# Planning Commission Zoning (Sub) Committee - September 3, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · September 3, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6873 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6873?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-09-03 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: September 12, 2026 - **Length**: 9,557 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **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 Zoning Committee met on September 3, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. ET at the Phoenix Building, 3rd Floor Conference Room. The committee considered six agenda items during the meeting, including three informational presentations on specific properties and two informational updates on zoning regulations, as well as one regulatory matter that came to a vote. The committee took two motions and votes and heard one public comment during the session. One item—PLN-ZOTA-26-00007 regarding Attended Donation Center Regulations—was approved by the committee. The remaining five items, including presentations on UP Campus Student Living, LLC (PLN-MAR-26-00019), Turner Property 4, LLC (PLN-MAR-26-00020), Regency Holdings Three, LLC (PLN-MAR-26-00021), an update to industrial zones (PLN-ZOTA-26-00009), and an update to downtown zones (PLN-ZOTA-26-00010), were presented for informational purposes. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took action on two items during the September 3, 2026 meeting: **Downtown Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – Postponement** [timestamp: 1:45:06] Commissioner McClure moved to postpone the downtown Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, with a second from Commissioner Molly Davis. The motion passed by roll-call vote with 4 ayes and 2 nays. The item was postponed. **Attended Donation Centre Regulations – Approval** [timestamp: 2:05:34] The Commission voted on approval of the Attended Donation Centre Regulations, identified as PLN ZOTO 26-7. Commissioner Forster moved for approval, seconded by Mr. Wilson. The motion passed unanimously. ## Public Comment Paula Singer addressed the Commission regarding plans for Cardinal Valley, specifically raising concerns about a potential attended donation center in the area [timestamp: 1:58:04]. Singer emphasized the importance of maintaining the retail component currently operating in Cardinal Valley, expressing worry that an attended donation center could replace the existing retail store. She highlighted the value of the retail operation to the local community. ## Contested Items **Downtown Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment** The Commission engaged in heated discussion regarding a proposed amendment to the downtown zoning ordinance. The primary point of contention centered on building height minimums and their potential effects on small businesses and downtown development. The disagreement focused on how height restrictions would impact the ability of smaller enterprises to operate and develop within the downtown area, as well as broader implications for the district's growth and character. However, the specific positions taken by individual commissioners, the names of speakers, and the final outcome of the vote or decision are not documented in the available meeting records. ## PLN-MAR-26-00019: UP CAMPUS STUDENT LIVING, LLC This agenda item addressed a petition for a zone map amendment submitted by UP Campus Student Living, LLC. The proposal seeks to rezone 1.134 net acres from Medium Density Residential and Professional Office zones to a Downtown Frame Business zone. No transcript timestamp information was available for this item. The meeting treated this matter as informational in nature, and no key speakers were identified in the meeting record. The outcome of this agenda item was informational, indicating the Commission received information about the petition without taking formal action at this time. ## PLN-MAR-26-00020: TURNER PROPERTY 4, LLC This agenda item addressed a petition for a zone map amendment affecting approximately 2.394 net acres. The proposed change would reclassify the property from Neighborhood Business and Wholesale and Warehouse Business zones to an Industrial Redevelopment Planned Unit Development zone. No transcript timestamp information was available for this item. The meeting record indicates this item was presented as informational in nature, though specific details regarding speakers, presentations, or discussion points were not documented in the available materials. ## PLN-MAR-26-00021: REGENCY HOLDINGS THREE, LLC This agenda item addressed a petition for a zone map amendment submitted by Regency Holdings Three, LLC. The proposal seeks to rezone 1.185 net acres from Single-Family Residential to Neighborhood Business zone. The petition also includes requests for variances and a conditional use permit. No transcript timestamp information was available for this item, and no key speakers were identified in the meeting record. The Commission treated this item as informational, meaning it was presented for information purposes without a final vote or decision rendered during this meeting. ## PLN-ZOTA-26-00009: UPDATE TO INDUSTRIAL ZONES This agenda item presented an update to Articles 8-21, 8-22, and 8-23 of the Zoning Ordinance, designed to modernize regulations for three industrial zone classifications: Wholesale and Warehouse Business, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial zones. The item was presented as informational in nature. No specific speakers were identified in the meeting record, and no transcript timestamp was available for locating discussion of this item in the meeting video. The proposed ordinance updates aim to bring the industrial zoning provisions into alignment with current development practices and community needs. The modifications address the three primary industrial zone categories that regulate different intensities and types of industrial activity within the jurisdiction. No specific concerns, debate points, or discussion details were recorded for this agenda item. The outcome was informational, indicating the Commission received the presentation without taking formal action at this time. ## PLN-ZOTA-26-00010: UPDATE TO DOWNTOWN ZONES This agenda item presented an amendment to Articles 8-17, 8-18, and 8-19 of the Zoning Ordinance designed to modernize the downtown zoning categories and implement the adopted Downtown Area Master Plan. The item was presented for informational purposes at the Commission meeting on September 3, 2026. No specific transcript timestamp is available for this discussion. The proposed amendments address updates to the zoning framework governing the downtown area, aligning the ordinance with the previously adopted Downtown Area Master Plan to ensure consistency between planning policy and zoning regulations. ## PLN-ZOTA-26-00007: ATTENDED DONATION CENTER REGULATIONS [timestamp: 1:48:27] The Commission considered a text amendment to add a new definition for attended donation centers and to allow their use as a principal use in certain zones. **Presenters and Discussion** Daniel, Lauren Nichols, and TJ Morrison were the key speakers on this agenda item. The amendment proposed regulatory language to establish attended donation centers as a defined use within the zoning code and to permit them as a principal use in specified zones. **Outcome** The Commission approved the ordinance. