ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008, THE VERSAILLES-MIDWAY-WOODFORD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HELD THEIR SCHEDULED MEETING IN THE 2^ND FLOOR COURTROOM OF THE WOODFORD COUNTY COURTHOUSE AT 6:30 P.M.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.

MINUTES: A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as seconded by Mr. McClees, to approve the January 10, 2008 minutes, as submitted. The motion carried with nine (9) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.

Amended Preliminary Plat – Wooldridge Gardens Phase III, Section 3 Town Houses – Falling Springs Blvd – R-1C(PUD) 68 lots.

Chairman Ellis declared the hearing open at 6:32 p.m. and called upon Mrs. Wilson for her comments. Mrs. Wilson stated this is the PUD around the new middle school and this section of the site has been designated from the beginning as attached single family homes. The Planning Commission has seen this before and they have now defined the footprint of the buildings. All the TRC deficiencies have been addressed and the plan is in order.

Mr. Derringer was present on behalf of the plat, but had no comments. With there being no further comments from the Planning Commission or the public Chairman Ellis closed the hearing at 6:34 p.m.

A motion was made by Mr. Blankenship, as seconded by Mr. Wolf, to approve the Amended Preliminary Plat – Wooldridge Gardens Phase III, Section 3 Town Houses – Falling Springs Blvd. – R-1C PUD 68 lots, as submitted. The motion carried with nine (9) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.

Zoning Map Amendment & Preliminary Development Plan/Preliminary Plat –Hope Ann Lowe (Holly Hill Lane) – 8148 Troy Pike – 85.0165 acres from A-1 to A-2, 17.0017 acres from A-2 to Rural Residential, 68.0408 acres from A-2 to Rural Residential/Residual - creating eight lots.

Chairman Ellis declared the hearing open at 6:35 and called upon Mrs. Wilson for her comments. Mrs. Wilson entered the following exhibits into the record:

A. Zone Change Application

B. Preliminary Development Plan/Preliminary Plat

C. Photographs of signs

D. Copy of Adjoining Property owner letters

E. Copy of Notice to Woodford Sun

F. Staff Report/ P. Wilson

G. Approved Encroachment permit

H. TRC minutes

I. Copy of deficiency letter to surveyor

Mrs. Wilson read her staff report into the record. Owner/Applicant is requesting to change the zone of 85.0165 gross acres from A-1 (Agriculture) to A-2 (Agriculture) and then to change 17.0017 gross acres (20%) from A-2 to R.R. (Rural Residential) and 68.0408 gross acres (80%) from A-2 to Residual Farmland in order to create 8 single family residential lots. Currently the property is being used for agricultural purposes. There are no existing structures in the area being proposed for Rural Residential lots. There is one barn on the proposed Residual Farmland Area to the north of the proposed driveway.

Proposed are eight Rural Residential lots clustered together in as existing partially tree-lined field approximately 400 feet from Troy Pike, sharing one access to Troy Pike. The Rural Residential District is intended to maintain the rural and scenic qualities of the County, provide for controlled rural residential growth beyond the limits of the urban services districts, maintain the viability of existing agricultural activities, allow land owners a reasonable return on their holdings, provide for farming opportunities for future farmers, protect historic, scenic or environmentally sensitive areas, and ensure that rural residential growth can be adequately served by public roadways, fire and police protection, and public schools. The A-2 Agricultural District is intended to provide a means by which agricultural land outside the agricultural preservation zone, identified on the maps associated with the Rural Policy Plan, can be proposed for rural residential cluster development. The development standards are the same as those of the A-1 District; however, the designation of A-2 zoning allows a landowner to request a re-zoning to the RR District for rural residential development. The adjacent zoning on the north, south, east, and west is all A-1 Zoning. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update recognizes agriculture as a significant economic and tourism activity of the County. The Use of Woodford Lands/Community Facilities and Services-Chapter 8 of the 2005 Plan establishes Land Use Districts (Figure 77). The area of the subject property is located in the “Rural Character District”. The Plan (Pg. 362) indicates that this district “contains a diverse set of uses, ranging from rural residential cluster subdivisions to farms to crossroad communities such as Troy. All share a common characteristic however, a setting where human activities are clearly a minor part of the natural environment. The compatible integration of human activities within the rural setting is the focus of this District, and it is clearly intended that the rural character of these lands be preserved.” (Emphasis added) Each District contains Guidelines and these Guidelines “are intended to be flexible tools that the Commission and legislative bodies can use to evaluate how development proposals comply with the goals, objectives and policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The guidelines are applied on a case by case basis and some may not be applicable or appropriated for every development proposal considered by the Commission. Both policies and guidelines can be used as findings to support Commission and/or legislative body decisions.” (Pg. 1) The 2005 Plan, Woodford Resources: Land, Water and Air address the physiographic characteristics of Woodford County’s geology, soils and topography. The Sinkhole Site Map (Figure 45) does NOT indicate that there are any Sinkhole Sites in this vicinity. The Soils Map (Figure 46) indicates this area is not “Very limited for drainage, septic systems, and residential dwellings.” The Soils Capabilities for Agricultural Use Map (Figure 47) indicates that all of this vicinity is considered Prime Farmland. According to the Slopes Map (Figure 48) this property is located on slopes less than 12%.

