Planning Commission Subdivision Items

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission met on February 11, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mike Owens presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed 11 agenda items during the session, all of which were development plans for various subdivision projects throughout the county. All 11 items on the agenda were postponed, including development plans for properties such as Patchen Place Subdivision, Brookhaven Subdivision, Beaumont Farm, Loudon Park Addition, Greendale Hills, Turfland Mall, Kingston Hall, and multiple units within the Newmarket Property development. The commission conducted 11 motions and votes during the meeting, with no public comments recorded for this session.

Attendance

The meeting on February 11, 2016 had nine members present and two absent.

Present: • Mike Owens • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • David Drake • Carolyn Plumlee • Carolyn Richardson • Joe Smith • Bill Wilson

Absent: • Karen Mundy • Frank Penn

No members arrived late to the meeting.

Votes and Decisions

The meeting consisted entirely of postponement motions, with all 11 items receiving unanimous approval for postponement by the 9-member board.

Development Plan Postponements:

• DP 2016-8 - PATCHEN PLACE SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1, LOT 4: Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

• DP 2015-114 - BROOKHAVEN SUBDIVISION (AMD): Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

• DP 2016-7 - BEAUMONT FARM, UNIT 1, SECTION 5, LOT 10: Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

• DP 2016-12 - LOUDON PARK ADDITION, BLOCK 2, LOTS 3-10: Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Bill Wilson. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

• DP 2016-11 - TURFLAND MALL (TRACT 2 & OUTLOT D) (AMD #26): Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

• DP 2004-66 - KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 1: Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Bill Wilson. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

• DP 2007-141 - NEWMARKET PROPERTY, UNIT 8: Motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

• DP 2012-80 - NEWMARKET PROPERTY, PHASE 1, UNIT 6 (AMD): Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Joe Smith. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

• DP 2004-67 - KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 2 (EAST BRIDGEFORD LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY): Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

• DP 2012-89 - NEWMARKET PROPERTY, PHASE I, UNIT 10: Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Joe Smith. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

Final Plan Postponement:

• PLAN 2016-4F - GREENDALE HILLS, UNIT 2-C: Motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Mike Cravens. Postponed unanimously (9-0).

All voting members present (Mike Owens, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, Joe Smith, and Bill Wilson) voted in favor of each postponement motion.

DP 2016-8: PATCHEN PLACE SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1, LOT 4

The Subdivision Committee recommended postponement of DP 2016-8 for Patchen Place Subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 4 during the February 11, 2016 meeting. Kevin Phillips served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item.

The postponement was recommended due to unresolved questions regarding two critical issues:

• Access to Gribbin Drive - Questions remained about the proposed access arrangements to Gribbin Drive for the subdivision
• Richmond Road Ordinance Compliance - Concerns were raised about whether the development plan met the requirements of the Richmond Road Ordinance

The committee determined that these issues needed to be addressed before the development plan could move forward for approval. The postponement allows time for the applicant to provide additional information and clarification on both the access arrangements and ordinance compliance matters.

The outcome of this agenda item was a formal postponement, meaning the development plan will need to be resubmitted or reconsidered at a future meeting once the outstanding questions have been resolved.

DP 2015-114: BROOKHAVEN SUBDIVISION (AMD)

The Subdivision Committee recommended postponement of DP 2015-114 for the Brookhaven Subdivision amendment during the February 11, 2016 meeting. Jacob Walbourn served as a key speaker for this agenda item.

The postponement was recommended due to outstanding questions regarding parking compliance for proposed restaurant uses within the development. The committee identified concerns about whether the current parking provisions would adequately serve the intended restaurant operations.

Additionally, questions were raised about outdoor site features included in the development plan. The committee determined that these outdoor elements required further review and clarification before the project could move forward.

The agenda item was ultimately postponed to allow time for the applicant to address the parking compliance issues and provide additional details about the proposed outdoor site features. This postponement ensures that all technical requirements and site planning concerns can be properly resolved before final consideration of the subdivision amendment.

