# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - June 23, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 23, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5599 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5599?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-06-23 - **Last revised**: June 23, 2022 - **Length**: 17,931 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 23, 2022, 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 Frank Penn presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed four agenda items during the session, with all items receiving approval. The meeting included seven motions and votes, covering zoning amendments, signage regulation updates, and facility approvals. One public comment was heard during the proceedings. The commission's work focused on several key development and regulatory matters, including a zoning map amendment for DF Lexington Properties II, LLC, modifications to Article 17 regarding signage regulations, and an amendment to Article 8-20 to permit banquet facilities. Additionally, the commission approved plans for Lafayette High School's softball field house and dugouts project. All four agenda items were successfully approved, demonstrating unanimous support for the proposed changes and developments presented to the commission. ## Attendance The following members were present at the June 23, 2022 meeting: • Frank Penn • Zach Davis • Judy Worth • Robin Michler • Bruce Nicol • Graham Pohl • Headley Bell • Ivy Barksdale • Anthony de Movellan Two members were absent: • Larry Forrester • Jan Meyer No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on seven items during the meeting, with most passing unanimously. **PLN-MAR-22-00007** [timestamp: 00:30]: Anthony de Movellan motioned to withdraw the Housing Partnership, Inc. zone map amendment, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. The withdrawal passed unanimously 9-0, with all commissioners voting in favor: Frank Penn, Zach Davis, Judy Worth, Robin Michler, Bruce Nicol, Graham Pohl, Headley Bell, Ivy Barksdale, and Anthony de Movellan. **PLN-MAR-22-00008** [timestamp: 01:30]: Headley Bell motioned for the zone map amendment for DF Lexington Properties II, LLC, seconded by Anthony de Movellan. The motion passed unanimously 9-0 with the same commissioners voting in favor. **PLN-MJDP-22-00028** [timestamp: 02:30]: The development plan for Collins & Orrell Property (DF Lexington) was approved unanimously 9-0 on a motion by Headley Bell, seconded by Anthony de Movellan. The approval included deleting Condition #12 from the original proposal. **PLN-ZOTA-22-00001** [timestamp: 03:30]: Bruce Nicol's motion to amend Article 17 Signage Regulations for digital marquee, seconded by Judy Worth, failed 4-5. Voting for: Bruce Nicol, Judy Worth, Robin Michler, and Frank Penn. Voting against: Anthony de Movellan, Headley Bell, Graham Pohl, Zach Davis, and Ivy Barksdale. **PLN-ZOTA-22-00001** [timestamp: 04:30]: A revised motion by Graham Pohl for the same signage amendment with an 8-second interval requirement, seconded by Headley Bell, passed 6-3. Voting for: Graham Pohl, Headley Bell, Zach Davis, Ivy Barksdale, Anthony de Movellan, and Bruce Nicol. Voting against: Robin Michler, Frank Penn, and Judy Worth. **PLN-ZOTS-22-00009** [timestamp: 05:30]: The amendment to Article 8-20 to permit banquet facilities in B-3 zone passed unanimously 9-0. **PFR 2022-5** [timestamp: 06:30]: Public Facility Review for Lafayette High School Softball Field House & Dugouts was approved unanimously 9-0. ## Public Comment The public comment period featured one speaker addressing application withdrawals. Dick Murphy spoke during the public comment period to request the withdrawal of applications for two housing-related projects [timestamp: 00:15]. Specifically, Murphy requested to withdraw the applications for Housing Partnership, Inc. and Melody Village & River Park. No additional details were provided regarding the reasons for these withdrawal requests or the nature of the original applications. The public comment period was brief, with only this single item of business addressed by the sole speaker. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in a split vote among council members. **Signage Regulations Amendment** The primary point of contention during the meeting centered on a proposed amendment to local signage regulations that would permit digital marquee signs within the jurisdiction. The disagreement arose specifically over the appropriate duration for message display on these digital signs. Council members were divided on this technical aspect of the regulation, with some favoring shorter display intervals and others supporting longer durations. The split reflected differing perspectives on balancing business needs for effective advertising against potential concerns about driver distraction or visual impact on the community. The amendment ultimately proceeded to a vote, which resulted in a split decision among the council members. However, the extracted data does not specify the exact vote count, which council members voted on each side of the issue, or whether the amendment ultimately passed or failed. This contested vote highlights the challenges local governments face when updating regulations to accommodate new technologies while addressing community concerns and safety considerations. *Note: Specific timestamp information and detailed voting records were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## DF Lexington Properties II, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 01:00] The council considered petition PLN-MAR-22-00008, a zoning map amendment request from DF Lexington Properties II, LLC to rezone properties at 3440, 3450, and 3454 Richmond Road from Neighborhood Business (B-1) to Highway Service Business (B-3). Key speakers during the discussion included Hal Baillie and Tom Martin, who presented information regarding the proposed zoning change. The petition sought to modify the zoning classification for the three adjacent properties on Richmond Road to allow for expanded commercial uses permitted under the B-3 highway service business designation. The B-3 zoning classification typically allows for more intensive commercial activities compared to the existing B-1 neighborhood business zoning, including services oriented toward highway and automotive traffic. The properties' location on Richmond Road, a major thoroughfare, made them suitable candidates for this type of commercial zoning. Following the presentation and discussion, the council approved the zoning map amendment. The approval allows DF Lexington Properties II, LLC to proceed with development plans that align with the B-3 zoning requirements and permitted uses. This zoning change represents a shift from neighborhood-scale commercial uses to highway-oriented business activities for the three Richmond Road properties, reflecting the evolving commercial needs along this corridor. ## Amendment to Article 17: Signage Regulations [timestamp: 03:00] The meeting addressed petition PLN-ZOTA-22-00001, an amendment to Article 17 concerning signage regulations. The proposed ordinance would allow digital marquee signs in the Lexington Center Business (B-2B) Zone. Key speakers during the discussion included Hal Baillie and Dick Murphy. The primary focus of the debate centered on the duration of message display for these digital marquee signs, indicating concerns about how long individual messages or advertisements would remain visible before changing. The petition represents a zoning text amendment that would expand the permitted signage types in the B-2B zone to include digital marquee technology. This change would affect the signage options available to businesses operating within the Lexington Center Business district. Following discussion of the message display duration requirements and other relevant provisions, the amendment was approved by the meeting body. The approval allows for the implementation of digital marquee signs in the specified zoning district, subject to the regulations outlined in the amended Article 17. ## Amendment to Article 8-20 to Permit Banquet Facilities [timestamp: 05:00] The council considered petition PLN-ZOTS-22-00009, an ordinance amendment to allow banquet facilities as a principal permitted use in the Highway Service Business (B-3) zoning district. Daniel Crum presented the proposal to modify Article 8-20 of the zoning ordinance. The amendment would add banquet facilities to the list of permitted uses in B-3 zones, which are typically designated for highway-oriented commercial businesses. The petition seeks to expand the range of commercial activities allowed in Highway Service Business zones to include venues for events, receptions, and similar gatherings. This change would provide property owners and developers with additional options for utilizing B-3 zoned land. The council approved the ordinance amendment, allowing banquet facilities to operate as a principal permitted use in Highway Service Business zones going forward. ## Lafayette High School Softball Field House & Dugouts [timestamp: 06:00] The board reviewed Public Facility Review PFR 2022-5 for the construction of a new field house and dugouts at Lafayette High School, along with an expansion of the parking area for the softball facility. Tracy Wade presented the proposal to the board, outlining the planned improvements to the school's softball facilities. The project includes the construction of a new field house structure and dugouts to support the softball program, as well as expanding the existing parking area to accommodate increased capacity for games and events. The item was presented as a Public Facility Review, which is the standard process for evaluating proposed construction projects at public facilities to ensure they meet planning and zoning requirements. The board approved PFR 2022-5, allowing the Lafayette High School softball facility improvements to move forward. The approval covers both the new field house and dugout construction as well as the parking area expansion component of the project. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-22-00007** — withdrawn (9-0): Withdrawal of Housing Partnership, Inc. zone map amendment - **PLN-MAR-22-00008** — passed (9-0): Zone map amendment for DF Lexington Properties II, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-22-00028** — passed (9-0): Development plan for Collins & Orrell Property (DF Lexington) - **PLN-ZOTA-22-00001** — failed (4-5): Amendment to Article 17: Signage Regulations for digital marquee - **PLN-ZOTA-22-00001** — passed (6-3): Amendment to Article 17: Signage Regulations for digital marquee with 8-second interval - **PLN-ZOTS-22-00009** — passed (9-0): Amendment to Article 8-20 to permit banquet facilities in B-3 zone - **PFR 2022-5** — passed (9-0): Public Facility Review for Lafayette High School Softball Field House & Dugouts --- ## Full transcript My heart can make you happy Jump, you know these arms can fill you up Jump in, you wanna take my kisses in the night Jump, jump, oh my love Jump, come on and jump on me Jump, you know I need you Jump in, I got to tell you how to do it Jump, jump, oh my love Thank you. Oh, yeah. Thank you. So you think it's Romeo Playing a party in a picture show We'll take the long way home We'll take the long way home Is you the joke of the neighborhood? Why should you care if you're feeling good? We'll take the long way home We'll take the long way home There are times that you feel you're part of the scenery Oh, the greenery Coming down, boy And then your wife seems to think you're part of the furniture Oh, it's a beauty She used to be so nice Lonely days turn to lonely nights You take a trip to the city lights You take the long way home You take the long way home You never see what you want to see Forever playing to the gallery You take the long way home You take the long way home When you're up on the stage, it's so unbelievable Unforgettable, I may ignore you But then your wife seems to think you're losing the sanity Oh, calamity, is there no way out? Oh, yeah Oh, yeah Do you feel that your life's become a catastrophe? Oh, it has to be You're at a cold point When you look through the years and see what you could have been Oh, what you might have been If you had had more time So when the day comes to settle down Who's to play me if you're not around You took a long way home You took a long way home You took a long way home You took a long way home You took a long way home Oh, yeah. Love we go Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Don't stand so, don't stand so close to me Loose talk in the classroom Too hard they try and try Strong words in the staff room The accusations fly There's no use, he sees her He starts to shake and call Just like the old man in the book I never called Don't stand, don't stand so, don't stand so close to me Don't stand, don't stand so, don't stand so close to me Thank you. I'm out. Thank you. She wakes and says hello, turns on the breakfast show. She takes his coffee while he takes a shower. Hey, that was great, he said. I wish we could stay in bed. But I got to be at work in less than an hour. She manages to smile as he walks down the door. She's a modern girl who's been through this room very far. She don't feel the world about no single man. But she's scared by doing what she can. She is free to be what she wants to be. All she wants to be is a modern girl. Na-na-na-na-na. Na-na-na-na-na-na. Na-na-na-na-na-na, she's a father girl. She looks like rain again, she takes the train again. She's on her way again to London town, where she eats the tangerine. Flicks through a magazine, until it's time to leave her dreams on the underground. She walks through the office like everyone else. An independent lady taking care of herself. She don't build her world round no single matter But she's getting by doing what she can She is free to be what she wants to be What she wants to be is a modern girl Na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na She's a modern girl Thank you. My TV I don't build my world Round no single man But she's getting me by Doing what she can She is free to be What she wants to be What she wants to be Is a modern girl Na na na na na Na na na na na Na na na na na She's a modern girl She's a modern girl. She's a modern girl. Hello again, hello Just called to say hello I couldn't sleep at all tonight And I know it's late But I couldn't wait Hello, my friend, hello Just call to let you know Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Penn, you're not using your microphone, would you be able to do that for us? My wife said I was loud enough mouth, I didn't need a microphone. Well, I like it when you use it. All right, is that better? Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, we have three sets of minutes, the April 14th, the May 12th, and the May 26th. Chair will entertain a motion for those three minutes, six sets of minutes. I'm trying to. Mr. Chair, I can't get my, there we go. I move for approval of the April 14th, May 12th, and May 26th minutes of the Planning Commission meetings as submitted. Is there a second to that? Second by Ivy. All in favor of posted on the grander. Motion passes. Are there any postponements or withdrawals? Murphy? Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page three of your agenda, at the very bottom, these are commission items. A and B, PLN MAR 227, Housing Partnership Incorporated, and B, PLN MJDP 2229, Melody Village and River Park, Islamic Center of Lexington. These both pertain to property at 1240 Armstrong Mill Road. I represent housing partnership and unfortunately we are withdrawing that. I submitted a letter several weeks ago, but your bylaws require me to appear in person. So I'm either withdrawing it or requesting permission to withdraw, whichever is the right thing to do. Well, Mr. Murphy, I can't tell you what the right thing to do, but we'll just do both. Okay, sounds good. Thank you, sir. So the chair will entertain a motion to withdraw PLNMAR 22.7 and PLNMJDP 22.29. Yes, sir. I move that we grant permission to withdraw or give them the permission to withdraw. PLNMAR 22.07 and PLNMJDP 22.29. All right, sir. Thank you. Second by the vote when it comes up on your screen. Thank you Mr. Murphy. Okay, we'll turn to page two. First item, how this abbreviated hearing? Yes, sir, I do believe that this is available to do an abbreviated hearing, unless there is someone in the audience that would like this to be pulled for a full hearing. This is for the Properties on Richmond Road, PLNMAR 22-00008, DF Lexington Properties 2. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to discuss this application? sir i see none therefore i will go with through this in a more abbreviated fashion thank you Ladies and gentlemen, this is a request for a zone change from a neighborhood business V1 zone to a highway service business zone for 1.9 net and 2.78 gross acres for the properties located at 3440, 3450, and 3454 Richmond Road. The applicant is seeking to place this within a corridor place type and a medium density non-residential development or mixed use development type in hopes to expand and develop an auto center, part of the Don Franklin Auto Center sales, and their associated facilities, including the showroom, sales offices, and auto maintenance facility. We are located off of Richmond Road as we're heading out towards Athens Boonesboro Road here, Athens Boonesboro this way. Jumping into the site itself, there is a host of commercial zoning around this area. The primary zoning on the south side of Richmond Road at this location is the highway service business zone, the B3 zone that is being applied for today. Across Richmond Road, we do have a significant amount of professional office zoning. There are some remnant portions of agricultural urban here and here. This area over in this location is associated with Jacobson Park. There is a small amount of residential just located across Squires Road, which is running approximately north-south in this location. Jumping to the aerial, you'll see an idea of how the land use has been developed throughout this area south of Richmond Road. It is primarily for auto sales. This is the whole of the Don Franklin area over to this area. The current land use on the properties is retail sales, paint sales. There's a sign shop, a few other smaller operators. In this case, the applicant is seeking to redevelop the site for one user. As with all zone changes, we seek to place these within a specific place type and development type. In this case, the applicant is seeking to place it within the corridor place type. This is one of the few place types that is mapped within the comprehensive plan. This portion of Richmond Road is within that corridor place type, and staff was in agreement with this choice. again the applicant is seeking to place this within a medium density non-residential or mixed use development type staff agreed based off of their proposed development plan and associated justification that this could be appropriate for the subject property in this case the applicant is not choosing a recommended zone within the place type and development type however this does not mean that they cannot request a different zone from these recommended within the comprehensive plan, but it is incumbent upon them to provide greater information as to why the Highway Service Business Zone is the most appropriate zone in this location. In this case, the applicant looked at the surrounding land uses, the type of roadway that we are on, and the type of sales that would be done on this location, and provided greater information as to why the B3 is appropriate. In this case, staff didn't agree that it could be appropriate for this location. Just jumping into the site itself, you can see we are located off of Richmond Road. We're looking at the three properties. You can