The development proposed supports the 2005 Plan and the Rural Residential Zoning District, in that the property does not fall within the designated Agricultural/Equine Preserve District (Figure 77); the majority of the prime agricultural farmland will be designated as residual farmland; water is available with adequate pressure according to the South Woodford Water District; and fire protection is provided by the Woodford County Fire Department. Site evaluations have been preformed and approved by the Health Department. The proposed lots are accessed by a proposed private roadway that will serve the eight rural residential cluster lots. It appears that Guidelines of the Rural District are being met. Site evaluations have been approved by the Woodford County Health Department (#1). The lots are located to maximize the remaining area for agricultural uses (#2). The lots are located within an existing field that is “naturally buffered by native, mature trees” to be preserved as much as possible, which will reduce the impact upon agriculture, provide summer shade and shelter from winter wind, and enable new construction to be visually absorbed by natural landscape features (#3). The location of these lots will have little scenic impact on public roadways since the building sites are located within a partially tree-lined field, which will be supplemented with additional landscaping to meet the landscape buffer requirements (#4). A detailed soils map is attached hereto as Attachment #3. The soil data is from the Soil Survey of Jessamine and Woodford Counties, Kentucky, prepared by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and shows that approximately 50% of the proposed residential area McAfee/Maury Silt Loam Soils. These soils have medium to high potential for most urban uses and have no severe limitations. The remaining 50% of the area where lots are proposed consists of Fairmount flaggy silty clay soil. This soil has low potential for most urban use. “The depth to rock, high clay content, and low strength are limitations.” A majority of the prime soils on the farm are in the proposed residual farmland area. It should be noted that there were two division from the property since July 16, 1990, recorded in Deed Book 245, Page 19 and another in Deed Book 245, Page 23 each consisting of 30 acres. The applicant is proposing to develop 20% of the remaining farm and preserving 80% of the remaining farm. Since the two deeded lots are on existing public roads the five lot bonus is not available for the remaining farm. All allowable rural residential lots (8) are being utilized with this application. Therefore, if approved, there will be no remaining rural residential lots on this farm. The 2005 Plan classifies US Highway 33 (Troy Pike) as a "Rural Major Collector." US 33 extends from Southland Drive to the Jessamine County line is 12.919 miles long. At the present time the bridge over the Bluegrass Parkway is being reconstructed with possible additional road reconstruction from there to KY 169. Both of these projects are in the State’s current Six Year Road Plan. According to the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Transportation Study (May 1999) the portion of KY 33 south of KY 169 is at a Level of Service (LOS) C and is projected to stay at LOS C through 2020. From KY 169 into Versailles is at a LOS D with a projected of LOS E by 2020. Fire protection is provided by the Woodford County Fire Department. Police protection is provided by the Versailles Police Department, Sheriffs Department and the Kentucky State Police. The proposed development would be served by Southside Elementary School, the Middle School and Woodford County High School. The Subdivision Regulations require that subdivisions have at least 4% of the site be designated as open space and that 40% of the frontage of that open space be along a public street right-of-way. (Sub Reg Section 660A). The Preliminary Development Plan is designating 80% of the farm as Residual Farmland/Open Space. However, this open space is not 4% of the Residential area and does not meet the 60% frontage requirement. Therefore a waiver is being requested of this requirement. It appears that the proposed zone change is in agreement with the 2005 Plan Update because of the above noted areas of that plan; the property is in the Rural Service Area; the property does not fall within the designated Agricultural/Equine Preserve District (Figure 77); the majority of the prime agricultural farmland will be designated as residual farmland; water is available with adequate pressure according to the South Woodford Water District; and fire protection is provided by the Woodford County Fire Department; site evaluations have been done and approved by the Health Department; the proposed lots are accessed by an approved entrance with a proposed private road that will be blacktopped; guidelines 1 – 4 of the Rural District appear to be met; a required landscape plan has been submitted; and, the plan and lots meet the minimum dimensional requirements established by Section 703 of the Zoning Ordinance for Rural Residential

Mr. Hume questioned where the motion came from that was handed out and the reference to 660A? Mrs. Wilson stated that was provided by the applicant and the Subdivision Regulations requires that all subdivisions have 4% open space and that 60% of the perimeter must front on a public street. They are requesting not to do that because they are actually doing 80% open space on the farmland.

Mr. Robert Stilz, attorney for the applicant, stated that the Staff Report covers everything already. They are not in the agricultural preserve area, public services are available, the lots have been designed to maximize the land on the property and the location of the lots are in the far corner of the farm. In addition to the residual land there are two 30 acre tracts that serve as open space on the property. There is at least a 30’ elevation change from the road and where these lots are located, which will not impact the vista from the road. The waiver request is for the 4% open space area required within the subdivision. That would only be about 7/10 of an acre. There is 68 acres of permanent open space along with the two 30 acre tracts.

With there being no further comments from the Planning Commission or the public, Chairman Ellis closed the hearing at 6:45 p.m.

A motion was made by Mr. Wolf, as seconded by Mr. Wells, to waive the By-laws requiring that the Planning Commission wait 14 days before taking action on a zone change. The motion carried with nine (9) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.

