# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - March 28, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 28, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4725 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4725?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-03-28 - **Last revised**: March 28, 2019 - **Length**: 6,645 words > ⚠️ **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 March 28, 2019, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mike Owens presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed three major agenda items during the session, taking a total of five votes throughout the proceedings. The meeting included three public comment periods, allowing community members to provide input on the matters under consideration. All three primary agenda items were approved by the commission, including the Distillery District - West, Unit 1 adaptive reuse project, the establishment of the Pensacola Park Neighborhood Local Historic District overlay zone, and the initiation of zoning ordinance text amendments to update sign regulations under Article 17. ## Attendance **Present:** • Mike Owens • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Karen Mundy • Bruce Nicol • Carolyn Plumlee • Graham Pohl **Absent:** • Headley Bell • Larry Forester • Frank Penn • Bill Wilson **Late:** • None Seven members were present for the March 28, 2019 meeting, with four members absent. No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The planning commission took action on five items during the March 28, 2019 meeting, with all votes passing unanimously with all seven members present. **Postponements** The commission voted to postpone two zoning matters. Karen Mundy motioned to postpone the Clover Communities Zoning Map Amendment & Baptist Church of Andover Zoning Development Plan (PLN-MAR-19-00001), seconded by Carolyn Plumlee [timestamp: 00:30]. The motion passed unanimously 7-0, with Mike Owens, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Karen Mundy, Bruce Nicol, Carolyn Plumlee, and Graham Pohl all voting in favor. Similarly, Mundy motioned to postpone the Trust Equity, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & James RB MacCoum Zoning Development Plan (PLN-MAR-19-00002), seconded by Graham Pohl [timestamp: 01:30]. This also passed unanimously 7-0 with the same voting members. **Approvals** The commission approved the Distillery District - West, Unit 1 (Adaptive Reuse Project) (PLN-MJDP-18-00090) on a motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Patrick Brewer [timestamp: 02:30]. The unanimous 7-0 approval included 14 conditions, including a revised condition #17. **Initiations** Two zoning initiatives were approved. Karen Mundy motioned to initiate the Pensacola Park Neighborhood Local Historic District (H-1) Overlay Zone, seconded by Graham Pohl [timestamp: 03:30]. The unanimous 7-0 vote granted an extra 90 days if necessary for the process. Finally, Patrick Brewer motioned to initiate a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Update Article 17 – Sign Regulations, seconded by Bruce Nicol [timestamp: 04:30]. This passed unanimously 7-0 with no additional conditions. All votes included the same seven commission members: Mike Owens, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Karen Mundy, Bruce Nicol, Carolyn Plumlee, and Graham Pohl. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the meeting during the public comment period, with two requesting postponements for zoning matters and one expressing support for a historic overlay designation. **Postponement Requests** Nick Nicholson spoke first, requesting a one-month postponement for the Clover Communities zoning map amendment [timestamp: 00:15]. Nicholson explained that the delay would allow planning staff adequate time to review a revised application that had been submitted. Nathan Billings followed with a similar request for the Trust Equity zoning map amendment [timestamp: 01:00]. Billings cited the need for additional time to address outstanding tree preservation and engineering concerns related to the project before proceeding with consideration. **Historic Overlay Support** Candace Wallace addressed the proposed H-1 Overlay Zone for Pensacola Park [timestamp: 05:30]. Wallace voiced strong support for the historic overlay designation, emphasizing the historic character and significance of the neighborhood. She stressed the importance of preservation measures to maintain the area's historic integrity and urged the meeting body to approve the overlay zone to protect these valuable community assets. The public comment period focused primarily on procedural matters, with two of the three speakers seeking additional time for project review and refinement rather than opposing the underlying proposals. The support expressed for the Pensacola Park historic overlay highlighted community interest in preservation efforts for historically significant neighborhoods. ## Contested Items The primary contested item during this meeting involved the Pensacola Park H-1 Overlay designation, which faced community opposition from affected property owners. **Pensacola Park H-1 Overlay Opposition** Property owners along Nicholasville Road expressed opposition to the inclusion of their properties within the proposed H-1 Overlay Zone. The H-1 Overlay designation typically imposes additional regulatory requirements and restrictions on properties to preserve historic character or implement specific development standards. The disagreement centered on property owners' concerns about how the overlay zone would affect their property rights and potential development opportunities. Property owners along the Nicholasville Road corridor objected to having their parcels included within the boundaries of the proposed overlay district. The nature of the opposition suggests that affected property owners were not adequately consulted during the initial planning process or disagreed with the rationale for including their properties in the overlay zone. Such overlays can impact property values, limit