see one small property located here. That's the 3454. And then the two other properties located in this area. Here we're looking into town down Richmond Road. Along the service road that goes around the property, This is actually a public service road that provides connection from Richmond Road to some of these businesses in this location over to Squires Road. And then as we're going out of town towards Athens. Just a better idea of how this has been developed over time and how the applicant is seeking to work within an overall complex. As Mr. Martin will discuss here shortly, this will be pulled into a full final development plan at a later date. to show a little bit more cohesion. There is an access point along the rear of the proposed redevelopment here that would tie into some of the other facilities that will be redeveloped in the future. Again, here we're off of that service road looking into the site itself. And just a side view of the building, they are looking to keep this access point, however, also provide additional pedestrian facilities along this area. But with a lot of zone changes, we look at if the zone or all the uses within that zone are appropriate. In this case, in review of the application, there were four uses that staff was concerned with, with the rezoning of this property. That includes the adult entertainment establishments, drive-through windows, accessory to restaurants, billboards, and outdoor loudspeakers or music. The outdoor loudspeakers or music is really tied to the proximity of some of that residential across Squires Road, whereas the other three uses are targeted at being prohibited because of this being a gateway into our city. Richmond Road, as well as some of our major arterial roadways, act as major gateways and have beautification ordinances. Staff would like to make sure that we are keeping these corridors as these gateways and entryways into our city, presenting the best view for visitors as well as those who live in our community, and would recommend the prohibition of these four uses. In review of the applicant's justification letter and their associated development plan, staff did find that this zone change would be appropriate, and we are recommending approval. The applicant is providing a new facility that is focused on higher paying jobs. These would be technicians that are working on vehicles as well as sales advocates and administrators. This potential facility is seeking to do an all electric vehicle. So they are shifting to a newer model. So staff is also seeing this as a way to reduce carbon emissions within our community. while also increasing some of the pedestrian facilities throughout this site. The applicant is providing pedestrian facilities along the northern portion of the site, throughout their site with delineated pedestrian facilities, and then along the base of that rear access point to the public roadway on the service road. The staff is also reviewing this for canopy coverage. When reviewing any type of shift of use or increase in paved surface, staff is concerned about the heat island effect associated with these types of developments. The applicant is seeking to provide 20% tree canopy coverage on site and will be including street trees on their development, which is not required within the B3 zone. The justification and corollary development plan are in agreement with the policies or the development criteria for site design, building form and location, transportation and pedestrian connectivity, and then green space and environmental health. We are recommending those conditional zonings, which I described previously. And then with all zone changes, it is subject to the approval and certification of PLNMJDP 22-00028, which Mr. Martin will be presenting here shortly. If you have any questions on the zone change, I'd be happy to answer. Any questions for Hal on this zone change? Thank you, Hal. We'll hear from Mr. Martin. All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, The plan that you see before you today is a preliminary development plan. Oh, thank you, Frank. You have a revised staff handout. It's a lovely orange paper. There you go. Again, this is a preliminary development plan. Oh, wrong way. There we go. You can see here's the proposed dealership. It is 19,600 square feet with its two stories. Of course, they'll have a large interior space and offices in the upper area. Access off of Richmond Road. You can see here, right in, right out. Circulation pattern, parking. These dark spaces you see here, those are display spaces. They're only required 58 parking spaces. They have 33 additional spaces for display on this particular property. These are the charging spaces for the electric vehicles. This is an area that was of some concern what its use was going to be in our initial review. It now is basically green space and available to be green space. It had been noted as a display area on the previous plan and is no longer denoted that way. Now, they have to meet the Richmond Road Landscape and Access Ordinance. Now, this meets it. This has been previously approved. They're going to have to landscape along the right-of-way. And they are somewhat limited in this area for the amount of landscaping that they can provide. But they will, at the time of a final development plan, have to demonstrate their ability to get landscaping in along that right-of-way. Now, you can't landscape on the state of Kentucky right away. They won't let you. But they'll have to landscape on their property to the greatest extent that they can. And the Richmond Road Ordinance is very specific in terms of the types of plannings and things that they require. And those of you on the subdivision committee may recall that we raised that issue when we talked to you to make sure that that was something they were aware of. This is the access that Hal mentioned back to the rear and to the large parking area. At the time of the final development plan, we are anticipating that they will be prepared to bring in an overall final development plan for your consideration. Now, you see these areas through here that represent landscaping. And this goes back to Hal's discussion just now about the heat island effect and trees. They only have a 20% canopy requirement. And we have a condition that says they're going to have to resolve this again at the time of the final development plan. Staff always has concerns about the survivability of trees in landscaping in these areas that are heavily paved and heavily developed. Now, of course, they have options. They can plant small trees. It just takes a lot more of them. But they can survive in a more confined space. space and they don't need the root zone that large trees would need. So that's a condition that they will need to resolve that at the time of the final development plan. And quite often in circumstances like this in the past, we have literally asked for an exhibit that shows, here, this is how we think they're going to meet, here's the room and that sort of thing. So again, that is a concern because of the overall pavement and redevelopment of the area. But with that, your staff is recommending approval, and I would add that number 12 on your revised conditions is discuss place builder criteria. You can delete that because you've had that discussion. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff about the development plan. Any questions, Mr. Martin? I want you to note that his shirt matches our handout today. Yes, sir. I don't know that I've seen that before, but it's pretty classy. Thank you. This is my Halloween shirt. Well, we'll keep it to the shirt. Okay. All right, any other questions? Right ahead. Yeah, Mr. Martin, on this plan, we've got, I know the lot is significantly paved already. It is pretty near one of the reservoirs. Is that right? Yes, sir. Is there any, I don't think it's cared for, but it looks like from the satellite imaging and stuff, there's green space along the back of the lot now? Four. Well, just in existence. Is there any, is that going to be maintained? or is that going to be replaced with pavement along the back of the lot? Or is that on the adjacent property? Okay, what you see right through here is exactly what they're proposing, yes. So, again, in this area adjacent, we would hope they'll bring in a final development plan that will incorporate that rear property with this property so both staff and the Planning Commission can get a greater look at how this is going to be integrated and how it's going to work. And that at that time would be an excellent question to raise with the applicant how they propose that to work. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? Now is the applicant here? Good afternoon, everybody. Brandon Gross on behalf of the Don Franklin Auto Mall. First, I'd like to say is I've talked about the conditional zoning with my client, and my client is agreeable to the conditions posed by the staff. So we would, if you approve this today, you could include those. We have no objection to those. As to Mr. Mickler's comment, yes, this is hopefully stage one of a two, maybe three-stage process in which we redevelop the balance of the dealership when we come back with the final development plan. Due to where the reservoir is, our plan is going to be probably to increase the stormwater management in that area to separate. As to the green space where the sidewalk is being proposed, we're putting that sidewalk in for pedestrian access to the streets. But when we come back in, we would be able to provide green space on the other side of that sidewalk on the southern property. Does that answer your question? So just to confirm, just because I didn't catch it, you said on the south of the property, right? Yes, we own the reservoir property. So when we come back in for the final development plan, our intent is to bring that forward also and use part of that property for our stormwater and green space. That's what I thought you meant. I just was clarifying. Thank you. Anybody else have a question, Mr. Groves? Thank you, sir. That's short and sweet. That's why I like it. And I know you do too. Thank you, Mr. Groves. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to comment on this? I don't think so, because we'd have had it before. Okay, this is, you've heard the staff report. You've seen Tom's shirt matches this color, and the revised conditions are on that. We're eliminating number 12. and we're keeping number 10 to resolve and the chair will entertain. Is there any more discussion among the planning commission? If you're ready for a vote, the chair is ready to hear you. Chair? Yes, sir, Mr. Bell? move for approval appeal nmjdp 22 000 28 collins and oral property let's do the let's do the zone change first dp mar 22-8 just above that okay oh well i don't have that in front of me it's on the back side of your agenda your agenda not the handout page three page three is it page three page two item one right So move for approval of PLNMAR 228. With the zone change, election properties LLC. Second. Mr. Bell, seconded by Anthony. All in favor vote. Thank you, sir. Now can we go down and do the development plan, please? And then we go with the move for the revised staff, revised recommendation of PLNMJDP 2228 with the now 11 conditions, removing, deleting 12, and keeping 10 as resolved for PLNMJDP 2228 Collins and Oral property. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gross. We're going to page three. Al? Thank you very much, sir. This is actually a continuation of a previously discussed item. Before I get going with my presentation, you should have two staff reports, one being the one that was presented at the last meeting, and then a supplemental staff report. This should be all on Granicus. I also have two packets of information to hand out, letters from the public. The first one being from the Fay County Neighborhood Commission. I'm going to hand these out while we get that work through. I also would like to enter into the record a planning action service report. This is a report done by the American Planning Association associated with signs, street graphics, and the law, the fourth edition. I would like to place this into the record. That document made up a bit of information that's associated with the staff recommendation here today. What I will be doing is not going over all the information that was presented the first time, but updating you all on the information that has been done since the prior public hearing. Initially, this was the information that was supplied by the applicant with their application seeking to allow for digital marquees to occur in the B2B zone in Lexington. This is specifically tied to indoor theaters. the staff provided in a staff alternative during last month or a month and a half ago's public hearing in which staff provided greater information as to a cap in the size of the signs the images the location of the signs duration of message messages the luminance and then the operation of those signs staff found that this was consistent with the current regulations added new language that provided for new technologies to be incorporated into businesses and then protected the health, safety, and welfare of the community. During that meeting, there was a significant amount of conversation, both by the Planning Commission and the applicant and staff, about how this would integrate into our current B2B zone, as well as some concerns about the current language. with that there were three main concerns that came up during the hearing sir thank you those three concerns really focused in on the maximum size of the signage the oversight of the signage and then the duration of the message or image these three elements were discussed a few times between the applicant and staff and the staff has made some modifications to their proposed language here today and what we will be doing here is going over that and why some of those changes were made as you can see and this is located within your staff report as well just in case you want to look at it a little bit more. Staff did focus on those three elements and have made some small changes throughout the text and one larger change to make it meet both the wants and needs of the applicant, but also the content of our zoning ordinance and the wants and needs of the broader Lexington community. Staff has changed or shifted the per theater sign from 24 feet to 30 feet for this location here per theater. This allows the applicant in a downtown environment to reach the maximum size requirement with 10 theaters. Staff felt that this was appropriate as the downtown theaters typically have a lesser amount of what you would see in theaters than in a multiplex. So a deviation from that size requirement per theater staff felt was appropriate. Staff did not change the maximum size of that area just because staff found that that was still appropriate overall for our downtown environments and incorporating any type of illuminated sign like a digital sign. Next, staff looked at the language associated and I will say there was a typo previously. That's why you're seeing sign in blue there. The staff also looked at the oversight of signage. The applicant was a little concerned with the language that says that the operation of the traffic, it should not conflict with the traffic signals or signs, and it needed to be agreed to by the Division of Traffic Engineering. The staff has shifted that to match the language from the state statute associated with digital signage, in which now staff is recommending the sign shall not interfere with, imitate, or resemble an official traffic sign, signal, or traffic control device. The sign-off of the Division of Engineering will still come through during the sign-off period with permits. So the Division of Traffic Engineering is not taken out of this process, but it is not giving sole oversight over the location of the site or of the sign that would be proposed. The final element, and I believe this is the element that we will be discussing the most today, is the shift of staff's recommendation for less, not less than 45 seconds to not less than 20 seconds for the duration of the message. This is a shift in staff's opinion of 25 seconds, a significant amount, to drop this down. Now, staff does not disagree with the idea of 45 seconds. There is a rational nexus for this that was associated with the signalization at intersections in the downtown area. Staff essentially was saying in our previous review that two images or messages displayed would make sense for a digital sign. In this case, staff has done a significant amount of more work and has looked at other ways of measuring the metrics for downtown digital signage and how often that should occur, specifically with signs up to 300 square feet, and found that 20 seconds was appropriate. So we'll get into a little bit more of why we made that decision, but we'll start off with why the proposed timing of five seconds that was submitted with the applicant's application and the eight seconds that was discussed during the public hearing previously is still inappropriate. The five seconds and the eight seconds is timing that is associated with higher rates of speed. The vast majority of the literature that is out there on digital signage places viewer reaction time as being the primary component of how you are going through your duration time span for each of the signs. In this case, the faster your rate of speed, the wider the roads, the less traffic impacts, the less amount of pedestrians, and the faster you can go through your signs. The more you add to those things, you see a slowing down of the duration of each image or message. So in this case, a five to eight second time frame is very much for highways and interstates. So traffic speeds of greater than 55 miles per hour. That is typically where you see the greatest, the shortest amount of duration time span and where you see a greater amount of images being displayed. Staff looked at our current ordinance and we do have a current regulation within the B3 zone for digital signage, limiting the duration of each message or image to 15 seconds. Now, if we look at the B3 zone, that is the highway service business zone. Within a highway service business zone, within an urban setting, the typical speeds range from anywhere between 35 miles per hour up to 55 miles per hour. In this case, we are seeing an increase in duration compared to the highway or interstate traffic that is above 55 miles per hour. There's also a consistency with the best practice associated with complex downtown streets. Now I say complex downtown streets because of not only signalization, pedestrian infrastructure, and pedestrian movement, but also a higher rate of vehicles stopping and going, the amount of turns that are occurring in our complex streets. This slows down viewer response time to signage because you are constantly inundated with other things going on around you. When you're on a highway, when you're moving at faster rates of speed, there are less amounts of signalization, there's less amount of right-hand turns, left-hand turns, and there is far less amount of pedestrian activity along the roadways. The 20-second time frame also allows for signs to be absorbed. When I say absorbed, I am going to that viewer reaction time. Or the ability for a driver, specifically, to look at a sign, acknowledge that sign, comprehend the information, and then get back to what they were doing at that time, which is operating a vehicle. When you're driving a car, that is your primary role at that time. Your role is not to be observing the signage that is not associated with the movement of that vehicle. So we are really focused in a downtown area on the operation of that vehicle and making sure that our pedestrians are safe and being observed. So I will also say that we utilized a very interesting calculation to get to some of this information