- All right, let's go ahead and call the Monroe County Planning Commission meeting to order for the date
- of August 18th, 2020. Please conduct a a roll call to see if we have court. Clements. Here. OK,
- thank you, Margaret. And in the future, if you do vote, you will have to show your camera as well.
- Turn your camera. Is my camera on now? Yes, thank you. OK, perfect. Thank you. Trump. Scott Ferris here.
- Jeff Morris here. Dave. Rudy Fields here. Joe Van Deventer. Julie Thomas here. David Bush.
- And then our city representative, Steve Bishop. Bishop, thank you. OK, so we have six members attending
- in a quorum. I think Tron is on line now, too. Tron and Randolph, I'm here. OK, thank you. All right,
- we do have quorum. This goes to introduction of evidence, please. Yes, I'd like to move the following
- items into the evidence.
- The Monroe County development ordinance as adopted and amended the Monroe County zoning and subdivision
- control ordinance as adopted and amended the Monroe County comprehensive plan as adopted and amended
- the Monroe County plan Commission rules or procedure as adopted and amended and the cases that were
- legally advertised and scheduled for a hearing on tonight's agenda We have a motion for approval Second
- It's been moved and seconded to approve the introduction of evidence. A vote yes is a vote to approve.
- Tron and write Randolph. Yes. Scott Ferris, yes. Jeff Morris, yes. Rudy Fields, yes. Julie Thomas, yes.
- David Bush, yes. Margaret Clements, yes. Motion is approved seven to zero. All right, that brings up
- the agenda. Do we have any changes to the agenda Jackie? I'd like to.
- bring one change under administrative business. We did have to submit the planning budget for 2027,
- so we have that and I can present that as well on the screen for folks that are joining us virtually.
- Hey, do we have a motion for approval for the agenda? I move approval of the agenda with the addition
- of the budget conversation under administrative business. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve
- the agenda with one amendment, which is to add the
- 2027 planning budget to administrative business. A vote yes is a vote to approve Scott Farris. Yes.
- Jeff Morris. Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Mark Clements. Yes. John and
- Ray Randolph. Yes. OK, motion carries seven to zero.
- All right, that brings up approval of minutes. It looks like we have the minutes from June 16th and
- also from July 21st. I think we'll go both vote at the same time. If that's OK, do we have a motion?
- I move approval of the minutes for June 16th and July 21st, 2026. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded
- to approve both sets of minutes from June 16th and July 21st. A vote yes is a vote to approve both sets
- of minutes. Jeff Morris.
- Yes. Rudy Fields. Yes. Julie Thomas. Yes. David Bush. Yes. Mark Clements. John Henry Randolph. Yes.
- Scott Ferris. Yes. OK, motion is approved six to zero.
- Okay that brings us to administrative business. We now have two items. You've got the CDO prioritization
- list and update on that and also on the budget. Go ahead Jackie. Yes so we have been making some progress
- at our ordinance review committee meetings to discuss some of these topics that are left on the screen.
- More importantly our
- most relevant to the discussion coming up next is going to be the PUD open space 25 percent discussion.
- And then we've been working alongside just internally with the landscaping requirements seeing if there's
- any amendments needed there. So that's our update for those items remaining.
- then the next would be the budget. Do you want me to go ahead and pull that up? Are there any questions
- at all on the CDO prioritization update? Any questions at all? Go on the left. Right. All right. Let's
- continue. OK, so the next item that we wanted to bring up was the twenty twenty seven budget that we
- submitted to council per the directions that they provided from the council president. So we do have
- on the screen our
- budget for 2027. It does not include a cost of living adjustment. And it is pretty much the same as
- last year with actually some reductions as requested by the council. So this is the budget for the planning
- department for 2027. Any questions on the budget as presented? Starting on my right this time.
- You said it didn't include cost of living. Is that something that the council factors in across county?
- Could it be a cost of living increase this year? They typically do it after the budget hearings as a
- countywide cost of living if there is one. I just I just want to point out for folks who aren't used
- to reading county budgets that the longevity and perf are lower because there is a vacancy
- uh, bringing on a new member changes, changes. I want to point that out. So, yep. Anybody else on my
- left? Anybody online? Yes. And just also, um, the fact that I'm hearing you. How about now? Is that better?
- can you increase the volume in the room. I'll try again. Yes, I just took it off. That's better. OK,
- I was just saying that also some things that have heard from a button effective.
