잘 먹겠습니다~~ 오늘의 메뉴는 스파게티와 치즈스파게티입니다. 치즈스파게티와 치즈스파게티는 치즈스파게티와 치즈스파게티의 조합이 좋습니다. 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 잘 먹겠습니다~~ 다음으로 이 페이지로 넘어갑니다. 최근의 변화와 원칙, 목표, 정책에 따라 적절한 변화는 지난 개선안에 따른 지역 활성화 전략의 지역 활성화 전략의 지역 활성화 전략의 지역 활성화 전략의 지역 활성화 전략의 지역 활성화를 통해 지역 추ansess하다 war 배경 이런 이제 references 1s eve 아직 weiter su ез r e 마놈 dennett e likewise twenty point oh eight acres are recommended for the e a r two land use defined as three to six dwelling units per gross acre totaling sixty two one hundred and twenty dwelling units this amended application does not conform to the e m p's land use element for this portion of the expansion area to a flipping the areas that were proposed for e a r one and e a r two staff also acknowledges the need to move the proposed parkway in this location because of some changes that have occurred over time and mister martin will describe some of those aspects with the description of the development plan staff has determined that the applicant has not provided is sufficient and complete information to demonstrate to demonstrate agreement with the goals objectives and policies or development criteria of the two thousand eighteen comprehensive plan additionally the applicant has deviated from the land use element of the e a m p an adopted element of the two thousand eighteen comprehensive plan as such the proposed zone change is not in agreement with the two thousand eighteen comprehensive plan as i stated before uh... in the absence of a finding of agreement with comprehensive plan k r s and article six of the ordinance zoning ordinance provides two options and now we are going to shift to the second argument that the applicant is making within their justification that the existing zoning classification given to the property is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning classification is appropriate the petitioner argues that the current zoning uh... the petitioner argues that the current zoning and any type of agricultural use is inappropriate as it has become increasingly difficult due to the development of the surrounding area as residential subdivisions multifamily developments commercial uses and interest and the interstate system in terms of inappropriateness the argument is somewhat flawed as it contends that agricultural uses cannot occur in the proximity to areas of residential and commercial development this would indicate that the farms or farmland along the urban service area boundary are inappropriately zoned and should be slated for rezoning furthermore in substantial there is substantial evidence that shows that the proximity of farmland to urbanized localities can reduce some of the impacts of the urbanized environment while also reducing costs for fresh and healthy foods for those living in urban areas however within the additional material provided by the applicant uh... since the october zoning committee meeting the applicant goes further to discuss the limitations to the current land and the available land uses they state that the grade of the land which slopes towards the flood plain has made the use of the land for cattle production difficult this resulted in the discontinuation of cattle production approximately fifty years ago they also state that there has been little interest in utilizing the land for production of crops outside the production of hay furthermore the ownership of this once contiguous farm has been divided over time as the land has passed from one owner to another the subject property is approximately forty acres of a much larger farm that was added to the urban service area boundary by the adoption of the expansion area in nineteen ninety six although the parcel is approximately forty acres it is limited because of the subject property has a significant flood plain along the southwest portion of the site which covers approximately seven point five acres the flood plain limits the availability of consistently utilizing the property for crop production in the amended staff report in the previous presentations the staff also discusses the fact that the agricultural uses of the land or agricultural uses of the buildings or structures within the expansion area were in fact lawful prior to the and that were lawful prior to the adoption of article twenty three of the zoning ordinance would be continuously adopted as being appropriate this does not change with the rezoning of this land it just allows for any type of agricultural production or agricultural use to continue on until that development actually occurs staff agrees with these elements of the applicants justification for the inappropriateness of the current agricultural rural zoning on the second level the applicant goes forward to discuss the the appropriateness of the proposed zoning the applicant posits that the proposed zone changes compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning which supports their opinion regarding the appropriateness of the EAR one and EAR two land uses and zones for the subject property the area located southeast of the subject property across man of war are completely comprised primarily of residential land uses that are similar to the density that is being proposed on the subject property additionally the residential density proposed for the subject property is within the range recommended for this area and is similar to the densities found across man of war boulevard within the immediate vicinity during this and during and since the committee meetings the applicant has also provided reasoning as to the appropriateness of the step down in the residential land use for the portion of land between polo club boulevard and man of war boulevard the applicant posits that it is appropriate to have the higher density of residential land uses up against the streets or closer to the high occupancy boulevard and interstate and then step down over time so with the rezoning of this portion of land to EAR three and the proposed zoning of EAR two next to that higher density residential leading into an EAR one the applicant is proposing to have an appropriate step down and transition to the lower density areas furthermore they are seeking to place higher density along open green space and green space amenities so along the floodplain there is that unifying character of the greenway system that is being developed by placing the higher density residential along those portions the applicant is providing an amenity to those populations and it will allow for a greater utilization of the greenway system staff agrees with these elements of the applicants justification for the appropriateness of the proposed EAR one and EAR two zoning with that in mind staff is recommending approval of this zone change for the following reasons here we first discuss that the application is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan for the previously noted objections and then we are moving into the arguments for appropriateness and inappropriateness that we have presented on the previous slides and then stating again that there has been no social, fiscal or economic change in the immediate area since the adoption of the 2018 comprehensive plan and as always staff is recommending approval subject to the approval of the development plan and the certification of the development plan within two weeks Mr. Martin will talk about that here shortly. During our zoning committee meeting the zoning committee did recommend a referral to the full planning commission just because of some conversations that we had about the appropriateness and inappropriateness as well as the lack of conversation that we did not have regarding the lack of conversation regarding the comprehensive plan at that meeting if you have any questions, I'm not supposed to say questions, if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them on the zone change right now before I hand over the microphone to Mr. Martin. Thank you Mr. Braley. Any questions for Mr. Braley on this at the present? No? Okay. Thank you sir. Mr. Martin. You'd think Halloween is on its way with Mr. Martin's attire today. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, the plan that you have before you today this is a preliminary development plan that is associated with this zone change and as you can see this is Man O' War in this location. Here's the greenway, the flood plain area that Hal has discussed with you. This is Blackford Parkway at this location with Man O' War and this is the proposed extension of that Blackford Parkway. Now the AMP refers to the road through this part of the expansion as the park road, but as you can see it aligns with Blackford Parkway and will be continued through and on through the rest of the development. Eventually terminating either at Winchester Road or perhaps Polo Club depending on how those areas develop. They are proposing 80 single family lots in this area 78 townhouses in this area. This plan is a revised plan and the original plan that you saw was virtually reversed and the townhouses were located in this area. We had single family homes in this area as well as in this area of the plan. Now this plan does, it is 40 acres total in gross acreage. What's interesting and some of the things that have to be dealt with on this plan, first of all this is a fixed point with Blackford Parkway and the AMP did envision that the park road and Blackford Parkway would have a stronger relationship with the Greenway in this location. So the applicant is demonstrating how they will meet that objective by trying to get from this fixed point back down to creating a relationship with the Greenway as it continues into an area of future development. That is something physical, something on the ground that they've had to deal with at this location. And obviously the Greenway is a defining characteristic with the relationship and as Hal mentioned, the Greenways and the AMP were envisioned to coordinate, complement and tie them together. It's a tremendous feature. Now it's also a drainage feature. It's stormwater. It's all about stormwater controls and carrying stormwater. Right up in here we have a regional basin. The AMP has been developed with regional basins. There is a further basin and a wetlands down this way on Polo Club Boulevard that has been constructed and is fully functioning. The other definition again, man-of-war and then of course these are man-made boundaries to the property by the subdivision of the farm among the heirs. So the applicant has tried to deal with these situations and present this development. Again I've stated it's a preliminary development plan and as you all are well aware you will see a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan on this property. And at that time we are going to continue to discuss and resolve some of the issues that staff is concerned with and has discussed with the applicant and with our various committees over time. You can see that there's one condition about the cross section for Park Road. Again, they're dealing with this point and trying to recreate this relationship. The primary concern there is how the parkway will function adjacent to the properties, particularly in providing the appropriate pedestrian facilities and trail facilities that are envisioned. And that brings us to another condition, something we'll resolve at the next stage. The EAMP requires a final development plan that the applicant submit statements addressing the community design element, the infrastructure element of the EAMP. Now the infrastructure element is going to address the sanitary sewer. It exists. Pump station's been built. Trunk lines are in place. This extension of Blackford known as Park Road is identified as part of the infrastructure in EAMP. It is an exactable feature. They will have to address as well the community design element. And the community design element goes to much of the design elements that were discussed previously that would comply with the comprehensive plan. The EAMP calls for well-defined neighborhoods. And as you can see, here's a single family neighborhood. It's being served by a local street with a few cul-de-sacs. We've got the townhouses, the well-defined neighborhood. It also stresses that they be connected. Again, that brings us back to the utilization of the greenway as well as the pedestrian system. And one of the conditions that we want resolved is an internal pedestrian system for the townhouse area as well as the trail system that will help unify the entire area and provide that EAMP recommended pedestrian system. Again, that's something staff bills can be resolved at the next stage of the development. The EAMP also allows developers to set their own design standards, as you all are aware. That's lotting standards, setbacks, and that sort of thing. The minimum setback in EAMP, as you all know, is five feet. So that's one thing that we have to resolve at the next stage is exactly what design standards they want to impose. Now part of the reason that's important came out of the discussion on this relationship with Park Road. You all recall the discussion about the driveways and the concerns with vehicular conflicts along a collector street. Again, this is a collector street. It's going to carry a relatively significant amount of traffic. And staff anticipates that it will carry much more traffic in the future. These lots have a setback of, I believe, 25 feet on them. The idea is to try to reduce vehicular conflict of people backing out into the collector. Now we still have some concerns about these lots in this area because of this intersection and what we foresee is the amount of traffic in the future. And we believe that that's something that needs to be worked on in this area to make sure that these lots and the people here can safely access Blackford Parkway. And this also then brings us to a discussion about Man O'War. Man O'War, and we're recommending that they clearly show full improvements to Man O'War. We've been asking for these sorts of things for years. We've talked, oops, wrong way. We talked about it on the apartments that came in and the need for Man O'War in this section to be an urban section, an urban highway. This is a state road and the state tends to lag behind that a little bit. They consider it rural until it becomes urban. On the other hand, your staff has tried to stay in front of that and get improvements and upgrade this to an urban section because it is going to be an urban section. We've got a lot of things that are going to happen. There's been approved plans, again, big fingers and thumbs going around. On the justice property we have the apartments that have been approved. So Man O'War needs to be an urban section. That is something that will be addressed with a future development plan and a subdivision plan. And I would just add one thing that all the storm water that you see that will flow into this greenway will eventually cross Mr. Penn's farm out on Russell K. Road. And I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? No? No? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Nicholson, good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Nick Nicholson. I'm here with Buddy Goodwin with Fall Loans and also Rory Kaley with EA Partners. And we are here to basically discuss a zone change that has been planned by this government for well over 20 years. As Mr. Bailey kind of outlined, what the specific request is is in order to transform 38 acres of vacant and very underutilized agricultural land in order to convert it to 80 single family lots and a townhome complex of 78 different townhome units. The specific proposal is basically to take that 38 acres of AR land and have a zone change for 26 acres to EAR1 and 12 acres to EAR2. And while this is the first development that is basically east of the flood plain that is on the old part of the farm that we kind of refer to today as Hamburg East, which is kind of defined by the interstate to Man o' War to Winchester. It is certainly not the first development in this area. It is certainly not the first development on this farm. And as I'll talk about later, this is actually not the first development on this very parcel. You all are familiar with the Costco and Cabela's, with the Watermark, with the senior apartments that are coming in here. We also have the full single family block for neighborhood with a townhome component that is basically right in this area. And of course the apartments that we discussed just last month that was recommended for approval. With regards to how much development already exists in this area, in the very clear guide that the EAMP has provided us with how the infrastructure must be put into place and what infrastructure has already been put in place as called for by the EAMP, we certainly think the time is now for this property to begin to develop. Similar to what Mr. Bailey had done, I did want you all to see the kind of statute that governs the zone change process. A lot of the conversation that we had at the zoning committee level was about how exactly does this statute function and how are the kind of three different ways that a planning commission can recommend approval? How do they kind of interrelate? And as one of my mentors, Pierce Hamblin, always told me, when you have a question, you go back to the rule and you read it. And so I thought it would be very good if you all had the rule in front of you in case that there was any questions specifically about this, how this works. As you all are very typical in how you all are used to dealing with it, the very first question in a zone change hearing is always, is the project in compliance with the comprehensive plan? If the answer is yes, oftentimes that is where your job stops. You simply recommend approval to your legislative body. However, the statute makes it very clear that if the answer is no, your job is not done. You must still ask two different questions. And if the answer is yes to either of those two questions, the statute recommends that you recommend approval to your legislative body. And I won't go into much detail because I do believe Mr. Bailey really thoroughly did this, but the aspect that we are claiming here is that the existing zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is in fact appropriate. Out of respect to what I thought was going to be a much longer meeting today and also how much hard work the staff has really put into this application and working with the applicant, we are not going to be submitting separate findings than what have been presented to you by the staff. Because after all, all three of these provisions of the statute are viewed equally in the eyes of the law and any which is appropriate to recommend approval. I do want to talk about why we believe we are in compliance with the comprehensive plan because I think it's very important for you all to understand how this does play