# Planning Commission - Zoning Items - May 28, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · May 28, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6782 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6782?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-05-28 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: May 29, 2026 - **Length**: 21,302 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. 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 May 28, 2026, at 1:30 PM ET in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting addressed 7 agenda items spanning map amendment requests, development plans, zoning ordinance text amendments, and a tax increment financing report. Across the meeting, 12 motions and votes were recorded and 1 public comment was heard. Of the 7 agenda items considered, 4 were approved and 3 were postponed. The approved items included the LCD Acquisitions, LLC map amendment request and The Standard at Lexington development plan, two zoning ordinance text amendments (PLN-ZOTA-24-6 revising Article 3A10 for the Economic Development Zone and PLN-ZOTA-26-3 amending Article 8-1-D1 to allow retail alcohol sales in association with a horserace track), and the TIF Report for Red Mile. The three postponed items were the Mt. Laurel Lands Company map amendment and development plan, the South Broadway Project Owner, LLC map amendment and Parker Tobacco Co. Inc. (The Dean Lexington) development plan, and the Edward McGhee map amendment and Tom Collins Farm (McGhee Property) development plan. No presiding officer was identified in the meeting record. ## Attendance The following members were present at the Commission meeting on May 28, 2026: - Ivy Barksdale - Mike Owens - Judy Worth - Zach Davis - Molly Davis - Johnathan Davis - Larry Forester - William Wilson No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took action on twelve items during the May 28, 2026 meeting. - **April 23, 2026 Minutes** – The minutes were approved with one abstention. [timestamp: 0:01:58] - **PLN-MAR-26-00008** – A motion by Jonathan Davis, seconded by Molly Davis, to postpone the South Broadway Project Owner, LLC map amendment request and Parker Tobacco Co. Inc. development plan passed unanimously. The matter is postponed to July 23. [timestamp: 0:03:32] - **PLN-MAR-26-00012** – A motion seconded by Molly Davis to postpone the RAK Properties LLC map amendment request passed unanimously. The matter is postponed to July 23. [timestamp: 0:04:34] - **PLN-MAR-26-00009** – A motion to postpone the Edward McGhee map amendment request and Tom Collins Farm development plan passed unanimously. The matter is postponed to July 23. [timestamp: 0:06:27] - **PLN-MAR-26-00004** – A motion seconded by Molly Davis to postpone the Mt. Laurel Lands Company map amendment request and development plan passed unanimously. The matter is postponed to July 23. [timestamp: 0:07:35] - **PLN-MAR-26-00011** – A motion seconded by Jonathan Davis to postpone the Fox South LLC map amendment request passed unanimously. The matter is postponed to June 11. [timestamp: 0:09:10] - **PLN-MAR-26-00010** – A motion by Larry Forester to approve the LCD Acquisitions, LLC map amendment request passed on a roll call vote with 2 nays, based on staff recommendations. [timestamp: 1:27:19] - **PLN-MJDP-26-00029** – A motion seconded by William Wilson to approve the J. Forbing & Sons and Hayman Subdivision development plan passed on a roll call vote with 2 nays, subject to seven conditions. [timestamp: 1:33:12] - **PLN-MJDP-26-29** – A motion seconded by William Wilson to approve a waiver request for the J. Forbing & Sons and Hayman Subdivision passed on a roll call vote with 1 nay, based on staff-recommended reasons. [timestamp: 1:34:16] - **PLN-ZOTA-24-6** – A motion seconded by Molly Davis to approve revisions to Article 3A10 for the Economic Development Zone passed unanimously, with two conditions. [timestamp: 1:52:10] - **PLN-ZOTA-26-3** – A motion by Penn, seconded by Molly Davis, to amend Article 8-1-D1 to allow retail alcohol sales in association with a horserace track passed unanimously, with two justifications on record. [timestamp: 2:04:47] - **Red Mile TIF District Expansion** – A motion by William Wilson, seconded by Penn, to approve the expansion of the TIF district for Red Mile passed unanimously, finding the expansion in compliance with the comprehensive plan. [timestamp: 2:27:24] ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period at this meeting. - **Braden** spoke in full support of The Standard at Lexington development. [timestamp: 1:25:41] He highlighted the project's potential to redevelop and reuse older warehouse areas in the vicinity, and noted the development's proximity to both downtown and the University of Kentucky as positive factors. No concerns or opposition were raised in his remarks. No other public comments were recorded at this meeting. ## Contested Items - **LCD Acquisitions, LLC Map Amendment Request** — This item generated debate among commissioners, resulting in a split vote on whether to approve the map amendment request. Some commissioners raised concerns about the proposal's relationship to the surrounding corridor, specifically citing a lack of engagement with it, as well as an emphasis on internal circulation rather than outward connectivity. The split vote indicates that while a majority ultimately supported the request, not all commissioners were satisfied that these concerns had been adequately addressed. [No transcript timestamp available] ## MT. LAUREL LANDS COMPANY MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST AND MT. LAUREL LANDS COMPANY PROP The Commission took up Agenda Item 1, a discussion regarding a map amendment request submitted by Mt. Laurel Lands Company for property located at **2137 Old Paris Road**. The request sought to reclassify the property's zoning designation from **Single Family Residential** to **Wholesale and Warehouse Business**. Key speaker **Matt Miniard** addressed the Commission on this item. The discussion centered not on the merits of the rezoning itself, but on a procedural matter: the required public notice obligations for the map amendment had not been fully met prior to the meeting. Both the **Zoning Committee** and **Staff** reviewed the item and jointly recommended **postponement** on the grounds that the notice requirements remained unmet. In accordance with standard zoning procedures, proper notice to affected parties and the public must be completed before a map amendment request can be formally considered and acted upon by the Commission. As a result of the unmet notice requirements and the recommendation from both the Zoning Committee and Staff, the Commission **postponed** this agenda item. No action was taken on the underlying map amendment request or any associated property development plan at this meeting. ## SOUTH BROADWAY PROJECT OWNER, LLC MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST AND PARKER TOBACCO CO. I The Commission took up Agenda Item 2, a map amendment request submitted by South Broadway Project Owner, LLC in connection with the Parker Tobacco Co. Inc. (The Dean Lexington) development plan. The request sought to rezone property located at 1021, 1057, and 1059–1069 S. Broadway from a Wholesale and Warehouse Business zone designation to a Neighborhood Business zone designation. CMW, Inc. was identified as a key speaker in connection with this item. The Zoning Committee and Staff both recommended that the item be **postponed** pending the gathering of further information. No final decision on the merits of the rezoning request was made at this meeting. The item was ultimately **postponed** in accordance with that recommendation. No additional details regarding the specific concerns raised, the nature of the outstanding information needed, or the substance of any presentation or debate were available from the meeting record for this item. ## EDWARD McGHEE MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST AND TOM COLLINS FARM (McGHEE PROPERTY) DEVELOPMENT PLAN This agenda item concerned a map amendment request and associated development plan for property located at 4865 Tates Creek Road and 4720 Saron Drive. The proposal sought to rezone the parcels from Single Family Residential to Medium Density Residential. - The applicant's representative, Eagle Engineering, was identified as the key party associated with the request. - The Zoning Committee had previously reviewed the item and recommended postponement at the applicant's request prior to the full Commission meeting. - As a result of that recommendation, the item was postponed at the May 28, 2026 Commission meeting without substantive debate or presentation on the merits of the rezoning or development plan. No additional details regarding the specific development proposal, concerns raised by commissioners or the public, or the timeline for future consideration were available from the meeting record. ## LCD ACQUISITIONS, LLC MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST AND J. FORBING AND SON'S & HAYMAN SU [timestamp: 10:24] The Commission took up discussion of a map amendment request submitted by LCD Acquisitions, LLC, along with the associated J. Forbing and Son's & Hayman Subdivision development plan, collectively referred to as The Standard at Lexington. [timestamp: 10:24] The request sought to rezone several parcels from Light Industrial and Wholesale and Warehouse Business zone to Corridor Node zone. The properties involved in the amendment are located at the following addresses: - 416, 422–424, 430–436, and 442 Chair Avenue - 451 Chair Avenue - 441 Hayman Avenue - 633 S Broadway Key speakers on this item included **Daniel Crum** and **Chris Cheney**, who presented or addressed questions related to the proposal. The Zoning Committee had previously reviewed the request and recommended approval, though that recommendation was made pending review of new information that had come before the committee. The Commission's discussion reflected the Zoning Committee's conditional posture, acknowledging that additional materials required consideration before a final determination could be made. The item was ultimately **approved** by the Commission. ## PLN-ZOTA-24-6 REVISIONS TO ARTICLE 3A10 FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE [timestamp: 1:35:21] The Commission took up agenda item 5, a proposed ordinance addressing revisions to Article 3A10 governing the Economic Development Zone. Daniel Crum presented the item on behalf of staff. The revisions were designed to introduce greater flexibility into the Economic Development Zone, with changes focused on two primary areas: - **Supportive uses:** Modifications to the types of supportive uses permitted within the zone. - **Residential development:** Updates to provisions related to residential development opportunities within the zone. Staff recommended approval of the revised text as presented. Following the presentation and discussion, the Commission approved the item. ## PLN-ZOTA-26-3 AMEND ARTICLE 8-1-D1 TO ALLOW RETAIL ALCOHOL SALES IN ASSOCIATION WITH A HORSERACE TRACK [timestamp: 1:53:14] The Commission took up agenda item 6, a proposed ordinance amendment to Article 8-1-D1 that would allow retail alcohol sales in association with a horserace track. The discussion centered specifically on enabling Keeneland to sell commemorative bottles of bourbon as a retail product. Key speakers on this item included **Jeremy Young** and **Nick Nickelson**, who presented and discussed the proposed zoning text amendment. The amendment, designated **PLN-ZOTA-26-3**, would modify existing zoning regulations to permit this type of retail alcohol sales activity at a horserace track location. The Commission considered the request, which was narrowly tailored to the context of a horserace track operation — reflecting the unique commercial and cultural character of a facility like Keeneland. The sale of commemorative bourbon bottles represents a retail use distinct from on-premises alcohol consumption, necessitating the zoning text amendment to explicitly authorize it. The item was ultimately **approved** by the Commission. ## TIF REPORT FOR RED MILE [timestamp: 2:05:22] The Commission received a presentation on the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district associated with the Red Mile, focusing on a proposed expansion of the district to incorporate additional land intended to support infrastructure improvements. The improvements outlined include stormwater and utility upgrades within the expanded area. Key speakers on this item were **Traci Wade** and **Preston Worley**, who presented the details of the proposed TIF district expansion to the Commission. The item was approved by the Commission. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the April 23, 2026 minutes - **PLN-MAR-26-00008** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of South Broadway Project Owner, LLC map amendment request and Parker Tobacco Co. Inc. development plan - **PLN-MAR-26-00012** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of RAK Properties LLC map amendment request - **PLN-MAR-26-00009** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Edward McGhee map amendment request and Tom Collins Farm development plan - **PLN-MAR-26-00004** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Mt. Laurel Lands Company map amendment request and development plan - **PLN-MAR-26-00011** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Fox South LLC map amendment request - **PLN-MAR-26-00010** — passed (0-2): Approval of LCD Acquisitions, LLC map amendment request - **PLN-MJDP-26-00029** — passed (0-2): Approval of J. Forbing & Sons and Hayman Subdivision development plan - **PLN-MJDP-26-29** — passed (0-1): Approval of waiver request for J. Forbing & Sons and Hayman Subdivision - **PLN-ZOTA-24-6** — passed (0-0): Approval of revisions to Article 3A10 for the Economic Development Zone - **PLN-ZOTA-26-3** — passed (0-0): Approval to amend Article 8-1-D1 to allow retail alcohol sales in association with a horserace track - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the expansion of the TIF district for Red Mile --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Good afternoon. Today is May 28, 2026, and this is the meeting of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government's Planning Commission on zoning items. To begin, we have the approval of the April 23, 2026 minutes. Those minutes were circulated. Are there any revisions or corrections to the minutes as written? If not, the floor is open for a motion on those minutes. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Porter. I didn't make a motion for approval of the April 23rd, 2026 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Molly Davis second. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take that to a vote, please. Okay, that carries with one abstention. That's great. Okay, next item on the agenda today is the, or I'm sorry, postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any postponements? Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page four, item two, South Broadway Project Donor LLC map amendment request in Parker Tobacco Company, Inc. That's PLNMAR 26.8 representing the owner. We're requesting a two-month postponement on that. We're still working on access issues on that. That would be July 23rd, I believe. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. So that's a request for a two-month postponement to our July 23rd hearing. Any questions for the applicant? If not, the floor is open. Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Mr. Chair, I request a postponement per the applicant. for two months on the South Park Broadway project PLN MAR 26-0008. Second. Thank you, Commissioner. Jonathan Davis, second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Is there any discussion? And this is for postponement for the reasons outlined by the applicant. All right, we will take that to a vote. Mr. Penn, are you okay with that? Did that include the development plan? Did that motion include the development plan? Yes. yes oh is that correct mr davis okay yes all right mr pen thank you that carries unanimously mr chairman also on page 12 item 6 rak properties llc map amendment request and hamburg place farm sir barton lay office park phase 2 lot 9 sir barton way apartments development plan this is pln mar 2612 i represent the applicant on that and we are also requesting a two-month postponement on this we're going to have to revise our development plan and my witnesses and i cannot be here until the july 23rd meeting get them all together at the same time july 23rd okay mr murphy's requesting two months to july 23rd on this plan um pln mar 2612 and the Corresponding development plan. Do we have any questions for Mr. Murphy? Do we have a motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for two months postponement to July the 23rd for PLNMAR 2612. And the corresponding development plan? And the corresponding development. All right, and we have a second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Is there any discussion to that motion? All right, we'll take that to a vote as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. That carries unanimously. Good afternoon. My name is Charlotte McCoy. I'm counsel to the applicant for, on page six, item number three, Edward McGee map amendment request and Tom Collins Farm McGee Property Development Plan PLN MAR 260009. I'm here to ask for a postponement. We're still working out some technical details on our plans. We'd like to ask for two months to also to the July 23rd meeting. Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant? If not, the floor is open for a motion on that. Sir, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement as per the applicant's request for PLN MAR 26.9 and the associated development plan. To July 23rd? To July 23rd, right. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Second from Mr. Forrester. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote on that postponement. Mr. Pinn, thank you. Thank you, Ms. McCoy. All right. Hello, I'm Matt Minyard with the Mount Laurel Lands Company. I'm requesting 60-day postponement. Okay, and this is for the Mount Laurel Lands Company map amendment and associated development plan on page two? Yes, sir. All right, so two-month postponement to July 23rd. Yes, sir. Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Owens. I'll move for a motion for a question on plan. Yes. Okay, that was a motion for a two-month postponement on the application and the development plan. Second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Is there any discussion? If not, we will take a vote. Okay, that carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you so much. Tony Barrett, Barrett Partners here on behalf of Fox South LLC. On page 9 and continuing over to the following pages, I'd like to request. It's Fox South LLC map amendment request. PLN MAR 2611 Fox South LLC on page 10, top of page 10. I was late in filing the amended plans after the holiday. So I'd like to ask for a two-week postponement. I think it's June 11th. Okay. All right. Do we have any questions for Mr. Barrett on this two-week request? Seeing none, floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair? Yes. I'd move to postpone for two weeks to June 11th. Fox South LLC map amendment request. in Rosemill subdivision unit 2 development plan number PLN MAR 26-11 and the accompanying part C on the agenda which is a PLN MJDP 26-33. Second. Okay that was a motion from Commissioner Molly Davis second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis is there any discussion? Seeing none we We will take that to a vote for a two-week postponement. Okay, that's unanimous. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay. All things considered, I believe our next item on the agenda today is the Dean Lexington, correct, Danny? Parker Tobacco Company. Sorry, we're actually on page 8. Yeah, this will be the LCD acquisitions. LCD acquisitions, sorry. 2610. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The sole zone change this afternoon is a request by LCD acquisitions. LLC. In front of you, you'll have a revised supplementary staff report that staff has issued, along with Ingranicus is a copy of some of the updated renderings that apply to the site, and so I'll walk you through those as we describe the request. So this is a request for a host of properties located on Chair Avenue, Heyman Avenue, and 633 South Broadway, as you see up on the green. Those properties total 4.355 net acres, but with the associated right-of-way brings it to a total of almost seven and a half gross acres. And so this is a rezoning from the property's existing wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone, as well as the light industrial I1 zone, and they're seeking a corridor node CN zone in order to develop a high-density residential development. In association with this zone change, the applicant has placed this within a corridor place type, as well as a high-density residential development tab. Staff is in agreement with both the place and development type, but we'll get to that momentarily. So the host of properties comprise this white piece in the center of your screen, generally located. We have South Broadway here, where the properties have frontage. Oliver Lewis Way is located here. And then the rear of the property is divided by the railroad, which runs to the west of the site. Zooming in a little bit closer, you get a better idea of the zoning in the general vicinity. And the zoning of this property is indicative of an area that used to really serve as an industrial warehouse-type storage area. So this is where the tobacco warehouses and other light industrial uses would interface within the railroad. But over time, the usefulness of this and the utility for industrial land has changed. So we've seen rezonings over the past 40 years or so to sort of business and residential zones. So what we're seeing here in this purple is that light industrial existing zoning. We do have some heavy industrial associated kind of with the railroad. But as you're going closer to downtown, you're seeing mixed-use zones, residential zones, business zones, professional office zones that are really more indicative of having an area redeveloped from that formerly industrial route. It's worth noting that we do have residential development associated with Davis Park to the north. But once again, a host of properties with an emphasis on shifting from industrial to a residential focus. Here we have an aerial view of the subject properties. And so you can see the host of smaller buildings that make up these multiple properties. It's the current location of several industrial businesses, including Country Boy Brewing, as well as other light industrial users. So those would be removed with this request to develop a high-density residential. A couple of things to point out while we're still on the screen is the large amounts of right-of-way that's a little bit uncharacteristic of a lot of the development in the vicinity. So Oliver Lewis Way, from where that was realigned and redeveloped, left a significant portion of right-of-way that extends from basically this portion in all the way to the actual road itself. So greater than usual setbacks associated with kind of development in this area just from where that right-of-way had to be acquired. Also worth noting, Scott Street, which is shown right here on the plan, is slated to be extended. So it will actually curve around the rear of the property and then follow along with the railroad viaduct and then connect with Scott Street on the opposite side of South Broadway. So it actually will go over South Broadway. The plan and design for those facilities has been approved, and so this is something that is coming down the pipe. But it's something that's going to have to be factored in as we're looking at this particular plan. So starting off, I was going to kind of take us on a tour of the property because there is a number of streets, sort of local streets involved with this particular request. So on each of these, I've tried to label and then provided basically an aerial view in the corner with a little red dot that indicates kind of where we're at. So this is at South Broadway in chair, which is currently a write-in and write-out condition. So this would be the major entranceway for the development on South Broadway. As you go in a little bit further, that Chair Avenue from South Broadway intersects with Emmeline, which is shown to the right here, and then continues and extends up. You can see on the left is the current location of Country Boy Brewing, as well as other light industrial users in this vicinity here. Moving on up, if you make a left from Chair, you are now on Lower Street. Once again, this is a road that loops around the back and actually becomes Heyman Avenue, and then connects with South Broadway at that location. This intersection there, or this curve where the roads transition, will be impacted when Scotts Creek Street is actually developed. There will be a retaining wall. And so future action further down the line is going to be needed to address those pieces of right-of-way, whether they need to be closed or otherwise altered in order to accommodate that roadway expansion. But turning back the way we came, this is Chair Avenue. Scott Street, which is the roadway that is going to extend, is shown in bisecting here. The Davis Park multifamily and single-family neighborhood is located across the way there. Making a right, you're now at the intersection of Scott Street and Oliver Lewis Way. So once again, subject properties are all located in here. It's worth noting, once again, this larger piece of right-of-way that the applicants are unable to develop, as well as kind of the slope. It does sit about 10 feet, change in elevation from highest to lowest point there. Moving down, this is Oliver Lewis at Emmeline Lane. Emmeline is slated to stay with this proposal. So once again, existing buildings or the buildings you see here will be removed with the request. It is worth noting that not all of the properties in the vicinity are subject to this request. So the Mies, Tile, and Marble Company, that property is going to remain. and it's located kind of at the southwest of the subject properties. And then directly across the way we have the credit union as well as another light industrial user. So there are a couple properties in this vicinity that are not proposed to be included within this request. And so moving forward, when we're talking about the comprehensive plan, the applicant has chosen to place this within the context of the corridor. They do note that it is sort of getting closer to downtown and a second-tier urban area as well, but is focusing really on the intersection of the Oliver Lewis Way and the South Broadway corridors, providing high-density residential options there and improving the transit service in the vicinity. Within that, based on the place type, the high-density residential is a recommended development type, as well as the applicant's corridor node zones. So all three of those together is painting the picture of a development that is purporting to provide a large amount of residential development in a compact fashion that is providing accessibility and access to transit. As far as public engagement, the applicant did hold a public meeting. I was not personally in attendance, but there were a number of folks that attended. But really, based on the indications that I've had, had more questions about how the site was going to function as opposed to the actual opposition or larger concerns. But the applicant can speak a little bit greater about how those conversations have gone with this application. So as we're talking about the CN zone, once again, it's a newer zone. And it's really designed to provide high-density residential development in areas that are appropriate for transit and can help support transit service. So these are areas where we've got high-intensity roadways, where we've got connections to neighborhood facilities or kind of larger draws for the region. And the intent is to provide a very dense development that really prioritizes dwelling units. It minimizes surface parking and really needs to fit in with the goals, objectives, and development criteria of the comp plan. And so here we have aerial views of the proposed rendering. So this is actually divided up into multiple buildings. The staff will go through the development plan kind of in greater detail. But the proposal itself is a total of 972 beds spread across 326 units. And so this manifests itself in residential structures that are actually connected through a fifth floor walkway to another purely residential building that then connects through another walkway across these internal streets to a parking structure with a rooftop amenity area. Inside the structures themselves are open space and amenity areas, but that's the general function and flow of the sites. The applicant has provided some renderings. They did make some changes since we last showed this at zoning committee. So here, the applicant has moved an entranceway that was along this frontage closer to the South Broadway frontage to give that a little bit more of an activation along that same roadway. Here is a view sort of internal to the site. Once again, I've got the general location shown on that little dot there. But this would be the leasing office, the leasing areas. There are a multitude of other entrances for the building, but this would be the lobby space that then serves the rest of the development. But once again, it's a development that is prioritized high-density residential with the parking being provided in an associated parking structure located closest to the railroad. The applicant did not provide a rendering of this, but it shows the design of that particular parking structure. And as always, any parking structure needs to meet the zoning ordinance requirements for mandated openings, accessibility, et cetera. So staff's original recommendation for this request was postponement, largely because we needed a couple of technical items, technical documents. We found largely on the front end that this was doing a lot of what the comprehensive plan is calling for regarding providing additional residential density along corridors, creating developments that are well-connected for pedestrians. But we needed information on their traffic demand study, which they've provided. We needed a response from them regarding how they were meeting the multifamily design standards, which they have provided. And we requested further information on how they were incorporating transit. One of the big pushes of the CN zone is an emphasis on additional residential development that also enhances and adds to the transit. So the applicant has been in conversations with LexTran, so they have committed funds to construct an additional traffic stop. I mean, not traffic, transit stop that I will get into momentarily. But they have been in contact. They are still working some of the design features out for that, but that is something that we are expecting moving forward. And then we requested some information regarding how the site was sort of activating the main road frontages. The applicant did note that in this instance, that large amount of right-of-way along Oliver Lewis does limit their ability to really bring the building up, to meet the street, as well as changes in topography that limit their ability to really create a meaningful entrance at that particular location. They did move other entrances to kind of better activate South Broadway, but have updated those in the renderings. So as far as the traffic, or sorry, transit, there is actually larger plans for the Oliver Lewis Way. And this is a snapshot from the Corridors Commission. So there is planned improvements to include traffic stop, traffic, transit, transit stops right at the intersection of the property here. So we've got Oliver Lewis Way. There would be one being provided here already that has been planned for and designed. What the applicant is proposing and is coordinating with Lectran would be a formalized traffic transit stop on South Broadway located at the location that you see on the star. The applicant can give you more information on what those conversations have sort of evolved to, but have committed that they will provide the funds to provide that stop. So this will have transit access on both of its roadways. It's connected to with accessible pedestrian sidewalks and is providing additional residential density that's going to help transit in this area take hold. So overall, staff is recommending approval, largely because it is an increase in the provision of housing, especially along major corridors. This is currently primarily being targeted towards the University of Kentucky students. However, it is open for anyone that would like to rent. Once again, we have a request that is well connected. It is in walkable distance to the University of Kentucky to downtown. And now is going to have enhanced transit facilities to do so. So those two aspects really make up the bulk of what we are looking at for the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan for the reasons that are in the staff report as well as being shown on screen. Staff also found that with the revised design and the explanation behind it, that it meets the criteria for land use, transportation, connectivity, and walkability, environmental sustainability and resiliency, site design and building form. Once again, getting back to the core ideas of providing a dense residential opportunity in an area that was underdeveloped along major corridors that is going to improve transit service in the area and be a benefit to the community. So with that, staff is recommending approval of this request. As always, it's subject to the approval of the corresponding development plan. The applicant also did provide a traffic impact study that after the development plan and associated waiver that our transportation staff will be presenting as well. But at this time, if you have any questions regarding the zoning aspects of the site, I would be happy to answer those. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Do we have any questions on the zone map amendment request? Mr. Mickler. Yeah, thank you. I do have a couple of questions that have to do with sort of understanding this new zone that we have not seen much of. The understanding this is sort of a corridor zone. And looking at this development plan, I'm trying to wrestle with how little it interacts with the corridor. I'm noticing on Oliver Lewis Way that we have somewhere between probably 300 and 400 foot building along Oliver Lewis Way, but we don't show a single doorway that's five feet on that entire side of the building. and we're saying that this is here because it's engaging this corridor. It's a high-density corridor. We moved, we inched the door a little closer to Broadway, but we don't really show any interaction along Broadway, and it kind of reaches a little finger out and pokes at Broadway, and really we're talking about just a large housing development, which I understand the argument that that supports the comprehensive plan. I'm just, we have a couple of other zones that also allow large development, and I guess I'm a little bit, I want to be a little bit cautious with what we're calling a corridor development, since this does give the developers more ability to add density along a corridor, but I'm not really seeing much engagement with the corridor here. You said there was topography, which I see that, but I'm really unsure why we do allow developers to build sidewalks in the right-of-way. We do allow developers to build access in the right-of-way. So I'm not really sure why that wide right-of-way on Oliver Lewis Way actually precludes that engagement. Yeah, yeah. So let me bring back the aerial here. So this will work. So, yes, in right-of-way, the applicant is able to build things like sidewalks. Usually when there's issues with sidewalks in the right-of-way, it's usually more of a topography-related issue. But really that prevents them, say, in a normal corridor development, we would ask them to reinforce the roadway with buildings. Here they're kind of precluded from that aspect. But we did raise the question of, you know, along the, especially along Oliver Lewis, you're right, with the South Broadway, the amount of frontage there really is limited. Although it will have a, you know, a lot of its traffic and use will be coming from that sort of South Broadway corridor. The other things that weren't mentioned at the time, or initially, the ability to bring the structures further up, I believe is complicated by some infrastructure that's located along South Broadway. So in that instance, bringing the building forward there was a little bit problematic. So during the last staff review or the initial staff review, we did raise that question of, you know, is there the ability to reconfigure entrance ways to kind of integrate with Oliver Lewis Way? And so the applicant's response on that was really the combination of the space between those two due to the right-of-way, The topography weirdness of where that would go in the building as far as what portions of the building are at what elevations cause them to go a different route. So ultimately, most of their activity as far as the individual or the office space is going to be internal to the site. They do note that they do have sort of these individualized entrances that are kind of across most all of the road frontages that would provide pedestrian access, but just not in that same visual presentation. So really, in staff's estimation, it was something that we thought could use additional help, but overall was not something that would sway us from recommending overall improvement. With regards to the comprehensive plan, once again, this is located at the intersection of these two corridors. There was some talk about was this a downtown or a second-tier urban. All of those are really pointing to a product that is sort of this higher-density residential. The CN zone does let them do things like get higher development through kind of less requirements for open space and the like. So that does provide them additional benefit versus another residential zone. But ultimately, kind of those combinations of things led staff to being comfortable with a recommendation of approval, even though some of the aspects like the distance between those was certainly not what we'd like to see if there weren't any kind of impediments on the site. So just a quick follow-up to that. In the way that we have our CN zone now, we do not require any entrance whatsoever to be along the corridor. Yeah, I don't think there's anything that specifies that, no. Okay. I do think that going forward, that may be something we need to look at as a community to make sure that our entrances to our buildings aren't exclusively on the side street and in the parking garages. Commissioner Marley Davis. I was just going to say that I think the aerial view shows what Commissioner Mickler is talking about more clearly. If you go back to the wrong direction. That one right there. I see shrubs in front of a building with no connection to the corridor whatsoever. And though the proposed building and the credit union are the only two buildings, that middle lot is likely to be developed also. And it would be a shame if we continued the lack of engagement with the corridor, in my opinion. Okay, do we have any questions, Mr. Pym? Daniel, that's a pretty good right-of-way. Could they do public art in that right-of-way? I'm going to pivot to my left real quick. Mr. Penn, that right-of-way is owned by the transportation cabinet. So they generally don't allow those type of improvements in the right-of-way. Because they're concerned about vehicles leaving the road and causing damage to property and also to the person driving. So you can plant big trees there, but you can't do public art. Well, and even those, you would need permission from the state to plant the trees in the right of way. I was just asking, this is the first one I've seen like this. I mean, I agree. I think, to Mr. Mickler's question and point, we brought this up to the applicant about the distance from the road to their building and that being greater than what we see anywhere else. unless they are able to purchase part of the right-of-way from the state. If the state were to determine we don't need that much land, that could facilitate something else happening there. But I wouldn't anticipate that the state would grant permission for art or even potentially a lot of landscaping. Well, we were supposed to get art at Thistle, but we didn't. We were supposed to get art where? Thistle on Newtown Pike. Oh, yeah. That's a different project. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Crum on the Zone Map Amendment question? Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Chris Chaney, planning staff. We're going to be looking at the associated development plan, MJDP 2069, the J-4B and Sons, and Heyman subdivision, the standard of Lexington. As Daniel indicated, I'll kind of reorient us with the development plan. At the top of the plan is Oliver Lewis Way. South Broadway comes down the right side of the plan. The left side of the plan is Scott Street, and currently it ends at Chair Avenue, and this depicts the proposed extension of Scott Street that isn't currently under construction. It is not currently under construction. Sorry about that. And then Chair Avenue, this is the intersection of Chair Avenue with South Broadway, and it comes along between the two multifamily structures. This is one, and this is the other. And then this is the parking structure. And then at the bottom of the plan, we have Heyman Lane, I believe, and they are depicting a turnaround. This is conceptual just to show that there's space for the turnaround. The applicants do not own the property on the other side of Heyman. It's owned by the city of Cincinnati and the railroad. And then this is Lower Street. They're depicting that to come down and currently, as Daniel had mentioned, it connects to Heyman. But when Scott Street Extension comes through, these two streets will be terminated one way or the other at that retaining wall. and then Emmeline comes off of Oliver Lewis Way and intersects with Chair Avenue at the corner of this the larger multifamily structure. As Daniel said, there's 4.35 net acres and 7.42 gross acres including all of Right of Way. The purpose of the development plan is to depict the development of two multifamily residential structures and the parking structure. And again, the parking structure is at the southwest side of the property. It's connected to the middle structure with a fifth-story pedestrian bridge. And then the middle structure, the multifamily residential, is connected to the northeast structure with a fifth-story pedestrian bridge as well. and then as Daniel mentioned there are rooftop amenities on the parking structure as well some of the main concerns that came up in our discussions obviously the Scott Street extension and how that's going to impact the development was kind of a major point that we discussed which is also going to affect the termination of the public streets which again is why the turnaround shown there. One thing that was identified on the development plan, they show the corner of the parking structure 10 feet from the base of the retaining wall for the Scott Street extension. And some of the communication from the Division of Engineering indicates that that needs to be at least 15 feet for all of the load-bearing structures of this development with separation from the retaining wall on the Scott Street extension. And then the other thing that one of the discussion items that we still have on the staff report is how Lower Street will be terminated or handled, whether it will be reverted to private from public right-of-way or basically we just want to discuss what that plan will be. And then we also wanted to discuss the Lower Street Termination and then one of the conditions that was added is to denote drop-off pickup and delivery shall be resolved on the final development plan. We had a concern with, especially on this structure, that they're, depending on whether there's on-street parking or not, it could impact the ability for people to pick up, drop off, receive deliveries in that building. So we just, we wanted to identify that that needed to be addressed at the time of the final development plan. And then there is a waiver associated with this, with the cross-section for Chair Avenue. They're requesting a waiver for an alternate cross-section, and I'll get to that momentarily with the waiver report. The subdivision committee did recommend approval with the remaining four sign-offs. I apologize, you should have an orange sheet in your packet, which is the revised staff report for the development plan. The recommendation was for approval with four sign-offs from engineering, traffic engineering, the urban forest or in open space. And then we had three additional conditions. One, to correct noted deficiencies listed in the requirements not met. the second condition provided the urban county council approves the zoning the zone change and then finally provided that the planning commission approves the waiver of the alternate cross section and with that i'd be happy to answer any questions thank you chris do we have any questions on the development plan at this time Okay, seeing none, thank you very much. Do you want to go ahead and do the waiver at this time? Sure. So the applicant did submit a waiver request for an alternate cross section, WAV 2612. The subject cross-section is for Chair Avenue. And again, this is, nope, sorry, too far. On the overall development plan, it's in this location here along Chair. And then just for a little bit more, just kind of for your information, on the bigger plan, I mentioned that there's the pedestrian connection between the two buildings, and that's generally in this location here. so they are requesting an alternate cross section for chair avenue and this is in the land subdivision regulations exhibit 6-3 and that's the most appropriate cross section for this would be a residential continue local or commercial service cross section which is shown at the top of this graphic. And what it shows are it's a, the existing right-of-way or the existing condition is 40 feet with a variable pavement width of 24 to 30 feet. No curb width is identified. The applicant states there are no utility strips that exist currently. And then the sidewalks vary from four to eight feet. The requirement is for, again, which is shown at the top, would be for a 52-foot right-of-way, 30-foot pavement, face of curb to face of curb, and then a 6-inch curb, and then a 5.5-foot utility strip and a 5-foot sidewalk on each side. What the applicant's proposing with this waiver request is to maintain the 40-foot right-of-way, to propose a 27-foot pavement of curb to face of curb, which is three feet less than what's required, a six-inch curb, which is what's required, and then six-foot sidewalks on either side with an additional one and a half feet on the applicant's property for a total of an eight-foot sidewalk, and that does include the curb width as well. And then they've indicated that the utilities would be either beneath or behind the sidewalk and tree plantings would be behind the sidewalk on the proposed. And then we do recommend approval of the waiver for the following reasons. The request does not drastically deviate from the approved standards and allows for minimal improvements within the existing right-of-way. Number two, the site is being redeveloped from industrial uses to multifamily residential, and the applicant is proposing to modify and standardize the conditions of Chair Avenue. And three, the request provides more pedestrian space than the standard cross-section requires in support of the zone change request to a corridor node zone, which is intended to encourage the development of high-density residential and mixed-use centers that are designed to complement existing and future public transit and should produce compact, walkable, and sustainable developments. We do make a recommendation with suggesting the following requirement to denote on Chair Avenue cross-section that they must maintain 20-foot minimum clear width and no parking on one side, and that's coming from the Division of Fire. Okay, thank you very much. Do we have any questions on the waiver? Yes, sir, Ms. Mickler. And then Commissioner Molly Davis. Yeah, my question on the waiver is where they're flipping the typical cross-section there of having the trees on the inside by the roadway and then flipping that with the sidewalk. My question has two parts. One, it doesn't appear that, I mean, on the other side, they've got the building. So by flipping that, there's not actually much room for sort of meaningful growth for the trees. The other thing is that especially related to the side that doesn't have on-street parking, there's not going to be any buffer for the pedestrians on that sidewalk the way that you would when you have the typical street tree planting and or the parked cars along the side. and so I guess I was wondering if you could speak to both the impact on the street trees if we approve this waiver and the impact on the pedestrian experience. Definitely on the, I'll address the pedestrian experience first. You're right about that. It doesn't provide the same buffer that the utility strip immediately adjacent to the curb would and or on street parking. So that does affect the pedestrian experience to some degree, though it is similar to a lot of downtown areas um and then i believe i believe this is showing the open space um so i think there there is room behind the sidewalk for the plantings but i think you're you're right as well that it it would probably have to be medium or small trees in that location but i'm that's not my area of expertise so i'm speculating in that respect so okay Okay. Robin, are you? Well, my last sort of follow-up was, is there, if they have that open space there, is there, I just am understanding, I guess, need to understand the need for