Published: December 21, 2007 12:15 am         

Richmond planners to review zoning ordinance

RICHMOND — In early 2008, Richmond Planner Director Mike Roberts and City Manager David Evans will review the city’s development ordinance with an eye to recommending changes and corrections in light of the past year’s experience.

When the Planning and Zoning Commission met this week for the final time in 2007, Roberts asked members to suggest areas for review in the ordinance that defines zones and governs plats and development plans.

Commissioner Neen Wiggins said she was troubled by the abrupt changes in elevations at the borders of property being developed after recent zoning changes.

A vertical drop of approximately 10 feet in some spots marks the boundary between the Deacon Hills residential subdivision and property on the south side of Barnes Mill Road near the Willis Branch intersection that was rezoned this year for commercial use.

“I feel sorry for those people whose backyards are now left up high,” she said.

Similar contrasts in adjacent contours can be found around the Richmond Centre property being developed on the north side of Barnes Mill Road.

The city’s ordinance does not require gradual transition of surface contours at the boundaries of developments, Roberts said. “In some cases, we require the construction of retaining walls,” but not gradual transitions.

“Coming up with general language that would be appropriate for every situation will be difficult, but we will do our best,” he said.

Wiggins also expressed concern about the appearance of a tall retaining wall at the corner of Barnes Mill Road and North Kilarney Lane. “The people in houses across Barnes Mill now have to look out at a concrete wall,” Wiggins said.

Developers often are required to plant landscaping screens around retaining walls, and at other boundaries, but the wall at Barnes Mill and North Kilarney is too close to the street to allow planting of trees. The city has suggested planting vines to cover the retaining wall, Roberts said, but the developer has been unable to find a landscaper willing to attempt that.

Roberts said the definition of the city’s R-4 zone will be reviewed.

At the public hearing after which a tract off Barnes Mill Road was rezoned R-4 this year, a resident of Deacon Hills said the definition appeared to be written for public housing developments.

Under a heading, “R-4 Mixed Residential District,” the ordinance reads:

“This district is designed to provide for the establishment of small clusters of public housing as single-family dwelling units, or some combination of single-family dwellings mixed with two-family or multi-family dwellings. The gross density shall not exceed six (6) units per acre, and the minimum size of the district shall not exceed two (2) acres.”

At the hearing, Roberts and members of the commission referred to the public housing reference as a “typographical error.”

Dr. Ron Marionneaux, retired professor of geography who was consultant to the city when its development ordinance and comprehension plan were written, wrote a letter to Roberts characterizing the public housing reference as deliberate.

The R-4 zone was created at the request of the city’s Community Development Office so a specific “small and irregularly shaped” parcel of property could be used for public housing, he wrote.

According to Marionneaux, the only error in the definition is the word “minimum.” The correct word would be “maximum,” which was intended to limit the R-4 district to two acres.

Developers in two cases this year have sought R-4 zoning to accommodate developments with single-family homes, duplexes and condominiums. One was approved and the other was not.

The only plat approved this year in the R-4 zone includes only single-family homes.

Marionneaux said an appropriate classification to accommodate mixed uses would be the PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone.

John Wernegreen asked Roberts to review the city’s definition of “family” for permissible uses in zones limited to single- and two-family residences.

City Attorney Garrett Fowles said he and Evans had found enforcement of codes based on a legal definition of “family” to be problematic.

Various circuits of the federal judiciary use differing definitions, Fowles said.

The Richmond ordinance defines a family as:

“One or more persons occupying a single-dwelling unit, provided that no such family shall contain over five persons, unless all members are related by blood, adoption, or marriage, but further provided that domestic servants employed on the premises may be housed on the premises without being counted as part of a family or families. (Statutory Reference: Residential care facility for handicapped persons allowed in residential districts and subdivisions. See KRS 100.982-100.984).”

Bill Robinson can be reached at brobinson@richmondregister.com or at 623-1669, Ext. 267.

     

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.