into the larger picture. Our proposed mix of EAR1 and EAR2 zoning allows for development that will activate a very underutilized agricultural land that has long been recommended for this exact type of residential use at this exact density and even these zones that we're asking for today. And it's on a piece of property that has been pointed to by the planning staff, by this planning commission, by the urban county council and also agricultural lobbyist groups for residential growth. Now, when we look at the individual goals and objectives, I'm going to go through these fairly quickly, much more than normal, because I did want to get into the design policies. As you all know and Hal mentioned, this 2018 comprehensive plan functions a little bit differently and they have very specific policies that get into how we should implement the goals and objectives. And so I do want to go through these goals and objectives because I do believe very much that this development is in substantial compliance, but most of them I'm going to get into the policies and show you on the development plan how we are implementing them. But we're certainly expanding housing choices by having almost a 50-50 single family and townhome development. We are basically adding that missing middle density that our comprehensive plan talks about because there isn't much of a townhome kind of presence in this area. And after the apartments that went in that were approved just last month and the existing watermark apartments, we feel that the townhomes really is the kind of expanded housing choice that we need to kind of focus on in this area. And with that it is very clear that we have 39 acres of vacant land that is right at the intersection of a minor arterial and a collector road. As Mr. Martin had basically talked about, we are doing full urban improvements to this area on Man o' War and the apartment complex that was right across the street also had full urban improvements to Man o' War. So what we have is an area where we do have an arterial and a collector basically coming in together. On the well-designed neighborhoods, this is kind of the part where I'm going to wait until the development plan to get into this. However, what we are able to say is that with the existing neighborhood right next door, we are able to basically match zones, types and density levels and we are able to do so in such a way to make sure we are sustaining their neighborhood character and context while also making sure that we are providing the type of true neighborhood amenity that is called for in the comprehensive plan and with the EAMP by making sure we are focusing on this greenway improvement which gets into exactly what the next kind of theme looks at. How are we basically protecting this environment? How are we making sure that while this is inside the urban service area, it still is in an area that many consider rural but is slated for development and has specific goals in mind with how we are treating the signature feature of Expansion Area 2A in that greenway. With regards to the effective comprehensive transportation system, you're going to hear a lot of conversation from me today at least about the changes to Blackford Parkway. Tom pointed out the slides of where it was supposed to originally interact with this parcel and where it ends up actually deadening into this parcel. That changed a whole lot for us. It really basically switched how we were going to be able to develop this property if we were going to be able to get the Blackford Parkway back to the greenway. Through a lot of our conversations with staff, it became very clear that the more important part of what this development plan needed to be was reestablishing Blackford Parkway with the greenway versus where exactly a higher density section of the development was. We also made sure to make sure that this is a people first and it is pedestrian friendly. We have basically pedestrian improvements throughout that I will show you here in just a second. I do want to spend just a second talking about Theme E, Goal 1. I know that the planning staff has indicated a lot of times this theme is more directed towards them than it is the actual applicants, but I do think a lot of these objectives on this very slide get at why we believe that this development is such a basically in compliance with the conference of plan, but is very crucial to go ahead and approve today. Again, we are putting in a development that is sustainable, that does match the character and context of the existing area. I would say that we are also doing this on an underutilized corridor. While this isn't what you typically think of with regards to large parking lots on Harrisburg Road or Nicholasville, what it is is something that has been inside the urban service boundary for over 20 years on an arterial, on a collector at that intersection and a lot of it has stayed vacant. I would argue that this very much is an underutilized corridor and it is exactly where we should be looking for development and it is exactly where our community has encouraged us to look for development. The last kind of point I want to make on this slide is activating large undeveloped land holdings within the urban service area. I think you would be very hard pressed to find a larger land holding that needs to be activated and we are proposing to activate it for the very use that our community has recommended it to be. While this parcel is not connected to the other land basically all around it on the Hamburg East, this parcel alone is the 25th largest parcel in our vacant database that we came up with during this comprehensive plan update process. Now is the time to start chipping it away and it provides for a true gateway into this larger land holding and it adds the infrastructure required in order to go ahead and develop that larger land holding. And finally, of course, if we're serious about maintaining this urban service boundary, it is wholly inappropriate for this land to stay as agricultural rural. Now, here's kind of the design policy part of this. As I'm sure you all know who have read them, a lot of these design policies kind of interplay together. It's not necessarily in order, but I've kind of grouped them together into three different categories, talking about streetscape and multimodal infrastructure, the residential housing mix and design sensitivity, and then the green space and neighborhood focal points. I'm going to kind of talk about each one of these design policies and then go back to the development plan to discuss them. It's encouraged to utilize people-first designs to ensure proper road connections, to provide pedestrian-friendly street patterns and walkable blocks, to adhere to the recommendations of the MPO Bike and Ped Master Plan, and also that development should connect adjacent streets in order to incentivize the buzzword of connectivity that we all hear so often. We're doing just that. We are making sure that we are going ahead and stubbing into what is now the vacant kind of land that is adjacent to us in order to ensure that we're going to have a fully connectable neighborhood as these next parcels come online where they will kind of front off of Man o' War and Winchester, but certainly will be able to tie in. You will also hear me talk a lot about setting the tone for how Park Road is going to basically function as we head back towards Winchester Road and how the expansionary master plan called for. The other feature I wanted to point out right here is what we are basically showing as a secondary entrance for emergency vehicles with a crash gate. This will have to be approved by state, but we don't know when these parcels are coming online. These are not controlled by the current property owner, and so we have no way to know exactly what their time frame looks like. We wanted to make sure that we were able to go ahead and develop this property that we can develop with the proper amount of entrances for any type of emergency services. But the key is that as soon as these properties do come online, that is 100% just going to be a pedestrian infrastructure at the end of the cul-de-sac that will tie in to the pedestrian system that we are installing along Man o' War and along the continuation of the Blackford Parkway. We do have basically already noted the separate pedestrian infrastructure, and you will see that as everything comes down, whether you are a pedestrian or whether you are a car coming along here, where is your eye drawn to? Your eye is drawn to this main focal point of the greenway that is wide open and that is fully accessible that I'll talk about here in just one second. I do want to make one correction that Mr. Martin provided. We are showing a 35-foot building line setback right now for these houses in order to allow for a larger driveway, to allow for more stacking of cars in the driveways to ensure that we are not basically encouraging parking on Blackford Parkway. That would be a much larger or longer driveway in order to be able to get more cars on there. Also, when this was first brought in, as has been pointed out, this road was much more parallel and a townhome section was up here and single family flanked this road. We heard about the concern that there would be too many connections to Blackford Parkway. Once we switched the road as we did, it became very apparent that this is where the townhome section really belongs. It's just simply not an efficient use of land for single family, knowing that we also cannot back any single family lots up to Man o' War. Once we made that decision, it became very easy to ensure that we have the main entrance well back from any type of stacking that will occur at the intersection of Blackford and Man o' War. We've also limited the amount of access points or curb cuts that the Blackford Parkway has. We have also added in what is not a traffic circle, but it is a traffic calming feature in order to make sure that speeding does not become any type of issues. The next set of policies is trying to provide development that is sensitive to the surrounding concept, designing car parking areas to not be the primary visual component, and also providing varied housing choices. I've already talked about the housing choices, but we do believe that doing a 50-50 split on the units certainly is a substantial townhome complex and fulfills that need for that missing middle density. As you will see, all of the units that are facing both Blackford Parkway and Man o' War are front facing Blackford Parkway and Man o' War. This development does not turn its back on anything that is currently surrounding. We are making sure that it is face front to this road and we are putting basically rear loaded units along this section of the townhome complex, but even also to the greenway system itself. These kind of set of townhomes right here are also basically front facing on a single loaded street into the greenway system. With regards to context sensitivity, this is one of my favorite exhibits that you're going to see today, and yes, I have favorite exhibits. I like how this townhome complex actually plays into this area that is a large floodplain and pond feature as opposed to basically the townhomes being right next to the existing single family. Here we would have single family playing right into single family with the exact kind of similar lot patterns and size that is prevalent today. You have again, as Mr. Bailey had indicated, this townhome now plays directly into this greenway system and it is a true kind of feature for this area. It's where most of the population from this development will have basically direct access into the greenway system, which is the final kind of design policy slides that I wanted to talk about is providing the adequate green space for all neighborhoods within walking distance, having the focal points accessible to all residents, and then the single loaded streets that I just referred to. It was a kind of difficult decision to get away from what the EAMP originally recommended from going EAR1 and EAR2 on the different sides of the street, but after really sitting down with staff and talking to them about what is an ideal way for this development to go, it just became quite clear that this Blackford alignment was one of the biggest issues, if not the biggest issue, that we wanted a true community feature. It's talked about in the EAMP, the Blackford Parkway where it exists today isn't where it was originally supposed to be because of just development concerns that occurred way back by the flood plain further back into Blackford neighborhood. But once that was decided, it was clear, let's get this road as fast as possible over to that greenway system, and it left us with basically little choice but to flip to the townhouse section. But with any kind of problem comes, I think, a fantastic solution not only for this development but for the community as a whole because this truly does integrate this development into this greenway system. It provides dedicated access for the single loaded, or for the single family, for any residents that are coming along this pedestrian infrastructure. It is a visual and key component to everyone who will enter this development. And here's kind of the EAMP that I was just talking about. Our first application mirrored it perfectly. It was the EAR2 and EAR1 on either side of Park Road. We had a much more linear Park Road because that is what we thought the EAMP was calling for. When we kind of, when we sat down and went back to this, we pretty much had no choice but to flip the EAR2 and the EAR1 because of just a need to efficiently use the vacant land inside of our urban service area. So while we are not in direct agreement with the future land use map of the EAMP, we do believe that we are in compliance with the EAMP and certainly are happy to do the compliance statement at the final development plan that really fleshes this out because what we are doing is we are focusing on the key feature for this property in the EAMP. And we are doing so with a density that was just the same that was encouraged, with a type of housing that was encouraged, and with the exact zones that were encouraged that are just on the different sides of Blackford Parkway. Now, in kind of a brief summary on why we believe that this project is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, simply put, it's because it is a well-designed project and we can go through design policies to even show that. That it's upholding the urban service area preservation strategy, it's appropriate development of a vacant parcel, it provides additional housing units with a mix of housing types while encouraging community interaction with pedestrian connectivity, a more comprehensive planning and transportation system, all while respecting the existing neighborhood and the greenway that is right adjacent to it. And so, as such, we certainly believe that this is everything that our comprehensive plan has said that we want. With the main kind of thrust of our justification being appropriate versus inappropriate with the staff's finding, I do kind of want to go over what the arguments that Mr. Bailey kind of laid out that we were making. This property is very ill-suited for agricultural land. The way that the parcel is laid out, we're basically dealing with 38 acres of actual land. A majority of that acreage is either kind of cursed with the rolling topography of Kentucky or the flood plain. And I can say that it is, I can say that very factually because when this parcel, which was, this is where the water stone development is today. This property came before the Planning Commission and was asked for a zone change to EAR3. The finding that the Planning Commission made was this parcel was inappropriate for agricultural rural because of the basically the flood plain and the topography that kind of goes into that flood plain, at least in part. As you can see on the kind of dotted line, there is even more of a flood plain on this part of the parcel and we also are dealing with the kind of substantial sloping issues as we saw in those pictures that Mr. Bailey showed. We went back 50 years. We cannot find any type of livestock that was actively using this part of the land because I'm sure that the Maddens did not want to basically let any cows or horses roam headed right down into that flood plain. We also have not been able to find any consistent agricultural growth outside of hay in that time. And again, I think it's because of the lack of ability to control the flood plain led to basically not being able to have a sustainable set of crops in that exact area. Further, I have to say that this property is ready to be developed because of the infrastructure that is already available to it today and shown by the expansionary master plan. When the EMP kind of came in, it was there was a whole lot of land that came in all at once. The EMP acted as a guide to provide the community, developers, and the government as how are we going to develop this large chunk of land and not have to deal with leapfrog development where the property was not ready for that intensive development because of a lack of infrastructure. And so the EMP does a great job at providing us lists of those infrastructures. I know you all are familiar. The current property owner installed Polo Club Boulevard all the way right here. The current applicant continued the Polo Club Boulevard in this area. They also installed Blackford Parkway. All is called for in the EMP in order to make sure that this property is all suitable for development because the infrastructure is here. And I know you all know about the roads, but I don't know if you all know about the massive sewer system that is underneath this exact piece of property. Again, the current property owner installed one of the largest trunk line sewers that exist in Lexington all to basically serve this property, serve the commercial area that is on the basically west side of Polo Club and all of the existing residential in Expansion Area 2A. This owner and this applicant have installed the sewers for the entire expansion area and made sure to do it in such a way to ensure that this property could in fact be developed and is ready to be developed. I can talk about the exact same thing with regards to stormwater. EAMP laid out exactly what type of stormwater facilities need to be there, where they needed to be installed, how large they should be and this owner and this applicant have installed an overwhelming majority of the stormwater that is in this Expansion Area 2A and has been done in such a way to make sure, once again, this exact property is ready to be developed today. Now, I kind of already made this point when LFUCG brought this property in decades ago. It was done with an eye in mind and a list on how to make sure it's ready for development and