ON
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008 THE VERSAILLES-MIDWAY-WOODFORD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION HELD THEIR SCHEDULED MEETING IN THE 2ND FLOOR COURTROOM
OF THE WOODFORD COUNTY COURTHOUSE AT 6:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim
Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.
Chairman
Ellis requested that everyone turn off or silence their cell phones.
MINUTES: A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as seconded
by Mr. Parrott, to approve the April
10, 2008 minutes, as submitted. The motion carried with eight (8) aye
votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume,
Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.
Chairman
Ellis announced that Item #3 under new business for an In-Family Conveyance on
the Ambrose Jones property will not be heard at their request.
Public
Hearing continued: Zoning Map Amendment & Preliminary
Development Plan – Rubloff Versailles LLC, Rubloff Group Holdings, LLP, Hardin
& Patsy Field III and Edgewood Farm LLC,Trustee–
located on US 60 (Lexington Rd.) – To rezone 23.3 acres from B-3/PUD to B-4 and
12.821 acres from B-3/PUD to B-4 and 1.68 acres from R-1B to B-4 and 1.76 acres
from A-1 to B-4.
Chairman
Ellis stated that this hearing was continued strictly for each party to report
back if their attempts at negotiations were successful or not.
Mr.
Robert Stilz reported that they did meet with the Woodford Coalition and
submitted a couple of different plans, but were unable to reach an
agreement. Mr. Graddy confirmed that
there was no agreement reached.
Chairman
Ellis closed the hearing at 6:35 p.m.
Mr.
Wolf began to make a motion and Chairman Ellis explained that before the
Planning Commission can make a motion the By-laws requiring that they wait 14
days before taking action on a zone change must be waived.
A motion was made by Mr. Wolf, as
seconded by Mr. Wells, to waive the By-laws requiring that the Planning
Commission wait 14 days before taking action on a zone change. The motion carried with eight (8) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume,
Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.
Mr.
Wolf stated that he wants to make a motion to approve the Rubloff property
because they have been waiting since 2000 and no one has ever attempted to locate
there and now someone is interested in doing so. Presently it is an eyesore. The Mayor of Versailles has backed them in a
corner and we now have someone that wants to come there.
Chairman
Ellis questioned what motion he will be using?
Mr. Butler questioned if he will be adopting the motion that Mr. Stilz
submitted? Mr. Wolf agreed.
A motion was made by Mr. Wolf, as
seconded by Mr. Wells, to recommend to the Versailles City Council the approval
of the Zoning Map Amendment for Rubloff Versailles LLC, Rubloff Group Holdings,
LLP, Hardin & Patsy Field III and Edgewood Farm LLC,Trustee– located on US
60 (Lexington Rd.) – To rezone 23.3 acres from B-3/PUD to B-4 and 12.821 acres
from B-3/PUD to B-4 and 1.68 acres from R-1B to B-4 and 1.76 acres from A-1 to
B-4 based on the following: An application
was made by Rubloff Versailles LLC (Tract 1), Rubloff Group Holdings, LLC
(Tract II), Harding and Patsy C. Field III (Tract III), and Edgewood Farm, LLC
Trustee (Tract IV), to rezone 39.561 acres consisting of the Versailles Center
and adjacent property to the east of the Versailles Center. The Preliminary Plat/Conceptual Development
Plan presented with the application for zone map amendment proposes to
construct 287,629 square feet of retail space, including a four story
hotel. RELEVANT EVIDENCE: 1. The Commission staff reported that the
notice requirements of KRS 100 et. seq. have been
satisfied and that a public hearing as required by KRS 100 et. seq. has been conducted to consider all relevant evidence
regarding the proposed zoning map amendment.
2. Robert C. Stilz Jr. and Adrian
M. Mendiondo, attorneys for the property owner, appeared on behalf of the
property owner and applicant and presented to the Commission statements
regarding the property which referenced materials previously submitted for the
record. These materials are the zone
change application, the Staff Report and a response to the Staff Report titled
Conformance with 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update. 3. The
Staff report found as follows: a) The 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update (the
“Comprehensive Plan”) designates this property for development as part of a
Regional Commerce Center District in Master Planned Area 4. b) The
proposed Development supports all of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and
objectives that are relevant to the subject property. c) The applicant
submitted evidence that the proposed development substantially conforms to the
applicable Regional Commerce Center District and MPA-4 Guidelines. d) The proposed development meets the
Comprehensive Plan’s Mobility Policy 1.
e) The applicant has submitted a
traffic study regarding the proposed development. f)
Public water and sewer service is presently provided to the subject
property. g) Access points to the property have been
approved by the Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet. 4. The application and the Applicant’s response
to the Staff Report demonstrates the following:
a) The proposed development
supports the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and fits within the
Regional Commerce Center District and MPA-4 Guidelines; therefore, the proposed
development is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. b) The
proposed development provides commercial development in the area designated for
such development by the Comprehensive Plan, and does so in a manner that
permits development of the full Regional Commerce Center District and MPA-4
according to the guidelines set forth in the plan. c) The proposed development is the best and
most efficient use of the subject property, and is the only commercially viable
means to develop the property.
