Really?

I'm surprised with the entry tree kind of going up.

Good evening.

Welcome everyone to the Richmond plan and zoning meeting tonight.

Clerk who called roll, please.

Commissioner de Grant.

Here.

Commissioner Francis.

Here.

Commissioner Short.

Commissioner Miller.

Here.

Commissioner Perkins.

Commissioner Miles?

Here.

Commissioner is out.

Here.

Next on the agenda's approval of the February 18, 2026 minutes.

If everyone's had a chance to look over those, uh get a motion on that, please.

I'd like to approve the uh February 18th, 2026 minutes.

Commissioner De Grant?

Yes.

Commissioner Francis.

I'll abstain as I was not present.

Commissioner Short.

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Miles?

Yes.

Commissioner Estout.

Yes.

Next is the Ramsey Development Projects.

LLC request a one-year extension for the Cattleman's BLVD.

Kevin, you got that?

Yes, thank you.

Um the Ramsey development out there known as the Farms at Boulevard.

Um that particular section of Cattleman's Boulevard has reached its two-year period uh to be completed.

It still lacks a punch list.

However, uh they are available.

Um it's available to them to ask for a one-year extension per ordinance.

And they would like to do so.

Uh request that we do have in writing uh formal request from uh Miss Tracy Blevins uh representing uh the clients, and uh they are requesting that one year extension for Cattleman's Boulevard.

Uh that is surrounded by an approved final plant.

It is recorded, and uh if they are granted uh the one-year extension, then they would be free and clear of our punch list and and targeting our overdue subdivisions, but uh they're by no means in any trouble or anything.

Uh they they have formally asked for an extension and they can do so.

And we'll cause any problems.

No, it uh it won't cause any trouble.

Uh essentially there there's no lots.

So, you know, if if there were lots associated with the final plat, you know, and and a business on site the uh where the public would generate traffic flow and things of that nature, it it would make sense to to uh consider it, but in this case it's it's uh glorified driveway uh to nowhere.

And uh we do have uh the approved development plan for New Island Boulevard that will break ground very shortly.

So a lot of the uh construction traffic uh would be utilizing that road.

However, we did discuss an alternative construction entrance uh when that project starts, so it would not be on this street since it's under sub-base.

Okay, I think your wrestling partners might have tagged in over there.

If I may another piece of this is I've been working with the property owner and the developer out of Atlanta, and they don't want to do the final covering of asphalt because it may be used for construction entrance.

The other piece of it is the roundabout project at Goggins Lane and Barnes Mill is currently in the state budget.

Of course, you know they're in session, they'll be out April 15th.

The developer out of uh Atlanta, if you quay wants to make sure that money is in the budget April 15th before they sign the lease for the box store and the three out parcels.

So they're kind of waiting for that to happen, and then they will sign the lease, they'll be committed to the box store in three out parcels, and you'll see dirt moving pretty quick out there.

So I feel like a one-year extension is fair in this case because there's really nothing beyond Catalans, you know, there's no lots, there's no nothing to build until that lease gets signed and gets started.

Well, that part two leads back out to those fields and things for the uh middle school that at Cattleman.

So I can see where it being no need to use in that, you know.

Back through there for the school park.

Yeah, the the only entrance for the school off of uh cattlemans is is there toward uh Barnes or I'm sorry, uh Goggins Lane.

There isn't another entrance on back in there where those fields are as you go back.

So Kevin does have a good idea with trying to get them to use a different construction entrance, which would be just past the church on your left, kind of past that uh if you turn right on the goggins from Barnes Mill, you have the church on your left, you have an entrance into Meyer on the right, and then just a little bit past it on the left, there's an entrance into the car.

So hopefully we can get them to utilize that and not go into the old school, which I think they will.

Okay.

I'll make a motion that we approve the request for a one-year uh extension for Cadaman's full learned by management development project LLC.

Second.

Commissioner De Grant?

Yes.

Commissioner Francis, yes.

Commissioner Short, yes, Commissioner Miller.

Yes.

Commissioner Miles?

Yes.

Commissioner Estelle.

Yes.

Next on the agenda is the home occupation permit draft.

Kevin.

Yeah, but I'll be the man tonight, I guess.

Um I brought this before you guys.

Um we're having new technology introduced to the world, so uh, once we get home occupation permits in, we're being challenged with how they're being done.

So via internet, things of that nature.

Um, they're not employing um employees on site.

They're they're not needing parking spaces because they're ordering from some place and they're just sending it out.

So new technology has presented a problem for our original uh home occupation rules and regulations.

Uh, hope you guys had a chance to read it.

Um, what you have before you is the existing regulations, Section 409.

And it's items one through eight.

I've been with the city for about 15 years, and it's been this way before I arrived and in all the years I've been here.

As we move forward, it's it's beginning to become outdated.

We we really need to step up a few things uh to take in and make our jobs a little easier and to help the public.

Uh some of these stringencies just put a roadblock in front of some uh home occupations that would seem very irrelevant and wouldn't affect their neighbors or anything.

Um in addition to that, most folks what triggers the home occupation permit is that when somebody enters a business, they have to have that little pesky thing called a business license.

Well, if you have to get a business license and you happen to be in a residential zone, that triggers that pesky thing called a home occupation permit.

And you must receive that home occupation permit from the planning department until code enforcement can issue their business license, which involves a short review and a quick side inspection under items one through eight initially.

So in order to plan for the future and sort of set up what would help the department, what I feel would help the general public, and address some of the new technology and things that we're seeing out there, internet-based sales and so forth.

I've come up with a type one and type two home occupation permit.

Okay.

Some of these things uh when you read type one home occupations, it says no permit is needed.

Some of these things um, for an example, um, we had a gun sales, but he had no guns on site.

He he was just the middle person.

He would contact the factory with uh a purchase from some clients, it's all internet based.

He shipped straight from the factory straight to the client.

Nothing was going on, you know, physically, you could ascertain from the outside of the structure or anything of the matter.

So we had to go through this whole permit process, we had to deal with that.

So essentially it was a little bit of waste of time for the department to do that, but we had to do that in order for the business license to be obtained.

So I thought, well, why don't we come up with a type one?

Type one does not require a permit, so when they submit, we can simply look at that and say, well, you you have no customers or clients visiting the home, no employees living outside the home are physically employed at the residence.