renovation options, and require additional approvals for modifications or new construction. The outcome of this opposition and how the city council addressed the property owners' concerns is not specified in the available meeting data. Typically, such disputes may result in boundary modifications to the proposed overlay, additional public hearings, or amendments to the overlay requirements to address specific property owner concerns. This type of zoning dispute is common in municipal planning processes, where balancing community development goals with individual property rights often creates tension between city planning objectives and property owner interests. ## Distillery District - West, Unit 1 (Adaptive Reuse Project) (AMD) [timestamp: 02:00] The commission discussed agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00090, an amendment to revise the development and parking plans for the Distillery District - West, Unit 1 adaptive reuse project located at 1158 and 1170 Manchester Street. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Jacob Walbourn, who presented details about the proposed amendments to the existing development plans. The project involves the adaptive reuse of existing structures in the Distillery District area, with specific revisions requested for both the development approach and parking arrangements at the Manchester Street properties. The discussion focused on the technical aspects of the proposed changes to the original development plan, including modifications to parking requirements and development specifications for the adaptive reuse project. The speakers addressed the planning considerations and regulatory requirements associated with repurposing the existing buildings while maintaining compliance with current zoning and development standards. Following the presentation and discussion of the amendment details, the commission moved forward with their evaluation of the proposal. The outcome of the deliberation was positive, with the commission recommending approval of the amendment with specified conditions. These conditions were designed to ensure the revised development and parking plans would meet municipal standards and address any regulatory concerns identified during the review process. The approval recommendation allows the Distillery District - West, Unit 1 project to proceed with the amended development and parking configurations, subject to compliance with the conditions established by the commission during their review of agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00090. ## Pensacola Park Neighborhood Local Historic District (H-1) Overlay Zone [timestamp: 03:00] The meeting included discussion on initiating an H-1 Overlay Zone for the Pensacola Park Neighborhood. This agenda item focused on establishing a local historic district designation that would provide additional zoning protections and guidelines for the area. Key speakers during the discussion included Hal Baillie and Betty Kerr, who presented information about the proposed historic district overlay zone. The H-1 designation would create specific development standards and preservation requirements for properties within the Pensacola Park Neighborhood boundaries. The discussion resulted in approval to move forward with initiating the H-1 Overlay Zone process for the Pensacola Park Neighborhood. As part of the approval, the meeting participants granted an additional 90 days if necessary to complete the initiation process, providing flexibility for any procedural requirements or additional review that might be needed. The H-1 Overlay Zone represents a zoning tool designed to preserve the historic character and architectural integrity of neighborhoods while allowing for appropriate development and modifications within established guidelines. The approval to initiate this process indicates the community's commitment to protecting the historic nature of the Pensacola Park area through formal zoning mechanisms. ## Initiation of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Update Article 17 – Sign Regulations [timestamp: 04:00] The meeting included discussion on initiating a zoning ordinance text amendment to update Article 17, which governs sign regulations within the municipality's zoning code. Craig Bencz served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposal to begin the amendment process. The primary focus of the proposed amendment centers on addressing content neutrality requirements within the existing sign regulations. The discussion resulted in approval to initiate the zoning ordinance text amendment process for Article 17. This approval allows staff to begin the formal process of drafting specific amendments to the sign regulations that would ensure compliance with content neutrality standards. The initiation of this amendment represents the first step in what will likely be a multi-meeting process to revise the sign regulations. Future meetings will presumably include more detailed discussions of specific proposed changes, public input opportunities, and formal adoption procedures. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-19-00001** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of CLOVER COMMUNITIES ZONING MAP AMENDMENT & BAPTIST CHURCH OF ANDOVER ZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN - **PLN-MAR-19-00002** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of TRUST EQUITY, LLC ZONING MAP AMENDMENT & JAMES RB MACCOUM ZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN - **PLN-MJDP-18-00090** — passed (7-0): Approval of DISTILLERY DISTRICT - WEST, UNIT 1 (ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECT) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Initiation of PENSACOLA PARK NEIGHBORHOOD LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (H-1) OVERLAY ZONE - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Initiation of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Update Article 17 – Sign Regulations --- ## Full transcript Maybe tomorrow they could not take you away Dream on, dream on, dream on Dream is your dream come true Dream on, dream on, dream on Dream until your dream come true Dream out Good Lord, I'm taking away. Sing with me, sing for the year. Sing for the life and sing for the tear. Sing with me, it's just for today. Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord, I'm taking away. The End Then I'll float on down the river And we'll get started here. First and foremost, I'll ask for any postponements and withdrawals from today's agenda. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Clover Communities. This item is on page 2 of your agenda, MAR19-1. I'd like to ask for a postponement for one month until your April date. I believe it's April 25th. Let me confirm. Yes, April 25th. We have submitted a revised application with regards to the zone parcel, so we'd like one month to continue to work with the planning staff on this one. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. I move for postponement of PLN MAR 19-1 Clover Communities until April 25th of this year. Thank you. I do have a second. seconded by Ms. Plumlee for postponement until April the 25th for Community Properties Plan MAR 19-1. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Yes sir. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. Nathan Billings from Billings Law Firm. This is number two in the zoning docket, Trust Equity. We request a one-month postponement to the April docket. Mr. Billings, reason for that? We've submitted a revised plan earlier this week for the tree preservation study, and I think engineering and fire and safety had some questions about that, so we're going to walk this back on to the subcommittee docket in April to make some final changes to the DP. Okay, thank you. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLN MAR 19-2 Trust Equity LLC until April 25th of this year. Thank you. The motion has been made by Ms. Mundy and seconded by Mr. Pohl for postponement of Plan MAR 19-2 Trust Equity until the 25th of April. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion passes. Thank you, sir. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, we'll take our remaining items in the order that there are on the agenda, which we will start on page one as a development plan, Plan MJDP 18-90, Distillery District West. Mr. Martin, good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I just want to say I know we're all happy. Spring is here. The cats are in the Sweet 16. And I just got word my furnace is fixed and back on. The first item on your agenda is a major development plan 1890. It's the Distillery District West, Unit 1, an adaptive reuse project. It does require a sign and an affidavit, which they have submitted to your staff today. This is, of course, as you all well know, is the distillery district. It's an amendment. There we go. This particular amendment is to provide a residential structure in this location, It is six stories. It had originally been two parking decks with five residential levels above. They've reduced it, one of the parking decks. So now it's one parking deck, five levels, 90, excuse me, 95 units will be provided in this building. In the main 1170 large distillery warehouse, they are going to add units on the top floors, residential units of the warehouse as well. There's 135 units on those top floors in that building. Again, here, you can see the associated parking. This is a continued discussion that they brought back to you. They postponed it at the last meeting due to some engineering concerns, which I'll get to voluntarily. They reconfigured this building. As you can see, it was larger at one time. They still have their access in this point and then access here. This is a small commercial building that they've added. By reducing this square footage, they're now proposing this retail two-story building in this location. The key to this plan, and indeed something that is of tremendous impact to this development that I know you all are very aware of and you've heard a lot about, are the parking issues. The very success of this area has created a parking problem, and parking has been developed kind of in phases down there. In this particular case, this applicant has not only proposed parking here along with the deck, they came back with this to propose parking in this location. 263 spaces, all in excess of their requirement. They could meet their required parking here and with the deck. So they brought back to you for your review and approval this large parking area in this location. Now, what is significant about this and what the engineering issues were, this is a crossing, basically a bridge across Town Branch into this parking area. They're going to maintain, possibly move, a pedestrian bridge that does currently exist over into this area. Now, that new parking area is currently used, apparently, for storage and those types of industrial activities. access to this area is currently along the railroad spur in this location here. And let's see if I can, there we go. You can see the outline. Here it is. You can see some of the current uses, trailer storage, and it kind of runs down this way. Here's your intersection with Manchester and, again, along the railroad spur. And that's the big issue. the current user has an agreement with the railroad company to utilize that access. It's not an agreement that this applicant would be able to take advantage of. Therefore, to utilize this area as parking, they need to build the bridge. Now, the engineering concerns was this was a continued discussion, and continued discussions come back to you on a fairly quick turnaround. And our engineering department, division, new development along with water quality were concerned. Because, again, I know as you all were very well aware, oops, let's see. Again, here's town branch, but we have floodway that covers much of this property along with extensive floodplain. And in order for them to build this bridge, it raised a lot of issues with our engineering department, and they wanted to have a sit-down, which they did. They had a sit-down with the applicant, and they reviewed