# Planning Commission Zoning (Sub) Committee - March 5, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · March 5, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6710 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6710?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-03-05 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 10, 2026 - **Length**: 8,795 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **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 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's Planning Commission Zoning Committee convened on March 5, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. at the Phoenix Building, 3rd Floor Conference Room, with Chairman Young presiding. The committee addressed a total of three agenda items during the session. Of those, two cases — PLN-MAR-26-00002 (Hillpointe, LLC) and PLN-MAR-26-00001 (Kenneth V. Littrell) — were approved, while a third case, PLN-MAR-26-00003 (4184 Todds LLC), was postponed. The committee took three votes over the course of the meeting, and no public comments were heard. ## Votes and Decisions Three motions were brought before the Commission at the March 5, 2026 meeting, all of which were decided unanimously. - **PLN-MAR-26-00001** — A zone change request for Kenneth E. Littrell to revise conditional zoning restrictions was moved by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Nichols. The motion passed unanimously. No individual roll call votes were recorded. [timestamp: 0:13:02] - **PLN-MAR-26-00002** — A zone change request from Agricultural Urban to R4 for Hillpointe, LLC was moved by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Commissioner Davis. The motion passed unanimously, pending acceptance of revisions requested by staff. No individual roll call votes were recorded. [timestamp: 1:00:28] - **PLN-MAR-26-00003** — A zone change request for 4184 Todds LLC was moved by Mr. Nichols and seconded by Mr. Forrester. The motion to postpone passed unanimously. No individual roll call votes were recorded. [timestamp: 1:01:34] ## Contested Items - **PLN-MAR-26-00002: HILLPOINTE, LLC** — A procedural dispute arose during the Commission's consideration of a zone change request submitted by Hillpointe, LLC. The point of contention centered on whether the Commission should approve the zone change request while staff's requested revisions remained pending, or whether approval should be withheld until those revisions were addressed. The meeting record does not indicate the specific parties who spoke to each side of the dispute or the final outcome of the vote. ## PLN-MAR-26-00002: HILLPOINTE, LLC [timestamp: 13:34] The Commission considered a petition for a zone map amendment submitted by Hillpointe, LLC for property located at 3515 Richmond Road. The request sought to rezone 38.998 net acres from an Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to a Medium Density Residential (R-4) zone. Key speakers on this item included Jeremy Young and Nick Nicholson. The Commission reviewed the proposed rezoning, which would transition the subject acreage from its current agricultural designation to a medium density residential classification, allowing for increased residential development on the site. The item was approved by the Commission. ## PLN-MAR-26-00001: KENNETH V LITTRELL [timestamp: 01:00] The Commission took up agenda item II.c, a petition filed by Kenneth V. Littrell for a zone map amendment affecting property zoned Corridor Business (B-3). The request sought to revise conditional zoning restrictions on approximately 1.16 net acres located at 532 & 550 S. Broadway and 658 Plunkett Street. Key speakers on this item included Jeremy Young and Laura Nichols. The petition was considered and, following discussion, the Commission approved the zone map amendment. *Note: Detailed presentation content, specific concerns raised, and the substance of debate are not available in the provided source data beyond what is described above.* ## PLN-MAR-26-00003: 4184 TODDS LLC [timestamp: 1:00:28] This agenda item concerned a petition for a zone map amendment for property located at 4184 Todds Road. The applicant, 4184 Todds LLC, requested a rezoning of 2.33 net acres from an Expansion Area Residential-1 (EAR-1) zone and Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone to an Expansion Area Residential-2 (EAR-2) zone and Medium Density Residential (R-4) zone. Key speakers on this item included Jeremy Young and Wes Harned. The detailed substance of the presentation, any concerns raised, and the specific arguments made during discussion are not available in the provided record. The item was **postponed** and did not receive a final decision at the March 5, 2026 Commission meeting. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-26-00001** — passed (0-0): Zone change request for Kenneth E. Littrell to revise conditional zoning restrictions. - **PLN-MAR-26-00002** — passed (0-0): Zone change request from Agricultural Urban to R4 for Hillpointe, LLC. - **PLN-MAR-26-00003** — postponed (0-0): Zone change request for 4184 Todds LLC. --- ## Full transcript And this is a meeting of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government's Planning Commission Zoning Committee. We are going to go a little slightly out of order on our agenda today because they were delayed. The first item on our agenda is going to be PLN-MAR-26-1, Kenneth E. Littrell. Thank you Chairman Young for planning staff, get this arranged here. So our first item is a zone change request. It's actually just to change conditional use restrictions that were placed on the property in 2000 when it was rezoned from B-4 to B-3. It is 1.16 net acres and it's located, there are three properties, 532, oop, 532, 532, 532 South Broadway, 550 South Broadway, and 659 Plunkett Street. Like I said, they're looking to amend the conditional zoning restrictions. There's the property, you can see in the area there's Red Mile, here's UK Campus, downtown area here. And there are quite a few adjacent zoning classifications. The MU-3 there across the street, which is the Lex mixed-use housing project, the recently zoned B-1 for the UK Credit Union, which has got residential uses here in this area with R-4 and R-2, the B-2A zone here with residential and commercial uses, MU-2 in this area, which is the center court development. You've got a few remnants of the old B-4, which used to dominate this area. This was a common zone several decades ago. You have light industrial here in this area, which is also a traditional zoning for this area, and then a couple of pockets of P-1 in this light blue. You can see there are quite a few different zoning classifications in this area. Let's give you an