Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission convened on February 23, 2023, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding. The commission addressed seven agenda items during the session, covering a range of planning and zoning matters including development plans, zoning items, and proposed text amendments to the zoning ordinance.

The commission conducted 10 motions and votes throughout the meeting, with outcomes varying by agenda item. Development plans and commission items received approval, while zoning items had varied results. Public hearings on zoning ordinance text amendments were also approved. The approval of minutes from the previous meeting was tabled for future consideration.

Four members of the public provided comments during the meeting, contributing to the commission's deliberations on the various planning matters under consideration. The session also included informational items covering postponements and withdrawals as well as staff updates, ensuring commissioners were informed of current planning activities and procedural matters affecting upcoming cases.

Attendance

The following members were present at the February 23, 2023 meeting:

• Larry Forester
• Ivy Barksdale (arrived late)
• Zach Davis
• Anthony de Movellan
• Janice Meyer
• Robin Michler
• Judy Worth
• Bruce Nicol
• Headley Bell

Absent: • Frank Penn • Graham Pohl

Late Arrival: • Ivy Barksdale

Nine members were present for the meeting, with two members absent. One member arrived after the meeting had begun.

Votes and Decisions

The commission took action on ten items during the February 23, 2023 meeting, with most passing unanimously.

Postponements and Deferrals

0:00 Anthony de Movellan motioned to indefinitely postpone PLN-MAR-22-00016 for REALTY UNLIMITED BLUE GRASS, LLC, seconded by Headley Bell. The motion passed unanimously 8-0.

Development Plans

2:00 The commission unanimously approved PLN-MJDP-22-000085 for SOUTH END PARK, UNIT 2 (DAVIS PARK) development plan 9-0, with Judy Worth making the motion and Bruce Nicol seconding. The approval included 12 revised conditions.

4:00 PLN-MJDP-22-00084 for BURKE, HOCKENSMITH, & MAGGARD, LOT 1 (AMD) development plan was unanimously approved 9-0 on a motion by Headley Bell, seconded by Bruce Nicol, with revised conditions presented by staff.

7:00 EASTLAND SHOPPING CENTER development plan (PLN-MJDP-22-00076) passed unanimously 9-0 with 14 revised conditions, on a motion by Zach Davis and second by Anthony de Movellan.

Zoning Map Amendments

3:00 PLN-MAR-22-00029 for GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF KENTUCKY, INC zoning map amendment was unanimously approved 9-0.

5:00 The commission unanimously voted 9-0 to disapprove PLN-MAR-22-00015 for DUTCH BROS, LLC zoning map amendment, with reasons provided by staff.

6:00 PLN-MAR-22-00024 for EASTLAND LEGACY CENTER, INC zoning map amendment passed unanimously 9-0, excluding restriction on outdoor storage.

Split Votes

8:00 PLN-ZOTA-22-00019, an amendment to Article 8-2(D) regarding Athletic Fields and Structures, passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Larry Forester, Ivy Barksdale, Zach Davis, Anthony de Movellan, Janice Meyer, and Headley Bell. Voting against: Robin Michler, Judy Worth, and Bruce Nicol.

9:00 PLN-CELL-23-00001 for a 120-foot monopole cellular tower application also passed 6-3 with the same voting alignment, including additional screening requirements.

10:00 The Imagine Lexington 2045 Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives was unanimously approved 9-0 as amended, on a motion by Janice Meyer and second by Headley Bell.

Public Comment

Four community members addressed the meeting during the public comment period, raising concerns about various development proposals.

Mary Davis 0:00 was allocated six minutes to speak at the beginning of the meeting for general comments, though the specific content of her remarks was not detailed in the meeting record.

Amy Clark 5:00 spoke in opposition to the Dutch Bros zoning map amendment. Clark expressed concerns about traffic impacts and pedestrian safety issues that could result from the proposed Dutch Bros coffee shop location.

Brittany Rothmire 8:00 voiced opposition to a zoning ordinance text amendment (ZOTA). Rothmire raised concerns about potential negative impacts the proposed amendment could have on the rural service area.

Joyce Arvin 9:00 addressed geological concerns related to a proposed cell tower project. Arvin specifically cited worries about the geological stability of the proposed site, mentioning potential issues with sinkholes that could affect the tower's foundation and safety.

The public comments reflected community concerns about multiple development projects, with speakers focusing on traffic safety, zoning impacts on rural areas, and geological stability issues. All four speakers raised opposition or concerns about various proposals being considered by the governing body.

Contested Items

The February 23, 2023 meeting featured several contentious issues that drew significant community input and debate among board members.

Dutch Bros Zoning Map Amendment Community members voiced strong opposition to the proposed Dutch Bros coffee shop development, raising concerns about increased traffic congestion and pedestrian safety in the area. The nature of the community opposition centered on potential impacts to local traffic patterns and the safety of pedestrians navigating the proposed location.

Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment The proposed amendment to Article 8-2(D) of the zoning ordinance proved divisive among board members, resulting in a split vote. The primary concern focused on how the amendment would affect the rural service area, with disagreement over the potential implications for rural development and land use regulations. The contentious nature of this item reflected broader tensions about balancing development needs with rural character preservation.

