# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - June 9, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 9, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3982 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3982?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-06-09 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 10,253 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 June 9, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which addressed 11 agenda items. The Commission took 7 votes and heard 7 public comments during the session. Of the 11 items considered, 10 were approved and 1 was postponed. The approved items included several subdivision and development projects: Masterson Hills & Masterson Station Unit 10, Tuscany Unit 9, Wynndale Subdivision Lot 1 (Amendment), Tuscany Unit 3-A, Tuscany Unit 1 Lot 169 (YMCA Property Amendment), Brighton Place Shoppes Phase II (Gillis Property), NDC Property Unit 5D Phase II (Wellington), and Whayne Supply Company Zoning Map Amendment. The Commission also approved the Whayne Supply Zoning Development Plan and amendments to Articles 7, 23, and 26 regarding environmentally sensitive areas. The Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties amendment was postponed. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 9, 2016: * Mike Owens * Will Berkley * Mike Cravens * David Drake * Carolyn Plumlee * Carolyn Richardson * Frank Penn * Bill Wilson * Joe Smith * Karen Mundy * Patrick Brewer No attendees were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions **Postponement of PLAN 2016-47P: Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties (Amendment)** [timestamp: 00:06:49] Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Bill Wilson. The motion to postpone this item to July 14, 2016 passed by voice vote with all 11 members voting in favor. **Consent Agenda Approval** [timestamp: 00:11:08] Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Items on the Consent Agenda as recommended by the Subdivision Committee were approved by voice vote with all 11 members voting in favor. **MAR 2016-15: Whayne Supply Company Zone Map Amendment** [timestamp: 00:28:08] Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Joe Smith. The zone map amendment from A-U to I-1 for Whayne Supply Company passed by voice vote with all 11 members voting in favor. The approval includes the following conditions: - No lighting may be directed toward any adjacent property located in either an Agricultural or Residential zone. - Approval and certification of ZDP 2016-51: Whayne Supply prior to forwarding to the Urban County Council within two weeks. **ZDP 2016-51: Whayne Supply Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 00:28:41] Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Karen Mundy. The zoning development plan with revised conditions passed by voice vote with all 11 members voting in favor. Required conditions include: - Resolve access to adjoining development per notes #11 and #12. - Expand the plan to include the proposed and approved adjoining development. - Provide easements to serve the property and surrounding development. **ZOTA 2016-1: Zoning Ordinance Amendment** [timestamp: 01:13:45] Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Will Berkley. The amendment to Articles 7, 23, and 26 of the Zoning Ordinance to strengthen oversight of environmentally sensitive areas passed by voice vote with all 11 members voting in favor. The amendment authorizes the Board of Adjustment to require detailed site plans for conditional use applications involving environmentally sensitive areas, impose intermediate certification and verification reviews during pre-construction, active construction, and post-construction phases, and require restoration of environmentally sensitive areas if a conditional use ceases operation. **Windburn Small Area Plan Public Hearing** [timestamp: 01:14:48] Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Will Berkley. The amendment to the meeting calendar to add a public hearing on the Windburn Small Area Plan on June 30, 2016 passed by voice vote with all 11 members voting in favor. **Nominating Committee for Officers** [timestamp: 01:15:49] Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Will Berkley. The approval of a nominating committee consisting of Carolyn Plumlee, Mike Cravens, and Joe Smith passed by voice vote with all 11 members voting in favor. ## Public Comment Seven speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, raising questions and concerns about a proposed text amendment related to environmental sensitivity and zoning. **Questions About Environmental Standards and Enforcement** Ms. Mundy asked about the relationship between the proposed text amendment and the Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas, and whether the amendment would create issues for future development [timestamp: 00:26:20]. She later raised a follow-up question about whether areas with steep slopes and flow to the river would be considered environmentally sensitive under the proposed definition [timestamp: 00:47:17]. Mr. Drake questioned the mechanics of floodplain alteration, specifically asking whether the Board of Adjustment could require removal of fill in a floodplain if a development failed, and expressed concerns about the practicality of enforcement [timestamp: 00:46:08]. **Concerns About Cost and Feasibility** Mr. Cravens expressed concern that the proposed amendment is overly restrictive and expensive, questioning whether it would deter developers from entering the area [timestamp: 00:54:03]. Ms. Richardson stated that the amendment represents expensive overkill and could prohibit educational agritourism developments due to high compliance costs [timestamp: 01:02:57]. **Support for Environmental Protections** Mr. Penn argued in favor of the amendment, contending that it helps identify environmental problems before development occurs, thereby preventing costly after-the-fact fixes [timestamp: 01:04:03]. Ms. Plumlee supported stronger environmental protections, suggesting that if a development is too expensive to bond, it should not be developed at all, and called for stronger language in the amendment [timestamp: 01:05:44]. ## Appointments The following individuals were appointed to the Nominating Committee: * Carolyn Plumlee * Mike Cravens * Joe Smith ## Contested Items **ZOTA 2016-1 Text Amendment** The meeting featured a contested vote on the ZOTA 2016-1 text amendment. [timestamp: not available] The disagreement centered on the scope and impact of the proposed amendment. One perspective held that the amendment was overly restrictive and expensive, with concerns that these provisions could deter developers from pursuing projects in the affected areas. The opposing viewpoint argued that the amendment represented a necessary proactive measure to protect environmentally sensitive areas. The vote resulted in a split decision among the body, indicating that participants remained divided on whether the amendment struck the appropriate balance between environmental protection and development feasibility. ## HILLENMEYER & SFH PROPERTIES (AMD) **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2016-47P **Project Type:** Subdivision **Summary** The preliminary subdivision plan amendment for Hillenmeyer & SFH Properties was presented for consideration. The proposal involved combining and correcting three adjacent plans while revising street alignment and lots. **Action Taken** The applicant requested a postponement of this agenda item. A motion to postpone was made and approved unanimously by the body. **Outcome** The item was postponed. No further discussion or debate was recorded regarding the specific details of the proposed plan amendments. ## MASTERSON HILLS & MASTERSON STATION, UNIT 10 **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2003-209P **Project Type:** Subdivision Reapproval **Location:** 2900-2918 and 3000 Spurr Road **Presenter:** Bill Sallee [timestamp: 00:07:55] This agenda item addressed the reapproval of a preliminary subdivision plan for Masterson Hills & Masterson Station, Unit 10. The project involves property located at 2900-2918 and 3000 Spurr Road. The reapproval was subject to specific conditions that applicants were required to meet. These conditions included documentation of the Division of Water Quality's approval, along with additional site-specific requirements that were to be incorporated into the project. **Outcome:** The subdivision plan was approved. ## TUSCANY, UNIT 9 **Project:** Reapproval of preliminary subdivision plan (PLAN 2012-113P) **Location:** 1970 Winchester Road **Type:** Subdivision **Key Speaker:** Bill Sallee **Outcome:** Approved [timestamp: 00:08:28] The meeting addressed reapproval of a preliminary subdivision plan for Tuscany, Unit 9 at 1970 Winchester Road. Bill Sallee presented the item to the board. The reapproval was contingent upon satisfaction of specific conditions: - Documentation of Division of Water Quality's approval - Resolution of street connectivity issues The plan