ON THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2016, 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, Randal Bohannon, Rich Schein, Ed McClees, Tim Parrott , Patty Perry,
Chad Wells, J.D. Wolf, Jeri Hartley
MINUTES: A motion was made by Mr. McClees, as seconded by Ms. Hartley, to approve the March 10,
2016 minutes, as submitted. The motion carried with nine (9) aye votes.
Preliminary /Final Townhouse Plat – Justin Branham – 182, 186 and 188 Spring Run Rd – R-4 District
Mrs. Pattie Wilson, Planning Director, noted that this is the last lot in this neighborhood. The lot had the
potential for six units based on the way the plat was recorded and the units were divided up in the
neighborhood. Mr. Branham is proposing to build a three unit townhouse building, the plan shows how
they will be arranged and they will have one common driveway that comes off of Spring Run Road and
goes down the side to the rear of the lot to drive into the lower portion of those units. Mrs. Wilson
noted that TRC reviewed it and there were twelve deficiencies and each one have been addressed and
the preliminary/final plat is in order for action. Mr. Tim Thompson, Surveyor and Engineer was present
to answer questions.
Chairman Wolf closed the hearing and for a motion to approve or deny the proposed plat.
A motion was made by Mr. McClees, as seconded by Mr. Parrott to approve Preliminary /Final
Townhouse Plat – Justin Branham – 182, 186 and 188 Spring Run Rd – R-4 District. The motion carried
with nine (9) aye votes.
Preliminary Subdivision Plat – Versailles Land Group LLC – 500-590 Versailles Center – B-4 District
Mrs. Wilson reported that this is the lot where the former K-mart was located and the property was sold
and the owner is proposing to divide this into nine lots with extension of public streets that those lots
would front on. There will be some cross access easements within the commercial center to serve
varying lots and McDonald’s lot will actually be expanding. The TRC reviewed the plan and there were
fourteen deficiencies and all have been addressed and the plan is in order for the Commission’s action.
Mr. Adam Bender with CMW was present for discussion. Mr. Bender noted that they are proposing to
have two road extensions to provide access to the lots, have two non-buildable lots for the purpose of
detention ponds and all of the utilities are available and will need to be extended to provide access to all
of the lots. Mr. Boggs asked if Mr. Bender knew what was going in there. Mr. Bender noted that on lot
#7 would be a Holiday Inn Express and they have submitted a Final Development Plan for that but for
the other lots they don’t have anything as of yet. Mr. McClees inquired about the retention area on the
back of the place and wanted to know if this development would be including all of the water in their
detention ponds. Mr. Bender noted that Lot#8 will only be servicing lot #7 and they have been working
with Mr. Buan Smith, County Road Engineer, on where they will be placing the ridgelines and how to
divert the water and he seems satisfied with the directions of the plan. Mr. Bender noted that there is
water coming through from the Kroger detention pond and will be able to meet the existing discharge
rates quite easily but contain the water. There is another detention pond on lot #2, so the majority of
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 2
these lots will be draining to that one and they have run some preliminary calculations and size seems to
fit. Mr. McClees stated that on Lot #2, drainage area will go into the ditch line and go west from there,
past Quad Graphics; where will it go from there. The reason he is asking is because there is a
subdivision across the road on US60 and the City has had to buy two or three buildings because they
were flooding and Mr. McClees’ question was, where is the water going to go? Mr. Bender noted that
they looked at the outlet device on that and also have the original designs for that outlet control device
and they do not match up and what is out there now is draining faster and they intend to mitigate that.
Mr. Brian Hill with CMW stated that everything that is there now is impervious, it was pavement,
buildings and rooftops. Everything that they will be doing will be improving the situation because some
water will be going to the rear of the hotel site and the additional water into the other pond and they
are making some modifications and improving that. There will be a much more extensive internal pipe
system where they can back the water up, so the offsite drainage scenario after development will be
better than it is now.
Chairman Wolf closed the hearing and asked for a motion.
A motion was made by Mr. Wells, as seconded by Mr. McClees to approve Preliminary Subdivision
Plat – Versailles Land Group LLC – 500-590 Versailles Center – B-4 District. The motion carried with
nine (9) aye votes.
Zoning Map Amendment and Preliminary Development Plan – Woodford Place –2101 Lexington Rd –
A-1 (Agriculture) to R-1C/PUD (Low Density Single Family Residential/Planned Unit Development).