Commercial development is an established need of the community, and if
it does not occur on the subject property it will occur in another area that
has not been set aside for commercial development. d) The
design of the proposed development addresses traffic issues as efficiently as
possible. To the extent that a loss of
service is caused by the proposed development, this is principally caused by
traffic on Marsailles Drive unrelated to the proposed development and adding a
fourth phase to the light at the Marsailles Drive intersection. Any commercial development on the subject
property would cause the same result regardless of its design. e) The subject property already contains
substantial infrastructure, including municipal services, necessary to serve
the proposed development. 5. Mark Robinson, President of Rubloff
Development Group appeared on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Robinson described his background as an
attorney and in commercial real estate development, the need for the
development, the prohibitive nature of the present restrictions on the subject
property, and the inability to develop the property unless the zone change
request is granted. He also described
efforts to market the property and progress that has been made towards
developing it as proposed. 6. Paul Ray Smith of NAI Isaac, a commercial
real estate broker, appeared to testify on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Smith described past and current trends
in the retail industry, including the emergence of “new urbanism” as a popular
design theory eight years ago and the more recent realization that it is not
economically feasible except in high density urban markets with very large
scale developments. Mr. Smith also
explained his present attempts to market the proposed development, the type of
tenants that have expressed interest in the development, the need for a larger
anchor tenant in the development, and the necessity of approving the zone
change so that firm occupancy commitments can be made. 7. The
comments of all other persons during the hearing are set forth in the minutes
of the Commission, copies of which will be forwarded to the City of Versailles
with this recommendation. FINDINGS: The Commission finds that the following facts
exist: 1. Sufficient municipal services and
public utilities are available to the property.
2. the property
is located within the Urban Service Area, the Regional Commerce Center
District, and MPA-4 as adopted by the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The
property is adjacent to multiple properties that are commercially zoned and
developed. 4. The designated access points for the proposed
development have been approved by the Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet. 5. The B-4 zone proposed is appropriate because
commercial development of the types permitted in the B-4 zone is the best and
most needed use for the specific portion of the Regional Commerce Center
District and MPA-4 occupied by the subject property; the proposed development
is designed in such a manner as to allow future connection to residential,
office space, and other developments on the remainder of the Regional Commerce
Center District and MPA-4 such that the entirety of the Regional Commerce
Center District and MPA-4 can become a mixed use development in accordance with
the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The proposed development occupies
approximately one third of the Regional Commerce Center District and
MPA-4. The Regional Commerce Center
District and MPA-4 guidelines are intended to guide development of the Regional
Commerce Center District and MPA-4 as a whole, not to micromanage development
of each individual portion within the district.
As such, the conformance of the proposed development to the Regional Commerce
Center District and MPA-4 guidelines is assessed with respect to the proposed
development’s role within the entire district, and the relevant issue is
whether the proposed development allows the full district including the
proposed development to be developed in accordance with the Guidelines. The proposed development conforms to the
Regional Commerce Center District and MPA-4 guidelines. 7. The
zoning map amendment is supported by the following facts found to be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
a) Commercial Development – Goal LU/CFS1: To understand and accommodate the various
levels of commercial needs of the cities of the county. Objective:
Discourage strip commercial activities along major traffic arteries
unless specifically designated in the Land Use Plan. Objective:
To permit commercial and workplace uses within new neighborhoods and in
appropriate locations within the undeveloped urban service/growth areas. This goal and its supporting objectives call
for well planned commercial development in designated
Commercial
districts to meet the growing needs of Woodford County
residents. The
Comprehensive Plan recognizes that commercial development is a community need,
but seeks to limit commercial development to specific areas. The proposed rezoning of the subject tract
conforms to the Comprehensive Plan by allowing commercial development in the
exact area designated for such development by the Comprehensive Plan. b) Transportation: Goal Mob-1:
To provide the Citizens of Woodford County with a
well-planned and coordinated system of major thoroughfares and neighborhood
streets that are safe, cost effective, and adequate
for their surroundings. Objective: Coordination and planning of future
neighborhood/subdivision designs so as to facilitate proper traffic
circulation. This goal and its
supporting objectives calls for proper placement of commercial development
along major thoroughfares and development consistent with plans for future road
expansion. This is supported by placing
commercial development on a major thoroughfare as proposed, by the fact that
the proposed development is designed to connect to future development in the
Regional Commerce Center District and MPA-4, and by the fact that the proposed
development fits within the plans for future road expansion in the area. c) Public Use Facilities: Goal LU/CFS 4: Determine if existing developments as well as
all proposed new developments will be provided the necessary, desirable, and
advantageous community services and facilities in an orderly and efficient
manner. These services and facilities
shall include, but not be limited to, solid waste disposal, sewer and water
systems, fire and police protection, health services, parks and recreation,
schools, historical and cultural activities.
