. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . good afternoon, all in favor please say aye all opposed Minister approved. Postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If the commission were to do that later in the meeting, that would leave your next two available dates as either November 12th, which is a meeting ordinarily reserved for subdivision and development plans, and in November on the 19th, that's the Thursday before Thanksgiving, that meeting is devoted to zoning items. Staff would not oppose a postponement of this to either of those two meetings. Would it be better to do it to the 19th for the zoning items? It could be because we have not yet had the filings brought to our office for your November 12th meeting, so we don't know if you're looking at a heavy or a light agenda that day. Would November the 19th work for you all? That would be fine. Anything that is suitable to the commission. Then we'll postpone. We'll ask that we postpone to November the 19th. We're very grateful. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to object to this? If not, the chair will entertain a motion for postponement to November the 19th. Second. We'll vote as soon as it comes up on the screen. It's postponed to November the 19th. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chairman, if there are none from the audience, if the staff could refer you to the bottom of page two of today's agenda, item number one, ZOTA 2009-1, proposed amendment to Article 9 for group residential projects. This is an item that has postponed several times this year. I think today the staff would ask for an indefinite postponement, with the understanding that once we revise this text amendment again, we would bring it back to you probably at a work session and then consider redocking it sometime after that. Okay. I assume nobody is there to oppose that. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to oppose that? If not, then the chair will entertain a motion to postpone this indefinitely and it will be brought back by our staff. Mr. Chairman, I move to postpone ZOTA 2009-1 indefinitely. Second. Vote when it comes on the screen. Motion passes. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay. Land subdivision item? Not today, Mr. Chairman. Okay. We'll move on to our next item then. Very good. Everyone be prepared in just a moment to begin. Okay. Okay. I guess we'll treat this like a full public hearing because it's a text amendment. Mr. Salley. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The next item on your agenda today appears on page 3. This would be item number 2, ZOTA 2009-6, a proposed amendment to modify the mixed use community zone MU3 requirements. This is a text amendment that has been requested by the Lexington Trots Breeders Association, LLC, and it proposes changes to Article 28 and 17 of the zoning ordinance. This item appears, I believe, at tab 3 in your notebooks. Also, the staff had copies of the proposed text amendment and our staff report available at the table heading into the meeting room prior to the meeting. The staff has received one communication about this text amendment. We have a letter from the Fayette Alliance that we have received that is in support of this text amendment. I'd like to circulate this to you at this time. Most members of the Planning Commission know that 2009 is a year that we have spent a good deal of time talking about property on Red Mile Road, the Red Mile Harness Track. And a month or so ago there was a plan put forward regarding a citizen input process involving representatives of the track, the Division of Planning, and interested citizens in and around that property. And at those meetings that began in April and concluded last month, there was a lot of talk about future or a future land use for portions of the Red Mile property. This particular plan was a study authorized by the Planning Commission and accepted last month that set a vision and direction for the future land use for the Red Mile. And basically this text amendment that's before you today is the next logical extension of that work that has been done. The Red Mile development plan in its development sought different futures for a portion of the Red Mile property. And I have excerpts from our staff report that also are from this particular plan I'd like to display on the overhead. Basically the plan set three overarching goals, and that is that this plan should lay the groundwork for additional development on the existing racetrack property. Secondly, that it should be a model for future mixed use development in our community and in the region. And thirdly, that it would improve connectivity and access to the Red Mile from the surrounding community. Beyond these three overarching goals, there were seven principles outlined in the development plan. Those were that the existing operation of the racetrack be continued and that there should be encouragement, though, of additional mixture of uses, including office, residential, and housing on this location. It should be a destination in the future, and it should also have short-term development potential along Red Mile Road and more longer-term development to a mixed-use concept that's outlined in the plan. The details of these goals and principles are found on page 29 of this plan, which gets into a little more specifics as to this vision in regard, or I should say in accompaniment to some of the graphics that were in the plan. It was estimated that residential, commercial, and office space should all be available for parts of this property, and this would basically be the area between the existing grandstand and Red Mile Road itself, the western portion of the property, if you will. This would include a hotel and some square footage for additional entertainment types of use. And then finally, the specifics of the new land uses anticipated by this vision in this plan should include condominiums, mixed-use for retail and office, and residential in addition to retail uses. Moreover, a hotel and entertainment center should be part of this mix, and it is the last bullet on this particular exhibit that outlines why this text amendment has been filed and why there is a need for this text amendment. Currently, we have no zone in all of the 30-some zones in our ordinance that allows this particular mixed-use, this combination of mixed-use, I should say, in one zoning category. With that said, the last page of the development plan talks about this text amendment by saying the first step in achieving this plan and implementing this plan will be the filing of a text amendment, which the applicant did do last month. Notice has been sent to all the registered neighborhood associations in the community, and those of you on the zoning committee know we reviewed this three weeks ago at your subcommittee meeting as well. At that time, we discussed whether or not implementing this plan should involve creation of a new zone or an amendment to one of our existing zones. And from a practical standpoint, that has no real impact to anyone except for the applicant. We currently have no mixed-use three zones in the community that are as large as 10 acres, and those of you on the zoning committee know those have been some of the key components that the staff has presented in our review of this text amendment application. We think those are two important requirements for the added uses that are proposed in a mixed-use three zone that are not currently permitted by the zoning ordinance in those zones. The staff, in reviewing whether we should have a new zone or amend, most logically, the mixed-use three zone, followed the model that's been provided for decades in the professional office zone, the P-1 zone. That is a zone originally set up for lots as small as 7,500 square feet, frontages in the range of 60 to 75 feet, 100 foot or more depth. But in that zone, for minimum 10 acre areas that are zone P-1, a professional office project is permitted, and that has a widely different set of regulations for 10 acre and larger P-1 developments versus small P-1 lots that front on many of our local streets here in town. That same concept has been applied by the staff in this text amendment in reviewing the applicant's