Council Workshop -ZOTA

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council held a meeting on December 1, 2016, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the 2nd Floor Council Chamber. The Vice Mayor presided over the session. During the meeting, the Council considered one agenda item: ZOTA 2016-4, which addressed amendments to Articles 23A-10 of the Economic Development (ED) Zone regarding Duncan. This item received a first reading. The Council took one motion and vote during the meeting and heard ten public comments from members of the community.

Attendance

The following council members were present at the meeting on December 1, 2016:

• Council Member Massadi
• Council Member Bledsoe
• Council Member Plowman
• Council Member Lamb
• Council Member Fred Brown
• Council Member Evans
• Council Member Gibbs
• Council Member Henson
• Council Member James Brown
• Council Member Stennett
• Council Member Stinnett

No council members were absent or late.

Votes and Decisions

The workshop meeting concluded with one motion brought before the council.

Adjournment of the Workshop Meeting 1:36:19

Council Member Stinnett moved to adjourn the workshop meeting, with Council Member Plowman providing the second. The motion passed unanimously with no opposing votes or abstentions.

Public Comment

Council members raised several substantive concerns about the proposed Economic Development (ED) zone amendments during the meeting.

Zoning Consistency and Fairness

Council Member Massadi questioned the inconsistent treatment of ED zone parcels, noting that one parcel with a high-value medical user received different zoning provisions than another parcel that would allow retail and residential uses. Massadi asked whether these changes favored one developer over another. 1:25:05

Development Sequencing

Council Member Bledsoe raised concerns about the timing of supportive uses in development, specifically the "chicken-and-egg problem" of whether restaurants, hotels, and other supportive uses could be developed before principal job-creating uses, and whether this could generate resistance from existing developments. 38:07

Permanence and Risk

Council Member Lamb expressed wariness about the permanence of the proposed ZODA, noting that once implemented, it may be difficult to reverse if the experiment fails. 44:41

Process and Transparency

Council Member Evans requested that the process for approving supportive and accessory uses be clearly written down to ensure consistency and transparency, rather than relying on unwritten practices. 56:38

Economic Impacts

Council Member Gibbs worried that allowing 20% supportive uses could increase land prices further and that future demands for ED land expansion may grow louder if the zone remains underutilized. 1:03:35

Council Member Henson asked whether the city has a broader economic development strategy beyond zoning, noting that zoning alone may not be sufficient to compete with surrounding counties. 1:07:47

Technical Clarifications

Council Member James Brown sought clarification on whether flex space and office warehouse uses are fully included in the packet and confirmed they require separate Planning Commission review. 1:09:23

Council Member Stennett asked whether the ED ZODA should be delayed to consider an upcoming P2 zone change, but was advised to proceed separately. 1:21:06

Recommendation for Further Review

Council Member Plowman suggested that the ZODA be sent to the planning committee for further study due to complexity and lack of full consensus on key issues. 1:30:03

Council Member Lamb also raised concerns about restricting supportive uses like gas stations from highway-facing locations to protect the Royal Spring Aquifer wellhead protection area. 1:35:09

Contested Items

The December 1, 2016 meeting featured three significant areas of disagreement among council members regarding proposed Economic Development (ED) zone amendments.

Supportive Use Ratio and Development Timing

Council members were divided on whether allowing 20% supportive uses would create a viable development environment or instead undermine the job-creating intent of the ED zone. The debate centered on a "chicken-and-egg" problem: whether permitting supportive uses would encourage development or discourage it by reducing the incentive for job creation. Some council members worried that existing developments might resist the changes, while others believed the flexibility was necessary to make projects feasible.

ZODA Permanence and Reversibility

Council Member Lamb raised concerns about the irreversible nature of the proposed zoning changes. Lamb warned that once the amendments were implemented, it could be difficult or impossible to reverse them if the experiment failed to achieve its intended outcomes. This highlighted fundamental uncertainty about whether the proposed changes would work as intended and the risks of locking the city into a long-term commitment without an exit strategy.

Consistency Across ED Zone Parcels

Council Member Massadi questioned the fairness and consistency of the proposed amendments, noting that the ED zone changes appeared tailored to favor one developer—Central Baptist—over another developer, Dennis Anderson. Massadi's concern was that the council was not applying uniform standards across different ED zone parcels, creating an inconsistent approach to zoning policy that could disadvantage some property owners while benefiting others.

These three contested items reflected broader tensions between promoting economic development, protecting the integrity of zoning policy, managing risk, and ensuring equitable treatment of different stakeholders in the development process.

ZOTA 2016-4: Amendments to Articles 23A-10 to the Economic Development (ED) Zone

8:30

The Planning Department presented a recommendation to amend the zoning ordinance for the Economic Development (ED) zone. The proposal, presented by Jim Duncan, introduces new permitted uses and modifies development standards for the zone.

Proposed Changes

The amendment adds several new permitted uses to the ED zone, including: - Breweries - Nursing homes - Hotels - Restaurants with drive-thrus - Office/warehouse flex space

The proposal also establishes parameters for supportive uses, allowing them to comprise up to 20% of total development, with residential uses limited to 15% of that supportive use allocation.

Planning Commission Recommendations

The Planning Commission had previously reviewed this proposal and recommended modifications to the original staff recommendation, including: - A 20% supportive use ratio - Increased floor area ratio - Increased building height allowances

Discussion Topics

The workshop discussion addressed the rationale behind the proposed amendments, stakeholder input received during the review process, and various concerns raised by the body. Specific concerns mentioned included timing of the amendments, consistency with existing zoning framework, and potential long-term impacts on the ED zone.

Outcome

The ordinance advanced to first reading.