ON
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2008, THE VERSAILLES-MIDWAY-WOODFORD COUNTY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION HELD THEIR SCHEDULED MEETING IN THE 2ND FLOOR
COURTROOM IN THE WOODFORD COUNTY COURTHOUSE AT 6:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis,
Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed
MINUTES:
A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as seconded by Mr. McClees, to approve
the
Recommendation: Zoning Map Amendment and Preliminary
Development Plan – Woodford Economic Development Authority (owner), Dennis
Anderson (Applicant) are seeking a zone change for the Midway Station Property
located at the northeast corner of I-64
and Ky. Hwy 341 for property recorded in Deed Book 186, Page 192 and Deed Book
197, Page 555, for Tract A consisting of 3.367 acres from B-5 (Highway
Interchange Service) to P-1 (Professional Office), Tract B consisting of 8.081
acres from I-1 (Light Industrial) to P-1 (Professional Office), Tract C
consisting of 0.854 acres from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-5 (Highway Interchange
Service), Tract D consisting of 31.544 acres from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-3
(Medium Density Residential), Tract E consisting of 31.627 acres from I-1
(Light Industrial) to R-1C (Single Family Residential) and Tract F consisting
of 71.341 acres from I-1 (Light Industrial) to R-1C (Single Family Residential)
and Tract G consisting of 2.921 acres from I-1 (Light Industrial) to B-5
(Highway Interchange Service) and Tract H consisting of 2.507 acres from A-1
(Agricultural) to B-5 (Highway Interchange Service) and Tract I consisting of
0.009 acres from A-1 (Agricultural) to P-1 (Professional).
Mr.
Blankenship stated that he is recusing himself from voting on this matter. Chairman Ellis stated for the record that Mr.
Blankenship has recused himself throughout the entire process on this matter.
A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as
seconded by Mr. McClees, that in the matter of the application of Dennis
Andersons request to rezone the property known as Midway Station located at the
northeast corner of I-64 and Ky. Hwy 341 in Woodford County Kentucky, the
applicant requested to rezone 3.367 acres from B-5 to P-1, 8.081 acres from I-1
to P-1, 0.0854 acres from I-1 to B-5, 31.544 acres from I-1 to R-3, 31.625
acres from I-1 to R-1C, 71.341 acres from I-1 to R-1C, 2.921 acres from I-1 to
B-5, 2.507 acres from A-1 to B-5, and .009 acres from A-1 to P-1, and to
request two waives, one to allow a cul-de-sac exceeding the requirements of the
zoning ordinance, and a variance to reduce a landscape buffer. I recommend the waiver be granted for the
cul-de-sac as requested, but request disapproval of the variance on the
landscape. There is substantial land to
provide the required landscape buffer as directed by the ordinance and the applicant
has failed to provide reasonable need for the reduction in buffer
distance. It is recommended to approve the
zone change request based on the following findings of fact: 1. On
Thursday, May 29, 2008, the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Planning and
Zoning Commission held a public hearing at Midway College, Anne Hart Raymond
Center, Durthrie Auditorium and heard testimony from the applicant,
representation from the Woodford Coalition and the general public. 2. The property
formally known as the Roach Homeplace Farm was rezoned from A-1 to I-1 in 1991,
and since has failed to successfully fulfill its intent on bringing a
substantial amount of industry and/or jobs to the region, thus supporting the
applicants claim that the I-1 zone is inappropriate. 3.
Representatives of the opposition in its testimony recognized that mixed
use development is appropriate for the subject property as being allowed in
some measure by existing zoning. The
current proposal allows a more economically viable plan to develop the subject
property. 4. That testimony was given by the Chairman of
the Woodford County Economic Development Authority, Mr. Michael Duckworth,
which supported the economic justification of this application. 5.
