Planning Commission Subdivision Public Hearing

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission met on March 14, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Urban County Government Building, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included seven agenda items, ten motions and votes, and four public comments.

The Commission addressed a mix of development and amendment proposals. Three items were postponed: the Distillery District (Final Record Plat), Deerfield Shopping Center (Development Plan), and Sams Property (Development Plan). Four items were approved: Forest Park Addition, Block E, Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 (AMD); Berry Hill Development B-6P Prop., Lots 1 & 2 (AMD); and Scioto Memorial Hospital (AMD). The Commission also denied William Kevin Murphy's appeal of a Board of Architectural Review decision.

Attendance

Present: Mike Owens, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, Frank Penn, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Carolyn Plumlee, and William Wilson

Absent: Eunice Beatty, Patrick Brewer, Will Berkley, and Karen Mundy

Late arrivals: None

Votes and Decisions

Approval of Minutes from January 17, 2013 10:17 Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. Voting in favor: Mike Owens, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, Frank Penn, Lynn Roche-Phillips, Carolyn Plumlee, and William Wilson.

Postponement of PLAN 2013-17F: Distillery District to March 28, 2013 11:21 Motion by Mr. Cravens, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions.

Postponement of ZDP 2012-76: Deerfield Shopping Center to April 11, 2013 12:25 Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions.

Postponement of DP 2013-6: Sams Property (AMD) to April 11, 2013 13:33 Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Penn. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions.

Approval of Consent Agenda Items (except DP 2013-24: Scioto Memorial Hospital) 18:33 Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Ms. Roche-Phillips. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions.

Approval of PLAN 2013-9F: Forest Park Addition with Revised Conditions 27:54 Motion by Ms. Plumlee, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. Approval includes 14 conditions addressing drainage, traffic, landscaping, addressing, tree protection, utilities, and lot specifications.

Approval of DP 2013-11: Berry Hill Development B-6P Prop., Lots 1 & 2 (AMD) 31:17 Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. Approval includes 14 conditions addressing engineering, traffic, landscaping, fire safety, waste management, and drainage requirements.

Approval of DP 2013-24: Scioto Memorial Hospital (AMD) 43:11 Motion by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Penn. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions. Approval includes 16 conditions addressing engineering, traffic, landscaping, fire safety, zoning compliance, and floodplain requirements.

Disapproval of BOAR 2013-1: William Kevin Murphy Appeal 208:06 Motion by Ms. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 abstentions.

Recommendation to Board of Architectural Review to Review COA to Incorporate Landscaping Plan 20:40 Motion by Ms. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Cravens. Passed by voice vote with 4 ayes and 3 nays. Voting in favor: Mike Owens, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, and Lynn Roche-Phillips. Voting against: Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and William Wilson.

Public Comment

Four speakers addressed the board during the public comment period.

Deric Haley 17:17 spoke regarding the Scioto Memorial Hospital amendment. He requested removal of DP 2013-24 from the consent agenda to allow for further discussion, citing the need for expedited review due to construction delays.

William Kevin Murphy 59:11 appealed a Board of Architectural Review decision. He argued that a landscaping condition from 2001 was not properly enforced and that the Board of Architectural Review failed to consider all evidence, including a handwritten note requiring a planting plan.

Dick Murphy 1:24:41 defended the Board of Architectural Review decision. He stated that the 2012 approval of the deck extension was appropriate, noting that the landscaping condition was met in 2001 and that the applicant had complied with all procedures, including submitting a new landscape plan.

Betty Kerr 1:49:31 provided clarification from the Historic Preservation Office. She explained that the Board of Architectural Review only reviews what is requested by the applicant and that conditions are only added if they are directly tied to the request, rather than being imposed arbitrarily.

Contested Items

Enforcement of Landscaping Condition from 2001

A heated discussion arose regarding the enforceability of a landscaping condition that had been imposed in 2001. The core disagreement centered on whether this condition could be enforced despite not appearing on the Certificate of Appropriateness.