Objective: Promote an adequate
level of public services and facilities through the continued use of the Urban
Service/Growth Area concept. This goal
and its supporting objective calls for the efficient use of public facilities by
planned development. Specifically, the
goal and objective recognize that conformance with the Urban Service/Growth
Area concept is the best means to ensure that existing and new developments are
provided the appropriate community services and facilities. The proposed rezoning supports the goal and
objective and promotes efficiency by placing commercial development in an area
where the basic public services and facilities necessary for such development
are already in place. D) General Land Development- Goal LU/CFS 5: Provide for the proper organization of land
use and physical relationship thereof that will provide for an increasingly
safe, healthy and convenient environment for the residents of the County to
live and work in. Objective: Future land development should be encouraged
to be located in centralized compacted patterns rather than decentralized
sprawled patterns. This
goal and it supporting objective calls for organized development that keeps
commercial development in the appropriate areas as designated by the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
zone change will maintain the land use organization called for by the Plan by
allowing commercial development within the area designated by the Plan. The proposal is compacted and well designed,
and does not require any expansion of urban services or any boundary
adjustment. E) Tourism: Goal LU/CFS 5: To promote the growth of the Tourist industry
in Woodford County as another means of broadening the county’s economic base
and to provide a linkage between the various segments of the community that
offer goods and services to visitors.
Objective: To encourage the
increase of Woodford County’s share of
the Bluegrass area’s tourist dollars. This goal and its supporting objective are
supported by the proposed development’s four story hotel, which will add a much
needed space for tourists to stay in Woodford County. In addition, the proposed development will
increase the retail opportunities for tourists in Woodford County. F) Employment – Goal PJH-2: To accommodate diverse workplace
opportunities that would be most advantageous for Woodford Countians seeking
employment. Objective: To improve the resident employment base of Woodford County and attract
workplace uses than can provide the types of jobs that will provide Woodford
Countians with a viable alternative to out-migration for employment. This goal and its supporting objective calls
for expansion of employment opportunities within Woodford County, and it is
supported by the jobs that the proposed development would create by bringing
new employers to Woodford County. G) Regional Commerce Center Guidelines:
Guideline 2: New Regional Commerce
Center Districts should generally contain more than 200,000 square feet of
non-residential gross floor area. As required
by this Guideline, the proposed development contains more than 200,000 square
feet of non-residential gross floor area.
Guideline 3: New Regional
Commerce Center Districts should only be established in locations with a high
level of adequate roadway access and service, such as the intersection of
principal arterials. As required by this
Guideline, the proposed development is located at the intersection of US 60 and
the US 60 By-Pass,
two principal arteries, and can be accessed from both. Guideline 4:
Within any Regional Commerce Center District 60% of the site should be
occupied by shop front buildings (maximum), 25% workplace buildings (maximum)
and 33% (minimum) residential building types (such as row house, townhouse, small
apartment, neighborhood house or avenue house).
This allocation shall be measured as net lot (including all parking lot
surface area – excluding on-street parallel parking area) for each approved
Development Plan. As required by this
Guideline, the
proposed development contains commercial and workplace buildings
that occupy less than 60% and 25% of the Regional Commerce Center District,
respectively. Additionally, the proposed
development contains a hotel which is a residential building type pursuant to
Guideline 6. Future development of
residential building types upon the Regional Commerce Center District in
addition to the hotel could bring the total residential building type occupancy
above 33% of the net area. Guideline 5: Not more than 50% of the allocation for non-residential
building types should be begun (building permits issued) until construction has
begun on a minimum of four (4) residential models or units from the residential
building types. As required by this
Guideline, the Proposed Development will not build more than 50% of the non-residential
building types allocated for the fully developed Regional Commerce Center
District prior to construction of four residential units. Construction of the hotel, a four-story
residential building type with multiple units would occur in conjunction with
construction of the other building types called for in the proposed
development, as encouraged by this guideline.
