URBAN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-SUBDIVISION ITEMS

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission convened on August 14, 2008, at 1:40 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Randall Vaughn presiding as chair. The commission addressed 18 agenda items during the session, taking 18 motions and votes throughout the meeting while hearing 4 public comments from attendees.

The meeting was characterized by a significant number of postponements, with 9 development plans and subdivision proposals being deferred to future meetings, including projects such as Cardinal Hill Hospital Development Plan, Red Mile Square Development Plan, and Hampton Springs Preliminary Plan. Despite the numerous postponements, the commission successfully approved 8 items, including several subdivision developments and preliminary plans such as Patchen Wilkes Unit 2B, Calumet Terrace Subdivision Lots 8 and 9, and the East Hills Shopping Center Lot 3A amended plan.

Key business accomplished included the approval of meeting minutes, multiple subdivision and development plan approvals, the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit, and setting a date and time for a Centerpoint De Novo hearing. One agenda item, the Lakeview Island Unit 3 discussion, was withdrawn from consideration. The mix of approvals, postponements, and administrative actions reflected typical planning commission business addressing both ongoing development projects and procedural matters within Lexington-Fayette County's planning process.

Attendance

The Commission meeting on August 14, 2008 had full attendance with all eight members present.

Present: • Randall Vaughn (arrived late) • Neill Day • Ed Holmes • Carolyn Richardson • Joan Whitman • Lynn Roche-Phillips • Mike Cravens • Frank Penn

Absent: None

Late Arrivals: • Randall Vaughn

All Commission members participated in the meeting, with Randall Vaughn joining the proceedings after the meeting had begun.

Votes and Decisions

The Commission conducted 18 votes during the August 14, 2008 meeting, with all motions passing unanimously by voice vote.

Administrative Actions The meeting began with approval of minutes from three previous meetings (May 8, June 10, and June 26, 2008). Lynn Roche-Phillips motioned and Frank Penn seconded, with all seven present commissioners voting in favor 2:00.

Postponements Multiple development items were postponed to the September 11, 2008 meeting: • DP 2008-79 (Cardinal Hill Hospital) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Carolyn Richardson 5:00 • DP 2008-104 (Red Mile Square) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips 11:00 • PLAN 2008-71P (Hampton Springs preliminary plan) - motioned by Mike Cravens, seconded by Joan Whitman 13:00 • PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F (Thomas Communications Units 1-C and 1-D) - motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by Randall Vaughn 15:00 • PLAN 2008-76F (Bogie Estate, Lot 1) - motioned by Ed Holmes, seconded by Joan Whitman 17:00 • DP 2008-88 (Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1) - motioned by Randall Vaughn, seconded by Joan Whitman 19:00 • PLAN 2008-102C (Gess Family Partnership Property) - motioned by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Joan Whitman 21:00

DP 2008-77 (Michael Gentry Property) was postponed indefinitely, motioned by Lynn Roche-Phillips and seconded by Mike Cravens 9:00. PLAN 2008-28F (Lakeview Island, Unit 3) was withdrawn, motioned by Mike Cravens and seconded by Carolyn Richardson 7:00.

Approvals Six development plans received approval with conditions: • PLAN 2006-75P (Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2B) reapproval with previous conditions and waiver 23:00 • PLAN 2008-2P (Calumet Terrace Subdivision, Lots 8 and 9) with staff conditions and waiver 25:00 • PLAN 2008-44F (High Mount Subdivision) with revised staff conditions 27:00 • DP 2008-80 (Chevy Chase Subdivision) with specific yard requirements 29:00 • DP 2008-117 (Berry Crest Subdivision) deleting condition 10 and granting waiver 31:00 • DP 2008-75 (East Hills Shopping Center) deleting condition 12 33:00

The Commission also approved performance bond releases 35:00 and set a date for the Centerpoint de novo hearing 37:00.

Public Comment

Four members of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period, focusing on two main agenda items.

Hampton Springs Access Issue

Keith Messinger spoke on behalf of JL and Wanda Hatter regarding the Hampton Springs access issue 13:30. Messinger referenced a past court case involving access through a private easement on the Hatters' property and expressed agreement with the staff recommendation to postpone consideration of the matter.

Chevy Chase Subdivision Garage Placement

Three speakers addressed concerns about proposed changes to the Chevy Chase Subdivision, specifically regarding garage placement requirements:

• Susan Chestnut-Lewis expressed opposition to the proposed garage placement configuration 29:30. She advocated for garage placement that would conform with existing structures in the neighborhood, citing concerns about air circulation and view impacts for residents.

