Planning Commission Subdivision Items

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission convened on April 10, 2025, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Vice Chair Davis presiding. The commission worked through 7 agenda items spanning a range of development and zoning matters, taking 8 votes over the course of the meeting. Of the items considered, 2 were approved, 1 was denied, 3 were postponed, and 1 was withdrawn before action could be taken. The commission also heard 4 public comments during the meeting. Notable outcomes included the approval of the Hamburg East, Tract 4 (The Springs at Polo Club) development and a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, the denial of the Distillery District West Unit 1 proposal, and the postponement of several items including the Red Mile Mixed-Use Development, GDK Farm, LLC (Turner Property), and the Locust Hill Shopping Center (B-6P Area) cases.

Attendance

Present (10): Mike Owens, Ivy Barksdale, William Wilson, Judy Worth, Bruce Nicol, Molly Davis, Robin Michler, Frank Penn, Johnathon Davis, and Zach Davis.

Absent (1): Forester.

Late: None.

Votes and Decisions

The Commission took action on eight items during the April 10, 2025 meeting.

• Minutes Approval – Judy Worth moved, seconded by William Wilson, to approve the February 13, 2025 meeting minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 10–0. 0:43

• PLN-MJDP-24-00056 – Red Mile Mixed-Use Development – Frank Penn moved, seconded by Molly Davis, to postpone this item to May 8, 2025. The motion passed unanimously, 10–0. 4:10

• PLN-MJDP-24-00097 – Park Hills Shopping Center, Lot 4 – Frank Penn moved, seconded by Ivy Barksdale, to withdraw this item. The motion to withdraw passed unanimously, 10–0. 6:52

• PLN-MJDP-25-00001 – GDK Farm, LLC (Turner Property) – Robin Michler moved, seconded by Judy Worth, to postpone this item to May 8, 2025. The motion passed unanimously, 10–0. 7:53

• PLN-MJDP-25-00012 – Locust Hill Shopping Center (B-6P Area) – William Wilson moved, seconded by Frank Penn, to postpone this item to May 8, 2025. The motion passed unanimously, 10–0. 8:56

• PLN-MJDP-25-15 – Hamburg East, Tract 4 (The Springs at Polo Club) – William Wilson moved, seconded by Bruce Nicol, to approve this item with the condition that sidewalks have a minimum width of five feet. The motion passed 8–1–1 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Mike Owens, Ivy Barksdale, William Wilson, Judy Worth, Bruce Nicol, Molly Davis, Robin Michler, and Frank Penn. Voting against: Johnathon Davis. Zach Davis abstained. 1:16:35

• PLN-MJDP-24-10 – Distillery District West Unit 1 – Mike Owens moved, seconded by Molly Davis, to disapprove this item. The motion failed 7–2–1 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor of disapproval: Mike Owens, Ivy Barksdale, William Wilson, Judy Worth, Molly Davis, Robin Michler, and Frank Penn. Voting against: Bruce Nicol and Johnathon Davis. Zach Davis abstained. 2:06:29

• PLN ZOTA 25-1 – Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) – Frank Penn moved, seconded by Molly Davis, to approve the ZOTA with a recommendation to include a public comment opportunity. The motion passed 8–2 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Mike Owens, Ivy Barksdale, William Wilson, Judy Worth, Molly Davis, Robin Michler, Frank Penn, and Johnathon Davis. Voting against: Bruce Nicol and Zach Davis. 3:22:34

Public Comment

Four members of the public offered comments during the meeting, all addressing the Zone Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) under consideration.

• Patty Drouse 2:28:09 raised several concerns about the ZOTA, specifically regarding the treatment of mining as a conditional use, access standards, and the processes used to notify affected parties.

• Nick Nicholson 2:31:31 recommended narrowing the scope of the ZOTA so that it addresses only the requirements imposed by House Bill 443, rather than encompassing broader changes.

• Dick Murphy 2:34:43 expressed general support for the changes made by staff but suggested that provisions related to drive-through facilities and commercial entrance standards should be removed from the amendment.

• Amy Clark 2:35:13 was critical of the process by which the ZOTA was developed and raised concerns about the absence of clear appeal mechanisms for affected parties.

Collectively, the comments reflected a range of perspectives — from support for staff work with targeted revisions, to broader concerns about the scope of the amendment, procedural transparency, and available remedies for those impacted by the changes.

Contested Items

Two items on the April 10, 2025 Commission meeting agenda generated notable disagreement.

Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA)

The ZOTA prompted a split vote among commissioners, with the central points of contention being the adequacy of public comment opportunities and the implications of House Bill 443. Concerns were raised about whether the public had been given sufficient opportunity to weigh in on the proposed text changes, alongside questions about how House Bill 443 would affect the ordinance. The divided vote reflected unresolved disagreement among commissioners on these issues.

Distillery District West Unit 1

This plan faced community opposition and was ultimately disapproved. Residents and stakeholders raised concerns centered on two primary issues: the use of floodplain areas for storage and the potential risks to public safety associated with the plan as proposed. The opposition was strong enough to result in the plan's disapproval by the Commission.

Red Mile Mixed-Use Development

Agenda Item: PLN-MJDP-24-00056 | Outcome: Postponed

4:10

The Commission took up the Red Mile Mixed-Use Development (PLN-MJDP-24-00056) as a discussion item during the April 10, 2025 meeting. Key speakers on this item were Frank Penn and Molly Davis.