Mrs. Wilson noted that since this was a Zone Change she entered the following exhibits into the record:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Application including justification.
Letters to adjoining property owners.
Copy of notice to Woodford Sun.
Pictures of two Zone Change signs posted on property.
Copy of TRC deficiency letter, Barrett Partners.
Copy of letter from City of Versailles regarding water and sewer.
Copy of letter from Woodford County Public Schools Superintendent.
Booklet from applicant containing seven components: introduction, traffic impact study
seminar by Integrated Engineers, Preliminary Detention Basin Study by SM&E,
Preliminary approved encroachment permit letter, various letters from public agencies,
geotechnical report and a Preliminary Development Plan.
Copy of Staff Report.
Complete Traffic Impact Study by Integrated Engineers.
There are two additional exhibits from the public that have been received to date:
A.
B.
Letter from Concerned Citizens of Woodford County.
Letter from Mayor Traugott in opposition to the request.
Mrs. Wilson noted that she will summarize her staff report. The property consists of 63 acres and the
applicants would like to change the agriculturally zoned property to R-1C/PUD. The area was brought
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 3
into the urban service boundary in 1997 when the acreage was shifted from the northwest side of
Versailles to this side of Versailles. The property was referred to as the Backer Farm and referred to as
Backer I and II. Mrs. Wilson provided an exhibit so the Commission could better understand which
property she is addressing. In 2001, Backer I, which is the property to the west of subject property, was
requested to be rezoned to R-1B/PUD, the Commission recommended denial of this request and this
was upheld by the Fiscal Court. The general basis for the denial was that public services were not
available and it was not contiguous to existing developed area and it lacked interconnectivity with
roadways; this decision was upheld after extensive legal appeals. In 2006, the subject property which is
Backer II, in combination with Backer I, was requested to be rezoned again to R-1B/PUD. The
Commission at this time recommended approval but the Fiscal Court overturned the recommendation
and denied the request based on finding of the development with regard to existing supply of residential
units and 902 units at that time wasn’t appropriate due to the uncertainty of adequate school capacity,
adequate sewage treatment capacity and safe and adequate transportation. The Fiscal Court decision
was upheld after extensive legal appeals.
Mrs. Wilson stated that in 2014, the City of Versailles annexed both of these properties and Mrs. Wilson
distributed a copy of the A-1 Zoning Ordinance, in pages 2, 3 and half of 4. The bottom half of page 4
discusses the Proposed Use and Zoning. Proposed is the construction of a mixed use neighborhood, the
applicant is proposing to construct 83 Single Family Residential lots, 28 townhouse units, 144 apartment
units for a total of 255 residential units. In addition 91,125 square feet of non-residential space is being
proposed. This consists of 54,700 square feet of retail/office; 17,250 square feet of retail/office/civic,
and 4,675 square feet of clubhouse. Mrs. Wilson provided the Commission with Article VII, Section 707
for this R-1C District zoning criteria and also the PUD Article V, Section 501 and noted that a PUD in a
residential zone may contain non-residential uses which are an integral part of a residential
development, logically oriented to and coordinated with the total planned unit. This situation would
normally arise in higher density areas. Attachment #1 shows what the current zoning to the North,
South, East and West are and adjoining Land Uses. The parts of the Comprehensive Plan, Goals and
Objectives that the application appears to apply too, that would be Commercial Development,
Residential Development, Transportation, Public Use Facilities, Neighborhood/Subdivision Development
and Employment and Mrs. Wilson highlighted specifically the objectives that correspond to this request.
In addition to the Goals and Objectives, there are policies and guidelines that are established. The
property is located within the Versailles Urban Service Area in the Contemporary Neighborhood District
(CND) and Mrs. Wilson provided an attachment which confers that according to the Comprehensive Plan
and laid out what the Contemporary Neighborhood District is about. Mrs. Wilson noted a few Policies
and Guidelines that need further consideration with regard to new neighborhoods being primarily single
family homes. “Multifamily buildings are encouraged but should be carefully integrated into the
neighborhood. Some non-residential land uses can be included. Limited neighborhood commercial,
personal service and professional offices uses may be appropriate only where they will serve the
surrounding neighborhood, while posing minimal impact on it. Multifamily and non-residential buildings
should be of a scale and character that blend into the neighborhood.” There were also area wide
development policies and several that Mrs. Wilson thought needed further discussion:
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 4
#3
Development should occur in areas where there is existing infrastructure and public
services or where they are easily provided in order to minimize public costs associated with
those services.
