be dealt with that's got issues that would fall under a minor amendment, there's always the possibility and procedure in place to take it back to the Planning Commission through a referral process. We've done that in the past, and I mean, I don't think staff sees a need to make every revision of parking to come back to the planning commission through a major amendment but if that's something you all want to discuss we will entertain that was her was her comment um similar in vain to mr gaffield's about the same issue a concern about a lack of a lack of ability of the planning commission to review these issues sir to a certain extent it would be a staff level decision and i think in some cases the planning commission would rather that in the case of removing one parking space or something along those lines to put in a tree or to provide greater amount of bike parking or to get to the point in which like one of the members of the audience suggested to allow for a site to occupy the area that they would like to work in and not have to provide extra parking or as Mr. Murphy coined it, phantom parking. I think that staff has the understanding of what the planning commission would be concerned with, with what would be tantamount to a major amendment to a site and that could create problems. However, there is the review process by your planning staff, by your traffic engineering staff on many of these elements. So if it was something of greater concern, staff would be bringing it to your purview. I'm really impressed with how you've navigated concerns of so many different stakeholders in this process and have come before us with something that I think our city really needs to achieve so many of the goals in the comprehensive plan. and I'm definitely comfortable and also excited to support this as proposed today. I'd just like to address this to the gentleman in the back. My question was about oversight. It was not about minimum standards. I paid for phantom parking spaces from the coach house for 10 years, so I'm not a great fan of minimum standards. that way i think you guys have done great work and um trust from my experience with you that you will put before the planning commission uh issues regarding parking mr gaffield talked about storm water when we see the development plan plans the engineers have signed off on that we get asked questions if they're you know there are provisions i think in the way we do our business to afford a lot of those protections that you're concerned about. Maybe not always and we may not always do our job perfectly but I think I think there are mechanisms there for that. Thank you. If there's no other discussion I'll entertain a motion. I move to approve plans out of 2214 amendment to articles 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 23, and 28 to update parking and vehicular use area landscape buffering. Thank you. I have a motion by Mr. Pohl and a second by Mr. Nickel. Please vote when it comes on screen. Thank you. Motion passed. Howell? Thank you very much, sir. What's that? There's no balloons or confetti. I'm happy the chair allowed that. Thank you very much, sir. We are moving on to our last case of the day, which is a review of PLN ZODA 22-00015. I do have one letter of opposition that I will hand to you here shortly. and I would also like to provide some information for the record. This action item on your agenda has been discussed several times over, and I know that there has been a certain amount of discussion about how it has not been discussed fully. I would like to enter into the record the August 19, 2021 agenda for the work session, the January 20, 2022 agenda for the work session, and the February 17, 2022 agenda. Each of those had presentations by the staff to the Planning Commission. After the January 20, 2022 work session meeting, staff released language, the language that you are hearing about today and that has been amended with some outreach with the public, and then was refined again at the February 17, 2022 meeting as well. So we are talking about the intense statements with this ZODA. And specifically, the question comes about to why update the intense statements. This falls into three real reasons. There's a technical and legal reason. There's a practical reason. And there's just a pure transparency reason. When looking at the technical and legal reasons, we are trying to make the connection between the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, specifically calling out the appropriate locations for zones and making the connection to our land use policy decisions that are put forth in the 2018 comprehensive plan. Currently, we are making reference to an outdated plan. Many of our categories have not changed since the adoption of the 1983 zoning ordinance before there were any amendments and is associated with the older comprehensive plan style. So it references a land use map. We no longer do that. We have shifted to a policy decision perspective on our urban planning, which is representative of a more flexible and focused approach of urban planning. and it is time for us to reflect that in our zoning ordinance. There are practical reasons. There are certain elements within the intents that reference materials that are just no longer there. Practically, this doesn't make sense. It also is not really making a connection to specific density counts. So we want to change the perspective to reflect the adopted comprehensive plan and the policies