# Planning Commission - Zoning Items - September 24, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · September 24, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6892 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6892?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-09-24 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: September 24, 2026 - **Length**: 17,983 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). --- ## Full transcript Here on behalf of a couple different clients, the first of which is on page 5 of your agenda, the OK Gentry. It is MAR 26-16. For this one, I would like to actually request a two-month postponement to the November 19th Planning Commission meeting. We have met with staff last week and have kind of developed a plan on how to move forward. It's just going to take us a little bit of time to actually do the development plan work. All right. Can we hear a motion on that postponement? Madam Chair, I move for a postponement of PLN MAR 26-16 and the associated development plan two months to November 19th, as requested by the applicant. All right. Motion's been made and seconded by Commissioner Wilson. All those in favor? Let's go to our voting here. I'm so used to doing subdivision. All right. Unanimous. The next one is on page 6 of your agenda. It is 26. Let's see. Oh, no, that's the same one. I apologize. 57. It is right next door to each other, and so that was my confusion. It is on page 8 of your agenda. 26-17, on behalf of Ball Homes, we'd ask a one-month postponement to the October 22nd Planning Commission agenda in very much the exact same rationale. We have met with staff, and it's going to take a little bit of time to get an updated plan in, but we believe that we will be able to hit that agenda. Okay. All right. Can we hear a motion for a postponement? Yes. Mr. Pan. Madam Chair, I move for postponement of PLN MAR 26-17 to the October 22nd meeting. Second. Okay. Second by Commissioner Work. All right. Let's vote. Okay. All right. Unanimous. And the last one is on page 18 of your agenda. It is MAR 26-21, Regency Holding 3. We have also met with staff and should be able to hit the next month agenda, and so we would ask for the one-month postponement to that October, let's see, 22nd date. This one has kind of grown in waivers and conditional use permits and a whole lot of fun. Okay. So we've gotten everything done, and we should be able to hit that agenda. All right. Can we hear a motion for postponement? I need the motion first. Yeah. First. All right. I move for postponement of PLN MAR 26-21, Regency Holdings 3, till October the 22nd. Okay. The motion has been made and seconded in advance by Commissioner Davis. All those in favor, let's vote. All right. Thank you all so very much. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Nathan Billings from Billings Law Firm. This is item number seven on page 16 on your agenda, PLN MAR 26-20. And there's a related development plan and related waiver request. We ask for a one-month postponement. All right. He's asking for a one-month postponement. Can I get a motion? Madam Chair, is that for the October 22nd meeting? Correct. Okay. A motion for approval of PLN MAR 26-20. A one-month postponement to the October 22nd meeting. Okay. All right. We have a motion made and seconded. All right. Let's vote. Okay. Postpone. All right. Go right ahead. Madam Chair, I'm Dick Murphy on page 2, item 1, South Broadway project owner LLC map amendment. That's at 1021, 1057, and 1059 to 1069 South Broadway, both the zone change and the development plan. I represent the applicant. We are requesting an indefinite postponement of this item. Okay. All right. You've heard the request for an indefinite postponement. Can I get a motion? I'll get it. Madam Chairman, I move for an indefinite postponement of PLN MJDP 26-21 Parker Tobacco Company on South Broadway. But MAR 26-8. The zone change. The zone. Yeah. Well, let's do the PLN MAR 26-8. And associated development plans. Okay. And seconded by commissioner Forrester. All right. Let's vote. And on page 11. Item five. PLN MAR 26, 18 Anderson communities. 4200 Todd's road and the associated development plan. We're continuing to make our changes to the plan. We met with the association. Tuesday. We want to give everybody a little more time to react. We're asking for a two week postponement. If we could to. I think it's the October 8th. Planning commission meeting. Okay. Okay. We'll take the request for a two week. Postpone it to October 8th. Madam chair. Motion for approval of a two week postponement for PLN. MAR 26-18. For the October 8th meeting. Okay. Second by commissioner word. All right. Let's move. Okay. We'll take the request for a two week postponement. For the October 8th meeting. Okay. Next. Good afternoon. My name is Charlotte McCoy. I'm here for the item on page three. Item number two. The Edward McGee property. Mar 26 dash nine. We'd like to ask for an indefinite. Postpone until when? I'm sorry. Indefinite, please. I'm sorry. I was getting papers when you said what case that was. It's item number three. Okay. 26-9. Page three, item number two. Page three, item number two. Excuse me. Okay. So indefinite postponement. Here. Motion. Madam chair. Yes, sir. Okay. We'll move for an indefinite postponement. For a plan. My art. Okay. Can I get a second? Second. Commissioner Forrester. All right. Let's vote. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I was like that. I thought something was missing. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. Good afternoon, Madam chair. Your dock is getting shorter by the minute. Yes. I do have one postponement on behalf of Brandon gross. It's page 14. Item six. A and B. For upkeep. And he is requesting a one month postponement. He's had the opportunity to go back and meet with staff. They are trying to address concerns and modifications. The development plan. They've met with the bluegrass trust and they are scheduling neighborhood meetings for later this month. So postpone until October 22nd. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Okay. We want a motion? Yes. Going to get a motion. Madam chair, I move for one month postponement for development. Well for the. The MA R 26 19 associated. Development plan. Get us second by commission Wiley Davis. All right, let's vote. All right. And we're. Who's missing? All right. That's too busy. Mark. Okay. So we have nine. Okay. We're unanimous now. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other postponements and withdrawals? I don't know if there's anything left on our pages here. Okay. Okay. All right. We're ready to go to the Zotus. So we'll pick up on page 21. All right. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel crumb planning staff. The actually we need the. All right. We're ready to go to the Zotus. All right. All right. So the first item on our agenda here is a consideration of a Zota handling attended donation centers. This was a text amendment initiated by the public. So Goodwill of Kentucky is the applicant. And essentially the intent behind this text amendment was to create a definition for attended donation centers and allow them within commercial zones. So Goodwill once again is the applicant. The business model that the applicant operates under typically includes a retail component with their stores where they sell donated items of clothing, other household goods. They also have the facilities typically for on-site donations, sorting and storage. The applicant is seeking to create this new definition to give them essentially additional flexibility in how they operate. They want to create facilities that essentially operate without retail sales. So these would be areas just for donations, drop-off and sorting without the associated retail component. Here is a picture of one of the existing locations within Lexington. Once again, they are prone to kind of reutilizing existing buildings, but once again without a retail focus. So there is an area for drop-off, an area for pickup, an area to accommodate that truck traffic. The applicant has proposed to use these type of uses in the B3, B4, B6P, and the PUD3 as principal uses. And then would like the flexibility to utilize them as a conditional use in the B1 zone when they are adjacent to a arterial roadway. Staff in their consideration of this ZOTA, we really looked at specifically how this would impact the B1 zone. The neighborhood business zone where the intent is to sort of meet the everyday needs of the surrounding residential areas and communities. Staff felt that without a residential component, that last piece was not really appropriate. But finding that the use would be appropriate in other more intense commercial zones that weren't so narrowly tailored in order to kind of accommodate, once again, your day-to-day shopping uses. So the staff largely adopted the applicant's definitions and they listed principal uses. However, we found that the conditional use and utilizing this in the B1 is not appropriate. This still would allow Goodwill and other similar institutions to have their normal retail locations with the drop-off component. But having the facilities where it was only dropping off be located elsewhere. Overall, staff is recommending approval of that staff alternative text. Once again, giving these non-profit businesses and organizations additional flexibility. But once again, retaining that neighborhood zones for active neighborhood business type uses. And with that, I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff at this time. Do we have any questions for staff? Thank you. Okay. And we'll hear from the applicant next. Good afternoon, everyone. I believe we have a slide deck. While they're getting that pulled up. My name is Adam Haley. I'm the Senior Director of External Affairs at Goodwill Kentucky. And I appreciate you all taking the time to hear from us today. Wanted to give you a little bit of background for folks that are unfamiliar with Goodwill Kentucky. And I'll speed through these real quick. Goodwill Kentucky is a 103, actually near now, 103-year-old non-profit headquartered here in Kentucky. Our board, our CEO, all our folks are here. And all these donations go right back into your communities to help us achieve our mission, which is getting more folks back to employment. Actually, that number's a little outdated. We're now closer to 4,000 Kentuckians back into the workforce every year. And we do that through our now 70 retail stores. We operate across the state, as well as our 12 opportunity centers, which are our career services arm. However, in order to fund those programs, we rely on the generous donations of citizens from across the Commonwealth. And they need as many options as possible. The research shows to us that donation, really, frequency is key to convenience. In fact, that's likely why you see in some places these donation bins have started to pop up. Because folks in their own charity want to find ways to help, but they've got busy lives. So we proposed this attended donation center amendment, as staff so shared, to provide additional flexibility to us to get those donations. And what do those donations do? But they fund nearly $127 million a year in wages in Kentucky for our program staff, of which about 81% meet Goodwill's mission of either being disconnected from the workforce, from systemic poverty, incarceration, recovery. In fact, I broke it out very specifically. We pay about $19 million per year in central Kentucky. And our opportunity center has placed 247 people into employment outside of our organization at an average wage of $15.07 an hour. I mentioned, actually, the number of people we employ. The other part is we divert about 50 million pounds a year of waste from landfills to these donation centers in our stores. So why are we here? What is an ADC? Again, I'm not going to read all this to you. But we operate retail stores across the community. And sometimes there's opportunities either before we're able to open a store or in a facility that may not be a suitable use for a store, too small square footage. We seek to operate attended donation centers. Now, we did start one here in Lexington as we were working to develop our Cardinal Valley store temporarily. And that's how this all got started, when we understood that the zoning amendments did not allow for that use. We very quickly closed that facility and then continued on our process of building out that Cardinal Valley store to accommodate the community. As staff mentioned, these are staffed locations. These are not unattended centers, but they are