ON THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2008, THE VERSAILLES-MIDWAY-WOODFORD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HELD THEIR SCHEDULED MEETING IN THE 3^RD FLOOR COURTROOM 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. Blankenship, as seconded by Mr. Wells, to approve the February 14, 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.

Chairman Ellis requested that all people present either turn off their cell phones or put them on silent. Chairman Ellis asked for everyone to please be patient, since we have a lengthy agenda and will probably be at the meeting for quite some time.

Final Townhouse Plat – Woodamere Town homes, Unit 1 – Beech Street – 12 Townhouse lots R-3 District.

Mrs. Wilson stated that this is a townhouse neighborhood that was built at the old woodamere swimming pool site. At this time they have completed twelve units on twelve lots and the final plat is now in order for action. All the deficiencies have been addressed.

A motion was made by Mr. McClees, as seconded by Mr. Wolf, to approve the Final Townhouse Plat – Woodamere Town homes, Unit 1, Beech Street- 12 townhouse lots – R-3 District. 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 Final Plat – Wooldridge Gardens Phase II – Section 1A-1 – Falling Springs Blvd.

Mrs. Wilson stated that this is a plat that the Planning Commission approved a while ago, but the engineer realized that there were some drafting errors on some of the lots with regards to the right of way and this corrects those. Normally drafting errors can be corrected and a plat recorded administratively, but because it affected the right of way it had to come before the full Planning Commission. All other deficiencies have been addressed as well.

A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as seconded by Mr. Wolf, to approve the Amended Final Plat – Wooldridge Gardens Phase II – Section 1A-1 – Falling Springs Blvd., 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.

Final Development Plan – Woodford County Library – Midway Branch Library – Northside Drive.

Mrs. Wilson stated that this is a site development plan for a branch library in Midway. This is adjacent to Northside School and has sufficient storm water management. All the deficiencies have been addressed and the plan is in order for action.

A motion was made by Mr. Evans, as seconded by Mr. Parrott, to approve the Final Development Plan – Woodford County Library/Midway Branch – Northside Drive, 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.

Mr. Evans stated that Midway has a tree nursery if anyone wants trees. The only cost is to have the dug.

PUBLIC HEARING: To review and possibly amend Article II, Definitions – to add the definition of a home improvement store.

A facility of more than 50,000 square feet gross floor area engaged in the retail sale of various basic hardware lines such as tools, builders hardware and materials, paint and glass, house wares and household appliances, home decorating fixtures and accessories, lawn and nursery materials and supplies and other items generally used in the maintenance, repair or construction of buildings or other structures and property.

Chairman Ellis declared the hearing open at 6:40 pm and called upon Mrs. Wilson for her report. Mrs. Wilson stated that this is a spin off from Item #5 that will be discussed next that was continued from the previous meeting. The Planning Commission was discussing adjusting some parking ratios and creating a new category for home improvement stores. It was pointed out to the Planning Commission that there is no definition for a home improvement store in the Zoning Ordinance and the Planning Commission decided to go back and revisit that for tonight’s agenda. The key to this is the square footage of the facility. That eliminates it from just a normal retail store.

Mr. Hume stated that in Fayette County, they define a big box store. That way it gets all of them rather than having to define each type. It is retail sales when you look in the Zoning Ordinance which is what they are really dealing with. He questioned if they want to try and narrow it down to a home improvement store or do they want to deal with a definition for big box stores? He felt that the definition for the home improvement store is a good one and the parking requirements are good as well, but it might be beneficial to do one definition, rather than ending up having to define every type of store eventually..

Chairman Ellis questioned if he meant it had to be less than 50,000 square feet? Mr. Hume stated that had nothing to do with his concern. All the big box stores are retail sales and he was afraid they would end up having to define each type.

Mr. Hank Graddy stated that it appears that this item on the agenda is intertwined with the public hearing at the end of the agenda for Rubloff. He felt that depending on how that goes, this proposed definition could be out of order. He requested that this item be tabled until the end of the meeting.

Mr. Blankenship questioned what it would hurt to have a definition whether or not the zone change is approved or not? Mr. Graddy stated that there may well be a need to define this type of facility as well as a lot of other facilities. He did not believe that they should pick this one type and isolate it. That is not good planning.

Chairman Ellis stated that the Planning Commission is going to go forward with the hearing.

Mr. Wolf questioned if this is where the 150’ buffer zone is involved? Mrs. Wilson stated that it is not.

Mr. Blankenship questioned if Mr. Hume is thinking that this definition should be tweaked so that it would include more than one type of retail sales? Mr. Hume stated that there is nothing wrong with calling it what it is, but overall it is considered retailed sales. Most counties do not spell out each type separately.

