# Planning Commission Zoning Items Subcommittee - August 7, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · August 7, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6507 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6507?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-08-07 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: February 14, 2026 - **Length**: 4,290 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Zoning and Subcommittee met on August 7, 2023, to consider three agenda items related to local zoning matters. No presiding officer, meeting time, or location is recorded in the available data. The commission addressed a zoning map amendment for the Anderson campus rental properties, a request to remove a zoning restriction for War Admiral Place LLC, and a proposal to add distilleries as a principal use in the downtown B2 zone. None of the items advanced to a final decision during the meeting — the Anderson campus item was deferred, while the War Admiral Place LLC restriction removal and the distillery use proposal were both postponed. The meeting included 2 votes, 1 public comment, and no presentations are recorded in the available data. ## Votes and Decisions Two items came before the Commission for votes at the August 7, 2025 meeting, both resulting in postponements decided by voice vote. - **PLN MAR 25-10** — The Commission voted to postpone this item, which also involved replacing an LLC. The motion passed by voice vote. No individual roll call tallies were recorded. [timestamp: 0:23:24] - **PLN ZOTA 25-6** — The Commission voted to postpone this item as well. The motion passed by voice vote. No individual roll call tallies were recorded. [timestamp: 0:32:21] No mover or seconder was recorded for either motion, and no roll call votes were taken. Both decisions were reached by voice vote with no documented ayes, nays, or abstentions beyond the general voice vote outcome. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period. - **Nick Nicholson** spoke in strong support of allowing distilleries in the downtown area, pointing to the success of similar projects in other cities as evidence for the proposal's viability. [timestamp: 30:09] No additional public comments were recorded for this meeting. ## Zoning map amendment for the Anderson campus rental properties [timestamp: 03:46] Agenda Item 3 concerned a zoning map amendment for the Anderson campus rental properties. No substantive discussion or debate took place at this meeting, as the applicant did not submit any new materials for the Commission's consideration. With nothing new to present or review, the item was deferred to the next meeting. No key speakers were identified in connection with this agenda item, and no concerns were raised during this session. ## War Admiral Place LLC Zoning Restriction Removal **Agenda Item: PLN MAR 25-10** [timestamp: 04:55] The Commission took up a discussion item concerning a request by War Admiral Place LLC to remove an existing zoning restriction that currently limits development to 532,000 square feet. Nick Nicholson was the key speaker on this item. The discussion centered on whether sufficient justification had been provided to support lifting the square footage cap on development at the War Admiral Place site. The staff recommendation was for **postponement** rather than approval, with the rationale that more justification needed to be gathered before the Commission could adequately evaluate the merits of removing the restriction. The 532,000 square foot limitation represents an existing constraint tied to the property's zoning, and its removal would potentially allow for greater development intensity at the site. The Commission followed the staff recommendation, and the item was **postponed** to allow additional information and justification to be compiled and presented at a future meeting. ## Adding distilleries as a principal use in downtown B2 zone [timestamp: 24:04] The Commission took up agenda item **PLN ZOTA 25-6**, a proposal to allow distilleries as a principal use in the downtown B2 zone, subject to certain restrictions. - **Scott Shooting** was the key speaker on this item, presenting the proposal to the Commission. - The item was brought forward as a discussion regarding a zoning ordinance text amendment that would add distilleries as a permitted principal use within the B2 zone. - Staff recommended **postponement** of the item to allow for further research before the Commission takes any formal action. The Commission ultimately followed staff's recommendation, and the item was **postponed** pending additional research. No final decision was made on the proposed zoning amendment at this meeting. --- ## Decisions - **PLN MAR 25-10** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of PLN MAR 25-10 and replace LLC - **PLN ZOTA 25-6** — postponed (0-0): Postponement for PLN ZOTA 25-6 --- ## Full transcript Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I'm calling the zoning and subcommittee meeting of August 7th. Into order, I think we've got a couple of items, but. Presently, we don't have a quorum now, by law, we can listen to what's going on and then. But they can't vote. All right. So, uh, let's proceed. I was going to offer some updates, but. There really aren't any to kill some time. We do have some postponed items. So, if you want to hear about those before we move on. Okay. We could do that for just a minute. And that way, if we were told, there may be a couple of people on their way, but. I understand the weather, but I ran through the rain, so they could to me too. I know it that's a major to do with me. So, we have item 3 postponed items for zoning map