Board of Commissioners Meetings

City of Henderson, Kentucky NOTICE OF SPECIAL CALLED MEETING FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2015 February 13, 2015 Commissioner Jan M. Hite Commissioner Jesse L. Johnston IV Commissioner Robert M. Mills Commissioner X R. Royster ill Dear Board Members: Please take notice that as Mayor of the City of Henderson, Kentucky, I hereby call a special called meeting of the Board of Commissioners at 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, February 17, 2015, in the Third Floor Assembly Room of the Municipal Center, 222 First Street, Henderson, Kentucky. The purpose of this called meeting is for the following: AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Resolutions: Resolution Authorizing the Release to Community One of $175,000.00 Held by the City in Escrow From the Raymond B. Preston Family Foundation for the Audubon Kids' Zone Project Purchase of Real Property Located at 1325 Powell Street Resolution to Retain Jack Bender, Dinsmore & Shohl Law Firm, to Conduct Any Necessary Investigation, Assessment and/or Representation for the City in Environmental Matters Resolution Approving Non-Renewal of Contract with Dozit, Inc. for the Transfer and Disposal of Solid Waste Resolution Appointing Mayor Steve Austin as Director to Board of Public Energy Authority of Kentucky (PEAK) 3. Reports: Discussion and Possible Action Relating to Planning Commission Re-zoning Recommendations: #1 043 w/Development Plan, Merritt Drive; #1044, 11 Lincoln Avenue; and #1045 w/Development Plan, 1700 South Main Street  4. Executive Session: For the Purpose of Deliberation on the Possible Purchase of Real Estate Located in the Area of Old Madisonville Road, Sand Lane and Commonwealth Drive, And, for Property Located in the Area Bounded by U.S. Hwy 60, Ohio Drive, Drury Lane and the Ohio River, Pursuant to KRS 61.810(1)(b), in That Publicity Would Likely Affect the Value of the Properties 5. Adjournment Respectfully, ______________________________ Steve Austin, Mayor A copy of the foregoing notice received and service thereof waived this 17th day of February 2015. __________________________________ Commissioner Jan M. Hite __________________________________ Commissioner Jesse L. Johnston IV __________________________________ Commissioner Robert M. (Robby) Mills __________________________________ Commissioner X R. Royster III  City Commission Memorandum 15-29 February 9, 2015 TO: Mayor Steve Austin and the Board of Commissioners FROM: Russell R. Sights, City Manager iOl ~ SUBJECT: Audubon Kids' Zone Project- Escrow Funds The accompanying resolution authorizes the release of funds held in escrow by the City from the Raymond B. Preston Family Foundation to Community One for the Audubon Kids' Zone Project. The Raymond B. Preston Family Foundation pledged financial support to Community One for the Audubon Kids' Zone Project and on December 31,2014 the City accepted and agreed to hold $175,000.00 in escrow for the project until the closing of the purchase of real property located at !325 Powell Street. The closing is expected to be completed on February 27,2015. This resolution authorizes the City to release the escrow funds to Community One pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Raymond B. Preston Family Foundation and Community One for the Audubon Kids' Zone Project. The transaction will be noted in the mid-year 2015 Budget and Appropriations Ordinance Amendment. Your approval of the attached resolution is requested. c: Buzzy Newman Robert Gunter  RESOLUTION NO. _ __ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE TO COMMUNITY ONE OF $175,000.00 HELD BY THE CITY OF HENDERSON IN ESCROW FROM THE RAYMOND B. PRESTONFAMILYFOUNDATIONFORTHEAUDUBONKIDS' ZONE PROJECT PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1325 POWELL STREET WHEREAS, Community One, the City ofHenderson, Engage Henderson, the South Heights Elementary School and the Raymond B. Preston Family Foundation have partnered to create the Audubon Kids' Zone to provide services to the children of the East End; and WHEREAS, the Raymond B. Preston Family Foundation pledged financial support to the project; and WHEREAS, Community One and the Raymond B. Preston Family Foundation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Audubon Kids' Zone Project; and WHEREAS, on December 31, 2014 the City of Henderson accepted and agreed to hold in escrow for Community One $175,000.00 from the Raymond B. Preston Family Foundation until the closing of the real property located at 1325 Powell Street on or about February 27, 2015. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Henderson, Kentucky that funds received from the Raymond B. Preston Family Foundation on behalf of the Audubon Kids' Zone Project be released to Community One for the purchase of real property located at 1325 Powell Street. On motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner ----,-,----.,.,--,-------.,.,----'' that the foregoing Resolution be adopted, the vote was called. On roll call the vote stood: Commissioner Hite: Commissioner Johnston: _ _ __ Commissioner Royster: Mayor Austin: Commissioner Mills: WHEREUPON, Mayor Austin declared the Resolution adopted, affixed his signature and the date thereto and ordered that the same be recorded. ATTEST: Steve Austin, Mayor Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Carolyn Williams, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY THIS _jd_ DAY OF FEBRU2ZL~. By: 42( . / .. . , · Dawn S. Kelsey City Attorney  City Commission Memorandum 15-31 February 12,2015 TO: Mayor Steve Austin and the Board of Commissioners FROM: Russell R. Sights, City Manager ~S\ tt.-/ SUBJECT: Legal Counsel Services - Environmental Matters The accompanying resolution approves retaining Jack Bender, Dinsmore & Shohl Law Firm to conduct any necessary investigation, assessment and/or representation for the City in environmental matters. Mr. Bender has been providing these services for the City through the law firm of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP since February 2013; however, he will be changing law firms and the attached documents along with a new Agreement are necessary to continue his services. Your approval of the attached resolution is requested. c: Dawn Kelsey  Jack C. Bender Direct 859·288-4607 I Fax 859·367-3806 E-mail jbender@bgdlegal.com February 12, 20I5 V!A ELECTRONIC MAIL DSKELSEY@C!TYOFHENDERSONKY.ORG DawnS. Kelsey, Esq. City Attorney City of Henderson 222 I st Street P.O. Box 716 Henderson, KY 42419-0716 RE: Jack Bender Dear Dawn: This is a joint letter from Jack C. Bender, individually, and from Philip D. Scott, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, to advise you that as of February 14, 2015, Jack will be practicing with the finn of Dinsmore & Shohl. His new office address and contact information will be as follows: Jack C. Bender Dinsmore & Shohl Lexington Financial Center 250 West Main Street, Suite I 400 Lexington, Kentucky 40507 Phone: (859) 425-IOOO Fax: (859) 425-1 099 Cell: (859) 6I9-9289 E-mail: Jack.Bender@Dinsmore.com As a client of the Film who has worked with Jack, we are ethically required to notif'y you that you have the options of continuing your relationship with Bingham Greenebaum Doll, transferring all or some of your client related matters to Jack at Dinsmore or transferring some or all of your matters to any other counsel of your choice, and of course, you may choose to be represented on some matters by one firm and on other matters by another. Selection of counsel is solely up to you, the client. While you may choose to continue to employ Bingham Greenebaum Doll as your counsel, if you wish for us to transfer your files and matters, or any particular files or matters, to Jack at Dinsmore, please complete and deliver one or more of the attached authorization forms to Jack directly (Jack.bendo;r@dinsmore.com) or to Phil Scott 300 West Vine Street, Suite 1100 Lexington, KY 40507 859.231.8500 main 859.255.27421ax www.bgdlegal.com  BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP DawnS. Kelsey, Esq. February 12,2015 Page2 at Bingham Greenebaum Doll directly (pscott@bgdlegal.com). As you will note, one form is adapted for a transfer of specific matters, and the other is a general transfer direction applicable to all matters. Either may be used as you wish. As promptly as practical after receiving any direction from you to transfer a matter or matters, Bingham Greenebaum Doll will deliver the designated files to Dinsmore or other counsel selected by you with a receipt acknowledging their delivery. Under applicable ethical rules governing the practice of law, a finn may only transfer files when it has received a specific written and signed authorization from you, and for that reason, the two forms of transfer direction are attached to this letter. You are not required to use these forms, but we would request that there be similarity in content. Bingham Greenebaum Doll will accept a scan of a transfer direction or a fax, but the direction must be signed. If you wish to be represented on a continuing basis by Bingham Greenebaum Doll as to any or all of your pending matters or wish to discuss that representation, please contact Phil Scott at 859-288-4625 and he will transition your matters. If you are aware that any of these matters have current timing or filing deadlines, please bring those matters and those deadlines to our particular attention. Sincerely, cc: Buzzy Newman via e-mail BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP Dawn S. Kelsey, Esq. February 12,2015 Page3 General Authorization for Release of ALL Legal Records The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of the City of Henderson ("Client"), hereby authorizes Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP ("Bingham") to release any and all file materials regarding any matter(s) pertaining to the Client (BOD Client No. 113141) including, but not limited to, open and closed files, to Dinsmore & Shohl ("Designated Counsel"). It is further understood and agreed that Designated Counsel is to file a Notice of Substitution of Counsel substituting Designated Counsel for, and in place of, Bingham in all matters included in the released files that are pending before any court or administrative body and that Bingham shall have no responsibility to the Client for any adverse consequences should Designated Counsel fail to file, or delay filing, such Notice of Substitution. The undersigned agrees that should Designated Counsel fail to file appropriate papers to be substituted as counsel for Bingham in any matter, that Bingham may advise the court or administrative body in which the matter is pending that it has transferred the relevant files to Designated Counsel at the undersigned's direction and seek to withdraw as counsel lf in the matter. ~ CITY OF HENDERSON By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Name:,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Title:,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date:----------  RESOLUTION NO. _ __ RESOLUTION TO RETAIN JACK BENDER, DINSMORE & SHOHL LAW FIRM TO CONDUCT ANY NECESSARY INVESTIGATION, ASSESSMENT AND/OR REPRESENTATION FOR THE CITY OF HENDERSON IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS WHEREAS, the City retained Jack Bender with Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP to provide investigation, assessment and/or representation for the City of Henderson in environmental matters; and WHEREAS, Jack Bender is moving his practice to Dinsmore & Shohl; and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends that the City enter into an agreement to retain the law firm of Dinsmore & Shohl of Lexington, KY. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City ofHenderson, Kentucky, that the City Manager's recommendation is accepted, and that the Mayor be authorized to enter into an agreement between the City of Henderson and Dinsmore & Shohl Law Firm, 250 W. Main St., Suite 1400, Lexington, KY 40507, for legal services in connection with investigation, assessment and/or representation for the City of Henderson in environmental matters, and authorization to sign any necessary authorization to release the City's files from Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP to Jack Bender and Dinsmore & Shohl. On motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner _ _ _ _ _ _ _, that the foregoing Resolution be adopted, the vote was called. On roll call the vote stood: Commissioner Hite: Commissioner Johnston: ---- Commissioner Royster: Mayor Austin: Commissioner Mills: WHEREUPON, Mayor Austin declared the Resolution adopted, affixed his signature and the date thereto and ordered that the same be recorded. Steve Austin, Mayor ATTEST: Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Carolyn Williams, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY THIS).;;!:_ DAY OF FEBRU /y' 2015. , v' By: , 'k/,x_  City Commission Memorandum 15-32 February 13, 2015 TO: Mayor Steve Austin and the Board of Commissioners FROM: Russell R. Sights, City Manager ~~I ~\C/ SUBJECT: Non-Renewal of Contract with Dozit Relating to Transfer and Disposal of Solid Waste The accompanying resolution approves the non-renewal of the contract with Dozit for the transfer and disposal of solid waste. The City and the County entered into an Agreement with Dozit, Inc. in August 1999 for the transfer and disposal of solid waste. Under the terms of the Contract it is renewed every four years unless written notice is given to Dozit no later than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of any renewal term. The current term expires May 31, 2015. Subsequent to the previous renewal date of February 2007, the City and County terminated the 1995 Interlocal Agreement for the Solid Waste Transfer Station and in July 2008 entered into a new Agreement relating to solid waste and the use of the Transfer Station. No changes were made to the Dozit Contract at that time. At this time, the City is exploring other avenues of handling the Transfer Station and the disposal of solid waste. As this is a joint City/County Contract, both parties will need to give notice of the non-renewal of the Contract prior to March 2, 2015. It is anticipated that Fiscal Court will adopt a similar resolution at their next meeting. Your approval of the attached resolution is requested. c: Dawn Kelsey  RESOLUTION NO. _ __ RESOLUTION APPROVING NON-RENEWAL OF CONTRACT WITH DOZIT, INC. FOR THE TRANSFER AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE WHEREAS, the City and County jointly are contracted with Dozit, Inc. for the transfer and disposal of solid waste by agreement dated August 24, 1999; and WHEREAS, that Agreement expires on May 31, 2015 unless notice of non-renewal is given no later than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date; and WHEREAS, the City and County have agreed that it is in the best interest of both parties to explore other avenues of operating the Transfer Station and the disposal of solid waste; and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends that the City give non-renewal notice to Do zit, Inc., ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date of the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Henderson, Kentucky, that the recommendation of the City Manager is approved, and the City shall give notice of non-renewal of contract to Dozit, Inc., and explore other avenues of operating the Transfer Station and the disposal of solid waste. On motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , that the foregoing Resolution be adopted, the vote was called. On roll call the vote stood: Commissioner Rite: Commissioner Johnston: _ _ __ Commissioner Royster: Mayor Austin: Commissioner Mills: WHEREUPON, Mayor Austin declared the Resolution adopted, affixed his signature and the date thereto and ordered that the same be recorded. ATTEST: Steve Austin, Mayor Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Carolyn Williams, City Clerk  City Commission Memorandum 15-30 February 10,2015 TO: Mayor Steve Austin and the Board of Commissioners FROM: Russell R. Sights, City Manager ~~ ll,(L., SUBJECT: Designation of PEAK Board Member The accompanying resolution designates Mayor Austin to serve as Director to the Board of Public Energy Authority of Kentucky (PEAK). The replacement is necessary due to the resignation ofTom Davis. As provided in the Interlocal Agreement, the City of Henderson is required to designate a Director to the PEAK Board. c: Owens Reeves  RESOLUTION NO. _ __ RESOLUTION APPOINTING MAYOR STEVE AUSTIN AS DIRECTOR TO BOARD OF PUBLIC ENERGY AUTHORITY OF KENTUCKY (PEAK) WHEREAS, it is necessary that the Board ofConnnissioners appoint a director from the City of Henderson to the Board of Directors of Public Energy Authority of Kentucky (PEAK). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City ofHenderson, Kentucky, that Mayor Steve Austin is hereby appointed as director for the City of Henderson on the Board of Directors of Public Energy Authority of Kentucky (PEAK). On motion of Commissioner seconded by Commissioner ----:-:-:--------,----' that the foregoing Resolution be adopted, the vote was called. On roll call the vote stood: Connnissioner Hite Connnissioner Johnston _ _ __ Connnissioner Royster _ _ __ Mayor Austin Connnissioner Mills WHEREUPON, Mayor Austin declared the Resolution adopted, affixed his signature and the date thereto and ordered that the same be recorded. Steve Austin, Mayor ATTEST: Date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Carolyn Williams, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY THIS_/!)._ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. I By: Dawn S. Kelsey City Attorney  City Commission Memorandum 15-27 February 9, 2015 TO: Mayor Steve Austin and the Board of Connnissioners FROM: Russell R. Sights, City Manager gt;j~ SUBJECT: Report I. Rezoning #s 1043 w/Deve1opment Plan- Merritt Drive, 1044 - 11 Lincoln Avenue, and 1045 w/Development Plan- 1700 South Main Street In May 2012 an ordinance was adopted revising the rezoning process to allow the Planning Connnission Reconnnendation on Zoning Map Amendments to be final and the property officially rezoned, unless an aggrieved party or the Board of Connnissioners files written notice to the Planning Connnission within the allotted twenty-one (21) day time period to have the Board of Connnissioners make the final decision. The Planning Connnission conducted public hearings and made reconnnendations at their meeting of February 3, 2015 on these rezoning requests. The rezoning . reconnnendations will become final on Wednesday February 25,2015. No formal action is necessary unless a written request is received by the Planning Connnission from either an aggrieved person or the Legislative Body on or before February 24,2015. c: Curt Freese Buzzy Newman Dawn Kelsey HCCPC Henderson City-County Planning Commission Henderson Recommendation on Amendment APPLICANT: Dempewolf Properties, LC, Tommy Dempewolf Agent ADDRESS Merritt Drive PION: 1-11-2-5 RE-ZONING CASE NUMBER #1043 w Plan MOTION WAS MADE BY TAUNYA EYRE, SECONDED BY GARY GIBSON TO APPROVE REZONING #1043 WITII DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY DEMPEWOLF PROPERTIES, FOR TIIE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF HENDERSON AT PlDN # 1-11-2-5; AS TIIE REQUEST IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH TIIE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, TIIE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND TIIE GOALS AND ' OBJECTIVES, SPECIFICALLY LAND USE OBJECTIVE 3, HOUSING OBJECTIVE 4 AND 6, AND~~~~~====J The above recommendation of the Henderson City-County Planning Commission will be final on Wednesday, February 25,2015, unless the City Commission decides to make a final decision on this zoning map amendment by filing notice on the attached form with the Planning Commission, or an aggrieved person files notice with the City Commission to make a final decision, within twenty-one (21) days after the action of the Planning Commission. In the event notice is filed for the appropriate body to make a final decision on this application, a full transcript of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded to the City Commission with this recommendation. 