received approval following discussion of these requirements. ## WYNNDALE SUBDIVISION, LOT 1 (AMD) **Plan 2016-33F** An amended final record plat for property located at 3757 Kings Glen Park was presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:09:00] Bill Sallee presented this agenda item regarding the Wynndale Subdivision, Lot 1 amendment. The approval included several conditions to be met: - Floodplain protection measures - Utility easements - Arterial screening requirements The amended final record plat was approved. ## TUSCANY, UNIT 3-A **Plan Identifier:** PLAN 2013-127F **Item Type:** Subdivision Reapproval This agenda item concerned the reapproval of a final subdivision plan for property located on Old Rosebud Road. [timestamp: 00:09:33] **Key Speaker:** - Bill Sallee **Conditions for Approval:** The reapproval was contingent upon the following conditions: - Documentation of Division of Water Quality's approval - Compliance with all prior conditions **Outcome:** The final subdivision plan for TUSCANY, UNIT 3-A was approved. ## TUSCANY, UNIT 1, LOT 169 (YMCA PROPERTY) (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2016-29 **Type:** Development Plan Amendment **Outcome:** Approved with conditions Tom Martin presented a conditional approval of a development plan amendment for the YMCA property located at Tuscany, Unit 1, Lot 169 [timestamp: 00:09:33]. The amendment included several conditions addressing site infrastructure and safety requirements. The conditions of approval specified requirements for: - Access to the property - Drainage systems - Fire hydrant placement The development plan amendment received approval following the presentation and discussion of these conditional requirements. ## BRIGHTON PLACE SHOPPES, PHASE II (GILLIS PROPERTY) **Development Plan Amendment DP 2016-55** The board considered a development plan amendment for the Gillis property as part of the Brighton Place Shoppes Phase II project. [timestamp: 00:10:05] Tom Martin presented the proposal to the board. **Conditions of Approval** The development plan amendment was approved subject to the following conditions: - Sidewalk connections to be constructed as part of the project - Traffic signage to be installed according to specifications - Tree preservation requirements to be implemented on the property **Outcome** The development plan amendment was approved. ## NDC PROPERTY, UNIT 5D, PH II (WELLINGTON) **Identifier:** DP 2009-75 **Location:** 501 West Reynolds Road and Vincent Way **Overview** This agenda item addressed the reapproval of a development plan for the NDC Property, Unit 5D, Phase II in Wellington. [timestamp: 00:10:05] **Presentation and Discussion** Tom Martin presented on this development plan reapproval. **Conditions** The reapproval included the following conditions: - Documentation of Division of Water Quality's approval - Additional certifications **Outcome** The development plan was approved. ## WHAYNE SUPPLY COMPANY ZONING MAP AMENDMENT **Proposal** The board considered a zone map amendment (MAR 2016-15) for property located at 2201 Georgetown Road. The amendment would change the zoning classification from Agricultural Urban (A-U) to Light Industrial (I-1). **Conditions** The approval included two specific conditions: - A conditional lighting restriction - Certification of the development plan **Key Speakers** Bill Sallee and Tom Martin presented on this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:12:40] **Outcome** The zone map amendment was approved. ## WHAYNE SUPPLY ZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN **Identifier:** ZDP 2016-51 **Overview** The board considered approval of the preliminary development plan for the Whayne Supply site. The proposal included conditions related to access, easements, and integration with adjacent developments. **Presentation** Tom Martin presented the zoning development plan to the board [timestamp: 00:18:29]. **Outcome** The preliminary development plan for the Whayne Supply site was approved. ## AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 7, 23, AND 26 FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS **Identifier:** ZOTA 2016-1 The board considered a text amendment to strengthen oversight of environmentally sensitive areas through modifications to Articles 7, 23, and 26 of the zoning ordinance. [timestamp: 00:29:49] **Key Speakers** Tracy Jones and Bill Sallee presented and discussed the proposed amendments. **Proposal Summary** The amendment sought to enhance the Board of Adjustment's authority and procedures for managing environmentally sensitive areas. The changes included new requirements for site plans, verification reviews, and restoration conditions to ensure adequate protection and monitoring of sensitive environmental zones. **Outcome** The board approved the text amendment ZOTA 2016-1. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Postpone PLAN 2016-47P: HILLENMEYER & SFH PROPERTIES (AMD) to July 14, 2016 - **Motion** — passed: Approve items on the Consent Agenda as recommended by the Subdivision Committee - **Motion** — passed: Approve MAR 2016-15: Whayne Supply Company zone map amendment from A-U to I-1 - **Motion** — passed: Approve ZDP 2016-51: Whayne Supply zoning development plan with revised conditions - **ZOTA 2016-1** — passed: Amend Articles 7, 23, and 26 of the Zoning Ordinance to strengthen oversight of environmentally sensitive areas - **Motion** — passed: Amend meeting calendar to add public hearing on Windburn Small Area Plan on June 30, 2016 - **Motion** — passed: Approve nominating committee for officers: Carolyn Plumlee, Mike Cravens, and Joe Smith --- ## Full transcript But I think it's the best thing. And that's so upside down because that seems like it's not love. But I think it was the greatest display of love that I could have done because now we have it back. And we just feel like we never were given solid answers. You know, it's don't enable or they have to hit a bottom. And you know, that's what's hard. We just, I mean my mom and I were just talking about this the other day, you know, how we all still, you know, think, you know, what if we had done this or, you know, what more could we have done? And I don't know that that's ever going to go away. Ultimately, and you're not going to hear this a whole lot, but the legal system saved me, and I have been to prison, and I've been every bad place a man can go. And my last run, I was locked up, and I was looking at a lot of time, and I accepted that. At the same time, I knew it was over for the first time, kind of a moment of clarity. And through the process of the legal system, at this point in my life, I had no family there and I had a public defender. And the public defender was a really strong advocate for me, for whatever reason. And I had a pre-sentence investigation and I was just openly and honest. I'd never been honest before, and the clinician at the time actually prayed with me and appreciated my honesty. Probably doesn't hear it a whole lot. And I go into the court, and my PSI was very unusual to this judge and the prosecution, and it outlined my honesty and how this guy needs help. This guy does not need to be in prison. And so I was given the opportunity to go to the healing place. and Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, you're watching Heart of Gold. I am Paul Schart here. Thanks for joining. We have two lovely ladies from the Kentucky Youth Leadership Organization. I think clarity is kind of why we're here right now. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is the witching hour, 130. I will call this meeting. Order. It is June 9, 2016. I'd like to welcome everyone here today. We have no minutes for approval today, so at this point I'll ask for any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Good afternoon, Mr. Kaley. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Page 1, your first item on the agenda, Plan 2016-47P. This is Hillenmeyer and SFH properties. We request a one-month postponement to July 14th. Thank you, sir. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Plumley? Yes, Ms. Plumley. Thank you. Move postponement to July 14th of Plan 2016-47P. Hill and Lahr. Thank you. Motion's been made for postponement, seconded by Mr. Wilson. This is for Plan 2016-47P until July 14th. 14th. Did you say 14th? Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes, and I just noticed we have new screens up here. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, I'll ask Mr. Salih to walk us through the consent agenda today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. We believe we have a very rare afternoon in that I believe the remaining subdivision development plans all appear on your consent agenda. We will find that out in just a few minutes. But just for the benefit of the audience, it would probably be best to go through these items on the consent agenda to see if they can be acted on without further discussion. With the postponement of the first item, the first remaining item on your consent agenda is on page 2, item B, Plan 2003-209P, Masterson Hills and Masterson Station, Unit 10. This is a requested re-approval of a preliminary subdivision plan for property with an address of 2,900 through 2,918 and 3,000 Spur Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, Plan 2012-113P, Tuscany Unit 9. Again, a preliminary subdivision plan for property at 1970 Winchester Road. Both of these plans have been recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. There is one final subdivision plan also recommended for re-approval by your subdivision committee. It is on page 3, item A of your meeting agenda. Plan 2016-33F, Tuscany Unit 3A. Pardon me, I misread that. That is 33F is Windale subdivision, lot 1 amended. An amended final record plat for property at 3757 Kings Glen Park. Tuscany 3A is the next item on the consent agenda. It appears on page 3, item B of your meeting agenda. This is a final subdivision plan recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee. Plan 2013-127F for property with an address on Hold Rosebud Road. There are two development plans recommended for conditional approval by your subdivision committee. Page 3, Item A, DP 2016-29, Tuscany, Unit 1, Lot 169. This is also known as the YMCA property, an amended final development plan for property at 2681 Old Rosebud Road. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, DP 2016-55, Brighton Place Shops, Phase 2. This is also known as the Gillis property, located at 3080 Old Todd's Road. The final item on your consent agenda is on page 4, item C of your meeting agenda, DP 2009-75, the NDC property, Unit 5D, Phase 2, also known as Wellington. This property has an address of 501 West Reynolds Road and is also located on Vincent Way. This plan has been recommended for re-approval by your subdivision committee. At this time, Mr. Chairman, the Commission can consider acting on all of these plans as has been recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, one of our applicants, or anyone else wishes to remove one of these items to allow it to be discussed further prior to the Commission action. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Selle. Anyone in the audience wish to have any one of these items removed? for discussion? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda as read. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval and seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson for the consent agenda as read. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you, folks. That moves us to page 5, Wayne Supply Company, MAR 2016-15. You have a staff report, you have a map, and you have a revised ZDP on a pink sheet before you. And while they are setting up, we do have a release and call of bonds that we need to take care of. Mr. Cravens. Mr. Chairman. I'm right on this move approval of the release and call of bonds thank you motion's been made and seconded for the release and call of bonds from the memorandum dated June 9th 2016 that's before us please vote motion passes thank you now for Wayne Supply Company Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, members of the Commission, this item, as the Chair has announced, is on page 5, item 1 on your meeting agenda. You're reviewing MAR 2016-15, a request by the Wayne Supply Company. They have requested a zone change from an existing agricultural urban AU zone to a requested light industrial I-1 zone. This zone change involves just under one and a half net acres of property, the property having an address of 2201 Georgetown Road. The subject property is on the west side of Georgetown Road, just a few hundred feet south of Citation Boulevard. a major east-west arterial that's recently been opened all the way through. It is currently zoned AU, and it is an independent parcel from the I-1 light industrial land surrounding it on three sides. It is catty-corner to the Roode and Riddle Equine Hospital, which is also in an AU zone on the east side of Georgetown Road. and it is directly across the street from a vacant parcel of a little more than 20 acres that has been zoned B3 for a number of years now, which has still not developed. The applicants ask that this subject property be rezoned I1 so that it will match the zoning surrounding it on three sides. They own the property on all three sides, and they are currently actively developing a site a short distance to the west that has frontage on Jaggy Fox, which is an industrial collector that intersects not only Citation, but extends northward and tees into Innovation Drive, extends southward and intersects Sandersville Road at this location as well. The 2013 comprehensive plan, of course, no longer has a detailed land use element, But in their application, the applicants state that they believe their zone change is in furtherance of the 2013 comprehensive plan. The staff concurs with that. There is a theme of the comprehensive plan that talks about creating jobs and prosperity for our community. It's also important to note, and we noted in our staff report to you, especially those of you on the zoning committee three weeks ago, that from 1976 through the 2007 comprehensive plan, this area on the west side of Georgetown Road was recommended for light industrial use in previous comprehensive plans. The applicant's justification is that the existing AU zone is no longer appropriate and that the requested I-1 zone is appropriate at this location. Again, the staff agrees with the applicant and their justification for this zone change. We find that the property is surrounded on three sides by I-1 zoning. This approval of this request would make the zoning match exactly. Also, the size of the property at just about an acre and a half really makes it infeasible for a viable agricultural use, unlike the Equine Hospital in the same category directly across the roadway. The Zoning Committee and your staff have recommended approval of this zone change from AU to I-1 in that the AU zone is no longer appropriate and the requested I-1 zone is appropriate for five reasons. These appear in our staff report and also on your agenda today. To quickly summarize, first, the AU zone is not appropriate for job creation at this location. Secondly, the proposed I-1 is better able to fulfill the goal of increasing opportunities for employment at this location. Thirdly, the west side of Georgetown Road corridor is primarily light industrial in nature, and demand does exist for light industrial zoning in the immediate area of the subject property. Third, or pardon me, fourth, the proposed light industrial zone is compatible with the adjoining zoning and land uses. Finally, the subject property has been recommended for light industrial use for the past four decades. Our recommendation is made, as it usually is, subject to your approval and the certification of the preliminary development plan that has been submitted for the site. Also, the staff is recommending one conditional zoning restriction for the subject property, should it be rezoned, I warn. That is that no lighting on the subject property should be directed toward any adjacent property located either in a residential or agricultural zone. The justification and the reason for the approval of that conditional zoning restriction is we believe it's necessary to prevent any light intrusion into adjoining agricultural residential properties. Prior to the development plan being presented to you at this time, I would be glad to try and answer any questions from the Commission about our staff report or the Zoning Committee recommendation or any other item related to the zone change request. Questions for Mr. Salley? No? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Just put that on my top. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the preliminary development plan that you have before you today for this zone change is zdp 2016-51 wayne supply you have a pink sheet at your seats with revised conditions the zoning development plan that you see before you shows the lot with a building and associated parking. Very simple, straightforward, little 1.46 acres, 9,000-square-foot building with associated parking. This, of course, is the surrounding development with the large Wayne facility in this direction. And here is an access point that exists into this property today. The plan is in and of itself a very simple, straightforward plan, but there is one very large, large issue that's been affecting this plan from the beginning, and that is this access point to Georgetown Road. This is a considerable concern to your planning staff, your traffic engineering staff, and we were working with the applicant and their engineer to try to address this and revise it. And one of their attempts to revise it, and along with that revision, we wanted to incorporate it into what had already been approved so we could see kind of how this whole area would work. And key to that, of course, is transportation and an appropriate street or easement system to serve this area. So they submitted this, and we're using this today as an exhibit to demonstrate to the Planning Commission that they do intend to provide easements that would then serve this property as well as this property. There are plat restrictions that prevent access to Georgetown, Citation Boulevard, except at approved street intersections. And that was the key. Obviously, they have to have access. We just want it to be lined up appropriately and spaced appropriately on Georgetown Road. So access was the issue. This will line up, by the way. And this goes back to a plan that was submitted, but was never actually certified. They ultimately amended that plan to just demonstrate the large development in this location. So that was part of staff's concern. We wanted to be sure that we were addressing the access appropriately and safely along Georgetown Road. And with that, you can see, because again, this is a preliminary subdivision plan, that we have recommended that expanding the plan to include the surrounding development should be required at the time of a final development plan. And access to this site is also something that we believe can be determined at the time of a final development plan. when we have a chance to see what's actually being proposed, what they intend to build, and how that will all function as a cohesive development. And with that, your staff is now recommending approval of the preliminary plan. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes. Ms. Mundy? Mr. Martin, are they ultimately planning to do a consolidation of all of this property? I believe they may, and they can answer this better. they may intend to create lots in this area for other users, maybe their own use. And that, again, is one reason a system, either of streets or access easements, is important to see how that would function. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not applicant, anything to add? Mr. Rochelle, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Are you in agreement with staff's recommendations and conditions? We do. Okay. And I'm pleased to be here on behalf of Wayne Supply Company, and Ms. Money's question is very important. We're here to have, we want to have a comprehensive plan for the development of this property so it'll be safe for those traveling on Georgetown Road, and also most efficient for Wayne Supply Company. For those of you who have visited the site, you can see that our central Kentucky location is well underway in construction. We were pleased to be able to acquire this property from the K Estate. We had been negotiating with them for years, and we were finally able to strike a deal with them. This will give us uniform zoning for all of our property so we can comprehensively go forward. in answering your question, Ms. Monday. We do intend, preliminarily, to subdivide those lots along Georgetown Road. They may be used for sale or they may be used for ancillary purposes. But the important thing is that we will do it in such a way that it's safe and efficient for Georgetown Road with the single entrance as shown. We are in full agreement. with the staff's recommendation, both for the zoning and for the development plan, preliminary subdivision plan. We've enjoyed working with the staff, and it's moved along quite efficiently. They've been very helpful in their suggestions. I have with me today Mr. Joe Urich of Wayne Supply Company, should you have any questions of him. Otherwise, we would request approval of the zoning, and we agree to the condition, and we agree to all the conditions on the staff report. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rochelle. Mr. Penn, question? And I could hold this to the development plan, but is it your intention for your weight supply business itself to enter and exit off Jaggy Fox? It is. It is. So the internal road system would wind up being something to serve the outlots that you would create? I don't want to misstate this. We may have connection to the existing primary lot where we're constructing the building because, as I noted, one of the lots may be used for an ancillary service, sales service, and so forth. So we need that connectivity. We want the flexibility to be able to cut it off if necessary, or we want the flexibility to have it if needed. Okay. I just want it clear as to what you're intended to use for. If you're going to use the road all the way through, if you're going to do sales, I don't know. But the question becomes, when you come back for your next development plan, I'd like for us to have at least some understanding of which way we're going here. And we will do that. We are primarily, it is our intent to primarily use Jaggi Foxwood, designed our entrances that way, and the location of our building to be oriented towards J.D. Fox. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Rochelle or the applicant? No? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? No? Questions? Yes, ma'am. I think this is for staff, probably, and I'm not sure which one, but on our little pink sheet, we have 13 conditions. Number five of those conditions is Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas. We later are going to be looking at an amendment to our ZODA, which addresses those environmentally sensitive areas. How does this tie back to this? Are we doing anything here that's going to cause them heartburn? I don't believe so, Ms. Mundy. The text amendment that you're about to consider is primarily regarding conditional uses, and the use that they're proposing for this property as shown on their development plan is not a conditional use. Should they, in the future, propose a conditional use for any of this Iowan land, it's possible that those text amendment provisions would come into play. They would be of interest to the Planning Commission at such time as Mr. Penn discussed, if you're looking at a development plan. But more importantly, it probably would be an issue for the Board of Adjustment in considering whether or not to approve that conditional use. That's a long way to answer your question and say, I don't believe anything you're about to consider later today is going to affect either this zone change or certainly not this preliminary development plan. Any other questions? If not, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion. Mr. Berkley? Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of MAR 2016-15 for the reasons noted by staff. Thank you. Motion's been made by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Smith, for approval of MAR 2016-15 weighing supply. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. And then the ZDP. Move for approval of ZDP 2016-51, changing items 12 and 13 to resolve and adding at time. I'm sorry. I missed that. Okay. As shown on the pink sheet is fine. Okay. And that motion was seconded by Ms. Mundy. Clarification, Mr. Berkley, the revised staff recommendations on the pink sheet. Right. Revised staff recommendations. Thank you. Please vote. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. We will move on to our text amendment that Ms. Mundy alluded to. Zota 2016-1, amendments to Article 7, 23, and 26 for environmentally sensitive areas. You've got staff report and text that is before you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Our next item is ZODA 2016-1. This is related to environmentally sensitive areas, and it deals with amendments to three of the articles of the zoning ordinance, articles 7, 23, and 26. The Planning Commission recently initiated a text amendment to these three portions of the zoning ordinance in order to strengthen oversight for the urban county board of adjustment, specifically related to protection of environmentally sensitive areas in the community. It does relate to Article 7-6A of the zoning ordinance, which is where the Board of Adjustment explicitly gets its powers to deal with conditional use requests. Article 23A of the zoning ordinance, which has to do with the expansion area zoning categories. And then lastly, Article 26 in a few spots, which deals with the tree protection standards. During the course of the Planning Commission's consideration of another text amendment on recreation and tourism uses, there was an idea brought forward to consider the idea of environmental sureties or bonds when a property comes forward that might have an impact on our environmentally sensitive areas. In consideration of that, the chairman created a committee of both planning commission members and other sort of interested or stakeholder individuals to review that idea. So originally the idea was an environmental surety or bond. And during the course of that committee meeting from December 2014 through February of 2015, the ad hoc committee studied the idea and found that a surety or a bond was really not a good solution. So instead, they recommended three changes to basically Article 7 of the zoning ordinance. All three changes they suggested had to do with the Board of Adjustment when they consider conditional use permits. In reviewing those recommendations, the staff then was charged with creating this text amendment. The three recommendations from the ad hoc committee