attended by staff, approximately four to five individuals taking donations. Sorting, cataloging, and then we do take those to other stores within the community for resale. They are, on top of being attended, we also do have staff come in when we get donations after hours, which we try to avoid to go ahead and take those donations and prevent clutter from building up. I also mentioned that they may not fit a retail use, because sometimes we seek reuse of facilities, perhaps pharmacies, banks, other smaller locations that wouldn't support a retail store, but have already the existing infrastructure to support an attended donation facility. Staff included some photos, but here's a photo of one of our facilities here in Lexington. You see they very much look like our retail stores. We take a lot of pride in providing a place that people want to work and that people want to support. So these are nice facilities. This is a nice facility at night. What it isn't, as I mentioned, they are not donation bins. These are staff sites. You may have seen some of these in the community that are operated by other folks. These are not Goodwill's bins. Goodwill does not have any of those bins in the community currently. But when I think people hear donation facility, sometimes their minds can go to what's the worst case scenario. This is not what we're proposing with this ZOTA, the text amendment. With that, I'm happy to take any questions. Do we have any questions for the applicant? I will chime in really quickly. Lauren Nichols. I'm honored to represent Goodwill. And just to clarify, we do accept staff's revisions of removal of the B1. So we would proceed with the staff changes to our text amendment. Thank you. Yes. Just a quick comment about the two images that we just saw. The difference between an unattended donation center or box and an attended building for donations. I mean, it couldn't be more clear which is more appealing and conducive to neighborhoods. So that was a good slide you showed. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions for the applicant? If you all wanted to convert one of these donation centers to a retail center, what would you have to do? Typically what we're looking for is on the front end a facility that would accommodate a full retail store. So I mentioned that Cardinal Valley location. That was actually a Walgreens that we repurposed into a store. Right. So if it were to become a full retail store, it would have to be large enough for us to actually have the sales floor. Without getting into specifics, because it will depend on what's at the site, most of our retail stores are going to be at a minimum twice as large as any of the attended donation centers. At that point, truthfully, we would prefer to operate a store, but sometimes these locations are more conducive to a donation center. So it would need to be a lot larger. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you all. All right. Do we have any public comments? If you would, approach the mic, give your name. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Paula Singer, 110 Hamilton Park, directly off the Versailles Road corridor. I'd like to first of all thank planning staff and goodwill for removing the B-1 zone from this ZOTA request. And now I ask you to please remove B-3 from this ZOTA request. The two-mile stretch of the Versailles Road corridor from Parker's Mill to Forbes Red Mile Road comprises a good mix of commercial and residential zoning. In that stretch, the vast majority are zoned B-1. There are six properties that are zoned B-3. A Starbucks, a pawn shop, Fifth Third Bank, the new Marksbury Library, the Save-A-Lot grocery store, and within that grocery library parking lot, a credit union, ATM. All of these serve the people of this neighborhood. In addition, we have a new elementary school within that two-mile stretch. And within, and directly to the north and directly to the south of this corridor, we have housing. Single family housing, apartments for seniors, low-income apartments, apartments for the medically challenged, housing for those in recovery. And we believe we will soon be getting housing for those currently unhoused. Our corridor is Lextran's most used corridor. We need sidewalks for the constant flow of pedestrians and wheelchair users along our corridor. We need protected bike lanes for those whose only means of transportation is a bicycle. We need more retail, eat-in restaurants, and community services as recommended in the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan. We do not need any of our B-3 zoning to be used for an automobile-centric drop-off center. Again, I ask you to please simply remove B-3 from this SOTA request. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment on this SOTA? Okay. Thank you. All right, Ms. Clark. Thank you. I had to rush home and get the letter off the printer. Good afternoon, members. Let me begin by saying I certainly support the staff recommendation to strike the vision for attended donation centers, the proposed new use from the B-1. I think we can go farther. I think it should be struck as well from the proposed B-3 corridor business and B-6P commercial center. These zones are envisioned as locations to foster and robust multimodal transportation designed to be welcoming and safe, not just for vehicles. They've lately been amended to especially stimulate the development of closely mixed uses. Their uses and design should meet the critical needs of Lexington residents while reducing reliance on personal vehicles. Allowing in these zones the drop-off and processing of goods that aren't offered for sale at this site is scarcely an encouragement to use this valuable land at key locations to best meet community needs. These are three zones centrally cited to serve the community's daily needs. Certainly the B-1 is a neighborhood business zone and neighborhood turning, focused, serving. The B-3 corridor runs right along with buses and so forth so that people can make their daily errands there. And the B-6P commercial center, you go to the anchor store and you go to a bunch of other places at the same time. These are all good places for people who have limited options for transportation but need the same shopping that everyone else does. I believe the drive through or drive up should be recognized as a separate use. I've put the definition of it there. Maybe changing right now in council, but I think you can see that it's a drive up or a drive through. And if that's to be a part of it, it should be separately allowed and regulated. It's a special pleading for a tailor made use. None of the other people who do donation and resale seems to be clamoring for this and I've listed some who are not. I don't even know why it should be restricted to non-profits if it's to be such a use. Others don't want or need it. They want people to come in and donate, consign, and then buy all in one trip and come by often. It's essentially a store monkey. If you approve this, you're approving the option to have a place to drop off goods for donation where you can't do any shopping. There are no goods or services offered to you beyond relieving you of unwanted things. It's a store without the store. And two employees, their filings said it would employ two people during its hours of operation, not much for these valuable zones. So I would encourage that you deny it. In fact, you could put the B4 into the very next ZOTA. It's been well reviewed and I think it would be a welcome use in the B4. Thank you. Thank you. All right, do we have any other public comment on this ZOTA? Not hearing any, applicant, would you like to respond? Yeah, I'll respond briefly and just say we genuinely appreciate working with the Planning Commission staff and their thoughtful consideration of this ZOTA, and as my colleague said, are amenable to the changes that the staff have returned. I believe some of the information in this attached document regarding our intentions for these sites is misunderstanding, as I directed earlier. We look for opportunities to locate stores. They do help fund, fuel the mission, but where there's opportunities for adaptive reuse and the market would support it, is the only place we would see these ADCs. So I appreciate the staff's consideration and urge you all to approve it as recommended. Thank you. I'll just add that the B3 zone is specifically for a major connector roadway that serves the need of the broader Lexington community, and that's exactly what the ADC is intended to do. Okay, go right ahead. I've got a question for you, applicant. Let's just go through the process of your all site selection. We haven't seen you all come through with a development plan to build a new construction facility. So that leads me to infer that what you're doing is looking for, looking at property that is for lease, for sale, currently vacant, that you think that you can provide a public good with by running your business. Am I correct in that understanding, or are you also, let me back up. I don't want to go down that line. I appreciate your comment when you use the term adaptive reuse. Now that has a different term for us in planning and zoning, but that's exactly what we're doing. We're taking, you all are taking vacant property and putting together a good use for our community. So I commend you for that. Thank you, sir. Okay, yes, Commissioner. Hello, thank you. However, once you have a zoning text amendment, it applies not just to you, but to every other non-profit as is stated in the text amendment. So it's rather a conundrum because you've come before us with your good will, no, all puns intended. But we don't have the same reassurance that every other entity might go forth in that manner. So that's, I guess, where my concern might stem from. Yes. Commissioner Davis, if I can address that very briefly. That is specifically why the definition is so narrowly tailored. That's why we limited it specifically and worked with staff to limit it to non-profit organizations with very specific items that are similar to what a goodwill, Salvation Army, or Habitat in our community do, because we think that they are all, frankly, good partners. They would be the ones eligible for this and would be most likely, if they wanted to use an ADC model, to utilize it. And that is also why it would require attendance, so it could not become just the drop-off point. It is required to have attendance. And just to be clear, each site would actually have two employees at any given time, so they would staff four to six employees in total per site. Okay. All right. Commissioner Nichol, did you have something? Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? All right, thank you. Did staff have any comment? Okay. All right, thank you. No additional comment. All right. Okay, so back to the commission. Okay, okay, you all can be seated, I think. Thank you. Can one of you, any of you, all of you, please address the concern about how this might impact that stretch of Versailles Road where there are other businesses in a B3, that are zoned B3, but which accommodate multiple modes of travel, not just vehicles? What you think about that? Have you considered that removing B3 from areas where these attended donation centers could occur? I guess I would say, as sort of a broader blanket statement, if we have B3 that it's located along the corridor, depending on what part of the community it may be in, it may be in closer proximity to things like residential, etc. So B3 looks kind of a variety of ways as you look kind of across the community. And so our comfort with this being in the B3 really stemmed from the other principally permitted uses in the zone, the similarities to the way those could operate, and so that was really the lens that staff looked at. It doesn't apply, once again, we're not looking at a particular zone change at a particular location. But our hesitancy, once again, for the B1 really stemmed from the fact that it wasn't meeting sort of the intent of that local shopping. But when you get to the B3, you're starting to look at things that may be more specialized. Like, for instance, a buy right permitted use may be a four-wheeler shop, which is not something that most of us kind of in our day-to-day would use. But once again, you're looking at a higher intensity roadways that can accommodate any of the larger traffic, a kind of more standardized approach to things like drive-throughs being permitted. And so that's sort of the lens that we looked at, kind of comparing that to what else was allowed within that zone. And then based on the operations of the