# General Government and Planning Committee - May 7, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 7, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6105 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6105?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-05-07 - **Last revised**: May 7, 2024 - **Length**: 16,978 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The General Government & Planning Committee convened on May 7, 2024, at 1:00 PM with P. Worley presiding. The committee addressed two agenda items during the session, focusing on zoning and land use matters within the jurisdiction. The meeting included one informational presentation on short-term rentals for agricultural zones and one action item regarding an Urban Growth Management Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, which was approved by the committee. Two formal votes were taken during the proceedings, with no public comments received on either matter discussed. The committee's work centered on land use policy, examining both current regulations for short-term rentals in agricultural areas and proposed changes to urban growth management zoning ordinances. The approved text amendment represents a policy change that will affect future development and zoning decisions within the urban growth boundary. ## Attendance All members were present for the meeting held on May 7, 2024. **Present:** • P. Worley • K. Plomin • D. Wu • J. Brown • C. Ellinger • S. Lynch • H. LeGris • L. Sheehan • W. Baxter • J. Reynolds **Absent:** None **Late:** None The meeting achieved full attendance with all ten members participating. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included two formal votes, both conducted by voice vote and resulting in unanimous approval. **Agenda Committee Summary Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] The first motion addressed approval of the agenda committee summary. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, with no recorded individual vote counts or opposition. **Urban Growth Management Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment** [timestamp: 02:30] P. Worley made a motion to approve the urban growth management zoning ordinance text amendment, which was seconded by K. Plomin. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, with no recorded dissenting votes or abstentions. Both votes were conducted as voice votes rather than formal roll call votes, so individual member positions were not recorded in the official tally. The unanimous outcomes suggest broad consensus among the voting members on both items. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one primary area of contention regarding short-term rental regulations in agricultural zones. **Short-term Rentals in Agricultural Zones** A heated discussion emerged over proposed restrictions on new construction for short-term rental purposes in agricultural areas. The debate centered on two main issues: limitations on building new structures specifically for short-term rental use and the regulatory distinctions between hosted and unhosted rental arrangements. The disagreement involved multiple perspectives on how to balance agricultural land preservation with property owners' rights to generate income through short-term rentals. Participants debated whether new construction restrictions would effectively protect agricultural character while questioning the practical implications of differentiating between hosted rentals (where property owners are present) and unhosted rentals (where properties operate independently). The discussion highlighted tensions between maintaining the agricultural integrity of zoned areas and accommodating the growing short-term rental market. Stakeholders expressed concerns about potential impacts on farming operations, neighborhood character, and property values. The outcome of this contested item was not clearly resolved during the available meeting materials, suggesting the matter may require additional consideration or future action by the governing body. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and participant names were not available in the provided source materials.* ## Short-term rentals for the agricultural zones [timestamp: 00:30] The committee received and discussed recommendations from the Rural Land Management Board regarding short-term rentals in agricultural zones. The discussion was led by key speakers J. Brown and Beth Overman. The presentation focused on several critical aspects of short-term rental operations within agricultural areas, including: • Permit requirements and regulatory framework for short-term rentals on agricultural land • Safety considerations and compliance standards for rental properties in rural settings • The potential impact of short-term rental activities on existing agricultural operations and land use Committee members examined how short-term rentals might affect the primary agricultural purpose of zoned land and whether additional oversight mechanisms would be necessary to ensure compatibility between rental activities and farming operations. The Rural Land Management Board's recommendations addressed concerns about maintaining the agricultural character of these zones while potentially allowing limited short-term rental opportunities that could provide supplemental income for agricultural landowners. This was an informational discussion item, with no formal action taken by the committee. The presentation served to inform committee members about the Rural Land Management Board's findings and recommendations, providing a foundation for potential future policy considerations regarding short-term rentals in agricultural zones. ## Urban Growth Management Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment [timestamp: 02:00] The committee reviewed proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance focused on modernizing current zoning practices across both residential and commercial zones. Chris Taylor and P. Worley served as the key speakers during the discussion of this ordinance text amendment. The proposed changes were designed to update existing zoning regulations to better align with contemporary development needs and practices. The amendments addressed modifications to both residential and commercial zoning categories, though specific details of the proposed changes were not elaborated in the available materials. The discussion centered on the need to modernize zoning practices to reflect current urban development trends and requirements. The committee ultimately approved the Urban Growth Management Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment following their review and discussion of the proposed changes. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the agenda committee summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the urban growth management zoning ordinance text amendment --- ## Full transcript I had some problems and no one could seem to solve them But you found the answer You told me to take this chance And learn the ways of love My baby and all that it has to offer In time you will see that love won't let you down You said that you loved me Said hurt only came to pass me It sounded so convincing That I gave it half a chance And learned the ways of love My baby, there is so much love inside me And all that I have, I give my all to you All, all my love, baby And all this love is waiting for you My baby, my darling And all, all my love is just waiting for you Oh, I had some problems And no one could seem to solve them But you, you, you found the answer So I gave it half a chance to learn away And the things I love my baby And all that it has to offer And all that I have I give my all to you All, all my love baby And all this love sits waiting for you My baby, my sugar And all this love Thank you. Bruce Brown, is there any lead in you'd like to give us? Thank you, Chair, and I just want to say thank you to the Rural Land Management Board for taking this issue up and looking at it and coming back with a policy for us to consider. Council Member Ken, you got anything you want to add to it? Yeah. That's all, Chair. Thank you, Council Members. Director Overman, how are you? Good, good, thank you. Please enlighten us. Okay. Alright, so recognizing the unique character opportunities and challenges of allowing STRs in the Ag Zones in the rural service area, Council Members James Brown and Liz Sheehan asked the Rural Land Management Board to review the issue and bring recommendations to the Council. Chair Martin assigned this task to the Board's Ordnance Review and Long Range Planning Committee, chaired by Margaret Graves, who represents a conservation group on our board. This is Margaret here seated right here and she was the first chair of the rural land management board and served in that role for 11 years and then took a little break and came back to us about four or five years ago And is also the chair of the bluegrass land conservancy So she brought a wealth of knowledge to this issue for us In addition to miss graves and chair Martin committee members included Hannah emig representing the realtors who is here today and Phillip Meyer representing Farm Bureau and Mary Quinn Ramer representing visit Lex Christine Stanley representing historic preservation and Don Todd who is a former 12th district councilmember and councilmember Dave Savigny who is non-voting but very helpful to us staff support was provided by Sean Denny of Commissioner Horne's office autumn Goddard was of planning Tracy Jones who here today and evan thompson of the law department and myself so the rural service area zoning the rural service areas could come is primarily comprised of the ag rural ar zone as you can see on this map everything in green is ar so and then there are also small areas zoned ag natural and ag buffer and then we call those a n and a b and those are the three areas for which we are making recommendations the rural service area includes 11 additional land use zones as shown on the map all of which also exist inside the urban service area it is our understanding from the law department those 11 zones will be governed by the same zoning regulations as they are within the urban service area so our committee met seven times from August 2023 to February of this year to thoroughly study the issue in addition to several preliminary meetings between the committee chair and staff throughout government research included gathering data from visit Lex on the number of advertised STRs in the rural service area and the cost differentials with those in hotels conducting a survey of members of the Fayette County Farm Bureau and the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association attending Fayette County neighborhood Association meetings when strs were discussed reviewing str governance in other cities and municipalities with rural areas and reviewing the national league of cities publication on implementing str laws the committee concluded that str should be permitted in the ag zones under certain conditions and restrictions and has provided the following 10 recommendations the rural land management board approved the committee's recommendations at its march 27th meeting and agreed to forward them to the council so our first recommendation is that all strs in the ag zone should be required to obtain a conditional use permit from the board of adjustment residences in the rural service area do not have city sewer services and instead rely on septic tanks the board of adjustment should require that all strs in the rural area provide a certificate from the health department stating the septic tank on the property is sufficient to handle the proposed use of the property as an str before applying for a conditional use permit the boa should also require the adequate fire safety measures are in place prior to granting a conditional use fire chief wells recommends that the location of the nearest fire hydrant be included in the staff report to the boa the b okay recommendation two the boa should consider the number of strs within a one mile radius of the property and no more than one str should be permitted within a one mile radius This is consistent with the one-mile radius restriction for bed and breakfast operations in the Ag zones. Recommendation number three, adjacent property owners should be notified of the conditional use permit application as required by existing public notice requirements. This will allow neighbors to voice support or concerns