# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - February 28, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 28, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2904 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2904?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-02-28 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 12,010 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on February 28, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included consideration of five agenda items. The Commission took nine votes and heard five public comments during the session. The meeting addressed a mix of zoning amendments, development plans, and procedural matters. Two zoning map amendments with associated development plans were approved: the Kirk & Carol Snyder Zoning Map Amendment & Michael Gentry Property Zoning Development Plan, and the Steve & Cathy Snowden Zoning Map Amendment & Henry Clay Subdivision #2 Zoning Development Plan. A third zoning matter—the Patricia Donohue Zoning Map Amendment & Ethington and Ethington Property (Bowman House) (AMD.) Zoning Development Plan—was postponed. The Commission also approved the initiation of text amendments related to the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program and approved a Planning Commission work session on the Comprehensive Plan Update. ## Attendance **Present:** Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Bill Wilson **Absent:** Frank Penn **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes from January 31, 2013** [timestamp: 0:07:30] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Bill Wilson. Passed unanimously 10-0. **Postponement of MAR 2013-3 and ZDP 2013-15 to March 28, 2013** [timestamp: 0:09:36] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Karen Mundy. Passed unanimously 10-0. **MAR 2013-1: Zone Map Amendment for 3270 Richmond Road** [timestamp: 0:21:08] Approval of zone map amendment from P-1 to B-3 for property at 3270 Richmond Road. Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Karen Mundy. Passed unanimously 10-0. Conditional zoning restrictions include prohibited uses such as adult entertainment, drive-throughs, nightclubs, billboards, cell towers, and hotels. Property must be developed in accordance with the Richmond Road Access and Landscape Ordinance. **ZDP 2013-9: Preliminary Development Plan for Michael Gentry Property** [timestamp: 0:21:39] Approval of preliminary development plan for Michael Gentry Property at 3270 Richmond Road. Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Passed unanimously 10-0. Conditions include Urban County Engineer's acceptance of drainage and sewer information, Traffic Engineer's approval of parking and circulation, Building Inspection's approval of landscaping, and Urban Forester's approval of tree inventory map. Plan must denote requested zone, adjoining final record plat information, developer name and address, topographical information, construction access location, and building height in feet. **MAR 2013-4: Zone Map Amendment for 708–712 Henry Clay Boulevard** [timestamp: 1:02:07] Approval of zone map amendment from R-1C to B-1 for property at 708–712 Henry Clay Boulevard. Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Mike Cravens. Passed unanimously 10-0. Conditional zoning restrictions include prohibited uses such as automobile service stations, tattoo parlors, miniature golf, and drive-throughs, along with landscaping, lighting, and signage restrictions. **ZDP 2013-16: Final Development Plan for Henry Clay Subdivision #2** [timestamp: 1:03:12] Approval of final development plan for Henry Clay Subdivision #2. Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Mike Cravens. Passed unanimously 10-0. Approval is contingent upon Urban County Council rezoning the property to B-1. Multiple conditions apply including approvals from Urban County Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Building Inspection, Urban Forester, Fire and Water Control Office, and Waste Management. **Postponement of Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program Text Amendments** [timestamp: 1:17:02] Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Bill Wilson. Failed 3-7. Voting for: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Mike Owens. Voting against: Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Bill Wilson. **Initiation of Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program Text Amendments** [timestamp: 1:26:17] Motion by Carla Blanton, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Passed unanimously 10-0. **Amendment to Add Work Sessions for Comprehensive Plan Discussion** [timestamp: 1:30:09] Amendment to add work sessions after zoning and subdivision hearings to discuss Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Passed unanimously 10-0. ## Public Comment The meeting included five public comments addressing two primary matters: a request for postponement of applications MAR 2013-3 and ZDP 2013-15, and a rezoning proposal at Henry Clay Boulevard. **Postponement Request** Richard Murphy, representing the petitioner, requested a one-month postponement of MAR 2013-3 and ZDP 2013-15 [timestamp: 0:08:00]. He stated that additional time was needed to provide stormwater data to the adjacent property owner, Mr. Ethington, with whom the petitioner had recently begun discussions. **Henry Clay Boulevard Rezoning** Two neighbors offered opposing views on the proposed rezoning at Henry Clay Boulevard. John Considine expressed full support for the rezoning [timestamp: 0:51:14], stating that improvements made by the Snowdens represented a vast aesthetic and business improvement to the neighborhood. Karen Caton, a long-time resident of Henry Clay Boulevard, opposed the rezoning [timestamp: 0:51:46]. She raised concerns about establishing precedent, potential traffic impact, long-term neighborhood effects, and noted that vacant business properties were available nearby. **Property Owner and Representative Responses** Steve Snowden, the property owner, acknowledged the concerns raised [timestamp: 0:56:07]. He explained that the improvements were necessary to address outdated parking and shared driveway issues, and emphasized that the proposed changes would enhance the neighborhood through proper screening and additional off-street parking. Richard Murphy provided a rebuttal to concerns about precedent and traffic [timestamp: 0:59:58]. He argued that the proposed buffer and conditional zoning restrictions would prevent further expansion, and that the proposed uses would generate minimal traffic impact. ## Contested Items **Rezoning of Residential Property to Business Use at Henry Clay Boulevard** A proposal to rezone residential property to business use at Henry Clay Boulevard generated community opposition during the meeting. A resident spoke against the rezoning, raising concerns about establishing precedent for similar changes in the area, potential traffic impacts, and long-term effects on the neighborhood. The applicant and supporters of the proposal countered by highlighting improvements to the project and emphasizing that proper buffering measures would be implemented to mitigate impacts. **Initiation of Text Amendments for Sanitary Sewer Capacity Program** The initiation of text amendments for a sanitary sewer capacity program resulted in a closely divided vote. A motion to postpone the initiation of these text amendments was narrowly defeated. Three members voted in favor of postponement, citing concerns that key provisions were missing from the proposal, specifically exemptions for expansion areas. The narrow margin of the vote reflected significant disagreement among the body regarding whether the text amendments were sufficiently developed before moving forward. ## Kirk & Carol Snyder Zoning Map Amendment & Michael Gentry Property Zoning Development Plan [timestamp: 0:11:51] The Commission considered a zone map amendment and development plan for properties involving Kirk and Carol Snyder and the Michael Gentry property. The amendment proposed changing the zoning classification from P-1 to B-3 for a property located at 3270 Richmond Road. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Bill Sallee, Tom Martin, and Jon Woodall. **Proposal Details** The zone map amendment included conditional zoning restrictions designed to limit intense uses on the property. The associated development plan was presented for consideration alongside the zoning change. **Conditions and Approvals** The Commission approved the development plan subject to 14 conditions. These conditions addressed multiple areas including: - Engineering requirements - Traffic considerations - Environmental approvals **Outcome** The Commission approved both the zone map amendment from P-1 to B-3 zoning and the development plan with the 14 conditions attached. ## Steve & Cathy Snowden Zoning Map Amendment & Henry Clay Subdivision #2 Zoning Development Plan The Commission considered a zoning map amendment and development plan for property located at 708–712 Henry Clay Boulevard [timestamp: 0:22:21]. **Proposal Overview** The amendment sought to rezone the property from R-1C (residential) to B-1 (business) classification. The applicants, Steve and Cathy Snowden, submitted a final development plan for Henry Clay Subdivision #2 in conjunction with the zoning change. **Key Speakers and Presentation** Bill Sallee, Chris Taylor, Richard Murphy, and Steve Snowden participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Conditional Zoning and Restrictions** The Commission approved the zone map amendment with conditional zoning restrictions designed to buffer the surrounding residential areas from the proposed business use. These conditions were incorporated to address potential impacts on neighboring properties. **Development Plan Conditions** The final development plan was approved subject to 11 conditions. These conditions addressed: - Parking requirements - Landscaping standards - Traffic improvements **Outcome** The Commission approved both the zoning map amendment from R-1C to B-1 and the final development plan for Henry Clay Subdivision #2. ## Patricia Donohue Zoning Map Amendment & Ethington and Ethington Property (Bowman House) Zoning Development Plan **Item Identifier:** MAR 2013-3 **Action Taken:** The Commission postponed this item [timestamp: 0:08:00]. **Background** This agenda item addressed a zoning map amendment and zoning development plan for the Patricia Donohue and Ethington properties, which includes the Bowman House. **Key Discussion Points** Richard Murphy was the primary speaker on this item. The Commission's decision to postpone was driven by two main concerns: - **Stormwater Data:** The Commission postponed the item to allow time for additional stormwater data to be provided to the adjacent property owner. This data was necessary before the item could move forward. - **Detached Dwelling Unit Concerns:** The Subdivision Committee had previously recommended postponement due to concerns about the detached dwelling unit proposed as part of the development plan. **Outcome** The item was postponed to a future meeting date to address these outstanding issues and allow the adjacent property owner to review the additional stormwater information. ## Initiation of Text Amendments Related to Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program [timestamp: 1:03:47] The Commission initiated text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Land Subdivision Regulations to implement a new Capacity Assurance Program for sanitary sewer systems. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Derek Paulsen, Chris King, and Bill Sallee. **Action Taken** A motion to postpone consideration of the text amendments was presented but was defeated. Following the defeat of the postponement motion, the Commission voted to approve the initiation of the text amendments. The approval was unanimous. **Outcome** The text amendments related to the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program were approved for initiation. ## Planning Commission Work Session on Comprehensive Plan Update [timestamp: 1:27:23] The Planning Commission discussed and approved a proposal to add work sessions following each zoning and subdivision hearing to focus on the Comprehensive Plan update. **Proposal and Outcome** The Commission approved the addition of dedicated work sessions after zoning and subdivision hearings. This change was designed to create more structured opportunities for discussing the Comprehensive Plan update as part of the regular meeting schedule. **Purpose** The work sessions were intended to serve two key functions: - Increase opportunities for public input on the Comprehensive Plan update - Provide dedicated time for staff feedback and discussion **Key Participant** Jim Duncan participated in this discussion. The approval of this agenda item reflected the Commission's commitment to integrating Comprehensive Plan update discussions into its regular meeting cycle while maintaining dedicated time for public engagement and staff collaboration on the planning process. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of minutes from January 31, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of MAR 2013-3 and ZDP 2013-15 to March 28, 2013 - **MAR 2013-1** — passed (10-0): Approval of zone map amendment from P-1 to B-3 for property at 3270 Richmond Road - **ZDP 2013-9** — passed (10-0): Approval of preliminary development plan for Michael Gentry Property at 3270 Richmond Road - **MAR 2013-4** — passed (10-0): Approval of zone map amendment from R-1C to B-1 for property at 708–712 Henry Clay Boulevard - **ZDP 2013-16** — passed (10-0): Approval of final development plan for Henry Clay Subdivision #2 - **Motion** — failed (3-7): Postponement of initiation of text amendments related to sanitary sewer capacity assurance program - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Initiation of text amendments related to sanitary sewer capacity assurance program - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Amendment to add work sessions after zoning and subdivision hearings to discuss Comprehensive Plan --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, it's about 1.30. I do believe we'll ask everyone to take their seats and get started here in just a moment of seconds. I do believe everybody's taking their seats. So at this point, I will call this meeting to order for February 28, 2013. We do not have or do we have minutes to approve? We do have minutes for approval. I'll entertain a motion if it's ready to go forward. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move approval of the minutes for January 31st, 2013. Thank you. We've got a motion for approval. Do we have a second? Motion has been made and seconded for approval. If there's no further discussion on the motion, we'll vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Moving to our agenda items, land subdivision, actually zoning items. Mr. Salley, sound the agenda. Mr. Chairman, we heard just before the meeting began that there may be a request for a postponement of one of the items. I'm sorry, I've jumped ahead, haven't I? I'll back up and ask for postponements or withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page 2, item 2, Patricia Donahue, Zoning Map Amendment in Ethington and Ethington Property, Zoning Development Plan, that's MARV 13.3, and the Associated Development Plan, which is ZDP 2013-15. I represent Ms. Donahue, the owner of the property, and her son Alex, who is the developer. We've had discussions up until half an hour ago with next-door neighbor Mr. Ethington. We agreed to get him some additional data on stormwater and to request a postponement of this for one month. Mr. Nicholson is here, who's representing Mr. Ethington on that as well. So I'm requesting a one-month postponement of this zone change in the associated development plan. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. You'd be asking for one month being March the 28th, I believe? Yes. Okay. All right. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion from the Commission. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Move postponement of MAR 2013-3 along with the accompanying zoning development plan. Thank you. Motion's been made for postponement until March 28th. Do we have a second? Second. And seconded. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Before I jump ahead again, any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none. Mr. Salee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. There are two remaining zone changes on your agenda. We see a number of folks in the audience. We're not sure if both can be reviewed by the Commission in an abbreviated hearing or not, but we hope to find out at this time. The first appears on the bottom of the first page of the agenda and the top of the second page. This is MAR 2013-1, a request by Kirk and Carol Snyder for rezoning from P1 to B3 highway service business for property located at 3270 Richmond Road. At this time we would ask if anyone is present in the audience who wishes to discuss or to object to this proposed rezoning on Richmond Road. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, this can be our first abbreviated hearing this afternoon. The other item that may qualify appears on page 4 and extends to page 5 of your meeting agenda. This is item number three, MAR 2013-4, Steve and Kathy Snowden's request for rezoning from R1C, Single Family Residential, to B1, Neighborhood Business. This involves property at 708 and a portion of 712 Henry Clay Boulevard. Again, at this time, we would ask if anyone is present in the audience who wishes to object or to comment on this proposed rezoning at the corner of Liberty Road and Henry Clay Boulevard. Okay, thank you. So we will take them in order and the first one we can proceed with in abbreviated fashion. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Sally. So the first one is at the bottom of page one Kirk and Carol Snyder zoning map amendment MAR 2013-1. Let staff prepare as they are preparing. I will ask you to take note that under commission items on page 5, we do have a planning commission work session, which will be at the end of our meeting today. Thank you. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, members of the Commission, good afternoon. Your first zone change today is the very first item on your agenda at the bottom of page one. It extends to page two. This would be MAR 2013-1, a request by Kirk and Carol Schneider for rezoning from an existing P1 professional office zone to a proposed highway service business, business B3 zone involving property that is located at 3270 Richmond Road. This zone change involves about six-tenths of a net acre and just under one gross acre of property. We have the existing zoning map on the overhead, and the subject property is located to the south of the intersection of Manowar Boulevard and Richmond Road using the zoning map at Richmond Road extending into town to the northwest Manowar Boulevard going east to west in this location subject property is on P1 as is property directly across Richmond Road from this location all the surrounding zoning is an existing b3 zone on all three sides of the property there is a b1 zone directly across Richmond Road catty corner to the subject property as well the applicants are asking for a b3 zone for this location and that would put it in exact conformance with properties on the three sides of it comprehensive plan we're going to have on the overhead as well does not exactly reflect the existing zoning in the situation, in this location I should say. Across Richmond Road, it is very close to the existing zoning. The B1 parcel is shown in red as an area for retail trade. The office uses are shown as professional service. However, on the southwest side of Richmond Road, along Richmond Road, you can see the land use recommendations for professional service as well. and behind that, this property is recommended for medium density residential use. It should be obvious that there have been changes in this area since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2007. Most recently, there have been changes to the adopted Richmond Road traffic safety and landscaping ordinances in this area and