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (4-2): Postponement of the downtown Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - **PLN ZOTO 26-7** — passed (0-0): Approval of the Attended Donation Centre Regulations --- ## Full transcript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kutumia kumutazangeziki hasa mfaani hizi Hapo eme eligwa mpaonirate kama bita, bita alaga wa B2B kwa mpaoniriftinese, buenda yile sababazi hapa Na kuhuspeke ya hivyo nyardia hui alima wa maaagiio nje kwa wankilisha mafanyafu Umaao kryia modishinya na usigamia ya kutumia hiva Kwa hatuisho mwengine, atakaidi kw THE Stay sasisi kwa makuangezo na hafanya na majani kila kuhusuwasana Mwanashiria mwarri kata Kwa postale ni我想ambiani Joe Idi chafana kua iamamu asili eneyi wapamishwa watumine Kwa hii diga Azo mwakula juguma zi ya watu ni ja mali ni buu 시면i knika onale tsutaka op CPU kuwahisha change nablingi chandele kuuchamputa cha kwerimia nilikula umwataka sumbuo Zaunda kwa sanatambo mpapa ponda hii alalimu wazhhhh kwehu lana sivo oo lakaisha kwa So sio Do we have any questions for the board at this time, Mr. McClure? Yeah, I have a number of questions. Do you have, um, um, my first question is on the intent of the zones and as it relates to the maps in the downtown master plan. Could you have a copy of those maps you could bring up from the downtown master plan? Right now, no, this presentation will send off to planning staff. So it's just the presentation that I have. OK, is there someone at the computer who could pull that down that map up from the downtown master plan? Well, you're pulling that up. I'll skip to my next question. The building height minimums and maximums, can you go back to that? Well, I guess if he's on that computer, I don't need you to go back. Um. The specifically the the minimums, I sent you some questions regarding imposing minimums of four feet in the B2, I mean, sorry, four stories in the B2 48 feet in the B2 and 36 feet in the B2A. And. I understand. I think I understand your motivation there or the staff's motivation to. Ask to in a in a fear that the new development would be suburban in form and. My concern there was I had three concerns that I kind of want to hear your responses to. One is a number of the uses in the downtown master plan and the soda are for supporting a greener downtown and whether that's. Urban farm markets or. Commercial farm markets, market gardens, parks, a lot of the buildings that you would expect to see associated with those uses would not meet these minimums. Um, also, you know, you just mentioned some of the uses you mentioned bakery. I'm a little more familiar with that one. You know, we have to ventilate our ovens up and over the building. So the taller the building you go, the exponentially more expensive installing a use in that building would be. It's a huge cost difference to put a bakery in a single story building where you're ventilating an oven up one story, then running stainless steel ventilation up a four story building. And so I am concerned that that minimum would affect the number of users that would be able to use the buildings, including users that the downtown master plan is sort of calling for. And then finally, especially when you go over three stories, I think I looked this up correctly. You know, you're required to provide two stairways and other requirements that are associated with taller buildings. That requirement. And I looked at the map and we have a lot of, for example, pretty small parcels that are surface lots right now. This requirement seems like it would almost necessitate those remaining surface lots until people aggregated multiple lots, making it very difficult to redevelop small, making it more difficult to redevelop small lots. So I was wondering if you could speak to those points regarding minimums. And then I'll come back to my question regarding the map. I'll give a small background story on this is from a personal take before joining the planning, the planning division of planning. I was a landscape architect in Ohio designing mostly schools and every site that we went to, there was always you'd read the zoning ordinance and it never made sense to us. We always accuse those who, what were they thinking when writing this? Fast forward, I started working for the planning commission and I noticed the difference. When I was designing schools for the site, I always took into account that one site. So apply that to this right now. We we are writing this ordinance for the whole of the downtown area. It's not for a specific business or a specific site. Otherwise, we would be doing that for every single lot and every site. So we are looking for the best practice that will cover a long, a larger area when when we are doing this, because as you said, if you mentioned the bakery with the exhaust system, every building that's going to come down to and is not going to be a bakery with an exhaust system. So if you mentioned this. Sure. But in the downtown master plan, you are calling for artisans. So you might expect to see someone trying to do metal work. You might expect someone trying to do glass work. You might expect someone trying to, you know, have a gas fired kiln. There is actually a number of specific uses that that you might expect to see, especially in that component of artisan manufacturing that would need to install ventilation systems up and over the roof. You also have uses like I think I was concerned about where you have micro distilleries or micro breweries that directly over top is not exactly usually where people want to live, because unless they really enjoy the yeasty aroma of of what's going on below. OK, I understand that. As I said, we are still collecting all the comments we're getting from people and we'll address them one at a time. But the building height is something that we've had a long discussion about. And believe it or not, we came down from what's the recommendations of the master plan. The master plan recommended minimum of six to 12. Yes. So that was also recommended in the master plan. But a lot of people said that's too much for let's let's bring it down. So there was there was a give and take on that one. And then when it comes to the green open spaces and stuff like that, that is covered in a totally different article. And we went during the downtown area master plan discussions because right now the B zones have a zero percent requirement for the canopy requirement is at zero percent. And we