# Planning Commission-Zoning Items - December 18, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · December 18, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6646 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6646?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-12-18 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: February 4, 2026 - **Length**: 7,555 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on December 18, 2025, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Chair Davis presiding. The meeting addressed 2 agenda items, both of which received approval: the Anderson Midtown Apartments, LLC Map Amendment and Aylesford Addition, Block 5, Lot 1-3 (Woodland Village) Development Plan, and the Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC Map Amendment and Greathouse Property (The Village at Great Acres, Lot 9) (AMD) Development Plan. Over the course of the meeting, the Commission conducted 8 motions and votes and heard 1 public comment. ## Attendance The following members were recorded for the Commission meeting on December 18, 2025. **Present (9):** - Zach Davis - Ivy Barksdale - Robin Michler - William Wilson - Larry Forester - Judy Worth *(arrived late)* - Johnathon Davis - Mike Owens - Molly Davis **Absent (1):** - Bruce Nicol Nine of the ten members were present for the meeting. Judy Worth was in attendance but arrived late. Bruce Nicol was the sole absent member. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took the following actions at the December 18, 2025 meeting: - **PLN-MAR-25-00022** — The Commission voted unanimously (9–0) to postpone the Subtext Acquisitions, LLC zone map amendment to January 29, 2026. Motion by Larry Forester, seconded by Johnathon Davis. [timestamp: 0:02:47] - **PLN-MAR-25-00017** — The Commission voted unanimously (9–0) to postpone the Legacy Trail, LLC zone map amendment to January 29, 2026. Motion by Frank Penn, seconded by William Wilson. [timestamp: 0:03:49] - **PLN-ZOTA-24-00006** — The Commission voted unanimously (10–0) to postpone revisions to Article 23A-10 for the Economic Development (ED) zone to January 29, 2026. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Molly Davis. [timestamp: 0:05:54] - **PLN-MAR-25-00019** — The Commission voted unanimously (10–0) to approve the Anderson Midtown Apartments, LLC zone map amendment from R-3 to R-4. Motion by Robin Michler, seconded by Judy Worth. [timestamp: 0:39:04] - **Variances for Anderson Midtown Apartments, LLC** — The Commission approved the variances on a roll call vote of 9–1. Voting in favor: Zach Davis, Ivy Barksdale, Robin Michler, William Wilson, Larry Forester, Johnathon Davis, Mike Owens, and Judy Worth. Voting against: Molly Davis. Motion by Robin Michler, seconded by Judy Worth. [timestamp: 0:40:39] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00066** — The Commission voted unanimously (10–0) to approve the Aylesford Addition, Block 5, Lot 1-3 (Woodland Village) development plan, subject to the corrections listed and the seven conditions. Motion by Robin Michler, seconded by Judy Worth. [timestamp: 0:41:13] - **PLN-MAR-25-00023** — The Commission voted unanimously (10–0) to approve the Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC zone map amendment from R-3 to B-3. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Jonathan Davis. [timestamp: 0:56:57] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00071** — The Commission voted unanimously (10–0) to approve the Great House Properties, Anderson Village at Great Acres, Lot 9 development plan, with the seven reasons provided by staff. Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Molly Davis. [timestamp: 0:57:31] ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period. [timestamp: 37:56] - **Braden Stamper**, identified as a University of Kentucky student, spoke in support of the Anderson Midtown Apartments development. Stamper highlighted the project's proximity to campus and nearby amenities as particularly beneficial for students who do not own cars. No additional public comments were recorded during this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items - **Anderson Midtown Apartments Variance** — This item produced the only divided vote of the meeting, passing 9-1. Commissioner Molly Davis cast the sole dissenting vote, citing concerns about buffer reductions associated with the variance request. The remaining nine commissioners voted in favor, resulting in approval of the variance for Anderson Midtown Apartments. No additional commissioners on record voiced opposition, and no timestamp data is available for this item. ## Anderson Midtown Apartments, LLC Map Amendment and Aylesford Addition, Block 5, Lot 1-3 (Woodland Village) Development Plan [timestamp: 06:32] The Commission considered a petition for a zone map amendment and accompanying development plan for property located at 401 Woodland Avenue, legally described as Aylesford Addition, Block 5, Lots 1-3 (Woodland Village). The request, brought by Anderson Midtown Apartments, LLC, sought to rezone the property from R-3 to R-4 to allow for the construction of a new residential structure. Key speakers on this item included **Jeremy Young**, **Chris Chaney**, **Tony Barrett**, and **Dick Murphy**, who participated in the presentation and discussion of the proposal. The item encompassed both the map amendment — the formal change in zoning designation — and a development plan outlining the proposed new residential construction on the site. The R-4 designation, representing a higher-density residential classification than the existing R-3 zoning, would permit the type and scale of development proposed by the applicant. The Commission reviewed the petition, heard from the relevant speakers, and deliberated on the merits of the rezoning and the associated development plan. The item was ultimately **approved** by the Commission. ## Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC Map Amendment and Greathouse Property (The Village at Great Acres, Lot 9) (AMD) Development Plan [timestamp: 41:46] The Commission took up Agenda Item 2, a petition for a zone map amendment from R-3 to B-3 for property located at 2788 Ruby River Drive, along with an accompanying development plan. The proposal involves the development of a credit union with drive-through lanes on the site, identified as Lot 9 of the Village at Great Acres subdivision. Key speakers on this item included **Jeremy Young**, **Chris Chaney**, and **Dick Murphy**, who participated in the presentation and discussion of the request. The item covered two related actions: the map amendment to rezone the parcel from its current R-3 (residential) designation to B-3 (business/commercial), and the approval of a development plan consistent with that proposed zoning. The credit union facility, including drive-through lanes, represents the intended use under the B-3 designation. The Commission reviewed the petition and, following discussion among the key speakers and commissioners, voted to **approve** both the zone map amendment and the associated development plan. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-25-00022** — postponed (9-0): Postpone Subtext Acquisitions, LLC zone map amendment to January 29, 2026 - **PLN-MAR-25-00017** — postponed (9-0): Postpone Legacy Trail, LLC zone map amendment to January 29, 2026 - **PLN-ZOTA-24-00006** — postponed (10-0): Postpone revisions to Article 23A-10 for the Economic Development (ED) zone to January 29, 2026 - **PLN-MAR-25-00019** — passed (10-0): Approve Anderson Midtown Apartments, LLC zone map amendment from R-3 to R-4 - **Motion** — passed (9-1): Approve variances for Anderson Midtown Apartments, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-25-00066** — passed (10-0): Approve Aylesford Addition, Block 5, Lot 1-3 (Woodland Village) development plan - **PLN-MAR-25-00023** — passed (10-0): Approve Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC zone map amendment from R-3 to B-3 - **PLN-MJDP-25-00071** — passed (10-0): Approve Great House Properties, Anderson Village at Great Acres, Lot 9 development plan --- ## Full transcript Really? M A R, 25 dash 22. We would ask for a one month postponement to the January 29th planning commission meeting. We're still working with the neighbors and unfortunately their council is indisposed today. So, I'd appreciate it. All righty, thank you, Nick. Do we have any questions or comments on that request? If not, the floor is open for, yes, sorry, Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you, Chair. This question is really for staff. I drove by the site on Tuesday night. And it says that the hearing sign is posted on Mott Mullin Street, which makes sense, since that is the proposed entrance. But it says that has today's date as the hearing. Will that be changed to January 29th? Yes, so any time that we get a postponement, we go back and repost the signs. And so, yeah, every time. Excellent, thank you so much. Okay, so we have a request for postponement to January 29th. Do we have a motion on that, or any discussion? Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion for a one month postponement for PLN MER 25-22 to the January 29th, 2026. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. And second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote, please. That carries unanimously. Mr. Pitt. Thank you, Nick. Mr. Gross. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Due to the holiday season, I'm going to give you two gifts today. And the first one will be on page four, item two. This is Legacy Trails zone change request for 1170 Newtown Pike. We would request a one month postponement until January 29th. And we plan to go back to the committees in January. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Brandon. That is a request for January 29th for a postponement. We have any questions for Mr. Gross? Mr. Penn? Sure, if we don't have any questions. Sure. All righty. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one month postponement to the January 29th meeting for PLN MER 2517. Second. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Second from Commissioner Bill Wilson. Do we have any comments or final thoughts before we take a vote? Seeing none, all right, that carries unanimously. Thank you. And the second one is on page nine. This is C1, PLN ZOTA 246, revisions to the economic development ED zone. We would request a one month postponement on this one, too. To the 29th. Yes, sir. All right, do we have any thoughts on that or any questions? Mr. Chair? Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. I'm fine with the motion, but one thought. Since I believe this has been going on for like a year, it's been a while since we in subdivision have seen anything on this. I would ask that it come back before subdivision, prior to our hearing. That's our intent, to go back to the committee. Okay. And then, do you want us to attend the subdivision committee also? We don't mind. Well, that's what I'm saying. The subdivision committee really hasn't seen anything on this in quite some time, so it would be good to have a refresher. Yeah. Okay. Staff's on board, we're on board. So we'll plan on coming at the 830 meeting also for you guys. That's fine. And Brandon, so that would be on the January 8th, the subdivision? Yes. Yes, we're already planning on coming to the 130 subdivision, I mean, zoning subcommittee, but we'll just come to both on the 8th. On the 8th. Yes. All right. Thank you for that assurance, Mr. Gross. Do we have any comments or questions on the motion? Mr. Chair, if everybody's ready, I'll move for postponement of plan ZOTA 24-6, the revision to article 23A-10 for economic development until January 29th. Second. Thank you. Second, Commissioner Molly Davis. All right. If we have no further comments or have validations on that, we'll take a vote. Hold on, just. All right, and Mr. Wilson, thank you. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Groves. All right, do we have any other postponements? Okay, seeing none, we will go to the first item on our agenda today, which is on page two. Anderson Midtown Apartments, PLN MAR 2519. Thank you. Jeremy Young, Planning Staff. This request is for R3 to R4, planned neighborhood residential to medium density residential. For property located at 401 Woodland Avenue, it's 0.585 net acres property. The applicant has chosen second tier urban and medium density residential. The goal of the zone change is to add a second structure. And double the number of units. There's currently 24 on the property now, and the second building would give them 48 total. It's going to be built in the area of the parking lot. So there's not going to be any structures removed, and I believe all the trees that are present now are going to remain. Initially, the design called for a couple of, actually three variances and in response to some staff comments and comments from the zoning committee, the applicant redesigned the project. So a couple of those variances are going to be withdrawn and replaced by three others. So we'll get into that a little bit later when we discuss the variance. So the property is located on the corner of Woodland Avenue and Euclid Avenue. You can see, this is UK here. There's Euclid and Woodland here. It's located near UK and within walking distance to a lot of amenities that students would use. The adjacent zoning, the brown is R3, planned neighborhood residential. The orange is R2, the dark brown is R4, which is medium density residential. It's a small sliver down here at the southwest corner. Yellow is R1E, Transylvania Park there at the north. And the red area is B1 with a university plaza as well as a speedway there along Euclid Avenue. And you can see in the overhead some of the commercial uses here on the corner of Woodland and Euclid. And then the shaded area is the H1 Aylesford overlay. The applicant has chosen second tier urban, which is, it's designed to increase density opportunities for infill. Adding more density in areas that are walkable and access to transit is really the goal of this to be a bit of a step down from the pure downtown urban zones. But increasing density going forward. And you can see that medium density residential and the R4 zone are recommended in second tier urban. And staff recommends approval of this application. It meets the goals and objectives for promoting infill redevelopment. It provides convenient access to transit. It's walkable for students to get to the university as well as retail opportunities, grocery stores, things that they would need without having to use a car. And as far as the policies of the comprehensive plan, it reduces parking. As I said before, this is going to be an additional structure that's going to be built by removing some of the parking and replacing that with a residential structure. It increases density and while being sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood, it's going to be built on a similar scale and using the same design features as the existing structure. So it shouldn't be overly intrusive to the neighborhood. I think the existing structure's been there since 1978, so it's well established. It's fitting in with the neighborhood. As far as development criteria, it's converting underutilized parking into usable space. As I said before, it's a convenient location for students to walk to campus or walk to other places that they may need. They can get to the library, they can get to the grocery just down Euclid. So it's well located for this type of thing. It's a long transit route. I think there are maybe, if I remember correctly, five bus routes that run either along Woodland or Euclid. So it gives students a lot of opportunity to access public transportation. And of course, sorry, we'll go back here. This recommendation is subject to the approval of the associated development plan as well as the variances that I'll speak about in just a few minutes. And if you all have any questions about the zoning, I can answer those at this time. Thank you, Jeremy. Do we have any questions for Jeremy on this particular request? Jeremy, I have a question. And this is not necessarily about this particular zone change, but just in general. It's curious to get a staff report that recommends approval when there was no applicant and community engagement. To me, that just seems like a conflict. Well, the original staff report, I should have updated that. They did have a public engagement, but there were no attendees. Okay, that's good to know. Commissioner? Okay, great, great. Okay, do we have any other questions? Thank you, Jeremy. Mr. McClurk, do you have a question? I just want to bring this up here. I brought it up in the committee meeting as well. That as we I guess this pertains more to the development plan, but I guess I'd just go ahead and ask the question now. As we do more of these info projects, which I think are positive, this isn't the first plan that has had to move the dumpster to the sidewalk pedestrian area in order to make that work with our existing regulations with waste management. And I just think that as we try to do these enhanced neighborhoods and use infill projects to enhance the neighborhoods, I would like staff to look at working with waste management to look for better long term solutions than to line dumpsters along our public sidewalks. I know right now, solutions that have been done in other infill projects are currently not permitted, such as the dumpsters or waste receptacles that are on wheels that are rolled out. Other mobile units backing up too long, basically it's resulted in a new dumpster along Jefferson Street, now another dumpster on Woodland Avenue. And I do think that this element of that plan won't enhance the neighborhood, and that's not the applicant's fault, that's our own city's. Needs to revisit how we handle the waste management in these urban neighborhoods. I agree, it certainly isn't ideal to have the dumpster right next to the sidewalk. I think with the constraints of the existing structure and the existing layout, I'm not quite sure where else you would put it. It's sort of an unfortunate side effect of adding density to a relatively small lot. So I agree that it's not ideal. All right, thank you, Mr. Mickler. Do we have any other thoughts before we move on? Seeing none, Commissioner Molly Davis? Is this the time to ask questions about the development plan, or is that the next step? That would be, are we going to talk about the variance first, and then development plan? Development plan, and then I'll come back and talk about the variance. So, we're almost there. Thank you. All righty, thank you, Jeremy. Don't die on me, Jeremy, because I'm still alive. Good afternoon, Chris Chaney, planning staff. We're going to be looking at the associated development plan, MJDP 2566, the Aylesford addition block five, lots one, two, and three, Woodland Village. Let's see what we got, okay. So, this depicts the site with the existing multifamily structure here. This is Euclid and Woodland, and the main entrance is off of Woodland with the associated parking. And then this is the proposed structure in the