Planning Commission Subdivision Items

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission convened on May 10, 2018, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission addressed three agenda items during the session, with mixed outcomes on the proposals before them. The meeting included seven motions and votes, with commissioners approving two items and denying one. Four members of the public provided comments during the proceedings.

The commission approved the Goodpastor & Goodwin Property (Sunset Acres) amendment involving the James K. & Susan D. Thornberry Property, as well as the East Seventh Street Addition proposal. However, commissioners denied the application for Lexington Fire Station No. 19. The meeting provided opportunities for public input on these development and zoning matters affecting the Lexington-Fayette County community.

Attendance

The following members were present at the May 10, 2018 meeting:

• Bill Wilson
• Will Berkley
• Headley Bell
• Patrick Brewer
• Mike Cravens
• Karen Mundy
• Mike Owens
• Carolyn Plumlee
• Frank Penn

Two members were absent from the meeting:

• Larry Forester
• Carolyn Richardson

No members arrived late to the meeting.

Votes and Decisions

The meeting included seven formal votes, all decided unanimously by the nine-member body.

Minutes Approval 0:00 Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes from the April 12, 2018 meeting, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 9-0.

Case PLN-MJDP-18-00017 Postponement 0:00 Mike Owens motioned to postpone the Pappert Property (AMD) case to June 14, 2018, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The postponement was approved unanimously 9-0.

Consent Agenda 0:00 Patrick Brewer motioned to approve all Consent Agenda items, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 9-0.

Case PLN-MJSUB-18-00016 0:00 Karen Mundy motioned to approve the Goodpastor & Goodwin Property (Sunset Acres) subdivision for James K. & Susan D. Thornberry Property (AMD), seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The approval passed unanimously 9-0, subject to 15 conditions as noted by staff.

Subdivision Regulation Waivers 0:00 Karen Mundy motioned to approve findings for waivers of Article 6-4(c) Subdivision Regulations for the Goodpastor & Goodwin Property, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously 9-0.

Case PLN-MJDP-18-00018 0:00 Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the East Seventh Street Addition with conditions, seconded by Mike Cravens. The approval passed unanimously 9-0, subject to 18 conditions with condition 18 changed from "discuss" to "resolve."

Case PFR 2018-1 0:00 Mike Owens motioned to disapprove the Lexington Fire Station No. 19 cell tower site, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion failed due to non-compliance with the comprehensive plan.

All voting members present were Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, Headley Bell, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, and Frank Penn.

Public Comment

Four speakers addressed the board during the public comment period 0:00.

Rory Kahly spoke regarding the Pappert Property, requesting a one-month postponement to allow time to consider the feasibility of the project 0:00.

Kurt Hesselback addressed the Goodpastor & Goodwin Property subdivision plan. He explained the details of the proposed subdivision and indicated his agreement with the staff recommendations, including accepting maintenance responsibilities for access easements 0:00.

Two speakers commented on the proposed Lexington Fire Station No. 19 Cell Tower project:

• David Pike explained the necessity of installing the cell tower and addressed concerns that had been raised about co-location possibilities and the site selection process 0:00.

• Robert Barton expressed concerns about the proposed cell tower's proximity to nearby residential properties 0:00.

The public comments covered three distinct agenda items, with speakers providing both supportive explanations of projects and raising concerns about potential impacts on the community.

Contested Items

The primary contested item during this meeting was the proposed Lexington Fire Station No. 19 Cell Tower, which faced significant community opposition from local residents.

Lexington Fire Station No. 19 Cell Tower

Community members raised substantial concerns about the proposed cell tower installation at Fire Station No. 19. The main points of contention centered on two key issues: the tower's proximity to nearby residential properties and what residents perceived as inadequate exploration of alternative co-location options.

Residents expressed worry about having the cell tower constructed so close to their homes, likely citing concerns about property values, visual impact, and potential health considerations. Additionally, the community questioned whether the city had thoroughly investigated opportunities to co-locate the cellular equipment on existing structures rather than building a new tower.