#5
Except as otherwise provided, the size and scale of all development and redevelopment
should reflect and be complimentary to the character and style of surrounding
developed areas.
#8
Except in the Small Community areas and approved Rural Residential areas, new
development should occur only in areas where sanitary sewers are available from public
agencies and can meet the additional demand as determined by those agencies.
#11
Access points along major arterials from new developments should be minimized
to the extent possible. New developments should be interconnected with existing
developed areas and allow for interconnection with adjacent undeveloped areas
in order to provide alternative means of ingress and egress as well as to allow
efficient means of providing public services.
Mrs. Wilson provided some information about transportation; they are proposing to have their access
point directly across from the Methodist Home. The internal streets in the proposed development
indicate three stub streets to the north and to the south with varying cross-sections. One proposed dead
end street near the Parkway will not be allowed. The one access point on US 60 is preliminarily approved
by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. The 1999 Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Transportation
Study indicates the Level of Service (LOS) on this road to be at D. The Future LOS of US 60 in the year
2020 falls to a Level F. A summary of the detailed Traffic Study prepared by the applicant’s engineer,
Integrated Engineering, is included in the Applicant’s Booklet. The street cross sections shown are not
all in agreement with the Versailles-Midway-Woodford County Subdivision Regulations. These will have
to be looked at in more detail at the Preliminary Subdivision Plat stage where waivers may need to be
considered. The City of Versailles will provide public water to this area. Fire protection is provided by
the Versailles City Fire Department. Police protection is provided by the Versailles Police Department,
Sheriff's Department and the Kentucky State Police.
The proposed plan indicates over 12 acres of Open Space being proposed, the majority of which can be
used for recreational purposes. This is 10 more acres than is actually required. The minimum required is
4% of the site. It should be noted that this acreage does include front yards and side yards which cannot
be counted as “open space”. There is still more than an adequate amount. Huntertown Community is
located to the southwest of the Backer I property and was acquired by the Woodford County Fiscal
Court. It is the Court’s intention to use this area as a passive community park in the future, which can be
utilized by this neighborhood. Currently students from this area attend Huntertown Elementary School,
the New Middle School and Woodford County High School. However, during a recent redistricting by
the School Board they did not determine where children that lived in this area would go, they will look
at that in the future. The Superintendent of Woodford County Schools did provide a letter regarding the
impact of development on the schools and it is included in the Applicant’s Booklet. Mrs. Wilson
contacted the School Board office and received updated enrollment figures as of April 6, 2016, which
she provided on page 11 of her report.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 5
With regard to the staff analysis, Mrs. Wilson indicated that the property does lie in the Contemporary
Neighborhood Land Use District in the Versailles Urban Area. Mrs. Wilson provided the Commission
with the Goals and Objectives at the top of page 12 that the application is in agreement with. Mrs.
Wilson noted in the middle of page 12 several Goals and Objectives that appear to be in conflict but one
regarding Commercial Development, Residential-Housing Development, Transportation, Public Use
Facilities, General Land Development and Neighborhood/Subdivision Development. There are also
Policies and Guidelines that are of concern and Mrs. Wilson noted those on the bottom of page 12 and
top of page 13.
With regard to the Contemporary Neighborhood Policies and Guidelines it indicated that they should be
primarily single family homes, carefully integrated and that non-residential uses should be appropriate
only for those in the surrounding neighborhood. The traffic study indicated that nothing drops below a
LOS “D” and that multiple connections should be considered. With regard to Zoning Ordinance and
Density, they could have a maximum of 275 units based on the zoning for units per gross acre. They are
proposing 255 units, this would be restricted with the zone change, final development plan, preliminary
subdivision plat and final record plat. Mrs. Wilson noted that the Intent of Single Family Zone should be
located in areas of the community where services are available and facilities will be adequate to serve
the anticipated population. Without documentation from the City about sanitary sewers that has not
been addressed.
Mrs. Wilson stated that she did an update as of the end of January 2016, there were approximately 146
zoned residential lots, where someone could come in and get a permit for at this time. Given the rate of
permits being issued, Mrs. Wilson anticipates that would last 1-2 years, at the most. Mrs. Wilson stated
there appears to be 165 acres of unused commercial property in Versailles Urban Service Boundary.