aerial view. It is the share of border here with the H-1 of South Hill, that area, and you can see there's the Lex that I mentioned, center court. We had the Oliver Lewis Way was built since the approval of the original zone change and conditional zoning restrictions. You have the addition of the lofts down here, which is another change, as well as the Davis Park redevelopment. There have been a number of changes in this area, and this just gives you an idea of what it looked like. This isn't exactly when the zone change was done. This is a couple of years later. This is in 2002. As you can see, the subject property here is being constructed. The car wash that's currently on site across the street where the Lex is now was a warehouse, and then the center court area was various uses here. You can see there are quite a number of changes in the area, even since 2000. Why is that important? Because the zoning ordinance 6-7 requires changes in the area that were not anticipated at the time the conditional zoning restrictions were placed on the property, and we would certainly agree with the applicant that significant changes have been made, and it's important to note that when the zone change was approved in 2000, the anticipation was that this area would rezone and redevelop as a professional office, but in the last 25 years, it's transitioned a little more toward residential mixed use, so that would be a significant shift in land use that was not anticipated. So the applicant, in light of that, is asking for some additions to the somewhat strangely worded conditional zoning restrictions. Normally, you all see these in their, they list prohibited uses. This one's sort of reversed, and it lists the things that are allowed. So when this zoning was approved, they made a list here, and I won't read all of them, but car washes, banks, those types of things were permitted. Some of the more intense B-3 uses were not on the list. And the accessory uses and conditional use permit, or conditional uses are listed as well. And so they were wanting to add a few more residential focused uses that would maybe complement residential development versus professional office, such as restaurants, hotels, food vendors, those types of things. This is something that staff feels is appropriate for the area. They also want to add swimming pools as accessory uses, microbreweries. But staff, our suggestion is that we sort of convert it to a more conventional, where all the B-3 uses are allowed, and we'll just list the ones that are prohibited. And the list that we came up with involved vehicle sales, gas stations, drive-thru facilities, adult entertainment establishments, and minor automobile and truck repair. Due to the more heavily residential and walkable area, there are a number of U.K. students that live in this area, and they walk to campus. We felt that some of the more intense uses probably wouldn't be appropriate here. And as well, the signage will be permitted, as regulated in the B-1 zone, and outdoor speakers will be prohibited. And we feel that these conditions are necessary to protect the more residential nature that this property has developed. And if anybody has any zoning questions, yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you, Jeremy. Thank you, Jeremy. Could you go back? Sure. I think it's three slides, maybe. One, two. Yeah. Add the following to permitted uses, the medicinal cannabis dispensaries and safety compliance facilities. Can you tell me about that? Is that typical in a B-3? Yes. So that is a B-3 use. Do we have medical medicinal cannabis dispensaries? I don't know if we have any operating. I think we've got some that have been approved. So Fayette County is permitted to have two at the moment, based on the state office. And one is in operation, yeah, the former Frisch's next to Meyer in Hamburg. Interesting. Thank you very much. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Young? If not, one final question that I have. Is the car wash use specifically listed as permitted in the B-3 within our ordinance? Yes. Okay. Okay. Seeing no more questions. Thank you, Jeremy. Okay. Now we will hear about the development plan. All right. Okay. So the development plan, MJDP 26-3, clean sweep car wash, because they're not really proposing any physical changes to the site, this is, the initial submittal was the old development plan. They've since revised that to address some of our comments, but it, so we've got South Broadway, Boulevard, Plunkett, and Cedar Street. So it's basically surrounded by right-of-way. There's the existing car wash with the detailing area. This oil change facility was not constructed, and so they are now indicating that as a proposed oil change facility. And then they indicate there's a food truck in this location. So we have them show that on the, excuse me, on the development plan. But they're not really proposing any changes to the site at this time. This is, they just had to submit the development plan along with the zone change request. So they've cleaned up some of the items and addressed most of our concerns with that. So I'll turn it back over to you all. Okay. Do we have any questions for Chris on the development plan? Just one clarification question that I have. I suppose oil change, that use is also listed as a separate use within our ordinance. It would not fall under the automobile refueling stations and service stations? I don't think so. I think it falls under the minor and major automobile repair use. So if we have minor automobile truck repair and service as a prohibited use, there could not be an oil change? Correct. That little box would have to have a new label. I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. All right. Thank you, Chris. And now we hear from our applicant. Hi. Good afternoon. Laura Nichols from Dittins on behalf of Mr. Littrell. And again, this is a bit of an unusual situation because we're not actually changing the physical building at all. So in 2000, when this application initially was presented by Mr. Littrell, it was a B4 that actually did have a historic car wash on it. And at that time, actually, from what it looks like a couple months right before that is when the city and the state decided to do the Oliver Lewis Way Newtown extension. I don't know exactly why they decided to do it this way, but instead of having a traditional B3 zone, they put a lot of conditions and only allowed certain purposes, such as the car wash and automotive and some very light professional use, because of the uncertainty as to how the road would actually be designed and what that would actually look like. Obviously, Oliver Lewis Way is fully developed. It's fully completed. There's not going to be any takings of this land here. And there's no real need to have that distinct separate list of only permitted uses. So at this time, we are asking just to kind of clean up this property, clean up the zoning, and make it more of a traditional, what it already is, B3, and eliminate that list that's a bit more unusual and kind of burdensome. Thank you, Mrs. Nichols. Do we have any questions? Thank you very much. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular application today? Seeing none, do we have any final commissioner comment or question? If not, the floor is open for a motion on the zone change and then the – do we vote on the development plan? No? No? Okay. Just a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the zone change. Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. He so moves. He just has to do so non-verbally. Okay. Second from Mr. Nichols. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any discussion on that motion? If not, all in favor, please raise your right hand. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Now we will return to our normal order on our agenda, which is PLN-MAR-26. All right. Thank you, Jeremy Young from Planning Staff, again. This item is a zone change request from Agricultural Urban to R4 for just under 40 acres located at 3515 Richmond Road. It's the rear portion of it that is at the intersection of York, Yorkshire Boulevard and Palumbo Drive. It is a dedicated enhanced neighborhood, place type, and medium density residential development type. And the project is to build 117 single family townhomes and 480 multifamily units. And the location of the property here, you can see right here is the city golf course. Here you have the Valvoline Ashland Oil Facility, and then Richmond Road down here, and Man O' War running through here. And as for the adjacent zoning, this green here, that's Agricultural Urban. This is R4 in Brown, and then that's a little B6P, a little corner of the commercial development. And then a little section of P1 here. The proposal is to construct the subdivision here and then connect Palumbo and Yorkshire with Dabney Drive here. And then an aerial view of the property, you can see a little clearer the Valvoline facility there across the street. There is a mix of housing in the area. There's single family, there's residential, and some townhomes as well. And like I said, they chose enhanced neighborhood, medium residential, and R4, which staff is in agreement with those selections. We think that's appropriate for the area, considering the mix of housing and the additions that would enhance the existing housing pattern. We are recommending postponement. We do have a few items here that we'd like some clarification, maybe a little bit more information on. The first is design policy number five, provide pedestrian-friendly patterns and walkable blocks to create inviting streetscapes. The walkway along the proposed extension is a fairly long, straight stretch of highway – not highway, but of roadway – that the walkability of it is somewhat questionable. There's not any sort of traffic-calming features, or the blocks seem rather long, so it's concerning about the speeds, or the potential speeds of traffic. There isn't any specific details on how this proposal will comply with the multifamily standards that are listed in Appendix A. Design policy number nine, provide neighborhood-focused open spaces or parks within walking distance. While it is relatively close to Jacobson Park, as the crow flies, accessing that site would be almost a two-mile walk if you were to go out toward Richmond Road. So, just addressing some more of the open space questions. Oh, and the impervious surface, there's quite a large amount of surface parking associated with this project, and so after reviewing the parking demand study, just curious as to how the numbers were achieved, because it appears that the supplied parking even exceeds the proposed peak demand, so that was a question that came up. It should be noted that an updated plan was submitted, so this little explosion here is to get rid of the – Stub Street should be connected, and I'll kind of explain that. The initial plan just showed a curve here, and it did not provide the stub into the remaining portion of the white farm. The updated plan does provide that, so you can just ignore that comment there. And again, there are questions. It says streets should be designed with shorter block lengths, narrower widths, and traffic calming features. The development plan doesn't appear to have, you know, any type of traffic calming or those types of things. And then again, the comment about impervious surface and over-parking. So the staff is recommending postponement at this time, and if you all have any questions, you can answer those at this time. Thank you, Mr. Young. Do we have any questions on the zone? Okay. Seeing none, thank you very much. We'll hear from Chris on the development plan. All right. Okay. So with the development plan, let's see. Okay. So this is the updated plan? Okay. Yeah. So he's got the updated plan in here. All right. So as Jeremy had indicated, there's connection. Dabney currently stubs into the northeastern boundary of the property, and the curve intersection of Palumbo and Yorkshire is at the opposite, kind of basically the opposite side of the property. And they're proposing to come in off of Palumbo and then connect Dabney over. This will be an intersection with a stub into the remainder of the property. On the revised plan, on the initial plan, they weren't showing any private or public streets within the development, just the one that, just this new connection that comes through. So now they're showing a cross-section going into the townhome development and also down into the multifamily. And at the subdivision committee, Mr. Brewer has indicated that they'll look at doing a turnaround. If they don't do a proper termination of a public street, then they'll have to request a waiver for that. So the way it's drawn at this time, they would need a waiver to be able to move forward with that. They're showing the townhomes grouped to the northwest of the new street and all the multifamily to the southeast with internal drive lanes and parking for both. They're showing a clubhouse and amenities in the townhome area and then also another clubhouse and amenities in the multifamily. And they're showing two good-sized detention areas to the southeast. And then they're showing a potential future connection, a pedestrian connection, to the golf course property to the southeast. I think that kind of sums it up, if you all have questions for me. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Commissioner Molly Davis. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I feel like I should start singing or something. Thank you. So, Chris, when I look at this, I look at the area to the south of the kind of primary vehicular road through. When I see an enormous parking lot with a lot of multifamily houses inside there, which seems to me to be very difficult to navigate that, what kind of safeguards are there in place that should be followed when you have this extensive a network of parking lots as the way to get to houses? Are there any? I would probably have to defer to traffic on that, but not that I'm not that I'm aware of. Okay. Well, another question would be, it looks as though the site has been cleared of all existing trees? No. Okay. And I think the applicant can address that. I think he'd indicated in the Subdivision Committee that there's a large number of Bradford pears on site. Yeah. And that's a lot of what's showing up in the aerial. He did indicate that he's walked the property with the urban forester. Okay. Thank you. Nope. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Chris on the development plan? Seeing none. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Hill Point. To kind of start off, this is a workforce housing development entirely kind of not necessarily deed restricted, but Hill Point is like that is all they do nationwide. They are the number one workforce housing developer throughout the Sunbelt. They own and operate all of their facilities. To my knowledge, they have not sold a facility. What they are in the business of is delivering attainable housing for the workforce and basically trying to fill that missing middle that we hear so much talking about. I will have to admit, I was very surprised to get this postponement recommendation, especially after we submitted the revised plan that you kind of see up here before. I understood with regards to the block length distance with the previous plan. The previous plan had a block length that was about 1,600 feet that was in excess of kind of what was called for in the subdivision regulations. And so that is why we basically changed, I always will do that. We basically shifted the entrance from over in here in order to make sure that we were entirely compliant with the block length that is required. We did find out today that we will need to kind of terminate this private road. It was originally just basically a driveway access. We increased it to make it a kind of private road standard and now we will have to terminate that which we will be able to do with a revised development plan. All the way around here, along here, we have put in a 10 foot shared use path. And so when we are talking about provide pedestrian-friendly street patterns and walkable blocks, we believe we just did that. There's also been a push to only have one access point for every block length on collectors. We are basically increasing this size to a collector. Right now it's 27 feet, the collector is what, 31? We have plenty of right of way and so we're going to do that as well in talking with traffic. So we're providing above and beyond what is actually called for with regards to pedestrian and multimodal infrastructure. And we are basically pulling in a long planned connection to get basically even people all the way in the Andover neighborhood directly to Richmond Road being able to connect from Dabney all the way down to the Palumbo Road kind of intersection right there. So when you're talking about connectivity, when you're talking about being able to tie the pedestrian network all together, that's exactly what we are able to do with this development. Now on the close proximity to a neighborhood park, this is a neighborhood park. This is LFUCG Maple Leaf Park today. We are directly adjacent to it. If you count the LFUCG fire station, that's basically in between our property line and the park. It's about a 250 foot walk from our property to a neighborhood park. We have also provided a future pedestrian connection if the city kind of golf course right here ever becomes a different type of public park. This was done directly at kind of the requests that we received during the pre-application meeting. And so I don't know what is more walkable than a couple hundred feet when it comes to kind of, you know, connections to neighborhood parks. But we also are providing ample kind of amenity areas for the apartment space and the townhomes itself in order to make sure that even our tenants don't have to walk that couple hundred feet to get to usable open space. On the parking, while I know that it looks like that is a lot of parking places, it is only 1.09 spaces per bed. And when you consider where we are at Richmond Road and Man o' War delivering workforce housing, if you don't have a car per bed, this isn't going to be a successful development. And so you are adding a couple, like some more spaces, assuming guests will at some point be coming here and so there might be kind of more than one car per bed. I should have said each apartment is a two bedroom unit. That's it. We're not trying to do four bedrooms, three bedrooms, trying to, you know, kind of play the numbers as much as possible. It's just two bedroom kind of apartments. But still, if you're assuming a guest, that's why we kind of built in more than just one parking space per bed. Let's see. Oh, also on the mitigate the kind of impervious surface, we are more than doubling the required usable open space on the site without even including our amenity areas. So the actual requirement basically is 103,000. We are providing 250,000 square feet of usable open space, more than 147,000 square feet in a day over and above what we are actually required on the multifamily, multifamily standards. I'm not sure what we are not addressing. I've provided two pages in my justification letter of each of the tag. This is where we're being done. This is why we're not doing this is why we're meeting the intent of it. And so I don't know what specific concerns that we would have on that, but that is something that is very typical to kind of work through and have, you know, follow along at the final development plan stage. I provide this level of detail for every apartment complex I've ever put forward to you all. And so I don't exactly know what more could be provided. And so I would love to get an approval recommendation because this is for residential property. It's zoned R4. Every residential property that is in close proximity to this piece of property is zoned R4. We're bringing workforce housing to this community in a major way with a national provider that knows how to deliver this product in a very high end way. I can't think of something that is more in line with what the comprehensive plan is calling for and that's not even getting into all the connectivity and pedestrian infrastructure that I kind of already talked about. But I'm more than happy to take any questions. If you all have it, I do want to say we did get a postponement recommendation on the development plan, but Brad assures me that we'll be able to submit a revised copy of that directly addressing those concerns. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Do we have any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you, Nick. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular application today? We did hold one neighborhood meeting, only one member of the public attended, and Andover Neighborhood Association declined to have a sit down because they said that it was far enough away that they were not concerned. Okay. All righty. Do we have any final commissioner comments or questions? Yes, sir, Mr. Forrester. Can we get someone from staff to address Mr. Nicholson's statements? Is that okay for me to ask? Seems like he addressed it. Yes. I think that's a good question. Yeah. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. I think it's probably two parts. So the first being, I think there was some delay or disconnect, rather, from the submitted new plan that you got for the subdivision committee. So some of these have been fixed, like the block link issue that were identified. So staff is aware of that, and so that really isn't as relevant. Some parts of these that staff is just looking for greater information, so information like the applicant just provided as far as the parking calculations and what they're looking at there. Some aspects, like the multifamily design standards, there was something submitted, but essentially half of it is saying we'll work with staff to accommodate this. So we're looking for sort of a written explanation and kind of just engaging with sort of the requirements on that. So I think as a whole, we are in agreement with a lot of what the application is asking for. We're just looking to have kind of some of the pieces tightened up, and so that's kind of where the postponement recommendation. If there's anything in particular, we would be kind of happy to engage with that. Do you think you're going to be able to get the, is there enough time between now and the next hearing to address all the issues that you just identified that led you to make the recommendation of postponement? Yeah, and once again, kind of bearing on, there's three weeks between the committee level and this, and so typically when we see postponements, and it's not saying we're flagging this overwhelming design feature that we think is unsafe, but we're asking for information that you can show that you're meeting the comp plan and these various aspects and setting up the kind of these conversations for the planning commission to kind of evaluate. So that's really where we're looking at there. So I'm sure we'll be in contact with the applicant, and I think there's a lot from this report that can be addressed fairly quickly. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. Mr. Forrester, did you have a question? No. Okay. Mr. Nicholson. Can I just say, what is the concern with multifamily design guidelines? Because this is the exact thing I've done for every apartment I've gotten approved in the past, like since we've had these. So if there's a specific concern. Here's what you wrote. Yes. This is being done. Yes. Which it is. This project complies with all zoning and building code requirements regarding windows. Okay, there's not any zoning requirements regarding windows in the multifamily. We're asking you to look at the design guidelines from a comprehensive plan standpoint, because that's what you have to meet, which may be above and beyond the zoning ordinance to say, I'm in agreement with the comprehensive plan because we're doing this. In general, a rendering of something you've built somewhere else can satisfy that. We are happy to provide a rendering. That is exactly what I've done with every single apartment complex that I've done. So if the concern is that it's workforce housing. That's not the concern. Well, it just seems interesting. Again, this doesn't really address the comprehensive plan piece. It addresses what is the zoning code or building code requirement, which isn't the stage we're at. We're just looking to see how does it address multifamily design guidelines that are adopted by the comprehensive plan. I think we're looking for something a little bit more general, if you will. I'm happy to provide elevations, or not elevations, but pictures of past hill point projects. I think that will do it. Generally, the open space, landscaping, and site planning things, we can see. We can see where you're placing buildings that they front onto the public street. Those are easy to say you comply with. What has been a struggle, I think, since we adopted this is the architectural design piece. Which is only allowed in the historic zones. Well. Yes. Again, the judges have already litigated about what we can put in a comprehensive plan can be above and beyond what is required by KRS, which is this. This is above and beyond what's required by KRS, and communities are able to do that, which then leads the commission to be able to say, how are you meeting this element of the comprehensive plan, this piece? Those are our questions. How are you? I think there's a number of ways to do that. In some cases, you're saying we're going to provide so much articulation along the frontages. If you verbally want to, or orally, or in written want to do that, that's fine. Just saying it meets the zoning and building code requirements, I'm not sure that that really complies with the comp plan. So I'm sorry, I've wasted too much of your all's time. If we're really down to multifamily design standards, well, I think I've addressed most of them. Mr. Nichol, I think you just raised your hand for me. Can you clarify, are the multifamily design requirements required for this property? Standards. Are the multifamily? They are an appendix to the comprehensive plan, and so when you look at compliance with the comprehensive plan, you look at it as a whole. You do not look at it as you must meet every aspect of it. That being said, we meet an overwhelming amount of the multifamily design standards. The only one that I saw that, like, wouldn't directly be in compliance was direct access to the individual units from the outside, because our units are accessed from inside hallways for security purposes. Okay, so it's not that you can't meet the requirements. You just had a, you can meet the requirements, you will meet the requirements as needed. It was just, I