# Planning Commission Zoning Items Subcommittee - March 6, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · March 6, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6357 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6357?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-03-06 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 27, 2026 - **Length**: 22,275 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning Commission convened to address its agenda, which centered on a single item: PLN Zoda 25-1, a Ministerial Review of Developmental Plans. The meeting included 1 motion and vote, and 5 public comments were heard from members of the public. The sole agenda item was ultimately postponed, meaning no final approvals or denials were reached during this session. No presiding officer, specific date, time, or location information is available in the record for this meeting. ## Attendance The following members were present at the March 6, 2025 Commission meeting: - Daniel - Tracy - Mr. Wilson - Mr. Davis - Mr. Duncan - Mr. McClure No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took one formal vote during the March 6, 2025 meeting. - **Motion to Postpone PLN Zoda 25-1:** Mr. Wilson moved to postpone the ministerial review of the developmental plans associated with PLN Zoda 25-1. The motion passed unanimously. No roll call vote was recorded, so individual votes for and against are not available. [timestamp: 2:12:02] ## Public Comment Five members of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period, with all speakers focusing on concerns related to the ongoing ZOTA (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment) process. - **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 2:23:18] opened the public comment period by raising concerns about the complexity of the ZOTA process and what she described as a lack of sufficient public engagement surrounding it. - **Nick** [timestamp: 2:32:34] echoed concerns about the ZOTA's scope, arguing that it contains unnecessary regulations that are not required by HB443. He suggested that the ZOTA be separated into two distinct tracks to better distinguish between changes mandated by the legislation and those that are not. - **Brandon Gross** [timestamp: 2:51:45] expressed concern specifically about the removal of the citizen-driven ZOTA process, raising questions about the broader implications of eliminating that avenue for public participation. - **Rory Caley** [timestamp: 2:59:04] highlighted issues with new tree restrictions included in the ZOTA, stating that these restrictions are not currently codified and would create problems if adopted as proposed. - **John Woodall** [timestamp: 3:07:15] also focused on public engagement, expressing concern that removing public participation from the ZOTA process could have a significant negative impact on how controversial projects are handled going forward. Across all five speakers, a consistent theme emerged: concern that the ZOTA process is moving forward in a way that reduces transparency, limits citizen involvement, and introduces regulatory changes beyond what is necessitated by HB443. ## Contested Items - **ZOTA 25-1 Ministerial Review**: This item generated significant discussion among commissioners, centered on concerns about the ordinance's potential impact on public engagement and the possibility of unintended consequences in development processes. Commissioners raised questions about whether the shift toward ministerial review could limit opportunities for community input on development applications. The discussion was described as heated, reflecting differing views on how to balance streamlined administrative processes with meaningful public participation. No additional details regarding specific speakers, vote outcomes, or resolution are available from the meeting record. ## PLN Zoda 25-1 Ministerial Review of Developmental Plans [timestamp: 2:12:02] The Commission took up discussion of PLN Zoda 25-1, a zoning text amendment (ZOTA) related to the ministerial review of developmental plans. The item was characterized as a discussion item, with commissioners and staff examining the proposed changes and their potential implications. Key speakers during the discussion included Daniel, Tracy, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Davis, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. McClure. The conversation centered on concerns raised by commissioners regarding the scope and process surrounding the ZOTA. Notably, questions were raised about **public engagement**, with commissioners expressing concern that the public may not have had sufficient opportunity to weigh in on the proposed changes to the ministerial review process. Commissioners also debated the potential for **unintended consequences** stemming from the amendment, suggesting that the language or scope of the ZOTA could produce outcomes beyond what was originally intended. These concerns pointed to a need for further review and refinement before the item could move forward. Ultimately, the item was **postponed**, reflecting the Commission's determination that additional work — likely including further public outreach and a closer examination of the amendment's potential effects — was needed before a final recommendation could be made. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (0-0): Postpone PLN Zoda 25-1 ministerial review of the developmental plans --- ## Full transcript open for questions before we move on. Good afternoon everyone. I wanted to go over the documents you all should have in front of you here. You should have a packet that's titled revised staff alternative text 3625. That is going to contain our most updated language. It's going to be updated after meeting with stakeholders, having internal staff meetings, and receiving comments on sort of the first initial text. So as you look at this document, the text in red is going to be the text that we initiated. So that very first text, the very first attempt at a draft, subsequent changes to that are highlighted in blue. And so in the staff, or in the presentation I'm about to give you, we're going to highlight really the changes that have occurred since we last met to discuss this particular item. As always, we can go through in any section that you all would like to discuss and kind of go over the changes in the language, things that you all would like to see implemented, questions, concerns, et cetera. But in the interest of, you know, saving time on a 60 something page document, we're going to hit basically the larger things. There were some parts you'll notice that were simply clear, I mean grammatical errors, things of that nature. Once again, this is really just going to cover kind of the big picture concepts that have changed since we initially have talked about this. But once again, just very briefly, going over the history with House Bill 443 was initiated and requires us to update our zoning ordinance in order to kind of ministerially and objectively deal with the development plan process. Once again, applies 2KRS 100, which is the legislation that governs much of what planning does, sets out the requirement that these development plans now be sort of staff level review unless there is a health, safety, or welfare issue that raises, that elevates it to the review of the planning commission. So once again, objective standards applied ministerially and sets out the limits of what discretion can be used for. We have added a section, Article 18 was not included in the previous iterations of this plan, but we did receive some comments from environmental services and so additional language has been incorporated. So other than that, it's the general same scope as before, Article 1 all the way through Article 28 as shown on the screen. Once again, the overall intent behind the language is to kind of bring us in line with the House Bill requirements, work to simplify, codify, and kind of make a more consistent ordinance. So without further ado, just kind of getting into the real substantial changes, starting in actually Article 6, so the other articles up to that were mainly grammatical changes, clerical changes, and the like, nothing real of substance. So in Article 6, which is on page 5 of your handout here, we have the first change to language proposed by staff. This came at the request of traffic engineering and just clarifies that if you're performing a traffic impact study for the Planning Commission, that it would require you to be pre-qualified through the Transportation Cabinet, so the Transportation Cabinet has their own standards for review on that, and so it would just essentially, they would have to meet that criteria as well. Moving up to Article 16, so this is on page 31 of your handout, we are starting to get into discussions of vehicular use areas. Now, when we met with a lot of the commercial entities that have weighed in on this request, a lot of emphasis was placed on the drive-through standards, the pedestrian circulation standards, and some of the process aspects. One of the requirements that has sort of come up in multiple conversations is Section C, that's shown in red and blue on the screen here, and that deals with requiring, in certain zones, a raised pedestrian crossing any time that you have a pedestrian-required crossing that is greater than 24 feet. So the thought behind that is sort of as those areas get larger, providing essentially a more effective screen for pedestrians or a better way for them to cross. We did receive comments from the several commercial entities on concerns that requiring a raised kind of crosswalk, raised median, would be for maintenance and otherwise circulation of the site. Typically, a 24 feet is two ways directional traffic, 12 feet in each lane. Staff, you know, did hear the concerns and has altered where those particular provisions will apply, but we think in our standard business zones that it's appropriate. It can be designed around, so you can narrow the throat of a drive aisle in order to not have to provide this, and in many of the development plans that we've looked at just sort of anecdotally to see if this would suddenly apply or cause issues, most of our crosswalks are happening at places that are 24 feet or narrower. So staff recommends that as a pedestrian safety aspect, this remains. We tried to clarify that we're talking about the drive aisles here, but once again, this would apply to the P1, B1, B3, B5P, B6P, CC, and the mixed use zones, as well as the supportive uses for the ED zones. Those same provisions we did take out of the B2, the downtown zones, as well as the industrial zones, in the sense of the context of those two areas maybe don't align as much downtown where you're having kind of narrow context to begin with, and industrial where you've got sort of larger vehicular circulation where having those raised pedestrian features may potentially cause issues. But staff thought it was appropriate to remain 24 feet, once again, can be designed around. This is pretty much the standard, would not require those facilities for most of the development plans that we see, and thought that if it causes an issue that they can be waived or otherwise sought relief from the planning commission. Moving up to some of the discussion that we had regarding drive-thru windows, which is starting on page 34 of the sheet in front of you, we added a provision that kind of clarified where additional separation is needed. So when you have drive-thru facilities and alternating traffic that are sort of intersecting, so imagine a drive-thru facility adjacent to two lanes of vehicular circulation so that it would create a situation where the drive-thru is being immediately adjoining traffic in the opposite direction. This would require separation, landscape, and other buffer in order to meet requirements there. Essentially just kind of providing additional buffer to prevent conflicts when the traffic circulation may be somewhat problematic. There's several changes that we made to drive-up windows. The first and kind of the most significant being we received some significant feedback that as written, the previous 100-foot separation requirement from drive-up windows and drive-thru facilities from residential uses was problematic in sort of its practical application as far as mixed-use zones, et cetera. So staff has recommended removal of the 100-foot requirement. We are still requiring those to be screened adequately, but that 100-foot separation requirement was something that was highlighted by the commercial entities as potentially being an issue and staff found that with the other buffering items in place that the facilities could be sort of safely implemented and really reflects the context in which we have a lot of our commercial uses. So once again, wanted to encourage mixture of uses. As written, it would create conflicts because it was from residential use. We also made some slight clerical errors, I mean, clerical clean-up items with this request. Moving down to number three on this screen, talking about where the facilities should be located, generally we want them to the side or rear of the building. The previous language basically said it couldn't be between a public and a private street. In instances where you have a through lot, for instance, that would create some issues where you really wouldn't be able to design circulation that could meet both of those requirements. So we're really ironing in on really between the principal structure and its frontage, recognizing that these developments are often served by private streets or other ways that really would have been very difficult to meet under most conditions. And then once again with item four there, that was a provision that when we took a look at, basically it said you should be designed to limit the impact and shouldn't be routed onto residentially zoned streets. Once again, this language, when we took a look at it, didn't really meet the intent behind 443, as well as created some issues that, for instance, roads themselves are not residentially zoned. You know, you've got the zoning of the property extends to the center line of that particular roadway. So it really wasn't really workable language to begin with. So just clarifying those and removing those where it would create conflicts with the 443 requirements. And then creating separate standards for multiple lane drive-thrus. Once again, under our first attempt, sort of tried to elevate drive-thrus that would have multiple lanes as requiring planning commission approval, additional review. Under a 443 world, if they can meet the required setbacks, the locational requirements, buffering, et cetera, we really don't have the ability ministerially to kind of elevate those or differentiate. So those would just be subject single drive-thrus, double drive-thrus, et cetera, as long as they can meet all requirements, would flow through the same process without needing to be elevated, unless there was a health, safety, or welfare issue that was being identified with a particular plan. Moving on to page 37, we made some tweaks to the bicycle parking requirements. Essentially eliminated some sections where we were maybe getting too specific with the requirements for where these parking, how big these parking spaces should be. Clarifying some consistency issues. So we had said that it had to be within 20 feet of a building in one section, and 50 feet in other sections. So once again, clarifying that the 20 feet is what we're looking at here. Otherwise, the other requirements, staff felt comfortable with them as written. Once again, ensuring that they are being located close to the building, that they're serving the areas they need to serve, but without needing to get into some of the specificity that we had then before. Jumping over to page 38, commercial access. That was another section where kind of a larger amount of edits that had been made. Essentially, one of the first ones we did was specifying the