rear, which is comparable to the existing structure in height and units. The applicant did provide a revised plan depicting the proposed three-story multifamily residential building. And based on that, the existing requirements not met. Number one, depict or denote stormwater management. Number two, provide a minimum eight-foot landscape buffer between all adjacent R2 properties, as well as the VUA perimeter buffer, list the VUA tree canopy required, 30%, and VUA tree canopy provided. Number three, addition of common open space and open space exhibit. Number four, perimeter landscaping and VUA perimeter buffer will require a variance of the zoning ordinance article 1831 and 1832D, which Jeremy will come back and talk about shortly. In addition to that, there are no other waivers requested or identified. Under design considerations, division of engineering has additional comments in a CELA that the applicant was instructed to look at. And then under plan questions and concerns, discuss stormwater management proposal and then discuss place builder criteria. In regards to the development plan, staff does recommend approval with standard sign offs, initially provided that the Urban County Council approves the zone change to R4. And then engineering, traffic engineering, urban forest or open space, Department of Environmental Quality. And then the final condition is to correct all of the noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that, I'll turn it over to you all, if you have any questions for me. Thanks, Chris. Do we have any questions on the development plan? Mr. Owens, or? A couple of questions, and it's not as much as to the actual development plan as to our paperwork and so forth. One, I do not remember seeing this in subdivision committee. It's very possible I missed a subdivision committee meeting, but I don't remember seeing it. In looking at the agenda, there's no comments as to it being at or a recommendation from the subdivision committee. It's got a staff recommendation, but there's nothing as far as subdivision committee. So, a question in that. Lastly, on our Granicus, if you go to the development plan, there's no, it says revised staff report, but it goes to Great House Properties, not anything here. Great House does have a revised staff report, so that may have been a- Yeah, but what I'm saying, we don't have a revised staff report or any staff report on Granicus. And then our agenda doesn't indicate that there was any subdivision recommendation. It did go to subdivision committee in November, and I believe it was recommended for approval at the time. Yeah. If you look, you go to the Anderson Midland Apartments, the zone change, you go to the variance, you go to the development plan. MJDP 25-66 has a lot of comments, staff recommendations, you turn over and it moves on to another plan. My recollection is that there were revised conditions before subdivision committee, but not between subdivision committee and now. Does that sound right, Tony? I'd have to revise it. Okay. Would you repeat what you just said? I could not hear that. I was just trying to remember if there were revised plans. The applicant saying that there wasn't, or Tony saying that there wasn't. I do know that it went, I remember seeing it in front of the subdivision committee. Yeah, it did go to subdivision committee. There hasn't been revised plans since it was initially submitted. Since technical, yeah, right. Well, my only comment is that we don't have those. Yeah. Yeah. It looks like it just has the wrong report in that spot. Could be. Do we have an updated one? There is not a revised handout for this plan. The conditions on the agenda are correct, and they would have come from the subdivision committee. I think it might have just been when Mr. Owens was not available. So do we have on the record what the subdivision committee recommended? They did recommend approval. Approval, okay. All righty. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you. And Chris, this might be a question better answered by the applicant. So tell me, my question is, it's somewhat about some of the notes and the trees on the site. For instance, it says existing trees to be, may I ask this, or Tony, do you want to speak or? He would probably be able to answer it better than I would, but yeah. So it says existing trees to be protected, trees, plural. It points to a pine, and then says there's a locust dying. Is the plan to then add new trees to replace the locust dying? Yeah. Yes, we'll assess that locust tree at time of development. And determine if that needs to come out or stay. And we will replace the locust with a new tree, if appropriate. But there will also be additional landscaping required just through the normal. Sure, and I know this is not really the place to kind of debate whether, I was just curious because there are, I guess I am somewhat new to this process. So I'm just now realizing that one apartment building is going to stay, and a new one is going to be built in the rear of the property. That's correct. So I'm curious how the, what kind of tree canopy will be provided in this picnic area and along the other edges of the property? As per the requirements say they have to be, right? We'll have the 30% interior canopy into the parking lot, and then we'll have, I think it's a 30% canopy requirement for the whole lot in this zone. And we'll have a typical perimeter screening of the parking lot. And I think there's perimeter screening for the R2 adjoining property as well. So there will be a lot of landscaping. Tony, per your development plan, you're correct. It does, tree canopy required is 30%, according to your DP, you're providing 52%. Right, yeah, that would be consistent, yes. Great, thank you. Do we have any other questions for Chris at this time? Okay, thank you, Chris. All right, I'll get into the variance section of this request. And this might clear up some of the landscaping and screening questions as well. So, And I apologize, it's a little bit complicated, but just bear with me, so the four variance requests that are currently being requested. The first is to reduce the vehicular use area perimeter buffer from eight feet to five feet adjacent to 415 Woodland Avenue. And after this slide, I do have a graphic to help you sort of digest some of this, keep all of this on track. The second is to reduce the property perimeter buffer