- be able to hire at skills, knowledge, KSA knowledge, skills and abilities at different grid points.
- That is currently frozen. So also with the addition of new planners, there's gonna be a reduction that's
- probably not reflected in a flat budget, but just for folks edification and also if the Council were going
- smaller personnel due to that fact as well. I hope that makes sense. And if I'm choppy, if Director
- Jackie Nestor Jalen wants to clarify, that would be great. Commissioner Thomas. The other thing I forgot
- to point out is that there are some budget items on the bottom and the back of the page that are a dollar.
- Those are just to keep the lines open for the future.
- If you zero out a budget line, that line disappears. So that's why those are a dollar. Thank you. Sorry.
- Okay. Any other comments from anybody else left, right, or on line? Let's go ahead and move on to finished
- business, which there is none. And this is COA 26.3.
- which is a whole bunch of CDO text amendments to comply with some of the state statute changes, et cetera.
- And Jackie, I believe you're going to provide us a summary of that, correct? So I want to start by saying
- that these amendments are going to be heard for a vote at the next meeting. We did not
- advertises for a waiver of final hearing. So we will be seeing this next month. And staff has continued
- to work with the legal department and amongst other staff to identify any other scrivener's errors,
- changes, state code changes. So this is a document that's
- in good order for now, but we'll also need an update by next month as well, most likely. So I want to
- start with the use table. So there were some changes that were prompted by staff, and I'll point those
- out. And then most of these changes are prompted by state code requirements. So the first change on
- page 61 of the packet, temporary or seasonal activity,
- We are, staff has seen a need to add permitted with standards for that use in the residential zoning
- district. That used to be a use that we had in one of the two zones that REZ consolidated. And so what
- we're seeing is there's some rural properties that have enough acreage that can accommodate this type
- of use. So we're proposing to add that back in.
- The next change is on page 65 of the packet. So you have sporting goods stores, small, medium, large,
- and big box. This is a requirement under the state code. Recently, there's been some new legislation
- that allows sporting goods stores that sell firearms to be permitted in certain districts. So this is
- addressing that change here.
- On the same page, staff has recommended changing bus terminal. There is a P proposed in the heavy industrial
- district. So that's one red line change here, since we know that there's at least one bus terminal of
- interest in the county that's zoned heavy industrial right now. And without this change, they would
- have to go through a rezone. So we are proposing, since we think that this use is in alignment with
- the heavy industrial district,
- potentially that we included here. And then indoor shooting range, another state statute update here
- permitted with standards in the AG, limited business, general business, light industrial, heavy industrial,
- mineral extraction zones. That is directly from the state code changes here. So those are some updates.
- Next I'd like to go to page 107 of the packet. This is starting to get into some of the standards for
- some of those aforementioned additions to the use table. Again, these are going to align directly with
- the state code changes. I do have one comment in here that was from the ordinance review committee.
- where there was a strike through on the indoor shooting range that said noise shall not be audible at
- the property line. And there was a request, I believe, by the ordinance review committee to see if that
- might be able to still stay in the text. So I do not believe we've received an answer to that unless
- Timmy has heard anything, but we will continue to follow up before the next meeting on that.
- The next change is on page 129 of the packet. And this is getting into some of the bigger changes that
- we've identified that the state has made to the wireless communication facilities chapter for our ordinance.
- So that's chapter 812-3.
- And basically the state has limited our ability to regulate height of wireless support structures. So
- right now, if a new wireless support structure comes to the county, height is the differentiating feature
- as to the process of review. So if it's over 199 feet, for instance, in an industrial zone, it would
- go to a Board of Zoning Appeals for conditional use.
- Now what we're proposing are kind of two changes. One is that the differentiating process is whether
- it's concealed and that's particular to the residential, rural residential and airport zones.
- Or if it's in a industrial institutional or business zone, we are saying that it does not have to be
- concealed and can still be under administrative review. So we are seeking some feedback from the plan
- commission as to whether this is the appropriate differentiation. We've checked with legal that we can
- require a concealed tower as a differentiation of the process. But we want to make sure that that's
- in line with the
- comprehensive plan and what we would like to see in the county in general. There are some other changes
- that are being requested of us. We're basically having to strike through the image here where we were
- differentiating again by height. We used to allow 60 foot or less towers and residential. Now we are
- going to differentiate based on concealed. So we've had to get rid of this image and
- We've put together some updated images based on the state code and what we're seeing around the state
- in terms of wireless facilities. There are some that occur in the right of way, in which case planning
- does not have regulatory authority over that. But there are some requirements by highway that they're
- still able to implement. But we wanted to point it out in case it is outside of the right of way. And
- it's something that we are able to regulate.