distance that's required between commercial access points. Really, it's keying into the speed of the roadway, but really didn't give a firm dimension with that. So we gave a table that for the example, our typical speeds, 25, 35, 45, what that would mean as a, you know, the same provision that we were recommending before, but clarifying that so that every applicant didn't need to do a math problem in order to determine how far away their commercial access point needed to be. We clarified some language about the lining uses with medians and not mandating a left turn lane. There was some ambiguity on what that was referring to and where it could create conflicts down the line mandating that. So once again, the intent is just to have adequate spacing, to maintain alignment where possible. And if there are instances where these standards can't be met, we still have the waiver process to kind of identify areas where there is some flexibility so the applicants can move forward with their designs. Moving on to page 39, we had some discussion about gates, gated access points, private commercial access points. It was brought to our attention or, you know, during discussions about this, that certain uses, say industrial users, self storage uses before, et cetera, gates are kind of a standard part of those operating procedures. So essentially we've kept the prohibition on private streets, but allowed them in the industrial zones. So enabled to kind of allow those more secure uses that don't really function the same way as, say, a residential development that is proposed to be gated would kind of function. We also added some, as a new section in 1616 that hasn't been seen before, solid waste standards. Essentially this just refers back to the code of ordinances. So essentially says whatever the finalized language with the code of ordinances, that those requirements will apply here as well. Moving on to article 18 is a brand new section that's been included in this language once again at the behest of the division of environmental service. Yes, sir. Yeah. And that's page 39 of your sheet, yeah. Can you just take a second to explain what we're tying into here with all this new language? I realize that some of this is in red. So where are we, this is all getting tied in to another text. Yes, so essentially the section 1615 commercial access standards that we're reviewing here is basically brand new language that was initiated with this text. The larger article 16 talks about vehicular use areas and the requirements for that. This, the text in red was brand new language at the time of initiation designed to kind of address things that traffic engineering was seeing and was a part of their standard review process but without an adopted manual needed to be included in some of these conversations. The blue text is referencing changes or tweaks to that proposed language. So none of this section 16-15 does not currently exist in the zoning ordinance today. So this is, so the traffic engineering, they're working on it. So are we requiring that they comply with a manual that is not currently adopted? Well, so this would be adopted by, I mean, so this is to set standards that are specific to the zoning ordinance that would be on the books. If they were adopted in the future, they would then be able to kind of regulate with that. I think we might have had references to traffic engineering manual. Oh, there's still one there. We can adjust those or wait and put them in later. So I don't, yes, we might be referring to a future manual. I think we did it also for complete streets because we know that those are going to be, something will be adopted. One has to go. It may not make sense to require compliance with something that hasn't been adopted. And that also, I think, speaks to, you know, as we are working through this document, we will, we have a hard set and fast date that this has to be adopted by. Most certainly there will be future tweaks and edits needed and part of that may be addressing these manuals as they come online. So we can, we can hit that. Daniel, since we're right here, question on the gates, the prohibition for that, but then I noticed it would also, this applies for commercial parking lots or structures, which naturally you would have some sort of barrier going in and out if you have to pay to park there. I guess talk through the, the, the thinking or the rationale behind the, the prohibition on the gates again. Yeah. Yeah. Once again, just the, the update that we made to include the industrial zones was sort of targeted at sort of these specific uses. I think something like a commercial parking lot, I think that may be something that we need to include as well because that does kind of directly conflict with how those businesses would operate. Really this is looking at things like residential subdivisions and really that was the main, just an intent and providing the connectivity that we call for in the comp plan. But yeah. I think you, and I think that, that might just be a very specific item that could be tightened a little bit because as it is right now, I feel like it's very, very broad and that we would end up addressing it eventually, but if that is the actual intent, I think that's one area you can be very specific about. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And we can proceed through here, you know, however is most comfortable for you all. I still had planned on kind of hitting the main pieces and then circling back for questions. But if we want to do this as we go through, that's perfectly fine. Do not hesitate to throw something at me if I get on attention and y'all want to talk through some more. So moving on to article 18, starting on page 40 of your sheet there, talking about some of the changes recommended for the division of environmental services. We have existing on the books now kind of requirements for bringing our landscaping areas and requirements up to standards when there's a change of greater than 30% of the building structure or vehicular use area. What we don't currently have is any guidance on what to do when it's just a minor tweak or change. And so the language they've put forth in here basically says you need to bring the areas that are subject to the modification up to compliance, but otherwise are not responsible for the entire site, which is what gets triggered on a change of greater than 30%. So once again, things that maybe would have been discussed and sort of as a staff level thing or the sign off, generally we kind of try to keep a concept of that proportionality and proximity, but we need something on the books if we are going to kind of work with that moving forward in a 443 world. Moving down to page 40, we're talking about where trees or landscaping is being provided within easements. And so this would apply specifically easements themselves, not in the utility strip, but this would be a set back for trees from the actual utility infrastructure of at least 15 feet. And once again, just designs that we're not having these conflicts of trees being planted too close and interfering with the utilities, but this is just where required landscape buffers are interacting with easements that are being proposed. So, and once again, this doesn't apply to anything, say in the utility strip, which is, you know, not an easement, it's just our property. Daniel? Yes. Walk me through some math on that for a second. Sure. So say we got, you know, a typical urban cross section, we're not talking about greenfield development here, and someone's coming in, right now we ask them to build like a B1 or something 10 feet from the property line. Right? Yep. And we often see, especially for water, I know on my street, water comes right down by the sidewalk in that utility strip. Sewers in the middle, but water is right down on that sidewalk. If we require 15 feet from that easement for that water, we're essentially banning street trees in front of businesses because we're requiring that the building be 10 feet from that property line, but that the tree be 15 feet. I think to Daniel's point, you're talking about the right-of-way. So, yeah. So I'm trying to balance. So if lines are in the right-of-way, there might be a tree on top of... But the right-of-way and property lines are... Property lines can include the right-of-way, right? No. Well, they shouldn't. The right-of-way is land that is owned by the government for public use. Okay. So it is the street. It's typically all of the sidewalk and the utility easement. No, but... It is not... In the rural areas, everyone's wrong. No, no. Someone comes in with a deed that shows that they own Tate's Creek Road. No. I'm not going to talk about that. In a lot of residential neighborhoods, particularly early 20th century, I've seen many plats where the property line goes to the middle of the road that it fronts on... Those are easements. ...with a right-of-way. I'm sorry, an easement, a government easement over it. But you still own, technically... Those are access easements, yeah. But the property owner's property line technically goes to the middle of the road. I think that gets into some of the... Again, that's an access easement. That's not a public right-of-way. And that may get into sort of a prescribed right-of-way and some other concepts with that. So we can take a look to make sure that those conflicts are kind of represented. But yeah, so this specifically is talking about trees to be planted in a utility easement. So if they are just close to that easement, but they are not in that easement, it wouldn't apply. So this is just where those two things exactly overlap. And those relationships are still going to be tight, you know, based on even in an urban cross-section. But we can make sure that that's not going to preclude anything it wasn't meant to preclude, essentially. I think oftentimes we have sewer lines or storm water and water lines that come through backyards, and you have a utility easement back there. And typically they'll either be parallel or cross at angles. And that's generally where, especially where it's crossing. Our understanding is environmental services is saying, hey, just plant your trees further away from where that line actually is, because there's water in all of those lines that they're talking about, sanitary sewer line, a storm water line and our actual water line. So trees are going, their roots are going to grow towards that just by nature. We want to space them out a little bit further if possible. I mean, what we're writing there is if some, like if it's through a neighborhood or if it's through a backyard and there's a water line of any size, then we're saying we're now saying for a 30 foot swath of land, there should be no trees, zero. And once again, this just applies to required landscaping. So zero times the length of that water line, which is essentially infinity, we're going to have all these swaths where we're banning tree planting. Again, only where required landscaping is, so if you're buffering between a business zone and a residential zone, that's required, it's 15. A lot of times our utility easements are 20. We think this whole section is about trying to avoid planting trees where there will be conflicts with utilities. And that's the, it's giving direction about where that is. So it already says that the planning commission can, or that the urban forester can request that the landscape easement, the landscape provided not be in a utility easement, that we separate those. A lot of times they overlap and it creates conflicts in the future. I know we all remember KU just coming through and removing swaths of trees that our community values. And so the idea is we're just trying to avoid damaging trees in the future. I don't want to make it into something that it's not. And once again, let's talk about required versus voluntary. So required is when we're looking at a DP, any of the required trees cannot be in the 15 feet of either easement. But if you decide on your own to place trees there, you can be happy to do so, correct? All right. All right. Thanks, Daniel. Once again, any and all commentary is helpful. Because Tracy and I have looked at this text a number of times and kind of may be blind to a lot of blind spots. So we appreciate any and all. There was a alteration that was requested by EDS just to kind of quantify the size of interior landscape areas. So this would be for where you're providing these double rows of parking, you've already required to have this continuous landscape area. They want to make sure that that's efficient enough to accommodate trees if there are trees planned. So eight feet if there is trees, minimum of five where no trees are provided. Just once again, giving some dimensional kind of qualities to things that otherwise would have been reviewed as hey, your width of this island isn't large enough to accommodate. So. Moving on to page 40, this once again just provides some additional references to code of ordinances for screening of dumpsters and other solid waste. Once again, what was previously a discussion with solid waste on where to locate, how to screen, how to access is now going to have to be incorporated. Those changes are coming in the code of ordinances outside of that, so this is just referring those standards back to that secondary document there. And there is a section in article 18 that talks about innovative design. Essentially it was a way to get around variances or needing to go to the landscape review committee while it still existed. It was a discretionary element, which was good at the time, but discretionary is not ministerial, and so essentially there is a process. If you can't meet the landscape requirements, that'll be a waiver in going to the planning commission. The things like consult with the division of environmental services on a workaround isn't really something moving forward we're gonna be able to do. So that section has been proposed to be removed. Jumping to article 21. Pause for a second here. Sure. So I'm gonna interject here, because I'm the one who asked for that section to be put in initially. And that's because if you follow our parking guidelines, you end up with a really bad parking lot. And that's what happens when you design by various committees, so after it's gone to ped bike and we add our seven foot sidewalks and it's gone to landscaping and we add our nice wide aisles for the trees and it's gone to the traffic engineers and we add our really nice big spaces. And it's gone to the fire department and we add our really big wide 24 foot drive aisles. The only thing that's left is this awful giant parking lot. And there are parking lot examples in this world that are treed, that do not meet the landscaping requirements, but they're fully shaded. There are parking lots that are providing solar generation covered by solar panels. There are parking lots that fit unique sized lots. And I understand that there's gonna be a waiver policy, but I am concerned that we are, with this removal, that we're mandating large mediocre parking lots. So I guess that's kind of what I want to address there. Yeah, and so I guess in a 443 world the way to best address that would be to either improve the front end of things or give options. Basically the discretionary element is gonna be gone and the planning commission through waivers is where that's gonna remain. Now, any tweaks that we can to that language providing alternatives, if those are included in the ordinance and they're objective, we can do that. It's just a matter of incorporating whatever language is comfortable, but just from a process perspective, we can't make judgment calls anymore, is sort of the big picture thing. But we can look to see how we can make sure we don't have those situations pop up or reduce the likelihood of that happening. All right, anything else on 18? Cut. I have a question. So how is it a judgment call, Daniel? Yeah. I viewed it more as an option. Yeah, so essentially this would be a staff