The discussion centered on a set of unresolved issues that prevented the Commission from moving forward with a decision on the project at this time. Specifically, concerns were raised regarding tree removal associated with the proposed development, as well as questions about zoning restrictions applicable to the site. These outstanding matters were identified as needing further resolution before the Commission could adequately evaluate the project on its merits.

No final determination was made on the development proposal itself. Following the discussion, the item was postponed, allowing additional time for the identified issues to be addressed prior to the Commission's consideration.

Park Hills Shopping Center, Lot 4

Case No. PLN-MJDP-24-00097 6:52

The Commission took up this agenda item as a discussion matter regarding the Park Hills Shopping Center, Lot 4. Key speakers on this item were Frank Penn and Ivy Barksdale.

The matter was brought before the Commission not for substantive review of the development plan itself, but to address a request from the applicant to withdraw the case. No detailed presentation of the project's merits, design, or technical elements was made, as the withdrawal request rendered further deliberation on those matters unnecessary.

The Commission approved the withdrawal of Case No. PLN-MJDP-24-00097, consistent with the applicant's request. The item was formally removed from consideration with no further action required.

GDK Farm, LLC (Turner Property)

Agenda Item: PLN-MJDP-25-00001 7:53

The Commission took up agenda item PLN-MJDP-25-00001, concerning the GDK Farm, LLC (Turner Property) plan. Rather than proceeding with a full presentation or review, the discussion centered on whether to postpone the item in order to allow the applicant additional time to prepare.

Key speakers on this item were Robin Michler and Judy Worth. The substance of the discussion focused on the rationale for a postponement, with the Commission considering that more preparation time was needed before the plan could be meaningfully reviewed.

• Outcome: The item was postponed to a future meeting date, pending further preparation by the applicant.

No detailed presentation of the plan's merits, technical specifics, or public concerns was recorded as part of this discussion, as the matter did not advance to substantive review at this meeting.

Locust Hill Shopping Center (B-6P Area)

Case No. PLN-MJDP-25-00012 8:56

The Commission took up the Locust Hill Shopping Center plan, designated as a B-6P area item, during this portion of the meeting. Key speakers on this item were William Wilson and Frank Penn.

The discussion was brief, as the item was brought before the Commission primarily to address a request for additional time from the applicant. Rather than proceeding with a full presentation or substantive review of the plan, the Commission considered the applicant's need for more time to prepare or address outstanding matters related to the proposal.

• The applicant requested a postponement of the Locust Hill Shopping Center plan.
• Speakers William Wilson and Frank Penn participated in the discussion surrounding the postponement request.
• No detailed presentation of the plan's merits, design, or specifics was conducted at this meeting as a result of the postponement request.

Outcome: The Commission agreed to postpone Case No. PLN-MJDP-25-00012. The item will return before the Commission at a future meeting once the applicant is prepared to move forward.

Hamburg East, Tract 4 (The Springs at Polo Club)

Agenda Item: PLN-MJDP-25-15 | 1:16:35

The Commission took up agenda item PLN-MJDP-25-15, a major development plan for Hamburg East, Tract 4, known as The Springs at Polo Club. Key speakers during the discussion included William Wilson and Bruce Nicol.

The item was presented and debated with the Commission focusing on conditions related to sidewalk width and other site improvements as part of the plan's requirements. These conditions were central to the discussion before the Commission moved toward a decision.

The Commission ultimately approved the Hamburg East plan, subject to the conditions discussed regarding sidewalk width and the additional site improvements identified during the review.

---

*Note: The available structured data for this item is limited. For full details on the arguments made, specific dimensions or standards discussed, and the complete list of conditions attached to the approval, viewers are encouraged to consult the meeting video beginning at timestamp 1:16:35 or review the official meeting record for PLN-MJDP-25-15.*

Distillery District West Unit 1

Agenda Item: PLN-MJDP-24-10 2:06:29

The Commission took up the Distillery District West Unit 1 plan, with key speakers Mike Owens and Molly Davis participating in the discussion.

The Commission's deliberations centered on two primary concerns:

• Floodplain storage: Commissioners raised issues regarding the plan's treatment of floodplain storage, suggesting the proposal did not adequately address the requirements or implications of development within or adjacent to a floodplain.
• Public safety: Related concerns about public safety were also cited as a basis for the Commission's reservations about the plan as presented.

Following discussion, the Commission disapproved the Distillery District West Unit 1 plan. The denial reflected the Commission's determination that the outstanding concerns around floodplain storage and public safety had not been sufficiently resolved to warrant approval at this time.

Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment

Agenda Item: PLN ZOTA 25-1 3:22:34

The Commission took up agenda item PLN ZOTA 25-1, a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA), as a discussion item. Key speakers on this item were Frank Penn and Molly Davis.

During the discussion, the Commission considered the proposed text amendment and deliberated on the inclusion of provisions related to public participation. As a result of that deliberation, the Commission adopted an amendment to the item that added a recommendation for public comment opportunities as part of the ordinance text.

The Commission ultimately approved PLN ZOTA 25-1, inclusive of the amendment incorporating the public comment recommendation.

*Note: Additional details regarding the specific provisions of the text amendment, the full scope of the debate, and any individual concerns raised by commissioners are not available in the source materials for this meeting.*