that this body has made over the past, technically, since the 2013 comprehensive plan. And then finally, transparency. Whenever we are looking at zoning ordinance text amendments on how we are dealing with our zones, transparency is paramount. In our conversation that we had today, there was a fair amount of conversation about the agricultural intent. What is the intent of that zone? That is the way that we should be looking at each of our text amendments and how we are applying them into our different zones. Just a history of this text amendment. Staff began working on this language in December 2020, and then it brings us here today. This has included staff research, outreach, review, and language development. We had this initiated by the Comprehensive Plan in 2019. we had our first work session in 2021 and then our two that i described and entered into the record earlier in which we went over the text and then updated some of the text to bring before you so that you can look at it have some conversation with staff and provide your input at this february 17th we added one element to the intents that was specifically requested by this commission from february to july we continued with a little bit of refinement and i will stress a very small amount of refinement we had a lot of things going on in the meantime and we thought that in july it was definitely time to bring this before you it is well past the time since this should have been updated and now is the time to move it forward on july 13th notice was mailed to neighborhood associations and emails were sent to various different outreach groups that had discussed some of these things with us in the past. And then we had our zoning committee meeting on August 4th in which the zoning committee recommended a unanimous approval. So getting back into what is the intent of the zone, what are we meant to do? We are trying to get to that modernization and continuity between zones. So we are trying to get that language out of 1983 and into the 2020s, and then strengthen those connections between our comprehensive plans and our adopted community studies, getting into our Nicholasville Road Corridor study, getting into some of our small area studies. It provides context for the appropriate zones for different locations in our community, specifically within zone changes. You have all seen this on your staff reports. You saw this today in which there is a section that references the intent of that zone. The B1 has a specific intent that is meant to tie to the name of that zone, the neighborhood business zone. What is that meant to do? What is the intention? It is supposed to support that neighborhood with amenities. And then it provides context and transparency again for future text amendments. We want individuals who have the ability to come through and go through their due process to try to change the text in our zoning ordinance. As you know, not all communities allow members from the public to come in and change or ask to change the text within the zoning ordinance. Our community specifically does and specifically allows for a more democratic conversation to occur. so just an idea of one of the zones that uh or a few of the zones that has not changed since 1983 that is our single family residential zones that is r1a all the way through r1d they have not changed since that 1983 adoption of our current zoning ordinance and it does make reference to should be located in areas of the community where the services and facilities will be accurate adequate to serve the anticipated population. That's good. But what we are talking about is possibly expanding up on that. What are those adequate facilities that are meant to be supportive? And then it does reference the comprehensive plan should be used to determine the location and density units per acre of each single family zone. We have shifted away from that in our community. We are now looking at how they are fitting onto the site within the adopted regulations. And then we are also looking at the policies of the comprehensive plan, the document that you adopted to be the guiding force in how the different areas are developed or rezoned. In 2018, this body went ahead and adopted a new intent for the commercial center or the B6P zone. just jumping between what we're seeing with the single family to what was adopted in 2018, it gave a greater sense and guidance with how a zone should be developed and how it should operate. It does not specifically regulate the zone, though. This is supposed to be the guiding force, the intent, the purpose behind the establishment of the zone. So just as an example and I have all of these in slides after I ask for questions so if you would like to look at anything specific we can pull that up but this is an example of what staff is recommending for a change from the R1A through R1D zones to from the current to the proposed so the current as I read through before the proposed the intent of this zone is to provide for low density single family detached residents and supportive uses. The zone should be located in areas where the community in the community where services and facilities are will be adequate to serve the anticipated population. This zone should be established in accordance with the goals, objectives, policies, and development criteria of the comprehensive plan. That is the the base of what we're getting into. And then we've talked about the regulations, how they are being put into