guess, a procedural comment that you made earlier. Yeah. If you can meet it, I think we're in good shape. We completely meet them. I am of the personal opinion that renderings or elevations should not be required and cannot be required by LFUCG for a zone change. That's my personal opinion. Everyone can disagree with things like that, and so I understand when it comes to the student housing developments that we are dealing with when they are right up on the street, when they are kind of, you know, you are dealing with a very controversial neighborhood, when you're having lots of angst about what these look like, I get why they're required in that instance. But in this situation, when you have a kind of greenfield development surrounded by R4, and the question for this committee is whether R4 and residential is appropriate for this site, I think the answer is absolutely and unequivocally yes. I'm more than happy to get renderings to staff, and if they have concerns about those, we are more than happy to work with them as we go through this process. We're just trying to move this process along in order to make sure we can bring workforce housing to Lexington. Wonderful. So, we're not going to have some battle over this? No battle. Okay. No battle. Good. Thank you. I have not heard from a single neighbor that has any concerns whatsoever. I am teaching myself. I'm talking about a battle over the multifamily design requirements. Okay. So, we're not having that battle because you can meet that. We're moving through. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. postponement, the approval would not hold up the process, right? We would still go on to the full committee. I was just making sure that Ms. Nichols' explanation was explained, but I wanted to understand it too. Go ahead. Here. I understand that even if this committee made a recommendation of postponement, that Mr. Nicholson could still get approval at the commission level. However, I'm very aware of what the word postponement means, and in this instance, personally, I am fully supportive of a recommendation for approval after everything I've heard. But the floor is open for a motion once discussion and questions have concluded. I agree that I think this plan should go forward, but if the staff's raising issues, the way I would phrase a motion would be we move for approval pending the acceptance of the revisions that the staff has wanted. Can it be done that way? Well, I mean, what we're saying is, because see, what bothered me a little bit is the discussion that Mr. Nicholson and Ms. Wade had should have happened before they got here. Yeah, I know, and that's what I'm trying to get. Well, what I'm saying is I would vote for approval of this plan pending that Mr. Nicholson provide the staff with the concerns they had regarding whatever. Yeah, that's my motion. Sorry, I can't speak too clearly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Okay. Is that better? Okay. All right. So Mr. Wilson made a motion. Commissioner Davis seconded to Jonathan Davis. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, if you're in favor of that motion, please raise your right hand. Okay. Unanimous. Next. Okay, let's see here. Now it's working. It's strange. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, they're all working and not working, so we're doing our best. Forgive my, let me ask the question related to the precedent. A lot of the things that come through probably could be resolved by that simple motion that I made here. Approval pending the acceptance. The question is, are we setting up a good precedent by doing it that way? I'm not asking whether it's well, is a case by case is what I would prefer as opposed. That's what I see, too. I didn't really see staff really hard being on postponement. We need these items, and they said they didn't get the information, which you guys know about. I can't go with that. Just yeah, I don't think so. Well, I think what I was just trying to figure out how to get into the position here saying that what we did was off. It was not a precedent setting activity the way I read staff. When staff comes forward with a recommendation, they feel very strongly about it. What we're said here is committee members is we felt very strongly should be approved. But at the same time, in due respect to the staff's position, that's why I put that other. But I don't want to say that is a precedent setting activity that goes case by case. Okay. Thank you, Mr Wilson. Yes. And now it is working. Okay. Our next item on the agenda today, unless anybody else, anybody has anything else on the white farm is peeling. And they are 26 3. All right. Jeremy on staff again. This is for 41 84 Todd's Road. It is a zone change request, and it is somewhat complicated due to the fact that a portion of this property is in the 96 expansion area, and the majority of the 2.33 acres is outside of that. So there's roughly three tenths of an acre that was brought in in 1996, and we'll have to be evaluated slightly differently. So, anyway, we're going from E. A. R. 1 expansionary residential 1 to expansionary residential 2 in that particular area and from agricultural rural to medium density residential are for for the remainder of the property. The applicant selected enhanced neighborhood place type and medium density residential development type, and they're wanting to construct 20 townhome units. And you can see here it's still right on the edge of the urban service area, which is represented by the red line. The yellow property is owned E. A. R. 1 and the green is still agricultural rural. You can see a little bit closer here and ignore the hash marks there that, for some reason, is indicating an H. 1 overlay, which is I can't explain why that is on there, but it's certainly not H. 1 in that area. So. And you can see that the adjacent property here, there's the crossroads church and then the adjacent multifamily development here in this area here was just recently brought into the urban service area. It was a 2024 urban growth master plan. This particular sliver here doesn't fall under the U. G. M. P. Or the 1996 plan. So it will it's kind of a gray area parcel, but it doesn't really provide any kind of negative effects. It's just kind of a piece that didn't get evaluated under either plan. And you can see here the 96 plan, the little green box there outlines the area in question. It's kind of that triangular shape property here. And then, like I said, this area here has recently been brought into the urban service area. Which you can see here shows up in the upper portion here. So that little triangle is the subject property. And like I said before, the the applicant has selected enhanced