With regard to water and sewer, the City has indicated public water is available and adequate but that a
flow study is being performed at this time to determine availability and adequacy of sanitary sewers.
Mrs. Wilson stated that the justification is in agreement with some of the Comprehensive Plan,
however, it is noted that this request is premature because it is not contiguous to existing developed
areas and public facilities are not available, specifically sanitary sewers. The non-residential uses are not
an integral part of the proposed PUD neighborhood serving only that neighborhood.
Mrs. Wilson provided the statutory requirements for rezoning, KRS 100.213, Findings Necessary for a
Map Amendment.
Mrs. Wilson stated that the applicants attorney will be given thirty minutes for presentation by himself
and other members of their team, then the Planning Commission can ask questions of the attorney and
once they are done then it will be opened up to the floor to anyone who has signed up to speak. They
will be given three minutes and are encouraged to submit anything else in writing that they do not have
time to say. After that the attorney and their team will be given fifteen minutes for rebuttal and to wrap
up their presentation.
Mr. Dick Murphy, Attorney, representing 2101, LLC the owner and developer of the subject property.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 6
2101, LLC is owned by Trey and Elaine Schott, Colin Strauss and Family and Lawrence York. Also
available to speak are Joey Svec, a Landscape Architect with Barrett Partners, Brett Malloy from
Integrated Engineering, Mike Merriman from S&ME Engineering, Darrin Darnell from ABS Construction,
Chaz Hite with Mr. Murphy’s office. All will be available to answer questions.
Mr. Murphy noted that this is a mixed use development and noted that a lot of time and effort has gone
into it and would like Mr. Svec to explain the plan. Mr. Svec noted that they have submitted a waiver for
the entry way so there is a median in the middle with landscaping. As you enter the site there is a retail
core with on-street parking, which will slow traffic and make it more pedestrian friendly. Next section
will consist of 144 units of apartments, after that will be townhouses with parking in the back. To the
east of the site is an existing farm road that will be kept for a pedestrian path, so the whole
development is based around slowing traffic and providing more power to the pedestrians. From the
townhouses the next section is office and civic and then single family lots. The green space will consists
of 20% of the property and does not include the detentions or front yards of the single family area. Mr.
Murphy noted that when entering the development you have the median on the middle and also have
the green space on the right that is a retention basin and another thing is the keeping of the tree
canopied driveway that will be used as a pedestrian pathway through the development. In the
development there is 7,200 feet of pedestrian paths, and that doesn’t include the sidewalks. There are
three detention basins. In the back there is a single loaded street, so the houses will be facing Bluegrass
Parkway.
Mr. Murphy stated that this property was annexed in 2014 and as Mrs. Wilson mentioned it was
brought into the USB in 1997, so it’s both inside the USB now and it’s been annexed. Under Kentucky
law KRS 81a, property can only be annexed by the City if the City finds that it is urban in character or it’s
suitable for development for urban purposes without unreasonable delay. Thus, the agricultural zoning
is no longer appropriate for this property and it is ready to be developed. Mr. Murphy emphasized the
build out time, this is going to have a 10-15 year build out period. So hundreds of children will not be
put in the school district at one time. The impact will be dissipated over time as it is built out. Mr.
Murphy noted that they are coordinating with the property next door referred to as the “Backer I”
property and displayed a map of the two developments joined together. All streets will be lined up so
there will be flow through traffic and one important point is because of the size of the retail center,
which will be about 54,000 sf. in size.
Mr. Murphy noted that he did the work for the Townley Center in Lexington at the corner of Leestown
and New Circle Roads and it is a mixed use development. It was found that the retail is needed to be the
place maker for the development and the residents that live there view the retail as an essential part of
the community. This neighborhood will be interconnected with Backer I which will have about 560 units
and Gleneagles which is next to that one has about 240 units. The retail center will be serving
approximately 4,400 people who can get to the retail center without getting onto Lexington Road. Mr.
Murphy noted that there was some discussion in the staff report about traffic and whether the retail
should be in the back than the front. They have found that it is better to have the retail in the front
because it establishes the community plus if a restaurant was in the back there would be noise and
traffic coming back through to get to Lexington Road. The mixing of uses has provided people with the
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 7
option to walk to restaurants and use of walking trails and apartment renters will find that they like the
area and will buy a house in the back.