The appeal involved detailed debate over several interconnected issues:

• Historical records: Participants disputed what documentation existed regarding the original 2001 condition and how it had been recorded
• Procedural fairness: Questions were raised about whether enforcing an unlisted condition violated proper procedures
• Board authority: The discussion examined the role and responsibilities of the Board of Architectural Review in applying and enforcing conditions from prior approvals

The nature of the dispute was characterized as a heated discussion, indicating significant disagreement among the parties involved about how to resolve the discrepancy between the condition's existence and its absence from official documentation.

Distillery District (Final Record Plat)

Plan Identifier: PLAN 2013-17F

Outcome: Postponed to March 28, 2013

The Commission considered the final record plat for the Distillery District during this meeting 10:50. Justin Drury presented the item to the Commission.

The applicant requested a postponement of the plan to allow for additional time. The Commission granted this request without objection from either the audience or Commission members present. No specific concerns or substantive discussion of the plat details were recorded during this agenda item, as the focus was on accommodating the applicant's scheduling needs.

Deerfield Shopping Center (Development Plan)

Identifier: ZDP 2012-76

Mr. Martin presented the development plan for Deerfield Shopping Center 11:55.

The applicant requested a postponement of the plan review. Following this request, the Commission proceeded without objections from either the audience or Commission members present.

Outcome: The plan was postponed to April 11, 2013.

Sams Property (AMD) (Development Plan)

Identifier: DP 2013-6

Discussion Summary

Mr. Martin presented the Sams Property development plan amendment to the Commission 13:00. The applicant requested a postponement of the item to allow for additional time before proceeding with the review.

Outcome

The Commission voted to postpone consideration of the Sams Property (AMD) (Development Plan) to April 11, 2013. The postponement was granted following the applicant's request, and no objections were raised by either audience members or Commission members present at the meeting.

Forest Park Addition, Block E, Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 (AMD)

Plan Identifier: PLAN 2013-9F

The board discussed and approved the Forest Park Addition, Block E, Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 amendment proposal 20:10. Key speakers in this discussion included Mr. Martin and Dick Murphy.

The plan was approved with revised conditions. The approval required two specific modifications to the proposal:

• The non-conforming structure on Lot 1 must be denoted on the plan
• Lot geometrics must be addressed

The outcome of the discussion was approval of the amendment with these conditions incorporated into the final plan.

Berry Hill Development B-6P Prop., Lots 1 & 2 (AMD)

Identifier: DP 2013-11

The development proposal for Berry Hill Development B-6P Property, Lots 1 & 2 was discussed and approved during this meeting. 29:03

Key Speakers

Ms. Cull and Brandy Martin presented on this agenda item.

Outcome

The plan was approved with 14 conditions attached to the approval.

Conditions of Approval

The approval included requirements addressing:

• Resolution of drainage issues
• Compliance with tree canopy requirements

Scioto Memorial Hospital (AMD)

Identifier: DP 2013-24

Type: Discussion

Outcome: Approved

The plan for Scioto Memorial Hospital (AMD) was presented for consideration 31:57. Key speakers on this item included Mr. Martin and John Hill.

The applicant requested expedited processing of the plan. In response to this request, the plan was approved with 16 conditions. Notably, the approval excluded the requirement for Technical Committee review, which would normally be part of the standard review process.

The plan received approval by the decision-making body at this meeting.

William Kevin Murphy – Appeal of Board of Architectural Review

Identifier: BOAR 2013-1

Outcome: The appeal was denied, upholding the Board of Architectural Review's decision. A subsequent motion was made to recommend that the Board review the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to incorporate the landscaping plan.

Key Speakers: - William Kevin Murphy - Dick Murphy - Betty Kerr

Discussion Summary:

The meeting included discussion of William Kevin Murphy's appeal of a Board of Architectural Review decision. The appeal centered on matters related to a Certificate of Appropriateness and associated landscaping plans for the property in question.

Following the presentation and deliberation on the appeal, the body voted to deny the appeal, thereby upholding the original Board of Architectural Review decision. However, recognizing the landscaping plan as a relevant consideration, a motion was subsequently made to recommend that the Board of Architectural Review review the Certificate of Appropriateness with the intent to incorporate the landscaping plan into the approval.

This dual outcome—denying the appeal while recommending further review of the COA with landscaping considerations—reflected the body's position on both the procedural appeal and the substantive design elements at issue.

43:41