# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - June 27, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 27, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4782 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4782?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-06-27 - **Last revised**: June 27, 2019 - **Length**: 26,610 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on June 27, 2019, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Bill Wilson presiding as the presiding officer. The commission addressed seven agenda items during the session, taking a total of 10 votes on various planning and zoning matters affecting Lexington-Fayette County. The commission heard three public comments from citizens regarding items under consideration. Of the seven agenda items, the commission approved five matters, including the meeting minutes, Webb Properties Development Plan, Roman Catholic Bishop Diocese of Lexington Zoning Map Amendment, Aylesford Subdivision Development Plan, and Winterwood Zoning Map Amendment. One item regarding an Alternative Regulation for Zoning Map Amendment was postponed for further consideration, while the Sign Ordinance Update was continued to a future meeting date. The meeting demonstrated the commission's ongoing work in managing urban development and zoning changes throughout the county, with most proposed development plans and zoning amendments receiving approval to move forward in the planning process. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on June 27, 2019: • Bill Wilson • Headley Bell • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Bruce Nicol • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Graham Pohl All eleven members were in attendance. No members were reported as absent or arriving late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on ten items during the June 27, 2019 meeting, with all recorded votes passing unanimously. **Meeting Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes from the May 23, 2019 meeting, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously with all 10 members voting in favor: Bill Wilson, Headley Bell, Patrick Brewer, Larry Forester, Karen Mundy, Bruce Nicol, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, and Graham Pohl. **ZOTA 2019-2 Postponement** [timestamp: 03:00] Patrick Brewer motioned to postpone ZOTA 2019-2 (Alternative Regulation for Zoning Map Amendment) to the July 25, 2019 meeting, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The postponement was approved unanimously by all 10 members present. **Development and Zoning Approvals** The commission approved several development-related items with 11 members voting: • **PLN-MJDP-19-00020** [timestamp: 20:00]: Mike Owens motioned to approve the development plan for Webb Properties, Unit 1, Block A, Outlot 2 (Regency Point) with 15 revised conditions, seconded by Bruce Nicol. Approved unanimously. • **PLN-MAR-18-00017** [timestamp: 40:00]: Patrick Brewer motioned to approve the zoning map amendment for Roman Catholic Bishop Diocese of Lexington, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Approved unanimously. • **PLN-MJDP-18-00067** [timestamp: 45:00]: Patrick Brewer motioned to approve the development plan for Aylesford Subdivision (Holy Spirit Parish Newman Center) with six conditions, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Approved unanimously. • **Conditional Use and Variances** [timestamp: 50:00]: Frank Penn motioned to approve conditional use and variances for Roman Catholic Bishop Diocese of Lexington, seconded by Patrick Brewer. Approved unanimously. **Winterwood Projects** Three related items for Winterwood were approved: • **PLN-MAR-19-00009** [timestamp: 70:00]: Will Berkley motioned to approve the zoning map amendment for Winterwood, Inc. with three revised conditions, seconded by Mike Owens. Approved unanimously. • **PLN-MJDP-19-00031** [timestamp: 75:00]: Will Berkley motioned to approve the development plan for Winterwood, LLC with seven revised conditions, seconded by Mike Owens. Approved unanimously. • **Conditional Use** [timestamp: 80:00]: Will Berkley motioned to approve conditional use for Winterwood, LLC, seconded by Mike Owens. Approved unanimously. **ZOTA 2019-3 Continuation** [timestamp: 150:00] Patrick Brewer motioned to continue discussion on ZOTA 2019-3 (Sign Ordinance Update) to the July 25, 2019 meeting, seconded by Larry Forester. The continuation was approved by voice vote. ## Public Comment Three residents addressed the commission during the public comment period, raising concerns about two main issues before the board. **Winterwood Development Opposition** Mark Smith spoke in opposition to the Winterwood development, expressing concerns about its potential impact on his property [timestamp: 90:00]. Smith cited the development's proximity to his property and worried about a potential decrease in his property value as key issues with the proposed project. **Sign Ordinance Update Concerns** Two speakers addressed the proposed sign ordinance changes during the meeting. Walt Gaffield raised concerns about the sign ordinance update, particularly focusing on the proposed increase in sign sizes and the potential for off-site commercial signs [timestamp: 160:00]. Gaffield's comments highlighted potential issues with the expanded signage provisions in the proposed ordinance. Amy Clark also spoke against the proposed sign ordinance, urging the commission not to adopt the changes [timestamp: 170:00]. Clark cited the complexity of the proposed ordinance and expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on neighborhoods as reasons for her opposition. Her comments emphasized the need for the commission to reconsider the proposed changes before moving forward with adoption. The public comments reflected community concerns about both development impacts on residential properties and the potential effects of expanded signage regulations on neighborhood character and complexity of local ordinances. ## Contested Items The June 27, 2019 meeting featured one primary contested item that drew community opposition. **Sign Ordinance Update** Community members raised significant concerns about proposed changes to the municipal sign ordinance during the meeting. The opposition centered on two main issues: questions about content neutrality provisions and objections to proposed increases in allowable sign sizes. Multiple residents spoke during the public comment period to express their concerns about how the updated ordinance would be implemented and enforced. The content neutrality aspect appeared to be a particular point of contention, with community members seeking clarification on how the new regulations would be applied fairly across different types of signage. The proposed increases to permitted sign sizes also drew criticism from attendees, though the specific dimensions or percentage increases were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The nature and extent of the community opposition suggests this was a significant policy matter that had generated considerable public interest and concern prior to the meeting. However, the available documentation does not indicate what specific action, if any, the governing body took in response to the community feedback on this agenda item. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this meeting summary.* ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The commission considered approval of the minutes from their May 23, 2019 meeting. The discussion involved Carolyn Plumlee and Karen Mundy as key participants in the review process. The commission approved the minutes of the May 23, 2019 meeting without any noted objections or amendments to the record. ## Alternative Regulation for Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 03:00] The commission considered ZOTA 2019-2, a zoning ordinance text amendment that would create an alternative process for zoning map amendments. This proposed ordinance aimed to establish new procedures for how property owners could request changes to the zoning designation of their land. Key speakers during the discussion included Patrick Brewer and Carolyn Plumlee, who presented information about the proposed alternative regulation framework. The amendment would provide property owners with additional pathways beyond the standard zoning change process currently in place. The commission engaged in discussion about the mechanics and implications of implementing this alternative zoning map amendment procedure. However, specific details about the concerns raised or the nature of the debate were not captured in the available meeting materials. After consideration of the proposal, the commission decided to postpone action on ZOTA 2019-2. This postponement indicates that commissioners needed additional time to review the proposed text amendment, gather more information, or address outstanding questions before making a final determination on whether to approve the alternative regulation framework. The postponement means the zoning ordinance text amendment will be reconsidered at a future commission meeting, allowing for further deliberation on this proposed change to the municipality's zoning procedures. ## Webb Properties Development Plan [timestamp: 20:00] The commission reviewed and approved the Webb Properties Development Plan under case number PLN-MJDP-19-00020. The development plan was presented as a resolution requiring commission action. Key speakers during the discussion included Mike Owens and Bruce Nicol, who addressed various aspects of the proposed development. The presentation and deliberation covered several critical infrastructure and design elements that required commission consideration. The commission's approval came with specific conditions addressing three main areas of concern: • **Drainage** - Requirements were established to ensure proper stormwater management and drainage infrastructure for the development • **Traffic** - Conditions were imposed to address traffic flow and transportation impacts associated with the project • **Landscaping** - Specific landscaping requirements were mandated as part of the development approval The discussion focused on these infrastructure and aesthetic requirements, which are standard considerations for development plan approvals. The conditions attached to the approval demonstrate the commission's attention to ensuring the development meets municipal standards for drainage management, traffic safety, and visual appeal through appropriate landscaping. Following the presentation and discussion of these key elements, the commission voted to approve the Webb Properties Development Plan with the stated conditions. The approval allows the project to move forward to the next phase of the development process, contingent upon meeting the specified requirements for drainage, traffic management, and landscaping implementation. ## Roman Catholic Bishop Diocese of Lexington Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 40:00] The commission considered ordinance PLN-MAR-18-00017, a zoning map amendment request from the Roman Catholic Bishop Diocese of Lexington. The proposed amendment would facilitate redevelopment and expansion of the Catholic Newman Center. Key speakers during the discussion included Patrick Brewer and Carolyn Plumlee, who presented details about the zoning change request and its implications for the Newman Center project. The zoning map amendment was designed to provide the diocese with the appropriate zoning classification needed to move forward with their plans to redevelop and expand the existing Catholic Newman Center facility. The amendment would align the property's zoning with the intended use and development plans. Following the presentation and discussion, the commission voted to approve the zoning map amendment, allowing the Roman Catholic Bishop Diocese of Lexington to proceed with their redevelopment and expansion plans for the Catholic Newman Center. ## Aylesford Subdivision Development Plan [timestamp: 45:00] The commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-18-00067, the Aylesford Subdivision Development Plan. Key speakers during the discussion included Patrick Brewer and Carolyn Plumlee. The commission reviewed the proposed development plan for the Aylesford Subdivision project. The discussion centered on the technical aspects of the subdivision layout and the necessary regulatory approvals required to move forward with the development. Following their review and discussion of the proposal, the commission voted to approve the Aylesford Subdivision Development Plan. However, the approval came with specific conditions that must be met before the development can proceed. These conditions include obtaining the necessary rezoning approvals and securing required variance approvals for the project. The conditional approval allows the development to move forward through the regulatory process while ensuring that all zoning and variance requirements are properly addressed before construction begins. ## Winterwood Zoning Map Amendment The commission considered agenda item PLN-MAR-19-00009, a zoning map amendment request from Winterwood, Inc. for a medium density residential development [timestamp: 70:00]. Key speakers during the discussion included Will Berkley and Mike Owens, who presented details about the proposed zoning change and development plans. The amendment would modify the existing zoning designation to accommodate Winterwood, Inc.'s plans for medium density residential housing in the area. The discussion focused on the technical aspects of the zoning change and how it would align with the city's development goals for residential growth. Following the presentation and commission discussion, the zoning map amendment was approved, allowing Winterwood, Inc. to proceed with their medium density residential development project under the new zoning classification. ## Sign Ordinance Update The commission reviewed agenda item ZOTA 2019-3, a proposed update to the city's sign ordinance [timestamp: 150:00]. The discussion centered on revisions aimed at modernizing the current sign regulations while addressing legal compliance issues. Craig Bencz presented the proposed ordinance changes, highlighting key modifications to existing sign standards. The update seeks to streamline regulations and provide clearer guidance for property owners and businesses seeking sign permits. Walt Gaffield raised significant concerns about content neutrality provisions within the proposed ordinance. He questioned whether certain aspects of the draft language could create legal vulnerabilities for the city, particularly regarding First Amendment protections. Gaffield emphasized the importance of ensuring the ordinance treats all types of signage equally regardless of their message content. Amy Clark contributed to the discussion by addressing specific provisions related to sign sizes and dimensional requirements. She noted potential conflicts between the proposed standards and existing business signage throughout the city, suggesting that implementation could create compliance challenges for current sign owners. The commission engaged in detailed debate about balancing aesthetic goals with constitutional requirements. Several commissioners expressed the need for additional legal review to ensure the ordinance would withstand potential court challenges while still achieving the city's objectives for visual character and safety. Technical aspects of sign measurement, setback requirements, and permit procedures were also discussed. The commissioners requested clarification on how the new standards would apply to existing non-conforming signs and what timeline would be established for bringing current signage into compliance. Following the discussion, the commission determined that additional work was needed before the ordinance could move forward. The item was continued to allow staff time to address the content neutrality concerns raised during the meeting and to refine the technical provisions based on commissioner feedback. No vote was taken on the proposed ordinance at this meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of the minutes of the May 23, 2019 meeting - **ZOTA 2019-2** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of ZOTA 2019-2: Alternative Regulation for Zoning Map Amendment - **PLN-MJDP-19-00020** — passed (11-0): Approval of development plan for Webb Properties, Unit 1, Block A, Outlot 2 (Regency Point) - **PLN-MAR-18-00017** — passed (11-0): Approval of zoning map amendment for Roman Catholic Bishop Diocese of Lexington - **PLN-MJDP-18-00067** — passed (11-0): Approval of development plan for Aylesford Subdivision (Holy Spirit Parish Newman Center) - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of conditional use and variances for Roman Catholic Bishop Diocese of Lexington - **PLN-MAR-19-00009** — passed (11-0): Approval of zoning map amendment for Winterwood, Inc. - **PLN-MJDP-19-00031** — passed (11-0): Approval of development plan for Winterwood, LLC - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approval of conditional use for Winterwood, LLC - **ZOTA 2019-3** — continued (0-0): Continuation of discussion on Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for Sign Ordinance Update --- ## Full transcript The safety equipment with the different seat belt systems and airbag systems and driver sensing systems and all that, but still the most basic system in your car would be your seat belt and probably still is the most effective in keeping you safe if you were to be involved in the collision. So with new cars, newer cars have what's called an advanced airbag system. And if your car senses that you have a seat belt on, then it knows it doesn't have to blow the airbag with such force. and if you do not have a seatbelt on then your car knows that and it blows the airbag with full force which which can also cause injury so yes certainly those are those are designed to be worked in conjunction with one another i'm sergeant randall combs with rules of the road reminding you to buckle up and be safe out there butter up that popcorn because after the break It's time for the Colt Film Service. Welcome back to Lexington Now. The Cult Film Series is a monthly showing of lesser-known or seen films every first Tuesday. Here's Ken Minter to fill us in. The Cult Film Series has been running for about 10 years now. It was started by two English professors, and both of them had an affinity for oddball, obscure films, and they, like me, wanted to expose those to local residents. The cult film series at Al's Bar of course has been at Al's Bar for the past 10 years. Currently Al's Bar has been sold to a new owner and they've essentially gutted the building and are unable to show movies or anything right now until they're finished. The series hopes to pick up back at Al's once they reopen, open but in the interim we're showing here at the Ferris Theatre which is a multi-purpose theater and event center that's open to the public and it's free to the public. My goal for this series is to expose Lexingtonians to movies they may have never seen or movies that they haven't seen since they were children or teenagers. I'd like to call to order the Urban County Planning Commission meeting for June the 27th, 2019. To those of you in the audience, we welcome you. To the staff who is here, we welcome you. And to my commission members, thank you for your attendance and also welcome. With that, the approval of the minutes, Ms. Plumlee. And move approval May 23rd 2019. Is your mic on? It is now. Okay, go ahead. Move approval. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Plumlee, second by Ms. Mundy, that we approve the minutes of May 23rd 2019. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, thank you. That motion carries. Postponements and our withdrawals. Any postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Martin? Staff, you all have postponement and withdrawals? Thank you for that reminder. We do have a request for a postponement for the text amendment that the Planning Commission initiated a few months ago for the alternative zone change process that appears on page five of the agenda. About halfway down. Item C, one, Zota 2019-2, alternative regulation for zoning map amendment. The staff would request a one-month postponement on that item. And what's the reason? The reason would be to finalize some revisions to the text related to documenting the final decisions of the Planning Commission. Thank you. Does anyone in the audience like to speak to this recommendation for postponement of Zota 2019 alternative regulation for zoning map amendment? Anyone on the Commission? Now then we're ready for a motion please. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Chairman I'll move for approval of Zota 2019-2. Okay it's been moved by Mr. Patrick Brewer, a second by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we postpone ZODA 2019-2 Alternative Regulation for Zoning Map Amendment for one month. What's the date on that? Or July the 10th. Any other discussion? July the 25th. July the 25th? We would process it at the end of the month. Thank you. Okay, July the 25th. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? okay that motion carries now we'll move back to the very first page or if there are any additional any postponements withdrawals okay last shot then let's move back to the very first page development plan is the applicant here for this okay that's no problem just want to make sure you're here alright staff Good afternoon. If you all will pull out the blue revised conditions sheet. This is for a major development plan amendment 19-20 for Webb Properties. We're located at 150 West Lowry Lane and 2350 Norman Lane. and as you can see this property is right here right across Nicholasville Road from the Trader Joes the purpose of this amendment is to add a 5,250 square foot building and associated parking on outlaw to block a and a new access drive on Nicholasville Road they're also revising the interior parking layout on lots one and two over here and also revising the site site statistics you all have postponed this item at the may 9th and may 23rd meetings and the subdivision committee recommended postponement as there are concerns with the overall developments compliance with article 18 with the bua requirements article 12 the commercial center of the zoning ordinance and the development of a regional detention basin on may 2nd the applicant submitted a revised submission to staff addressing some of the issues identified by the tech committee on april 24th staff remained concerned about the proposed underground detention and modification of an existing stormwater basin on the site and the original proposal needed a waiver of the stormwater manual regulations which was not approved by the urban county engineer the applicant met with the divisions of engineering planning and water quality to discuss possible alternative resolutions to the storm water management concerns and based on those meetings and proposed solutions staff can now offer the planning commission a recommendation for approval for this development plan if you all will look at the conditions most of the cleanup conditions have been addressed we do still need the vicinity map to be corrected condition number 12 for denoting the compliance with the vua landscaping staff does feel that those requirements have been addressed in the most recent version of the plan number 13 with documenting compliance with article 12 8h for multimodal accommodations the applicant has actually submitted a multimodal exhibit and I know it's it's hard to see all the detail on that but this exhibit does include a new bus stop and shelter sidewalks pedestrian connections and bike racks so we do feel that those requirements have been addressed number 14 for access to Nicholasville Road is still a discussion item initially the applicant proposed a write-in write-out access but they have since revised their plan to a write-in only and both traffic engineering and and KYTC have agreed that the write-in is acceptable. For number 15, resolving the proposed use of underground detention for a 50-plus acre watershed for stormwater management. As stated before, the applicant has revised their stormwater management plan, which has been reviewed and approved by Engineering and Water Quality. and the there are two exhibits that they've provided us with their new stormwater management plan that I think the applicant will give some more detail about and with that I will open it up to the Commission for any questions any Any questions on this? Any questions? Okay, thank you. Applicant? Hi, good afternoon. I'm Adam Bender from CMW. So the problem in the beginning when we went to the technical review committee meeting was the detention basin. Engineering and water quality felt that we were not meeting certain aspects of the stormwater manual. And so we decided to postpone and sit down with them and take the time to discuss this. What you're seeing in front of you right now is the proposal that engineering and water quality field will meet with the stormwater manual. This is three separate basins that will act individually. The regulation that was the issue is that you can't have more than five acres draining to an underground system. And the idea behind that is that these systems can get clogged. They need maintenance. They need to be cleaned. And engineering and water quality and several other people, from what I hear, came to the conclusion that over five acres, you just have too much going to the system. And there's too much of a risk of them being clogged. So the revised system that we've created, each has a drainage area less than five acres going to it. We are over detaining in order to make up for that additional area that's being bypassed through. And so it's still meeting all of the existing conditions or even making them improved. But it's still meeting that regulation of five acres or less going to each basin. So I believe everyone's on board now. We met with traffic and KYTC concerning that right in. and went through some iterations with them. We feel that we are not ready to submit for a final permit, but we are certainly ready to progress through this and get into the details of the design. So I'm very happy to be standing in front of you today requesting approval of this plan, and I'll take any questions that you might have. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Pence. As this was a discussion at the subdivision committee and you said this is an underground detention for up to 50 acres and you talked about 15 acres if you're under five on the three. So I know you all have a plan. Could you just very briefly tell us what you're doing with the rest of that water? Well, the majority of the area that's draining into this basin right now, each of these sites have their own detention system on site. there's at least seven or eight upstream that are outletting to the public storm system along Pasadena and then coming through this basin so what we are doing is there's three separate areas for this site each of those are going into these three basins and it's totaling about 15 acres as you said the rest of it is being bypassed through a storm pipe. However, we are over detaining each of those three areas, so rather than just meeting existing conditions, the flow coming out of these pipes is much, much, much lower in order to make up for that. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak on behalf of this particular issue? Anyone on the commission? If not, then we're ready for either additional discussion and our motion. Mr. Chair, with these revised conditions, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 19-20 Web Properties, unit 1 block A outlaw 2 with now what do we have? 15 revised conditions. I believe we can change number 14 to resolve since it sounds like that's where it's headed. Okay. Well, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Mr. Bruce Nickel that we approve the development plan PLN-MJDP 19-20 where properties unit 1 block A outlot 2 with the 15 conditions as identified by staff changing number 14 from discussed to resolved. Any other discussion on the motion? Not. Would you vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. The next item, Ms. Wade, can this particular item be considered as an abbreviated agenda item? Let me just ask if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to speak about this next item. Our next item on our agenda falls under the zoning items. It is for the Roman Catholic Bishop, Diocese of Lexington. request for property to be rezoned from an R3 zone to an R2 zone for property located at 316 through 408 Rose Lane. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak about the zone change on Rose Lane? Seeing none, I believe we can proceed with an abbreviated hearing on this case. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. This is PLN MAR 18-17, Roman Catholic Bishop, Diocese of Lexington. The applicant is seeking a zone change from the planned neighborhood residential zone to the two-family residential zone for 1.483 net acres at 316 to 408 Rose Lane. The petitioner proposes a rezoning to allow the redevelopment and expansion of the Catholic Newman Center. The development of the site will include new student public space, meeting space, and a third floor residence. The petitioner has also requested that the Planning Commission also review their conditional use permit and two-dimensional variances for the subject property. Subject property is located on Rose Lane across from the intersection of Linden Walk. The subject property is surrounded by a variety of different zoning, typically associated with properties that are attributed to the University of Kentucky or students, faculty, or staff associated with the University of Kentucky. Surrounding the proposed rezoning are various different buildings associated with fraternal or sorority societies of varying heights they've all been redone architecturally over the past few years and are not subject to many of the regulations of lexington's zoning as they are associated with a state organization here we see the aerial photography of the site the newman center here you will see some later information about how they are proposing to redevelop this site and typically the r2 would be considered a down zoning however in this case moving from the r2 or from the r3 the planned neighborhood residential zone to the duplex or two-family residential zone allows them to utilize their lot in a greater capacity the r3 has a restriction on the maximum lot coverage of 25 percent and a floor area ratio of 0.5 the proposed r2 zone will allow the newman center to expand at its present location and better utilize the property to its full extent the this will allow them to have updated facilities and not be restricted by the floor area ratio nor the maximum lot coverage that they would be restricted with the r3 so in essence allowing them to grow without having to move off site Here we have a few pictures of the property looking in off of Rose Lane, looking directly into the property. You can see the height of some of the buildings behind, as well as looking down Rose Lane, here and here, and then looking into Linden Walk. This is the rear of the property. Originally, this zone change was set for postponement because of an issue between the 1904 and 1907 Platt's, as well as some of the deeds. There was a strip of land in the rear of the property that was not on the legal description and not in some of the deeds. Staff asked that the applicant go ahead and clear that up so that all the property could be properly rezoned. They took their time to go ahead and do that, and that cleared up a lot of the issues going forward with ownership of the property. This strip is particularly what we're talking about right here. the applicant has cleared that up and now has clear property ownership to this site you can also see looking into the parking lot next door that they utilize and then just into the Newman Center off the walkway the petitioner indicates that the zone change is in conformity with both the 2013 plan and the adopted 2018 comprehensive plan goals and objectives this This application was submitted in 2018 prior to the adoption of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan and as such is only subject to the 2013 and then the goals and objectives of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner opines that the requested expansion of the church and the associated support amenities will provide enhanced community facilities and will continue to be a vital focal point for the neighborhood. They also opine that the requested zone change is in agreement with the 2018 goals and objectives as it supports the redevelopment throughout the urban service area by allowing for greater utilization of the Newman's current location. Additionally, the Newman Center provides a spiritual and community resource to the area and helps to create a well-designed neighborhood and community. Finally, the Newman Center acts as a community facility at a neighborhood scale, which provides services to a surrounding community, including surrounding Lexington parishioners and the University of Kentucky students. The staff agrees with these elements of the petitioner's application related to the rezoning of the property. With the clarification of the property line and the resolution of ownership of the land, staff recommends approval of the zone change of the subject property. The zoning committee during their meeting also recommended approval for this zone change. The requested conditional use permit and variances will be addressed by Ms. Wade shortly, but if you have any questions regarding the zone change, I would be happy to answer them at this time. Any questions for Mr. Bailey? Thank you. The development plan will be found on page four, by the way, and Mr. Martin, I guess, will be presenting that. That's under C on page four. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this is Major Development Plan 18-67, the Ellsford Subdivision, also the Holy Spirit Parish Newman Center Development Plan. Here, I want to make sure I get myself oriented. There we go. Rose Street, Columbia Terrace. This is the area in question where there was a deed discrepancy with the lotting pattern between the 1904-1905 plats that Mr. Bailey referenced. Here, they have 40 parking spaces that currently serve the facility. The existing facility here is a single story, 14,000 plus square feet. This is a patio area and an open space area for people to use and enjoy. And you can see they have access, pedestrian access back to Columbia Terrace. The addition is going to be over 24,000 square feet addition and three stories. So it's a considerable addition to the facility to allow them to do more and provide more opportunity to the people that utilize the facility and the people that attend church there, of course. It's very simple conditions that you can see on your plan. There are just standard sign-off conditions. this plan does include the area in question as part of the plan. The height of the proposed addition, as well as its location on the lot, the front yard setback, those are the variances that are being requested that Ms. Wade is going to discuss with you. Your subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan, and staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have about the development plan. Any questions for staff or Mr. Martin? Okay. We'll go ahead to the next variances and conditions. Thank you, Chairman Wilson, members of the commission. The request to rezone also involved a request to approve a conditional use for the site for the Newman Center, as well as two variances, as Mr. Martin alluded to. The first is to increase the allowable height from 35 feet in the R2 zone to 50 feet, and then to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet. Again, on the site plan helps us the most to indicate the new improvements. They are removing an existing wing of the Newman Center and then replacing it and expanding it. The existing wing that's being removed is about 4,200 square feet. It includes meeting rooms and four dwelling units, and they're proposing to replace that with a 24,000 square foot addition, which is really more in line with the size of the existing Newman Center in terms of footprint. So this is the sanctuary, which has the front sort of projection towards Rose Lane. the dash line underneath in the middle here really shows the existing wing that's to be removed. It's two stories tall. And then the larger rectangle or square here indicates where the addition will be placed. But it will be three stories rather than two. And so 24,000 square foot here. The existing sanctuary is approximately 14,000. So we're looking at a total of 38,000 square feet on the site. Mr. Martin mentioned that they do have 41 parking spaces on site. And you can see on this graphic that the gray massing is really showing their existing parking. Their existing parking does include university-owned parcel as well. And that is a long-term lease agreement or it's actually sort of a deed agreement to allow for the Newman Center to utilize these 40 spaces on the University of Kentucky's property. So in total, they have 81 spaces, and that meets the requirement of the zoning ordinance. They have 400 seats in their sanctuary, which requires 80 parking spaces. and then for the one dwelling unit they intend to put on site, that needs just one space, so 81 spaces. So for the conditional use, they meet the requirements of the ordinance. As Hal, Mr. Bailey mentioned, this particular religious assembly is geared towards the university, but it also has a portion of the community that it serves for the parish, and by expanding they'll be able to continue with their mission of serving that particular portion of the community but also to serve the university needs as it grows. The two variances that have been requested, again, the first one was related to the height. The sort of special circumstance that relates to this property that the staff considered in terms of recommending approval of a variance is that it really is located in a location on the university campus. All of the property adjacent to this site, with the exception of, I believe, two small homes across Rose Lane, are owned by the university. And so they've built a lot of fraternity and sorority houses, and those tend to be quite large structures. And they have been constructed at either two and a half or three and a half stories in many cases. And so the height on a university-owned property, there are no really zoning restrictions. It has a zone, but they don't have to comply with local zoning laws as a state institution. So they really don't worry about how tall their building gets or how much footprint it creates. And so the comparison would be the special circumstances that the adjoining uses are already exceeding zoning regulations in many cases. and are two and a half and three stories tall. And so when the applicant is asking for an increase of 15 feet, that will actually make it a bit more compatible with the existing and surrounding heights of structures in the area. And that is also relatively true about the setback requirement. So this red line is an indication of where 30 feet, the requirement in the R2 zone is, for the subject site. You can see it already the building, the sanctuary projects over that 30 foot line because in the existing zone, R3, they have a 20 foot setback. So they met that and they're asking for that 20 foot setback to really continue which is indicated by our yellow line here. That will allow for that addition to really be in line with the rest of their building at the corner here and also be relatively consistent with an adjoining property on this side and similar at least to the opposite side. In the staff's research, we found that to the north, setbacks were generally between 10 and 20 feet on Rose Lane and then to the south, they were generally 23 to 48 feet, so a little bit further setback, but certainly within the range of the 20 foot that the applicant is requesting. So the staff did find that this was both the conditional use and the two variances would not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare, or alter the general character of the vicinity in this particular location. And the staff also found that there wasn't an unreasonable circumvention of the ordinance, nor were there any, excuse me, I indicated the special circumstance, and then the circumstances surrounding this request were not the fault of the applicant. They are making the request. They haven't circumvented the ordinance to go around the request. They've waited to ask for it and then pursue it. Sorry. So the staff did recommend approval, and there were five conditions related to that. First is if the zone change is approved, this would apply. If not, it would be null and void. That they file for all their necessary permits. That they provide the executed parking agreement, which they have already done. That they review the final design of the parking lot if it needs to be changed with traffic engineering. And then lastly, that their conditional use and variance be noted on the face of the development plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions about that particular question. The zoning committee did recommend approval of those as well. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. Applicant? Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commission members and staff. I'm Chris Clendenin. I'm pleased to be here on behalf of the diocese and this Newman Center project. Other individuals involved with this project include my law partner Mr. Murphy, who I'm sure you all know, and our landscape architect, Kevin Warner from Carmen. I think the staff's done a very good job presenting all the information to you, but the three of us are here to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Since this has been approved as an abbreviated hearing, we are going to dispense with any other discussion from the audience at this time. And so we're ready for a motion. And, in fact, I think we'll need four of them this time for clarification. We'll need one for the zone, for the development plan, for the variance, and one for the conditional use. Who would like to start us off one way or the other? Okay. Mr. Penn. So you want to start with the zone change first? Start with the zone change first. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MAR 18, day 17. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn and second by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve PLN MAR 18 day 17 Roman Catholic Bishop Diocese of Lexington. Any other discussion on the motion? I might add for the reasons provided by staff. Also add that to the motion. If no other discussion, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries. Now if you would go to page 4, pick that up. Mission Development Plan. Second. right mr chairman i move for approval of pln mjdp 1867 with the six conditions okay it's been moved by mr frank penn who was the second on that okay and mr brewer second that we approve pln mjdp 18-67 with the six conditions provided by staff any other discussion on the motion please vote when it comes up on your screens we're behind a little bit on the okay here we go all right good thank you now go to the if you would take the variances next okay don't take them one at a time yes you know take the variances as a group the two variances and then we'll go to the conditional use okay mr. chairman I I approve approval of the variances, two variances. Mr. Penn and Mr. Wilson, I believe those two items are listed together on the agenda under item B. So the way they're set up in the voting system, I think you'll only be able to take one vote on that. In other words, can we take a consensus vote on it? Together, to consider them together. Okay, then we'll do that. We'll put the variances along with the conditional use. Okay. Okay. So if you'll do that as well. So then I will approve the variances and the conditional use at the same time. Thank you. Okay. As presented by staff. That's agreeable with you, Mr. Brewer. Okay, Mr. Penn moves. Mr. Brewer seconds that we approve the two variances, requested variances, to increase the maximum allowable height of the building from 35 feet to 50 feet and to reduce the front yard from 30 feet to 20 feet. In addition to that, we approve the requested conditional use. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you. good members of the commission we are moving to page four of your agenda um online you will or on your granicus you will find that there is an updated staff report uh that you can click on we are moving away from paper so it should be there for your viewing this is pln mar 19-9 winterwood incorporated this zone change is seeking to change the current zoning from the two family residential r2 zone to the planned neighborhood residential r3 zone for 3.82 net and 3.92 gross acres located at 1812 for sales road the petitioner is proposing the planned neighborhood residential zone to construct a medium density residential development containing four two-story multi-family structures and an associated community center the developer is planning to own and manage the multi-family buildings and will have staff on site at the community center the developer has indicated that the proposed development will be affordable housing and is in the process of obtaining additional subsidies to lessen the financial impact on potential residences before delving into the description of the area and the proposed rezoning staff would like to briefly discuss the neighborhood outreach conducted by the applicant the petitioner's efforts at neighborhood outreach included one-on-one discussions with key stakeholders including former council member peggy henson and calls to several area neighborhood organizations prior to submitting their application following their submission on may 13th the applicant also conducted an open house style meeting at the village branch library the applicant brought information regarding the proposed rezoning and the development plan to discuss with the attendance and had representatives from its engineering and architecture firms present as well as their legal counsel available to answer any questions while attendance was not high the representatives from the pine meadows neighborhood association and hamilton park westgate neighborhood association were present an attendance sheet was provided to the division of planning following the meeting and staff was on site to answer any questions regarding the process for the zone change i will allow the applicant to address some of the other discussions that were had during that meeting when they come and give their presentation the site is located on the south side of bersales road us 60 which is a four lane principal or principal arterial roadway at this location the subject property is situated at the midpoint between the interchange with new circle Road and downtown Lexington. There is a second local road, Hillrise Drive, located right here, that currently stubs into the property and feeds into Terrace View Drive. Terrace View Drive provides signalized access to Versailles Road. The corollary development plan depicts a proper termination of the stub street per the land subdivision regulations. The subject property is located within a mixed-use neighborhood that currently includes various residential business and professional office land uses the properties that directly abut the property the subject property include detached single-family residences r1c and r3 zones duplexes the r2 zone and multi-family residential r3 zone the neighborhood also includes the cardinal hill rehabilitation hospital and and support medical offices associated with the P1 zone. You can see the pieces of the rehabilitation hospital here and then some support facilities here. The neighborhood also includes two neighborhood parks, Hillcrest Memorial Park and the Pine Meadows Park, neighborhood shopping areas along Oxford Circle, which are zone B1, and a place for a religious assembly within the oxford circle the property was rezoned in 1969 from a single family residential r1 zone to a two-family residential zone to better conform with the surrounding land uses since that time many of the properties to the east and the west have rezoned to allow for increased residential densities so here we can see the aerial view of the property oxford circle right in this area, the hospital right here. We're seeing various densities and shifts and increases in densities as you move along from this area over. So we do see some single-family households in this area, shifting to duplexes, and then multifamily in this area. There are both advantages and disadvantages on this site. One of the limiting factors for development among this portion of Versailles Road has been the floodplain that runs along the rear of the property and includes a blue line stream von's branch this has pushed much of the development up to the front of versailles road and has created a large open space along the rear of the properties two lot two lots here and here have been purchased by the city and are being utilized as a open green space as well as protecting the drainage feature there. The limitation also allows for an advantage for the property to easily meet their open space requirements while also providing a focal point for the site. Additionally, one of the advantages of the site is the location itself along the arterial roadway. The portion of Versailles Road experiences approximately 24,800 average daily trips and feeds directly into the downtown area as one of the arterials there are numerous transit spots along this for potential residences you can see them up in the corners with the stars and just looking down from across the street of the property you can see the bus stop right here the location of the subject property is less than 550 feet from both an inbound and outbound transit stop so that's pretty pretty connected for residents of this development to get both into downtown lexington and transfer if they need to or out along this arterial roadway here we're looking into the uh the property itself standing from the stub street on hill rise drive we can look into the property and then looking into the rear of the property you can see there is a grade change right at the back that is where you're starting to see the the flood plain really take over so there is a drop off in that area and then if you look at the opposing development you can see a portion of the apartment complex in the top right there is also a bit of a grade change right there well looking back into hill arise drive you can also see the duplex complex that is also being managed by the applicant shifting to the frontage along versailles road looking directly into the property as it stands right now as a single family household across the street out towards new circle road and then back towards downtown during the zoning subcommittee staff had still had remaining concerns regarding three development criteria that necessitated further discussion these included the multi-family design standards from appendix one which were strictly focused on the site planning and the open space and landscape design and then also the connections to the greenways tree stands and stream corridors that should be provided and new focal points that emphasize the geographic features that are unique to this site during that meeting the zoning committee also recommended postponement for this this zone change in the period following the subdivision and zoning committee however the applicant met with staff to revise their development plan and the zone change application in order to address the concerns described within the original staff report the comments made during the the committee meetings were also addressed and you can see that they have brought in a new depiction of how they are trying to achieve all of these elements For this, we can directly point to their access to the green space behind, as well as the potential for a trail to be made by the LFUCG for future connection between the park right in this location and the LFUCG owned properties over in this location. location the applicant also brought in renderings regarding how they are seeking to develop the buildings themselves and answered quite a few questions regarding some of staff's concerns this is the depiction that they brought in they also brought in a written document that describes some of the limitations of the site it is a long and skinny remnant piece that they are trying to fit in some good density and it also acts as a step up in density from the surrounding land uses an appropriate step up from those two family residences to the multi-family with these uh with working with the applicant and the new renderings and depictions of how they will be utilizing the property and acknowledging some of the criteria that they had missed prior the staff can now recommend approval of the proposed zone change from a two-family residential zone to a planned neighborhood residential zone as the proposal meets the 2018 comprehensive plans goals and objectives and development criteria the proposed rezoning encourages the expansion of housing choices while also supporting infill and redevelopment and providing a well designed neighborhood the proposed zoning works to achieve an effective and comprehensive transportation system by better utilizing and supporting the multimodal system along versailles road and by properly terminating hill rise drive the proposed rezoning seeks to accommodate the demand for housing in lexington responsibly prioritizing affordable higher density residential and a mixture of housing types the justification and the corollary development plan are also in agreement with the policies and development criteria of the 2018 comprehend comprehensive plan the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for the site design building form and location as the site criteria create a residential development that is pedestrian friendly while also providing access to focal points and public green space additionally the proposed rezoning seeks to increase the intensity of use of an underutilized vacant parcel talking about the back portion portion of land while also minimizing the impacts on the surrounding environment and communities the proposed rezoning includes safe facilities for the potential residents of the site by prioritizing multimodal connections and by connecting the site to versailles road the versailles road corridor and adjoining developments these improvements address the transportation and pedestrian connectivity development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan finally the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for green space and environmental health as it works to with the current landscape limits the impacts on the surrounding environment maintains many of the current tree lines and canopy and provides a delineated access to open space this recommendation is subject to the development plan the approval of the development plan which mr martin will hear we'll discuss here shortly i would also like to stress that the applicant has worked quite well with staff throughout this process and they have been very active in trying to work with staff to remedy some of the issues that they have dealt with throughout this this process and some of staff's concerns they the neighborhood meeting while it did not occur prior to the submission of their application they had submitted or had reached out to neighborhoods and it was it occurred shortly thereafter it also was nice to see some applicants that were really taking hold of some of the development criteria and really running with it they uh they seem to i would hope enjoy the process uh with that being said if you have any questions uh there is a conditional uh use permit for this which miss wade will discuss here shortly for a community center but if you have any questions for me i'd be happy any questions for the staff mr owens thank you thank you mr wilson uh Mr. Bailey, the revisions, when did you all receive those? We received the revisions, so the Friday after the zoning and subdivision committees, they came and met with staff. By that next Wednesday, they had submitted new drawings and new written material for their justification. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Bailey? Okay, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan associated with the zone change. Half a screen there. It's on your agenda on page five, but we have provided with you some revised conditions for the plan at your seat. The development plan that you see before you, again, here's Hill Rise Drive. It will be terminated in a cul-de-sac at this location. they'll have an access drive to provide the parking and access to the apartment buildings, as you can see, at this location. Now, here's Vercels Road. There is no connection, nor is one proposed, to Vercels Road. And as you all are well aware, that was something that was talked about with staff extensively with the applicant and concerns about that access. So, again, there is no access to Vercels Road. So sole access will be off Hill Rise Drive. They're proposing 28 dwelling units, and you can see the buildings here, here, and in this location for the units. They are one-bedroom units, two-story buildings, 34 feet in height. The total square footage is just a little over 20,000, almost 21,000 square feet between these buildings. Now, this is the community center. that is included on the plan and is subject to the conditional use. And their parking is in this location. They're providing 11 parking spaces to serve the community center. And the community center is over 8,000. In fact, it's over 8,600 square feet. And you can see it is a significant structure that's designed to assist the various residents, not just in the development, but neighboring residents as well. Here we have an area where they'll have the dumpsters as well as the fire trucks can get back in here if they need to and turn around. That was something that was discussed with the applicant, and they addressed the concerns from those agencies to be sure that it would function. They have the exact number of – they have 28 units. They need 42 parking spaces. They're providing the 42 parking spaces for the units. Again, this is a preliminary plan. There will be a final development plan that this body will see. Hal alluded to the long rectangular lot here, and that is a dominant pattern in this area of our community along Roussel's Road over the years, these long remnant rectangular lots. And I don't believe staff would anticipate any significant changes from what you see here today. Here we have the floodplain. And the floodplain in this area, as Hal mentioned, it's a very dominating characteristic in that part of our community. And Vaughn's branch actually drains the University of Kentucky. It comes under the railroad track and through those older developments along the neighborhoods in that area off of South Broadway and then under by the clinic and through the golf course, and we have Vaughn's branch. There has been extensive public works. there's been a project done specifically in this area some years ago. In fact, it was done prior to the consent decree. There have been projects done in the past upstream as well on Vaughn's branch. Your staff gets a lot of calls and have over the years about the floodplain. It's been studied extensively. Its extent has been reduced somewhat. But Pine Meadows, that subdivision, Cardinal Valley were built before we had standards, before the flood insurance program existed. So some of those areas do have to deal with the issue of flood insurance and some flooding. But there's been a lot of public efforts directed in that area over the years. So, again, that is a very dominating characteristic. there's the access that Hal was referring to so that people will be able to access the greenway, the floodplain area, and any future trails that the city may build in the area. You can see from your revised conditions all that remains on this preliminary plan are sign-off conditions. And your staff received this revision on June 6th and are very happy to recommend approval to you today. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Could you explain the item 7 on the revised staff recommendation, the last item there where it says new focal points should emphasize geographic features unique to the site? Yes sir. Hal and I talked about that today and actually that's why you just heard me go on a little bit. as I can be prone to do, Mr. on the floodplain. The floodplain is very much the key geographic feature there. Again, the land use feature is the long linear lots that existed historically in that area, but certainly the geographic feature. You drive Versailles Road, Graham, and you know it doesn't, you don't see the change in elevation quite as pronounced as it is. When you get back into this area and Hill Rise Drive and all that, they're sitting up on a hill, and it drops down to the creek, and then, boom, you're up again at Cardinal Valley. It's quite an extreme relief change going in that direction. So it's staff's estimation this. The floodplain is the key geographic feature. So what's the focal point? It would be access to it. It in and of itself would be the focal point. It's a lot of green space. It's areas that people are allowed to utilize and get into and enjoy as much as they can. So presumably there would be an assumption that the community center would have some kind of visual relationship with the floodplain. That's an excellent question, and I think that's something that we should probably examine at the final development plan and ask about when they've had more time to work on that particular architecture. You've seen the architecture for the apartments and that concern. And, of course, on a development plan, we can have them show offsets and entrances and that sort of thing, and that's why we get the renderings, particularly now, and we get notes associated with the things that they intend to do. But, no, that's actually a very good question, and staff appreciates that. Okay, Ms. Mundy. Tom, it sounds like you've had meaningful conversations among staff and the applicant. Has the applicant had meaningful conversations with the neighborhood? They'll have to answer that question. The staff believes they have. but I think it's best that they could explain the full interaction. And certainly staff has had very meaningful and very good interactions with the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Ms. Wade. Thank you, Chairman Wilson. As Mr. Bailey and Mr. Martin both alluded to, this application does include a conditional use request as well. When they first filed it, they showed this and listed it as a community center. And so we asked, is that a conditional use or do you mean it to be more of a clubhouse for the site itself? And they clarified that they really did intend for it to be more of a community center and available not just to the residents of this site but also to the properties or the residents that live on the adjacent parcel and even the broader community. So they amended their application before we sent letters out and added the conditional use request to that. So the site does locate that conditional use, the community center, really at the entrance to the rest of the development. You'll see one of the residential units to the south. It's not really south. And then the rest of the residential units to the north of the site. But it is at the very entrance off of Hill Rise Drive, and so it's centrally located and accessible, not just to the residents on this site, but also to the residents that are located in the R2 zone adjacent. They are proposing a structure that is approximately 4,300 square feet, and they indicated on their development plan they're providing 11 parking spaces for that use, which would meet the five spaces required for a community center and then allow for up to six full-time employees on the site. If they wish to have additional employees, they would provide additional parking spaces on site to meet that. In terms of the conditional use, the staff doesn't believe that this request for conditional use would be inappropriate at this location. In fact, we believe it will support the proposed multifamily residential and also provide public facilities and services to the immediate area. The staff did recommend approval of this conditional use request to the zoning committee three weeks ago, and we do to the rest of the planning commission as well finding that it won't have an adverse effect on the subject property or the surrounding area and that all of the necessary public services and facilities are available to serve this proposed community center there were three conditions proposed associated with that first it's contingent on the zone change obviously second that all the permits be secured through the normal process and then last that the parking lot be be prepared or put in with the appropriate landscaping and screening a lot of times conditional uses aren't required to have all of that but in this case because they have 11 spaces they should follow articles 16 and 18 of the zoning ordinance the staff recommended approval as did the zoning committee be happy to answer any questions questions for miss Wade okay thank you the applicant thank you members of the Commission my name is Cliff Ashburner I'm with the law firm of Densmore and Scholl here on behalf of Winterwood Inc I want to try get our plan back up there we go perfect thank you very much for the the very good staff comments and I'd like to you know echo mr. Bailey's comments about the cooperation between our development team if you will and and the staff I have with me Zach Worsham with Winterwood and Scott Southall with CDP engineers to extent that you have planned questions probably ought to direct those to scott with regard to the neighborhood engagement to your question ms mundy mr worstrom reached out to several neighborhood organizations was able to connect with some not with others with regard to the meeting that we conducted it was an open house style meeting at the village branch of the library we held the house open if you will for two hours we had I would say maybe 15 to 20 people cycle through we did have representatives of the architecture firm as well as CDP myself mr. Bailey was there as well to answer questions some of the topics that came up were topics that could be addressed on the plan for instance pedestrian connectivity the entrance to Versailles Road the look of buildings the amount of landscaping those sorts of things that a developer can modify plan to address some of the concerns that were raised were things that really can't be addressed some folks you know expressed displeasure with the idea of affordable housing things like that and and those are you know those are things you we really can't do without changing the fundamental nature of the proposal and so we have not made changes to address those concerns but i i would say that the neighborhood meeting was a meaningful conversation and I think that the plan and the plan changes from the time of filing to now reflect at least some of the comments that were raised by those in the community. So as was stated, this is 28 units on a little over three acres. All the buildings are two stories. I think you'll find if you look at our development plan that, especially if you compare our development plan to the limits within the zoning ordinance, this is a sort of respectful development of the site. We're not trying to overdevelop the subject property by providing the 28 units in the community center. we're respecting the open space connecting to the open space and a Commissioner poll I think your comment about how the community center addresses that open space is well taken and it's certainly something that we'll be addressing at the final development plan we obviously agree with the staff's analysis of the application especially as it's been amended since the zoning committee met and so would ask that you recommend approval of the zone change and act positively on the other motions that are before you. I'm happy to take any questions. As I said, Mr. Southall is here and Zach Worsham is here as well. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Yes, Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Ashburner, as far as the community center, can you expound on the your thoughts as to the uses for that well this this project is being done in conjunction with avol of kentucky they they help medically vulnerable individuals and so they will work and actually we've got the director of avol here if you'd like to ask him some questions mr parker the my understanding of of the population that they serve as i said is medically vulnerable individuals. They will help those individuals find housing, connect them with a social worker, connect them potentially with medical professionals, have gatherings and things of that nature within the community center. There are individual spaces designed in the center as well as meeting rooms and they are open to the public so that's not there's there's no limitation on on who can come and use their services thank you does does seem like a something that's much needed thank you any other questions thank you very much uh is there anyone here from uh in the audience would like to speak on this particular yes sir come on forward please My name is Mark Smith and my house, if you're facing my house, this development will be to the right of me. It's going to be, I mean, it's going to literally be in my side yard. They've, I've lived there 30 years. It wasn't very long ago that the city spent money for a beautification corridor thing down Versailles Road. I don't really know how this is going to be an improvement upon that. You have over 100 apartment buildings across the street surrounding Oxford Circle. I mean literally within 200 or 300 yards of this property. The density, they said 28 dwellings on 7.33 acres. Well, all that, you've got a floodplain in the back. All of that 28 dwellings, two of those buildings are going to be, one of them is going to be in my front yard, and one of them is going to be in my side yard looking in my bedroom windows. And then it just keeps going. Everything's pushed towards Versailles Road. as far as it says no adverse effect. I don't know. It's going to adversely affect my property. I mean, with all the rentals behind it and around it, is it needed for one thing? I just my my property will be adversely affected for sure I mean we just jacked up the taxes on my on my property I don't know 15 grand this year I mean I don't I don't see how this is going to benefit that and there's this this Winterwood the the people doing this also own the property to the left of us and when they developed it they pushed the street right up next to the to the work five the the road is five feet from from our property line if if they're allowed to do this I mean do I they can't build anything there will I have the the right or the ability to develop this because I can't see us living there I mean can I was pretty much the end of what we would consider you know a place to live here. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this particular agenda item? For those of you who are not familiar with our process, just as a reminder, we now will ask the petitioner if he would like to, or the applicant would like to respond to anything that the citizen has expressed. This is classified as our rebuttal period. Can you get the plan back up? Yeah. Yeah. I think it's important any time you look at a proposed development to look at the underlying zoning now compared to the underlying zoning that's being requested and the development plan. Mr. Smith's property is zoned R2, so it could be developed as duplexes at some point in the future. and the yard requirements I think would be very similar to the yard requirements that we're observing. Even irrespective of what the code might otherwise allow on the property, I do think it's relevant that the site, as you can see, has a 20-foot setback with landscaping in it that is adjacent to Mr. Smith's property. even if the site were to develop under R2 I believe on its side yard would be potentially 6 feet from the property line and we're observing 20 feet from the property line so I don't think that the impact I understand that any time a property changes any time a property changes especially when it changes from a lower density to a higher density there is typically concern expressed on the part of the adjoining property owner but here I think that the buffers that are being provided and the site design sufficiently protect Mr. Smith, especially when compared to what could happen today under the R2 zoning. With that, I did not hear anything in his comments that would dissuade me from concurring with the staff's continuing recommendation of approval. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Smith, do you have any other comments? If you'd like to come back to the microphone, you can come back. You get another shot at it. The plan that I saw at the library where they invited us, I mean, they're going to leave 10 feet alone. and then the building starts and that's probably I don't know but that's I mean you know it's literally in my side yard the it appears where they're gonna put the dumpsters don't that'll be my view I mean that's to the west you know the wind generally blows in from the west that'll be a beautiful sight too thank you okay thank you miss wade from the staff's perspective anything and sir we'll have an open session for questions additional from this commission here in just a minute so regarding this side yard setback initially the applicant had 10 feet along between the neighbors property and their first building that was during their first iteration staff with the group residential requirements staff had them push that to 20 feet now there's also when the final development plan does come through we'll have a greater discussion of the zone to zone buffering there will be a required six-foot fence with some vegetation along that fence as well as a tree every 40 feet thank you I'm gonna open it up for the Commission members if they have any questions of either the applicant the staff or even people in the community that I have well I have I want to give my Commission members a chance to get in here if not let me bring you back yes to the mic one of the issues that he's raised course first of all he wanted to know about that buffer thing and he was under the impression it was 10 of course it's 20 he also indicated something to the effect that if he looked out at his window he'd see a dumpster or something can you give any enlightenment to that there's a there's a shelter area and I think that's a requirement of the zoning ordinance the dumpsters located between those two buildings and that will be sheltered in accordance with the zoning ordinance okay so he's not not gonna be able to see it okay in addition to the screening requirement and and I think you know I'm half my client if there are specific screening requests from mr. Smith I think we'd be willing to discuss those kind offline before we come back with the final development plan. Okay. Good. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not, thank you, sir. Thank you. We'll close this part of the hearing then to the public and we'll bring this back to the commission for additional discussion. If you all have any questions or anything, you can certainly go back and ask, but if not, we'll have a motion of one kind or another here. Mr. Barclay? If nobody wants to make any other comments, I'll be glad to make a motion. Well, I've opened it up. No one seems to have any additional comments or questions. I would like to make this a very quick comment. I respect what Mr. Smith is, his concerns, and I noticed on the plan that there are trees shown. I noticed that there's a cluster of five trees. around the dumpster area which is a higher density than the 14 foot spacing that that hal mentioned and so i just want to encourage the applicant to work closely with mr smith if possible in developing the final development plan to ensure that mr smith's views are protected by the right kind of buffering Very good. Now Mr. Berkley. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of MAR19-00009 for the three revised conditions. I believe they're only available on our screen. or for the three revised reasons not conditions sorry okay uh okay mr mr berkeley moves mr mike owen seconds that we approve pln mar 19-9 winterwood incorporated with the three reasons provided by staff any other discussion on the motion now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens Okay, would you continue Mr. Berkley with the development portion? I'm going to move for approval of plan MJDP 19-31 with the seven revised conditions recommended by staff, changing number seven to resolve. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Will Berkeley and seconded by Mr. Mike Owens that we approve PLN MJDP 19-31 Winterwood with the seven conditions provided by staff, changing number seven from discussed to resolved. Any other discussions on the motion? Now would you please vote again when it comes on your screens. And then finally, I think we need to, we have to go back to our screens again for the conditional use report, but I am going to move for approval of that conditional use request as proposed by staff. Okay. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Will Berkley. Who's the seconder? Okay, and Mr. Owens seconds that we approve the conditional use for the conditions and reasons provided by staff. Any other discussion on that motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. That motion carries. Let me also add, just the vote is over with and what have you, But let me say, first of all, I think on behalf of this commission, we appreciate the applicant working as diligently as you have in trying to reach out to the community and trying to engage the community in meaningful discussion. I would also second Mr. Pol's comment. I hope that you can do what you can do with that screening activity to help Mr. Smith out in terms of what he's actually being able to see out his window because I think we all share that perspective as well. understandably we've got another development plan that we'll have a chance to see this Mr. Smith so we appreciate you coming down and expressing your concerns to this as well thank you latest and we'll move on to the next item just to clarify Mr. Chairman I'm up there as a blank I actually voted yes oh I'm sorry what was the it was my fault what did I didn't Okay, I accept. Thank you. I don't know what I did to mess that up, but any hand, I'm sorry. Whatever I did. Okay, what's next? Okay. It's been requested. We have a five-minute break, so we'll take a five-minute break here. there's a few items that have been uploaded to granicus for your review that i just want to draw your attention to the proposed article 17 text should be in there for you to review there's also a matrix comparing existing and proposed sign areas you received a hard copy of of that as well shortly. And there's also a original and supplemental staff report that's been uploaded for your review. So just some brief background information on this. This amendment began back in February of 2017. David Pike with Pike Legal Group presented to the Planning and Public Safety Committee at the request of former Council Member Scotchfield regarding a Supreme Court case that had recently been decided that was referred to as Reed versus the town of Gilbert, which essentially applied to the regulation of all signs. The result of that case was a requirement for content neutral sign code language that applies to both residential and non-residential uses per KLC and our local, our in-house legal staff as well. as well so in order to begin the process of amending this ordinance we pulled together a sign ordinance work group which is made up of representatives from planning building inspection law and council former councilmember sketchfield was attending those meetings for a while and councilmember Evans attended those as well. That work group did a line by line comparison or a line by line review of the existing article 17 language and removed all references to content as they went through there. This was also a good opportunity to clarify requirements throughout the ordinance so that's what the work group did. They emphasized consistency throughout the ordinance language. They addressed frequent requests such as combining sign types and further requirements regarding temporary signs and things of that nature. But the goals were always to create a content neutral code as well as make the ordinance much easier to interpret. The regulations throughout the Article 17 were moved to requirements for each zone to minimize searching. We tried to make it one-stop shopping as much as we could. And language throughout the article has been removed that referred to types of sign that would refer to content. So in the current version of Article 17, you might see references to identification signs or nameplate signs or business signs. Those are all simply referred to as signs now with requirements for size and so on. Some of the other changes that we are proposing, the Board of Adjustment currently reviews applications for variances to dimensional requirements. We are proposing, the work group is proposing that the Board of Adjustment may consider applications for the transfer of unused signage square footage along the same street frontage, as long as those are for the same signage type. Some of the just general changes we made throughout Article 17, including references to advertising signs that are now referred to as billboards, that was consistent with the model code language that you received. And construction screening sign provisions have been removed completely. And it's important to mention that construction signs themselves are exempt and allowed. This is only referring to screening signs that you would see on a screening fence or something like that. Those have been prohibited under this proposed language. With regard to temporary signage, the work group is proposing that the 100 square foot total sign size that's allowed right now in the code for non-rigid materials, which would typically be something like a vinyl banner or something of that nature, be reduced to 50 square feet in the new language. While they can be placed out for 30 days at a time right now, the proposed code language requires 14 days, 14 continuous days for temporary signs. And the total time that you can have a temporary sign out is dropping from 150 total days per year down to 56. These next slides go zone by zone essentially just to give you an idea of some of the changes that are being proposed. Specific signage requirements for home occupations and bed and breakfast