zone, you are correct in stating that, or kind of brought up that this doesn't apply just to Goodwill, but just from what we were seeing at these facilities kind of in general. With the kind of guardrails that were put in place specifying that they did have to be actively employed and this wasn't a drop-off, led staff to be comfortable with the zoning framework we see here. Thank you. Go ahead. Anybody else have any comments, questions? All right. Go ahead. Yes. Make a motion? Yeah, that'll be fine. Okay, first of all, to the Goodwill people, you've been in business for over 100 years, and I wish you the best for another 100 years. I think you do provide a very immeasurable value to our communities. I have one Goodwill store in my community, and it is a retail function as such, but they do a very, very good job. With that in mind, and due to the addressing some of the concerns from the community, I think from my perspective, some of the questions that have been raised were some of the ones I had, but I think the staff has adequately addressed those. To that end, I would like to move for approval of PLN ZOTA 26-7, and that is approval of the staff alternative text for the two reasons provided by staff, and as it relates to the PLN ZOTA 26-7. And a second by Commissioner Nichol. All right, let's vote. Okay. I see. Somebody's missing. Okay. Okay. All right, that motion carries, eight to one. All right, next. Here we go. Good afternoon Planning Commission members. My name is Eve Miller. I'm a senior planner with the long range planning team in the division of planning. And this afternoon, I am here today to present to you all PLN-ZOTA-26-9 update to industrial zones. And we'll go ahead and dive in. So as you all are very familiar by this point, the Blue Sky Small Area Plan was passed unanimously by the planning commission on June 11th of this summer. And that year long process looked at the Blue Sky Activity Center located off of Athens Boonesboro Road. And allowed the city to take a deep dive at the physical conditions and needs of the industrial area and how we could help those businesses thrive long term. Blue Sky Works, as it was otherwise known, also recommended updates to our industrial and manufacturing zones, mainly because we have not touched them or updated them significantly since 1983 when they were created and passed. The proposed regulation updates were in chapter nine of the small area plan. And our plan, staff's plan, was to implement them through a zoning ordinance text amendment following the adoption of that small area plan. So staff believed that the recommended changes both implement the vision of Blue Sky Works and also have city-wide benefits for our industrial zones throughout Lexington-Fayette County. So the proposal seeks to implement changes to three zones, the warehouse and wholesale business zone B4, the light industrial I-1 zone, and the heavy industrial I-2 zone. So diving into the ZODA proposal, there are five major updates that staff is proposing. The first is the removal of nested zoning, the inclusion of impact-based use classifications, the defining of new land use terms, the development of a campus model, which we hope to codify into the zoning ordinance, and then the inclusion of eating and drinking standards for light industrial zones. So the first change that I mentioned, the nested zoning, currently our industrial regulations utilize a classification system where lower intensity land uses are allowed by right by reference. And this limits the ability to tailor those zones to the intent of the manufacturing industrial uses. But also makes it difficult for the reader or business owner to understand what is permitted in the activity in the zone. So in the proposal, we have listed all the principal activities that are allowed in each. Second, we're looking to classify industrial and manufacturing land by their impact rather than the activity itself. So this classification system of high versus low will allow for more flexibility for business owners and property owners looking to do business here in Lexington. And also, thank you for passing the exhibit. Staff created that exhibit for you all to see what is currently allowed in the zoning ordinance and how this would transform into high versus low impact should this proposal get passed. So the definitions of high impact are located on page one of the draft. And low impact is located on page two. We're also proposing to codify the executive campus model system into the zoning ordinance. And what we found during the Blue Sky Small Area Plan process, when we spoke to business owners and property owners, is that they are facing a parcel by parcel redevelopment issue. Because each parcel requires development restrictions and needs. So we are proposing that if a property owner or a business owner has several different properties that are adjacent to each other and they're operating under the same organization, that they be planned or interviewed for together. And this is a growing sentiment as professional office space used to be separated from manufacturing and industrial uses. But now we're seeing those activities come back together. So this language can be found on page 19 for the I-1 zone, conditions 27 and 28. Page 28 for the I-2 zone, conditions 32 and 33. The proposed language also allows for the incorporation of compatible commercial uses into the industrial zones. Particularly for food and beverage producers. So while existing regulations do allow for manufacturers to sell limited sales of products that are produced on site. It currently limits the eating and drinking of establishments that could support a business output and possibly produce more tourism opportunities. So the text amendment allows eating and drinking establishments, and accessory to a maximum of 30% of the parcel's total floor area. And that is located, the text for that is on page 20 for the I-1 zone. And then lastly, the proposed amendment added indoor recreational activities as a conditional use in the industrial zone. These activities include indoor tennis, soccer, athletic club facilities, bowling, things like that. And currently, places of religious assembly are conditional uses in these zones. So staff have found that we are treating different types of assembly differently. So this proposal would allow for both religious assembly and indoor recreation activities to be treated the same. And also allow for the Board of Adjustment to decide if these activities are safe to be next door to a high industrial manufacturing activity. So the text for that is located on page seven for the B4 zone. And page 23 for the I-1 zone and page 33 for the I-2 zone. So since we last presented this item to the planning commission, there are two changes to the proposal. The first is which we removed any reference to data centers and the like. That is now part of the urban county council text initiated process. And I believe their public hearing is on October 6th at 530 here in the council chambers. And more information can be found about that process at engage.lexingtonky.gov slash data centers. And then the second change is I mentioned on the previous slide that we added indoor recreational activities as a conditional use. And when we were gathering input and talking to the public about this, we received a request to add pickleball next to the word tennis. And so pickleball has now been added to that definition of indoor recreational activities. So those are the only two changes that have been made since we initiated this process. So my last slide this afternoon is the current timeline and the process that the zoning ordinance text amendment has gone through. You've seen me at several planning commission meetings. And over the course of this process, staff have reached out to engage interest groups about this, zoning ordinance text amendment, including meeting with local businesses, lawyers, and Commerce Lexington. So we are confident that this proposal in front of you all today has great insight and will allow for a lot of flexibility and growth for industrial zones here in Lexington. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the proposal. We hope that this amendment will encourage job and economic opportunity and hopefully will allow our industrial land to be productive long term here in Lexington and Fayette County. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. The planning commission. thank you for having me here. Thank you commissioner days. Thank you chair. Congratulations even I'm sure you're glad to have arrived at this point. It's a lot of work absolutely very helpful. I have to rather pedantic questions. In in our document, it's called the blue sky industrial Zoda which would tend to make one think it only applies to the blue sky area, but it is throughout the county that applies to all industrial areas that correct. Yes, thank you commissioner. We updated the title of the Zoda to industrial zones, it does apply to every industrial before I won and I 2 zones throughout Lexington Fay County. And I was anticipating this question so I did quickly at a map. So you all can see where these zones are located in Lexington. So the and I apologize for the light colors but the before zone is a light blue gray. The I one zone is a pinkish purple and then the darker purple is I too. Yes, so it would apply. I thank you the other question is about the document that how passed out a minute ago. And it shows every I guess every possible use that you could have. I'm curious about the ones which is junkyard machinery wrecking yard. Scraper paper scrap. Railhead roundhouse and recycling facility that don't have an impact or a news. I was just curious what happens to those uses. Yes, and I apologize. I don't have that document in front of me. But I they are separately defined in this proposal and also the landfill uses an exclusive view so and so that that is separate. But once I take a deeper dive and look at it. I can provide more detail. Great ideas is curious. Thank you. Any other questions. Yes, go ahead. Yeah, I've got a couple so the. Couple questions about the exhibit a the first question would be. This is not part of what we're adopting this is just sort of guidelines is that correct. This will not be like referenced or are really used for applications. Is that correct. That's correct. Because what what I see on here are examples like brewery for example. Where we have breweries in the eye one now. And I would be concerned about making those nonconforming or other I one uses nonconforming where they would have to come to his own change for an eye to to do an expansion or modification of their facility. And so I guess could you speak to that a little bit. Yes, I think the current proposal would handle those as we do currently I don't see a change in process or consideration. And Mister mickler how Bailey manager long-range planning. I would just want to highlight that currently those breweries that are on I ones are technically micro breweries those are state designated by the amount that they're producing can your canning manufacturing. That's the difference between a West 6 brewing and a Coors Molson kind of brewing operation and that would be more appropriate in the eye to zone because of the amount of large scale distribution. And I would just like to highlight that that would be more appropriate in the eye to zone. So you all are not for seeing that the existing businesses such as your West 6 brewing would be made nonconforming by this. Okay, thank you. The other questions. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to speak on this is a little. Amy Clark at 6.28 Castle, I'd like to express a concern briefly because I don't recall seeing it discussed as yet. Our industrial zones are very valuable zones and when people clamored for an expansion of the urban area. One of the concerns was that we have enough land for industrial uses that offer really good employment and so on. I'm looking at uses now like the the indoor recreation and so on. And I just wonder if you as a commission have really considered that the uses now proposed and allowed for these zones will leave ample room for the industrial growth that the community as a whole tends to want. Thank you. Thank you. Any other. Thank you. We're on the work. I had the same question. Mister micklin about that too. And where you have the housing. Requirements for that section. I'm just curious on why do we put a year on that if we're. You put 15 years on there. Could you give us a page number for what you're looking at page 9. Number D. I mean letter D. On 4. It gives you 20% housing. At least 80 60% a man for at least 15 years. And then you have affordable housing for residentials at least 20% for affordable having 80% a man for at least 15 years if we have that affordable housing we need this to be indefinite. And then we get apartments that are overweight. I don't understand why there is a year because that's usually when the affordable housing fund if they use affordable housing fund money. That's when it's over with and then we get apartments that really don't. Well calls eventually displacement to those who are in those houses because they'll go to market rate. And then. And then. The in that section. We have several businesses like the candles, the you want to remove the recycling section of this stuff. But part of one of those recycling sections are in the area on newtown Pike that usually helps out the community. And what that puts so much in this thing so quickly that it's like a whole lot for one area. And it's like duplicates and some of us is not and then some of us is it is and as a duplication. Each zone. I mean don't take the time and we look at this because this yeah, Russian. And it's a lot. And even this a lot for the community because our business people don't even know that they're going to be affected by this you say they're not but they will and this is the same thing that they always say that there's going to be a face in the ends of being an effect somehow. And somebody is going to have to come back if I want to expand on my business. How am I going to expand and what's it going to cost me as a small business. Thank you. All right staff can we get a response to any of our concerns. Yes for the question regarding indoor recreational activities. Currently they are permitted uses and we're just moving them to conditional mainly because the intent of the I one and I 2 zones are for job producing activities. And we want to make sure that those activities can be good neighbors should a religious assembly or indoor recreational activity take place. The second question regarding adaptive reuse projects staff did not touch those special provisions. We only added clarification. As you can see on page 9. If there was a number such as 80,000 square feet we wrote out 80,000. So I was not staff around when the adaptive reuse projects was passed so I may ask for additional context but we did not touch anything regarding that activity. And just briefly the adaptive reuse project is meant to promote the preservation and reuse of buildings in those areas. However, a product in about 4 years ago we had a discussion about how we needed to update that zone so that we got more out of those projects included with that was the provision of the inclusion of affordable housing projects for a period of time that was meant to match some of the funding requests that we're getting for some of these projects to get that included into the project. However, as and miss Miller has said we are not adjusting that at all. And then finally I just wanted to add. We're very fortunate during the blue skies Mario plan process to speak to hundreds of businesses in blue sky as well as stakeholders throughout Lexington about their business and staff is confident and hopeful that these. These proposals will allow people to be more flexible and open with their business here in Lexington to help our industry. So the public feedback process was very. Comprehensive robust. Thank you. Yes, the question about repetition. Refers back to my discussion about nested zoning. And when we spoke with business owners. They didn't understand clearly what was allowed and each zone. So our hope is to fire moving nested classification that property owners business owners can clearly understand what is allowed as an activity as they are looking to bring business or industry here to Lexington. All right, thank you. Yes, go ahead. Come hold on one second. Another question. Thank you. Which I'm sure it's appreciate for everybody. Clip point of clarification, I guess. It's amazing how sometimes we see this and all of a sudden something pops out at you. When the language is mentioned. As far as and it's read outdoor recreational facilities, customarily accessory and still on subordinate. Clarify that as far as buffering protections to neighboring property. Our cultural areas, et cetera, et cetera, because everybody's always heard of the difficulties. There is their buffering or is it truly just incidental and subordinate and not really going to be any sort of a. Commissioner Owens, are you referring to a particular page where others, it's probably listed a couple of times. I'm reading it off this page 7. Yes, under the conditional uses. Number 8. Yes, as a as a part of this draft. We're not changing article 18 required landscaping or buffering. So the current requirements for that will stay the same regarding industrial use next to a residential or business zone. But the board of adjustment during their review should they wish to place additional buffering with these activities. You know, they could do so as part of that process. Well, then clarify. Everyone, the the language where it says customarily accessory, clearly instill and support subordinate. Are we talking something like the now soccer complex out on the other side of the sky. Or is it clearly in that example, that's on almost all the all outdoor recreation. And then it has accessory structures to that. Right. So there's a a restroom and concession stand or there's a field house associated with the football field. But they are the recreation that's happening is still outdoor recreation. I think this particular use is speaking to an indoor recreation facility such as the tennis center. Right. So they have indoor facilities, but they also have maybe something outside that might be associated with that use. So, again, pickleball, I think, is a good example. Well, a lot of people play inside, but there are still pickleball courts outside. So this particular use would allow the board of adjustment to approve a pickleball facility and then also indoor and then also allow them to have a few outdoor courts on that same property. Does that make sense? Kind of. OK. OK. Thank you. OK. Any other questions for staff? OK, it doesn't look like there are any. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to the commission. All right. I was asked to say something about page nine item D referencing primary land use, building form and design. The numbers that you see in one and two with percentage of AMI that has to do with the funding mechanisms that are made available through the federal government and the state. So that's why that is so specific. So my understanding is they want to continue to make that possible. And that's a way to score points in order to improve your project. So it lines up with all the federal and state regulations for affordable housing. Thank you for that clarification. OK. Ready for a motion or more questions. Yeah. I'd like to move to approve Peel and Zoda 26, that's nine. The update to industrial zones. Second by Commissioner Davis. All right, let's vote. Mr. Michler's. OK, please. It just it had an error in the other one. So this is when we can tell this. Yeah, that one had a mistake. This one is OK. All right. Find us, find us. Whenever you're ready. Good afternoon, commission members. My name is Boyd Sauer, principal planner of the long range planning. And I'm here to present to you the downtown area master plan zoning text amendment. This was this result. This was a result of the downtown area master plan. One of the recommendations was to update our business zones in the downtown area, the B2, B2A and B2B zones. And this is the first regulatory action from that downtown area master plan. We've met with the community. We've met planning commission. We've met with the development groups and they've reviewed the text that we have and we've refined it. And that's what we're presenting to you today. We are moving from the master plan to the review to the implementation phase of this. So, as I mentioned, this plan was adopted. The downtown area master plan was adopted on July of 23rd of this year. And after that, on August 3rd, we filed this order to make these changes. And from that, we've been meeting with the public. We've shared the text with the neighborhood associations. We have met with land attorneys. We met with developers and made some changes with this. And today we are here before you to present this text for your consideration. This is might be moving pretty fast, but we continue to take comments and the document before you is, to our staff's knowledge, the best possible text we can present to you. So what has changed since we presented the original text on August the 3rd? We've had feedback that has resulted in actual changes. We can we've clarified the height of buildings. We've we added something new that wasn't there before, which is the height minimum for these zones. This height changes does not affect existing buildings. So addition, so reuse, adaptive reuse. And then we've also looked into parking, made parking more flexible. We've added active depth to our parking. This helps with activating the street. We've refined some of the users in in the existing text ordinance. And then if you compare the first draft and what is before you today, we had a loading ride share delivery areas added to new developments. But that has been taken off after having discussions with the development community. The overall direction of this text amendment stays the same. There might be changes, but we still have the same goal. In talking with our community, we had that the process was moving pretty fast. We had the building heights. We discussed that people were concerned of why we were making these changes. There was discussion of open space and green space in our downtown areas and how we could improve on those. And then there's also been discussions of auto oriented users in our downtown area, why we were taking out some of those. So all that has come from talking to the public. By the end of this, I hope I can convince you why these changes were important to the zoning text amendment. And I'll start off with the building minimums. So we have 48 feet maximum for the B2 and the B2B. And then we have a minimum and then we have no maximum height for those two zones. When it came to the B2A, which is considered a transitional zone because of their proximity to residential areas, we kept the building height at 144 feet and then the minimum was kept at 36 feet. Once again, these building heights do not affect existing buildings. It doesn't affect adaptive reuse and it doesn't affect additions. When it came to the B2A, the reason for why we went with having a minimum height of 36 and then having a transition whenever you're next to a neighborhood was so that we don't have super tall buildings next to the neighborhood. And we wanted to make sure that we had a minimum height of 36 and we wanted to change that in a way that reflects future use, not current use of that area between the B2A and the residential zone. So we kept it at the step down would be the maximum height of the residential zone next to it. When that is done, it covers a few things. According to staff, there's the predictability of future use for that maximum height. There's the consistency of having a step down height depending on the zone you're dealing with. And there's a durability over time. So if you're, let's say, a developer from out of town, instead of coming in to look at the site and all that, you know where your step down would be. You have a rough idea of where your starting point is. We also looked into our parking. As we know, downtown needs parking. We need parking in our downtown area. So we are not getting rid of parking. We moved surface parking from a principal use, standalone parking, from a principal use to accessory use. We also moved the location. The original text had the location of this accessory use parking in the area of buildings, the principal use buildings. And after discussions with the developers, it was decided that the best way to go about this because of the lot types and lot sizes we have within our downtown area was to have it in line with the principal building primary wall. That was also kept, if you go through the text, at one space per 20,000 square feet. And then after that, we looked at our existing structure parking and future structure parking. That is still a principal use in our downtown areas, the three zones, the B2, B2A, and B2B. And with that, we had an addition after discussions of adding 20 feet of