the waiver. Or is there not, would they be precluded from extending the right-of-way a little bit and including that green space and flipping the sidewalk with the green space? I'm not concerned about the width of the roadway. Does my follow-up make sense? Right. Is there something that prevents them from widening the right-of-way, I guess? Not that I'm aware of. But from looking at the plan, it appears there's space, but the applicant can probably speak to that more specifically. Perhaps my concern should be waited until the applicant comes up. They're kind of similar in that a five-foot-wide sidewalk is what we're supposed to be building, and to increase it to six and a half on both sides at the expense of having a provision for a pedestrian to walk with some shade, And yet there is nothing that gets the people who are occupying these places to an existing LexTram bus stop on Oliver Lewis Way. It just seems like there's a great opportunity for better accessibility and not just so much focus on the interior for an existing transportation network. Ms. Davis, there is a sidewalk from Chair that Plan West runs along Chair and then would follow Scott Street to that corner where the proposed bus transit stop is located. but you know that most people would not go way out of their way to get to a transit stop when they can simply go through the grass to get to something that's a shorter journey. Well, except if it's a 10-foot drop into a ditch and up. I mean, it depends on the topography, I think. Okay. Do we have any other questions on the waiver? All right. Thank you, Chris. James Mills, transportation staff. So I'm going to present to you the traffic impact study. All speed limits on the surrounding roadways are 35 miles per hour or less. When we look at the traffic impact study, first we look at the average annual daily traffic on the surrounding roadways. So South Broadway from Red Mile to West Maxwell Street is a two-way principal arterial that has an average daily traffic of 26,000 in 2024, which is down from 38,000 in 2006. Oliver Lewis Way is also a two-way principal arterial with an AADT of 9,862, which is slightly up from 2023 of 9,658. And Boulevard Street, which is a two-way principal arterial as well, which has an average annual daily traffic of 8,412, which is down from a high of 9,226 in 2021. Additionally, LexTrain service has stops on South Broadway and Oliver Lewis Way that serve Route 13, which is the South Broadway route, Route 15, which is Red Mile, and Route 24, which is Old Frankfort Pike. None of the nearby stops feature shelters or benches. One does have a trash receptacle. And in 2025, LexTrain adjusted Route 15 from a bi-directional service to a single counterclockwise service with the same number of buses to improve headways. This improved the headways from every 12 minutes to every 5 to 7 minutes. And bike and pedestrian facilities, there are sidewalks and bike lanes on Oliver Lewis Way and Boulevard Street, although on one side of Boulevard it turns into a Shero as it approaches South Broadway. So looking at the peak hour trip generation and distribution, this study specifically applied IT trip code 226, which is off-campus residential mid-rise. This created a projected generation from the proposed development to 272 peak hour trips. And added into the generation was a distribution of 0.5% annual growth, which is based on KYTC's South Broadway count history. Intersection capacity, turn lane analysis, and site distance were done. The impact of the Scott Street connector was not considered. So, simply put, the peak level, hour level of service analysis was conducted for the existing 2026 and future full build 2030. A comparison of future no-build years was not conducted. Irregardless, the study found an increase of two seconds in the a.m. peak and three seconds in the p.m. peak for 2026, but level of service remains D or better during the weekday peak hours, although some movements have level of service E or F. The existing travel lanes can handle the traffic from the planned development improvements to multimodal service, and infrastructure could improve the traffic in the area in present and future scenarios. Looking at the crash statistics and findings, A five-year review from March 2021 to March 2026 found 136 crashes, 24 total injuries and zero fatalities. Of these crashes, 112 were property damage collisions, 24 collisions with injuries. The collision comparison of South Broadway reveals a 42% higher crash rate with a four-lane median undivided road. conducting an additional analysis, a total of 14 collisions with pedestrians occurred and one collision with a bicyclist resulting in 11 injuries. Since the parking demand mitigation study was part of the concern, I just added it for the number of spaces that was peak parking demand for 496 or 335 on a per bed or per unit count, and they are providing 591, which is more than what the IT manual suggests. An important addendum is that the surface parking could be impacted by the South Scott Street connector, but that's about it. So findings and recommendation. The existing roadway system is sufficient to accommodate traffic from the proposed land use. As noted, improvements to automobile capacity around the surrounding roadways are not required or recommended. The applicant stated that meeting with Lex Tran that they would fund the installation of a new shelter facility in the vicinity of Chair Avenue and South Broadway and that their sidewalk and bicycle facilities meet Lex Tran's expectations. And lastly, the University of Kentucky's plans to create a new College of Fine Arts Development space and the impact of the Stock Street Connector were not included in the analysis. All right, thank you, Mr. Mills. Do we have any questions at this time? Okay. Thank you very much. Applicant. Thank you. today of representing the applicant LCD acquisitions, Landmark Properties. With me today I have Mr. Nick Lev, Representative Development Manager of Landmark, Eric Samuelson of Cube3 Studios, which is our architectural consultant, and Mr. Jihad Halani with Vision engineering, one of our design engineers, and my partner, Scott Schutte. Mr. Samuelson and Mr. Lev are going to cover a lot of the details of this application in terms of technical issues, but I do want to hit some broad points just for illustration for you that I've heard here. This particular development and the proposed project is in an area that, as staff alluded, those of us that have lived here for a long time know that it's traditionally been an industrial area. The Davistown redevelopment came along. I believe Mr. Forrester was on the land trust board for a time that resulted in the community center there. And as part of the Newtown Pike Corridor Plan, which was cited in our justification letter, which is in your packet, it was always envisioned that these I-1 properties would transition into something that was more commercial or multi-use. Well, this is really the realization of that or the reality of it, which just happens to mesh with a time when the University of Kentucky, as we know, continues to undergo a housing shortage. And right across Oliver Lewis Way, we have another student housing or multifamily housing development. So what this is, is in our mind a major improvement of these particular properties. the context in my mind of the corridor has already really been set by the Lex which is there. We're improving that context. And in terms of the process, staff mentioned neighborhood engagement. We did have a neighborhood meeting, bless you, on March the 5th of this year. That was only attended by local business owners in the area. And although we went ahead and invited, I sent notices to the folks that lived in Davistown. We didn't have any attendees from there. But really the questions, there were no real objections. It was really focused on what's the development going to look like, how will that affect our properties. So the next thing that happened, which is very important, you've heard about the Scott Street extension. At this point, the Scott Street extension is still in the design phase. The city nor the state has started right-of-way acquisition for that property. So the owner of all of these properties still owns that area. enter Landmark when they're looking at this property as a potential development site, and we do what we do, which is they have, and they probably won't say this about themselves, but I will. They're referred to by their competitors as first in class in the student housing industry. They're at the top. And if you look at the packet, and Mr. Samuelson will go through the presentation, you can see some of the amazing projects that they've done. So they're professionals, and they know what they're doing. So they sit down with the engineering folks here, and they learn about Scott Street and what's been planned and how that's been on the board for a long time. And if you think about being a student at the University of Kentucky, and once that road is done and our complete streets program is in full effect and you have guarded bike paths on both sides and so forth, and now you're able to get over to this side or this edge of the campus to where you live and seek your entertainment and so forth, it's going to be a fantastic project. But nonetheless, like I said, hopefully it will be done in the near future. But I've been around eminent domain work for a long time, and I've seen roads that have been on the board for 30 years and not get built. I think this one's going to be built, and the applicant thought it was going to be built. So rather than to say, well, you can't hold me to a standard of where I set my boundaries of my buildings because this project may or may not happen, they went back to the drawing board and actually rearranged their site plan. Because where we've seen, Mr. Samuelson, take you through the aerial, but where we've seen that on the aerial where the road will come through, we had structures there. And they went back, redrew the plan to get out of that area to be a good neighbor because this has been planned for a long time, like I said. We've had the Versailles Road study, the Newtown Pike corridor study. All of these studies point to the redevelopment of this area. So I wanted to make clear that they had done that. Another very important point is LexTran. I'll just divert for a second. Mr. Mickler asked a question about why this particular zone. Well, we looked at several different of our different zoning categories and which one was the most appropriate. Right now, the downtown master plan is being updated. I've been to several of those meetings myself. My understanding is that in the course of that master plan being updated, We're going to set a new boundary in writing of where downtown is and isn't. Right now, I mean, in the Maxwell proceedings, we talked a lot about what was downtown and what wasn't downtown. And does downtown start at the viaduct, where the railroad goes across? That is a point that's going to be considered when the downtown master plan is finalized, but it hadn't been finalized yet. And we didn't want to get into an argument about whether this is downtown or not, because one could argue that it's kind of in between. The corridor node, although it's new, and the only other time I think you've considered it was with the subtext application on Prawltown, although it's new, it really seemed to be right in the sweet spot for this particular development. We don't want to build a 10-story building. It allowed us to build the height we wanted to build. It allowed us to, once we considered the Scott Street interaction, to lay things out the way that Landmark wanted to do that. And I won't go into any more detail than that, but that's how we settled on that zone. And as far as Lex Tran, the transit, public transit is a very important part of this component of the corridor note zone. So we knew that Lex Tran has four different stops on Oliver Lewis Way. There's been talk about when those would be funded and the shelters erected. I actually had a call yesterday. We've been dealing with Emily Ellett, who's a development officer at Lex Tran, about how we're going to interact on this, what we can do. because obviously we want to have a sheltered bus stop at our location to serve our residents. And that's going to become a reality. There's a stop now, but it's not a shelter. It will become that in the vicinity of Chair Avenue. So that's how we'll deal with that situation. There will also be stops on Oliver Lewis Way. The issue there, you heard the word right away and the fact that the city, if you're dealing directly with the city, we can more easily make sidewalks go from point A to point B. This is the state's property. This is there right away. We don't own it, so we're kind of hemmed in on what we can do. We think we've put the best design out there that we can given that constraint. As far as art is concerned, Commissioner Penn, we'll show you on the aerial in a minute, right in that vicinity, I believe it's here, we can put art there. That's our property. And we've actually talked about that amongst ourselves. So we envisioned one of the equine statues. So that's something we can absolutely do. We don't have to deal with the state on that. I think I've covered just in broad strokes the things that I thought was important. I believe now it's probably a good time for me to get Mr. Lev to give you all an explanation of who Landmark is and how they see this property project going forward. Good afternoon. I'm Nick Lev. I'm on the development team at Landmark Properties. Landmark is one of the nation's leading developers of purpose-built student housing. Since our founding in Athens, Georgia in 2004, we've delivered over 55,000 student housing beds across the country and have over $15 billion in assets under management. We are vertically integrated, which means we are an investor, a developer, a general contractor, and a property manager of the projects that we develop. I think it's also important to note that we are a long term holder of these projects, which means that we design them with the long term in mind. And we view ourselves as long term members of the individual communities. So we're really excited about this project. I'll hand it over to Eric Samuelson, who can talk you through the design. Thank you. That was all known. Yeah. I had to get a little practice. We're going back to the University of Kentucky is accepting no outreach dorms. I don't think they have anything planned by the university to accompany their recruitment student population. So it's going to be pushed out. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Eric Samuelson with Cube 3, representing the architect of record for the project. So I'm just going to walk you through this. Some of the initial slides here are the landmark property slides. I know we've covered a lot of information thus far. We've had a lot of people talking. So I'll try and get through some of the stuff quickly, but kind of harp on some of the important topics that we've been discussing today. So just in regard to the zone change context, so the things we were looking at, Davis Park Station, the Lex, we had similar density projects around here. So we really felt like this was a good location to have this and to fit this density in with the surrounding to change it from more of an industrial use to a residential. We also have the school visual arts development that will be forthcoming. I think we're just a little cut off on the slides. I don't know if it's on full page. There we go. Perfect. Here we just have some existing condition slides. We went through some of this earlier, but really just kind of looking at the industrial uses on the site and the surface parking lots that are there. And just the statistics for the project. 