that supports a 20-second time frame. It goes for the viewer reaction time, that DRT, is the square root of the area of the sign times 800 divided by the miles per hour of the sign that you're in that area. There is scientific rationale to back that up that is published within the planning report that we have entered into the record today. This plays into the 20 seconds in this location. The larger the sign, the less amount of the miles per hour, the more time that you need to comprehend things. That is also playing into that part of the greater distractions around you. Now, I will state during our previous public hearing, we had a conversation about wanting descriptions or examples of what it feels like for five seconds, eight seconds, 20 seconds or 45 seconds. Staff did a review of this and also did a review of the literature associated with this. And if we were to do this, it would not give you the same experience that you would have if you were either walking up a street to view these sites or driving a car. I will say sitting in a room with other individuals for five seconds is not a big deal. Eight is a little bit more uncomfortable. Twenty makes it seem like a longer day and forty five seems like an hour. So it does change the way that you're experiencing this, and staff felt that it was not a good correlation to sit in a room in which the only thing you would be focusing on is that eight-second time frame and the sign that is up on our board, rather than if you were in a vehicle, you were driving, you're focused on the vehicular motion, the pedestrians around you, the other signage that is associated with the actual operation of your vehicle, and then the other signage associated with what is around you. It does not give a good correlation. So staff is also cognizant of where these might be located. During our previous public hearing, there was a lot of discussion of this happening down the line, what would happen further on down High Street or elsewhere. This would only be in association with theaters in the Lexington Business Zone or that B2B zone. zone. So it is limited in scope. It is also not to be located directly adjacent to or directly across public right-of-way or private roadways from residential zones. The B2B zone is actually quite large. It's actually our biggest downtown zone. But this bluish line that goes along this area would actually prohibit any type of digital signage along that line. Anywhere within that and away from some of the residential characteristics, then it would be able to be utilized, but only for a theater in this case. We do have other instances in which digital signage is allowed, or electronic message display systems. That's how we define it in our zoning ordinance. It is allowed in this zone, but we are not talking about that at this time. We are really focused in on this one element, and staff is not concerned as much with this occurring down the line. If there were to be greater changes to allow for more digital signage within the B2B zone or in any zone, that would have to be done with a zoning ordinance text amendment and come in front of this body for their review. So staff is recommending the amended staff alternative, which is within your staff report and on the screen here, in which we are increasing the size per theater to 30 square feet. We are adjusting the oversight of and where these should or should not be located to not imitate, resemble, or conflict with some of the traffic control or signals. And then finally, we are reducing the amount of time for duration from 45 seconds to 20 seconds. In staff's opinion, this provides ample amount of time for an operator to show their signage and display several messages. Again, a 90-second red light to red light is what we're seeing in our downtown area. So you would be able to get four messages during a one light cycle and some. So staff is recommending this is consistent with the current zoning ordinance, adds that new language, protects the health, safety, and welfare of our community. And then it makes some changes to address the concerns by the planning commission that were brought up during our previous public hearing, as well as the applicant since that public hearing and today. But I am sure that there will be a little bit more conversation on that. So staff is keeping the same findings. staff finds that the proposed staff alternative text amendment allows for that expansion of use, while also protecting the overall health, safety, and welfare of our community. If you have any questions on this, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions, Mr. Bailey? Bruce? Yes, sir. Mr. Bailey, I appreciate this. During the continuance, getting it down just to basically two issues right now, which makes it a lot easier for us to digest here. I want to clarify not the timing issue, but the size issue. Yes. So originally the size was 40 square feet per screen. That was the applicant's applied for. That's the applicant's application. Then you all originally said no, 24 feet. And then you said on the revised, we're at 30. So we're at ten square feet different per theater with the applicant, correct? And I believe that the applicant in conversations with the applicant's representative, they were happy with that change to 300 square feet. Okay, so 30 square feet. 30 square feet for theirs, it would be up to 300. They would meet that max with their development. So the applicant's good with that? That is my understanding. I'm not sure we're going to get to that. So that's the size. And then now what we just spent a lot of time on was the duration. Yes, sir. And I actually tried to do the math, and that's probably the last time I'm ever going to do that. Your VRT or whatever that was. So we're down to display time. I have two masters in more liberal arts degrees than science or math, so this was something fun for me to do as well. Did you come up with six? I'm sorry? Was your number six for this project? No, it was 20. 20. Okay, well, then I did the math wrong. Thank you. You're welcome. Anybody want to follow that? Yes, sir. Hopefully we're not making a zoning ordinance change based on an incorrect calculation here. but just a question about an aspect of this that I think is important, and it was highlighted in the couple letters we got, which was the signs off at close of business. Yes. This is a zoning ordinance change that's not specific to this business. So is do we do we it was staff's feeling that it should be up to the business to decide then whatever whenever the business closes, they turn the signs off. there is not going to be a sort of maximum like end of bar 3 a.m. or 1 a.m. or 12 a.m. sort of cap to electronic digital messaging? Staff did not put that into our recommendation largely because it is associated with the business operation. We saw there being a tie between the use of the sign and the actual operation of the business. Any cap on a specific time gets into almost a feeling of conditional zoning restrictions, leading to someone, if someone would drive by and your sign was off to your business, individuals would often consider that closed. That's why we tied it to that element. Thank you. Anybody else? Hal, is there a limitation on how high the sign can be mounted? Could it be put on a mast 400 feet above the building, for example? Within the type of signage that is associated with the marquee, and this is what we're really focusing in on, it has to project out from the building, and it cannot be above the building itself. That's the way that the marquee is written. So this keeps it down off of the tops of buildings. Thank you. You're welcome. Bye, Hales. Thank you, Hal. Thank you. Excuse me, Judy. Should have hollered in. Here. Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy, and I'm very pleased today to be representing Big Picture Ventures, the applicant, and they operate the Lex Live Entertainment Center at Broadway and High. George Krikorian is here, the founder and owner of the business. When we were before you about six weeks ago, Harold Tate was with us today. He couldn't be here today. He's receiving an award from the UK College of Architecture at this time. So we appreciate being here. And as I mentioned to you before, George Krikorian operates a number of other entertainment centers. He came to Lexington, associated with the horse business, has a house here now and a residence here now. And he felt that Lexington would be a good place for his business and it would be something that can contribute to the vitality of downtown. And I think it's proved to be a success on both levels. As Mr. Bailey mentioned to you, we've had a number of discussions with the staff on this since we had the hearing with you in April. And we're pleased to say we've actually agreed on all issues except one. There were actually four issues we were talking about back in April. One was an interpretation issue, which the staff clarified to me, which was fine. The other was the size of the sign. we had drafted it we had originally wanted to have 560 square feet and this this is 300 we've we did mock-ups to see how it would work we think that would work at 300 but we've come down a long way from 560 to 300 i know the staff came up from 240 to 300. so we're we're agreeable with that change also the issue of the what i call the division of of traffic engineering veto power in the ordinance. And we're agreeable with the staff wording, which took the wording from the Kentucky administrative regulation of the Kentucky Department of Highways. So we appreciate doing that. The only thing left is the interval time. Sometimes they call that the interval or the static time on it. And I'm going to ask you to also use the standard adopted in the Kentucky Administrative Regulations by the Department of Transportation, same as the other one, at eight seconds. That is both the governmental standard norm and the industry standard norm across the country. I want to discuss that a