ON THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 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 March 13, 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.

Recommendation: 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.

A motion was made by Mr. Blankenship, as seconded by Mr. McClees, that the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Woodford Fiscal Court that the application of Jim H. Plemmons to change the zoning classification of 15.207 acres of real property located at 95, 295 and 305 Watts Ferry Road, as described on the legal description attached to the application, from A-1 (Agricultural) to A-4 (Small Community) be denied. This recommendation is based upon the Summary of Evidence and Findings and Conclusions attached to this Motion and incorporated into this Motion by reference, as supported by the testimony of the public hearing held on March 13, 2008 as reflected in the minutes of that meeting. Summary of Evidence and Findings of Fact: An application was made by Jim H. Plemmons to rezone 15.207 acres of real property located on the South side of Watts Ferry Road designated as 95, 295 and 305 Watts Ferry Road, as described in the legal description attached to the application, from A-1 (Agricultural) to A-4 (Small Community) in order to create 3 lots ranging from 4.432 acres to 5.819 acres as depicted on the Preliminary/Final Development Plan. A public hearing was held on March 13, 2008 to consider the applicant’s request. The staff report was prepared and presented by Patricia Wilson, which report reflected that the subject property lies within the Millville Small Community District. The staff report also recited policies and guidelines relative to the Small Community District, a soils map relative to the subject property, Woodford County public school enrollment/capacity as of February 28, 2008. The staff report addressed topographic features of the subject property, including the soils and slopes on the subject property. The staff report indicated that the “soils in this area are Very Limited for Drainage, Septic Systems, and Residential Dwellings.” Further the staff report quoted the Soil Survey of Jessamine and Woodford Counties, Kentucky concerning the property: “the potential is low for most urban uses because of the slope, the depth to limestone, the low strength, and the clayey subsoil. Further, the staff report indicated that “The slopes of the property are classified as Moderate or Steep Sloping (Greater than 12 percent).” The staff report concluded that although there was agreement with some portions of the 2005 Plan Update (Comprehensive Plan) to support the zone change request, the application was similar to a previous application of 2006 which was denied. The staff report stated “there were numerous findings cited to support the denial. The only change that 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 application.” The applicant was represented by William K. Moore who testified that the property lies within the Millville Small Community District and that the proposed large lots exceeded the minimum lot requirement of the A-4 zoning district. Gay M. Elste, Attorney for Eddie Knight, adjoining property owner, testified on behalf of Mr. Knight and the John Darsie family, owners of the farm to the west of the subject property and the two in-family conveyance lots, in opposition to the requested zone change application. 1. Ms. Elste testified that the proposed development as reflected on the Preliminary/Final Development plan did not respect the existing tree stand along the Knight/Shotwell property line, proposing to utilize the 50 foot rear yard as the utility easement, thus subjecting the tree stand to destruction. 2. Ms. Elste testified that Mr. Knight would not grant a water line easement to Mr. Plemmons to bring public water to the subject property, thus necessitating the placement of the water line in the public right of way, subjecting Millville Community to disruption during this construction and leading to destruction of the trees along the frontage of the subject property. 3. Ms. Elste testified that the requested zoning classification does not conform with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update, specifically reciting disagreement with the Plan as follows: A. The requested rezoning and preliminary/final plan conflict with Guideline 3 of the Small Community Guidelines which calls for compact development complementing the existing settlement. The proposed large lots with homes unseen from the roadway would be contrary to the existing settlement or development pattern of Millville. The proposed development contains no plan to preserve existing tree stands along adjoining property lines. B. The requested rezoning and preliminary/final plan conflict with Guideline 4 of the Small Community Guidelines which require conservation of existing topography, long vistas and environmental features. C. The existing farm property has been and can continue to be utilized for agriculture and agriculture-related purposes consistent with Guideline 5. D. The Tourism Goal (WR1) would not be enhanced by the proposed rezoning/development, which goal requires encouragement and promotion of conservation and protection of unique natural resources and special areas, including scenic, geological and biological sites. The subject property is near the existing Clifton-McCracken Pike National Register District. The subject property is across McCracken Pike from the Equine Preserve Land Use area. The subject property is located between historic Woodford Reserve distillery and Buckley Wildlife Sanctuary. Watts Ferry Road is a curvy scenic by-way utilized by bicyclists, motorcyclist, horseback riders and tourists. E. The People Jobs Housing (PJH) 2 Goal – Tourism – views tourism, and in particular, agricultural based tourism as a segment of the local economy that can be “grown” and approval of the rezoning/development would be contrary to the Goal. F. The General Land/Development Objective 2 is to protect recreational, tourist and unique natural areas and cultural attractions by controlling any development that might harm the surrounding environment of such attractions, and the proposed rezoning/development would be detrimental to that Objective. G. Objective 1 of Goal 9 of the Land Use/Community Facilities and Services is to provide sufficient agricultural land so as to protect the County’s agricultural economic base and productivity potential, and the subject property is desirable and useable for agricultural purposes. H. Objective 6 of Goal 9 of the Land Use/Community Facilities and Services is to support Woodford County farm owners and operators with their efforts to continue viable agricultural activities, and the subject property is being actively utilized for agricultural purposes. I. The Natural Resource Conservation Goal Woodford Resources 1 is to encourage and promote the conservation and protection of Woodford County’s unique natural resources and “special areas” such as unique agricultural, scenic, cultural, archeological, geological, and biological sites, page 5 Comprehensive Plan. Objective 1 calls for identification and protection of sensitive natural resource sites and unique special areas from the effects of incompatible development. According to Figure 45, page 190, Known Sinkhole Sites, the subject property is part of and immediately adjacent to known sinkhole sites. According to Figure 46, page 192 – Soils, the subject property is “Very Limited for Drainage, Septic Systems, Residential Dwellings.” According to Figure 47, page 194, the subject property is within an area of “Moderate and Steep Sloping (Greater than 12 Percent)” land. Development of the subject property is contrary to Natural Resource Conservation Goal, Woodford Resources 1. J. Page 196 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends preserving natural habitats, and the subject property is home to wild turkeys and deer. The proposed rezoning/development would be destructive to the natural habitat. K. Page 207 of the Comprehensive Plan, Glenn’s Creek Watershed, reflects concern about the 600 plus persons already living in the watershed without the benefit of public sewer systems. “The terrain is moderately undulating and has a high potential for sinkholes. This combination of physical characteristics and the number of potential septic systems in the watershed is not a good combination for maintaining a high level of groundwater or surface water quality.” (Emphasis added) Rezoning and development of the subject property would be contrary to protection of the Glenn’s Creek Watershed. L. The Blue Line Creek on the subject property is fed by year round springs from the Darsie property, the Plemmons property on both sides of Watts Ferry Road and by the multiple springs on the subject property. Rezoning and development would negatively impact the existing Blue Line Creek which feeds directly into Glenn’s Creek, by promoting runoff and the removal of existing tree stands. M. Evidence was presented by Ms. Elste that there are currently at least 19 available country parcels, ranging in size from 2.4 to 13.7 acres in Woodford County, advertised for sale in the local newspaper, The Woodford Sun, demonstrating that there is no compelling need to rezone the subject property into country lots. Conclusion: The facts set forth in the Summary of Evidence are found to exist. According to the cases of 21^st Century Development Company, LLC v Watts, 958 SW2d25 (KY Ct. app.1979) and Houghman v Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government 29 SW3d370 (KY Ct. app.) the Planning and Zoning Commission may and is to consider all of the relevant evidence presented and all of the factors of the Comprehensive Plan and not just the land use map. The overwhelming evidence is that although the subject property lies within the designated Millville Small Community District, this particular property is inappropriate to be rezoned as Small Community, A-4.