• Rosalyn Harris requested that the Commission postpone consideration of the Chevy Chase Subdivision plan 29:45. Harris cited recent changes to the proposal that would affect neighborhood residents, particularly the garage placement requirements, as reasons for needing additional time for review.

• Jeff Duncan, identifying himself as President of the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association, also supported postponing the item 30:00. Duncan emphasized the importance of maintaining uniformity throughout the neighborhood, particularly with regard to garage placement standards.

All three speakers addressing the Chevy Chase Subdivision matter expressed concerns about changes to garage placement requirements and their potential impact on neighborhood character and resident welfare. The consistent theme among these commenters was a preference for either postponement or modification of the proposed changes to better align with existing neighborhood standards.

Appointments

The Commission addressed two resignations from the Urban County Planning Commission during the August 14, 2008 meeting.

• Linda Godfrey resigned from the Urban County Planning Commission
• Lyle Aiton resigned from the Urban County Planning Commission

Both resignations were formally acknowledged by the Commission, creating two vacancies on the Urban County Planning Commission that will need to be filled through the standard appointment process.

Contested Items

Two significant contested matters arose during the August 14, 2008 Commission meeting, involving both community opposition and procedural disputes.

Chevy Chase Subdivision Garage Placement

Community residents voiced strong opposition to the proposed garage placement in the Chevy Chase Subdivision development. The primary concern centered on the developer's proposed garage configuration, which differed from existing neighborhood standards. Residents argued that the garages should be positioned to conform with existing garage placements in the area to maintain proper air circulation and preserve neighborhood views. The community opposition reflected broader concerns about maintaining the established character and environmental conditions of the subdivision. The residents emphasized that consistency with existing garage orientations would better serve both aesthetic and practical considerations for the neighborhood.

Centerpoint De Novo Hearing Process

A procedural dispute emerged regarding the handling of the Centerpoint project appeals process. The Commission faced the complex situation of managing two separate appeals related to the same Centerpoint development project. Commissioners engaged in detailed discussions about the appropriate procedural framework for conducting the de novo hearing, including questions about proper time limits and hearing procedures. The dispute centered on establishing the correct legal process for handling multiple appeals simultaneously while ensuring due process for all parties involved. The Commission needed to resolve these procedural questions before moving forward with the substantive review of the Centerpoint project appeals.

Both contested items required careful consideration of community input and legal procedures, demonstrating the Commission's role in balancing development interests with community concerns while maintaining proper administrative processes.

Approval of Minutes

2:00

The Commission considered the approval of minutes from three previous meetings held on May 8, 2008; June 10, 2008; and June 26, 2008.

Lynn Roche-Phillips and Frank Penn were the key speakers during this agenda item discussion. The Commission reviewed the minutes from all three meetings as part of their standard procedural process to ensure accurate record-keeping of their official proceedings.

The minutes from the three meetings were presented to the Commission for their consideration and formal approval. Following the discussion, the Commission voted to approve the minutes from all three meetings: May 8, 2008; June 10, 2008; and June 26, 2008.

This approval ensures that the official records of these previous Commission meetings are now part of the permanent record and can be referenced for future proceedings and decision-making processes.

Cardinal Hill Hospital Development Plan Postponement

5:00 The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-79 regarding the Cardinal Hill Hospital development plan during the August 14, 2008 meeting.

The discussion involved three key speakers: John Carman, Frank Penn, and Carolyn Richardson, who addressed the Commission regarding the proposed development plan for Cardinal Hill Hospital.

Following the presentation and discussion among Commission members, the Commission voted to postpone consideration of the Cardinal Hill Hospital development plan. The item will be rescheduled for review at the Commission's next regular meeting on September 11, 2008.

The postponement allows additional time for further review and consideration of the development proposal before the Commission makes its final determination on the matter.

Lakeview Island, Unit 3 Discussion Withdrawal

7:00

The Commission addressed agenda item PLAN 2008-28F regarding the withdrawal of continued discussion for Lakeview Island, Unit 3. The item involved removing a previously scheduled discussion from the agenda as the circumstances that necessitated the original review had changed.

Key speakers during this brief agenda item included Dick Murphy, Mike Cravens, and Carolyn Richardson. The discussion centered on the fact that a waiver that had been under consideration for the Lakeview Island, Unit 3 development was no longer needed, making the continued discussion unnecessary.

