MINUTES OF THE MONTHLY

CORBIN PLANNING COMMISSION

Regular Scheduled Meeting

Date: July 19, 2007

TIME AND PLACE

A Public Hearing with the Corbin Planning Commission was held on Thursday, July 19, 2007, at 4:00 P.M. at the Corbin City Hall Government Complex Second Floor Courtroom, Room 202.

Roll Call / Members Present:

Chairman Don Robinson   Lawrence Helton   Steve Surmont   Henry Heaberlin

Others Present Were:

Bld. Insp./Sec. Frank Burke, Admin. Assistant Clara Patterson, Bruce Carpenter, and Trent Knuckles.

Public Hearing: No Public Hearing

Minutes of June 14, 2007 meeting were reviewed, discussed and approved.

Motion:           Steve Surmont

2^nd:                   Henry Heaberlin

All others present voted Yea. None opposed.

Motion Carried

New Business:

Chairman Robinson brought up the errors of omission in the Developmental Ordinances. The first section to be addressed was on Industrial Zones.

Bruce Carpenter was present representing the Corbin Chamber of Commerce and has ask to address the Commission on behalf of a business wishing to come into the Corbin Industrial Park. Mr. Burke explained he and Mr. Carpenter had even discussed the possibilities of having a Industrial Park Classification and let the board govern what would fit into the Park.

Mr. Burke explained the finer points of the classification of the zones I-1 and I-2. However, at this time in the Developmental Ordinance it has not been changed. It remains at this time L1 for light industry and L2 for heavy industry.

Mr. Burke read a few definitions he found from other towns that may give some insight to how we may possibly change our definitions.

Mr. Carpenter addressed the board about a request he received from a local company that wishes to buy a tract of property to bring a distribution warehousing facility in the area. The company has ask for clarification on the zone classification for the Tri-County Industrial Park before they proceed on purchasing the land. This will give them a clear conscious if they buy the property.

Mr. Carpenter suggested that clarification on the zoning of the Industrial Park would be helpful when a potential client wishes to come into the Industrial Park. This would allow negotiations to continue.

Mr. Robinson ask Mr. Burke if he thought there needed to be a change in the definition of the zones or create a new zone? Mr. Burke explained he thought that a zone classified as an Industrial Park District or Zone which allowed the board for the Park to determine suitability would be an option.

Chairman Robinson ask if Mr. Burke thought that just changing the definition of the zone would help and be the simplest way to handle the situation? Mr. Burke agreed that at least changing the definition would help.

Chairman Robinson expressed his desire that the Planning Commission accommodate Mr. Carpenter and the potential client that wishes to come in at this time.

Mr. Burke explained that in his opinion there needs to be a clear definition of what I-1 and I-2 allows or combine both zones into an Industrial Park Zone. Chairman Robinson suggested it may be better to combine I-1 and I-2. In further discussion it was brought forth that there is light and heavy industry in both zones at this time.

Discussion continued about the possibility of having three industry zones and developing guidelines on how to govern the types of businesses in each and how to correct the confusion existing at this time.

Chairman Robinson asked Mr. Carpenter about drafting a letter addressed to the entity defining the zone for them. Mr. Surmont stated that since we have someone wanting to go into the Industrial Park at this time we need to summit to them a letter that states the Commission will accept their business in the district.

Mr. Heaberlin addressed changing the zone. In order to do so you will have to advertize, hold a public hearing, and notify contiguous property owners. Mr. Heaberlin agreed that the Commission should draft a letter expressing their approval to allow the suggested business type in the Tri-County Industrial Park.

Chairman Robinson ask Mr. Burke if he had a problem with the entity coming into the Industrial Zone. Mr. Burke explained he had no problem with the entity that wishes to go into the Industrial Park. Lengthy discussion continued into which way to best proceed with the Industrial Park and Zones.

Chairman Robinson ask Mr. Carpenter if the committee drew up a letter for the potential buyer, allowing their particular business in the I-2 Zone, would that be presentable at this time? Mr. Carpenter said he would try that avenue and see if it works. If not, he would bring it back before the committee. It will take a lot longer to settle the zoning problem than the committee feels the entity is willing to wait.