member taking what is an objective standard that they don't meet, making a judgment call about what is acceptable in lieu of that is the issue that we run into. So the landscape review committee and kind of take, the first being the landscape review committee doesn't exist anymore, that's been sort of disbanded. But yeah, it's just discretionary in that sense in a way that the waiver process is now intended to kind of address that. So moving into Article 21, there were some tweaks in language I know that you all had voiced. Some comments regarding postponements and kind of what those look like and timelines for moving forward with that. So technical review committee is where once again, the bulk of new review is gonna kind of occur. If they meet all sign offs, all criteria, they would be approved ministerially without being elevated to you all. Clarify the days that the technical review committee has to review to a maximum of 30. And then if the plan meets, it's certified and approved. The applicant does have the ability to postpone in line with some of the comments that we'd heard. We are now proposing that if a plan has been postponed for more than one year, it becomes indefinitely postponed. And then they can be reactivated by the applicant by submitting new filing fee, new application materials. But basically kind of trying to end up with a situation where we don't have things that are just being carried forward and forward and forward and forward. And staff thought a sort of a one year time of review being a good threshold for that. Mr. Wilson. Thank you for that. And that was, I think a good accommodation. I think the year's extension. The one thing that I didn't perhaps make clear is many times if a postponement comes, and it's the same excuse that's been used for several times, I'd kill it within three. Not a whole year, I'd take it right out. But if it's a different type of postponement rationale given and the thing that has bothered me in many cases is people have come and said over and over and over, I need to confer with staff. And you all have been very professional. You've sat there and listened to it and what have you. But in reality, by not reacting to it, I'm just assuming that they have given us a response which is an accommodation with what their needs are. But in my opinion, and we don't have to rework this whole thing because the enemy of good is perfection, is to say if they keep coming with the same excuse for maybe at least two or three times, notwithstanding the year that you all have given, I'm subject to vote against it anyhow. So we can, once again, sort of the first attempt at looking at that, but we can take a look to see if there's some further tweaks there. All right, there was some comments about when boards and other bodies make recommendations to you all. These are things like the Royal Springs Aquifer and other kind of designated committees that historically have provided recommended recommendations to you all. It was pointed out that under the current framework that we originally had proposed, even if the applicant was in agreement with all the conditions, it met the criteria and the body was recommending approval, it still would have to be elevated and go to the planning commission. So the tweaks here says essentially that the recommendations that body will be incorporated in the plan. If the applicant does not wish to meet those standards or seeks a waiver, they can go to the planning commission for relief, so essentially not mandatorily requiring them when they've gotten an approval or are amenable to the conditions that the body places. There was also, let's see here, a clarification that the Board of Architectural Review shouldn't be included with that. It sort of serves in a different way, different process than things like the Royal Springs Aquifer or the Paris Pike Corridor Commission kind of operates. So that was intended to kind of clear that up. Daniel, thank you. I think it was two weeks ago or three weeks ago we talked about including the Rural Land Management Board there. We did talk to staff about that internally and because the Rural Land Management Board doesn't make recommendations on development plans, we decided that this was not the place to add that. Okay. So then explain. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to page 48, talking about, actually, scooping back, did I include that? Yes, okay. Moving on to page 48, as far as the contents of the final development plan, it's already required by Article 30, but the lighting plan being included and locating proposed easements. One of the minor tweaks that was included in other language that is not being shown on screen is for preliminary development plans just having to show existing easements. And so saving the proposed easements for the final development plan when they've got more information kind of present on how the property is actually gonna function. So preliminary is showing kind of the current conditions, final being what's necessary to develop, having all of that ironed out by that stage. Daniel, could I? Yes. This is for clarification. On this sheet that you gave us here today, it says on preliminary development plans are not required to be reviewed ministerially and could continue under the current process. What does that mean exactly? So as in a preliminary development plan would still go to technical committee, subdivision committee, and then be reviewed by the planning commission. The House Bill 443 language refers to final development plans. So when you review things, say, with a zoning application, you would have a preliminary development plan accompanying that that you would be able to kind of evaluate a little bit more subjectively than previous. In other words, if members of the community came forward, they could react at the preliminary development plan stage. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, so that would relieve them of, they could be legitimately heard, but in the final development plan, they would not. That would be more ministerial. And once again, reflecting the preliminary being sort of this conceptual discussion on how the development's gonna take shape. But once they have that preliminary in hand, they've got the ability to move forward ministerially at the final if they meet all rules, regulations, and if there hasn't been a health safety welfare issue raised that would require your attention. If someone called, which they have, by the way, if they called and wanna know and they wanna express opinion about something that's going on here, what I've generally told people is to go to either the subdivision and other zoning, or both, and then make sure that if you needed to, to come back to the full discussion of the body. The only reason they could go to the subdivision under these rules would be at the preliminary development stage. In other words, anything else that they may say or wanna say would not be necessarily substantive enough for the, okay. And just as an additional concept, if the applicant is requesting a waiver of any provisions, then they would go to the subdivision committee as well and to the full planning commission. And you could weigh on that because you're granting waiver requests is a subjective review of the applicant's argument why the objective standards don't apply. But yes, in general, that sort of double level of public involvement at the preliminary stage, say with a zone change, and then later when the final comes through is basically going to be limited to just the preliminary stage, unless there's something that needs to be fixed with a waiver. And I was getting ready to get clarification if there's a significant difference between that preliminary and the final. Yeah, I don't think that House Bill 443 affords us the ability to, if the developer came in with a development plan that meets all of the requirements and is consistent with the notes. So at the preliminary stage, you can put notes, other kind of binding criteria to that plan, but absent that, they have the ability to come forward with a plan. Let me put it this way for clarification. In other words, the development, final development plan does not necessarily have to go along with the preliminary plan. Yeah. Yes, but it has to meet the zoning ordinance. I got you. If there's a difference between the preliminary and the final, do they, they should come forward with an explanation. Is that correct as to why it's different? I don't know that they ever have. I suppose it would be helpful in explaining why the change is, but I don't know that the development plans don't usually explain why they've changed it. Some people who track, I mean, it is amazing to me. Some people get their popcorn out and follow everything that's going on around here as such. If they see a difference between the preliminary and the final, they will want to have a different say-so somewhere down the line. And the question becomes, from my perspective, is just to refer them to you all. Yep. Yes, okay. Sure. Talking about waivers, waiver process. So as recourse to any objective standard that the applicant is not seeking to adhere to, they've got the ability to file waiver requests. The section that we're looking at now kind of talks through the considerations. Some of the feedback that we got is with regard to item B here, so that the extent of the waiver regulation is the minimum necessary to afford relief to the applicant. We added a small modify there to sort of reasonably. That's really directed towards, they may be situations where a particular standard is being applied, say something, if they're required to put a sidewalk in, but in this particular type of location. However, topography dictates that that's not going to be ADA accessible or feasible. They're seeking a waiver to move that elsewhere. The way that this is written is it suggests it should be basically as close as possible to that point. This gives the applicant the ability to say, well, we have an existing sidewalk system here located slightly further in, and gives them essentially more wiggle room to make the case to you all when you review these subjective requests so your hands aren't tied on, well, this is not the minimum needed. It really just makes it so that it's sort of reasonably providing relief to that. So, once again, you all are still the body that is making those decisions. Once it's a waiver, you have your subjective ability to evaluate that back, but we wanted to make sure that we weren't tying hands or creating bad design because we said it always has to be the minimum needed to achieve the relief and not anything more if it makes better context with the site, and you all deem it to be that way. And then, let's see here, yes? I've got a question. Sure. Let's take, I mean, just a recent example, not to keep picking on it, but we had the Maxwell Street one, and in the preliminary development plan, one of the problems with it was that they had, I mean, even in their works, they had modified it to meet the request of LFUCG's trash guidelines, and they'd moved that trash compactor out of the building and put it where it was accessible to waste collection. Right? I think it was the opposite. No, no, no, then it went back in the building, and my understanding was that they achieved that by going private contracting on their garbage collection. Yes. And that, in that instance, would, I mean, walk me through an actual case like that where what is in compliance is not as good as what is not in compliance, and there's no inherent, there was no inherent difficulty for them to do what was in compliance other than that it wasn't the right thing to do. Yeah, and I think the Maxwell, I think, I think they were able to- I mean, just using that as an example, it's not really just about that. It's, our regulations require a dumpster be here. It would be in compliance if it was here. It's not a great location, you know, because it's right by two other people's houses or something, they can put it here, but it will not then be in compliance. The place they could put it is not a problem for the actual applicant. It would be a problem for the neighbors, but not an actual problem for the applicant. How would that work with this waiver process? Yeah, I mean, so the waiver process itself is, from the applicant's side of things, fairly simple. So it would be- I mean, the applicant doesn't need relief. Yeah, so what we mandated, unless we would have to raise that as a health, safety, and welfare issue as sort of planning staff. That's how things that the applicant does, you know, is fine with meeting the standard, but we would say, hold on, where this is being placed is going to directly impact health, safety, welfare. Staff identifies a specific threat, brings that up to you all for your consideration, and then you make a kind of a finding on that. I'm just talking about the applicant wanting to do a better job- If the applicant wants to do a better job- Than what is required, even though what is required, even though they don't need relief. Sure, yeah, so, yes. Yeah, so- I don't think anyone in the staff has a problem with them wanting to put something in more trees, or put the dumpster in a better location. There's such a range of acceptable solutions on any piece of property. Our guidelines, rules, regulations kind of establish that framework, and then the designer has to work within the framework. But there's always lots of, in my opinion, lots of solutions that can work. I might be not using the right words here. I'm not like a lawyer with word. I'm just, I guess what I wanna, I guess where my concern is revolves around the word relief, because that implies that what they're required to do is a problem. And what I'm trying to say is what they wanna do might be better than what they're required to do. They don't necessarily need relief from the requirement. Does that make any sense? So, I guess in this instance, you're saying, the applicant in this instance saying, we have a location that would meet all requirements. We think it is a better design to move this elsewhere. We are going to seek a waiver. The waiver criteria that you all are evaluating says, well, is this able to afford relief to the applicant when the applicant can sort of already locate it at a particular spot? Okay. So, I think we can take a look at kind of that language there and make sure that we're, essentially we're trying to frame this as making sure what the applicant is requesting is legitimate and reasonable given the context. So, I think we can take a look at that language and make sure we're not shutting off good design in order to kind of make that work. Yeah, because I mean, like what you're saying and Tracy, what you're saying is the reality is there are often multiple paths to the goals of what we're trying to get. And you all are trying to do your best and I'm not really nitpicking on most of these like individuals, but you're trying to do your best to sort of like identify a path towards those goals. And I mean, I guess in terms of the actual development plan, it's sort of a concern that the same way the like zoning map was rigid, where it's like the zoning map says this should be residential. And yes, they could do residential there, but it's also not necessarily a bad thing if they're doing a commercial project or a mixed use project or something like that. Because there's other ways to use this property towards the goals and objectives. Yeah. Awesome. All right, anything else on this section? All right. Let's see here. Once again, tidying up the findings and the necessary to grant the waivers. Taking out the section that it says it will not adversely affect adjacent property owners. That being a really broad kind of characterization in the findings there, it may be sort of difficult in order to sort of implement that effectively. So once again, still talking about the public interest in terms of public health and safety and just sort of honing in on that particular aspect. But