There is no delivery of goods or materials to the home and is required in connection with the business.

No material goods or products are produced, stored, or manufactured at the residents.

Sort of knocks everything out that we're kind of looking at under our original regulations.

So if they fall into that category, we can simply say you don't need a permit.

You get the check mark from the planning and zoning department, and the code enforcement department can issue their permit and away they go.

I'm sorry, business license.

Makes life really easy.

Now if you happen to need a home occupation permit.

So we're doing you calling a home office.

They they can be home offices.

I mean it would be a home office.

I mean, I could see where real estate would be that.

And some builders too, you know, like that.

Wouldn't be a doctor's office or lawyer's office because you've got clients and everything, but that kind of thing.

Basically, an office where nothing no activity really occurs except by the individual.

Yes.

And mostly through just a computer.

Yeah, my view on it is it's kind of a side hustle.

Uh, you know, I my wife has had several side hustles.

She doesn't have anybody coming to her house, uh, asked me sometime about her experience with herbalife.

That's a whole other story.

Umly time I've ever seen a uh class action suit where she actually got a big check out of it.

But that's neither here nor there.

But you know, it it's the internet has given business opportunities to a lot of people where you're not necessarily having people coming into your house, you're more of a middleman go-between facilitator.

And um another you want to mention the baking issue we had, or should I I mention that?

Or well, take the lead.

Yeah.

Uh for instance, that we had an issue, this is a little bit different, but um, and I think we covered under type two in this situation.

Uh, but under the language in the existing uh ordinance that we have uh was that you could not produce anything on site, right?

Or was it manufactured?

No, no retail sales.

No retail sales.

Um and we uh had a gentleman who was behaving as we would hope.

He came in and said, Hey, I need to get a business license.

Um he was sent to Kevin, and uh under the language we're like it was a home baking, uh he's baking cookies and was hoping to open.

And we said, you know, under under the existing language, you know, you can't really do that, but we quickly did some research to determine that the state has passed a state statute to encourage home baking.

Uh I don't know why, but it but it's a law, and we're like, well, you know, if the state is saying this is something they're encouraging, do we really want to be in the position of telling people who are trying to do the right thing candidly had they been selling cookies, we never would have known, but you know, they're trying to do the right thing.

And Kevin and I had a conversation, and that sort of started um this whole process of trying to modernize and update an ordinance to kind of reflect the real world what we're dealing with these days.

I'm gonna you mention just say like a person selling guns and nothing coming, and uh, he they are receiving something, aren't they?

To the home.

In the in that situation, my understanding is is they were they were a pure middleman.

They were they were uh through the internet, and again, setting aside, I don't know enough about you know the I'm assuming the federal licensure to operate as he was operating was in place, but it was merely he was taking the orders online and then forwarding to I guess a direct shipper um and then the direct shipper would ship directly to whoever placed the order.

So it was there was no it was like it was like a triangle deal to where he would he would take the order, pass it on, and then the manufacturer would directly ship to the person who placed the order.

So there was no there was no merchandise, no handling, no uh no customers on site.

It was purely a a cyberspace transaction.

So a bakery, the guy that you're with the example that you're giving, you know, even though the state was trying to promote things like this, yes, he would not fit our type one.

Not not type one, because he would be making it, but he would be allowed to get it under under the the update that we're we're proposing here.

Yeah, to to clarify under our existing section 409, it would be in controversy of what the state allows.

Um we have included the baking items into the type two home occupations, I believe at the end.

Uh bake goods are regulated by the Kentucky Department of Agriculture.

Yep.

So it's sort of a if that's what you're doing, you're going to get your home occupation permit because it's allowed by the state.

So we had to throw that in there.

It's a unique thing.

Um we discovered.

Now there can be loads and loads and loads of different ways to do home occupations.

And as for now, that's the only thing we have run up on as far as uh state allowances.

So we've stuck that in there with it.

Well, now in the past we've talked about taking some of these bigger homes and making them, you know, part business and part, you know, uh occupancy.

You know, you would live there and you would have your office in the back.

And that used to happen to a lot of people.

Some lawyers used to do that, some doctors used to do that, etc.

Would they be allowed to do it with this type two?

Um I have provisions in here.

Uh the original 409 would not include accessory structures.

This would include accessory structures.

So not so much along those lines.

Um you could have a garage, you could set up a saw wing factory, if you will, in the garage, but it has to meet certain criteria.

You know, it can't be visibly seen, noise, odors, things of that nature.

It expands the possibilities for a home occupation to occupy the actual space.

Uh before it was um 25 percent of the gross floor area.

Now, I can tell you a long time ago, and this is why this is sort of problematic for us these days.

There's a wonderful lady here by the name of Karen, and um she and I, when I was playing zone inspector, we would go in tandem.

She was with the um uh building inspection department.

She would go inside the home and do her measurements and and tally up to 25 percent to see if it qualified.

I would do the outside.

Well, she has since retired and moved on, and and that thing sort of withered away, and we sort of handle it all now.

So if you get into having to measure the inside of the house, it seems a bit intrusive to me, you know, to enter the home and start doing this and that.

Um, which brings me to the question, you know, we have up to 400 square feet for the no permit needed.

You know, what I recommend to the folks that apply for these is that they need to give me written language and the size of the room on the application, so that I have written documentation as to what that is instead of entering the home, and then if there happens to be some sort of violation in the future, we would always have that to fall back on and ensure that you know hey, you stated here in writing, this is what you're doing, and now you're you're occupying half the home or all the home, it would stop that um and put them in violation.

But are we going to allow that now?

I want to do a doctor's office.

It takes up 25 percent, exactly.

Okay, and I've got a driveway.

They don't have a huge number of people going in and out.

Same as a lawyer.

Are we gonna allow that in some of these because we're gonna come up with that, some of these big homes that they're gonna put a lot of money into and they need to have it as an office and as a home occupancy.

The under I don't see any big problem with that.

I don't either.

Under type two and and candidly, what I think really uh the biggest issue is that you can't have the signage advertising the business.

So I don't understand that.

We've got that already here in some places, and as long as the sign is discrete and it saves the structure.

That's legit.

I mean, you know, I think you need to have more than one person.

I think just working for you, two people would be probably what you would put in that.

You adjust it a little bit.