tried to see what ways we could increase that. And the problem with that is where we have our setbacks. We don't have enough setbacks for those trees. So. Those recommendations are going to be addressed in Article 26, whenever we get to that, the open space will be addressed in Article 20. But we are trying to see how best we can address those instead of addressing the piecemeal as we do every sort of like addressing open space in the just. I think those those articles address a completely separate point when it comes to green space. Those articles address the vegetative open space and gathering spaces for different uses in various zones in the down. And I'm not my comment wasn't to say that that that you are missing that requirement in the downtown zone. My comment was to say that some of the uses that we see in other cities that people have commented on that they like and some of the uses that we see in this city. I think it would be unfortunate to think that that greener downtown that people want is going to entirely be provided for by the city or and I think that. Nonprofits or even or even businesses are going to be some of the people that provide some of that greener downtown, and I just want to make sure. I'm not saying green space minimums here. I want to make sure that I would like to see those uses permitted in the downtown. And so I was looking for. So those uses are listed as permitted, but I was looking for obstacles to that actually being viable. And that minimum of building I'd seem to be an obstacle to those actually being viable. And that was my concern. We'll look into it and get back to you. I still owe you an email. Yes, we're going to get back to me on some of those questions now, I hope here. And the map, my question is on the intent. So before we get into that, you made a comment about land uses and specific land using the uses, having a harder time building in the area. I one of the elements that we've worked in staff has worked in with this tax amendment with the minimums is that it still allows for the reuse of structures without having to go bigger than what they are. And it allows for the kind of growth of those smaller scale structures without having to meet the minimums as well. So if we are talking about trying to allow for those types of businesses to occur, they can still do so. And I mean, a great example of a bakery that is currently within a three story structure is right down the street here with the Sunrise Bakery, that which would be allowed in the current Zoda. That building is. Well, no, I know. I know it's grandfathered in. It's grandfathered. It's grandfathered in. But it's also a retail business that has an excessive retail. It had a retail. I'm saying right now it's I don't want to make a comment on what they're operating legally or illegally right now. I want to make a comment of if they have a retail element, which is what the downtown area master plan calls for, is to have retail. It can have a wholesale element currently and in the proposed text as an accessory use that's currently in the zoning ordinance text amendment. We are also not we're currently operating in that sense. We're not taking that away. So that is allowable by right right now. That's allowable by right in the B1 zone as well. So in terms of the what we are proposing with the minimum heights, this is all new construction. This is individuals coming into the site to build new. And what we have found in other communities that have a dense downtown that allow for these different utilize utilization of the properties vertically is that they can, even on small sites, build a three to four story structure and mix those types of things. And the best time to do that is with a new construction rather than just getting a one story structure that allows for one use and an easily venting operation. We are also seeing the artisan manufacturing happening in the downtown space currently in multi story structures that are allowing for those types of things to occur. So it is about the new construction. And if we are going to get those new utilization of the properties with artisan manufacturing or something like that, we want them to build that structure so that it meets those health, safety, welfare aspects that they wouldn't have to refurbish the building later on, because if they're going to come into any of those buildings downtown currently, they're going to have to do extensive refurbishing to allow them to occur so that they don't impact neighboring properties. We really do think that this being focused on new construction and new rezonings, which would still give you all the opportunity to review these is quite important, because what Mr. Saway has done with this text and the staff is putting forth in front of you is that we are respecting the current historical context, making sure that those businesses and operations can continue to thrive, but and allowing them to grow outwards, but really focusing in on if something does come in, we're getting those minimum things that we're getting that we want, a mixed use vertical that gets the residential to support those businesses. Well, I understand that I, I I will say that I do understand you're talking about new construction. And and I just want to make that clear. I understand that. And I also, in your consideration or as we deliberate, would look at urge you to look at some of these small surface parking lots that are down, dotting downtown. And and consider that they would be great uses for some for users that would not necessarily come in and build a four story or three story structure, depending on where they are. And so that is my concern there. In terms of that, Matt, thank you for finding that. I wanted to ask you if you could elaborate on your zoning intents as they relate to this map. So we no longer have a zoning map or use a zoning map. If it in your intents, you refer to this map. In the Zoda, it does. We try to take out. We actually remove in the B2 zone, we remove the reference to downtown core. In what we are trying to do with this, we are trying to push individuals to look at the place builder element specifically for the place. What we have set up with this is closer to a map that would indicate what we would feel comfortable with a place type. It then allows us to go down the line of talking about the development type in the zone in that it does recommend in the place builder that in the downtown place type that we were going to talk about context So if it is downtown, we agree. What's the high density? And then we get into what is the zoning that's appropriate and really talking about how do we frame what is next to our kind of denser zone or the downtown business zone in which we start to have those conversations. We don't specifically reference the central business district or the CBD on here or the midtown area. We want to allow the Planning Commission to have the greatest flexibility when you are having those conversations. I'm