Guideline 6: Not more than 75% of
the allocation for non-residential types should be begun (building permits
issued) until construction is completed on at least 50% of the required
allocation for residential building types and has begun on at least another 25%
of the required allocation for residential allocation for residential building
types with the Development Plan of the District. Occupied upper storey apartments over shop
fronts may also be counted toward the residential allocation (can be counted
once for the residential allocation and again for the shop front allocation). In meeting the percentage allocation, hotels
may count up to 50% of the allocation for residential building types. As required by this Guideline, the proposed
development will not build more than 75% of the non-residential building types
allocated for the fully developed Regional Commerce Center District. Consistent with the Proposed Development,
construction of additional non-residential building types on the remainder of
the Regional Commerce Center District can be delayed until at least 50% of the
allocation for residential building types is completed. Guideline 8:
Streets should front the entire perimeter of the Regional Commerce
Center District except where: a. such sitting will effectively complete a block
by “backing” (facing the adjacent property; with an alley or the building rear)
a similar type that is itself backing the common property line; b. facing
industrial and or warehouse types; or c.
Where physical constraints (from existing development
or environmental features) make it physically infeasible to construct such streets. Although the proposed development does not
touch the majority of the Regional Commerce Center District’s perimeter, to the
extent that the proposed development does not touch the Regional Commerce
Center District’s perimeter, it is fronted by existing streets as required by
this Guideline. Guideline 13: Up to two-thirds of the street frontage may
have buildings along it that do not satisfy the residential prescriptions for
the upper story. These buildings may be
all commerce (all office and/or retail) and/or office above ground floor retail
subject to the other requirements. As
required by this guideline, the street frontage contained in the proposed
development that does not satisfy the residential prescription for the upper
story is less than two thirds of the total street frontage that will be
contained in the Regional Commerce Center District when fully developed. Guideline 14:
Site and building lighting for proposed uses should be reviewed in order
to determine that off-site impacts are minimized. As required by this Guideline, lighting plans
will be developed and presented which take into consideration the off-site
impacts. H. Master Planned Areas – 4 Guidelines: MPA Guideline 1: A mixture of housing types should be included
in Master Plan Area (MPA) neighborhoods, and higher density housing types
should be located in a neighborhood center or adjacent to a major neighborhood
street or thoroughfare. The area under
consideration is designed for commercial activity in the MPA. Portions of the remaining areas of the MPA
are currently zoned residential and would be appropriate for a mixture of
housing types. MPA
Guideline 4: Civic uses such as churches
and community centers should be incorporated in the MPA. In accordance with this guideline, the
developer has had discussions with the City of Versailles regarding
the city’s interest in
a site for a public safety facility. Other remaining areas of the MPA are
currently zoned residential and would be appropriate for church use. MPA Guideline 6: The parcel should be developed in a manner
consistent with the site design and density characteristics present in
adjoining traditional neighborhood or regional commerce center areas. this Guideline is
not applicable to this parcel because it is the initial parcel to develop
within the MPA. MPA Guideline 8: Park and open space areas should be provided
within the MPA based on 300 square feet per dwelling unit. (The 300 sq. ft. standard equates to a
neighborhood park and open space standard of about 1 acre per 150 dwelling
units, and is consistent with national standards of 2.5 acres of neighborhood park per 1,000 residents). Open space of 0.68 acres is presently
provided without any dwelling units. This
open space is located in an area that could be expanded to serve other parcels
within the MPA as residential units are developed thereon. MPA Guideline 9: Up to 25 percent of the required
parcel and open space may be included in a scenic view shed, stream buffer or
rural service area buffer. As required
by this Guideline, less than 25% of the open space that is provided is included
in a scenic view shed, stream buffer, or rural service area buffer. MPA Guideline 10: Park and open space areas should be preserved
through easements or other methods to ensure their long-term availability. The ongoing costs of management and
maintenance should be borne by all benefiting property owners. As required by this guideline, open space
will be maintained by a property owners association. MPA Guideline 11: Sanitary sewer, potable water and storm water
management services should be located and sized to accommodate the build-out of
the entire MPA. As required by this
guideline, sanitary sewer, potable water and storm water management services
will be located and sized to accommodate the build-out of the entire MPA. MPA Guideline 12: Where public schools are planned or exist
within one-half mile of the MPA, development plans should be required to
include provisions for sidewalks and bike paths leading to and from the school
site. No public schools exist or are
planned within on-half mile of the MPA.