Chairman Robinson brought up the next item on the agenda, the R-4 Zone. Originally this was an experimental zone. It has been brought to Mr. Burke attention that the Mayor and some local residence want to do away with the R-4 zone. Mr. Burke was ask to bring it back before the committee, requesting  to do away with the R-4 zone.

The R-4 zone was conditional and all business that wishes to go into that zone would have to be brought before the committee for approval. The only entity that has inquired about coming into the zone at this time was a Bread and Breakfast. No application was ever received.

Mr. Surmont ask where all the negative complaints were coming from? To date there has only been one formal complaint brought forth before the committee. Mr. Burke stated that only the Mayor has talked to him.

Mr. Heaberlin ask if Mr. Burke wishes to repeal the optional R-4 zone. Mr. Burke stated at this time there is no definite request on the floor, it was brought up for discussion only. Mr. Burke said at this time he had no problem with repealing the optional R-4 zone but it was up to the Commission to decide. 

Chairman Robinson ask Mr. Burke to go back to those who are concerned with the R-4 zone and ask them to put it in the form of a request to repeal the R-4 zone. The motion will have to go before the board and a public hearing will have to be set up.

Chairman Robinson brought up the next point on the agenda, off premise signs. In the 2006 Developmental Ordinance there was a sentence left out of the Off Premise Sign Ordinance.  

Mr. Burke explained that a large billboard was constructed on divide line of the city limits. The owner contends that it is not in the city. Mr. Burke found that the property in question was annexed in 1987. While looking for proper codes to pertain to the sign, it was discovered that a sentence had been left out of City of Corbin Development Ordinance Section 409.41 by mistake.  It reads; 409.41 Types of Signs: 4. On-Premise Sign - A sign that draws attention to or communicates information about a business, service, commodity, accommodation, attraction, or other enterprise or activity that has the majority of its activities/functions taking place on the premise where the signs located. No on-premise sign shall be allowed for a site that serves a secondary or support role for a business (such as storage).

This error of omission left out one sentence of the section: Only on-premise commercial signs shall be allowed within the city limits. After consulting with Dr. Ron Marionneaux, it was concluded that the definition covered off-premise signs.

However, after discussing the ordinance with Attorney Bob Hammons, he thought the sentence should be put back in the ordinance. Chairman Robinson asks Mr. Burke if this particular ordinance would pertain to the issue of the erected billboard. Mr. Burke stated that he felt that it was an issue the attorneys would need to address.

The motion was made to put the sentence back in to 409.41(4). Only on-premise commercial signs shall be allowed within the city limits.

Motion: Steve Surmont

2^nd: Henry Heaberlin

All others present voted Yea. None opposed.

Motion Carried

The next item on the agenda is the issue of yard sale signs. Mr. Burke explained that he was being approached daily with the issue of yard sale signs. The main issue is that they are tacked up on telephone poles, stop signs, and street signs but no one comes back to pick them up.

Mr. Burke has in the past told them if they would not attach them to a public sign or pole, and put them on a free standing support, he would allow them if they were removed after the sale ended.

Mr. Burke has only been able to come up with a KRS stating that if someone puts one of these on a public sign it is destruction of public property.  Mr. Burke proposed to add one sentence to the ordinance. Mr. Burke stated that this sentence could be placed under the code board and makes it a fineable offense.

Chairman Robinson ask Mr. Burke if they adopted 409.41(6) what would happen when he came down the street and sees the yard sale signs. Mr. Burke explained that it would be illegal and if it falls under the Code Board by ordinance, they would have to decide the enforcement action taken.

409.41 (6). Yard Sale, Garage Sale, etc. signs are considered off-premise commercial signs and are not allowed within the City.

Mr. Burke stated that the addition of Section 409.7 (10) would support the previously addressed changes. It states:

409.7 General Requirements (10). Any sign installed or placed on public property, except in conformance with the requirements of Section 409, shall be forfeited to the public and subject to confiscation. In addition to other remedies, the city shall have the right to recover from the owner or person placing such a sign the full costs of removal and disposal of such sign including any fines, administrative costs and legal fees.