revisions to the existing conditional zoning restrictions involving properties in this area. Thus, the change proposed is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan, but according to the staff report, we have found that a restricted B3 zone at this location would be appropriate because it would allow this property to develop in substantial conformance with the adjoining properties to it. The staff has recommended approval of this rezoning for two primary reasons, as has your zoning committee. The first is that the requested B3 zone is compatible in terms of use, intensity, and character with those on its adjoining properties. The existing veterinary clinic at this location is a principal permitted use in the proposed B3 zone, thus it will allow principal use to continue in operation for an extended period of time at this location. Secondly, recent changes in zoning and to the Richmond Road Traffic and Safety Ordinance, as well as the more recent development of this area are unanticipated changes since the adoption of the 2007 comprehensive plan. Our recommendation on the rezoning is subject to your approval and the certification of the development plan that will be presented to you in just a moment for this property, but the staff is recommending conditional zoning restrictions be imposed as part of this rezoning. Those appear on the agenda at the very bottom of the staff report as well. We are recommending that a number of uses be prohibited at this location. If it is to be rezoned B3, those would be adult entertainment establishments, drive-through windows, cocktail lounges that are not associated with a restaurant, nightclubs, billboards, cell towers, fairgrounds, outdoor loudspeakers or music, and finally hotels and motels. We find that these are appropriate and necessary to lessen the intensity of the possible uses at this location. since it does not have direct access to Richmond Road. Prior to the development plan being presented, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission at this time. Any questions for Mr. Salley? Thank you, Mr. Salley. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, On page two of your agenda is ZDP 2013-9, the Michael Gentry property. This is the preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change. You can see on the plan that you have before you today, of course here is Richmond Road. This is the service road that serves the properties along this section of Richmond Road. What you have before you today is the existing conditions on the property. This is the vet clinic. It's over 3,000 square feet in size, and this is the associated parking. There are 17 parking spaces associated with it. This is the existing access, as well as there's access here onto the service road, which is how the customers access the business. the creek and those is back to the rear of the property you may recall with car max across there and to the side so it's a fairly simple plan again it reflects the existing conditions it's a preliminary staff would anticipate that redevelopment of this lot of course would find you as a body reviewing a final development plan on this property. This plan was reviewed by your staff and by your subdivision committee, subject to 14 conditions. We have our standard sign-offs, and then we have several cleanup conditions that need to be addressed. They're very basic cleanup conditions, just to address some items on the plan that need to be corrected. some extraneous information, correcting some dates, denoting the developer's name and address, topographic information. And in fact, staff has viewed a PDF that's addressed some of these things, but again, until we receive the Mylar for certification, we like to keep these conditions as they are. I'd be happy to answer any questions if I can. Any questions for Mr. Martin? No. Thank you, sir. The applicant here? Yes, sir. Thank you all. John Woodall on behalf of the applicant. I'll just say that the applicant is in agreement with the conditions and restrictions. Okay. And thank you to staff for their time and effort incurred in reviewing the plan. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan? Any questions from the Commission? Thank you, sir. Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any other discussion, comments, or a motion. Yes, ma'am. Move approval of MAR 2013-1, Kirk and Carol Snyder, for the reasons outlined by staff, including the prohibited uses. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Brewer for approval of MAR 2013-1. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Now we need a motion for the ZDP. Move approval of ZDP 2013-9 with the 14 conditions outlined by staff. Thank you. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Brewer for approval of ZDP 2013-9. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Our next is on page 4. It's item 3, Steve and Kathy Snowden, Zoning Map Amendment, Henry Clay Subdivision, number 2, Zoning Development Plan, MAR 2013-4. And there's a ZDP 2013-16 on page 5. Thank you. appears on page 4 and extends on page 5 of your meeting agenda. This is MAR 2013-4, a request by Steve and Kathy Snowden for rezoning from an existing R1C single-family residential zone to a proposed neighborhood business zone for property at 708 Henry Clay Boulevard and a portion of 712 Henry Clay Boulevard. This zone change involves three-tenths of a net acre and four-tenths of a gross acre, and as I mentioned, involves all of 708 and a portion of 712 Henry Clay. The subject properties are located very near the intersection of Liberty Road and Henry Clay Boulevard, and this is a signalized intersection about midway between Winchester Road and Liberty Road and Gatehouse Place and Lakeview Drive in this location along Liberty Road. It is the only traffic signal on this portion of Liberty Road between New Circle and Winchester Road. Henry Clay Boulevard extends about three blocks farther to the north into a T intersection at Strader Drive and continues to the south and west of this location almost all the way to Richmond Road. The corner property at 712 is split zoned. Most of the property is in an existing B1 neighborhood business zone, but the rear portion of that property extending to the southeast along Liberty Road is in an R1C zone. The building on the property actually extends across that zoning line, there has been a conditional use permit issued by the Board of Adjustment to allow the extension of the B1 zoning regulations up to 50 feet into that property that is a provision of the ordinance that's been there for a number of years to deal with split zone properties such as this the property at 708 is also R1c and it is occupied currently by a single-family dwelling we've put on the overhead the zone change that's before you from R1c to B1 the B1 zone is proposed to remain there is a small center at this location that is proposing to be expanded and you'll see a picture of that with the development plan will be presented in a few moments using some aerial photos I like to orient you a little more to this property into this area in we have Liberty Road Henry Clay Boulevard is here 712 Henry Clay is this property 708 Henry Clay is this residential property this is a one-story building at this end and due to the slope of the property is a two-story as you progress to the R1C zone at that location this is also looking from the south at the subject property just a little closer view of the existing commercial building and the existing dwelling that is proposed to be rezoned they do share a driveway access at this location to Henry Clay Boulevard and you can also see that their parking for this center is not standard it exceeds the current urban county government regulations for off-street parking primarily due to the widths of the access aisles and the fact that these spaces here have perpendicular parking to the road this is a view looking from the other direction where can see that parking arrangement and the existing angled parking here that has access both to Henry Clay and to Liberty Road at this location this is a straight-up overhead view that also shows this shared driveway arrangement for the dwelling that is part of the zone change and also serves the rear of this commercial building at that location As we always do, we look to the comprehensive plan for guidance when we have a zone change request. It's at the very bottom there. And in this location, again to orient you, we have Winchester Road here, Liberty Road, extending to New Circle Road in this location. The neighborhood center is identified on the comprehensive plan. and all of 712 Henry Clay Boulevard is shown as an area of existing retail trade and personal service use. The surrounding uses to this location are shown for medium density residential use on that side of Liberty Road. And that is defined by the comprehensive plan as development residential density of 5 to 10 dwelling units per net acre. So the staff finds that the zone change is not entirely in agreement with the comprehensive plan's recommendation. Clearly, the portion that is recommended for retail, trade, and personal service use is in agreement with the plan. However, the proposed zone change for the existing dwelling, taking that to a B1 zone, is not in agreement. As the photographs indicated, the shared access drive situation is a most unusual circumstance. The fact that a residential home and the rear of the shopping center share a gravel driveway is not a usual circumstance that you find. In addition, a small commercial addition to the building is proposed on that side that will also allow for additional parking for the neighborhood center. It will also allow for the proper type of landscape screening to be installed between the parking lot and the commercial uses and the existing residential homes in the area. this we think as a staff will strengthen the neighborhood shopping center by allowing a slight increase in its size and will stabilize its long-term viability since it will have proper screening and a more finished type of appearance than was indicated in the photographs we have one more photo to show this is an aerial and the conflicts