Planning Commission Subdivision Items

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission convened on March 14, 2024, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding as the presiding officer. The commission addressed 11 agenda items during the session, taking 11 votes and hearing 6 public comments throughout the proceedings.

The meeting focused primarily on administrative matters and development project reviews, with the commission approving several routine items including performance bonds and letters of credit, as well as the February 8, 2024 meeting minutes. Multiple development projects experienced postponements, including Belmont Farm (Citation Centre), Distillery District- West Unit 1, Idle Hour Subdivision Unit 1 Section 2 Tract A, Quintana Estates, and Wolf Run Industrial Park Block A Lot 1. The commission also processed the withdrawal of two Tuscany development units (Unit 14 and Unit 11, Phase 2).

Among the approved items were the consent agenda, the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington project, and the Jones/Cotrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC development. The session demonstrated typical planning commission business with a mix of approvals, postponements, and one withdrawal, reflecting the ongoing development review process in the Urban County area.

Attendance

All members were present for the March 14, 2024 meeting.

Present: • Larry Forester • Judy Worth • Bill Wilson • Graham Pohl • Ivy Barksdale • Bruce Nicol • Robin Michler • Johnathon Davis • Janice Meyer • Zach Davis • Mike Owens

Absent: None

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

The meeting included eleven voting actions, all of which passed unanimously with 11 members present.

Administrative Items The commission first approved performance bonds and letters of credit on a motion by Zach Davis, seconded by Johnathon Davis 0:30. The February 8, 2024 minutes were approved on a motion by Judy Worth, seconded by Ivy Barksdale, with 9 votes in favor and 2 abstentions 1:30.

Postponements Several development projects were postponed to future meetings: - PLN-MJDP-23-00064 Belmont Farm (Citation Centre) was postponed to May 9, 2024 on a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Bill Wilson 3:00 - PLN-MJDP-24-00010 Distillery District- West Unit 1 was postponed to April 11, 2024 on a motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Ivy Barksdale 4:00 - PLN-MJDP-24-00011 Idle Hour Subdivision, Unit 1, Section 2, Tract A was postponed to April 11, 2024 on a motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Graham Pohl 5:00 - PLN-MJSUB-24-00001 Quintana Estates was postponed to April 11, 2024 on a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Bill Wilson 6:00 - PLN-MJDP-23-00050 Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1 was postponed to April 11, 2024 on a motion by Zach Davis, seconded by Graham Pohl 8:00

Withdrawals PLN-MJSUB-19-00003 and PLN-MJSUB-19-00005 Tuscany, Unit 14 and Tuscany, Unit 11, Phase 2 were withdrawn on a motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Johnathon Davis 7:00.

Approvals The consent agenda items were approved on a motion by Ivy Barksdale, seconded by Janice Meyer 9:00. Two development projects received approval with conditions: - PLN-MJDP-23-00076 Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington was approved with conditions 16 and 17 changed to "resolved" on a motion by Zach Davis, seconded by Ivy Barksdale 10:00 - PLN-MJDP-24-00002 Jones/Cotrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC was approved with condition 16 modified to resolve access to Paris Pike and Old Paris Pike with pedestrian crossing on a motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Janice Meyer 11:00

All votes included the same 11 members: Larry Forester, Judy Worth, Bill Wilson, Graham Pohl, Ivy Barksdale, Bruce Nicol, Robin Michler, Johnathon Davis, Janice Meyer, Zach Davis, and Mike Owens.

Public Comment

Six speakers addressed the council during the public comment period, with all comments focused on a proposed development at 2324 Paris Pike.

Traffic and Safety Concerns

Multiple speakers raised traffic and safety issues as their primary concern. Patty 12:00 expressed concerns about high vehicle speeds and the lack of pedestrian safety measures around the proposed development site. Amy Clark 14:00 suggested the need for a comprehensive traffic study and highlighted concerns about pedestrian safety, specifically noting the absence of a traffic signal at the development location. Councilmember Brown 17:00 supported the development but echoed traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, suggesting improvements for safe crossing and access to the site.

Development Plan Objections

Cathy Perkins 13:00 raised specific objections to the development plan, citing non-compliance with zoning ordinances and inadequate buffering for properties adjacent to the proposed development. A speaker representing Stacey 16:00 expressed similar concerns about the height of the proposed development and emphasized the need for increased buffering to protect neighboring properties.

Historic and Community Impact

Melanie Amy 15:00 brought attention to the historic significance of Paris Pike and expressed concerns about how increased traffic from the development would impact the character and safety of the area.

The public comments revealed a pattern of community concerns centered on traffic safety, pedestrian access, compliance with zoning requirements, and protection of adjacent properties through adequate buffering. While one council member expressed support for the development, the consensus among public speakers was that additional safety measures and design modifications were needed to address community concerns.