yeah, not adversely affecting adjacent property owners was really, really vague. So that kind of brings to a close the main kind of substantive changes that the planning staff has worked over since our last conversations. As you all have sort of self-evidently seen here, there's, I'm sure, blind holes in kind of a lot of the language that we've put forward. So to that point, we have the feedback that you all provide today in advance of the public hearing, which is currently scheduled at the end of the month. Once again, we have put the language up on Acela as modified today, sending those out to the same folks that gave us comment before, sending those out to folks that haven't had a chance to give comment yet, but essentially trying to create as good of a text as we can prior to kind of moving this to the full body there. So really, it's a matter of just getting in contact with us on any of the language, any questions, any tweaks, any concerns, clarifications. Once again, Tracy and I have looked at this a number of times, so a little almost numb to it at this point. So at this point, we have the time available. If there was anything, questions, comments, concerns on anything in the text, we can go through and provide some clarity or look into things further or however you all would like to proceed. Thank you, Daniel. Mr. David. Yes, thank you, Daniel. I just want to make one quick comment. And again, I'm not a lawyer, but looking at the ZOTA that's been put before us, I just want to make sure that as we move forward as a body, that we're not putting ourselves in a position where there's so many speed bumps that we have to look at every single project, and now we're having six and seven hour meetings every single time because there's not a few things to look at, there are multiple things to look at because it should be a process in place that could provide, I guess, a super highway for some of the projects that are ready to go, and it shouldn't stop every single project because we have so many speed bumps. Does that make sense what I'm trying to say? Yes, yes. And the intent behind, I think, the House bill language was kind of consistency, making things as a ministerial process. If you're providing a good plan that meets the requirements, you should sort of be rewarded with that. So planning staff's language you have in front of you is just simply trying to take without, and in the added sort of context is, we don't want to sacrifice the kind of quality, the planning, the quality of your all's review, so we want to make sure that we're not suddenly missing anything important by leaving it out of the text. So some of that may appear a little bit more verbose, but in the overall kind of development scheme is sort of meetable on a general level, reasonable for kind of what we're asking, and so that is. sort of the line that we're towing the entire time of, you know, is this something radically new or is this sort of the status quo? Are we able to kind of implement this? Is this going to cause 13 more applications to have to be advanced that otherwise wouldn't need it? So that's sort of the considerations that we've been looking at with the language. Daniel, one question that I had. Could you explain how, for example, the Board of Architectural Review relates to all of this and this, you know, if you had a, I don't know, a building under an H1 overlay and somebody wanted to come in and redevelop, at what point would the BOAR, what's the relationship? Yeah, so the BOAR is sort of subject to its own rules and requirements there. So they have the purview to look at design elements and make specific recommendations that would then oftentimes get incorporated in development plans, but are not subject to that same, that House Bill 443 standard that the Planning Commission's aspects are. So essentially, they still have their same powers as per usual to review the kind of subjective aspects of architectural design, et cetera. They're still able to weigh in and review plans. And really, their role really isn't going to significantly change with this. But they couldn't say no. Well, they can say no to things that are within their purview. Once you've got a recommendation, so for instance, a development plan is needed in an H1 area, they would need to document that they've gone to the H1, the Board of Architectural Review, the findings have been incorporated into their development plan. Those are necessary in order for them to kind of fill out and complete the process with the Planning Commission and the development plan. So they don't have to say yes, but whatever development plan comes of that, you all can't weigh in on sort of their findings, their criteria, the rest of the objective standards would be looked at, essentially. So again, I mean, if you have a commercial, for example, building under an H1 overlay, and somebody brings a plan to the BOAR first, and it involves significantly altering the facade, and BOAR says, we recommend disapproval, but the Planning Commission can't take that into consideration, or they can say no, but it could still happen anyways? Well, if you're, so we don't currently review all of BOAR's decisions, only those that get appealed to the Planning Commission. So in that case, you are considering all the design guidelines that are adopted and evaluating those. That is a whole different process. What I think you might be asking, though, is if the BOAR has a hearing, they make a decision, and there's a development plan that has to come to you, do you get to factor in the decision that they made? And I think if the development plan meets all the requirements, it won't even come to you, right? So but would the H1, would the BOAR decision stand if they said, no, you cannot alter that facade? Yes, it would stand. That would, okay, that's what I was wondering. Unless they appeal to you, you know, you, yeah. So my sort of last area of concern that I didn't air here is just coming back to that public comment component. So we've, you've sort of already established that the final development plan does not have to look anything like the preliminary plan. Things change on a property, there's some inherent logic there. But that's sort of the, that's sort of the, currently, a lot of the concerns get addressed at the preliminary, and it said, well, we will work those concerns in on the final, and then there's sort of a public hearing in which they come before the same people and the same stakeholders and show how they've done that or have not done that. And presumably that conversation is gonna happen, but it's now gonna happen not at a public hearing. There's a part of me that even if it's ministerial, I have some serious reservations about that component. That's probably the biggest reservation I have with this whole thing is making sure that even in a ministerial way, there is a point where the different stakeholders are all in a room and the meeting is public. And I mean, I'm not the lawyer here, from my perspective, that could, it's not that I don't trust the staff on the technical review committee, that could be a public hearing, maybe it can, maybe it can't, but like, I feel strongly that that needs to be a public, there needs to be a public component to these final development plans. Sure, yeah, and I think probably the closest sort of facsimile to kind of what you're describing would be something like a cell tower application, once again, having its own separate thing, but there's certainly a plan that meets all objective standards, being forwarded on for public comment to a body who essentially your hands are tied. Understanding that there is some validation with public comment and et cetera, I mean, kind of involved with that. Now, sort of separate and tangential to that, my understanding during subdivision review, there was some comments made about the potential for requiring for any application a neighborhood meeting of some sort prior to filing any type of application, not just zone changes, but development plans. That's not something staff has taken a look at, but I think the concerns, and staff shares the concerns as well in making sure that the public's informed and has a route to sort of have their opinions voiced, just how and when that comes in the process. So staff can take a look and talk with law and the rest of our folks on if there's an avenue we see, but the difficulty there, giving public comments, speaking for three hours, and then being told we had to approve this as soon as this walked in, unless staff raised a health, safety, or welfare concern. And the burden of that may place on applicants in certain instances. So we can take a look at that to see if there's any wiggle room or ways to slot in, but that is something that staff thinks is important as well. All right, I hear you there, but I think that what Mr. Duncan has said previously is that if we want to address any concerns, that's something that needs to be done during the comprehensive plan review and creation. That happens every five years. That would affect zoning. And then if we wanted to make any changes to requirements to the, excuse me, to the building side, we need to make those changes in our rules and regulations. So that's kind of the way we're gonna be able to affect change if that's what we're interested in doing here. From my perspective, what we're gonna see is a reduction in the time of our meetings, because we have been in many meetings where the not in my backyard category is talking about stormwater or traffic and then where we are dealing with a piece of property that does not require a traffic study by our regulation, we don't need to hear the traffic complaints. Or if the stormwater has been addressed in the technical committee, we don't need to hear about the potential stormwater problems, because those have all been resolved in the technical review process. I think it will eliminate, reduce the time that we have in our meetings by not having to address concerns that are irrelevant. But on the flip side, I think recommendation that, the recommendation that neighbors have the opportunity and should take advantage of it during the technical review committee is a good idea. On the pre-development side, where they can hear, voice their concerns, and the developer can choose to make an adjustment to fencing, landscaping, come up with some creative ideas for the dumpster removal. But other than that, once it gets to us, we're gonna be health and well-being, correct? Health, safety, and well-being. Yep. Okay. Just a couple of points. First of all, I know that this is kind of a sticky wicket as such as it relates to the public input and what have you. I was trying to figure what ways could we could accommodate that. The challenge, of course, is that when people have problems, they don't read the comprehensive plan. They come down because there's a problem in their neighborhood at this given time. And what people have said to me, and I even got a note or two from people when I was able to chair this committee, Mr. Wilson, we disagree with your decision, but thank you for hearing us. In other words, they felt like they would listen to, irrespective of that. And I understand that sitting here listening to people, 20 people come up and tell me that it's a traffic issue. And I kind of laugh at that a little bit since I've lived in New York for about 10 years. But at the same time, for those people, it is the most important thing that they have on their minds at that time. And a lot of times it's not an issue whether they win or lose. The question is, well, certainly they would like to win, but I think it's just the fact that they're able to vent and know that they're being heard is the most important thing as far as they're concerned. The idea of waiting five years to have that comment and have that, that's not gonna work. We all know that. And that would be good. Some people might, but for the most part, people are going to come here when they've got an issue and a serious issue as such. I don't know how to, you know, I see us as, first of all, I'm willing to go along with whatever you all as professional staff members want. But I think if anything is gonna come back and kick us, it's gonna be this. Because people will not necessarily ride in the streets. They just won't want to be engaged in anything that they feel that's a predominantly set up. So for all the other things that we want public engagement, they'll say, nah, no, this is going down there. They already got their minds made up. And that's the fear that I have. And that borders on one word, trust. Sure. So Mr. Wilson, that came up this morning at subdivision committee. If maybe you all don't know this, well, Bruce does, because he's sat on the subdivision committee as well. But the staff presents or shares with the subdivision committee ZOTA information. And if we have a land subdivision regulation change, we share that with the zoning committee, just because you all will have to hear that. So when we talked this morning, Daniel was out at a public outreach meeting. So I took the fielded the questions, but the subdivision committee this morning expressed very, very similar concerns about public input and how our system can accommodate the public and still ensure that there's a level of trust in the decisions that the planning commission's making, but also I think in the, you know, what's happening that's not at the planning commission, all the things that happen that are in conformance with the ordinance, but where is the opportunity for the public to participate? So they asked for the zoning committee to consider a potential amendment to the text the staff provided, which would include a mandated neighborhood meeting before filing a development plan. So I'm gonna share that with you. And I think it's kind of incorporating that as well. You know, staff is always, I mean, if someone from the public is interested in a project, has concerns about a project, we field those calls on a daily basis. And so moving forward with the technical review committee, the way that that would generally function is if there was a, you know, health safety or welfare issue that can be sort of is very specific, it can be identified by staff, you know, for instance, with when conversations regarding the transi-affordable housing development on Haggard Court, they identified the folks that called in and said, hey, we've got some flooding. It's not a mapped floodplain, but we've got flooding issues here. Some of that information can be in conversations where folks from the public can reach out to staff. We may not be able to address once again, some of these concerns, but areas where lived experience can help identify a health safety or welfare issue that's present in a plan that staff maybe wouldn't otherwise see, I think is a way that they can interface as well. It's a tough and it's a tight timeline to make that kind of happen. But I think we're gonna have to take a look at sort of our public outreach process, how we've been handling this kind of larger, not just within the 443 scope, but the comprehensive plan and kind of all of those in conjunction to make sure that we're not losing something here with the shifts over. Then one quick question. You heard this this morning. Okay, and you got a couple of people here talking about it. So what are y'all gonna do about it? Well, at this point, we wanted to share that with you all to see if that's something that you also were interested in. And obviously the conversation is similar. So the first question that Ms. Worth had was, well, can we, even though these are getting approved ministerially, can we put them on the planning commission's agenda as a consent item and let people pull them off and discuss them? And I said, I don't think that's possible with if we're following the letter of the law, because the whole idea is that they not bring conversation and decision and discretion into the decision when they meet all of the requirements. So the alternative was, well, can