minute. Before I do that, I just want to clarify, Mr. Bailey did some too, what this ordinance does not do. And the most important thing is this does not impact off-premises signs. As you know, what we're proposing is what they call an on-premise sign, the sign that identifies the business as associated with the business on the property, like the Barney Millers down the street or the 21C Hotel. It operates in conjunction with the business on the lot. An off-premise sign is a sign that advertises something that is not offered for sale or a service on the lot where the sign is located, which is a billboard, essentially. This applies only to on-premises signs, not billboards. and as I mentioned to you in April just a few days before that meeting the U.S. Supreme Court had heard that case and decided that cities did have the power to regulate off premises signs differently from on premises signs but we're just on premises signs and taking the big category of on premises signs we're only looking at theater marquees as Mr. Bailey mentioned to you a very small subset of on-premises signs. And as you know, traditionally, theaters have had big marquees. If you even look at the Kentucky Theater now, if you come down after dark, they have moving, flashing lights. The lights travel in a pattern, sort of like the wave in the stadium. They go around the marquee on there. And other marquees flash or blink or scroll. But we're not asking for that movement, but it is a theater marquee. It applies only to theaters. So it's a very small area that it applies to. And another thing we're not talking about, as I mentioned to you, is having blinking lights, moving lights, flashing lights, or anything like that. Under this ordinance, what we would be allowed to do is have a static image for either hopefully eight seconds or 20 seconds, which did not move, basically a photograph up for that time. And when that time expired, it would automatically change to another photograph. We cannot, we are not asking you to, and this ordinance does not allow us to run videos on there. Cannot have movie trailers or anything like that. I think in Louisville, in my first page, the new one they're doing for the big facility at Fourth and Chestnut in downtown Louisville, may have horse races on it, moving. But we're not asking you for movement on this. We're asking you only for a static image for the period of time it's there. No sliding of slides or swirls or flashes or anything like that. Just wanted to clarify that. So the only issue we're talking about, we've agreed on everything. Three out of four is pretty good. Sorry we couldn't agree on the final thing. But the only one is the interval, again, on this. And I appreciate very much the staff's research on this. But I do need to point out to you that this has been researched by federal agencies, state agencies, other cities, and numerous sign organizations, sign foundations. And the almost universal standard that has been adopted by all of those is an eight second interval. In my handout to you, I'll just go through these pretty quickly, but the first thing in my handout is the Federal Highway Administration memorandum, which was from 2007, which is on page 2 to 5 of my handout. As you can see in that one on page 4, they said the duration of message, duration of each display is generally between 4 and 10 seconds. We'd originally asked for 5. seconds is recommended that's the federal highway administration recommendation the next one is the state administrative regulations from the state highway department these were adopted this year january 2022 these apply they did it to apply to both on-premise and off-premises science after their after their research and revamping talked to one of the attorneys for them and they they said we We just decided to revamp everything this year. And as you can see on page 7 of my handout, the standard the state has adopted is 8 seconds, both for on-premises signs and off-premises signs. This has been, I have some information from three different sign foundations in here. There's three sign organizations. They consist of signed companies, but they also work with cities in trying to come up with fair and effective sign ordinances. The first one I have in there is page 8 through 11. The United States Sign Council Foundation has a model on-premise sign code. And as you can see on page 10, they recommend in office and professional zones, EMC signs, that's electronic message center, which is what they call digital signs. EMC signs shall have a minimum display time of eight seconds. Going down to paragraph six, which I don't have highlighted, but in commercial and industrial zones, they don't have a minimum interval time. They just say should not be flashing or video or film display on there. That's from the United States Signed Council Foundation. Now, they also discussed the research on this on page 11. This is the drafter's notes to the uniform sign code on page 11. And I'm aware of the research that Mr. Bailey cited to you. What the researchers do is they have cameras in the cars and they look at the eyes of the driver to see where the eyes are going and see how much of the time you're straight ahead and how much of the time you're looking to the side or in the rearview mirror. And they have done research on how much time is spent, but it hasn't proven that there is any detriment for looking at signs like this. And the research is summarized on page 11. I'm not going to read much of this, but I want to point out to you. It says, research has shown no correlation between EMC signs, that's their word for digital signs, on premise, and traffic accidents. and EMC signs have not been found to be a distraction having impact on the driving task or to cause unsafe driving behavior that causes an accident in driver distraction studies. They all go on to say that the drivers have a wide variety of behaviors in their eye movement. It says, some activities that drivers engage in have a positive effect on motorist performance, even though the driver's eyes are away from the road. Examples of this would be checking the rearview mirror, checking the side mirrors, or checking the speedometer. Those are positive things to look away from the road for. Other activities that drivers engage in have a demonstrated negative effect on motorist performance, most notably cell phone use and texting while driving. There's a third category. Finally, other activities appear to have no effect either way, positive or negative, on driver performance, and EMC signs fall into this category. Drivers look at EMC signs, but their driving performance is not affected, and that is why accident and driver distraction research fails to show any correlation with EMC signs. The next thing I have is on page 12 of my handout. This is the International Sign Association, of which Ruggles Sign is a member. Ruggles is doing our sign for us, our local sign company. The International Sign Association looked at this as well, and they point out in their letter to you regarding this particular case is that they filed a friend of the court brief in that U.S. Supreme Court case, and they sided with the city. They said as an organization, as a sign organization, they felt that off-premises signs could be regulated differently from on-premises signs. As you can see in the next to the last paragraph, International Sign Association recognizes the number of different uses around town. They recognize the Opera House and Rupp Arena being next door to us. And they say that an eight-second change rate for the Lex Live Digital Marquis is reasonable and enables effective communication with the public on a wide variety of events. Now, the other thing he mentioned in this letter, and I checked this out, in the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Breyer issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Breyer did research as well on the traffic safety impact of on-premises digital signs. because in the city of Austin, Austin allows on-premises digital signs. They regulate billboards totally differently. So he looked at the traffic safety impact, and Judge Breyer, in the Supreme Court opinion, cited the research saying that on-premises digital signs have no impact on traffic safety. The next thing I have in my handout is the, from another sign association, page 13, the Sign Research Foundation, and they summarize a study done by Texas A&M University. You can see the main results on page 14 there. They studied 135 places where digital signs were placed, various places across the country. And they looked at the traffic safety data before the sign was put there and compared it to the crash data after the sign was put there. As you can see here, the conclusion was that the data revealed that there is no statistically significant increase in crash frequency after installing an on-premises digital sign. The importance of signs is we have, the signs have to be effective in communicating from the business as to what they have there, and they have to be safe, effective and safe. And I think what we're showing you is that these are effective and safe, But I want to show you two videos because there was discussion last time about the time of these. And before you start running the Opera House video, I'm showing you the Opera House and the Rupp Arena videos. And I'm running those for 45 seconds. And as you all recall, the Opera House put a new digital marquee in two years ago. So I think they take the position they're exempt from zoning because they're a state-related agency. But still, when that was dedicated, you may remember, I think there was a press conference and a number of people who have offices in this building may have commented on how good this is for further promotion of what is offered at the Opera House. So if you could play that video, you may want to turn the volume, no, the other video, sorry. Got the wrong one there first. That's the second video. There you go. Turn down the