Mr. Wells questioned if this is the one where they want to create three lots? Mrs. Wilson stated that it is.

Mr. McClees stated that he feels with the questionable EPA concerns that the denial of this zone change is justified.

Chairman Ellis stated that he has some questions regarding the motion. He questioned the definition of “character” and the relation to this property not being in the same character as the community of Millville? Mrs. Wilson stated that the testimony was that these proposed lots are large lots and not consistent with the small piano key type lots in the rest of the community. Mr. Hume stated that there are other large lots in this community. Mrs. Wilson stated that these lots are pushed back further and that would be uncharacteristic as well. Mr. Hume stated that there are other lots in this area that are pushed back.

Chairman Ellis questioned Item #3 D regarding tourism and it states this property is across the road from the Equine Preserve Land Use across McCracken Pike? Mrs. Wilson stated that this property itself is not in the preserved area but there is preserved land on McCracken Pike.

Chairman Ellis questioned how it could be claimed that there are sinkholes on the property when a certified engineer walked the property and testified that there were no sinkholes versus someone saying that they saw sinkholes on the property twenty years ago?

Chairman Ellis was also concerned why there is such concern over three additional septic systems and how, compared to what is already existing in the area, they could possibly put this over the edge? Mr. Boggs felt that this is in direct conflict when it is known that all septic systems fail and it is also known that this drains directly into a creek that flows into the Kentucky River. Chairman Ellis stated that his point is that septic systems are mandated by the Health Department, not the Planning Commission. Mr. Boggs stated that the soils are poor for septic systems and these homes will increase the flow of water.

Chairman Ellis questioned when the Planning Commission started making decisions based on need? Mrs. Wilson stated that she always provides those statistics in the staff report. Chairman Ellis stated that he is aware of that, but he could not recall the Planning Commission ever making a decision based on need.

Mr. Blankenship questioned if Chairman Ellis would like him to modify his motion? Chairman Ellis stated that he was not asking for that to be done.

Mr. Wells questioned #3 C in the motion where it refers to the property being used for agricultural purposes. He questioned if the soils are suitable for agricultural and if the testimony was that only grazing was taking place on the property? Mrs. Wilson stated that there is only a small area with prime soils and she believed that the testimony was that there were cattle grazing there.

Mr. Tim Parrott stated that although some good points have been made, most of them are only half truths. We do not know that all septic systems fail and that is up to the Health Department to monitor those issues. Mr. Parrott also did not agree that the Planning Commission should base decisions on yielding to deer and wild turkey. As far as the need for development, the economy and the market will determine that, not the Planning Commission.

Mr. Boggs stated that they need to remember that there is a reason they are called the “Planning” and Zoning Commission. They are supposed to plan, not just zone.

Chairman Ellis called for a vote on the motion.

VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Joel Evans, Ed McClees. OPPOSED: Carl Ellis, Jim Hume, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf. The motion failed.

Mr. Wells began to make a motion to approve the zone change. Mrs. Wilson questioned if he would like to use the motion that Mr. Moore submitted at the end of the last meeting in order to base it on those Findings? Mr. Wells stated that he would. Chairman Ellis suggested a short break while Mrs. Wilson located that for him.

Chairman Ellis made an announcement regarding Item #2 on the agenda, which is the continued public hearing on the Rubloff property. That will be continued for another 30 days for the purpose of allowing both parties to continue to come to some agreement. Both parties agree to the continuation. Chairman Ellis stated that he has agreed to that and has requested that Mr. Graddy have his Findings of Fact turned in 14 days prior to the next meeting, just in case there is no agreement. The hearing will be closed at the next meeting. They will allow Mr. Graddy to prepare his Findings of Fact based on the agreement, if there is one. Mr. Graddy stated that it may not be Findings of Fact if they reach an agreement, it could be something else. Chairman Ellis stated that he wants to make sure whatever it is gets turned in on time.