it was installing all of this infrastructure we've installed. One of the lines that I found most interesting in the EAMP while going through this application is when looking on whether or not agricultural land is appropriate for this type of property, surrounded by this type of development, EAMP says it is generally understood that non-agricultural residential uses, even at relatively modest density, are not good neighbors for agricultural uses. We have well past relatively modest density for this piece of property. Now, the last point I want to make on the inappropriateness of this land to stay agricultural is what we heard throughout this 2018 Comprehensive Plan process. We do not need to expand the urban service boundary because we have a sufficient amount of vacant land today inside the urban service area to absorb the residential housing that we all know is coming. Here is the parcel, specifically called out in the vacant land map. The planning staff gave us a guide on what we are supposed to do with the vacant land. The 5,600 acres of vacant land that was on that map is broken out to a tenth of an acre on what this land should be. They use residential, commercial, and employment. You notice they do not have even a tenth of an acre slotted for future agricultural use inside the urban service area. We also have on the vacant land development, even focusing on, here is agriculturally zoned vacant land currently inside the urban service area. Every tenth of an acre is slotted for residential, commercial, or employment. Not even to stop there, the Fayette Alliance, yes sir. Excuse me one second, you have about four minutes left. I can make it in four minutes. I am sure you have a clock in your head. I was at 55 minutes yesterday at seven, so I have gotten it down, I assure you. Even the Fayette Alliance, the lobbying group for the agricultural industry specifically highlighted this parcel as a potential new residential growth area. When the ag community themselves point to a piece of property saying that it should be residential, I think it is our job to listen. Here is the finished construction aerial that we have. I have included the apartments that were approved last month for your all's sake. We really do feel that this is appropriate for the reasons that we have already got to. We have talked about how it has been inside the urban service boundary for over 20 years, slated for this exact type, these exact zones, this exact use, and this exact density, but we have done it also in such a way to make sure that we are taking into consideration the Blackford neighborhood and basically their existing context and character. Last but not least, we basically have set forward the tone for how this property will be developed by putting Blackford Parkway here, making it single loaded. We have really made sure that we are setting basically the tone as this property continues to develop in order to make sure that we have a true community feature as called for in the EAMP. Here is the zoning transition that Mr. Bailey had pointed to. If you look from the interstate system, you have the commercial into the multifamily EAR3 with a large greenway right here with an EAR2 pocket and EAR1 as we head to the urban service area boundary. Right next door, we are matching basically a very similar pattern. The CC, EAR3, EAR2, and the EAR1. This is very similar to what already exists in the neighborhood and we believe that it is the right zoning mix going forward. The last thing on setting the tone again, we basically hooked back into EAR1 in order to make sure that as this property goes, this floodway does basically get zoned to the EAR1 as called for in the expansionary master plan. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. We believe that this project should be recommended for approval and we very much appreciate staff's findings as well. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Any questions? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yes, thank you for your presentation. The improvements to Man O' War. Yes, ma'am. What exactly would the developer do versus what the state might do? If you were to ask me, the state would come down and slap some blacktop on there. What we are proposing to do is basically the curb and gutters and sidewalk systems on there like you would see in urban environments. Other questions? Yes, Mr. Pendleton. Mr. Perkins, I can't let you get by with saying that slope land is not good for cattle. We are the largest state producing cattle west of the Mississippi and we don't raise them in western Kentucky. We raise them on roaded land. Yes, sir. I want to correct you on that. I just noticed your boots were clean today. I don't think you were digging any cows out of the floodplain. The other thing, hay is a crop. It is a crop. With the drought this year, it's a very well it's a good job to have it. Just not on 30 acres alone. I also want to compliment you on the single loaded streets. I've been trying since I've been on the planning commission to get single loaded streets. It's nice to see it. Thank you, sir. Any other questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Let me ask you this real quick. Just for the record, as far as the revised staff recommendations, is 14 presumed you're in agreement? On the development plan? Yes, sir. Thank you. At this time, ask if there's anyone else that would like to speak in regards to this zone change request. Seeing none, we'll move on. That part of it would be any rebuttals. Mr. Bailey? Thank you. While the applicant did provide a good overview of the various design policies of the comprehensive plan, there are numerous other policies from the pillars of the comprehensive plan that should be addressed when looking at an application and compliance or agreement with the comprehensive plan. Again, out of the 42 that staff identified, they saw 10 that they could comply with. The other ones that they did not address include density policies, equity policies, protection policies, sustainability policies, restoration policies, livability policies, connectivity policies, place making policies, accountability policies, and growth policies. I just wanted to underline that reducing the comp plan to the design of the site is not the community's desire nor the directive of this body as it was represented by the comprehensive plan. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. So at this point I'll turn it over to the commission to ask if there's any questions from the commission for Mr. Nicholson or the staff. None? If not, we'll move on and close this part of the public hearing of this for any public discussion and open it up for comments from the commission and then a motion in regards to the zone change and the development plan. Anyone wish to have any comments? Offer any comments? Yes? I've got a comment. I've got a comment and then observations from our zoning committee hearings that we've been having. The comment is I want to commend staff that they worked with the applicant to get to a yes. We went through a lot of different ways of how to get to the yes. And I'm very pleased that they came to the decision to approve this. We spent a lot of our time in the zoning committee meeting talking about the comprehensive plan and place builder as a part of the comprehensive plan. It is my thought and understanding that the place builder is not to be a checklist, but it is a distillation of the criteria that's within the comprehensive plan. And I believe with enough time that the applicant could have gotten to a yes with the staff. This is my thoughts. That they could have gotten to a yes based on the comprehensive plan, but if they had used the place builder, they could have gotten to a yes probably quicker. And it may have allayed any concerns about lack of transparency. But as an overall, one of my other comments is we're expecting over 20,000 population growth of over 20,000 people over the next 10 years. So that's 2,000 housing units we're going to need per year. So that's single family, but it's also townhouse and apartments. So it's important to understand that those need to go into the numbers. So as we look at this one piece of land, from my eyes, we're looking at 80 residential units and 79 townhouses. That's 159 units. That's 8% of what we need to meet our growth objectives. I think this is a good plan and once again, I think you all worked together to get to an approval. Even though the place builder was not used. I appreciate that. Thank you. Others would like to speak? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have thought about this probably as much as any plan this year because the planning commission did a two-year to get to the place we got. Some of us were more in agreement with the comp plan than others, but we decided that we would go with it because the majority wanted it and it is what we're dealing with. Now, it was designed to be transparent and Mr. Bruce has already spoken to that. I think not only does the zone change have to be transparent, but I think the development plan has to be transparent and I know we're going to get another look at the development plan and I know we saw it. Several of us are on that subvision committee and we saw it. We know why it was changed and we think it's a good change, but it's not the end. There's still other things in that we are counting on you to do and this list leaves several of them that are resolved issues and so when this thing comes back to us, there's no ifs, ands, or buts. This has to be done. But I need to say this to you just to fair this to myself. I don't ever want to hold up a development plan because of failure to follow process. I've always thought the process was meant to be followed and you all have made the decision not to follow it, but to follow it on the design part. Well, it's interesting to me that the design part is what we got the most pushback from for us to look at as far as going forward with development plans. It's interesting to me that you would choose to obey the design part of it and ignore the rest of it. Now, I'm just making a comment here. So the process that we as a planning commission have decided to follow and trying to make it work, and it's an evolutionary process at best, but we think it's worth doing, the community thinks it's worth doing, and because this particular piece of property fitted the narrative of KRS is the only reason why this is going forward. I don't want the community to feel like that this is something that every piece of property going forward will fit because it won't. So that being said, that's where I want to leave it at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To be proper at this point in time with what Mr. Penn said, I would say that as far as this going forward, the recommendation is for it to go forward. We haven't voted yet. Anyone else that would like to speak? Yes, Ms. Plummer. Thank you. First, it's highly unusual to have a recommendation of approval from the staff, and in the first number one read, the applicant has not provided sufficient and complete information to demonstrate agreement. And I'm concerned about the precedent that this would create down the road. However, I also believe that each zone change is individual, and we consider that the individual aspects within that realm. So I can see where the staff has gone on this. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? If not, I'll close with my own statement. I think Ms. Plummer did mention precedent. I had a former colleague of mine probably 13 years ago while I was serving on the Board of Adjustment I would say teach me that there's a different set of circumstances with any request, with any application. If they were identical, then totally identical, identical twins, you could have a precedent setting. However, each request that we see, each piece of property has a different set of circumstances, and therefore, I think his philosophy is that there's no such thing as precedent setting in this venue still holds true today. In regards to this application myself, this is my personal feeling, is that a lot has occurred since the original application. I think a lot more could be done. When I first saw this and watched it evolve, I had a whole lot of heartache over this, simply because of the way it was presented. Taking no personal offense to Mr. Nicholson himself, I feel as though taking a different path would have provided easier and better results. Failure to address the majority of these elements of the comprehensive plan, which we've heard about, shows a lack of respect, as far as I'm concerned, for all of Lexington. This includes the staff, the Planning Commission, us here donating our time to try and make Lexington better, the city government of Lexington, the citizens of Lexington who live and work here. Everyone is after the same thing, simply to make Lexington a better place. I would only hope that this is a single occurrence and that future requests will not necessitate these types of statements that's been presented here today. With that, this part of the hearing is closed, and I'll look to my fellow commission members for a motion. This will be first and foremost for a motion for the zone change itself, which is PLN 19-10, Ball Homes Incorporated. I guess everyone's thinking. Anyone? Go ahead. Mr. Forrester, thank you for stepping up. All right, I'd like to make a motion for PLN MAR-19-10, Ball Homes Incorporated, for staff recommendations that are presented here on the supplemental staff report. With their reasons. Second. It has been made and seconded for approval of PLN MAR-19-10, Ball Homes Incorporated, for the reasons provided by staff. I would ask for everybody to vote with a show of hands. Those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed? I don't think there are any. So the motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you very much. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. We do have a development plan. I'm getting ahead of myself. Development plan for MJDP 19-36, Hember East. It's revised staff recommendations on the orange sheet, 14 conditions. I'd like to make that motion. I'll second it. For PLN MJDP 19-36, preliminary subdivision development plan with the 14 conditions provided by staff. That's for approval? For approval. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of PLN MJDP 19-36, Hember East. Those in favor, please raise your hand. Those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. We'll take a brief reset and resume in about five minutes. Just so that everybody knows if anyone slipped in afterwards, the Maxwell Street aptitude zone change request has been postponed and will be brought back up on November 21st. Let's go. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. How are you? So if everyone, if everyone take their seats. So if everyone take their seats, we'll resume. So folks, I'll call this meeting back to order. And next on the agenda would be Plan 19-15, the Urban County Planning Commission, for the Historic District Overlay Zone. There's several addresses. Goodrich Avenue, Lackawanna, Nicholasville Road, part of it, Norfolk, Pinmokin Peninsula, Rosemont Garden, Suburban, and Wabash. Let me say this. We have lost one member. I hope we do not lose another, because if we do, we will lose a quorum and we'll have to stop. So with that, brevity would be very nice and very appreciated. We want to hear from everyone. I ask let's not be repetitive. When we get to that, as with Mr. Bailey here, everybody does have time limits. So Mr. Bailey, please get us started. Thank you. We are moving to page four, item three. It's right at the bottom of your page there. This is PLNMAR 19-00015, the Urban County Planning Commission. This is your application, so any changes or as this application moves forward, it will be as recommended today to the Urban County Council. Staff's presentation today will be in two parts. The first will be from the planning staff and the recommendations that have been made regarding the application and the study. Following that presentation will be a second presentation from the representative from the Historic Preservation Office, Ms. Jamie Rice-Brother, who is the primary author of the designation report that you should have in front of you now. In this presentation, you will hear more details, or in the presentation that Ms. Brother will provide, you'll hear more of the details of the description report. So any photos that you're seeing here, you'll see the nicer photos as we move forward. This petition is for a zone map amendment to create a historic district overlay, or H1 zone, for the Pensacola Park neighborhood for approximately 94 gross acres. This area covers 96-171 Goodrich Avenue, 101-2224 Lackawanna Road, 1733-1915 Nicholasville Road, odd addresses only, 1855-1859 Norfolk Drive, 101-177 Penmoken Park, 1847-1877 Pensacola Drive, 108-199 Rosemont Garden, 105-175 Suburban Court, and 101-165 Wabash Drive. The subject area is primarily comprised of residential land uses, including single-family residential, R1C, planned neighborhood residential, R3, and high-density apartment, R4 zones. While 420 of the lots within the neighborhood are zoned for single-family residential, there are various examples of non-conforming duplexes or multifamily structures throughout this area. There is one lot that is zoned Neighborhood Business B1. It's located down here at 1915 Nicholasville Road. Currently, the lot houses El Toro Mexican Restaurant and the T-Mobile retail establishment, and some associated off-street parking. The off-street parking is actually primarily located in an R3 zone, which is in the back portion of that lot. That is a conditional use. There is a nearby historic overlay or H1 overlay with seven parks that is located along these streets here. The subject area is surrounded by a mixture of zoning and land uses. To the northwest and east boundaries of the subject area, they are characterized primarily by residential land uses. Despite the area being primarily comprised of single-family residences, there are three different classifications of zoning, single-family R1C, two-family R2, and high-density apartment R4. Along the northeastern portion of the proposed area is the Baptist Hospital Complex Zoned Professional Office, or P1, which along with the University of Kentucky is one of the major employment centers in the area. Along the northwestern portion of the proposed area is now the Shuttered General Electric Lamp Plant, which is zoned Light Industrial, or I1. South of the subject area along Southland Drive, you're seeing portions of B1 and B3 zoning, and it includes various commercial operations, including the Hampton Inn, Dave's Donuts, Don Wilson Music Company, and a few others. The subject area is in close proximity to the H1, which you can see up here as well, which mimics many of