Testimony was presented by the applicant reflecting the cost of the
existing utilities and infrastructure subsidized by the citizens of Midway are
included in the sale of the property therefore reimbursing the community of its
initial investment on the property and relieving the community of the existing
financial drain. 6. Testimony was given that adequate public
services in the form of police and fire protection was already in place to
serve the proposed project. 7. Testimony was given by the applicant stating
the developer would integrate the existing infrastructure, in the form of storm
and sanitary sewers, with further necessary design to provide adequate service
for the project. 8. Testimony was given by the applicant that the
project would take twelve years to build out this development. therefore, in an effort to soften the
concerns of the public as related to the number of residential units to be
constructed at any one time, no more than fifty (50) building permits for
residential units shall be issued in any calendar year, without rollover credit
for those units not permitted within that calendar year. This will provide substantial opportunity for
the development to grow without the prospect of perceived overburden on the
surrounding regions traffic, utilities or population. 9. The applicant
presented adequate testimony in the form of a traffic study, that declared the
site would have little to no adverse impact on the surrounding communities
traffic patterns, provided the primary highway intersection located at the
developments entrance was properly controlled with signals. Therefore, the development shall provide the
necessary signals designed and determined necessary to control the resulting
traffic in a manner that will not adversely impact the affected region prior to
the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any newly constructed building
within the development, regardless of use, zone or size. 10.
Guidelines 5, 6, and 9, (pertaining to lighting, signage and building
design) of the Interchange Commerce District not mentioned in the application
may be addressed and regulated in the Final Development stage of the process
when brought before the Commission. In
conclusion, based on the foregoing findings and a review of the evidence as
presented both for and against this application, we find that the existing
zoning classifications given the subject property are inappropriate and that
the requested classification are more appropriate, subject to the conditions
contained herein.
Mr.
Wolf questioned how much land they are talking about in the landscape buffer
area? Mr. Hume stated that he did not
have the specifics of that at this time.
It was a substantial reduction in the landscape buffer and a new
ordinance was just passed prior to this application. Mr. McClees stated that the 150’ was locked
in if the houses backed up to the boundary, but if they faced it then it would
reduce down to 50’. Mrs. Wilson stated
that this is a case where the Urban Service Boundary abuts the Rural Service
Boundary.
Mr.
Evans stated that in Mrs. Wilson’s report there were issues that have not been
addressed. Mrs. Wilson cited several
things in the Comprehensive Plan that they were not in compliance with and Mr.
Evans questioned if they are suppose to just ignore that? Mr. Hume stated that his motion is what it
is. Mr. Evans stated that her report
cited the loss of industrial land and the result of that. Mr. Hume stated that they have not been able
to develop this property since 1991 and there is still 40 acres of I-1 across
the road from this that is just sitting there as well.
Mr.
Boggs stated that the whole point of the EDA was to go out and find
someone. Mr. Boggs stated that he agrees
with Mr. Evans to some extent. If we
allow this development, it will pretty much shut the county down for local
builders for the next three years until another Comprehensive Plan is
done. Mr. Boggs stated that the 50 units
per year would take care of that if it is in fact legal to do. Mr. Boggs stated that he is not opposed to
this particular development, but is opposed to someone outside the county
coming in and taking all the building rights from the local builders.
Chairman
Ellis stated that during the hearing, and the minutes reflected this, they
stated two times that there would be a twelve year build out on this
project. Mr. Boggs stated that they also
said there would only be one child in a house and that is probably not so. Mr. Hume stated that they are the ones that
gave the testimony regarding the build out time and that is what the motion is
based on, their own testimony. Mr. Boggs
stated that would also protect the school system and he could go along with it,
if in fact they can legally put that condition on.
Mr.
Butler stated that Mr. Hume questioned if he could put that condition on the
zone change and he told him he believed he could because of the testimony that
the applicant gave. They either provided
false information, or the Planning Commission can hold them to what they
said. The Planning Commission regulates
on a regular basis property development, building permits, etc. The applicant stated in the record the
development would occur over a twelve year period and Mr. Hume did the math and
it came out to fifty units per year.
That is only the residential portion of the development, not the
commercial.
Mr.
Hume stated that the main concern of the Midway citizens was that it would
flood the county with residential units, so to break it down into twelve year
increments would be almost unnoticeable.