volume. I got some wind in the camera here, but this is the opera house, 45 seconds. What's the interval here? I'm not fast forwarding there. That's through time. That's live. Well, it's not live. I've recorded this on my camera, but that's 45 seconds. Those were one-second gaps between slides on here. And you can see they sort of flash. They slide. We're not going to do any of that. We're still coming up on 45 seconds. Some of their interval is six seconds to eight. some of it's one second when you saw those slides flashing but during that 45 second interview per period of time there were 15 different images on there that's one every three seconds some of them were running one second some of them were running six seven eight seconds and that's two and a half blocks from where we are that's a theater marquee and we think it's good we think this does what it is intended to do for the civic center we have no criticism of this sign whatsoever i do point out to you that under your ordinance which we will comply with we could not slide those images we could not change those every second we could not have the dots sort of pixelating in and out and i saw when was not on the video but swirls and things like that on there we could not do any of that and we'd have to have an eight second interval on here but that is a decision that has been made by non-profit corporation which is very closely associated with the urban county government and there has been no indication that that is unsafe and there has been an indication that but that has been very effective. If you could show the second video now, I'm going to show you what is directly across the street from us on Rupp Arena. 45 seconds here. There you go. This is the sign on the side of the Hyatt. This has a, I'll give you the spoiler, this has a seven and a half second dwell. You can read it, digest it in the eight seconds. You know Carrie Underwood is coming there. On our video board, we'd probably have a picture of Carrie Underwood as well on that because the video, sorry, not video, digital, we would have no video at all. But our digital would give us the capability of having Carrie Underwood's picture on there during the eight seconds. This is a seven and a half second dwell. they had six or seven messages during the 45 seconds that I took the video on there. And again, of course, Rupp Arena is going to be replacing those with digital boards as part of their remodel. I don't know if the digital board will be here or elsewhere, but this is directly across the street from Lex Live. It's been here for how many years? at least 20 years this is the second or third generation of digital signs that the civic center has utilized on there and again we're going to be doing we're going to have this about the same drill rate or static time as that sign on rup arena ours will be eight seconds that was about seven and a half seconds. We will have still messages. We will have the ability to have a photo up there. If it's Carrie Underwood or Tom Cruise in his jet pilot uniform for the latest movie he's doing for Top Gun, we'll be able to have a photograph up there as well. But it's going to be still and it's not going to be sliding, it's not going to be swirling or anything like that. And the point is that I understand there's been research about where your eyes go when you're driving. But as I said, the research that has been done on this shows that there's no correlation between that and causing accidents for digital on premises signs. We've, as I mentioned to you the last time we were here, we have gone through the regulatory process through both the federal government, the state government, our local agency here, the Lexington Center Corporation. And I mentioned last time Atlanta is about 10 seconds, Charlotte 8, Cincinnati 6, Columbus 8, Fort Wayne 6, Indianapolis 10, and Nashville 8. So this is a standard of 8 has been adopted by not only government agencies who do a lot of research on safety, a whole lot of research on safety. but by the sign institutes themselves that have agreed on it, and it's the standard that has been adopted. And there's been no indication of any traffic safety issues regarding on-premise digital signs, let alone on-premise digital marquees. as i said we feel that these uh these uh the signs we're proposing here we've come down a great deal in size we appreciate working with the staff because we even though i'm i'm offering you the differing opinion on the interval we agree with them on there were really eight issues on this about we agreed early on about the dimming the lights after sunset or making dimming them after sunset and the other items that the staff had suggested we agree on seven out of the eight we have the difference with the interval standard and that's because the standard really nationwide and here in Lexington is eight. We're not asking for the Opera House situation here. We have no criticism of the Opera House at all because we think that accomplishes what it does and we think it's very safe. It's close to traffic signals too, like we are and the Rupp Arena one has, I think, proven itself over the last 20, 30, 35 years that it's been there as well. So we appreciate working with the staff. We appreciate you hearing us out on the issue over the interval time on these signs. So we basically, we agree with the staff's revised ordinance for you, with one exception. That is just to change 20 to 8. Otherwise than that, we totally agree with what the staff is proposing to you. Thank you very much for hearing us, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Any questions, Mr. Murphy? Bruce? Yes, sir. As we've looked at this packet, what I have seen referenced, the first two studies that were referenced were one was a federal highway and one was a state highway. So we do need to understand that that's what staff was trying to reference, is that we're talking about highway versus a non-highway. Also, what I found most compelling was on this ISA page 12, excuse me, the page 12 of the document from the International Sign Association. It says in section 17-11G, electronic messages signs may change every 15 seconds. I looked that up, that's referencing our zoning ordinance for highway service business, warehouses, wholesale, and industrial sales. That's B3, B4, I1 and I2, which you referenced. That document, excuse me, our ordinance says 15 seconds. It can't move any less than 15 seconds. So why are you tying eight seconds? Your argument is eight seconds tied to highway signage. When in our ordinance and what was referenced by the International Sign Association, It points to a 15 seconds that's already in the ordinance. Staff is offering 20. How are we getting from, I mean, how much is these 12 seconds worth here? What are we doing? Are we doing this as a justice issue? Just to prove that no one else is following the rules, therefore, maybe we should change the rules? Or you want the rules that everybody else has? Can you please further your argument for why this is important? why either seven seconds or 12 seconds is so important. Well, we want to clarify from the International Sign Association. They looked over our ordinance and found that there are two references to digital signs. One is the one they cited with the 15 seconds, which is the Whitaker Bank, excuse me, not Whitaker Bank ballpark, but the Wild Health ballpark for the Lexington Legends play. That's an example of someone in that zoning using the That is allowed for the B3 zone. That's really the only one that can do it. But it's zone specific, it's not building specific. It's limited to stadiums that have a seating of 5,000, something like that. So no, it's not location specific, but it's sort of specific to that. And they also mentioned time and temperature signs, which are allowed, they don't have a limitation on the interval time at all. Then they note in the next to last paragraph, Rupp Arena and the Opera House, which both have interval times much less, as I mentioned, Rupp Arena is seven and a half, Opera House is, average is three from my video. True, and I think what we found is that one, that they're not underneath this ordinance, they're not regulated by this ordinance. So are you at, why do we keep bringing them up? Just out of fairness? Are you trying to say that there have not been crashes? Are you using an example of something that, a condition that exists that we live in right now? Or are you saying that I need those because this other group has eight seconds, I don't want eight seconds? Well, there's a little bit of that. If other people, if the sign across the street from me, which is advertising events at the publicly financed convention center, has a seven and a half second interval change, why shouldn't we at our facility, which also can have theater and that sort of thing, have an eight second? That's not really, I mean, why does the University of Kentucky not have to- Yeah. Perform his own change. The main point I'm making though, I said there was a little bit of that. The main point I'm making is that we are doing this in downtown Lexington right now. And it works, it works at an interval of less than eight seconds. The proof's in the pudding. It works at the Opera House, it works on Rupp Arena, has worked on Rupp Arena for 20, 30 years. So an eight second interval works. Yes, we want to be able to show people what's going on. And we can show two panels, eight seconds each, in that 15 second interval, if you would, instead of having one going on during that time. Well, right, and when you said that some of it is other groups get to do it, we want to do it. We understand that it's outside of the purview. What percentage of your argument is, because this group has it, we want it? I brought those in, I brought those videos to show it works here in Lexington. Okay. Whether those are regulated by the ordinance or not, so practically speaking, we have it here and we know it works. Okay, I like the practicality argument, I