the different styles that you're seeing in this area, but as the designation report shows, this is somewhat unique compared to some of those other areas. Here we see the aerial photography, in which you can really get an idea of the differences between those residential land uses within the neighborhood, and then the surrounding businesses, Southland Drive, the hospital, portions of University of Kentucky in that area, and then the proximity to the Arboretum. Now delving into the neighborhood itself, we're looking at the frontages off of Nicholasville Road into some of these streets, so you have Goodbridge Avenue, Lackawanna Road, Wabash Drive, Penn-Moken Park, and then as we move north, Rosemont Garden, Suburban Court, and then of course, Nicholasville Road looking in towards town. Within the southern portion of the neighborhood are three local streets that serve to connect the various roads that connect out to Nicholasville Road, including Norfolk Drive, Pensacola Drive, and Chesapeake Lane, which used to be Pensacola Drive used to be Crescent Lane. It is important to note that the historic district legislation has been determined to be constitutional as it produces an equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. In other words, the neighborhood receives the average reciprocity of advantage, whereby the individuals may be restricted on some of the elements of what they can do on the exterior of their properties, but gain the benefits from the restrictions of the surrounding properties. The restrictions provide construction consistency over time, while respecting the historic character of an area. For any property within an H-1 overlay, a certificate of appropriateness is required prior to the initiation of any new construction, any exterior change to, or the demolition of all or part of any building, structure, or sign on any premises in the zone protected by the H-1 overlay. For this particular H-1 overlay, the Planning Commission initiated the application on March 28th of 2019. In the period between the initiation and the August 14th Board of Architectural Review recommendation, the staff of the Historic Preservation Office and their contractor researched and analyzed the area and produced the designation report. At a public hearing held on August 14th, the Historic Preservation Office presented their findings at the BOAR, which voted 4-0 to accept the designation report for this district and to forward it on to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. The designation report indicates that the proposed area meets five of the nine criteria necessary for local historic overlay, or H-1 zoning, as established in Article 13, Section 13-3G of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Zoning Ordinance. They include Criteria 13-3G1. It has value as part of a cultural or archaeological heritage of the county, state, or nation. Criteria 13-3G3, and I'm just going to go with the numbers as I go forward. It is identified with a person or persons or a famous entity who significantly contributed to the development of the county, state, or nation. Six, it has distinguished characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials. Seven, it has character as a geographically defined area possessing significant concentration of buildings or structures united by past events or by its plan or physical development. And then eight, it has character as an established and geographically definable residential neighborhood, agricultural area, or business district united by culture, architectural style, or physical plan and development. I will also say that for an H-1 overlay within Article 13 of the Zoning Ordinance, only one of these criteria must be met to allow for the establishment of an H-1 overlay. The 2018 Comprehensive Plan also has several goals, objectives, and policies which affirm the need for historic preservation within the community. This includes growing a successful community through well-designed neighborhoods by encouraging existing neighborhoods like Pensacola Park to flourish through the use of neighborhood character preservation. That's theme A, goal 3A. The establishment of an H-1 overlay zone in the Pensacola Park neighborhood also would allow for both the protection and enhancement of the natural and cultural landscapes that have given Lexington-Fayette-Urban County and the subject area its unique identity and image, theme D, goal 3. This is achieved through the protection of historic architectural resources, theme D, goal 3A, by requiring increased review and the requirement of a certificate of appropriateness by incentivizing the renovation, restoration, development, and maintenance of historic structures, theme D, goal 3B. This can be done through the help of historic tax credits as well as some other available credits that are out there to historic neighborhoods. It should be of note that the neighborhood is also going through a national register process which will be discussed later in the presentation. In addition to the goals and objectives, design policy 2, infill residential, can and should aim to increase density while enhancing existing neighborhoods through context-sensitive design is reinforced by the process of review established when property is located within an H-1 overlay zone. Additionally, an H-1 overlay zone supports the enhancement of the cultural and physical qualities that have shaped the Lexington community as called for in placemaking policy number 9. Finally, through the proper evaluation of the subject area as presented in the designation report, the Historic Preservation Office has shown that this area is one of Lexington's historic assets which is called for in growth policy number 5. During the review of any zone change or the establishment of an overlay zone, staff evaluates an application utilizing the whole of the adopted comprehensive plan including the goals and objectives and policies. Many of the recommendations made within the 2018 comprehensive plan are focused on the need for increasing housing opportunities within our community while making appropriate and incremental changes that respect the context of the area in which the development is occurring. This is exemplified by the need to expand housing choices, Theme A, Goal 1. By pursuing incentives and regulatory approaches that encourage creativity and sustainability in housing development, Theme A, Goal 1A. Accommodating for the demand for housing in Lexington responsibly, prioritizing higher density and mixture of housing types, Theme A, Goal 1B. Planning for safe, affordable, and accessible housing to meet the needs of older and or disadvantaged residents, Theme A, Goal 1C. And creating and implementing housing incentives that strengthen the opportunities for higher density housing affordability, Theme A, Goal 1D. The staff believes that adding density and incremental housing opportunities in the urban county while also preserving the history of the urban county or our communities and neighborhoods are not mutually exclusive. While it necessitates greater review, there are opportunities by which new and denser development can occur by working with both the Division of Planning and the Office of Historic Preservation. These opportunities will allow for the city to grow while honoring our past and looking forward towards our future. While staff does generally agree with the recommendation of the BOAR and the Office of Historic Preservation, there is one parcel that staff recommends for withdrawal from this application. 1915 Nicholasville Road is recommended for removal from this application due to its location along the very southeastern edge of the proposed H1 area, the age of the structure, and the lack of contribution to the historic district or significance of the property with respect to historic preservation. While 1915 Nicholasville Road has historically acted as a commercial property, the commercial use has changed over time. From the 1930s to the 1980s, the property acted as a boarding house or hotel like many of the other properties fronting along Nicholasville Road. The use of the property changed to purely residential following the demolition of the structure along the southern edge of the property, which was described as apartments or rooms for board. Like many of the other properties in the area, the 1915 Nicholasville Road was rezoned to single family residential R1C in 1969 during the comprehensive rezoning of the county. The property was then rezoned in 1996 with conditional zoning restrictions to the neighborhood business V1 zone. In its current form and with the zoning and modification of the property, 1915 Nicholasville Road is more representative of the commercial uses that are found south of this area along Southland Drive, rather than the residential uses and layouts proposed for the inclusion of the H1 overlay zone. Lastly, the site has already been restricted by the imposition of conditional zoning restrictions, which prohibited 18 principal permitted uses, 3 accessory uses, and 7 conditional uses within the V1 zone. These restrictions regulate both the use and function of what can occur on the site and are meant to protect against the adverse impacts of future development on the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, the configuration of the lots was not part of the original plot for the Goodrich area as shown on the 1927 subdivision plot for the Goodrich Avenue. The change that is shown between the two you see here is these lots mimic much in the same way as what you would see going up Nicholasville Road, a little bit longer, facing out on Nicholasville, and they were meant for residential use. By 1950 you see a change in which there is a consolidation of the rear portions of the lot. You see a main structure here, which was associated with the rental of the properties back in this area. There has been a change that is outside the period of construction for the vast majority of the other part of the neighborhood. As such, it does not conform to that original plot or that criteria within the justification for historic overlay zone. The proposed historic district overlay H1 zone for this area is consistent with the themes, goals, objectives, and policies of the 2018 comprehensive plan as it relates to historic preservation. Staff is recommending for approval for the following reasons. Much of this has been gone through in the previous slides, so I will reference the themes and goals. Theme A, Goal 3A, Theme D, Goal 3, Theme D, Goal 3A, Theme D, Goal 3B, Design Policy 2, Placemaking Policy 9, and Growth Policy Number 5. Much of this information will be covered during the next presentation, but it does need to be read into the record for this. The historic district overlay H1 zoning for this property is mostly consistent with the recommendation of the Board of Architectural Review for an H1 overlay district. The H1 overlay district matches the recommendations followed in the Pensacola Park Historic District H1 designation report for staff with one exception. And with the provisions of Article 13-3G of the LFUCG zoning ordinance. Specifically, the following findings... are applicable to the Pensacola Park neighborhood. The study area is a cohesive, dense concentration of significant domestic architecture, mainly dating from 1919 until 1944. This was a time of expansion and growth in Lexington's history. During the roughly 20 years, the proposed historic district development offered well-designed, affordable, well-built homes to many first-time homeowners and others. The area includes over 400 period pieces of the residential architecture popular during the development of Lexington between the wars. That's World War I and World War II. The historic buildings within the proposed district cover a range primarily of small and medium-scale houses of one and one half-story in height. The area also includes a limited number of two-story and larger houses, primarily those houses fronting on Nicholasville. The structures within the study area are representative of several nationally popular architectural styles, quite representative of the development period, including Colonial Revival Craftsman, Bungalow, Tudor Revival, American Forestware, and Small American House. The level of architectural integrity is very high throughout the study area. The historic houses maintain their character-defining styles and forms. The streetscapes and layout remain unchanged. There are very few incidents of adverse character-altering changes to the structures or sites within the boundaries of the proposed district. This, again, goes through the criteria of Article 13-3G. We have read through these as how this represents what we are looking for historic overlays within our area. Again, it does meet five of the nine criteria. For a historic overlay, all that is necessary is just one. Finally, staff is recommending with the withdrawal of 1915 Nicholasville Road for the following reasons. The fact that this area is along that southern portion of the site and does not disrupt the integrity of the neighborhood that shifts in the plats from 1930 to the 1950s. The different type of zoning, as well as the conditional zoning restrictions for the property, and the construction of the structure itself. It is a 1998 construction and is not representative of the stylings that we are seeing elsewhere in the neighborhood. With that, this is my portion of the staff presentation. If you have any questions on this, I'd be happy to answer them now. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. You'll have an opportunity later when you speak. Any questions from the commission at this point? Yes, sir. On this map here, could you clarify the black dashed lines? The black dashed lines are different zoning lines. Primarily, it goes around the exterior of it. The only different areas of zoning, you'll see this area right here, which is the R4 or the high density apartment. This area right down here on your map, it is actually outlined. That is the R3 portion. Then you have a B1 and an R3 located right here. The rest of the neighborhood, or the 420 properties, are zoned R1C or single family residential. Other questions? Yes. You mentioned there's an H1 adjoining. It's actually north. Cherokee Park is located right here. The properties north of Cherokee Park, here, here, and into here, are all part of the seven parks H1 overlay. Are the properties adjoining? I can't see that far. The properties on Nicholasville Road in that area in the H1 as well? Yes. The properties in these neighborhoods right here, which their fingers extending off of Nicholasville Road, those properties that front on Nicholasville are within the H1 overlay for seven parks. Other questions? Mr. Bagley, let me ask you this, just for clarification. You mentioned the one piece of property at 1915. Is there other businesses, I would presume, maybe on Nicholasville Road that is part of this? Not part of this, sir. Not part of this, as a conditional use or anything? Oh, I'm sorry, the dentist office. That is up in this area. Just for clarification, it can be part of this and just adhere to the overlay without any changes? Yes. The H1 overlay does not preclude a zone change. It does not preclude any densification. That is staff's position in all of this, in reviewing the comprehensive plan and compliance with the comprehensive plan, is that even an H1 does not stop other things from occurring. It does not preclude demolition either. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Bagley? If not, Mr. Brother? I'm Janie Rice Brother, Historic Preservation Consultant, and thank you. It's a pleasure to be here today to talk about this neighborhood. Prior to Pensacola Park developing as an attractive, affordable, well-located suburb on the south side of Lexington, it was farmland. In 1898, the land that would become the historic neighborhood we're talking about today was purchased by L.C. Price, a retired businessman who had decided to enjoy rural life and raise Shetland ponies on his new farm, Pinmoken Farm, on the Nicholasville Pike. But his businessman's instincts didn't go away, for Price also worked as a developer, buying property so that the Interurban Railway might expand out Nicholasville Pike, and planning his own suburban residential development of homes with parcels ranging from two to ten acres. Price died before his dreams could be realized, so others developed Pinmoken Farm at just the right time to take advantage of a growing, working middle class, eager to own their first homes, all built on the streetcar line in popular and attractive architectural styles. And here you can see some of the advertisements that ran in the newspapers of the day. The first plat was filed in 1919, and there was a great deal of excitement about this new subdivision on the south side of Lexington, a new suburb. When the first plat was filed, it was a time when America was embracing new types of houses and styles that drew on the nation's past, like ... And here you can see the 1934 Sanborn map that shows a great deal of the neighborhood already built out by that time, except for the south end, excuse me. The colonial revival style, like the other styles found in the neighborhood, were a response to the excesses of the Victorian era. The facade is usually plain and symmetrical with classical detailing. These homes are rectangular or square in shape, and two to two and a half stories in height. These houses, there are around 10 in the proposed historic district, are larger than most of the other housing stock in the Pensacola Park neighborhood, and many are located on the gateway to the neighborhood, Nicholsville Road, serving as an attractive and enticing entry to the new suburb. The craftsman style and the house type most associated with it, the bungalow, was all the rage in the 1920s and the 1930s. Some of the best bungalows in Lexington can be found in this neighborhood, and there are 188 bungalows in Pensacola Park. These one to one and a half story houses with low pitched roofs and simple, straightforward designs made their small lots look bigger. Characteristics of the style include wide porches, dormers, a low profile, and a horizontal emphasis to the entire house, double hung windows, exposed rafter tails, and brackets. The American Four Square is a larger house type, two to two and a half stories, named because there are four rooms on each floor. It's often also built in the craftsman style. There are only three of these in the proposed district. As I said, they are larger than most of the other houses. The two to revival style was incredibly appealing to young couples and families buying their first home in the popular new suburb. There are 36 two to revival houses in the neighborhood with sharply peaked gables, arches, faux half timbering, and large chimneys. The Dutch colonial revival style, as its