Mrs. Wilson stated that the current calculations talk about retail sales. The home improvement use is a mixture of warehouses and retailing. If it is all retail it is a higher use with a higher need for parking. When it is this mixture you do not need as much parking, which is why they were looking at reducing the parking for this type of use.

Mr. Evans stated that furniture stores could be the same type of use because they have storage as well.

Mr. Hume stated that he is not trying to push this one way or the other, he is just pointing out what other counties do.

Chairman Ellis questioned where the definition came from? Mrs. Wilson stated that it is from the APA and is not a local term that is used in this region.

Mrs. Wilson stated that this is a text amendment that will go to all three legislative bodies.

Mr. Hume stated that he is a little uncomfortable with the definition, but not so much that he would not be in favor of it. Mrs. Wilson has done a lot of research on it and if she has found it has been used successfully, then he has no problem with it. This definition is being proposed to apply it to a certain case and he was not certain that is the right venue to do that.

Mrs. Wilson stated that right now on the case that is being referred to, they can have a 60,000 square foot store on that property under the current B-3 zoning. This does not have to tie to a zone change.

Mr. Evans stated that he knows of a store in North Carolina that has more square footage, but not as much parking.

Chairman Ellis stated that this will go to all three legislative bodies and they might not like the definition anyway. Chairman Ellis closed the hearing at 6:50 p.m.

A motion was made by Mr. Blankenship, as seconded by Mr. Evans, to recommend approval to the three legislative bodies of the proposed definition to be added to Article II, for a home improvement store as follows: A facility of more than 50,000 square feet gross floor area engaged in the retail sale of various basic hardware lines such as tools, builders hardware and materials, paint and glass, house wares and household appliances, home decorating fixtures and accessories, lawn and nursery materials and supplies and other items generally used in the maintenance, repair or construction of buildings or other structures and property. 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 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.

Chairman Ellis stated that this was a continued hearing from last month. Mrs. Wilson stated that she has nothing to add. The hearing was continued to come up with a definition of a home improvement store and that has now been done. Chairman Ellis questioned if this is less parking than what is now required? Mrs. Wilson stated that it is and the idea is that with the warehouse storage, they don’t need as much parking.

Mr. Graddy requested that this item be tabled and he felt it is being driven by a specific zone change request and should not be heard until the results of that hearing have taken place.

Chairman Ellis closed the hearing at 6:55 p.m.

A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as seconded by Mr. Parrott, to recommend to the three legislative bodies the approval of the proposed parking requirements for a Home Improvement Store for each 300 square foot of floor area to require one parking space to be added to Article VI, Section 600.2A . 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 Subdivision Regulations (Yellow Book) Article VI, Section 660 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 except in Rural Residential zones. 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 as follows:

1.3.02 Minimum Open Space Required

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 except in the Rural Residential zones.

At Mr. Butler’s suggestion Chairman Ellis declared both Items #6 & #7 open at 6:56 pm since they are related. Chairman Ellis stated that the Planning Commission has had several Rural Residential hearings where the developers have to ask for a waiver on the 4% open space and it is really not required since there is already a requirement for residual land to be set aside. This would eliminate this requirement from the Rural Residential zones only.

Mrs. Wilson stated what the Planning Commission looked at last month was only to require it within the Urban Service Boundary and to waive it outside of there. There was concern voiced at the public hearing and the Planning Commission did not approve that. There was also some discussion since there is already a requirement for setting aside residual land in the Rural Residential that this is not required. This proposed amendment only exempts the Rural Residential district.

Ms. Carol Zeis stated that she spoke to the Planning Commission at the previous hearing and is concerned about the small community. Mrs. Wilson stated that this would not include the small community areas. It is only for Rural Residential. Ms. Zeis stated that if someone is making a request in the small community they still have to provide the open space. Mrs. Wilson stated that they either have to provide it or request a waiver and be able to justify that waiver.

Chairman Ellis closed the hearings at 7:00 p.m.

A motion was made by Mr. Wells, as seconded by Mr. Wolf, to adopt the amendment to the Subdivision Regulations (yellow book) Article VI, Section 600 and Subdivision Regulations (purple book) Part 3 Section 1.3.02 to make the exception for the 4% open space requirement in the Rural Residential zones. 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 and Preliminary Development Plan/Preliminary/Final Plat – Paul & Juanita Stapp - 2330 & 2510 Scotts Ferry Road – To rezone 70.24 acres from A-1 to A-2, 10.00 acres from A-2 to Rural Residential and 8.000 acres from A-2 to Rural Residential/Residual Farmland.