amendment for the Anderson campus rental properties. We did receive a notice from the applicant that they didn't have anything to submit for this week for you all to consider, or the subdivision committee to consider. In terms of changes, but they did still intend to move forward next week. So, just as a reminder, they're on the off cycle. They're not at the regular zoning hearing, but next week. And then our postponed text amendment is again, still no activity from the applicant on that. And that 1 is scheduled for the August 28th meeting. Okay, I killed about 30 seconds. You have a speech you have a speech you want to get. Okay, we'll we'll go. Well, is Mr. Duncan going to be around for staff items. Well, committee, so he doesn't usually attend committees. Well, we got a quorum in conclusion. Come on, we need I think you're over there. Yeah, you're right. Just switch switch. There you go. Okay, we'll move on now. Thank you. All right, well, that's it. You all may have to bear with me. I'm getting over a cold. So my voice may be a little bit rough, but I'll do the best I can. Our 1st item is 2, 510. And it is where I will or admiral place LLC and the request is to remove 1 of the conditions of the conditional zoning restrictions. Um, and. It is, excuse me, the property zone B6P it is. Located, you can see. Well, there we go. All right. There's a 75. And then Winchester road here, and then we've got. Sir, Barton way that runs down through here. So it's this area here in white with the green green space there in the middle. So. Excuse me. The current zoning, um. Here is our 3. And then in the orange is B5P and that's your interchange business. Mostly hotels, gas stations, those types of things that are focused toward interstate travel. And then the, the pink area there, you've got. The economic development zone and. Just the north end of the new hospital there in the blue. Is professional office and the yellow there is expansion zone residential. Excuse me. Sorry. Yeah, excuse me, the quarter up here in the yellows and expansions on residential. And the history of this property. It was rezoned in 1993 to be 5P. Which is the interchange business zone and then no development occurred. In that time between 1993 and then subsequent redevelopment or rezoning in 2004. That was approved in 2005, and that set the current configuration now where the areas in white are B6P. And then the, the space in between it is zoned a, you and that's a sort of a green space buffer zone. There's floodplain in that area. And there's a walking trail and a horse cemetery that I'm sure everybody's familiar with located in the center area. And then along the Sir Barton here, you've got residential. And then the commercial area up here to the North, and then that economic development zone here. This kind of gives you a little bit different view. Some of these lots have subsequently been developed, but there are 2 current vacant lots in the area. That will be the subject of today's conversation. 1 of them is this area here and the other is located right there. And as far as I know, all the other lots on this development have been. Construction and these are the zoning restrictions that are in question and it's the 1st, 1 that the applicant is requested to be removed. And that limits the development to 532,000 square feet of gross building area. And they are currently at that limit now. So, no other construction can occur unless this conditional zoning restriction is removed. They are not proposing any changes to the, the 2nd restriction, which limits the size of the gas station to the South of the Walmart. And the findings required for changing a conditional zoning restriction. It should be found that a major change of economic, physical or social, social nature on the subject property or within the area in which the subject property is located. Which was not anticipated at the time of the binding restriction or condition was imposed and which has been substantially altered the basic or has substantially altered the basic character of such area, making the restriction or condition inappropriate or improper. So, that's really the threshold that we have to find in this case that unanticipated changes occurred in the area. The applicant has cited several changes in the area as far as growth, the development in the last 20 years, obviously, has been a significant change. I think that our recommendation is for postponement in order to maybe get. More substantial justification as far as something that was unanticipated at the time of his own change. I do believe that. Obviously, there was anticipation that the area would grow as a result of his own change. I mean, that's the intention of his own changes is to promote growth and promote promote development. So, that is our recommendation at this time. And that is actually the man of war or the sorry, war admiral. That's the war admiral war. So. So, if you'll have any questions, I can any questions from the commission. Could you go back to the slide that has what's required to change the amending the conditional zoning? Thank you. And you're referring to the binding restriction of 2004. Yes, that's correct. So, 21 years ago. Yes. Okay. Thank you. It was applied for in 2004 and approved in 2005. So, okay. Thank you. Any other questions, but we may call you back up later. We'll listen for the applicant. Other development plan. Oh, who's got that. Oh, I'm sorry good afternoon. Let's see. All right. So, the associated development plan with this zone changes 25 dash 28. Amber place, B5P and B6P highway commercial area. Let's see if you had some zooms in. Okay. So, the development plans oriented slightly different