Planning Commission Subdivision Meeting

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission convened via video teleconference on March 11, 2021, at 1:30 PM, with Larry Forester presiding as the presiding officer. The commission addressed three main agenda items during the session, taking a total of seven votes throughout the meeting. No public comments were heard during this session.

The commission accomplished significant business, approving two development-related items while denying one appeal. The approved items included the Lexington Mall Property (Planet Fitness Lexington Richmond Road) and the Gess Property, Unit 8, Phase 3. However, the commission denied the Rachel Sawyer and Brenda Sawyer Appeal. The meeting demonstrated the commission's continued work in managing urban development and planning matters for the county, even while conducting business remotely due to the ongoing pandemic circumstances at the time.

Attendance

All eleven members were present for the March 11, 2021 meeting.

Present: • Ivy Barksdale • Headley Bell • Zach Davis • Anthony de Movellan • Larry Forester • Janice Meyer • Bruce Nicol • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Graham Pohl • Bill Wilson

Absent: None

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

The commission took action on seven items during the March 11, 2021 meeting, with all votes passing unanimously.

Postponements

Two items were postponed at the beginning of the meeting 0:00. Bill Wilson motioned to postpone PLN-MJDP-20-00057 (Griffin Gate Office Park discussion), seconded by Carolyn Plumlee, passing unanimously 11-0. Immediately following, Carolyn Plumlee motioned to postpone PLN-MJDP-20-00067 (Spring Lake discussion), seconded by Bill Wilson, also passing unanimously 11-0.

Development Approvals

The commission approved four development projects:

PLN-FRP-20-00048 (Lexington Mall Property with waiver) was approved on a motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Anthony de Movellan, passing 10-0 0:00. The approval included changing conditions #10 and #11 to "resolve."

PLN-MJDP-20-00078 (Gess Property, Unit 8, Phase 3) was approved on a motion by Anthony de Movellan, seconded by Headley Bell, passing unanimously 11-0 0:00. The approval was subject to 15 listed conditions.

PLN-MJDP-20-00080 (Haynes Brothers Properties, LLC) was approved on a motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Graham Pohl, passing unanimously 11-0 0:00. The approval included changing conditions #16 and #17 to "resolve."

PLN-MJDP-20-00084 (Ethington & Ethington Property, Tract 1, Lots 2-4) was approved on a motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Bill Wilson, passing unanimously 11-0 0:00 with no additional conditions.

Board of Architectural Review Appeal

The commission upheld the Board of Architectural Review's decision regarding Rachel Sawyer and Brenda Sawyer (BOAR 2021-1) on a motion by Zach Davis, passing unanimously 11-0 0:00.

All voting members present participated in each vote: Ivy Barksdale, Headley Bell, Zach Davis, Anthony de Movellan, Larry Forester, Janice Meyer, Bruce Nicol, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Graham Pohl, and Bill Wilson.

Contested Items

The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated substantial debate among board members and participants.

Rachel Sawyer and Brenda Sawyer Appeal

The primary source of contention centered on an appeal submitted by Rachel Sawyer and Brenda Sawyer regarding the installation of vinyl clad windows in a historic district. The discussion became heated as participants debated the appropriateness of this window material within the historic preservation guidelines.

The disagreement focused on two main areas: the interpretation of existing historic district guidelines and the quality standards for vinyl clad windows. Board members and appellants presented conflicting views on whether vinyl clad windows met the aesthetic and preservation standards required for the historic district.

Arguments during the debate included discussions about: - The specific language and intent of the historic district guidelines - The visual impact and quality of vinyl clad windows compared to other approved materials - Precedent cases and how similar situations had been handled previously - The balance between property owner rights and historic preservation requirements

The lengthy nature of the debate indicated significant disagreement among the participants about how to properly interpret and apply the guidelines in this specific case. The discussion involved detailed examination of the window specifications and their compatibility with the historic character of the district.

The outcome of this contested appeal was not specified in the available meeting data, though the heated nature of the discussion suggests it was a complex decision requiring careful consideration of multiple factors including guideline interpretation, precedent, and the specific circumstances of the Sawyer property.

Lexington Mall Property (Planet Fitness Lexington Richmond Road)

0:00

The Planning Commission reviewed application PLN-FRP-20-00048 for the Lexington Mall Property, specifically related to a Planet Fitness location on Richmond Road. The applicant requested a waiver for substantial completion to Article 4-8 of the Land Subdivision Regulations.

Kevin Phillips served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The waiver request pertained to requirements under the Land Subdivision Regulations that typically govern the completion standards for development projects.

The commission ultimately approved the requested waiver for substantial completion. The approval allows the Planet Fitness project to proceed despite not meeting certain standard completion requirements outlined in Article 4-8 of the regulations.

This action represents a standard planning process where developers may seek relief from specific regulatory requirements when circumstances warrant such consideration. The approval indicates the commission found sufficient justification to grant the waiver request for this particular development at the Lexington Mall property.

Gess Property, Unit 8, Phase 3

0:00 The commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-20-00078 for the Gess Property, Unit 8, Phase 3 development amendment. Nick Nicholson served as the key speaker for this agenda item.

The proposed amendment focused on depicting the development plans for Phase 3 of the project. The application included several technical revisions to the existing development framework, including updates to site statistics that would reflect the current scope and parameters of the Phase 3 development.

As part of the amendment process, the proposal called for the removal of three existing notes from the development documentation - specifically Notes #13, #14, and #16. Additionally, the application requested a revision to Note #20 to align with the updated development plans for this phase.

The amendment represents a continuation of the multi-phase Gess Property development, with Unit 8 progressing to its third phase of construction and planning. The revisions to site statistics and notes appear to be administrative updates necessary to accommodate the specific requirements and characteristics of Phase 3 development.

Following the presentation and discussion of the application details, the commission moved forward with their deliberation on PLN-MJDP-20-00078. The agenda item concluded with the commission's approval of the proposed amendment, allowing the Gess Property Unit 8 Phase 3 development to proceed with the requested modifications to the development documentation and site statistics.

The approval enables the project to move forward with the Phase 3 development plans as amended, incorporating the revised site parameters and updated notation system outlined in the application.

Rachel Sawyer and Brenda Sawyer Appeal

0:00 The Planning Commission considered appeal BOAR 2021-1, filed by Rachel Sawyer and Brenda Sawyer challenging a decision made by the Board of Architectural Review. The appeal concerned the Board's ruling on the replacement of wood windows with vinyl clad windows on the appellants' property.

John Sawyer served as the primary speaker representing the appellants during the discussion. The case centered on whether the proposed window replacement met the architectural standards and guidelines established by the Board of Architectural Review.

The appeal process allowed the Planning Commission to review the Board of Architectural Review's original decision and determine whether it was made appropriately according to established procedures and criteria. This type of appeal typically involves examining the architectural compatibility of proposed changes with existing structures and neighborhood character.

After consideration of the appeal and any supporting materials presented, the Planning Commission denied the appeal. This decision upheld the original ruling by the Board of Architectural Review, meaning the proposed replacement of wood windows with vinyl clad windows was not approved as requested by the appellants.

The denial indicates that the Planning Commission found the Board of Architectural Review's original decision to be appropriate and in accordance with applicable architectural standards and review procedures.