MPA Guideline 15: As individual
subdivisions and site plans are considered, neighborhood street connections
depicted on the MPA Illustrative Plan should be required. As required by this Guideline, connections to
the neighborhood streets depicted on the MPA Illustrative Plan are
provided. MPA Guideline 16: The extension of Paddock
Place north of US 60 should only be permitted in
conjunction with the approval of PUD for the remainder of the lands within this
Regional Commerce Center. Lands currently outside the existing Urban
Service Boundary, and inside the proposed Paddock
Place extension, should only be considered
for inclusion in the Urban Service Boundary when 80% of the lands within the
existing RCC have been developed. The
proposed development does not require extension of Paddock
Place or development outside the Urban
Service Boundary. MPA Guideline 17: Ensure a high degree of connectivity of major
and minor neighborhood streets throughout the area. As required by this guideline, the proposed
development provides connections to all adjoining areas of the MPA and
neighborhood, as well as future connectivity for future development. MPA Guideline 19: The alignment, design and construction
of new road facilities, particularly the proposed extension of the Southern
Connector thru MPA 1, should preserve existing trees. Where existing trees cannot be preserved, new
trees should be planted as a means of restoring the original canopy, tree line
and/or buffer. There are no existing
trees that will be disturbed, but multiple new trees will be planted. MPA Guideline 20: Development of the MPA should result in the
preservation and on-going maintenance of blue-line stream corridors, and
streamside buffers should be established along each side of the blue line
stream. These buffers should be at least
fifty feet in width beginning at the top of the bank along each side of the
stream and existing riparian and upland vegetation retained and preserved
within the buffer area. The
determination of the status of a stream, either blue-line (continuous flow) or
intermittent flow should be made at the time when a development proposal for
the subject proposed is submitted and may be based on USGS designations or
other competent information
or evidence. Streamside
buffers may also be required for intermittent streams and will be determined on
a case by case basis. There are no blue
line streams on this portion of the MPA.
MPA Guideline 21: Protected
streams should be incorporated in storm water management plans in order to
preserve their function, enhance habitat value and provide greenways through
the area. There are no blue line streams
on this portion of the MPA. MPA
Guideline 25: A common set of
architectural standards should be developed to guide the design of residential
and non-residential land uses within the MPA.
The building permit fee for structures within this area should
incorporate the costs for the development and administration of such
architectural standards. This is the
first parcel within the MPA to be developed and no ordinance has been enacted
to increase the building permit fee for administration of architectural
standards. MPA Guideline 28: Utilize the highest topographic portions of
the MPA as open space features, as a means to terminate vistas from major neighborhood
streets, or as sites for prominent civic structures that provide a focal point
for the entire MPA. Although the highest
topographical portion of the MPA is
located in front of the proposed Lowe’s building and is therefore not available
for open space due to parking requirements, the proposed open green space areas
located near the hotel and the public right of way access to the north could be
expanded to serve other parcels when the MPA is further developed to the north.
(I) Mobility Policies: Mobility Police 1: The proposed development meets Mobility
Policy 1 of the Comprehensive Plan by being located on a major thoroughfare and
planning for future street connectivity.
Mobility Policy 2: Any
development on the subject property would cause a loss of service in the area
because of the heavy traffic on Marsailles Drive and the fact that any
development will require the addition of a fourth phase to the light at the
corner of Lexington Road and Marsailles Drive.
Developing the area, however, has been identified as a community need
and some development will take place that will cause the same loss of service
issues. Loss of service issues that are
not unique to the proposed development and will inevitably result from
development of the area as called for by the Comprehensive Plan cannot
demonstrate non-conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 8.
There is a compelling need for the rezoning in order to meet the demand
for commercial development within the Urban Service Boundary and to restrict
such commercial development to the areas along major thoroughfares which are
designated for such development and where infrastructure for the development
already exists. CONCLUSION: The Versailles-Midway-Woodford County
Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the zone change request for the
property of Rubloff Versailles LLC, Rubloff Group Holdings LLC, Hardin and
Patsy C Field III and Edgewood Farm LLC, Trustee to rezone 39.561 acres
consisting of the Versailles Center and adjacent property to the east of the
Versailles Center is in compliance with the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update,
that the proposed B-4 zoning is appropriate, and that there is a compelling
need for the zoning request. The
Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
that the property of Rubloff Versailles LLC, Rubloff Group Holdings LLC, Hardin
and Patsy C Field III and Edgewood Farm LLC, Trustee, as described in the legal
description included with the application be changed as follows: Tract 1 from a zoning district of B-3/PUD to
a zoning district of B-4; Tract 11, from a zoning district of B-3/PUD to a
zoning district of B-4; Tract III from a zoning district of A-1 to a zoning
district of B-4; Tract IV from a zoning district of R-1B to a zoning district
of B-4.