1990 Barret Court • Suite C • Henderson, KY 42420 • Phone (270) 831-1289 • Fax (270) 831-1237 HCCPC Henderson City-County Planning Commission REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE BODY TO DECIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICANT DEMPEWOLF PROPERTIES, LC. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY MERRITT DRIVE PION: 1-11-2-5 REQUESTED FOR ZONE CHANGE ACREAGE INVOLVED 1.238 ACRES ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED (LIST ZONE) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO RIVERFRONT RESIDENTIAL (RF-4) DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 2015 HEARING PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVE DENY DATE 2/3/15 X (CHECK APPLICABLE) ... NOTICE FOR LEGISLATIVE BODY TO DECIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT MUST BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY ONE(21 . . DAYS) . . OF PLANNING.. COMMISSION ·•. . RECOMMENDATION . NOTICE FILED BY Please indicate what party is HENDERSON COUNTY FISCAL COURT requesting a Legislative Body decision by checking appropriate CITY OF HENDERSON box for request CITY OF CORYDON AGGRIEVED PERSON NAME (PLEASE PRINT) SIGNATURE DATE NOTICE FILED S11bmittal o~ this _:tlotke e?eives- as written requ_est in acCOrda:hce with KRS lOQ.2111 to the.Hen~erson ·city/County ·Planning Conlmissiori that the final dedsion-on.the abov~teferenced ritap _aritendment is.to be made b)dhe : appropriate Legislative Body._ I~. no ~itten request ·or noti~e is' made by the 'Legis.lative ~ody or' _aggrieved person: tO the Planning Coltlmission within 21 days after the final action,of the·Heriders.On ·.Plaimirig Commission, then the recommendation by the HC:CPC: relating to the proposed amendm~nt shall become final and if recomlr!ende.d for approval by the Planning Commission, the map .amendment shall be automatically ifuplemented subiecfto the provisions of KRS 100,347. . . • 1990 BARRET COURT • SUITE C • HENDERSON, KY 42420 • PHONE (270) 831-1289 • FAX (270) 831-1237 • WEB: WWW.HENDERSONPLANNING.ORG  HENDERSON CITY-COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION February 3, 2015 Summary of Minutes Chairman McKee: The first item on the agenda is the Dempewolf Properties, LC and out of an abundance of caution I'm going to leave the room the Chair will now become David Williams. Vice-Chairman Williams: I'm going to call Rezoning #1043 with Development Plan submitted by Dempewolf Properties, LC for the property located in the City of Henderson (Lot #3 Darrell Chaney Estate Consolidation) on Merritt Drive (PION# 1-11-2-5), and containing 1.238 acres. Applicants are requesting a zoning change from Residential-1 (R-1 ), to Riverfront Residential (RF-4). Staff, would you like to open with your comments please? Curt Freese: Yes. The applicants, as you stated, are requesting a rezoning from R-1 to Riverfront Residential (RF-4), the size is 1.238 acres and they are requesting this zone to build six (6) single family homes on this property. Looking at the infrastructure first, it is served by an eighteen (18) inch water main in the front but in all likelihood it would be served from the rear off of 11th Street. Sewer is another interesting issue; it could potentially be served off 11th Street with a private pump station or a public sewer across the street on Merritt Drive a bit north of this property. It is not in a flood plain. The zoning to the North, South and East is all R-1, there is a mistake there it says mobile homes, there are no mobile homes in this area, and that R-1 zoning only allows single family residential houses. To the West is obviously the river and River Walk Park. As you can see on the screen the R-1 is all in yellow and the River Walk Park is actually a RF-3 that only allows greenspace and parks. You have a development plan before you so, with this re-zoning it will be tied to this development plan. So if the developer decides to change anything substantive with the development plan they will come back before the Planning Commission to get your approval to do so. So again anything 1 substantive, if there are minor changes that would not constitute a major change to come before you. So what they are essentially requesting here are the six homes as you can see there is an access drive that comes off of Merritt Drive and the homes are served by an eighteen (18) foot wide drive that goes thru the rear so they are going to share an easement thru the rear property lines between all the structures. There is a sidewalk interior to that service drive along Merritt Drive that would hook-up, obviously, along River Walk Park on the other side. There is also, each home is forty-nine (49) feet, that's a slight error, so there is forty-nine (49) foot lot widths on four ofthem, one slightly smaller one and one sixty-five (65) foot wide lot. The setbacks are twelve (12) feet in between the buildings and roughly twenty-six feet in the front. There is a building height maximum of thirty-five (35) feet, so they cannot build any higher than thirty-five (35) feet. If they were to request to do so, they would have to receive a variance from the Board of Adjustments, they could only request the variance from the Planning Commission if they did so with this map amendment so, should they decide to go any further than thirty-five (35) feet, that would be a variance request to the Board of Adjustments. The uses are restricted to single family homes. So again, any changes to any of this that I have just mentioned, any of this plan that is substantive in nature would come back before you for approval. We just approved the RF-4 Riverfront Residential zoning district that was to address residential, to create residential zones and appropriate residential zone on the river, I've got that in your packet I can read that to you. The intent is to for single family dwelling units, townhouses and condominium uses only also only intended for properties abutting the Ohio River or properties with river views to encourage the construction of and continued use ofland for single family, townhouse and condominium dwellings with specific regulations appropriate for riverfront development. To prohibit business and commercial uses, to protect the natural beauty element of the Ohio River and to encourage a pedestrian friendly, sustainable environment with 2 development standards suitable to preserve the riverfront. That is the intent of the Riverfront Residential Zoning District that they are requesting. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan, the first thing that we look at is the future land use plan. That shows this area developing as low density, residential so that would be consistent on a limited basis with a riverfront residential zoning. I say that because this zoning district does allow higher density uses like condominiums or townhouses so it does apply on a limited basis. there is a Riverfront Development Plan from 1993 that was approved by the City and Planning Commission that did show this area, proposed this area as R-1 zoning in that 1993 land use plan, that was in a previous request. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan I have just spelled out some Goals and Objectives that might pertain to this request. Staff finds this request is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan because it meets Land Use Objective #3 which, essentially the objective is for compact design ofthe development plan and the private drive, that's why we feel it meets that Land Use Objective. Housing Objective #4 is to encourage quality and diversity of the design by developing subdivisions and housing that are compatible with existing land uses, transportation patterns and special arrangements of existing neighborhoods. I believe that we think it meets this point because it takes into consideration the view sheds, it's also in the low spot of topography of the land in the area so it wouldn't block as much as it could, other view corridors. The drive off of Merritt Drive is also sensitive to the traffic concerns of residents on 11th and Craig Street so, it shouldn't cause any conflicts with them. We also feel the single family use of the homes is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character and property values as found in Housing Objective #6 and it is also consistent with Downtown Henderson Objective #5 which emphasizes the re-development of the riverfront and as staff has mentioned, a vital part of building a healthy downtown the riverfront is essentially adding people to live there. Getting people to live there really creates that vibrant atmosphere. In the absence of findings that the project is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan obviously the Staff feels that it is in the Comprehensive Plan but those two statutory findings; one, that the existing zoning 3 classification given to the property is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning classification is appropriate. Staff has listed some things there, as I have stated before the Riverfront Development Plan of 1993 and the Future Land Use plan that is current right now both found R-1 is appropriate for that property and there really hasn't been too many changes. The new riverfront district was recently created and adopted specifically to address riverfront development so it's really the most appropriate district at the same time for this kind of request and it also allows creativity and flexibility in the design of the development that's demonstrated by this development plan. The second point for the statutory requirement if there is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan is that there have been changes of an economic, physical or social nature of the area involved which were not anticipated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and which have substantially altered the basic character of the area. There obviously have been infrastructure upgrades along Merritt Drive as everybody knows, with the River Walk Park, with the road that obviously facilitates development and that wasn't foreseen in that 2006 Plan although it was planned for and the recent revisions to the RF-4 defiantly allowing more of a sustainable development plan wasn't anticipated, defiantly wasn't anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan of 2006 or the update in 2011. So staff recommends approval especially because the request is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map .. With that, I'll turn it back over to you. Vice-Chairman Williams: Thank you Curt. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak for this proposal, for this proposal? Seeing none, is there anyone here who wishes to speak. .. got to make it more clear Denny. Dennis Branson: David I just didn't want you to think there wasn't anybody here interested in this meeting that's all. (laughter) My name is Dennis Branson; I live at 916 Kelly Court. I will answer any questions when the time is appropriate that you may have. Vice-Chairman Williams: Thank you Denny. Anyone else who wishes to rise and speak for the proposal? Seeing none this time, is there anyone here who wishes to rise and speak against this proposal? Yes ma'am. 4 Martha Beckett: My name is Martha Beckett; I live at 1029 N. Main Street. Vice-Chairman Williams: Are you going to tell the truth with everything you say today? Martha Beckett: Yes I am. Vice-Chairman Williams: Thank you. Martha Beckett: First of all, just to clarify, I don't really want to speak against the proposal and I know that you guys have put in a lot of work on this and you have worked hard to respond to our issues, complaints and problems as the residents ofthe neighborhood I just had a question. This is a question that all the neighbors have, I'm kind of, in interest of conversation I'm speaking for everybody here, and we have some concerns about how you're going to hook the water and the sewer. I don't think it's any secret to anybody that the water pressure in Anderson Hills Subdivision and that area is just not good. I have talked to Mr. Ferry now and he has been very helpful and they are assuring us a fix is in the works but it might be a couple of years. So, as it stands now, we have problems with our water pressure. We can't do a lot of things at once and that's inconvenient but my major concern is what about the fire hydrants if there is a fire. Are we going to have adequate water pressure and water capacity? I talked to Mr. Ferry and he says that the fire hydrant on Craig Drive is acceptable but I believe he said marginal. So, we're just concerned, first for our own convenience if you put six (6) more houses on our water line and secondly what if there is a fire? Isn't there some other way to hook this up? That's our question, really, is there another way to do this that won't cause our water pressure to be even worse because the fix is going to be a while? And then the other problem is the sewer. Are we going to hook into our existing sewer because the sanitary sewer and the storm sewer are not separate in that neighborhood and there is a storm drain in front of my house on North Main at Main and 11th and the amount of water that comes down Craig Drive and on either side of Main Street is just incredible from the run-off. So, we have a concern that if you put six (6) more houses on there, is that going to potentially, I know it wouldn't be the storm 5 drain it would be the sanitary but what is that going to do to our problem? So, those are our concerns and it doesn't mean that, is there some other way that we could just hook everything up so that we would not have problems with it? That's what 1wanted to say. Do you have any questions for me? Vice-Chairman Williams: Does anyone have any questions? Is there anyone who wishes to stand and speak against the proposal or to comment in general? Kass McKee: Kass McKee, 1020 Craig Drive and I'm not really against the proposal, what I have ... Vice- Chairman Williams: Excuse me, are you going to ... Kass McKee: Yes, I'm going to state the truth if that's what you're asking. My question, again as is Martha Beckett's, the concern about the water pressure and then also with the fire hydrant being so far away, I think there is one at 12th and Main and at the other end of Craig Drive towards 8th Street maybe. But with almost doubling the number of homes now in that area, would it be a possibility of putting another fire hydrant in somewhere along either Merritt Drive or somewhere around 11th Street there where, I guess where Craig Drive comes up, well, 11th Street comes and turns into Craig Drive. So, those are the concerns are mainly for fire protection and water pressure. And then I have a question on this new map of how the property line comes along with the home closest to me. In the previous layout there was, I think greenspace or grass in between the drive and the property line and now with this map ... Brian Bishop: There's our pointer right there, if you would like to use it, just push the button on the end. Kass McKee: I've never used one. Ok, right here, in the previous plan there was a grassy area in between the driveway and the property line and now it looks like the drive is just right on the property line and I was just wondering is there anything to say that, you know, there has to be some distance in 6 between or what that space would be in between a home or a drive and another property. Curt Freese: There is no set back required on any private drive or roadway. Kass McKee: Ok. Curt Freese: As for the water issues, I think Ken, I don't see Tom, so maybe Ken could address those issues. Kass McKee: Ok and again with the sewer line, the possibility, I assume all of theirs would be pumped up to that sewer man hole there. And then I assume that ours is gravity flow? I don't know, but with the heavy downpour, is there going to be a problem with excess water coming into that area and possibly causing back up in basements or whatever of Craig Drive homes because with the other being pumped? I don't know, this is my thought, with other being pumped up there that would seem like that wouldn't back up being pumped up there, it may not make sense but it's a concern. I just want to understand that it's not going to be a problem in the event of heavy downpours and rain with the way water, like Candy said, comes down thru there and pools on Main Street anyway with the downpour rains. That's all my questions. Vice-Chairman David Williams: Thank you. Curt Freese: Just to address some of your comments, since this is a development plan that is conceptual in nature they will have to do a major plat which will require storm water drainage calculations, so all that will have to be straightened out before it's approved. So, I just wanted to make everyone aware of that, the technical details the engineering details will still be approved and still be reviewed in the future. We're just approving the rezoning to allow them to put these houses there and the conceptual design of these houses. Vice-Chairman: Do we have any additional comments or questions? Yes ma'am. Martha Beckett: I understand what Curt is saying but this is our chance to speak, this is the public hearing and this is the opportunity we have to make 7 our concerns known and we hope that they will be taken into considerations in the other meetings where we probably won't be in attendance. That's all, thank you. Curt Freese: That will come back before the Planning Commission but it will be obviously another meeting and will also come before the Land Development Committee which is open to the public as well, when they start to develop this property, we can definitely contact you when that happens. ' Bobbie Jarrett: Curt, will the Water Department address the concerns of the water pressure and the water hydrant and things like that? Curt Freese: They are here tonight and if you want to ask Ken ... Taunya Eyre: Yes please. Bobbie Jarrett: Mr. Ferry. Ken Ferry: Yes. Bobbie Jarrett: I just wanted to address some ofthe concerns of Miss Beckett that she had stated earlier about the water pressure and water hydrants and the other things and what is proposed to alleviate some of those problems. Ken Ferry: We are and have been aware that because of the elevation of those properties along Craig Drive, they do have a water pressure issue and we've been looking at that for a while. I just today modeled some of our planned solutions. We anticipate having that taken care of within 18-24 months that and the storm drainage we are anticipating separating the storm water from that gravity sewer system in the same time period. Kevin Richard: So Ken I guess to ask the same question a different way, so all of the concerns that were raised tonight, are those items that are typically reviewed or calculated prior to the Water Department signing off on approval of a detailed layout? Ken Ferry: Correct. I'll caveat that with saying it's not, I'm trying to figure out a good way to say this, there may be times when we don't have the authority to tell somebody they can't hook into an existing sewer or water main just 8 because somebody else, someplace else is having a problem. That's not to say we don't take those other concerns into consideration, I know I opened a big can of worms with that but, again, we've got an 18-24 month window that we're looking at to alleviate all the storm water and water pressure problems out there. Kevin Richard: So I guess one more question for you then, you say you began some simulations today; did it factor in the hypothesis of these six (6) additional residences water flow? Ken Ferry: Oh yeah, yes definitely. Rodney Thomas: Would there be a fire hydrant placed down there? Ken Ferry: That could happen, that had not come up with any discussions I've had with any of the people that have spoken but that's definitely not an impossibility, that's something we could add to a project very easily, any other questions? Vice-Chairman Williams: Thank you Ken. Again, I'll make one more call for anyone from the public that wishes to speak for or against the proposal. Yes ma'am. Pam Thomas: Hi, I'm Pam Thomas I live at 910 Craig Drive. Vice-Chairman Williams: Do you promise to tell the truth in what you are going to say tonight? Pam Thomas: Yes. I just want to reiterate it really is a problem to live on Craig Drive and have the water pressure as low as it is. My husband and I have bought pumps for water pressure pumps and we have to get them sometimes so we do have that extra expense, so it really is a problem. All of us are not just saying this, it is a problem. Thank you. Taunya Eyre: Curt, refresh my