But I think that would save a lot of structures on some of these streets.

I do.

And I think real estate viewpoint, I think it would be great.

Construction view, I mean, I think it would save a lot of places that can't now be saved.

We we get several complaints of of folks that may have a business that have not went through the system and they have a sign in the yard.

And said person next door is upset because they are in a residential setting.

And the argument is, well, this is my home, this is for residences.

I don't need to see businesses next door.

If I did that, I need to move to the center of Richmond.

We we hear a lot of things.

So we are carrying on the original 409 that you know, no advertising device may be allowed in that residential zone associated with the home occupation.

I understand it, but you've got a lot of restrictions here already.

And would the person rather have the home deteriorate next to them and then somebody apply for an R3?

I mean, that's the next thing it would happen because they'll let the house deteriorate.

Or they'll put something else in it that you don't want in an R1.

Uh they could come to us in a new zone, you know, you could make it a business slash kind of zone.

You could put it to a new zone.

Well, the the But I think it's the answer to that, if someone suggested that to me, I would probably have to send them down the road and conditional use permit so that we can notify all the adjourners and they can come forth, they could get a conditional use permit for this uh activity, whatever it may be, and it'd be sole purpose for that activity for that person.

And so if that activity ceased, then that conditional use ceases.

So if I'm doing something, an activity, and I sell the lot and and Mr.

Short buys, then it does not apply to him anymore.

Uh that would be the avenue I would send to try to remedy that situation.

You know, I I understand what's being said here, but my concern would be you got a business in the residential section.

Yeah, but it's a small business.

It but it's still a business.

And it's it's one that you're gonna continue the outside of this.

But how how are you gonna regulate if you have like you say of like a doctor's office of business and you've got patients of people coming in parking?

Well, you wouldn't have that many.

Well, I mean we had medical arts down there for years, and that's just an older house.

And it worked out just fine.

But I mean, you take like in a subdivision, you got it, you got people, and then you've got a business of something running in and out of there.

Oh, you wouldn't put it in a subdivision, but but in it, but on maintaining.

But you could restrict it to certain areas.

That's what you're talking about, Board of Adjustments, you'd come to, and they'd have to restrict it to certain places.

Well, the conditional use would apply to anyone, whether you're in a subdivision or close to downtown.

But you probably wouldn't get it in a subdivision.

Well we're really talking about is you know, big houses that are gonna fall apart if we don't have some things to stop that, because it's a very expensive operation to redo your house like that.

You know, a good example is the law office is on West Main Street and Brooke Bowman's law office, and then right across the street you have Scott Collins' house.

And he came in, and I think he had been helping with this, Kevin, because it's been a while.

If I'm not mistaken, he came in and applied for a home occupation permit with the understanding he could only use a percentage of the square footage of that house.

The problem is Brooke was required to put in that huge parking lot behind the office to run a law office.

And Scott's right across the street running the same kind of business, saying it's a home occupational didn't have to add the parking.

And you go by there any time of day, and there's parked parked everywhere.

Yeah.

He's got a lot of traffic over in his in his place right now.

More than what he should have.

Yeah.

Uh Kevin, I I actually would like to remove the 25%.

Um, no more than 25 percent, because that would actually fix the residential problem where they could use the entire house almost, which I would be okay with.

That helps save some historical buildings, which I also talked to him about older homes.

Um I talked to him earlier this week about this one.

Um if you have an older home, it's usually about a thousand square foot.

Uh, if you have a attached garage on top of that, you're probably looking you know, 400 square foot, it already passes over this uh percentage, so they immediately have to do it.

If it's just like a woodworker just peddling around doing a table or two a month, you know, now they have to get a permit.

That kind of alleviates that.

So there were some things that we discussed.

Uh that's one of them is actually removing.

I'm okay with the first part.

And then to your point about uh what will uh you were talking about the uh the problem of it being a R1.

We you know, IRS allows home offices regardless, but this would just make it where they have to come before us to get the variance, is that correct, Kevin?

Yes.

That that's why we're doing this section separate from the first section, because this allows the realtor or an auctioneer or a wood workshop or a baker, not to or sorry, the baking is different.

Um somebody that's just like doing a home office without seeing anybody there, that's why they get the type one, so he's defining the difference, and then the type two is more for uh doctor's office, a lawyer's office, so that's forcing those people to come forward, and then we get to approve them or disapprove them.

That's so the I understand the difference.

The biggest thing that I had a big complaint about was the percentage of the floor area, which has always been my thing, because I think it should be a case-by-case basis.

And and that's not something that that I have decided.

That's that's simply a carry over from our old regulations.

Uh and and it's naturally here to be discussed.

So if we want to remove that, this would be certainly the time to consider that.

When you get into this, it gets into a whole ball wax.

It really does.

It gets into all kinds of stuff.

Because you know, a lot of people are pushing for historic homes, etc.

A lot of people are pushing for businesses there.

So you know, and I understand why.

Just just say we I understand the historical homes, but we just leave out a store at home, just the regular homes.

And something else you said was to the fact that when they'd fill out application that they would have to measure the square footage, whatever they use.

Now, would you take their word for it or would you send somebody out to measure?

Currently we do not.

We we used to 12, 13, 14 years ago, we used to do that.

Um, not us.

Uh us and another department would go out and do that in tandem.

But that's sort of not the way things have done.

It's sort of sloughed off uh adaptation and and just trying to get over the hump and and make sure that these things work.

We we've sort of inherited everything there.

So again, I I don't think I'm comfortable with myself or sending someone else into a home for personal reasons, whatever.

But um if I over them write it down and and have it documented, I accept that.

And maybe counsel here to say if that's a good idea or not, but uh that's how I do it now.

Well, I I I don't have any problem with it, but I just think once we decide on we need to get it right from the get-go, because I think people's gonna find a whole lot of loopholes to get through there.

And you're gonna find not only historical homes, you're gonna find next to me, you know, and people is it people are gonna take advantage of them no matter what you do.

But I mean, we just need to get as close to right as we can on the If it's a feeling uh that the board is is mutual on, you know, we can exclude any area within a historical district.

We can add that, and that no home occupation permit is is allowed in a historical district to to save a historical home from turning into a business.

I mean that's an idea.

Well, it's the business.

I would rather have a I would rather have a business there.

Yeah, I would have it the opposite way.