Cell Tower Application Local residents organized opposition to a proposed cell tower installation, expressing concerns about negative impacts on property values and the visual aesthetics of the surrounding area. The community opposition highlighted typical tensions between telecommunications infrastructure needs and neighborhood preservation concerns.

These contested items demonstrate the ongoing challenges faced by the planning body in balancing development proposals with community concerns about traffic, safety, rural character, and neighborhood aesthetics. Each item required careful consideration of competing interests between applicants seeking approvals and residents concerned about potential negative impacts on their communities.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps, vote tallies, and detailed outcomes were not available in the provided meeting data.*

Approval of Minutes

0:00

The first agenda item addressed the approval of minutes from the previous meeting. However, the minutes were not available for review and approval at this time.

Outcome: • The approval of minutes was tabled until the documents become available

No discussion took place regarding this agenda item, as there were no materials to review. The item will need to be addressed at a future meeting once the previous meeting's minutes are prepared and distributed to members.

Postponements and Withdrawals

0:00 The commission addressed agenda item 2 regarding requests for postponement and withdrawal of certain applications before the body. Anthony de Movellan served as the key speaker for this agenda item.

The commission considered various requests from applicants seeking to either postpone their scheduled hearings or withdraw their applications entirely from consideration. This administrative item allows the commission to manage its docket and accommodate applicants who may need additional time to prepare their cases or who have decided not to proceed with their requests.

The discussion was informational in nature, with the commission reviewing the specific applications that had requested postponements or withdrawals. This type of agenda item is typically routine administrative business that helps streamline the commission's workflow and ensures that only ready cases proceed to full consideration.

The outcome was recorded as informational, indicating that the commission acknowledged and processed the postponement and withdrawal requests without requiring formal votes or extended deliberation on the merits of the underlying applications.

Development Plans

2:00

The commission reviewed various development plans during agenda item 3, with Tom Martin serving as the key speaker for the discussion.

The primary focus of the review centered on two specific development projects:

• South End Park - Details of this development plan were presented and discussed by the commission
• Unit 2 (Davis Park) - This project was also included in the development plans under consideration

Tom Martin presented the development proposals to the commission for their review and consideration. The discussion covered the various aspects and requirements of these development projects.

Following the presentation and discussion of the development plans, the commission proceeded to vote on the proposals. The outcome of the deliberation resulted in approval of the development plans that were presented.

The commission's review process allowed for examination of the proposed developments before reaching their decision to approve the plans for South End Park and Unit 2 (Davis Park).

Zoning Items

3:00

The commission reviewed several zoning matters during agenda item 4, with Hal Baillie serving as the primary speaker for this section. The discussion covered both zoning map amendments and zoning ordinance text amendments.

Two specific businesses were highlighted during the zoning review: Dutch Bros and Goodwill Industries. The commission examined proposed changes that would affect these establishments, though the specific nature of the amendments was not detailed in the available materials.

The zoning items encompassed both map amendments, which typically involve changing the zoning designation of specific properties, and text amendments, which involve modifications to the language and requirements within the zoning ordinance itself.

The outcomes for the various zoning items were mixed, with different results for different proposals under consideration. The commission's review process addressed multiple aspects of local zoning regulations and their application to specific properties and businesses within the jurisdiction.

Public Hearings on Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments

8:00

The commission conducted public hearings on proposed zoning ordinance text amendments during agenda item 5. The hearings focused on amendments to Article 8-2(D) of the zoning ordinance.

Nick Nicholson served as a key speaker during the proceedings, presenting information related to the proposed text amendments. The hearings provided an opportunity for public input and commission discussion on the proposed changes to the zoning regulations.

Following the public hearing process and commission deliberation, the zoning ordinance text amendments were approved. The specific details of the amendments to Article 8-2(D) and any public comments received were not detailed in the available materials, but the commission moved forward with approval of the proposed changes.

The approval of these text amendments represents modifications to the municipality's zoning regulations that will affect future development and land use decisions within the jurisdiction.

Commission Items

9:00

The commission addressed various items during this discussion period, with Jim Duncan serving as a key speaker for the proceedings.

The primary focus of the commission items was a cell tower application submitted by Municipal Communications III, LLC and Dish Network. The application was presented to the commission for their consideration and review.

During the discussion, the commission evaluated the merits and requirements of the proposed cell tower project. The application underwent the standard review process, with commissioners examining the technical specifications, location considerations, and regulatory compliance aspects of the proposal.

Following their deliberation, the commission voted to approve the cell tower application from Municipal Communications III, LLC and Dish Network. The approval indicates that the application met the necessary criteria and standards required by the commission for such telecommunications infrastructure projects.

The commission items discussion concluded with the successful approval of the cell tower application, allowing the project to move forward to the next phase of development and implementation.

Staff Items

10:00

Staff presented updates on long-range planning activities and the comprehensive plan process during this informational agenda item.

Chris Taylor delivered the Long Range Planning Activity Report, providing updates on the Imagine Lexington 2045 Comprehensive Plan. The presentation covered ongoing planning initiatives and progress on the city's long-term development strategy.

This was an informational presentation with no action required from the commission. The staff report served to keep commissioners informed of current planning activities and the status of comprehensive plan development efforts.