memory on the without any type of redevelopment, how many lots, single family lots would that area be able to be divided into? 9 Curt Freese: Well, it's hard to say, I guess maybe four. Probably three would be realistic or four is possible. Taunya Eyre: I was thinking it was at least four, so we're talking two additional? Is it six (6) or five (5)? Curt Freese: Six. Vice-Chairman Williams: Ok, I'll ~sk one more time is anyone else has any other comments, questions? Do any members of the Commission have any questions? Oh, I'm sorry Denny. Dennis Branson: I get you every time Dave. Just very briefly, just Wflnted to make the Commission aware that we're not yet really into the design, well into the design phase. We have jumped the gun a little bit in that we have started looking at the engineering design and started to try to figure out what kind of problems we might be encountering. I wasn't aware and I don't know if Cliff was, that we had a pressure problem but even with that we've run into those kinds of things in developments before when we do a subdivision frequently, especially Fox Run or any of the bigger ones that we've done, a lot of times we initially have problems in the area because we are expanding out at the fringe of the developed area so, typically those things do have to be solved in time and two years is a pretty short time span. We wouldn't expect six houses to pop up within that period of time on the pressure. We're not allowed to have any of our storm water into the combined sewer system and I understand they are working on that also but the whole design, we're still tweaking that, things can change, buildings can get shifted around to make allowance for the engineering design so when we come back to you with all that we won't be having any problems. The fire protection, if we're required to install additional fire protection we just do that and development does do that. So, we have guidelines of the Subdivision Regulations and HWU has guidelines we'll also be addressing. Hopefully, there won't be any problems or questions about the design when we bring it back to you. Vice-Chairman Williams: Any questions for Denny? Thank you Mr. Branson. I'm going to open it up one more time, hearing none and seeing none do any 10 . ' Commissioners have anything else to say? Ok, I'm going to close discussion and a motion is in order. MOTION WAS MADE BY TAUNYA EYRE, SECONDED BY GARY GIBSON TO APPROVE REZONING #1043 WITH DEVELOPMENT PLANS GIVEN THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL AS MAJOR CHANGES TO ECONOMIC, PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL NATURE HAVE BEEN OCCURRED AS DESCRIBED BY THE FINDINGS THAT CURT REVIEWED WITH us. ALL IN FAVOR: AYE OPPOSED: NONE 11 Henderson City-County Planning Commission Recommendation on Amendment Mike Royster, Royster Re.U Estate LLC ADDRESS 11 Lincoln Avenue PIDN: 2-25-2-30.2 THOMAS, SECONDED BY KEVIN RICHARD TO APPROVE REZONING #1044 SUBMITTED BY MIKE ROYSTER, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF HENDERSON AT 11 LINCOLN A VENUE, PIDN # 2-25-2-30.2, AS THE REQUEST IS IN COMPLIANCE MTII TilE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TilE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, SPECIFICALLY IHE LAND USE GOAL, LAND USE OBJECTIVES 4 AND 14, AND HOUSING OBJECTIVE 12, AND ALSO CHANGES OF A PHYSICAL NATURE HAVE OCCURRED TO CHANG IHE BASIC CHARACTJ;:R OF IHE AREA-~~~------------------------------------------~ The above recommendation of the Henderson City-County Planning Commission will be final on Wednesday, February 25,2015,unless the City Commission decides to make a fin.U decision on this zoning map amendment by filing notice on the attached form with the Plarming Commission, or an aggrieved person files notice with the City Commission to make a fin.U decision, within twenty-one (21) days after the action of the Planning Commission. In the event notice is filed for the appropriate body to make a final decision on this application, a full transcript of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded to the City Commission with this recommendation. 1990 Barret Court • Suite C • f;Ienderson, KY 42420 • Phone (270) 831-1289 • Fax (270) 831-1237 Henderson City-County Planning Commission REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE BODY TO DECIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICANT MIKE ROYSTER, ROYSTER REAL ESTATE LC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 11 LINCOLN AVENUE PION: 2·25·2·30.2 REQUESTED FOR ZONE CHANGE ACREAGE INVOLVED 1.336ACRES ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED (LIST ZONE) MEDIUM TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R· 3) TO GENERAL BUSINESS (GB). DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 2015 HEARING PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVE DENY DATE 2/3/15 X (CHECK APPLICABLE) NOTICE FOR LEGISLATIVE BOOY TO DECIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT MUST BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY ONE (21 DAYS) OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NOTICE FILED BY Please indicate what party is HENDERSON COUNTY FISCAL COURT requesting a Legislative Body decision by checking appropriate CITY OF HENDERSON box for request CITY OF CORYDON AGGRIEVED PERSON NAME (PLEASE PRINn SIGNATURE DATE NOTICE FILED _SUbmittal of this noti~e selVes ~S written request in accordance with KRS 100.2iti to the- Hend"erson City/COunty _Plan11ing C~mlt\issiOn that the final decision on the abc)ve referen·ced.nup ariiendment is to be. made 'by the appropriate Legislative Body; If no written request or notice is made by the Legislative Body or aggrieved persori to the Planning ,Commisslo~ within 21' a·ays a'fter the final actiOn of: the Henderson Planiring_ Commission, then the recommendation by the HCCPC relating to the proposed amendment shall become final and if recommended for: approval by the Planning-.<;onitllission, the map arilendinent shall :be automatically implemented subject to .the provisions ofKRS 100.:?47. .·· . . . . · ... ·. . • 1990 BARRET COURT • SUITE C • HENDERSON, KY 42420 • PHONE (270) 831-1289 • FAX (270) 831-1237 • WEB: WWW.HENDERSONPLANNING.ORG  HENDERSON CITY-COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION February 3, 2015 Summary of Minutes Vice-Chairman Williams: Motion passes and we call Mr. Herb McKee back in. Chairman McKee: Next on the agenda is Rezoning #1044 submitted by Royster's Machine Shop, Mr. Bishop are you going to lead this discussion? Brian Bishop: Yes sir. Chairman McKee: The applicant is proposing a zoning change from R-3 to General Business. The property is currently undeveloped and is 1.336 acres, serviced by a six (6) inch water line, a six (6) inch sewer line and is currently in the special flood hazard area but with the LOMAR process that the City is currently undertaking for the Canoe Creek cleaning project it will be taken out of the flood plain. If the rezoning is approved a site plan for any development will come back to the Planning Commission. At this time I'll tell you about the uses that surround it. The property to the North is currently zoned General Business and is made up of offices and a skating rink. The property to the East is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-3) with an apartment complex and baseball field. The property to the South is zoned Medium Density Residential (R-2) to Medium to High Density Residential (R-3) and is made up of single family houses. The property to the West is zoned General Business (GB) and has storage buildings and offices on it. At this point, the Staff has some notes about findings of fact within the Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding uses of apartments, commercial offices and facilities are permitted uses within the General Business District (GB) and therefore consistent with the proposed rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan encourages small business development, entrepreneurship and growth by providing adequate areas for commercial development and professional offices. The Comprehensive Plan encourages development of commercial locations that are accessible to all segments of the travelling public including 1 vehicular traffic, pedestrians which come under the Economic Development section which is Object #4. So at this point, Staff recommends approval. The request is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and major changes to the economic, physical and social nature of the area have occurred as described above to satisfy the required findings of facts. At this point I'll do my best to answer any questions you may have. Chairman McKee: Thank you sir. Do any Commissioners have any questions for Staff before we take testimony? Kevin Richard: So this is to clarify because I think this same area was discussed in a previous meeting so the current Franklin Street connects all the way thru to Lincoln? Brian Bishop: That is actually a private road but Mr. Royster has upgraded it to the City's specifications as far as the public improvements go. Kevin Richard: And I guess I can wait to ask Mr. Royster, I was just curious about this particular site, if it will be serviced from vehicular traffic thru both Franklin and Lincoln so I can wait and ask him in time. Chairman McKee: Other questions? Who is here to speak for the developer, Mr. Royster? Would you please state your name and address sir? Mike Royster: Mike Royster 3486 Holloway Lane. Chairman McKee: Do you swear the statements you are about to make are the truth to the best of your knowledge? Mike Royster: Yes sir. Chairman McKee: Thank you sir and please proceed. Mike Royster: All we want to do is possibly build a building at that location at some point. We've put the street in up to City Code; we're going to donate that to the City after we get all of our rezoning done. That was our plan at this point. 