Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission met on September 27, 2012, at 1:33 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which addressed four agenda items and included five motions and votes. The Commission heard 15 public comments during the session.

The meeting resulted in mixed outcomes across its agenda items. The Commission approved an amendment to the definition of "Banquet Facilities" and approved a proposal to increase notification requirements for map amendment requests. However, the Commission denied a zoning map amendment and zoning development plan request from Greer Nick Rd., LLC & Greer Nick Rd. II, LLC related to the Deerfield Shopping Center. A separate agenda item concerning the Deerfield Shopping Center Zoning Development Plan was postponed.

Attendance

Present: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Bill Wilson

Absent: Frank Penn

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

ZOTA 2012-4: Banquet Facilities Definition Amendment 18:37

Motion by Eunice Beatty, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to approve staff alternative text to amend the definition of "banquet facilities" and related changes to the B-1 zone. The motion passed 9-1 on a roll call vote.

Voting in favor: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Bill Wilson.

Voting against: Carolyn Plumlee.

MAR 2012-13: Greer-Nick Road LLC Zone Map Amendment 3:06:41

Motion by Lynn Roche-Phillips, seconded by Bill Wilson, to approve a zone map amendment from B-1 to B-3 for Greer-Nick Road LLC. The motion failed 8-2 on a roll call vote.

Voting in favor: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Bill Wilson.

Voting against: Patrick Brewer and Carolyn Plumlee.

ZDP 2012-76: Deerfield Shopping Center Zoning Development Plan 3:07:14

Motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Bill Wilson, to approve the Deerfield Shopping Center Zoning Development Plan. The motion was postponed on a roll call vote of 9-1.

Voting in favor: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Patrick Brewer, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Bill Wilson.

Voting against: Carolyn Plumlee.

ZOTA 2012-14: Notification Distance Amendment (Initial Motion) 3:17:27

Motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to approve an amendment increasing the notification distance for zone change requests from 400 to 500 feet. The motion failed 8-2 on a roll call vote.

Voting in favor: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Bill Wilson.

Voting against: Patrick Brewer and Carolyn Plumlee.

ZOTA 2012-14: Notification Requirements Amendment (Staff Alternative) 3:18:27

Motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to approve staff alternative text to amend notification requirements for zone change applications. The motion passed 9-1 on a roll call vote.

Voting in favor: Eunice Beatty, Will Berkley, Carla Blanton, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Bill Wilson.

Voting against: Patrick Brewer.

Public Comment

The meeting included public comment on a proposed hotel project, with speakers divided between supporters and opponents.

Support for the Project

Three speakers expressed support for the hotel development:

• Shirley Tipton 1:44:44 spoke as one of four adjacent property owners in favor of the project, noting that the current property is an eyesore and that the proposed development would improve the neighborhood with landscaping and a new hotel.

• Amanda Hale 1:49:41 supported the project, stating that the current property is deteriorated and that the proposed hotel would improve the neighborhood's appearance and provide potential economic benefit.

• Julie Butcher 1:51:33 supported the project, noting that the property has been deteriorating and that the proposed development would improve the area and benefit the local tax base and job market.

Opposition to the Project

Twelve speakers opposed the hotel project, raising various concerns:

• Joseph Miller 1:53:47 argued that the project would alter the neighborhood's character, is too close to residential homes, and would set a precedent for inappropriate commercial development.

• Pat Lamont 1:58:15 cited concerns about precedent, solar rights, and the potential for the area to become industrialized.

• Candace Wallace 2:03:47 warned that the project would set a precedent for industrial development and could remove flood zone protections.

• Sue Beard 2:05:45 argued that the precedent has already been set with smaller hotels nearby and that the proposed hotel would negatively impact property values.

• Clarissa Spahn 2:09:37 stated that the project would degrade neighborhood charm and that Southland Drive should focus on walkable, family-friendly spaces.

• Bill Fountain 2:11:19 raised concerns about tree health, property values, and traffic.

• Michael Bardo 2:15:37, Elizabeth Graves 2:17:19, Susan Dale 2:18:23, and Alicia Cox 2:25:12 expressed concerns about safety risks from transient visitors and impacts on children.

• Amy Clark 2:21:53 argued the hotel would harm local businesses.

• Mike Early 2:27:21 cited concerns about traffic, height, and lack of proper buffer.