original submission. And at your zoning committee meeting, the staff did present an alternative text amendment for this concept. We've made a few revisions to that proposal, which I will get into a little later in my presentation. Again, those were available at the back table for anyone attending today and interested in this text amendment hearing. The concept, like in P-1, where we have P-1 regulations, but for 10 acre or larger P-1 developments allowing a professional office park, the mirror that's proposed in MU3 is the zone itself is called the community mixed-use zone, but for 10 acre or larger areas, we would define a new use called an entertainment mixed-use project. That would be a special provision of the MU3 zone, just as the professional office project is a special provision in P-1. By doing this under the staff alternative to the text amendment file, there would be some additional uses allowed, like the P-1 example, and also some relaxed requirements of the MU3 zone. Again, mirroring the P-1 zoning regulation that we've had for years. Some of the new uses allowed for this entertainment mixed-use plan or use would be to allow restaurants, such as nightclubs, restaurants with live entertainment, bowling alleys, drive-in restaurants, and movie theaters. It also would include hotels, motels, and extended stay motels, and the staff felt it should include grandstands for horse race tracks, for obvious reasons having gone through the Red Mile development plan. There would also be some additional accessory uses permitted under the staff's draft, and that would be to include banquet facilities and conference centers when, in conjunction with a hotel or motel principle use that would be allowable in the zone. And some new additional conditional uses, such as self-service car washes and fuel pumps not manned by an attendant. Those uses are not currently permitted in the MU3 zone in any event. Besides additional uses in this new entertainment mixed-use project definition that is going into the ordinance, there would also be a relaxation proposed to the maximum height of buildings in this zone. Currently there's an overall 70-foot height limit except at the intersection of major roadways, and in MU3 and those locations, buildings can be as high as 80 feet. Under the staff's proposed alternative draft, all buildings in this particular designation would be allowed the 80-foot maximum height. Now that would be allowed to be reviewed and controlled via your consideration and approval of any development plan that would follow should this text amendment be implemented. In addition to the height, there would no longer be a requirement that every building be at the zero-foot setback, as is the requirement for most MU3 buildings. Because these are much larger developments, this text amendment will only require 15% of buildings in an entertainment mixed-use project to be at the right-of-way. The other buildings would be allowed to set back further from the right-of-way. Again, logical considering the size limitations that are proposed for these entertainment mixed-use projects. Not everything in this proposal is a relaxation. There are some additional restrictions that are proposed for these uses. The major one I've already mentioned is a requirement that an MU3 zone be at least 10 acres in size before this entertainment mixed-use project could be considered for a site. I mentioned earlier this has no real practical implication whether we make a new zone or amend the existing zone because we have no areas in the community currently that are 10 acres contiguous of MU3 zoning. So every use that would like to take advantage of these provisions in the future will have to seek a rezoning and have a public hearing here at the Planning Commission to consider that proposal. Besides the 10-acre minimum requirement for this additional special provision use, there would also be a requirement that at least one quarter of the floor area in the buildings be above the first floor of all structures. That will be a requirement that will have to be implemented and reviewed through each development plan that would come to you in a 10-acre MU3 area. We've put on the overhead and to my right a map that has attempted to identify some of the other additional restrictions that are proposed for this entertainment mixed-use project. Besides being 10 acres and besides the square footage limitation, the staff's text amendment would also require that these only be allowed in areas that are either recommended for mixed use under the comprehensive plan or a non-residential land use in the comprehensive plan. MU3 is allowed to go in some residential areas as well, and that would not be possible under this draft as a special provision. It would have to be at least 10 acres recommended by the comprehensive plan for mixed use or non-residential use and on the roadway listing that's already a part of the MU3 zone, which basically is our major corridors in town. In viewing this map, it mostly means your industrial corridors and your commercial corridors are where these uses would be eligible to request this type of development in the future. In addition, there are two other additional restrictions proposed on the staff alternative that we reviewed with you at your zoning committee. One is that some of these uses that are being requested to be new to the MU3 zone would have to have their own off-street parking requirement. That is a part of the staff's text amendment that's before you this afternoon. In addition, the applicant is asked that not all of the buildings be required to be truly mixed-use development in the early phases of a development. In essence, their request is that the first 40% or so of the development would not have to be mixed-use. The overall plan would have to demonstrate compliance with the mixed-use provisions, both of the special provisions and of the zone, but that not all buildings from the start would have to be mixed-use in development to allow large development to be phased the way we would see for a shopping center or other large developments. The staff is in agreement with that particular provision that the applicant originally requested. Part of this text amendment also deals with Article 17, which are the signage regulations, and the text amendment does propose some additional signage be permitted in MU3 zones. The staff is agreeable that additional signage is probably necessary for movie theater uses, which are contemplated as part of the mixed-use entertainment project. And in addition, we believe that the freestanding signs and project identification signs that we have in other major developments in the community also be permitted in an MU3 entertainment mixed-use project. These are the types of signs you see on the entryway to the University of Kentucky Central Campus, the Cold Stream Research Park, a lot of the professional office parks, Beaumont Center, and so forth. There is a provision in this text amendment to allow those entry identification signs for these uses so that you get a sense that you are approaching a district or a destination, which again mirrors some of the Red Mile Study recommendations. Freestanding signage. The staff has slightly deviated from the applicant's proposal. We are more comfortable with sticking with the existing restrictions in MU3 for most other freestanding signage. There are a few other miscellaneous revisions proposed by this text amendment. I've mentioned already the comprehensive plan requirements for an MU3 ten-acre area, but the staff recommends that parking structures also now be allowed in MU3, again consistent with the vision of the Red Mile plan. And that would be a global change to MU3. That is not just a change to the ten-acre mixed-use provisions of the special provisions before you. I mentioned early on that the staff has proposed three changes to the alternative you viewed at the zoning committee. That is on the sheets that Ms. Wade passed out at the start of the meeting. They were also at the back of the room, and it has yesterday's date on it. Those three changes are highlighted in yellow, and I'd like to review those individually with you. The first, appearing on page two of the handout, proposes to add a phrase to the locational