2 Kevin Richard: So, I guess, to ask my question another way; potentially if this was a General Business site; it could be serviced from both streets? Mike Royster: From Lincoln to and the other end of Franklin. Kevin Richard: Ok, thank you. Mike Royster: I suppose it would end up being Franklin Street all the way through at some point. Kevin Richard: Ok, thank you. Chairman McKee: Other questions for Mr. Royster? Brian Bishop: Kevin if you will look on the map, the portion with the green line is currently a private drive which is what Mr. Royster upgraded. Most likely what will happen is the City will accept it into the system. Kevin Richard: That's alright, I wanted to clarify it because we have talked about it before that it was private but yet you had brought it up to code, I just wanted to verify that again. Chairman McKee: Thank you Mr. Royster. Is there anyone here that would like to speak for or against this proposed rezoning, for or against? Seeing none, Commissioners do you have any further questions? If not, a motion is in order. MOTION WAS MADE BY RODNEY THOMAS, SECONDED BY KEVIN RICHARD TO APPROVE REZONING #1044 FROM R-3 TO GENERAL BUSINESS AS IT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS; SURROUNDING USES APARTMENTS, COMMERCIAL OFFICES AND FACILITIES ARE PERMITTED USES IN THE PROPOSED GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THEREFORE CONSISTANT WITH THE PROPOSED REZONING, ENCOURAGE SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND GROWTH BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES AND TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL LOCATOINS THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO 3 ALL SEGMENTS OF THE TRAVELING PUBLIC, INCLUDING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIANS. ALLIN FAVOR: AYE OPPOSED: NONE 4 HCCPC Henderson City-County Planning Commission Henderson Recommendation on Amendment APPLICANT: Hackberry Development LLC. ADDRESS 1700 South Main Street PIDN: 46-54.1 . MOTION WAS MADE BYTAUNYA EYRE, SECONDED BY DAVID DIXON TO APPROVE REZONING #1045 Willi DEVELOPMHNT PLAN SUBMTITED'BY HACKBERRYDEVELOPMENT LLC, FOR 1HE PROPERTY LOCATED IN 1HE CITY OF HENDERSON AT1700 SOU1H MAIN STREET, PIDN #46-A-104, 46-54.1, AS 1HE REQUEST IS IN COMPLIANCE Willi 1HE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 1HE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND 1HE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, SPECIFICALLY 1HE LAND USE GOAL, LAND USE OBJECTIVES 3 AND 5, AND HOUSING OBJECTIVE 4, AND ALSO 1HE PROPOSE IS MORE 1HAN 1HE EXISTING DISTRICT FOR 1HIS nr"-.'"0 ".,.. The above recommendation of the Henderson City-County Planning Commission will be final on Wednesday, February 25,2015, unless the City Commission decides to make a final decision on this zoning map amendment by filing notice on the attached form with the Planning Commission, or an aggrieved person files notice with the City Commission to make a final decision, within twenty-one (21) days after the action of the Planning Commission. In the event notice is filed for the appropriate body to make a final decision on this application, a full transcript of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded to the City Commission with this recommendation. 1990 Barret Court • Suite C • Henderson, KY 42420 • Phone (270) 831-1289 • Fax (270) 831·1237 HCCPC Henderson City-County Planning Commission REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE BODY TO DECIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICANT HACKBERRY DEVELOPMENT LLC ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 1700 SOUTH MAIN STREET PION: 46-A-104, 46-54.1 REQUESTED FOR ZONE CHANGE ACREAGE INVOLVED 11.75ACRES ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED (LIST ZONE) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO RIVERFRONT RESIDENTIAL (RF-4) DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 2015 HEARING PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVE DENY DATE 2/3/15 X (CHECK APPLICABLE) ·NOTICE FOR LEGISLATIVE BODY TO DECIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT MUST BE FILED . WITHIN TWENTY ONE (21 DAYS) OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION NOTICE FILED BY Please indicate what party is HENDERSON COUNTY FISCAL COURT requesting a Legislative Body decision by checking appropriate CITY OF HENDERSON box for request CITY OF CORYDON AGGRIEVED PERSON NAME (PLEASE PRINT) SIGNATURE DATE NOTICE FILED S~bmitlal of this.nOHce s_eiVe_S ~s written requesfin aCcorda·n·ce with KRS 100.2111 tO.the'HenderSon City/County Planning Commission thatlhe 'final decisiOn on the· above refe·renced::qtap amen4tnellt-is·to be niade_by the- appropriate LegislatiVe Bod,_y; If no· :written request or notice is· made:·byt~e _iegislative BOdy Or aggri~ved .person to the Planning Comni.ission -withi:t.\21 days a:fter the final action-of the Henderson_ ~Ianning Commission, then· the recommendation by the HCCPC relating to tbe proposed i!ltlendm~nt shall become final and if recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the map amendment shall be automatically ·implemented subject to tbe provisions of KRS 100.347. . . . . • 1990 BARRET COURT • SUITE C • HENDERSON, KY 42420 • PHONE (270) 831-1289 • FAX (270) 831-1237 • WEB: WWW.HENDERSONPLANNING.ORG  HENDERSON CITY-COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION February 3, 2015 Summary of Minutes Chairman McKee: Now Commissioner Dixon, we can move on to Rezoning #1045 with a Develo.pment Plan, Mr. Freese do you plan to lead that discussion? Curt Freese: Sure. This was submitted by Hackberry Development, LC, and Agent Cass Wilson. It is located at South Main Street at PID #46A-104 & #46- 54.1. They are requesting this rezoning to build a twenty-seven (27) lot , development going from Residential-2 (R-2) to Riverfront Residential (RF-4). The request has 11.75 acres in total. They are requesting the twenty-seven (2 7) lot development will be single family attached homes, think of a townhouse that you own the property underneath you and you have a complete fire separation to the roof in between structures it would be essentially the same thing. Like a duplex where you have two homes sharing a wall but it's actually like a townhouse because you own the property and you have a fire-rated separation, just to explain. They are served by water with a six (6) foot main along Hackberry there is also sewer in the twenty (20) foot easement running thru this property. Portions of the riverfront lots are within the flood plain, you can see that on your development plan there's kind of a wavy line that goes from the Ohio River, at the end of those lots to the wavy line, that's all in the flood plain so no development will ever occur there it's really a flood-way I should say. The uses of the land obviously to the North is the Ohio River and to the South is R-2 Medium density with single family homes, to the East is R-2 with single family homes and to the West is Light Industrial which is the HWU plant that previously owned this property. The development plan shows that one entrance off of Hackberry, we had a lot of discussion about I don't think we need to get into that but it did receive the 1 variance. It has a twenty-eight (28) foot wide, paved public drive with forty (40) foot of ROW that does end in a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac is one thing we should discuss at this preliminary stage. At LDC the engineer a preference for at least a forty-four (44) or a forty-six (46) foot wide cul-de-sac and the applicant is still retained the original cul-de-sac which is I believe is thirty-five (35) feet, that is a concern. From what I understand, for a school bus to turn around requires thirty-eight (38) feet cul-de-sac and for an emergency vehicle like a fire truck to turn around requires a little over forty-four (44) feet but essentially forty-six (46) feet width for that cul-de-sac. There are fifteen (15), fifty (50) foot wide riverfront lots with shared driveways, each one of these lots except for Lot 15 or 16 shares a driveway between those attached houses and eleven (11) lots on the other side of the streetthat are also fifty-one (51) feet wide mostly and they are actually positioned to maximize the river view or the view shed in between those structures. One of the things we did with the RF-4 District is to require view sheds that means that you can't build any structures, including fences within that view shed to protect the river view. What they have done is they have developed a plan with that ordinance to maximize those view sheds by putting the streets on the other side of the river in between these view sheds of the streets that are fronting the river. Sidewalks will be required on all streets. The density really varies quite a bit between lots but again, all the houses are going to be of similar size on the river view streets and the other side of the street. There is a building height maximum of thirty-five (35) feet and the uses are restricted to single family attached. Again this is a development plan so it's conceptual in nature really all the sewer, water and all those things, those engineering details, will be approved at a later meeting and we are really just trying to do this so they can get this approved and don't have to go thru all of that cost yet, that will be done at a later meeting. I've already kind of stated the intent of the Riverfront Residential District in the Dempewolf Project but again, the idea was to preserve river views, preserve the river for residential uses and for the rest of the public so they can enjoy the river as well. 2 Looking at the Future Land Use Plan, it depicts this area as developing as Medium Density Residential so this request would be consistent with that Comprehensive Plan requirement or Land Use Map. Looking at the Comprehensive Plan itself, Staff finds this would be in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan because of the design that it's creative, flexible, it maximizes the view sheds, it uses shared driveways and it also allows a little higher density than really what we're trying to plan for on the river. So, that satisfies the Land Use Goal, the Land Use Objective 3 and Land Use Objective 5 that I have put in your packet. In the absence of findings that the project is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and that is that the existing zoning classification given to the property is inappropriate and the proposed zoning classification is appropriate. Staff finds that the new Residential