Council Planning and Public Works Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council's Planning & Public Works Committee met on February 14, 2012, at 1:00 p.m., with Farmer presiding as Chair. The committee considered four agenda items during the meeting. Two motions were voted on, and the committee heard seven public comments. The committee addressed four main topics: an Addressing Ordinance sponsored by Lawless (1-43), which was postponed; a Harboring Animals ordinance sponsored by Beard and Kay (44-45), which was tabled; a Re Paving Program presented by Martin (46-55), which was deferred; and Items Referred to Committee (56), which was also deferred.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on February 14, 2012:

• Farmer
• Ellinger
• Gorton
• Kay
• Ford
• Blues
• Lawless
• Beard
• Martin
• Henson

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

Addressing Ordinance Discussion

A motion to postpone the addressing ordinance discussion for one month was made by Lawless and seconded by Blues 1:29:33. The motion sought to allow time to gather more information on impacts, benefits, and alternatives in older neighborhoods. The motion passed by voice vote.

Voting in favor of postponement were Lawless, Blues, Kay, Beard, Martin, and Henson. Voting against postponement were Farmer and Ellinger.

Harboring Animals Ordinance

A motion to table the harboring animals ordinance discussion for further information and drafting was made by Blues and seconded by Kay 1:47:30. The motion passed by voice vote with 5 ayes and 0 nays.

Voting in favor of tabling were Blues, Kay, Beard, Martin, and Henson.

Public Comment

Seven members of the public addressed the council on two primary topics: historic address preservation on Richmond Avenue and the legalization of small goats for urban farming.

Historic Address Preservation

Multiple residents spoke in opposition to changing historic house numbers on Richmond Avenue:

• Deb Winograd 1:52:04 has lived at 28 1/2 Richmond Avenue for over 30 years and urged the council to preserve the quirky, historic character of the neighborhood. She reported never experiencing emergency response issues at her address.

• Jay Christian 1:53:40, a 10-year resident of 31 Richmond Avenue, emphasized the value of the unique, historic number and stated that the proposed change would not improve safety while erasing cultural identity.

• Teresa Edwards 1:55:24 has resided at 41 Richmond Avenue for 25 years and reported no problems with emergency response, requesting that the long-standing address be preserved.

• Patrick Cleveland 1:56:02 requested specific evidence of safety issues resulting from address changes, noting that no complaints from neighbors had been documented despite previous changes.

• Lisa Cleod 1:57:09 suggested that cities including New York and Boston have successfully managed historical numbering systems and recommended that software systems should be capable of handling such cases.

Urban Goat Legalization

Two speakers advocated for legalizing small goats for urban farming purposes:

• Curtis Caldwell 1:48:32 supported small-scale urban agriculture, emphasizing goats' effectiveness in managing invasive species and supporting local food systems.

• Laura Doth 1:50:46 represented a group of residents seeking to legalize goats for food production and environmental management, requesting that the council establish limits and liability provisions for such use.

Contested Items

Ordinance Amendment for Fractional Numbers

A heated discussion emerged regarding an ordinance amendment to address fractional numbers in property addresses. The debate centered on balancing two competing priorities: public safety and historic preservation. City staff emphasized that their technical systems were incompatible with half addresses, presenting a practical barrier to maintaining these designations. However, residents and some council members argued for preserving long-standing, unique addresses that have existed in older neighborhoods for many years. This disagreement reflected broader tensions between modernizing municipal infrastructure and respecting the historical character of established communities.

Harboring Animals Ordinance for Small Livestock

The council remained divided on whether to move forward with an ordinance governing small livestock in residential areas. The central point of contention was whether to proceed without further clarification on several key issues: the specific limits on the number of animals allowed, zoning requirements, and liability considerations. Public testimony demonstrated support for urban farming initiatives, reflecting growing interest in residential food production. This support was countered by concerns from other community members about potential problems including waste management, space constraints, and questions about appropriate animal sizes for residential settings. The split vote indicated that council members could not reach consensus on how to address these competing interests and practical concerns.

Addressing Ordinance — Lawless (1-43)

The council discussed an ordinance amendment that would allow fractional numbers and non-sequential addressing in cases with historical or cultural significance. 1:29:33

Key Presentations and Concerns

Staff presented technical limitations that would prevent implementation of the proposed changes. Representatives identified constraints in 911 systems, software, and mapping tools that cannot effectively process half addresses and non-sequential numbering schemes. These technical barriers were cited as significant obstacles to adopting the ordinance as proposed.

Public and Council Input

Public testimony supported preserving historic addresses, with speakers advocating for the ability to maintain addresses with cultural or historical importance. However, staff and some council members raised public safety concerns about the proposal, emphasizing the potential risks of allowing non-standard addressing formats.

Speakers

The discussion involved multiple council members and staff, including Paul Hawkinsmith, David Lucas, Lawless, Beard, Blues, Kay, and Farmer.

Outcome

Rather than voting on the ordinance directly, the council voted to postpone the matter for further research. The motion to postpone passed 6-2, indicating that a majority of council members wanted additional time to explore potential solutions to the technical and safety concerns before proceeding with the amendment.

Harboring Animals — Beard/Kay (44-45)

1:47:30

The council discussed an ordinance amendment to permit keeping pygmy, dwarf, or miniature goats and pigs in non-agricultural zones, subject to restrictions.

Key Discussion Points

The proposal aimed to allow small livestock in areas not currently zoned for agriculture. Council members Kay, Blues, Lawless, Beard, and Martin participated in the deliberation, along with public speakers Curtis Caldwell and Laura Doth.

Concerns Raised

Several issues emerged during the discussion:

• Animal size specifications and appropriate limits for miniature breeds
• Number restrictions for livestock per property
• Zoning implications and how the ordinance would apply across different zones
• Environmental impact considerations

Public Testimony

Public speakers expressed support for urban farming initiatives and sustainable agricultural practices, indicating community interest in expanding local food production opportunities.

Outcome

The council voted 5-0 to table the discussion, allowing time for further drafting of the ordinance language. This decision enabled the council and staff to address the concerns raised and refine the proposal before bringing it back for additional consideration.

Re Paving Program — Martin (46-55)

1:55:37

Director Williams provided a brief update on the resurfacing program during this agenda item. The presentation covered progress on FY 2012 paving work and outlined the timeline for the upcoming fiscal year.

Key Points Presented:

• FY 2012 paving progress was reviewed
• Plans to finalize FY 2013 paving specifications by mid-April were outlined
• Bidding is expected to begin at the start of the fiscal year

Outcome:

The committee agreed to revisit this topic in April, deferring further discussion until the paving specifications are closer to completion. This will allow the committee to review the finalized specifications and discuss bidding procedures at that time.

Items Referred to Committee (56)

1:58:08

Council members discussed several items that had been previously referred to committee, requesting follow-up and direction on multiple outstanding issues.

Items Under Review

The council addressed the following referred matters:

• Utility pole placement
• Repaving standards
• Street tree protection
• The Oliver Lewis Way project
• Fence issue review

Council Member Requests

Councilmember Martin requested direction from the council regarding utility poles and repaving standards, indicating that guidance was needed to move these items forward.

Councilmember Blues requested that the fence issue review be continued, signaling ongoing concern with this matter.

Outcome

The discussion on items referred to committee was deferred, meaning the council postponed further action or decision-making on these matters at this time.