A motion was made by Mr. Wolf, as seconded by Mr. Wells, to recommend approval of the Zoning Map Amendment –Hope Ann Lowe (Holly Hill Lane) – 8148 Troy Pike – 85.0165 acres from A-1 to A-2, 17.0017 acres from A-2 to Rural Residential, 68.0408 acres from A-2 to Rural Residential/Residual - creating eight lots, based on the Summary of Evidence and Findings of Fact presented by the applicant: An application was made by Hope Ann Lowe to rezone 85.0165 acres of real property located at 8148 Troy Pike as described on the legal description attached to the application, from the zoning district classification of A-1 to the zoning district classification of A-2; that 17.0017 acres of real property located at 8148 Troy Pike, as described on the legal description attached to the application, be changed from the zoning district classification of A-2 to the zoning district classification of Rural Residential and that 68.0408 acres of real property located at 8148 Troy Pike, as described on the legal description attached to the application, be changed from the zoning district classification of A-1 to the zoning district classification of Rural Residential/Residual Farmland. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE: 1. This zone change request is in agreement with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update as shown by the Staff Report as follows: A. The development proposed supports the 2005 Plan and the Rural Residential Zoning District, in that the property does not fall within the designated Agricultural/Equine Preserve District (Figure 77); the majority of the prime agricultural farmland will either remain zoned A-2 to be designated as residual farmland (Preliminary Development Plan); water is available with adequate pressure according to the South Woodford Water District; and fire protection is provided by the Woodford County Fire Department. Preliminary site evaluations have been done and approved by the Health Department. The proposed lots are accessed by a proposed private road that will be constructed to Woodford County specifications. B. Guidelines 1-4 of the Rural District are being met. (1) Guideline 1 – approved entrance with a proposed private road to be constructed according to Woodford County specifications. (2) Guideline 2 – topography and drainage patterns are not being altered. (3) Guideline 3 – The lots are located to maximize the remaining area for agricultural uses. The Residual Farmland contains the most fertile soils and has been repeatedly cultivated. The lots are located in area of existing mature trees which will reduce the impact upon agriculture, provide summer shade and shelter from winter wind, and enable new construction to be visually absorbed by natural landscape features. The location of these lots will not have any scenic impact on public roadways since the sites are located some 500 feet from any public roadway. In addition, the lots are located at a higher elevation from the public roadway. (4) Guideline 4- The project location takes advantage of any scenic vista and the location of these lots will not have any scenic impact on public roadways since the sites are located some 500 feet from any public roadway. In addition, the lots are located at a higher elevation from the public roadway. 2. This zone change request is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Section 703.10C: A. On the most suitable soils for sub-surface septic disposal (in unsewered areas only); (1) Preliminary site evaluations have been approved by the Woodford County Health Department. B. On the least fertile soils for agricultural uses, and in a manner which maximizes the useable area remaining for such agricultural uses; (1) The lots are located to maximize the remaining area for agricultural uses. The residual farmland contains the most fertile soils and has been repeatedly cultivated. C. Within any woodland contained in the parcel, or along the far edges of the open fields adjacent to any woodland (to reduce impact upon agriculture, to provide summer shade and shelter from winter wind, and to enable new construction to be visually absorbed by natural landscape features.); (1) The lots are located along the far edges of open fields and in an area of existing mature trees which will reduce the impact upon agriculture, provide summer shade and shelter from winter wind, and enable new construction to be visually absorbed by natural landscape features. D. In locations least likely to block of interrupt scenic vistas, as seen from the public roadway(s). (1) The location of these lots will not have any scenic impact on public roadways since the lots are some 500 feet from any public roadway. In addition, the lots are located at a higher elevation from the public roadway. 3. Waiver of the Subdivision Regulations 660A is justified because the applicant is providing 68 acres of open space and would not have an impact on the public interest and not impact on public facilities. FINDS AND CONCLUSIONS: The facts set forth in the above Summary of Evidence are found to exist. Thus the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Planning and Zoning Commission finds and concludes as follows: 1. The zone change request is in compliance with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Further, this zone change request is in compliance with Section 703.10C of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Waiver of Subdivision Regulations 660A is granted. The motion carried with nine (9) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.

To review and possibly amend Article VII, Section 714.4(D) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the use of a hotel or motel in the B-2 District as a conditional use as follows:

714.4 Conditional Uses

D. Hotels and motels (See 714.7 Special Provisions)

Chairman Ellis declared the hearing open at 6:50 p.m. and called upon Mrs. Wilson for her comments. Mrs. Wilson stated that this request was received from the Versailles City Council. The committee met and discussed putting this in as a principle use versus a conditional use and the consensus was to put it in as a conditional use. Mrs. Wilson stated that she handed out two maps; one of the City of Versailles and one of the City of Midway showing all the B-2 zoning that could be affected by this text amendment. The consensus of the committee was that each application could be reviewed on a case by case basis. Downtown areas are supposed to be dense and it would give the Board of Adjustment the opportunity to look at these closely. The Planning Commission would see the development plan and it would not be a public hearing.

Mr. Blankenship stated that the committee was not opposed to the text amendment, but felt that there needed to be some opportunity to make sure that they did not get something that they did not want. The Board of Adjustment will look at these and have a say on a case by case basis and it will give the public and opportunity to talk about it as well.