Chairman Ellis declared the hearing open at 7:01 pm and called upon Mrs. Wilson for her report. Mrs. Wilson entered into the record the following exhibits:

A. Zone Change Application

B. Preliminary Development Plan/Preliminary/Final Plat

C. Photos of Sign Posted

D. Copies of letters sent to adjoining property owners

E. Notice to the Woodford Sun

F. Staff Report/P. Wilson

G. TRC Minutes

H. Letter of Deficiencies to the Engineer

I. Letter from South Woodford Water District

Mrs. Wilson read her staff report into the record. Owners are requesting to change the zone of 61.63 gross acres from A-1 (Agriculture) and CO-1 (Conservation) to A-2 (Agriculture) and then to change 2.00 (3%) gross acres from A-2 to R.R. (Rural Residential) and 8.00 gross acres from A-2 to Residual Farmland in order to create 2 single family residential lots on the road around two exiting farm dwellings. Currently the property is being used for agricultural purposes. There are two existing residential structures in the area being proposed for Rural Residential lots. There are several barns on the proposed remaining A-2 Farmland to the north. Proposed are two Rural Residential lots around two existing residences along Scotts Ferry Road. 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 to the north, east, south, and west are A-1, CO-1 and Residual Farmland.

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. Existing System Inspections have been preformed and approved by the Health Department. The proposed lots are accessed by existing driveways that have always served these two residences. It appears that Guidelines of the Rural District are being met. Existing System Inspections 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 around existing dwellings and mature trees are to be preserved as much as possible.(#3). The location of these lots will have little scenic impact on public roadways since the building sites are existing (#4) The soil data is from the Soil Survey of Jessamine and Woodford Counties, Kentucky, prepared by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and shows that the soil on Lot 1 in the residential area is 90% Faywood Silt Loam, which has medium potential for most urban uses. These soils some times have limiting use on septic systems. The soils on Lot 2 where the residential area is proposed consists entirely of Lowell Silt Loam. This soil also has medium potential for most urban uses and also can have limiting factors for septic. The residual farmland area consist s is also the same on both lots. It should be noted that there was one division from the property since July 16, 1990, recorded in Deed Book 219, Page 598 consisting of 9.014 acres. The applicant is proposing to develop 3% of the remaining farm and preserving 13% of the remaining farm. After this request, there will be four rural residential development rights left on the remaining farm. The 2005 Plan classifies Scotts Ferry Road as a Rural Local Road. It is currently a two-lane, winding road consisting of eighteen feet of paved surface. It begins at McCowans Ferry Road (Ky Hwy 1964) and ends at the Blue Grass Parkway overpass where it changes names to become Lillards Ferry Road. It is 4.519 miles long. From the Parkway it continues on as Lillards Ferry Road for 2.896 miles and terminates back at McCowans Ferry Road. No significant road improvements have occurred along this road according to the County Road Department. 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 60% 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 8 acres of Open Space/Residual Farmland (4 acres around each residence). 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 adjoining 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; Existing System Inspections have been done and approved by the Health Department; the proposed lots are accessed by existing entrances; guidelines 1 – 4 of the Rural District appear to be met; existing landscaping will remain; and, the plan and lots meet the minimum dimensional requirements established by Section 703 of the Zoning Ordinance for Rural Residential.

Mr. Boggs questioned if there are homes on these lots already? Mrs. Wilson stated that each lot already has a house on it. You are allowed to have two five acre lots on the road consisting of 1 acre of Rural Residential and 4 acres of residual farmland.

Mr. Hume questioned if they can still get four more lots? Mrs. Wilson stated that they can and they would have to come back and request that zone change. That is based on the sliding scale of the acreage of the farm.

Mr. Tim Thompson stated that he represents Paul & Juanita Stapp and they are present. The Stapp’s have been in a new house for a few years and someone wants to purchase their old homestead. That house is on Tract #2. The new owner’s would demolish that home that is in disrepairs and build a new house in the same location. Mr. Thompson stated that he designed a lot around that house and then realized that there is another house on the farm, which is Lot #1. He suggested to them to go on and do two lots since it would not cost them much more. Mr. Thompson stated that he would request that the Planning Commission waive the by-laws and take action on this and forward it on to the Fiscal Court for their approval.