name suggests, looked to houses built by Dutch settlers to America. It always has a gambrel roof and usually a full porch with a shed roof dormer and symmetrical facade. There are four Dutch colonial revivals in the proposed district. The Cape Cod house is the most common form of the one to one and a half story colonial revival house. The typical Cape Cod in the Pensacola Park neighborhood has a balanced, symmetrical facade with the front door usually highlighted with classical details. Many of the Cape Cods also have dormers. There are 69 Cape Cods in the proposed historic district. The minimal traditional houses are a simplified version of the two to revival, and were built the 1930s through the 1950s. They lack the detailing of the two to revival. They usually have an offset cross gable on the facade and chimneys on the end. There are 52 minimal traditionals in the proposed district. The American small house is a compact, usually one story house that was purchased by many veterans of World War II returning home to Lexington and buying their first house in a desirable suburb outside of the city limits. These simple houses lent themselves to expansion. Another room could easily be added on as a young family grew. There are 32 of this type of house in the neighborhood. There are some more recent additions to the neighborhood, some that have been covered, but there are only 11 structures that have been built in the neighborhood in the last few decades that were not built between the historic construction time of the overall development. The proposed district developed cohesively over a set period of time, roughly 1919 to the mid-20th century, with similar type houses, all drawn from nationally popular styles, all designed to be appealing and affordable for working and middle class residents. The suburban nature of the proposed district means that every house has a front yard, driveway, and a comparable setback from the street. The developers of the neighborhood extol the beautiful location and delightful surroundings of the suburbs, and this character is still very much intact. There is a rhythm to each street in the district, a rhythm that is apparent from the plats because the development very closely followed the plats. You have sidewalk, front yard, porch, small houses with narrow side yards, and many with garages set at the rear of the parcel. The district is an excellent representation of a suburb built and developed mostly between the World Wars. The houses, over 400 on about 95 acres, are like a catalog of American styles from that time period. This neighborhood is historic and significant. It's one of the largest residential developments on the south side of Lexington in the early 20th century. If you were to walk through the neighborhood today, the character of the proposed district is readily apparent. Although, just like people, the appearance and some of the modifications of the houses have happened, many houses, despite these updates, do not detract from the overall cohesive feeling of the area. If any of the original residents, were they alive today, were to walk through these streets, they would instantly recognize and feel at home in this neighborhood, just as they would have done in 1920 when this splendid new development started selling lots. Although almost 100 years has passed since the first plat was filed, Pensacola Park remains very much a working middle class neighborhood with an array of historic homes that are architecturally intact and representative of the time period when they were built. There is a distinct sense of place. The streets follow the pattern first laid out in the plats. The porches are well used, the sidewalks well traveled, and the houses retain stylistic details, including window and door surrounds, cornices, porches, fenestration patterns, roof forms, and other elements that convey the historic style and design of each building. The National Register nomination that is also being prepared for this district has been received by the Kentucky Heritage Council and will be reviewed by the review board in the spring. If there are any questions, either Betty Kerr, Director of Historic Preservation, or I, are happy to answer this. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Brother. Any questions in regards to this at the moment? No? Okay. Thank you. Before you switch over, staff would like to hand out some letters of support and opposition. What we have today are two letters of strong support, as much as we've got, and then three letters of opposition that I'll hand to you now. Okay. Thank you. What we're going to do at this point is we do want to hear from everyone. As I mentioned, we do have time limits. Ms. Tracy Wade will be trying to keep up with it and start waving an orange piece of paper at everyone, probably when about two minutes is gone. I've got a clock up here myself. We'll try and keep up with it. I've had one person ask for more time, given justifications. He asked for ten minutes. I'm going to try and keep him down to about six minutes. He does have a couple of different pieces of properties that he's representing and would like to talk about, so we're going to try and hold him to six minutes. At this point, there's been no other requests. I'm going to ask everyone to stay on three minutes. As far as the gentleman that did have a question, please, when you come forward, ask the question. We'll get a response to you after we hear from everybody. There'll be a rebuttal chance in which ourselves or the staff will be able to respond to you on that. We do have a list. I would ask those that are in support of, we're going to try and call them up. Come forward and you'll have three minutes. We're going to call a couple of names, two or three names at each time so that the second and third person can be close to the microphone and hopefully speed the process up. So with that, it looks like Moana Jackwith is the first one, followed by, can you read these? Kevin Katie and Candace Wallace. Mr. Chairman and Planning Commission members, I am Wanda Jackwith, a member of the Historic Preservation Commission, and I am representing Chairman David Cohen who is out of town. Additionally, I come before you as someone very actively involved in the designation process for two of Lexington's local historic districts, South Ashland Central Avenue and Ashland Park. Obviously, I do support Pensacola Park's pursuit of a local historic designation, but so does the Historic Preservation Commission, as evidenced by their discussion and directive to Chairman Cohen at our October meeting. I will read the letter the Historic Preservation Commission members unanimously charged the chair to write. I have provided the original to the clerk for the record. Dear Mr. Owens and members of the Planning Commission, the LFUCG Historic Preservation Commission, HPC, met on October 14, 2019, to review and discuss the Pensacola Park neighborhood's request to have their neighborhood designated as a local historic district. The HPC concurs with the research and findings noted in the H-1 designation report, a copy of which has been provided to all members of the Planning Commission. The HPC members reflected in their considerations the Pensacola Park area proposed for local historic designation strongly meets not just one but several of the criteria set forth in Article 13 and described in detail within the designation report, which summarizes the architectural history, integrity, and character of the area. The HPC noted as well the proposal supports the vision and recommendations reflected in the LFUCG 2018 Comprehensive Plan, Imagine Lexington. As you are aware, the Comprehensive Plan notes the importance of preserving and protecting existing neighborhoods and the Pensacola Park neighborhood is an excellent example of an historic area that merits such recognition, designation, and protection. The HPC members also discussed how important it is the entire area proposed for the Pensacola Park H-1 overlay with all of its individual properties be included within the boundaries of the local historic district designation. Historic districts should include whole properties and an uninterrupted sequence of properties with a logical, well-defined perimeter boundary. The proposed Pensacola Park area boundaries reflect a very intact neighborhood whose boundaries today continue to reflect the same boundaries as when the area was platted and developed approximately 80 to 100 years ago. Ms. Jackwith, we do have your letter here in which it appears to read, and I would encourage you to get to the last paragraph since you're approaching the four minutes. After due deliberation, the HPC made a motion and voted unanimously to urge the Planning Commission to support the designation of the proposed Pensacola Park as a local historic district with the defined boundaries as requested by the Pensacola Park Neighborhood Association and as initiated by the Urban County Planning Commission, and for the Planning Commission to forward the nomination in its entirety to the Urban County Council with the recommendation for designation in its entirety. Also, the Historic Preservation Commission adopted the findings, criteria, and recommendation contained in the designation report and its appendices. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Jackwith. Either one of y'all. Come right ahead. My name is Candace Wallace. I live at 130 Goodrich Avenue. I also own a rental property within Pensacola Park on Pensacola Drive, and I currently rent it to my mother, so you can feel a little sorry for me on that one. I ended up being one of the ad hoc organizers for the H1, and when our neighborhood began exploring the H1 process in October of actually last year, we quickly realized that education was one of the biggest issues when it came to whether or not to pursue this historic overlay. There were a lot of misconceptions about what an H1 was, particularly for a neighborhood like ours. Our neighborhood provided educational materials and held weekly meetings to discuss the pros and cons of pursuing an H1 overlay, and once we hashed that out, a lot of us, about 35, 40, we went door-to-door contacting every single resident to see what they thought. For those that were not owner-occupied, we used the addresses that were available on the PBA's website and sent letters and asked if they would sign an initial petition for us to submit to the planning department. This first step took several months and involved approximately 150 volunteer hours from various neighbors. Out of the 420 homes canvassed, we received 65% of the support from the neighborhood. That was just to initiate this planning application. As Mr. Bailey previously mentioned, when a second, well he actually didn't mention it this time, sorry, in the previous zoning committee meeting back in early October, he showed that there was a support for it when they sent out the mailers to actually launch this in March of this year. We received 72.5% from those that responded back from the planning staff. We also started a 501c3 nonprofit organization to help raise funds for the neighborhood improvements and to assist neighbors that may be struggling with varying housing repairs for this neighborhood. To continue our outreach, we also started a website, PensacolaPark.org, that's filled with up-to-date information about events and happenings within the neighborhood, including where our now monthly meetings are held. Recognizing that not all folks in our neighborhood are on the web, we have a monthly newsletter, which I believe Mike has handed out to you. That was our newsletter from this month. It shares a calendar of upcoming events and introduces folks that live in the neighborhood, a contractor's corner geared toward our historical houses and specific neighborhood events. As a part of the grant to have the historic designate... About 30 seconds. Sure. Report completed. Two PhDs and a professional architect provided over 400 hours of volunteer service for the report that was delivered by Ms. Jamie Rice. We are still committing over 50 hours of volunteer work toward this organization and toward this neighborhood. Ultimately, this is not something our neighborhood took lightly. It has been a big commitment and a lot of dedication from us all. It's also been a huge dedication from your planning staff and your historic department, and I thank you all for that. Just for a moment, a lot of some people have left, but if everybody here could just take a moment and stand that supports the H1 that is here, I would really appreciate it. And thank you all. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Keddie. Coming up would be, I believe, Carol Hussle and Martha Burmese Gillespie. Mira. Mira, okay. Be next in line. Yes, sir. My name's Kevin Catlick. Hello, everybody. Thanks for being here. I live at 103 Penn Mokin Park. I purchased the home about three months ago, so I'm new to the neighborhood. I wanted an old bungalow, and I purchased a 95-year-old Craftsman bungalow that's pretty much true to its architecture. The neighborhood's a very cohesive, eclectic neighborhood. I think we have diversity. I love the architecture of the homes. I'd love to see it stay that way rather than become one of our modern neighborhoods. That's pretty much what I have to say. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. My name is Carol Hulse, and I live at 120 Wabash Drive, and I've lived there 26 years. I'm in favor of the H1 designation and protection of Pensacola Park. In addition, I'm a 26-year member of Hunter Presbyterian Church, which also supports the H1 designation and protection of the Nicholasville Corridor, which they are a significant property owner on both Rosemont Garden and Nicholasville Road. Thank you. Thank you. On deck would be Phil Theobald and Barbara Zolenska, maybe. Yes, ma'am. Hi. My name's Merith Birmingham Gillespie. I live at 164 Penmoken Park. We, as a neighborhood association, representing Pensacola Park, and I and my husband as a long-term homeowner of 31 years, first home, last home, unless I leave if things get worse. I'm a resident on Penmoken Park and completely in favor of receiving an H1 historic designation. We have been involved and active regarding this issue since last October. First and foremost, we are not and never have been opposed to development. We simply and repeatedly want new building and or renovation to fit the rest of our neighborhood and character and appearance, which we thought the comprehensive plan included. We were wrong. I guess we were wrong because it didn't happen. We fear that without the H1 designation that we will continue to watch the hodgepodge of new construction and demolition already creeping into our neighborhood. Take, for example, the property at 1847 Nicholasville Road, an historic home that contained ten affordable rental properties for those people who do not have what a lot of us do. It served a purpose. I would like to know where our low-income housing is coming in all of this discussion on infill and everything. What was a historic home that was demolished under the pretense of replacing the house with multi-unit townhouses? Housing density and infill were at the time presented as the intention of the developer. Now this is not going to be the outcome. Apparently the developer can now build without adhering to his original plan and presentation. I understand there are going to be now four homes built on this property with all of the driveways facing out to Penn-Milken Park. I do not know that for a fact, but it was not what was proposed, so someone can educate me on this please. Not only does this place, the entrance to Penn-Milken Park, in a vulnerable position as far as compatibility with the overall appearance of our neighborhood, but people who occupied some of that property were displaced in the process, one of which I helped and gave him my own money and transported him to find housing. We cannot afford to lose housing that is affordable, and we should strive to protect density that is already a part of the built environment. We cannot forget those who are not rich. Thank you, ma'am. On deck, once again, Barbara Zolinska, possibly? She left. She left, okay. Vicki Birnbaum and Hanley Lawler. Yes, sir. My name is Phil Theobald. I live at 108, I'm sorry, 128 Rosemont Garden. I am the owner of that property and also live there, and at this time, I would like to defer my three minutes to Jessica Voigt. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am, I'm sorry. I thought maybe there was someone before me. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens and members of the Planning Commission. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. My name is Vicki Bierenberg, and I am the Planning Coordinator at the Kentucky Heritage Council, which is the State Historic Preservation Office. It is our mandate to administer the policies and programs of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Commonwealth, which includes the identification, evaluation, designation, and protection of our state's significant historic resources. I am here today with my colleague, Lisa Thompson, who manages the National Register of Historic Places program for Kentucky. The National Register is our country's official list of buildings, districts, sites, structures, and objects that merit historic preservation efforts. Lexington Fayette Urban County Government is a certified local government, which is an active partnership between designated communities and our office. This partnership is designed to promote the use of federal and state historic preservation standards at the local level and further the goals and objectives of our State Historic Preservation Plan. The Urban County Government has been a designated certified local government since 1988, and reference to its status as a CLG is contained throughout Article 13 of the Zoning Code, which is the Historic Preservation Ordinance. One of the advantages of our partnership is our ability to sub-grant federal historic preservation funds to our CLG partners, and we were very, very pleased to receive an application from the Historic Preservation Office to complete a survey and National Register of Historic Places nomination for Pensacola Park in early 2019. Both our professional staff and council felt that the neighborhood was eligible for the National Register designation as a historic district. We awarded $16,200 for the completion of the project, which was matched with both staff time and neighborhood volunteer hours, as Candace Wallace mentioned. We anticipate, well, this effort laid the groundwork for the local designation report, and we anticipate that the National Register nomination will be heard by our State Review Board in April of 2020, and then it will move to the National Park Service for final review. Once completed, the designation will allow residents of Pensacola Park to utilize the Kentucky Historic Preservation Tax Credit, which will provide an incentive to keep the integrity of the properties intact when undertaking rehabilitation work. We are here today to reiterate our support for the approval of the H-1 overlay for Pensacola Park, with the recommended boundary in the designation report, which corresponds to the National Register boundary. I say reiterate because our agency director, Craig Potts, sent a letter of support in early October, which you all should have received. I do have extra copies, if that has not made it into the record. Okay, thank you. Ms. Berrybaum, your time is about up, so please conclude. This district has a very high level of architectural integrity. The overlay will assist in maintaining those qualities that make it eligible for National Register designation, and we also support the overlay because we are very aware of the contribution that local historic districts make to a community's sense of identity and quality of life. So we strongly urge you to approve this application today. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. On deck would be him. He's coming up. Michael Bardo and Allison Grinnell. And let me say real quick, I did not earlier, I am not a fan of deferring time to someone else. We want to hear from everyone, and we do have a procedure in place to ask for more time if needed, as I mentioned earlier on. With the one that came to the podium, I will allow it, but as I said, I'm not a fan. Let's try and stick to the time limit. Yes, sir. Yes, my name is Hanley Lawler. I live at 197 Rosemount Garden with my wife. I, my wife, and my daughter moved in there 14 years ago, bought it when it was repossessed and run down, and put a large amount of time, money, and sweat into rebuilding and refurbishing that house, and watched the neighborhood grow up around us while we did. My now adult daughter lives also at 199 Rosemount Garden, so also within the area. I don't want to belabor points that you've already heard a dozen times, so I'll just say please support me and my family and my neighbors as we make an effort to try to preserve the nature and quality of our homes and to preserve our investment in our homes or neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thanks for letting me speak. I wanted to, I'm Michael Bardo. I live at 107 Lackawanna. I've lived there since, with my wife since 1992, and I wanted to open with a quotation from Vice Mayor Kaye, who said when talking about our neighborhood specifically, and I quote, there are corridors, and then there are corridors, and that's what I want to bring to your attention. This neighborhood that I live in, if you look to my left, there's a UK professor. If you look to my right, there's a VTC professor. If you look across the street, there's a UK physician. This is a very popular neighborhood for faculty and staff at the University of Kentucky. I'm a professor. I've been a professor since 1982. I'm a lifer, and I've done a lot of recruiting over the years of new faculty to come into our department, and I want to just imagine driving with me to pick up an applicant to sell them on the university. When I come to the airport, they've just gotten off the plane and seen the iconic image of our great horse farms. This is their first introduction, and then I pull around. We pull around New Circle Road on the south side, and I turn north on Nicholasville to come into the university, and what do I see on my left? I see a Wendy's. I see a McDonald's. I see a Burger King. I have nothing against those fast food restaurants I've eaten in all of them, but not until I get to Southland Drive do I get that, you know what I'm talking about, aha, this is what might attract me. The architecture on your left and on your right, and I know we're just talking about on the left now, is stunning in contrast, and this is just before you get into this visual entryway into not only the university but into downtown. I know within the faculty and staff at the University of Kentucky, residential areas, some people prefer new, some people prefer historic, and I really urge you to make sure that we continue to preserve our neighborhood the way it is currently constructed, and that's what I would like for you to consider. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is Allison here? Do you want to speak? No, you need a microphone so we can get you on record. If you're going to speak, we want to hear you. T.L. Wise and Chris Clendenin, maybe, next on deck. Hi there. I'm Allison Connell, I live at 155 Goodrich. I actually have just really two questions. One is, does the designation decrease property values and inhibit people from changing out single pane windows or energy efficient changes to their houses? Because there's quite a few rental properties on Rosemont, and I wondered if that would be prohibitive for people to do things that they might otherwise do that takes regulation to do. So it's really just questions. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? No, so one was property value, and then two, does it, or solar energy too, does that? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Those will be addressed in the rebuttal phase, but thank you for bringing up your questions. Yes, sir. T.L. Wise, is he here? Okay. Mr. Clendenin. Mr. Chairman, I'm an attorney representing a property owner on suburban core. If there's any more people who are in support of this who wish to speak and go before me, I'm glad to take my seat and wait until we're finished. There are others, but there's two that's been signed up as opposition, so we're happy to just take you in order. Now, I want to make it very clear that my client, I represent Greystone Lodge, that is Mr. David Johnson, he's the principal member of that. He is not opposed to the H1 for the rest of the neighborhood. The difference between where his property is located, his property is 1739 Nicholasville Road. It's on the extreme north end, and it's zoned R4. Mr. Bailey, you had a map on your presentation, if you could pull that up so I could show the commission members what I'm talking about. And I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. I know my time is ticking. Yeah, it is. Okay. You want Mr. Bailey to act as quick as possible. Thank you. Let's see if I've got a pointer. Okay, right there. If you see this red line here, my client's property is this parcel right here. All of the people that we've heard from, all of this neighborhood here, my understanding, is all zoned R1C. My client's property is zoned R4. What it is, is a rooming house. It used to be a pretty common thing on Nicholasville Road, a boarding house, a rooming house in the 20s and 30s and 40s. It was very common. This structure is zoned R4. It was built in 1926, and it is an example of colonial revival, but it's not the only one in the neighborhood. There's nothing historically significant about it. FDR didn't spend the night there or anybody else famous. There's no reason that this particular property has to be included in the H1 overlay. It has nine bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a community kitchen. My client bought this last year as an investment. He's a person. He's not a developer. He's not some big mega-developer, rich person who's bought it as an investment, had no idea that this was happening. And all that we're asking is this, is that the rest of the neighborhood is very much in support of all of these single-family R1C homes. If they want to be H1, he's very much in support of that. This property is not front south of Baptist Hospital. It is directly across from Baptist Hospital. It is not R1C. It is not a single-family home. All we're asking is this property, and I think you'll hear from Mr. Wolburn very shortly. He has the two properties that are adjacent that are also zoned R4. We're asking for these properties to be removed from this. They're on the very edge of this proposed H1. And that's all that we're asking is that if we're not opposing the H1, we just want to be removed. It does nothing to take away from the neighborhood or the character. We're also in agreement with the staff that the 1915 property where they have the T-Mobile and the restaurant, we agree with that, too, that that should be removed. So we're talking about properties that are at the very southern edge of this, fronting Nicholasville Road, and the very northern edge, fronting Nicholasville Road. Everything else in between, God bless and good luck, and I hope you all get what you want. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Miriam Clear? On Wabash? No? Mike Breyer on Shady Lane? And then also Tim Curla on West Maxwell Street. He may have been here for something else. So next would be Jackson Osborne. Thank you, Chairman of the Commission. My name is Mike Brower. I live at 114 Shady Lane, which is east on Nicholasville Road across from Pensacola Park, and I'm about a block up on that street, and I just wanted to say that Pensacola Park has done a wonderful job of keeping the area notified about what's going on. I found out about this a year ago, October, so they've done a very good job of notification as far as I'm concerned, and I just wanted to say briefly that I support the overlay to preserve the character of this older neighborhood that I believe is an asset to Kentucky as much as any other property in the city, and with that, I've said what I wanted to say. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. On deck would be Rebecca Glasscock and then Walt Gaffill. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Jackson Osborne. I'm here representing the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation in support of the Zone Map Amendment to create a historic district overlay for the Pensacola Park neighborhood. The Pensacola Park neighborhood is unspoiled, as noted in the staff's recommendation. With a very high level of architectural integrity, the historic houses maintain their character-defining styles and forms, and the streetscape and layout remain unchanged. If you grab the H-1 zoning overlay for the neighborhood, you guarantee the preservation of this neighborhood and its history for generations to come. The citizens who support the recognition of a historic district for Pensacola Park know how special their neighborhood is and see it as their cultural and social responsibility to preserve and protect the existing character of the neighborhood. The addition of Pensacola Park will be more than just what is good for the neighborhood, but good for the city as a whole. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. Walt Gaffill, you're on deck. I'm Rebecca Glasscock. I live on Wabash. I've lived there for a little bit over 25 years. My mother, who will be 95 in December, lives in an assisted living facility. There's always a jigsaw puzzle in progress on the table there. If the residents used up all the pieces and one edge was missing, they'd be terribly upset. While they'd be able to see what the picture is in general, the puzzle would be incomplete. That's the way I feel about our neighborhood, except much more strongly. Collectively, the homes, the yards, the trees in Pensacola Park make up an architecturally stunning, interesting, cohesive whole and must be protected intact. Our neighborhood was developed with houses typical of the period in terms of architectural style as well as the size. Some of the homes are as small as 900 square feet and range up to about 2,000 square feet with a few larger ones along Nicholasville Road, similar to some of the houses along Richmond Road in the Ashland Park area. Most are detached single-family homes, but the neighborhood also includes some similarly scaled, properly scaled duplexes and apartments. It was developed as a middle and working-class neighborhood between World War I and World War II, as has already been mentioned, and it remains that, a working and middle-class neighborhood. The neighborhood is intergenerational with many young families as well as older residents who, like me, are able to age in place due to affordability and the scale of the neighborhood. To an extent that I have never experienced before in my life, the neighborhood is walkable, welcoming, and supportive. The neighborhood could be Disneyfied, I suppose, but it won't and probably couldn't be replicated. I ask that you recognize our neighborhood in its totality as a valuable part of Lexington's history, its present, and its future, and name it what it is, a historic neighborhood that deserves to be preserved and treasured. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. After Mr. Gaffield, we've got Kay Meyer and Jody McKee on deck. Yes, sir. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. The Neighborhood Council Board voted unanimously to support this H-1 designation. I'm going to speak very briefly. It does come to mind. I've been thinking about the Oregon District in Dayton, Ohio. It's completely H-1, and it's absolutely a booming commercial area and residential area, and it's something that Lexington does not really have yet. I mean, it's like Jefferson Street on steroids. So anything can happen with an H-1 designation if it's handled properly. Last comment, I'm tremendously impressed with the work of the neighborhood. Working on this, it's almost impossible to organize a neighborhood like that and accomplish something like this, and I urge the commission to vote in favor of this. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. My name is Kay Myers, and while I reside presently at 1511 Richmond Road, I lived for 40 years at 140 Penmoken Park. I only moved because I moved across town to care for an aging parent, and I did not want to sell my home. That's how much the neighborhood means to me. So I've had my son and his family now in residence babysitting the house, waiting for me to have an opportunity to come back. I'm beginning to wonder if he is going to let me, because he was raised in that house. He loves that neighborhood and has spent the last two weeks crying because one of the trees that used to be the climbing tree had to be cut down by the utility company. He might not get over it. But I wanted to come today, because eventually I'm going to get my father's affairs sorted out, and I will come home, and home is Penmoken Park and that neighborhood where I raised my family and lived for 40 years. That's how much it means to me and to everyone else. I did have one little interesting comment about the gentleman who was asking that his property on the north end of the square be removed. I can appreciate the sentiment, but there are two differences between his property and the property that is being excluded on the south end. The south end is a cheap strip mall building, nothing of the original architecture. His building is the original architecture. The other interesting thing is when my father bought the house on Richmond Road in the early 70s, the house next door was a rooming house on the corner of Sherman and Richmond Road. It is no longer a rooming house, obviously. As the gentleman that lives there and has lived there for quite some time can tell you, simply because it is set up as a rooming house now doesn't mean it has to stay that way. That particular piece of property you can't see from the square is a very lovely piece, and I wish you would look at a picture of that property before you automatically consider it to be excluded simply by its present use. Thank you. Thank you. On deck would be Dennis Webb and Tenley Tanney, I believe, on Goodridge. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. I'm Jody McKee, and I live at 128 Penmulken Park. I'm a neighbor of Kay who just spoke. I have lived there for over 40 years. When I got up the other day and went out to get my newspaper, I thought to myself, something's a little different. And then I realized after a moment or two, the tree was gone, the tree that Kay mentioned. When you love your neighborhood, you notice things like that, and I noticed that. I was sorry to see it go, but I realize sometimes how trees go and we have to replace them. I have three properties on Penmulken. I have for a long time, and I am very much in favor and encourage you to approve the historic district overlay for our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir. My name is Dennis Webb, and I live at 120 Suburban Court. My wife and I have lived there for 30 years. First, I would like to address the gentleman about the Greystone Lodge. I did send them a ballot to vote for the H-1, or to vote against the H-1 overlay, so they should have known about that because I did, in fact, send them a ballot to the PVA owner of record when all this came up. So I just want to make sure that that's understood, that I did give them the opportunity to vote no on the overlay. Like I said, I've lived there for 30 years on Suburban Court, and we are asking the Planning Commission to please implement the Board of Architecture review recommendation to approve the entire H-1 overlay, including Nicholasville Road. Our neighborhoods, they're very diverse and reflect all income levels, and I do want to bring up one example of what can happen. Houses are generally very affordable in our neighborhood because it's not the 40502. It's a park. It's not the 40502. And that's why we say we are not a zip code. We are a park. There's a big difference there. A recent house sold on Pinmochan about two months ago for $135,000. I think that's an affordable, and it's a bungalow that basically needed some cosmetic work, but that's an affordable house, and the same thing in a different zip code would probably cost twice that much money. There's a house on my street that was the result of a tear down back in about 2016. There was an old house there. It had been allowed to run down, but we didn't have any H-1 protection, and so a developer bought that house, knocked it down, and built a four-bedroom, four-bathroom home that has been a two-story house with vinyl sides and a brick front. He's been renting that house to college students, and he has put it on the market, and he started out wanting $365,000 for that house. He has since dropped it to $340,000. So that is an example of what can happen to our neighborhood as far as the affordability if we lose houses in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, sir. On deck, we have Bill Egan and Dee Bailey. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Hi, my name is Tenley Terrier, and I live at 99 Goodridge Avenue. I've lived there with my husband for 22 years, and I totally support the H-1, and I support the whole area that was originally proposed. I was going to talk about walking in the neighborhood and how the neighborhood is so important. It's a walkable neighborhood. Everybody knows each other. Everybody knows the kids. Everybody knows the dogs. But I guess I'm concerned at this point from comments that I've heard from people that, you know, let's exclude this part of Nicholsville. Let's exclude that part of Nicholsville. Let's exclude this part. And I thought the comprehensive plan had to do with increasing density, increasing businesses, increasing neighborhoods so they're not exactly everything's just housing. And so what I'm hearing is, oh, this is a restaurant. Let's exclude it. Oh, this is this. Let's exclude it. I think the whole area is a neighborhood, and, you know, if you ask anybody about El Toro, the restaurant that wants to be excluded, you ask somebody, that is our neighborhood restaurant. It's like neighborhoods used to have grocery stores on the corner. You know, they used to have other stores on the corner, and that was part of the neighborhood. And to me, El Toro is part of our neighborhood. And other places that can have more density than a single house, they can still be part of our neighborhood. So when people look at it and go, this is a historic neighborhood, oh, it's only single-family houses. That's all we want to have in our neighborhood. We never said that, and we are not against development. I think the area needs to be all the area that we asked for originally, including El Toro. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Bill Egan, and my wife and I, Dee Bailey, live at 105 Wabash Drive, and we've lived there since 1995. We also own a smaller home at 157 Wabash that our daughter rents, and we've spent these last 25 years making improvements. Our properties, our neighbors have done the same. Our neighborhood is just blooming. We've raised our children here and did our best to create a safe and diverse, welcoming community. So a key issue here is that our neighborhoods are kind of cheap investments for developments. The land is cheaper, and without any design guidelines, on an ordinance level, developments can be drastically reshaped the neighborhood in a matter of months. Established neighborhoods have grown over the years with the investments of the homeowners and the renters, and to completely undermine monetary contributions of the neighborhood by allowing carte blanche development from outside investors is an affront to the established neighborhood. The historic overlay offers only real protection in regards to the design guidelines. One of the biggest problems with cutting off properties of the historic district is that there is not a clean boundary line for the designation. One of the things that's happened in my backyard, I have a large backyard on Wabash Drive, and I think I have six neighbors that my deep yard touches. I've watched from my patio 1847 being demolished, the trees knocked down and the great old home. Well, here recently, two houses, 106 and 108. About 30 seconds, Mr. Egan. Suburban, they remodeled both the houses, came in, I guess the owner owns both houses, came in, cut down all the trees in the backyard, tore out the grass, the shrubs, put in gravel, and two or three days ago black topped it. It doesn't seem right. Without the H1, that can happen more and more, and please help us save our neighborhood. Thank you, sir. Ms. Bailey and then Wanda Beckley is on deck, followed by Peggy Williams. Hi. My name is Dee Bailey. I live at 105 Wabash with my husband. First of all, I just want to thank you for hearing our concerns and ask for your vote for the H1 overlay, because we do want to protect this unique neighborhood. My husband and I have thought, well, he has explained that one part of our yard has been compromised already. So besides raising our children, keeping this home in this safe, welcoming and unique neighborhood has been our life work. This will be our children's inheritance. So we're here to ask you to support and preserve this neighborhood that is an asset to this city. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. The thing that I wanted to mention that I forgot to is it is amazing to me how many of our children that are raised in this neighborhood return to live in the neighborhood. My daughter lives there. My son has lived there. So many of the children from other families moved back. I think that's important. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Beckley, is she here? No. Peggy Williams. Yes. Thank you, ma'am. Lee Powers, followed by Mac Gooden. Mac Gooden says he'd like to concede his time to Jessie Vogt. She's already got additional three minutes. Okay. Jessie Vogt? You've got six minutes, ma'am. I mean, I can take three. Okay, three is perfect. Thank you. Hi. My name is Jessie Vogt. I'm an architect, and I own a home on Nicholasville Road. I am for the historic overlay of Pensacola Park and its entire boundary for a number of reasons, personal, aesthetic, monetary, green, beneficial to organization, and smart development. But I mainly want to reiterate facts tonight with the planning commission. Fact number one, for over a year we have been pursuing a historic overlay, and as has been stated by a number of people in the neighborhood, we have worked really hard to inform our entire neighborhood about what has been happening. Our main objective was to have an informed neighborhood so that people could make a vote from an educated standpoint on what it means to go historic. Fact number two, as a requirement of planning to file our application for an H1 overlay, we had to show that we had 50% support of the neighborhood. We went and knocked on all the doors, and we had 65% signed signatures for. We had only 5% against. That overwhelmingly met the requirements of the planning department. Fact number three, the planning staff that sent mailers out to the neighborhood to gauge support, they received more than 50% of the mailers back from the neighborhood with over 70% support for the overlay. We, again, overwhelmingly met the planning staff's requirements. Fact number four, the historic consultant created a designation report on our neighborhood and concluded with historic staff that we met five of the nine criteria. We, again, overwhelmingly met the necessary historic guidelines. Fact number five, the board of architectural review, after reviewing the designation reports and listening to the neighborhood inputs, unanimously approved our request for an H1 overlay with its entire boundary. Fact number six, the planning staff then reviewed our request, along with the designation report, and also recommended to move forward with the overlay. Fact number seven, as per the designation report and with the planning staff's recommendation, our overlay is, and I stress this, in compliance with the comprehensive plans, goals, and objectives. Fact number eight, to conclude this, as some of you already know, because it's been brought up, the catalyst to our neighborhood starting this process was the rezoning and subsequent demolition of 1847 Nicholasville Road, which was a property within the Pensacola Park neighborhood. During the rezoning of this property, the planning commission unanimously approved this rezoning based on the lawyer arguing the facts, that his property met the planning staff's recommendation to rezone and that it met the comprehensive plans guidelines. So, as a neighborhood, we speak for ourselves, and we are also stating the fact that we far exceeded neighborhood support, we far exceeded the requirements set forth by the historic and planning staff, and we've proven we are aligned with the comprehensive plan. We believe, based on the facts, we should also get a unanimous approval for a historic overlay in its entirety as it's proposed. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Please, we need to move on. Thank you, though. Isaac Moore? I would say that concludes everybody that signed up, so that will be the end of it. I'm kidding, Mr. Waller. Thank you. My name is Isaac Moore. My wife and I own the property at 105 Turkey Park, which you'll notice is just outside this boundary, but we will be a benefit of the approval of this overlay, including Greystone Lodge, I would imagine. I rode past that structure many times since I grew up on Turkey Park. My daughter is living on Turkey Park now, the fourth generation, in this area. I appreciate everybody who has family that has kids who want to come home, because mine do too. The H1 overlay process appears to be a good way to preserve a neighborhood. I wish Turkey Park was there. We're not. You guys go for it. I will benefit from your approval and your ability to maintain and live within those guidelines. I appreciate it. Thank you for your efforts. Thank you. Mr. Bailey found me another sheet. It has one name on it, Miss Amy Clark. Three minutes, ma'am. I'm Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road, and my message is rather similar to the gentleman in Turkey Park. What I want to talk about is how this historic overlay, approved in its entirety, adopted in its entirety, especially the Nicholasville Road frontage, can be a benefit for all Lexington. I would point out that of the Nicholasville Road frontage, recall from the initiation, and I will put a map in the record for you, that really only nine of the 24 properties on the whole of the Nicholasville Road frontage, that's barely over a third, express themselves in opposition to the historic overlay. Even if you're thinking of the Nicholasville Road frontage alone, and the petition of certain properties to be removed, that's barely over a third that express that opposition. Most of Penmoken Park is a hidden treasure. It's a place that not all the rest of us wind our way through, many one-way, dead-end streets to the other end, but it's exactly the Nicholasville Road frontage of Pensacola Park that offers the most evident public benefit to the city as a whole. Not all of us can live here. Tens of thousands, like myself, can enjoy its front face, its proudest face. The deed restrictions are like my neighborhood. They said you had to build more expensive houses, monumental houses, along the biggest frontage back in the day as we commute daily. It's also absolutely a prototype, a microcosm for the kind of streetcar suburb, the kind of integrated neighborhood where you live, where you work, where you play, where you go to school, and where you use public transit that we aspire to restore and return to. It would be a shame to pinch out this very vital example of modern urban living that we seek to return to at a time when the Nicholasville Road study, corridor study, is just beginning to talk about transit-oriented development. It's a compact residential development. It was founded along a, it had an early rail line. It was kind of a light rail line, an inter-urban it was called. Multi-modal transportation has made a strong beginning on Rosemont Garden. Cyclists and auto commuters, shoppers and students, they enjoy the multi-modal transportation along Rosemont in their thousands. The variety of housing choice, the breadth of incomes, was traditional from the very beginning. There were skilled workers who lived here. There were clerks. There were retail people. There were entrepreneurs. It's a great prototype for exactly the urban design we want to keep vital in Lexington, and I will benefit from clear the other side of the south side of the city. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The gentleman sitting in front that had a question earlier, obviously you were not on the sign-up sheet. Do you still have a question? Go to the podium. Your name? My name is Bill Parker. My wife, Mary, and I live on 146 Penn-Mulken Park, and looking at the proposed overlay and discussing the El Toro restaurant and the mobile phone place down there, in the event that this is all approved and everything happens, what will be the requirement to, if there is one, to bring those two businesses, since they're in the overlay, into the same look as the rest of the neighborhood, or is there one? I would offer probably nothing, but we'll answer that officially in the rebuttal stage, sir. Then just one more thing. Yes, sir. In the event that they wanted to do some sort of rehab to the exterior, would it then have to go to the historic folks and be approved? We'll get to that answer momentarily. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. To my knowledge, we've got one other person who wants to speak, Mr. Jacob Wahlberg. He's the one gentleman that did ask for an extended time, and as I said, we're trying to hold him to six minutes. Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm Jacob Wahlberg, and I'm here today on behalf of Arcadia Rentals, LLC, which is the record owner of 1733 and 1737 Nicholasville Road. I'm going to try to fly through this to honor the chairman's request, but if you have any questions at the end, I'd be glad to try to address them. Our request is very simple. These are the two furthest northern parcels that are proposed for inclusion in the overlay, and we are requesting their exclusion, and I'm going to explain to you briefly why I think that exclusion is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and the differential factual circumstances that burden these properties as opposed to others. So you can know where we're talking about. It's those two properties as far as the border here. That yellow line I've dropped in is the proposed boundary. Adjacent to us to the north is a multifamily development or a multifamily building and a bank across the street from us is Baptist Health. To demonstrate that a little bit more concretely, if you look at our front door, you look across at a six-story building and a five-story building on the campus of Baptist Health. The Greystone Lodge property, the multifamily boarding house model that was discussed earlier, is to our south, and that multifamily and bank is to the north. If you were to travel just one block further south, you'd see a wildly different view. You'd see a duplex. You'd see single-family houses. That's just to demonstrate to you that these properties are differently situated than the majority of those that are being contemplated for inclusion in this request. My primary point is that we possess differential zoning. We are two R4 zone parcels, as was alluded to in some of the neighborhood's comments. That R3 zone change, I think, is largely a lot of the reason we're here today. And then there's that B1 parcel at the very southern edge that staff has recommended for exclusion. I would suggest to you that permitting the exclusion of my client's properties would mirror that boundary that's been proposed on the southern edge by planning staff. And this isn't a recent development. This is a zoning map from the early 70s. If you go over to the planning department, you can find some neat stuff sometimes. This is an old zoning map from the 1970s. These parcels were zoned R4 at that time. They've been identified as prime for redevelopment for a number of years. Talking about integration to the neighborhood, I noticed the consultant used the language, you know, if you walk down the streets, you would still feel the rhythm of the neighborhood, that if somebody from the 1920s were to walk on these streets, that they would recognize them. That may well be true. If they looked at Nicholasville Road, they'd be terrified. And these properties do not physically connect to the neighborhood in any way. Their sole access is onto Nicholasville Road. That suburban court down there, these properties are landlocked. They can't get to them. So those are my factual-based arguments. These are just different properties. They're situated differently. They have different neighbors. They have different zoning. Here's my policy-based arguments. You all know because you lived it, the comp plan harped on density. It harped on density, especially along our corridors. But to read a little bit from Theme A, Pillar 2, we were advised to maximize, this is to the development community, maximize redevelopment efforts. These redevelopment and infill efforts should be focused along the major commercial corridors, which certainly Nicholasville Road is one, that provides a mix of housing and jobs. And this is a development, or this is a, excuse me, I'm trying to go too fast. These are two properties that are located immediately adjacent to one of Lexington's largest employers. So certainly we think that there could be a higher and better use for these two properties than the single-family houses that currently exist on them. Turning to your actual policy-based arguments, density policy number one, this was about the corridor development. If you zoom in and look at the map, you'll see two things, that this area of town is actually called for for urban infill, not suburban infill, and that our properties are in that exact area along the corridor, this entire corridor. I'm not here arguing for the exclusion of the corridor. I'm here arguing for the exclusion of these two extreme northern properties. I think there are numerous comp plan elements that also speak to the inappropriateness of inclusion of these two properties. You all are extremely familiar with the comp plan. I think you know what I'd tell you. It's about dense development. It's about corridor development. It's about transit-oriented development. We talked about place builder. Place builder being a distillation of the goals and objectives and policies of the comp plan, so I thought it might be relevant to look at what place builder says about this place type, the corridor place type. As a preliminary matter, I would notice that R4, the zone that we are already in, is considered in the corridor place type. What did this body decide was an appropriate development on the corridor place type? Well, the least intense developments that were identified in the place builder were medium-density residential and medium-density non-residential and mixed-use. Those call for mid-rise structures. They call for attached and multifamily dwellings. I think that goes to further demonstrate the inappropriateness of requiring these R4 properties to remain single-family residential. If you look at the visual that went along with corridor development in the comp plan, you'll see that there are not single-family houses located along the corridor. Placemaking policy number 12, this is about mass transit, but I would point out to you that one of the things that we were supposed to do here was to engage in an action item. We were supposed to do a corridor study of our various corridors. We would call it for intentional density. The Metropolitan Planning Organization is actually set to start that study next month at a cost of $222,000. One of the things they'll be looking at is densification of housing options along the Nicholasville Road corridor. I think it is not appropriate to include these properties while that study is going on. LAMPO has looked at this a number of times before. An interesting highlight that I found, these red circles demonstrate