Mrs. Wilson stated that she also suggested along with this that off street parking would be required due to the parking constraints that already exist in Midway and Versailles. After reviewing other communities ordinances, she found that most required that each suite have one parking space and one for each employee on a maximum working shift. She stated that she recommended this because other businesses downtown do not have to have on-site parking.

Mr. Butler stated that the parking issue is the next item on the agenda so they may want to open that hearing at this time as well, since they are related.

To review and possibly amend To review and possibly amend the Zoning Ordinance - Article VII, Section 714.7 (B) to add the following:

714.7 (B)

B. Off-Street Parking is required for Hotels and Motels at a ratio of one (1) space per suite, plus one (1) for each employee on maximum shift, wit a minimum of five (5) spaces.

Chairman Ellis declared this hearing open at 6:51 p.m.

Mr. Ken Lawson, one of the owners of Woodford Inn, stated that he would like to see a provision that would allow existing establishments to have their parking requirements grandfathered in and then for any additional rooms added on they would have to comply with the new requirements. They are hoping to add twenty more rooms and could provide parking for those, but it would be a hardship to try and meet the requirements for what is existing plus the additions. They have CO-1 property that slopes and they cannot put parking in that location.

Mrs. Wilson explained that Mr. Lawson wants the parking requirement for what they currently have grandfathered in and then any new rooms would fall under the new parking requirement. Currently they have nine rooms. Chairman Ellis stated that he does not want to have to add the extra spaces for what they have now, but would for any new rooms.

Mr. Blankenship questioned where they propose to put the parking now? Mr. Lawson stated that right now the way the proposed ordinance reads, if they had twelve rooms they would need seventeen parking spaces. Mrs. Wilson questioned how many employees they have? Mr. Lawson stated that they probably would not have more than five employees there at any one time. Mrs. Wilson stated that if they have twelve rooms and five employees they need seventeen spaces.

Mr. Hume stated that if they do not increase the parking, it seems it would create a problem. Mr. Lawson stated that right now they have had no problems with parking at all. They will be able to add parking for the room additions, but because of the CO-1 portion that has a slope, it would be hard to do both.

Mrs. Wilson stated that if this is done for one person it can be a problem, but if it is a conditional use, that is something that the Board of Adjustment can look at on a case by case basis. Mr. Hume stated that he did not think parking was something the Board of Adjustment could alter. Mrs. Wilson stated that right now they park on Park Street. Mr. Lawson stated that is correct, and they do park across the street where it is graveled in. Mrs. Wilson questioned if some of those are public spaces? Mr. Lawson stated that is correct.

Mr. Blankenship questioned if Woodford Inn would be the only one impacted since it would not effect bed and breakfasts? Mrs. Wilson stated that there are no hotels or motels in the existing B-2 districts.

Mr. McClees questioned how many handicap spaces would be required in the 17? Mrs. Wilson stated that it would only be one.

Mrs. Wilson stated that the conditional use allows the Board of Adjustment to look at the fact that his existing rooms have parking accommodations and that he is asking for parking for the future rooms. The downtown will be on a case by case basis because each case will be unique. The Planning Commission will look at the development plan side of it.

Mr. Hume questioned if the Board of Adjustment can alter parking requirements? Mrs. Wilson stated that they have never been asked to do that and she would have to research it.

Mr. Butler stated that 714.4 that would allow the conditional use refers to a special provision that is 714.7 B. That only applies to hotel or motel uses in the B-2 District. Generally speaking the Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to alter parking; however, in this particular case if this is approved the Board of Adjustment will hear the requirements and should have the ability to adjust those if necessary or for hotels and motels in the B-2 District.

Mr. Hume felt that if they allow the Board of Adjustment to consider the parking, they might end up with problems. Mrs. Wilson stated that no use in the B-2 zone requires off street parking, but hotels and motels in other zones do. Mr. Hume felt that parking is an issue that they want to keep control over.

Chairman Ellis questioned if they redo this would they have to re-advertise and hold another hearing? Mr. Butler stated that they would.

Mr. Butler stated that there are a lot of big cities, such as Bardstown and Louisville that do not require parking in the downtown area for hotels. Mrs. Wilson stated that they have parking garages. Mr. Butler agreed and said that they create the garages because they do not want parking on the street.

Mr. Wolf questioned if they could get permission across the street to park? Mrs. Wilson stated that there is joint access parking agreements in the Zoning Ordinance, if you get them in writing and they are within so many feet of the property. Mr. Hume stated that this is not a short term problem.

Mr. Butler stated that he would not suggest that the Planning Commission look at a waiver at the site plan stage because that opens up waiving the parking section. If you want to look at this on a case by case basis, the way it is written is the way to go. If you want a standard set in stone that could not be waived, it would have to be re-advertised.

Mr. Blankenship stated that the Planning Commission has set precedent before and grandfathered things in. If this were approved, Woodford Inn from this day forward if they added something would have to comply with the parking regulations, but they would not be penalized for the nine rooms they have now. They are the only entity that would be impacted in both Midway and Versailles.

Mr. Butler stated that perhaps they have the room to provide the parking and just don’t want to do it. Let them appear before the Board of Adjustment and make their case rather than giving them a blanket waiver. Mr. Blankenship stated that the reason he was thinking that was because he has not heard of any problems. Mr. Butler stated that in his opinion it is always appropriate to address parking. He did not feel they should take it out of the Board of Adjustments hands.