974 beds, about 392,000 square feet. Our parking is about 60% of our bed count. We have 116 bike parking spaces, which is over our 10%. And we also have over 50% of that is in covered bike parking as well. So we've gone through a lot of these comments and updates from our meetings and things that we've had over the last few months and weeks. Design updates, we did things to address the pedestrian connectivity to South Broadway, ground floor activation. I'll go through some of these things on the upcoming slides, the meeting with Lex Tran, the transit-oriented, us meeting the multifamily design standards, and then the parking demand study that was done. So really this is kind of the key slide to cover a lot of these topics. What you're seeing here is the site plan, but this site plan is actually cut at the ground floor level of what we're considering the ground floor of this project. And so what you'll notice here is we have grayed out portions of the building here and here. And those are grayed out because those are underground at this location. So there is significant grade change from in the middle of our site. So we have Chair Ave running down. We have Lower Street. So this area right here in the middle is where between these three parcels is the flattest portion of the site. And you can actually connect between the parking structure and the two residential buildings all around the same elevation. From there, the grade change goes up about 12 to 14 feet towards South Broadway. And then it goes up from there about 12 feet towards Oliver Lewis. So that amount of grade change is really why we wanted to centralize the location for the main entry for these buildings. So we're using this as our leasing or lobby space, but there's also main entries into the adjacent building on the ground floor here at this location. And there's also entrances to the parking at the ground floor at this location. So along Chair Ave, we really wanted to make sure that there was a lot of pedestrian activity in use. And so one of the questions we heard as well was about the waiver that we're requesting and being only a foot and a half of landscape available. All of our buildings are set off an additional 10 feet from that foot and a half. So that foot and a half is really just within the right of way. Our buildings are set back another 10 feet from that number. So there's plenty of room to do small to medium trees in that location as well as other landscape features. These roadways are also not intended to be high-speed traffic, so having sidewalks up against that is not considered to be uncomfortable. I believe these are 25-mile-per-hour roads. So with that, it's not uncommon to see sidewalks up against those spaces versus somewhere that would be a 40- or 50-mile-per-hour road. the other piece to consider so we do have other entrances which i can get into as i go through each of the building plans doing a direct connection from our building up to oliver lewis we've talked about the right-of-way at nauseam i believe at this point but the other piece is that that connection covering that much grade and that amount of space it's also not accessible to do that so if you were to do that you would need over 150 feet of ramp within that space to make that an accessible pathway. So it's not doing that much ramp in that short of a distance would not be comfortable for someone who needs a ramp. So going around along chair and to Scott would actually be a more comfortable experience than going through that much ramp in that short of a space. So just kind of quickly going through the floor plan showing where some of these entries are in the building. So as I mentioned here, this is our ground floor plan built into the hill. We have our main entry into this building here. We also do have another entry on the left side of this building that pedestrians can use. And then as you go up, this is the second level. So along Chair Ave, this would be the second floor here. But along Emmeline, this would actually be at ground level. So we do have another residential connection right along Emmeline at this location. So if I step back to the site plan, that location along Emmeline would be right here. So that would be a direct connection out to the street, and that would allow someone to get to Oliver Lewis fairly quickly. And then looking at the other way, we do have a connection on this corner of the building, and someone would be able to get to Scott Street and out to Oliver Lewis fairly quickly in that direction. And then we here just have a typical floor plan. And then at the top floor is where we have our connection with our pedestrian bridge that does connect all of these buildings. So each building is connected through this top floor bridge as well. So within our bar building, which is on the other side of Chair Ave, as I mentioned, we have our main lobby leasing space here at the corner. we do have another access point about halfway up Chair Ave that allows for access to the building there. And then as we jump up, this is the second level of this portion above Chair Ave. But as you get towards South Broadway, this is at grade. And here at grade, we meet with an entry right at the corner of this space, and we have the entire corner here as an activated corner that will be seen from South Broadway and Chair Ave. And then again, as you get towards the top floor, we have the connection towards the figure eight shaped building to plan north. And then there's another connection here towards plan south to the parking garage structure. And then we have a partial floor as we're kind of built into the hill here. And then within the parking garage, we currently have two entrances, one off of Lower Street and one off of Heyman Ave. Typical precast parking structure, ramp on one side, and then as you get to the top, we have a partial indoor amenity and partial outdoor amenity on top of this. And then you do have the connection with the bridge across to the residential buildings so that you could connect all three buildings through those bridge connections. Just quickly looking at the elevations here, You can see we have included the multifamily design standards and other design criteria that have been discussed. So we have added annotations within our elevations highlighting where we were achieving those things. You know, working on some varying parapet heights, roof heights, breaking up the facade, having kind of setbacks and things within the building, varying materials, doing things to break down some of the massing of this building so it's not just one long continuous design feature. So just kind of working through a similar design concept here, using masonry and fiber cement products, using a mixture. There's no blank walls within these residential buildings along Oliver Lewis Way. There's not just some blank facade along that street. There are windows and end units along that entire facade. So as mentioned, this is our perspective here, looking from South Broadway. So we have our activated corner. We have an entry here. There will most likely be signage at some point that we just have not gone to in this part of the design process. And we will have kind of a presence here along South Broadway, even though it's just one small portion of the site is touching South Broadway. With the street, there will be a presence here from South Broadway as it extends down into the site. And then looking as we're internal to the site, so here's the entry of the lobby leasing. The other entry into this building is here underneath the bridge, and then we do have that bridge connection connecting the two. And so one thing to note here, kind of within our sidewalks, we also, because there's so much grade on the site, we do need the depth between the sidewalk and the building to ramp and create accessible entrances into the building. Because very rarely are those two at the same elevation. So we're trying to work with the grades to create accessible entrances. So that depth between the sidewalk and the building face allows us to meet an accessible ramp into the building. Missing the aerial, but you guys have seen the aerial before, so you have the general idea of kind of what we're working with. So I believe that's everything. Please let us know if you have any questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for the development team at this time? Commissioner Molly Davis and then Commissioner Mickler. Thank you, Chair. I wonder, I'm looking at the overall plan, and I noticed that the paved, we'll have a couple of questions. the paved parking lot looks like it to the northwest you actually own quite a bit more land it looks like around in that area is that planned to be a community amenity then yeah yeah that's going to be part of the scott street extension so i see so we left it blank and so we tried to stay out of that property and that's why we're using it as kind of a short-term parking situation right now. Okay, understand better. Structure, it did have. Right, okay, that's when you were saying that you took something away because you wanted to be a good neighbor. Yeah, there was previously townhomes planned for that location. So could you also just for my edification in that same plan, if I'm a person coming, I've parked my car and I'm going to go to the north building, what is my route to do that? Is it, how do I go? Sure, so there's kind of two different ways to go depending on where you park. So there's elevators within the building located at the corners as well as stairs. So you can either go down or up, depending on if it's a nice day and you want to stay outside. You're welcome to go out towards Lower Street, and you can walk along the sidewalk and across the building to the main entry here. Or you can go up to the top floor, which has the amenity space, and that's where you can go indoor bridge connection between these two buildings and directly across the hallway to the next building. So you can actually stay indoors and connect between all three of these structures. So between the two buildings, is there at grade space to walk through or is there- Not necessarily covered, but yes, there is space to walk. There will be a sidewalk connection or a pathway connection. Okay, and the last part is when you're, the part that is grayed out that's really the closest to South Broadway and the intersection with Chair Avenue, will that become another kind of amenity for the community? Will it be planted with street trees or large trees, or what do you plan to do there? So the grade out section on this plan is underground. So this is all subgrade, and that's why we're showing kind of the first level here. If you're talking at the very end here right now, we're just envisioning that as a green space. So I say that again? Like a green space. Okay. But that's also where we could do some public art as well. I'm sorry? We'd be willing to do public art there in that location and then some plantings as well. Okay. Then I guess the last thing is that the image that shows the entrance from South Broadway onto Chair Avenue, maybe you could go to the rendering that shows that. I think it might be before that. It's really quite a different grade at South Broadway to Chair and along through there. it's a different way on the ground than it is shown, say, on the right side. Is that going to present any problems for the people who are trying to access the site that you don't have, that you don't own that sort of big block where the credit union is and all of that? How will that be addressed? Are you saying as far as us changing the grading of ChairRab? Yeah, it's quite different there on the ground. than how you agree. It's not flat like that. Do you want to answer that? My name is Jihad Hallani. It was Vision Engineering. Yes, ma'am. For UK Credit Union Bank, there's a steep entrance, but that entrance along Chair Avenue is going to be leveled with the sidewalk, and that's why one of the reasons of the variance is to create a distance between the building and the future sidewalk to kind of able to create some ramp, specifically at the middle entrances not at the edges, the one kind of in between them to kind of create the ramping. But to answer your question, over here it's going to be level with the chair avenue. And I see your point that the green space does not reflect UK Credit Union. Because it's quite hard to get in there now. They only have one way to drive in. Are you going to negatively impact that neighbor? We're not going to change any of the roadway width or anything like that in that location. So it's going to be the same. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the presentation. I am coming back to the same points I made with staff in sort of this discussion. This development plan is very, the circulation is very internally oriented around access and movement from the parking garage to the two buildings. I mean, that is really highlighted by how little on-street parking is provided, by how little access, by the zero access along that 350-foot wall with just a little zigzagging push-pull on there on Oliver Lewis Way. And by that kind of pseudo entrance with no, doesn't appear to be any lobby unit or staffing at that Broadway and chair entrance. I mean, there's aspects of this plan that I like and appreciate. And I like and appreciate how little surface parking there is. I think you all have done a good job with the placement of where the parking garage is. But speaking as, you know, someone who's part of a body that is looking to activate our corridors and see more activity and have a city where we see the activity and we don't have these just development pods along our corridors that are all internal movement. I really don't think this meets the spirit of this zone in how little effort you all are making to activate these buildings along Broadway and Oliver Lewis Way. And I think these zero entrances on either corridor really just drives home that, yes, I understand the grade change, but the amount of creativity and effort that you all used was also zero. Okay, do we have any other questions, Mr. Pym? I'm going to ask the same question that I ask most all student housing. Your intention is to own and manage this for how long? I mean, it's the long term, right? And so typically our equity partners are more programmatic investors, pensions funds, insurance companies. And so they also have a long-term hold as well. And so our founders' intention on all these projects is long-term. So I don't think we really have like a point in time, but potentially decades. Well, how long would the depreciation be on it? 20 years, 30 years? Would you say that again? Depreciation, how long would that be on this building? The depreciation? Yeah. I'm not certain. You mean from like a tax accounting standpoint? The reason I'm asking is that historically you've had people that have owned them, got them full, and sold them to a REIT. Yes, so that is not our business model. When we were a small developer in the early 2000s, we did that to recycle capital. but because we are a large company now, we intend to hold almost everything that we develop, and especially these larger projects, these larger infill projects in major universities. My anticipation is that we would own this for decades. Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant and development team at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this particular application today? If so, and I should ask, is staff satisfied? Do you have anything else to add? Okay. If so, please approach the podium, state your name, and everyone at the Planning Commission is entitled to three minutes of time. Hello, my name is Braden Stamper, and I'm fully in support of this standard at Lexington Development. I think it's a great way to redevelop and reuse some of these older warehouse areas that aren't as important for planning for Lexington's growth and how much population will need to house. And I also like how it's close to downtown, it's close to the UK area. It'll allow for a lot of students and really anybody who wants to live there to walk to these areas without needing to drive. That's something that's really important to me. I also do like how there is very little surface parking. I think that parking garage and having it connected through the pedestrian walkways is also really nice. And I'm just fully in support of this project. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this today? Okay. Seeing none, is there any final commission discussion or questions? As always, the floor is open for a motion. And today we would need, I believe, three motions. Commissioner, let me just indicate, put this record, the applicant is prepared, accepts the staff's recommendation of approval and also the conditions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Yes, sir, Mr. Forrester. If there's not any further discussion, I would like to make a motion. Start with the zone change. So make a motion for approval of PLN MAR 26-10. Second. All right. So that was a motion on the zone map amendment for Mr. Forrester. In favor of it, seconded by Mr. Penn. Yes. Is your motion based on the recommendations? Based on the supplemental staff recommendation. Okay. That's what she wants you to do for now. I'm sorry. I think I missed that meme. Oh, well, we'll end it over quickly. So the motion is on the floor and it will be voted on. Is there any discussion? This is to approve the zone map amendment as requested by the applicant for the reasons outlined in the staff report. Mr. Mickler. Well, I just want to say that I totally understand the staff's recommendation for approval. I'm pretty conflicted on this one myself. I understand certainly the commissioners that have made the motion to approve it. I'm struggling here with this new zone and this idea of this new zone as strengthening and enhancing our corridors and providing a lot of housing in areas that are transit-oriented and for transit and for walking and biking. And I'm really struggling to justify supporting this development. And I see that it provides a lot of units, and I appreciate that. But the lack of effort to really build in pedestrian and transit in a meaningful way along its interior corridor and on the connections, I just don't have enough to support this, especially since it's being asked for a corridor zone. So that's my... Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two statements. One, I would tend to lean towards Mr. Mickler as to the corridor node zone. It is new to us. And I'm going to say I would like to see better access. I think he probably explained it better than I did. But simply put, I think it could be better in that regard. I will say one other thing. I will commend you. I know the space is tight, but I will commend you on the utilization of garage parking. Something that we need to look at more and more here in Lexington all the time. So I will commend you on that aspect. Thank you. Do we have anything, any other discussion on this motion? Yes, sir, Mr. Pipp. No, it's, you know, it's important to me on student housing that it's not disbuilt and sold. I think we're going to look back on this a long time. and I wasn't prepared for no answer. What is depreciation? Because you know what depreciation is. What I was going to ask you, were you willing to manage this thing until depreciation runs out? And that's a fair question. And the only thing I can gather from this is that you don't intend to sell it, but if something came along, you would. So that's the reason I asked that question. Okay, do we have any other discussion? Commissioner Davis? I'm in agreement with what Commissioner Michler and Commissioner Owen said in terms of it's the right thing, I think, to change the zone to something that's based upon a corridor node, but there's very little engagement with either corridor, and it's disappointing because I know there are grade changes and there are challenges, but I don't think it has to be so inwardly focused when it's on such major corridors. Okay. Do we have any other comment? Speaking only for myself, I empathize entirely with what Mr. Mickler is saying and Mr. Owens. I think that we have been presented a plan from an obviously very diligent developer who focuses on the long term and focuses on what appears to be quality. And that is something of a tough site as far as the topography is concerned. And I appreciate their willingness to leave land and work with the city for the future Scott Street. So I'm inclined to support the motion. If there's no other discussion. Say one thing. Yes, sir, Mr. Forrester. Mr. Penn, I don't know why he didn't answer that question, but I would assume he's going to receive a pretty healthy capital gain tax if he sell it pretty early on a building this size. So it would be behooved to him to probably hold it for a little bit. But I know where he was getting to. I'm worried about the word assume. I know. I would assume. I don't know. but that would be a healthy capital gain tax. But that's it. Thank you for that, Mr. Forrester. Okay, if there is no other discussion to the motion on the Zone Map Amendment, we can go ahead and take a vote. This is a motion to approve. That carries with two in the negative. All right. We will now entertain a motion on the development plan. Okay, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I would like to motion for approval of PLN MJDP 26-29, the revised staff recommendations. For the reasons contained in there. All right. Thank you. Mr. Forster. With the seven conditions. With the seven conditions. With the seven conditions. Okay. All right. Do we have a second to that motion on the development plan? Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Is there any discussion? This is on the development plan. Motion to approve. If not, we can take that to a vote. Okay. That carries with two in the negative as well. And then finally, on our waiver request. Okay, Mr. Chair, I'd like to motion for approval for PLN MJDP 26-29. findings for petition for waiver and land recommendations subdivision regulations based on the staff recommended reasons and there were three reasons that was notated. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Do we have a second? Mr. Wilson, thank you. Any discussion on the waiver? Motion to approve. We will take a vote on that. Okay, that carries with one in the negative. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Okay, next item on the agenda today. We are all the way on page 15, PLN ZODA 24-6, revisions to Article 23A10 for the Economic Development Zone. Long time coming. We'll just give everyone a second if you are choosing to leave now, and then Mr. Crumb can begin his presentation. To be clear, you don't have to leave. You can stay. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. He's at 15, but I don't know where I... We're going to 15. All right. Once again, Daniel Crumb, planning staff. So what we have for us is the first of two ZOTAs today. As you noted, this is a ZOTA dating back to 2024. So it has been in the process long enough to earn an associate's degree. So hopefully we can wrap this up. But it's a very highly specific zone. So for the benefit of anyone that hasn't been following kind of through the two years, I know we've had a number of conversations about this recently, but I'm going to retread some of the information just so anyone following along can catch up. So this is a request to amend Article 23A10, which deals with the economic development ED zone. The ED zone is a bit of a specialized zone. This is a zone that was created as a part of the 1996 Expansion Area Master Plan, which was the first expansion of the urban service boundary. Inside of that, it was designed to be sort of the workhorse of the zone, the employment opportunities and really the economic generator of what otherwise was mainly a residential expansion with some areas of allowed commercial activities. So the original iteration was just that. It was just it. It was really designed towards providing sort of these office and industrial uses and didn't incorporate really any residential opportunities at first. Here we have kind of the outlines for some of our initial ED zones and how they were recommended in the plan. Really the two main areas are out Winchester Road, shown here near the interstate. Those are the Baptist and the Calgill developments, And then we have out Newtown Pike, we have the Anderson communities development shown in those colors. So there's been, since 1996, essentially an update to this zone more or less every single decade. So the first came in 2006 where it introduced the ability to do a regional medical campus that was done at the behest of Baptist Health Care. and basically created a very specific set of criteria where these larger medical jobs-producing uses could locate. It would give them some ability to do some additional accessory-type uses that weren't originally allowed in the zone, basically making up this economic driver. The Planning Commission at that time found that that was appropriate for the zone, and it was meeting that intent to sort of get these larger employers within that area. 2016 is where we had kind of a really larger shakeup. So the concept of supportive uses were added in 2016. These were uses that, based on kind of a lack of development at that time in the areas that we had earmarked for the ED zone, basically allowed us to expand and include uses that in and of themselves really weren't considered job creators, but supplemented or augmented those types of uses. That was an evolved process that dated back to 2014 with the committees, but it modified heights, floor area ratios, other development standards, and then through the planning commission they came with the concept of this supportive uses. So essentially setting a percentage of the developments that could contain these uses, but once again trying to keep the main intent of the job producing uses. Council's review, they had some further tweaks, and then ultimately arrived at a framework that would allow for residential. So this is where residential was inserted in the ED zone. They created some thresholds and a maximum number of units based on kind of the proposed developments they were seeing at the time, and it created some caps and some percentages associated with those. Enter in our current language. So what was adopted was a framework for supportive uses that said, hey, we're wanting to keep the principal uses in the same, but you can use up to 18% of the floor area that you're allowed in the development for these sort of tangential uses. Residential land use got its own carve-out for 8.5% of the gross land area, as well as caps associated with it. And there was a timing restriction, so 20% of the supportive uses can be constructed prior to the construction of the other principal credit uses. So this is sort of the framework that exists today as far as how we're looking at supportive uses. The applicant came to us with a rather large proposal to expand and change a large number of the aspects of the ED zone. So the initial proposal is a much larger scope than the text that we have arrived at today. It was looking at changing supportive uses, increasing the amount of supportive uses, allowing greater flexibility on the timing, reducing open space, and changing densities for the multifamily. Ultimately, staff had issue with a number of these aspects without sort of fundamental changes to the expansion area master plan. Ultimately, staff is looking at us through the lens of we need to make sure that we still have a connection to sort of the guiding document that set up these zones. And so the applicant's proposal, over the past two years and some change, we've kicked a number of proposals, staff alternatives, alternatives to the staff alternatives. We've kind of lost track of the number that we were on, so we've just now assigned a date. So this is staff alternative as dated 5-21-2026. I'll go over that in a little bit more detail momentarily. So the revised proposal was really limited. They're making small modifications to the supportive uses and laundry facilities, but really are seeking additional flexibility with how they can incorporate residential and really seeking to create sort of mixed-use developments, essentially taking supportive uses that may have only been one floor and getting additional flexibility to use the land more efficiently by allowing residential above without having to jump through as many hoops. So essentially, the framework that the applicant is proposing keeps the existing framework for solely residential land. It stays the exact same. If you want to do single-use residential, either townhomes or multifamily, You're still limited to 8.5% of that overall land in a development in a max cap of 720 dwelling units. Residential on the first floor is currently considered as a supportive use, would contribute to that 18% maximum you're allowed, and would result in that same cap. Here, when we have residential above the first floor of a mixed use under the applicant's proposal, there isn't a density limit. But ultimately, all signs for a development kind of pointed this overall cap that was already established with the ED zone of that 720 dwelling units. The staff alternative language, the newest update, was designed to address a very specific set of circumstances that was brought to our attention during the committee process by Commissioner Mickler. basically the interaction of what happens when you have a principal or supportive use and then you use parking, which is an accessory use, so podium parking. How is that accommodated? And essentially, without the highlighted additions shown in the language dated from the 21st, essentially would not count against their supportive use total. So what staff has proposed is essentially if you have a mixed-use building where you're using these supportive uses, That first floor, if you're providing parking, that counts against your total because it's factoring in the land that really is being used more supportive use. Everything above that is still not subject to the density limit. So really just making sure that we're accounting for these accurately and we're keeping the developments focused towards jobs producing uses and really otherwise looking at taking the supportive uses and making them more efficient when possible. So the staff alternative text in front of you, just as a quick primer, there's a couple different colors and things, but essentially the applicant's proposed language, most recent language, is the blue aspects. The aspects in red are the staff's changes or alterations, and the highlighted portions are the most recent additions that we did to clarify what we do when we have the accessory parking, podium parking, or integrated parking with these developments, as well as clarifying, just tweaking the language on the development plan and just making sure that that lines up with the rest of the development so that it's on the same page and the expectations for how these are calculated is consistent with the rest of how we treat the EDs. So with that, staff is recommending approval of this most recent staff alternative text. We have provided this to the applicant. The applicant has indicated that they are in agreement with the proposed changes, but they can speak on their end. But ultimately, we think that this is going to give the developers in the ED zone additional flexibility for those supportive uses, making them more vertical while still maintaining a majority of the land for the actual principal uses, the job-producing uses, and with the intent to foster that kind of future job creation. We find that it's an agreement with the addition of the Expansionary Master Plan, which does kind of create those overall residential density limits that are being preserved with this request. So staff, once again, is recommending approval based on that updated text that's been developed since the last time we were at committees. I'd be happy to entertain any questions you had of staff at this time. Thank you, Daniel. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Marley Davis? No questions, Daniel, but a commendation for sticking with it long enough for it to have an associate degree. Okay. Seeing no questions for Daniel, Mr. Gross. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Brandon Gross on behalf of the applicant. First, I'd like to appreciate the staff for working with us for the last 18, 24 months. I appreciate your time coming to the committees. We got some really good feedback. We were able to work through some things. We are comfortable with the staff's alternative language as proposed today. I'm here to answer any questions if you have any, but if not, you've had a long day and I'll sit down. Brilliant. Do we have any questions for Brandon? Mr. Penn and then Mr. Wilson. Well, actually, it's to the staff. How many, you've got two conditions here, and on the paper I see three. Which is it? Which one? I'm talking with, we've got this bit. Alternative. Oh, the alternative? Yeah. It's the same page. What's the next page? We got one more. Or another one? Yeah, that's it. Ah, okay. Missed that one. Thank you. Commissioner Penn? Mr. Gross knows what I'm going to say, but I just, you know, we don't have your work sessions anymore that aren't, so you might as well say it in the committee because it doesn't make any difference because it's going on in the term. My concern with this is that we are continuing to find ways to use our ED land with the exception of creating jobs. You know, we're making a man anticipation of jobs. And I don't know how long we keep doing this. We've been doing this for about as long as I've been on the commission. We just keep finding reasons to build houses in ED and not change the zone. We just keep doing things except creating jobs. And I just don't understand how far we keep going with this. I understand Mr. Gross and I've had this discussion in work sessions and the other. But I just want to say for the record that this may or may not be creating jobs, but it sure is creating supportive uses. And sooner or later we've got to create some jobs. We've got to change the zone. It just doesn't make sense to keep tying land up this for 20 years. I hope the land's going to get cheaper. Well, not in my lifetime. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Any other questions for Mr. Gross? Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Gross, I'm sure I've asked this before and you gave me an answer, but clarify for me again. And the next, the last part here under number F, a minimum of 15% floor area of the first floor of a mixed-use building shall be principal or supportive uses other than residential. A minimum? Yes. So a minimum of 15% must be some sort of something other than residential? Correct. Or parking? Correct. No parking. Okay. Should it be more? Well, I think we took the minimum based upon looking at the mixed-use zones categories, and we went with 15 because we thought realistically, I mean, remember, we're way out in the suburbs for this area, and we thought 15 was, for the time, a good number to stick with. Obviously, people could do more, but at least there was a minimum for a mixed-use building to have at least 15%. And we thought that would be large enough for a coffee shop or a small restaurant or a corner-type store. What, on average, what's your thoughts as to what's the footprint of one of your buildings? probably a minimum of 20,000 square feet ground floor okay all right so 15 percent you you think you can put a restaurant in there 2,500 square feet is that right yeah my math writer is at 3,000 square feet In that neighborhood? Yeah, I think you could put something in there. Okay. As you've heard me say before, I am a proponent of mixed use and would like to see it put in wherever possible. I have no problem with residential like you're talking about on the second, third, fourth floors. But, yeah, I think if you put mixed use on the first floor, it provides opportunities and then also does provide jobs as well. So that's simply what I'm looking at here. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Gross? Seeing none. Thank you, Brandon. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this ZOTA today? If not, following Mr. Penn's thoughts, I'll share my own personal feeling. This is my, I suppose, sixth year on the commission, and this is the one aspect of our zoning ordinance that has been the most difficult for me personally to either understand or coexist with. And I can't help but find the irony in the fact that the free market is dictating that the economic development zone, as it has been written for 40 years, it's not working. It's not economically viable, with a few exceptions, of course. And this discussion, it's almost like the movie Groundhog Day. It's just it comes up and back again and again. So I do share a sentiment that rather than attempting to continue to, I don't want to say manipulate, but make things try to fit, I agree, Mr. Penn. That said, I'm very grateful to the applicant and to the staff for being so persistent and thorough with this most recent version that everybody seems to be comfortable with. If there are no other comments or questions, the floor is open for a motion on this ZODA. Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move for approval of PLN ZODA 24-6 with the two conditions provided by staff. On the alternative? Alternative. Yes, okay. Thank you, sir. Second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we will go ahead and take a vote. This is a motion to approve. Okay. Okay. So that carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Next item on the agenda today, PLN Zota 26.3. amend article 8.1.D.1 to allow retail alcohol sales in association with a horse racetrack. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. I'm Jeremy Young, senior planner, planning staff. Next item is on page 2 of the agenda. I'm sorry, item 2 on page 15 of the agenda. It is PLN Zota 26.3, and it's to amend Article 8-1D1 to allow retail alcohol sales in association with a horse racetrack. The applicant, Keeneland Association, they're requesting a zoning text amendment to Article 8-1 of the Agricultural Rural Zone to allow accessory retail sales of alcoholic beverages associated with a conditional use permit to operate a horse racetrack. And this amendment essentially applies specifically to horse racing tracks in the AR zone. Currently, the ordinance 8-1 allows for horse racing tracks to sell alcohol by the drink as an accessory to a conditional use permit. And this request seeks to add the following language to accessory uses of the permit. And the serving and retail sales shown in red there are the three words that the applicant proposes to add to the ordinance of alcoholic beverages and horse training facilities. So essentially, Keeneland is looking to sell commemorative branded bottles of bourbon at the existing gift shop. and the alcohol sales would remain an accessory. It would not be introducing a new standalone commercial use. This change would allow Keeneland to transfer an existing alcohol license from a former downtown store and offer these commemorative bottles at the track. And just to give you a little framework of the AR zone, I'm sure you're familiar with it, but I'll read it anyway. The intent of the agricultural rural zone is to preserve the rural character of the agricultural service area by promoting agriculture and related uses and by discouraging all forms of urban development except for a limited amount of conditional uses. And with that being said, staff does recommend approval. The amendment is consistent with a comprehensive plan in that it supports Lexington's equine and agritourism economy. It maintains compatibility with the intent of the AR zone. The retail activity is an accessory and is regulated through a conditional use permit. And no negative impact to agriculture or rural land is anticipated. And if you have any questions, I can answer those. Thank you, Mr. Young. Do we have any questions for staff at this time? Okay. I believe Mr. Nicholson is. Okay. Nothing for Mr. Young at this time. Thank you, Jeremy. Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the Keeneland Association. We are in complete agreement with the staff and the conditions for the approval. This is a ZOTA that some might argue was over-lawyering, but I'm a little bit sensitive with this particular applicant to make sure that they are doing everything by the book and that they are doing kind of everything right by the city of Lexington. So I'm happy to answer any questions, Mr. Penn, if you have one. And everyone else as well. Nick, I understand what you're trying to do where you have restaurant, retail, gift shop, that type of thing. What are you planning on doing? I assume the training facility is Parrish Pike? This would not count towards the training facility because that is not a licensed horse track under the conditional use permit that basically could have race dates. So this would not apply to the Thurbridge Center at all. So what is the training facility you want to include? It has a different conditional use permit that I don't believe it would necessarily allow this type of use. I don't believe it has any type of alcohol sales permitted at all. I don't think it has a food facility for employees, but that is it. As a cafeteria. Yes. It's a training center, which I think would be different than the horse race track as defined in this conditional use. So you are including Keeneland, and it is a training facility. Probably. What you're saying is Keeneland is also a training facility. Keeneland does have training facilities as well. I'm very familiar with that. Okay. I was just trying to get out of my mind. I didn't understand why you didn't want to do it. This is truly to save an ABC license. So when the mercantile shop had to close at the city center, we had to transfer that to a specific address. And we wanted to transfer it to basically the track itself. The for sale throat. And their overly sensitive lawyer looked at the language in the zoning ordinance and had pause. And so he reached out to planning staff and said, I don't think that this causes issues, but I sure would like to be 100% in that regards. Well, I understand. Thank you. All right. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Nicholson, good afternoon. have you contemplated any possible restrictions on the sale of the alcoholic beverages? There will be significant restrictions in-house without a doubt. One, it is only right now going through the gift store. Eventually we do have plans and have gotten a visitor center approved, but it did not actually end up getting built with the kind of recent expansion. And so at this point, we would have to go back to the Board of Adjustment for any new visitor center at this time. There already are hours of operations for the gift store. And again, I think I talked about this during the zoning committee meeting. Once again, an overly sensitive lawyer has great concerns with regards to any type of by-the-bottle type sales during the race kind of racing hours themselves. Since the gift store is located inside of the track, it would set up a situation where you're just asking them to go to the paddock with a bottle of booze. And that is not... we are going to be willing to do in any way, shape, or form, or it does set up the alternative situation of it allows them to then take a fresh bottle to the hill after the races, which is, again, something a very overly sensitive lawyer is not willing to allow their client to take place in. So this will be for sales at the kind of typical hours of the gift store. It's mostly the patrons of the gift store are the ones that are coming through horse country and are doing those tours and coming in through the kind of gift shop during the touring hours as opposed to the race meet. So help me, we're looking at passing a text amendment or proposing the recommendation to pass a text amendment. Why wouldn't we be seeing any of those restrictions in here? So that is governed through the conditional use process. So as I'm sure you're aware, there aren't any hours of operations anywhere in the zoning ordinance itself. They are handled through the conditional use permit process. It is the backstop that kind of gave me comfort in bringing this kind of before you. if Lexington has any concerns at any time with regards to this particular use, the Board of Adjustment has the power to bring Keeneland in front of them in order to set new terms, in order to restrict certain uses, in order to tell us that we're no longer allowed to do that in any way, shape, or form. And so that is where that kind of backstop lives in our kind of zoning scheme. Okay, thank you. I can definitely see the need, I guess. I don't know if it's properly said a need. I do have a fair number of those commemorative bottles, and they haven't been opened, but I know they can be opened. They certainly can be. The wonderful thing in this particular aspect of this is corporate liability sure is established in the kind of area of alcohol sales and what happens when people are over served, when people are irresponsibly selling. And so there is all of the reasons in the world why Kingland themselves are going to be implementing the kind of hours restrictions that we're talking about, as opposed to kind of for the first time putting them in a zoning ordinance when liability is the end-all be-all when it comes to kind of how a corporation governs itself. Thank you, sir. Okay, Commissioner Marley Davis. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Nicholson, does this have any impact at all upon the Red Mile racetrack? I mean, it's not in an AR zone. So it is not an AR zone. That's the only reason that it doesn't apply to it. It is actually an MU3 zone, and currently that is an allowable use in the MU3 Entertainment District. And we're going to talk about that in a minute, apparently. Oh, okay. Thank you very much. okay do we have any other questions for mr nicholson i've got to ask this so nick during the racing time how do you keep somebody going in the gift shop and buying a bottle of that luckily we don't have self-checkout like walgreens okay that that's exactly how where they will be located i'm i'm i'm guessing will be on these shelves and you can ask for a bottle, but we get to control that. And the same reason they can't steal hats. Well, I won't go there. Thank you. Okay. I will say for those of us who have the benefit of hearing this at zoning committee, Mr. Nicholson put a number of statements and restrictions on the record that made us very comfortable with proceeding forward. So if we don't have any more questions, the floor is always open for a motion. Yes, sir, Mr. Penn. I move for approval of PLNZOTA 26.3 as presented to us on this white piece of paper by the staff. Recommended approval. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Second. With two. Two reasons. For the justifications. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Second from Commissioner Molly Davis. Do we have any discussion to that motion? Second. Second. I have one from Ms. Davis, but thank you anyways, Mr. Wilson. Make some more of this so you catch up. All right. If we have no further discussion, we can take this to a vote. Motion to approve the ZODA. All right. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Carries unanimously. Okay. Our final item, roughly final item on the agenda today is a TIF report, statement of compliance with comprehensive plan. And we are hearing from Mrs. Wade. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis, members of the commission. This is at the bottom of page 15 on your agenda, and it's considered a commission item. The Red Mile property is encumbered by a TIF district that was approved in 2010 and amended in 2012. And that TIF district has allowed for the tax increment over what was taxed in 2010 to be reinvested in that area in support of their proposed mixed-use project. So there's a number of infrastructure projects that have occurred in that area since 2010 in support of that. Today, the Red Mile is asking to expand the boundary of their TIF district. They are not changing the amount of money that they're requesting from the state to be reimbursed, just changing the land area of the district and including a few more projects that could be reimbursed and feed back again into, well, the infrastructure costs would be reimbursed and then any improvements would feed back into that tax district and pay back the developer. So we'll get into that quickly. The property in question is 1101 Windback Way. That is the main address of Red Mile and its property. This expansion is really only for a portion of that property. The rest is already part of the TIF district. So there are no changes to the existing land use on the property, only infrastructure improvements included with this expansion. So first, we always give you a zoning map first, and then we'll go to the aerial. So the property in question, as Ms. Davis just asked, is the Red Mile property. So let's orient a little bit here. Red Mile swings down and connects from Versailles Road to Broadway, North Broadway. The purple zoning is indicative, or land shown in this kind of purple color, is the mixed-use three zone. So that encompasses all of the land between Red Mile Road and the track itself. The track and its infield is currently in the AU zone. And then there's property behind the track that allows access to kind of a maintenance facility back here in the corner. So there's from this location going north and then this very narrow strip that gets you up to Versailles Road. I call that the trackside access from Versailles Road, and it is currently zoned in a B4 zone. So those two pieces, the tracked infield and the access from Versailles Road, are what is being requested to now be included as part of the TIF district. So for the aerial, again, you can see on this aerial it's a little dated, but there have been improvements made from Red Mile to the grandstand. The grandstand has been improved. There's been a new entertainment piece incorporated with that, but there are still barns on site to accommodate the race season, and those at this point are remaining until the rest of the mixed-use development occurs. When it was first brought in and then amended in 2012, the total acreage was 90 acres. With the addition of the infield and the track access to Versailles Road, that will increase the size for the land area to approximately 137 acres. Let's see. The track infield has been used really for staging for the most part, but recently has accommodated entertainment and equine-related events, such as the music festival Railbird. And then the trackside entrance from Brussels Road provides rear access to the track and the Red Mile maintenance facilities. And those two areas would now be included and allow for infrastructure improvements to occur on that land. The Railbird Festival and other events have the ability to attract and sustain significant entertainment and tourism-related activities for the property. and these events provide economic benefit to the city and align with the core objective of the original plan to create a destination at the Red Mile representative of its unique character and environment. The question for the Planning Commission today is, does including this extra land, expanding the TIF district, is it consistent