sorry. Sorry, Hal. It says for the B2A, provide a transition in scale and intensity between downtown core and midtown neighborhoods as outlined in the 2026 downtown area master plan. Yes. So in the B2A, we do have a reference between what the frame is supposed to be, and that is talking about. So if you could, that's what I'm trying to get at. So here. But I was thinking of it as. In reference of the B2 being inside the B2A and then where you're thinking of the B2A, we don't you don't think the B2 has a boundary and you and but the B2A does. We don't have a specific boundary that we're trying to call out there, too. And we don't give distances or anything like that. We are meant to provide a transition from our downtown into the neighborhoods, the midtown using a frame. That is how we have historically done it. And not to try to really focus in on where is this supposed to go? Is it on the line? Is it off the line? Is it a little further in? We also have the east end small area plan that gives a little bit more context on that portion, which is in the downtown core area in the identified downtown core as well. This goes back to when we are doing rezonings, we want the Planning Commission to have the flexibility to talk about the place type of downtown and how it's transitioning into the neighboring areas in that flow of place type development type and then getting into the zone. OK, well, I will count myself confused because when I read the downtown master plan and then read a map that says downtown core and midtown then I kind of gravitate towards that map. And I do think that maybe some other people might have that confusion there. So that clarify that language, something that we can work on. So I think we part of that is if these zones really don't reference this map, then that I guess I would want clarification. Are these are the intents of these zones referencing this map or are they not referencing this map? And I would maybe want clarification on that. OK. Just to clarify one thing, I said we are getting rid of the zoning map. It's future land use map. Yeah, I just had to clarify that. OK. Apologies for the questions, but I am appreciative that you all are getting to them. The I have two more questions. One is on the B2A height maximums and one is on the parking and vehicular use areas. So and then I will take my point by point on the uses off out of this meeting. But I do have my concerns itemized out if any commissioners want them listed on the uses. The B2A height maximums. I am concerned, especially as we look at at. In the intent, as it talks about that downtown, those downtown core neighborhoods, those downtown neighborhoods and the midtown neighborhoods. I am concerned that we're. We have a broad range of contexts and neighborhoods there, and I do think that regardless of where we set the height maximum, that there that we need to preserve a threshold similar to the form based B1, which requires additional information and review of the context. And I was curious what your thoughts to that comment was. So I will say that currently the height maximum within the B2A is not a height in feet. It is a height in stories. It's a 10 story. We are adding some clarification within the master plan. It's specifically said to go to a 12 story structure. We wanted to make sure that we're going back to something that's a little bit more delineated. So we went with the proposed height. When we were reviewing this with the currently the B2A zone has a if greater than three stories, then the planning commission must review if it can go up and then it has the potential to go up to 10. It's a deliberative process or a discretionary process. With this, we would be reviewing all new zone changes. So, again, the planning commission still gets that deliberative review and it allows us to have this conversation. But this gives a specific set of regulations to start by in which we are then talking about also the step downs, the required step downs into the neighborhoods. And that is based off of the surrounding zoning. So within this, the step down for a B2A, if it is adjacent to residential zoning, it would step down to the maximum height of the adjacent residential zoning. If we're talking single family, that's 35 feet to the mid-gable. If we're talking to the R2 or R3 zone, we're talking about 40 feet in height. If we are talking the R4 zone or R5 zone, we're talking that 60 and then 72 feet. So it gives a little bit more of clarity of what can be built in that zone. It does not specifically reference the type of structure that is adjacent. So you all still would have that review during the zone change process. And density and intensity is something that you have available to you to adjust. However, this just gives a little bit more clarity on what the master plan suggested as to step downs and maximum heights. Well, since final development plans do not come back to us for review, my current thinking is I think 12 stories personally in some of these neighborhoods, regardless about what is what is directly adjacent to it. In some of these contexts, it might be appropriate. And in some of the contexts, it isn't. And if we approve it with a different plan, there's not really recourse right now is my understanding, because it is the final development plan would not come back to us. You all too often use conditional zoning restrictions to limit the density of properties. And that is something that has been utilized for most of our B2A zoning applications recently. So that is a element that you have for you to restrict that right off the bat. And I think that is something that I don't think we would stop utilizing. But we can go a little further into that as well. It's just it gets into how much of this will continue to come back to you. You're right. I think I think part of it, too, is not just the height. And this is, I think, why my concern lingers is part of it is that it allows zero lot line buildings and context comes into play there significantly. And then it also allows that zero green space sort of development where in some places where we're in a really downtown area, it might be appropriate to not provide green space. Whereas in some of the neighborhoods that really do emphasize their green space and tree canopy, it really would be appropriate to add that in. And there are required newly added requirements for side street, side yard and the side yard, rear yard for any residential. Currently, there are requirements for just some of the side street, side yard and some of those rear yard step backs. But that's something that we could look into. But I would say that we are adding greater space between structures with anything that is residential. OK. And then my last question. Thank you for your time. Sorry, everybody. The vehicular use areas, sort of the two components to that. The my concern, similar to the building sort of minimums, especially on the smaller lots that requiring that loading or unloading area. You know, I'm