Planning Commission Meeting

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission met on November 10, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Cravens presided over the meeting, which addressed eight agenda items. The Commission took six votes during the session and heard seven public comments.

Of the eight items considered, seven were approved and one was postponed. Approved items included the Gess Property Unit 6-I, Care Inn of Lexington (White & Curless Property), Bread Box Lexington, Newmarket Units 7 and 1, Red Mile Mixed-Use Development, Sharkey Property Unit 3, and a Zone Map Amendment for ND-1 Design Standard Amendment. The appeal by Kathy and Shailendra Chopra regarding a Board of Architectural Review denial was postponed.

Attendance

Present: Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, Marie Copeland, Frank Penn, Eunice Beatty, Carla Blanton, Derek Paulsen, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and William Wilson.

Absent: Will Berkley and Patrick Brewer.

Late: Eunice Beatty.

Votes and Decisions

Postponement of BOAR 2011-2: Kathy and Shailendra Chopra Appeal 6:35 Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips. The Board of Architectural Review denial appeal was postponed by voice vote with no opposition.

Approval of Consent Agenda 9:28 Motion by Eunice Beatty, seconded by William Wilson. The following items were approved by voice vote with no opposition: - PLAN 2011-113F - DP 2011-89 - DP 2011-90 - DP 2006-37

DP 2011-91: Red Mile Mixed-Use Development 42:21 Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips. The development was approved by voice vote with no opposition. The approval includes 13 staff conditions plus one additional condition: - Urban County Engineer's acceptance of drainage, storm, and sanitary sewers - Urban County Traffic Engineer's approval of street cross-sections and access - Building Inspection's approval of landscaping and landscape buffers - Addressing Office's approval of street names and addresses - Urban Forester's approval of tree protection plan - Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas - Bike and Pedestrian Planner's approval of bike trails and pedestrian facilities - Greenspace Planner's approval of greenways and greenspace treatment - Division of Fire's approval of emergency access and fire hydrant locations - Division of Waste Management's approval of refuse collection - Correction of cul-de-sac detail conflict with plan - Addition of notes regarding traffic signals to Division of Traffic Engineering approval - Revision of note #10 regarding Red Mile Road widening and intersection improvements at Versailles Road and South Broadway when 50% of commercial floor area is developed - Specification of 168 residential units

Approval of Release and Call of Bonds 43:25 Motion by William Wilson, seconded by Eunice Beatty. Subdivision bond items were approved by voice vote with no opposition.

Plan 2007-82F: Sharkey Property, Unit 3 Reapproval 46:17 Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Mike Owens. The reapproval with amended conditions 3 and 5 passed by voice vote with no opposition.

MAR 2011-15: Zone Map Amendment 2:09:13 Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carla Blanton. The amendment to modify ND-1 design standards to allow retaining walls in front yards was approved by voice vote with no opposition. The amendment includes specifications on fence and wall materials, heights, and placement restrictions.

Public Comment

Seven speakers addressed the council regarding a proposed retaining wall amendment.

Support for the Amendment

Chuck Eckerlein, owner of the retaining wall in question, spoke at 1:13:33 in support of retaining the wall. He stated that the wall was built to prevent sidewalk erosion and protect public safety, and noted that the neighborhood voted 73% in favor of the amendment. He emphasized that moving the wall would be unreasonable and impossible.

Stan Harvey, board member of Neighbors of Montclair, spoke at 1:15:53 in support of the amendment. He explained that the amendment was requested to clarify the intent of the ND-1 overlay, which was never intended to ban retaining walls. He emphasized the neighborhood's extensive process and consensus on the matter.

Mitzi Eckerlein spoke at 1:45:20 providing a structural engineer's report and personal testimony explaining that the wall was built for safety reasons, including preventing injuries from falls and protecting elderly pedestrians.

Opposition to the Amendment

Jerry Price objected to the amendment at 1:21:02, arguing it was not a simple clarification and that the process lacked proper community input. He questioned the fairness of changing standards after the fact.

Ray Pace expressed concerns at 1:24:50 that the final amendment wording differed from the original postcard, and questioned the fairness of allowing a nonconforming wall while imposing new restrictions on others.

Tip Richman raised safety concerns at 1:27:46 about visibility and safety for wheelchair users and pedestrians due to the wall's height and location, arguing it creates an unsafe condition.

Marie Copeland presented a detailed argument at 1:32:09 based on federal complete streets legislation, warning that allowing retaining walls at the sidewalk could jeopardize future transportation funding and violate accessibility standards.

Contested Items

Red Mile Mixed-Use Development Density and Housing Mix

Commissioners engaged in a heated discussion regarding the Red Mile Mixed-Use Development's housing density and composition. The central point of contention was whether the reduced housing count of 168 units represented an intentional design decision or resulted from plan modifications. Commissioners questioned whether the low density was appropriate for an MU-3 zone designation. An additional concern raised during the debate was the potential for future amendments that could increase the project's density, suggesting commissioners wanted clarity on whether the current proposal represented a final configuration or an interim step.