than the previous presentation. So, we've got I-75 to the north or plan north Winchester road here. Sir Barton comes down this way and then this is the Walmart, the Lowe's sportsman's warehouse, Hobby Lobby. The two lots in question, this is out lot six in this area where you come off of Winchester road on was a Yankee Elkhorn and then turn into the Lowe's lot that's in that area. And then this would be the Greenway. And then out lot five is this here just to the left of Hobby Lobby as you're looking at the building in the parking lot. At this time, oh boy, animation. So, this is depicting out lot six. They're showing a conceptual, what's the word I'm looking for? It's conceptual. They're showing a three-story retail office building with associated parking. One zoom in. And then out lot five in this area is showing the same, just a conceptual building with the parking associated with that. And with that, I'll open up if you have any questions for me. Any questions on the development plan? Okay, thank you. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. We're okay with the postponement and we'll get with the staff and try to see what the documentation was. The staff report didn't really get into what we put forward as changes and kind of looking at what more they wanted. And so, we're more than happy to work with them. The development plan, I told the subdivision committee this morning, it's entirely a spec plan that basically just shows we could comply with the B6P rules of today on the two out parcels that are currently vacant. Since we are at the cap of the building area, we can't market to tenants. We can't really say this is what we can possibly do because we are not allowed to build any kind of square footage whatsoever. Some of the arguments that I went over, it's very similar to the Winchester Road project you all just heard with regards to Patchett Wilkes. Removing the initial zoning restriction there based on all the changes that have occurred on the Winchester Road corridor, the intensification of that area, the expansion area that's coming online there, and just everything that has really changed since 2005. And one of the areas that I think is really relevant to this exact kind of request is when you look at the, like one of the possible changes are the social change that has occurred. If you look at what Lexington basically believed B6P should be and what we are actively encouraging B6P to be today, it is 100 percent different. This development flies in the face of our current B6P rules. I did the calculation after this morning. The lot coverage, or not lot coverage, excuse me, floor area ratio for this is 0.22. The minimum floor area ratio now for B6P is 0.5. This is the exact type of development we're trying to get away from. We don't want the large parking lots. We want to encourage residential uses in the B6P. We want to encourage multi-story and we can't do that whatsoever on what was at the time Lexington's very first B6P development. When you look at the minutes, you can tell a lot of the reasons why this restriction went in place was just a fear for what this type of development could look like because this was brand new. And so what the commission and council ended up doing is just capping the building square footage of what we were proposing on that preliminary plan to an exact number. And at the time, the actual rules would have allowed for 35 percent lot coverage and we're only at 22 percent today. And so that difference right there is even the threshold of what could have been built that the council and planning commission just wasn't ready to say we should unleash. When you look at what those requirements are today, it's even worse. And so what we're trying to do is basically just bring this development closer to what our community has said that it wants in this type of development. And so I'll get with staff. We'll continue to kind of work forward. There's nothing imminent on here. There's no tenants knocking down our doors right now because truly they know that there is no ability to get entitled at this time. So thank you all. Happy to answer any questions. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Yes. Ms. Davis. Help me out perhaps by answering something that's obvious to everyone else but just not to me. Are you asking or is your client asking to have those two outlots to have the conditional zoning restrictions lifted or is it the entire 71.45 gross acres? It would be for the entirety of that in order to allow, for example, a redevelopment of the Walmart parking lot in order to be able to actually add structures on large vacant kind of parking lot areas just like we kind of call for on Nicholasville Road all the time. So for instance, I just happened to drive down Nicholasville Road and I haven't for a while and there's something new called, is it Jaggers? Yes. A new outlot has been, has a restaurant. Are the, I guess what I'm, I guess is that zoned differently than, is it not a, is it the same similar, similar zoning? So I'm not, it is, but I don't think this is a, I don't think this is correct in terms of the first B6P because the mall is B6P. So, and it was around in the 60s. So part of the property was zoned B6P in 93 and he's convinced that that was the first actual, the first. We can talk about it later, but. I can only go based on what he tells me. Our track record is pretty good where you come back and say, no Tracy, you were right. But. I'm happy to acknowledge you like we all are. But. It was the first new B6P. Again, I don't. Yeah. But Jaggers. Jaggers is B6P. Okay. So you are not allowed to do something like that in this area. And just out of curiosity, is