Zoning District (RF-4) was recently created specifically for residential riverfront development and therefore is the most appropriate district for development similar to this request. The existing R-2 is district is better suited for traditional high density urban development patterns and uses not appropriate for a riverfront development pattern. Also the RF-4 is more appropriate because it limits the uses to those suitable for residential riverfront development and also allows flexibility in design that is really appropriate for this area. I really don't find there have been any changes of an economic, physical or social nature to this area so I really don't feel that finding is necessary. Staff does recommend approval that this proposal is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed district RF-4 is more appropriate than the existing district of R-2 as described above to satisfy the required findings of KRS 100.213/Section 7.05. Chairman McKee: Commissioners, questions for Mr. Freese? David Dixon: Could you repeat how the cul-de-sac issue will be remedied? Curt Freese: Essentially if a school bus is to turn around on this cul-de-sac, right now if this wasn't changed, the school bus would have to stop on South Main. If you bought one of these houses you would have to walk your kid down to South Main to have your kids picked up. If they are to have this 3 capacity they need at least a thirty-eight (38) foot cul-de-sac. If a fire truck is to turn around in the cul-de-sac they need a forty-six (46) foot cul-de-sac. David Williams: Curt, what is the recommended diameter for the cul-de-sac from ... Curt Freese: Well, that is the thing right now, with this request, it really only requires a thirty (30) foot cul-de-sac. David Williams: Yes, but what has Staff recommended for this? Curt Freese: Staff would recommend at least a thirty-eight (38) foot. David Williams: Thirty-eight (38), at least a thirty-eight (38) foot. Curt Freese: At least a thirty-eight. David Williams: But forty-eight (48) for a fire truck? Curt Freese: It's forty-six (46). David Williams: Forty-six (46) for a fire truck. Taunya Eyre: Will a Development Plan come back to us with the specifications or is it completed? Curt Freese: I think if you just added as a condition to this Development Plan they can submit it back to Staff and we'll just put it the packet since it's a very minor detail without them coming back before you. Taunya Eyre: Ok. Chairman McKee: Other questions? David Williams: I have one for the developer Mr. Chairman. Chairman McKee: Who is representing the developer? Mr. Calvert you've been sworn in so please proceed. Go ahead David. 4 David Williams: I just want to hear what you would have to say, I'm leaning towards making it a forty-six (46) diameter cul-de-sac so, what kind of comments do you have for that? Matt Calvert: Bigger is always nicer but going back with the Sub Regs, the Sub Regs say thirty-five (35) foot. Typically with bigger cui-de-sacs you just have people parking on the corners so it's not usable space anyhow. I see nothing wrong with leaving it as a thirty-five (35). David Williams: If we had people parking there we still couldn't get the school buses around? Matt Calvert: Either way I don't believe you would. David Williams: Let me ask you this, with the house and development you proposed here, do you see much in the way of on-street parking? Are you providing off-street parking to accommodate the needs of the neighborhood? Matt Calvert: You would need to address that to the developers. Chairman McKee: Mr. Hazelwood would you please state your name and address. Brad Hazelwood: Brad Hazelwood 622 Merritt Drive. Chairman McKee: Do you swear the statements you are about to make are truths to the best of your knowledge? Brad Hazelwood: Yes sir. Chairman McKee: Thank you sir, please proceed. David Williams: Brad, I'm really concerned about the safety aspects here but I do not want to cause any undo harm to you as a developer but I'm leaning towards the larger of the diameter for this cul-de-sac. Do you want to make an argument to me to before we approve. Brad Hazelwood: Yes sir I would like to. The regulations call for smaller than what we have proposed. We have enlarged it enough for a school bus to get around even though it does not have to and hopefully a fire truck will never 5 have to go back there but if it does, there's a driveway. For a fire truck to make a radius turn it takes a lot of room but if he pulls up and backs up in the driveway just a little bit, he can get on around. What we're going to do if you make us make these larger, you're taking ten feet of yard space of the people that live around and for no more than I think a fire truck would be there and no more inconvenient for it would be for him to partially back into a driveway, I think that's asking too much. David Williams: Now, fire trucks are not just called for fires if someone has a heart-attack they have to go out for that, any sort of emergency call they go out with the EMT so it wouldn't necessarily be a fire. If you own one of these houses, how would you about someone backing a fire truck into your driveway? Brad Hazelwood: Personally, I would rather have that than loose ten feet of yard space. I would rather have the green space. Matt Calvert: One point I would like to make is the curbs around this cul-de- sac are mountable, they are rolled curbs it would be easy for a fire truck or ambulance to jump that curb and still turn around within the right of way. Brad Hazelwood: There is quite a bit more expense, there's a whole lot more asphalt, a whole lot more curb, there's a whole lot expense to the larger and we are doing more than you do request. David Williams: So you are proposing, what now, thirty-five (35) feet? What are you proposing? Brad Hazelwood: I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, I thought it was thirty- eight (38) feet. Thirty-five (35), I'm sorry. David Williams: Thirty-five (35) feet, ok Brad Hazelwood: We don't have to design it for a school bus but we are designing it for a school bus. 6  David Williams: I hope you understand our situation that we have to, we are looking down the road for other developers and don't want to set any precedence here that we might have to overcome. Taunya Eyre: But this is what our Subdivision Regs state is thirty (30), correct? Curt Freese: It is but in the last five (5) to six (6) years we've required forty- six (46) I think actually forty-five (45) on all the subdivisions I guess really, since Gray Stone I believe or Bent Creek they've all been required to have forty-five feet at least and the reason for that is because a letter came in from the school district and from engineering and for whatever reason it was never updated, the table was never updated and we were looking to do that for this month but we needed to get all the information in but that will probably be forthcoming in the next month or two. Taunya Eyre: Back to my practicality, from a practical standpoint, I really don't see a lot of school kids living at this area given the location. Do you anticipate a bunch of young families living back there Mr. Hazelwood? Brad Hazelwood: We just want families. If they have children or not I really don't know. Tauyna Eyre: You know what I'm saying. Chairman McKee: Any more questions for Mr. Calvert or Mr. Hazelwood? Brad Hazelwood: I do think that if you go back Bruce Street, our cul-de-sac will be just as large as what's there and will have just as easy or better access than anything else in the area. Chairman McKee: Thank you gentlemen, will you be around for more questions if needed? Brad Hazelwood: Yes sir. , Chairman McKee: Thank you, any other questions from Commissioners, anyone to speak for this proposal? Denny you're sworn in, please proceed. 7 Dennis Branson: I wasn't aware that a turning radius of a bus was thirty-eight (38) feet; we've been making our cul-de-sac radius' forty (40) and forty-five (45) feet since 2005 which is what the school board asked for. I don't see any need for it to be any greater, frankly than what the turning radius is for a school bus and if they're proposing it at thirty-eight (38) feet and if it is true that that's what the turning radius of a school bus is than I think that should be adequate. I live at the very end of a cul-de-sac in Wolf Hills, you run right into my driveway. I can tell you that a car can't turn around in my cul-de-sac. Chairman McKee: Without getting on a driveway. Dennis Branson: Can't do it. David Williams: How large is your radius Denny? Dennis Branson: It's probably forty (40) foot. David Williams: Ok, is that because of people parked in the cul-de-sac? Dennis Branson: Yeah, yeah. Makes me so mad, but it happens. If you go in any subdivision, that's probably not going to be true, I would say if you go into a lot of subdivisions that cui-de-sacs it really won't matter what the radius is, a fire truck is not going to turn around a school bus is not going to turn around and a school bus is not going to go down it to start with. But, the school board did ask for a minimum of forty-five (45) feet in 2005, that you have to take into consideration, I think if you're thinking about changing the Subdivision Regulations to accommodate them. But from a practical standpoint, depending on the length of the cul-de-sac a school bus is not going to go down that cul-de-sac anyway. You've got to think about the practicality of it, it's for vehicular traffic and even in a cul-de-sac if you have one car parked on the side of the street in the bulb of a cul-de-sac another car cannot make, maybe not at all, but at least can't make a comfortable complete turn without backing up. So, I don't know that spending a lot of time thinking about what should we do, if you're not going to make it a hundred (100) feet wide then I wouldn't try making it where a school bus can turn around in it if the school bus is not going to go down it anyway or a fire truck can turn around because if it's going down in that cul-de-sac for a reason it's not coming back out until it's job is 8 done anyway so it's not going to be turning around without maneuvering to begin with. So, from a practical standpoint yeah, it should be big but if you're going