non-parking for, we call that active depth. The reason we have this is so that a building by itself cannot activate the street. It's what goes on in the building that activates the street. So if we have this active depth, we can have coffee shops, we can have retail, and these are things that can activate the street. And then when it came to some of the users, we updated the language because some of the users, when the ordinance was originally written, they directed most of this to specific business users. But since then, we know that business models have changed. We can have a retail business that also provides entertainment, that also provides wholesale, that also manufactures some of those products that they have within that building. So all this, instead of regulating each individual business, we changed the language where we regulate the impact it has on land use and not the exact business. So that's some of the changes that we had. Then when it came to auto-oriented users, we limited those and got rid of some of the auto-oriented users. As you know, the downtown area master plan calls for having a more walkable downtown. And to have a more walkable downtown, we have to limit use of some of our land when it comes to auto-oriented spaces. And then also, working on this, we looked at the public realm, and some of the things that we did to encourage this was we moved our buildings closer to the street. So we have a maximum setback of 10 feet, but that can be moved to 20 feet if you use that space for things like plazas, buried utilities, and offering dining areas outside the building, drop-off areas. You can move the setback to 20 feet. Once again, active depth also helps to encourage that public realm. And then, basically what this does, it creates room for people. So buildings and the downtown area becomes more a public realm that is encouraging that connection between private development and the public street. So the three zones that we are looking at, the B2, B2A, and B2B, might be three different zones. They have different roles, and if you go through the text, some things overlap, but they are all tailored for each specific zone. We know that the B2 is more about high intensity and density. We know that the B2A, which neighbors residential areas, that is more about the transition in scale. And then the B2B, which is a Lexington downtown business, that is more about culture, entertainment, and it's a destination for people within Lexington and people from outside Lexington. So there might be some principles that run through the three of them, but if you go deeper into the text, they are tailored to the context of those three zones. So with that, staff recommends approval of this text amendment due to the fact that it is an implementation from the downtown area master plan. It creates three distinct zones, each with its own unique uses. It expands opportunity for developers and businesses, and also housing diversity where we can have more people move into our downtown area. It encourages reinvestments, and it modernizes our zoning ordinance. It also helps build an urban form within our downtown area. And then there's the overall consistency in what the proposed language is and the downtown area master plan. So these are the findings for approval. It originated from our adopted downtown area master plan. It encourages compact developments. It modernizes the uses in our downtown area. It works for our street environment where we have better street to building interface, and we encourage a lot of walkability and the use of our public spaces. And then, as I said, these findings bring together the basis of staff's recommendations. And with that, I will take any questions. Any questions for staff? Okay, Commissioner Nichols. Yes, thank you for your presentation. That's wonderful. I've got a question on some highlighted added text on page 12 of 20. Mr. Nichols, that's not the language that's presented as of yet. I believe that that is language that Mr. Mickler will be talking about here in a little bit. We are currently focused on the staff's presentation. Okay, good. So this is not your, good. Thank you very much. Okay, Commissioner Davis. Thank you, Chair. Boyd, is there a reason that the words should are used twice to define the three downtown zones in terms of what they should coordinate with, dot, dot, dot, various plans. And then they should be in accordance with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comp plan. Should that not be a shall? Is that legally wrong or something? Ms. Davis, those are located within the intense section. The intense section are meant to guide the zone change process as well as the development in those areas, but are not restrictive in the same sense as the rest of the article. It's supposed to frame what comes with the regulation. So it starts with a should, but then we move very quickly into the body of the text with the principle uses and everything else. And that's where the shalls are required. All right, thank you. Okay, any other questions for staff? Yeah, we do have a copy here with some highlighted text, which staff wrote after a meeting I had. Is that something you're going to put up and talk about? Or is that something you're going to do at a different point in this presentation? Or is that something that- Mr. McClure, that's something that you would present as this is your proposed language. So after the public comment and some of the rebuttals, then it would be your opportunity to go ahead and bring forth extra language. And we can put that on the screen, and you all have copies of it as well. Okay, thank you. Okay, all right, do we have any other questions for staff at this point? All right, thank you. All right, we will go ahead with public comment. Anyone from the public like to comment on this ZOTA as it stands? I'm Walt Gaffield, I'm President of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. I live in the 10th Council District. I'm going to be talking a little bit about the ambiguities in the 2047 comprehensive plan and how the existing language, we don't have any new language and haven't seen it. We don't really want some of that language to expand into new areas. Neighborhoods in the plan for possible later expansion to the urban frame B2A zone did not know what could come with a future zone change to B2A, the more organized and sophisticated neighborhoods asked not to be included in downtown. The Georgetown Street neighborhood asked not to be included and partially were partially included anyway. People on 4th Street thought the boundary was 3rd Street and it changed to 4th Street. Do you think that neighborhoods would be positive about being on a map for a downtown area if they knew that short term rentals would then become a principle use? I don't think so. When downtown expansion occurs, it should be in context with the surrounding residential areas. That does not mean that height and mass should not increase. Everybody knows it needs to and should. However, neither should it mean that height and mass should be unlimited or that context does not matter if decision makers want to create a new context. That's specifically in language and it shouldn't be there. It's either contextual or it isn't. The place builder needs revision and should not include high density residential or high density mixed use in or near a residential area. The place builder states that development should be in context unless decision makers want to change to a new context. But there's no explanation for what causes that. Major corridors will have the same problem because of existing language in the corridor node zone. The recent Palltown zone change provides an example of the quarter node zone in practice and that didn't work very well. Major increases in height and mass will lead to gentrification and replacement issues. Developers will look for less expensive land. The addition of minimum heights in the downtown area will harm small businesses and reduce services for downtown neighborhoods in the long term, I think. A number of cities either do not have minimal heights or have much smaller minimums in frame areas. The reduction in street parking downtown will be a major problem if not offset with parking and structures. Public transit needs to improve dramatically if people are to actually use it. The approval of a zoning ordinance text should be postponed today to allow the public planning commission and the urban county council to provide adequate oversight and arrive at better solutions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other public comment? Amy Clark, 628 Castle Road, and I'll begin by apologizing. I'm in chaos on this. It is very, very hard to oversee. It was a really great thought to stop the nesting of zones so that somebody in a zone knew what was in the zone. But the way that's going to work is it's going to come with these wonderful tables where you can see everything range side by side. You can see my zone and the next zone and the next zone. We don't have that. What we have is this enormous text for all the uses. And much of it is in common for all three zones. The rest of it, go fish. It's very, very hard to get any sense of what is distinct or different in the uses of the different zones. I'm going to focus on the dimensional standards because that was a little shorter to figure out. Turns out B2 and B2B are identical in all their dimensional standards. And it's B2A that has some different things. In fact, just from the dimensional standards and gazing at the uses and that sort of summary of the intent which really comes from the comp plan and belongs there. I don't really see how B2 and B2B are at all different. They have tourism in them. They have high density, high intensity. I don't see what's different about them. I wonder why they're separate. Back to B2A, there's a provision that the height of the building beyond 70 feet should match the bordering property, sorry, should match the maximum height of the zone, okay, for the step back. I was shocked to realize, we're talking about the maximum allowed to the zone. So if you take R4, which has a bunch of Victorian cottages and two story and every other sort of thing in the downtown area, the maximum height there is 60 feet. And the idea of making the new construction compatible is to say it can't be but 60 feet, which is what the R4 could potentially be because it was up-zoned a few times. It absolutely should match the height of the existing property. And particularly if it's an H1 overlay. The argument was that, well, you could tear that property down and build higher and here's this new fellow. And he would have been restricted in his site. You cannot tear down those H1 properties. I think for sure it should match the actual building. And more than that, I really would ask that you present more usable materials for review and continue the hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? So will any of the current businesses be grandfathered in? Also where it says prohibited use on page five, it's number seven, it says 72 but seven. Kennels and outdoor runways, pens for animals. We have a pause with a call zone in that area with that zone. So is it getting grandfathered in or does it have to apply for another one? You have the storage unit for the warehouses that you're saying that can't be there. Do they have to reapply? What do they have to do? We got a lot of businesses that don't know much or nothing and we are confused. Did this, y'all gonna vote for it anyway, but it's a lot of questions. And a lot of businesses don't even know this is coming to them. They say they do, but they don't. We already talked to them. They clueless and they was like, what does this mean for us? You mark out on here, you got arcade and then massage parlors. But the same sentence, the same structure on another one has the same thing. But it's like what, how come a massage parlor wouldn't mark that on that? But what in, nor was it added as a mark out. This ain't clear. It's a lot. And these people are confused, so am I. Cuz number four, as I said with the massage parlor, doesn't have it right there. But it has it right here in numbers. I don't know if this is 16 or 26, or 17 and 26 on page three. How are they different? How did you mess that up? But if this is what y'all vote for, okay. Okay, all right, thank you. Any other public comment? We've already, okay. Let's see. Do you have something that he needs to respond to? I'll give you one minute. I'll give you a minute, the microphone is close to the desk. Do you have something to say? Okay. I appreciate it. I