place. These regulations contained in this provision are intended to what is the intent of this zone and the intent of the regulations so it for these zones staff is recommending provide development located along local streets or residential collector streets with adequate multimodal connections include adequate multimodal connections that are available to all residents so to allow for long-term viability and incremental growth incorporate intentional open space designed to fit the needs of residents and promote environmental resiliency and reduce negative impacts on the ecological systems. Ms. Worth, you should like that last one. Is that the one that you were looking for? So with all of this, it is really getting at the adequate services. How are we intending our regulations to promote adequate services? We are also recommending the modernization of certain zone titles. Again, we have not seen much in the ways of change in the zone titles for each of our zones. This is actually an important aspect because in 1983, when we adopted the new zoning ordinance, we had an idea of how our community was going to develop. We adopted names for our zones on how we thought it would develop based off of previous comprehensive plans. they have not particularly been representative of that so staff is recommending the modification of three zones in their name first the two-family residential the mixed low density r2 zone currently what is allowed within the r2 zone is the duplex which is essentially a single family attached residents attached to one other just two and single family detached residences staff is recommending that this be the change in the language because it's not just two family residential it is a mix of duplexes single family detached and they are allowed to coexist a shift from high density apartment r4 zone to medium density residential r4 zone this is both a reflection of what we are seeing being built in our community but also the categorization that is within our medium density residential we have adjusted some of our regulations with lot coverage and far to allow for actual medium density uh developments that are reflective of what the comprehensive plan is calling for and is tied to what can be done in an r4 zone and then finally the high-rise apartment, the R5 zone, compared to the high-density residential R5 zone. In this case, we are shifting again from a perspective of the built form to what we're actually seeing. We do not see many high-rise, which is structures that are greater than five to seven stories typically, in our community. We see a lot of more of our high-density residential in our R5 zone. The modifications that we have made within our FAR and lot coverage also promote some of the R5 being higher density, but not particularly high rise. Over the course of this application, there have been many different concerns voiced to and by the staff. I would like to thank all of the staff members that participated in the review of this, because often some of the complexities of everything comes up when we're all sitting in the same room. So the inclusion of the text that referenced the place builder. Initially, staff had a reference to the place builder itself. This was redundant. The place builder is an element of the comprehensive plan. It is not devoid from the comprehensive plan. It is not outside of the comprehensive plan. It is an element of and it forms a basis. We are mentioning the comprehensive plan in each of the place type development area in each of the zones and therefore it is covering that element. The inclusion of place types and development types can lead to future text amendments to correct outdated language. That is an important element of this. We are seeking to update our zoning ordinance. It is an implementation item of the comprehensive plan and we are seeking to move that forward. Another aspect was that there was a needed clarification regarding the establishment of the zone. We had different language in there that talked about the development in accordance with certain things. Staff has shifted this to really be focused on the zone should be established, shifting the focus from the entire development process to the rezoning process or the zoning process. Clarifying the language regarding the intent of the provisions. There was just some off language that resulted in a little bit of anxiety. So staff is shifting that language and has presented the regulations contained in this provision are intended to. Going back to the fact that the regulations have intent that are tied to the place that is intended to be developed. Then consistent language throughout the intents. This is a wonderful one for staff because, as you know, our staff likes to read through every single thing, and we want to be consistent. The length of the intent is too long. This has been something that has been brought up a few times, both from the development community and some of our concerned citizens. Staff looked at the intent language or the purpose statements for different zones from different communities. There's an extreme variability. Some communities have no purpose or intent statement. They just have a letter and number that designates a zone. It doesn't even have a name to it all that often. Some communities, like Nashville, have paragraphs of intent statements or purpose statements that go through in great detail what they are trying to get at from a specific zone. In this case, there is precedent set