A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as seconded by Mr. Wolf, 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. Hume, as seconded by Mr. Wolf, to recommend approval to the Woodford Fiscal Court of the Zoning Map Amendment – Paul & Juanita Stapp - 2330 & 2510 Scotts Ferry Road – To rezone 70.24 acres from A-1 to A-2, 10.00 acres from A-2 to Rural Residential and 8.000 acres from A-2 to Rural Residential/Residual Farmland in order to create two lots around existing residences on the farm. The motion is based on the Findings of Fact and that the waiver request be removed from that request since it is no longer required. 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/Final Development – Jim Plemmons Property – 95, 295 & 305 Watts Ferry Road – to rezone 15.207 acres from A-1 (Agricultural) to A-4 (Small Community) – 3 lots.

Chairman Ellis declared the hearing open at 7:12 p.m. and called upon Mrs. Wilson for her report. Mrs. Wilson entered the following exhibits into the record:

A. Zone Change Application

B. Preliminary/Final Development Plan

C. TRC Minutes

D. Letter of Deficiencies to Engineer

E. Photographs of Signs

F. Letter to Adjoining Property owners

G. Notice to Woodford Sun

H. Staff Report/P Wilson

I. Letter from Frankfort Plan Board addressing water

J. Request for waiver of open space

K. Encroachment permit from Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

Mrs. Wilson read her staff report into the record. Mrs. Wilson stated that an incorrect copy of the waiver request was attached to the staff report and the correct one was handed out this evening. The owner/applicant is requesting a change in zoning of 15.207 gross acres from A-1 (Agricultural) to A-4 (Small Community). The property is located on the south side of Watts Ferry Road (KY 1984) approximately 380 feet west of its intersection with McCracken Pike (KY 1659), the center point of the Millville Small Community District. Currently this property is vacant agricultural land. There are no dwellings or agricultural accessory structures located on the property. Principle uses in the A-1 Zoning District include: Single family detached dwellings; agriculture, including greenhouses and nurseries; riding stables and fishing lakes; public parks, playgrounds, public or privately owned golf courses, and forest and conservation areas (Section 701.2). The purpose of this zone change is to subdivide the property, creating 3 tracts for single family residential use. A similar zone change was requested for this property in May 2006 but the request was denied by the Fiscal Court based on a recommendation of denial by the Commission. Principle Uses in the A-4 District include single family detached dwellings, general horticultural and non-commercial uses (Section 704.3). The adjacent zoning to north, south, east, and west is all A-1 (Agricultural).

The proposed development is located within the Small Community of Millville which is recognized by the Comprehensive Plan, and supports the goals and objectives allowing limited low-density residential expansion within an established rural settlement. The small communities are still acknowledged in the text of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as noted previously. The purpose of the Preliminary Plan is to show the arrangement of three small community residential lots ranging is size from 4.432 acres to 5.819 acres, all well above the minimum lot size of one acre. No public roads are proposed. These lots all meet the minimum dimensional requirements established by Section 704 of the Zoning Ordinance. A waiver is being requested by the applicant for the open space required by the Subdivision Regulations -Article VI, Section 660 (A). This portion of Watts Ferry Road is a State Highway, KY 1984. This road is approximately 20 feet wide, and connects KY 1659 (McCracken Pike) with KY 1964 (Clifton Road). Watts Ferry Road continues as a county road for approximately 2 miles. Section 704.7(C) stipulates that each lot must have an approved encroachment permit to ensure that entrances can be used safely and efficiently for vehicular ingress and egress. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet has approved one entrance from Watts Ferry Road to be shared by Lots 3 & 4, with Lot #5 having an existing entrance already. There will be no vehicular access to Watts Ferry Road from any of the lots except at these two locations. Fire protection is provided by the Woodford County Fire Department from the Millville Fire Station. Police protection is provided by the Versailles Police Department, Sheriff=s Department, and the Kentucky State Police. Individual preliminary site evaluations for each lot have been completed and approved by the Woodford County Health Department and the Board of Health Certificate has been signed on the plat. Verification from the Frankfort Water Board has been received and states the following: “At a substantial cost to the developer, the Frankfort Plant Board can provide sufficient water service and pressure to ensure adequate supply for private use and fill-up for fire trucks for the proposed 3 tracts of land (Plemmons property) on Watts Ferry Road.” A detailed soils map is attached hereto as Attachment #4. The map has the proposed lot layout superimposed on the soil data. The soil data is from the Soil Survey of Jessamine and Woodford Counties, Kentucky, prepared by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (pg 17). Lots 4 & 5 consist mostly of McAfee silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes. This soil has low potential for most urban uses due to the slope, depth to limestone, low strength, and clayey subsoil. Some of these limitations can be minimized by good design and careful installation. Septic tank absorption fields can be limited due to the depth to limestone bedrock, moderately slow permeability and slope. Lot 3 has about one third the same soil described above plus some McAfee silt loam with 6 to 12 percent slopes. This area on the south side of the lot has medium potential for most urban uses. The limitations are depth to limestone, low strength, moderate shrink-swell, and clayey subsoil. Again, some of these limitations can be partially overcome by good design and careful installation. Depth to limestone bedrock and moderately slow permeability limit this soil for use as septic tank absorption fields. The Slopes Map (Figure 48) of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the land in this area is Moderate & Steep Sloping (Greater than 12 percent). There appear to be no Sinkhole sites or spheres of influence on the subject property based on Figure 45 of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has provided a Topographic Survey Exhibit which is attached hereto. Students from the Millville area attend Northside Elementary, the Middle School and the High School. The former Millville Elementary School is now a public Community Center operated by the Millville Sportsman’s Club. There is a picnic shelter and gymnasium associated with the Center. It appears that some aspects of the request support the proposed zone change being in agreement with portions of the 2005 Plan Update because of the above noted areas of that plan the property is in the Rural Service Area; the property lies within the 1½ mile planning radius for the Small Community of Millville; the proposed principal use is single family residential; the site is not in the Agricultural Preservation Area of the county; and, the plan meets the minimum dimensional requirements established by Section 704 of the Zoning Ordinance for the Small Community Zoning District. A similar application on this property was reviewed and denied by the Planning Commission in June 2006. There were numerous findings cited to support the denial. The only change that has occurred since that time is the creation of two in-family lots to the west. It doesn’t appear that the findings for denial have been resolved with this reapplication. The previous motion dated June 8, 2006 is attached hereto. A waiver of the Subdivision Regulations must be granted for the required open space.