Yeah, the business is what does it have.

Save the house.

But if that's the case, then then this would work for them.

Well, that's what I'm saying.

I I don't have a problem with historic homes, but I'm just saying just your regular homes.

I mean, we need to get it right.

Because uh I can see a whole lot of negativity and everything else on there, you know, people Commissioner Stell, when you say that, is your concern more the the foot traffic or I'd be more concerned with the foot traffic and your and your uh regular traffic, people going in and out.

Okay.

I I that's that would be my concern.

And just like we mentioned the law firm down here, I mean he hadn't he he hadn't stopped one bit.

In fact, if you go by there, I mean it's it's plenty traffic in there.

Well, and that and and I do think the the second to last bullet point is something that we would consider on the front end, and then if it becomes an issue, we would be able to rely upon the amended ordinance that you know the home occupation is not create traffic or parking congestion, noise, et cetera, et cetera.

So that that that's the you know, we've got the carrot that is you know allowing them to do this home occupancy, but that's a pretty decent stick for us because you know the part of the application is them going to be a testing to yes, I meet all these requirements, and if it looks like the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade outside their their home office, you know, 24-7, well, then there's an enforcement mechanism that you know you're this this is not working out with.

Well, no, you haven't put in enforcement.

What's that?

You haven't put in enforcement.

You've just said what's wrong if I do that.

If I have 20 people a day and they're all over the place, but you haven't said what you're gonna do.

So are you going to send them a letter?

Are you gonna wait 30 days to send them another letter?

Or what do you what are you gonna do?

That needs to be in this.

Well, we we have we have a general enforcement section that will allow us to find 100, 300, and 500, and we can do that consecutive days.

So it can be a good idea.

So if we had someone in violation, let's say we had Macy's parade.

Yeah.

You know, and it was discovered, brought to our attention, we would first send probably a warning to be courteous.

Okay.

Give them the opportunity to correct, you know, the and abate the situation.

Citing the ordinance that they're violating as well as the punishments they're potentially looking at and citing the Richmond ordinance code for those sections.

Good.

I think that's good, but I think you need to cite it at the end of this ordinance.

That that section would come into play then at that point.

Because that way it would be you know they'll always be here.

And that would also make it easy for the next person too to say, okay, this is where we go to now.

You know.

And because we had trouble with this.

We had trouble with this down and we're talking about about the gravel driveway.

Okay, we had trouble with this, and the explanation was, well, I'm not sure what I'm gonna do, et cetera.

That's not appropriate.

What we need to do is put it down in black and white and say, okay, now this is what you got to do.

I I will reconfirm in our code uh the the on on AM legal that that's the case.

Generally at the end of any of these code sections, the very last thing is the penalty section that usually states something along the lines of anyone in violation of this code section is subject to the falling penalties.

So I I think that is currently in the code of ordinance that we have referencing that.

Um but it would be no issue at all to to have a cross-reference or add language to that if that's something you all would wouldn't need to see as part of that.

I'm I'm a hundred percent forward because I think now uh nothing for the grant down here, but people going out and renting, you know, places when they've got space in their homes or business, you know, they could they can robb, but I just just want to get it right as close to right as we can.

I personally think you ought to put a section three in there and do historic houses.

That's what I think.

Where you can have appropriation of the proper signs, you can have make sure where they're at, and they have to come approval with the through the board here.

And I mean, there's a lot of things we can do with some of these houses.

Now we've talked about that house in the corner about the traffic, but if it hadn't done that, what would have happened?

That house would have fallen to disrepair and would be tearing it down now.

So if we can get somebody else to repair these houses and have good signs and watch what the traffic is, and it have to come here.

I mean, I don't see that's a win-win situation for the city and for them.

Well, you know, you mentioned on historic home night, is there anything that the historical home said there's no signs and like it can be in the place?

No, they have appropriate.

See, there is a sign ordinance for them, etc.

I'm not sure how well that's applied sometimes, but you can you we can modify that, whichever way we want to modify that, so it's not obtrusive.

And that uh like I said, it would save the house.

They can't put something on the house.

They put a little sign out front.

And we also know that some places have parking lots in the back or big place in the back to park.

I mean, but I think it would have to come through the board here, and then we would all see it.

We've got people from every line of business here.

I mean, we should be able to make a decision if they can do that or not.

Well, as we learned going some of these historical meetings, not having the signage can be a a nuisance to the neighbors.

Just for the fact that they don't know if somebody comes there and has never been there before, or they don't know exactly sometimes where they are, so they go to the next door neighbor knocking on door.

I'm looking for lawyer Z.

Oh, he's next door.

It's like him knocking on this door.

No, they're over there.

Well, where's why is there no sign?

Uh we don't allow so I would I would say that uh I'm one for signs.

Uh and I've talked to Kevin about this as an auctioneer.

If I ever lost my office, I actually have to have an ordinance.

The KRS states that I have to have a sign in my yard wherever I'm operating, which I told him, which I live in a residential neighborhood.

So it's one of those kind of things that I look at this home two part and there's an advertising section and displays of advertising on uh vehicles, which I'm in real estate and a lot of realtors, you know, you wrap your car, stuff like that in residential, you see them, but you see them drive off.

So when you look at I'm looking at some of the stuff and I'm like, uh it's not great, but we're we're we can fine-tune it.

And that's one of those that I was really wanting to find fine-tune because the uh advertising, I think is I think we should do it because then they have to come in and approve it.

We get to approve some stuff, so we get to have a little bit of say of the taste in that area of the residential.

So we can kind of maybe dictate it towards okay, it's got to be a brick because you know it's got to match the historical, or okay, you're in a residential, it needs to be very small and discreet, you know, just something that just we it can change base by base.

And that's why I think a section three would be good.

We could add the advertising for it.

We could add more than one person, two people, this is why the came a receptionist.

Uh we can really watch what the parking is and we can all approve it according to what the board of adjustment would say, you know.

I mean, so that to me is the next way to go because you've got to do something with the homes.

You can't just let them go deteriorate.

So what I'm hearing is that excuse me, this board would like to see those.

Now, I will caution this board.

We get about Deb, correct me if I'm wrong, maybe three a day.

So that's a win.

So if you have a meeting once a month and we average, let's just say one a day, you could have thirty to review in a meeting.

People want home offices.