The Commission determined that since the waiver requirement had been resolved or was no longer applicable to the project, there was no need to continue with the planned discussion of this matter. This represented a procedural action to clean up the agenda and remove an item that was no longer relevant to current planning considerations.

The outcome was the formal withdrawal of the discussion item from the Commission's ongoing business. This administrative action allowed the Commission to focus its time and resources on other pressing planning matters while ensuring that the Lakeview Island, Unit 3 project could proceed without the previously anticipated regulatory discussion.

The withdrawal was processed efficiently, reflecting the straightforward nature of removing an agenda item that was no longer necessary due to changed circumstances in the underlying development project.

Michael Gentry Property Development Plan Postponement

9:00

The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-77 regarding the postponement of the Michael Gentry Property development plan. The discussion involved key speakers Matt Carter, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Mike Cravens.

The Commission reviewed the request to indefinitely postpone the development plan for the Michael Gentry Property. During the discussion, commissioners examined the circumstances surrounding the postponement request and considered the implications for the proposed development.

Following deliberation among the commissioners, the Commission approved the indefinite postponement of the Michael Gentry Property development plan. The decision effectively removes the development proposal from active consideration without a specified timeline for potential future review.

The postponement represents a significant outcome for the development project, as it suspends all planning activities related to the Michael Gentry Property development indefinitely.

Red Mile Square Development Plan Postponement

11:00

The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-104 regarding the postponement of the Red Mile Square development plan during their August 14, 2008 meeting.

The discussion involved three key speakers: Andy Holmes, Frank Penn, and Lynn Roche-Phillips, who presented the request to delay consideration of the Red Mile Square development plan.

Following the presentation and discussion among commissioners, the Commission voted to approve the postponement of the Red Mile Square development plan. The item will be rescheduled for consideration at the Commission's September 11, 2008 meeting.

The postponement allows additional time for review and preparation before the Commission takes up this development proposal at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

Hampton Springs Preliminary Plan Postponement

13:00 The Commission considered the postponement of PLAN 2008-71P, the Hampton Springs Preliminary Plan, during their August 14, 2008 meeting.

The discussion involved three key speakers: Rory Kahly, Mike Cravens, and Joan Whitman, who addressed the need to delay consideration of the preliminary plan.

The Commission ultimately approved the postponement, rescheduling the Hampton Springs preliminary plan review to their September 11, 2008 meeting. This delay will allow additional time for review and preparation before the plan comes before the Commission for formal consideration.

The postponement ensures that all parties will have adequate opportunity to address any outstanding issues or concerns related to the Hampton Springs development proposal before it proceeds through the approval process.

Thomas Communications, Inc. Plans Postponement

15:00

The Commission considered agenda items PLAN 2008-24F and PLAN 2008-25F regarding Thomas Communications, Inc. plans for Units 1-C and 1-D. The discussion involved key speakers Rory Kahly, Frank Penn, and Randall Vaughn.

The Commission unanimously approved postponing consideration of the Thomas Communications, Inc. plans to the September 11, 2008 meeting. The specific reasons for the postponement were not detailed in the available materials, but the decision allows additional time for review or preparation of the development proposals.

The postponement affects both Unit 1-C and Unit 1-D components of the Thomas Communications, Inc. development project. The Commission's approval of the postponement ensures these items will receive full consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Bogie Estate, Lot 1 Postponement

17:00

The Commission considered agenda item PLAN 2008-76F regarding the postponement of the Bogie Estate, Lot 1 plan. The discussion involved key speakers Rory Kahly, Ed Holmes, and Joan Whitman.

The Commission reviewed the request to postpone consideration of the Bogie Estate, Lot 1 development plan to allow additional time for review and preparation. Following discussion among the commissioners, the Commission voted to approve the postponement.

The Bogie Estate, Lot 1 plan will be rescheduled for consideration at the Commission's September 11, 2008 meeting, providing the applicant and staff additional time to address any outstanding issues before the item returns for formal review.

Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1 Postponement

19:00

The Commission considered agenda item DP 2008-88 regarding the postponement of the Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1 development plan. Key participants in the discussion included Rory Kahly, Randall Vaughn, and Joan Whitman.

The Commission discussed moving the consideration of the Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1 plan from the current meeting to a future date. The specific reasons for the postponement were addressed during the discussion among the commissioners and staff.

Following deliberation, the Commission approved the postponement of the Beaumont Farm, Unit 1, Section 1 plan. The item was rescheduled for consideration at the Commission's September 11, 2008 meeting, allowing additional time for preparation or review of the development proposal.