criteria for these ten-acre entertainment mixed-use projects. And that additional phrase will require that when the commission considers a development plan for one of these projects, that a finding be made that both the location is appropriate for this use, and secondly, that it is compatible with neighboring land uses. This is an issue that the staff has recently decided to add to our recommendation to you on this text amendment. The second and third changes appear on page three of the handout. They are more technical in nature. The one on the left column is just a typographical error change that we had not caught at the time of your zoning committee meeting, changing the word commercial to entertainment mixed-use project. The one on the right-hand column of that same page was one discussed by the staff in the Division of Building Inspection immediately following your zoning committee meeting. You may recall, those of you on that committee, there was discussion about the seating requirement for restaurants with live entertainment, cocktail lounges and nightclubs. And that was of concern to the Division of Building Inspection. The staff felt that that use did require additional parking over the amounts currently allowed in the MU3 zone, but we have removed the requirement that parking be based on the number of seats and instead that it be based at twice the rate that other retail uses would be required to provide parking in this particular zone. So that is a compromise really reached between planning and building inspection that is consistent with the staff's recommendation, but does not tie the hands of building inspection so much on future changes of use that may be proposed in such a large mixed-use project well after the development is already done. In conclusion, as we told the members of your zoning committee, the staff reviewed this text amendment very closely in light of the policy direction set by the Red Mile Study. And we think that the text amendment offered by the applicant, as it's been refined by the staff to propose an amendment to an existing zone rather than a brand new zone, is consistent with the Red Mile Study. We have outlined several changes in our alternative to their submission that we think will help further the goals of the plan and also be more consistent with existing sections of our zoning ordinance in other commercial zones primarily. The staff recommends approval of the staff alternative text for four reasons. The first is that this is a significant and timely text amendment to the MU3 portion of the zoning ordinance. Secondly, this proposal will, quote, create a model for mixed-use development in Lexington and the region and explore innovative zoning regulations supporting mixed-use. That is a quote from the study. Thirdly, this text amendment will lay the groundwork for additional development that will support and enhance the existing Red Mile racetrack and operations at the Red Mile. And finally, new regulations for entertainment mixed-use projects will provide a tool to ensure proper design for 10-acre developments and other portions of Lexington and Fayette County in the future. Your zoning committee reviewed our staff report, which is unchanged in the three weeks since the committee met, and also recommended approval of the staff alternative text. That concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. I'll be very glad to answer any questions from the commission prior to the applicant. Any questions for Mr. Salih? Ms. Phillips. Bill, the definition entertainment district, the definition of entertainment, is that guided by the allowable uses? It really is a part of the very first part of the staff draft. It will be defined in essence by a combination of the acreage, the comprehensive plan, land use designation, and the fact that it's in an MU3 zone. That combination of things, in addition to a development plan that would declare this is an entertainment mixed-use project. That is, again, following the model of professional office parks in P1. There's not a separate definition proposed in the ordinance. Any other questions for Mr. Salih? Mr. Owens. Bill, as far as kind of following up with what was just asked, we've got an MU3 zone. If the MU3 zone is larger than ten acres, that would allow the entertainment part per se. The entertainment part wouldn't be allowed on property less than ten acres? That's correct. The latter is correct. It would only be allowed on an area ten acres or larger with your approval of a development plan. It's not an automatic. Any other questions? Mr. Salih, I have one. Mitch Cravens. You say this is a model, that Red Mile is a model for other MU3 zoning. Do you have to do it that way? No. I think the last comment was these regulations will provide a model for other entertainment mixed-uses in the community. No, I don't think that all other entertainment mixed-uses will follow the last six months that we have gone through. I think they will be more unique in terms of the development plans that land development professionals will develop and present to you would be my expectation. Any other questions? Mr. Salih, I've got one for you. As the development plans come in, I don't know how we're going to determine when the mixed-use has to happen. In other words, we know there will be multiple development plans, or I assume there will be multiple development plans, and the first, second, or third plan that comes in is not a mixed-use plan. At what point do we or does the staff start recognizing that this mixed-use thing has to happen? In other words, how do we know when this thing triggers? Since there are no existing areas of ten acres in size with MU3, our expectation as staff is that you will see not only final development plans for those portions, but it's likely with the zone change you'll see an overall preliminary development plan at the time of rezoning. At that very time, the staff will begin to ask the question, what will the phasing of this development be? I think the answers to that will vary by the developer and probably by the location. In some instances, the mixed-use part of the development may be in the early phase, but in others it may be later on. Obviously what the staff will have to do is track, assuming the plan is approved, assuming the rezoning is granted. The staff will have to approve those final development plans to make sure we don't get beyond the 40 percent, but then secondly ensure that any further restrictions to that timing placed by the planning commission is followed. We may have recommendations on individual plans as well based on our review of them. It's hard to anticipate that, but I think it will be a development plan by development plan issue that will just become part of the routine of reviewing this type of development plan. Thank you. Mr. Holmes? Yeah, I guess to that point, that's the concern I have, I guess, with MU3 is a lot of that will be determined by timing and market. And if we're not careful, the market will just determine that we need a certain land use and then nothing else may happen. So it will be incumbent upon staff, I guess, to track that to ensure, as those phases are coming in, that we're driven more by the market and not by our planning efforts. I agree with you, and I know of at least one other community that has had that type of a problem with some of their mixed use regulations on commercial corridors elsewhere. The staff questioned the 40 percent figure when we first saw the application, but after thinking about it and discussing it, we really could not offer a better restriction. But I very much do understand that issue. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Sellers. Thank you. Petitioner? Mr. Chairman, Commission members, Bob Duncan on behalf of Lexington Trout Breeders Association. I don't have any prepared remarks today. Mr. Salley has done a marvelous job of presenting this, both through the Zoning Committee and to you today as a full commission. We do have the design professionals here to answer any questions that you may have today, and from a legal standpoint, I will be happy to do that. But through the entire process, a number of you have attended the red mouse study group sessions that we had out there and through the Zoning Committee, so I think you're well acquainted with this project, and I don't want to take up your time unnecessarily. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions, Mr. Duncan? All right. Any citizens' comments? We'll have the floor now be open for citizens' comment on this. We'll try to take the people that, well, first of all, is there anybody here that wants to comment on this proposal? I guess that's going to be an issue, isn't it? Well, being as there's no citizens' comment, does the staff have anything else to add in rebuttal? No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, we're just winging right along here, aren't we? Ready to turn it over to the Commission? Ms. Richardson. I would like to move for approval of ZOTA 2009-6 amendment to modify the mixed-use community MU3 zone requirements as presented by staff. Second. Ms. Copeland. We have a motion and we have a second. Do you want to comment on the motion? I'm sorry, I didn't see you. Excuse me. The motion has been made to accept this. Is there anybody on the Commission that needs to respond to this motion? I had one that I wanted to, I thought I would wait until after the citizens' comment, so I didn't do it. So I'll have to do it right now before we take the vote. My only concern on this, and the reason I say it is because we have the people in the audience, the design people and the people that worked so hard with this, is that I think the process we've used here is very good. My only concern is the shared parking. And I think as we go along with this, especially during times of sales and or track meets, racing dates, that we'd be very much aware of the shared parking issue. And I just want to get that on the record at this time. Any other comments from the Commission? Ms. Copeland. I just have a late question, I guess for Mr. Salih. How do you figure 40% is finished? Is it 40% of floor area, 40% of the acreage? I just got the 40% of the development. Let me look at the exact wording of the restriction. It is 40% of the floor area is where the breakdown will be, not on the side acreage. Are we ready to vote? If it comes up on your screen, vote. Motion passes. Thank you all for all your consideration and work and for your transparency. We certainly appreciate your efforts. Thank you. Do you want to move on or do you want to take five? All right. I thought Sara would speak to this. I thought Sara would speak. Oh, the sign over there. I reckon that's all we've got left. If they're waiting on a bus, they're in trouble. I had no idea this would sail like this. They did. They did? There's no downtown? I tell you, you've got to give their council person a lot of credit. She worked hard. I've seen something this big that would take two to three hours. Ms. Wade. Thank you, Chairman Penn, members of the commission. The next item on our agenda can be found on page three and it continues on to page four. It is item number three under the ZOTAs and is in tab four of your notebooks. Ms. Wade, is your microphone working or can you just speak up a little bit? Speak up a little bit. It is ZOTA 2009-7. This is a text amendment requested by the Commercial Property Association of Lexington to increase the allowable size, height and duration that a real estate sign can be permitted on a commercial, industrial or multifamily residential property. Recently the Division of Building Inspection became aware that commercial real estate signs had exceeded the allowable sign restrictions in the ordinance and began to notify some of these individuals that their signs were not in compliance with the ordinance. That triggered the organization CPAL to request a text amendment to what is currently allowed for commercial, industrial and multifamily development within the city. The existing regulations don't distinguish between commercial or residential and they allow six square feet for a real estate sign, a maximum height of six feet and a duration for the sign to remain on the property of ten days after the sale or lease of the property. In practice, certainly in this community as well as around the country, that those limitations aren't practical for commercial real estate. And CPAL in making their application proposed new language that they felt would accommodate the commercial, industrial and multifamily uses in Lexington. They are proposing to differentiate between the residential and the commercial real estate signs through a definition. They proposed that for residential land uses the existing restrictions were adequate, but for commercial real estate signs that they would be allowed to be up to 64 square feet in size, up to a height of 12 feet and be allowed to stay on the property up to 30 days following the completion of sale or lease of the property. And there were a few other minor changes in the text proposed by the applicant that involved calculating the area of a sign and allowing for other temporary signs on the property. The staff was in agreement that commercial real estate signs certainly needed to be larger than six square feet, but felt that a tenfold increase in size, a doubling of the height allowance and a tripling of the time allowed to remain on the property seemed excessive. So the staff has prepared some exhibits that I just want to run through before we dive in here. And these are the things that staff looked at in evaluating this application. First was how are freestanding business signs regulated in Lexington currently? And I'll refer everyone to the landscape packet that's white. It says Exhibit 1. And these are just the regulations for existing freestanding signs in Lexington for business uses and mixed uses. And I would note that there are 11 categories ranging from P1 to ED, and six of those zoning categories, some of them are grouped, allow, so six of 11 allow 40 or 50 square feet in size, and then the other five allow up to 75 square feet for a freestanding sign. And that's just for reference in that 64 square feet would be larger than what's allowed as a permanent sign for some properties in Fayette County, the P1, the B1 zones. So that would be just for reference. The staff looked at that. Exhibit 2 outlines the current regulations for signs that are allowed in every zone in Fayette County, and that is where real estate signs fall in. The applicant noted that they considered how construction signs were regulated in Fayette County as kind of a model for what should be allowed for a real estate sign. And you can see there the fourth item down is a construction sign. For an agricultural single-family and two-family zone, you're allowed 32 square feet for a construction sign. In a multifamily, office, business, or industrial zone, up to 64 square feet, and those don't have height restrictions. The one thing in terms of this exhibit the staff would note is the difference between a construction sign and a real estate sign. Certainly both are considered temporary in nature, but the staff felt that, in our opinion, a real estate sign is also meant to be temporary, but can be placed any time there's a vacancy on the property or any time it's for sale. So the number of times it can be placed on that property is really undetermined and indefinite. You could keep it there as long as you had a vacancy, whereas a construction sign has a shorter lifespan. It's just during the construction of a property, and our ordinance actually regulates that with some language that's in the staff report. But it's basically upon an occupancy permit for that building, the construction sign would be removed. So in the staff's opinion, given the length and frequency that this real estate sign could be posted, we really felt 64 square feet or using that as a gauge wasn't necessarily the most appropriate number. And then additionally, in looking at the length of time that a real estate sign should be posted, the staff felt that 10 days was probably an adequate length of time, and also keeping that similar for commercial as well as residential land uses was important. Other things that the staff looked at were other communities, and that would be Staff Exhibit 3. If you turn your page, there were a few model sign ordinances out there, but there were also the staff turned to individual communities that