from eight feet to five feet adjacent to 415 Woodland Avenue, 464 Euclid Avenue, and a portion of 466 Euclid Avenue. The third is to reduce the minimum vehicular use area interior landscape from 10% to 5.1%. And the fourth request is to increase the required distance between interior landscape areas from 90 feet to 110 on one side and 125 on the other. And hopefully this will help clarify some of that. So the red line on either side of the property here, that is the zone to zone screening that's required. And from discussions with the applicant, they intend to put the required buffer there. It's just the strip is going to be narrower. So the zoning between, or the buffer between those two zones will be in place. It'll just be slightly narrower than what's required by ordinance. The blue, which is right here along this property line between 415 and the subject property, that is for vehicular use area. It is also being reduced from eight feet to five feet. The area in green is increasing the minimum distance between landscape areas to 110 on this side and 125 on this side. And these are existing conditions. So actually the current conditions are even, the dimensions are greater currently. So they will actually be reducing them, just not quite to the maximum currently allowed. And the last is this purple area here. The interior landscape requirement is 10% and they're providing 5.1%. Like I said, this is existing condition. And with the reduction in parking, it will actually be increasing the percentage. So, and staff recommends approval of all of these variances. It won't negatively affect health, safety, or welfare. The lot shape and existing conditions are unique to this property. Any additional removal of parking would unreasonably restrict the applicant's use of the property. And the circumstances are not the result of actions taken by the applicant. So, these are all contingent on the planning commission approving the zone change as well as the urban county council. And require all necessary permits to be acquired before construction. If you all have any questions about the variance, I'd be happy to answer those as well. Thank you, Mr. Young. Sorry, Commissioner Molly Davis, please. Thank you. Jeremy, can you go back to the, we'll go back a couple of slides if you wouldn't mind. Can you possibly make the diagram any larger? No, unfortunately I can't. Did you have a specific area that you had a question about? How about go back to those, well that explains what the variances are. Okay, requested. Is there currently an eight foot buffer on the plan left side between, is there currently an eight foot buffer there between the parking and the adjacent property line? No, it's currently at five feet. It's five feet, so they aren't, it's not, it's kind of, well. It's an existing condition. It's an existing condition, okay. Yes, ma'am. And then, well, I think my concern would be is that while a reduction from eight feet to five feet might be seen as minimal, it's almost 50% of the area where trees might be able to grow. And therefore, that presents a problem, in my opinion. But if it's an existing condition, there isn't a lot you can do about it. But I guess the interior landscape reduction from ten to five seems rather drastic to me. That's my opinion. Okay, do we have any other questions for Jeremy? Seeing none, thank you very much. Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy, pleased to be representing Anderson Midtown Apartments, LLC. The owner, of course, Dennis Anderson, is here with me on the second row. Tony Barrett of Barrett Partners, our designer, is here. And we are in agreement with the staff recommendation on both the zone change, the development plan, and the variances. Staff has made a good presentation telling you what's there. I'm very pleased to be presenting this because this is a case in which the existing building on the property has just this year gone over through a total remodel. So it's in very good shape. We are leaving an existing building. We are adding infill without tearing down any buildings in this area. Now, the fact that we're not tearing down any building, our existing building, it would be easier to meet the variance requests, all the other requests, if we were tearing this down and starting anew on the property. But we're not. As you can see on the exhibit up there that you have, the top one. Can I interrupt for just a second and say it's easier to see if you look back behind you rather than in. Yeah, this building, the existing parking lot goes all the way back to the property line. So almost all of the area taken up by the new building is taking up existing parking lot, which we're removing. We, in asking for a variance, sometimes it makes it appear that we are providing less with a new plan than is there now. On the contrary, we are making this more conforming. The existing parking lot has no green space in it at all. We do have some down here and down here. So we are actually having more interior green space after this plan is than we do at the present time. But again, with leaving the existing building and dealing with the existing parking lot, it makes it almost impossible to comply with all the requirements on this small lot. We are not adding any paving at all. The landscape areas will remain the same. As I think Tony mentioned, we'll have more green space on the property after this than there is now. We did have a public meeting on November 20th. As staff mentioned, nobody showed up for that one. We've had input from two nearby property owners, including the owner of this house right here, who have no objection to the zone change that's coming before you. We did have to move the dumpster. We originally showed it back here with a driveway off of Euclid after consultation with Solid Waste. That was moved to where it is on this property. But looking at the overall picture, we are providing additional density near UK. This, to me, is the best location for additional density in the community. If you don't want a car or don't have a car, this is one of the best places in town to be, because we're two blocks down to the south there, can't go off the board, is the UK main library, the Young Library, two or three blocks up toward the west is the north part of campus, Memorial Coliseum, Student Center, that sort of thing. We have, I think, an eight foot sidewalk along Woodland going