Montclair ND-1 Retaining Wall Amendment

The proposed amendment to the Montclair ND-1 retaining wall standards generated community opposition. Several residents expressed concerns about multiple aspects of the amendment, including safety implications, inadequate notice procedures, and the risk of creating nonconforming structures through the amendment's provisions. However, the amendment also had supporters who viewed it as a necessary clarification of neighborhood design intent and standards. This division reflected differing perspectives on whether the amendment represented an appropriate refinement of existing policy or an insufficiently vetted change with potential negative consequences for the neighborhood.

Kathy and Shailendra Chopra – Appeal of Board of Architectural Review denial

6:04

Kathy Chopra presented an appeal of a Board of Architectural Review denial on behalf of herself and Shailendra Chopra.

The applicant requested a postponement of the appeal hearing, citing insufficient time to adequately prepare for the proceeding.

A motion to postpone the appeal was made by Mike Owens and seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips. The motion passed with no opposition.

The appeal was rescheduled to January 12, 2012.

Gess Property, Unit 6-I (12/31/11)

Identifier: PLAN 2011-113F

Action: This item was approved as part of the consent agenda with no discussion 7:08.

Approval Conditions: The approval is subject to conditions requiring approvals from: - Urban County Engineer - Traffic Engineer - Building Inspection - Other relevant departments

Outcome: Approved

Care Inn of Lexington (White & Curless Property) (AMD) (12/31/11)

Project Identifier: DP 2011-89

Outcome: Approved as part of the consent agenda with no discussion 7:08

This agenda item was approved without debate as part of the consent agenda. The approval was subject to conditions requiring sign-off from multiple departments and officials:

• Urban County Engineer
• Traffic Engineer
• Building Inspection
• Other specified approvers

Bill Sallee was identified as a key speaker on this item. No concerns were raised during the meeting, and no substantive discussion occurred prior to the approval.

Bread Box Lexington (12/31/11)

Identifier: DP 2011-90

Overview

This item was approved as part of the consent agenda with no discussion 7:08.

Approval and Conditions

The proposal was approved subject to the following conditions:

• Removal of historic property lines
• Clarification of cross-sections
• Posting of a sign and affidavit

Key Participants

Bill Sallee was identified as a key speaker on this item.

Outcome

The item was approved.

Newmarket, Unit 7 and Unit 1 (AMD) (1/1/12)

Identifier: DP 2006-37

This item was approved as part of the consent agenda with no discussion 7:08. The approval was subject to the original conditions with a revision to condition 4 requiring the Urban Forester's approval of tree preservation and required street tree information.

Outcome: Approved

Red Mile Mixed-Use Development (12/31/11)

Identifier: DP 2011-91

The Commission discussed the Red Mile Mixed-Use Development proposal in detail during this meeting 10:10. Staff presented the project and recommended approval subject to 13 revised conditions.

Key Participants

The discussion involved Chris Taylor, Chris Westover, Mike Penn, and Lynn Roche-Phillips.

Discussion and Outcome

Staff recommended approval of the development contingent upon compliance with 13 revised conditions. During the discussion, the Commission sought additional clarification on two specific aspects of the project:

• Unit count for the development
• Traffic signal conditions

The Commission approved the Red Mile Mixed-Use Development with these conditions in place, incorporating the clarifications discussed regarding unit count and traffic signal requirements into the approval.

Sharkey Property, Unit 3 (7/12/07)

Plan Identifier: 2007-82F

Overview

The reapproval of the remaining portion of the Sharkey Property, Unit 3 plan was discussed and approved with amended conditions. 44:02

Key Participants

• Chris Taylor
• Rory Cayley

Action Taken

The plan received reapproval with modified conditions. A significant administrative change was implemented: required street tree information was transferred from Building Inspection to the Urban Forester for oversight and management.

Outcome

Approved

Zone Map Amendment: ND-1 Design Standard Amendment

The Commission discussed an amendment to allow retaining walls in front yards under the ND-1 Design Standard. The discussion began at approximately 00:49:24 in the meeting.

Key Participants

The following individuals participated in the discussion: Bill Sallee, Traci Wade, Chuck Eckerlein, Stan Harvey, Jerry Price, Ray Pace, Tip Richman, and Marie Copeland.

Discussion and Concerns

The amendment generated extensive public comment. Participants raised concerns regarding safety, compliance with existing standards, and the process used to develop the proposed design standards. Despite these concerns, the discussion proceeded with consideration of the proposed design standards for the amendment.

Outcome

The Commission approved the amendment to allow retaining walls in front yards with the proposed design standards.