Mr. Wolf stated that they are not talking about the nine rooms they have now. Mrs. Wilson stated that is correct. Mrs. Wilson stated that most people want more parking than what the Zoning Ordinance requires.

Mr. Butler stated that he understands what Mr. Blankenship is saying, but it would have to be reworded and re-advertised. Mrs. Wilson stated that right now they are operating as an apartment, although they call themselves an Inn.

Chairman Ellis pointed out that if someone comes in under hotel or motel it is going to be a new application and they would have to start from scratch.

Mr. Wells stated that this is only for hotels and motels in a B-2 District so theoretically they could pass #3 and not #4 and the Board of Adjustment could still look at it on a case by case basis. Mr. Butler stated that is correct but that would give the Board of Adjustment a lot of latitude because the current parking in a B-2 District is zero. Mr. Wells stated that the distinction would be hotels and motels in the downtown area, so they would be on a per case basis. Each application would be conditional. Mr. Butler stated that if you don’t include the provision for parking, then the Board of Adjustment would have to try and figure out where they think it is appropriate. If the parking provision is included, it gives the Board of Adjustment a guideline to go by.

Mr. Boggs felt that maybe they should have something rewritten or at least have someone clarify something. It is very confusing.

Mr. Parrott stated that he feels they could adopt it as it is written without addressing Mr. Lawson’s point. What he is saying is a totally different issue.

Mr. Butler agreed and stated that Mr. Lawson would have the ability to go to the Board of Adjustment and ask for relief. They could grant that. Mr. Hume stated that it will complicate their case with a change in use. Chairman Ellis stated that he can still ask the Board of Adjustment the same question. Mr. Butler stated that they can still ask the Board of Adjustment to address the issue, but it does not mandate that they do so. It allows for relief, but does not mandate relief.

Mr. Wolf questioned if it means that if he applies for more rooms, then he has to come in for approval? Mr. Butler stated that he could then apply for relief of parking from the Board of Adjustment with justification for it.

Mr. Parrott questioned if they own the gravel lot they said they are using? Mrs. Wilson stated that they do not. They own property to the right.

Mr. Wolf questioned if this means that once this is approved it would have no effect on Mr. Lawson until he made an application to add more rooms. Mrs. Wilson stated that is correct.

Mr. Thompson stated that Mr. Butler made a good point in saying that Bardstown does not require parking in the downtown area and it is no problem. He questioned why Versailles or Midway would have to? Mr. Butler stated that he did not say parking was no problem there. Mr. Thompson stated that his point is, that he would hate to see someone come in and put in a twelve room hotel in the downtown area and then have to buy a piece of property and tear down a building in order to meet the parking requirements. Mr. Thompson stated that he could see nothing wrong with parking on the street.

Chairman Ellis closed the hearing at 7:18 p.m.

A motion was made by Mr. Blankenship, as seconded by Mr. Hume, to recommend to the three legislative bodies to approve the proposed text amendment to Article VII, Section 714.4 (D) to add hotels and motels as a conditional use as follows: D. Hotels and motels (See 714.7 Special Provisions). The motion carried with nine (9) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.

A motion was made by Mr. Blankenship, as seconded by Mr. Hume, to recommend to the three legislative bodies to approve the proposed text amendment to Article VII, Section 714.7(B) to add parking requirements in the B-2 district for hotels and motels as follows: B. Off-Street Parking is required for Hotels and Motels at a ratio of one (1) space per suite, plus one (1) for each employee on maximum shift, wit a minimum of five (5) spaces. The motion carried with eight (8) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, J.D. Wolf. OPPOSED: Chad Wells.

To review and possibly amend Article VI, Section 600.2A of the Zoning Ordinance to allow one parking space per each 300 sq. ft. of floor area for home improvement stores.

PARKING SPACES

REQUIRED PER UNIT

USE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT OF MEASUREMENT

Home Improvement Stores each 300 sq. ft. of floor area One (1)

Chairman Ellis declared the hearing open at 7:20 p.m. and called upon Mrs. Wilson for her comments.

Mrs. Wilson stated that this was actually a request from the City of Versailles. The City was contacted by Ann McBride of McBride, Dale, Clarion and the City forwarded it on to the Planning Commission. This would create a new category in the parking standards for Home Improvement Stores. McBride, Dale had done some research of their own and that was included with the report.

Mr. Blankenship stated that the Committee met on this as well and they recommended to bring it before the Planning Commission. This was different from other retail stores because home improvement stores typically have so much storage that is not floor space. They felt that the study by McBride, Dale and the verification from Mrs. Wilson made sense and that it was basically the accepted method in other locations. Mrs. Wilson pointed out that the list of uses in the parking requirements has not changed for many years and the term, home improvement store is new from the 1970 version of the parking requirements.

Mr. Tom Brown stated that he is present because this has become public knowledge that this is marketing a potential retail big box “Lowes” at Versailles Center. He felt it was interesting that no one is present from the City to state why they want this. This comes before an application has been made so it is like trying to set the groundwork in place so that there is no technical competivness whenever they get ready to make application. Mr. Brown stated that his concern is that there is no definition of a home improvement store and how many other businesses could start calling themselves that. Mr. Brown stated that Rodger’s Décor and More comes to mind because they sell paint and wallpaper and tile, etc. A number of businesses could potentially claim to be a home improvement store. Mr. Brown felt that without a definition, this seems premature. We also need to see a big picture of what is intended for Versailles Center. It appears that they are trying to eliminate some parking requirements and want a bigger box and put in more peripheral stores. He did not feel this should be considered until they know what the bigger picture is. Very often Lowes has garden centers and garden centers are defined.