down toward UK. We have a sidewalk on Euclid going up to the university. There are bike paths on those roads. And I think the staff mentioned we have a convergence of five transit routes right on this corner. And if you, the groceries, you can walk to the grocery. The Kroger has everything you need. We have restaurants here. We have bars, caddy corner across the street for anybody who wants a bar. We have Woodland Park a couple blocks away. So this is where, exactly where, we need additional density on the property. It's ideal for people who do not need a car or don't want a car. And so I'd ask you to approve this for the staff reasons. As I said, this is where we need the additional infill and we're not tearing anything down to build it. And I'm going to show you some graffiti. I've never shown graffiti before at a zone change hearing. But I found this real uplifting and I just wanted to share it with you. He's got to turn it on, but there's graffiti on the utility. This is a transformer or something, right about there along Woodland Avenue. And I just, this was the most uplifting piece of graffiti I've ever seen in my life. And it was written by a person who was a former resident of this building right here. So if I can show it to you, I think it's good for the holidays anyway. Dick, you've really earned your fee today. Yeah, okay. My name is Elliot Green. He lived in this building. I lived here from August 2020 to April 2024. This world is dying, but the people I met here made that bearable. Thank you, Lexington. Thank you. Wow, Dick, I would hate to follow that. Okay, to keep us on track, do we have any questions for Mr. Murphy? Yes, Mr. Penn. That begs the question, Mr. Murphy, are they dying to get in or dying to get out? This is really a question for staff. I drove by there the first time we heard this and I went back today, not by choice. I had a hard time and had to take the back roads to get here. That parking lot, do you all have a picture of the existing structure and the parking lot, because I think it tells the story. I mean, we've got an asphalt pond out there. And I think what's being replaced is not what we're thinking when you don't see that parking lot, so. Okay, yeah, all righty. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this application today? So, please approach the podium, state your name, and it is the policy of the Planning Commission that everybody gets three minutes. Hello, my name is Brayden Stamper, and I'm a UK student, I'm a freshman. And I'm in support of the Anderson Apartments. I live off campus, I don't own a car, and I normally either walk or bike to UK. And I would be one of the prime candidates for this kind of development. I think it's great, it's right next to Kroger. It would provide any future UK students an easy way to get groceries or get to classes without having to drive. And I think just as it is, it's currently just a parking lot which doesn't provide anything to the city except for a place to park your car. I think taking that lot space and turning that into housing is way more valuable and just way better use of what limited space we have in our city than having parking for cars. And if any students still did want to have a car, you could always park in a Lexpark parking garage and pay a monthly fee or something like that. So it's not, there's still a way you could have a car and maybe just park it farther away than right on the property. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Stamper. Do we have any other comments? If not, Mr. Mickler? I was ready to make a motion if that's- Sure, if we don't have any more discussion or questions for the staff or the applicants, sure, the floor is certainly open. Well, I just want to say first, I think this is a really refreshing example of infill, where we have someone looking at their existing property and adapting it and making more housing on what was parking. So, thank you. I move to approve PLN MAR 25-19, Anderson Midtown Apartments. Okay, thank you, Mr. Mickler. This is for the zone map amendment, and I had a second from Commissioner Judy Worth. Do we have any discussion on that motion? And just to clarify, that is an approval from R3 to the R4 for the reasons given by staff. Thank you. Okay, seeing no further questions, we'll take that vote for the zone change. Okay, Mr. Davis? Gosh, okay. Okay, let the record show Commissioner Jonathan Davis is in the affirmative as well. Okay, so your zone change carries. Let's do, I suppose, variance short. That's next on the agenda that we have. I move to approve the variance to, I guess we have, is it all in one variance, or do I need to take those separately? Really, the only reason you would need to take them separately is if you had a different motion for one of them. No, I move to approve the variances as requested by the applicant and recommended by staff. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Commissioner Worth seconded. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote on the variance requests. Okay, again, Mr. Jonathan Davis is in the affirmative. That carries with one nay. And then, the development plan. I move to approve PLN MJDP 25-66 with the, for the reasons given by staff, with the seven conditions. Okay. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Worth and Commissioner Mickler. Do we have any comment on the development plan? Seeing none, we'll take that to a vote as well. And that carries again unanimously with Mr. Jonathan Davis in the affirmative. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Barrett. Okay. Our next item on the agenda, I believe, is on page eight. Anderson Village at Great Acres, PLN MAR 2523. Mr. Young. Mr. Young. Chairman, Young Planning Staff. This is a zone map amendment request from Planned Neighborhood Residential to Corridor Business. R3 to B3 for 0.658 acres net. And it's located at 2788 Ruby River Drive. The applicant has indicated a corridor place type and medium density non-residential mixed use. This is slightly changed from the initial request, which was for enhanced neighborhood. Staff felt that after some discussion that maybe corridor was more appropriate. And the applicant agreed and changed the place type. Initially, there was also a variance associated with this to reduce the vehicular, or to increase the maximum vehicular use area from 60 feet to 96 feet. After some comments from staff and from the zoning committee, the applicant submitted a redesigned layout and the need for that variance has been removed. So I believe the applicant is intending to withdraw that variance. And you can see the subject property in the middle of the screen there. The red line is the urban service area, so you can see this is fairly far out on Leastown Road. There's Masterson Station Park, and then Leastown Road here. The adjacent zoning, R3 is in brown, and the area of dark red, that's currently B3. Only a portion of this lot is being rezoned. There's already a portion that is currently B3, so this sliver here is B3. I don't know if you can see that line very well, but that's the property line. So the actual lot is a one acre lot, but the portion that's being rezoned is slightly less than that. And then you can see, this is slightly out of date because the adjacent property to the southeast currently has a Starbucks. Facility there, and some of these, I believe there's a little bit more development that has been completed there. So it's slightly out of date, but you can get the idea of the area. And like I said before, initially, the applicant indicated an enhanced neighborhood, but after some discussion, the corridor was chosen instead. The purpose of the corridor is to accommodate shifting retail economic model by incorporating higher density residential and offering substantial flexibility available to land uses. And I think the flexibility is important in this case because this development is slightly less dense than what maybe the comprehensive plan suggests along a corridor. But considering the adjacent development is, the Starbucks and the other, the gas station that is to the southeast are less dense. This might be a good transition to future higher density development. So staff has recommended approval of the zone change for the, we feel that it meets the goals and objectives, that it will integrate well with the existing development. I think the applicant has indicated that the new development will use the development standards currently in place at the multifamily development. It will create opportunities for businesses and job creation. It will improve transportation network. It's going to have sidewalk connections to both Leestown Road and to Ruby River Drive. It's located along Leestown Road, which has bike lanes and is along a transit route. And we feel it meets the policies of the comprehensive plan. It creates opportunities for growth and redevelopment. And it provides, as I stated, the infrastructure for various transportation modes. And it meets the development criteria for land use. It's located near neighborhoods. There's a large multifamily development just to the north and then across Leestown Road. There's a substantial number of single family homes that could access these services easily. Environmental sustainability, it does not impact environmentally sensitive areas. It will be improving tree canopy. Staff reviewed a number of historical aerial imagery. And as far back as I think 1985, there didn't appear to be a single tree on the property. So any of the landscaping that they add through the development plan will increase tree canopy. Site design, the redesign proposal in response to comments from both staff and the zoning committee, reduce the parking, reduce the impervious surface, which is always good for runoff as well as heat island effect. And then building form, it's scaled appropriately to be a transition area between the adjacent lower density and future higher density development. And this recommendation is based on the approval of the associated development plan, which is PLN MJDP 2571. And there's a list of recommended conditional zoning restrictions that are also in place. And the other B1 properties that are adjacent to this subject property. There are 12 uses there that would be consistent with the adjacent properties, as well as protecting the neighborhood from some of the more intense businesses that are allowed in the B3 zone. And if anyone has any questions on the zoning, I'd be happy to help or answer. Thank you, Jeremy. Do we have any questions on the zone change application? All right, thank you very much. Thank you. All right, the associated development plan, MJDP 2571, great house property, the village of Great Acres, lot nine. The applicant did submit a revised plan on December 15th. And so you should have a revised staff report in your packet. The following requirements not met. Number one, delineate the center line of the blue line stream on the property. Some of these are just clean up things. Number two, provide updated dumpster and pad specification that comply with the DSG. Number three, check potential dumpster encroachment on lot eight. Number four, depict all existing, I'm sorry, I didn't even do the important part. Let me back up a little bit. We'll look at the plan first, and then I'll go through the conditions. So as Jeremy had mentioned, there's the adjacent property to the east. There's a Starbucks, and so we're looking at lot nine, which is the property to the left on the plan. They're showing, and there's a lot of information here, I'll try to kind of explain. So they're showing, I believe it's a credit union with the associated drive-through canopy with ITM lanes. They're showing a drive aisle that comes in off of Ruby River. And it comes in and splits, and there's a parking lot in the front of the building with two-way traffic, and there's two drive aisles that go down one-way traffic to feed into the ITM lanes and into this rear parking lot that is adjacent to Newtown Pike. And this is, I believe they indicated that this would be for employees. And then there's two-way traffic back around out of the ITM lane and out of the employee parking through the front parking lot to exit the property. There, as Jeremy had mentioned, they had originally shown two bays of parking and a drive aisle between the ITM lanes and Newtown, I'm sorry, Leestown. And they've reduced that to reduce the need for a variance. So now they're just showing one bay of parking and a drive aisle between the structure and Leestown. Let's see, okay, so I'll go back to our conditions. And some of the cleanup conditions actually are for portions of the plan that are not on the subject property. This is part of a bigger development plan. So some of these, especially relating to the blue line