we require neighborhood meetings? And I do think that that we can, now we can't mandate an outcome from the neighborhood meeting, right? But at least you can require that they meet, provide minutes, whatever that looks like prior to filing so that you ensure that there is at least conversations happening. And of course, we've done a whole public engagement toolkit to help applicants so that they have the tools necessary to meet with neighborhoods. And I honestly, and I know Daniel has attended a lot of these, the more often they happen and when people come to the meeting with the knowledge that we're discussing a project and there's no guarantees, right? You're sharing your information, your concerns, your worries, potentially technical information. And then our hope is that the applicant is listening to that and is willing to make changes. Again, to be a good neighbor, to make sure the development fits in the community, but we won't necessarily be able to mandate something like that. And I know you all hear that a lot. But I think the question is, is whether that's something as a recommendation could go in, not a mandate, but as a recommendation that it could be, whatever the case may be. One of the things I look at very carefully every time a plan comes before us is whether or not public input has been engaged by and you all know I monitor that. And the question I had at some point and stage is how important is that public comment to what's going on? Because sometimes they've gone through three or four other steps and they haven't done the public engagement piece. And there are some good reasons, in some instances, for that. So we relax on that. I, for one, would support that recommendation from the thing, but I have not conferred with my colleagues on what they're thinking, but I would. Thank you. McLure, I got good news and bad news for you. Yeah? The bad news is our chair had to leave. The good news is you got the gavel. Touched it last. I mean, just as a follow up, just to share a couple of thoughts on that, not necessarily like an opinion. I mean, first, I guess one of my thoughts is that those, it's been fairly unusual that the long hearings with lots of public comment about people concerned about the traffic are at the final development plan. More often, it's at the zoning. I mean, I know we can find some instances where it's at the final development plan, but the most common stress point is at the zoning hearing, at least in my experience. I guess at this point, I have some hesitancy of removing a public component that is organized by the planning commission or by the city where it's formal, where it's recorded, where it's broadcast, where it's published, the meeting, both because a lot of people, I think, both because they're mandating a meeting without guidelines where there may be animosity. I mean, we just had a, we just had the development plan for the developer who was not somebody you would want hosting a neighborhood meeting. Understood. I mean, we had to have him here with security in our room. That's not somebody we want to be the organizer for the point of public comment. I guess I'm not, I mean, I hear that concern of like, why are we listening to public comment if we can't act on those? I do think the act of us listening and people coming and sharing their public comment adds a voice in it outside of the comprehensive plan for those issues that they may be seeing or having, which could inform future zone changes. So I think there could be a broader purpose besides just the listening for three minutes. I'm not sure in terms of process because that's something that you all have to think through whether the public, because whether the public comment could take place. If the public comment, for example, could take place after the consent agenda is even voted for, like I know sometimes council opens up for public comment for anybody. And so public, does that make sense? Where it's like, where the public comment is somehow separated from the act of the voting. This is what I want to make sure everyone understands. House Bill 443 is law. And the point, and I've been saying for a year, the biggest impact of this is on public input. You can't create a new system that basically tries to avoid the provisions of 443. It is possible and we can examine requiring a public engagement meeting. I've never looked at the legality of actually requiring that. And I don't know that the law department has either. But the council has put in committee the public engagement question, particularly related to zone changes and requiring potentially public engagement meetings. And I understand everybody's concern about the public input part of this, but part of the purpose, I believe, of that law was to streamline this process. And that means on a final development plan, there's really no public hearing or engagement on that. But we can look at those recommendations, but trying to insert another public meeting on that process feels like you're starting to defeat the purposes of House Bill 443. And this isn't a staff thing. This is something thrust upon us by the state. And they've done a great job of trying to go through the zoning ordinance to make sure there are objective standards to apply. There will be fine tuning on this. We don't know everything that's going to pop up during this process. So we'll probably be back with some changes later. The other part, and we can have these discussions about public engagement, is being careful not to set up a false expectation for people. Because frequently, when you have a meeting, people expect something to occur. But that isn't really what a public engagement meeting with the developer necessarily means. If they meet the requirements of the regs, they can listen. And if that's what you want an opportunity to do, I think that's great. Because I do believe our development community also listens and they do make some changes based on neighborhood comments. But again, how you arrange that type of meeting, we can certainly examine it over the next week or so. Get law department feedback on whether or not requiring it. Because your present regulations encourage the public engagement. But the question always comes up from the planning commission and the council about how much and what type of public engagement that was. And frequently a complaint is, no one's listening to us. And that's not true. We're all listening. Developers are listening. But you don't always get what you ask for. So when you're thinking about House Bill 443, I guess my point is, remember, this is something we're obligated to do. Creating the objective process, it's supposed to streamline it, as Mr. Davis referenced, in terms of it's supposed to make it faster, quicker. And part of what they removed from that was the public hearing component of it. Just a follow-up question on that. I think because I'm maybe not understanding what this, my understanding of the law was that it required that there be objective criteria. I don't quite understand why that prevents a public hearing or public comment. Because we have the example of the cell tower where there's objective criteria, or in the case of a school, or in the case of a city where the decision is not in our hands, but there's still a moment where people can come comment. I guess I've explained it the best I can. Ministerial process typically does not have a public hearing component to it. Now, it's going to technical committee. People will be able to make comment. And as I think Daniel said, they can always contact staff with questions or concerns. They can submit comment through the portal on any development plan that's coming through. Staff, from my experience, is willing to meet and discuss any of this with anybody. But the purpose of the law is to make the process quicker than it has been. And any obstacle that you build into that ministerial process is not probably going to be smiled upon by the people who crafted the statute. Can I ask another question related to that? The current manner in which our meetings are conducted, at the end of the meeting, there's a provision for anybody in the audience to say whatever they want to say. It's clear that you can't take any action as a committee, but we can listen to that. Now, to my knowledge, I don't think anybody has taken true advantage of that particular area. But if 25 people showed up wanting to speak at the end of our meeting, they can still do that, right? That's largely by your bylaws, but yes. But would that be reviewed as circumventing the... No, well, it depends on how you structure it. Because we've also talked a little bit about potentially having reports to the planning commission on plans that have been approved through the ministerial process. You could have a public comment period at the end of that, but it's a comment on a plan that is final. And if that's something you wanted to have, you could certainly do that, because it's not interfering with that process. Sometimes, though, our meetings, we have a continuation, which means that we haven't made a decision. It's still pending. And they are sitting there listening. They could still use that opportunity to express themselves. Is that right? So the audience items on the planning commission's agenda are for items it specifically says not on the agenda for consideration by the planning commission. So it has been used, probably not much recently, but where people would come and express concern about broader issues, but it cannot be about an item on your agenda. And again, that was because if you have a concern about an item that the planning commission is gonna take action on, you would attend a meeting where that occurred and speak. So it may involve a bylaws change, but. And we may be able to flesh that out, because part of what I think you may be saying is that as this plan is going through the ministerial process, if it were postponed for another meeting coming, can people come to your meeting to make public comment on it? That's probably acceptable if you make the proper changes to your bylaws to allow that, because that's outside of that ministerial process. It's just an opportunity for people to come forward and voice an opinion about it. I think that would probably work. We would need to flesh it out and think about it, but that would probably work. Again, making sure that people understand that they're making comment and developers will be listening to it, but it doesn't necessarily mean that any changes might end up being made to them. Yeah, my father always told me, son, I listen to you, it doesn't necessarily mean you're gonna get what you're gonna want, what's your request, I understand. Thank you, are there any other questions? All right, thank you, Daniel. All right, next up on the agenda is the... Oh, that's fair pool. I was gonna skip that. Thank you, Daniel. Does anybody has public comment on the ZOTA? All right. I have to say, I feel very much at a loss. It's an enormous text amendment. I have lots of questions, lots of confusion, not much by way of answers. So what I will try to do is throw out a few broad questions and take them or leave them. One question is, and I'll start with, and it's great that we have a lawyer in the room. KRS-10277, excuse me, yes, at least, well, yes, several. KRS-10277 numbers one and two, commission approval required for subdivisions. I noticed this, it's been there a long time in KRS. It says, number one, all subdivision of land shall receive commission approval. Number two, some details, no person or his agenda shall subdivide, his agent shall subdivide any land before securing the approval of the planning commission of a plat designating the areas to be subdivided, no plat of a subdivision of land within the planning unit jurisdiction shall be recorded by the county clerk until the plat's been approved by the commission and the approval entered thereon in writing by the chairman, secretary, or other duly authorized officer of the commission. And I bring this up even though it's subdivision, but we're talking about zoning ordinance, not subregs today. And the reason why is the KRS-275, I think it is, the new mandate we're calling HB443, applies to plan review and decision for both subdivisions and development plans which are governed by the zoning ordinance. So here we have this new regulation, it all has to be objective. It seems to me that subdivisions have more generally been regarded as more objective all along and only capable of ministerial review. And here's the point. We have in our subdivision hearings a consent agenda. So basically there's a ministerial review, there's a decision, a recommendation, and it goes on a consent agenda. It can be just rubber stamped and that's just ministerial really. And what I'm wondering is, okay, I would hope that there could be a consent agenda process to have sort of a last gasp opportunity, a sole opportunity for a member of the public to say, I sense a threat here to health, safety, or welfare and in my three minutes this is what it would be. Because as it stands, the whole process, if there's a threat to health, safety, or welfare, how is the commission to come to know of it apart from through the staff? To me that sounds like delegation that only the staff may bring to the attention of the commission, a threat that they may choose to consider or not in a discretionary review. So that's one question and issue. I have a lot of questions about this technical review committee process. The technical review committee, its membership, it's kind of a list of people, or some of them are sort of agents of an institution like KU or the fire department or whatever. Some are government officials. So they have no fixed, what I'd like to see is a membership, a process, a quorum, who votes, what sort of vote carries, is it unanimous? And I don't see any of that. And a question that relates to that is if the tech committee says good to go, it's done, ministerial, what is the avenue for appeal? Who actually approves it? It seems as though the process in the ZOTA is that it's eventually certified by the commission or its secretary, I think. So it's as if the commission is making that approval and yet the commission has neither reviewed nor acted on it, not voted on it. So I think it's kind of weird that the commission in the person of the secretary would sign, would be the person. It also makes me wanna know is often now the practice is each year you vote to elect a secretary and then you vote to hand over the duties of that secretary to the planning division director. And they act, act, I don't know, they are the person of the secretary who is the commission. So if planning commission makes a decision, appeal is to circuit court. If a staff person makes a decision and someone has a grievance with it, the appeal is to BOA. And there've been at least two instances that I know of that I happen to have been involved in where I thought it was a staff decision. So I filed an appeal to BOA or someone did, I was part of it. And the appeal was not accepted for filing, it was turned back. So if the staff makes that decision, and the reason was it was conceived to have been the decision of the commission in the person of the staff as an agent of some kind. So let's not get into the weeds, but what it leaves as a problem is, if you are in a grieved party, there should be an appeal, there should be an opportunity for judicial review. I'm not seeing it in this process. Any ministerial process like a building permit, there is that. Amy, hang on just a second. How many points do you have? Do you have a count on them? Um, no, that's it for that one. I need a count, or I'm just gonna give you a, let's, we've done several minutes here, but we need to allow other people to speak. What I'm gonna do is if you can take a minute and then summarize the rest, work on summarizing the rest of your points, and then I'll call you back up. All I really have to say is, I don't believe I have yet experienced a more difficult piece of