Mr.
Boggs agreed that the property is an eyesore, but you still have to consider
the fact that Rubloff agreed to new urbanism.
What they are planning to build is probably going to be an eyesore and
there is no guarantee of anything but perhaps a Lowe’s. Mr. Boggs felt if they cannot reach an agreement
in the middle, then they are back to where they were in the first place and it
should not be approved.
Mr.
Wolf stated that it is his understanding that Lowe’s has agreed to build it
like they want it built. Mr. Butler
stated that is not a part of the record.
Mr. Wolf stated that he understands that.
Chairman
Ellis stated that this is not about whether Lowe’s locates there or not. They may and they may not. This is about a zone change to a B-4 District
that would allow a lot of other things.
If you look at Rubloff’s history, there is no guarantee that a Lowe’s
will come here.
Mr.
Hume stated that his concern is the other things that can go in a B-4 zone,
such as adult entertainment, automobile sales, outdoor kennels, etc. There are a lot of uses listed that should
not be a part of this development. Mr.
Hume stated that if they want to approve it, he would like to include a set of
conditions that would prohibit some of the allowed uses.
Chairman
Ellis stated that he would like to see the motion tied to what has been
presented.
Mr.
Butler stated that in terms of conditions, when the Planning Commission
typically makes a motion to approve they then reserve judgment
on the development plan. Mr. Butler
stated that there will still be the opportunity to review, approve, or amend
any requirements on the development plan. That may address some of the concerns that
have been raised. Chairman Ellis
questioned if that can be tied to the zone change itself? Mr. Butler stated that if there is some
problem with the development plan, they would have to come back and amend
it. The Planning Commission could
require them to amend the development plan.
That is the way it has been done in the past.
Mr.
Hume stated that he just wants it to be understood that if you change the zone
to B-4 and do not know what other uses can go in that zone, they could come
back and attempt to put those other uses in.
Mr. Hume stated that he personally has nothing against used car lots or
pool halls, but those are the types of uses that have historically located in
B-4 Districts and that is not what this community wants.
Chairman
Ellis stated that is why he has been pointing out that this is not just about
Lowe’s. Mr. Hume agreed and felt that it
is the wrong move to rezone this to B-4.
Chairman
Ellis questioned Item #5 under the Findings where it says that the B-4 zone
proposed is appropriate because commercial development of this type is the best
and most needed use for the specific portion of the Regional Commerce Center
District and MPA-4 occupied by the subject property…Chairman Ellis stated that
commercial development is what is already there. Under #7 it again speaks about this
supporting well planned commercial and again it is already commercial.
Mr.
McClees stated that the development plan as it is shows a bank, a service
station, etc. Chairman Ellis stated that
the Planning Commission cannot tie that to the zone change.
Mr.
Boggs questioned why they cannot leave the zone as it is and they come back
with a development plan and they approve it that way?
Chairman
Ellis stated that there was also in the packet a recommendation to deny part of
it and approve part of it, but the Planning Commission cannot do that
either.
Mr.
Wolf stated that they finally have someone interested and it is true there is
no guarantee they will come, but there is a letter that says they will. It has been since 2000 and there is
nothing. Mr. Boggs stated that they do
not really know that. Mr. Wolf stated
that maybe they zoned the property wrong to begin with. Mr. Boggs stated that Rubloff has not tried to
work with anyone to make it any better.
Their attitude is that it has to be their way. This community does not have to do business
that way.
Mr.
Evans questioned if the motion on the floor does not go, can they make another
motion? Chairman Ellis stated that they
could do that, but he did not think they can use the one that was submitted to only
do a partial zoning. Mr. Butler stated
that it is problematic. Mr. Butler
stated that it is not on the table right now.
Mr.
Parrott stated that he believes the Rubloff Company has made a considerable
investment in this piece of property and in their attempts to comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. To ask them to
submit another development plan at their expense is easy for us to say and we
are then spending their money. Mr.
Parrott stated that he believes it is time to turn this loose and see what
happens or we are going to end up with another development like they have in
Midway where the need for perfection turns to paralysis.
Chairman
Ellis stated that the only problem he has is that they have the same people
asking for something else that has not done anything with it yet. Just because they say there will be a Lowe’s
does not mean it is going to happen.
Mr.
Parrott stated that what they agreed to has not been a viable in the market and
they could not sell it, even though they said they tried. They need to have some free range on how they
spend their own money.
Mr.
Wolf stated that their representative stated that they tried to sell it and it
just did not happen because no one was interested because of the new urbanism.