A motion was made by Mr. Wells, as seconded by Mr. Parrott, to recommend approval of the Zoning Map Amendment for the Jim Plemmons Property – 95, 295 & 305 Watts Ferry Road for 15.207 acres to be rezoned from A-1 (Agricultural) to A-4 (Small Community) creating 3 lots. This zone change application came before the Planning Commission for public hearing on March 13, 2008. Having heard the testimony presented at said hearing and having reviewed the information supplied by the applicant and the Commissions staff, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact and recommendation to the Woodford Fiscal Court. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicant seeks to rezone 15.207 gross acres from A-1 (Agricultural) to A-4 (Small Community) zone designation. The property is located on the south side of Watts Ferry Road approximately 380 feet west of its intersection with McCracken Pike, the center point of the Millville Small Community District. 2. The required notice of the public hearing was properly published, the surrounding property owners were notified, and notice of the public hearing was posted on the subject property in the required timely manner, all in compliance with KRS Chapter 100. All other procedural requirements of the Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied. 3. The subject property lies at the center of the Small Community District of Millville. No portion of any lot is not fully within the Small Community District. 4. The express purpose of the Small Community District is to provide for limited low density residential expansion in the rural settlements recognized in the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Ordinance, Section 704.1. The residents of Millville and the other small communities have expressed their desire for residential development in the community in order to maintain continued vitality, property values and community spirit. Zoning Ordinance Section 704.1. 5. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan update refers to Small Communities in its Goal for Neighborhood/Subdivision Development (LU/CFS 8) which is, “to encourage the concept of planning and development at the neighborhood level with Versailles and Midway, and the approved small communities of Woodford County which are unincorporated. 6. The Goal for Neighborhood Development complements the Goal for Agricultural Use (Goal LU/CFS 9) which is to preserve the integrity of land zoned for agriculture by requiring that residential development occur in areas appropriately zoned or designated by the Comprehensive Plan – such as small communities. 7. All of the proposed lots satisfy the minimum dimensional standards required of theA-4 zone and the required minimum road frontage on the existing public road. Encroachment permits have been issued to provide the proposed lots with access to Watts Ferry Road. One lot already has an existing access to Watts Ferry Road. 8. The proposed new lots are similar in size to existing lots in the immediate area and are in the traditional character of the settlement pattern. 9. 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. 10. The proposed zone change is in agreement with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update in that the property lies within the 1 ½ mile planning radius for the Small Community of Millville, the property does not lie in the Agricultural Preservation Area; the proposed use is single family residential and the proposal more than satisfies the minimum dimensional requirements of Section 704 of the Zoning Ordinance; the proposed lots are similar in character to the traditional development in the area; and the proposed development will preserve the rural character and natural features of the property. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Planning Commission recommends to the Woodford Fiscal Court that the applicant’s zone change request be granted. The motion carried with five (5) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Hume, Carl Ellis, J.D. Wolf, Chad Wells, Tim Parrott. OPPOSED: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Ed McClees, Joel Evans.

3^rd Amended Final Development Plan – McDonalds Restaurant – 102 United Way – B-3 District.

Mrs. Wilson stated that the Versailles McDonalds would like to incorporate a Red Box DVD rental facility at their restaurant. This would not affect any pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The plan was reviewed by the TRC and all the deficiencies have been addressed.

A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as seconded by Mr. Wolf, to approve the 3^rd Amended Final Development Plan – McDonalds Restaurant – 102 United Way be approved, 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 – St. Leo Parish Life and Education Center – Huntertown Rd. – 13.87 acres – R-1B District.

Mrs. Wilson stated that St. Leo Parish is proposing a two storey Life and Education Center adjacent to the church. The development plan was reviewed by the TRC and all the deficiencies have been addressed. They have also been approved by the Board of Adjustment for a conditional use for this as well.

A motion was made by Mr. Wolf, as seconded by Mr. Evans, to approve the Final Development Plan – St. Leo Parish Life and Education Center – Huntertown Rd. – 13.87 acres – R-1B District.

A gentleman requested to speak. Chairman Ellis stated that this is not a public hearing and there will be no public input.

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 – City of Midway (Old Wastewater Treatment Plant) 400 Leestown Rd. - .835 acres from A-1 (Agricultural) to I-1 (Light Industrial)

Chairman Ellis declared the public hearing open at 7:00 p.m. and called upon Mrs. Wilson for her report. Mrs. Wilson read the following exhibits into the record:

A. Zone Change Application

B. TRC Minutes

C. Photograph of Signs

D. Letter to Adjoining Property Owners

E. Notice to Woodford Sun

F. Staff Report/P. Wilson

Mrs. Wilson read her staff report into the record. The City of Midway is requesting a change in zoning of one of their properties known as 241 Leestown Road, the former Midway Waste Water Treatment Plant, consisting of 0.835 net acres, located on the south side of Leestown Road (US Highway 421) and the north side of I-64, from A-1 (Agriculture) and CO-1 (Conservation) to I-1 (Light Industrial). This tract is currently occupied by abandoned infrastructure previously used to treat sanitary sewage waste. The improvements consist of waste water tanks, drying beds, concrete Storage basins/tanks, office/lab buildings, concrete sludge digesters, etc. The Conservation District (CO-1) is intended to promote and protect significant natural features, wooded areas, water courses, existing and potential lake sites, other recreation and conservation resources, wildlife habitat, present and future water supplies, and to minimize erosion of soil, siltation and pollution of streams and lakes. The requested Zoning District for the subject property is I-1 (Light Industrial). The owner/applicant is not proposing any site or building changes to the property at this time. Adjacent zoning to the north is I-1, to the east is I-1, to the south is R-1B and to the west is A-1. The subject property is in the City Limits of Midway, as well as the Midway Urban Service Boundary. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update (Figure 75) indicates that this property lies in the Interchange Commerce Land Use District. At the present time there are no proposed changes to be made to the site. The 2005 Plan recommends 1 more acre of industrial land by 2010. The property is accessed from US421 (Leestown Pike) from three existing entrances. There is no access to I-64 because it is a controlled access right of way. Fire protection is provided by the City of Midway Fire Department. Police protection is provided by the Versailles Police Department, Woodford County Sheriff’s Department, and the Kentucky State Police. Public water and sewer are available. The east side of the property is bound by Lees Branch Creek and a portion of the property is in the 100 year flood plain as depicted on FIRM 210 230 0010A. The staff would caution the City of Midway regarding Off-premise signs (bill boards). If the subject property is changed to I-1, such signs would be permitted thereon. With the location of this property adjacent to I-64 the City may want to consider deed restricting the property with regard to such signage to protect the Midway corridor. It appears that the proposed zone change would be in agreement with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. The existing property lies within the Interchange Commerce District and within the Midway City Limits. The City has owned the property since 1983 and used it for industrial purposes, a wastewater treatment facility. The agricultural zone is not appropriate and the industrial zone is appropriate. The current lot size is non-conforming in an A-1 zone. There is no minimum lot size in the I-1 zone so the lot will be conforming.

Mr. Evans stated that Mr. Wolf pointed out to him the Guideline regarding signs, and he would like for them to be more restrictive. He felt that they should only allow on-premise signs. Mrs. Wilson stated that they will be allowed to have that. Mr. Evans questioned if they can restrict this? Mrs. Wilson stated that typically you do not act on development plan issues until the zoning has been handed down. Mr. Butler stated that it would be better if it were a deed restriction. Mr. Phil Maloney, Midway City Attorney, stated that they would be willing to do that.