concerned that if an applicant is trying to redevelop a small lot and doesn't have a curb cut in their design, having to a put one in or be have to like wrangle someone in parking and traffic to get permission to put to take street parking away to put that in front. I think we should look at maybe we're just removing that requirement for lots under a certain size or for developments that don't have a street cut. And I wanted to hear your thoughts. And then, of course, the making sure that the parking doesn't move into the ground story and and seeing more development like we just saw on Main Street, where I really think that if that repeats over and over again, we're really hindering a lot of our downtown goals. I'm looking at it. Development shall provide designated areas for passenger loading, ride share services and deliveries on site or work with LFUCG to designate on street facilities. So if they can't meet on the site, they can still come to LFUCG and we can see how they'll meet on the street. Well, you just heard my concern about that, right? And then there's been discussions with that's one that was actually brought up by in another meeting, so we are still looking into that. But as the language is, it gives you the option of meeting that off site. But we're looking into it. But we're looking into it. Okay, I just I just fear that if you're. If you're trying to do again, these small lot redevelopments, which I would love to see instead of these whole block sort of redevelopments that. I really want to make sure that we don't put more obstacles in front of those and then the that last point is my biggest concern about the strict requirements of. Surface parking is that we'll end up. Actually. Negatively impacting our walkability downtown when the first time we have first floors that are all parking. We will look into that you're talking about the OK, I see we're looking great. OK, Mr. Nichol. I think you've done a wonderful job with this, and I'm coming at this from a totally different perspective. We need to continue to improve our urban core and our downtown core and modernize it with the new modern buildings like we've seen on. We just saw last week that was referenced by Mr. Mickler my concern is you all spend all this time and all this work understanding we need to protect our downtown core and to develop it. How do we get away from the planning commission? Making provisional and conditional restrictions on the work that you've done because what happens is you all put together a Zoda. It gets voted on, it's approved, and then it comes in front of us and for whatever reason it may be, whether because we want to appease neighbors or the applicant. There are conditional zoning requirements placed upon the work that you have done and on the site by us, the planning commissioners. I think that's the wrong way for us to go about it. How can we get away from the conditional zoning requirements that the planning commission continues to place on applicants? I don't want to say how can we get away from that? I do think that we are our goal by the end of this whenever we get to a public hearing is to provide you all with the best possible text to move forward with. And then you all have the opportunity to make changes upon that text and move that forward. And then the council will also have that opportunity when it comes to conditional zoning restrictions and those types of things. That's still a very powerful tool that I think is very important for you all to use on a case by case basis to best conform development and zoning to our community. And I think that's what is there for you to do. I don't know if whatever we provide will ever modify that. We just want to make sure that we're providing you with the best text possible. I think the use list changes will help with some of the conditional zoning restrictions. The staff has recommended or the applicants have recommended or proposed. So if we're not making some of those uses available, then we don't have to keep restricting them. Right. So car washes and funeral parlors or what, you know, the uses that are not desirable downtown, instead of continuing to conditionally zone them out, they're not even allowed anymore. So the number of times we have to use conditional zoning restrictions or the planning commission wants to hopefully is diminished. But I don't I agree with what Hal said. I don't think we can take that away from the commission. And I'm not sure the rest of the commission members would agree with that. I wasn't proposing taking it away. But what we've done is we've already gone from you all recommended higher building minimums. And then in response to possible pushback, you've lowered that minimum. And then we're going to end up in a situation we're going to add conditional zoning requirements, which is going to further reduce it. You all put together a great plan to protect our downtown core and to build out a modern city that can provide the housing and the services and the sense of community that we need. So I think you all have done a wonderful job and we need to keep pushing and push for maximum density and maximum usability. And maximum benefit to our community. OK, Commissioner Mullins. I had a few questions as Robin was talking and I have there just for clarity. So Robin is a sorry, Commissioner Mickler is a small business owner. So he's very familiar with the kinds of things that might impact things that people like him would do. Have you heard or talked to or made an effort to talk to other small business owners or developers to kind of find out what their concerns are? We actually do have scheduled meetings and we've been talking to people. That's part of the process. And then, as I said earlier, this was most of the changes are coming from all the feedback we had during the downtown area master plan. So we've talked to different people and we've heard what they're saying. And so these changes are greatly influenced by the people we've talked to. So I think a plan is better when you have lots of input from Robin or Commissioner Mickler. But I think Commissioner Nickel is also right in that you shouldn't have to respond to pressure all the time. It has to be a consensus. And a more dense downtown is what we want. OK, on and on. So back to the map, the slide that showed the map and it had proportions of building heights and the step backs. Can you go back to that? Or is that I'm so sorry. I guess my question is, while you may have a three story minimum at the street front and then you can build, you know, 60 stories above if you wanted to. It seemed. Is there anything about what happens between the maximum height and the minimum height so that it's not a great, strange looking thing? So the setback is between zones. Otherwise, you can go to the maximum at each zone. Does that make sense? Yeah, so if B2A is your next residential zone, you step down to the maximum of that residential zone. So at the street front, you can have your maximum