to make them big make them big enough. Make them a hundred (100) feet or leave them. Chairman McKee: When you say a school bus isn't going to go down in the cul- de-sac anyway, how would a school bus pick up school kids that lived on the street? Dennis Branson: I live on Kelly Court; school buses don't come down my street. Taunya Eyre: They walk to a bus stop. Dennis Branson: I'm pretty sure and I'm not positive about this but I'm pretty sure the school buses just don't go down cui-de-sacs. Now this one, maybe depending on the length maybe they would I don't know but I know as a general rule you see them dropping the kids off in subdivisions at the intersection of the cul-de-sac and the arterial. The radius of the cul-de-sac, I just think it's a lot of worry over nothing at this point until we further analyze it and see where we really want to land. I can tell you we've been making cul- de-sac radius bigger and it's been a waste of money except for aesthetics, they're prettier. Chairman McKee: Any other questions for Mr. Branson? Thank you sir, anybody else want to speak for or against this proposal? Yes sir, would you please state your name and address for the record? Mike Coffman: Mike Coffman 1714 South Main Street, Henderson. Chairman McKee: Do you swear the statements you are about to make are the truths to the best of your knowledge? Mike Coffman: Yes sir. Chairman McKee: Thank you sir and please proceed. Mike Coffman: I just wanted to bring up some points, not necessarily for or against the project. Currently, the school buses stop at Hackberry and Main. 9 All the kids in the back of the neighborhood have walked back there for years and come up there. I mean it's not an exceptional distance but if it's real cold I can understand they wouldn't want to do it but they've done it for years. The twenty-seven (27) dwellings, are they going to be on that primary street only? Curt Freese: That's being rezoned yes, there's an extra six (6) lots on Hackberry. Mike Coffman: On the new streets. Curt Freese: You can kind of see it back there on the plan. Mike Coffman: Yes. Curt Freese: They've got six extra lots ... Mike Coffman: I wanted to ask you about the ones along Hackberry going down to Main. Curt Freese: Those are not part of this request because they don't need to be rezoned; they can do that right now, they can just come to our office and legally create those lots. Mike Coffman: Ok, but they don't have any plans for building stuff currently? Curt Freese: Not at this time and not before the board. Mike Coffman: I heard a rumor that Hackberry is going to be widened, is that true? Curt Freese: I believe to facilitate this development they will widen Hackberry, yes. Mike Coffman: The fire trucks have a hard time getting turned there and they ' go back there a lot. They go back onto Bruce and the other streets back there quite a bit so, God forbid they have to go back there but that's the way it is. That's all I have, thank you. Chairman McKee: Thank you Mr. Coffman. Curt Freese: I think probably Buzzy could speak on widening Hackberry. 10 Chairman McKee: Out of an abundance of caution Mr. Newman, will you please state your name and address? William Newman, Jr.: William Newman, Jr., 2110 Locust Drive. Chairman McKee: Do you swear the statements you are about to make are the truths to the best of your knowledge? William Newman, Jr: Yes I do. Chairman McKee: Thank you sir, please proceed. William Newman Jr.: To answer Curt's question, we have met, the City has met with the developer and have looked at proposed plans in the future of widening Hackberry. The question was asked would the City consider widening the other side, let me say not widening but at least bring Hackberry up to current City standards of installing curb, gutter and sidewalk. The answer is right now, it is not in our five year plan to do but it is not to say that the project cannot be proposed to be done as part of the development in the future. I will tell you the City is committed to extending sidewalks all the way down to Drury Lane along South Main which will, in part, connect with this proposed development to help sustain the walkability of our community. The Henderson Water Utility in conjunction with City's Public Works department last year cleared out the tree row along South Main Street to help the visibility and help with better driving surfaces in the winter because the tree line that encompassed South Main often presented icy conditions and by getting rid of the trees it allows the pavement to drain off properly because new drainage ditches have been constructed but also allows the sun to get on the pavement and allow the pavement to melt during snow and ice events. There have been improvements down in that area. Is it in support of this development? Partially it is but partially its plans we already had on the table to do so; both projects are sort of working hand in hand. There would need to be some communication and coordination of once Hackberry is widened by the developer on the South side of Hackberry. 11 Chairman McKee: Questions for Mr. Newman? Thank you sir. May I ask you one more question Mr. Newman? Do you have an opinion on the size of that cul-de-sac? William Newman, Jr.: I'm going to base my information on the facts currently the regs say thirty-five (35) feet. As you've heard tonight we were going to look at that in the future and I think it's time we do look at it. I do agree with what Denny said though, reality is, we see this often in subdivisions where people do park in cui-de-sacs which defeats the purpose of vehicles trying to turn around in those cui-de-sacs whether it's a thirty-five (35), forty (40) or a forty-five (45) as Denny states, it's almost going to be impossible. But I also think Mr. Coffman maybe has cleared up some of the concerns that currently the school buses stop at Hackberry and South Main. I asked Mr. Stroud the same question, what do they do in other subdivisions. Basically from our knowledge, school buses do not typically go into a street that has a cul-de-sac on it so most of the time the kids have to walk out and meet the bus. Chairman McKee: That's interesting in lieu ofthe letter that came from the school board to ask for the cul-de-sac to be larger, why, if they aren't going down there anyway, why? William Newman, Jr.: I think it's a good point that we get all the interested parties together and sit down and try to work this out in the future. It's an important issue, I see it's important to the developer today but I also think it's important for our planning going forward. What is the right thing to do? So you all are not put in this position of trying to make a difficult decision without all the facts. Hopefully, we can bring that back to you all in the near future. Chairman McKee: Questions for Mr. Newman? Thank you sir, anyone else to speak for or against this proposal? Mr. Hazelwood, you've been sworn in please proceed. Brad Hazelwood: I would like to say something to Mr. Coffman, is that correct? We want to be a good neighbor and that's our intentions one hundred (100) percent and even though that developing Hackberry itself is 12 not part of this rezoning, we are going to develop Hackberry and build streets down the side of Hackberry. We are going to put curb and gutter and we are going to widen that street out, we haven't got a final design done but the street on our side will be widened three (3) to four (4) feet with concrete curb and gutter. We will have five (5) lots, five (5) driveways coming out on Hackberry, single family homes there. We want to develop Henderson's riverfront, we want to be a good neighbor, we want to bring something to the table that will enhance Henderson's riverfront and we're all about that. My partners and I have spent a lot of money down there getting this project ready to go and we really hope that you all approve this for us tonight. We're going to start building immediately if you do approve it, we're planning on the first house on Hackberry starting the first of March and then within two (2) months we will be starting homes on the riverfront. We would really appreciate your ' consideration in this and it's been a long time since this many homes have been built in Henderson and we're really, really hoping we can get this thing going and our intention is to build this thing out in three (3) years. Whether that will happen or not we don't know but we feel like the time is right and we sure do appreciate you giving this your consideration. Chairman McKee: Question for staff; the statement Mr. Hazelwood made about widening Hackberry with curb and gutter, is that binding on him after said here in this ... Curt Freese: I believe it's binding if you make it a condition but that might be a question for our attorney. Chairman McKee: Maybe I should ask you Mr. Hazelwood ... Taunya Eyre: Hackberry's not being rezoned ... Chairman McKee: Did you intend on it to be binding? Brad Hazelwood: We have every intention of widening our side of Hackberry and putting curb and gutter down thru there. Do I want to spend the money to do it? No. Will it improve this area? A lot, yes. 13 David Williams: Does your design call for sidewalks on that side of Hackberry? Brad Hazelwood: Excuse me? David Williams: Does your design call for sidewalks on that side of Hackberry as well? Brad Hazelwood: When you say our design, we haven't gotten everything done but yes, we are planning on putting sidewalks down Hackberry. Curt Freese: They have to now. We changed the regulation last year that any development in the City requires a sidewalk. David Williams: I was just pressing the point. Curt Freese: I just wanted to put it out there. Chairman McKee: Thank you Mr. Hazelwood, very helpful. Anybody else to speak for or against this proposal? Commissioners, do you have any further questions? Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. MOTION WAS MADE BY TAUNYA EYRE, SECONDED BY DAVID DIXON TO APPROVE REZONING #1045 WITH DEVELOPMENT PLAN GIVEN THAT IT IS CONSISTENT AND IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE DESIGN AND PROJECT IS CREATIVE AND FLEXIBLE AND SATISFIES LAND USE OBJECTIVE #3 AND LAND USE OBJECTIVE #5. ALL IN FAVOR: AYE OPPOSED: NONE 14 Executive Session