Mr. Brown questioned the comment Mrs. Wilson made earlier regarding most businesses wanting more parking than is required? Mrs. Wilson stated that is usually the case, but we have not had a home improvement store.

Mr. Boggs stated that he understands that Mr. Brown is suggesting that they not pass this; however, he questioned what Mr. Brown sees as the problem? Mr. Brown stated that they do not have an understanding of the intention of the applicant. It appears they want to change some regulations before they make known what they intend to do. Mr. Brown stated that he feels a development of this volume should be very open to the public.

Mrs. Wilson stated that they did file a development plan on Monday that will go before the TRC for the entire Rubloff site.

Mr. Blankenship questioned if they should consider a definition before they take action on this? They did that for bed and breakfast and tourist homes and many other things. Maybe they should postpone this until they come up with a definition.

Chairman Ellis questioned if the study that was done defined it? Mrs. Wilson stated that there was some descriptive wording, but not a definite definition.

Mr. Wolf questioned why they could not approve this and then next time look at a definition? Mr. Blankenship stated that they could, but it makes sense to do them together.

Mr. Butler questioned if any of the existing uses are over 10,000 square feet? If they are 10,000 square feet and they are considered retail right now, the parking requirement for those would be increased.

Mrs. Wilson stated that she can write a definition and they can take that up next month. Mr. Blankenship questioned if this is acceptable to the other members?

Mr. Brown stated that he is not saying that he wants to see more parking spaces. If there were a plan that came forward that showed green space in islands and landscaping that was visually attractive, that might be nice.

Mr. Butler stated that at some point the Planning Commission probably needs to revamp the parking requirements because it dates to the 1970’s and requires too many parking spaces. He stated that Mrs. Wilson is correct that most people want more parking than is required.

Mr. Blankenship questioned if the definition will be difficult to come up with? Mrs. Wilson did not believe it would.

Mr. Butler stated that they can hold the hearing open and then advertise for the definition. The comments will be in the record.

Chairman Ellis continued the hearing at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of defining home improvement store.

To review and possibly amend the Subdivision Regulations (Yellow Book) Article VI, Section 660 to require the 4% open space to be only within the Urban Service Boundary of Versailles or Midway as follows:

660 Land Requirement for Community Facilities and Adequacy and Accessibility to Public Facilities

A. In reviewing subdivision plats, the Planning Commission will consider the adequacy and accessibility of existing or proposed community facilities to serve the additional dwellings proposed by the subdivision.

Where a proposed park, playground, or other recreational area, proposed school site, or other public uses, shown in the Comprehensive Plan is located in whole or in part within a proposed subdivision, such proposed public use or park, if not dedicated to public use, or conveyed to the City, County or the Board of Education, shall be reserved for a period not more than two years from the date of final approval of the Final Subdivision Plat by the Planning Commission for acquisition by the Fiscal Court, the City Council, the Board of Education or other public agency by purchase or other means.

At a minimum, open space (exclusive of retention/detention basins) shall constitute no less than four (4%) percent of the gross area of any subdivision or development site located within the Versailles or Midway Urban Service Boundary. This open space area shall have at least sixty (60%) percent of its perimeter abutting a public street edge.

To review and possibly amend the Subdivision Regulations (Purple Book) Part 3 Section 1.3.02 to require the 4% open space to be only within the Urban Service Boundary of Versailles or Midway as follows:

1.3.02

No less than four (4%) percent of the gross area of any Subdivision or Development Site shall be planned and dedicated as open space for the benefit of the residents of the Subdivision or Development when located within the Versailles or Midway Urban Service Boundary . Required open space shall be:

Chairman Ellis declared the hearings open at 7:31 p.m. for Items 6 & 7, proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations (both yellow and purple books). Chairman Ellis stated that when taking action, they will address them one at a time.

Mrs. Wilson stated that this came up a long time ago, but more recently at the last meeting when they had a Rural Residential zone change on the agenda. It was suggested at that time that we address it so that the waiver does not have to keep being asked for and granted. Mrs. Wilson stated that she received a correspondence from Mr. Graddy objecting to this amendment and he feels that there should be open space in the small community areas. He also felt that the ability to grant the waiver provides enough relief.

Ms. Carol Zeis, stated that last year there was a small community zone change request in Nonesuch by Mr. George Reeves. Basically the Planning Commission turned it down for all the right reasons, and one of those reasons was that the Planning Commission found that Mr. Reeves failed to demonstrate compliance with the applicable open space requirement and the applicant failed to provide a basis for a waiver from this requirement and failed to make that request in writing. That is one of a number of things. The Fiscal Court overruled that decision and an appeal was filed and it has been heard, but not acted on by the Judge. Ms. Zeis stated that it makes sense you might not require this for Rural Residential since you are already preserving a lot of open space, but that is not the case with the Small Community. The Small Community is based on the same concept as developments inside the Urban Service Boundary. If this action is taken it could eliminate the basis for their appeal.

