Urban County Council - Zone Change Public Hearing

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Council met on November 17, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Vice Mayor Kay presided over the meeting. The council considered one agenda item, a zoning ordinance change for property located at 564 Asbury Ln. in Council District 1. The proposed ordinance would change the zone from Single Family Residential (R-1D) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) for 13.81 net acres (14.47 gross acres) of the property, submitted by Palumbo Properties, Inc. The council took three votes during the meeting and heard five public comments. The zoning ordinance was approved.

Attendance

Present: Vice Mayor Kay, Moloney, Plomin, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Bledsoe, F. Brown, J. Brown, Evans, Farmer, Gibbs, Henson

Absent: Mossotti, Akers, Lamb

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

Motion 1171-16: Adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendations of the Planning Commission 2:07:48

Motioned by Mr. Moloney and seconded by Mr. Stinnett, this motion passed by roll call vote with 11 ayes and 1 nay.

Voting in favor: Moloney, Plomin, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Bledsoe, F. Brown, Evans, Farmer, Gibbs, Henson, and Kay

Voting against: J. Brown

The motion included conditions for ZDP 2015-33 regarding Newtown Springs: certification must occur within two weeks of Planning Commission approval; a 20-foot tree preservation area and landscape buffer must be maintained along the eastern boundary; pole lighting is not permitted; and only ground-level and indirect lighting are allowed.

Motion 1171-16: Approve the Ordinance changing zone from R-1D to R-3 for 564 Asbury Ln. 2:09:26

Motioned by Mr. Farmer and seconded by Mr. F. Brown, this motion passed by roll call vote with 11 ayes and 1 nay.

Voting in favor: Moloney, Plomin, Scutchfield, Stinnett, Bledsoe, F. Brown, Evans, Farmer, Gibbs, Henson, and Kay

Voting against: J. Brown

This motion carried the same conditions as the previous motion regarding ZDP 2015-33 and Newtown Springs.

Adjourn the Meeting 2:11:04

Motioned by Mr. Stinnett and seconded by Mr. F. Brown, the motion to adjourn passed unanimously.

Public Comment

Five members of the public provided comments during the meeting, raising concerns about connectivity, zoning, traffic, and neighborhood character.

Virgil Jones 1:13:45 addressed connectivity and housing type, arguing that connectivity could be achieved without a zone change. He questioned the impact of apartment development on homeownership rates and neighborhood character.

James Lyle 1:26:11 expressed concern about traffic flow resulting from the proposed development. He argued that apartment complexes do not create neighborhoods and stated a preference for single-family homes.

Joshua Samples 1:27:44 claimed his neighborhood was not adequately engaged in the small area plan process. He argued that the zone change is unnecessary to meet the plan's goals.

Sheila Coles 1:33:04 expressed concern about the opening of Hollow Creek Road directly in front of her home and the potential for increased traffic as a result.

Chelsea Atwater 1:34:18 shared concerns about traffic congestion and the impact of apartment development on neighborhood safety. She also raised concerns about the effect on first-time homebuyers' ability to afford homes in the area.

Common themes across the public comments included traffic and neighborhood impacts, questions about the necessity of zoning changes, and concerns about how apartment development would affect housing affordability and neighborhood character.

Contested Items

Architectural Renderings

A procedural dispute emerged regarding the admissibility of architectural renderings as evidence. The Vice Mayor ruled that the renderings could not be used, determining they were not binding documents. However, Council members challenged this decision, arguing the renderings held relevance given the small area plan's design guidelines. The disagreement centered on whether visual representations should inform the Council's deliberations despite their non-binding status. A motion to permit the renderings passed with a vote of 7-5, allowing them to be considered in the discussion. [timestamp: unavailable]

Zone Change Necessity and Small Area Plan Alignment

Council members divided over whether a zone change was necessary to achieve the goals outlined in the Winburn-Russell Cave Small Area Plan. Opponents contended that the proposed zone change was unnecessary, particularly for meeting the plan's objectives regarding homeownership and neighborhood design standards. They argued these goals could be accomplished through existing mechanisms. Proponents of the zone change countered by emphasizing the collaborative process that had produced the small area plan and stressed that the zone change would ensure compliance with the plan's design standards. This fundamental disagreement about the relationship between zoning tools and planning objectives resulted in a split vote among Council members. [timestamp: unavailable]

An Ordinance changing the zone from a Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone to a Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone

The Council held a public hearing on a zone change request for a 14.47-acre parcel located at 564 Asbury Ln. The proposal sought to change the zoning from Single Family Residential (R-1D) to Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) for 13.81 net acres of the property, which is located in Council District 1 and is owned by Palumbo Properties, Inc.

The Planning Commission had previously recommended conditional approval of the zone change, finding it aligned with both the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and the Winburn-Russell Cave Neighborhoods Small Area Plan. The petitioner presented a revised development plan that included design guidelines, a traffic study, and connectivity plans for the proposed development.

Key speakers during the hearing included Mr. Bill Sallee, Mr. Richard Murphy, Mr. Charles Barnhart, Mr. Joshua Samples, Virgil Jones, James Lyle, Sheila Coles, and Chelsea Atwater 23:18.

Several residents opposed the zone change, raising concerns about potential traffic impacts, the effect on neighborhood character, and implications for homeownership in the area. These concerns reflected broader questions about how the proposed development would integrate with and affect the existing residential community.

The Council ultimately approved the ordinance, allowing the zone change from R-1D to R-3 for the property.