Mr.
Wells stated that they have two and one half million dollars invested in this
property and they acknowledged their mistake for new urbanism on this
property. Mr. Wells stated that he was
satisfied with that explanation.
Mr.
Hume questioned if they could change to a B-2 zone rather than a B-4? It would take them out of the planned
shopping center and loosen it up some.
The further you go back in the Ordinance the looser it gets. Everyone talks about this being a gateway
into the community and the B-4 opens this up to a lot of problematic
businesses. Mr. Hume stated that he
would be more inclined to allow a B-2.
They would get all the B-1 uses and it would not be as restrictive
regarding location and they could still get the mixed use.
Mr.
Boggs stated that they need to remember that these are the same people who own
Turfland Mall.
Chairman
Ellis stated that has nothing to do with the zone change, but his concern is
the B-4 district and what it could allow.
Mr. Wolf stated that right now they don’t have anything. Chairman Ellis stated that might be better
than what they might get. Chairman Ellis
stated that he would love to see a Lowe’s out there, but you have to look at the
B-4 zone as a whole and with the past history of these people it is not for
sure that Lowe’s will go there.
Mr.
McClees questioned if there is a letter that says Lowe’s wants to locate
there? Chairman Ellis stated that it is
not a part of this record.
Chairman
Ellis stated that if this gets changed to B-4 and Rubloff comes back and wants
something different, he will not vote for it.
Chairman
Ellis called for a vote on the motion.
The motion failed with three (3) aye
votes. VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION: Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf. OPPOSED:
Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume Ed
McClees.
A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as
seconded by Mr. Boggs, to recommend to the Versailles City Council the denial
of the application for Rubloff Versailles LLC, Rubloff Group Holdings, LLP,
Hardin & Patsy Field III and Edgewood Farm LLC,Trustee– located on US 60
(Lexington Rd.) – To rezone 23.3 acres from B-3/PUD to B-4 and 12.821 acres
from B-3/PUD to B-4 and 1.68 acres from R-1B to B-4 and 1.76 acres from A-1 to
B-4, based on the Finding that the B-4 district is too intense of a use and
that the request is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried with five (5) aye
votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume Ed McClees.
OPPOSED: 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).
A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as
seconded by Mr. Boggs, to recommend to the Versailles City Council,
that the request of LRS Properties LLC, R-1B & R-1C (Single Family Residential ) to I-1 (Light Industrial) be denied. This motion is based on the following
Findings and Conclusions: 1. The rezoning
request is not in agreement with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in that the
industrial zoning is not recommended for the subject property. 2. The rezoning request is specifically
not in compliance with the Industrial development Goals and Objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan as detailed in the staff report for this request, as documented
on pages 6 forward. 3. The applicant improperly cites commercial
goals and objectives as justification for this rezoning request that asks for
industrial zoning. 4. There is no evidence in the record to support
a finding that there have been major changes of a physical, economic or social
nature not anticipated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan that have
substantially altered the basic area around and including the subject
property. 5. The I-1 Industrial classification is
inappropriate for the subject site because the site is located on a narrow road
that can not easily accommodate additional industrial traffic. Also it is inappropriate to locate an
industrial use directly across the street from an established residential
area. 6.
There is not evidence in the record to support a finding that the R-1B
and R-1C residential classifications are inappropriate for the site given the
fact that adjacent uses and zoning are residential on 3 sides. In fact a finding of appropriateness for
residential zoning was made in 2004 for a prior rezoning involving the subject
property. Nothing has changed since that
finding. 7. Based on the findings above,
and a review of all evidence presented for and against this rezoning request
and the record for this request it is the Planning Commission’s conclusion that
the request fails to meet the criteria contained in KRS 100.213 for rezoning
requests. The motion carried with eight
(8) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume,
Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.
Preliminary
Development Plan/Preliminary Plat – Holly Hill Lane – 8148 Troy Pike – Rural Residential – 8 lots.
Mr.
Butler stated that this was a prior rezoning and the plat was reviewed at that
time. The zoning has now been approved
by the Fiscal
Court and
the plat is ready for action.
A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as
seconded by Mr. McClees, to approve the Preliminary Development
Plan/Preliminary Plat - Hope Ann Lowe - Holly Hill Lane – 8148 Troy Pike –
Rural Residential District 8 lots. The motion carried with eight (8) aye
votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume,
Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.
Final Development Plan – Shadora LLC – 140 Frankfort St. – B-4 District.
Mrs.