Mr. Murphy noted that the development will gravity flow toward the front for sanitary sewer therefore
a pump station will not be needed and will be coming on line over the next 10-15 years and not putting
a lot on at one point. It is unlikely that you will see anything going up for 1-2 years and with their only
being 146 lots available, these are needed. There will be plenty of parking, with two car garages for
each townhouse unit as well as other parking areas. The commercial area is about 54,000 sf. the civic
are is proposed for workout area, meeting, and party rooms; with 80,000 total sf.
An extensive traffic study was done and the applicants have agreed to put the turn lanes in and traffic
signal and have turned in their preliminary papers for their encroachment permit from the State of
Kentucky.
Mr. Murphy stated that they feel they are very strongly in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and
Contemporary Neighborhood Design Guidelines. Mr. Murphy put a supplemental justification in the
record and is followed by the proposed findings. The development is inside the Urban Service
Boundary, the Comp Plan calls for developing new neighborhoods as neighborhoods within themselves
and providing townhomes, apartments and community centers in new neighborhoods. Contemporary
Neighborhood District Guidelines call for residents to be provided a choice of housing types and that is
exactly what this proposal is doing. It’s a planned community and it is found that as people age they like
to have different goals. They will make sure that all streets tie in to the development to the west. They
have integrated the multi-family into the neighborhood and have a gradual step down of uses as Mr.
Svec mentioned; everyone will be able to use the common areas. There are walking paths/trails to be
used and everyone will have access to retail/service/civic uses which is called for in the Comp Plan. The
sidewalks are transportation alternatives featured as are in the guidelines. The commercial portion is
sized to serve its natural service areas.
Mr. Murphy noted there are two other reasons to grant the zone change under the statute, one being
the Comprehensive Plan. Second being the existing zoning is no longer appropriate for the property and
the proposed zoning is and they feel they meet that because the property has been annexed and it
could not have been annexed if it wasn’t found to be suitable for urban development without a
reasonable delay. There have been changes since the plan was adopted in 2011, we have come out of a
major recession and housing types have changed.
Mr. Malloy discussed the traffic study and noted that one of the issues will have to do with left turns out
of the development but believe they will improve that and recommended signals at both intersections
as well as left turn lanes that will alleviate some concerns of safety. In regard to the traffic study that
was done previously, the traffic counts that they reported were about 18,000 in 2000 and then their
projections for 2020 was beyond 22,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Malloy’s traffic counts that were taken in
January 2016 show 17,000 per day.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 8
Mr. Schott gave a brief background of his presence in Versailles/Woodford County. Mr. Schott noted
that one of his partners is Cowan Strauss and his wife Darcia. They are here because they care about
their home, family farm, children and future generations. Woodford Place land has been in the USB and
in the area for future residential growth; it is in the Comprehensive Plan as a Contemporary
Neighborhood District. The City has annexed the land and the land is no longer horse farm land.
Versailles is growing and the 2008 recession is behind us, our children, our citizens and our future
Woodford Countians need housing options, restaurants to socialize without driving to Lexington, retail
choices beyond Kroger and K-Mart. Mr. Schott stated that quality rental housing does not exist in
Woodford County; there is a very limited supply of desirable, marketable building lots. Woodford Place
will offer community style living that we do not have in this county. Mr. Schott noted that they have
invested their lives in Woodford County and now have invested in this land to have a say in their future
in what the County will be in years to come. Mr. Schott distributed a US census report from 2006, 2012,
and 2014 that shows housing structures in Woodford County and Versailles. It showed a difference in
owner occupied and renter occupied. The data shows that renter occupied is increasing much faster
than owner occupied. In the period 2000-2010, owner occupied increased 7.6% and renter at 12.2%.
Mr. Schott noted that Woodford Place sees the current economic situation and offers a plan to help it
out. Mr. Schott included a survey of local landlords and in conclusion it showed a shortage of rental
housing and quality well-maintained rental housing is desirable and does not exist and a shortage of
three bedroom rentals in the $850-1000 range and two bedroom rentals in the $550-600 range.