hope you're thinking about whether these regulations will be realistic. Whether they will produce the sort of growth that's intended, aspired to. In particular, the build two limit, you can't build less than x in the zones and the no parking, no surface parking. When would I, why would I ever say that I want to see surface parking? But if it isn't realistic, the standards you've set for this downtown, it'll push it out elsewhere, where it's still less welcome. The surface parking and the smaller buildings. So really think about whether these minimums and maximums are realistic. Thank you. Okay, we'll hear from staff. Thank you very much for the comments and questions. As I said, these comments and questions are what makes this plan stronger. I'll just start by making it clear, whatever is existing right now before this is adopted is grandfathered in. So existing parking lots, existing structures, you do not have to change and update it to meet these standards. The only time you'll do that is when something new comes in or if you do extensive renovations up to a certain percentage for some things, they trigger this, you have to update it to match this. Let's see, surface parking lots. Surface parking lots has been moved from being a principal use in this, principal standalone use in these zones, to an accessory use. So instead of having a piece of land and just building a parking lot there, and that's the principal use on that lot, you can no longer do that. But if you have a building, you can build a parking lot that is an accessory use to that building, so that is in the text amendment. Let's see, massage parlors. Massage parlors actually is in here, medical and dental offices, clinics, laboratories, and licensed therapeutics. Massage parlors, masseuse fall under the licensed therapeutics. And that was one of the comments when I say that some of these businesses were originally written when we listed individual businesses, but they could all fall under one umbrella. So that's a good example of where that comes into use. And the building height. Building height has been, let me see if I can go. So building heights, if you read the downtown area master plan, which took over a year to do that, the recommendations for the minimum heights in the downtown area is six stories. After discussions with the public, discussion internally with staff, discussion with the planning commission, we realized that six stories is very ambitious for this at the moment. Hopefully one day we get there, but currently, the six stories was too much. That's why we reduced it to 48 for the B2 and the B2B, and then 36 for the B2A because of the transition and the proximity to residential areas. And I think that covers all the comments. Thank you very much. Any other comment, questions? Go ahead. Commissioner Davis. Sorry. Boyd. I'm sorry. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, Bill. Go ahead. I know we've talked about this before, and I still don't, I think I have a different question this time. Okay. And it has to do with the places where door dash drivers and delivery vans and things like that are to occur. And I understand that some sites do not have a place to have a dedicated place for that. But how are developers expected to respond? and we can use X parking space and not park in the street if we have a delivery. Will you repeat the question? I don't think I got it. Is there anything that compels a developer to think about how the building might be used when it's occupied to take care of deliveries and things like that rather than having it occur ad hoc? So one of the things that we heard during our public comment and working both with the planning commission and development group was there is a concern with the existing developers or the existing land that are zoned B2, B2A or B2B in which they said, look, we haven't thought of this. This wasn't something that was in the plan before and we have an issue with trying to do that within the site's context as it is. However, within the place builder and the comprehensive plan, there is a development criteria for all downtown development to look at those drop off zones. So as we get new development and we are seeing rezonings, that gives us the opportunity to bring up to you with the applicant the changes that might need to be made on site or off site. So we found that there is sufficient language currently within the comprehensive plan that covers this for new sites that are coming in. Okay. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Wilson, did you have? I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this parking thing to me like I'm a 10-year-old. I don't quite understand. The biggest expansion of parking that we have downtown right now is the Rupp Arena, I assume. If anybody decides to develop that property, could the Rupp Arena people build a parking structure in and of themselves to compensate for the loss of the parking on the surface? Absolutely, sir. But they could do that. Okay. Yes, they just have to meet the active depth requirements. They can have it as a principal structure. Am I recalling correctly, that's a mixed-use plan that includes apartments, it includes a grocery store, it includes a parking structure, and we've already approved that, correct? Or at least some phase of it? I am unsure about approval. We've seen it. Correct. Okay. The renderings are out there in public, but I haven't seen anything. You've approved a preliminary subdivision plan, and I think when they came and presented that, they did discuss about the uses proposed and did give kind of an idea of what the arrangements would be. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. I've got a quick question. I don't know if you have the answer to this or not, but I'm curious to know how many parking spaces are provided by the Lexington Parking Authority in these two zones? I will try finding you the answer, but I don't have it right now. Okay. Understood. But we need to put some pressure on it. That is a good way for us to achieve more parking is to utilize the parking authority to develop and build more subterranean or structured parking. That's something we need to consider. We need to put some of the burden on ourselves, our own authority, to make sure that we do have parking available. Because as my understanding is from being here for quite a few years, the decision has been made to grow up and not out. And we want to make sure that as we grow up, we can share some of the burden of the parking through our Lexington Parking Authority. Mr. Nickel, that we have currently four public structured parking garages that are operated by LexPark with over 2,000 parking spaces. And if I could add to that. Thank you. Very good. 4,000. Okay. Good. That's a good place for us to continue to look for more parking. And if I could add to that, during the downtown area master plan, LexPark was part of the discussions and they were very helpful and contributed a lot to the discussions. All right. Any other questions for staff at this moment? Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to the commission. Yeah. I want to just say that some of you all who are at the zoning committee and then at the work session heard some of my concerns. I think a few of them have been spoken about by the public. I was asking at the work session that we look to either postpone or continue the discussion so that there would be time to address some of these concerns. I met with Hal who with staff drafted some items to address these concerns. So I'll present them here today. If people feel comfortable, by and large, they addressed my bulk concerns. I'm comfortable going forward. If people aren't comfortable, I'm also still comfortable with asking for a continuance so other people can have more time for input. There's only one addition that applied to all three zones. And that was to create a pathway for building for projects that have a building or buildings that do not meet the minimum height. In my questions to staff, that came up because there are types of businesses and projects that are called for in the downtown master plan that are nonresidential, that don't typically come associated with a taller building like an apartment building. There was also not a provision if somebody was proposing a larger scale project that had accessory buildings or a food kiosk in the courtyard or something like that, that would be below height minimum. So this would create a pathway where someone who had an accessory building or a principal building for a use that's called for in the downtown master plan, didn't meet the 48 feet or 36 feet, could come before the planning commission and show their plans and give their reasoning and ask for that without it necessarily being a variance of they couldn't build an apartment, but why they want to build what they want to build. Edgler, would you like us to show that on the screen up above? Oh yeah, if you could put that up there. The other amendments all applied, the other additions all applied to the B2A zone. And that really stems from what we heard from a couple of the public comments, which is that this zone, if we approve this ZOTA, is changing the intent of this zone from being really tightly bound around to zone downtown to extending into the second tier urban neighborhoods. So yeah, here's an example of that text that applied to all three zones stating that basically this commission could approve a project with a building that did not meet the minimums if someone came here and showed that it complied with the downtown master plan. That would be basically a similar process as somebody who today comes here because they want to build a building taller than the B1 zone typically allows. And they'll show the context and get permission to do so. So jumping to the ones that are specific only to the B2A. The B2A, as we're extending into the second tier urban neighborhoods that have traditionally had that have, not just traditionally, that have green space, our downtown zone has no required vegetative open space. Looking at some of the plans, it seems like a lot of the plans are coming in around 5% just around the building. I think if we are changing the intent to extend into the neighborhoods that more vegetative open space, meaning plants and green space, is important. This edit is pretty minimal because looking at the other zones, we allow pretty low amount in the B1. So that's where that percentage came from. Green roofs have a multiplier, so somebody putting 5% around the building, like we've been seeing, could have just 2.5% of their property as a green roof and meet that requirement. So that's a pretty small one, and it only applies to the larger lots. So that if somebody does want to do a small lot redevelopment, in that typical traditional downtown style or neighborhood commercial style, like you might see in the Woodland Triangle or along Main Street, this provision wouldn't apply. The next one there is, speaking to what we heard from a couple other people, is basically it is saying that the step down, if we were to accept this modification, it's saying that the step down, if it's adjacent to a residentially zoned property, is responding to what's actually there. And this is really just, as I mentioned, in regards to some of that concern that a house that we might have in the east end that's one or two stories is very different from maybe a four-story apartment that we have along Martin Luther King. And this would, as this text is drafted and I sent it out, allow for that step down to be taller than the existing structure in the current context. As written, this says 10 feet taller. And it's the same basic dimensions of that step down is still 50 feet from the property line and it's the same relevance to that it's a residential zone and it would be basically on the same side of the street. And then the final one in the B2A specifically, again, looking at where these downtown frame zones are adjacent to the existing residential and the second tier urban neighborhoods, primarily, that is this ZOTA already calls for a 12 foot setback on the side yard and rear yard. And this is, we already in discussions on zone change frequently are asking for this type of mechanical stuff to be put on the roof. This is sort of going ahead and putting that in writing and saying that this isn't requiring that it be on the roof, but it's saying that those mechanical systems such as the HVAC, crash compactors, can't be in that 12 foot setback on the side and rear yard that's directly adjacent to residential. So at that, I'll turn things back over to the