You're talking about home occupations.

For businesses.

Yes.

Well, I mean, I don't know what to say.

I mean, if he would need a place to put put his stuff, he's got a right to come here at least have our opinion.

I mean, he owns the home.

I mean, you know, I just I don't want him to obtruse uh be a lot of people, but I don't want him not to use his place either.

I think perhaps it may Chris chime in.

My thought is if they cannot meet let's say they do not pass the inspection pertaining to a type two home occupation, and it happens to be that you're an auctioneer and you must have a sign out front and you don't pass one of these dots.

Well then he could come to the Board of Adjustments and ask for that variance, perhaps, but I know it's KRS, but in order to get through our ordinance, would that be necessary?

Or could I just simply say, well, it's a KRS, you and I have a conversation, and we now if if if there if there is a deviation from the adopted language in the ordinance, then there would need to be board of adjustment involvement in order to grant a a an allowance under that, be it a conditional use, be it a variance, whatever the ask may be, um I don't think we can administratively say we're gonna ignore the language in our ordinance and allow you to do that.

I think there does need to be, excuse me for jumping in.

No, go ahead.

Oh, go ahead.

Go ahead.

I think there does need to be some administrative authority to determine if it's okay to sign off on certain occupational permits.

Um because if everyone's gonna come in front of you all, you're gonna get a backlog and it's gonna be very inefficient.

You know, I think the ones that require that are doing retail or uh law or something where they're gonna have people in the parking and there's gonna be traffic.

I think those do need to come in front of but if I'm at home on the computer doing customer service for Amazon, it's a no-brainer to me.

So how would we write the language then to make it easier?

I I would give the the director of the department some uh administrative authority to determine if he can approve it internally or if it needs to be kicked up to the board.

I think that's oh okay, yeah, put that in there.

Yeah.

And what I'm talking about with the occupancy, that's that's like I said, a uh type three, it would you would put the change the things down there that you would want, and it would go to the board of adjustments or whatever then too at that point.

No, we're talking about And you should also put it for just mainly historic homes, too.

For major occupancy.

That's what I was gonna ask.

Now we just talking about for historic homes and signs.

That's what we've done so far in a lot of them.

On the one in county now here, one of the ones, Mrs.

Hayden's home.

If if we do include signage language for historic homes, but not for others.

Potentially there could be a claim that we are being arbitrary and allowing it for one and not another.

So might need to look at that a little bit more in depth.

Um, I I think signage can be addressed with this.

I agree that the director authority to grant would need to be addressed, uh, the penalty section as well as drafting uh uh a section on historic houses.

I think that would make sense as well.

Also with historic houses, I would need to do some quick research because I'm not necessarily sure if the architectural review board would have a say in that, depending on what takes place.

So that may add another level.

So I mean as Kevin and I were kind of working through this, I mean I think you all are saying that it's kind of like fighting a hydra.

We're cutting one head off and three more are growing back as we're working through this.

So but it's something we we have to address.

You know, I I know y'all y'all have done a lot of work on this, so you think maybe we need to work with the suggestion would be to table it, allow Kevin and I to workshop some language.

In addition, if you all would be so kind as to potentially email Kevin and myself with there are no bad ideas here.

If you know Dr.

Miller, um, you know, mr.

Mr.

Grant, whomever um has ways to build a better mousetrap.

Uh I love the saying as a lawyer that we're like jazz musicians, the good ones borrow the great ones steal.

So if y'all have a better idea than I have, I'm more than happy to include it.

Uh so I my suggestion would be a motion to table it to workshop this before the next meeting with input from the board as far as the specific um changes you would like to see or thoughts or you know, even just Chris, is this something we can do?

I think Rob and Kevin can attest that you give me a research topic, I can get you an answer pretty quickly on that.

So this I think this is great as an initial conversation on this, uh, because it is.

It's it's a it's a big area, and it's gonna be a big change, but I think it's reflective of the fact that we want to address this for our citizens because candidly we were punishing people somewhat for doing the right thing.

They were coming in and you know, requesting a uh uh a business license, and then you know we're we know we're we're we're getting them because that then triggers Kevin's aspect of it, but the people that never approach the city uh and the bad actors, we don't know they're operating out there because they're in their, you know, they're in their their bedroom filling orders.

Um so that's what we're trying to somewhat split the baby in half to make everybody happy with this, which means we're not gonna make anybody happy, but it's something we do in city government.

So I suggest go ahead, sir.

I I just think just try to get it as close as we can.

Sure.

You know, because everybody like you say, everybody's not gonna be happy with it, but I mean we just needed where it can maybe everybody be satisfied with something, you know, along the same line.

I think that's the definition of compromise right there.

So um, but yeah, so if we could get a motion to table this for further drafting, uh, and then we will have it ready to prepare or to present at the next meeting.

Uh and then we can we table this to the next meeting.

Uh do you just want to table the first one?

Workshop.

Yeah, do you want to table this one and then go through this second draft?

I think we ought to go through it all, don't you think?

You go through it all.

Yeah, let's just go through it all.

Just to make sure we get it right the first time.

Okay.

And then we get a nice thing for I think it'd be good.

So I get a motion.

Second.

Commissioner De Grant?

Yes.

Commissioner Francis?

Yes.

Commissioner Short.

Yes.

Commissioner Miller.

Yes.

Commissioner Miles?

Yes.

Commissioner Estelle?

Yes.

I know y'all done a lot of work on this, but it's that's what we're here for.

I mean, you know, we love killing trees.

So it's it's uh and and granted, I just want to say this this is a very, very tiny portion of what our department has to deal with.

So all of this discussion, I would love simplicity.

But catching everything, yeah, Mr.

Chairman, that we need.

So if we start stacking and stacking and stacking and stacking, we're going to get outside the boundary of trying to solve and simplify something, which is an issue, but the more regulations, the more things we have to check uh box after box after box.

I love simplicity.

I just I want to say that because uh again, it's this is about this much of a room-wide of what we're doing.

But if it's something does need to be done at historic houses, and that's a great way to do it.

But it's limited to certain areas too, I agree.

Sure.

Next on the agenda is town home draft direct.

I think I'll take this one too, if you don't care, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh so what we've had uh before us, give you some cliff notes.

If you notice in our 406.4, um, these are residential dimensional requirements.