When a previous development went in over there, if you
had done the math on that it would probably have been a substantial amount of
increase in residential units. No
one made a fuss about that, so to add 50 residential units per year is the
easiest way to control it.
Chairman
Ellis stated that there was testimony in the hearing also that they should
build the businesses first. This does
not restrict the businesses at all, only the residential. Mr. Hume agreed and also added that some of
those businesses will contain residential units as well because of the mixed
use. This will not stop them from doing
their business and will not stop them from doing small residential areas. They will go in and build some model homes
and get this scattered out. The way the
economy is right now, it is doubtful that they can even sell 50 units a
year. The Comprehensive Plan will be
revisited in two years so we are already in the waning days of the latest
Comprehensive Plan. This is the most
reasonable way to allow Midway to accept some growth, but in a controlled
manner.
Mr.
Wells questioned paragraph #8 and stated that it is very clear in the motion
regarding rollover credits, and he felt that it may be more than twelve years
if they can only sell perhaps 25 per year.
Mr. Hume stated that may be the case, but he will probably come in and
get 50 permits just in case.
Mr.
Wolf stated that there is a million and have dollars in interest being spent on
that property. Why are we putting
restrictions on it? Why not do whatever
Mr. Anderson wants them to? Mr. Hume
stated that he is trying to make it palatable not only for the Planning
Commission and the developer, but also taking into consideration Midway and it
citizens. Mr. Hume stated that he cannot
promote this, without the restriction.
Chairman
Ellis stated that one of the big arguments at the hearing was that this development will basically double the size of
Midway. In order for it to be gradual
and not have such a sudden impact, Mr. Hume has put these restrictions on
there.
Mr.
Wolf stated that with these restrictions Mr. Anderson might just say he don’t
want to fool with it. Mr. Hume stated
that is a chance they take. Mr. Hume
stated that it is also the responsibility of the Planning Commission to be
responsible to the citizens who live in Midway.
They will get both worlds. They
will get growth and they will get controlled growth. They will get refunded on their investment
and reduced of their financial burden and they don’t get it all at one
time. If the economy changed, they might
build 400 units per year and no one wants that, nor could the community stand
that. In a twelve year project this is
very feasible.
Chairman
Ellis stated that one thing they have to keep in mind is that Midway City
Council might over turn this motion. Mr.
Hume stated that is correct, and he wants the ones that it will influence the
most to have the final say. If the
Planning Commission just hands this over to them and the voice is so strong to
the Midway City Council to ditch this, then they can do that. Chairman Ellis stated that they can remove
the condition.
Mr.
Butler stated that to completly overturn a motion, it
takes the majority of the entire City Council to do so. The Planning Commission does have an impact.
Mr.
Wells questioned if the math has been done on the total impact regarding the
residential development of the condition regarding the landscape buffer? Mrs. Wilson stated that the open spaces that
they are showing that the houses would look into now would move back out to the
perimeter. The open space would wrap the
site rather than being in the center.
Mr. Butler stated that they would have to resubmit a new development
plan with a new design.
Chairman
Ellis stated that pertains to the landscape ordinance that they just
adopted. Mrs. Wilson stated that there
are two things that need to be clarified.
There is a landscape buffer that is an Urban Service Boundary to a Rural
Service Boundary buffer. That is the
buffer that is being discussed. Because
it is at the edge of the Urban Service Boundary, if they back houses up to it
the buffer is required to be 150’. If
they face the houses to that edge, then the buffer is only required to be
50’. The landscape ordinance requires a
50’ landscaped buffer regardless of which way the houses face. The Comprehensive Plan Urban Service Boundary
to Rural Service Boundary buffer is the one that is more restrictive if they
back the homes up to the countryside.
Mr. Butler questioned if they asked for a waiver on both? Mrs. Wilson stated that they only ask for one
on the urban to rural boundary.
Mr.