facilities were removed probably wasn't the best way to put that. best way to put that they've been all consolidated into the all other permitted uses section of each zone in terms of farms the there's a proposal to allow an additional sign for entrance on the wall as long as it's integrated into a wall or fence as well as or in addition to a freestanding sign for religious or educational uses the existing code allows one freestanding or one wall sign and the work group felt that it would be reasonable to change that to and it's we're allowing one or proposing the allowance of free one freestanding and one wall sign in that case for the mobile home park zone the only change that you'll see there is that the setback has been amended from 20 feet to 10 feet This was the only zone that had a 20-foot setback, and we tried to remain consistent throughout this article with the setback of 10 feet. For the low-density residential zones, again, we are clarifying the signed setback to 10 feet. Currently, you can have a, or there is a requirement for one-half of the minimum front yard setback, So that is proposed for removal with all setbacks being 10 feet at this point. We also again removed those specific signage requirements for certain uses and moved all of those to all other permitted uses in the draft. And for religious and educational uses, it's similar to what I discussed before. The provision for one freestanding or one wall sign has been amended to one freestanding and one wall sign. For the higher density residential zones, currently they are allowed one 32 square foot sign freestanding or wall mounted with that minimum setback of 20 feet. We're amending that setback to 10 feet consistent with all other zones and allowing one freestanding sign per entrance with the understanding that they would be 32 square feet total in combination. We're also removing specific requirements for group residential projects and those other references. That's what I had discussed before. All of those are being removed to all other permitted uses. And we're removing poll banners as permitted in the high density residential zones. And the reason for that is because we cannot regulate content anymore, because there can be no reference to content, the poll banner signs are now generally being proposed for non-residential and mixed-use zones and removed from the residential zones for professional office zone and mixed-use one we removed an informational sign allowance that was that's currently in the code that became just a content issue there was no way to refer to that without using content language and there was a provision for a third wall mounted sign in that particular zone that that we are proposing to remove as well for the B1 the neighborhood business zone we are proposing that that freestanding business signage be allowed to be combined as applicable and really what this gets to is the workgroup felt that it would be better to have less signs it would be better to have less signs that have a little bit more square footage than more signs so in this as an example if you have two signs that are allowed at 50 square feet the applicant could combine those into a single 100 square foot sign for the highway service business warehouse wholesale and industrial zones the only change there is the 10 foot setback that I had referred to for the downtown business zones the only change that was made was there is a current reference to an annual permit fee for a frame or sandwich board signs apparently those those permits don't come in very often it was felt that it would be reasonable to remove that permit requirement, that fee requirement for those permits. For the Lexington Center business zone, the interchange service business zone, the only changes to those are related to content neutrality. For the B6P zone, we are proposing that at some point in the past, projecting signs were allowed in some of these zones we're proposing that those be permitted once again when used in lieu of wall signs there's been requests for that in the past and we're adding sign requirements for residential uses as well for the pud and p2 zones content neutrality of language amendments only are proposed and for mixed use too this it's similar to what you saw in a previous slide were proposing the allowance of freestanding signage to be combined for mu3 where we are proposing an increase in this case due to the intensity of the use to increase the sign area from 75 square feet to 150 square feet per sign and for the expansion area zones on when we first went through this for our initial draft the only change to those zones was content neutrality language amendments. However, after we initially presented these changes, we received community comment and one of the great comments we received was that the ED zone needs language that is responsive to the supportive uses that are allowed in that zone. So we are proposing amendments related to that, residential supportive uses in the economic development zone have been included that are consistent with what you see in the r3 r4 and r5 zones the non-residential supportive uses in in the ed zone are proposed to have signage consistent with the b1 zone and hotels and extended stay hotels are proposed to have one wall mounted sign which is currently allowed in in the ed zone in the current code but in addition to that we're proposing a one freestanding sign of a 20 foot height which is consistent with b1 but of 75 square feet which is consistent with b3 these are some of the comments some of the community comments we received from the fayette county neighborhood council i did want to include these on a slide and make you aware that we had received these they did have concerns with some of the language that uses and rather than or with regard to the sign types that allows an additional sign. They had concerns with conditional uses that were increased to 32 square feet, and we did make an amendment. The sign ordinance work group made an amendment related to that comment that I'll discuss in a moment. Whole banner signs being added to commercial and mixed-use zones was a concern, and again, the reason that was done is because those were removed from residential zones. We felt they would be more appropriate in those commercial and mixed-use zones. They did have a concern about projecting signs being allowed in B6P after prior removal. The work group felt again that this was responsive to community requests that we've been receiving. Incidental signs are defined only by size, which is two square feet in the draft that you have before you. And that is by necessity. We are, unfortunately we can't add much in the way of defining what an incidental sign is without talking about the content. the content so we define it only by its size an additional comment is that off-site signs are no longer prohibited or regulated and again that is most of these go directly to content if we can't regulate the content on the face of the sign we can't speak to off-site use and so on internally illuminated signs are currently allowed in B5 but would now be allowed in R3 R4 and R5 that should be by the way, rather than B5. The reason for this comment is because R3 and R4 were standalone in the, are standalone in the current draft of Article 17 and we're proposing to combine those, which resulted in internal illumination that would be allowed in very specific cases. And those cases occur when a use is across the street from an office business or industrial zone. So we talked about that quite a bit in the work group and felt that that would not be happening on a very frequent basis. And if it does happen, it's because it's near one of those more intense uses that would be appropriate for an internally eliminated sign. Combining and transferring sign area from one frontage to another without variance. Again, this is a common request that was received in the past. and the work group felt that again it results in a reduction in the total number of signs in the community. There was a concern about the freestanding sign setbacks being reduced to 10 feet rather than being based on building setbacks. This is for consistency and continuity. And finally there was an objection to applying content neutrality for commercial uses, which based on the Supreme Court decision that was made, as well as council direction, our law department opinion, and KLC's legal opinion, we've been told over and over, I am in contact with KLC in particular every three months just to make sure nothing's changed in this regard, and they've been very clear that the content neutrality language needs to apply to both residential and non-residential uses. We did meet as a work group once more to review all these comments, and the work group decided to change the sizes related to all other permitted uses down to 16 square feet. They were originally proposed at 32 square feet in the draft, so we've cut those in half, essentially. So that's a four by four sign that would be allowed for those all other permitted use categories. So with that, staff recommends approval of the staff alternative text that you have before you, and we're glad to accept any questions that you have. Thank you. Okay, any questions? Yes. Ms. Palmer. Thank you. I have a question about the difference between commercial and non-commercial. What is the difference? Sorry, could you restate that? In the sign you say commercial and then non-commercial. What is the difference in the signage? You mean in the type of signage that would be allowed in each area? So the content and, you know, what would be allowed? Still not sure. I completely understand the question. Okay, you've got a sign, and one's commercial, and one's non-commercial. What's the difference? Oh, sure. It's just associated. It's literally associated with the use that the sign is associated with. So if it's a non-commercial, you would usually see a sign in a more residential area, something like a church or something like that, whereas a commercial use would be what you would expect to see for commercial uses. Thank you. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, a couple of questions. The construction screening signage prohibition. Yes. This is interesting to me because when I think about what you used to see, screening at construction site was pretty damn ugly just you know chain leak fence with with green slats or something in there some of the others I've seen are depictions of what the construction site is going to end up looking like which I find very a very good alternative to the what I refer to the old construction site screening what was the rationale for that I think the concern there was the condition that those that the construction screening signs end up taking on after a few weeks just due to weather and the construction site impacts and and all of those things they end up kind of flapping in the wind if you will so that a screen can still be installed there can still be a fence there can still be some kind of fabric or some other artwork or whatever they would choose to put there it just can't be a traditional traditional sign that you would see with the builders names and architects names and all those kind of things that tend to not hold up over time unfortunately and it was I think there was a concern with that with regard to condition and to enforcement so would the condition of one be the same as the other at the same wear and tear it's the others wouldn't be classified as signage so it's nothing that we would address in this article So if it's just a screen with a depiction of what building is going to be there, that would be allowed? I believe so. Yeah, I think that's the case. Would somebody do better than I believe? Sorry? Can somebody on the staff, is it legal or somebody else, do you address that concern? I believe, Mr. Brewer, that a picture of what's to come could still be posted on the site, and information, emergency contact information and that sort of thing can still be posted on the construction site. But the concern was that those are not classified as signs, and so if there turns out to be an enforcement issue, that would be different than a sign issue. But the other part about just leasing the site for commercial signage was what Craig was referring to as something that's harder to police when they no longer are maintained. So, again, so the question being if they're depicting what it's going to look like after they're done. Yes. On a screen, that's allowed. Yes. Thanks. Any other questions? Yep. I'm going to go. Can you put the ED slide back up? Certainly. I want to go back to that because. This one? Yeah, that's what your text is recommending? Yes, sir. Okay. I was on the committee that served to develop, I guess, the supportive uses and what have you. And I'm going to have to say, I think, at least in my memory, I don't really remember us having a lot of discussion about signage. We were really focused on what was the percentage use going to be, what were those allowed uses going to be, and then what was the multifamily percentage going to be, so that being the same use. So I think we as a commission need to take a look at a little harder look at this because it looks like to me we are, you know, only allowing a B1 type signage in a non-residential use. It's not consistent with what they're allowed to do in that same use in their respective zones. And so I think we need to take a look at that. We are trying to, you know, do economic development here. Companies do want signage, and I think it's worthy of a discussion. But if you would, I guess, just give us some background of what their thought process was. Sure, absolutely. So when the work group met to discuss this one, the conversation we had was that particularly those non-residential uses are intended to be supportive of what's already on the site. So they would be more internal to what's on the site. You would already be on the site if you're using those things, so they would be more pedestrian scale. So that was the reason for recommending the B1 in that instance. I don't know that I would totally agree with that because of where a lot of these are located too. I mean, a lot of them are interstate locations and or adjacent to those. You're not necessarily on site, or you're definitely not on site if you're on the interstate. And again, we've got to look at what we're trying to support here. Mr. Lawrence Thank you Mr. Chair I'm going to agree with Will on some of this and the fact that some of this is totally new information to me particularly the ED I'm not saying I'm opposed to it but it is new information and I don't want to get too far ahead because we do have people that may want to speak Will But, you know, our past work sessions, we, from what I remember, and I don't think I was sleeping through all of it, we were mostly talking about content neutrality and so forth. I did get a draft, but my draft didn't have any red lines or changes in them so that I could tell what was different. And now we're getting a new sheet that shows various changes, which I would have loved to have seen beforehand. So, you know, personally, I don't think we're ready to move on this, but I do want to hear from others. Okay. Well, fair comments on all parties. Any more questions right now? And then we'll let the community. Okay. Thank you for the time being. Anyone like to speak to this particular issue? Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here on behalf of Anderson Communities. John Strom is working with me on this as well. He's giving you a handout right now. Dennis Anderson is with us on the third row. And I want to emphasize that we're in favor of the content neutrality in the ordinance. We're here to discuss the ED provisions. And as you all know, this came in because when we did the supportive uses in ED last year, all the discussion was concentrated on the uses themselves, and no changes whatsoever were made to the sign ordinance. So what we found ourselves was in was we had some new uses in the ED and no provision for signs whatsoever. An example is the hotels and extended stay hotels. In the original ordinance, we had extended stay hotels with a signed provision, but the new supportive uses allowed regular hotels as well. There was no change to the signed provisions. we had a number of other supportive uses so this came up as an opportunity to deal with and provide some signs for the new uses which were put in last year with the supportive uses and i want to emphasize too we're not here asking for special treatment on this what we're asking for is a level playing field right now all the uses that we compete with and you Dennis's property, as you know, is expansion area three. It's zoned ED. There's about 340 acres out there. I'm not sure he owns all that, but in that area, and I'm not sure all of it's ED. The vast majority is ED out there, and there's another section of ED, I think, which is represented here today out on the eastern side of I-64. But I'm here for Dennis's property, and right now, everything we compete with out there, is manufacturing, for instance, on Georgetown Road or Citation Boulevard. We have other supportive type uses on Stanton Way, which is right next to us as well. All of those are regulated under the B3 ordinance because under our sign ordinance, B3 is the same. B4 picks up B3. I1 picks up B3. I2 picks up B3. in signage. So the sign regulations, I'm going to say B3, but I'm using shorthand for the B3, B4, I1, I2 regulations, which are one regulation. Our zoning ordinance says B3, B4, I1, I2, here's your regulations. They're all the same for all those uses. Now, so we're competing with the Lexington Industrial Foundation, Georgetown Road, Citation Road, Stanton Way, all of it is allowed the B3 sign regulations. What's proposed for us, for not only the supportive uses, but the principal uses as well, our manufacturing facilities, we're proposed B1. We're going down below the playing field here to a lower level, smaller signage, as is allowed for our competitors. Then when we go to hotels, the bottom drops out for us. We go down to the bottom here because if we get a hotel in our area, it will have the fewest signs allowed of any hotel in this community. I'll tell you about that in a minute. Much fewer signs than any other hotel. So we're looking for a level playing field. We're not looking for special treatment for the uses in the ED zone. And signs are important. I know sometimes I hear comments, oh, people don't need signs anymore. or everybody's got a navigation system on their phones. Well, if you believe that, I'd wish you'd come to talk to us when we talk to representatives of either hotel chains or manufacturing facilities or other commercial facilities, any facility that wants to come in here. They all have contingency clauses, or what we call killer clauses, that says that the buyer can investigate environmental title, and signs are always one of that, because every industrial prospect, every hotel prospect, every commercial prospect has to be assured that they feel they have adequate signs, and they all feel they need signs. It's important. Even if somebody's going to a hotel, for instance, if they use their navigation systems, hotels want to make sure there's signs there so people can, once they get close, they can figure out where to go on this. So signs are very important to making sales in property like this. I want to go through my handout to you real briefly and tell you why we're coming this way. And that is because we're allowed, if you go to page one after the title page of the handout, we're allowed signs as allowed in the B1 zone. Now, I put in there the intent of the B1 zone on page one is to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area. This zone should be oriented to residential neighborhood. That's out of the intent out of our zoning ordinance. I want to note that the B1 zone does not allow hotels. Our hotels in ED are proposed for even less signage than B1 allows. What's the intent of the economic development zone there? It's to provide land within the expansion area for employment opportunities. As we've all discussed, these are high tech, high knowledge, high salary jobs, and companies are going to spend tens of millions of dollars to come down here. If you go to the next page, page two, I've compared signage differences. The B1 zone, sort of our prototype B1 zone in Lexington is Romney Road, and this applies to a lot of other B1 zones. They're oriented to surrounding residential areas. What's the speed limit? I'm pretty sure in Romney Road it's 25 because it's 25 everywhere in Lexington unless there's a limit sign that says it's higher. 