Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission convened on September 26, 2019, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the second floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Frank Penn presiding. The Commission addressed two primary agenda items during the session: the James RB MacCoom Development Plan, which received approval, and an informational presentation on the Accessory Dwelling Units Text Amendment. Throughout the meeting, the Commission conducted four motions and votes on various matters before them. The Commission also heard from three members of the public who provided comments during the public input portion of the proceedings.

Attendance

The Commission meeting on September 26, 2019 had eight members present and three absent.

Present: • Frank Penn • Headley Bell • Anthony de Movellan • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Bruce Nicol • Carolyn Plumlee • Graham Pohl

Absent: • Patrick Brewer • Mike Owens • Bill Wilson

No members arrived late to the meeting.

Votes and Decisions

The Commission took four votes during the September 26, 2019 meeting, all passing unanimously with all eight members present voting in favor.

Meeting Minutes Approval 0:30 Commissioner Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes from the August 22, 2019 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 8-0, with Commissioners Frank Penn, Headley Bell, Anthony de Movellan, Larry Forester, Karen Mundy, Bruce Nicol, Carolyn Plumlee, and Graham Pohl all voting in favor.

PLN-MAR-19-00010 - Ball Homes, Inc. Postponement 5:00 Commissioner Carolyn Plumlee motioned to postpone the Ball Homes, Inc. zoning map amendment to the October 24, 2019 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Karen Mundy. The postponement was approved unanimously 8-0, with all commissioners voting in favor.

PLN-MAR-19-00013 - Aptitude Development Postponement 10:00 Commissioner Karen Mundy motioned to postpone the Aptitude Development zoning map amendment to the October 24, 2019 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Carolyn Plumlee. The postponement was approved unanimously 8-0, with all commissioners voting in favor.

PLN-MJDP-19-00005 - James RB MacCoom Development Plan 45:00 Commissioner Karen Mundy motioned to approve the James RB MacCoom development plan subject to eight conditions set by staff, seconded by Commissioner Larry Forester. The development plan was approved unanimously 8-0, with all commissioners voting in favor. The approval included the eight staff-recommended conditions.

All votes were conducted with the full Commission present, with no abstentions or opposing votes recorded for any of the four items considered.

Public Comment

Three residents spoke during the public comment period, all addressing concerns about the proposed accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance.

Ashley Smith 90:00 expressed concerns about the potential impact of accessory dwelling units on neighborhoods. Smith raised questions about how ADUs might affect the character and dynamics of residential areas.

Ann Graham 95:00 spoke in opposition to the ADU proposal, citing two primary concerns. Graham argued that the proposal could lead to the commercialization of residential neighborhoods, fundamentally changing their character. She also raised concerns about the potential burden on existing infrastructure, suggesting that increased density from ADUs could strain utilities and services.

Walt Gatfield 100:00 focused his comments on specific aspects of the ADU proposal's requirements. Gatfield expressed concerns about the lack of an owner occupancy requirement in the proposed ordinance, suggesting this could lead to properties being converted primarily for rental purposes. He worried that without requiring property owners to live on-site, the proposal could result in an increase in rental properties throughout residential neighborhoods.

All three speakers shared concerns about how the ADU proposal might transform the nature of residential neighborhoods, though they emphasized different aspects of the potential impacts - from general neighborhood character to specific regulatory requirements and infrastructure considerations.

Contested Items

The primary contested item at the September 26, 2019 Commission meeting was the proposed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Text Amendment, which generated significant community opposition.

Accessory Dwelling Units Text Amendment

Multiple citizens spoke against the proposed ADU ordinance during the public comment period. The opposition centered on several key concerns:

• Neighborhood Character: Residents expressed worry that allowing accessory dwelling units would fundamentally alter the character of existing residential neighborhoods

• Rental Property Issues: Community members raised concerns about the potential increase in rental properties and associated impacts on neighborhood stability

• Infrastructure Burdens: Citizens questioned whether existing infrastructure could adequately support the increased density that ADUs might bring to residential areas

The nature of the opposition appeared to be grassroots community concern rather than organized advocacy, with individual residents voicing similar themes about preserving neighborhood integrity and managing growth impacts.

The meeting materials and public testimony reflected a clear divide between the proposed policy goals of increasing housing options through ADUs and community concerns about implementation effects on established residential areas. Citizens who spoke against the amendment represented various perspectives within the community but shared common concerns about how the text amendment would affect their neighborhoods.

The Commission heard the public input on this contentious issue, though the specific outcome or next steps for the ADU text amendment were not clearly indicated in the available meeting materials. The level of community engagement and opposition demonstrated the significance of this policy proposal for local residents.

James RB MacCoom Development Plan

45:00

The Commission reviewed agenda item PLN-MJDP-19-00005, the James RB MacCoom Development Plan, which proposes the construction of 53 single-family residential lots along with a detention area for stormwater management.

Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Zack Cato, who presented details of the proposed development to the Commission. The plan represents a significant residential expansion in the area, requiring careful consideration of infrastructure and community impact.

Citizens attending the meeting raised concerns about two primary issues related to the development:

• Density concerns - Residents questioned whether the proposed 53 lots would create too high a concentration of housing for the area
• Traffic impact - Community members expressed worry about increased vehicle traffic that would result from the new residential development

The Commission deliberated on these citizen concerns alongside the technical aspects of the development plan, including the proposed detention area designed to manage stormwater runoff from the new residential lots.

Despite the concerns raised by citizens regarding density and traffic impacts, the Commission ultimately approved the James RB MacCoom Development Plan. The approval allows the developer to proceed with the construction of the 53 single-family lots and associated infrastructure, including the detention area.

The approval of PLN-MJDP-19-00005 represents a significant addition to the community's housing stock, though the Commission's decision indicates they found the development plan acceptable despite the public concerns about density and traffic generation.

Accessory Dwelling Units Text Amendment

90:00 The Planning Commission discussed ZOTA 2019-5, a proposed text amendment to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in residential zones. Chris Taylor served as a key speaker during the discussion.

The commission heard public comments regarding the proposed changes to zoning regulations that would permit accessory dwelling units in residential areas. The discussion focused on several community concerns about the potential impact of allowing these secondary housing units.

Key concerns raised during the discussion included:

• Neighborhood impact and character preservation
• Issues related to rental properties and property management
• Infrastructure capacity and strain on existing utilities and services

The public comment period allowed residents and stakeholders to voice their opinions on how ADUs might affect their communities. Participants expressed varying perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of introducing accessory dwelling units to residential neighborhoods.

The discussion covered the practical implications of implementing such zoning changes, including how ADUs would be regulated and what standards would apply to their construction and use. Infrastructure concerns were particularly prominent, with questions about whether existing systems could adequately support additional housing units.

This agenda item was informational in nature, allowing the commission to gather input and feedback on the proposed text amendment. No formal action was taken during this meeting, as the purpose was to facilitate discussion and hear from the community about the potential zoning changes.

The commission's consideration of accessory dwelling units reflects broader housing policy discussions and the need to address housing availability while balancing community concerns about neighborhood character and infrastructure capacity.