Mr. Boggs asked for clarification of where Backer II is on the map and where access is on Lexington Road
for Backer I. Mr. Boggs noted that the Commission has reviewed a mixed use development before and
asked what guarantee the developer has that it will be completed if the Commission guarantees that
they can do it by passing the proposal. Mr. Boggs asked for a guarantee in something like a bond
because so often the developers come back in a couple of years and say that Woodford County is not
quite ready for the mixed use development. Mr. Murphy noted that they will have to bond the public
improvements as normally done through a subdivision process and nothing is guaranteed. The
developers are the ones who take the risk and can guarantee that they have done their homework on it
and that it works in Lexington. Mr. McClees stated that it was mentioned there would not be a pump
station and there is 500-600 feet and a gravity line, you will be dropping 16-18 feet by the time you get
to the front of the property and he is not sure what the City’s projection is, but he doesn’t think there is
a pump station in the country that is 17 feet deep. Mr. McClees also noted that the parking on the
street coming into the development shows back out into the main street and is concerned about traffic
safety on Lexington Road. Mr. Murphy noted that the entrance is going to be opposite the Methodist
Home and the traffic consultant has said a signal will be needed at that intersection and the developers
have agreed to put one there with turn lanes. Mr. Murphy noted that in regard to parking and back out
into the main street, that can be talked about on the final development plan but have found that is a
traffic slowing device. Mrs. Hartley noted that some trees have been removed and work is going on at
the property. Mr. Murphy noted that they have been clearing out some damaged and diseased trees
from the property. Mrs. Wilson noted that in regard to Townley Center, it is actually not a PUD, it is a
mixed use development and the zoning along Leestown Road is Commercial Zoning and Residential
Zoning where homes are. Mr. Murphy noted that in Lexington the PUD ordinance is not flexible enough
to accommodate something like Townley and it has B-3, which Versailles does not. Mr. Schein asked if
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 9
there were sidewalks proposed on both sides of the streets. Mr. Malloy stated yes and it was shown on
the display. Mr. Schein asked for clarification of Civic Use. Mr. Malloy noted that it could be a lot of
things. It is a central core like the clubhouse for the residents in the development and is large enough
for community meetings. Mr. Malloy noted that Civic Use could be for government use, a soil science
lab, an Ag source.
Chairman Wolf opened the hearing to the public for comments.
Lindsey Cox McHatton spoke and noted that she and her mother own the properties adjoining 2101
Lexington Road. This farm has been in her family since 1832 and she was born and raised on the
property. Mrs. McHatton stated that she is vehemently opposed to the Zone Change as it stands now.
Her family are the only people that will be negatively impacted on a daily basis with this many houses,
townhouses, apartments plus commercial buildings; 255 units are too many on 62 acres, especially 144
apartments. They are asking for 83 house lots but are showing 88 on the plan, the plan also shows 2 of
the 3 detention basins on her property lines; the basin closet to the Bluegrass Parkway will run over
during the spring rains into the creeks and flood behind her mother’s house. The Parkway has ruined
the fields in the front with its run off, in the spring they will be known as the Cox Lake instead of the Cox
Farm. The only houses on this property that won’t have water problems will be the ones built on the
slope next to the Parkway. Mrs. McHatton asked that if this plan is passed if the tree lines be saved, the
plan says only 20% of the trees will be saved but would like to see this percentage increased and also ask
that the no burn days be observed during construction, since they were not during Christmas. Mrs.
McHatton is happy about the property having a walking trail and thinks that the entrance across from
the Methodist Home will allow people to see better and exit easier. Since there are 255 units and each
is set up for two people that will be 500 plus cars coming out each morning during rush hour traffic once
the development is complete. Mrs. McHatton thanked the Commission for their consideration of
reducing the units or eliminating the commercial area.
Joan Rich noted that she lived in Glenhaven and she comes out onto Lexington Road between
Huntertown and Pisgah Roads and it is getting more impossible every day, probably 1000 more cars a
day getting dumped in there. It is difficult to get across with no light and turn left. Ms. Rich noted that
this kind of urban sprawl follows her wherever she goes, she watched Fayette County destroyed, she
watched Jessamine County where she initially had a small farm, destroyed. And then, when she moved
to Kentucky in 1980 she left Loudon County, Virginia which was one of the most beautiful ones, it is
gone and it is so bad that the western half of the county is threatening to secede and it all starts like
this. Mrs. Rich noted that she thought it was interesting that everything that happened in 2014, the
mayor first floated making Woodford City/County Government just like Lexington and Lexington is now
urban sprawl, double ugly and full of crime. She noted that it was said that agriculture is no longer
appropriate for that land but it looks like they are getting ready to set tobacco on it. She stated that she
is opposed to this proposal because she hates to see this happen to the community of Versailles.