25 has high levels of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and it's oriented to local streets. I want to contrast that with Providence Business Center in the ED zone, designed to create jobs, not necessarily services. Businesses want exposure to the interstates, 75, I said 65, it's 64, in Newtown Pike. They want it for visibility and transportation. both access in and out with cars and trucks and access to the airport. What's the speed limit? Well, we've got 70 miles an hour on I-75 and 64 for people to look at signs. We've got 55 on Newtown Pike. Part of our concern is that signs have to be legible and visible when you're driving 75 miles an hour on I-75 next to this property. and people are coming here because we have access and visibility on I-75. People want that. They want their presence known in this community. They want to have signs. The staff proposal applies the B-1 regulations to the ED zone. We think it's a totally different situation, except for hotels, which have less signage than B-1. And our proposal is that we agree with staff recommendation on signage for residential because we're getting treated like everybody else for residential, as for R3, R4, and R5. We can't complain with that. All we want is get treated like everybody else. But for the non-residential, including the principal uses, and this hits the principal uses, the manufacturing facilities as well, we're requesting the signage allowed in the B3 zone just like the people who go down Georgetown Road and Citation and locate their plants right there and on hotels we are asking for B3 signage as well with the opportunity for B5P which is occasionally they want a taller sign the problem with hotels is is that we are being said that our hotels can have one wall sign and one freestanding sign. Normally under the B3 zone or other zones, you can have one wall sign per wall, not per building, one wall sign per wall. And I want to go through these slides. Here's the embassy suites, which is near us on Coldstream. that's one of their wall signs and that's a second one and that's the third one they have and they're entitled to a fourth one and this is the type of hotel we want to have we want to have a convention type hotel here and the closest example to us has three wall signs we'd only get allowed one wall sign I don't think any of those three are lack taste or or overly garish or anything like that I think they're very appropriate for for the hotel and we're asking for the regulations which are allowed in B3 so on page 3 I'm summarizing exactly what we're asking for and we're trying to keep this as simple as possible so I'm citing the non-residential principle and supportive uses on land designated for non-residential principle or supportive uses within the development as defined by that article. Signage shall be as regulated in the B3 and B5 P zones. And I'm asking to eliminate staff proposal E, which is the one that limits hotels to one wall sign and one freestanding sign. On page 4, I have the, if you want to, you know, what's the difference between B1 and B3? I've got the summary on what the sign differences are between B1 and B3. B3, you can have a 25-foot tall freestanding sign. B1, 20-foot tall. B3 allows two square feet of total signage per lot of front of lot footage, lot front footage. B1 allows one and a half feet of signage per lot front footage. B3 allows freestanding signs. They have 75 square feet of area. B1 allows 50. And the B5P one we're asking for is the taller one for those who need it. That's the taller one along the interstate highways. Both B3 and B1 allow one wall sign per wall. And as I mentioned, hotels and ED are extremely limited under the staff proposal. we'd have less signage than any other hotel coming in Lexington because every other hotel gets to have one wall sign per wall we're being unlimited to one one freestanding sign and I know that the some of the staff concern is that this notion that the supportive uses in ED are only for the ED uses in other words you're only going to come to our hotel if you're coming to visit one of businesses in Providence Business Center. Now that's an ideal world, but I would wager to you that the embassy suites out there in Coldstream, which as you all know was probably the first use built out in Coldstream because they needed the social infrastructure out there to get it going, just like they needed the physical infrastructure to get going. I don't think everybody staying at that embassy suites every night is going to the business in cold stream park the next day i think a lot of them go to the horse park i think a lot of them go to keeneland i think a lot of them go to other places around town just like in any hotel and there's that's the way it should be these hotels when they're keeping this number of units available for cold stream or providence that's a real plus for cold stream or providence but they're not going to be used every night the hotel has to rent those rooms to others and one thing they need and every hotel representative will tell you they need signs to get people there especially for people who are not attending functions in those industrial parks we can't say that these uses can be limited to only the people who are going to the businesses in in providence park or cold stream or wherever a hotel is It just makes common sense, I think, on that. So the last page in my handout is the letter from Commerce Lexington, and I'm not going to read that all to you, but I'd particularly direct your attention to the middle paragraph in there, in which Mr. Quick, the president of Commerce Lexington, notes that signs are important to a business and its ability to market to customers. With limited land availability for job creation, Commerce Lexington supports efforts to make it easier for businesses to create jobs, including modifications or innovations with sign requirements, to create a level playing field for developers and businesses. Last sentence in that paragraph is, the ED zone should not be handicapped by sign limitations, which do not apply to other similar businesses. And again, as I said, we feel strongly that these signed regulations that we're proposing are needed in the ED zone. We think they're fair. We don't think they give us an advantage at all. But we do think they put us on an even playing field with others. so as i said again i'd summarize just to say our request is to we agree with the staff recommendations on uses because that's as R3, R4, R5, just like everybody else. We'd ask for the sign regulations as for B3 and for B5P as we mentioned about those occasionally taller signs. And we'd ask for removal of the particular restrictions on hotels because hotels will be governed under our proposal under the B3 and B5P sign regulations. Thank you very much. We appreciate you hearing our concerns and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Markman? Mr. Nickel. I do have a quick question. In the ED zones, industrial and office uses, supportive and residential uses limited. Is there a requirement for residential uses or can you have zero residential uses in an ED zone? Where this came through in the supportive use discussions, I think, before you came on the planning commission, we're not required to have any particular supportive uses, but we are limited in the space and the amount of supportive uses we can have. Was it 18% of the land area? I think it's Mr. Walburn's agreeing. It was, I think, 18% of the area is the most you can have supportive uses. So your supportive uses could be residential. They could be restaurants, hotels, shops, retail, that sort of thing, is what's allowed is the supportive uses in ED. But on space availability, we're thrown in. Residential is in with us. Now, signs are different. Signs are what your use is, residential or commercial. But as far as space goes, this doesn't really relate to the signs, but space is 18%, which includes all your residential and your commercial, other than your manufacturing and facilities and that sort of thing. Those are outside of the 18%. Those are the main use in the ED zone. Okay, so that's a maximum, not a minimum. Right. Okay, maximum 18%, you can have a 0% residential component, correct? Yes. Okay, so that's why I'm getting confused, because if you have a zero percentage of residential uses, it doesn't jive with a V1 neighborhood business sign zoning or sign ordinance. Right. Okay. Well, no more questions right now, but we might have some later. Mr. Welburn. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. members of the commission jacob walburn i'm here today on behalf of calgill partners who as you probably have predicted also owns ed's own property i had a professor in law school who told me that good lawyers paraphrase and adapt what other lawyers had done to make a good presentation presentation that great lawyers stole outright and i'm going to tell i'm going to actually add an addendum to that i'm going to be the greatest lawyer and say i agree with everything he said and don't feel the need to rehash it i am actually a little alarmed at how similar the presentations we've put together are without coordinating with one another as i too have photographs of hotel wall signage we share a number of the same concerns to address something that mr berkeley said at the start i think you're absolutely correct i think the the issue with signage in the ev zone was not a sin of commission but a sin of omission i just don't think anybody was focused on that issue when we were making the changes to ed when we found out that the sign ordinance was going to be redone or revamped for lack of better way of putting it we reached out to staff and said hey while you're making those changes would you consider letting us have some signage for supportive uses we met with staff our original proposal was my assumption was in strategy the The landowners would probably want the most permissive signage. That would be B5P. My assumption was staff's position would want the least amount of signage. That was B1. And that maybe we could compromise on B3. We got a little tiny sliver of B3, but we've mostly ended up in B1. From my client's perspective, the most concerning part of the proposal to ED signage is the limitation on wall signs. Every hotel in Lexington, I think, almost without exception, has multiple wall signs. and we would not have that ability under these ordinance changes. So we would support the proposal that Anderson has brought forward. We had also presented an alternative proposal to staff that, if we proposed it, certainly we would support that as well. But we do think the ED signage needs to be carefully considered because of the commercial impact. That concludes my remarks for Calville Partners. I do have one other comment I want to make based on the issue that Mr. Brewer raised, and that is I was the attorney that actually brought forth the ZODA to allow construction screening signs, and so I'm very familiar with those and have done a lot of research on those. I, too, was very disappointed to see those removed. I think you've noticed I drive by the convention center construction site every day. That kind of construction screening, I think, is very attractive. It's informational. And while I would agree with staff's position that you could depict the building that's coming, if it had a business logo on it, you couldn't, because then it would transform into a sign. So we could show you the building but not tell you what was going to be in it. And so that's purely a personal comment. Calgo Partners has no position on the construction screening signs, but I was sorry to see them go because I do think they've been a benefit to our community. Thank you. right thank you if there's any one thing that I find most interesting and somewhat gratifying it to see the quintessential alignment between the two attorneys agreeing with one another so let's move forward anyone else from the community like to say anything okay staff yeah we're talking about the sign ordinance oh no we don't have a sign-up sheet so okay before I get started in order to respect your time Kathy Perkins and Ann Graham from two other neighborhoods are letting me speak for them as well it doesn't appear that you have limits anyway so and I appreciate that okay I'm Walt Gaffield I'm President of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. I live at 2001 Bamboo Drive. Reed v. Gilbert basically was a 2015 decision, and it did ask for content neutrality and signage. But it remains to seem what that really means. I guess I should control this myself. okay what you'll find the proposed soda from our perspective and from the perspective of neighborhoods is really an overreach it reads to us like it allows off-site commercial signs and previously that was only possible in billboards in addition by aggregating sign requirements signage size in neighborhoods is increased by as much as 800 percent and i could be wrong on that it depends on the interpretation of the language it could be almost double that and we don't think it's necessary i'm going to talk now about sign size and commercial signs post 2016 articles in and the Harvard and University of Chicago law reviews suggest that Reed does not or should not apply to commercial signage. In addition, Justice Alito, one of the more conservative judges on the Supreme Court, and two other justices, they supported the Reed decision but wrote in their opinion that some rules might not be content-based, including sign size, location, lighting, and placement on commercial and residential property. I've got to keep up with myself. Now, those are simply opinions, but it does suggest that it's not exactly certain what read means. There's strong legal precedent that suggests that local governments have more control over commercial signage, and it can be more strongly regulated than non-commercial speech or non-commercial signage. And finally, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently, again post-2016, ruled that Reed does not apply to commercial speech. the Supreme Court let that ruling stand in the Ninth Circuit and refused to hear the case. The Reed decision itself came out of the Ninth Circuit. There's a substitution clause in the ZOTA, and I could be misinterpreting it, but the way I'm interpreting it is that the owner of any sign to substitute non-commercial speech in lieu of commercial speech and vice versa, that's possible under this ordinance and prevails over any more specific provisions to the contrary. That means to me, and it may not be the actual meaning, that commercial speech would be allowed in all approved signs without restriction, including in neighborhoods. We don't think that's necessary, and we think the signs are too large. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will usually let there be multiple decisions in the federal appeals courts before hearing a case and providing some more clarity. Without legal clarity, especially following the decisions of the Ninth Circuit, their read does not apply to commercial signage. Suppose Zoda jumps the gun unless the Commission believes that more commercial signage, particularly in neighborhoods, is a good idea. So we started to look at, we figured, okay, why would we have a 16 square foot sign and maybe a 12 foot sign on the wall and maybe both? That remains to be seen whether both signs would be permitted. And we've started to look at cities in the Sixth Circuit. And, you know, Kentucky is part of the Sixth Circuit, under the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. So we looked at Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville, and Memphis. And frankly, my head has exploded looking at sign ordinances. It's all very arcane. None of these cities have a substitution clause that the FCNC can find that suggests that commercial signage and non-commercial signage should be interchangeable. Size is also, in particular, an important issue to us. The Lexington Drafts Code, of course, is proposing home occupation and bed and breakfast signs in single-family detached housing and two-family neighborhoods. It's not labeled as such, but that's what it means, of up to 16 square feet for freestanding signs and 12 square feet for wall signs. That may be both. That may be just one or the other, but it says and rather than or. The current size maximum is only two square feet. and the increase would be 800%. It would be more than that if both signs were allowed. Two square feet has worked well for neighborhoods. Never had really a complaint on it. So we then looked at Airbnb, or not Airbnb, but breakfast articles, mostly favorable to bed and breakfast on signage. And the first one, usefulcommunitydevelopment.org, said permitted maximum area signage of the sign varies from three to eight square feet. I think the smaller of that range is sufficient. Entrepreneur.com, in an article called How to Start a Bread and Breakfast, said as for signage, you may not be allowed to post any signs at all. And listen to this, most B&Bs prefer discrete, low-key signage. Okay, we started looking at cities under the Sixth Circuit. In Detroit, identification signs pertaining to a permitted home occupation are permitted only in the R3, R4, R5, and R6 districts. They're really not even permitted in low density. It says the gross area of any identification sign for bed and breakfast in or a youth hostel in the R3, R4, R5, R6 districts shall not exceed six square feet in area. We're proposing, or the proposed ordinance says 16 square feet freestanding and 12 feet on the wall. Apparently Detroit either is not paying attention to read or interprets it differently. Cleveland. In Cleveland, it says in any multifamily residential district, and that's, you know, that's, of course, multifamily. It's not single family or a duplex. A business or home occupational permitted as an accessory may be identified by means of a permitted nameplate sign. Such sign may be displayed as either a wall or window sign, not exceeding two square feet in area. Another part of Cleveland's ordinance says no home occupation signs, however, shall be permitted in a one-family or two-family residential district. B&Bs appear to be limited to two square feet, although it's very hard to read and figure out. Columbus. In Columbus, Ohio, a dwelling unit containing a home occupation shall, in lieu of a nameplate display, have no more than one permanent non-illuminated sign. The graphic area of such sign shall not exceed four square feet. In Cincinnati, home occupation signs in residential areas are wall and window only and limited to two square feet maximum, one per dwelling unit. Pictures of bed and breakfast for Cincinnati do not show any signage. Louisville. No signage for the home occupation is permitted. One to two family residential, one sign permitted, one square foot, appears to cover B&Bs, but it's a little bit unclear to me. I couldn't find anything specific to it. Nashville. No permanent sign in excess of four square feet permitted for a B&B. Temporary non-commercial signs can be six square feet, six feet high, one per residence. And this is really interesting. In Nashville, it says the home occupation shall not be advertised by signs, exterior displays, or interior displays that can be seen from the outside or anything that suggests the structure might be non-residential. They don't even want you to look through the window and figure out that it's a home occupation site. Memphis. No signage specifically associated with home occupation shall be permitted. A non-commercial wall sign, not more than four square feet, is exempt from regulation. Signage for B&Bs, again, it's kind of unclear. Reading this stuff is very difficult to figure out. Okay, now let's summarize. None of the cities reviewed seems terribly concerned about read or interpreting it in the same way as this particular ordinance. Nobody really says that we can find that commercial signs equal non-commercial signs and are treated the same way. They're not interchangeable. Simply the signs in other cities are too large. There probably are too many of them. We are concerned particularly if part of the ordinance allows a freestanding sign that's 16 square feet and then a wall sign that's 12 square feet because that would be 28 square feet and we used to be two. And we appreciate staff talking to us. They did reduce the signage from 32 square feet to 16. 