Mrs. Wilson stated that if it were required in the Small Community District, they would have to get a waiver every time. Small Community developments have to use existing public roads and are not allowed to build private streets. The open space requirement says that 60% of the open space has to be on a public road. The open space would have to be by the public road and they could not provide the 4% and meet the 60% perimeter frontage requirement. In an urban situation where new streets are allowed to be built, you can accommodate that. In Mr. Graddy’s letter, he is saying that he thinks it is being handled appropriately with the waivers. They could eliminate it for Rural Residential and have it be required for everything else.

Ms. Zeis stated that just in her conversations with Mr. Graddy and her own experience, everyone has stressed open space. Mrs. Wilson stated that it is very important in new urbanism. Ms. Zeis stated that she would really like to see it remain in the small community district and this change would affect their appeal.

Mrs. Bea Stringer stated that she did not intend to speak, but when attending a Fiscal Court meeting a couple of months ago, the Nonesuch Homemakers Association was there requesting public money to help afford a park in Nonesuch, which tells you public open space is needed.

Mr. Blankenship questioned if they can add small community? Mrs. Wilson stated that they can, but they are going to be waiving the 60% perimeter on those cases. You could just say that it is required in all subdivisions except Rural Residential.

Mr. Evans questioned how they know the radius of the small community? Mrs. Wilson stated that they have a center point and a radius, but you have to asked to be zoned that.

Mr. Blankenship stated that his recollection was that they were constantly getting waiver requests for Rural Residential. They were not trying to hurt the small communities.

Chairman Ellis questioned if the option would be to do nothing? Chairman Ellis questioned if it is really that big of a problem to grant the waivers.

Mr. Parrott questioned if the minimum in small community is one acre what does 4% of that look like? Mrs. Wilson stated that it is not very much. Mr. Parrott questioned if a development can be one lot? Mrs. Wilson stated that it takes three or more to be considered a subdivision. Mr. Parrott questioned if the 60% perimeter requirement can ever be used for road expansion? Mrs. Wilson stated that it could probably be condemned.

Mr. Butler stated that for 15 one acre lots, the 4% would be about 20,000 square feet. Mr. Thompson stated that if you put that on the road to get frontage on the road it destroys the lots. If you waive the frontage requirements then the space needs to be behind the road. Mrs. Wilson stated that it was really written for an urban concept.

Ms. Zeis stated that her understanding of the open space is when there is a bunch of children in a subdivision, there needs to be a place where they can go and play.

Chairman Ellis closed the hearing at 7:45 p.m.

A motion was made by Mr. Blankenship, as seconded by Mr. Evans, that items 6 & 7 as it pertains to the open space proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations be disapproved. The motion carried with nine (9) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.

To review and possibly amend the Zoning Ordinance to add an additional Chapter XI regarding a Landscape Plan.

Landscape and Land Use Buffers Zoning Ordinance to be know as new Article XI, to include the following: Intent, Sites Affected, Authority, Jurisdiction, Conflicting Regulations, Where Landscape Materials Required, Perimeter Landscaping Requirements, Property Perimeter Requirements, Vehicular Use Area Perimeter Requirements, Location of Landscape Buffer Area (LBA), Relationship to Yare Requirements, Responsibility for Providing LBA’s, Requirement Conflicts, Landscaping at Driveway & Street Intersections, Joint Driveways & Common Vehicular Use Areas, Existing Landscape Material, Interior Landscaping for Vehicular Use Areas, Landscaping for Service Structures, Landscape Materials, Vehicle Overhang, Maintenance and Installation, Plan Submission and Approval, Planting Manual and Plant Materials List, Administration, Enforcement, Variances, and Definitions.

A complete copy of the proposed text can be found on the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Planning Commission Web Site at with a link to the February 14, 2008 agenda or a copy can be reviewed at or purchased from the Planning Commission Office at 103 South Main Street, Court House – Suite 204, Versailles, Kentucky.

Chairman Ellis declared the hearing open at 7:46 p.m.

Mrs. Wilson stated that when she first came to work here this was one of her goals and it is finally happening. Mrs. Wilson stated that she looked at some other communities ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Right now the Zoning Ordinance says it requires a fence, wall, or hedge around a parking lot if it adjoins a residential area. That was the extent of it other than what was written for the Rural Residential district. In looking at the Comprehensive Plan, she added some things that were recommended. The Comprehensive Plan itself recommends that there be a landscape ordinance. Mrs. Wilson stated that this would be an entire new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance and she has provided a motion if the Planning Commission wishes to take action. It requires parking lots to have interior landscaping if you have a sea of asphalt. It requires islands that have minimum widths so that a tree will survive in those areas. Around the perimeter of parking lots adjacent to roadways, they would have to screen the edge of the parking spaces with hedges. There are zone to zone requirements for screening. The one that is the most restrictive is the existing property that is located within the Urban Service Boundary that is required to have a buffer setback and that has now been included in this landscape ordinance. At the end of this it talks about a planting manual as an appendix and she presented the one for Fayette County. It is very detailed with a list of plant materials. There is a list of large and small trees, what is acceptable to be planted under power lines, very detailed planting guidelines, etc. It would be a guideline. Given the amount of non-residential development that will be coming soon, it is very important that this community catch up.