You don't have this before you this is just something in the development ordinance that tells you whether or not something is permitted or not.

So in uh R2 and R3 zones, um town homes and condominiums are permitted.

Okay.

Very simple thing, they are permitted.

What occurs physically to a town home, especially a town home, is that if you if you notice these things will have property lines sent down the walls of the structure.

Well, okay.

Under the residential dimensional requirements for R2, you must have 60 feet of road frontage.

So picture splitting a building into that little tiny unit that may only be 30 to 40 feet wide.

It becomes non-compliant as a lot for an R2.

Okay.

Um R3s are 50 feet.

You would literally have to have a unit 50 feet wide to be compliant with that regulation for the zone.

So we have encountered something we want to try to address and fix.

Sure, is as Kevin and I were kind of discussing this, and one thing that kind of popped in mind and you know with the town home development.

Let's say there are 25 units that are going in.

The issue that presents for our board of adjustment is that we are now looking at 25 variance requests because we couldn't do them all because they're all separate parcels of property with property lines running down the firewalls.

So with that in mind, and with in keeping with developmental concerns of the city and then trying to you know uh encourage good development would be to try to come up with language within the town home development that reflects the fact that the property lines go through you know the walls, but still address the frontage and all of that, and Kevin, if you want to kind of take up how we we address that.

Right.

So we're going to deal with square footage requirements for lots, those will be neck down, that would be a variance, road front is gonna be a variance, all kinds of good things.

So what I came up with for a draft to present for you all tonight is what I call or calling townhome development.

So what you would have to choose as a developer is that you would look at this and say, okay, I want to do some townhome, that's what I want to do.

Know that up front.

If you know that, you're permitted in the R2 and R3 zones, but in order to do that, you must follow the regulations set before you tonight with uh these rules in mind.

If you follow 49.15 proposed, no townhome development shall be less than one acre in size.

That's sort of a that's a gimme, something you see across the board, you know.

Uh we don't want just a single town home sitting there on a very tiny lot that that's going to be problematic.

If you've got an acre, you can deal with green space, you could deal with detention, you can deal with parking, you can deal with all kinds of things.

So one acre kind of fits.

And I can't I don't expect someone to want to build a two-unit town home, mainly because uh a townhome is defined as three units more by the Kentucky Building Code.

So I know uh Commissioner Perkins had uh a question uh through email that you know why can't there be two Kentucky Building Code says a town home must consist of three or more.

I've also stated that in the front of that as well, just for clarification for some of our developers.

Um the maximum density for a townhome development shall be 7.64 units per acre.

I sort of dabbled this on my computer, figured out what would work, and then calculated, done some fancy calculations.

It works out to about 7.64.

I know that's a decimal, but you'll see that a lot.

Uh it would come into play that 0.64 if you had 50 acres, and that's what you want to do as off-town home.

That would be a big player in that.

Um so that's how 7.64 units per acre uh was designed.

Here's the tricky parts.

The lot width in townhome developments shall have a minimum interior lot width of 36 feet.

Now I want to stop right there.

If you look, that don't go away.

Okay.

On one of the drawings I gave you uh tonight, an interior lot width.

So if you follow my cursor here, let's say this is a four-unit town home, okay, and it began its life with a lot right there, and then they split it.

And it began its life with a lot right there.

And then they split it.

Okay.

So this particular one would be an interior lot.

This one would be an interior lot.

Now going back to our language, that particular lot, its minimum.

It can be is 36 feet.

Now, what that's saying is that from this point to this point must be 36 feet.

Cannot be no less.

Alright.

Why is that important?

And why is it a minimum of 36 feet?

I had a conversation with the building inspection department director, and he supplied me with building plans that in his by definition was a true town home.

He supplied many of those architectural drawings for me to review.

From that, I derived a minimum and a maximum simply by the floor plan that was presented.

So let's say I had five different layouts of a town home.

And I took an average of each end of that.

So if that unit, the smallest unit is 36 feet, naturally, that's my lot width, because it's going to split the walls of that of that townhome.

So I came up with 36 feet.

That's how that is derived.

And all exterior lot widths will be a minimum of 50 feet.

What is an exterior lot?

Here's an example of an exterior lot.

I've got 50 up there, and there's 36.

The exterior lot naturally is going to be larger because it's on a corner or it's at the end of the actual structure.

So it's going to have green space on one side and share a wall on the other.

Much like this is laying out.

You see the green space and things there.

This lot must be a minimum of 50 feet wide before you can start the next lot.

So that is giving definition of distance between the next structure before it can take off.

So let's say, oh.

Well, same thing.

This would be an exterior lot.

So this lot here would have to be 50 feet wide.

This one, however, can be 36.

36, and then back to a minimum of 50.

It can be larger than that, they so choose.

Dimensional.

Okay.

The interior minimum lot size shall be 4900 square feet.

We'll stop right there.

Again, minimum lot size.

Now this is very small.

Now a lot of you are going to have examples in your head thinking about this.

This particular lot is very tiny.

But by the time you include the 25-foot yard front set back and corporating some type of rear yard for these folks, and is easily done in design.

So that lot can almost be cut in half.

So that should make someone happy that you're not having to ask for dimensional and square footage variances.

Continuing on, the minimum exterior lot size shall be 6,800 square feet.

That just means potentially this lot is naturally going to be larger, but it must have 6,800 square feet, can be more.

Okay.

I came on down and I got a little more detailed.

The minimum interior townhome width shall be 36 feet as discussed, but the maximum width shall be 44.

What that is is again reviewing those architectural plans and giving the developer something that they can play with.

They have a 36 feet to 44 foot ram to fit a building plan in.

So it doesn't lock them in, it shall only be 36 feet within some architect is going to pull his hair out, or a developer says, Well, that's not what I like.

I've got a different planet.

Does it meet that?

And then we run into all sorts of problems.

So I'm giving them wiggle room there for those interior lot widths to be.

So they have a choice.

Townhouse developments shall contain a minimum of three and a maximum of eight attached units.

So we have one, two, three.

That's the minimum.

This one would be four, that's compliant.

If all of these were connected, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, it'd be noncompliant.

I wouldn't allow that in a development plan review.

They would have to take two of those units off, break them apart.

So maximum is eight, minimum is three.

Any questions on units within a structure.

Where are we at now on units?

