Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues review of planned development residential (PDR) zoning text amendment, debates acreage, uses and safeguards
Summary
Staff presented a draft PDR (formerly PUD) zoning text amendment and commissioners discussed minimum area thresholds, permitted uses, open-space and parking requirements, site-plan expectations, and concerns about potential spot zoning; staff will provide examples from other jurisdictions at the next meeting.
The Lexington Planning Commission continued in-depth review May 14 of a proposed Planned Development Residential (PDR) zoning-text amendment intended to replace older PUD language and to give more flexibility for multifamily and mixed-housing redevelopment across selected city parcels.
Staff framed the change as an effort to permit a wider variety of housing types and, in some versions, to allow mixed uses where appropriate. The staff member explained the process difference between a typical rezoning and a PUD/PDR review: "In a PUD, they're bringing you a plan that is just about the site plan level where they're showing you where the building's gonna go, where the setbacks are, where the landscaping or buffers are, where the stormwater is gonna be," the staff member said, adding that applicants should submit a narrative and master plan so commissioners can evaluate proposed waivers to standard code requirements.
Commissioners focused on several recurring issues. One question was minimum-area thresholds: older PUD language included a 5-acre minimum, later amended for specific projects to 3 acres, while earlier iterations had no minimum; commissioners debated whether a minimum should be required at all or whether smaller parcels should retain access to targeted flexibility (for example, setback relief for small townhouse infill projects). Concerns about open-space requirements, which some commissioners said could be burdensome on smaller sites, and a 20-dwelling-units-per-acre gross-density figure in the draft were raised.
Permitted and conditional uses were another focus. The most expansive draft language would permit uses shown in an approved master plan even if they are not listed as permitted in underlying zoning, while staff emphasized the rezoning and master-plan public-hearing process provides safeguards. One commissioner expressed concern it could "open a can of worms" if PDR provisions were allowed broadly across R-1 and other residential districts; staff suggested limiting where PDR is permitted (residential districts plus designated special planning areas) or using minimum-area thresholds to constrain applications.
Commissioners also discussed practical application requirements: whether elevations and context drawings should be required at initial application, thresholds for traffic and environmental studies, and parking standards (staff said applicants should justify parking ratios and the commission could accept lower-than-minimum parking where supported by data). Staff committed to bring comparative examples from neighboring jurisdictions (Blacksburg, Albemarle County, Stanton) for the next meeting.
No zoning text amendment was adopted at the meeting; the commission's role during the session was to review options, identify concerns and ask staff for additional analysis and examples before drafting final language.