Mr. Wolf questioned the 150’ buffer zone? Mrs. Wilson stated that in the Comprehensive Plan it says where the Urban Service Boundary abuts any portion of the Rural Service Area, excluding the urban service lands that adjoins the Bluegrass Parkway, which it actually drops down to 50’ there, the 150’ buffer should be provided and maintained. Where houses or other buildings or structures are proposed to face the Urban Service Boundary or Rural Service Area the 150’ wide buffer may be reduced to 50’. The permanent buffer should be extensively landscaped and not occupied by any right of way or required yards, unless and until the Urban Service Boundary is shifted. The street or yard may not be within the 50’ wide permanent buffer. Mrs. Wilson stated that means if you are going to have houses back up to that you need a 150’. If you are willing to turn the design around so that the houses face outward, then you can reduce that to 50’. The idea is that when the Urban Service Boundary is expanded you don’t have such a harsh edge from one to the next. This would give a transition area into the rural service area. Mr. Wolf questioned if they have to have 150’ between them? Mrs. Wilson stated if they back the houses up to the boundary they do, but if they face the houses toward the boundary they only have to have 50’.

Mr. Wolf stated that he could remember the discussion on Lexington Road and that there was a buffer of 500’. Mrs. Wilson stated that is totally different than what this is. That land is not even in the Urban Service Boundary.

Mr. Hume stated that this is a good ordinance and he has been involved with it in Fayette County for the last fifteen years and supports it.

Mr. Thompson stated that he is glad to see this being added to the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he does have a problem with 11.05.61, in that it is asking for landscaping to be shown in detail on final plats. He did not believe that this should be on a Final Plat. There is a manual that describes how you must plant and other than showing the landscape buffer easement and reference a note that it must comply with the landscaping plan, he did not believe any other details should be shown. Mrs. Wilson stated that she does not believe it should be on the Final Record Plat either, but should be shown on the Preliminary Plat. Mrs. Wilson agreed that you do not show those types of things on a final record plat.

Mr. Butler questioned if they need to submit something showing compliance? Mrs. Wilson agreed, but you usually see that on a Development Plan or a Preliminary Plat and a Landscape Construction Plan. You don’t put that on the Final Record Plat that is recorded in the County Clerks Office. Mr. Butler stated that you should show this on a landscape plan. Mrs. Wilson agreed, but also did not think that this meant for it to be on the Final Record Plat. She felt that the terminology just needs to be changed to Preliminary Plat. Now is the time to correct it.

Mr. Tom Brown stated that he is very happy to see this and commended the Planning Commission for taking this into consideration. Mrs. Stringer stated that she would like to commend the Planning Commission as well.

Chairman Ellis closed the hearing at 8:00 p.m.

A motion was made by Mr. Blankenship, as seconded by Mr. Hume, to recommend to the three legislative bodies to approve the Landscape and Land Use Buffer Ordinance, Article XI as proposed with the change to 1105.61 changing the word from Final to Preliminary; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is interested in proper use of planting materials throughout Versailles, Midway and Woodford County; and WHEREAS, the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update Objective for General Land Development states to “Develop standards for landscaping and buffering that will utilize techniques for the purpose of improving the aesthetic and functional quality of new development and minimize the friction between incompatible urban land uses”; and WHEREAS, The Use of Woodford Lands/Community Facilities and Services Policy in The 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update recommends a buffer between the Urban Service Boundary and The Rural Service Area; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Guidelines in The 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update recommend buffering blue-line streams (continuous flow) or intermittent flow; and WHEREAS, The 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update contains “Implementation Actions” for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, one specifically to create “An overall landscape regulation ordinance that would include a provision requiring submittal of a landscape plan with every development plan, subdivision plat or other land development request. The landscape plan should be prepared and sealed by a landscape architect licensed to practice in the State of Kentucky. The ordinance would also include specific information required on the plan, and approved plant, and inspection and maintenance standards”; and WHEREAS, Article V and Article VI of the Zoning Ordinance refers to landscaping and buffering; and WHEREAS, a summary of the proposed Landscape and Land Use Buffer Ordinance, Article XI was published in The Woodford Sun on February 7, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on February 14, 2008. Therefore, based on all of the above, the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Planning Commission recommends to the Versailles City Council, Midway City Council, and the Woodford Fiscal Court that the proposed Landscape and Land Use Buffer Ordinance, Article XI, be approved as submitted herewith. The motion carried with nine (9) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.

FINANCIAL REPORT & BILLS- MONTLY BUDGET REPORT, REPORT TO COMMISSION & SURETY STATUS REPORTS

Mr. Blankenship questioned on the Surety Status Report if anything has happened with the CDs on Hunters Ridge? Mrs. Wilson stated that the Fiscal Court are going to cash in the CD’s and have the work done.

A motion was made by Mr. McClees, as seconded by Wolf, to approve the Financial Report and Bills, the Monthly Budget Report, Report to Commission and Surety Status Report as submitted. The motion carried with nine (9) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.

COMMUNICATIONS:

Mrs. Wilson stated that she has received a letter from Sherman, Carter, Barnhardt on behalf of the Woodford County Library/Midway Branch requesting that the TRC review fee be waived for their Final Development Plan. They are an extension of a governmental agency.