We're not because this townhome development regulation don't exist.

So where we're at now is you would have to fall back on.

Go ahead.

Now you'd have to fall back on a ton of variances.

And me losing a lot of hair.

I'm starting to lose it now.

So this would allow someone to be development ready without having to deal with board of adjustments, variances, things of that nature.

I can deal with that in plan review every day kind of thing.

So to answer your question, we're not.

Yeah, my favorite Dr.

Seuss book is Horton Hairs of Who, and we just want to mean what we say and say what we mean.

And because we have not addressed town homes previously, from a legal standpoint, we would run the risk of you know, we're kind of kind of making it up as we go along, and if we allow it for one developer, and for whatever reason we don't allow it for another developer, again, we could be accused of applying uh in this case a non-existing ordinance in a capricious and arbitrary manner.

Um I would much rather have something written that's carefully considered, and Kevin has put a ton of work into this and has done his due diligence and um in talking to our building folks and all that.

Uh I I think I think this is a a really good hybrid approach, and it's very much in keeping with other stuff.

So everybody would be on the same page, right?

Yeah, absolutely.

Because they would, hey, I want to do a town home development, and Kevin would be able to say, okay, here's here's what we need to see in the plans.

Right now, they're all not on the same page, you got different sized areas.

There have yes, they're each one would be a unicorn for me to do with.

Yeah.

And and you're at you're in a position now to determine what you would like with that, because town homes in the past we've had to deal with, okay.

So if we set a development regulation and requirements pertaining to town homes, then that's what you will get from this point or once proved forward.

Um, does that answer your question, Mr.

Chairman?

Okay.

Any other questions?

Yeah, we were sure on the garage, essentially what you would have a green space and then a driveway and then a garage going in, right?

On the plan.

Yes.

Why don't you ever consider a garage is in the back?

I did.

I think garages in the back are much better as far as aesthetic goes.

I did.

I actually played with uh putting a requirement that all parking was in the back.

I think it would be much better.

And that the idea, I don't know if any of these others, maybe this one.

Um, yeah, let's let's just use this as a general idea.

It's not spot on, but this one's close.

So this would be your main streets, okay.

And these on this particular drawing, this this is just indicated as an alleyway, so we'll call it a drive aisle.

But you're gonna come in the drive aisle, you'll pull in, and then you pull in to the back.

The fronts are are facing the road, and you don't see driveways.

And I played with that idea, and it it adjusted numbers.

So my numbers that I give you tonight, bare minimums.

Your square footage is can go up at will.

So let's say they want to do a development, such as what you're talking.

I include that on the next one.

Um each dwelling unit shall be oriented toward a public street or primary internal drive.

Now, what that says if you're an engineer, oh I could do a driveway around back.

Well, if they do that and they still meet those minimum requirements, is those little skinny lots.

I don't care how they get around it.

They can do that.

It would just involve uh cross access and egress easements on the plat.

Yada yah yah, it happens every day.

So that can be done, yes, Commissioner Miller.

Yeah, most of the places that I've been to drive the garages are in the back.

It makes it much nicer, decreases congestion looking, etc.

like that.

We've got a bigger lawn.

I mean, I think it's just a much better type.

I'm not sure you shouldn't even require it to be in the back.

I mean, it just makes more sense.

It just takes a mediocre project and moves it up, I think.

And it doesn't cost you any more.

What I do see that could be a problem, and I say all types of projects, right?

Yeah, geographically, you know, streets run out the ridges, okay.

Then what's left of the ridge sits the house, and then geographically we start dropping off into ravines, gullies, or whatever.

The grade there then becomes problematic as far as room.

You get into ADA parking or what you wouldn't have to have that townhomes, but um the grade of parking, yeah, uh slopes of driveways, and room.

That could happen.

I'm just saying, worst case scenario, you could get into some developments that are very challenged to do that if required all the time parking in the back.

Okay.

Um each dwelling unit shall have access, direct access to and contain livable space on the ground level of the development.

That's easily done.

Most cases you you will never most likely not see that.

And I put on there attached garages shall be required.

Now I found in a lot of Daniel's um architectural drawings that that he provided me.

I overlay those with the development plans.

And what the garages do is they force things apart.

They also provide that green space in the front instead of uh a solid block of concrete all across eight units in front.

It's kind of not the greatest thing aesthetically.

The garages will pull things apart, and you will have a driveway coming straight into that garage.

You'll have your green space in between them.

So you do get some green space in the front if we include garages, and they happen to be on the front.

Um some other developments around town you may know of, you know, that they don't have garages, and it's and everything is really tight.

The the the driveways might as well touch.

Another yard or two of concrete, and they and it would have been all solid.

Um so requiring garages is sort of unique.

It is common in townhomes.

It's not uncommon.

Most townhomes do have garages, but uh we may get some developers that don't want to build garages.

So if you agree to include garages that they must be included, then that'll be sort of unique in the uh regulation that they will have to include a garage, which is why I spread it out to 44 feet.

That's there's a reason for that.

That 44 feet helps that attached garage exists since it's high density, that would be one reason to do that.

Yeah, uh see the only one that you know I'd say that y'all would probably know a little bit better, but as a real estate agent for affordable homes, it does make it cost a little bit more to force them into it.

Town homes can be sold individually, so just keep that in mind.

However, it does make it aesthetically more pleasing with a garage, but like on Hampton Way where it's in the rear, if you have parking in the rear, you kind of you can get away with not having a garage.

By us putting it in here, they just have to get a variance, correct?

Uh and again, this is draft, Commissioner Grant.

So we we can again, you know, just saying we can table, we can reorient, we can add, subtract, and again, welcome any comments you guys want to send uh to myself and Chris, and we can we're already going to revisit one, so we can certainly do that with this as well.

Um like you say it would turn the lay of the land, right?

I mean the there, you know, I wish I wish it was kind of like you know my other uh wonderful departments I deal with every day.

They they have a uh building plan.

They're they're not worried about what's going on outside.

We we have to figure out how we're gonna get them to that structure and what's feasible.

And what occurs is geography.

Sometimes it could be as flat as this table, works beautiful, everything.

And then if we say you must park in the rear, we're gonna be in front of the Board of Adjustments for a variance of that to park in the front, or we're gonna be uh in front of the Board of Adjustments to not have a garage or whatever the case.