Evans stated that he remembered a case they had not that long ago where they
wanted to face the houses towards the countryside and they had to put in a road
or something. Mrs. Wilson stated that
the idea is if they face them to the countryside a street can be built. If you back the houses up to it, you will
have to have a deeper buffer. Mr. Hume
stated that lessens the impact on the existing farms.
Mr.
Wells questioned if they were to adopt Mr. Hume’s proposal, then a majority of
the Midway City Council would have to adopt it and they could take out the part
regarding the 50 permits per year if they did not like it or the waiver on the
landscape? Mr. Butler stated that the
recommendation is to approve the zone change.
If the Midway City Council wanted to deny the zone change it would take
a majority of the members to completely overturn (do the exact opposite) the
recommendation. It does not say that it
takes a majority to change the recommendation.
Mr. Butler did not believe it would necessarily take a majority to
delete a condition.
Mr.
Hume questioned if he strikes the waivers at this point for the landscape
buffer and the cul de sac, can they revisit those at a later time? Mrs. Wilson questioned if the motion is just
for the zone change and not the development plan? Mr. Hume stated that it is written for
both. Mrs. Wilson stated that what they
can do is only take action on the zone change.
Once it comes back from the Midway City Council and you know what they want,
the development plan goes back on the agenda and the Planning Commission can
take action on those technical issues.
The Planning Commission has done this regularly.
Mr. Hume stated that he will amend his
motion to remove the language regarding the two waivers, one for the cul de sac
and one to reduce the landscape buffer.
Mr. McClees agreed to second the amendment.
Mr.
Hume stated that he will not remove Item #8 regarding the 50 permits per
year.
Mr.
Boggs questioned if they agree to this he can only get 50 permits for
residential units per year? Mr. Hume
stated that is correct and that is for any residential including the units
located within the commercial buildings.
Mr.
Wells stated if they vote to approve this, they are not voting on the cul de
sac waiver or the landscape waiver and the Midway City Council will have the
option to take out #8 regarding the 50 permits per year if they so choose. Mr. Butler stated that the Midway City
Council can strike anything in the motion or they can add to it if they
like. Mrs. Wilson stated if they do
accept the motion to approve, once we get it back we will put the development
plan back on the agenda to discuss the technical issues.
The
motion now reads as follows:
A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as seconded
by Mr. McClees, that in the matter of the application of Dennis Andersons
request to rezone the property known as Midway Station located at the northeast
corner of I-64 and Ky. Hwy 341 in Woodford County Kentucky, the applicant
requested to rezone 3.367 acres from B-5 to P-1, 8.081 acres from I-1 to P-1,
0.0854 acres from I-1 to B-5, 31.544 acres from I-1 to R-3, 31.625 acres from
I-1 to R-1C, 71.341 acres from I-1 to R-1C, 2.921 acres from I-1 to B-5, 2.507
acres from A-1 to B-5, and .009 acres from A-1 to P-1. It is recommended to
approve the zone change request based on the following findings of fact: 1. On
Thursday, May 29, 2008, the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Planning and
Zoning Commission held a public hearing at Midway College, Anne Hart Raymond
Center, Durthrie Auditorium and heard testimony from the applicant,
representation from the Woodford Coalition and the general public. 2. The property
formally known as the Roach Homeplace Farm was rezoned from A-1 to I-1 in 1991,
and since has failed to successfully fulfill its intent on bringing a
substantial amount of industry and/or jobs to the region, thus supporting the
applicants claim that the I-1 zone is inappropriate. 3.
Representatives of the opposition in its testimony recognized that mixed
use development is appropriate for the subject property as being allowed in
some measure by existing zoning. The
current proposal allows a more economically viable plan to develop the subject
property. 4. That testimony was given by the Chairman of
the Woodford County Economic Development Authority, Mr. Michael Duckworth,
which supported the economic justification of this application. 5.