neighborhood, medium density residential and are for for the for the portion that's outside of the 96 plan. And staff is is in agreement with the the the chosen place type and development type and zone. But we just had a couple of issues that where we needed more information. There was no explanation as to how the the plan met the 1996 community design elements, which is required for a zone change in this area. The and there was a question about the the lot size for the R4 portion. The maximum lot size for an R4 lot is 5000 square feet. And there are two or possibly three lots on this particular development plan that exceed that number. So we just were requesting some more information about that. And also the building orientation, it isn't really apparent which way the the buildings are facing, whether they're facing the open space or whether they're facing the interior parking area. So that was another question request for more information. So, but yes, we're recommending postponement pending those items. OK, thank you, Mr. Young. Yes, sir. Do we have any questions for Mr. Young at this time? OK, thank you, Jeremy. Now we will move on to the development plan, PLNMAR 26.3. All right, we're looking at MJDP 26.7. This is the initial submittal. They hadn't provided revised plans after the technical review committee, but Rory can probably clarify some of the things that we talked about earlier. So, again, it's Todd's Road here. There's an access easement that comes into the existing multifamily, and then this is showing taking access from the access easement. And the original configuration showed individual townhome lots with the drive circulating through. Actually, let me pop over here where it's a little clearer with the drive coming through and circling around. And I believe he indicated that they're going to reconfigure this to have a central HOA lot. And then that'll help with some of their problems with the maximum lot size, access issues, things like that. I believe it's 20 townhomes. They're showing them grouped in three clusters there. They're showing space to the east for their buffering because currently this is zoned agricultural, so they have to have zone-to-zone buffering. They are not taking access from Todd's Road. It is coming in off of the access easement. And then they're indicating that they're going to tie into the pump station on the adjacent property for sanitary sewer. And I believe their storm sewer also will be shared across the property boundary. Again, these are all lots that have come out of the greater Crossroads Church property. All right. Do we have any questions on the development plan at this time? Seeing none, thank you, Chris. Applicant? Good afternoon. Wes Harned for the developer. Also with me is Rory Kaley. And we're going to somewhat tag-team this because Rory has some historical knowledge, having been involved in the development of the 91 apartment units on the adjacent parcel. And he can address and certainly can address the lot size, the bullet for the more information on the lot size. But I wanted to address the other two issues that staff has raised under the heading of their recommendation. First, there actually was, I didn't phrase a community design element, but I did reference the EAMP in the letter of justification. And specifically page 20 that sets out the design principles. You know, we met twice with staff pre-application. And I think the thing that everybody agreed on at the beginning and at the end is it's a unicorn. It's got part of it that, for the reason of drawing the boundary, was included in 96 EAMP. Part of it wasn't. And then Urban Growth Master Plan brought some of it in under those design recommendations. But this one was kind of left untouched in terms of future land use. But it is inside the urban service area. And I think it, while not to the scale of Mr. Nicholson's development, brings much needed housing into our community. And more precisely for the design principles under the EAMP, it brings a varied housing choice. You've got 91 apartment units next door. If you go across Todd's Road down Polo Club Boulevard, that's a largely a detached single family residential group of neighborhoods. We don't know. What wasn't mentioned is, and I think largely the reason is, well, the lot or the property to the east, I think, is very much planned for development, probably mixed use, probably some type of residential commercial mixed use. I think that's pretty well known. And so we don't quite know yet what those housing options are. But this certainly, with respect to what's available now, gives a different choice for members of the community. And so when you look at the community design element and the design principles under the EAMP, one of the few that actually apply to residential and something like this is number six, residential development within the expansion area should provide a range of housing types, sizes and costs. And that's what this does. If you if you zoom out a little bit and you look at what's going on all around this down the Todd's Road area and on from Polo Club onto Winchester Road. And so while I didn't phrase a community design element, it is addressed there. I'm happy to have a further exchange with staff and we can see if we can't share some other ideas on that piece of it. On the third issue that was raised, the building orientation should maximize connections with street and create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere. The the building orientation we discussed as the pre-application meeting and there was a discussion about the drive, the driveways and whether whether those should be oriented the front, the back. Our plan is to have the front of these units facing inward toward the parking areas. And that's for for a couple of reasons, as as most as most. Analysis under the comp plan go, you've got to balance some considerations. Right. And here, if we're looking at building a community. Right. And that was what was mentioned in the staff's report about the EMP and wanted to know more about the community design element. Right. I think there's some weights ought to be given to people ought to come out and see their neighbors out the front of their the front of their units and not only see their neighbors when they back out of the driveway. And so there's there's practical things like that that kind of lead us to want to orient these units inward and and some others. And again, we'll talk to staff about about that. The other thing that wasn't mentioned is we don't. Well, actually, Mr. Young did mention that there's no we don't have a right to access Todd's Road. We've got an easement and that's why this wasn't mentioned. I think this is understood as we can't