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.