Testimony was presented by the applicant reflecting the cost of the
existing utilities and infrastructure subsidized by the citizens of Midway are
included in the sale of the property therefore reimbursing the community of its
initial investment on the property and relieving the community of the existing
financial drain. 6. Testimony was given that adequate public
services in the form of police and fire protection was already in place to
serve the proposed project. 7. Testimony was given by the applicant stating
the developer would integrate the existing infrastructure, in the form of storm
and sanitary sewers, with further necessary design to provide adequate service
for the project. 8. Testimony was given by the applicant that the
project would take twelve years to build out this development. therefore, in an effort to soften the
concerns of the public as related to the number of residential units to be
constructed at any one time, no more than fifty (50) building permits for
residential units shall be issued in any calendar year, without rollover credit
for those units not permitted within that calendar year. This will provide substantial opportunity for
the development to grow without the prospect of perceived overburden on the
surrounding regions traffic, utilities or population. 9. The applicant presented adequate
testimony in the form of a traffic study, that declared the site would have
little to no adverse impact on the surrounding communities traffic patterns,
provided the primary highway intersection located at the developments entrance
was properly controlled with signals.
Therefore, the development shall provide the necessary signals designed
and determined necessary to control the resulting traffic in a manner that will
not adversely impact the affected region prior to the issuance of any
certificate of occupancy for any newly constructed building within the
development, regardless of use, zone or size.
10. Guidelines 5, 6, and 9,
(pertaining to lighting, signage and building design) of the Interchange
Commerce District not mentioned in the application may be addressed and
regulated in the Final Development stage of the process when brought before the
Commission. In conclusion, based on the
foregoing findings and a review of the evidence as presented both for and
against this application, we find that the existing zoning classifications given
the subject property are inappropriate and that the requested classification
are more appropriate, subject to the conditions contained herein.
The motion carried with seven (7) aye
votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Jim Boggs, Carl
Ellis, Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees,
Final
Plat –
Mrs.
Wilson stated that the deficiencies that are still noted have all been
addressed. Mrs. Wilson read a letter
into the record from Buan Smith,
Mr.
Hume stated that he has a comment. In
both instances for final plats tonight they require finished floor elevation
requirements for potential flood problems.
He questioned if they can restrict them from putting utilities, such as furnaces
in the crawl spaces? There has been
testimony in the last few months regarding these issues and he felt they should
put in some type of protection for the public safety. It is not possible to do this on this plat,
but Mrs. Wilson has made Mr. Smith aware of this concern. Mr. Hume stated that this is an FYI. Mr. Evans questioned if they could make them
build the foundation higher in order to get the furnace in the crawlspace? Mr. Hume stated that he feels it is better to
make a prohibition of putting it in there to begin with. Most homeowners don’t even know their home
had a finished floor elevation requirement.
Mrs.
Wilson stated that Mr. Smith is working on the storm water management section
of the Subdivision Regulations and has forwarded her a draft. Mrs. Wilson stated that she looked in the
flood protection ordinance and pulled out a couple of sentences that Mr. Smith
might want to consider. There is a
difference between a minimum flood protection elevation and a minimum floor
elevation. The finished floor elevation
is when you back up to a detention basin or body of water that you could be
flooded by or a stream if it is a 100 year floodplain. The flood protection elevations are
elevations that the engineers have recently started putting on plats to protect
themselves when you have surface inlets in backyards or drainage systems where
there could be ponding water. It is not
necessarily next to a retention basin.
Mr.
Hume stated that his thought was that anytime you see an elevation requirement
that they prohibit the furnaces or other utilities in the crawl space, just as
a consumer protection. Mr. McClees
stated that they could also require two sump pumps be installed. Mr. Hume felt that you just need to stop it
because the sump pumps don’t always get maintained.
A motion was made by Mr. Wolf, as
seconded by Mr. Wells, to approve the Final Plat – Rose Ridge, Unit 3B, as
submitted with a bond amount be set at $46,956.00. The motion carried with eight (8) aye
votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis,
Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees,
Final
Plat – Gleneagles, Unit 1A, Section 2 – R-1B & R-1C – 3 lots.
Mrs.