were of similar size to Lexington, and we looked at metropolitan areas between about 300,000 and 500,000 people. There were, I believe, seven or six or seven here that I listed or the staff listed. For comparison's sake, and almost all had very similar allowances for residential land use, but they differed from our current ordinance, certainly on commercial. And so that was where we were looking for some direction. The highest, the tallest that any of these signs could be when they listed a number was 10 feet in height, and the largest in terms of the comparison communities that any of the signs were allowed to be was 32 square feet, and I think that became kind of a guidepost for the staff in evaluating the applicant's request for 64, that in comparison communities, none of the other communities allowed that much for even a commercial real estate sign. The Exhibit 3 continues in terms of defining how they looked at real estate signs, whether residential was residential zones, residential use, and what else fell within those small signs. And then Exhibits 4 and 5 were just to depict graphically for the commission the applicant's proposal. Okay. So the first one shows 64 square feet for the commission, and for comparison we provided approximately a six-foot tall person on there. That's the dash line is six feet to see what their proposal in scale would be. And if you go to Exhibit 5, it shows six square feet is the existing compared to the person currently allowed, and then the staff alternative, which would be 32 square feet and a maximum height of 10 feet, and again, a person for comparison's sake. 32 square feet seemed to be a little bit important in terms of that's a sheet of plywood, so constructing a real estate sign out of plywood, a durable material, would be easily done with, you know, one sheet of plywood for that. The staff also looked at the two kind of minor changes that the applicant proposed, which were adding language about how to calculate a double-facing sign, and we noted in the staff report that there's already language in Article 17 that addresses that, and one face is always counted, whether it's a two-face sign or one-sided sign. And then the other minor change that they proposed involved temporary banners or other signs on the property, and the staff felt that those would be allowed, whether you have a real estate sign or not, and that that language wasn't necessary. In evaluating this proposal, though, we did feel that there were some omissions. First, that agricultural and vacant property was not addressed, and then the family residential, the staff was a little concerned about that, and I'll just go through those for you again. That's the size proposed by the applicant with approximately a six-foot tall person for comparison, and then the staff and the currently allowed six square feet and the 32 square feet proposed by the staff. In terms of developing a staff alternative to this request, two things I just noted were the agricultural use was missing and then vacant property wasn't addressed. The staff felt that agricultural property probably should be regulated in terms of real estate signs as a residential property, but if a property is vacant, the staff felt that a larger sign may be allowed, and we're proposing 16 square feet for that. In terms of multifamily residential land use, there's really two types of multifamily developments. There's a group residential development, which is like an apartment complex. You have multiple buildings on one lot, and then there's a single building on one lot, like a fourplex, and the staff felt that the fourplex idea, one building on one lot, should probably be allowed what a single family house is allowed, a smaller sign, a six square feet was adequate, whereas an apartment complex would be allowed the 32 square feet. So we distinguished between those two uses in the staff's exhibit or the staff's proposed language. I'll refer you to the second group of pages, which involves the applicant's request, the request on the white sheet, the staff's proposed language on the brown, which is the same as our staff report color, and then a third page after our zoning committee, the staff prepared what we felt may address some of the issues that were brought up during the zoning committee, and that's on the green sheet. Several things, they discussed the regulating this not by use, but by zoning category instead. They also discussed the possible permanent nature these signs can have, and also it came up that real estate signage does remain the most effective way to advertise for a property that's for sale or lease, and then also, lastly, that the fact that the Kentucky Real Estate Commission actually regulates the length of time a sign can be permitted on a property after the sale, and Ms. Whitman informed the zoning committee and staff that they actually require removal of the signage upon completion of the sale of the property, whether or not our ordinance allows for 10 days or 30 days. So that second handout, I'll direct you to the green page, which rather than by use, as the staff proposed on the brown sheet, we drafted a zoning committee alternative text, which regulates the signage by zoning. I will say that when we regulate by zoning, the R3 and the R4 zones, which allow single family duplexes and multifamily buildings, I guess the single family and the two family, the staff has some concern that they not get the 32 square feet sign that an apartment complex could have. So when you regulate by zone, there's some overlap there where uses, lower density uses are allowed, but perhaps they shouldn't have the larger sign. So the staff is still recommending approval of the staff alternative, which is on the brown sheet. That text that I handed out today did have one typo that I wanted to correct. It is found in 17-6C, and Item 1, there's an ING that is stricken through in the second line so that it reads, use of the property, such sign area shall not exceed six square feet rather than exceeding. The zoning committee did refer this to the full commission, but again, the staff did recommend approval of our alternative text, and that was for two reasons. First, the text amendment will allow for larger and taller real estate signage for vacant property, commercial business and industrial land use, as well as mixed use and group residential projects. These are appropriate in such circumstances, and then the existing regulations are adequate to serve residential, single and two family residential use and agricultural properties in Lexington, Fayette County. I'd be happy to answer any questions, and I do have some photographs of existing signage in the county, if you all would like to see those. This one's kind of hard to see. It was taken at an angle, but this is a, I would say, a conforming real estate signage. Real estate sign downtown for business use. Another small sign downtown. Residential real estate sign. I would say these all conform to the existing regulations. Start seeing some larger signs. This is a commercial location as well. These start to get a little bit larger and are, I believe, starting to become nonconforming by exceeding that six square feet. That one's pretty prominent downtown. The staff felt that it is trying to get someone into that space behind the window there. That last one is, I would say, a story tall out in the Hamburg area. And I'm not trying to pick on any particular real estate broker or company. These were just signs that, you know, kind of stood out in some areas. This property had two signs. Yes. Two different agents. One sign per frontage. And that's what we're doing with the ordinance today, having the two signs. They would be able to put that combination of signage, say, at a corner. That would be permissible under staff alternative. And then this last one. Do we have any answer, any questions? Okay. That's fine. Are there any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. I guess that would be the reason that down under 17-6 you've got to strike through the rest of it because it would be somewhat redundant. I think you were saying that the board of realtors required after the completion of. So supposedly at max they should be removed within 10 days. Yes. Okay. I guess that would be the reason that down under 17-6 you've got to strike through the rest of it because it would be somewhat redundant. Any further questions? Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Tandy Patrick. I'm with Greenbaum McDonald, 300 West Vine here in downtown Lexington. Our firm is counsel to the applicant. The applicant is CPAL, Commercial Property Association of Lexington. This is a nonprofit organization of about 200 commercial real estate professionals here in Lexington. Per our application, we would urge this commission to adopt a maximum size of 64 feet rather than the 32 feet and a maximum height of 12 feet. And I would point out to you that, as you probably know, commercial real estate signage is generally tailored to the scope and the size of the particular project. So a sign on an office building here in downtown Lexington is going to be much smaller than a large sign in a vacant building. It's not going to field out off of I-75 in the Hamburg area, for example. It needs and will be tailored to the particular project. If you adopt the amendment changes that we are proposing, you will not see any changes. This is really just maintaining the status quo that we have here in Fayette County and is in line with our current practice here. As Tracy pointed out, signage is the single most important marketing tool that our folks have. Today is a very difficult world in the commercial real estate market, as you know, and it really will be burdensome for our folks to have to take down and replace signs that are in violation of an ordinance. We have several members of our association here today that are happy to answer questions or I'm happy to answer questions. Any questions for Ms. Patrick? Citizens? Comments? Anybody want to speak to this? Hello. If you will, give us your name and address, please. Yes. My name is Crystal Blackburn. I am the government affairs director for the 2100 member Lexington Bluegrass Association of Realtors, 2250 Regency Road here in Lexington. My purpose for speaking to you today is to highlight the importance of real estate to Fayette County, I'm sure you know, but just to reinforce that, and the importance of signs to real estate. Although the data points I have today are related to residential signage, they provide a context for the importance of signs. As of June 30th in Fayette County, according to LBAR, the multiple listing service, we reported 1,695 sales totaling $313,556,944. Sales continue to be, and again, this is residential, continue to be a driving force in Fayette economy when considering the multiplier effect of the buyers and sellers who purchase the property. Signs are critical to housing, appliances, carpet, flooring, landscaping, et cetera, in response to their transaction needs. Because Lexington is so dependent on tax revenues, we encourage you to promote, not hinder commerce through the use of signs. Also, signs are critical to sellers, buyers, and investors. Safely placed signs are critical for families trying to sell a home. When the National Association of Realtors demonstrates the importance to buyers finding a home, national research shows that 42% of all buyers use signs in locating the home they purchased. Even more important, 17% of all the buyers found the home they purchased using only signs. Those are national figures. In 2007, the association polled home buyers in the Lexington area who had purchased in the last two years. And what we found is that 51.4% of respondents said they drove around the area as a part of their home search, with 20.8% saying that it was the most helpful tool in their home buying process. Also, investors, including but not limited out-of-town investors, can drive around and use those signs to locate the home they purchased. Again, my purpose is to reinforce the importance of signs, although my data points are residential. But we are in support of the request of our commercial brokers who are also members of the association and CPAL's request. Does anyone have any questions for me? And I think there are some commercial brokers who want to share with you their personal impact and experience as well. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Billy Smith with the Gibson Company, 1015 Monarch Street. I've been in the real estate industry for 33 years, most of my adult life. And I've been in the real estate industry for a number of years, if not more. As has already been stated, signs are probably the most important thing that we have, how we communicate with the people of what we're offering and how they get to us. And size does matter in this case, because a small sign, even you may put nice color and stuff on it, a small sign on a 50,000 or 100,000 square foot building, it looks like a toothpick. And it's not very noticeable and does not attract attention. And we mentioned that this has more or less been a standard of practice, whether it's right or wrong, it's been a standard of practice for 35 or 40 years. If you have a building that's 20 to 50,000 square feet, you're going to put a 4 by 8 sign up. If they're bigger than that, you need a bigger sign to put graphics on, because a lot of your owners, they want the graphics on there. They want something displayed on that big sign. They're imploring you to find that tenant, to find people who make jobs, who pay taxes, basically. Whether we like it or not, we sell jobs. So signage is important to us in what we do in our daily life and how they appear to people. I can't put a graphic on a small 32 square foot sign, it just doesn't work. If I've got a 100,000 square foot building, I need an 8 by 8, and that's two 4 by 8 stacked on top of each other. I can put graphics on those. We haven't been obnoxious with this. I mean, I think we've been very professional with it. I think we're a professional organization, professional people, as realtors and as owners. And most of us here own buildings, and that's our big concern. And we need signs to do that. I don't think I can give what the public needs or what they have been accustomed to in a 32 square foot sign, it's just not big enough. Here again it's going to look like a toothpick on a 100,000 square foot building. If it had been abused in the past, I'd say, yeah, let's bring these guys in, they're rogues, and let's do something about it. And it has been an accepting standard of practice for everyone. And I really wish you'd consider letting us continue what we've been doing to make great taxpayers out of this city and to get our spaces filled, because we do need the signs to put things on that are more, you know, appealing to people when they drive by. Sign still is, in my 33 years and my partner's been in 45 years, it has been the most important tool that we have. To get tenants in our buildings and to get owners and new owners to our buildings. I don't think that's going to change any time soon. They use the Internet, yes, but they use the Internet, and most of these people are coming from out of town. Long time before they see anybody at local government, we see probably 85% of those people before you all do, because they do their business on the Internet, but they drive. I mean, it's amazing how many of these people get in their cars or they fly in here and they rent a car and they drive. They drive our city. Our signs are very important to us. Any questions? You mentioned you couldn't put a graphic on a 32 square foot sign. Why is that? You can. The graphic, something about the building, either the space outlining how you have it or an image of the building showing the space that's in it. It needs to be a larger sign to have any detail, to have any depth to it. I'd tell you where to go look, but I'm afraid you'll ask me to take it down. No, I know. I'm not saying you can't, but it's usually detailed about the specific property that you're trying to sell or that you're trying to lease. And we don't always do them on every sign, no. I bet if you look around, most of the signs are probably less than a 4 by 8, but we like the availability to make them a 4 by 8, and we like the availability to make them an 8 by 8. My question to you is this. When you have buildings that are multiple tenants, like the ones downtown or like some out in the industrial parks or even out in