Contested Items

The meeting featured one contested item that drew significant community opposition.

Jones/Cotrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC Development

Community members raised multiple concerns about a proposed development involving the Jones/Cotrell Property and Joyland Crossing, LLC. The opposition centered on three main issues: traffic impacts, pedestrian safety concerns, and the height of the proposed development.

Residents expressed worries about how the new development would affect traffic patterns in the area and whether adequate measures were being taken to ensure pedestrian safety around the project site. The height of the proposed buildings also drew criticism from community members who felt it may not be appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood.

The nature of the community opposition suggests this was a significant local issue that prompted residents to attend the meeting and voice their concerns directly to officials. However, the available information does not specify the exact outcome of these discussions or what action, if any, was taken in response to the community feedback.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this contested item discussion.*

Approval of Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit

0:30

The commission reviewed and approved performance bonds and letters of credit as presented by staff during this agenda item. Zach Davis and Johnathon Davis served as the key speakers for this discussion.

Staff presented the performance bonds and letters of credit for commission consideration, though the specific details of the bonds, their amounts, or the projects they secure were not detailed in the available materials. The item was handled as a resolution requiring formal commission approval.

Following the staff presentation and discussion, the commission voted to approve the performance bonds and letters of credit as presented. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the proceedings.

The approval allows the referenced performance bonds and letters of credit to move forward as part of the commission's standard oversight of financial instruments that secure various municipal projects and obligations.

Approval of February 8, 2024 Minutes

1:30

The commission considered approval of the minutes from their February 8, 2024 meeting. The agenda item was presented as a standard procedural matter requiring commission action.

Key speakers during this discussion included Judy Worth and Ivy Barksdale, who participated in the deliberation regarding the accuracy and completeness of the recorded minutes from the previous meeting.

The commission proceeded to vote on the approval of the February 8, 2024 minutes. The motion was ultimately approved by the commission, though the vote was not unanimous. Two commission members abstained from voting on the approval of these minutes.

The abstentions may have been due to those members' absence from the February 8, 2024 meeting, which is a common practice when commissioners were not present for the session being documented. The specific reasons for the abstentions were not detailed in the available materials.

With the approval of these minutes, the commission completed this routine administrative task, allowing the official record of the February 8, 2024 meeting to be formally adopted and entered into the commission's permanent records.

Postponement of Belmont Farm (Citation Centre)

3:00

The commission considered a request to postpone the Belmont Farm (Citation Centre) project, identified as PLN-MJDP-23-00064. The discussion involved key speakers Matt Carter and Mike Owens, who presented the case for delaying the project review.

The primary reason cited for the postponement was the need for plan revisions. The applicant required additional time to modify their proposal before proceeding with the commission's review process.

Following discussion of the request, the commission approved a two-month postponement for the Belmont Farm (Citation Centre) project. This delay will allow the applicant sufficient time to complete necessary revisions to their plans before resubmitting for consideration.

The postponement ensures that when the project returns to the commission, it will include updated materials that address any outstanding issues or requirements that were identified during the initial review process.

Postponement of Distillery District- West Unit 1

4:00

The commission considered a request to postpone the Distillery District- West Unit 1 project (PLN-MJDP-24-00010) for one month to allow additional time to address construction options.

Key speakers during the discussion included Matt Carter and Graham Pohl, who presented the rationale for the postponement request. The project team indicated they needed additional time to evaluate and finalize construction approaches for the development.

The commission discussed the merits of granting the requested delay, weighing the need for thorough project planning against scheduling considerations. The one-month postponement was presented as necessary to ensure proper evaluation of construction alternatives before proceeding with the review process.

Following deliberation, the commission approved the postponement request, allowing the project team the additional month needed to address construction options for the Distillery District- West Unit 1 development. The postponement will enable a more comprehensive review when the project returns to the commission for consideration.

Postponement of Idle Hour Subdivision, Unit 1, Section 2, Tract A

5:00

The commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-24-00011 regarding the Idle Hour Subdivision, Unit 1, Section 2, Tract A project. Key speakers during the discussion included Matt Carter and Janice Meyer.

The primary focus of the discussion centered on a request to postpone the project for one month. The postponement was sought to allow the applicant additional time to submit a variance request related to the subdivision development.

The commission reviewed the circumstances surrounding the need for the delay and determined that granting the one-month postponement would be appropriate to accommodate the variance application process. This would provide the necessary time for proper review and consideration of the variance request before proceeding with the subdivision approval process.

Following discussion, the commission approved the requested one-month postponement for the Idle Hour Subdivision project. This decision allows the development team to complete their variance application and ensures that all necessary documentation and approvals are in place before the project returns to the commission for further consideration.

The postponement represents a procedural step in the development review process, enabling the applicant to address regulatory requirements through the variance process while maintaining the project's position in the commission's review queue.