Contested Items

Zoning Change for Hotel on Southland Drive

A proposal to rezone a property on Southland Drive from B-1 to B-3 zoning to permit construction of a five-story hotel generated significant community opposition. Fourteen public comments were submitted against the proposal, with neighbors expressing concerns about the building's height, increased traffic impacts, effects on property values, and the precedent the approval would set for the area. The applicant presented arguments in favor, highlighting planned stormwater improvements and claimed community benefits. Despite these counterarguments, the motion to approve the zoning change failed.

Notification Requirements for Zone Changes

A second contested matter involved proposed changes to notification requirements for zone change applications. The proposal would increase the notification distance from 400 feet to 500 feet for properties affected by zone change requests, bringing the requirement into alignment with existing notification distances for conditional use permits.

Staff and some commissioners supported the increase, arguing for consistency across permit types. However, other commissioners opposed the change, contending that expanding the notification requirement would create unnecessary burden and uncertainty for applicants seeking zoning modifications. The disagreement resulted in two votes: an initial motion to disapprove the increase failed, but a subsequent motion to approve the expanded notification distance passed.

Amend the Definition of 'Banquet Facilities'

The Planning Commission considered a text amendment (ZOTA 2012-4) to modify the definition of banquet facilities in the zoning ordinance. 13:33

Proposal

The amendment sought to remove the requirement that banquet facilities be located in a building previously used as a residence. Staff recommended approval of a revised text that includes new accessory and conditional uses for live entertainment in the B-1 zone.

Key Speaker

Traci Wade presented on this agenda item.

Outcome

The motion passed with 9-1 approval.

Greer Nick Rd., LLC & Greer Nick Rd. II, LLC: Zoning Map Amendment & Deerfield Shopping Center Zoning Development Plan

29:34

The Commission reviewed a zoning map amendment request for property owned by Greer Nick Rd., LLC and Greer Nick Rd. II, LLC. The applicant sought to rezone the property from B-1 to B-3 to accommodate a five-story hotel development as part of the Deerfield Shopping Center Zoning Development Plan.

Staff Recommendation and Concerns

Staff recommended disapproval of the rezoning request, citing two primary concerns: insufficient buffering from residential areas and lack of legal justification for the zoning change.

Applicant's Arguments

The applicant presented counterarguments, contending that the project would improve the neighborhood. The applicant also highlighted that the development would provide stormwater mitigation benefits.

Key Speakers

The discussion involved Traci Wade, Tom Martin, and Bruce Simpson.

Outcome

The Commission voted on a motion to approve the rezoning. The motion failed with a vote of 8-2, resulting in denial of the zoning map amendment request.

Deerfield Shopping Center Zoning Development Plan

Identifier: ZDP 2012-76

The Commission reviewed a preliminary development plan for a proposed hotel at Deerfield Shopping Center 47:25.

Staff Assessment

Staff identified several unresolved concerns regarding the project, specifically noting issues with massing, height, and buffering requirements.

Applicant Presentation

The applicant presented a revised plan that included landscaping improvements and stormwater management enhancements in response to staff feedback.

Key Participants

Tom Martin was a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item.

Outcome

The Commission voted to postpone the motion to approve, with the vote recorded as 9-1 in favor of postponement. The project did not receive final approval at this meeting.

Increase Notification Requirements for Map Amendment Requests

The Commission considered ordinance ZOTA 2012-14, a text amendment to increase notification requirements for zone change applications. 3:08:23

Proposal

The amendment proposed increasing the notification distance for zone change applications from 400 feet to 500 feet. This change was intended to align zone change notification standards with the existing notification requirements for conditional use permits, creating consistency across different types of land use applications.

Staff Presentation and Arguments

Traci Wade presented the staff position in favor of the amendment. Staff argued that increasing the notification distance would promote consistency in the zoning code and enhance community engagement by notifying a larger area of proposed zone changes.

Commission Action

The Commission voted on the proposal in two motions. An initial motion to disapprove the amendment failed 8-2, indicating that a majority of commissioners supported moving forward with the change. A subsequent motion to approve the amendment then passed 9-1, demonstrating strong Commission support for increasing the notification requirements.

Outcome

The amendment was approved. The increased notification distance of 500 feet for zone change applications is now in effect, bringing these requirements into alignment with conditional use permit notification standards.