the office parks, what keeps these from being permanent signs? Unless the building is full, there's going to be a sign there all the time. Am I right or am I wrong? No, you're right, but I'll give you a little analogy. If you look at what's happened in Lexington in the last few years, this happened in 84, maybe 85, some of you that have been around here. We had office condos that were started in and they kind of trailed off. They wanted to own it and they wanted to have a part of it. They wanted to have a part of paying down mortgages and building equity. Those buildings that are multi-tenant buildings have different owners, and at any given time, if that building has five different parcels in it or five different condos in it, you could have a sign out there for all five of them at one time. Not likely, but you could. But theoretically, you could have a sign there year-round on that property. That's probably not going to happen in all the buildings at one time, but pick out one building somewhere in Hamburg, it could happen. The markets don't always turn. But I don't think you're going to see a multitude of signs all the time on any great number of buildings, no. It hasn't in the past. And I don't think you'll have that much turnover in the future. Thank you. Ms. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there are signs on the corner a lot. You can put it on both sides. One of the signs you saw was our sign in Hamburg, and it was a V-shaped sign, and that was, there was like seven or eight acres there. There was 126,000 square feet, and that was the very front of the development. So I think that sign is in compliance, but we do use both sides if you can turn it the right way to get double exposure. And you can turn them sideways on any street, I guess, but it doesn't, if you stop and think about the research that's been done, when you're driving down the road, you don't look sideways, you look at an angle. That's at a 45-degree angle, I think, and you try to see something within 50, 75 yards. That's how we place them most of the time. Most of the time we leave it to the sign professionals. Ms. Charles. Yeah, this is probably for the staff. Who actually oversees the placement of the signs? I mean, is that building inspection setback and placement, so if you get that large, I'm worried about site distance and traffic. That's the type of signs that doesn't require a permit. So the real estate professionals and their sign professionals actually do the placement. There are no specific restrictions about the placement of a real estate sign, although if it is placed in a site triangle, then building inspection or code enforcement can either site the person or remove it. I guess that's my concern, if we're going to go to that size of a sign, that there be some protection so motorists can see around it, especially if you're at an intersection. There is a general prohibition against citing signs in a site triangle or in the right-of-way. It's like 10 feet off the sidewalk, isn't it? Well, in a B-1 zone, your setback is 20 feet, and a permanent sign has to be half that distance. So if the sign professionals typically say 10 feet off the sidewalk, that's certainly a good distance to allow most site to happen. Ms. Whitman? Billy, would most of these larger signs be on buildings that really don't have any place on a sidewalk or a ground that would be good for that type of sign other than vacant development property? I think the larger signs that you'll probably see around, number one, no one is going to buy a 10 or 8 by 8 sign for a 3,000, 5,000, 10,000 square foot building. That's not going to change the system that we've been doing. Our standard of practice has been this for many years. The big signs are going to be on your maybe a 50,000, but usually we put them on 75 to 125,000 square foot buildings. Vacant land that you're trying to advertise for development, if you're out on the interstate and you put up a 32 square foot sign, they're not going to see that sign. They can't read your phone number. You can ask any sign company on the site distance for that. It's 200 feet and it needs to be really a 10 by 10. But it's not, it's the bigger buildings. We want the capability. I don't think we've abused that in the past. We're just looking for the capability to do really what we've been doing as a standard of practice for 35, 40 years. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Tracy, does the Board of Adjustment, is there a provision in the ordinance to allow for variances in the size of signs? To increase the size based on any site considerations. Mr. Salley may be able to address that better. The Board of Adjustment can't vary the number of signs, the type of appeal, I believe the size and typically how that's been handled. If you have excess signage from someplace else, you can transfer it. But that's always been a permanent sign that people are asking for that for, not temporary signs. Is that true? I can think of just maybe one instance on a temporary sign and one for a banner sign. I don't see as much as variances as administrative appeals to transfer unused signage from one type of sign to another. If we could, let's hold a question for staff until we get our citizens' comments over with. Any other citizens' comments on this sign ordinance? Any opposed? Any opposition? Petitioner, do you have any further comments or rebuttals? Thank you. Staff, now we can ask questions as a commission. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Is this the current? Yes, sir. And you can go to 100 square feet on a bigger subdivision? Yes. I mean, I guess if I were trying to sell the vacant land to build this subdivision, Mr. Smith, he might be the one to sell that before I bought it to put the subdivision on it. So it seems to be okay there. Why wouldn't it be okay on a commercial tract of land? Well, I think the biggest thing that staff looked at was in many cases a permanent sign for that zone wouldn't be allowed to be that large. B1, P1, they can't be 64 square feet. They can only be 40 or 50. So why would a temporary sign that could be there almost as long as a permanent sign be that large? And then the second point was just that we looked at so many other communities and found that almost all of them regulated commercial signs to 32 square feet. So we didn't see the justification for why Lexington needs to have double that. Well, I guess looking at this as a realtor, I would consider, well, a subdivision land, commercial land. A lot of it is done through commercial sales. So if somebody had 50 acres to sell out there, the commercial guys might have that. And they might want to put up a 64 square foot sign, which you immediately allow once someone buys it and starts the subdivision. I don't get the difference. And a vacant sign, the staff is proposing that that be 16 square feet. Yeah, and that was my next question. When you go to vacant land, you've got 16 square feet. I mean, it doesn't add up. In what way? It looks like you need even a bigger sign to sell the vacant land. I mean, if there's a building sitting there and it's got a name on it and you're trying to lease it or rent it or whatever, at least the building has some identity. And then you might look for the sign once you identify the building. I think from the staff perspective, on a vacant piece of tract, you're not competing with the building for attention. On a green pasture would be attraction enough, versus in comparison when you have an existing commercial building, you have landscaping, a parking lot, the building, all to compete with for the 32 square feet. Okay. We're not going to agree on that. Ms. Wade, when you were showing some of the pictures earlier, you referred to a couple of them as possibly being nonconforming. Well, I mean, it's larger than what's allowed by the ordinance. If an ordinance gets passed here today, which would be smaller than those, would those be required to be taken down and come into compliance immediately? The Division of Building Inspection has already notified 25 different individuals or brokers or firms that their signs are out of compliance. So they've been given warning and a 30-day limit that most of them have asked the Division of Building Inspection for an extension because the text amendment is in place. So I would say, yes, they would need to bring their signs into compliance. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Phillips. When we make an approval of the amendment today, does it have to go to council? Yes, it does. Okay. Because it's a zoning ordinance text amendment? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Copeland. I like what the staff has come up with because I think it puts us in a position where we don't have so many signs that we just have street noise or road noise. And it also honors the fact that so much of our communications now occur on the Internet and we've long passed just driving down the road looking at signs. I realize that's part of it, but there is a significant part of research that happens on the Internet. And then you go out and locate the property that you want to look at with a sign. You don't start with a sign, you wind up with a sign. And they can do a lot of communications on the Internet. So I think it's right on. And I thank you. Ms. Whitman. Ms. Copeland, I think if you look at the research, you find that that's not true. They want to live in or they want to have their business in and they look at commercial properties. There's a lot of factors that enter into the type of business as to where they want it located. And they will go and drive the areas to find those. And the signs are important. And I think the one thing that we need to remember is that when we're talking about the 12-foot height and the 64-square foot sign, that that's not going to be on every property. That would be on very few properties. First place is expensive to do it, expensive to have the sign prepared and expensive to have it installed. So it's not like a big panic thing that everybody's going to run out and do a 12-foot high sign. That's not true. But it is important to look at the marketing of properties, which is essential in any community. It's essential in any community. I think like Billy said, it's not just us looking at the business, it's looking at buyers and sellers and keeping our community vibrant. And we want people to know what's for sale. And you're not going to see the 12-foot signs on everything. And, you know, a proven broker wouldn't spend the money to do that if it were not necessary. And, in fact, in some places it would be so overpowering they wouldn't want it. But, I mean, it has a lot to do with marketing. And I think if we look at our city, I don't think the signs have been intrusive. And I think it's important to look at those 12-foot signs. Any further questions for Ms. Wade? Ms. Wade, the only question I have for you after hearing some of this discussion is how do we know that the 64-foot sign won't become twice that if there's no code enforcement? You know, they've been doing it before. I don't know what we're accomplishing here if their association regulates the signs. Well, unfortunately, I agree, the Division of Building Inspection and Code Enforcement strictly operate on a complaint basis because of their workloads. So in essence, you rely on those associations to self-regulate per the ordinance. But I think we've seen that they either aren't doing that with violating the ordinance the way it is today. So I don't know if you can expect them to adhere to the ordinance in the future. So the regulation will still be the same? Yes. All right. Mr. Penn, you might hope for some crackdown at the beginning if an ordinance changes. Okay. Mr. Brewer? Not a question. I'm ready to move to discussion. I think there's a need for advertising that drives part of the economics in the city and optics. And I think that realistically, whatever the sign size is, if the norm around the city is consistent, then people are going to know what to look for. I've got a real concern with the permanency on how if you have a building and one unit in that building is still for lease, you can keep a sign up forever, essentially. I'm not sure that what we have here addresses that sufficiently, but I think it's a move in the right direction. No other city that's on the list of comps that were given to us has anything greater than 32 feet. So, again, I don't think that Lexington needs to set the bar overly high on this by doubling what appears to be the norm. Now, that's not from any personal, I don't know, there could be plenty of other cities out there that have 64, but I trust that the staff would have done the appropriate research and identified those if they were available. So I don't feel it's appropriate for Lexington to try to go above and beyond in this area. I don't think that's striking the right compromise. In the committee and now, the justification has been given, we've been doing this forever, and I just don't agree with that. I think that being in violation of the current policy is not justification to change that policy. So I disagree with your premise on that point. I understand your practices and I understand the idea that some of these signs may be perfectly appropriate when you're judging it by the ratio. But our job here is not that, it's to set the policy. And I don't think that you change policy based on practices that are in violation of the current code. So I personally think the staff's alternative is a good compromise. It's not going to make everybody happy, but I think it's a whole lot better than what you currently have on the books right now. By virtue of an order of magnitude increase in what's allowable. Mr. Owens. Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Brewer in the fact that he pretty much covered what I was going to say in the fact that, one, we heard from Mr. Smith earlier that he referred to a lot of these signs as to what they were accustomed to doing. You know, I think bringing everything into a uniform square footage would give everybody an equal chance right now. And I think everybody would be accustomed to looking for that sort of size of sign. So, you know, with that said, I agree with Mr. Brewer in the fact that I think staff's alternative is a good compromise. I think it is very appropriate. And when you're ready, I'll make a motion. Is there anybody else who wants to speak before we do a motion? If not, then we'll entertain your motion. Thank you. Mr. Lynch. Did you get the second? All in favor. Motion passes. All right. Mr. Salley, do we have anything else? Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to direct you to the addendum, which is page eight of your agenda this afternoon, the very last page. Staff would suggest that you consider at this time amending your meeting and filing schedule to cancel your October meeting of the zoning committee and also your zoning public hearing originally scheduled for October 22nd. As we mentioned earlier in the day, we have no new zoning items to present to you either next week or currently scheduled for that meeting. And we think that a couple of days off might be a nice fall gift to you. So we would encourage you to consider that at this time. I assume there's no discussion on this recommendation, but we do need a motion to amend the filing date or amend the schedule. Somebody's beating it. You've heard the motion, and we did get a second on that. All in favor of amending this present on the white sheet, say aye. That's unanimous. Is that all you have, Mr. Salley? The only other thing I was going to mention, Mr. Chairman, is that your meeting on October 8th, you have two work sessions in October. We recommend that you cancel one of your work sessions, but we'll know that in a couple of weeks. Okay. And I want to remind the commission, and I think it's the 24th, next Tuesday, what is that date, 29th? 29th at 9 o'clock at the library, we have our meeting with the planning committee of the Urban County Council. And it will be in the basement, I assume it's going to be in the basement of the library, which we tried to do. It's going to be at 9 o'clock, and we're going to talk about broad form and a lot of different things like that. And I'd urge all of us to be there. We've got some good things going, good momentum, and we'll be there at 9 o'clock. And I think Tom Blues and I are going to chair it, and we'll try to get you out of there. It's the 29th, Tuesday the 29th. Thank you.