Mr. Hume questioned the maximum height on a free-standing sign? Mrs. Wilson stated that it is 35’ or 40’.

Mr. Evans questioned if the City of Midway will put on that deed restriction? Mr. Maloney stated that they would be inclined to do that.

Mr. Phil Maloney, stated that he feels the information given the Planning Commission speaks for itself. This is the old water and sewer treatment plant and it cannot be used for agricultural purposes. Directly across the street is the new treatment plant that is zoned I-1 and the Mitchell property is also I-1. This is within the Interchange Commerce District. The use is consistent with the zone change request.

Chairman Ellis closed the hearing at 7:10 p.m.

A motion was made by Mr. Blankenship, as seconded by Mr. Evans, 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. Blankenship, as seconded by Mr. Evans, to recommend to the Midway City Council, the approval of the Zoning Map Amendment – City of Midway (Old Wastewater Treatment Plant) 400 Leestown Road .835 acres from A-1 (Agricultural) to I-1 (Light Industrial). 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 – LRS Properties LLC – located on the east side of Kentucky Avenue aka Kentucky Heights – 4.3 acres from R-1C & R-1B (Single Family Residential) to I-1 (Light Industrial).

Chairman Ellis declared the hearing open at 7:11 p.m. and called upon Mrs. Wilson for her comments. Mrs. Wilson read the following exhibits into the record.

A. Zone Change Application

B. Preliminary Development Plan

C. TRC Minutes

D. Deficiencies Letters to Engineer

E. Photograph of Sign

F. Letter to Adjoining Property Owners

G. Notice to Woodford Sun

H. Staff Report/ P Wilson

I. Letter of Support – Deborah Tucker (adjoining property owner)

J. Letter from City of Versailles addressing availability of water

K. Letter from City of Versailles addressing entrances

Mrs. Wilson read her staff report into the record. The owners are requesting a change in zoning of the property known as 305 Kentucky Avenue, consisting of a total of 4.658 gross acres (4.323 net acres), located on the southeast side of Kentucky Avenue approximately 500 feet south of Elm Street. 2.345 gross acres is being requested to be changed from R-1B (Single Family Residential) and 2.313 gross acres from R-1A (Single Family Residential) to I-1 (Light Industrial). This tract is currently vacant land with no existing structures located on it. The property is currently split zoned R-1B & R-1C and is approved for twelve single family residential lots. In June of 2004 Naro Properties requested a change of 2.345 Gross acres from R-1B to R-1C to create 11 single family residential lots to be in keeping with the character of the size of the existing residential lots and homes on the northwest side of Kentucky Avenue. The twelfth lot was to remain R-1B. The zone change was approved along with the preliminary plat and construction plans were submitted but plans were never finalized nor improvements constructed to implement the residential subdivision. The requested Zoning District for the subject property is I-1 (Light Industrial). The owners are proposing nine lots with a tenth lot for proposed detention (non-buildable). Adjacent zoning to the north is R-1B & R-1C, to the east is R-1B & R-4, to the south is R-4 & I-2, and to the west is R-1B. The subject property is in the City Limits of Versailles, as well as the Versailles Urban Service Boundary. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update (Figure 75) indicates that this property lies in the Traditional Neighborhood Land Use District (Attachment #3). The TND indicates that these are mature neighborhoods and some infill is anticipated. Guideline #1 does not appear to be followed with this application. This is an infill project and should preserve the character of the neighborhood and be similar in terms of density, etc. The Waster Water Treatment Facility is nearby, but there are single family detached homes directly across the street in this neighborhood. Guideline #2 does not apply because there are no streets being abandoned. Guideline #3 affects placement of building on lots. Proposed Lot #4 shows a sample of how a building and parking lot might be placed on the property, but it is noted that it will be left up to each purchaser to get their lot development plan approved. The sample lot layout does show a narrow driveway leading to the rear of a building with the parking lot in the back. The lot widths are similar to the area. Guideline 4 does not really apply since it deals with density which more of a residential component. Guideline #5 has not been addressed with regard to proposed site and building lighting at this time. The 2005 Plan recommends 1 more acre of industrial land by 2010. There are currently 377.20 acres of I-1 zoned land in the Versailles Urban Service Area. Approximately 40 acres are currently vacant. It should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance, Article VII, Section 718.7 (A) does require that all uses must occur in an enclosed building and outdoor storage must be screened by a solid wall or fence at least six feet in height. (B) restricts all buildings and structures to be at least 100 feet from any residential zone. This would be measured from the centerline of Kentucky Avenue, the centerline of the Southern Railroad, the rear property line common to Lewis and the side property line common to Adkins. This would make Lot #9 non-buildable as it is currently proposed. Kentucky Avenue/Beech Street is a city maintained street that connects Elm Street/McCracken Pike (KY 1659) to Clifton Road (KY 1964). The road is approximately .6 miles long and 20 feet wide. The Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Transportation Study does not contain detailed traffic counts on this street. Historically this street has been used as a cut-through to get around the northwest side of Versailles. The storm water is proposed to be managed on the property on proposed Lot #10 at the low point of the site. This storm water would drain through an existing 18” pipe under Kentucky Avenue that eventually flows to the headwaters of Glenns Creek. Currently the property has water and sanitary sewer service provided by the City of Versailles. The City of Versailles has verified that water and sewer service is available for the proposed 9 industrial lots. In addition, proposed entrances have been approved from Kentucky Avenue. Improvements along the Kentucky Avenue property frontage will be required including pavement widening with curb & gutter. The City installed sidewalks along this section of Kentucky Avenue last year. Fire protection is provided by the City of Versailles Fire Department. Police protection is provided by the Versailles Police Department, Woodford County Sheriff’s Department, and the Kentucky State Police. The property is not located in the 100 year flood plain based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. It appears that the proposed zone change may not be in agreement with the 2005 Plan. The site lies in the Traditional Neighborhood District which recommends infilling with similar residential neighborhoods with houses located close to the street and at a similar density. The applicant has included Commercial Goals and Objectives which may not be appropriate in justifying this zone change. The request is for Industrial not Commercial. The I-1 District in Section 718.1 specifically states that “The Comprehensive Plan should be used to determine the appropriate locations for this zone. Consideration should be given to the relationship of this zone to the surrounding land uses and to the adequacy of the street system to serve the anticipated traffic needs.” The applicant indicates that the current R-1B & R-1C zoning is inappropriate and the proposed I-1 is due to the location of the City’s treatment facility. They have not addressed the appropriateness or inappropriateness of Industrial zoning directly across the street from the existing residential neighborhood. There has been no information submitted addressing the adequacy of the street system for proposed industrial uses. There don’t appear to “have been major changes of an economic, physical or social nature within the area involved which were not anticipated in the adopted comprehensive plan and which have substantially altered the basic character of such area.”