business before the planning commission and ultimately the council as far as public engagement goes. It bothers me very much that there has been early and often active outreach to the community who does developing as the ZOTA was formulated and fine-tuned. I would ask at least that the planning commission make an opportunity for a rather wide-ranging open conversation sort of a forum because I don't think people know what's going on and I don't think they're being heard and I don't think they're getting their questions answered. It's certainly my experience. Thank you. I was in fact invited to put all my remarks in writing and then someone would review them with me. Yeah, I offered for you to write down your comments so we could discuss them. Wait, wait, wait, wait, Amy, Nick's coming up here. I will make sure to be very quick with regards to kind of keeping it as big picture issues. I do have like several really, kind of a lot of concerns about this actual specific language. So you could see I've kind of like tagged every single place where I had concerns about individual provisions, but I certainly don't wanna waste your all's time with that regard. The kind of broader point I wanna make is that an overwhelming majority of these changes aren't actually driven by House Bill 443 in any way, shape or form. It's not about removing subjectivity and adding objectivity. It is making sure that we codify whatever the desire is for those rules to be and that there isn't an issue with that, but we shouldn't be on a shot clock to determine do we have the right rules to entirely revamp the commercial access standards? Do we have the right rules in here when we're talking about completely changing the bicycle parking aspect of that? I don't know. I found it interesting that we're requiring bike parking within 20 feet of a building entrance, but 10 feet within a parking structure entrance. I don't know what the reason for that is, but I know it has nothing to do with House Bill 443. What that bill was entirely designed to do was to make sure that we, to Commissioner Davis's point, essentially made it so that plans that entirely meet every single rule that we have created here in Lexington can move forward in the process as expeditiously as possible. That is it. It was not kind of designed to have 66 pages of additional regulations that were going to go in and over the top of what was already put in place. Just as a kind of experiment, I kind of took what the staff's language was and kind of cut out all the sections that were actually just adding additional regulations and just stripped it down to what actually was getting rid of objectivity and included the part where they kind of revamped the Article 21 because that is kind of the driver of what this ZOTA is. And I got that down to 13 pages with probably a little over an hour's worth of work to just look at what was actually being driven by 443 and what was the other divisions not planning, talking about, well, what do we want these rules to actually look like moving forward? We're more than happy to have that conversation as well. I just don't think that they have to be part of this ZOTA because it is very important. There are a whole lot of concerns that I have with regards to how the commercial access languages is kind of drafted. I thought it was very interesting reading the waste management section that got added in where it was in 1616 and you're all's packet today. That's exactly what House Bill 443 talked about. It was basically the waste management buffering is handled in this section. If you meet these rules, you're good with the zoning ordinance. That's exactly what House Bill 443 was about. And compare that to the pages upon pages changes to the commercial access. I thought that that was very interesting. There are other kinds of small things such as like how we're going to document kind of compliance moving forward with the new landscaping in 18-2. It talked about if you are changing more than 30% of an existing site, you have to come into complete compliance with the landscaping rules and regulations. That's an absolute objective standard that makes sense. If you look at 16-15, when it talks about revamping the parking lot, that 30% is basically at 0.01%. It is talking about any alteration to any principle structure requires an entirety of a parking lot to come up to full code where landscaping puts that at 30%. These are inherent conflicts that don't make any sense, but they're the type of stuff that would get fleshed out with the time to engage the public, to talk about these kind of new rules and regulations are going to place that have nothing to do with House Bill 443. And so I would ask you to take your time and look at those type of issues. Thank you all. Yes, sir. I got a question for you. How do you recommend, what is your recommendation on how to proceed from what I've heard you say is there is a portion of the clarification of the zoning ordinance that moves away from subjectivity. And then there are as, and then there's other cases where in order to move from subjectivity to objectivity, some new rules and regulations have been put in place that might not have been vetted in the proper way. How would you recommend addressing this? I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be two different ZOTAs that are on just two different paths, but are all being evaluated. Okay, so would that be a ZOTA to, a zoning ordinance text amendment to make our current zoning ordinance compliance with the language of HB443 would be one process. So that would be one ZOTA. And the second ZOTA would be if there are items that in order to clarify the items and move them from subjective to objective, there were requirements that are being made, would that be on a separate track? I think it would be very easy because you already have the language. And so to break those two apart when you're, when staff has indicated they are on a rocket timeline for one that has to be done, great, let's do that. But let's take our time to actually make sure that these are the right rules. Like the B3 30% lot coverage is a perfect example. That was one change in a page of 120 different pages of the urban growth management text. Development community didn't realize that by putting that 30% lot coverage in there, you couldn't even do a sit down restaurant, not a fast food restaurant, not a drive through coffee shop, a just straight up American sit down restaurant doesn't work with 30% lot coverage. Had we had more time, I think we probably would've caught it but it was on a rocket docket. This is the exact same situation and we are changing substantial things. The way I read the median kind of the commercial access must align with a median entrance. If there isn't a median entrance, that means there can't be a commercial access point there. That means you can't have a right in right out there. That's not their intention. I know it's not, but a specific reading of that specific provision provides that. That's concerning. So what we're looking at if we pass this SOTA as written now, there's a possibility that there will be an increase in the number of SOTAs that we'll have to follow up to fix whatever the stakeholders who are on the development, property owner, engineering side would like to see changed. I think Commissioner Horne has already indicated that they know full well that there are gonna have to be tweaks to this language that come in after the fact. If we know that there are going to be tweaks and these changes are just about what we would desire ideally these kind of provisions to one day read, let's deal with the deadline that the state has given us and let's make sure that we get all of these right so we aren't talking about coming back and having to address additional changes down the road. When we're talking adding two months to the timeline, let's get it right now. Okay, is there a proposal that you can put together that says that these SOTAs are your recommendation from the stakeholders that you represent or the community here represents that says these are changing from subjectivity to objectivity without additional zoning ordinance requirements added? Can you separate the two and have us review that? I already have it, I'm happy to share with staff. I truly did it yesterday. I think it'd be important, but if you could represent all the stakeholders in such a way that that information does get to us. We do have an extensive zoning ordinance. Yes. And I would make the recommendation we comply with H. Bill 443, step one, and then step two, if there's clarification that needs to be made in order to go from subjective to objective and they change the zoning ordinance, that should be on a separate tract. That's just my personal thoughts on this. I haven't heard all sides, but I think a proposal from the development side of the community would be helpful. Sure. That is truly the broad point I was just trying to make is that it makes sense for us to look at these increased regulations to make sure that they are right before we kind of move forward under any type of timing threshold. Just to be clear, these are not increased regulations. These are the requirements that traffic engineering, bike ped, environmental services, solid waste have been giving these same comments to applicants throughout the process for several years. These are not new requirements. They are often part of sign-offs. You just haven't seen them. So now you're seeing the specific things that those people are asking for and they will be in the ordinance so that everyone sees them and knows them before they apply. They are not new. And I would say several of the codifications are an increase in what is currently required or currently basically mandated through the certification process. The raised sidewalks that Mr. Crum pointed out would be a perfect example. This is something that I think it's important for you all, whoever you represent, to meet with staff because what we just heard from staff is their intention is not to add additional requirements. So that's your argument. So I would recommend speaking with staff because they're saying the intent is not to increase the number of ordinances. And if that's the case, I don't have a problem moving forward with this. But if it is not the case, identify them, work it out with the staff. And if you've got an argument, it may be better to address it before this is approved so we don't end up in a position where six months down the line, we're rushing to add additional zoning ordinance text amendments to, if there is need to correct, it's correcting. So I would spend the time, I'm sure staff is willing and able and would like to speak with you about that because they just said it's not their intent. Absolutely. We sat down with staff once and plan to again. We just got the kind of revised version yesterday. Okay, hopefully you all can get that done quickly because obviously from our standpoint, it would work better if we did one zoning ordinance text amendment. So this is a good forum for you to explain what you saw, but I would highly encourage everyone in the community that's on the development side to thoroughly review this and have a conversation with staff. Yes, sir. Are there other questions here on the, Nick, I've got one question for you. You kind of, yeah, yeah. Is that a caveat to that? Planning staff could answer this much better than I can, but you recognize that if there is no standard presently and you have a ministerial process, that that means plans get approved without the standard. Part of this ZOTA tries to establish the standard so that when the plan is reviewed, it can be determined whether it meets it or not. And I don't think that's what Nick is trying to say, just recognizing that that's the purpose. It's not to, whether you use the word addition, you may mean stricter or more, what's the word I'm looking for, Nick? So the standards are not codified anywhere before. And so this is the first time written down you were looking at, and that's what we would like to discuss. But, and we have been discussing the actual standard. What I'm trying to say is if there is no standard presently, when those plans come in, we cannot apply it. And that's what planning staff is trying to achieve with the ZOTA, in addition to the process under House Bill 443. That makes great sense. And if these standards are, as was stated, are pulled from other documents that are in place, they're standards from other procedures, I think just a clarification on that would make. everybody feel more comfortable and we're good to go. Just to make sure everyone understands, there's been many conversations about the actual standard and if it is reasonable, practical, et cetera, and many of the changes that occurred between the last time staff talked to you about this ZOTA and now. And we're still listening. All the way up to your public hearing, taking comment, reviewing, getting the other divisions to review because the experts like traffic engineering, waste management, water quality, engineering are also the ones that are crafting part of this. But the eye is to what is not presently written down that needed to be codified in order to be able to apply it to the development plan, to the process. Who do you represent today? Here today after the BIA, the building industry association. So as sort of an applicant on these, I'm sure that the back and forth on what the standards that are in here are going to be going back and forth, but that's not really my question regardless of what the standards in here are at some point because we have to take standards that say like, you know, pedestrian connectivity and we have to define it. And that definition is sort of inherently going to be some compromise of some sort. Which is not always going to be the best in an individual case. And then what we're hearing from staff is so then we're going to apply for a waiver. And I guess I'd be curious to hear as the applicant, you know, that's the solution that sort of we're hearing. I'm curious to hear how you perceive that solution or I guess specifically I guess my concern in the hearing with staff was that sort of idea that the waiver is tied to a concept of relief rather than this is a this is the best practice and this is what we should be doing because of these reasons. I thought the dumpster location kind of example you pulled was spot on. I don't know the specific of that kind of request whether or not where they were wanting to ended up putting it would not have meet these rules or not. But to Tracy's point, I think there's always the ability for a developer to do more than what the rule requires. Just because the rule would have allowed for it right there in a specific location doesn't mean that it also would not allow for it to be in a better location. So that I think from an applicant's perspective we always would want it to be in the best location for the development and for the neighbors with regards to something like waste management. Because I can tell you from experience the most calls you get from a kind of an existing development is due to issues like waste management. And so to handle that from the very jump is much more preferable. And so from the way that the waiver perspective is written now, I would think you would still have the ability to take that to the planning commission if whatever the rules are that waste management wouldn't allow it because you could claim that that is a hardship. Whether that is a hardship that is, yes you are meeting the rules, but where you think that this would be better, that is a hardship because it is creating an area of traumatic concern from your neighbors, from everyone that is involved with this project, and you all want the planning commission to make a better decision than what the rules basically would allow. So I think you can do that as written. I think to Daniel's point as well that if there is maybe a tweak to that language to kind of allow for that, that makes sense