and share helpful information about the BOA or with the BOA, such as what type of farming takes place next door. Recommendation number four, only hosted STRs should be permitted in the ag zones to ensure that visitors understand the unique challenges of farming, do not disrupt active ag operations, and are not injured by livestock. Hosted STRs will give visitors an opportunity to learn about farming and experience the unique attributes of the rural area. It will also bring a measure of safety to both the guest and any livestock residing on the host property or those adjacent to it. Recommendation number five, only one STR should be allowed on each property and no newly constructed STR should be permitted. The primary land use in the ag zones is and should remain agriculture. Because STRs are a commercial non-ag use, the number permitted in the ag zone should be limited. Recommendation number six a property owner with an existing farm employee dwelling unit may apply to the board of adjustment for a conditional use permit to convert no more than one FEDU per property to an STR. Many parcels in the Ag Zones include multiple residences on one property so hosted STRs will not require the owner and guest to reside in the same house and that's one reason this is unique to the rural area. FEDUs are accessory residences in the Ag Zones and can only be occupied by farm employees or family members who work on the farm. And that's why it would need to go back through the BOA to get it changed. Recommendation number seven, given the dependence on septic tanks and there being no city provided residential water in the Ag Zones, maximum occupancy should be limited to two individuals per bedroom. Recommendation number eight, all STRs in the rural area should be required to have onsite parking and lighted entrances that are easily visible from the roadway. This is due to safety concerns on narrow rural roads, the lack of street lights, and for fire and emergency personnel. Fire Chief Wells said it is very important the address of the property be clearly marked and the division of E911 has the address each house on the property and knows how to reach it. So an example he gave is if we had an, someone had an STR at the back of a 200 acre farm and you know it's dark, they're trying to find that, there's several houses on the farm, they have to know how to get back there, things have to be clearly marked and some of you may have noticed like a lot of times when you're driving in the rural area like Some of the addresses are on the opposite side on a mailbox rather than on the fence. And so we've got to make sure that everything is clearly marked and the E911 is aware of this. The lighting can include bright ground-level spotlights that clearly illuminate the address. So we're not talking about adding neon signs to farms or anything. These are requirements the Board of Adjustment can ensure will be included when issuing a conditional use permit. recommendation number nine special events including but not limited to weddings bachelor and bachelorette parties weddings or baby showers parties and family reunions should be limited to the number of participants staying in the str this is consistent with the ordinance language governing strs in the urban service area and should apply in the ag zones as well so this would not be new this would just be applying at countywide section 313 f of the str ordinance states that short-term rentals shall not be utilized for private events such as weddings or parties in which the number of participants exceeds the maximum occupancy limit no private event shall occur between the hours of 11 pm and 7 a.m special events for a commercial purpose shall be prohibited all times and finally recommendation 10 only 14 property owners in the rural service area registered their existing str by the january 11th 2024 deadline all other strs and ag zones should be subject to the new requirements recommended above and should not be grandfathered in so our pdr farms and farm stays most properties in the pdr program will not be permitted to have strs on their farm because conservation conservation easements prohibit non-ag related commercial activities Kentucky law permits farm stays as agritourism and per KRS 2190118 farm stay means a bed and breakfast establishment at a farm location whose focus includes agritourism as defined in KRS 247801 though Lexington's current zoning laws do not address farm stays they do permit bed and breakfast facilities in the ag zones since farm stays involve overnight stays where the guests engage in ag activities it may be possible that a certain subset of pdr properties may be eligible to host farm stays as language in our federal easement template since 2020 permits commercial agritourism farm stays may be an avenue to allow greater access to farm properties while protecting existing ag activities the rural land management board will review any requests by loan landowners to have an str on their property by reviewing the applicable easement language for the property and the current laws in conclusion strs in the ag zones offer a great opportunity for educational and leisure experiences if governed correctly the conditional use permit process through the boa is paramount for health and safety reasons all strs must be clearly marked and accessible to our fire and emergency personnel consistency with the b b ordinance language allowing one per mile helps to ensure housing is primarily used for agriculture and residential use and does not further contribute to a housing shortage the rural land management board appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on this issue and that concludes it i will just note that we have the draft soda provided by planning in your packets and the draft ordinance amendment that would update the regulatory side of things as far as registration and fees our committee report data from visit lex on what how many were advertised and the list of 14 farms that did register by january 11th and a map and the map of the rural area the zones in the rural area so we are happy to take questions and I'll invite Margaret Graves to see if she has anything happy to answer any questions thank you director welcome back miss graves questions we'll start with vice mayor Wu thank you chair thank you miss overman for the presentation going back to fire safety who makes that sort of final call as to whether or not the fire safety things are in place is that the Lexington Fire Department I believe so I'm not sure if they're here today but so the e911 staff they did talk about that so fire has someone that works with GIS and with addressing and they both said they would need to be involved in that because what they do is whenever a I know from experience with our PDR farms whenever a new house is added to a farm they give it a separate address so that they know how to reach that I don't know how long that was happening so there may be some out there that were built you know 50 years ago that don't have that so they said they would very much want to be involved in the board of adjustment process and that be part of the staff report that they got to give an opinion about that and you know were consulted about that and knew if they were and ultimately knew if they were also approved so they could ensure that that addressing took place so is that compliance a subjective call based on the fire personnel whoever it is that would inspect the property or is there like a framework of you know you have to have X number of smoke alarms per room and x number of fire extinguishers like how objective subjective is that approval fire chief wells said to me that he feels comfortable with the number of fire hydrants they have out there to you know to be able to allow some strs he did say that it you know it should be taken into consideration we may need to get more feedback from them on the specifics but i think overall He felt like they were ready that just all these steps need to be in place They need to know exactly how to get back there and have detailed information About that at e911 and then you listed 14 property owners that are grandfathered in From being in there before how are those regulated? And how are they regulated differently than new ones coming online newly approved? strs Tracy address that so those as far as I know since they are regulated or since they made it you know registered before the deadline they get to proceed just like one inside the urban service boundary I think they do have a different restriction on their limits to number of res let me see I think I put that on here one of their differences was the number of people that they can have yes they are limited to four in the rule so even if they register by January 11th they were limited to four so are they essentially regulated like urban or inside USB STRs is it identical in terms of what the rules they have to go by well I think they're I think they're regulated in terms of how you know you didn't have this ordinance so there was a number that were grandfathered in and so they would be regulated the same way if they came and registered before that January 11th deadline which talks about the number of four people and those types of things these recommendations would really apply to new ones going forward okay gotcha and then my last question is about farm stays versus STRs do we have an idea of how many farm stays we have we don't believe we currently have any because our zoning doesn't currently address farm stays our zoning ordinance and so it does address bed and breakfast facilities and I think think there are only maybe about four of those in the rural area if that three mary quinn said yes so so i guess my sort of thinking uh is if i had a property and i essentially wanted to create an str on there but i go and call it a farm stay or i call it a bed and breakfast like how would that work is that is that a loophole is that something that people can attempt to get away with i guess if i understand the state statute correctly and i know by no means an expert on the state law a farm stay is a very different type of experience than a typical str a farm stay the person who is staying in the bed and breakfast actually engages in agricultural activities whether that's gathering eggs that are laid on the farm currying the horses you know that sort of thing so it's quite a a different experience than a typical STR experience. So that the, I believe, Tracy correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the language that you have before you from the legal department has addresses farm stays as well. But it's currently not addressed in Lexington's zoning ordinance. Great, thank you Ms. Graves. Sure. Thank you Ms. Overman. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And also, I'm sorry, before we got started, I didn't recognize Chair Martin. Thank you for being here with us also. Councilmember Legree. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for your work on this. I know it took a lot of time and intention. I have a follow-up question to one of the Vice Mayor's inquiries, and I'm looking at page 52 in the packet. I want to bring us back to the RSA properties that registered by the January 11, 2024 deadline. So if I'm reading this correctly, that means that there are approximately 12 unhosted properties and then two hosted properties who registered prior to that deadline. But you had mentioned that limit on number of guests. The very first one, and I just want to see if I'm understanding this, is in the R1D and it has eight guests. is that different than the um ar which you know all the rest of those have four guests or is that is that regulation within the r1d different than in the um ar it is because when you all adopted the short-term rental you adopted for residential zones and also other zones inside the urban service boundary but there are a few of those that are outside the urban service boundary so that's why you see some of these that are slightly different because they're going to be governed by the laws you've already adopted okay that's helpful um for us to talk about i think um and then a similar type thing at 8291 old richmond road that's the ar zone um there are two properties there so both of those can be unhosted short-term rentals to prop to residences on one property excuse me because they registered before the January 11th deadline well I would say that only one of those gets to be I'm not we can check with planning and get back to you about that we just have that the two houses they have here, but I'm sure that one was probably specifically designated for that, and the other is possibly a residence or some other use. Okay. Okay. That sounds good. I'll make a note to get that for you. Thank you. And then I have a question about the notification process. I grew up in the middle of nowhere, so I understand that the definition of adjacent property can be pretty broad in this case. like how do you all define adjacent property because it says adjacent property owners are going to be notified is that property owners within so many miles how does that work so autumn goddard was and i maybe if i can't answer exactly tracy or director duncan can but autumn explained it will be the same radius that is required inside the urban service area except in the rural area it goes i think 500 feet further is that okay i think it goes slightly further any conditional use in the ar zone is and i was just asking planning because i don't remember off the top of my head but is two like two properties are so many feet it's not the same way it is inside the urban service boundary where you have specific you know So it, I mean, it may not catch as many, but it's going to be broader than what you see inside the boundary. And then also, of course, there'll be signs and that type of thing on the properties as well as required in all of our notice requirements for that type of thing. Okay, so it sounds like the notification process would follow a similar kind of set of parameters as what you all already do for conditional use notifications. It would be exactly the same. Because if they have to have a conditional use, then they're going to follow the same notice provisions that we already have for any conditional use that's going to the Board of Adjustment. Okay, great. That's really helpful. I appreciate that. Chair, those are my only questions so far. Thank you so much. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I just have a couple of questions. Your recommendation number five, you specifically say no newly constructed STR should be permitted. Can you give me some more information regarding your rationale and decision making as far as not allowing new constructed buildings on people's properties? I'd be happy to try to answer that question. The Rural Land Management Board, our primary focus is on conserving land for agricultural use. And we felt that no new STRs should be permitted in the ag zones within the rural service area. because the primary land use in those ag zones is and should remain agriculture so that that's the basic rationale we also strs are a commercial non-agricultural use and so we we are recommending that the number that are allowed in the a are in the ag zones be very restricted because we want we believe that the rural service area the primary agricultural zones should be reserved primarily for agricultural use so that was our thinking so people wanting to have an str living in those zones could only convert existing buildings correct that's our recommendation and then my last question is just for clarification purposes regarding your pdr farms so the rural land management board will only review requests by landowners for sdrs only for the pdr farms is that correct that what I mean it's the for PDR farms if they are requesting activities on their farms they come before the roll and management board anyway so for example if there is a farm that is a PDR farm and they want to construct a new primary residence they have to come to the board to request that they also have to go through all the planning and zoning processes as as well. So for PDR parcels and the PDR parcels, it varies because the federal easement language has changed over time. So we would review any requests from any PDR participant by looking at existing, the easement that is on that particular parcel, as well as all planning and zoning laws, as well as any state requirements. And you all's review, the board's review is only for PDR farms, correct? Correct, that is correct, yes. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you so much. And thank you for the presentation again. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Catherine Plumman. Thank you, Chair. And you might have just kind of answered that for me. The last bullet under PDR farms and farm says, the Rural Land Management Board will review. Any request by landowners to have an STR on their property, or in the first bullet, you talked about it will not be permitted to have STRs. elaborate on on that a little bit or maybe i misunderstood that sorry could you ask your question again well i'm not sure really what it says the last bullet they won't review any request by landowners to have an str on the property and then the first bullet says pdr farms programs will not be permitted if str farms on on the property maybe um well so we what we think is that um I don't let Tracy. Okay. Well, as you know, the PDR program's been in existence since 2000. And so all easements limit commercial activities on PDR farms. Also since 2000, we have had a partnership, or shortly thereafter, with the federal government to get matching funds to do these programs. So whenever we do that, our easement is also a joint easement with the federal government that is providing that money. And there are certain terms in there that we're required to follow. So there, but in recent years, I can't remember the exact date, maybe around 2016 or 17, there were some changes in the farm bills that started allowing farm stays and other things on these types of easements that are being protected. So there may be an opportunity in some instances, and we can't tell you for sure because we haven't seen it yet and we don't know, and this isn't in place yet, so it's all a moving pieces and parts. But if a federal easement would allow a farm stay, and it would be a farm stay as they define it and what they would permit under it, then the question is would that under any terms of any easement, they're going to come back to the board when they're adding a new activity, a new structure, a new thing, because obviously, as Margaret said, the purpose is to try to protect the land for agriculture. So there are some instances where that could happen, and if that did happen, they would come back to the PDR board and they would review the terms of their easement and the language in there and what they're asking for to determine if it could be allowed. I believe personally having staffed the PDR board almost since its inception that There's going to be probably a group of them where that is going to be still be prohibited Just because of the way the easements were written at the time and but we would have to you know confer with our federal partners and look at our easements and You know work with our title attorney who helps us with those to determine as those things come forward So my best answer to it is probably going to be on a case-by-case basis, and I don't know that it would be applicable in every situation. And I think that accounts for the difference in the first bullet point and the last one, if that makes sense. So in a PDR farm, it could only be a farm stay, correct? I think that's probably true at this point, because I don't think that our federal government partners are going to be okay with a commercial type of STR if there's an easement on it. it just at the str term kind of threw me because i saw it back in there again but really it's more like a farm stay or something else that it's not really short-term rental yeah i i don't know if we went to them even under their new terms more more recent easements and said that they want to conduct you know have a str on this property i i'm not sure that they would say okay i think they They might say, well, if it's a farm stay, okay, but if it's not, then no. But I can't give you a definitive answer because we haven't had that come up yet. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. And thank you to the whole committee for all your hard work on this. I know these issues are not easy. I guess I'm a little confused about one thing, and that is the bed and breakfast and events. So one, bed and breakfast are permitted in the ag zone currently, right? So if bed and breakfast are permitted in the ag zone currently, I don't understand why similar short-term rentals would not be. And I know some bed and breakfast are often hosted, but sometimes they're not. So I guess I'm just, I feel like, yes, we want to maintain the land. Yes, we want to be careful about building anything new. But I also feel like we have an opportunity here to really show off what makes Kentucky unique. And when people come to town to be able to stay at these places and get a flavor of, you know, the ag that we have going on for us. and that by making this regulation so tight, I feel like we're missing out on an opportunity. So I'm a little concerned about that and the unhosted versus hosted part and then just not being able to build at all. So as of right now, if you were going to build something, you can't even do it with a um you can't even go to the boa and and ask for a conditional use permit to build a short-term rental correct correct correct so it prohibits it completely without even the possibility of of asking to be able to do that so i think i think that can be problematic and then could you clarify the the events currently are our weddings allowed in the ag zone. So, let me try to break this down a little bit. Any bed and breakfast, if it's properly permitted, the person who owns that needs to live there. So, if there's a bed and breakfast that's operating, I don't think that's correct, if there's a bed and breakfast that's operating and there's the person that owns it isn't living there operating it, then it's not being properly. on the property it's not being properly operated and they also have to provide you know a breakfast or meal or something like that so that if that clarifies that a little bit they technically are hosted because they're there even though there's very few of them now there may be more I don't know we don't know about but the ones that we know about so in terms of events the way our ordinance is currently written things that are commercial in the Ag Zone that don't relate to agriculture or the agricultural production on the properties are not really allowed now that's not to say you can't have a wedding on your property you could but you couldn't charge for it in other words you know you if you own a farm and you want to have your friends daughter's wedding there or your son's wedding there or whatever what you can't have is like an event space where you're putting it out there you know if you pay me I don't know I guess I have two daughters I'll be thinking about this sometime in the future and it might be make my head hurt but you know you can't put out there it's going to be this expensive for you to have this farm and have a wedding there because then it becomes a commercial enterprise so while those things might be taking place on different agricultural properties they're not taking place as an event center or otherwise principally they're not a principal right so that that's sort of the difference there and this wouldn't change that in other words if it's your private whatever you're doing on your property that you're not charging some kind of cost commercially for then it can probably still go on so you can't have a wedding venue or some sort of thing that you're making money unless it's a farm and their farm tours the the farm tours go through sort of yes a whole different process and avenue than it you know so um but yeah that you couldn't really just have a wedding venue um now that's not to say and i think these recommendations allow for you know if you have what whatever is permitted in this if you say it's eight people in an str and those eight people are there for the weekend and they're celebrating something i mean that's going to be okay what you can't have is those eight people are there for the weekend and 75 more come or 50 you know so that that's kind of where this is going thank you thank you so much thank you chair thank you council member uh council member baxter thank you chair and thank you all for your work on this i know it was a herculean task so um i do have a question though about public engagement i know there was eight people that served on the committee and i'm just curious if there was any public engagement and if