Mr. Jim Boggs questioned whose is responsible for the careful design and installation of the septic tanks? Mrs. Wilson stated that is the Health Department’s responsibility.

Mr. Blankenship questioned if the statement is correct that there is no significant change from what they denied in June of 2006? Mrs. Wilson stated at the time she wrote her staff report she did not find that there had been, but there could be something brought up in the hearing.

Mr. Bill Moore, attorney for the applicant, handed out his Findings of Fact to the Planning Commission members. Mr. Moore stated that he has some additional information to aid the Planning Commission in their recommendation. The property being requested is 15.207 acres to rezone it from A-1 to A-4. The property is located south of Watts Ferry Road approximately 380’ west from its intersection with McCracken Pike in the center point of the Millville Small Community. Mr. Moore pointed this out on the Millville Small Community area. This property would be in the bulls eye area of the Small Community District. The tracts range in size from 4.4 acres to 5.8 acres. The second finding describes the things that Mrs. Wilson went through in her staff report, that the notice of the hearing was properly given and the surrounding property owners were notified and all the procedure requirements have been met. The third finding is that the property lies in the center of the small community district and no portion of any proposed lot is outside the district. The Zoning Ordinance requires that at least 80% of the lot be within the small community district. The next finding is a quote from the Zoning Ordinance, “The expressed purpose of the Small Community District is to provide for a limited low density residential expansion in the rural settlement recognized by the Comprehensive Plan.” One of those rural settlements is Millville. Residents of Millville and other small communities have expressed their desire for residential development within the communities in order to maintain the continued vitality, property values, and community spirit.” The Zoning Ordinance clearly encourages residential development within small community districts. In proposed finding #5 they note how that language is incorporated into the 2005 Comprehensive Plan update in the section dealing with neighborhood and subdivision development. It says that development should occur within the Urban Service Boundary of Versailles, Midway and the approved small communities. The next finding describes that this compliments the preservation of agricultural farmland, with the notion being that if we encourage residential development into the community, you spare agricultural farmland being developed for residential purposes. Mr. Moore stated that these findings are at odds with the findings that were made at the previous hearing on this property. Paragraph 7 says that the lots meet all the standards that are required in the A-4 zone. They have minimum road frontage and are on an existing public road, being Watts Ferry. There would be one access constructed that would serve two of the three lots and one access to the third lot. The next finding describes that the proposed new lots are similar in size to the existing lots in the immediate area and are in the traditional character. Mr. Moore referred to the four tax maps provided by the PVA office for the Millville area and properties that are in the vicinity of this area. Guideline 3 in the Comprehensive Plan says that you are to try and keep the lots in the same pattern as currently exists in that area. Mr. Moore stated that he imposed the tracts they want to create on the map and it clearly shows that they are in the same pattern that currently exists. In the area along McCracken Pike the lots were one to three acres in size, but after that in the immediate area of these tracts, the sizes are five to seven acres in size. There is not a small compact lot size in this particular area. The lot where the old Millville Elementary School was located is a five acre tract and right next to that is a 6.2 acre tract. Mr. Moore pointed out that most of the lots in this immediate area are four to seven acres. There are some other one acre lots in the area, and Mr. Moore pointed those out on the map as being the Darsie farm where Mrs. Glenn lives. They were developed back in 1979 from the parcel of land now owned by the Darsie Estate. These were about an acre in size and the ones across from them were about an acre in size. That is the minority of the types of development that has been done and most tracts have been larger in size. This proposal is consistent with Guideline #3 in keeping with the rural character of the existing settlement in the area. The next finding is that the proposed new development will preserve the rural character of the area and conserve natural features by maintaining existing hedgerows, preserving stands of trees, preserving existing stone fences, preserving the riparian zone along the creek and respecting the topography of the properties. If you look at the plat you will see some notes that have been added that were not on the previous plat. The building is pushed back 200’ feet from Watts Ferry Road and the reason for that is the steep slopes. That is where the hedgerow is located. There is also a 50’ setback in the rear of the lots and is where a few more trees are located. Mr. Moore referred to Note# 8 on the plat: The non-buildable areas defined by setbacks shown hereon consist of front, side, and rear yard set backs, slopes greater than 18% and existing streams and woodlands. These areas shall remain undisturbed and natural as much as possible except for necessary minimal disturbance and clearing for necessary installation of access and utilities to serve these tracts. In this proposal we have specifically noted those areas to be preserved, which is something that is different from the last proposal. Note #11 says to not disturb the existing wall along the south property line. Note #12 says to not disturb the rock wall along the south side of Watts Ferry Road except as may be necessary to construct permitted access at Tract 3 and Tract 4. They specifically put on the plans that they are going to preserve the rock wall in addition to the 200’ setback, the trees and creek and all the other structures. Note #13 say to not disturb the spring box and holding tank located on Tract 5. Mr. Moore pointed those out on the map. Note #14 says that that no sinkholes have been observed on the property. During the previous hearing someone testified that they thought there were sinkholes on the property. After that hearing, they checked and there is a sinkhole on the Darsie property, but none on their property. The area of influence is on the other two lots, not the ones in this proposal. Mr. Moore stated that they feel they have addressed the reasons why the plan was not approved the last time. The other issue was that if they allowed five lots to be developed that it would directly affect tourism. This is on Watts Ferry Road and is not the road that the bikers ride down. This is to the east of that. Mr. Moore did not think this would have any effect on tourism. The application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The next issue is the request for waiver of the 4% open space. They would have to have an area of open space that is surrounded 60% by public road. You cannot build a new public road in the small community district. Instead of that, they have these large lots that are consistent with the development pattern. They have plenty of open space and a tremendous setback from the road. They have an application that is located within the small community district. It is not within an agricultural preservation area. It satisfies the dimensional requirements and are similar in character to the traditional development of this portion of the Millville area. This proposal preserves the rural character of the area as it is. For that reason they would ask that this zone change be granted.

Mr. Evans questioned why they have a 60% open space on the road requirement? Mr. Moore stated that it is for development in a subdivision where you control the road so you can have an area where the public can get to it. Mr. Evans stated that maybe it is to keep development from being right on the road. Mr. Moore stated that his understanding is that it is for parks for people living in the area. That is not a problem here because of the size of the lots. There is no way that you can locate a park on this property with 60% of it surrounded by public road. You cannot physically do that in the small community zone because you cannot build a public road.

Mr. Jim Boggs stated that looking at the soils maps and considering what Mrs. Wilson said about the septic tanks, which Mr. Boggs stated are all known to fail, this property with poor soils for septic systems will have septic tanks directly draining into Glenn’s Creek which will then drain into the Kentucky River. He questioned how they justify that? Mr. Moore stated that the Health Department has the authority over that and they have performed site evaluations and approved these lots for septic systems. Mr. Moore stated that the Health Department are the local experts.