Conley stated that this property was formerly the Cox Tire Property. The owners want to do an addition to the existing
building and also use the existing house for the purpose of having kennels for
boarding dogs and cats. The development
plan shows a dog run area and all the associated parking. The existing house would be used to board the
cats and the other building would be for the dogs.
Mr.
Hume expressed concern with the dog run area.
Mrs. Conley stated that the owners of the property are present to answer
questions. Mr. Hume questioned if the
dog run will have dogs out there all day.
Mrs. Sharon Hughes, owner of the property, stated that the area will
only be used periodically for exercising the dogs. Mr. Hume questioned what the latest hour
would be that the dogs would be outside?
Mrs. Hughes stated that it would probably be around 6:00 p.m. Mrs. Hughes stated
that she will be installing an 8’ privacy fence across the back to shield this
from the apartments located behind it.
Mr. Hume questioned what is to the right of the property? Mrs. Hughes stated that facing the building
to the right is a house and behind it is apartments. Mr. Hume questioned how far away the
apartments are? Mrs. Hughes stated that
they are right behind the property line.
Mr. Hume questioned how many animals she plans to keep? Mrs. Hughes stated that she was proposing to
keep 40 dogs, but it appears that she is only going to be able to keep 32.
Mr.
Wolf stated that they had this same situation with the Woodford Vet Clinics dog
runs and the neighbors were very upset at the dogs barking. Mr. Hume stated that is why he wants some
limits on it. Mr. Hume questioned if she
would be willing to have the dogs put away by 5:00 when people are getting home from work? Mrs. Hughes stated that she would. The dogs
would only be out periodically during the day.
Mr.
Hume questioned if this will be like a conditional use where they can put some conditions
on the plat regarding the number of animals, and time to be outside, etc. Chairman Ellis stated that this is a
principal use in a B-4 zone. Mr. Hume
stated that he understands that. Mr. Butler
stated that as a development plan it is more ministerial. Mr. Butler stated that the number of dogs is
more of a substantive requirement that should be in a zoning regulation or a
conditional use. Fencing is a
development plan issue, and hours of operation would be something that you
could specify for the dog run area, since it is a part of the development
plan. Mr. Hume stated that he would like
to see a time slot for that, just because of the residential area located
there.
A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as
seconded by Mr. Evans, to approve the Final Development Plan – Shadora LLC – 140
Frankfort St. – as submitted, with one condition that
the dog run not be used past 5:00 p.m. The motion carried with eight (8) aye
votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume,
Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.
Final
Plat – Prism Holdings – 479 Lexington St. – 3 lots – B-4 & I-1 Districts.
Mrs.
Conley stated that the Planning Commission looked at the development plan for this
project a couple of months ago. This
plat is simply to divide the property into three lots for the purpose of
locating three separate businesses there.
Chairman Ellis questioned if this is the Rainbow property? Mrs. Conley stated that it is.
Mr.
Hume questioned if the access easement is where Crossfield Drive is coming through on Lot
#2? Mr. Hallany, engineer for the
project, stated that is an internal access easement for the three lots. The Crossfield Drive location is on the other side.
A motion was made by Mr. Wolf, as
seconded by Mr. Wells, to approve the Final Plat – Prism Holdings – 479 Lexington
St. – 3 lots – B-4 & I-1 districts. The motion carried with eight (8) aye
votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume,
Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.
FINANCIAL REPORT & BILLS, MONTHLY
BUDGET REPORT, REPORT TO COMMISSION, SURETY STATUS REPORT
A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as
seconded by Mr. McClees, to approve all the reports as submitted. The motion carried with eight (8) aye
votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume,
Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.
COMMUNICATOINS:
1.
Letter from
Habitat for Humanity
Chairman
Ellis read into the record a letter from Habitat for Humanity requesting a
waiver of all fees for their upcoming development located at 217 Martin Luther
King. The letter included a request for
approval of the plat and Chairman Ellis made it clear that they cannot take
action on that, since the plat is not before them.
A motion was made by Mr. Evans, as
seconded by Mr. Hume, to approve the waiver of fees for Habitat for Humanity
for their project located at 217 Martin Luther King. The motion carried with eight (8) aye
votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume,
Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.
Chairman
Ellis stated that the next item was passed out before the meeting. Mrs. Conley stated that it is an opportunity
for the members to get continuing education hours if they are interested. Several members have already signed up for
the June 19 class in Lexington.
A motion was made by Mr. Wolf, as
seconded by Mr. Wells, to adjourn the meeting at 7:05
p.m. The motion
carried with eight (8) aye votes. VOTING
IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis, Joel
Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott, Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf.
_______________________________________
Carl
Ellis, Chairman
CE:pc