so if current short-term rental operators who have registered were consulted or asked their opinion on and then kind of what that looked like we did send a survey to the farm bureau and to the kentucky thoroughbred association to send out to their members so that we could get that feedback the old richmond road neighborhood association is one of the most active in the rural area they also sent it out and got feedback and then the planning division when they would get calls about this they would direct people to me and so we would get some emails and share those with the committee about feedback so that is the primarily the avenues that we took and everything was advertised to the public so that they knew we were working on this issue because i think the planning staff did get a lot of calls about it and so they were telling people so we did those meetings via zoom and advertised that so that people could listen in if they wanted to did any of the current registered short-term rental owners provide input we didn't reach out to them because they you know they get to move forward so we did not talk to them about this okay i guess my my general concern is that a small amount of people have developed a very large policy so that's kind of where i'm i'm going with this um and as we look at especially recommendation number five and and this is kind of a follow-up on councilmember reynolds comment um prohibiting um property owners rights is something that is of concern to me um so as we're looking at the potential of someone building an extra building on their property and not necessarily right now filing for short-term rental but in a year like they're still gonna you know we're talking about loopholes like there's still gonna be ways around it but I don't want people to feel like they're constrained on what they can do in their own personal property yeah We should clarify one thing for you all. So right now, you are not legally allowed to add a house in the rural area exclusive of this unless it is for a farm employee. You can have a primary residence, and then if you have 40 acres, you can add one, but it has to be for a farm employee or a family member who works on the farm, and then you have to sign an affidavit at the Division of Building Inspection saying you acknowledge that, and that's the only reason you'll use it. So we are not, so this would follow current laws. Well, that's helpful and something that I hadn't considered. So thank you for that clarification. Did you have something else? I just would say that we did try to get as much input from members of the public as possible. We attended Fayette County Neighborhood Council meetings about SDRs. We know that's a hot issue within the urban service boundary, to say the least. And I do applaud your all's efforts to get additional public input through the portal. So we applaud that effort completely. And it's not easy. It's not easy to get people involved. No, and it's not our primary mission either as an organization. Well, I think as we're looking at tourism and how we present ourselves as a community to the rest of the world, it's really important for us to make these considerations. I don't disagree. And Mary Quinn was a very good advocate for the tourism opportunities. And we really tried to strike a balance because there were people within the rural service area who were adamantly opposed to any of these existing in the rural service area. There were people in the rural service area who very much wanted them. And we as a committee tried to find the middle ground with recommendations for you all to consider. Okay. And then my final, I guess, comment is that inside the urban services boundary, we kind of rely on neighbors to keep everyone in compliance. And if we're looking at 200-acre farms or residences that may be acres and acres away, as far as enforcement is concerned, I mean, do you guys have any concerns about that? Do you think about that at all? I think it's fair to say enforcement is a big issue. countywide. So I think, you know, obviously neighbors can report complaints as they do within the urban service boundary and that can happen in the rural service area as well. But I mean, we didn't recommend any new avenues, but I think that enforcement is a big issue that we have to wrestle with as a community. Sorry, I just have two seconds left. My biggest concern is that we are putting a lot of restrictions on in this area that we may not be able to enforce. It was kind of my thought. That's all I have. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Chair. And just briefly related to the discussion we were just having, I want to remind everyone that we have been doing, we have a planned review process for the short-term rental policy. And if you want to give feedback, if you're a member of the public and you want to give feedback on the recommendations that we have heard today or the policy for the urban service area, you can go to engage.lexingtonky.gov, and we are collecting all of that feedback now. So in addition to the other ways you might engage with us at public meetings or neighborhood meetings or over email or phone calls, please visit the Engage Lexington platform to provide us your feedback. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Gray. Well, thank you, Chair. I do appreciate it. I have a question for a law. In this, I see that we're treating, I know in the city we have both hosted and unhosted short-term rentals, But I see that specifically in the rural area, we're seeking evidently only hosted. Or did I say that wrong? Hosted. Hosted. So what I see is that we're treating basically two areas. I'm just wondering the standpoint and why solely unhosted or hosted in the rural from your standpoint from the law. From my standpoint, and Ms. Graves may want to speak to this as well, because we had lots of discussion about this in the committee. You know, I think that when you treat things differently, you're always looking at what are the circumstances around that and why. And I think that's part of the explanation here is, you know, our agricultural lands are different than anything inside the urban service boundary. They're very important to our community both economically, culturally, and for who we are. Additionally, there was some concern about safety both for those who might be coming as well as those who reside there or have livestock there or have, you know, like one of the things was, you know, you really don't, you want people to enjoy and see it, but you You don't really want them to get into a pasture with a stallion or a bull necessarily, right? You know, so those are things you don't really have to consider within the urban service boundary, particularly if they're not familiar. I mean, a lot of us grew up around here. We're familiar with that. We know we don't know everything about it, but we know maybe I need to stay out of there. They might not. And so there was some concern about that, and that's why you see the difference. And I think that that would be something that we could delineate and define accordingly. But, you know, if Ms. Grace has anything else to say about how we process that, I would welcome it. Because that was a point of discussion in the committee. So we're having those same in the 6th District. People are concerned about the unhosted and hosted. So I was just curious the legal rationale. I mean, I think Tracy spoke to it very well. It was a point of much discussion among the committee members. I think Mary Quinn, who actually just left, but she initially was pushing for us to have both hosted and unhosted in the rural service area. But after much discussion among the committee members and the reasons why we were reluctant to have unhosted STRs, she came to accept the recommendation and voted to approve it as well. So I think it really has to do with the fact that the rural service area is just so different than the urban service area and the safety concerns for the people who would be staying in an SDR. So Tracy spoke to it very well. And I do have a question for Mary Quinn, but she just stepped out because I'm curious from her standpoint, how does this help tourism? But she's no longer in here, so. I think we'll forward on to Ms. Raymer and get her to respond to that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. Her assistant is here if you'd like her assistant to speak to that question. I'm sorry, Chair, but I just wanted to let you know that. Thank you. I think that's probably a little bit more in-depth analysis and discussion than we might have time for right now. I think it's a valid question as we move forward, but if the Council Member is okay to get a follow-up on that. Chair, yes, I am. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. I just have a follow-up question to something that Councilmember Lynch brought up with recommendation number five, the idea that only one STR be allowed on each property and no newly constructed STRs. I wanted to kind of get maybe a legal definition of newly constructed because if I'm a property owner and I create a new structure and call it employee housing and then three months later turn it into an STR, is that allowable? How do you define newly constructed? Well, I mean, I think when we were looking at that in this committee, we were thinking that newly constructed would be constructing something that's not currently existing there. So you know, we went through the process of redefining what a farm employee dwelling unit was a couple years ago. And there are some very, you know, specific requirements about how to do that and affidavit that a farm owner would have to give to building inspection. So the thought was in the committee that, you know, if they have a farm employee dwelling unit, they've already gone through that process with building inspection to get that up and operational. If they wanted to convert that, say they found that their farm manager, they don't need them anymore or, you know, they had a family member doing that and they've left or whatever, I don't know what the answer might be, but then if they wanted to convert that because they they would be changing the status of what's on file with our government, they would need to go through the process of converting that to what would be an STR on the property and not a farm employee dwelling unit anymore. Because there are parameters about who can live there, who can't live there, that would be prohibitive in an STR situation. So that's why that's in there. you know and additionally you know there's certain parameters the building inspection looks at about the size of the farm and what can go on there and I think one of the concerns the committee had was if if you had a particularly large farm they didn't want to see somebody coming in and just building a whole bunch of like tiny houses and calling them all strs because it would take away you know from the agriculture on the property it would take away from the production on the property, it would also probably harm the prime soils we have that we're so lucky to have. So that was part of the rationale so that it would, we're already sort of engaged in the process for a farm employee dwelling unit. And so not that they could never be used, but you know, it's already limited to some degree. So we're trying to be consistent with that. Yeah. So I think when I look at these kinds of recommendations, I'm always from a certain point of view, looking at ways to around them and seeing kind of poke holes in them so if i were a property owner and i know i don't currently have an any strs on my property i don't want to use any of our my existing but i want to make money as an str owner i'm going to build a new house on my property i'm going to say this is my primary residence i'm going to go live in there for a month and then i'm going to apply for it to be an STR is that allowable well I mean you know you you would probably have to go through some processes to get there and so hopefully they would catch some of that if it's problematic or they would approve it if it's not you know it's sort of hard to detail exactly I mean I'm not going to stand here and tell you that people don't always find ways to get around the law because they absolutely do and or tell you that you know we've that you can draft something perfectly so no one ever challenges you on it because they absolutely will so you know we just have to try to do the best that we can with that but and in terms of enforcement you know that not only in the Ag Zone but across the city as you know we're complaint driven for enforcement it's a big job and it and we frankly probably don't have enough staff to do it but I will say that from what I've seen that the people that reside in and farm in the agricultural zone are pretty observant about what's going on around them and many times don't hesitate to let us know if they think something's you know not right so I won't catch everything but I do think from that perspective you know that that will be we will hear from that as well if something is awry. Thank you. Thank you chair. Thank you vice mayor. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. And as somebody who's been a super host for four years plus, I have some kind of understanding of short-term rentals, but I'm in the urban service area, not in the rural. So I'm going to speak on that now. And I had a constituent that called, and we had a January 11th deadline that you had to apply. So looking at the ones that applied, if they were unhoused, they are grandfathered in. Is that my understanding going forward? if they were. So they're being applied by the rule that we had for the urban service area for the rule in the grandfathered in process. Yes, they're being looked at based on the way we looked at all of these before you had an ordinance because we had nothing. And so there were people doing this and we had to, you know, whenever there's something that comes up that we don't particularly address in our ordinance we try to find this most similar closest thing we can apply until we either until that works or till we have something in place that's more specific and so yes they would and just like inside the urban service boundary you know only if they change that you know they're their grandfathered in with what they had that was existing and approved only if they change that does it come to back to somebody to review again but we're allowing unhoused in those areas that they were grandfathered in the unhosted yes i'm sorry unhosted so but going forward that's not going to be allowed i've got a constituent that contacted me that is close to the horse park that had a short-term rental but then they did a long-term rental but now they'd like to go back to a short-term rental but they weren't able to do because they had to have when we when you had to be grandfathered in you had to have been doing it for a certain amount of time as a short-term rental that was no longer applied but now they they lose that ability even though they they were former short-term rental and now they can't go back to do that which literally is a perfect situation if we want to have somebody that wanted a short-term rental across from the street from the horse park so now they don't have that ability because they if they're not living there they're not housed and it's not available i mean unfortunately you know you we're trying to deal with these things and you draw the line somewhere there's going to be i mean that's true with um as you know with any ordinance or statute we enact i mean we we you know if when it changes we certainly can't go back retroactively but going forward we do have a process right now if it's unhoused they can go to the board of adjustment get a conditional use and they can approve or disapprove right now correctly for the urban service area for the urban service area yes But it's okay for that, but it's not okay for the rural services. Well, this is the recommendation going forward to you all. And I've heard some commentary here from council members that this might not be what going forward that they think might be the right process to do in this situation. So I'm kind of concerned because I think we're being discriminating against. We let people who had it before, but we're not going to let them have it going forward. And I'm not sure if I think it has to apply to everybody. And I don't think we're applying it fairly to everybody. Well, that's certainly a question for discussion, I think. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Sevigny. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me. And I just, as a, just kind of wrapping this up as the person who kind of sits on this, I really, I just want the Council to understand that it was a very robust discussion. It took place over many months. and we did come to consensus on what this board felt like would be the best way to proceed with short-term rentals in the rural area. And I think the board also realizes that it's their recommendation and that they are providing it to us with vigor and this is what they would like to see. But I think that they realize that this board is a board who can scrutinize that and try to clean up things that may be inconsistent. But I appreciate the hard work, and I was glad really to be a part of it. So that's where I'll leave it. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. And before I give just a few of my comments, I think it is important to note what you've said there. We asked the Rural Land Management Board to provide their expertise as those who manage and work in the ag space and in the farming community. And so they've provided us with a recommendation that then this committee needs to think about, dissect, make any changes we see necessary, and then send to the Planning Commission so that they can provide their expertise in land use in this community, then to bring back the council, which will likely put it back in this committee. So I think this is a great and vigorous discussion, and I really appreciate what the Rural Land Management Board has done, particularly because they're not a body that is a legislative body. They are a regulatory body for one of our very important programs, and so they've taken a lot of extra time to put this together. So thank you. I will say that a couple of my comments. Well, first, a question. when it comes to the definition of hosted, would a farm employee in a dwelling for a farm employee be considered a host? Could that be considered a host or would it have to be, are we interpreting that as the primary owner or resident of the farm? I don't know that we got to that level of specificity. Good enough answer. Thanks. So that might be a point for another discussion. I think the goal with hosted was having someone on the property who's familiar with the farm. That's the reason I ask the question, because I think it's, I understand that protecting livestock, crops, equipment, structures out in the rural areas was the intent there. But I think there are even some of our farms that only have farm employees living on them and not necessarily the primary owner. Or the primary owner may choose to give up that primary structure as an STR so long as their farm manager is on the property. And I think that that's something that should be considered moving forward. And then I think it's worth, as we move forward, addressing since 12 of the 14 existing are unhosted, I think it's worth looking into as we have this discussion, have there been any issues or anticipated issues or problems? Not to say necessarily that we need to change the policy, but I think since the existing ones we know about are primarily unhosted, that's worth at least a review and discussion moving forward. I agree with several of us, but Council Member Reynolds and Council Member Baxter, about new structures. And I appreciate the policy thoughts of not taking up land that could be used for ag land. But I think that that's something that the Board of Adjustment could review about the nature of the property. The same thing when we had the ADU discussion. I thought it was an equity issue that only those who had existing buildings on their property could take advantage. And we have subsequently changed that law. So I think it would be worth considering, though I think it could even be something that if the Board of Adjustment was having difficulty making those decisions, or this council thought that the Board of Adjustment would need more guidance, we could even reach back to the Rural Land Management Board to provide further guidance, if they were to allow new structures in such a way that balances preservation of good agricultural land. Lastly, similar to what Council Member Ellinger brought up, I think that we should, as we did with the first short-term rentals, consider adding a new grandfathering date, simply because there are several out there who, because they weren't being regulated at the time, did not already register and follow that grandfathering registering date that we did. And so those folks ought to have an opportunity to come into compliance before we issue new regulations, in my opinion. And then finally, with Council Member Gray's point, I too would like to get some information about the economic impact of ag tourism in our community and how either bread and breakfast, farm stays, and short-term rentals may be impacting that to the extent we have that information. I think it would be beneficial. Those are just my general thoughts. I don't think, though I'll ask Council Members Brown and Sheehan from discussions earlier, I don't think that you all were seeking action on this item today, but to start the discussion and have us all being educated on the matter. Yes, sir, that's the intent. No action. I don't think we plan on taking any action today. Just let this committee digest it and take this issue up at a future committee meeting. Thank you. Well, I think that we've had a vigorous discussion, unless there's any motion to be made by a member of the committee. I would say thank you all very much for this is wonderful work. Appreciate you. Next item on our agenda is a brief master plan update from our long-term planning department of where we stand on the expansionary master plan process. This is a brief update, and because we have so much work still to do on the management ZOTA, we're just going to let them update and unless there are just glaring questions that could be follow-up items we'll move on from there so thank you mr taylor appreciate that chair members of the council thank you for your time i'm chris taylor i'm the manager for long range planning just briefly wanted to give you all an update that we had a three-day design workshop with the full consultant team the first sort of two and a half days was over at the pan miller downtown art center that was more of a hands-on working public input opportunity we had around 80 people attend over those two days those were during business hours a lot of that was members of the development community and property owners and adjacent property owners coming in and looking at the initial land use recommendations for the plan there were two public presentations both were broadcast live and then a recording has been made and is up on the project website at urban growth Lex calm so the full slide deck and the video presentation are there to view on Wednesday afternoon was evening over at the Whitaker YMCA we had a public input event that was family focused and we had around best estimate it's a pretty porous border we had around 200 people at the YMCA that night it was a very well attended one of the better attended public input events that we've done and we really appreciate the consultants work and helping put that together. And that was a very, very good, much more general public conversation with lots and lots of people about what the plan is, what it's trying to do, addressing the market need for housing that's determined through the market analysis portion of the plan that's been seen by the Planning Commission and it's also up on the website, but also to show the recommended land uses and the preliminary transportation network elements that are going to need to serve those things. And so the next steps are that the Planning Commission at their May work session will get an update on those frameworks that were presented to the public through the early summer. They'll be doing conceptual designs for each of those areas that sort of take that preliminary framework and the land use recommendations the next step. And then at that point we'll have another round of public input probably when school back in session we get through August probably end of August early September that will be most of the visual elements be sort of concluded by that point and then we'll kick into the sort of the regulatory framework infrastructure some of the some of the the nitty-gritty details on some of those elements and then there'll be a final round of public