with what we have been doing with our B6P, and we have been seeing great things develop from that. It has provided a greater amount of consistency and guidance. You have heard text amendments in the past about possibly adding things that wouldn't be compliant with the intent, like dog kennels in the B6P zone. Our intent statement was very helpful in reviewing how that could or could not fit. And then finally, the need for the inclusion of environmental goals within each of our zones. This is something that is called for within the comprehensive plan. This planning commission sought to include this within each of the intent statements and is associated with all of our future development. So this just goes back through the importance of the intent. It provides that connective tissue. It provides strength. to our future changes, and it can support the conversation with text amendments in the future. So staff is recommending approval of this for those reasons and for the connective aspects to the comprehensive plan with our goals, objectives, and policies. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I also do have all that language. Hopefully you guys are not wanting to be here until about 9 o'clock tonight, but we can go through those if you'd like. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Any questions of staff? Any comments from the public? None? And as a reminder- We're all deferring to each other back there, so I'll go ahead. Your Honor. As a reminder, we're going to have the clock going. Okay, I'll speak fast. Thank you. My concern about intents is as much about how they are used. I don't think they're really needed, but my concern is really how they're used. Intents is not really aspirational. That's your comprehensive plan and place building, what you want in the future. The intent section's an ordinance saying why the ordinance is the way it is today. I'll give you an example. When the legislature put the speed limit at 70 miles an hour on interstate highways, they probably had an intent saying, we want traffic to be safe and we want it to move fast. They don't put the intent in the Kentucky revised statutes. They just put the speed limit in. That's because they don't want the guy who was caught going 90 coming in and saying, well, your honor, I really meet the intent of this ordinance. I'm innocent because, yeah, I was moving fast like the ordinance said. The intent said, and I was driving really, really safely at 90 miles an hour, so I get off. That's what happens before you all. I hear it in the hearings up here. People say, well, this development plan or this plan does not meet the intent of the ordinance. Well, the intent of the ordinance just tells why you've adopted all those particular items in the R3. For instance, the lot size, the width, the setback, the height, the width of the streets, the sewers, and the sanitary sewers. That's what you enforce. It's not the intent. It always grates on my nerves when people come up and say, well, this zone change doesn't agree with the intent. Or this, even worse, this development plan or plat doesn't agree with the intent of the ordinance. Because you're not here to enforce the intent. You're here to enforce what's in the ordinance in front of you. and the intent section only tells what was going through your mind when you adopted those. Now, here it's interesting because you're adopting intents, but most of the times you're not changing what's in the ordinance. So you have to go back and say, well, here's the intent behind what the ordinance says now. If you want to change it, you look at the comp plan or place builder and see what kind of changes you need to be made. so it's I don't think you need intense as mr. Bailey mentioned a lot of ordinances don't have them at all but if you do have them I just liked everybody to remember that it's not the intense that you enforce it's what it's not the intent of the R3 zone that you enforce when you have a plat coming before you it's the individual lot size and we've talked about the width of the sidewalks which has increased and all that sort of thing. That's what's enforced not the intent before you. I think there's there the intent is not as important a part of the ordinance as most of the other parts are the parts that you actually enforce. Thanks for hearing me out appreciate it. Thank you. I'm back I agree with Mr. Murphy on what he just said. Okay oh sure I'm I'm Walt Gaffield, I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, and now I am speaking on behalf of the Neighborhood Council. I'll go through this briefly, it's been a long meeting. I do think the intense language should be simplified. I mean, basically, if you say, you know, we need to be in, but I do think, I agree with staff that it needs to be updated and you just need language that basically says we need to be in compliance with the 2018 comprehensive plan, which is a guidance document. And I think it's a good idea to do it. You need to do it. I do have some questions about it and some concerns. I've read the whole document. I've looked at all the articles. And basically almost every zoning article mentions context or design or compatibility in zones. With a single exception of lower density residential properties, there's really nothing in there to say that development should be in context, should be compatible, should be well designed. But that language is all over the intents except there. and I wish you would add it. I'm