the requirements for this type of development in a floodplain. And they are very strict. There's going to be three levels of government involved in permitting, and that's local, state, and federal permitting is all going to be involved in this project. In addition, FEMA, there will be a map amendment filed with FEMA to adjust the floodway and possibly the floodplain as well in this area. That's a lengthy process with a tremendous amount of review, and our urban county engineer signs off on what is submitted to FEMA. So we are on top of the process from day one as it moves forward. And it is a lengthy process. I toyed with the idea of bringing to you copies of our Article 19, which is our floodplain ordinance, and I decided not to do that to you. But the point was just to emphasize that they have to comply with Article 19 of our ordinance. And it is very specific. It's very detailed as to what they can and cannot do and what levels of review that they have to meet and the type of issues that are reviewed. And I can tell you, because we get reviewed by FEMA every five years, and they review that article. and it's about as good as any floodplain chapter anywhere in the United States, particularly for a community such as ours. So it's very strict, and they're going to have a lot of hoops to jump through, and we wanted you all to be aware of that. And you can see with the conditions on your agenda, they're pretty standard conditions on this plan, and I would like to direct your attention to number 17, And it's not 17 after 16, it's the 17 under, where it says the subdivision committee recommends approval subject to. And that is, we wanted to be very clear that all parking associated with 1158 Manchester Street shall be constructed with this amendment. And again, that's all the parking. That includes what's across the creek. It's associated with this development. So they are going to have to go through the review process. They are going to have to file with FEMA. They are going to file with DOW. They're going to have to do all that, get that approved, and then they'll be able to build that bridge and the parking and their project. So if they cannot pass muster, they will be back before you to amend this plan yet once again. And so with that, your subdivision committee did recommend approval. Your staff, in conferring with the Division of Engineering and others, would also recommend approval of this plan. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Mr. Martin at this point? No? Okay. Thank you, sir. Abton? Good afternoon, Mr. Temporary Chair and members of the Commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant. I think Mr. Martin did a very, very good job of explaining what's going on here, so I won't belabor the point. I will correct one thing he said, just a four-year information type thing. I think we actually could use the license along the railroad right-of-way. We just don't think that's a very prudent use of that, given the kind. There's an industrial storage operation back there right now that makes maybe a little more sense for the occasional truck to go down it for regular traffic. we think the bridge is the superior option. Mr. Martin is absolutely correct. It's an extremely complicated process, which is good news for me as legal counsel for this project. But we have met with the Division of Engineering. We are mindful of what the requirements are going to be on all of the levels. We have initiated some of the process with regard to FEMA. And just to give you a little detail of what it is we're trying to do, I don't know if you can really see it, but there's a black line that kind of runs through the building here. That's actually the floodway line, and we're going to propose to take the floodway line out of the building primarily because a river would not flow through a building. So that's the beginning of what we will have to do. But we have met with engineering, feel like we're comfortable with what the requirements to construct this bridge are going to be, are in agreement with staff's conditions, and I'd welcome any questions that you have, but we'd respectfully request your approval. Questions from Mr. Wahlberg? Mr. Wahlberg, let me ask this just to clarify the proposed bridge that you're talking about the building? Vehicular? Yes. Okay. And then, sir? You may remember from last time, this building was actually longer and oriented along, and so it's been folded in here. That was to address a traffic engineering concern about stacking to get into the under the building parking area. it will also serve as a straight through to get traffic over to this site. There is an existing pedestrian bridge there. If you all have been out there and seen it, it might be able to be reused, but probably not. So ultimately we imagine this bridge will carry both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Thank you, sir. Either Mr. Wahlberg or staff, since the triangular parking is coming into play, there's a little red building down in the bottom corner of that triangle does that have anything to do with what we're doing today it's it's a storage building for us it's just a little just maintenance on your plan it's not for public okay thank you sir any other questions from Commission anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this I did want to add one additional thing as you can imagine this is a pretty significant undertaking you'll actually see this come online in phases we anticipate that this building will probably come online first the build out on the units that are in the warehouse that actually takes a tremendous amount of effort namely that you have to have window openings for residential units and if you've seen that building there are no windows on it so you have to physically go in and cut windows so I imagine you'll see the new construction before you'll see the other units come online just to give you a perspective of our time frame and and how this will roll on okay thank you sir um anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this not staff do you have anything