- And then we did add some images or at least two ideas for what a concealed wireless facility may look
- like, either posted on top of a building or disguised as a tree. There are some other ideas or guidance
- in the code as to what a concealed tower can
- mean and then carrier on wheels. This is just an example if there's say a big football game there's
- sometimes these that come in and they don't require permission if they're there for a limited time but
- if they're there for so many days they do have to get a permit.
- We've continued to make some edits to eliminate some of the height restrictions. We've clarified that
- the setback or the requirement for the placement of a wireless structure is the setback of the zoning
- district plus the fall zone. The fall zone is the area in which the tower is constructed and if it fell
- over, how much area it would take to fall over.
- recently designed these to collapse in on themselves. So there may be a engineer that signs off on a
- zero foot fall zone, but for the most part we do see some area of a fall zone and then we can also implement
- a zoning setback.
- for the most part. There was also some state code requirements saying we are limited in what we can
- and cannot ask for in terms of service area, so we made those changes as well.
- The last changes chapter 844 renumbering to add in shooting range that's just moving items
- down to accommodate some of these other changes and then chapter 846 and chapter 850 both had to do with
- One had to do with the removal of a member of the Plan Commission in both of those sections. And then
- Chapter 850, we've mimicked some definitions directly from the state code changes. So those included
- mixed use residential, shooting range indoor, shooting range outdoor, will serve letter, accessory dwelling
- units, attached and detached, shooting range, manufactured home, mobile home, and sporting goods.
- So those were all state aligned changes in the code. Mr. Schilling's here. I can return to the question
- about the noise at the property line if anyone is wanting to have that discussion tonight as well. OK,
- sorry. I have something I thought about since our last admin meeting and it relates to noise, but not
- with shooting ranges.
- Are there ourselves towers powered by generators if the powers out? And that's what I thought. So, so
- can we allow for setback to accommodate for that noise? I don't know if we can do that legally. I can
- look at Mr. Bush. Yes.
- Jackie, I had one question regarding the. The. Limits to the shooting ranges at property line. Are you
- going for a zero noise or are you going for? Lower limit so many decibels or. As it was originally drafted
- before the state made the change, it said noise shall not be audible at the property line that's been
- struck through based on
- some of the recommendations by legal, but we could ask to see if maybe we could assess a decibel reading
- or if there's something that we can keep in there. Yeah, I think that in rural areas, the decibel level
- is between 30 and 40 decibels. So I think you could do that easily.
- just some sort of an ambient background, natural level rather than zero, which might be hard to attain.
- Do you have more to discuss or is that it? That's it for me. We had some on the left. How about on the
- right? Any comments on the right? I keep going back to the concealed cell phone tower.
- And where I keep going on that is I did a quick Google search, and it looks like it costs one to three
- times more to conceal a tower versus just building a straight metal tower. And at a time when the cost
- of everything just keeps growing exponentially, I wonder, you know, somebody has to pay for that. Does
- the cost get passed back to the customers? I have to assume it does. And, you know, I keep thinking
- about that with that negatively
- end up hurting the residents of Monroe County if our cell phone bills go up. The other piece of that
- too is I think it was at the BZA a few months ago where we had a variance for one in Harrodsburg and
- I wonder if we had these restrictions in place or these extra requirements in place if a cell phone
- company would consider moving a tower to northern Lawrence County or something instead of putting it
- in Harrodsburg and if that would negatively impact
- reception, you know, when more and more people are counting on cell towers for, you know, more than
- just cell phone calls for data usage for working from home in a rural area and things like that. So
- I definitely understand and support the idea of concealing them, but those thoughts have been on my
- mind since the last conversation. Mr. Thomas. Oh, after you. Okay. I was going to bring up the same
- point, but
- In fact, there's a cost factor here we haven't thought about. Seal it versus not concealing it if we
- put it out in an industrial area. Actual data point. To be able to research what Mr. Morris stated that
- it's three times the cost? If it costs three times as much or any times as much, I would argue that we do.
- have them incur that cost. I would make that argument. But at the same time, if there's not a cost,
- I don't know why you just don't have a standard across the board. That's my own thought. Cost factor
- here, let's talk about the cost factor. And it's on the same topic, concealing. You know, cell phone
- rates are pretty much nationally driven and decided. So, you know, a local decision to require concealment
- is not going to necessarily impact someone's cost.