not sure, I actually support the open space ordinance and the environmental aspects of it from what I know about it. I'm not sure it should be in the intent of the zone, and I'm not sure what open space means. One way of looking at it, open space can be a bar on top of a building, because it's a place where people congregate. People think of it as green space, but it's not necessarily that. And I think, I won't speak to that ordinance in great detail, but I think when you get to it and it's coming, it doesn't need to be in the intents for you to do it. And you're going to have questions like, is a storm drainage system open space? and I think it can be, but I think it's important to make sure that there's maintenance of that space. There's a development. It's relatively new, and I think the past president of the Meadowthorpe neighborhood moved there, and she found herself being responsible for part of the drainage system, and there's been a dispute with the developer, and Charlie Martin's been out there, and it's a big mess. So you've got to be careful about what open space is. On the whole, I support it. I like the idea. I like the planner working on it, and I think it's a good idea and it ought to go, but the details are important. And saying up on the top in the intents, we have an intention of having open space. What is it? I get to let you know you've reached your time. Oh, could I have a couple more minutes? I've reached my time a long time ago, probably a couple hours ago. I'll make it real brief. Thank you. There's some definitions I don't understand. Policies are going to be in the ordinance. I don't know what policies are. I don't know what the definition is in terms of the comprehensive plan development criteria is going into the ordinance and the intent. I'm not sure. I think I know what that is, but I'm not sure. There's an interesting piece on the B2B2B zone that I would take out, and it basically says that downtown is special and that adverse uses won't be permitted there. And two questions. What are adverse uses and where will they move if they're not going to be in the B2B? And I'm hoping if they're adverse, they're not moved into surrounding neighborhoods. Now, that may happen anyway, but I don't think it's good to state it, unless you can tell me what they are and where they're moving. Anyway, I appreciate your time. I have a lot of respect for sitting here and listening to all this, and I appreciate your service to the community. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I will be brief. Nick Nicholson again, just here as a, well, for this I'm here just as a lawyer. I'm trying to make a very legal argument, and I hate that I'm making it at the kind of last minute of a two-year process. You all know I don't do opposition work. It is not in my nature to try to attack other people's work in any way, shape, or form. I want to be able to be in front of you like I was with the parking ZODA, where I can say we've come a long way. We've worked together. Unfortunately, that has not been the case with this intense ZODA. like mr. Murphy said the flowery comprehensive plan language does not belong inside of a zoning ordinance itself there are specific rules and regulations that are to govern development that is put before you as a plan for a piece of property today and so I fully support this ZODA if basically you just take out the bullet points sections because those are the ones that are truly concerning and they get you into serious legal trouble. Mr. Bailey indicated that the one of the principal reasons for this is for legal reasons and I assure you that legal reasons are why I am asking you all to take out those bullet points. This is interjecting subjectivity into a very specific rule and regulation. The intense section is like a whereas clause in a contract it's It's like legislative intent in the statute. They don't belong in the actual rule themselves. Now, from a practical perspective, that is the kind of second rationale we were given, that there's practical reasons, and I'm going to go out on a limb that the practical reason in the staff was that this provides a foundation for future ZOTAs. That's what this is actually about, and I would say that we need to wait to find out what those future rules are until we actually put them in the intent. You're creating a chicken and the egg type situation where we need this for future ZOTAs, and then we're going to say that those future ZOTAs are because you said that this belongs in the intent section. If you look at just at the R1A zone, it says that the regulations contained in this provision are intended for, for example, to provide development located along local streets or residential collector streets. There's not a single regulation in the R1A zone that actually addresses this aspect. It says we need to provide adequate multimodal connections. There's not a single regulation in the R1A zone that actually has this. You need long-term viability and incremental growth. I don't know what that is, but I know that's comprehensive plan language. That is not a zoning ordinance language. I'm not saying that these are not good things and that we should be doing this as a community. I am merely saying they're not actually in the regulation itself, and so they should not be in the intent section. It is just basic, like, legislative drafting. Legislative drafting is not easy in any way, shape, or form. I really don't want to be here at the last