the client, would it be interested in redeveloping Walmart and the Lowe's? He's always open to anything that is basically possible and could add value to the development. So what could happen if the zoning change, if the zoning change happened? I mean, could there be 40 foot tall skyscrapers there? Could there be three foot, three stories? There's still a height limit and setback requirements, but you could see multifamily develop. You could see new out lots in the parking lot. I don't know how likely the entire Walmart or Lowe's is to be redeveloped because I believe those are successful operations, but they might want to expand. Maybe they want to put the soil undercover as opposed to out in the parking lot for safety or security or whatever, but that's not even allowed under this restriction. You can't add any more square footage. Okay. Thank you. So at the end of the day, we're kind of just looking. We have active vacant out parcels that cannot be developed whatsoever. And so that's why we just showed this development plan is this is just a example of what could occur if this restriction wasn't in place, but it cannot occur because of that restriction. Mr. Wilson, I didn't mean to cut you off. Oh, that's okay. I was going to ask. Okay, go ahead. Just one more question. Mr. Nickel, who is not here today, frequently says that there is no market for three story buildings that have retail on the bottom and offices on the top. How would you respond to that comment? He's not here to state it better, but he often says that Lexington has always had a difficult time trying to get vertical mixed use to really be successful. Usually the residential is full and the commercial struggles. You see at the, for example, the Lex, or as most people know, just the walking man on Broadway, that commercial area has really struggled, even though it is at a premier corner of Oliver Lewis way and Broadway, it struggles to keep tenants. It struggles to fill spaces. It's, it is a very difficult thing. And I don't know what it is about Lexington. That vertical mixed use does not really work. The summit is probably the most successful without a doubt. But it also struggles from a commercial standpoint, even though all of the residential is full. And so whether we would do a mixed use building or just a multifamily building, all of that's kind of up for grabs if we can get this condition modified. Thank you. That is the end of my question. Any other question from the commission members? I have one. What are you, what's your idea thought about the public engagement piece that's not covered here? Are you going to try to do that between now and the next? We certainly can since this isn't an actual zone change. We didn't kind of do neighborhood meetings since really, we don't, we wouldn't know what to tell them that we're actually doing because there isn't a actual idea of what we would want to do with some of these out parcels. And so we thought that that piece really played into a development plan. But we certainly can. Mr. Madden has a great relationship with all the folks there. Coincidentally, he built most of their houses after this got built. Okay. Any other comments, questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. Does anyone in the audience have anything to want to say about this? Okay. I don't think there's anything. Yeah. Motion on it then. If there's no other questions, I would make a motion for the postponement of PLN MAR 25-10. Second. Okay. It's been properly moved and seconded that we postpone PLN MAR 25-10 and replace LLC. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the proposed of the motion say aye. Aye. Object? No abstentions. Motion passes. So it's a postponed item. Okay. Thank you. Next. All right. Second item here is the PLN's ZOTA 25-6 and it is to add distilleries as a principal use in the downtown B2 zone. And the applicant has suggested this proposed text that essentially mirrors what's in the B1 without it being a conditional use. So as opposed to the B1, which requires a conditional use and has an additional layer of Board of Adjustment approval, this would be a principal use that would be allowed by right, but it does have the restriction of 10,000 gallons annually. Distilling would have to take place indoors and there would be have to be a retail or tasting room component, which is often found at distilleries. And just for reference, these are the current zones that do allow distilleries. The economic development zone, the industrial I-2, heavy industrial I-2 zone, and the light industrial does allow for a micro distillery or a craft distillery as defined by KRS, which allows up to a 50,000 gallon annual limit. And as far as conditional use, the agricultural zone does allow a very small operation that allows a thousand gallons annually. The corridor node is a conditional use and it's limited to micro distilleries. The corridor business, the B3 zone is a conditional use for micro distilleries. And as I mentioned before, the B1 is a conditional use and it allows micro distillery with certain types of restrictions. And so in reviewing this, staff recommends postponement because we would like to have a little bit more time to do research and maybe have some discussions with stakeholders to determine which of these restrictions may be more appropriate for B2. We're not exactly sure that the B1 restrictions are permissive enough to allow for a successful distillery in the B2 zone, but we also don't want them to be, you know, a full-on industrial use. So, we're trying to determine where to sort of draw that line and find an appropriate balance that allows the distiller to operate without creating a nuisance