approximately where my client's locations are. This is an area that as you get closer to town, you get increased residential density, but as we get down here, it gets less. The map on the other side is employment density. It is, as you can see, lighter here, but then picks up in intensity as we get further south as we shift from residential uses to commercial uses. We're in a hole here. It's really not jobs, and there really isn't a whole lot of residential density. Also, the 2014 LAMPO study suggested that this may be, and these are my client's properties right there, a prime location for a bus rapid transit station. Again, I think mandating preservation of houses when that is a possibility is not something that we should do. I was the Division of Historic Preservation's attorney when I was an employee of the LFUCG and represented the Board of Architectural Review. I can tell you that while it is technically, legally accurate to say that these houses can be demolished and that some changes and new things can be built, it is exceedingly difficult. This is the regulation about a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. There are only three bases under which you can proceed. There's a higher and better use than one of them. It either has to not look historic, contribute to the neighborhood, or be economically not viable to continue. It's extremely difficult to tear these things down. Mr. Wahlberg, could you please wrap up? I'll get 10 seconds. There are 248 pages of guidelines that are required for new construction. Bottom line, one of these things is not like the other. These properties are R4. They're not integrated into the neighborhood. The adjacent uses show that preserving these as single-family residential units does not make a lot of sense. I have prepared findings for you if you would like to exclude these two properties that I do not think would otherwise disrupt the H1 area. And with that, I'm done. Thank you, Mr. Wahlberg. Thank you for your efforts. You can give the findings to the staff. Yes. We have heard from everybody that signed up and a couple that didn't. Is there anyone else that wants to speak? Have you spoken, ma'am? Okay. We can address that through the staff's rebuttal. If it's inaccurate, we can address that through the staff's rebuttal. Anyone else? No? If not, thank you. What we'll do at this point is go to the staff rebuttal and proceed on. We've got five minutes. Ms. Kerr, please be quick. Will indeed. I'm Betty Kerr, Historic Preservation Officer for Lexington, of course. And we were just coordinating our who will respond to what. I've made note of essentially three questions per the citizens' questions. The first about window replacement. If windows in historic houses have already been removed and changed out one or more times so that they're whatever's there now, 40, 50 years old or less, it is very possible to replace those through a staff-issued certificate of appropriateness slash permit, that's what they're called. If your historic house has its original windows, windows that are 100 years old, 80 years old, that kind of thing, and they're the good old growth wood, your wood sashes and your trims and so forth are probably way better than what you would put in it in today's time, both in terms of materials and construction methods. So those are charged with being protected by the design guidelines, and we would work with you to help you see about getting those repaired and to use storm windows to help get your energy efficiencies, which can rival the double-paned windows quite closely. On the second question, this was to do with property values. Across the country and here in Lexington as well, properties within designated local historic districts have been demonstrated to increase at a slightly higher ratio than a similar property in an area not protected by historic district designation. It's largely tied to the predictability and the continuity that comes over time with the designation such as this. There are a number of studies on this topic available, communities throughout the country. Our staff in the last 10 years or so, we've looked at at least 100 communities, studies and information, and have not found one that had any demonstrated where properties decreased in value due to having an overlay, but that generally, as I say, when you're doing comparables, increased over time at a slightly higher ratio. The third question was on the El Toro building. What would be the requirement to bring the building into the look of the neighborhood? There would be no requirement to make any changes to the building in the existing design and utilization, both. So it's not a matter of just what it looks like, but the underlying land use continues right on. That is true for the underlying land use continues on with all of these properties. An overlay is just that, like an umbrella goes over your existing zoning. If a property owner of that property comes along and wants to remodel the building or in some other ways to vary the exterior of the building that would come to get permits through this process, some of those might be able to be done at the staff level. Staff reviews about 65% and issues about 65% of the permits that are put out there. It's driven thematically by what's the nature of the work proposed. If someone comes along, were to buy the building, wants to tear the building down, the nature of that, the staff is not empowered to act on any demolition applications nor new construction. Both those topics go to the full Board of Architectural Review, and that would go on accordingly. Then new permits reflecting what is approved within the design review guidelines would come into play. I would remind everybody, just with questions, please, we have a considerable website at the Urban County Government's website and then backslash and star it. Also, of course, we're glad to talk to you one-on-one on the phone and elsewhere, other means, at any given time. Please do continue with your questions, and we're glad to help you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Mr. Bailey. Thank you. This is just in regards to the application as this process goes forward. I just do want to reiterate that should you make any withdrawals of certain properties, that is how the application will go forward. The Urban County Council cannot add those back in. So at this point, if anything were to be taken out, that is how this application proceeds. If you have any questions about how this would go forward or what might be presented at the Urban County Council, we are happy to answer those questions now. Okay, thank you. So at this point, we'll close the public comment. We've gone through rebuttals, and we'll open it up to the commission members for any questions directed to anyone and or basically the staff, I would think. Any questions concerning anything brought up today? Yes, sir. I have a question for staff. We saw a report on the percentage of the respondents who were in favor of it. Do you know? I know there was a number who didn't respond, parcel owners. Do you know what the percentage that was in favor of it was compared to all the parcel owners? So when we did the initiation for this process, overall, 55% of the neighborhood responded. Of the overall neighborhood, 40% were for, 14% were against, less than 1% were no opinion, and 45% were no response. Looking at the detailed information of the respondents, 26% opposed, 72% supported, 1.3% had no opinion. So that is how the separation broke down from that information. Thank you. Any questions? Yes, ma'am. This is for staff as well. What is your opinion on removing 1733, 37, and 39? Because you've already mentioned that you would support removing 1915 Nicholsville Road. So within staff's report, we have stated that the reasons for the removal of 1915 was not only because there is a differential use at that location, because it is a business, but it was also a different plat, or it was replatted later on. So you see changes that have occurred that do not mimic the same kind of development that was occurring throughout the rest of the property area. 1733, 1737, and 1739, while they have changed in zoning, they have not changed in residential use. So there is continuity there. There is also continuity with the platting in those three locations. And in that case, staff is supporting the recommendation in that location of the BOAR and the designation report. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, someone did ask a question about if they wanted to add solar, how would that be impacted? I don't know if we got an answer to that. Wow. Now, maybe. Hello? Is it working? Yes. Very good. Solar. Solar is allowed within the historic districts. You'll see it in the design guidelines it is addressed. And we've had several applications come through process in the last several months, partly because at the end of the year some of the incentives towards solar, financial incentives, close. So all the applications have been approved, one with some conditions about which roof planes it could not go on. The basic idea is that solar is much able to be approved as long as it's not on the front face roof of the house and highly visible. So you can accomplish it with pretty good ratio of coverage within the historic district, just carefully. Yes, ma'am. Question. Ms. Carr. So that means none on towers or posts or poles or anything like that? They can apply for them to be freestanding, quote, unquote. And depending on the placement, if the site is large enough, it could certainly be accomplished. It just has to have no adverse effect on the property or its near neighbors and so forth and become dominant. So everybody's all about trying to find good ways to accomplish all sorts of things in the green vocabulary, including such as solar. Okay. Thank you. So any other questions? If not, I'll close this part, open it up for any discussion, comments, motions. And let me just offer some guidance as to the motions. If we so choose to withdraw anything, I would offer that we do that first and then take up the motion for the overlay itself after any withdrawals are taking place. As Mr. Bailey did mention, this will go to the council, and I'm sure it will be taken up by the council. And as has been mentioned, if we withdraw something here, that's the way it's going forward. At the council, they can remove something, but they cannot put something back in. So with that said, comments? No comments? If not, we'll go to the motion phase. You've heard requests for, let's see here, 1915 Nicholasville Road to be withdrawn. That's the staff request, and you've had citizens asking for 1733 and 1737 to be withdrawn, and then also another request for 1739 to be withdrawn, Nicholasville Road. Any interest in doing that at this time? Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. First, I want to thank the neighborhood for their dedicated, long-time process, and this going forward is obviously very apparent that you love your neighborhood, and I wish you success with your neighborhood. I would like to move regarding CLM-MAR-1915, Cleveland County Planning Commission, Pensacola Park, to remove 1739, 1733, and 1737 of Nicholasville Road because of the findings indicated by the attorneys on that. Second. Motion's been made and seconded for the withdrawal of what I'm hearing, three pieces of property, 1733, 1737, and 1739 Nicholasville Road. What about 1917? We haven't gotten to that point yet. That could be handled in a separate motion. All right. Is that where the staff was at? Going? Yeah. Okay. Okay, so we do have a motion on the table. It has been seconded for the removal of those three pieces of property on Nicholasville Road. Once again, it's 1733, 1737, and 1739. So, any questions on the motion? Any conference there? No. You're good. Okay, so if everybody understands the motion, I'll call for a vote. Those in favor of the removal of 1733, 1737, and 1739, please raise your hand. Motion passes. We didn't get the second on that, Mr. Chair. The second was about, I'm sorry. Pass it. Yeah. So, that motion passes. Now then, any other requests or motions for withdrawal of any of the property? It's up to you. Yeah, I'll do that. Mr. Pim? I move the staff recommendation of taking 1915 out of the staff request. Second. Okay. So, motion's been made and seconded for the removal of 1915 Nicholasville Road, as staff has recommended with their reasons as well. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up. Please raise your hand. Yeah, I know. All those in favor, please raise your hand. That motion passes as well. So, any other motions for withdrawal? No? You gotta go? Hold on one second. We've got a motion. I would ask for a motion either way, depending on what your likes, wishes are, on the zone map amendment itself for historic overlay on plan, which is plan 19, MAR 1915, Urban County Planning Commission. Motion's there. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move approval of PLN MAR 1915, Urban County Planning Commission, Pensacola Park, with in staff support for the reasons recommended by staff, and we have already removed those that we want out. Yes, ma'am. Sorry. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of the overlay regarding plan MAR 19-15, Urban County Planning Commission, with four exclusions. That being 17-13, 17-37, Nicholasville Road, 17-39, Nicholasville Road, and 19-15, Nicholasville Road. So, motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Oh, I did say that, didn't I? Any opposed? Pretty quiet, so motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, folks, for coming. As has been indicated, it's been a long process, as they always are. We wish you the best on it. So, thank you. With that, I know we've got a couple of things. We've got one that's leaving. What did you do? We did four, five, six. Better do it real quick, because we're running out of people. Yes, ma'am. I do believe we have a few more items on the agenda. You do have a couple? That are commission items. Yes, ma'am. The first is at the bottom of page five. Get to the microphone. We're still in a meeting. It's not working. Tracy, that's not working. Get to the microphone. Folks, we do have a meeting going on, and I ask for your patience. Any discussion needs to go outside. Please, sir. We've got a motion. We're still meeting. Yes, ma'am. Our next item was approval of the meeting and filing schedule for 2020. Yes, ma'am. I believe the planning commission has that at your seats, and we reviewed it last week at the work session, and so today we just need a motion to approve the meeting and filing schedule for next year. Motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the meeting and filing schedule for 2020. Second. Motion has been made. Motion has been seconded for approval of the official meeting and filing schedule for 2020. All those in favor? Any opposed? Yes, ma'am. Another item? Yes, sir. Oh, yes. On, I believe, at the very top of page six is a request from the staff to initiate a text amendment. It's come to the staff's attention that a change to Article 23C, Section 7C, is necessary. At this time it's a request to initiate a change to how credits are claimed in the exaction program. There's been some concern about re-appropriating credits that are in existence to parcels but outside of the planning process. So the request by Craig Benz, who is handling exactions and the updates to the exaction program, would be to only allow exaction credits to be reallocated if that was done in, I guess, coincidental with recording a new plat or development plan as opposed to at will, I guess would be the best way to put that. So currently a developer can approach accounting and ask to, even though credits have been assigned on a plat and that's been recorded in the county clerk's office, to change the allocation from certain lots to a different plat and a different lot, and it's created some accounting issues. And the staff believes it could create the potential for errors because it's outside of the planning process and there's not a document recorded like with a plat or development plan. So this would be more of a cleanup change. Where did you say this was on the agenda? I believe it's at the top of page six. Okay, yes ma'am. So it's the initiation of the zoning text amendment. Okay, very good. So, understand? Yes. Okay, very good. Motion? Mr. Chairman, I move for initiation of the zoning order text amendment for Article 23 of the zoning ordinance. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of initiation of the zoning ordinance text amendment for Article 23 with the literature provided. No further questions. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Yes, ma'am. And then the last item is just something that was previously on an agenda and we had some trouble finding it in Granicus. It was an infrastructure statement for Anderson 2 subdivision, and that's just information for the planning commission. There's no action necessary. I want to make sure you did have that. We do have it today. Thank you very much. Sorry we had to delay it. However, no action is needed on this. So, Ms. Wade, did you have anything else? That's it for me. I think Mr. Duncan has a few comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all to the planning commission for your willingness to have the meeting in this locality today and for conducting it in such a professional manner. We do appreciate your willingness to go along with that. I do want to remind you that we have a work session next week, a second work session for the month of October on Halloween, October 31st, 1-30. We will meet in this room for our Urban Design 102 training, followed by a field trip around town. And as you may recall, those of you who were here last week, we said that the traffic engineering, which is on this floor, will be having a chili cook-off that day in the traffic center across the hall. So you are welcome to come early and get chili and drinks and other things to go along with that. The proceeds benefit the United Way, and you can have that, and then we'll begin our work session at 1-30. So costumes mandatory or voluntary? Costumes are encouraged, Mr. Chair. And then finally, in addition to thanking you all for being good sports about the meeting location, we want to thank Chris Edwards and his team for all the work they did in setting this up, providing audiovisual for us and the work that they did. We may be doing this again very soon when we have these long meetings and they conflict with the council. So we appreciate everyone working on this as a trial run, and we may be doing it again. Thank you. The audio and video part is important, I do feel. So thank you very much, and thank everyone. Yes, we may be back there in the future. Anything else? If not, with you all's permission, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.