minute trying to tear this down. And the last thing I will say is that from a transparency standpoint, if we've been working on this for two years you should not wait until it's time to vote to hear from anyone but the champions of that legislation if you look at what the lrc does in order to promulgate regulations for all administrative bodies that basically sets up a process where you take in any type of public comment you then get to discuss them at work sessions i would urge you to allow a similar process moving forward for any type of zotas thank you all very much thank you like hall 36 richmond avenue probably also the only one in this room who lives in one of the effective zones i live in an r2 zoned but single family house but my neighborhood is relatively mixed use. We have quite a few fourplexes and ups in addition to the duplexes and whatnot. I support these changes in that especially because of things like the R2 zone, which is listed as two-family. If a ZOTA comes down the line that says, okay, we allow three units now, you will hear arguments saying, well, it's called two-family, we can't do that. So I think it's understandable to change the intense section and I'm not beholden to any of the details but I do think at least renaming and the spirit of it makes sense especially as we currently don't really allow much incremental development it's either single-family or mid-rise these these renamings kind of help get us started to the point of allowing some of the things that we historically made before zoning. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road. I thank both the esteemed attorneys for their remarks, and I second them entirely. In fact, I will skip my first part, except to say that as a citizen and just generally, I think you look at the intent of a zone to distinguish one zone from the next, and some of these intents don't seem to do the job any longer than the revised intents. I will ask you to please postpone, either in whole or in part, There's been very little time for public study and discussion. The 22-page revised ZODA text, and it was considerably revised. It's also very confusing, complex, you might say. As far as I know, it was not available to the public before August the 5th, the day after the work session. The many public meetings that were noted, those were open meetings, but they were not meetings where public comment is admitted at the work session. There was a zoning committee meeting. I left at four just as they were beginning that. Four members were present. I saw one of the members headed home on a bicycle very shortly afterward. I actually wonder how a vote of approval was made with possibly three or possibly four and very quickly. I'm going to focus on, because I didn't even have time to read and understand it all. Not that I ever would have understood it, but I could have read it. I'm going to focus on the R2 zone. The new intent for it no longer limits it to duplex use. That was what was intended, if no pun intended. But this is part of a radical revision of the entire zone, and you know that. You've seen several drafts of it that's under development. And I believe it really should not be addressed apart from and in advance of the larger R2 zota, which is still under development. It proposes lot dimensions now afforded to a townhouse and a use in density up to 12 townhouses attached or a sixplex. And these are the properties that would be affected. This is from your own staff presentations. And I can say that most of these people aren't aware. It is legal to do a text amendment that writes a whole new zone. and you need not give notice mailed to impacted property owners. That is legal because it's a text amendment. It's not a map amendment. It doesn't make it the best way to engage the public and ensure that we have something that is amenable to the neighborhood's concern. I will also address the R1E zone, And I will ask not only that you not add compact housing to this, the very smallest of our single family detached residential zones. Ms. Clark, you've reached your time. The rest of my remarks may be found in the letter that I submitted. And I do encourage you to postpone this. Thank you. Thank you. thank you very much ladies and gentlemen um there are a few comments that i do want to touch on uh there were a few uh references to the fact that this is meant for something in the future this is meant for now the regulations that are represented as the provisions of this zone are intended to are reflective of the things that we have in our zoning ordinance. The open space, the usable open space, which was amended earlier in the 2000s, is actually defined and is actually given a percentage and is actually discussed as being intentionally placed. There are further tax amendments that we will be looking at, as you know, with the adoption of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, but the language that is provided is reflective of what is in the zoning ordinance currently. In terms of a few comments about outreach and knowing when language was administered, I would like to enter into the record some documentation that was sent January 24th that is reflective of the language that we're talking about right now that was sent to Ms. Clark. um i would also like to reference the current zoning ordinance text amendment or text language for the r1e zone the r1e zone talks about zero lot line facilities about compact patio houses so as you see here it may be used