or a hazard to the other users in the B2 zone. So, we are recommending postponement for this item to allow us to sort of get a better idea to determine the appropriateness of restrictions. And if you all have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Any questions? Go ahead, Ms. Davis. And you may not be able to answer these questions, but I'm just curious, is there any data on vacant acres where New Era could do something that's in a zone that's either a conditional or a, what's the one that's, if it's, where there's a conditional, where it would be a conditional use or where it is allowed? I do not have that information available. We can certainly look into that and see if there are options, and I'm sure that they have, you know, they would be interested in knowing that as well, but I do not have that information at this time. I guess that would make a good case for further consideration is if there's available land for something to happen. I guess I'm just curious, do they have a site in mind and are seeking kind of spot changing or if they want to just kind of change Lexington? Well, I think in the discussions that we've had, they've suggested something similar to, you know, what Louisville has in the distillery row and those types of things as being more of an attraction and less of an industrial use and more of a sort of a tourist type attraction or a recreational type facility. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Thank you. Afternoon. Scott Shooting on behalf of the applicant, New Era. Their spot location is actually on the back side of the bicycle shop that's right up on Short Street. They're already renting that space, but this wouldn't, I don't think, lend itself to spot zoning because it will be countywide for the entire B-2 zone. When we first looked at this, we came to staff with the idea of down zoning it to the B-1, to the B-2, to the B-1, with the idea of down zoning it to the B-1 to allow for that conditional use. Staff said we'd prefer to look at the ZOTA route as opposed to down zoning it. We like our B-2 zone. We want to keep this in the downtown area, which we understood. So, we looked at kind of what we could do with the ZOTA. Louisville, and we've talked to Jeremy about this, they do theirs by a square footage limitation. And so, like Jeremy said, that's the key is kind of threading the needle between keeping it away from a true industrial size used and keeping it more on kind of the micro side of things. And I think that 5,000 square foot limitation and or 10,000 or something along those lines will keep it in place. I think those will be self-limiting as to the number of locations that will be applicable in downtown, but I think it will give opportunity to other users that want to kind of join in this process. Obviously, we have a rich history of Bourbon and Central Kentucky and Lexington. We'd like to see that continue to grow. Happy to answer any questions. Any questions? Okay, thank you. I'll bring it back. I think it's a public comment. Oh, yeah, I forgot. You're not a part of the public. I did not know that this was going to be on this day, but I want to speak, Nick Nicholson, for the record, like overwhelmingly in favor of this. So, I handled the old Forrester Distillery that got put in place in Tallulah. We were able to save abandoned historic buildings. We created an unbelievable tourism kind of attraction. It has won countless nationwide and worldwide awards for historic preservation, for downtown innovation, for tourism, about how much it's bringing to downtown. It allowed for that entire kind of core past the Young Center to bring in restaurants, bring in retail shops, and it's all anchored by the old Forrester Distillery. I'm sure I could find numbers from my client with regards to how many tour groups come through there, how many people it brings into downtown, but I cannot speak more in favor of something that could work in downtown that would be a wonderful draw to get people off the Bourbon Trail into Lexington itself, where usually, while we have kind of all tech, most of the Bourbon Trail just kind of ignores Fayette County, and so this would be an unbelievable opportunity to bring people in downtown, bring a lot of economic activity in the downtown, on something that I think staff would be able to advise you all on what kind of limitations are the most appropriate in order to allow something to happen. So, that's all. Thank you. Thank you all. Anyone else? Go ahead. I'll say one thing. It's too bad we tore down so many of our historic warehouses and things for other development, because now we don't have a lot of our historic fabric to restore. Yeah, I've seen some development like this take place. I have a friend, I consult with them occasionally up in Minneapolis. They've done this thing called St. Anthony Square, and they took old warehouses and turned them into some really beautiful things, and they got lots of restaurants, and they've got a park. It was really a blighted area up until the time that they started that activity, but moving along, I'll bring it back to the commission then for a motion or an additional discussion. Yeah, I'll make a motion. Okay, I was moving too slow. Make a motion for postponement for PLN Zota 25-6. Okay, any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, same sign. Very good. Okay, thank you. Those are the two items we had today. Do you have anything else to add on behalf of Mr. Duncan? We do not have anything further to add. Well, I'd like it noted that we are out of here at 2-0-1. When you tell the other Mr. Davis that we're good, that's a good job. Thank you all for coming, and thank you for your time.