commission. But those are, this language was provided by staff after the last work session in response to some of the concerns I brought up. Thank you, Commissioner Mickler. Commissioner Nichols? Yes. Thank you for that. I'm responding to the staff's recommendation. I understand that we have new language that's being proposed by Robin, but I just want to make known that even though the language was written by staff, it is not what we're voting on unless we make changes to the staff's requirements. In my opinion, I'm interested in approving the staff's language, and less interested in restricting this zone, which is the intent of the zone is a specialized district for high density residential and high intensity commercial and mixed use developments. We only have two zones here. I mean, we only have one downtown. We only have one downtown, we only have one downtown frame. And like I said earlier, we've been told, we have heard here from our community that we are to grow up and not grow out. So in my opinion, I am in favor of the staff's recommendation, rather than continuing to restrict the overall height requirements in our B2A zone, as it is touching up to existing zones. As we're looking specifically in the text that Robin has provided us on page 12, there's a minimum open space that has been added. However, when a project area is greater than one acre in size, vegetated open space shall be 10%. I'm opposed to that recommendation because we have continued to hear in multiple work groups that vibrant downtown communities have parks, public parks, private parks, and pocket parks. And I think that's a better way to address the overall vegetative requirement in our community. To have intentional spaces that are being built to be utilized, rather than to meet a requirement. In my opinion, I believe that we should allow for the staff's recommendation of not having a open space regulations. And that would further promote the development and use of pocket parks. And the parks that we're putting in place right now through our government. I think it's important for us to continue to maximize density, especially in the downtown area and especially in the B2A zones as well. So those are my thoughts on what we've heard so far. Thank you. Commissioner Pan. Let me follow up on what Mr. Nichols is talking about. Who do you propose, are you saying that the city ought to build these pocket parks or the developer? What I'm saying is that we should not put additional requirements to provide vegetated open space. That should not be an added requirement for B2, I mean for our downtown zones that we're addressing right now. What I'm saying is that we have seen an effort being made to have either private developers or the public to create pocket parks. So we would not be required for the downtown zones, but it is encouraged for those in the community, whether it's a developer or the city, to build usable pocket parks. And we've seen many examples of what a usable pocket park looks like and what an unusable pocket park looks like. And that is a good solution. What I'm saying is the solution should not be required by the property owners themselves. As we're trying to increase maximum density and by removing 10% of the buildable lots, which are normally small and we're promoting growing up, it will limit the density that we'd like to achieve. But the history of our, may I respond? Go ahead. The history of our community has been private citizens built Third Red Park, private citizens built Gatton Park, and private citizens built the, I mean, most of our parks have been done by private citizens. So the developers hadn't been on the hook to get that at all. I think that's a positive way to affect change. Private citizens building wonderful things for the community. Well, I'm not against that, but I hate to say that that will continue. There's one generation that built most of those. I don't know whether these new generations will do it or not. And you may wind up with density in no parks. I think we've done a, certainly thankful to the generations that came before us that did develop Phoenix Park, Third Red Park. I remember when all that occurred, and that was a very impressive feat. That involved people from the development community, from the banking community, and high net worth individuals as well. I think we've done a good job building parks. I just don't want to end up in a situation where we're requiring, we're going against the staff's recommendation to not have more restrictive open space regulations. Because we've already built such wonderful parks. And you're right, the private citizens that have done this should be thanked and respected. They've done a wonderful job for our community. And now if we can build up on every inch of the land we can, it'll only benefit the community. Okay, Commissioner Warren. Yeah, I'm switching gears here just a little bit. I would like to talk about on page 12, the building height, the second bullet about the step down. Buildings exceeding shall step down to the maximum height of the adjacent principal. I'm sorry. Robin's version. Yes, Robin's version. I thought that's what was under discussion right now. It is. So just to clarify, we have essentially got, I don't want to use the word precedent, that has legal implications. But this is basically what we did with the Prawl Town Plan, where we revisited that original plan and requested that the developer include a step down to increase light availability for the neighborhood. Is that what we're talking about here? Well, just to clarify that this addition or substitution would not have solved that problem. Okay. Because that was caused by the tremendous length of the building and its location on the south side. And those buildings that would have been completely shaded would have been across the street, which neither the staff's original text nor this would have solved. So that's not the problem we're trying to solve. I would say the abrupt difference in the variation of height between the neighborhood and this structure being developed. Is that, I'm trying to figure out what we're trying to solve here. Yeah, so it is, let's say that you have a R4 with a 60 foot height. The way it's written now with the staff. And you have a home in one of the downtown neighborhoods that is one story, like we saw on Lexington Avenue, that the current project under construction wraps on two sides. In the zone change process on that one side on Lexington Avenue, they stepped it down. This, in the current, most of those, I'm not sure of that parcel, but most of those parcels are R4 in there. In the current version by staff, they would need to step it down to 60 feet. So something around five or six stories. Five stories, I suppose, in most applications. This alternative language would mean they need to step it down to the height of the existing building. So the existing context plus ten feet. Basically, they could go a story higher than what's currently there for the initial portion of their building. They'd have a 12 foot setback. So 30 some odd feet of the building would need to step down and then they could go up to the full height. Just the other clarification, the portion where you're talking about building a project that is not as high as the current required minimum height. Could you tell me what you're thinking about in terms of what that kind of development might be? Yeah, I think Commissioner Nichols highlighted a couple of them. So we have Gatton Park and Commissioner Penn, we have Gatton Park. No, no, no, that's not the question I'm asking. But those are the types of like pocket parks, public parks, of community gardens as often have accessory structures that do not meet minimums and they're called for in our plan. So we have Gatton Park that was privately developed, or a privately developed park like that would be subject to our zoning. They have a kiosk that serves food, they have a little community room, they have a stage. At Phoenix Park, or at a pocket park, you might put a gazebo. That would not meet these minimum building standards. Someone with this provision could come and show that they're building a gazebo and that it is in compliance with the downtown master plan that's calling for a greener downtown. The way this is written, it doesn't differentiate gazebo from an apartment building. So that gazebo is supposed to be 48 feet tall in the B2, or 36 feet tall in the B2A. So if I'm understanding you, as you think about this, you're really thinking about more of an accessory structure. Well, it depends on the use. I think it would be harder for someone to make the case to the planning commission if they're building apartments and coming in and asking to go below these minimums that we've set in the zone. But if someone's coming in, I mean, in the slide from staff on one of the things that it's encouraging is artisan manufacturing. There's that We've seen that business we have in town that's been doing the glass blowing with a speakeasy. It's that really relies on really hot kilns. They've got that area in a one story structure. That would be the kind of thing where somebody could come in and say they're doing a use that really isn't oriented towards a four story or three story building, but that it is called for in the zone and it's called for in the downtown master plan. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. Okay, Commissioner Davis. Thank you, Chair. I hate to put staff on the spot, but I'm just curious what is the minimum open space for the B2 zone? It says see article 20 for open space regulations. Thank you, Boyd. Ask the question again. I beg your pardon? Ask the question again. Could you please let me know what the minimum open space per, let's see, the staff version, page six for the B2 zone. The B2 zone, B2, B2A, B2B has a 5% usable, 0% vegetated, and the two can overlap. So 5% open. B2A has the 5%, B2 has zero, B2B has zero. Yeah, vegetated it's zero, but usable it's 5%. So tell me that again, in B2 you have to have 5% open space, but none of it has to be vegetated. It's usable open space, not vegetated. How does that mean? What is that, a patio? We do not have, a usable space is space that can be used. So it can be a plaza, it can be a rooftop swimming area with all the amenities there. That's just the area has to total 5%. A vegetated space, according to our ordinance, is space that has vegetation, 70% vegetation. It doesn't have to be trees or shrubs, it can be grass. And grass will qualify as the vegetated space. So the 10% space that you're getting, 70% of that has to be vegetated with stuff like just grass. And so I'm not sure about how much just having grass on your property will add environmentally, but that's how our ordinance is written. Okay. So just in response to what we've been hearing a lot, we're trying to reduce heat islands. Because if we have a very built up B2 zone, we're going to need some relief from the constant paving and asphalt. I think that makes sense. Okay, so we don't have a lot of open space in B2, but as we begin to leave downtown to those businesses that surround it, surely there should be a transition in what kind of, how green it might be in appearance. And so that's why, sorry, this is all I wanted to ask you. I think Commissioner Mickler's proposals make sense in terms of providing a visual transition and a transition from a very dense to still dense but some green. And I also think his recommendations about the step down in the B2B to something more that is in keeping with the adjacent property. Perhaps not as it's built now, but giving it some cushion is also very appropriate. And we've heard how much people are interested in having that. So, that's just what I think. Thank you. Can I just clarify one thing? Just, Boyd, can you, just to be, make sure we're all on the same page here. That vegetative open space requirement that I'm suggesting for the B2A on projects that are greater than one acre, that can be also on a rooftop the same way that the, that the same way the open space can be, is that correct? Yes, it can be on the rooftop and there are incentives for having it as a rooftop, on the rooftop or vertical walls. There are incentives. So it goes from the 10% to even smaller than 10%. Thanks for that clarification. Okay, Commissioner Owens. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can always appreciate Comrade Nichols' comments when we start talking about building. Building, about building. I prefer patriot. I prefer patriot, sovereign citizen, and patriot. Give me that. Building up and not out. You know, I used to sit next to a fellow commission member that would kick me under the podium, this desk here if I even mentioned that, but I think we're all in this together. And in looking at, and I appreciate the clarification just now as far as vegetative open space. I mean, we can get stuck and think about, as Mr. Nichols said, pocket parks. But I'm going to say more non-traditional open space, vegetative space, which would be on a rooftop inside the building or outside the building even. But not necessarily on the ground floor. It could be second floor, it could be third floor, something like that. I think that would be a definite plus and an amenity if we can talk the developers into it. And people would want to be there, and they may have to spend it on the front end, but they're going to get it back on the back end as far as a return, if we can get it built like that, so I'm very much in favor of that. With the setbacks, step downs, I can see that. Once again, I'm very much into building up and not out, but I do think we've got to respect what is there currently. It may change if the developer wants to gain access to that property. He doesn't have to worry about it at that point. But I think this is a workable solution, I'll put it that way. Specifically, I think when we're talking about the side yard, rear yard setback and the restrictions of mechanical stuff, I'd seen, I just want to clarify, I'd seen language or I heard discussion that included generators. I don't know if that purposely got left out or if it's intended to be there and you just can't put it all in there at one time. But I think that should be included as well. Lastly, Robin mentioned that some of this language didn't apply to all three zones. And I'm just wondering, should that language as far as side yard, rear yard with the mechanical restrictions be included in the other two zones? That's my only, that's the one question I've got other than the comments I have. Sir, are you asking staff or Mr. McLean? Staff and or Robin. So. Okay. I'd be happy to. Hold on, Commissioner Mickler, Mickler. Okay, I know you said it. Well, that's a reasonable question and I'm open to it because I think it's important that the, as we do build larger projects and larger buildings, that these sort of mechanicals do go up. On the roof, or internal to the project, or inside the building, like the trash compactor on the project on Maxwell went inside of the building. But I think it's in there because it came up really at that discussion of that intersection of, at that intersection of the downtown and the residential neighborhoods. I think the number, I mean, I think if we added the number of strictly B2 properties that intersect residential, I'm guessing is probably low, but maybe staff can speak to that or speak to their thought process. But I think it was really, that part came up in the discussion at that intersection of that downtown frame, the B2A with the residential, and I think that's why it got included there. But I'm open to other thoughts on that. All right. The staff want to comment on that or no? I will read this so that we're on the same page. Where there's a side or rear yard setback adjacent to residential zoning, there shall be no mechanical systems, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, hedge work, or trash compactors within this side and rear yard setbacks. So from this discussion, we've made it clear that can go to the rooftop, can go to the garage. We can work this language more because this can also go to the front yard. The front yard, the way it's written. I didn't notice that till just now when I was looking at it and listening to the discussion, I realized you can have your mechanicals in the front yard between the street and the building, the way it's written. So maybe it needs some more work. Mr. Chair. If we approved the staff alternative without that, then it's allowed at any spot, is that correct? Yes. We don't address, yeah, we don't address where that goes in our ordinance. Okay, the staff recommendation doesn't address that, right? Say that again? The staff's- One exception in the ordinance, but I don't think it's for residential zones, so I don't think we need that. Can somebody tell me what we're agreeing to here? I'm not getting it. I'm also lost slightly. So we are discussing Commissioner Mickler's proposal for having, what do you call it, mechanical systems like the heating, ventilation, air conditioning. I forgot that part. Are we saying it goes in all three sections? What are we saying? So from this language, I just realized this- Mrs. Worth, just really quickly. With the language that is being discussed right now, Mr. Owens was asking if it could go in all three different zones. Staff would not recommend that that be put in all three different zones just because the beat, this was described in our conversation with Mr. Mickler and what we wrote on. This as a recommendation for a transition between the densest portions of our downtown areas, being the B2 and the B2B zones, going into the B2A, and that would be where the location of those protections would be. And that specifically gets into the adjacency of residential zones to the B2A zone. That B2A being a frame. Are you all agreeing to, is staff agreeing to this? Speak in the microphone. This is, as staff has reviewed it, staff is comfortable with our language that has been provided today. I couldn't give you a clear recommendation from staff because we're talking about this at this point in time. This was done in collaboration with Mr. Mickler and that staff presented it here so that it fit the text that we have. Okay, when you're saying is language is presented today, in your version or in Mr. Mickler's version? The staff is presenting the staff's version, which was what Mr. Seway presented earlier today. That modifications would be amendments to the staff's language, as proposed by Mr. Mickler in the document that you're seeing right now. Staff did produce that for Mr. Mickler following conversations to make sure that it fit the ordinance. And that really represents what Mr. Mickler has heard from the public during the meetings and his concerns. So, can I get to a bottom line here? Bottom line, staff is not yet prepared to say that should be included in the version you've presented. So, bottom line is that staff is comfortable with the language that we have proposed. And that the language presented here today is modifications there and to represent the concerns that Mr. Mickler heard. Okay. Madam Chair, can I ask a question? It doesn't seem like we come into any type of agreements. Can we continue this, not postpone it, because we have to start it all over again. I'm just asking. Just because it seems like there's several pieces of information that staff may need time to look at. That makes sense. So, if Mr. Mickler- I think that makes sense if someone wants to make a motion. One quick question, if I could. The staff has already seen his recommendations. What they're saying is, what I'm hearing is, they're comfortable with where they are. Now, the question is, back to the commission. And that is, do you want to, by vote, put any of the presentations into the regular format? In other words, the staff is happy. You're saying without further- But- That's right. But from us, we're not in the- That's a good point. That's the second part. The other part of it is, too, is that the process might be that we vote on each one of these items. We don't have to vote on the whole thing, even with further discussion. But I understand what the people are saying is, if we need more time, it would be appropriate to have a continuation. I'll make a motion to continue, if you would like. because I think we need more time. Okay. Okay, my understanding is that we would continue to have, to allow the commission time to review and digest the recommendations from Commissioner Mickler. And then we would come back and basically vote on each item as to the appropriateness of leaving it in. But, excuse me just a minute. But the problem is, is that while we're talking about this, we're reading this. And Robyn's, or Mr. Mickler's recommendations were given to us today. Yeah, just today. Or yesterday, whenever it was. Yeah, I mean, it was today, but it was just today. Yeah. When people have meetings prior to this. I'm not comfortable saying let's just include all of Mr. Mickler's recommendations, but neither am I comfortable saying let's just take the staff and ignore his. And that's the two choices we have right now. And that's the reason for the continuation. So, therefore, I'm asking that we continue this. We have Robyn's, we have the staff's. Let's go back and try to figure out what we want to adopt and what we don't want to adopt. So, can I clarify something here? As I recall, we had a discussion about this at the work session. And I know there was concern on the staff's point about trying to get this completed. Do we have the option, perhaps, of continuing this at our next public hearing after, at the tail end, rather than waiting until the next zoning one? Would that make staff more comfortable with this? Just as a clarification, Ms. Worth, your next public hearing is one month from now. But there is a public meeting on October 8th, and I believe you could continue this. In fact, it would be my recommendation that you choose that date. Because, as you recall, you just postponed four zone changes to the end of October, and there's already two ZOTAs on that agenda. So, I would suggest that if you do want to continue to discuss this, spend more time with it, that you do so on October 8th. And I think that's what she was asking. Yeah, that's what she was asking, October 8th, okay. I'm a little bit, I'll be perfectly honest. I'm committed to giving a talk on October 8th at UK. So, I won't be able to be here for that discussion on October 8th. So, I have put a little bit of work into it. And I would appreciate it if we could continue it to the normal zoning meeting on the 22nd. And that's what I'm going to put in my motion. I'd like to continue this to the, I'd like to move that we continue this to the zoning meeting on October 22nd. If that's a motion, I'll second the motion. Did you second the motion, Commissioner? I couldn't hear you. Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right, a motion has been made and seconded to continue this to October 22nd. Any questions from the commission? If we have other questions between now and October the 22nd, we should address that to staff and Robin. I mean, if we have clarifications that we need. I mean, I would make this motion with the goal that in this month, other planning commissioners have the opportunity to get their concerns raised with this text or with my amendments with staff. And also to give a month's time for staff to maybe come back with a staff recommendation on these amendments as well. I think the staff is already saying that. The staff has made their recommendation with their proposal. Yeah. And they want theirs to, they approve their recommendation. And that's what I would love to vote on. We've got an additional recommendation by you that we are requesting more time to better understand, because we have multiple items here that we're either going to have to take one at a time to meet everybody's, our group's consensus. It's going to take more time to address each of these issues. It also gives us the ability to further think about this. But the staff's recommendation, which I approve of, I don't think we should ask them to go back and change their recommendation. A lot of work went into this, and it makes great sense. And I certainly hope they don't change their recommendation from approval for their own ZOTA recommendation. Madam Chair, I'm going to call the question. Okay, that's where we are, right? But staff wrote the language. Call the question, sorry. You're talking about call the vote. It's a proposal, a proposal. Commissioner Davis, I'll let you go ahead and have your last word. Okay, so the motion on the floor is to continue this to October 22nd. Okay, and we're ready to vote. Okay, now, Madam Chair, I only have one question, and that is, if we have questions, let me put it this way. If I have questions, then I should address it to Mrs. Mickler, is that correct? That's the only question. That's the only, yeah. That's the clarification you need. Okay, all right. Thank you. Okay. All right. Let's continue. Okay, what do we have next? Is there anything that the commission has? Do we have any staff items that we need to consider? Nothing. Okay, with that, this meeting is adjourned. I don't object. I don't object. Okay.