Mr. Ralph Combs introduced his associate, Alice Aiken and his clients who make up LRS Properties LLC, Mr. Rick Roberts, Mr. Harold Steele, and Mr. Ken Long. Mr. Combs stated that he agrees with Mrs. Wilson regarding the Comprehensive Plan and more specifically the Land Use Map component, that this property is shown as residential. Mr. Combs stated that it is their belief that the Comprehensive Plan is more than a map and is a series of considerations, including the Goals and Objectives, some of which have been expressed by Mrs. Wilson and some additional ones that he will express in the Traditional Neighborhood District. Mr. Combs read one of the goals which said, “To understand and accommodate the various levels of commercial needs of the cities and county.” It is their belief that if this project is approved it will in fact address a compelling need for businesses of this size. Mr. Harold Steele has been approached by several people who have a need to locate somewhere, such as plumbers, electricians, heating and air technicians, etc. They are in need of a shop to put their businesses in. They cannot go to the industrial park and pay $300,000.00 for an acre of ground, but if a project such as this were approved, they could purchase a lot and build a facility to conduct their business in. As Mrs. Wilson told you, there would have to be screening around the property. Mr. Combs read an Objective that said, “To discourage strip commercial activities along major traffic arteries unless specifically designated in the Land Use Plan.” This would allow these businessmen to conduct their business without being out on US 60 or other major traffic areas. They feel that they are in compliance with that objective. Mr. Combs read another Objective, “To permit commercial and workplace uses within new neighborhoods and appropriate locations within the undeveloped urban service growth areas.” This is undeveloped and is not developed at all. These usages would allow this project to be developed and provide the uses that have been addressed. Mr. Combs stated that he feels that they meet that objective. Another one, “Accommodate industrial development that will assist providing for a broad and stable economic base conducive to the character of the area.” When you look at the area there are some houses, but there is also industrial use. On the other side of this property is the sewer plant and Mr. Roberts other property which is immediately adjacent to this is zoned I-2. We feel this would accommodate additional industrial development that would be conducive to the area and not harmful to the area. The other objective, “To encourage the establishment of clean, non-polluting types of industries that will constitute a long range community asset.” Mr. Combs read from the preamble of light industrial uses, “Intent: This zone is intended for manufacturing, industrial, and related uses not involving a potential nuisance in terms of smoke, noise, odor, vibration, heat, light, or industrial waste.” Those types of things are found in the I-2 district, but not the I-1 district, which is what they are asking for. By definition you cannot go out there and locate uses there that would cause any of those issues. By the definition itself, they are accommodating to that particular goal. The last goal says, “To accommodate diverse workplace opportunities that would be advantageous for Woodford Countian’s seeking employment.” Jobs are a good thing. If approved, this project will provide employment. It would not be hundreds of employees and no one is suggesting that, but there would be some people employed there, hopefully for a long time. They believe they too comply with the spirit and the letter of that objective. Mr. Combs stated that it is his belief that they comply with the Comprehensive Plan if you look at all the components and not just the Land Use Map, which they do not claim to comply with. Even if they were not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, there are two other elements to be met. One is that the residential zoning was initially inappropriate and that is their belief. They believe that the I-1 zoning would be far more appropriate. Mr. Bill Razor owned this property for a long time and he tried to build and sell houses. He had very limited luck with this property residentially. They tried many marketing strategies and very few of them worked. Directly across the street from this property is the sewer plant. There is also a railroad in the immediate area. Mr. Combs stated that at one point and time in his career as an attorney dealing with real estate, the Farmers Home Administration would not even consider a loan on property that is near a sewer treatment plant. Mr. Combs tried to find out if that is still true, but was unable to. This is simply property that is not appropriately zoned for residential and it has never been. Mr. Roberts owns property that is adjacent to this property and it was formerly the City dump. Mr. Roberts confirmed that. This is one more reason this property is not appropriate for residential purposes. Mr. Combs referred to the zoning map and noted that the purple area is industrial zoning. The area outlined in red is the property that is being proposed for the zone change. To the east is I-2 property and the zoning was changed in 2001 from residential. The other properties shown in purple are all I-1 properties. They believe that this particular tract of land would be more appropriately zoned industrial. In 2000 Naro Properties made a zone change request for the property that Rick Roberts now owns from residential to I-2. That case is almost exactly the same analogy that you are going to hear tonight in this case. The lot that Mr. Roberts owns was shown as residential in the Comprehensive Plan but Mr. Nave pointed out to the Planning Commission at that time that the Goals and Objectives are much more meaningful to an industrial zone and their findings were in effect that the zone change request was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. That is contrary to Mrs. Wilson’s conclusion, but it is in the record that the Planning Commission approved the zone change and all that is in the record. This proposal is almost exactly the same as that one. It was recommended for residential in the Comprehensive Plan and Mr. Nave pointed out that the Goals and Objectives were much more meaningful for the industrial zone and it was rezoned to I-2, which is a more intense use, and it was found to be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. That Planning Commission found that the zone change was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Should this Planning Commission find that the property is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and that it was not inappropriately zoned as residential; the one finding that is true is that there has been a significant change in the area and that is the rezoning of Mr. Roberts property to I-2 and that property adjoins this property. Mr. Combs introduced Mr. James Black the engineer on the project at this time and he handed out to the Planning Commission members Mr. Black’s resume. Mr. Combs requested that Mr. Black give a summarization of his resume and offer his thoughts on the site development issues.