The postponement was formally approved, ensuring that the Beaumont Farm development plan would receive proper consideration at the next scheduled meeting date.

Gess Family Partnership, LTD Property Postponement

21:00

The Commission considered agenda item PLAN 2008-102C regarding the Gess Family Partnership, LTD Property postponement request during the August 14, 2008 meeting.

Key speakers during the discussion included: • Rory Kahly • Lynn Roche-Phillips • Joan Whitman

The Commission reviewed the request to postpone consideration of the Gess Family Partnership, LTD Property plan. After discussion among the commissioners and staff, the Commission approved the postponement request.

Outcome: The Commission voted to postpone the Gess Family Partnership, LTD Property plan to the September 11, 2008 Commission meeting. This postponement allows additional time for review and preparation before the item returns for consideration.

Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2B Preliminary Plan Reapproval

23:00

The Commission reviewed PLAN 2006-75P for the Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2B preliminary plan reapproval during the August 14, 2008 meeting. Key speakers included Tom Martin, Rory Kahly, and Mike Cravens who presented details and discussed the proposal.

The item involved reapproving a preliminary plan for Unit 2B of the Patchen Wilkes development. The discussion centered on maintaining consistency with previously established conditions while also addressing a waiver request that was part of the reapproval process.

After reviewing the proposal and hearing from the speakers, the Commission voted to approve the Patchen Wilkes, Unit 2B preliminary plan reapproval. The approval was granted subject to all previous conditions that had been established for the development, ensuring continuity with earlier planning decisions. Additionally, the Commission granted the requested waiver as part of their approval.

The reapproval allows the development to move forward under the updated preliminary plan while maintaining the regulatory framework and conditions that were previously established for the project.

Calumet Terrace Subdivision, Lots 8 and 9 Preliminary Plan Approval

25:00

The Commission reviewed preliminary plan approval for PLAN 2008-2P, the Calumet Terrace Subdivision involving Lots 8 and 9. The discussion included presentations and input from key speakers Tom Martin, Brian Hill, and Frank Penn.

During the review process, staff presented their analysis of the subdivision proposal along with recommended conditions for approval. The applicant also requested a waiver as part of the preliminary plan submission, which required Commission consideration.

The Commission evaluated the technical aspects of the subdivision plan, including compliance with local subdivision regulations and development standards. Staff recommendations included specific conditions that would need to be met as part of the approval process to ensure the development meets municipal requirements.

Following discussion of the proposal's merits and consideration of the waiver request, the Commission voted to approve the Calumet Terrace Subdivision preliminary plan for Lots 8 and 9. The approval was granted subject to the conditions outlined by staff during the presentation. Additionally, the Commission approved the requested waiver that had been submitted as part of the application.

This preliminary plan approval represents an important step in the subdivision development process, allowing the project to move forward to subsequent phases of review and development, provided all staff conditions are satisfied.

High Mount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17 Final Plan Approval

27:00

The Commission reviewed PLAN 2008-44F for the High Mount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17 final plan approval during the August 14, 2008 meeting.

Staff member Cheryl Gallt presented the proposal and outlined the revised conditions that had been prepared for the final plan approval. The discussion involved input from key speakers including Don White and Joan Whitman, who participated in the review of the subdivision details and conditions.

The Commission examined the final plan specifications and the staff-recommended conditions that would need to be met as part of the approval process. The revised conditions addressed various technical and regulatory requirements for the subdivision development.

Following the presentation and discussion of the proposal, the Commission moved forward with their decision on the final plan. The outcome was an approval of the High Mount Subdivision, Unit 1, Block A, Lot 17 final plan, contingent upon the applicant meeting the revised conditions as outlined by staff during the meeting.

The approval allows the subdivision development to proceed to the next phase, with the understanding that all specified conditions must be satisfied in accordance with the Commission's requirements.

Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7 Development Plan Approval

29:00

The Commission reviewed and discussed Development Plan DP 2008-80 for Chevy Chase Subdivision, Unit 19, Lot 7. Key speakers during the discussion included Chris Taylor, Dick Murphy, and Mike Cravens.

The development plan presented specific setback requirements that were central to the Commission's consideration. The proposal included a six-foot side yard setback and a two-foot rear yard setback for the lot development.

Following their review and discussion of the development plan details, the Commission voted to approve DP 2008-80. The approval included the proposed six-foot side yard and two-foot rear yard setbacks as presented.