DP 2016-7: BEAUMONT FARM, UNIT 1, SECTION 5, LOT 10

The development plan for Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 5, Lot 10 came before the board with a recommendation for approval from the Subdivision Committee, contingent upon meeting specified conditions. However, the item did not proceed to a vote as originally scheduled.

Abbie Jones addressed the board regarding recent modifications to the development plan that had occurred after the Subdivision Committee's review. Due to these changes, the applicant formally requested a postponement of the agenda item to allow adequate time for proper review of the revised plans.

The board granted the postponement request, recognizing that the recent alterations to the development proposal warranted additional consideration before proceeding with a final decision. The item was deferred to a future meeting to ensure all parties could properly evaluate the updated development plan materials.

No substantive discussion of the project's merits, conditions, or potential concerns took place during this meeting, as the focus remained on the procedural matter of postponement due to the plan revisions.

DP 2016-12: LOUDON PARK ADDITION, BLOCK 2, LOTS 3-10

The Planning Commission considered agenda item 4, DP 2016-12 for Loudon Park Addition, Block 2, Lots 3-10. Mark McCain served as a key speaker during the discussion of this development proposal.

The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed this item and made a recommendation to postpone consideration. The committee's decision was based on outstanding questions regarding the project's compliance with Adaptive Reuse criteria. These compliance concerns needed to be resolved before the commission could move forward with approval.

The specific nature of the Adaptive Reuse criteria questions was not detailed in the available materials, but the committee determined that these issues were significant enough to warrant postponement rather than proceeding with the review process.

Following the Subdivision Committee's recommendation, the Planning Commission voted to postpone DP 2016-12. This postponement allows time for the applicant to address the compliance questions and provide additional information regarding how the proposed development meets the required Adaptive Reuse standards.

The postponement ensures that all regulatory requirements are properly addressed before the commission makes a final determination on the Loudon Park Addition development proposal for the specified lots in Block 2.

PLAN 2016-4F: GREENDALE HILLS, UNIT 2-C

The Greendale Hills, Unit 2-C subdivision plan was scheduled for consideration as agenda item 5, but the meeting proceedings were brief due to a postponement request from the applicant.

The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions. However, before any substantive discussion could take place, the applicant requested that the item be postponed.

Rory Kahly spoke regarding this agenda item, though the specific details of the presentation or comments were not captured in the available meeting materials.

The outcome was a postponement of the Greendale Hills, Unit 2-C subdivision plan, meaning the item will be rescheduled for consideration at a future meeting. This allows the applicant additional time to address any outstanding issues or prepare revised materials before the plan returns for formal review and potential approval.

No further action was taken on this subdivision proposal during the February 11, 2016 meeting.

DP 2016-11: TURFLAND MALL (TRACT 2 & OUTLOT D) (AMD #26)

The Planning Commission considered development plan DP 2016-11 for Turfland Mall, specifically addressing Tract 2 and Outlot D as Amendment #26 to the existing development.

Rory Kahly served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The proposal came before the commission after review by the Subdivision Committee, which had significant concerns about the development plan.

The Subdivision Committee recommended postponement of the item, citing two primary issues with the proposed development. First, the committee expressed concerns about the proposed uses planned for the outlots within the development. Second, the committee noted a lack of new water quality features in the development plan, which appeared to be insufficient to meet current standards or requirements.

Based on these concerns raised by the Subdivision Committee regarding both the proposed outlot uses and the absence of adequate water quality management features, the Planning Commission decided to postpone consideration of DP 2016-11. This postponement would allow the applicant time to address the committee's concerns and potentially revise the development plan to include appropriate water quality measures and clarify or modify the proposed uses for the outlots.

The postponement ensures that the development plan will return to the Planning Commission at a future meeting once the identified issues have been resolved to the satisfaction of the reviewing committees.

DP 2004-66: KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 1

The Subdivision Committee addressed agenda item 7, DP 2004-66: Kingston Hall, Unit 1, during the February 11, 2016 meeting. Rory Kahly served as the key speaker for this discussion item.

The primary issue preventing the committee from moving forward with this development proposal centered on uncertainties regarding the Capacity Assurance Program requirements. The committee determined that without clear understanding of these program specifications, they could not adequately evaluate the proposal or make an informed decision.