that this driveway situation presents is very much illustrated with this photo where we have believe that's a garbage truck at this location where it's the parking and the driveway to the home we just randomly came across this in the pictometry suite of the urban county government photography. Again, proving how unusual a circumstance this is. There are also goals and objectives of the brand new 2012 comprehensive plan that the staff has reviewed. Specifically, two themes that have been adopted. Number A2A, which calls for opportunities for infill and redevelopment to support and respect areas, context, and design whenever possible. And an additional one, number A3B, which provides for well-designed neighborhoods and communities. We think these both speak to the positive aspects of this proposed zone change. As, again, I mentioned, it's partially in agreement with the plan and partially not. the staff is cognizant of the residents that live in this area and the fact that this center may become more active with this small increase in size and the staff is recommending that conditional zoning restrictions be adopted for the two lots that are before you today we believe that there should be some use restrictions there should be additional landscaping required along the new zoning lines between B1 and R1C, and also that there be no pole lighting allowed on these two R1C properties going to B1, that any lighting be restricted to the existing B1 property. That property being already B1 is not technically eligible for these types of conditional zoning restrictions, but the staff does believe that they should be employed for the rezoning of the two lots that are before the Commission this afternoon. The staff is recommending approval of this rezoning. The first reason is that the requested B-1 zone is in agreement with the land use recommendation of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan for the portion of 712 Henry Clay Boulevard that is recommended for retail, trade, and personal services land use. Secondly, the 2012 goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan are supportive of sustainable small neighborhood centers, and those are specifically theme A2A and A3B. Thirdly, the requested B1 zone, if restricted via conditional zoning, is more appropriate than the existing R1C zoning for 708 Henry Clay Boulevard for the reasons we've listed on the agenda and in our staff report. To briefly summarize, those are that the requested B1 zone will allow for a landscape buffer to be installed along the property line and will permit a more adequate service and delivery area for the neighborhood center. Secondly, that the requested B1 zone will allow a small addition to the neighborhood center and an addition to the off-street parking for that use. And thirdly, shifting the R1C zoning line as proposed, approximately 50 feet in two directions, will allow buffering and maneuvering on the subject property and allow for better site circulation. I mentioned that the staff is recommending conditional zoning. We are recommending a number of prohibited uses in these two new B1 zones. Those would be for automobile service stations, tattoo parlors, miniature golf courses, circuses and carnivals, community centers, drive-thru facilities, and any outdoor live entertainment. As I mentioned, we are proposing landscaping and lighting restrictions. In terms of landscaping, we would like to see a conditional zoning restriction to require a three-foot hedge be planted along the new R1C B1 zone line in between the required trees that are necessary to have the proper zone-to-zone screening. And secondly, no pole lighting may be installed on either of these two lots on the subject property. Finally, we're also recommending signage restrictions, recommending that no freestanding signs be erected within 25 feet of a residential zone, and secondly, that no directional signs, the small signs that say enter, exit, and give brief directional types of guidance to motorists, be installed within 20 feet of a residential zone. This concludes our report on the zone change. Prior to the development plan being presented, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the commission at this time on this proposed rezoning. Any questions for Mr. Selle? No. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Good afternoon. The development plan is at the bottom of page 5 under item B. It's ZDP 2013-16. 16, Henry Clay Boulevard, subdivision number 2. It is located at 708-712 Henry Clay Boulevard. This is a final development plan the applicant has submitted. Along with the zone change, the applicant does have the option to request that this plan be a final development plan. So as shown here today, it would not be back again prior to permits. the plan does propose a 2700 square foot addition to this portion of the property along Henry Clay Boulevard total of about 17,000 square feet for the full center the biggest change to the development plan is in the access alignment as Bill mentioned it does close about half of the apron that was from here to here gives a better delineation of the access on this portion of the property and an apron for the full driveway in this area to come all the way through. The subdivision committee reviewed this development plan and did recommend approval subject to the 13 conditions as shown on your agenda. The applicant did give us a revised plan last week that did take care of one of the conditions related to the parking arrangement on Henry Clay Boulevard. That's condition number 10. subdivision committee it was discussed about the remaining two spaces in this area and the backing out of spaces onto the henry clay boulevard right of way this plan was an improvement over the previous one that had shown the further spaces down where people would still actually back onto the street the conversations with traffic engineering involved making these two spaces compact spaces and that their location was acceptable so that condition number 10 could be deleted on your agenda based on that revised recommendation. Condition number 11 is a common condition we have on final development plans that are submitted with zone changes. Given the two week turnaround required in order to certify a final development plan, we always want to make sure the applicant is aware of the sign offs needed and the timing involved in getting a final development plan certified. If the applicant's intention is to maintain this plan as a final development plan, we would be okay with the Commission deleting that condition as well. If you have any questions for the development plan I'd be happy to try to answer them. Any questions for Mr. Tegner? No, thank you sir. Applicant? thank you very much mr chairman i'm dick murphy i represent steve and kathy snowden steve snowden is with us today on the second row. Tony Barrett, our designer from Barrett Partners is on the first row. We also have Mr. John Considine with us who is a neighbor who is back in the back there who is here to express his support of the zone change. He lives nearby on Henry Clay Boulevard and Liberty Road. excuse me nearby Liberty Road and I'm also passing out a letter from a neighbor who is directly behind us touching us here that's Mr. Turner he lives at 1601 Clayton Avenue and we've been in touch with him and as you can see from the letter we've submitted he is in support of the zone change after going with over this with me and Mr. Snowden here so we're pleased to have We have two of our neighborhood supporters, one here and one present by letter to you. Just as background, Steve and Kathy purchased this shopping center two years ago this month in March of 2011. Unfortunately, he didn't have any before pictures of what the shopping center was like, but luckily Bill Selle did. Those aerials you saw were before pictures. You could see the flat roof and a little bit of what the condition was. Unfortunately, it didn't have any street-level pictures to show the status of what it is right now. But luckily, we do. And if you could put the first photograph on there, this shows the shopping center as it is today. Actually, it was as it was about a month ago. These little white spots, that's snow up there. It was one of those days we had snow. That's not a problem with the roof or anything. But I wanted to show this to you because it shows what Steve and Kathy Snowden have done just in the last two years. If you remember the aerial photograph, that was a flat roof building at that time. Obviously, looking at this, it's not anymore. They tore out the entire fronts of this shopping center and replaced them with what you see right now. they added this little cupola here and this hip roof feature right there on it and the roof there on that the slant roof all new in the last two years if you could show the second picture just shows a little more detail of what the corner is and the roof of the corner it's occupied right now with the main tenant is the lunchbox which is a popular restaurant over on the Liberty roadside there's the cupcakes cupcake bakery and on this side going down to the right there's a chiropractic and wellness center and there's the beehive which is sort of an upscale retail and consignment store on this so there's four stores in the property right now when they bought it there were there was one tenant there was a restaurant that may or may not have been serving neighborhood needs most of the shopping center the vast majority of it was totally vacant the building had run down there were leaks in the roof and that sort of thing and so they have received many many compliments from neighbors in the area about upgrading the area and bringing some activity back to this shopping center if you go to the third picture this just shows the area is a very nice area out here. This is standing in front on Henry Clay Boulevard looking up toward the Eastminster Presbyterian Church. One reason I had that picture in there is that if you go out to the shopping center, you'll see signs in the shopping center that additional parking is available at Eastminster Presbyterian Church across the way. Unfortunately, Steve and Kathy have found