Mr. Black stated over his career he has become licensed as a civil engineer, a geologist, and as a land surveyor and has been licensed since 1972. Mr. Black stated that he was retained by the applicant to address site development issues. With any site development there is impervious area and that generates additional run off. Right now the run off is essentially uncontrolled. There will be additional run off but it will change to a controlled state. A detention basin will be put in to maintain that the post development run off will be no greater than the current peak run off rate. In order to do that there will be a storm sewer constructed parallel to Kentucky Avenue, but on the property each lot will have an inlet or manhole into that storm sewer. The new storm sewer will take water from the entire site and put it into the detention basin. Mr. Black stated that it would be his task to design the detention basin to meet the City’s detention standards which has to do with the run off rates. Each lot will have a deed restriction requiring that the majority of the water from the lots be channeled into the new storm sewer as opposed to running across the sidewalk and into the street. Again, that is from uncontrolled to controlled. It has already been stated that there is sanitary service immediately close by. There is a storm pipe under Kentucky Avenue, which is carrying some water and will now be carrying water from this development, but in a controlled state. The utilities are all there. Mr. Black stated that he has been in contact with the City regarding the entrance and rather than having nine entrances, they have requested that the number of entrances be controlled and the property owners are in agreement with that. The entrance off of Kentucky Avenue would be doubled. One entrance would serve two lots. That would make it so that they have a more limited number of access points onto Kentucky Avenue. That would mean four double entrances and a single entrance for Lot #9, which is separated by the detention basin. The plan is to separate the drives into the businesses because if I am to invoke a deed restriction that the lot has to channel water into the new storm sewer I have to provide a method for that to happen and the easiest method would be to slope the driveway into the new inlet. When there are double driveways, it means that water from one property will cross the driveway and into the storm inlet and that was never the intention. The plan is to have an entrance when it is on public property between the sidewalk and the street and separate the driveways once they are on the property so that he can provide slopes on individual driveways and mandate that the water go into the storm sewer. There is a regulation that any storage must be surrounded by a fence and that is not an issue here. It will be complied with. The Public Works has indicated that with these new entrances that sight distance and other normal factors that go into the roadway are acceptable. At this stage it is only a concept so no detailed engineering analysis have been done, but obviously they will have to be done and go through the review process.

Mr. McClees stated that he has dealt with storm water issues for years. In looking at the elevations, he felt that is a significant drop and he questioned how big of a storm basin he will have? Mr. Black stated that it will be whatever is necessary and he did not know what that is until he gets into the design. In just looking at the review, he would guess 15” to 18”. Mr. Black stated that in pipe design they like slope. It is the flat pipes that cause a lot of problems. They don’t clean themselves and they don’t take a lot of water. There are several ways to slow the water down as it gets toward the detention basin one of which is to use the headwalls that throw the water up in the air slightly to reduce the energy. Mr. McClees stated that he understands that, but somewhere that water is going to have to be buffered. When you have a velocity of water like the five year rain we just had, that water is going to back up. How are you going to keep that water from going across the street? Mr. Black stated that his intention is to provide a pipe to be able to handle the maximum storm for any community, which is a 100 year 24 hour storm as defined by the SCS method.

Mr. Wolf questioned if this would cause more water run-off than houses would? Mr. Black stated most communities are interested in infill development as opposed to developing further out into the country. This is clearly an infill project. Anytime you develop anything, there will be increased run off. Will the run off be more than houses? Probably so. There is a 100’ foot restriction from any residential zoning and that will limit the size of the buildings that can be placed on the lots. Mr. Black questioned if the parking has to be paved or can it be gravel? Mrs. Wilson stated that is has to be paved within a certain distance of residential zones and this is well within that distance. Mr. Black stated that if it were gravel that would allow the ground to absorb more water, but since it has to be paved, it will increase the run off. Mr. Black stated that these are general terms, until such time they actually do a design. If the existing situation put out for instance ten units, it would probably increase to twelve or thirteen units with houses, and probably with what is planned it would go to fifteen to sixteen units. The houses that are across the street have impervious area and they have generated more water. If those houses were not there, there would not be as much water. When this property is developed, no matter how it is developed, there will be more water. The community now has detention requirements and he intends for this development to comply with those. Those requirements were implemented for the purpose of protecting those downstream landowners.

Mr. Combs stated that he has stated that he feels they are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Even though they may not comply with the Land Use portion, they do comply with the Goals and Objectives, which he felt far outweighs the land use portion. Mr. Combs stated that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be looked at as a whole and not just one section. Mr. Combs stated that he included a case in his submission “Ward v Nippenberg”, and it says that the Comprehensive Plan is a guideline and that is not a straightjacket. Even if the Planning Commission determines that this is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, it is very obvious that this property was inappropriately zoned to begin with and that is evident by the action of the Planning Commission taken on the Naro property where the land was shown on the Land Use Map as residential; however, the Planning Commission found that the zone change request was in overall compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The property was rezoned to I-2 and it has been a profitable business. Mr. Combs questioned if Mr. Roberts has had any complaints from his neighbors regarding traffic or anything else? Mr. Roberts stated that he has not. Mr. Combs stated that one of the restrictions that the property owners are willing to self impose is a three lot limit on any lot consolidations. The property owners live here and they are sensitive to the effect this could have on the adjoining properties, which is why they want to put on that restriction. It would keep someone from purchasing all the lots and then consolidating them and putting up a very large facility. The I-1 uses do allow for composting and the owners want to put on a restriction that would say that composting would not be allowed. Mr. Combs stated that many years ago, he and Tom Pierce represented their clients against a company that wanted to locate a composting facility in Versailles and they made claims about how nice it would be. Mr. Combs and Mr. Pierce visited one of their facilities and found that was not the case. There will be underground utilities to the property and all utilities are available to the site. Mr. Combs stated that he believes that the storm sewer plan that they design will work. The law requires that they not allow the water flow to be worse than what now exists, but it is not their responsibility to solve the existing problems that are there now. Mr. Combs questioned if Mr. Black agrees that they must control water from their site and not make the existing problem worse, but they are not responsible for solving the existing problem? Mr. Black agreed. Mr. Combs stated that concludes his presentation and would like to retain the right for possible rebuttal.

Chairman Ellis stated that this is a court type hearing and as the applicant, Mr. Combs will have the final comments after they hear from anyone else who might like to speak.