Wilson stated that she also has a letter from Mr. Smith and she read that into
the record. Mr. Smith recommended
approval of the plat and a bond amount of $10,258.00 for the final surface
course, sidewalks, street trees, clean up and contingencies. Mrs. Wilson stated that all the deficiencies
have been addressed.
A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as
seconded by Mr. McClees, to approve the Final Plat – Gleneagles, Unit 1A with
the bond amount being set at $10,258.00.
The motion carried with eight (8) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis,
Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees,
Amended
Final Plat – Sugartree, Unit
Mrs.
Wilson stated that this plat has been before the Planning Commission a couple
of different times. It is attached
single family units, townhouse style.
They created lots for each set of townhouses to be located on and now
they are proposing eight lots. It
enables someone to come in and buy a block and get financing for it and build
that set of townhouses as a unit rather than having to build several
units. It is done regularly. This does not change the density and the
footprints are staying exactly the same.
Mr.
Hume pointed out a misspelling on the plat.
A motion was made by Mr. Wells, as
seconded by Mr. Wolf, to approve the Amended Final Plat – Sugartree, Unit 2 –
205 thru 258 Sugartree Ln. & 389 thru 395 Sugartree Park, as
submitted. The motion carried with eight
(8) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis,
Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees,
FINANCIAL REPORT AND BILLS
The
report was accepted administratively.
MONTHLY BUDGET REPORT
The
report was accepted administratively.
YEAR END ADJUSTMENT
A motion was made by Mr. Hume, as
seconded by Mr. McClees, to approve the Year End Adjustments of $46,194.93 from
Staff Salaries to GIS Mapping, $803.10 from FICA & Medi to GIS Mapping,
$7864.36 from CERS to GIS Mapping and $243.81 from Dues and Subscriptions to
Contingency, $413.50 from Bond to Contingency, and $414.46 from Auto to
Contingency. The motion carried with
eight (8) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis,
Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees,
REPORT TO COMMISSION
The
report was accepted administratively.
SURETY REPORT
The
report was accepted administratively.
Mr.
Blankenship questioned if progress had been made on the Hunters Ridge
bonds. Mrs. Wilson stated that is in the
COMMUNICATIONS:
1.
Letter from
Anderson Communities requesting waivers
Mrs.
Wilson explained that this particular neighborhood is the first to follow the
architectural standards of the New Urban Code.
Passed out tonight are the actual pages from the New Urban Code that
address the distance windows have to be from corners of buildings. When Mr. Anderson started picking out his
models to put on these lots, they realized that was going to be a problem for
some of their models. They have worked with it on several of them, but there
are two models, the “Hemmingway and the Rockwell” that they have problems
with. Photos have been provided by them
showing how the windows relate to the facade versus the windows on the
outside. For example on the Hemmingway
if you shift the windows to the right to meet the requirement it will be cut by
the front porch column. It also affects
the interior useable space. In some
cases it is an exterior elevation issue and in other cases it is an interior
issue. This has all been discussed with
Geoff Ferrell and Mr. Anderson actually went and met with him to discuss
several questions he had about the code.
There were several materials that were agreed upon to be equivalent or
better and the code says you can do that.
This is actually a dimensional issue and not a material issue. The waiver is only being requested on these
two models. At some point once the code
is used more often, if the same questions keep coming up they may have to amend
the code to let it be less all the time.
At this point a waiver is more adequate.
Mr.
Butler questioned if she knows where the 36” requirement came up and why? Mrs. Wilson stated that she does not
know. Ferrell/Rutherford wrote the code
based on others they had written in other communities.
A motion was made by Mr. Wolf, as
seconded by Mr. Boggs, to approve the waiver request on the Hemmingway and
Rockwell house models from the dimensional requirement of 36” for the window
location from the corner of the house.
The motion carried with eight (8) aye votes. VOTING IN FAVOR: Robert Blankenship, Jim Boggs, Carl Ellis,
Joel Evans, Jim Hume, Ed McClees,
A motion was made by Mr. McClees, as
seconded by Mr. Hume, to adjourn the meeting at
_____________________________________________
Carl
Ellis, Chairman
CEpc