connect through to whatever might be developed on the east because we don't have a right to do that. We have a limited access, a limited easement for access only. So, again, all things that we're happy to continue discussing with staff, hopefully ahead of the full commission meeting, and hopefully we can bring some additional information. I I'm hopeful for a revised recommendation if we can if we can settle some of these issues. And then the last time I'll let Rory talk about that, because I think we will have a revised plan coming soon. Rory, Kaylee partners. Yes, the interior parking area will be created as an HOA lot. There'll be a lot. Twenty one in there. Nuts and bolts of what happens in there's traffic circulation, visitor parking. The mailbox will be located there. Well, we found out at TRC we have to provide a dumpster out here. So at least the pads for it. So all of that stuff will be this interior courtyard and staff will be getting a revised plan. We're just waiting to go through the committees to what else we had to address. OK, thank you, gentlemen. Yes, the hands are in the air. OK, Commissioner Molly and Mr. Wilson. I think so. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. I think that makes a lot of sense to have the housing units facing the interior area because it creates more of a community. I am concerned about what that kind of leaves for the Todd's Road facing or back facing units. I know there's not a lot that you can probably do at this level, but it does seem like it shouldn't be an eyesore to travel down Todd's Road and see, you know, the back of people's houses with an untidy kind of view. That's one thing. The other is, and this may be tangential, but why is this called the Crossroads Lot 3? The whole property, this including the apartments and the church, was all one property. And it was Crossroads Christian Church. They came in first. So you had one lot. And once you get the name on the property with the zone change, it stays. So then we did a subdivision into lots 2 and 3. 2 became the apartments. And 3 was this unicorn that was left over that we couldn't do anything with. When we tried to do the apartments, we were looking for a use on here. But because the UGMP had not come into effect yet, and then the EAMP line was drawn where it was, we had reserved one residential unit within the expansion area for this parcel. Now that the expansion area has gone beyond that, we're in here with the R4 trying to get those townhomes. Thanks, Roy. Test, test. You're good. On November the 24th, you all met with the community. What were the results? What did you hear? We sent letters. We had Crossroads Church was kind enough to give us a room. There was one representative from Crossroads that came out and talked with us. No one else came to the meeting. We're going to continue to try to engage folks around the area. I think, you know, we don't understand any issues, like things Ms. Davis raises. We want to understand those things, and so we will continue to try to engage folks in the area. Okay. Do we have any other questions? If not, thank you, applicants. Clearly, a lot of effort and thought has been put into it because it is an unusual shape and situation. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular application today? Seeing none, the floor is open for any commissioner comment, question, motion. Mr. Nichol. Just my comment is this is what it looks like when we're trying to use every last parcel of vacant land that we have available in the urban service. So this is a good use of the space, and it takes a lot of effort to make sure that we're developing our property in the best way. So I commend the applicant and the staff for figuring out how to put 20-something units on a very lonely piece of property because it's lined up next to no neighbors that didn't show up to any event. That's interesting. And with that, I'd like to make a recommendation of approval for PLN MAR 26-3. Thank you. That was a motion to make a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission, and then Mr. Forrester seconded it. So now if there's any discussion. Yeah, that bothers me just a little bit. Once again, the staff has recommended postponement. suggested that they would take a postponement to get the information to the staff. So I don't quite understand. Yes, sir. If you would just. If you would just. That's all right. We certainly think, as I tried to allude to in my comments, the three issues staff raises, I firmly believe are things that we can work through, and certainly in the next three weeks. And so while I didn't request it, I certainly would be supportive of a recommendation of approval. Okay. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Mr. Wilson. I'd like to revise. Okay. Mr. Wilson, are you. I'll wait for his revision. If you're not going to say what I want you to say. I think I do. As I was flipping through my book to find the number I misspoke. I'd like to recommend postponement for. Okay. And he still seconds. So Mr. Nichols amending his motion and Mr. Forrester is in agreement with the amendment. And so is Mr. Wilson. Okay. Thank you all. And there's no further discussion. If you're in favor of Mr. Nichols revised motion. There you go. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. I believe that takes us to the conclusion of our agenda today. Are there any other items for staff at this time? Okay. Seeing none, without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Flying as they run Oh, they smile so shy and they flirt so well And they lay you down so fast Till you look straight up and say Oh Lord, am I really here at last? Who wants to play those eights and aces? Who wants a raise? Who needs a stake? Who wants to take that long shot gamble? And head out to fight Who wants to go to a fire league? Who wants to go to a fire league? Who wants to go to a fire league? Who wants to go to a fire league? Who wants to go to a fire league? Who wants to go to a fire league? Who wants to go to a fire league? Who wants to go to a fire league? I live my life like there's no tomorrow And all I've got, I had to steal At least I don't need to beg on my own Yes, I'm living at a basic skill Running with the devil Running with the devil I found the simple life, ain't so simple When I jumped out on that road I got no love, no love you'd call real Ain't got nobody waiting at home Running with the devil Running with the devil Running with the devil I found the simple life, wasn't so simple When I jumped out on that road I got no love, no love you'd call real Ain't got nobody waiting at home Running with the devil Running with the devil RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL RUNNING WITH THE DEVIL