- and we can't focus on service areas either. I still don't have cell service at my house. If I go in
- the woods, I can get it, but I can't get it at my house. So I think maybe the way to bridge this and
- come up with a compromise is to think through which zones we would want it concealed and which zones
- we wouldn't.
- Maybe that's the way to do it, right? Because we really don't want an unconcealed cell tower in the
- middle of houses, right? But where would we want to have it concealed? And maybe that's the way we need
- to think about it, and maybe staff can come up with some suggestions on that side. I mean, I'm not trying
- to make it more expensive for cell phone carriers, certainly, but I think it's
- our community deserves something that looks nice or doesn't look terrible at the very least. So maybe
- that's the way to bridge this gap. Right now what we've proposed is rural residential. So that would
- be the AGR, FOR, CVR, RNH residential, which would be the REZ, LD, CD, HD. And then I think we also did
- airport because that one has more height restrictions that's more less about concealed, more about verifying
- it meets FAA. But we could look at maybe the applications that we've had in the past, like maybe in
- the past five years, what zones they're currently going in. Would that be helpful to know that data?
- OK, sure. So I thought at the last meeting it was and I might have misheard because I was on teams that
- at the last meeting was stated that
- we could add, you know, industrial commercial blah, blah, blah. So, um, I didn't, I didn't know if that
- had been done or maybe I misheard. So to say, yes. So right now the way it's drafted, um, it's housing,
- it's housing right now. So it says new wireless support structures that are not concealed shall be permitted
- in any industrial institutional or business zoning districts. So that still leaves out airport. Okay.
- but we do have concealed, can be in any district, but non-concealed specifically still can get administrative
- review under those zones. Right, and the height at the airport is related to FAA regulations, not something
- we're doing locally. It is FAA that regulates how tall structures can be near an airport. Got it,
- thank you. So nevermind. So just to reiterate, are we okay with those
- the. Concealed zones being in the rural residential residential. And then non concealed being the. Business
- industrial and institutional districts. Or is that something you still wants to have to research on
- the cost in the list to start on our left and see if anybody wants to challenge that or accept. Um I.
- Um, that's the one I'm a little iffy on, but the others I, I accept. I agree with Jeff. I think that
- the additional cost that this is going to bring to things is, is limiting. Um, you know, back rates
- may be set somewhere else, but I think that the fact that we're in a position to, in a time when inflation
- is crazy and everything's costing more,
- for us to simply say we want it to be prettier and concealing a cell tower to me is like putting a bikini
- on an elephant. It's still going to be a cell tower and everybody's going to know it's a cell tower.
- It's going to have some limbs on it. I just think that it's a ridiculous way to spend money. Having
- come from a different part of the state where there were a lot more
- restrictions, I think, and a lot more. If it is to co-locate or find innovative ways to hang so on existing
- structures, I would accept proposed. All right. How about online? Margaret or Tron?
- Yeah, I have nothing to add. So what did we just decide, Jackie? Leave it as it is, sounds like. But
- I appreciate your point, Mr. Fields. I'm happy to bring back some cost numbers, if I can get to those.
- Personally, I'd like to see some cost numbers.
- to time consuming. Okay. Okay. So I guess we're at that point. You've reviewed all the proposed amendments
- and you're going to because this is not the final hearing because we don't have waiver, we're going
- to hear it again. Will we hear it at the admin meeting too or just at the plan commission?
- We can hear this. We'll hear it at the admin meeting. And I'll also add in the indoor shooting range.
- The noise shall not be audible at a level of 30 decibels or more at the property line. So that'll be
- a change that I'll make. I don't believe we're going to do a motion. In fact, it automatically goes
- to the next hearing. So any other questions on this topic before we move on from anybody?
- One thing I guess I should bring up, because this is a planning commission, does this require public
- hearing input? When we hear it to vote. When we hear it to vote on it, that will be the public hearing
- portion? Yep. Okay. I see nods around a row, so. Okay. So that takes us to for items not on the agenda.
- Do we have any items not on the agenda that needs to be brought up? Okay.
- it comes to reports and so Jackie if you got a report from planning. I do not have any reports I am
- happy to say though that we're approved for both office manager and planner to hiring through the council
- so we are working through those applications and hope to get those jobs filled. Great and then I guess
- from our county attorney you have anything you'd like to report? No report. All right do I have a motion
- to adjourn?
- Second.