32 was just ridiculous and 16 is not a whole lot better, as you can see from the other cities under the Sixth Circuit. Modern technology, this is a point we raised in our discussion with staff. People currently use cell phone apps rather than signs to find commercial and non-commercial properties, particularly in neighborhoods. We're mostly talking about Airbnb or bed and breakfast or even home occupations. A lot of times home occupations are simply word of mouth. Looking forward, I think this trend will accelerate. It's a growing trend. People use their cell phones. They don't use signs, especially in neighborhoods. And the ZODA, at least in neighborhoods, does not appear to look at the future. other permitted uses should be signed the zota if it stays the way it is and need to be more explicit because it basically says other permitted uses and that can be anything and it should be more explicit or a citizen reading that section isn't going to understand what it really means it lacks transparency You know, due to the misinterpretation of Reed, or at least not consideration that it may not be fully clear what it means yet, and the other cities don't view it the same way this ordinance would interpret it, It takes, you know, off-site defunct or impermissible uses are no longer effectively permitted or regulated. You know, off-site advertising we think is unacceptable in residential areas. I mean, I like Macy's, but I wouldn't want my neighbor to have a sign up promoting it. First Amendment. You know, I got to thinking about this. if speech is equated with the size of signs, as appears to be the case in the proposed ZOTA, then speech would be allocated according to property use. For example, if my neighborhood had an occupational business and could have those great big signs and I didn't, then he or she would be allowed a 16-square-foot sign and maybe a 12-foot sign, if that's an and instead of an or, and I would only have two square feet for free speech. That doesn't make a, I don't think that's, that seems unfair in the realm of free speech if that's how you're going to interpret it. The interpretation remains to be seen. Summary. Prozota is based on a false premise that commercial and non-commercial signs need to be interchangeable and large to protect free speech. Other cities are not in agreement and view it the same way. Commercial off-premises signs are inappropriate in neighborhoods, in our opinion. Signage proposed for neighborhoods is too large, an 800% increase, or more if both wall signs and freestanding signs are to be allowed. That would be considerably more than 800%. Again, compare the proposal with how other cities handle signage, especially in zones with one family detached and two family housing. and it's quite different. The Supreme Court decision was in 2015. This is in 2019. So if this is an emergency and something that needs to be done, one would think they would have responded to it. The proposed ZODA needs to be more transparent. I'm not entirely sure if those two big signs for those uses in neighborhoods are allowed or whether that's an or or an and in between it i read it as an and the that one section that we asked be removed because it kind of makes commercial and non-commercial signage going on any signage surface if that's correct interpretation that should be removed no one else seems to have it thank you very much thank you I'm testing out the intent of the sign ordinance straight from the ordinance. I'm Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road. I have spent a long, long time, many, many hours reading through the proposed new sign ordinance, working with both staff and council members and citizens in the community, trying to understand the proposed ordinance, what the need is for it, what it entails, what it would change for us who just live in houses and go about our business and use streets and so on. And I think only the hours and hours of labor I have put into this, and I won't say I've put in more time than Craig Benton's. He's put in an enormous amount of time, and the whole work group has. Only that length of time entitles me to urge you not to recommend this ZODA, this entire zoning ordinance chapter for adoption. And I'll give my reasons for that. This is, initially we worked long and hard to get revisions adopted and make improvements in the proposed new chapter on signs in the zoning ordinance. I urge you, first of all, not to adopt what you cannot understand. And I don't mean to say you're stupid. It's enormously complex. And I think the staff has done what it could to meet the challenge to present to you what's changing and what's different and how it works. The entire article is rewritten. It has different organizational principles. It's adopted from the Municipal Lawyers Association. In this radical reorganization, you've been furnished with a spreadsheet just of sizes and heights of signs as they relate to the zones and uses. There's been no strike-through draft. It would be impossible. What would not be impossible, and I think is important before you begin to consider such a radical revision, in fact a replacement ordinance here, is parallel columns. Show us in the left-hand column what we've got, the existing ordinance. Show us in the right-hand column, it's written in a different order, but match up point for point. What we win and what we lose in this new proposed ordinance. It's been radically reorganized, and following what I agree is an overzealous interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling in 2015, basically the overzealous interpretation, and I believe it's what Mr. Pike offered us, is if you have to read the sign in order to regulate it, you are restricting free speech beyond what the First Amendment allows. If you have to know that this is a sign that says hours six to five daily or whatever, not a sign that says our prices are cheapest or our food is best, then you're restricting free speech. That's going too far. What the staff did in adopting this national and international template that's said to be in better accord with the Supreme Court decision is a lot of generalizing. They grouped uses together. They had two reasons for that. One, if you group them together, you're not making distinctions between them, so you're not restricting speech. because you had to read it to decide which sort is which. The other thing they're saying is it'll be streamlined. It'll be better and easier to enforce. Well, of course, the most streamlined and the easiest to enforce regulation is no regulation at all. The generalizing has gone nearly invariably in the direction of being more permissive and less protective of the encroachments of commercial signage on our daily life and our environment. So I don't think that's the direction to go. I give you the intent of the sign ordinance to say we have a great sign ordinance already. It isn't perfect. It's a whole, whole lot better than what is being proposed. We have a lot to protect in the existing sign ordinance. Do not throw the baby out with the bath by adopting a wholly new one. In addition to generalizing so that many uses get the same height or sign area instead of being specific to the use, Notice, by the way, in your intent, it says one of the purposes of the ordinance is to furnish needed signage allowance appropriate to the use, the differing uses. So I forget where I was going there. What you don't have is definitions matched to definitions between the old and the new ordinance. So you don't know what the definitions are now, unless you go through one by one and sort it all out for yourself. The other part that really is different and quite a lot of it is missing is the general provisions, and sometimes provisions special to a group of signs or zones. That's where you lose, for example, a provision that signage relating to a use that's off-site or relating to a use that's defunct, that restaurant hasn't been there for 30 years, or relating to a use that's impermissible. You can't have a fast food joint on this site. So signage relating to off-site, impermissible, and defunct uses is no longer prohibited. Now, the instance we see in my neighborhood is the student rental that puts up a sign, Room for Rent. And actually, they're a syndicate of student rentals. They own 50 properties. And the one where the for rent sign is, is not for rent. But there are other examples, like say you get, eat at Joe's, cheapest fast food prices in town, turn right at the next corner. What if that's in front of a family home in a residential neighborhood? So that's a huge gap in omission and problem. What I want to do is go through about half a dozen of uses that seem to us particularly ill-regulated under the new signage ordinance. And these are illustrative. It doesn't include all of them. I'm going to try and get them straight. But I want you to see that we have a lot to lose with this new zoning ordinance, this new signage ordinance. And a better course would be to vote denial of it and take our old ordinance and make the reasonable tweaks deemed necessary for the Supreme Court ruling. They may be very few. So my half dozen. When the current ordinance allows either a wall sign or a freestanding sign, the draft ordinance, the proposed ordinance, generalizes many uses to allow both one freestanding and one wall sign, often effectively doubling the signage. Wall signs are much better from a walk-by perspective. They're less obtrusive. And again, in your intent for the sign ordinance, it says they shouldn't intrude and obstruct. They shouldn't be too distracting for traffic is one thing. Signs allowed, this is number two, signs allowed to conditional uses like daycare and B&Bs. Believe me, I won't go on about B&Bs, but daycare is one too. in residential and in rural zones, ag zones, have shot up almost tenfold. And, you know, that example about, first they said 32 square feet for B&B and other such, you know, other uses. 32 square feet is the size of a house door. 16 square feet is half the size of a house door. Is that what you want for the next door daycare? Is that what you want for ag and residential conditional uses and the like? Okay. Third item, poll banner signs are added with no permit required in at least eight commercial and mixed zones. Currently, even temporary signs usually require a permit. If there's no permit, it also means they're allowed without limit. There can be more than one of that. There's no regulation of its message or its size. I'm not sure about the size. Banner signs and streamers would continue to be allowed in downtown business zones. But now, because we can't read it to regulate it, they can include product advertising. Now they don't include product advertising where we have adopted banner signs. Think about banner and projecting signs. Projecting signs is my next instance. Projecting signs are added in B6P, and I think that piggybacks them into something like something else. I'm not sure what, ED or something. After their careful elimination from many zones a number of years ago, you probably haven't served, except maybe Mr. Penn, long enough on the commission to remember when there were tons and tons of these projecting signs downtown, and they advertised businesses and products. And staff came with pictures of how awful it looked, and they said, let's get rid of them. Now we're getting these projecting signs back in some uses, and we're not regulating the message. We're not confining it so it can advertise products in other uses. This is intrusive. The intent of the zone is to reduce intrusion. So these are reasons for denying this, I'm sorry, the intent of the article for denying the zoning ordinance. An incidental sign is now defined solely by its size. It's two square feet. It's allowed without a permit required with no restriction as to location or number or type or lighting. It's just, it is what it is, two square feet. Identification signs are allowed under certain circumstances but aren't defined. Signs advertising off-site and impermissible, I already talked about. Glowing signs, I'm talking about internally illuminated signs, currently allowed only to the high-rise apartment zone, would be allowed to all multifamily, R3, 4, and 5. I think R3 is or ought to be very different from R4 and 5. R4 and R5 are high density and high rise. R3 can be a smaller building. I'm not sure that's one to generalize. Glowing signs would be allowed to all multifamily zones, R3, R4, and R5, currently allowed only to high rise unless the zone is being used for single-family homes. And provided there's a commercial zone across the street, A lot of these commercial zones have housing in them, have lower level uses, have apartment buildings. And so what you're getting is signs glowing into people's windows, people's house windows. Two more. Combining or transferring sign areas from one frontage to another in many business, industrial, and mixed use zones is to be permitted by right rather than requiring the Board of Adjustment to act on it. Now, you can take sign area, that's dimensional, length and width, and say, I need to increase my sign area, go to the Board of Adjustment and say, my site has special circumstances, this is having an adverse impact, I'm, what is the phrase, I'm suffering hardship in the uniform application of the zoning ordinance. So you can go and ask for a variance to change the sign area for reasons. They want to make it, the proposed new draft wants to make it by right. If you have two sign frontages, you can add the area together and put it on the one you want. This is going to result in proliferation. Probably a lot of places don't even have the second street or frontage. And finally, freestanding signs, setbacks from the right-of-way, the staff thought it a good idea to reduce them uniformly to 10 feet. Right now, they're proportional to the setback of the property, the required front yard. So if you're in a zone that requires a deep setback, the sign is setback proportional within that deep setback. I think it's half or something. If they're all ten foot from the edge, that means I might live in an area, a neighborhood with great deep lawns, and I'm looking at a bank sign out my window, as actually a neighbor two blocks away from me does. That's not welcome. And finally, could you put up the... I want to urge you to think very carefully about how you want to handle the ED signs. What I've offered here is the Expansion Area Master Plan, its principles for guiding development. And I've put stars behind those principles to guide development. The expansion area is the slice of ag area of bluegrass land that was added to the city boundaries some 20 years ago. ED is the business zone within that expansion area. When that was added in, it was a difficult decision, And it was added in with all kinds of special provisions to protect our bluegrass landscape, to protect the view as you're driving by, and so forth. And I think the increases in signage, particularly please not B5P, which has 100, 150-foot tall signs, That increase in signage is not appropriate in the ED area, in any expansion area zone. I would say you need to think very carefully about adding zones. In conclusion, then, we have a great sign ordinance. It has protections with teeth in them. It won't do to run many different kinds of things together, to govern many uses together, many zones together, by a single principle. poll and to separate completely not just regulation of language or speech, but a lot of what they're doing in this proposed ordinance is also running uses together. We ought to perfectly well be able to regulate use, even if restricting speech is more of a problem. Lots of other cities have not rushed to throw out their sign ordinance and adopt the international municipal lawyers. And surely, until or unless you know what you're getting and what you're losing, by having a version where the existing ordinance in its order is set with the proposed new regulation in parallel columns. It's time to deny this. Why deny it? Because two years of work has not made it an acceptable article. Thank you. Thank you. We'll have a little bit of a rebuttal, but let me tell you, I'm going to put you on a time frame here so that we can move it. So staff, you have a chance and we'll go back and I'd like to limit you to I think five minutes is enough to do that and then we'll have some additional discussion here. We'll close it out and we'll have our discussion and see where we want to go. Please bear with me while I try to read my own handwriting here. Yeah, and since that, let me also put one other restriction here too. since this is a rebuttal, let's keep it to the facts that we have instead of adding, okay. Got it. I'll just kind of start from the last comments made and go back if that's okay and I'll just summarize the comment and then a very brief response for you. There was a comment regarding combining sign types or sign areas into a single sign and that is proposed and the reason that is proposed by the work group is because that results in less signs so we the intent there is to have less sign clutter so to speak and in the city rather than more with that particular provision there was a comment made regarding the pull banner signs not having size requirements and they they definitely do and the sections that are or in the zones that allow pull banner signs, you'll see typically it's the last section of each zone. They have a maximum size of two by four. There's no more than two allowed per pull. They can be spaced no closer than 45 feet from each other and so on and so forth. So those regulations which were in the current code are in the current code are being brought over as well. We're not removing those. There was a comment made regarding taking the existing ordinance essentially and tweaking it to make it work with the content neutrality requirements. I think if there was a way to do that, we would have loved to have done that because it's certainly the path of least resistance. But the problem is the minute you start taking out all of the descriptors for what those signs are, the current language becomes essentially meaningless. It would be very, very difficult to come up with language within the current context of the code that would mean anything and wouldn't be more confusing rather than more useful. There was a comment regarding general provisions that were missing, such as off-site signage regulations. It's true we do not address off-site sign regulations because we can't due to the content neutrality requirements. However, we do refer to defunct uses and maintenance standards and things like that in section 17-14. That specifically calls out maintenance requirements that require that signs be maintained or removed in lieu of maintenance. There was a comment regarding parallel column comparison for this. We thought about doing that, and frankly, I tried to do that a couple of times. But the new language is so different than the old language that when we discussed this as a work group, the consensus was the best way to proceed would be to take a look at the language as a new ordinance. It's not an amendment. It's really, truly a rewrite. We did take a look at it with underlying strikethrough, and it looked like something that wouldn't be too useful to most people. So there were efforts made in that regard, but at the end of the day, we chose to move forward under the understanding that this is a completely new ordinance, and we wanted it to be evaluated on its own by its own merits. There was another comment regarding off-site advertising. Again, we can't address that without addressing content issues. The B&B signage going from 2 square feet to 16 square feet, that was a result of combining the uses. It becomes part of all other permitted uses, which we reduced down to that 16 square feet. Some discussion was made regarding dissenting opinions, that there are district courts that are hearing these cases, and that there's different opinions out there regarding whether these regulations would apply universally to commercial and residential signage. We have, since the beginning of this process two years ago, staff has been in contact with KLC, as well as our own law department, our own law staff, as well as communities throughout Kentucky that are either going through this or have already gone through this. And the information we're receiving is very clear that this all applies, all of the content neutrality requirements apply to both commercial and residential signage. And finally, just getting around to the Economic Development Zone comments. Some of the, it looks like a comment was made that regarding to issues with potential competition, please keep in mind that the ED Zone, again, is supposed to be for supportive uses. It's supposed to support the uses that are on site. The people that are already there should be drawn to those uses. The other thing to keep in mind is that the P2, which I think the current language in the ED for the Extended State Hotel, doesn't allow a freestanding sign. Only one wall sign for wall in 5% of the wall area. There was a reference to the Embassy Suites, and that's the case with Embassy Suites. They actually don't have a freestanding sign. There was a picture of a wall sign there because that's the only thing they're currently allowed to have on that particular site. The request for one wall sign is existing language. That's in the ordinance right now that's currently in front of you. The work group isn't proposing any changes in that regard. We just are using the existing language that came with that. And finally, we're concerned that the ED changes, those came in as a request kind of at the end of this process and not at the request of the sign ordinance work group. We did evaluate those and include some language, some regulations for those signs. And we agree that they're necessary, but we just want to make sure that that's brought up. We do not want the economic development changes or the additions to that signage to derail the rest of the process, if you will. And that's all I have. I'm glad to answer your questions. Perfect. Mr. Walden, do you all have anything additional to put? I hope you collectively can speak as one. Well, tag team, mine is going to take exactly 30 seconds, and I actually want to address the comment that Craig just made. I wholeheartedly agree. 