else to add no there's no questions i'll close this part of the hearing uh open it up for any discussion from amongst commission members No. I will take just 10 seconds to get on the soapbox once again. I mentioned it to staff earlier today. I've often said that with Manchester Street trying to get improvements up and down Manchester Street, I don't think it should fall on any one individual. However, I definitely would like to see some sort of movement between city, state, and the stakeholders down there to try and start working and getting discussion and a conversation going as to improvements up and down Manchester Street. So, like I said, soapbox for 10 seconds. If there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I'm going to Move for approval of Plan MJDP 18-90 with the 17 noted conditions. Wait a minute. Do we need to – you confused me on the 17A. Take note of the recommendations from the – So is that 18 then? well we're deleting i believe we can delete three of them now right mr berkeley we are asking that you delete condition 13 14 and 15. all right you would end up with a total of 14 conditions but to be more specific we were amending recommending the amendment to condition 17. okay so moved okay All good? Okay. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of Plan MJDP 18-90, the Distillery District West, with the 14 now noted conditions, notably changing the last one, which is listed as 17, to read to note all parking associated with 1158 Manchester Street shall be constructed with this amendment, and then by the same token would delete number 13, 14, and 15. So if you will, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. So if I'm correct, next on our agenda is page 5, which is under commission items. It's Pensacola Park neighborhood local historic district H1 overlay zone request. Good afternoon. Yes, sir. Yes, this is item A under Commission Items. This is the Historic Overlay Initiation Request for Pensacola Park. I'm going to pass out a few maps as well as the applicant's initiation letter and one letter of opposition and one letter of support. Thank you. So today we will be discussing the outreach that was done for the historic overlay initiation request that was made by the Pensacola Park neighborhood. the process started with an initial meeting with the neighborhood in october 29th 2018 during which members from the neighborhood came and discussed the various aspects of initiating and going through an h1 process they then reached out to the division of historic preservation and gained a more comprehensive knowledge of the H1 overlay. In February 4th, 2019, their official paperwork was filed with the planning staff. That moved us towards the process that is outlined in the bylaws, through which staff sent out letters with return postcards to gain as much information about the neighborhood response and want for an H1. The historic overlay does have various different elements that can restrict certain uses of property, as well as it has a different process of going through the zoning ordinance. As you know, it starts with a BOAR or the Board of Architectural Review and then moves forward from there. Mailings were sent on February 18, 2019. During that process, 426 households were contacted, and as with all these H1 processes, we allow for 21 days for individuals to get their mailings back to us. For this, we got the letters out so quickly, we allowed for a little bit of extra time, and over the past week or so, we've gotten smaller and smaller amounts trickling in. The total is about 54.5% of the neighborhood has responded to this. As you see here, those properties in blue were responses that were in support. Those in red were in opposition. Those in green, there are only three of them that had no opinion. So we're looking at a split of approximately 26% in opposition. 72 percent in support and one percent in no opinion on our postcards that we received back that indicate a position on the h1 overlay there were various different comments that were provided including those in support which focused on retaining and promoting the historic character of the neighborhood maintaining the neighborhood friendly character and original construction methods need for better design and materials, need to protect from development, a want for rehabilitation rather than demolition, and then a bit of anger regarding previous zone changes in the area. The opposition focused on costs of future modifications or regular upkeep to the property, preference to the ND1 overlay, want for business development along corridors, and other interests that are not consistent with an H1 overlay. Jumping back to the map, you can just see that there is quite a bit of support, not only from the numbers, but on the map you see above. Should the Planning Commission indicate that the overlay process should be initiated, it will start with the 90-day, 90-day, 90-day split. So it will start with the Board of Architectural Review and the study that is produced for their review. It will then proceed from their recommendation to this body. And at that time, you will have the opportunity to make a recommendation, whether approval or disapproval of the H1 overlay. And then it will continue on for the last 90 days at the Urban County Council. For this large size of a property, and Ms. Kerr will talk to us in a second about some of the potential problems of the timeline. With this large of properties, there is potentially a need to extend the earliest processes so that the report can be produced. There's also issues of having the contract being drawn up. So I'll let her get into that in a little bit more of a deep way. But as of now, staff is seeing quite a bit of support from the neighborhood in seeking this initiation and continuing on with the study. Before Ms. Kerr comes up to give her side of this process, if you have any questions from me, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions? Yes, sir. I can remember back when we had the one zoning case on the corner, we were talking about the future corridor