input sort of as we get into the October end of October time period where we have to have this essentially adopted by early November to meet our December 1st deadline that you all are aware of so So that's a very short version of sort of the next steps of public input, public engagement, where we're at right now. But if you have any brief questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. I think I'd like to highlight that a clear step that has been made is the recent public input on where we are to help move that forward. So, Council Members, are there any questions? That's great. Thank you very much. Thank you. And so next we have the urban growth management text amendment. Just for the public and council members, you've seen my email. In lieu of a full presentation, I've asked Mr. Bailey to give us kind of a highlights of, again, what the intent of this text amendment was, what some of the specific changes, and then we'll get him to highlight and through some of the changes that we intend to make, but the entire presentation that was given in February was in the packet for a review beforehand. And the document in front of you, all of the red highlighted revisions, those are the revisions that came to us from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission made all of these changes to our zoning ordinance for us by way of recommendation for this item after all of the public input sessions that they did and mr bailey if you'd speak to that a little bit and then what you see the seven or eight blue items are items that either were recommended by council members were cleanup items that the staff recognized or were in response to changes in state law recently so we don't have a ton of changes to talk about in debate but but this is a big document And so I just kind of want to preface it with that. So Mr. Bailey, if you would get us up to speed real quick. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This text amendment is a modernization of our zoning ordinance that is really focused in on bringing our zoning ordinance out of the 1980s and into the modern era. Really focusing in on two commercial zones, our B1 zone and what we are, the neighborhood business zone, and what we are calling the corridor business zone or the B3 zone. There's also a small change to the B6P zone. So in each of those cases, it is really meant to differentiate between what is appropriate and what is not appropriate within neighborhood businesses, seeking to pull more business operations into our neighborhoods, trying to create a more walkable environment. Within the corridor business zone, again, reassessing some of those older businesses, consolidating, and then also ensuring that those businesses that are along our corridors are able to continue to grow and succeed to help with our economic development within our community. In terms of the residential zones that staff is recommending modification of, we are looking at the modification of three residential zones, the R2 or the mixed low density residential zone, the R4, the medium density residential zone, and the R5, the high density residential zone. these cases we are seeking to provide flexibility in the housing types as well as allow for greater flexibility and clarity about what can be built in those areas to produce the type of community that has been called for by our community in the comprehensive plan. We are also recommending the inclusion of one new residential zone that has the potential to be a mixed-use zone which is the corridor node zone. The corridor node zone is meant to be those areas in which we are trying to attract new transit to new areas, specifically getting to the density that we need to build out our transportation system and have a more robust walkable community. There are several changes that have been recommended by the the urban County Council within your document as the chair showed. Some of those are in blue. There is one change that staff would like to request be made that is on page 18 of your language. This is at the bottom of 15 which is specifically associated with automobile service stations. There was a request during the Planning Commission review that at the end of 15B it state unless previously approved for a greater number. The Planning Commission recommended that language be included and with this very large packet we missed that one line. So with any added information we would like that brought in. I'm also happy to answer any questions about the proposed language. There are several things that have been taken out, as the chair indicated, because of some state legislation. And then there are several items that have been added in by the council members. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. I think the best way to approach this, one, I'm going to preface that several of these changes relate to the drive up, drive through discussions that we've had and we've heard from stakeholders. Mr. Bailey put together a kind of a hierarchy matrix of what we're trying to accomplish with some of the proposed changes that I intend to make here shortly, but I think reflects the conversations with the various stakeholders and with council members and so that we can discuss those. So I'm thinking if you have general questions that you could ask Mr. Bailey now, otherwise I'd like to have him discuss the hierarchy of the drive-up, drive-through, have those questions, and then make questions or debate about any specific change as that is made, if everybody's following me on that. So if that's all right, if there are just some general questions not related to some of the changes being made, And please, now would be the time to ask those of Mr. Bailey. Vice Mayor, I thought you were tapping away over there. I was about to cut you off. Okay, I don't see any general changes. So I think one of the issues that we heard strongly about is we were wanting to limit the use of drive-throughs and drive-ups within neighborhood zones. But then we also heard several issues of compromise needed amongst retail stakeholders where they are currently being used and where they might see a potential for use in the future where we could still have them be used but protect neighborhoods. And so I think that's a conversation that a lot of us have been having. And I particularly worked a lot with Mr. Bailey and Mr. Taylor on this. So Chris, do you have this document that you could put up on the screen? So because I know that the first motion to be made is Council Member Baxter's, and then And some of the next two or three are ones that I'm going to propose that are related to drive throughs and drive ups. If Mr. Bailey could give us an idea of, and this is, I'll preface this with this is his work on explaining what we have worked on. This I'm not necessarily asking saying this is a staff endorsement or anything like that, though they certainly have been consulted heavily on this about how we could accommodate stakeholders, still satisfy and accomplish what the staff and the Planning Commission were looking to do with this ZODA. So with that. Yes sir, so when we were looking at the specific layout of drive-through facilities the initial conversation was making sure that they were taken out of the neighborhood business zone. We made some changes during the Planning Commission's review to add them in in which they were currently located and then there was a further discussion of what about the B1s that are currently located on or on higher capacity roadways, specifically collectors. The chair asked that the staff work up some possible solutions to some of the concerns. This would create a hierarchy both in use and in location. So the first proposed use would be the drive up window, which is a single lane type of facility with no menu board. Council Member Baxter is proposing the removal of exterior amplification for communication. This specifically helps out with banks and with pharmacies. Those are two elements that we would like to see within our neighborhoods, but have specific requirements from the state and federal government that they have protections for their tellers or their pharmacists, as well as the distribution of whatever goods they're handing out. So within the proposed changes that Council Member Worley has brought to us, it is two levels. So within the B1, the drive-up window would be an accessory use within an arterial or collector roadway. On any local street, it would be a conditional use, which would necessitate a trip to the Board of Adjustment and approval there. And then a drive up window within the B3 zone would just be accessory with no restrictions. In terms of the drive-through facility, this could be anything including a restaurant, a pharmacy, all the things down the line. But it includes the possibility for multiple lanes and ordering points and a menu board exterior to the structure. So in the B1, the proposed change would be, it would be accessory when already operating or existing. That's no change from what the Planning Commission has provided in their language. It would be a conditional use on all arterial or collector roadways, and then it would be prohibited on a local street in that neighborhood business zone. Then getting into the corridor business or the B3 zone, it would be accessory to all those uses, which is what it is currently. Thank you. And just, I think we're all clear with your explanation, but where you see B1, those would typically be neighborhood zones, though some of our B1 zones have, over time, become up closer to arterials, corridors, collectors, based on zoning practice in the past. Yes, in the past, we have not uplifted our B3 zone. So individuals have really gone to the B1 zone, whether they were in a neighborhood or on a collector street. This zoning change or zoning ordinance text change is meant to realign those, to allow for those uses on corridors to continue to operate, which is why we wanted to grandfather them in to go ahead and expand or contract. This would also allow for one extra flexibility to those business operators to gain that use to continue their operations on site and potentially to expand in the future. And so, again, with my understanding of what we worked on here, what this says is where currently existing, regardless of zoned, that would continue to exist until such time as it no longer did, in which case that use would no longer be a viable use. That is correct. But then in areas where there does not exist this sort of use, in the B1, we're creating the drive up as accessory, B3 accessory, but conditional on local streets. Yes, sir. But then drive-throughs, which I think have been a predominant issue, in new B1, a new structure would have to go to the Board of Adjustment to get that approval. For a collector or arterial roadway, yes. But a local street would be a specifically prohibited use. Yes, sir. And then our B3, which is our corridor zone, it would remain an accessory use to the particular otherwise permitted use. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. And questions as to the generalities of this, Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. And I really don't have a question in regards to this particular clarification. I have more of a question about process. Chair. Sorry about that. I said I don't have a question necessarily about the clarity of this. I just have a question about process. I wonder if there's only a few other points that need to be explained, and maybe we should just make a motion on moving this ordinance to the full council and then just make amendments as we see fit. That way we keep it going forward. I think that's absolutely correct. Okay. And I think if a question or motion would be to specific proposed language would do that after we have this agenda that we'll have a motion to approve and then amendments to be made and then we could have those questions answered okay um i just thought since the first three four or five of these amendments were going to be made it would be beneficial to have a little bit of explanation okay well that sounds good so just so how many more of these do we have that that's that's the only presentation of that nature facing we were going to move we were going to move into the language itself after that unless people need a clarification on this okay and if they feel their clarification might come better in the discussion of the language that's appropriate too councilmember sheehan thank you chair um looking at the differences between a drive up window and a drive through facility um could you talk a little bit about or do you have any information on what traffic, like estimated traffic looks like for each of these? Like what would be kind of like the average traffic counts within a time period? So when we're seeing, it is very user dependent. I'll start with that. So it is somewhat hard to tell the difference between Chick-fil-A, McDonald's or Burger King. They have different levels. In terms of the drive up window compared to drive-through facility the drive-up window has far less traffic the typical uses for a drive-up window would be a bank a dry cleaner a pharmacy they don't have that exterior menu board that someone would sit at idle order something and then move through a line so it's not inviting as much traffic through there aren't specific numbers on this because many of the ite manuals or other information out there is really just focused on the drive-through facility. The drive up is really a tailored approach to allow for some more smaller based neighborhood businesses. And are there any like estimates then for the drive through and what traffic flow looks like? We've been gauging this for some time. It really depends on the user, but it is a higher rate of turnover we require a five car stacking to be shown on any development plan or uh any type of board of adjustment approval because we know that with many of our establishments they need at least that much amount of space behind where the order point is just so that we're not spilling into the roadway or blocking off any other traffic so that has been our metric for some period of time that you need to have at least five cars at the point of order at any given time Okay. I know we've had lots of conversations in the community about pedestrian safety, and we've had even some zone changes that came through that had drive-throughs proposed that then we had a lot of community engagement on. So I think I have concern from a pedestrian safety perspective on drive-through facilities in these you know areas where we might see higher rates of pedestrians right so on a local street prohibited makes sense to me could we talk a little bit about or could you give us a little more information on the formal definition for arterial and collector and and what those look like in our community so we can talk a little bit more about that with regard to drive-throughs and pedestrian safety? Yes, so I can't give you the exact form, the formal designation, but our arterial roadways are roadways that carry the largest amount of traffic, typically the widest, and they typically have a little bit more robust transit infrastructure associated with them. There are Richmond roads, our Nicholasville roads, winchester those types of areas there are major and minor arterials that are defined typically that gets into traffic demand the amount that are out there they are defined from a local and state perspective not so much getting into the federal perspective the same goes for collector and minor and major collector roadways both are defined from a state and local perspective not by a federal perspective. The major and minor collector, especially, they change designations every so often. It is typically about what streets they are connecting, whether it is arterial to arterial or they're collecting multiple arterial roadways. So when you get from a minor to a major, usually you are having a higher traffic count. You are connecting to multiple arterial roadways, Whereas a minor, typically you're looking at just connecting to one or two arterial roadways, collecting all the traffic off of your local roads, feeding them into the system. So the system is supposed to grow local, minor, major, continuing forward. Okay. And I'm still kind of thinking through the drive-through facility conditional uses. I know we've had discussions with community members coming to us, And this kind of gets into this a little bit of the, like, flip of the B1 and B3 that we have seen historically, where we have some B1 properties on what would actually be a corridor, so not one of these, you know, minor arterials or collector roadways that are B1s. So where would they fit in here if they were trying to do a new drive-through facility? they're a B1 and they are on one of the more major corridors at this point. At this point in time, they would go before this change or after this change? Let's talk about both. Before this change. So what would happen now and then what would happen if we changed it? Yes. So currently, before this change, they would have two options. They would either go to the Planning Commission and get a development plan approved or amended, or they would go to the Board of Adjustment for a conditional use permit for that property. In the proposed language, if you're on a collector or an arterial in a B1, there's no longer the option to just go through with a development plan. It is strictly to the Board of Adjustment. This gives the Board a little bit more ability to make a discretionary review moving forward about whether or not that would be appropriate. The third rail to that is a zone change. With the changes that we're making to the B1 and the B3 here, the B3 is a far more desirable zone, and we hope to make an amendment to the comprehensive plan following this to incorporate into the comprehensive plan that recommendation of the zone. But they are pretty limited in their ability to do many of the B3 uses on a corridor with that B1 zone as proposed. Okay, I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lagree. Thank you, Chair. Most of my questions about the specifics of this handout were answered, but I just wanted to clarify a process question, what Council Member James Brown was asking you. So when a motion is made about this text in front of us, is that motion to approve the red language and then the blue language would be amendments? I'm just trying to understand how we would discuss and vote. That's absolutely right. So what I'm proposing that we do is have a motion to approve the urban growth management text amendment. And that would be the red language that was given to us by the planning commission. With the intent of moving that out to the full council. That report out would be after our June meeting. And then the blue language is language that then would be by amendment of council members to add or revise the recommendation of the planning commission. Okay, so the blue language is what we're going to go through piece by piece. Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. All right, if there's no further questions, then I would first look to Council Member Baxter to address her proposal for the definitions in section one related to drive up windows. Yeah, so colleagues, based on Mr. Bailey's- sorry chris if you if you could the the actual text we're going to go through that now if you could have that on the screen so that we can and so right now we're starting on page one There we go. There we go. Okay, so as Mr. Bailey referred to, I felt it was very important to differentiate drive-up from drive-through, especially in a neighborhood business zone. So as you'll see in the definition of drive-up window, we'll be striking anything that has an exterior amplification and adding that all stacking and pickup shall be limited to a single lane. So that does provide for those neighborhood businesses like pharmacies, dry cleaners, that kind of stuff. So that is the only addition that I have at this time. I guess first. Want me to make a motion? First, excuse me, I've jumped ahead. The chair would entertain a motion to approve the urban growth management ZODA as proposed by the planning commission. So moved. Thank you, is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Now, as to any amendments or discussion on the motion, I believe the council member has an amendment she just told us about. I do. I move to change the language to the blue that you see on the screen, as I just described. I need a second. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. All right. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right. Thank you. As we go through the next on the list, I believe would be on page 18. And Council Member Plowman, if you would take the chair, please. Yes, Council Member Morley. Thank you. If you'll look at Section 816B, Item 15, there are two changes to be made here. The one would be to strike the language of excluding electric vehicle charging facilities. That is in response to the state legislation. And then the second would be to add unless previously approved for a greater number, and that is the Planning Commission's language that was omitted. So that is a clarification, so moved. Second. Is there any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Motion passed. Thank you, Vice Chair. Next, if we go to page 20. Chair, can I ask a clarifying question, kind of an overall question real quick? On page three, section 3.6, there is some blue-lined stuff. It doesn't necessarily look like changes, but it refers to ordinances. I noticed that. I think when it printed, it did not remove hyperlinks to the ordinance. Okay, so they're not actually blue-lined. They're just hyperlinks. That's correct. That's a hyperlink. I noticed that as I was flipping through there, too. Okay. Thank you. All right. Page 20, Article 816C. This is related to the accessory use of a drive-up window. And this is further clarification and working along with what the Council Member Baxter just moved. I would move to strike when approved by the Planning Commission on the Development Plan and add, and when the parcel has lot frontage along an arterial or collector roadway. So moved. Is there any discussion? All in favor, say yes. Aye. Any opposition? Motion passed. The very next provision, Vice Chair, to strike the language electronic vehicle charging facilities in response to state legislation, so moved. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passed. Thank you. The next page, Chair, item 21, or page 21, excuse me, this is 816D5. The language and six that you see on your screen there without reading at all. This provides for the conditional use of a drive through facility and we can talk through the and for the drive up facility on a local roadway. But also provides the restriction that such a drive through must be on an interior or collector roadway, that it has lot frontage along the clear arterial collector roadway, and then there are some lot coverage requirements that are intended to prevent small drive-throughs along those. It's supposed to be used more of the lot coverage, and I can discuss those in more detail. But items five and six, so moved. Any discussion? All in favor? Okay. Council Member DeGree. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to explain my process about this, Council Member Worley, for the record. I do want to say that I really appreciate the compromise here and the conditional use within the B1. I do still have concerns about pedestrian safety and the use of drive through facilities in the neighborhood zones, B1 zone. So I don't think that I'll be able to support this amendment at this time, but I do really appreciate the steps you've taken with compromise. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Legree. Did we get a second on that? Okay, any other comments? Discussion? Vice Chair, I completely appreciate that and I know particularly in your district there are a lot of pedestrian roadways along what might be more major roads. I think what we've tried to do here with actually requiring frontage on the arterial or collector is that's typically where more of your traffic will be and less of your pedestrian. Completely understand your process on that. I just want to explain that we've attempted to address that even within the compromise, so thank you. I don't see any more folks on, wanting to make a comment, so we'll go ahead and vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Motion passed. No. Yeah, let the nays. Okay, all ready. All in opposition. No. Okay. Are we going ahead and put, can you put your hand on? Is her hands up high so we can see? We have two in opposition. Motion did pass. Thank you. And next colleagues, if you will look to language that was distributed just before our meeting and Apologies for the late addition on this, but still on page 21. This was just distributed to you related to micro distilleries. This section for conditional uses in the B1 zone. The planning commission recommended adding as a permitted use, not a conditional use in B1, micro breweries. And so I am looking through this and I think if we're going to allow for the production of alcohol along with a retail establishment like a microbrewery, that we should not neglect the states and our regions, one of our signature industries. And so I think it's only fair to treat micro distilleries similarly, but with the recognition that a micro distillery may need a little more regulation. And so I've proposed it as a conditional use, and along with that conditional use, we've put some parameters in here that are the same as the microbrewery in a neighborhood zone. Being a limitation on gallons of distillate, that it has to be all enclosed within a structure, that there's associated retail component for whether it be a restaurant, tap room, tasting. And then also giving some guidance to the Board of Adjustment about some of that production specific item. So I think it's only fair to treat the distillers the same as the brewers since they can be housed inside of a building. Our wineries cannot by state law, they have to be out in farm areas. So those of our alcohol producers that can be, I think it's only fair. But this still recognizes that there should be a little bit more restriction on the distilleries just because of their process. So the conditional use in the B1 zone for micro distilleries, subject to the following requirements that's on the screen, I would move to amend into the urban growth management ZODA. Thank you. Is there a second? Okay, any discussion? It's Vice Mayor Wu, go ahead please. Thank you Chair. Couple of questions. Okay, where does this fit into our documents here, what section? This would be on page 21, this would be a new section 816D9. New number nine, okay, so it goes after the country ends. Where you see country ends. Gotcha. And if you'll look back to 1918, I believe, I'm looking for our breweries. On page 17, you'll see principal uses, item number 12, neighborhood breweries, and that is defined with similar restrictions to the micro distilleries, but it's being allowed as a permitted use. Okay, and my only other question, council member, is in item C, there should be an associated retail component or eating and drinking establishment. So this literally could be a rack that sells some t-shirts. Would that be considered a retail component? I think that would be subject to the Board of Adjustment's approval. So they would have to show a retail component or eating and drinking component with the idea that this would still be a neighborhood business. But if it's no more than a gift shop, the Board of Adjustment may say that's not a satisfactory retail component. I guess relatively subjective call that they can make on that. It could be. I mean, we could even establish if we thought there was a problem down the road that it'd have to be eating or drinking. But I think that gives the Board of Adjustment qualifications that they should consider. Okay, thank you, Council Member. Thank you. Council Member, Shannon, did you have a? Okay, great. Yes, Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. Just to the staff, did y'all take this into consideration at all when you were creating the ZODA? So this was something that was discussed by the Planning Commission at their public hearing. A principal primary use of a micro distillery without any restrictions was discussed and voted upon by the planning commission. It was requested by a member of the public. In terms of what staff looked at, with this language, it is in kind of scale with what is being proposed for the neighborhood level brewery. So it is taking down the amount that can be produced by one fifth and is also allowing for greater review. So staff reviewed this language and aided the council member in producing it. Okay. So in addition to what regulations we put in place, I would imagine that the distilleries would still have to adhere to state regulations in regards to distribution and production and all that. Absolutely. There are two classes of distilleries that are available, an A and a B, and they both are regulated by the state. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Any other comments, council members? All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Motion passed. Council Member Worley, can we just get clarification on your previous motion, not the one on the conditional use, but the distilleries, but the one on page 21, 5 and 6. Were 5 and 6 both part of that first motion? They were part of my motion, yeah. All right, thank you. I did them together because I thought they followed this almost exactly. Works perfectly. Thank you. Thank you. All right, thank you. And council members, I promise you I don't have a whole lot left. If you look to page 25, please, colleagues, section 820B3, we have two changes to that section that are in response to House Bill 581. to section B to add the language except where required by federal or state regulations, and then section C to remove the language pumps or eight total islands, and also to remove the language excluding electronic vehicle charging facilities, again, in response to state law. So move. Second. Motion by Council Member Worley, second by Council Member Brown. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Oh, I'm sorry, I did not answer for any discussion. Is there any discussion? I don't see any names on here. All right. Motion passed. Thank you again. In response to state law, if you would look to page 31. I thought we kind of voted, but. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and call for a vote. All in favor. Aye. Any opposition? Motion passed. I have a hard time making motions, but listening to the chair and being the parliamentarian at the same time. Page 31, section 12, 3, I would move to add language to section A, except where required by federal or state regulations, and to remove language from section B or eight total islands for refueling, excluding electronic charging vehicles, facilities, excuse me, again, in response to state law. Second. Second. There's been a motion and a second. All in, is there any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposition? Motion is passed. I have one other acceptable page. Did I cover all of it? Yes, sir. Sorry, Council Members, I sent to you a proposed change to the interchange service business B5P zone. These came in red. Sorry for messing up my own color coordinating, but these are actually my proposals, not from the Planning Commission, so I'll need to make these. I am proposing there are two sections, three sections, excuse me, to remove a square footage, a maximum square footage requirement for gas stations in the B5P zone. The B5P zone is our interstate highway services zone. You only find those on our interstate exchanges that have not otherwise been developed. So, for instance, currently a good portion of the Richmond Road exchange, there's the Ironworks Pike exchange, But many of others of our exchange, like the 108 exchange, has been otherwise developed into man-of-war with other zones. So this is a limited zone in use. And one of the things limiting its use, the current market for gas stations is for a larger store. When this was originally enacted, I believe in the 80s, the size of gas stations was just simply smaller. And what I'm hearing from stakeholders out there is that when national gas station chains come to them and say, we would be happy to put a gas station there, but that doesn't suit our current market and model because of the size restrictions. So this is only in the B5P zone and only related to refueling stations there. No other use within that zone. And I think it will make it a more viable use for what we have there now because it's currently not being used to its maximum potential. And so I would move that in section 11 to A, B, and H, that the language not exceeding 3,000 square feet in floor area be deleted, so moved. Any discussion? Yes, Council Member, Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Worley, does this have any relation or reaction to state legislation regarding gas stations? This does not. not um this is related to uh stakeholders that have come with market driven concerns and now to the extent that we would like to say that we're uh we're helping our our petroleum industry where we can where we've otherwise restricted but no this is not a direct reaction to to state law this is just something that's been brought to my attention as really necessary to make that zone more usable for its intended purpose and my only other question is uh are we trying to get a bucky's closer to Lexington, is that what this is? So, originally being from Madison County, I'm proud that Buc-ee's sits right there in between Richmond and Berea. But no, while I'm a fan of Buc-ee's, we have other regulations that would prevent a Buc-ee's. This regulation on square footage area is not what would stop Buc-ee's. Our tree canopy requirements, landscaping requirements, parking requirements, all would prevent the Buc-ee's model. So while I'd be okay with it, some might not, and don't worry, it's not to make a Buc-ee's. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I don't see anybody else signed in. Time for a vote. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposition? Motion passed. Thank you, Vice Chair. That's all I have. Thank you, Council Member Worley. All right. Thank you, Council Members. Now, we had asked that all amendments come forward prior to, though I can't certainly stop our process. If there are any members of the committee that have a motion to be made or any further discussion on the underlying motion, now would be the time. If a motion to be made? All right, now we're to the underlying motion to approve the urban growth management ZODA as amended. Chair would entertain a motion. We have a motion and a second. Are there any discussion or questions on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. To our long-term planning staff and all those that help the law department, thank you very, very much. Incredibly hard work. You've done a great job. And people should know that this is the next step in finishing out how we plan our future development, both inside and outside the boundary. So this was a big effort. Thank you to the committee. For the public, this should be, I anticipate this will be reported out after the June General Government Planning Committee. to the full council. Thank you, Chair. I don't have any items that need to be referred. I just want to, and this probably goes without saying, is asking for us to get from the planning department updated draft or updated Zota when I think all the language, I'd almost like to see it twofold. I'd like to see it with all the changes that were made in regards to the House bill in one color and any other motion outside of that in another color to come to the council just so we can review. And then also, just to clarify that I don't think there's any plans to rush or expedite this. It will have the full time that our process allows for input and feedback from the community in regards to the changes that were made and it going into the next step in the process. That's correct. So we'll wait the full month for a report out. And while no public comment in this committee, there's certainly public comment for items not on the agenda for any work session leading up to that report out or thereafter. And so the public can still be engaged. Though I will say I have to congratulate our planning commission and staff for the level of public engagement that has already gone into this. So thank you. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Chair. I want to amend one item that I have in committee. I want to amend the title. The item is item number 11, equitable representation on boards and commissions, tenants bill of rights. We've been working on this and our work has kind of shifted to a more comprehensive review of all boards and commissions. We're looking at equity and geography and we're looking at all things regarding all of our boards and commissions. So I want to amend that title and change that title so it's more appropriate to the work that we're doing now with our boards and commissions review. So I would like to move that item 11 be retitled Boards and Commissions Comprehensive Review. Is the motion a second? Any discussion on that item? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you very much, Council Member. With that, we stand adjourned. Thank you.