1,000% agree that the ED issues should not derail the process. As an attorney sitting here listening to legal opinions being offered to you, I have some concerns about that just as a member of this community, but I don't want the content neutrality issue to get lost in this ED issue. We need to address ED signage. I know Mr. Murphy's committed to that. I'm committed to that. If that's your concern, we can deal with that. Calgo Partners would be glad to continue to work on that issue. But I'm concerned as a citizen in this community about a sign ordinance that's not constitutional, and I think that's something you all need to take very seriously. Thank you. Well, my concern is on the supportive uses in the ED zone. the governing philosophy seems to be that they're only supposed to be for the businesses that are in the ED zone and they are there because the businesses need them. The businesses need the supportive uses for the businesses to succeed and the supportive uses cannot succeed if they are limited to people who are there for the businesses in that zone. as any hotel is they have to cater to others as well they are there on site because we need them on site but we're not going to fill up every room every night and we're not going to fill up every table at every restaurant every night with people there they have to be able to draw from others and the we're setting them up to fail if for instance we do a sign ordinance that is not adequate for the people who are going to be running the businesses the worst thing we can do for the ed zone is to have a bunch of supportive businesses that fail we need those there we've had inquiries from people coming in they want to know where the restaurants are where we're going to eat lunch out there they want to have things on site and we want them to succeed we're just asking you as i said again people are going to be spending millions of dollars out here on on businesses these guidelines apply not only to the supportive uses but to the principal uses the manufactured facilities and plants we just want the level playing field so that we can compete on an even level with others in our area thank you mr gaffield do you yeah i wanted to make clear that we you know we agree that there should be free speech on signage That's not an area of disagreement with anybody. However, and I'm not practicing law, I was just giving you information on what sign ordinances in other cities are like, and it seems we could do better. I mean, the signage in neighborhoods is simply too large under this particular soda. Nothing more, nothing less. And they're detrimental to neighborhoods. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Mr. Clark. Five minutes. I appreciate the careful attention of the staff. Regarding banner signs, I think the final question is, do you want to encourage a tree or a sign spaced and regulated in parking lots? In general, I think the whole idea of free speech and message and restricting and regulating message, we get it that the Supreme Court is saying you can't restrict speech and message. What you can do is regulate according to use. And turning back to the intent of the zone, it says allow for the illegitimate needs for identification of various sorts of use. And then further down it says regulation which is equitably provided in terms of the nature and scale of the activities to be identified. I think this article, this draft, has gone much too far in generalizing and equalizing different nature and scale of different activities to be identified. Regarding the, you can't take out the descriptors, the whole thing falls apart, it can't be tweaked, it must be all new. So show us what we win and lose. I just have grave concerns about this body or the council trying to review and decide on adopting something that they cannot grasp. It's necessarily complex. It need not be unintelligible. Regarding general provisions, the off-site prohibition, the prohibition on signs associated with off-site uses, is critical. If you can't regulate it by language, regulate it by use. I believe it's possible to regulate by use. The proposed new article seems to me no longer to fulfill its intent. the intent was unchanged. Regarding transfer of sign area, I would ask whether it's within the authority of the BOA or the commission acting as the BOA to make transfers of area if they're not a dimensional variance. They're certainly not a conditional use. They're not an administrative decision they're ruling on. I would like to understand how that's within the authority, this transfer of sign area. Actually, by right, I don't understand what it is, actually, what sort of thing. And then... Lost it. Finally, regarding the Supreme Court decision, which I have read, I invite you to read it. And I invite you to read not only the majority opinion signed by six, but the three opinions concurring with the majority decision. that this poor little church that was putting out yard signs from week to week to get the meeting place known to its membership because it couldn't afford a building. Everybody agrees that that was egregious. So there was the majority decision opinion, and then there were three concurring opinions. Each of them concurred in the basic judgment, But they had different reasons for signaling a greater limitation to the scope of the decision, to the scope of our understanding of what it constitutes to protect or restrict free speech and what's called the free marketplace of ideas. We would like to see better legal advice on it. We think there is better legal advice to be found. I don't think we've found it yet. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to close off the part of the hearing to the audience and bring it back to the commission to see what it is that you want to do with this. There's a lot of discussion parts. Karen, I'm sorry. I have a question. Yeah, feel free. And you can ask anybody that question. It's for Craig, if you don't mind. I have a couple questions. And of personal opinion, I hate poll banners, so I'll just throw that out there. So there's my personal opinion. When you and your committee were meeting, did you all also look at, and I know some of them have expired citywide, but we have some good neighborhood restrictions that are in place throughout the community. Heartland, even out where I live, out on Jackson Creek, We've got neighborhood restrictions that restrict signs. Did you look at any of those deed restrictions as you're looking through this to kind of give you some thought or feeling for what the community likes or doesn't like? We didn't refer to deed restrictions with the understanding that those would still exist. This wouldn't overrule any of that. The neighborhoods could still be more restrictive, of course. Then you have the areas where, after 30 years, a lot of the deed restrictions in the older parts of town have expired. You've got the Metathorpe area that has ND1, which is great, and that kind of helps protect them. And there's a few other ND1s. But then you've got other areas of town where they've just totally expired. So this, I think, helps those neighborhoods. But I was just wondering if you'd taken a sampling from any of the other restrictions. We did not. We did not review deed restrictions for any particular HOAs in the process of drafting them. And then one other thing I'd like to say just to kind of give you my thought on, You made the comment that the signage in the economic development zone was not necessarily so important for those coming in. It was only for those employees and workers or whatever. And I disagree with that in regard to if that's the case, you don't need restaurants. Just put in lunch rooms in those industrial things. So I disagree with your reasoning on that, that if you have hotels or you have restaurants that are servicing those areas, and I know right now in the I-1 area that we have a little bit north of town there off of Citation, those people have nowhere in some of those areas to go to lunch unless they drive over to Townley or they have to go over on to Newtown to the McDonald's or whatever over there. I think those kinds of people would welcome having a restaurant or a facility, a hotel that has a restaurant in it or something. So I disagree with you a little bit, and I just wanted to get that out there on that economic development idea on the signage. So that's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Fair enough. Mr. Poe? I just have a comment. Okay. That's fine. I would support postponing because I see changes from the old ordinance to the new that involve size and location changes that were made for various reasons. but regardless of the reason, I think that the work group did not include members of the public who have a vested interest in this. And I think that the comments, all of the comments we've heard, indicate that there are some disagreements with some of the changes that have been made, disagreements on both sides. And I think that there needs to be some effort to rectify some of these disagreements. disagreements. An example, I think, is the, well, you can look at under low density residential, the changes from a two square foot sign to a considerably larger sign for B&Bs. I mean, I know that's done in the interest of consistency. It was done to reduce the number of different different configurations, but I think that that decision may have been different had there been someone from the neighborhood council providing some feedback on that. And similarly, the economic development area, I think the changes there might have been different had there been someone giving feedback on that. Mr. Van. I don't know why I have a feeling today this is a public hearing and the process usually with a public hearing is you get the feedback and you come back and you come with it I just don't think the planning commission or maybe it's just me with what we've heard today you know I ask you do you still want to go forward is there ways we could change this thing to make it better and i know you spent a lot of time on it we've been going on it for a long time but it's a very complicated piece of zoda but the main thing is we got to get it right and to do tax amendments to change something that you did because you didn't think of something or something went the other way to me this whole day i've thought this whole discussion i thought this is a public hearing. And I don't think you're ready right now to vote on what you have right now. I think you'd be a lot wiser to go back to incorporate some of the changes that you've seen, some of the inequities that have been pointed out. Some of them will be good, some of them will be bad. But to put this much time in and go forward and then have to go back and change, it just doesn't make sense to me. So my counsel would be that we treat this as a public hearing. Mr. Penn, this is a public hearing. This absolutely is a public hearing today. And that's why you're hearing from the attorneys and the neighborhood association entity. And so if there are changes that the planning commission would request the staff make to the text, I think we need those very specifically to be enumerated. Otherwise, we have taken the requests of the individuals that spoke today and taken them back to the work group, and they were considered, and the result was what was presented today. So if there are specific recommendations that are different, I think those need to be laid out, and we can make revisions to the text, and then you can act on those once you see them at a separate meeting. We can continue the hearing. but to ask the staff to go back and just reconsider again we'll be just spinning our wheels. Does that make sense? What I'm referring to is that I don't want to assume that you all haven't heard anything that's new here today. No, we've heard all of that. Well, we haven't. Right. Before I get to Ms. Plumlee let me say this. First of all I'm very much sympathetic and I'm very much in the camp right now of the ed issue i think it's a reasonable issue i think it was well reasoned and i don't know i mean and i don't know how to put to say that if you wanted me to put something for you to consider i think the and i'm speaking just for one person here i think that issue of the level playing feel deserves consideration okay now i'll go to miss plumley and mr nickel thank you mr chair i I think Reed Gilbert got lost because of signage after sitting through this today. I still think that we're kind of in overdrive because I've gone through our sheet here, and I've counted nine, maybe ten cases where the signage is increased, and that means more visual stuff as you drive around our neighborhood, and is that really what we want to see? And by that, I think that we're not complying with Article 17 with the intent of Article 17, which says that it provides legitimate needs and identification to all zones, does not unduly attract from the overall settings of the community. In all zones, that's ag, residential, professional, whatever. And I think with this extra visual stuff, we are detracting from the beauty of our community. And so I would either – I would like to see this not go forward, but if it does, I think there's a lot of polishing that needs to be done. Okay. Mr. Nickel. Thank you. I'm going to follow what Mr. Walbur mentioned as far as his professor's advice and agree with some cohorts up here and be very brief. I appreciate this very much so. You know, there are a lot of changes, but just by line item, line item, you know, a third. Not as many as I thought they may have been. However, Carolyn says nine or ten times, signs increase. I personally don't like hearing that, but it's something that I have to look at and digest at home and come back to a work session. And I think that's where we need to continue this. With the, as far as ED, I think they phrased it right. It was just simply an omission early on, and I think that needs to be looked at a little bit harder. Okay. Now, the one thing that the staff. Beg your pardon? I know. Oh, I thought. No, I was here. Okay. I'm suffering from a little bit of sign fatigue, I think, for sure. So I'm being a little bit more jaded than I might have been earlier in the day. I don't understand quite a lot of the decisions. I mean, just something as basic as what's better, two five-square-foot signs versus one ten-foot square sign. If you put it in the context of a neighborhood and a B&B, and you go from a two-square-foot sign to an eight-foot square sign, it's a pretty big difference. I don't want this to become a NIMBY argument, but I think in the context of a neighborhood, if it's a B&B and it's allowed to be in the neighborhood, it's fine to make it recognizable, but you don't need a neon sign out front saying, come here. I'm not sure where that shakes out as far as the logic of the work group saying consistency is more important than I guess direct impact, direct appropriateness for the environment in which that sign was going to go. I understand that and generally appreciate that when you make it simpler, make the rules simpler to understand, simpler to abide by. But I think you're dealing with some things here that are nuanced that can't be necessarily cookie cutter. And so I'm at the point, I'm certainly not going to try to give counsel as to what you do, whether we go. But I don't think I can move forward supporting this right now. I think a work session, perhaps with the NI to, and again, I understand that you guys have tried to make this as clear as possible with this spreadsheet. But if there would be a way just to take each zone and say, all right, this is what it used to be, what the science regulations allowed, and this is what it's going to be. And, you know, if you tried that already and it didn't work, I don't quite understand why. So that's my two cents worth. Let me see if I can. Yes, first, Mr. Nickel. I'm going to make a comment as well. So after listening to all this today, my comment is I'm in agreement with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Walburn about the ED zone. And I would, when the time comes, I would be in favor of moving to the language that they've provided here with us. So that's my comment on the ED zone. Because I believe that if an ED zone is intended to provide, you know, improved economic development, we ought to think about the businesses that are going into this zone and take into account what they need to be successful. So I would, when it comes to it, I'm in favor of the Murphy Economic Development Zone changes. Number two, on the low-density residential, most of the uses have been decreased except for one, which is the home occupancy slash B&B, where previously it was two square foot of signage allowed, and then it got moved to all other permitted uses, which is one freestanding 16 foot, one wall sign 16 foot. I would be for keeping it the same as two square feet, and I think that would eliminate a lot of problems. So those are my two cents on two issues. Great. Mr. Powell? I would agree with Mr. Nickel, although I know that staff said that they've heard these arguments and that they've considered them. So I think the idea of a work session in which we can discuss it with staff, find out why they've made the decisions they have, and consider their process before we act, I think that would be expedient. All right. Any other comments? Then let me try to pull this together very quickly. I think what I'm hearing is a non-readiness to do any type of voting today. I think the recommendation is that I'd like to have a work session where we could get into a little bit more in-depth. and the reason I jumped in the way I did without giving my other colleagues is that I wanted, in reference to Ms. Wade's point, we simply can't say we don't like it. We've got to give her some direction as the way to go. And the reason I jumped in there is to simply say I like what Mr. Walden and Mr. Murphy put forth. Now, that was a prejudicial, jaded perspective from one council commission member. Several of you seemingly agree with that, but the bottom line is that's the type of specific thing, and I appreciate, Mr. Nicker, your point about what you think specifically could be, but I think a work session would be good. So could you arrange for us to have a work session? As it relates to this meeting, what do we do? Just postpone it, put it in a continuance? How do we deal with that? Yes, the staff would request that you continue this item for one month to the July 25th Planning Commission agenda. And in the meantime, we'll have now the work session in July is just that one week prior, July 18th. So that's when we would bring it to the Planning Commission for further discussion. And I think that in fairness, if we get to that week before, and we still can't get all the answers, there's no definitive thing about the 25th. There's nothing magical about it. As long as we're making progress and everybody sees we're making progress, would that be acceptable for my colleagues to? Okay. With that in line, I'll entertain a motion for continuance of this particular meeting. Okay. So moved. but all kids the brewer has made the motion to continue mister lary for stuff seconds any other discussion on the motion if not which please but when it comes up on the screen all in favor say that Opposed, same sign? Okay, there you got it. You can go nay now. You can get it into the record as much. Okay, anything else needs to come? One other thing I'd like to remind you, for the meetings next week, we'll have to change our date from July the 4th to July the 3rd, right? Correct. That is a great reminder, Chairman Wilson. We'll be meeting Wednesday instead of Thursday since Thursday is July 4th. So Wednesday at 830 a.m., the subdivision committee will meet, and Wednesday at 1.30 the zoning committee will meet. Okay. Thank you. Very good. Any other business coming before this body? Without objection, meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.