of 144 feet. But when you are. Say that again. I guess I'm not understanding the purpose of the sketch, so I. So B2A, if we are looking in that direction, B2A shows you the step back, the arrow is pointed to where there's a residential zone. So the residential zone, if the maximum height of that residential zone, let's say it's 30, 36, 36 feet, that would be the maximum height of that residential zone. That would be the that's how much you are building will be on that side. I see. OK, got it. All right. Then that is kind of my next question or leads to it. Say you have does the. I understand between, say, residential land use and another thing, but what about what's on the other sides within a business, within a downtown zone? In downtown, say there's a site that you redevelop and say one thing is, I don't know, a hundred twelve. Right. And the other one is like, where do you come in and what what determines what should be the appropriate transition to adjacent properties? So if it's the same zone, we do not determine a transition within that those two buildings. As long as you have space for what is it like your space for air and you have space in case of an emergency, the fire people can get in if there's a residential aspect to the building. So the visual doesn't isn't going to enter into it. Yeah. And if I may use my our expertise in landscape architecture, people walk facing forward. No one looks up. So the height of the building really doesn't affect you on the street. OK, then the very let's see, last thing of all, do you have a typical what do you include as your typical sort of height of a story when you're thinking about is it 10 feet, 12 feet? There's a big difference between commercial and residential. True. So this on the 144, that's just assuming average of 12 feet a story. OK, thank you very much. You're welcome. Does anyone else have any questions? Is there anyone from the public who wants to comment on. On this zoning ordinance text amendment. Seeing none, I do have a question for you, Boyd. You kind of mentioned to a few of my questions that you intend to get back with me. I sent you more than I had today, especially regarding concerns about some of the prohibitions of uses. And you mentioned to you plan on working through some of those items such as the wholesale and speaking with some small business owners. Or would you be open to changing or would you be open to postpone that recommendation at this time and coming back to us? So we will be presenting to you at your work session in two weeks. That being said, this is your application. The staff is recommending approval because we always love our recommendations. But I would say if you all are not comfortable with this, you you should go ahead and say we need a little bit more time. Or if at the work session you feel a little bit more comfortable at that time, we can talk about presenting at the end of the month. But it is your application with this as it is adopted or initiated through the adoption of the downtown area master plan. OK, thank you, Alan. I guess Commissioner Nichol, Bruce, I've got a I've got just maybe a note and a question. I do have a copy of the email I sent them. I didn't go over all of these, but about half of my concerns are actually restrictions in the zone. And about half are. So it goes both ways, I guess. Did you. I guess. So maybe I. I'll. Zach's coming back, so I'll let him come back before we finish the finish the thing, but it's perfect. Well, Zach's back, so he's in charge now again, thankfully. But my I guess my two cents just is in regards to my question and then hearing back from other people. I would feel more comfortable if we recommended postponement because I think there's, you know. I appreciate the efforts to ensure that the downtown development doesn't take on suburban form, but I think there may be ways to still achieve that without. Um, prohibiting also small users and building structures, and I would like to see if that if there can be consensus made on that as well as talk through some of those prohibited uses. So, if commissioners are open to it, I would, I would move to recommend postponement on the downtown Zoda. OK, thank you, Commissioner McClure. That's a motion to recommend postponement of planning commission with a second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Do we have any discussion? It's a strong discussion. I don't have a problem with the postponement. What I'm wanting is looking for clarification about what is going to take place between now and the next meeting. In other words, he's provided you with some issues and concerns, I think. OK, and I guess my question is, by the time we get to the next meeting, will we, are you, are you comfortable in with the time frame that you have to present whatever issues there are, whatever questions that you have been presented to, would you have time to reflect on that and give us an opinion on it? Yes, as I said, we've been taking comments from a very wide group of people. We have internal comments from staff. We have comments from the planning commission. We met with developer Tony. So we're taking a lot of feedback and we have to bring all that together and have it ready for you at the next meeting. And at the next meeting, Boyd, do you anticipate presenting again at work session in two weeks or in three weeks for a hearing or potentially postponing another month? We will be ready at the next meeting. Do you have a sense, work session to talk again? Yes. There is yes? Yes, he's... Yes to what? He's planning in two weeks to come back and... OK. Yes, I will be ready in two weeks to present again. And see what feedback we've gotten and some response to that. OK, thank you. OK, personally, well, I was going to make one comment, if that's OK. I personally am very supportive of the motion to postpone. I received Robin's email, I don't know, a week or two ago. I thought it was very well reasoned. It made me think of things I hadn't necessarily thought of before. And I thought there was a lot of merit to his thoughts. So I'm very comfortable with the motion as it has been made. If there's no other discussion, if you support that motion, please raise your right hand. That carries four to... If you're in... Two, OK. All right, thank you, Boyden, very much. Thank you very much. OK, I believe our last item on today's agenda is under postponed items. PLN ZOTO 26-7, Attended Donation Centre Regulations. Right. Once again, this should be fairly brief in comparison. So this is a much more focused ZOTO request. So this is a request by Goodwill of Kentucky and it deals with attended donation centres. These are locations where Goodwill, under normal operations, has a retail component under their typical stores that also accepts donations and they facilitate out of those buildings. The way that the market has sort of shifted or as a part of their new model, they want additional flexibility to essentially create locations that would not have any retail