The Commission's decision allows the development to proceed according to the approved plan specifications for this lot within the Chevy Chase Subdivision.

Berry Crest Subdivision, Lots 8 & 9 Development Plan Approval

31:00

The Commission reviewed development plan DP 2008-117 for Berry Crest Subdivision, Lots 8 & 9. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin, Tony Barrett, and Neill Day.

The primary focus of the discussion centered on the conditions attached to the development plan approval and a requested waiver. Specifically, the Commission addressed condition number 10, which was ultimately determined to be unnecessary or inappropriate for this particular development.

After reviewing the details of the proposal and considering the input from staff and the applicant, the Commission took action to modify the recommended conditions. The Commission voted to delete condition number 10 from the development plan requirements, streamlining the approval process for the developer.

Additionally, the Commission granted a waiver that had been requested as part of the development plan review. The specific nature of the waiver was not detailed in the available information, but it was approved as part of the overall development plan consideration.

The Berry Crest Subdivision development plan for Lots 8 & 9 received full approval from the Commission with the modifications noted above. The approval allows the developer to proceed with their plans for these specific lots within the Berry Crest Subdivision, subject to the remaining conditions that were not deleted during the Commission's review.

The Commission's decision to both delete condition number 10 and grant the requested waiver suggests that the development plan met the necessary standards and requirements, with the modifications making the approval more practical and appropriate for the specific circumstances of this project.

East Hills Shopping Center, Lot 3A Amended Plan Approval

33:00

The Commission reviewed agenda item DP 2008-75, an amended plan approval for East Hills Shopping Center, Lot 3A. The discussion focused on modifications to previously approved conditions for the development.

Key speakers during the discussion included Chris Taylor and Lynn Roche-Phillips, who presented details about the proposed amendments to the existing plan approval. The primary change under consideration involved the deletion of condition number 12 from the original approval conditions.

The Commission deliberated on the merits of removing this specific condition and its potential impact on the development project. After reviewing the amended plan details and considering the implications of the proposed changes, the Commission reached a decision on the matter.

The Commission ultimately approved the East Hills Shopping Center, Lot 3A amended plan, including the deletion of condition number 12 as requested. This approval allows the development to proceed under the modified conditions, removing the previously imposed requirement that was outlined in the deleted condition.

Release and Call of Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit

35:00 The Commission addressed the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit during the August 14, 2008 meeting. This agenda item involved the review and approval of financial instruments related to development projects and municipal obligations.

Neill Day and Joan Whitman served as the key speakers for this item, presenting the details of the bonds and letters of credit under consideration. The discussion focused on the standard administrative process of releasing performance bonds for completed projects and calling letters of credit where necessary.

The Commission reviewed the financial instruments that were eligible for release, indicating that the associated development projects or municipal requirements had been satisfactorily completed. This routine administrative action allows developers to recover their posted financial guarantees once all conditions have been met.

The item proceeded without significant debate or concerns raised by Commission members. The straightforward nature of the release and call process suggests that all documentation and project completions were in proper order and met the established criteria.

Following the presentation and brief discussion, the Commission approved the release and call of the performance bonds and letters of credit as presented. This approval allows for the administrative processing of the financial instruments and provides closure for the completed projects and obligations under review.

The action represents standard municipal business practice for managing development-related financial guarantees and ensures proper fiscal oversight of public and private development projects within the jurisdiction.

Set Date and Time for Centerpoint De Novo Hearing

37:00 The Commission addressed scheduling for the Centerpoint de novo hearing during this agenda item. Chris King and Lynn Roche-Phillips served as the key speakers for this discussion.

The Commission deliberated on the appropriate date and time to conduct the Centerpoint de novo hearing, which is a legal proceeding that allows for a complete re-examination of a case. After discussion among the commissioners, they determined that September 18, 2008, at 1:30 PM would be the scheduled date and time for the hearing.

In addition to setting the hearing schedule, the Commission also considered and adopted recommendations regarding the hearing process itself. These recommendations likely addressed procedural matters and guidelines for how the de novo hearing would be conducted, though the specific details of these recommendations were not elaborated upon in the available materials.

The agenda item was categorized as a discussion item, allowing commissioners to deliberate on the scheduling and procedural aspects before reaching their decision. The outcome was approval of both the proposed date and time as well as the hearing process recommendations.

This scheduling decision represents an important administrative step in the Centerpoint matter, ensuring that all parties involved would have adequate notice of when the de novo hearing would take place and understanding of how the proceedings would be structured.