Um less congestion.

Yeah, I I I have no opinion either way.

It was more of aesthetically and then affordability.

For the affordability, it goes down a little bit.

So making it more affordable for somebody to actually own something.

That's the only reason I bring it up.

That's just a point.

I'm I'm neither here.

Correct.

You didn't require correct.

And that's the only reason I brought it up because that was one of the big things that in my industry that affects everybody that wants to own a home, and townhomes are typically cheaper to make, therefore, easier to afford.

I do too.

Because you have your storage in there, too.

Correct.

You know, I s let me just I know that's some of them.

It might be on Hampton out there.

Um, they garages just like his.

Yeah.

Yeah.

This one is steep.

I mean it'd be hard even sometimes you'd be scared to even walk down them.

But I will say for the record, I was not employed by the CD during that development.

Some I'm a steep we should we have an angle.

Well that it has to be or uh I'm way ahead of you, Commissioner Miller.

I actually have regulations in the model access and roadway manual that requires aprons and driveways at a certain grade.

Yeah.

And and can be utilized in plan review.

Uh moving on townhome developments.

I simply uh they must meet Section 41 motor vehicle parking standards.

So two-bedroom, three-bedroom, four or five, six, whatever the case may be.

We'll have to look at that through plan review, make sure all of that is provided.

Um threw this in there, accessory structures are not permitted.

Accessory parking structures shall be reviewed and approved by administrative official.

Now brings in light a new concept.

We're all talking about pulling around back into the garage.

Well, this would provide a separate structure, but it's just for parking.

So you would have a parking structure in the back, so you can get out from under the rain or whatever, have your car in the shade, and then you would walk to your town home across the parking drive by whatever might be provided back there.

That would be the only structure that would be permissible.

Um other accessory structures in a townhome environment usually don't go over very well because they're so narrow and well they're so narrow.

We'll just leave it at that, all kinds of other reasons, but um moving on.

Uh townhome developments within an R2 zoning district shall be allowed to back out onto public streets from their associated parking area.

I put that in there because across our development ordinance, if you are in an R1A, B or C or an R2, you are allowed to back out onto a public street.

What complicates things if you happen to be an R3, you are not allowed to back out onto public streets.

You must enter the street and afford motion, which means, Commissioner Miller, we gonna have some type of parking.

So if you're going to do a town home development and you happen to be in an R3 through the review process, I would not be able to allow them to back out.

They would have to provide a drive aisle or some way that they can turn their vehicle around, and most likely in a townhome situation.

They're going to have to provide parking in the rear and a way one way in, one way out, every how you get around this structure.

We would look at that in plan review.

With that being said, PUDs are naturally they're they're unicorns.

I love to use that word.

I see a lot of unicorns in my department down there when they come in.

But they're coming in in these crazy designs.

They've got dry aisles, they've got parking areas.

It could be any design whatsoever, and I would just sort of take this and make sure we fall into those certain regulations and that parking is achieved and we have access in and out with motor vehicles.

Any questions?

Long story short.

This would eliminate it ash park, right?

Yes.

Yes.

It would have helped.

Yes.

It would have helped.

It would have helped.

That I'd say that had the space, but it it wouldn't look like it.

I don't see any problem with this one.

We couldn't go ahead and vote on this one.

No lock.

I I my only since it was mentioned, it'd be about the parking garage.

I mean, would be telling them that they have to have one?

I think what it is too is No.

You would require it, but if the land used to not be able to do it, it would be left up to the land, yeah.

Then they can come and ask for the variance to not have it, which they would be right back here.

So but it would speed up your process, correct, Kevin?

Well, actually, we're gonna have that up.

I've seen so many things here tonight.

Let's see.

Accessory structures are not permitted.

Accessory parking structures shall be reviewed and approved by administrative official.

So what that means is your question is do they or they require that?

No, that that's a choice.

So geographically, if they're challenged in that manner, and they find that, oh gosh, if we can do a parking garage, that would solve all of our problems.

Or they just want to do one.

They just like the idea of a parking garage.

This would allow that.

And then I would be able to make sure all that works out and getting in and out.

People like garage.

Yeah.

Really do.

I mean, for the weather and what's true.

Allow the snow and what garages do as well.

I'll just go on record and say they also help parking because that's a parking stall.

I don't have any problem, but I mean, you know, I just want to dictate this.

No, you gotta.

But due to the fact of the lay of the land, they might not be able to and in the urgency of this.

We won't get into the weeds with this, but there are two development projects in the very, very, very near future.

And that's why this was a rush to to bring before you all.

Uh, and it certainly have no issue if you want to table it and think about it, but I see we're it's it's why it's here because we're we're faced again with townhomes and we want to uh provide a way to to do them correctly.

I propose a motion that we pass.

Uh I'd like to amend it.

Make sure that it's spelled correctly.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Outside of that, uh that's my only amendment.

But yes.

Second.

So we got a motion on that.

Yes.

I propose uh that we pass the townhome draft.

I'll second, yeah.

Commissioner De Grant?

Yes.

Commissioner Francis.

Yes.

Commissioner Short?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller.

Yes.

Commissioner Miles?

Yes.

Commissioner Estell.

Yes.

Good work.

Kevin.

Uh next is director's report.

Um say is I think we have collected all tablets.

Uh, we're going to have IT update those and probably in the very near future we'll start implementing those tablets.

Um everything will be sent to them.

But it it will be a little while.

We're going we're going to order everyone new tablets and things and uh and get those situated.

We we are also going to probably provide training if anybody is interested in in using it, downloading, uploading the the cloud, what whatever the case may be.

IT is very willing to help.

Um spoke with Jonathan.

It might be that he uh integrates remote uh use with that, which would allow him to upgrade or do anything with the tablets remotely.

So you're not chasing us down and we're not aggravating you to come get them, you bring them to us, whatever for updates.

You can actually do that from right here.

Other than that, uh I think I've talked you to death.

If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Well, I think you've done a great job.

Yeah.

Put a lot of work in it all.

All of you.

All of you.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion we adjourn.

Who's second?

Doc Miller.

Okay.

Commissioner De Grant?

Yes.

Commissioner Francis?

Yes.

Commissioner Short?

Yes.

Commissioner Miller?

Yes.

Commissioner Miles?

Yes.

Commissioner Estell.

Yes.