were reported out, I believe, in May of last year. They are on the overhead here. The first one is generally that the Board of Adjustment would consider a site plan with any conditional use application that is located or has environmentally sensitive areas on the property. The second one gives the Board of Adjustment the ability to add some conditions. They add conditions to all of their approvals that there be someone or some entity to go in the field either pre-construction, during construction, or post-construction, to assess whether there are any impacts to an environmentally sensitive area. Basically, we want to protect that. Maybe it's a silt fence around a particular area or fencing around the tree stand. So we want to make sure that the trees are protected. Those kind of checkpoints for a board of adjustment case. And then the third recommendation had to do with when an environmentally sensitive area is located in a rural area or rural service area, that there be some restoration possible in some cases. the committee considered sort of the idea of if a conditional use were approved and it failed for some reason, how would we make sure that the environment was returned or restored to its or close to its original status? And so this gives the Board of Adjustments some clear authority that they are able to add conditions if something were to cease operation, that there would be an opportunity for the board to require some restoration of the property. So those were the three ideas or three recommendations that the ad hoc committee brought forward. Again, the three sections of the ordinance that we're looking at today are Article 7, and you do have the draft proposed for consideration in your packet. Instead of having notebooks today, we have just a paper-clipped packet with the staff report, the text proposed, and also, for reference, Article 6 of the land subdivision regulations. Article 7, again, is just Board of Adjustment, and the only section being amended starts on page 2 of that section, and it's 7.6.a.4. Expansion area is a reference change, and then Article 26 is also generally a reference change. I noted with an asterisk here, we are not amending the land subdivision regulations. As a group, the Planning Commission has talked about that in work session format, but in reassessing, the staff thought it was best to focus on the recommendations of the committee at this point, and if land subdivision regulation definition changes were needed in the future, that we would need to bring in other divisions of the government to consider that. The current land subdivision regulations do have definitions for environmentally sensitive area, as well as geologic hazard area. Generally, if something is a geologic hazard area, it's also an environmentally sensitive area. Environmentally sensitive areas is a little bit broader, and geologic hazard would be the worst of the worst. that's where there is an identified cave system or cluster of sinkholes, whereas environmentally sensitive area might be just a known area of karst topography. The environmentally sensitive areas in Fayette County are, some of them are mapped. Not every area would be part of our GIS system, but when we looked at this with the committee, the ad hoc committee, we assessed, we did develop a map and it generally showed about one third of Fayette County was located within environmentally sensitive areas. And generally that's because we have a large area that's the aquifer recharge area for Georgetown's water supply and we do have quite a bit of floodplains in Fayette County and steep slopes. So those definitions are not proposed to be changed but the zoning ordinance does refer back to both definitions. In looking at the ad hoc committee recommendations, the first being the requirement or recommendation for a site plan, the text proposed for that is at the beginning of item four, and it's probably about three or four sentences worth. I highlighted or tried to bold the part where it says the board may require a more detailed site plan, and that's really what the recommendation was of the committee. This goes into a lot more information about that and does also include the idea of the pre-construction, post-construction. One of the ideas that the group also recommended was that not every site with an environmentally sensitive area would be required to have a site plan or a detailed site plan, especially if it had to be prepared by one of the professionals listed in the ordinance, which would be landscape architects, hydrologists, geologists, environmental engineers, naturalists, arborists, etc. The idea from the work group was that if an environmentally sensitive area were going to be impacted in some way, that one of those professionals should be involved in the development of the site plan, and you would pick the appropriate individual. If you have tree stands that might be impacted on the property, you would enlist the help of an arborist or a naturalist, et cetera. Recommendation two had to do with those checkpoint certifications in post-construction, pre-construction, or active construction. And I think that was on the first slide as well. But here, board may impose intermediate certification and verification reviews during pre-construction, active construction, and post-construction development. So we included that exact same language recommended by the committee. The certification could be conducted by either a public enforcement agency, our division, the Division of Building Inspection, Engineering, or Environmental Services, if they were able to help. or if that wasn't possible, a qualified private contractor, but that would be on the applicant or the petitioner to adhere to those conditions and pay for that. The third recommendation, again, had to do with restoration if a conditional use ceased to exist. And the language added to Article 7 shown here, the board may consider a requirement that alterations to an environmentally sensitive area or GHA, geologic hazard area, associated with the conditional use may be removed or restored if the conditional use were to cease operation. And again, this is if the board of adjustment deems that necessary. It wouldn't be required. It would just be something that they would be given the authority to do and consider when they review a conditional use. There were two other sections that the staff found in our review of the zoning ordinance that were in need of update as well. Article 23 of the zoning ordinance has references to the land subdivision regulations. That's this page of your handout. They both are outdated references to either Article 6.7 or 6.10. Currently, there were changes in the early 2000s to the land subdivision regulations that reordered a few things and moved all of these environmentally sensitive area definitions and sections under one section of the land subdivision regulations, and it should be Article 6-11, so we want to update those. And then in Article 26, which is our tree protection standards, generically there are a few references to environmentally sensitive lands. And we thought it might be necessary to go ahead and put both terms in there from the land subdivision regulations. So we want to include geologic hazard areas. And then also, again, there was an outdated reference in Article 26-3 about the land subdivision regulations. In reviewing the, well, I should say, although text amendments don't require findings or compliance with the comprehensive plan, the staff typically provides those to the Planning Commission. since the zoning ordinance is one of the primary ways that the Planning Commission and the Council can implement the comprehensive plan. We feel it's important to look back at the comprehensive plan and see if there are any goals or objectives that might relate to a particular text amendment. In this case, there were four goals and objectives that related to this particular recommendation from the ad hoc committee, and they are related to improving or, I guess, protecting and are important environmentally sensitive land. So they include promoting and protecting natural features and landscapes prior to development, which the board is charged with doing, reducing the community's carbon footprint, encouraging environmentally sustainable uses of natural resources, and lastly protecting and enhancing the natural, cultural, historic, and environmental resources of our rural service area and rural farmland. In reviewing this, the staff is recommending approval in whole of the proposed text amendment, and we provided three reasons on our staff report. Generally, we think this will help the Board of Adjustment in reviewing their conditional uses. The Planning Commission enjoys the technical committees as a resource every month, but the Board of Adjustment does not. So there are things that you review today that get a very thorough review by up to 20 to 25 members who have expertise, whereas the Board of Adjustment cases, those are not all reviewed by that same technical committee. If the staff feels that they do need additional review, we take them to the technical committees. But it's not any kind of required process today. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan will be furthered by the implementation of this text amendment. And the proposed text amendment will correct some outdated references in our zoning ordinance. Happy to take questions at this point about the proposed text amendment. Questions for Ms. Wade? I've got one mic. Tracy, I appreciate the fact that the technical committee looks at it for us. So we were going to do a zone change and condition it. They would see it for us. Will this require, in front of the Board of Adjustment, a better development plan that identifies these areas? That was one of the goals we hoped would happen. Do you see that as requiring a better development plan before they do their conditional uses? I do. But I also think that this will, in some regards, fall to the staff to help an applicant identify that their land might have environmentally sensitive areas on it before they apply. Because once an application is made, the Board of Adjustment, the time frame is much more condensed than the Planning Commission enjoys a six- to eight-week process, whereas the board has about four to five weeks from application to. They have the option to postpone things, just like you do, but I think it will be on the staff to help applicants identify environmentally sensitive areas before they apply so that they can find the appropriate professional to help them. I hope that's the reason, because some of the things we've gotten into this community are direct results of the fact that the development plan just wasn't researched the way it should have been to identify some of these problems, and I'm hoping that's what this will do. Mr. Drake. Tracy, there's obviously no doubt that the intent of this is very noble. I have some things that I don't understand about the mechanics. A floodplain is an environmentally sensitive area, is it not? Yes. If a floodplain were altered with fill, would this allow the Board of Adjustment to require that fill to be removed if the purpose of the development failed? It could. I think it would be an option for the Board of Adjustment to consider that. I'm not sure if we engineered a fill, if you'd want to necessarily take it out, if it were approved by FEMA, Division of Water, our local regulations, and the Board of Adjustment, and it were engineered appropriately. I'm not sure you'd necessarily want to take it out, but the Board could require that. Is that your... That troubles me. Thank you. Ms. Mundy? Sorry, I'm just full of questions today, I guess. But under 6-11, 6-11, the environmentally sensitive areas, and I'm asking this because now that I've moved out to the country, we have some steep slopes not only on the corner of our property, but behind us flows to the Palisades and to the river. This says it covers everything for aquifer recharge areas, But what about flow to the river? Well, I think the steep slope area and then probably the floodplain would cover that. Because the Palisades are probably going to be above the floodplain. Well, they would be part of the floodplain probably. I mean, at some point. But generally every piece of land in Fayette County flows to a river. but it's not all located in an environmentally sensitive area. Right. But this is the area behind us, most of it, and the corner of ours is over 15% in slope. And if it's over 15%, it would fall in the environmentally sensitive area, but if it's 10 or 5, it wouldn't. Okay. But then coming back to it would be, in my mind, and that's I guess what I'm trying to justify, it is a river recharge, not an aquifer recharge. Well, I think there are other ways in terms of the engineering manuals that you would control the runoff and make that work on a site that has some slope to it without impacting. There's water quality and water quantity standards in the engineering manuals that are generally applied across the board. So that would protect that area of runoff in that over 15%, whatever. Okay, great. Thank you. I want to go back and revisit the floodplain question. So, and I support the committee's recommendations of not having a surety, but you said that Board of Adjustment could require that Phil be removed. Well, how are they going to require it? I mean, how are they going to... I do think there would still be some logistical issues with getting that done. Our sense in meeting, we asked Commissioner Paulson to attend as well because he's also over or involved with code enforcement and our enforcement arms that there would obviously be an enforcement issue associated with the Board of Adjustment saying, okay, your conditional use ceases to exist. Now, you as the property owner need to return that property to a pre-development condition. And there would be some cost to that. When a property owner, an applicant, applies to the Board of Adjustment and that condition is put in place, you're agreeing to it. So there is some contract between that petitioner and the board and the city, the government, that that will occur. We wouldn't be requiring them to put money aside to do that, but we would have the authority then to follow up and ask them to do it, if they didn't, to fine them and do the normal enforcement process against a property owner for not complying with the conditions of a Board of Adjustment action. So code enforcement basically handles that kind of thing now? Or zoning enforcement, the arm in our division, handles conditional use follow-up. They do annual reviews of each conditional use. Mr. Drake. Tracy, I've got another question. How have conditional use requests for environmentally sensitive areas been handled prior to this? And has there been a great deal of abuse? I'm going to let Bill Sally answer that because he oversees Board of Adjustment activity in our office. Mr. Drake, there's not been a great number of them that come to my mind. there are probably two recent examples that seem to dominate everyone's understanding and thinking about them. One was an operation that was approved to remove topsoil in part of the aquifer area that Ms. Wade talked about. However, their excavation went much below the topsoil and became more of an issue in regards to compliance with state regulations in addition to a conditional use permit. Because it was in the aquifer area, it was in an environmentally sensitive area, and there were a number of area property owners and also local organizations that became interested in that location. This was for a property out on Georgetown Road, still in Fayette County. The other, of course, is the more recent property down by the Kentucky River at the opposite end of the county where parts of the property are steep slope and floodplain area. Those are the two most recent ones. There have been a few conditional uses that have been located in floodplains, and in those circumstances, the regular floodplain part of our zoning ordinance that's been in existence since probably the 1980s has also been applicable to the board's review. So those, at least in my mind, don't stand out as anything really out of the ordinary because it was just involving an additional section of the zoning ordinance that isn't typically reviewed with the average conditional use permit, say for a home occupation or a school or a church in a residential zone, more typical types of development. So I think the actual review of this text amendment and the issue by the subcommittee is probably more of a result of these two more recent cases. And from my experience on the staff, that often does lead to the need or the desire for text amendments, either by the Planning Commission or, in some cases, by the Board itself. Thank you. Sure. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, Tracy. Under this, I was okay with the committee's recommendations in a broad sense, but then when I read the details of it, I don't like it. But anyway, it says such a site plan shall be prepared. And you said, I think you said maybe they don't have to every time or it was up to the Board of Adjustment to indicate if you had to do a site plan or what. What was that you just said? To be honest, in every conditional use case, a site plan is prepared. It's not required in our ordinance, but administratively we require it. Okay, but it's not required by a geologist or hydrologist or landscape architect? That whole list of things there? Now. Tracy, if I may. Yes, sorry. Maybe to answer Mr. Craven's question, the board has the ability to ask for a site plan to be prepared by one of these individuals. It's not mandated, though. If they deem it necessary that they need a site plan, it should be by one of those individuals. But it's not necessary that they have to do that. All right, that's now, though, right? No, that's what this language says. This? Yes. Well, it says shall. Shall be prepared by an individual. Such a site plan shall be prepared. If you go back up. The sentence before says the board may require a site plan, and if they do, it shall to address these issues. Can't they do that without this ordinance being changed? Um, not without delay. What? Well, the board wouldn't see the application until their first meeting. So the applicant's filed a month, and then it comes to the board. They say, we need a more detailed plan. Now the applicant is delayed. Okay, but that's what we do in here every week. If we, you know, you postpone plans until they're upgraded or fixed or whatever. The board has a shorter window to review. I think they have 60 days. Okay. Then where does the house, the house is not covered under this, right? If I go out there to build a house on an environmentally area. Well, if you're asking to build a house in a floodplain, it might. Not a floodplain. Say on one of these slopes, I want to build a California-style house and look out. Yeah, I think the board could ask you to do a site plan and hire the appropriate. professional. But does that a house has to go to the Board of Adjustments? Only if they need a variance or something. But a conditional use, no. A house is not a conditional use. A single family residential. I don't pay attention to this. A house is a principal use. I pay attention to this. I go out there and build it. A house is a principal use, yes. Okay, then there's some other things down here. Like I said, I was okay with the bigger, but I don't like the detail. This board, the reviews, who's going to do that? Go out there during the pre-construction. I mean, we do that now, even just with a house. The engineering department comes out there and does that automatically. I don't believe they do that. Do they do that for Board of Adjustment cases? Not to my knowledge, no. Well, but if you were building a house, they would be out there every 30 days. I've got a whole glove box full of letters where they come out there and look at stuff. And I think that's the difference between the regular activity that occurs in a subdivision as compared to these infrequent conditional use applications in the environmentally sensitive areas and typically in a rural area. But if you filed a site plan, then that would trigger engineering probably to come out there without this. If I filed a site plan to do something, engineering is going to be out there checking the silt fence and the trash. Mr. Cravens, I think their review would be associated more with a land disturbance permit. And some conditional uses, obviously the larger scale, would require a land disturbance permit. I'm not sure they would have that review if that wasn't required. So, for instance, a conditional use, let's just say a church in a rural area or even an urban area. If it wasn't an environmentally sensitive area, I'm not sure that there would be anything more than the building permit type of review by engineering. Okay, but that's basically what this is saying. I mean, it looks like you're just doubling down on the same. I think it ensures that the Board of Adjustments cases get the same review that the cases that come to the Planning Commission get. And then this one more thing. Then this, I'm not satisfied with that answer. And then this last thing. I'm not hearing answers today that I like. The last thing is. I'm doing my best Okay, well we'll see This reclamation stuff I mean is that Are they going to make you put that back I mean just to say you poured a nice driveway To something And you quit doing that But can you leave the driveway Or is that up to them Well it would be up to the board of adjustment And it would I think depend on the case Okay, well, I got enough answers. In each one of these situations, Tracy, you principally boil it down to three recommendations. And in each one of them, it says that the board may. It doesn't say they have to mandate it. Nothing is mandated. It just says that they may require these things. and to address a couple of other situations. Mr. Selle touched on it a little bit as far as a couple of situations. However, quite frankly, the intent of the zone says that we shall protect environmentally sensitive area. these recommendations, we're looking at things to be a little bit more proactive than reactive. Yesterday I read an article, you know, we've heard about it in the last two or three or four years, adventure tourism. I mean, ten years ago, that wasn't even heard of, at least in this area. That includes rock climbing to anything. And so, you know, new stuff is happening all the time. I don't think we've had one zone change request for an environment request forever. I think you'll see these things coming, and I think we should be able to find ways to allow it. And by my determination, this is a proactive approach to allow more uses to occur in these areas, yet while protecting an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Wilson, you chaired this committee. Any comments? No, I really appreciate the questions and the discussion. It seems like every time we have one of these discussions, I learn a little bit more about what's going on, but I think you've described the intent. I think that the activities, the recommendations that have been set forth are what I call they would strengthen us, but at the same time wouldn't be overburdened on the Board of Adjustments. And in fact, the chairman of the Board of Adjustments was on our committee and in fact appreciated that, and we had several lawyers thought that that also would help them in their deliberation as well. So with that, I feel good about it. Thank you, sir. Ms. Richardson. Thank you. In regard to the agritourism which you brought up a moment ago, I feel I've said this before and I'll say it one more time, I think that this is expensive overkill. And if we do truly want to keep moving forward, I'm all for being careful with the environment, but I think this is incredibly restrictive, and I think it is incredibly expensive. And I am concerned that this would keep developers, people who want to come in and do these kind of activities, which almost always have an educational arm to them. Most of them are. I think it's going to prohibit them. I mean, they're going to look at this and say, wow, we can't afford this, and move on to another county, another state, whatever. So I really just feel like that this is overly restrictive, and I cannot support it. Thank you. Mr. Penn? My concern is that we identify problems before they're built and not try to prohibit them after they're built. And with the Board of Adjustment, historically, they have not seen a good enough development plan to really know what the environmental problems are. And then what happens is they either start building them with very little development plan, something that's just almost incoherent, and then all of a sudden they want to go commercial with them and then all of a sudden they're not up to standard. And if all you had to do was change something on a piece of paper, that's a lot cheaper than getting in an afterthought situation because they don't have a technical committee to review them like we have in our development plans. The other question I wanted to know just from the chairman or whoever was on that committee, whomever was on that committee, is the reason for not using the surety bond was because of expense. Is that the reason they didn't want to do that? Because we do it in a lot of other areas. Logistics? Well, one of the things we talked about was the issue of being prohibitive. We did not want it to be prohibitive. The first thing we looked at is whether or not legally we could as a city do that, and we went through the legal process of saying that. Secondly, we looked at the issue of the cost, And that really became one of the areas that we couldn't make any decision on. That's why we kind of dismissed. Yeah. We did have an individual from a bond company join the group, and he indicated that basically the only way that a bond company would support something like we were considering was if it was a one-for-one up front, and his concern then was how do we enumerate that? how do we know how much it's going to cost to put something back? That's what we're staying away from. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. And my thanks to the ad hoc committee and the staff in putting this together. There's been a lot of work into this document. And in regards to my colleagues' comments, if anything, I would like to see more strength in this document, particularly 7.6.a.4, where we talk about the rural service area. And that may definitely, I would make a shell, because we've been talking about surety bonds and the cost. And I've said this before to my colleagues. If this piece, parcel of land is too expensive for a surety bond, then it's probably too expensive. It shouldn't be developed in the first place. Because how are you going to return it to its original use? And there are some, I would really, if it were my document, I would make more maize, make the maize into shells. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yeah, like these bonds that we do on a subdivision, would some of those be required on the development in this if you didn't finish something? I think we discussed in the committee the board theoretically has that power, but I think the practical discussion through the committee was this. It's not practical to require a bond for reclamation. for conditional uses. All right, so all these bonds that we do, like if we don't finish something in a development, just say you went out there and you didn't finish something on the development plan, would that... Well, the bonds the Planning Commission considers are not reclamation bonds. Okay, but I'm not saying reclamation. They're infrastructure bonds. Right, just don't finish. So they are going to be in the right-of-way, which is on our property. So we would have the ability, the city, to go in with the money they've put up with a known amount. I mean, there's a certain dollar amount per linear foot of sidewalk, a dollar amount for every tree, and a dollar amount for each curb. Just on city property. Right. It would be, I mean, we're able to do that because it's city property, right? Mr. Brewer? In terms of building those improvements. Are you finished? Yes. Bill? Yes. Looks like we're getting ready to set. Okay. So I understand the concerns that have been raised. But I'd sort of fall back on our colleague chaired a committee of experts who came back with recommendations that I think make sense. I think they strike a good medium point between too much regulation or too much expense and the right amount of investment in protecting what we've already identified as an environmentally sensitive area. so I think it's as good as we're going to get when you're looking at a compromise I don't think you can expect to get everything that either side of this debate might want but I think we've got a pretty good compromise here and I think we should push it forward Thank you This situation I think we've kind of no pun intended Ms. Richardson You know I've served on a lot of committees and been in a lot of bylaws discussions and ordinance discussions and those types of things. And I think that history would probably prove me out in saying that any time that a body is given the authority to maybe do something, they do it. It just, you know, you begin to feel like it's the responsibility. And that's one of the reasons that I feel like that this is overkill or too restrictive in the language that it has, because I've just been involved in too many things where people love the word may, you know, and they just feel like they're empowered to do that and proceed. So that frightens, that's, you know, I don't want it to be shell either, But I don't think it, in this instance, is probably going to make much difference. I think that they will consider it part of their authority and will most likely do it. Mr. Penn, you're reaching. Yeah. Carol, I understand where you're coming from. I'm not a big government person either. But I will tell you, when you take the vegetation and the grass and the weeds off a steep slope, putting that back is a very hard thing to do because of erosion. And so if the development plan is not looked at very closely, we can't look at the business plan. There's no way that the Board of Adjustment can know whether a business can make it or not make it. I mean, we're not in the business of deciding which businesses are viable and which businesses aren't. But we can be in the business of saying that if you develop, if you take off nature's protection against erosion and your business doesn't grow, you can't just walk away from it and say, well, let her wash in the creek or let her wash in the river or whatever. So at some point, there has to be a balance between those two points. and that's what I'm trying to consider today is the fact that I don't want to make it to where everybody just has to get a permit for everything, but neither do I want to go out there and take off vegetation. It's been there for hundreds of years on something that might or might not work, and if it doesn't work, it becomes a rut and a mess, and then cut zoo groves back up all over it. So it's a two-way street. I feel like we've probably paddled down this creek before. No pun intended. As Patrick said, there's been a lot of work put in it. The committee, I don't know, there was 10 or 12 committee members, diverse group, several attorneys, and they hammered this out. We talked about it in work sessions. The consensus was to let the staff write up a draft. We've seen this draft before, and we're still talking about it. So, you know, at this point, you know, I think I'm just going to call for a vote, and I'll ask for a motion at this point. Yes, sir? It's somewhat jaded since I was the chair, but before I make the motion, let me again say how much I appreciate the discussion, because I think that's always good. Let me also say how much I appreciate the staff's input on this because we, as a committee, was driving everybody crazy with asking for definitions for maps and rules and regulations and what have you. And you all were very, very good in doing that. And I'd also like to publicly thank the people, especially, I think, on this committee, Karen Mundy, who served on that committee, and all those out there in the audience who participated with us on this. But to thank all those participants as well. So with that, and with the appreciation of both ends of the spectrum, I would make a motion to approve ZOTA Zota 2016-1 with the amendments to Article 7, 23, and 26 for environmental sensitive areas. Thank you. Motion's been for approval. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for approval to Texas Amendment. as Mr. Wilson just stated. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Mr. Duncan has an announcement. Before I get to that, let me mention Mr. Kelly Hunter is leaving us. He's been promoted and moving to the engineering department. I want to wish him well and hope that he maybe comes back and visits sometime, or at least we'll see his stamp of approval sometime. Mr. Duncan, you have an announcement about a public hearing? Mr. Chair, I believe that protocol would have you all to amend the meeting calendar. Is that right, Mr. Selle? we would like to schedule a public hearing for June 30th. That is your regularly scheduled work session for June. But at the beginning of that meeting, we would like to schedule a public hearing for you all to consider the Windburn small area plan, which we expect to be wrapped up here very shortly. We would open the meeting with a public hearing, like we would always do for these as an amendment to the comprehensive plan. And then once that's concluded, we would close the public hearing and then go into our regular work session. We need a motion to amend the meeting schedule to add that public hearing on 6-30-16. Ms. Plumlee? Still moved. Do we have a second? Second. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Berkeley. All those in favor, please vote when it comes up on the screen. We've got one other thing. You got something else? Are you finished with your agenda? No, I've got one more thing. Take care of that first. Under commission items, it is that time of year for us to select a nominating committee for officers that will take over come July. The process is a voluntary process for the selection of three. We would need a motion to approve that. At that point in time, they have their discussions and meetings. They report back at a work session, which would be the last meeting that we were just talking about the date, and then report their findings at the first public meeting in July. So at that point, volunteers need three. Joe Smith, Mike Cravens, and Carolyn Plumlee. So we need a motion to approve that. So moved. Do we have a second? Motion's been made and seconded for that nominating committee of Carolyn Plumlee, Mike Cravens, and Joe Smith. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. Mr. Penn, motion passes. Mr. Penn, you have one item? Yes, if you're finished with your agenda, I want all of us to give Mike your condolences or your encouragement. tomorrow night is a special night for him. He is getting married. Some of us are making the trip to make sure the knot's tied tight. But Mike, as of Saturday morning or as of whatever time, Friday night, we'll have a new bride. Mike, is this how it is? Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sure most of you all have agreed that she would be calling the better half. Thank you. Anything else? Staff items? Yes. Mr. Chair, I wanted to remind everyone that the staff will be presenting on Tuesday the 14th, this coming Tuesday, the Recreation Zota to the Council Planning and Public Safety Committee. That meeting's at 1 o'clock in this chamber, and it's also televised if you want to follow it that way. Thank you. And our next meeting is officially when? Two weeks from today. Two weeks from today. Two weeks from today. Anything else, folks? If not, I'm on the road. Yes. If not, I'm on the road. Do we have a motion for adjournment? So moved. Do we have a second? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion meeting adjourned. Thank you very much. Are we off the air? Thank you.