sales, so kind of the core piece that fits into most zones, and instead are sort of a portion where employees are on site, they accept donations, but they are not actually having a retail component. And so Goodwill has proposed the definition, and I've highlighted the part that says, you know, without a retail sales establishment, but essentially seeking that flexibility. The ordinance really doesn't contemplate this use under this context, and so the applicant is seeking to apply this definition and then allow it as principal use in several of our commercial zones and then a conditional use in the B-1 zone when located on sort of a major arterial roadway. Yes. I'm sorry to interrupt you. This is for commissioners under tab 11. Oh, yes. Sorry, I do a little skip around. So staff originally on this request were recommended postponement to get some more operational information from the applicant. The applicant provided that information. We took a look at that information and ultimately came to a staff alternative text that largely adopted their framework. However, staff was not comfortable with this kind of use meeting the intent of the B-1 zone, which was really kind of oriented towards sort of serving daily needs, you know, retail, and kind of having that accessible component really was a large piece. Even in context where they would be on larger roadways, we still didn't think that that was necessarily a great fit. However, we're comfortable with the rest of the applicant's proposal. And so with that, we are recommending approval of the staff alternative text, which is once again the applicant's proposal minus the ability to locate that within the B-1. We are finding that it does provide additional flexibility and can kind of address these uses in zones that are kind of more intense and are not sort of as locally scaled. Once again, we want to retain that neighborhood business context, the walkable, usable daily operation uses that we kind of come to define those zones. So with that, we are recommending approval of their revised text. The applicant is also here to answer any really more operational questions, but at its core, that's where we're at. Thanks, Daniel. So the only alternative text is just the removal of the B-1? Yes, and that's located on there's a supplementary staff report, and then incorporated within that is the staff alternative text with the changes of staff outlined in blue. We don't have that. I think that's what I was asking. What we have is just maybe the previous staff report recommending postponement. But I mean, if that's the only change. Yes, that is the only change, and I believe we may have some more at the counter that we can provide staff. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, thank you, Daniel. Much shorter. Good afternoon. Lauren Nichols from Denton's, and I have with me TJ Morrison from Goodwill. And we do appreciate your all's patience. It has taken us a couple weeks to review that revised language and have the appropriate boards and committees within Goodwill consider that for their operations. But we have reached a meeting of the minds. We are agreeable to taking out the conditional use option for B-1. And so we are pleased to agree to accept the staff's alternative language. And so it would be to incorporate a definition for attended donation centers and obviously create the by right usages in B-3, B-4, B-6P, and PUD-3. TJ has a presentation just to kind of give you a little bit more about what an attended donation center exactly is and what it's not. I mean, if you're in agreement, staff's in agreement, we're in agreement probably. Great. If anyone has any questions, we have it right here. We don't have to take up any more time. Okay. We will certainly entertain questions. I'll offer just an observation. In my experience, Goodwill is a fantastic organization, but it does typically involve, if you're going to drop off something, a car. And I've been to the Goodwill in Clay's Mill Shopping Center, so you can do retail or take your stuff to the back. I've also frequented ones in Moorhead and in other parts of Lexington, and it seems like when there is not a retail component, it does seem like it is more suited to something that is less in a – it's not so much a – I just don't think you would walk by and drop off a bag of clothes, which to me makes it seem – I kind of question if it's going to be a good fit in for a lot of, say, neighborhood communities as part of their retail development. And I wonder, could you speak to that? You're welcome, Janet. Thank you all for having us today. So I won't go through the full presentation, but I think we have a slide that kind of helps kind of clarify this a little bit. So if you do not have an attended donation center, you have an unintended. Now, we're not against unattended donation centers. They can be done correctly as long as you have a reputable partner, somebody that maintains them, that takes care of the property. That's not always the case, but we support them when they are. But when we are in these kind of higher-density areas where we are trying to target donations to support our mission, we prefer to have facilities like this that are repurposing buildings that already exist. So we're not talking about new construction. These are buildings that maybe are sitting empty, especially like with banks that have kind of lowered their footprints. PNC, for example, the last few years has closed a lot of branches. We can reutilize those. Also, it provides an opportunity for staff to be on-site to where you don't ever have any of the kind of stacking up of donations. It's very much against what we believe. Our COO is very critical of any of those type of collections. Yeah, those previous slides, it's unacceptable on her viewpoint. So with these type of facilities, they fit in, we think, better sometimes with some of our retail or our, I'm sorry, the neighborhood locations that we want it to be because it matches the aesthetics of the neighborhood. But it also facilitates the type of donations that we need because sometimes where we want to put a donation center is much different than where we want to put a retail location. So that's why that there's kind of a difference in that use there. Mr. Wilson. Actually, we have a Goodwill Center located in my neighborhood, and it functions extraordinarily well both as a distribution center as well as a place of retail. I couldn't figure out myself why you'd want to give up the retail part of it. That seems to be, I'd rather have cars coming in than trucks. No, absolutely. So the reason that we are kind of looking at both is there's some of these smaller facilities that we can place inside of neighborhoods that we're not ever going to be able to have a retail location. Now, if there is a site that we're kind of questioning that we know for sure that it will be a good donation site, and we go in there and we start as a donation site and we already have the square footage for retail