The Lexington Subdivision Committee on an agenda item for MJSUB 2411 voted unanimously to continue a preliminary subdivision plan for the Hoover and Ford Philpott Evangelistic Association property at 3840 Fountain Blue Lane to the next subdivision committee meeting.

Staff told the committee the proposal “appears to be creating a lot for a use that is not permitted in the B‑3 zone and a lot that will not be occupied by a responsible party to ensure ongoing maintenance,” and said the subdivision appeared to be an attempt to circumvent the zoning ordinance’s corner‑lot rules in Article 16. Staff also said the plan showed a pergola crossing a sanitary sewer easement and raised concerns about lot coverage and setbacks. “This proposal appears to be facilitating an attempted circumvention of the zoning ordinance requirements for corner lots,” a planning staff member said.

Brandon Gross, speaking for the applicant, said the developer would maintain the new Lot 5 and proposed recording a note on the plat tying maintenance responsibility to a specific lot owner. “This is gonna be a developer‑maintained lot,” Gross said. He described the corner area — with a fountain and seating — and said the applicant could designate the parcel as a park, a permitted B‑3 use, so it would remain undeveloped but still allow the restaurant’s proposed internal circulation. Gross asked for more time to work with staff and recommended a continuance to give staff and the applicant a comprehensive list of outstanding items.

Committee discussion focused on three themes: (1) whether creating the new Lot 5 improperly removes the ordinance’s corner‑lot restrictions (Article 16); (2) how future maintenance of Lot 5 would be guaranteed if ownership or developers change; and (3) technical conflicts on the submitted plan including a pergola over a sanitary sewer easement. A planning staff member described the subdivision rules’ explicit direction not to create remnant or undevelopable lots and said the current lot configuration, if subdivided, would trigger land‑subdivision requirements the applicant must meet.

The committee’s motion — moved from the floor and seconded — carried unanimously to continue PLN MJSUB 24‑11 to the next subdivision committee meeting so the applicant can work with staff on a complete list of outstanding technical and zoning issues and consider whether to hear the subdivision and the Firebirds development plan together.

Next steps: staff and the applicant will prepare a more detailed checklist of outstanding items for the committee; the applicant indicated willingness to record maintenance obligations on the plat or by restrictive covenant; and the committee expects the subdivision and the site/development plan to be considered together at the next hearing if procedurally appropriate.

Votes at the meeting: The continuance motion for PLN MJSUB 24‑11 carried unanimously.

Sources: Public planning meeting transcript of the Lexington City Subdivision Committee (discussion of MJSUB 2411).