Loudon County now has a $991,000,000 school budget, they have almost 80 schools and it’s twice the
size of Woodford County but it was all horse farms, dairy farms and beef and sheep when she left. She
hates to see that happen to Woodford County. She has been in Woodford County for 11 years and
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 10
noted that the Commissioners should go to the City web site and read the description of what we think
Versailles should be, you’ll find it interesting.
Billy Van Pelt with Woodford Forward noted that Woodford Forward is a group of citizens and business
owners that advocate for innovative policies that promote the highest and best use of urban land and
the agricultural use of productive farmland throughout Woodford County. The property that is the
subject of this zone change is within the City of Versailles’ Urban Service Boundary. Based on their
mission, vision and values, Woodford Forward strongly supports this zone map amendment from A-1 to
R-1C/PUD. The subject property is designated for use as a Contemporary Neighborhood District in the
2011 Comprehensive Plan. This zone change and development plan complies with the following
guidelines of the Contemporary Neighborhood Land Use District. The general characteristics of new
neighborhoods may be designed in a variety of ways to provide City and County residents with a variety
of housing options. Mr. Van Pelt illustrated why they think each of the guidelines and policies comply
with those and listed bullet points under each one. The Commission has heard the staff report from
Mrs. Wilson as well as the applicant that generally guideline #2, new neighborhoods should be primarily
single family homes but multi-family buildings are encourages to be carefully integrated into the
neighborhood and Woodford Forward feels like they have done that. Civic uses should be included
within larger contemporary neighborhoods in order to provide for close-to-home opportunities for
residents, or to provide locations for important public services or facilities that would serve the
neighborhood. Guideline #4, lands for neighborhood parks and open space should be planned and
developed within contemporary neighborhoods. Sidewalk, connectivity and access to transportation
alternatives are desired features in these neighborhoods. Provide interconnectivity of neighborhood
streets, and they feel like the applicant has done that with this development. Guideline #5 is about the
minimum lot size not being the only standard but they also feel that it agrees with policies 1, 2 and 4 of
the infrastructure policy because of the water that is available and interconnectivity among the
neighborhoods. Mr. Van Pelt noted that the zone map amendment and development plan illustrates
the highest best use of the urban land, within the City of Versailles’ Urban Service Boundary and it
demonstrates an improvement to the overall quality of life, economic vitality, design and adequate
infrastructure for citizens and businesses in our community. Woodford Forward strongly supports this
zone change from A-1 to R-1C/PUD.
Lori Garkovich spoke and noted that this proposal challenges her because conceptually she likes the plan
and she thinks it is something that would be very attractive but her fear is as community we are not
looking at development now as a whole but rather taking pieces of development. In a month we will
hear about one that talks about adding 500 or more houses to the land next to it and then we hear
about more. Ms. Garkovich thinks we need to see development as interconnected with an exponential
impact on the community, it’s not just about the impact of this particular development but all of the
others that will be and have been considered on the community. We need to ask if all the
developments approved for the east side of Versailles, what is going to be the accumulative effect of
those developments on traffic, on our capacity as a community to provide public services, to provide
classrooms, to provide sewers and still haven’t heard how this will be sewered. Mrs. Garkovich is afraid
that we are moving toward “Jessimizing” our unique Woodford County. As all the traffic builds up and
the waiting drivers have a lot of time to look at the houses and the stores that are along the scenic
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 11
byway that we call US60. Ms. Garkovich noted that it is time to step back and think about how we can
plan for the inevitable consequences of many approval of many large development proposals before
they create infrastructure service and quality of life consequences for the community. Ms. Garkovich
stated that at an intellectual level this is attractive but she hopes the Commission will ask themselves
how each decision that is made cumulatively affects this community and cumulatively will affect the cost
of services as well as the consequences for the quality of life for the entire community.