study. Yes, sir. How will this impact that? Well, it would add another layer to it. So an H-1 does not preclude a zone change. An H-1 does not preclude any demolition or modification to the landscape. and h1 would add an extra stage of review there would be some further conditions and further considerations in this portion for the corridor study to take into account other questions if not thank you sal and before anyone comes up i would say initially i was thinking of limiting time as far as speaking, considering the fact that this is simply a request for the initiation of a H-1 overlay. Hal has mentioned that this is a long process and we'll have a chance to vet everything thoroughly at a later date, which sounds like it may be nine months down the road, but more than willing for anyone that wished to say something in regards to this to come forward and we'll take them one at a time. For staff, we would just like to have Ms. Kerr talk about the extension of the process that you would like to go through. Sure. Can I just ask one question too because I'm a little confused where this is right now. Is this under a moratorium at this point? Yes, the Urban County Council voted for a six-month moratorium. I think that was about approximately two and a half weeks ago, three weeks? First week of March. So it is under a current moratorium that is currently set up to last six months. Is that for the whole project area? That is for the whole project area except for certain properties. The 1847 property that was the subject of the zone change has been taken out of that moratorium, as well as some properties down along Goodrich in which there are various water resources projects that are going through to prevent flooding. March 7th was the initiation date of the moratorium. So there are a few properties that are outside of that, but not ones that are seeking this zone change. Those properties that are being impacted by the water projects are owned by LFUCG. To add to that, with that moratorium, that was imposed by the council and any other action would have to come from the council and not us in regards to the moratorium, whether it's a extension or not so that's out of our purview yes sir miss wade did you want to say something i was just going to clarify that the moratorium only affects zone change applications and then demolition did you say that not additions or other building permits that someone might seek in the meantime okay thank you miss kerr good afternoon Good afternoon to you all. Thank you for reviewing all this and taking it into consideration. The thing that, while you were sort of finishing your comments for the moment, tied to the moratorium, it is indeed, per the Council's action, a six-month moratorium that has just been referenced, commenced on March the 7th. So it has been known the whole time that the council's final meeting to take full action on this application would not occur within that six-month window. It is, per the ordinance and per reality, always an eight- to ten-month kind of process at best. And a couple of them, we have had to do the same thing I'm getting ready to ask you about this one, which is this is a neighborhood that there are not existing surveys completed already and available, so everything has to be done from scratch in terms of the study. And so that study really needs three to four months for the study itself to be accomplished. And we, I was going to say we lose the first month. I don't think you should call it losing it, But it's the process that, of course, the government has to take to put through council the hiring of the consultant. The consultant has been selected. The process has been completed to solicit those proposals, and the consultant has just been selected as of yesterday afternoon. And pending Ural's action today, then we're positioned to go ahead and get it onto the council docket for them to authorize the hiring of the consultant. It is being funded through, the government is paying for it through a grant received through Frankfort, Kentucky Heritage Council for this express purpose. So with that in mind, there kind of goes the first of the 90-day window that the ordinance allows on an automatic basis. The middle month, you could certainly get large, headed on a great deal of the study going. But then you really need to have completed the document, the designation report, and all the findings of fact and all the data that has to back that up, and have it available to the public and to the hearing body two weeks, two and a half weeks out, in order for that to be effective for people's knowledge. So it only leaves you realistically with about a five to six week window for the study core to be going on if this 90 days is the case. So what I wanted to request of you all on the project's behalf is to add an additional 90 days. Now, we hope to not need the full 90 days. We're very determined, both the consultant and ourselves as staff and the neighborhood and everybody working together, to do this in as timely a fashion as is at all possible. But I thought it would be better to inform you right up front of this need to add some more time, if you all are willing, instead of getting halfway into it and coming back to you and saying, folks, this has taken a while because it's not unexpected. It needs to be done properly, and that will take some time. So if I may, I'd like to formally request that you allow an extra 90 days to tack on to the time provided by ordinance as currently framed. Okay. Thank you. Questions? Questions? at this point? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I'm looking at our little map here and there the blue is support and the white is no response, no opinion is green and red opposition is red. If this were to secede, if it was to become an H1 area, all the colors would be H1, right? That's correct. Whatever boundary, the whole area, the whole square that you see on the map, with all the colors you've just enumerated, is what's being proposed for the study. And then out of the study will come the determination if indeed the full area should be nominated for the H1 designation. And it shares a series of development pattern histories and so forth. It's not totally an unknown about how this has evolved. and so it's a very logical boundary that's been drawn for you currently. But the study will be the icing on the cake to really work through how that all meets the criteria that is set forth in the ordinance that needs to be met. So you will see at the first hearing, the Board of Architectural Review hearing, the findings of that study and the recommended boundaries for it. but your concept is exactly right, that all the different color properties, if the whole thing that is nominated is, as it goes through the hearing cycle, successful, the entirety as that is reflected in that nomination would become an H1, all those properties. Other questions? if not we'll we'll proceed on at this point uh we can address the extension at a later time after we get comments taken care of others that like to comment on this mr billings you're more than welcome to come ahead don't be bashful i've never been accused to being bashful. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Nathan Billings from Billings Law for my represent the owner 1739 Nicholasville Road. Understanding that the discussion today is but a blip on the screen of a much larger process, I wanted to speak briefly just that the ensuing discussions over the next probably close to a year are going to rely heavily upon the comprehensive plan that the Planning Commission has just recently adopted in the interaction with Nicholasville Road corridor and the comprehensive plan itself goals and objectives including the addendum we are in favor of an H1 overlay for the majority but we oppose an H1 overlay for the properties on Nicholasville Road obviously that will be discussed in much more detail in the process but I don't want to hide behind it this is going to be this is going to be the fight the zone change happened on Nicholasville Road which spurred this process. If you look up there on the map you'll see that the neighborhood owners are buried in the neighborhood and that very few of the owners along Nicholasville Road either responded in favor, I think there's only three, and the other owners didn't respond at all which indicates that they are opposed to it or they responded opposed to it. Again no action will be taken today but I just wanted to go ahead and introduce the discussion which will be prevalent over the next couple of months as we discuss this. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Billings. My experiences with H1 overlays we always do have some controversy involved and we'll deal with that as we move forward. So thank you sir. Others that like to speak? No? Yes ma'am. Please give us name and address please. Candace Wallace, 130 Goodrich Avenue. avenue i'm one of the people who started this and it's so funny that mr billings is here because actually we contacted him when we first started this and asked a lot of questions i'm sorry we couldn't afford you um you know we're not a no he found somebody who could um you know it and it is going to be a fight for nicholasville road we understand that um yes some of our neighbors are recluses they didn't all they did sign our petition that we turned in i'm sure that um hal can provide that because we did talk to everyone on that door the reds you do see on there those are on nicholasville road particularly those are the landlords and yes they do not want to go through an additional step to maybe have their designs approved or if they want to knock it down you know like she said um like betty said like hal said you can still do zone changes you can still do demolitions you can still do pretty much anything with this property on nicholasville road along this corridor all this does is we're going to it's going to require one additional step that does meet the comprehensive plan and aside from the fact that we filed prior to the adaption of the new comprehensive plan so we are actually should be and i mean the gentlemen and ladies over here in planning can let me know if i'm incorrect but because we filed before the adaption of the new comprehensive plan of the 2018 we should be under the 2018 goals and objectives and that's how we wrote our application and that is what we hope that you will be considering our application under um and so given that that we fully believe that we meet all those standards especially for the nicholasville road corridor um we're not sure why the apple why there is so much opposition to it we understand on the moratorium that people that there were several people that wanted to tear their properties down because they already had the zone changes and stuff and a lot of that came out at the council meetings um but again this is a full neighborhood those houses were all developed with uh with our neighborhood um we we you know they they have been a part of our neighborhood so to talk about and as you can see through the map even if you want to talk about let's carve out nicholasville road one question i would probably put forward is where do you carve it where do you start making that carve there isn't a straight line along that so anywhere you start carving out different properties along nicholasville road you start going back into the neighborhood so i guess those are just a couple things to think about and uh you know i i hope that you guys and everyone on this process gives us a good chance to look at this and understand the historic nature of this neighborhood and we look forward to moving forward and having a real consultant look at it and evaluating it for its historical nature thank you thank you miss Wallace. Any others? No? If not, questions from the Commission? I guess I would have one with the request for an extension. How do we handle that? Do we formally include it or only as needed? I think it would be best to just grant it to the BOAR and allow them to have 180 days it sounds like would be more appropriate. So now we're talking 180 days plus 90 plus 90? Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes, yes Mr. Berkeley. I've got a question going back to the proposed corridor study and I realize that you know scope of work may not be laid out for the study yet but my question I guess would be is as a part of that study would it not be our intent to when recommendations are made for that corridor that that would take into consideration the neighborhood behind it. So in a sense we're kind of going to do that process for these properties along Nicholasville. I can't say specifically about the scope of the Nicholasville Road Study because it has not been finalized yet but the idea would be to concentrate on the land use and the transportation and other planning issues just along the corridor itself obviously there's always going to be interaction between the adjoining neighborhoods in that corridor but I don't know that we all dive into the land uses that are adjacent but I mean we're going to be sensitive to the neighborhoods that's that's part of our goals and objectives And, you know, I kind of feel like, you know, we've been heading this direction for quite some time. I feel like this request is partially in response to the zone change that we went through. I don't think the timing is coincidental. So I'm struggling with supporting this and including those Nicholas Field Road properties as well. Others? No? Okay. Thank you. Ms. Wade, go back to my original question. We're looking at 360 days. do we put a date on this or just recognize the fact that BOAR may need an additional three months? Yeah, I would give BOAR the extra time. And then once they act, the Planning Commission's time frame starts. So if they don't use all of their time, and even so, a typical zone change for the Planning Commission is a two-month window. So we don't, in most cases, don't use up our 90 days as well either. And then, again, when it goes to the council, often they don't use their 90 days. So it's possible to shave a little bit of time off as we go forward. All right. Very good. So if there's not any other questions, I'll ask for a motion. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to approve an H-1 overlay initiation for Pensacola Park neighborhood, granting an extra 90 days if necessary. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a second for the motion to approve the initiation? Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Pohl to approve the initiation of the Pensacola Park neighborhood local historic district H-1 overlay zone. If there's no further questions, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Next would be we have one other text amendment initiation that we need to go through. It's under number B, the initiation of his own ordinance text amendment to update Article 17, which is sign regulations, something we saw in our work session a week ago. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. So this is a request by the Urban County Council for the Planning Commission to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment for a comprehensive update of Article 17, which is your sign regulations. You'll recall from the update staff provided at last Thursday's Planning Commission work session that this item originated from a Supreme Court decision, which was the Reed versus Town of Gilbert case. And that case requires content neutral sign ordinance language. The staff work group with members from planning, law, and building inspection has conducted a line by line review of the existing ordinance, existing ordinance which resulted in the clean version of the proposed article 17 language that you have in front of you today as you know we'll be requesting and considering public comment before this item comes back to you we've already received comment from the Fayette County Neighborhood Council and we've requested comment specifically from land use attorneys in the community Commerce Lexington the Fayette Alliance L bar the commercial property association and the building industry of central Kentucky. So with that, staff request that the Planning Commission initiate this amendment today and we're here to respond to any questions. Thank you, Craig. Any questions for Craig? No? Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this? If not, I'll close this part of the discussion, open it up among commission members for any questions, concerns, and or motion. Anyone? This would be a motion to initiate once again. Anyone have interest in this? We want to be compliant with the Supreme Court decision. Or at some point, we may be sued. Mr. Brewer. For initiation. We do have a motion and a motion by Mr. Brewer, seconded by Mr. Nickel, for the initiation of the zone and text amendment to update article 17 sign regulations and as Miss Waite said so that we are compliant with the Supreme Court so if there's no discussion please vote when it comes up on your screen motion passes as well staff items thank you mr. chair it's good to have you back in the chair you did a wonderful job today you haven't lost your touch I want to remind you all that next week you will be back in our office for the committee meetings 830 and 130 and then as you saw today with two postponements of significant zone changes and already a robust agenda for April we hope you all can clear your calendars and plan on being here for April 25th for the meeting because we we will have a big meeting that day thank you all thank you and considering the fact that mr duncan said i did such a good job today i was just reminded that i forgot the approval of the minutes in which miss woods so diligently worked on to get to us so we do have minutes to approve february 28 2019. do we have a motion yes ma'am thank you move approval february 28 2019 minutes second motion has been made in second and for approval uh please vote when it comes up on your screen excuse me uh seconded by miss mundy that motion passes as well audience items in anything else from the commission if not uh as our chairman who's in israel would say i'll uh close this meeting by consensus, I believe I can say that. So meeting is adjourned. Thank you.