Mr. Surmont ask Mr. Burke if it was that large of a problem at this time? Mr. Burke explained that Public Works has in the past helped take the signs down. He explained that the persons bringing the issue up wishes him to start fining the responsible parties.

Mr. Heaberlin ask if there was issue of occasional use in a sign at this point. Mr. Burke explained this possibly could be classified as a temporary sign, but yard sale signs at this time are not regulated. This does not fall under 409.3 signs excluded from permit. 409.3 (14) would state that a free standing sign cannot be put in a public right of way except those excluded above, this would include the free standing yard sale signs not nailed on the poles but actually put on a small stake in the ground.

Mr. Heaberlin ask if there had actually been a sustainable amount of complaints over the yard sale signs. Mr. Burke explained that on the weekend there have been a very large amount of signs put up. They are not picked up the first of the week and become an unsightly mess, they become litter. Mr. Burke explained that we are not enforcing yard sales signs at this time, we are trying to define what a yard sale sign actually is and develop a way to control them.

Chariman Robinson asks what do the people bringing the complaint up want done about the alleged problem? Mr. Burke explained they want the yard sale signs banned and the people putting the signs up fined. He explained that there is no ordinance that says he can fine them.

Mr. Heaberlin asks if there was an ordinance against yard sales. Mr. Burke explained that you are allowed to have one yard sale per year for a maximum of three days.

Chairman Robinson suggested if they adopt #10 that it may have some effect on the people putting the yard sale signs up, but he also expressed his concern that it would create a situation where Mr. Burke would be going around doing nothing but addressing yard sale signs.

Mr. Surmont agreed with Chairman Robinson and he expressed he did not wish to ban yard sales. 

Chairman Robinson expressed that he thinks if this sentence was adopted and the public made aware of the ordinance, he hoped it may help.

Mr. Trent Knuckles from the City of Corbin Code Enforcement Board expressed his concern as well, but that he does not wish to have a list of public hearings where they are trying to deduce who did and did not put up a yard sale sign over the weekend.

Mr. Burke explained at one time he had run an ad in the newspaper during the summer with a checklist of things that are trouble areas that need to be addressed during the summer, i.e. Keep Dogs Quiet, Pick up Trash, Mow Grass, etc. At one time he thought it did not seem to get any reaction, now he thinks possibly it did more than he thought.

Chairman Robinson ask Mr. Burke if he could go back to the Commission and tell them at this time the only thing that the Planning and Zoning will accept is #10 reintroduced back into the Developmental Ordinance.

Mr. Surmont ask what would happen if they adopted item #6? The panel extensively discussed options that could work if they also adopted item #6.

Mr. Heaberlin brought up the point that if we could enforce the one yard sale a year the yard sale sign problem would virtually go away.

Chairman Robinson asks if they wish to adopt items #6 and #10, adding them to the Developmental Ordinance.

All others present agreed.

Chairman Robinson brought up the next item on the agenda the definition for Mini Warehouse. Mr. Burke explained he and Mrs. Patterson worked up the definition through various avenues to include all the concerns each member had. He explained that in order to adopt the definition there would need to be a public hearing before adopting this and the other changes.

Chairman Robinson asks to put off discussing the definition until other members of the Planning Commission were present to discuss it. The discussion included the concerns of Mr. Hood and the Commission agreed that he should be present.

Mr. Burke asks if the commission wish to put the definition off until the September meeting.

Chairman Robinson ask that the definition to be put on the next business meeting's agenda. He asked if the board wish to meet in August. It was so noted that the Planning Commission would meet in August.

Old Business  

There was no Old Business considered.

The next scheduled meeting and public hearing is tentatively set for August 16, 2007.

There being no further business or discussion, the meeting was, on motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried, ADJOURNED.

As and for the Planning                           ATTEST:

And Zoning Commission

Date:  ________________________    Date: ____________________