that people don't use that. Perhaps it's because the sort of unusual sort of Y intersection that comes up there. Maybe it's because it's too far. People don't want to walk too far. But very few people, unfortunately, use the parking that they have available through agreement with the church. going to the next picture the this shows the driveway on the Henry Clay Boulevard side of the property this is the edge of the shopping center this is the building right next door this is the building that has been purchased by mr. mrs. Snowden and will be removed in order to allow the features that we show on the development plan but it illustrates the situation we have here this is the driveway to the service area in the back of the shopping center you can see those cars are parked right there we don't know if they're parking for the residents or if they're parking for the shopping center because it's a shared driveway that overlaps both property lines part this driveway is in the b1 zone part of it's in the residential zone there's no separation there at all and all the trucks that make deliveries and the garbage trucks utilize this driveway coming down to reach the service area in the back if you go to the next picture i'm just showing the service area in the back right now right now it's gravel but that area has been vastly improved as well since Steve and Kathy purchased it. Going to the next picture, we're showing the view down Henry Clay Boulevard. This is our current entrance to the park. This is one of the cars that was shown in that previous picture parked in the joint driveway. There is some parking on the street there. One reason we're doing this zone change is to try to alleviate on-street parking issues in the neighborhood. And if you could go to the last picture, this is looking up, we're looking down Henry Clay Boulevard, closer to the intersection with Liberty Road. And those parking spaces that Mr. Taylor mentioned, and I think Bill had mentioned about backing out, these are the ones that are going to be eliminated by this development plan to prevent them from backing out onto Henry Clay Boulevard as they exit. So those were the pictures I had and wanted to, of course, tell you a little bit more about it. The two main issues we have facing the shopping center are adequate off-street parking. Right now we have 34 off-street parking spaces. This plan shows 50 off-street parking spaces. Now, we'll probably need about six or seven to meet the requirement of the entire shopping center now. Right now, we don't have enough under the zoning ordinance requirements. We're nonconforming. This has obviously been here since before zoning. We're nonconforming as to parking. This will make us conforming and give us, I think, eight spaces in excess of what we want. and that has been probably the only complaint that the owners have heard about this from neighbors is that the success of the center or the fact that it's now successful has caused some on-street parking and we think by having these eight spaces in excess of what the requirement is, we will greatly alleviate on-street parking issues in this area and we're going to be improving the existing layout of the parking on the property as well. The second issue is that shared driveway and access we have with the property at 708 Henry Clay. As I mentioned, Steve and Kathy have purchased that. Right now there's no screening or buffering between those two properties. They share the driveway. The trucks use it to get in and out there. On our plan here, we will be able to have an appropriate buffer between our property and the adjoining property. We have revised the development plan here so that the parking spaces face toward the shopping center building, so people won't be pulling in facing this way with headlights facing the residential area. We're going to have the fence and landscaping as shown on Tony's plan, so we'll have much better buffering and screening between the business zone and the residential zone if you approve the zone change than we do right now. There's a modest increase. That's the addition to the building shown right there. The fencing will go along the back as well. Apparently behind there, there was a portion of the property that was fenced off from the rest of the property, and the neighbors behind here, Mr. Turner especially, had said that that wasn't taken care of, It wasn't being mowed, wasn't being cut, and this will allow us to fence in that property and take care of it and clean out the snakes and the weeds and all the things that have been there. So he was very happy about that. As Mr. Selle mentioned, the Liberty Road portion is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. We feel the side portion is in agreement with your goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan because there are so many that relate to viability of neighborhood shopping centers. I'm not going to finish putting you all to sleep by reading all the 15 goals and objectives that support this. But just to summarize, as you know, there are many that support the viability of neighborhood shopping centers. There are many that support being able to walk or bike to neighborhood shopping centers. and there are many that support being able to use the existing infrastructure to support appropriate infill. There's about 15 of them. I won't read them all. That's the one-minute summary of the goals and objectives. But we really do meet this here. and I think this is a great illustration of a neighborhood shopping center that they don't just exist on their own. Just because it has a nice location with a nice neighborhood around it and a church across the street doesn't mean that a shopping center is going to be viable just on its own because two years ago it really wasn't a viable shopping center. It takes a lot of energy and a lot of activity to make it work. And the Snowdens have shown that by putting the energy and their money and their time into fixing this up and making it what it is today, which has been, as I said, they have received nothing but compliments about what they have done in the neighborhood here. But what we're asking you for today is the zone change that will maintain the viability of this shopping center. We want to make sure it continues to work. We'll have a slight increase. We'll be able to put one little shop additionally in here, most likely. But most important, it'll give us additional off-street parking over and above what's required by the zoning ordinance. As I said today, here we have Mr. Considine as a neighbor who is supportive of it. Mr. Turner supports it. We do agree with the conditional zoning restrictions that the staff has imposed. We understand that the uses they're mentioning there may not be appropriate for this situation. We have improved the parking situation, so we agree with the conditions on the development plan. And I've talked to Tony, and we are comfortable with this remaining final development plan. So we thank you very much for hearing our zone change application. This is one I particularly enjoy working on because I think it truly has been an improvement to this neighborhood, and it shows what two people can do if they set their minds to it and work hard and do something that the neighborhood likes. And we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, and we appreciate your thoughtfulness towards our attention span. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Not that I think you have a short attention span or anything like that. I want to make that clear. Any questions? I don't know. I started it. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in favor of this plan? Zone change request? Yes, sir. Please come introduce yourself. Hi. My name is John Considine. I reside at 1136 Liberty Road, which shares the Snowden's property intersection. as the stones attorney mentioned earlier the property previously was a blight to the neighborhood what they've done has been a vast improvement aesthetically and business-wise and i'm in full support of whatever they want to pursue over there thank you all very much thank you mr constein others in the audience wish to speak in opposition of yes ma'am please come forward thank you mr. chairman members of the Planning Commission my name is Karen Caton I'm a 25 year resident of Henry Clay Boulevard I own home have for 25 years so I've seen a lot of changes and a lot of happenings on Henry Clay Boulevard I am not in favor of rezoning this residential property for business and I ask you to consider four points in your decision-making process my first point is about the site history. This site, which is 712-720 Henry Clay Boulevard, has been a fixture in its current location since 1952. So 62 years it's been a business in the neighborhood in the same footprint. And it's housed a variety of businesses. And I was very surprised to see things like Hart's Dry Cleaning, Smoot's Drug, a variety of grocery stores and restaurants through the years well before my memory. So it's been viable for 62 years. So I'm questioning why does it need to expand now to continue to be viable, particularly for the expansion into 708, which is currently a residence. My second point is precedent setting. The change of the zone from R1C to B1 for 708 establishes a precedent for this practice in this area. No property on Henry Clay Boulevard has ever been rezoned for business and you all may recall our most notable brush with this was the closing of Julia you in school and the struggles we had to to find something appropriate for that kind of space in this strongly residential area nearby properties notably 704 and 700 Henry Clay Boulevard and potentially property on Liberty Road will be likely targets for business zone expansion because there's nothing between the business and this now. And I don't believe that any kind of border shrubbery, whatever you want to put in, will stop that interest. The third point I'd like you to consider is traffic impact. Henry Clay Boulevard street conditions are already burdened with very high traffic volumes, high speeds, and large commercial vehicles. In fact, the Division of Traffic Engineering is