Mr. Blankenship stated that Mr. Combs read from the I-1 Zoning Ordinance, but only read one part of it regarding the uses not involving nuisances such as smoke, odor, etc. Mr. Blankenship stated that he did not read the portion that says, “The Comprehensive Plan should be used to determine the appropriate locations for this zone. Consideration should be given to the relationship of this zone to the surrounding land uses and to the adequacy of the street system to serve the anticipated traffic needs.” Mr. Blankenship questioned if this meets that given that there is a whole row of homes directly across the street? In his opinion an I-1 zone would not fit this. The other item that was brought up is the one lot I-2 zone that this board approved, but directly across the street from that is sewage treatment plant, and the general feeling from the Planning Commission, as he recalled, was that would not harm those living in the neighborhood. Across the street from the property being talked about today is a row of residential homes. The third item is that Mr. Combs keeps saying the R-1B & R-1C district is not appropriate; however, the previous owner who came in and requested the zone change to R-1C did not think it was inappropriate in 2004. Mr. Blankenship stated that he just can’t see why it became inappropriate from 2004 to 2008.

Mr. Combs agreed with what Mr. Blankenship read from the Zoning Ordinance and said that he agrees with what it says; however, he is saying that the Comprehensive Plan is more than just a Land Use Map and you have to consider the other components, which are the Goals and Objectives, to determine the appropriate location for the zone. In the Naro case, it was determined it should be I-2.

Mr. Blankenship stated that in 2004 Mr. Nave felt it was appropriate to rezone to R-1C and they split it between R-1B & R-1C. Mr. Nave felt that the single family was appropriate in 2004 so why is that not appropriate now? Mr. Combs stated that he was not privy to Mr. Nave’s thinking. Mr. Blankenship stated that you would not have to be. The Planning Commission rezoned part of the property to R-1C in 2004, so what has changed from 2004 to now to change from R-1C to I-1?

Mr. Butler stated that Mr. Blankenship is saying that the R-1C was deemed to be appropriate so what has changed to cause you to say that the R-1C is inappropriate? Mr. Combs stated that he is saying that I-1 is more appropriate because of the location of the sewer plant and Mr. Roberts property and that it was more appropriate from 2004 until today. Mr. Combs stated that this property has not proven to be marketable as residential. Mr. Combs questioned why Mr. Nave did not develop the property? Mrs. Wilson stated that he never resubmitted construction plans in order to do so. Mr. Combs stated that he does not know why Mr. Nave changed his mind, but regardless of that the I-1 district is a more appropriate designation for this property.

Mr. Hume questioned why it is more appropriate to expand an industrial zone into the surrounding residential area and impact those people who live there? Mr. Combs stated that you need to look at the Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hume stated that he does not believe that the Goals and Objectives find it necessary to take a huge leap from the residential district into an industrial district without any type of buffer. That does not seem responsible. Mr. Combs stated that the sewer plant borders them already and their property is located across the street. Mr. Hume stated that it seems like this is a bad situation that the Planning Commission is being asked to make worse.

Mr. Evans questioned who the industrial zone is more appropriate for? Mr. Combs stated that he is saying that the Planning Commission needs to consider the Goals and Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and not just the Land Use Map.

Chairman Ellis stated that they need to stick to the subject and not become argumentative.

Mr. Hume questioned if there is any indication of what the traffic impact will be? Elm Street and Kentucky Avenue are narrow thoroughfares. Have there been traffic studies done? Mr. Combs stated that they do have a 24 hour study from the Kentucky Department of Transportation. The average daily traffic is 2458 trips per day. Mr. Combs stated that Mrs. Wilson described Kentucky Avenue as being used as a thoroughfare. Mrs. Wilson stated that she said that this is being used as a cut thru to go around the northwest side of the city. Mr. Combs stated that is not the responsibility of his clients that some people cut through there and they cannot control that. If this project is approved there will definitely be additional traffic. Mr. Combs stated that 2458 trips is a 102.4 trips per hour, which is 1.7 per minute in a 24 hour period. Of course some days it would be heavier than others. Mr. Combs mentioned large cities that he has lived in that have very heavy traffic and compared to traffic in Versailles is nothing. Mr. Combs stated that he cannot say exactly how much additional traffic there will be from this proposed development, but it will not be nearly as much as it would be if it were developed residentially.

Mr. McClees stated that this is a 20’ street and he questioned how many commercial trucks are going to be traveling to this development? Mr. Combs stated that Mr. Roberts has a stair company and his customers call and place their order. Mr. Roberts builds the stairs and transports them to the site. With the exception of the occasional semi that comes there, there is not a large amount of commercial traffic. All the businesses in this development will not be unlike Mr. Roberts, but they have to be enclosed and these lots are quite small and there is no retail allowed. They will be small businesses and as stated before, there will be a deed restriction that says no more than three lots can be consolidated. Mr. McClees stated that the businesses may be small, but you have to remember there could be nine of them. Mr. Combs stated that is true. Mr. McClees stated that he is just worried about the impact of commercial traffic on this narrow street and the width of the driveways. Mr. Combs stated that the types of businesses that he knows of that want to located there would be those who would come to their shop and load up their own trucks with supplies and then go out. He did not think there would be semi trucks going there. Mr. McClees stated that he does not think a semi could even get into the site. Mr. Combs stated that the point as far as traffic is concerned, is that there will not be nearly as much traffic as there would be if there were twelve or fourteen homes built there. Mr. McClees stated that he was shocked at the traffic count. Mr. Combs stated that he was as well, until Mrs. Wilson comments about the street being a cut through and then it made more sense. Mr. Combs stated that it makes sense for the City to provide another traffic route, rather than turning down this project based on that. That is out of their control.