Postponement of Quintana Estates

6:00

The commission considered agenda item PLN-MJSUB-24-00001 regarding the postponement of the Quintana Estates project.

Key speakers Chris Clendenen and Mike Owens addressed the commission during this discussion item. The primary issue under consideration was a request to delay the Quintana Estates project by one month to allow additional time for addressing waiver requests associated with the development.

The commission reviewed the circumstances necessitating the postponement and determined that the additional time would be beneficial for properly addressing the outstanding waiver requests related to the project. After discussion, the commission approved the one-month postponement as requested.

The outcome of this agenda item was the formal postponement of the Quintana Estates project, allowing the applicant the requested additional time to resolve the waiver-related issues before proceeding with the review process.

Withdrawal of Tuscany, Unit 14 and Tuscany, Unit 11, Phase 2

7:00

The commission considered the withdrawal of two related projects: Tuscany, Unit 14 and Tuscany, Unit 11, Phase 2, identified under case numbers PLN-MJSUB-19-00003 and PLN-MJSUB-19-00005.

Key speakers during this agenda item included Rory Kahly and Bill Wilson, who addressed the commission regarding the applicant's request to withdraw both projects.

The discussion centered on the formal withdrawal process for these Tuscany development projects. The applicant had submitted a request to withdraw both Unit 14 and Unit 11, Phase 2 from consideration, prompting the commission to review and act on this request.

Following the presentation and discussion, the commission approved the withdrawal of both projects as requested by the applicant. The outcome resulted in the formal withdrawal of PLN-MJSUB-19-00003 (Tuscany, Unit 14) and PLN-MJSUB-19-00005 (Tuscany, Unit 11, Phase 2) from the planning process.

This action effectively removed both development proposals from active consideration, allowing the applicant to pursue alternative plans or approaches for the Tuscany development areas in question.

Postponement of Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1

8:00

The commission considered a request to postpone the Wolf Run Industrial Park project (PLN-MJDP-23-00050) located at Block A, Lot 1. The postponement was requested due to family medical issues affecting the project timeline.

Tom Martin and Zach Davis were the key speakers during this discussion. The commission reviewed the circumstances surrounding the postponement request and determined that a one-month delay was appropriate given the medical situation cited by the applicant.

The commission approved the postponement, allowing the Wolf Run Industrial Park project to be rescheduled for consideration at a future meeting. No significant concerns were raised regarding the postponement request, and the decision was made to accommodate the family medical circumstances that necessitated the delay.

The project will be brought back before the commission for review and consideration once the postponement period has concluded.

Approval of Consent Agenda Items

9:00

The commission considered the approval of consent agenda items during the meeting. Staff member Traci Wade presented the consent agenda items to the commission for their consideration. Commissioner Ivy Barksdale participated in the discussion of these items.

The consent agenda items were presented as a group for approval, following standard municipal meeting procedures where routine or non-controversial items are bundled together for efficient processing. The specific details of the individual items included in the consent agenda were not detailed in the available meeting materials.

Following the presentation by staff and discussion among commissioners, the commission voted to approve the consent agenda items as presented. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the consideration of these items, allowing for their approval in the standard consent format.

The approval of the consent agenda items allows the commission to move forward with the routine business matters contained within the agenda package.

Approval of Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington

10:00

The commission reviewed and approved project PLN-MJDP-23-00076 for the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington during the March 14, 2024 meeting.

Key speakers during the discussion included Fred Eastridge and Zach Davis, who presented details about the project and addressed commission questions.

The project was ultimately approved with revised conditions, though the specific details of the original proposal, the nature of the revisions, and any concerns raised during the discussion were not captured in the available meeting data.

The approval represents a significant development for the Shriners Hospital/Masonic Temple Association of Lexington, allowing the organization to move forward with their planned project under the modified terms established by the commission.

Approval of Jones/Cotrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC

11:00 The commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-24-00002 for the Jones/Cotrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC development project during their discussion session.

Key speakers during the deliberation included Dick Murphy and Graham Pohl, who presented details and addressed questions regarding the proposed development. The discussion centered on various aspects of the project, with particular attention given to traffic flow considerations and pedestrian access requirements for the site.

The commission evaluated the application thoroughly, examining how the development would integrate with existing infrastructure and community needs. Traffic patterns and pedestrian safety emerged as primary areas of focus during the review process, leading to specific conditions being attached to the approval.

Following their discussion and consideration of all relevant factors, the commission voted to approve the Jones/Cotrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC project. However, the approval came with conditions specifically related to traffic management and pedestrian access improvements that must be addressed as part of the development implementation.

The conditional approval allows the project to move forward while ensuring that community concerns regarding transportation and pedestrian safety are adequately addressed in the final development plans.