Mr. Blankenship stated that he understands that they have an approved encroachment permit. Mr. Blankenship questioned what the plan is to make an entrance into these properties that will be safe? There is a small bridge there and the road is narrow and is not safe. Mr. Moore stated that the highway department did approve it. Mr. Plemmons plan is to access these lots across the back. That was not included on this plan because of the criticism before. Mr. Blankenship questioned how those three lot owners will get out on the main road and head towards Millville and back to Versailles? Mr. Moore stated that they will come out the existing access. Mr. Blankenship questioned if that is where the bridge is now and the road is very narrow? Mr. Moore stated that it is a narrow road. Mr. Blankenship questioned if there are sinkholes on the lots that are not being considered tonight? Mr. Moore stated that there are no sinkholes on any of Mr. Plemmons property. It was stated by someone at the last meeting that there are sinkholes, but there are not. At the last hearing Mr. Thompson testified that he did not see any sinkholes. He has since walked the property again and noted that there are no sinkholes on the property. The sinkhole is on a map and it is located on the Darsie Estate property and a sphere of influence is shown that extended on the other two lots that are not in this proposal. Mr. Blankenship questioned if they are really looking at five lots and of those two have been passed on as in-family conveyances? There will still be five lots. The map shows three lots coming out on the road, but there are really five lots. This is no different from what they saw before, except that Mr. Plemmons’ chose to do two in-family conveyances before tonight. Mr. Moore stated that his client has used his right under the Zoning Ordinance to create two in-family conveyances. Those lots have been created and they do exist. That is one of the changes from the previous proposal. At the last meeting there was some talk about Guideline 3 requiring compact lots and there is no such reference. Looking at the existing settlement pattern, the larger lots are what has been done in this area.

Mr. Blankenship questioned Mr. Butler as to what is different in this presentation from what they saw in 2006? Mr. Butler stated that Mr. Moore has attempted to go through the reasons this was disapproved before and address those. His contention is that they have addressed the reasons for denial and by doing so it is in order for approval. The Planning Commission’s job is to weigh that evidence and agree or disagree with that. In terms of the base proposal it is very similar to what was denied. Mr. Moore is asserting that although it is similar to what was denied before, they have addressed those reasons and it should now be approved.

Mr. Wolf asked what the traffic situation is out there? Would there be a traffic jam? Mr. Moore stated that they are adding three houses that would not affect the traffic.

Mr. Hume stated that they are showing an access easement but they also said that they are not proposing a road. Mr. Moore stated that they cannot build a road that would be maintained by the county as you can in a subdivision. It would be a private road maintained by those who purchased the lots.