Chairman Wolf closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Murphy introduced Darrin Darnell to talk about the sewers. Mr. Darnell with ABR Construction gave
a brief overview regarding the design of the development and referred to the storm water basins and
noted that the development is being constructed to help handle storm water and the basins are twice as
big as they need to be. Mr. Darnell provided illustrations on the sanitary sewer and noted that this site
can easily be gravity fed to the front with no problem. Mr. Darnell noted that GRW is doing a study right
now on sewer capacity and the numbers that Mr. Darnell ran show that he can get to the nearest
manhole. Mr. Murphy stated that they know if there is no capacity then they can’t get a building permit
and they put that condition on the final development plan. Mr. Murphy noted that the site has not
been maxed out and they wanted to keep the green space. The detention basins will help with the
flooding from the Parkway and re-emphasized that they have agreed to put a traffic signal at the
Methodist Home and development entrance for safety. The housing units that generate the fewest
school children, is upper scale rental, like the ones being proposed; mostly rented by young single
people, young couples or empty nesters. Mr. Murphy noted that a pump station will not be needed, the
traffic study showed that if followed there will be minimal impact and they will be saving trees. They
agree with the Comprehensive Plan and feel that it provides housing choice and limited commercial that
services this area and tried to size the commercial so that it is appropriate for the service area.
Mr. Wells noted the Commission has 90 days to act on the recommendation. Mr. Butler suggested that
the Commission take the time to ponder and appropriately draft a motion due to the complexity of the
request. Mrs. Perry asked if this is rezoned and Mr. Schott stated that no building permits would be
issued until sewer service was guaranteed by the City, so does that mean that no permit of any kind
would be issued until that service is guaranteed. Mrs. Wilson noted that from a construction
standpoint, when TRC reviews construction plans then staff waits on letters before a grading permit is
issued and Mrs. Wilson doesn’t believe that the City would write a letter approving construction plans if
sewer wasn’t available. The Commission agreed to postpone voting on the request. The Mrs. Wilson
noted that the item will be on the next meeting agenda for possible action and if you need assistance
with a motion, please contact Mrs. Wilson or Mr. Butler.
FINANCIAL REPORT AND BILLS
The report was accepted
MONTHLY BUDGET REPORT
The report was accepted
Planning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2016
Page 12
REPORT TO COMMISSION
The report was accepted.
2014-2015 Audit
Motion was made by Mr. Schein, as seconded by Mr. Bohannon to accept the audit as submitted. The
motion carried with nine (9) aye votes.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Butler discussed the teleconference with the Kentucky Retirement System regarding the alleged
spiking of Paul Noel’s salary where KRS is asking for an additional contribution in the amount of
approximately $9000. Mr. Butler noted the reason they are asking for this is because technically under
the definition of the statute that his salary had been spiked and it is a mathematical calculation. So if
the salary increases from one time period to another time period by a certain percentage, then they
consider that spiking and if it’s not for certain specific reasons such as advancement in career or
educational, then it is considered spiking. Mr. Butler has reached out to several people and it is his
understanding that it is mathematical and does not consider the circumstances behind the
mathematical spike; doesn’t matter that he was out on unpaid leave and came back, that is not a
consideration that they give. This has caused problems throughout the State and this Commission is not
the first that has experienced this. Mr. Butler noted that Kentucky League of Cities had sponsored
legislation in the past to define and clarify this and give some relief and this is important because we
aren’t the first ones to be hit by this and second there has been an unsuccessful attempts to get relief.
Mr. Butler noted that he and Mrs. Wilson have scheduled a teleconference with the Retirement System
on April 20th at 1:00 p.m. and Mr. Butler has a conflict at that time with court and Mrs. Wilson is not
comfortable participating in the conference by herself. The argument isleave that Paul was off on
unpaid and the Commission did not spike but it meets the mathematical criteria of spiking. Mr. Butler
asked the Commission how they want to proceed and noted that if this happens again he suggested that
the Commission approach the Retirement System to see how it can be handled differently. Mrs. Wilson
noted that she is not comfortable doing a pre-trial conference by herself. Mr. Parrott asked if Mr. Butler
had worked out their equation with the numbers and Mr. Butler noted that he had done it several ways.
Mr. Butler recommended cancelling the teleconference and letting it go as submitted and see how they
rule. The Commission agreed with Mr. Butler’s recommendation.
Motion was made by Mrs. Perry, as seconded by Mr. Schein to adjourn at 8:18 p.m. The motion
carried with nine (9) aye votes.
______________________________________
J.D. Wolf, Chairman
JW:ko