Lexington’s comp plans, neighborhood integrity at odds with Maxwell apartment project

Written by Dr. Zak Leonard, Historic Preservation Manger

Is a person “downtown” if they can see a certain mural? What are the city’s responsibilities if the

university admits more students than it can house? These issues were debated during the December 14

Planning Commission hearing on the proposed rezoning of E. Maxwell Street and Stone Avenue, which

would enable the construction of a 7-story, 700-bed complex. However, the actual text of the 2018 and

2045 comprehensive plans seemingly was of less concern during this marathon meeting.

These plans, which state law mandates, claim to support historic preservation, adaptive reuse, and

“context-sensitive design” in areas abutting H-1 overlay districts. It should be noted that the Maxwell

Street project area, which currently contains 13 National Register-listed buildings, was initially

recommended for inclusion in the Aylesford local historic district, but landlords’ opposition resulted in

its removal.

Prior to the Planning Commission’s ruling, the project area was classified as R-4 (medium density

residential). This designation caps a building’s lot coverage at 40%; it also mandates that 15% of the land

be vegetated and that 15% serve as usable open space. The rezoning to B-2A, which Stavroff Land and

Development sought, permits buildings up to ten stories while eliminating the vegetated space

requirement and reducing usable open space to 5%. But what do the comprehensive plans actually

advise in these cases?

The 2018 plan clearly aimed to “protect historic resources” and “incentivize the renovation, restoration,

development and maintenance of historic residential and commercial structures” (14). It further

acknowledged that the “preservation of historic buildings, neighborhoods, landscapes and other cultural

resources provide benefits to the citizens that in many ways cannot be measured” (177). At the hearing,

we asked whether the developer had even considered rehabilitation of the existing buildings using

historic tax credits. This question was met with a telling silence.

“Density Policy 2” of the 2018 plan further stipulated that infill residential developments “should apply

the recurring building patterns of the area” where “the preservation of existing neighborhood design

characteristics is of high importance” (42). Notably, its authors insisted that “it is wholly possible to add

residential units while matching the consistent rhythm of existing development, so that the new

seamlessly blends in with the old.” No building bordering the project area exceeds 3 stories.

While the 2045 plan adopts slightly different language, its commitment to historic preservation and

neighborhood integrity is still evident. It advises that “infill and redevelopment projects should take

extra care to acknowledge the architectural character, materials, height and mass, [and] scale and

connectivity of historic neighborhoods” (194). The Maxwell Street corridor also falls within an

“opportunity zone,” which the plan identifies as a location for “creative place making” that will respect

“the historical context of a neighborhood” (152). But a 7-story building with a minimal setback on a

single elevation hardly fulfills this objective. Moreover, the 2045 plan solely recommends B-2A zoning in

the downtown place-type, which it describes as “the urban epicenter of commerce and entertainment”

(268). It is unlikely that any visitor to E. Maxwell Street would describe it as such.

The 2045 plan lauds “context-sensitive development” as an approach to ensure compatibility between

new construction and “the existing fabric of neighboring communities” (61). This strategy supposedly

“recognizes the importance of considering the surrounding built and natural environments to enhance

the overall quality of life for residents.” Placebuilder criterion A-DN2-2 echoes these sentiments. Yet the

destructive Maxwell project is at odds with this agenda. For “context-sensitive development” to mean

something, the city must produce clear design guidelines (like those that the historic preservation office

applies to new builds in H-1 districts). Still, it is readily apparent that the comprehensive plans aim to

prevent the very situation that is unfolding on E. Maxwell Street.

The Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation promotes sensible infill development wherever feasible.

We therefore urge Lexington residents to contact their councilmembers by January 16 and request an

Urban County Council public hearing on the inappropriate rezoning of E. Maxwell Street and Stone

Avenue.