Mr. Mike Eaves, stated that he is an Attorney in Richmond, Kentucky, and was born and raised in Versailles, until leaving for college in 1971. Mr. Eaves stated that he went on to law school and began practicing in Richmond in 1979. Mr. Eaves stated that his father built a house on Kentucky Avenue about 1977 or 1978 and his uncle, Ray Hatton lived next door. Mr. Eaves stated that his mother still lives there and Mr. Hatton’s daughter, Karen, now lives next door. Mr. Eaves stated that he knows something of Kentucky Avenue and the area that is zoned I-2, which is the old city dump where he and his friends use to go and play. That was a fascinating spot. Right across the street from the old dump was the waste water treatment plant. Neither of those two things have changed in his lifetime. Mr. Eaves stated that his mother’s home started to flood in the early 90’s. There was no such problem before then, but it began in the early 90’s. There are two kinds of water. One is the surface water and the other is water that has been infiltrated into the sanitary sewer system and literally comes up into the house. It comes up into the bathtub, into the toilets, and into the sinks. In the early 90’s his mother started having repeated problems with that, as did Mr. Hatton who lived next door. In order to get that resolved, he wrote a letter in 1995, explaining the situation and that it had to be taken care of. She had a crawl space full of water, lost all of her insulation, and had lost her furnace multiple times. The City agreed that they would do something. Within a year a contractor had removed an inadequately sized storm water pipe and it took about a year to replace that. Within that year when the contractor was working on it there was another big rain that flooded her again. Mr. Eaves stated that he wrote another letter and he was ready to sue the City. He told them they had to do something, and they did. They paid for her property damage at that time and her home has probably flooded five times since then. Mr. Eaves handed out photographs of his mothers and uncles homes after the rains that have taken place since the filing of the zone change application.

The Planning Commission took a ten minute break, while Mr. Eaves and his assistant set up the projector.

Mr. Eaves stated that the photographs that he handed out were taken by his cousin and she took those the day after the rain. Mr. Eaves stated that he was lucky enough to meet the current Mayor just a few minutes ago and the City Attorney and the topic of that conversation was how the City plans to respond to this current problem. The zoning map that was on the website may not be as current as the one that Mr. Combs handed out. Mr. Eaves pointed out the property that was re-zoned from R-1B to R-1C just last year and that residential use was determined to be appropriate. Prior to that in 2004, Mr. Nave made a request that a portion of his property be rezoned from R-1B to R-1C. Mr. Eaves read from a portion of the 2004 minutes on this issue and stated that there were nine pages of minutes, with eight of those dealing with water problems and solutions to water problems. None of which were carried through with. The developer was going to build a sidewalk and the City ultimately built it. The developer was going to widen the road and that did not happen. The developer was going to install curbs and gutters to keep his water on his side of the street and that did not happen. The developer was going to install a nice big storm sewer line and that did not happen either. In 2004 the Planning Commission heard the following: Mr. Nave stated that the change to R-1C zoning on the property would help to satisfy one of the major goals of the Comprehensive Plan, which was to provide for the creation of affordable housing.” The Planning Commission found that the storm water drainage detention was to be provided on-site and it goes on to talk about the new 36” storm water line that was going to be constructed, which never happened, the curbs and gutters that were to be installed, that never were, and the street widening, which never did happen. Then it said under the numbered Findings #7, “the Commission finds that there is need for some affordable single family housing and the proposed rezoning of the subject property is appropriate. The Commission finds that in light of the Finding recited herein, the original R-1B zone for this portion of the applicants property was inappropriate and that R-1C is not only appropriate, but is well within the Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission went on to find that there was a compelling need to allow for and provide for affordable housing in the Versailles Urban Service Area. Mr. Eaves stated that there has not been much that has happened on Kentucky Avenue in his lifetime and he assured the Planning Commission that there have been no changes of any kind since 2004, unless the Planning Commission has abandoned the concept of planning. Too much time has been spent on this application. Mr. Eaves went through the slides and pointed out that the proposed detention basin and the existing 18” line that the water would enter into is directly in front of his uncles house where you saw in the photographs of the water shooting out of the manhole covers the day of the storm. The Planning Commission knows what the statutes say and they know what they have to find in order to justify a zone change. Mr. Eaves showed the area on Kentucky Avenue in the undeveloped stage. Late last summer they went in and took out trees and scraped off the grass, so there is now not only water, but mud coming off of the hillside. Mr. Eaves stated that the silt fence in place probably would not hold back anything due to the shape that it is in and it still looks that way today. Mr. Eaves showed a photo from his mothers driveway showing the debris she has had to look at for the last year. The next photo was of standing water from several months ago, not the recent rains. The next was a photo of the sidewalk that the City built from that previous rain that has about an inch and one half of water over it. The next was a sidewalk as water runs down toward the I-2 property. The next photo was of a junk car and other vehicles that the owners did not move, even though there had been complaints, until they posted their sign for the zone change request. The next photo was the metal building that houses Central Kentucky Stairs. This is, in essence, what they are proposing to put across from the single family dwellings. That is the worst nightmare realized to have to walk out your front door and look at that everyday. Mr. Eaves stated that the Zoning Ordinance does require that all this be screened, but he sees nothing screened on the existing I-2 property. Mr. Eaves presented photographs of the I-2 property with building materials, scrap material, equipment, and other items stored outside the building in plain sight. Mr. Eaves stated that he wants to point out the uses that are allowed in an I-1 zone and those uses are probably encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan somewhere, but not in a residential area. There is not one of the allowed uses in an I-1 District that are appropriate in a single family area. There is not one of those that anyone would want in their neighborhood. That is how we get back to planning. Mr. Eaves stated that he has done a lot of planning and zoning cases in Madison County and has yet to hear any engineer say that you cannot find a solution to water; however, the water does not seem to ever get that message. It never gets fixed and it is always someone else’s responsibility that it get fixed. Mr. Eaves stated that he is here solely for his cousin and mother and they have had this problem since the early 90’s. In 1995 when he wrote the first letter to the Mayor he told him that this is no way to spend your retirement. Mr. Eaves stated that his mother has a valve outside of her house and when rain is expected, she has to go out there and cut the valve off which cuts off the sanitary sewer service to her house. She has to do this to keep the water out of her house. Mr. Eaves stated that his cousin had 4 ½ feet of water under her house after this last rain that ruined her insulation, furnace, washer and dryer and she got mold and mildew, but that is not the City’s problem. It is a substantial problem if you live there. Mr. Eaves stated that Mr. Black has been a little less than candid because water will not soak in concrete nor does it soak into the roof of a metal structure. In commercial property, 80% of the exterior is some type of impervious material. It will find its way across the street and it has for a long time. Mr. Eaves stated that his cousin circulated a petition and wants that submitted into the record. Mr. Eaves stated that if planning means anything at all, you do not mix residential uses and industrial uses together. Mr. Eaves stated that he does not even have to read the Comprehensive Plan to know that it is not anticipated and that is not pla