Planning commission approves Subtext rezoning for high-density mixed-use project near UK; historic preservation and parking concerns raised

The Urban County Planning Commission on April 24 voted to approve a zoning map amendment and associated preliminary development plan submitted by Subtext Acquisitions LLC that will rezone 11 parcels at the intersection of East Maxwell and Lexington Avenue from medium-density residential (R4) and professional office (P1) to downtown frame business (B2) to allow a high-density mixed-use project.

Planning staff, represented by Daniel Crum, recommended approval with conditional zoning restrictions and a list of plan notations to preserve the intent of downtown residential density and to prohibit certain commercial uses. "With respect to the conditional zoning, the conditions ' are aiming at preserving the core intent of this application, which is providing additional density, downtown housing and not utilizing the site for uses that would sort of be counter to those goals," Crum said.

The applicant, Subtext (represented by Nick Nicholson and Ryan Bone), told the commission the project responds to downtown and University of Kentucky (UK) proximity and that changes requested by staff were incorporated. The developer said massing was reduced from an initial single continuous eight-story building to step from four stories adjacent to the lower-scale properties, up to six and eight stories facing Maxwell, and that the project reduced bed count from an earlier 900-bed figure to about 825 beds (a reduction of roughly 75 beds).

Traffic and parking were discussed at length. Transportation staff (Stuart Kearns) reviewed a traffic impact study and said most trips are expected to be pedestrian due to proximity to UK; the study recommended widening sidewalks to 8 feet, installing detectable pedestrian crossings and adding marked crosswalks at key intersections. The developer said the plan provides structured parking (358 spaces shown in plan materials), representing 43% parking ratio for the residential beds; the team also identified 50 off-site stalls as a contingency.

Historic preservation concerns were raised by Bluegrass Trust and several nearby residents. Historic preservation staff reported several structures within the project area date to the 1880s and were designed by architect John McMurtry; staff said the properties are within the Southeast Lexington Residential and Commercial District (a National Register district) but are not within a local H1 historic overlay that would require review before demolition. Bluegrass Trust's historic preservation manager, Zach Leonard, said two Italianate buildings on East Maxwell are among the oldest in the area and urged adaptive reuse and consideration of federal historic tax credits.

Other substantive plan clarifications and conditions discussed and later added to the approved plan include: notation that final development plan must incorporate pedestrian-level residential entrances (stoops) along Lexington; required landscaping and street trees between building and curb; use of varied materials and facade articulation; a stepback or maximum four-story edge adjacent to 243 Lexington Avenue; and a note requiring mechanical equipment be inside the structure or on rooftops rather than at-grade or encroaching on sidewalks.

Commissioners asked whether final development plan reviews filed after the July 1 effective date of House Bill 443 would be subject to the new process; staff said not all such reviews will return to the commission and emphasized that notations on the approved preliminary plan will be necessary to hold future submittals to the commitments made at preliminary review.

Public comment was strongly mixed. Supporters argued the site is an appropriate place for higher density near downtown and UK and said the project helps preserve nearby single-family neighborhoods by concentrating student and high-density rental demand. Opponents ' including neighborhood residents, Maxwell Street Presbyterian Church and Bluegrass Trust ' said the project would remove historically significant houses, increase traffic and parking pressure, and create a canyon effect that would reduce sunlight to adjacent older homes.

The commission approved the rezoning and preliminary development plan with conditions; the motion passed by vote via Granicus. The staff report will be certified and the final development plan must comply with the notations and conditions approved by the commission.