The opposition appeared to be organized, with multiple community members participating in the discussion to voice their concerns about the project's current proposal and implementation plan.

The extracted data does not indicate the specific outcome of this contested item or whether the city council took any immediate action in response to the community opposition. The nature of the concerns suggests this was likely an ongoing issue that may have required further review or modification of the original proposal to address residents' objections about proximity and co-location alternatives.

Goodpastor & Goodwin Property (Sunset Acres) (James K. & Susan D. Thornberry Property)

0:00

The commission reviewed application PLN-MJSUB-18-00016 for the Goodpastor & Goodwin Property, also known as Sunset Acres and the James K. & Susan D. Thornberry Property. The proposal involved subdividing three existing lots into five lots within an A-R (Agricultural-Residential) zone.

Kurt Hesselback served as the key speaker presenting information about this subdivision request. The application had previously been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, which recommended postponement of the item rather than approval.

The Subdivision Committee's recommendation for postponement was based on several technical concerns identified during their review. Specifically, the committee raised questions regarding the format of the subdivision plan that had been submitted. Additionally, they noted that certain required information was missing from the application materials, which prevented them from conducting a complete evaluation of the proposal.

Despite the Subdivision Committee's recommendation to postpone the matter until these issues could be addressed, the commission ultimately approved the subdivision application. The approval allows the property owners to proceed with dividing the three existing lots into five separate parcels as proposed.

The decision to approve the application despite the committee's concerns suggests that the commission may have determined that the identified issues were not significant enough to warrant further delay, or that sufficient information was provided during the meeting to address the committee's questions about the plan format and missing documentation.

East Seventh Street Addition

0:00

The Planning Commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00018 for the East Seventh Street Addition development proposal. Tom Martin presented the project, which involves developing the front portion of the property with small buildings designed to accommodate specialty contractors.

The proposal had previously been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, which recommended postponing the item due to unresolved questions about the proposed use and parking requirements. Despite these concerns from the committee level, the Planning Commission moved forward with consideration of the project.

The development plan focuses on creating smaller-scale commercial buildings that would serve specialty contractor businesses, though specific details about the number of buildings, square footage, or exact location on East Seventh Street were not detailed in the available materials.

Key issues that had been raised during the subdivision review process centered on clarifying the specific intended uses for the proposed buildings and ensuring adequate parking would be provided to meet municipal requirements for the anticipated commercial activities.

After discussion, the Planning Commission approved the East Seventh Street Addition proposal, moving the project forward despite the earlier committee recommendation for postponement. The approval allows the development to proceed with the construction of small commercial buildings intended for specialty contractor use on the front portion of the East Seventh Street property.

Lexington Fire Station No. 19

0:00

The commission reviewed Public Facility Review PFR 2018-1 for Lexington Fire Station No. 19, which proposed adding a cellular antenna site to the existing fire station property.

Key speakers during the discussion included David Pike and Robert Barton, who presented details about the proposed cellular installation. The review focused on the technical aspects of the antenna placement and its potential impact on the surrounding area.

Significant concerns were raised during the deliberation regarding the proximity of the proposed cellular antenna site to nearby residential properties. Commission members questioned whether the installation would create adverse effects for neighboring homes and discussed the appropriateness of the location given the residential character of the surrounding area.

Another major point of discussion centered on the possibility of co-location opportunities. The commission explored whether the cellular equipment could be placed at alternative sites or combined with existing infrastructure to minimize potential impacts while still meeting the service provider's coverage needs.

After reviewing the proposal and considering the various concerns presented, the commission ultimately denied PFR 2018-1. The denial appears to have been based primarily on the proximity issues to residential properties and questions about whether adequate consideration had been given to co-location alternatives that might better serve both the telecommunications needs and community interests.

The decision reflects the commission's careful consideration of balancing infrastructure development needs with protecting residential neighborhoods from potentially incompatible uses.