Mrs. Gay Glenn stated that tonight she has on her lawyer hat and is Gay Elste. Ms. Elste stated that she is here representing the Darsie family, herself, and her two sons, Jeff and John who will eventually inherit the farm. Ms. Elste stated that she is also representing Eddie Knight who owns property immediately downstream from the three proposed lots where his son, Brian, lives in the house located there. Contrary to what Mr. Moore said claiming that in the previous proposal there was to be a roadway going across the back of the lots, the plat showed there was a roadway between Lots 4 & 5 which are now the in-family lots. The roadway went across the front of Lots 4 & 3 and then connected to Lot #2. In the previous proposal Lots 2, 3, 4, & 5 all used one access and Lot #1 went out at the existing bridge. The proposal they have presented now in many ways has gone from bad to worse. Mr. Moore told the Planning Commission that they are planning to bring the access way up across the existing entryway and across the back of the three lots in what is purported to be a 50’ access and right of way easement. That is not what the plan before the Planning Commission shows at all. It shows an access way between lots 3 & 4 and also an access onto Lot 5. They have represented something that has not been submitted as part of the application. The other thing that is worse is that in the previous proposal instead of having a 50’ access right of way easement along the back of the lots, they had a 150’ area. The reason for that is that there is an existing mature stand of trees that separates the subject property from the Shotwell farm and it also separates it from Mr. Knights parcel. In order to eliminate that other 100’ they will have to take down trees. There is no public water on this property although Mr. Plemmons can bring the water there if that is what he wants to do. He has asked Mr. Knight to give him an easement through the property that his son Brian lives on and he has turned him down repeatedly and will continue to do so. That means that Mr. Plemmons will have to bring the water along Watts Ferry Road to all of these lots. That is much to the disturbance of everyone that lives there. There is a lot of traffic on that little winding road. It is very narrow with only 20’ of pavement. When big trucks travel this road they have to take the center of the road because there is no place to go. Ms. Elste handed out photographs for the Planning Commission members to view. The first photograph is looking up Lot #5. To the left is the rock wall and she was pleased that they plan to preserve that. That wall separates the subject property from the Shotwell and Knight property. The second photograph is going along the roadway and you can see part of the blue line creek. The third photograph is at the end of Lot 5 looking up the slope. The fourth photograph is of Lot #4 where you have the dense tree area looking up the slope. The fifth photograph is some of the creek in the foreground and is part of Lot #4, looking at the trees and up the slope. The sixth photograph is the forested area on Lot #5. The seventh photograph is showing the trees along the property again. The eighth photograph is the creek as well as the edge of the road. Ms. Elste stated that if you go off the road on that side, there is no place to go. The ninth photograph better depicts the narrowness of the road. The trees act as a barrier to keep people from going into the creek if they go off the road. The tenth photograph shows the blue line creek. The eleventh photograph is taken from the west looking back to the east and is the crossing area of the creek to Lots 3 & 4. The twelfth photograph would be a steep slope after a bridge is put in to cross the creek. The thirteenth photograph shows the slope you have to climb to reach flat land. The fourteenth photograph is of the culvert on McCracken Pike immediately adjacent to the residence on the Knight farm. The road has buckled there when there are heavy storms, partly from the debris that comes through there during heavy storms. All the water has to go through this tiny culvert to get into Glenn’s Creek. Ms. Elste stated that just because a property is located in the “bulls eye” of the small community, does not mean that the Planning Commission has to approve it and it does not mean that it is suitable to be approved. If this were a shear vertical slope, which a lot of the land is within the 1 ½ mile radius of Millville, there would be no question that the Planning Commission would not approve it. Similarly within the 1 ½ mile radius there is a lot of designated prime agricultural land. Ms. Elste could not imagine development being approved on that. If that had been the intent at the time the small community