as well, but I think in the waiver process you could address a scenario where we want to do something, it is not technically by the rules, but it is going to lead to a better development for everybody involved. I think you probably would be able to shoehorn in a waiver argument in that regards. But I also thought that your point with regards to making sure that you don't have a required tree within 15 feet of any type of utility line is like that in and of itself could be very problematic if it is talking zone to zone screening and the utility line or the sewer line is going right in the middle of the property. I think that is an excellent, excellent point. Thank you. Do we have other comments from, yep. Good afternoon, Brandon Gross. I will not rehash everything that Nick has talked about. I did submit a letter, it's got kind of four big picture items with probably five pages of more granular comments throughout the text that has been submitted. I will say that my biggest concern is the unattended consequences of this zoning ordinance and the fact that we have got 60 days from the time it was released to the public before it is going to be before your body. We have been meeting with staff, they have been taking our comments. One of my biggest concerns before I go into what I was going to talk about is how this will affect the infill and redevelopment areas of our city. I live next to Lafayette High School, which is outside of that but right on it. I represent a lot of clients and we deal with what I would consider difficult lots. Lots in which we have B1 to R3 or R1 and I think some of these ordinances, some of the text is being set up to where it's going to cause difficulties on those particular redevelopment projects. One project in particular, not redevelopment, but I go to Rosemont Garden area or Pitana and Rosemont Station a lot. I could probably list off 12 violations of these regulations for those two locations and that is very common in these older neighborhoods. So that's one of my main concerns on the unattended consequences, sort of like the lot coverage you guys are currently looking at. I don't think anyone intended it to bar you to be able to build a restaurant because 30% lot coverage is really hard to meet. So I'm concerned we're going to have those unintended consequences with this many regulations going this quickly without people having the time to kind of study and say how does this affect X, how does this affect Y. So that's just kind of reiterating what Nick said. I do want to talk about the citizen-driven ZOTA process that's being removed. I think that's on page 5 of your text and it's being modified to only permit the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council to initiate ZOTAs and it's taking away the rights of citizens to file those. HB443 has nothing to do with that particular provision. I'm not sure why it's in this ZOTA. It's unrelated. It's covered by KRS-100-211. I tracked it for at least the last 40 or 50 years, Lexington has allowed citizen-driven ZOTAs. I don't know why we're going to change that now. If you look at the language, the language in the statute says either the Planning Commission or the Council may initiate it and my position is my ordinance permitting citizens to file an application, that is you more or less initiating it and allowing a citizen to bring that to you guys for your attention. Like I said, it's been going on for decades. It appears to be based upon a 2012 Attorney General opinion. That opinion is that. It's an opinion. It's not law. No laws have changed regarding that and once again, when I on behalf of an applicant bring a ZOTA to you, nothing gets done until you recommend approval and then the Urban County Council adopts it. So I'm not sure why we have to have this and why we would strike that right from citizens that we've had for decades. So thank you. Oh, any questions on that point or any other points? I kind of have just a question on your first point, which is I guess as you or maybe a comment I guess because the unintended consequences and the rigidity is something that I'm concerned about and but it's also not super clear to me how to avoid it and make everything an objective standard without causing a setback as we develop towards our goals. And so that's sort of just maybe a comment back to you as you are going back and forth and I understand that and I think that's part of the reason I feel like if we pull some of this out as a separate ZOTA, we can have that more in-depth discussion. My concern is every single redevelopment within the infill and redevelopment is going to have to have multiple waivers because this is great for green fields, but for our older neighborhoods, it's just really it's going to be difficult. And so we're going to be kind of back to where we are now, which is we're in front of you having hearings on various waivers that we just know out of the gate that will not be able to be met on our older areas of town. So I don't have an answer for you. I wish I did right out right out of the gate. I wish I had an answer, but that's the reason I feel like if we could pull some of these back and then study them separately, we may be able to get to that answer. I understand in our ordinance, we do make an effort and there is a desire through the comprehensive plan to promote development in our vacant and underutilized parcels. And there's also an effort to make infill redevelopment easier. So I don't know if this is a broader text amendment that we address later on, but I mean, from the ordinance and from the community, we do hear that we would like to use our vacant and underutilized property. So we save our farmland and also have infill redevelopment so that we're creating better neighborhoods. So I think there'll be some room just from the effort of the staff. It's written in our comprehensive plan that those are efforts we're interested in making. So I'm sure that working with staff, they'll find ways to be objective to make those properties more easily developed. Oh, I'm 100% agreement that staff would like our infill sites to be easier to develop and quicker. Is that correct? Yeah, there we go. I got her to agree with me today. I guess that's it. I'm going to end on a high note. All right, come on up. I'm Rory Caley. I represent myself. Didn't want to talk. No one expected me to talk. But 18-3, those are the changes you're talking about with the tree restrictions, required trees, being away from easements. 29 years of laying out properties and doing all the regulatory landscape plans, I've never been told to move a tree because there was a water line or a storm pipe near where we're doing it. We put our utilities on property lines. That's where you have your eight-foot setback for all your screening. This is where all your trees go. This is not codifying anything. This is brand new. And 18-3 would really be a problem on most all of our areas. We're putting utilities in the front yards now. They'll be right next to that right-of-way. They'll probably get into your single-family homes. If I can't be in the front yard, it's also going to extend into the right-of-way. I mean, I know there's a difference there. But there's an easement set up from sidewalk or from a house to the sidewalk. That easement's established. I have to be outside of it with my tree. There is no place for a street tree. So I think that one, would there be a required tree? And I could have a water line or a sewer line in my front yard. Article 18 is all about, it's commercial. Well, commercially then. Land. OK. It's your VUA. It's your perimeter screening. Yeah. Yeah, I was back there highlighting a plan of all the areas where I couldn't have my screening. I know. No, this one's commercial. But yes, I was trying to look at it all. I just think that it needs a lot of work. OK. Anybody else back there? All right. All right. We've got it. Come on back up. OK. And I do want to thank you for the time. I'm no pro. It makes it harder for you all to hear, I believe. I don't know if I said my name, Amy Clark. I know you know it. But anyway. OK. I was kind of amazed to learn that in the staff or the division interpretation, planning commission may review and decide all preliminary development plans because they're in association with a zone change. It would seem to me that the discretionary act is the zone change. And it does allow conditional zoning to be attached, restrictions on uses, and so forth. And it allows you to act as the BOA and do variances and conditional use permits. So is this real that you can review the entirety of the preliminary development plan and make a decision on whether it's acceptable or not? It would seem that development plan as such either meets the ordinance or not. And associated with that is the this is KRS 100-203, number two. This is content of zoning regulations. So it's the enabling legislation. The text may provide, as the text of the zoning ordinance, may provide that the planning commission, as a condition to the granting of any zone change, may require the submission of a development plan. And most of our zone changes, many of them, require a development plan, which shall be limited to the provisions of the definition contained in the KRS definition. So it's more limited. It's not everything we might want to see on a DP, but it's quite a lot. Where agreed upon, this is what interests me and that I have questions about, where agreed upon, this development plan shall be followed, okay? What does that mean? Does that mean you have a preliminary development plan? It's associated with a zone change. The applicant and the commission who approve it agree upon it. It shall be followed. Can you come back with a different FDP as long as it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance? But it's different. Or can't you? Or is it that the only power as a discretionary act allowed to planning commission is the zoning part? Well, you can cap the density. You can do conditional zoning restrictions. So that was three of my bullet points right there. I just want to say I appreciate that people do say to Mr. Wilson, thanks for listening to us. That matters a lot. I've heard a lot of people say they're always saying we listened and we just want to be heard. People basically come down there because they want to win something. They want to prevail in their wishes regarding a development or a zone change. Tiny point about ND1s, there's a change in ND1s which removes it from it's no longer a zone change process to make an amendment to an ND1. And I think since that is property specific, it's an overlay. I'm surprised that there isn't mailed notice that that is contemplated as changing. People work really hard for those. And I think they'd hate to see them just vanished. Can a final development plan be an amendment to the preliminary plan if it's radically different and would that change the process any? I'm almost done here. Oh, this is huge. How do you harmonize the comp plan with these new objective plan standards, this mandate? Because I think the recent comp plans are based on the idea that design can ameliorate the kind of urban intensity we seek to make efficient use of our land. And that's all about, design is all about the DP. The comp plan is our public input to the ZOTA we have implemented. And I'd be interested to see whether this ZOTA mandated by the legislature is in agreement with our comp plan, because if it isn't, we better bring our comp plan into agreement with the ZOTA. And did I really hear that people may comment at the tech committee that that is a possibility in the ministerial review? And during the ministerial review or following the decision, and that one can submit comment through the portal, I guess that's at CELA, that hasn't to date been done. And how would that, how would that figure in? And just to reiterate, I really think the process, the people, the vote, the quorum, and so on, for DP review and decision if it's ministerial review, that is a possibility. Decision if it's ministerial should be better clarified. We should know who's making the vote. Who's responsible. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. This is going to come as a shocker after the wing ding we had Tuesday night on transit, but in any event, no disrespect to what Keith said about the public comment side of this, but like Maxwell is a perfect example. I felt like during the zone change process with Maxwell Street, one of the, what's that? Oh, I'm sorry. John Woodall representing myself. Well, John Woodall here today. Thanks. There you go. In any event, I felt like through that process, which was a very laborious zone change, and there was a lot of contention in it and so forth, but I felt like one of the reasons that the commission went along with that and approved the zone map amendment that was requested there was because we were able to say we have an exacting and very detailed formal development, our final development plan process coming. Okay. And, and, and because that was the case and it is until July one, when all that things that's going to change from a more discretionary process to a ministerial process. Well, now all of a sudden the folks sitting out in the audience are going to be looking at you going, it's not that process anymore. And you need to, you've got to, you've got to take a hard look at this. Now, look at things that you probably, they're telling you to look at things. You really shouldn't be for a zone change, but you're humans. And that's what we do. And they're going to be sitting there telling you, you need to really focus in on this stuff. And what that leads to, I'm afraid if you're in our position is could be a little different, more difficult to get some of these very controversial projects approved. The worst place that I want one of my clients to be is in a position where they have to choose. Well, we didn't get approved, but we should have been. Well, your only choice is to file a lawsuit. Well, guess what happens in court? Nothing. Zero lawyers do well in court. Nobody's building a building. Nobody's collecting rent. Nobody's owning a home. Nobody's owning a project. It's a huge waste of time. It's not efficient. So that's the last place we want our clients to be. So my point is, I, to the extent there can be, and Trancy's a perfect example, that was approved the other night, 11 to one. But we've, we've obligated ourselves and, and committed to working with the neighborhoods going forward, whether we have to or not, just because we think it's the right thing to do. And, and that's, that's what we're going to do. I think there's, if you can do it, even if it's one of the ministerial standards, so to speak, that we put in that you can say that developer's done. It doesn't give me any heartburn, especially after the zone change is completed. And you're just talking about your development plan to continue to have a meeting or two or whatever, whatever it takes. I just, I just, like I said, it sounds weird to hear, to have an attorney say this for a developer, but I'm a little, little worried about removing the public from this process too much. Because, just because of the effect that it could have at the planning commission level with the argument that you've got to judge this plan with heavier scrutiny, because there's not going to be another shot at these folks. So that's my only point. If there's a way to do it, I'm fine with it. Thank you. All right. Now that we've had the public comment, Daniel, we're going to move to the postponed items. Are there any updates with, with any of these postponed items? I do believe you need to take action on this recommendation. Thank you here. Obviously, I'm not used to the chair, the gavel here. So do we have a motion on, on this? Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone PLN Zoda 24-6 revisions to Article 23-10 for the economic development zone. Second. Zoda 25-1. The one we've just talked about for two hours. Well, I move we postpone PLN Zoda 20. I don't quite understand. You all got a lot of work to do on this thing. So I'm going to move that we postpone PLN Zoda 25-1 ministerial review of the developmental plans. Second. Is there a second? All in favor? Aye. A recommendation for postponement passes unanimously. And then now, is there any action on any of these postponed items? No, no new information on, on any of those outstanding. All right. And with no objection. Oh, I guess staff items. No, there aren't any other staff items. Okay, then with no objection, we adjourn. ♪ Spirit move me, every time I'm near you. Whirling like a cyclone in my mind. Sweet Melissa, angel of my lifetime. Answer to all answers I can find. Baby, I love you. Come, come, come into my arms. Let me know the wonder of all of you. Baby, I want you now. Now, now, and hold on fast. Could this be the magic at last? ♪ ♪ Lady, take me high up on a hillside. High up where the stallion meets the sun. I could love you, build my world around you. Never leave you till my life is done. Baby, I love you. Come, come, come into my arms. Let me know the wonder of all of you. And baby, I want you now. Now, now, now, and hold on fast. Could this be the magic at last? Could it be magic? Come, come on, come on, come. Come into my arms. Let me know the wonder of all of you. And baby, I want you now. Now, now, now, and hold on fast. Could this be the magic at last? Could it be magic? Come, come on, come on, come. Come into my arms. Let me know the wonder of all of you. And baby, I want you now. Now, now, now, and hold on fast. Could this be the magic at last? Could it be magic? Come, come on, come on, come. Come into my arms. Let me know the wonder of all of you. And baby, I want you now. Now, now, now, and hold on fast. Could this be the magic at last? Could it be magic? Come, come on, come on, come. Come into my arms. Come, come on, come on, come. And baby, I want you now. Now, now, now, and hold on fast. Now, now, now, and hold on fast. Could it be magic? Now, now, now, and hold on fast. Ya, ya, blah blah blah Crazy I'm crazy for feeling so lonely I'm crazy crazy for feeling so blue I knew you'd love me as long as you wanted And then someday you'd leave me for somebody new Worry Why do I let myself worry? Wondering what in the world did I do? Crazy for thinking that my love could hold you I'm crazy for trying and crazy for crying And I'm crazy for loving you Crazy for thinking that my love could hold you I'm crazy for trying and crazy for crying And I'm crazy for loving you Ooh You can dance You can dance Having the time of your life Ooh See that girl Watch that scene Digging the dancing queen Friday night and the lights are low Looking out for a place to go Where they play the right music Getting in the swing You'll come to love the thing Anybody could be that guy Night is young and the music's high With a bit of rock music Everything's fine You're in the mood for a dance And when you get the chance You are the dancing queen Young and sweet Only seventeen Dancing queen Feel the beat from the tambourine You can dance You can dance Having the time of your life Ooh See that girl Watch that scene Digging the dancing queen Sure it's easy to turn it on Leave it burning and then you're gone Looking out for another Anyone will do You're in the mood for a dance And when you get the chance You are the dancing queen Young and sweet Only seventeen Dancing queen Feel the beat from the tambourine You can dance You can dance Having the time of your life Ooh See that girl Watch that scene Digging the dancing queen Digging the dancing queen On the floors of Tokyo Down in London town to go-go With the record selection and the mirror's reflection I'm a dancer with my self-help When there's no one else inside I think the crowd ain't lonely night Well I wait so long for my love vibration And I'm dancing on with my self-help Dancing on with my self-help Dancing on with my self-help When we're starting to lose And there's nothing to prove Well I'm dancing on with my self-help If I looked all over the world And there's every type of girl But you're empty I see Don't pass me by Leave me dancing on with my self-help So let's sink another drink Cause it'll give me time to think If I had a chance I'd ask a woman to dance And I'd be dancing on with my self-help Dancing on with my self-help Dancing on with my self-help When we're starting to lose And there's nothing to prove Well I'm dancing on with my self-help On this edition of Lexington Now, community corrections, police roll call, and I was here. I'm Neal Noah, and welcome to Lexington Now for the week of March 3rd, 2025. Most people have a pretty good idea of what police do in Lexington, but there is another division that is crucial to public safety, community corrections. Matt Lemans explains their role. I'm Neal Noah, and welcome to Lexington Now, for the week of March 3rd, 2025. Most people have a pretty good idea of what police do in Lexington, but there is another division that is crucial to public safety, community corrections. Matt Lemans explains their role. I'm Matt Lemans. I'm the major over operations at the Paycaddy Detention Center. So I started in 2008, so I've been here just about 14 years. Currently I'm over operations, which is all of custody. I've worked in intake, I've worked in classification, inmate services, community corrections, and what we are is anyone that gets arrested inside Fayette County, whether it's by the police department, sheriff's department, it could be Kentucky State Police, ATF, whoever, if you get arrested inside Fayette County, you'll come to us and await your trial. Right now we're hovering at about 950 inmates. Most of those are pretrial detainees that we're waiting to go to court. Some of them have been sentenced and they're waiting for a bed with the state. If you're working in custody or working in a housing unit like what I'm in right now, you're in charge of the safety and security of the inmate population and making sure that everybody gets all their needs. They get their medication, they get fed, they get their recreation, stuff like that. But that's just custody. You have other areas in our facility as well, such as intake, that does the booking in and booking out process of new inmates or releases. You have mass control that controls a lot of the doors that we have. You have electronic monitoring for ankle bracelets. You have inmate services to be the inmate's liaison to the outside world. You have classification that decides where all the inmates go. So once you get started with a job here, there's a lot of different possibilities that you can explore and move around and get so that you're not doing the same thing every day. It's a real close-knit environment. We all have each other's backs. Even if you're in a different area, we kind of know what everybody does, so that way you can kind of understand what everybody's going through. So everyone really pulls together and helps each other out. One thing that not a lot of people know is how much of an impact you can really have on individuals' lives, whether it's someone that you work with or someone that you work with because they're made to be here. Just treating everyone like they're your neighbors because in reality, a lot of the people that are here aren't here for big, huge offenses. They're here because they got caught doing something against the law, and this is where they ended up. But they could be your neighbor. They could be a coworker from a past job, or they could be friends or family of someone that you know. Right now, we're looking at filling about 100 vacancies that we have for new officers. So those officers, you'd start out working custody, kind of working in the housing units, but as you kind of move on with your career with us, you can move into a lot of those different opportunities. You can also move up the ranks, too. I started here as an officer. I became a sergeant, then a lieutenant, then a captain, then a major. So there's a lot of not just lateral mobility but vertical mobility as well as far as working your way up the command structure. We actually have our own landing page on the Lexington, Kentucky website. So if you go to lexingtonky.gov slash corrections jobs, it gives you information not only on what the job is about but what the hiring process is like, too. So we usually run a recruit class every month, month and a half, somewhere in there. And if you apply in between those, we actually bring you on and start you getting paid before the class starts where you kind of go around and you shadow other officers, kind of get a little bit more of an idea of what that's like. So what you need to have, you need to be legally able to work in the United States. You have to be 21 years old and a U.S. citizen. What we're looking for is someone that doesn't have any felony convictions, but if you go on the website, it really shows you all the individual little things and really guides you through that process. One thing that's nice about our division is we will train you from the ground up. You know, when I started here, I had no background in criminal justice. I did not go to school for criminal justice. You know, all the training that you need, we will give you and you'll get paid during that training. It's five weeks of classroom training and then you'll have five weeks with an officer assigned to you to show you the ropes. They'll start out having you just watch them. By the end of that five weeks, they're just kind of checking in on you, making sure you're doing okay. So right now we're starting at $20 an hour. The other things that you get too, health, vision, dental, you get money to go towards all those plans. You also get quite a bit of paid time off that you can start accruing. You start accruing that on day one. You know, so that's, you start with three weeks of vacation a year. That's plus 12 government holidays. We get two flex holidays in there as well. We also get 120 hours a year worth of sick leave. So that way if you are ill and you have to take time off, you're not taking away from vacations that you can take later, just covering while you're not feeling well. I actually came to this career for the benefits before anything else. Having the retirement, having health insurance, dental insurance, I got to a point in my life that I had to start paying attention to that and that brought me into the career and it's kept me here ever since. I really think it's a good job. You should check us out. Check out the website. You'll see a couple videos. See what the job's about. Again, it's lexingtonky.gov slash corrections jobs. Lexington police have a big job in protecting and serving residents and the job is split up into more manageable segments. We caught up with the folks of police to talk about how this is handled. Well, I'm Jonathan Gist. I'm a police officer here with the Lexington Police Department. My name is Josh Choi. I'm a patrol officer for the Lexington Police Department. My name is Chase Henderlyke. I'm a police officer. I'm Taylor Mitchell. I'm a police officer with the Lexington Police Department. My name is Adam Servacio. I'm a police officer with the Lexington Police Department. My name is Officer Charles Davis. I'm with the Lexington Police Department. So the city's broken up into three sectors. You've got east, central, and west. All those sectors have a first, second, and third shift. I work central sector, first shift, so my hours are 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. I work central sector, second shift. I start at 4 in the afternoon and work until 2 in the morning. I work third shift, which is between the hours of 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. Each sector has something called roll call. It's like a mini headquarters for us. From there, we go over the roster, what we're going to be assigned to for the day. From there, we can go over patrol briefing, which is essentially just a PowerPoint that kind of gives us persons of interest, vehicles of interest, events going on in the city that we should be aware of. Kind of lets us strategize on how we're going to be proactive and where we're going to be proactive. But once we leave there, we go to our assigned beats, patrol the area, and take our dispatch calls. Current events, things like that, will shape what we respond to in a day. So the only thing typical is about the first 20 minutes of our shift. My first call of the day can be someone shot or it could be someone in a vehicle wreck. It could be a stolen vehicle. It could be all kinds of things. So your day is never the same. It always starts out different and it always ends different. In law enforcement, there is no typical day. You never know what you're going to get. Every day is different. Sometimes we'll take five calls a night. Sometimes we'll take upwards to 15 to 20. It's really one or the other. So as a female officer, I work with a lot of males. And I've had nothing but great experiences here. I was the only female in my academy class and I never felt any different. I love the guys that I work with and the supervisors that I've had. It's been nothing but a brother-sister relationship, and I can't say enough about how hard those guys work and how hard this department works. It's basically a gigantic family. I take care of her from all walks of life, all different places, across the state, across the country. We put this all together and we expect to work with each other. We watch each other's backs. I go home to my family at the end of every night because of my family I have here. From my experience, it's more of a family experience. It's really a brotherhood, sisterhood. And I feel that family and that camaraderie with the people that I work with. They've been sort of like a second family to me. We're all very close. We all get together outside of work. We hang out. We do cookouts. We also like to back each other on calls. Anytime that one of us is in trouble, it's a spectacular sight to see a bunch of us show up and know that regardless of who I know, who I don't know, whether I've worked with them for the last year and a half or if I've just met them that day, everyone's coming to help out. They preach that it's a fraternity, and it really is, and you don't really see the scope of that until you're actually in it and working with the same guys every day and then showing up to other sectors when they're busy and picking up with those guys like you've known them your whole life and been working with them your whole career. And that goes hand-in-hand with how we're able to jail with the community because if you jail with your partners, that'll usually translate over into any call you're on. I know myself and my partner, it's a big thing that we do in between calls sometimes is we go out to the park and we'll see kids playing basketball. And if they're putting up hoops, then we're going to go and shoot some with them. And I think for the community, the parents see that. They feel that they can approach us. The kids certainly approach us. They wave at us when we drop by and out. You know, we try to do all types of community outreach. We try to talk to children. We try to give them experiences with police officers that aren't intimidating or aren't scary. And I love that opportunity to be, I may be the first police officer they've ever talked to. And it's a positive experience. And I hope it leaves them with a feeling that they can always call us if they need us. The majority of the time, we deal with people on their worst days, worst case scenarios. So we try to do what we can to bring positive light to that and help people the best we can. It can be at a 10, and then if the right officer shows up, if they've made a connection with that person, whether they're going through a crisis or some kind of something else that's got them in whatever they're experiencing, if they see that officer and they can recognize that and they've made that connection, it can automatically change the pace. We like to build rapport with them.