stream, things like that are on different parts of the property. And some of it are specific to this lot. So again, number one, delineate the center line of the blue line stream on the property. Number two, provide updated dumpster and pad specifications. Number three, check the potential dumpster encroachment on lot eight. Number four, depict all existing easements. Number five, addition of tree protection areas from previous plan. Number six, addition of 25 foot flood plain setback from the previous plan. And again, this is to the north on a different part of the development plan. Under design considerations, division of engineering indicated they have additional comments in a cellar. Number two, address sanitary sewer capacity. Number three, address storm water management. Under plan questions and concerns, number one, discuss internal pedestrian walkways greater than 24 feet wide. And that's actually been addressed with the revised plan. All of the drive aisles, or where the walkways cross the drive aisles, do now meet that 24 foot maximum. Number two, discuss perimeter landscape requirements and timing of insulation. So this, if the zone change occurs, there will be a boundary between the R3 and the B3, and so there would still be zone to zone screening requirements. So we had asked them to explain how that would be accomplished and what the timing of that would be. And then number three, discuss place builder criteria. And then staff does recommend approval for the development plan with seven conditions. Number one, provided the urban county council approves the zone change to B3. Otherwise, any commission action of approval is null and void. And then sign offs from engineering, traffic engineering, urban forester, open space, environmental quality. And then finally, to correct all the noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that, I'll open it up to you all if you have any questions. All righty, thank you, Chris. Commissioner Molly Davis has a question. Thank you, Chair. Chris, can you tell me two things? First of all, what are ITM lanes? It's like an ATM, I believe the ITMs are when it's just a screen, you're not looking through glass at a human being. Okay, new term for me, hadn't heard of it before. And where is that blue line stream? I hope it's not under the parking or under the building. No, it's not on this side, it's to the north, quite a distance away on the development plan. Excellent, thank you very much. Mr. Forrester. Ms. Davis, you can ask me that question after the meeting. About ITM. What does the I in ITM stand for? Interactive Teller Machine. Thank you so much, Commissioner Forrester. Okay, any other questions for Chris on the development plan? Seeing none, thank you very much. Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Of course, I'm Dick Murphy here on behalf of the applicant. Dennis Anderson is with us, and Tony Barrett, our designer. And again, we do agree with the staff recommendation on the zone change on the development plan. And as was mentioned, the change in this, since when you saw it at subcommittee meetings two weeks ago, is we have eliminated an entire row of parking in the rear. And by doing that, we've eliminated the need for any variances on this property. And this is a very desirable use out there. It's going to be the University of Kentucky Federal Credit Union, which specializes in dealing with working people. And so we ask for your approval and agree with the conditions. And I don't have any graffiti to show you on this one, but thank you. Thank you, Dick. Do we have any questions for Mr. Murphy? All right, seeing none, and it's on the record that the applicant is withdrawing their request for the variance. Mr. Owens, do you have anything? Okay. All righty, if there's no other question or commentary, certainly the floor is open for a motion on the development plan, or on the zone, and then the development plan. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of plan MAR 25-23 Anderson Village at Great Acres LLC. Noting the five reasons provided by the staff. Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Where did I hear a second? Either side. Okay, all right. Okay. We're sandwiched over here. We'll take one from Commissioner Jonathan Davis this time. Okay, so motion from Mr. Owens, second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Any discussion on the zone? If not, we will take a vote on that. Okay, that carries unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of plan MJDP 25-71 Great House Properties, Anderson Village at Great Acres, Lot 9, amended with the seven reasons provided by staff. Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Any discussion on the development plan? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. Okay, that carries unanimously. Thank you, gentlemen. Very much appreciate it. Do we have any commissioner items today before we go to Mr. Duncan? Yes. I do. I have one item. And it's really a question, I think, for staff. At a council hearing that happened recently about the property on Maxwell Street that the planning commission approved. The council then disapproved. Council Member Legree suggested the reestablishment or reigniting of a town gown commission or committee. Is there anything we might want to know about that? To the planning commission, that would be something that the administration would take the lead on. And I know that the relationships with UK are ongoing, so but anything like that would be established by the administration. Thank you, because it does seem like the point was that we continue to kind of make decisions without knowing what UK has in mind. And it would be great to have a place where those discussions could take place. And to follow on to that, some information about UK's future development plans, if we can get them. Yes, that's also part of it. All righty. If we have nothing else from any other commissioners, we'll go to Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the planning commission members. In exactly one week, it is Christmas Day. So Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you all. We will see you again on Thursday, January the 8th for the committees in the Phoenix building, starting at 830. Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas, Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much and without objection, we are adjourned.