concept came into being, there would have been a comprehensive re-zoning of the small communities. The small communities were designated as an effort to save our rural schools. It was not an effort to give people the opportunity to develop all their property, but to try to save the schools by having a more populace area for school attendance. Ms. Elste disagreed with Mr. Moore’s characterization that this proposal conforms with Guideline 3. Guideline 3 refers to the existing settlement pattern in Millville, not the Little Germany area where little subdivisions have been created that Mr. Moore is showing in his census tract map. The subject property is closer to downtown Millville than the Little Germany area. There is no sense of community when you have people building on these large tracts of land. The small community was designed to have neighbors where you could talk across the fence. The fact that there have been some larger tracts created should not be utilized as justification to continue to do so when they have no relation to Millville. The proposed plan has steep slopes, and a blue line stream that makes it impossible to have a connection to Millville. Guideline 4 does speak of natural features being preserved and that includes the long vistas. That is not going to happen when this development goes in as proposed because there will be bridges there and there will be a loss of trees when the water line is installed. There has already been trees removed to access the farm as it is. The existing driveways will have to traverse these existing slopes. What is going to happen during bad weather in the winter? Not only will they have to get up the slopes, but they will have to come down the slopes onto the road. It is a very dangerous situation. The subject property is being used right now to graze horses and in the past he had cattle out there. This land has limitations for crop utilization, and it clearly has limitations for septic tanks. Ms. Elste stated that she disagrees with Mr. Moore’s comment about the bikers. The bikers come down from Duncan Road and stop at the school for a break and some will go on to Labrot and Graham and others will go up Watts Ferry Road and turn at Clifton Road and go down to the river. Then they take the Clifton Road back into Versailles. This road is used extensively by the bikers, motorcycle riders, and horseback riders. This road is used by tourists in general to go to Labrot and Graham and to the Buckley Wildlife Center. The subject property is located between those two facilities. Another thing you might wonder about is where will the people that locate on these lots put their trash cans? More than likely they will keep them down by the road because they will not want to carry their trash cans up a 20% slope. What does that do for tourism? There is a goal in the Comprehensive Plan under People, Jobs, and Housing that says we need to promote tourism. Putting three houses on this property does not do that. These are special areas and people do not come to see our houses, but come to see the beautiful horse farms and the wonderful landscape. The subject property is being used for agricultural purposes and could continue to be used that way. There is a means to have financial gain from this property such as giving an easement to the Bluegrass Conservancy, who gives a tax donation, or raising cattle, growing grapes or other varieties of crops. He will be the only one gaining from developing this property. The people of Millville and Woodford County are going to be paying the cost. In the Comprehensive Plan it recognizes that 65% of Woodford County residents age 16 and older work outside of Woodford County. For this particular proposal half of those people would not work in Woodford County. They will be requiring services but not paying payroll taxes. Farming and related industries account for 38% of our economy. The American Farmland Trust has stated that residential development consumes many times the taxes it generates whereas agricultural land consumes a fraction of the taxes it generates and is a net contributor to the county tax base where residential development is a tax depleter of the tax base. According to the staff report the middle school and high school are already at or exceeding capacity. Ms. Elste stated that she disagrees with the staff report and Mr. Moore regarding sinkholes. Ms. Elste stated that she has not been on the property for 20 years, but knows that there are sinkholes on the property. There has been a lot of mowing and other construction activities that could have covered them up. Once a sinkhole is there it will open up and a tractor will eventually find it. The soils are very limited for septic systems as was noted in the staff report.