later on, of course, obviously we would come back and revisit, you know, if that was applicable to those certain zones, but then that is always something that we're open to. So it's not a either-or on every situation, but it just provides a little bit more flexibility for us to get those donations in spots that we otherwise wouldn't be able to put a retail location. And just for clarification purposes, the facility on Georgetown Road is a distribution center? No, it is an intended donation center. It is? Okay. It is an intended donation center. It is a larger scale intended donation center, and it is a zoned industrial. Right. It is not the necessary norm of what we're talking about here. These would fit more into already existing structures, but it is a great model for what an intended donation center looks like within the community, meaning that it is fully staffed. It operates 9-9, I believe. You know, it's not just a vacant drop-off spot. There are people there working. Okay. All righty. And, of course, this is a ZOTA, so it's countywide policy. It's not just one business or one parcel. Do we have any other questions for the applicants? If not, thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Anyone from the public who would like to comment on this? Yes? Okay. Please, if you would, just approach the podium and state your name. I am Paula Singer, and I live on Hamilton Park in Cardinal Valley, which is directly off First Sales Road. I'd like to compliment the planning staff for not allowing an attended donation center in B1, where there is currently a goodwill that was originally intended solely as an ADC at the corner of First Sales Road and Alexandria Drive. And this is a highly dense population area, and we have a lot of low-income people who really like to frequent. This is a retail spot. When Goodwill purchased this corner two years ago, they advertised it and sent out press releases showing it wanting it to be an attended donation center solely. And they brought in three very large trailers to set up their attended donation center services, and they advertised it as such much to the dismay and concern of residents who were looking forward to a goodwill. Of course, they were found to be in noncompliance of the zone, and they quickly removed the trailers, and they started renovation on this store, which is now a beautiful goodwill store, and it is frequented daily by many people, both on foot and in cars. It's a good hub for the community. We are concerned, and we don't know all the ins and outs of zoning in our community, but we are concerned that this property, which was purchased for over $4 million just two years ago, with the intention of being an attended donation center, will somehow, through the twists and turns of zoning, manage to become an attended donation center, and this is of great concern to the neighborhood, not only of Cardinal Valley, but Gardenside and other neighbors along the corridor. So we know that there is B3 directly adjacent to this B1 zone, and that B3 is a pawn shop, which, again, serves the neighborhood and is needed by the neighborhood, where we have a lot of underprivileged people and where we have a lot of pedestrians. So we don't know what the long-term intention is of goodwill. We appreciate very much having the retail and donate store at the corner of our community, which has been expanded and enhanced at great cost to the city for pedestrians and for the community. So we just ask you to please proceed with caution and with due diligence, and we also point out that stores like Habitat for Humanity and the Salvation Army are not asking for this kind of an attended donation center. This seems to be terminology that is specific to goodwill, and that concerns us also. Thank you. Thank you. If you have anything to add, you're certainly welcome to. So I think a little bit of clarification on the Cardinal Hill facility. Now, granted, two years ago, what was purchased and what was potentially marketed may be different from my understanding, but with that facility, it was a former pharmacy from my understanding, and it was a larger square footage than what we ever would consider for an attended donation center only. So I think that there may be some confusion on how that was. Those temporary containers that were there, we had talked about those. Those were under very specific circumstances. That's not something that we normally do. Also, I want to very briefly discuss the difference in how this is very much a goodwill versus Habitat for Humanity or any other nonprofit is because those nonprofits do not operate the same way that we do. So $0.90 out of every dollar that is in our stores goes to our workforce development and our effort to eradicate poverty in the state of Kentucky. So that means if you buy a $5 item at any of our stores, $4.50 of that goes directly into the mission. Not Habitat for Humanity and a lot of these other facilities, they don't have that same kind of ratio. Even other goodwills don't have that same kind of ratio. We're actually the number one in the nation for percentage of dollars that goes directly into the mission. So there's other markets that are larger than ours that obviously do more revenue, but as far as money generated to the mission, we're number one in the nation. So I think that that's kind of the understanding with how we do things. We are not going to go and buy a very large property for a lot of money to put just an attended donation center there. The reason that we haven't attended donation centers, which I showed you before with the unintended, again, we're not completely against those in other markets, but the reason that we have the attended one is to create jobs. Those are people that are getting paid a wage and they're getting benefits. Also, every person that works for us is provided our wraparound services, so they have a career coach, and that stays with them, because we don't want you to just stop when you get hired at goodwill. That's a job, but we want you to get a better job, and then we want you to get a career, because we know that the only way to truly eradicate poverty is to get somebody into the workforce to where they are providing for themselves and their family. So I don't believe that that would ever be a situation, but also what the attended is, those are always going to have people on site that are going to prevent the people from stacking up the donations like we talked about with the unintended. Do we have any other questions or any other comments? If not, the floor is open. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I move to approve PLN Zoda 26-7 as presented by staff. Okay. Commissioner Forster is recommending to the Planning Commission approval of the text as written by staff. Mr. Wilson seconded that. Is there any other discussion to that? If not, all in favor, please raise your right hand. Okay. That carries unanimously. I believe that is all we have today. Thank you all. We are adjourned.