Based on these concerns about the Capacity Assurance Program requirements, the Subdivision Committee recommended postponement of DP 2004-66: Kingston Hall, Unit 1. This postponement would allow time for clarification of the program requirements before the committee reconsidered the development proposal.

The outcome of this agenda item was a formal postponement, with the understanding that the matter would return to the committee once the Capacity Assurance Program requirements were better defined and understood by all parties involved in the review process.

DP 2007-141: NEWMARKET PROPERTY, UNIT 8

The committee considered agenda item 8, regarding DP 2007-141 for the Newmarket Property, Unit 8. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed this development proposal and recommended reapproval with conditions.

Rory Kahly served as the key speaker for this item, representing the applicant's position during the proceedings.

Despite the Subdivision Committee's recommendation to move forward with reapproval subject to conditions, the applicant formally requested that the matter be postponed. The specific reasons for the postponement request were not detailed in the available materials, nor were the particular conditions that the Subdivision Committee had recommended as part of their reapproval.

The committee honored the applicant's request, and the item was postponed without further discussion or debate. No concerns were raised by committee members, and no alternative motions were presented.

The postponement allows the applicant additional time to address whatever issues prompted their request for delay, whether related to the recommended conditions or other project considerations. The matter will presumably return to the committee's agenda at a future meeting once the applicant is prepared to proceed.

DP 2012-80: NEWMARKET PROPERTY, PHASE 1, UNIT 6 (AMD)

The Subdivision Committee had recommended reapproval of this development permit application with conditions for the Newmarket Property, Phase 1, Unit 6 amendment. However, the applicant requested that the item be postponed rather than proceeding with consideration at this meeting.

Rory Kahly spoke regarding this agenda item, though the specific details of the presentation or discussion were not captured in the available materials.

The development permit amendment relates to Phase 1, Unit 6 of the Newmarket Property development project. While the Subdivision Committee had already reviewed the application and provided a recommendation for reapproval subject to certain conditions, the applicant's request for postponement suggests additional time may be needed to address outstanding issues or prepare additional materials.

The outcome of this agenda item was postponement, meaning the development permit amendment will be brought back for consideration at a future meeting date to be determined.

DP 2004-67: KINGSTON HALL, UNIT 2 (EAST BRIDGEFORD LAND & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY)

The meeting addressed agenda item 10, concerning development project DP 2004-67 for Kingston Hall, Unit 2, submitted by East Bridgeford Land & Development Company.

The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed the application and recommended reapproval with conditions. However, before the full discussion could proceed, the applicant requested a postponement of the item.

Rory Kahly served as a key speaker during the brief consideration of this agenda item. The specific conditions recommended by the Subdivision Committee were not detailed during the meeting due to the postponement request.

The outcome was that the item was postponed, meaning no final decision was made on the development application at this meeting. The postponement allows the applicant additional time to address any outstanding issues or prepare additional materials before the project returns for full consideration at a future meeting.

No substantive debate or discussion of the project's merits, concerns, or technical details occurred due to the early postponement request. The item will need to be rescheduled for a subsequent meeting when the applicant is ready to proceed with the review process.

DP 2012-89: NEWMARKET PROPERTY, PHASE I, UNIT 10

The Subdivision Committee had recommended reapproval of this development project with conditions, but the applicant requested a postponement before the matter could be fully considered.

Rory Kahly spoke regarding this agenda item, though the specific details of the presentation or discussion were not captured in the available materials.

The development project, identified as Phase I, Unit 10 of the Newmarket Property, was originally approved under development permit DP 2012-89. The Subdivision Committee's recommendation for reapproval suggests the project may have required renewal or modification of its original approval conditions.

Rather than proceeding with consideration of the Subdivision Committee's recommendation, the meeting accommodated the applicant's request for postponement. No debate or detailed discussion of the project's merits, conditions, or any potential concerns took place during this meeting.

The item was postponed, allowing the applicant additional time before the development permit matter returns for future consideration.