or in compliance with the comprehensive plan? So the staff has outlined, well, before we get to that, I will mention the two main improvements that are proposed for the property. And the first is a stormwater abatement project. And there's a timeline both in the staff report and on the overhead here so that they would start hopefully in the summer or fall of this year. And then commence in early 2027. And that part of the project that relates to correcting stormwater issues on site would cost approximately $900,000. Then the second piece is utility placement and provisions of that in support of the Breeders' Cup. Breeders' Crown. Thank you. The Breeders' Crown, which is planned to occur on the site. and that is providing for increased water lines or more water lines, natural gas, sanitary sewer, electric to the infield, and then includes boring under the track, which has a cost of $1.6 million. So again, we're looking at a $2.5 million output of money to improve the site, and the hope is to be reimbursed for those expenses through the TIF district. So there's our gray. I made it gray because this next exhibit flips it, but the area designated on their exhibit is also gray. So you can see this north is up. Mr. Helani has oriented us in a different direction for his exhibit, but the area proposed for inclusion today is still gray. So everybody has to just kind of reorient here. Red Mile's on the top side now. All of the yellow was originally part of the TIF district and includes sort of an underlay of their development plan with the buildings proposed in that area. And then the new gray is where they want to add that land to the district. So in terms of the comprehensive plan, The staff reviewed what the Dread Mile project attorney provided to us in terms of goals and objectives. And since our comprehensive plan has changed quite a bit since 2007, when the first round of this district was reviewed, we are looking at today, will this expansion be in compliance with the comprehensive plan? We don't need to go backwards. So the applicant or the representative for the Red Mile did provide us a number of goals and objectives that are supported by this proposal. And those included the growing and sustaining successful neighborhoods theme about supporting infill and redevelopment. Obviously, the Red Mile is an infill site, providing well-designed neighborhoods and communities. So they're improving Lexington's transportation. Again, this project connects between Red Mile and Curry Avenue and will continue to do so. Addressing community facilities, improving efficiency of EMS, protecting the water resources by improving urban stormwater and sanitary sewer infrastructure on site. Again, we're protecting the environment. They're using land that's already been developed, but this will help utilize it in a new form and fashion and make sure that the site is safe when they do host events that are happening in the infield already. So all that to be said, the staff did find that the infrastructure improvements will not significantly change the land use of the Red Mile property, which includes the planned mixed-use project that complements the existing track, grandstand, and entertainment. And while the development of the mixed-use aspect of the project has been slower than anticipated, it does still support numerous goals and objectives of the current comprehensive plan. And then the specific infrastructure improvements contemplated do not impact the original intent or vision for the development. Rather, they'll allow the Red Mile project to expand its entertainment functions and host additional large-scale entertainment and equine-related events. And then for this reason, the staff does find and recommend that the commission find that the proposed expansion is consistent and remain consistent with the comprehensive plan. In addition, the ordinance that regulates your review of TIFs also asks if there's any other changes in order for this to happen, any TIF to happen, that planning would oversee. And one of those is, does there need to be a zone change? Does there need to be a change to the text of the zoning ordinance? So we did want to let you know that there are no limitations on the two zones where they're expanding this to, the AU and B4, that would not allow infrastructure improvements, right? Infrastructure can be installed in any zone. They're not making any other improvements on that part of the property, like buildings or anything else that would need a change to the zoning ordinance or a zone change. That's it. Thank you, Mrs. Wade. Do we have any questions? Commissioner Davis. Thank you, Chair. Tracy, could you go back to the slide that has the yellow, the gray, and the blue Red Mile Road? Yeah. So help me understand, the yellow is what is already in the TIF district? Yes. A majority of that was included the first time through. And then where Tattersalls used to be off North Broadway, down here in the corner, that was an expansion in 2012. And then the Red Mile Road right-of-way was always included. The orange is the stable of memories, and it is excluded. And then the gray is the new area. Okay. And where will this new retention basin be located? That's a great question for Mr. Halani. And is it retention or detention? Okay. I don't know. Okay. Is it saying retention basin? We will get to that during the applicant's presentation. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Mr. Michler. A couple questions. the the basically the total amount of money you're saying they're just trying to essentially not use some of it in the mixed use area as originally intended and reallocate some of that to their own internal upgrades on the track and that back road in the storm water. I think that's accurate, but Mr. Worley could answer that question. And I guess I wonder, I mean, I'm not sort of saying this in any opposition of what they're trying to do, but those links to the comprehensive plan sound kind of weak at best. and it really sounds like we're just doing this so that they can get reimbursed for the internal work that they're doing for these events, which have been driving a lot of the use at the track. And I guess I'm used to seeing the justification for TIF as being things that have a little bit more of a direct linkage to public good, like putting in sidewalks for development, improving a street or connectivity or things like that. And I guess I'm just one, this linkage here sounds a little bit weak, and I'm wondering if you could speak to that. Really, the improvements related, what's allowed in the TIF ordinance from the state are pretty broad. They don't have to necessarily have a direct relation to the public right-of-way. They can be just in support of a large project occurring. So even building a private parking garage for Lex Live was part of their TIF. Again, it doesn't necessarily have a direct impact on the public, but it improves their project and making it occur. the original application was certainly a lot easier to justify that it was in compliance with the comprehensive plan since it was a mixed use project we had a small area plan or similar development plan project that outlined the goals and objectives of that when we're adding land to a district strictly for infrastructure improvements it is a little bit harder to say that there's a easy connection to the comprehensive plan But certainly having stormwater improvements and utilities available to support a large event space makes it safer and better able to be used for the community. Okay. Do we have any other questions for staff at this time? If not, we will hear from the applicant. Both individuals very familiar with this room. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you all for the first opportunity to address the dais from this side in the past seven or eight years. I've not had the opportunity to be back from spending all the time sitting in the same chair. The chairman's sitting in there. I'm sitting here staring at a Lexington business card that says, Preston Worley, 7th District Council member. I'm good. I'm glad they're still using those. And then I would say, too, also apologize for not wearing a jacket. Anybody who saw me all that time on that side of the dais, I kept a pretty strict dress code, but I can't really use the crutches well with the jacket today. So, again, we accept the staff's recommendation and appreciate Tracy's presentation. I think it outlines it pretty well. To address specifically, and then Mr. Helani can any technical specifics about the infrastructure improvements, but over the past couple years, particularly with RailBird coming around and then with some of the development moving along in what we call the Red Mile proper, which would be that initial sort of 60 acres in front of the grandstand that's already part of the TIF, was the original TIF. As we plan for more of those developments, as we see the impact of Railbird in the infield, we have noticed the need for stormwater improvements. Stormwater improvements are a public improvement even if on private development. And obviously stormwater is a sensitive issue in Fayette County. And we have to be sure because this stormwater system ties back into our water system going towards Versailles Road. So it's very important that the stormwater be handled appropriately on the Red Mile. And also as the area develops around the Red Mile, more water is being put onto Red Mile than even they create. So as they develop, as the area develops around them, they need good stormwater improvements. Then the water, sewer, electric, yes, it can benefit some of the work inside the infield, but it also benefits the Red Mile proper, Mr. Mickler, and the original developments that were planned and are continuing to be planned. And as more infrastructure is needed to support the overall development, it may be better to come from Versailles Road up through that access alley or from Curry Avenue across the infield. You know, I'm throwing these out in generalities, and Jihad could speak more to some of the specifics of things planned. But we have learned that because of the use of the infield, as well as the plans that are developed and where infrastructure can come into the property, that having the use of the infield is just a better option for a lot of these infrastructure improvements. So if we're going to make those improvements, of course they would like the benefit of being able to TIF finance them. And this is the only part of the Red Miles property that is not in the TIF. Everything else is in the TIF. And when it was amended to expand in 2012, that was for the purpose of accommodating the student housing development that was the tattersalls. So in that instance, when you think of what are the TIF-able sort of projects and improvements, I think Tracy's correct in that what the state law allows is very vast and very broad. But overall, these are all public improvements that benefit the community because this is one of our economic drivers in our community. And when you look at showcasing the equine industry, the Red Mile is one of the oldest existing horse tracks continually racing in the country. And they now are showcased because of RailBird. And then they now have the chance to host the Breeders' Crown, which is the standard breds version of the Triple Crown. So they'll be, or excuse me, of the Breeders' Cup, excuse me, they already have a, the Futurity is like the Belmont, the Triple Crown. So again, these are improvements that are needed on the property for better use internally, but these are also designed to continue the development as it was planned and to give more options. And as far as this body would say that we think this type of development and this type of use is in agreement with our comprehensive plan. That then allows the state to say, we'll include this, and then that economic development incentive is available to the Red Mile. So that's all I have. Jihad may have something more to offer, but I'd be happy to answer any questions. Yes, sir, Mr. Pym. Am I right in assuming that we're not doing any more new TIFs? Yes, sir. And that's part of the urgency here, and all the postponements you had today certainly helped this being thrown on the last of the docket. So, one, the city is not doing any more TIFs, and then the General Assembly has just recently changed the law about what TIFs are available and even existing TIFs when and how they can be amended. So, at the end of this fiscal year, the state law would no longer allow TIFs to be amended, existing TIFs. So that's why it's important that we're in front of you now. That's what my assumption was. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Okay. Do we have any more questions for, or any questions for Mr. Worley at this time or Mr. Helani? Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Is there any further discussion on this proposed, or I'm sorry, this compliance report, where in the Planning Commission states this is or is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Do we have any other questions? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Wilson? Okay, Mr. Chairman. I move for approval of the request for the revision to the TIF district based on the recommendations from staff. And it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second? Mr. Penn? Okay. All righty. That's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Mickler. I appreciate the comments from the applicant. I think this would be easier to see the connection and the support of the comprehensive plan if Red Mile had been acting as a truer to their plans in terms of their mixed-use component. But seeing how little interest they've really had in sticking with that, I really don't see how this really furthers our comprehensive plan. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Is there any other discussion to the motion on the floor? The reason I think you're wrong, Mr. Mickler, is that the Red Mile did an all-summer development plan years ago. And when they did that, they planned for everything except for Railbird. And they didn't have any idea. Railbird wasn't even thought about it. That I mean, Keeneland hosted it for several years. And when Keeneland decided they didn't want to do it, then the Red Mile stepped up and did it. And so I agree with you as far as the housing component. But I will tell you that what is there now is being used, and the Railbird thing just cannot continue without. And this is a financing mechanism that's going to go away. So that's the best way I don't explain it. All right. Well, I appreciate the response and clarification, and that makes sense to me. Okay, any other discussion before we put this to a vote? Seeing none, we will do that now. This is a motion to approve that it is in compliance with our comprehensive plan. Okay, that passes unanimously, thank you. And before we move to staff items, I am happy to introduce an honored guest at the Planning Commission, and that is my son, Whit, who would just like to take a moment to say hello. Okay. Yeah, he's ready to go. Ready to go. Okay. Do we have any other commissioner items before we move on to Mr. Duncan? No? Okay. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Planning Commission will convene again on Thursday, June 4th, for your committees 830, 130 in the Phoenix Building. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. And if we have nothing else without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. For answers Just take your chances Don't ask me why You can say The human heart Is only make-believe I am only fighting Fire with fire But you are still A victim of the accidents You lead Sure as I'm a victim Of desire Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're all the servants in your new hotel. Throw their roses at your feet. Oh, fool them all, but baby, I can tell. You're no stranger to the street. Don't ask for favors. Don't talk to strangers. Don't ask me why. Yesterday you were an only child Now your ghosts have gone away Oh, you can kill them in the classic style Now you parley pour francais Don't look for answers You took your chances Don't ask me why Don't ask me why I'm not afraid. What was that promise that you made? Why won't you tell me what she said? What was that promise that you made? Now I'm gonna love you Till the heavens stop the rain I'm gonna love you Till the stars fall from the sky For you and I Come on, come on, come on, come on Now touch me, babe Can't you see that I am not afraid What was that promise that you made Why won't you tell me what she said What was that promise that you made I'm gonna love you Till the heavens stop the rain I'm gonna love you till the stars fall from the sky For you and I I'm gonna love you till the heavens stop the rain I'm gonna love you Till the stars fall from the sky For you and I