for zero lot line houses and patio houses it gets into compact housing types. What we are talking about with the new changes that have been seeing in communities since 1983 is compact housing that is allowed within the R1E zone currently. The regulations that we're talking about with promoting environmental resiliency and reducing negative impacts on ecological systems are in the zoning ordinance currently, but they aren't reflected by the 1983 zoning ordinance. So there are various different aspects of this zoning ordinance text amendment that we're bringing up now that is in reference to different aspects of our current zoning ordinance. Furthermore, the intent is really descriptive of what is trying to be done with that zone, with the current regulations. This is not meant to make someone kind of negotiate different aspects of the zoning ordinance and why it should be this way or why it shouldn't. It specifically says the regulations contained in this provision are intended to. So it is making direct connections to the current regulations within that zoning ordinance. With all text amendments that are brought to you, you usually only have a six-month time frame that are brought from the public in this case this text amendment is yours if you do choose to postpone to have greater conversation about some of the elements of this i would actually recommend a continuance so that we don't have to rehash everything but that is within your purview especially since this is your application so if you do not feel comfortable with the language that staff has provided right now, I would recommend that you ask for a continuance or ask for a postponement and we can continue to work with the public on this. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. I'll bring this back to the commissioners for discussion. When an attorney tells me this is going to get me in legal trouble, I get concerned. And so I guess my thought is that we ask for a continuance to look at those bullet point contents, unless Tracy wants to weigh in on this. Well, I don't know. You might want to ask your counsel. Yeah, okay. You're certainly welcome to do that if it would give you another level of comfort and we can take a look at that and comment back to you or any other questions you might have that you want us to address. I'm not an attorney. I think I like what I'm reading there. It's just when somebody who is a legal expert is a lawyer who does this kind of practice. But our counsel, Tracy, is an attorney. Yeah, I know. I'm not discounting her. I'm saying we have another attorney who said that. I mean, I understand what you're saying, that somebody else raised that with you. So if it gives you a level of comfort, we can certainly take it back, look at it, answer some questions for you. But it's up to you what you all want to do with that. You know, that's one concern. I agree, Judy. And the other concern I have is that whether or not it's an accurate depiction, there is a sense that there wasn't enough outreach or people missed the outreach. And so I think a continuance would make sense so that those folks who feel that they were not fully aware of what was going on can plug into it and we can get it a little better, perhaps. Yeah, I echo that. With all due respect of staff, I have a great deal of respect for those who spoke as well, and I would hope that you all would be able to get together and find some means of compromise. I saw both you and Tracy shake your head on a few points that were made by the attorneys, and it's way above my head, but I can read people. So that's what I would hope. And that it be done expeditiously, that this not be addressed. assuming we're asking for year time, but that it not be a dragged out process another six months or whatever, that if these things can be done relatively quickly. And ma'am, you could put a continuance or a postponement to a date certain. That would be appropriate. I'd suggest continuance based on what you recommended. Mr. Chair, Ms. Worth, if you all are inclined to continue, I would recommend not doing so in September. You do have a full agenda already then. But your next zoning hearing is October 27th, if you wanted to do something like that. And to also just put on the record that you take, the staff strongly recommends that you take your legal counsel from the urban county government. Any other discussion or I'll entertain a motion. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to move for continuance to October 27th. Is there a second? Second by Ms. Barksdale. If it comes up on your screen, please vote. Motion passes. To continue. I think that's the end of our agenda. Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You all are very good sports. I do hope you will see today that you have been adequately supported by staff from the Division of Planning and that we remain committed to helping you with all of these issues in any way that we possibly can. Our next meeting with you is on the first day of September when we have committee meetings at 830 and 130 respectively in the Phoenix building. And just to give you a preview for your calendar planning purposes, on your September 8th meeting we are going to ask you to amend your schedule to cancel the September 29th work session. So we will recommend you all do that so you all can begin making other plans if you need to. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. If there's no other discussion, the meeting is adjourned.