now conducting a study for us. I speak only for myself, but for us as residents of Henry Clay Boulevard, looking at traffic calming measures. I would propose that parking on the streets is not really the problem. It's the symptom of the overburdened residential street. My next point is long-term neighborhood impact. Zone changes in residential areas are not short-term events. I don't think any of us think that it's not a positive thing that the condition of the property has been improved, but properties, particularly business properties, tend to go through cycles, ups and downs with the economy. No one can say what will happen on this property in the future, not the owner, not the planning staff. Once it's zoned B1, all B1 uses are permitted there, and there are 19 principal uses. Now, I understand they're proposing some restrictions, but I'm guessing those are subject to future review. Also, we're enlarging a B1 block, and any time you enlarge a B1 block, you're inviting more interest for larger business interests. One final point, time permitting, there are nearby properties already zoned for business that have vacancies. One, Strader Plaza has struggled immensely to find tenants. So wouldn't we be better served by keeping our residential properties residential and filling the current business properties that have already been developed? So I would ask that the owners consider meeting their needs within the scale of the current property, if at all possible. So thank you for allowing me to speak and for your consideration of these points. Thank you, Ms. Katen. Any questions for Ms. Katen? Commission? No? Thank you so much. Thank you for your concern and interest. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak? Yes, sir. I'm Steve Snowden, and I am the owner of the property that we're talking about. I can understand and appreciate her concerns and what she's saying. The property has existed for 70 years, and in the last, oh, six years before I got it, it was vacant except for the one place it was, an existing restaurant on the corner. since we have bought the property and redone it and her concern to vacancies on straighter drive she's correct however because we went in and basically reconstructed the property it was very simple to rent out the problem that we have for it to success is that as you know with a restaurant a neighborhood restaurant restaurants have to have parking the parking situation that we have there currently is outdated. We have situations where people are backing out in the street. We have people that are parking on the street. These are causing concerns. The primary reason of this was to be able to buy the house that we share a driveway with that causes problems with the sanitation trucks coming in, the deliveries for the restaurant. It's just not a plausible situation. So by doing that, I decided to buy the house and to tear it down where we could get the proper parking and be able to enter the property for the trucks to be able to deliver to the back of the restaurant. As to the addition to what we're talking about, we're talking about a retail space. We're not talking about a restaurant, something that's going to require a low parking area. The Hands-On Healing Chiropractic is open four days a week and they're closed between 12 and 2, which helps to facilitate the parking for the restaurant. So in as much as the parking that they require is probably two or three spaces at the most, there's two people in there. We have had numerous people come to us, and it was very easy to run out because of the location. And we've had numerous people come to us through Word of the Grub find about hearing about putting something else in. Since we have bought this and redone it, it was vacant, There are now some 30-something people that are employed in all of these units. That was empty. Obviously, no one worked there. There were two people that were in the restaurant in the corner. But aside of that, those businesses that had been there before they had gone out because of deplorable conditions had been there for a long time. I think you guys are familiar with Moore's Framing Shop. They've been there 19 years. The reason these people left was because of the deplorable condition. Not because of the location, and at that time not because of the parking, but because of the conditions. And because of that, we went in and bought it and were proud to fix it up to where, you know, I could drive about every day and say that I'm glad I did it. We could have done it a lot cheaper, but we didn't. We chose to do it in a manner that we thought fit the neighborhood and behooved everybody. We've had numerous neighbors, numerous neighbors come in and thank us for what we've done. numbers obviously if you lived close to or adjacent to that and saw the past conditions what it was and what it is today you would feel that it's increased your property values all of those people that have come to us have said that and we appreciate that i appreciate your time thank you thank you mr snowden um no i said thank you Mr. Murphy, would that act as a rebuttal for you, or do you need to add anything? Yes, sir. As far as precedent goes, you all, anything that comes up, you all would have to vote on. We're here because we said we could establish a landscape buffer between us and the residential area next to us. The traffic impact, as Steve, I think, mentioned, what would go into the new space would be a very low impact. I asked him what would go in there. He said, well, I don't want to talk to anybody before I get approval, but what he anticipates is a lamp store, framing store, rug store, that type of thing that could fit in a small space like that, which would not be a heavy traffic generator. I think very little that could go in there with the conditional zoning restrictions that we have would be a traffic generator. And the only other thing I'd mention is that the nearby neighbors we spoke to have been very supportive of this. I think Ms. Caton certainly has every right to voice her opinion to you. I think she's in the 300 block of Henry Clay, which is down past the railroad tracks in the industrial area. but we're pleased that the the nearby residents have one has come to support his voices support one's giving you a letter and many more have spoken to mr and mrs snowden about that thank you very much thank you sir staff any rebuttal no rebuttal comments mr chairman just a couple of quick items that i failed to mention I failed to mention in my earlier comments that your zoning committee has recommended approval of this rezoning for the reasons provided by the staff. And also, just for the record, double-checking the file, we did not see any communications that we've received from any nearby residents about the zone check. Thank you. Thank you. Commission members, have any questions for anyone prior to closing this part of the hearing? Seeing none, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion. And or motion. Anyone? Yes, sir. Sure. I move for approval of MAR 2013-4. Can we do the ZDP at the same time? I'll do it separately. I want to do it at the same time. Motion has been made for approval of the MAR 2013-4 with the conditional zoning restrictions seconded by Mr. Cravens. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Mr. Brewer, do you want to continue? I suppose. I move for approval of ZDP 2013-16, Henry Clay Subdivision No. 2. If I may, I think it would be now with the 11 conditions we can delete No. 10 and 11. Delete 10 and 11? Yes. If that's okay with you. Yep, that's fine. Okay. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Cravens for approval of ZDP 2013-16 with the now 11 conditions deleting number 10 and 11. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes as well. Thank you, folks. Thank you, Ms. Caton, for coming. Our next item on the agenda is under commission items. its initiation of a text amendment related to sanitary sewer capacity assurance program. I think Mr. Salley, you're going to guide us through that. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This item appears on toward the bottom of page five of your agenda. The staff is asking the Commission to consider the initiation of a text amendment to the zoning ordinance and also to the land subdivision regulations to further implement the capacity assurance program that's expected to go into full effect in the middle of this year. At your place you should have a revised draft text of two sections of the zoning ordinance and two sections of the land subdivision regulations with today's date. Many of you will recall we presented the initial draft of this to you at your work session last week and there is one change to note on this draft that I'd like to highlight. It is on the second page which at the bottom is numbered number 21-1 and it pertains to the draft of 21-4-B of the zoning ordinance where we have bolded in the middle of that section the words or has been reserved. This was prompted by a question for Mr. Cravens at your work session about the fact that capacity on the filing of a development plan and the fact that there may be a timing delay between the time that plan is filed and an applicant actually wishes to develop the property. As you know, when you approve a development plan, a petitioner has up to one year to meet all of the conditions that you may attach to that approval and certify the development plan. In talking with our law department and also with representatives of the Division of Water Quality and with the consultant that's been hired to fully implement this capacity assurance program, this language will enable a developer or an applicant to reserve capacity under the program as it's already designed and be able to have that assurance that they can proceed on their project accordingly. So that's why this language has been added to this portion of the zoning ordinance. They don't necessarily have to have capacity. They can have a reservation for the capacity as well. So this is a change we wanted to bring to your attention. The other sections to Article 5 of the zoning ordinance and the two sections of the land subdivision regulations that we presented to you last week are not changed from the previous draft. If you decide to initiate this change today, this would probably be scheduled for a public hearing a couple of months from now. And we would, of course, bring that to your zoning committee as well. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about the request for these text initiations. Thank you. Questions? Ms. Blanton, first. I seem to remember that there are some entities that would be exempt from this, some public facilities, and most of them don't have to come before us. Are there any instances in which a hospital or something is exempt that we need to put language in here because it still might come before us, or is that not an issue? There is a component of the Capacity Assurance Program that will allow essential public facilities to proceed with development, whether or not capacity happened to exist. And it's anticipated that even with this language, that they would be able to provide the necessary documentation that they are an essential public facility and capacity is going to be granted to them. Let Ms. Roche-Phillips, Dr. Roche-Phillips go first. Thanks. What about the waiver, the question of the waiver? I appreciate you asking that, and I'm sorry I did not mention that. We also had discussions about that. And the general consensus of the group that was reviewing that issue yesterday afternoon was that theoretically it is possible that someone could come with a waiver request to your land subdivision regulations. It is difficult to anticipate how and what form that might come in. We know that we have essential public facilities and services that can advance through the program, and we know that a lot of the banks that will be created will change over time. I think that was the general consensus. It is theoretically possible, but we cannot figure out in our minds how that would come in a specific example to the Commission. But like all of your subdivision regulations, it is possible for someone to ask for a waiver. You do have a significant number of findings that you're limited to in granting that, granting a waiver. Does the capacity assurance program have any kind of guidance for the Planning Commission that if a waiver did come forward, or maybe we should consider addressing that in the comprehensive plan? because based on what you just said about the essential public facilities, it sounds like that would be the only opportunity that we would have to grant any kind of exemption to this capacity assurance program. But can we get it backed up somewhere else in some other written format? Well, the actual program itself will provide some guidance, and there will be other code of ordinances, changes made to that program. The key feature of this program that's on the minds of the staff is that there will be financial fees and fines for the urban county government if the program isn't followed. So those exemptions will be few and far between, we expect, for that very reason, if nothing else. There will not be a lot of anticipation that the program won't be followed because the penalties are so strict. Ms. Mundy? Has this amendment and this process been reviewed by the zoning committee? Committee, I'm sorry, yes. It has not as of yet. If the commission were to initiate it, that would be the next step in the process. The staff would notify all of the registered neighborhoods in the county, and that would be its next review would be at a meeting of the zoning committee. It would not be at next week's meeting. It would be at a subsequent meeting after that. Okay. Ms. Beatty? So then will it come back to us, Mr. Sully? Yes, it would. We would expect your zoning committee would make a recommendation to the full planning commission after they met and reviewed it. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, you can address me as a defender. Brian Stacey. Yeah, there you go. Fellow alumni. That's the only alphabet I've got after my name. Anyway, I didn't see any mention in here about the expansion area being exempt and all the grandfathering and, you know, all the things that the Capacity Assurance Committee worked on. we think that that will be automatic in let me see if I can find the section in 21.4b that documentation we suspect that that's how that will be handled and let me provide you an example to consider the type of review that might get a plan has been approved by the commission clearly grandfathered under the program there will still be a need for the folks working day-to-day with the capacity assurance program to evaluate whether the current request, let's say in November of this year, is compliant with the grandfathered plan. For instance, you've approved a development plan for 100 units on a piece of property here in town. The request that they may have later this year may be for 150 dwelling units. So they have to evaluate the request that they get at the time with the grandfathered plan. In that instance, it may not be possible for them to issue that documentation. Conversely, that plan for 100 units, the developer may only want to build 90. That would be one where they could issue the documentation, yes, your plan is grandfathered, you can proceed to the next step and file your plan. That's kind of the idea behind what this would be, is there would be a review of the current request based on analysis of the prior plan. What about the expansionary? Aren't they exempt? Yeah, they are. Shouldn't that be written here somewhere? They are in the current capacity assurance program that has been adopted, so that same documentation would be what we would expect to see. This proposal is in expansionary 2A, let's say. it is, you know, they can provide the documentation that there's adequate capacity in that area. And did you happen to show this to the Capacity Assurance Committee? Not the entire committee, no. This has been drafted since that committee concluded their meetings in December, but the internal work group between the consultants, Division of Water Quality, Department of Law and Planning have reviewed these drafts? Well I you know I mean this went on a pretty fast track through here I mean I know we got to do it the consent decree says you got to do it but it didn't even go to the zoning committee most I know but things get initiated and then they stay that way I mean it's it's harder to change them once they get initiated I mean we see that all the time although he did respond to my comment the other day and added a few words that that's better but okay i think i think i want to move to postpone this until it goes to zoning committee and a few more things are cleared up hold that thought for a moment other discussion from anyone? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Pummel. Yes, Bill. What is in place for oversight in case there are infractions? You mean to the Capacity Assurance Program? Right. To the whole process. I think it's fair to say we have a whole division of the Urban County Government that will have multiple people involved in implementing the capacity assurance program. I can't name names or tell you even what sections of that division that will be at this point, but this will be a substantial change to how these types of plans are reviewed beginning later this year. the consent decree has such go ahead Chris I think Bill was just about to say what I was going to say there was going to be a new position created in the division of water quality there will be new infrastructure new procedures and the ultimate oversight is the consent decree and the agreed judgment associated with that so this is a big deal Other thoughts, questions? Let me say I would tend to agree that this is for the initiation of and language and wording can be changed and added as the process takes place. Personally, I see no problem with going forward with initiation. my two cents worth. I would say Stephanie our screens appear to be locked as far as. Okay okay at this point any other discussion or questions? If not I'll entertain a motion then. Okay Mr. Chairman. Yes sir. Seeing as that this didn't go before the zoning committee and I'm not real clear on what Mr. Sally was talking about. I mean I think the expansion area ought to be mentioned that it's exempt and other things ought to be mentioned. I mean there was all kinds of agreements in that capacity assurance meeting and I don't know if Charlie Martin's had a chance to look at this or not. He's one that has to work on it I guess. But I'd like to see it postpone. I don't see what it hurts until zoning looks at it. Mr. King, something piques your interest? I don't mean to interrupt when the Commission is in the middle of a motion, but if there is any clarification needed as Mr. Martin's involvement, the Law Department, Mr. Martin, and the consultants, as well as Division of Planning, all have spent extensive time and hours working on this initial draft so yes. Thank you. Mr. Cravens was that in the term of a motion? It was a motion. Okay. All right. Thank you sir. Was it a motion? Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Do we have a second for the motion for postponement? Motion's been made and second and postponement of this initiation of Texas Amendment regarding sanitary sewer capacity assurance program. Any discussion on the motion? Yes, ma'am. I have a question about process. Don't we typically initiate and then it goes to the committee? I mean, do we ever look at anything before it's initiated? I mean does the zoning committee ever look at anything and then it gets initiated or is it always get initiated and then it goes to the zoning committee? The last thing you said is always true. After initiation it always goes to the zoning committee before it comes back to the full planning commission. Most of the time when we have a draft we bring it to a work session rather than to your zoning committee knowing that the committee itself will see it later. There's no reason it can't go to your zoning committee, but again, with more recent amendments, most of the time it's been to a work session, then the decision on initiation, and then your zoning committee. Mr. Sully, will it be coming back to us for a vote after it goes to zoning? I think that's the same thing. Yes. Your zoning committee makes a recommendation on all map amendments and text amendments prior to your public hearing on zoning items. Okay. Thank you. I have a question real quick. We do have a motion on the floor for postponement. Questions in regards to the motion? Yes? Yeah, I've just got a question for Bill. I got to hear Charlie yesterday speak at a meeting about this, and there was a big emphasis on the 2A, the expansion area, what Mike was talking about. So I, too, am wondering why some of that stuff is not mentioned. here? The term is including documentation, and the documentation is going to be those types of reviews of is it in 2A, is it a truly grandfathered situation. What has to be reviewed if it's going to be exempt, I guess. Well, in 2A, presumably, if you have an approved plan. Right, it'll all be considered exempt. Now, please understand that what is in front of you and what needs to be done in the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations is one small part of all the documentation, ordinances, policies that will be in place relating to the cap. Not everything actually needs to be in the zoning ordinance text, and that was the first task that the attorneys and the work group worked on. So we're comfortable that all of that will be addressed in manuals, other ordinances that aren't zoning ordinances and things like that. So they're not being neglected. All the agreements and recommendations made by the task force that met in this room will be implemented. This is one part of that overall machinery. And the only thing I would add is that if it's not here in this section of the zoning orgs, it does not mean that that won't be applicable. It will be applicable. Yes ma'am. Miss Plumlee's trying to chime in over there. Let me go to Miss Plumlee first. I have a question, does this all need to be in place by July 1 of this year? Does it have to be? Yes, based upon the plan that was presented to the, it doesn't have to be, but that was the agreement and that's what everyone thought because it does have to be in place within so many days after the EPA accepts what was submitted by the urban county government on January 3rd, if I recall correctly. So time is of the essence to move this forward. And again, as we were discussing, this does not mean that through the process and the public hearing, even on these ordinances once initiated, this commission has the right to make changes and modifications in your recommendations before it is set on final action by the Urban County Council. So again, this just starts the process. Ms. Beatty. I want to be clear now that Will ask his question. So outside of the ordinance that we are going to initiate, there will be other documents that will define what are essential services that may be exempt, what kinds of things would be grandfathered in, as well as I think you had talked about fines if you did not conform or comply. So there will be another document that is accessory to this, to the ordinance? I think the better analogy would be to think of this as the accessory document to the capacity assurance regulations. The council has already adopted the program, okay, and there will be other ordinances to the code of ordinances that will set up some of the processes as Mr. King has talked about going forward. These were intended to clarify for the zoning ordinance, primarily for folks either not familiar with our system who may be reviewing our regulations over the Internet, out of town, to flag to them there's a new type of permit when they file a development plan for a restaurant that maybe has a corporation headquartered in another state, that there's this special thing they have to file. And in the subregs, that if they get to the point of an infrastructure agreement, that there's something else that's going to be expected that hasn't been in the past. That's the primary purpose of these four text amendments. Yes, Mr. Cravens. Well, I don't see why, if this is for somebody looking at it from out of town, why you don't say the expansion area is exempt. I mean, there's not much left to look at except expansion area land. So, I mean, I think it needs some more work. I mean, it's so simple. The text is so simple that it's complicated. Ms. Blanton? I'm comfortable moving forward, but I do, you know, back to the issue of for out-of-town people, I do think it would be good to have some additional references or at least reference something in the capacity assurance program so that people know what they need to be looking for. I know we don't want to get too detailed, but I do think a little more detail would be helpful. So if we could add a little bit more language, but I'm comfortable moving forward. Mr. King. I can assure you that at the subcommittee meetings and at the public hearing, we will have the consulting team, Charlie Martin, whoever, to explain to you the full array of things that are being done and going to be out there so that you will see these text amendments in context of the entire program. Okay. We do have a motion on the floor and second for postponement of this. I think at this time I'll call for a vote. Our screen is locked up, I believe. so I would just ask for a motion on a show of hands those in favor of postponement please raise your hand looks like we've got three in opposition or of the postponement please raise your hand I think the motion failed so at this time I would entertain another motion yes ma'am Mr. Chairman, I move that we initiate the text amendment as presented by staff and with the next step being that it goes to the zoning committee. I second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the initiation of the text amendment. Any questions? Once again, I'll ask for a show of hands. Those in favor of the approval of this initiation of the text amendment, which is the motion, please raise your hand. in opposition. That motion passes as well. So thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other items to be brought forward to the Commission before we go into work session? I see none. So this meeting for February 28th is now, maybe I should make a motion. Yes, Mr. King? Mr. Chairman, I know as we had discussed before we close the meeting go for the work section, we might want to assure that there are no audience items or any amendments to the schedule for the Commission to consider. Thank you. I was wondering about that. Any audience items? No. Okay. As far as what Mr. King just mentioned, Mr. Duncan, why don't you come forward real quick? As part of the work session item, I think we're going to have more discussion, but I'll let Jim introduce his thoughts to us on this one item before we go there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In a moment when we go into work session, we will talk about the things we mentioned last week at our last work session and a number of other issues. but one proposal before we leave our public hearing that I'd like to get on the table now or propose to you to put on the table and to consider, and that would be to essentially step up the amount of time that we in long-range planning and others working on the comprehensive plan have with you in a formal process. And to that end, we are proposing that we amend the Planning Commission schedule to add a work session to each of the subdivision and zoning hearings from now until the end of May so that every second and fourth Thursday at the conclusion of the subdivision meeting, at the conclusion of the zoning meeting, just like we're doing today, then the Planning Commission would go into work session to consider the comprehensive plan. I will tell you that if during that time, during that week, we see that we don't have something, then we can certainly modify and cancel that work session at the end. But perhaps 45 minutes or so after a hearing like this would be very beneficial. And then on our regularly scheduled work session as a third Thursday of the month, then we can extend that time. But this would give us more opportunity to rotate information through you, to have FaceTime with you, and to get immediate feedback. And that is our proposal, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. And I think, as Jim just said, FaceTime with us and being with us to get our thoughts on a little bit more regular basis is what he's asking for. Personally, I have no problem with it. What we need to do, if that's the Commission's wishes, is to amend our meeting schedule to allow that to take place. So I would entertain a motion at this time. I move that we accept the motion to extend our public hearing sessions to include work sessions to specifically work on the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for this. You got a question in regards to the motion? Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Yeah, it was seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Cravens? What if we're long in session? and maybe it's 5 o'clock or 4.30 or something, you still want to stay another 45 minutes? Well, Mr. Chair, I promise you, if you invite us in, we will make good use of your time. Mr. Chair and Mr. Cravens, we will make good use of your time. Of course, if you're bumping up against a council meeting, that would be a different thing, and we won't ask you to relocate just to go into a work session. But if you'll allow us the extra 30 minutes or so, 45 minutes, we'll make good use of it. I would amend this motion to anything after 5, no go. But I guess that's... We do have a motion on the floor. Mr. Wilson, anything? No, sir. I think Mr. Craven asked my question. Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? If not, we're still frozen up, I believe. So I'd ask for a show of hands. Those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Those in opposition, that motion passes. There you go, Mr. Duncan. now at this time I think we can close the official hearing meeting for February 28th and go into work session and I believe you will notice that cameras and cameras will be turned off and do use your microphone because I believe we'll still be recording Thank you.