agree with that. Okay, but because someone else can do something, it doesn't really resonate. Thank you. Any other questions? Go ahead. Go ahead. Mr. Martin. Well, I appreciate a lot of the issues getting settled before the meeting here. I am going to ask the question sort of tying into the specific issue that doesn't seem to be settled, And that is, you know, I'm still looking at this from, I mean, I agree that this is a street that we anticipate having a lot of pedestrian activity on. And those concerns that we do want drivers paying attention to pedestrians do seem valid. I'm struggling a little bit with if you have a 20-second interval and you have traffic moving through and able to see three images, I'm struggling a little bit why a limitation on a business, which until now has been limited to one static image and is sort of broadening its ability to market three different messages to a person in a given time that we can't edit down our content to the three most important things we want to show somebody. I guess how many important things do you think you need to catch someone's eye in a minute? Well, we, and Mr. Krikorian was mentioning to me a minute ago, We have a lot of activities going on in that building, much more than the minor league ballpark up on North Broadway, where it's predominantly a game, one game per day, or an event, one per day. We have 10 theaters, and those theaters can be showing movies, or they can have e-sports. They're in contact with both UK and Transylvania, which are having e-sports programs put in for competition and use by the students. They can have supplementary activities for conventions going on at the Civic Center. if they're having out divided sessions and come out, we can do divided sessions in the theaters because we have all the audiovisual materials there. We have bowling. We have arcades. We have the ability to show Metropolitan Opera broadcasts in our theaters, UK games in our theaters. So we have a lot to tell about what's going on there. And we need to get that out to not only people who are driving, but people who are walking, who are going to something at Central Bank Center at Rupp Arena or the Hyatt, to let them know what's going on in our business. And we have many, many alternate things. So that's why it's important to us to have the lesser dwell time. We're not having ticker tapes, we can't have a ticker tape going through the bottom, showing also see this or this like we do on our TV screens when they're giving us breaking news. We can't do that, it's just a static image that we're allowed during that eight second period on there. Any other questions? Anthony? Yeah, do you have a sample of your product, of your sign? No, we don't. It would be showing, like I said- You explained it, I was just curious if you had a sample. I don't have a sample on it. No, okay. We can have photographs on there, but we can't move and that sort of thing. And then just two other questions for clarification, maybe for you or for staff. But that structure has multiple businesses in it, one of them is a theater. So with regard to this idea that the sign would be turned off during closed hours, Is that unique to the theater within the building, or is it unique to any of the businesses within the building? I just asked for Mr. Krikorian, everything closes at the same time. Okay. All right. And then the next one is just, maybe this is for staff. I don't know what type of businesses qualify as a theater. Sir, so theaters are not specifically designed within the zoning ordinance. Whenever there is something that is not defined by the zoning ordinance, we go with a traditional definition. So you could go to, all too often, it's Webster's or something along those lines. And it gives you an idea of a definition of what is a theater, typically a stage or a projected screen in which there is stadium seating associated with it. So we do have interpretive kind of ability when someone comes in for some of these things. That was one of the conversation points that we had early on in which the applicant actually just referenced screens rather than theaters. So we made that adjustment to make it tied to that theater definition that is commonly associated with development. Judy. Judy. Mr. Murphy, I appreciate the amount of research that went into particularly the display time. I noticed that the studies that were referenced go back to 2012 and 2014. Did you identify any studies that are more recent than that? Well, the literature indicates that those are the most recent ones. The one in Justice Breyer in the Supreme Court opinion, which just came out six weeks ago, the predominant one he cited was the 2014 study in there. And the surveys I've showed you haven't found anything different from that since that time. But the 2014 one, which studied 135 different sites around the country, done by Texas A&M, that's, I think, recognized as probably the leading study on this. I've got Aggies in my family, and I appreciate the work they do down there, but that's a little bit of time ago. Thank you. Anybody else? Is there anybody in the audience that wants to comment on this? If not, then we'll go into the rebuttal stage. Sir, I will not take too much time. There are a few elements that staff would just like to look at. And we would like to thank the applicant for working with us throughout this process. It has been a collaborative process to get us here. and all too often it gets to one or two elements that this body is here to decide. The EPCON did state that the Supreme Court stated that local municipalities have the right to regulate on and off-premise signs. That includes duration, timing, luminescence, all of those different things, those things that we're talking about here today. And the LFUCG has already regulated the duration of messages in a way that is greater than some of the recommendations made by the Federal Highway Association, the State Highway Department, and a few others to say that 15 is most appropriate for areas in which generally you're seeing speeds between 35 and 55. In this case, we are looking at a downtown zone with a high amount of pedestrian activity, a high amount of traffic, complex road networks with various different turns, signals, various different signs. So we are seeking to apply a best practice to this area to promote the greatest amount of safety. Now, statistical significance does not mean that there are not accidents or any type of incidents caused by increased signage. There are various different court cases in which judges have indicated that, yes, this does create inattentiveness and some distraction. Staff is particularly focused on wanting to make sure that this is the safest ordinance possible and represents the values of Lexington specifically and gets to a place in which we can incorporate these new technologies. As you saw, there are four main elements of signage. There's a lot of speed, interval, and then complexity and size. The speed in which you saw some of the references for the duration of five to eight seconds, or in some cases four to ten, is really associated with the vehicles that are traveling between 35 miles per hour and above. Those are typically what you see with state highways and federal highways. The intervals of the sign or that duration of the message, while the Opera House is not regulated by the LFUCG, the staff would posit that the rapidity of those signs did not allow for the user to comprehend the full information that was on that sign while also maintaining a clear prospect or observation on what they are doing at that time, which is driving a vehicle. The complexity and size does play into all of this. We are introducing a new technology that is both larger and brighter and can contain greater characteristics of images than what is currently allowed by the convention center. The convention center is regulated by the LFUCG zoning ordinance. They went through a zoning text amendment process in the past to achieve that. Now, they are also regulated and held to a max of 80 square feet and a max of two signs per frontage. We do allow for the combination of some of those signs at times, which would mean that the greatest size sign that the convention center can currently have is 160 square feet if they were grouped together. That is 140 square feet less than what we are seeing with this application. Furthermore, the sign that was displayed that you could read very easily on the convention center at a 7 to 10 second interval, that's what staff has time to that, is very simplistic. The study that we have entered into the record shows that if you are just showing words against the black backdrop, it is far easier to comprehend what is on the screen in a shorter amount of time. The viewer response time, that ability to absorb all that information, is far easier when it's just letters on a black screen. As soon as we incorporate images, any different type of color backgrounds, more flowery types of fonts, if we're getting away from Helvetica and going into something else, we are going to have a harder time reading and responding and absorbing that information while also trying to make sure that we are focusing on the task ahead of us, which is driving a vehicle or walking down our streets. studies the study that we have entered into the record is from 2015 there have been greater amounts of studies that have been done specifically on on-premise signage digital signage that is getting into a more information about how it can affect safety and visibility now Mr. Murphy is completely correct in the fact that a large portion of the information out there states that There isn't a statistical differentiation between when there wasn't that sign there and when there is. That information is starting to be gathered a little bit more for on-premise signage. The vast majority of that research and data is focused on large off-premise signage that is along with highways, in which you do not have the complexity of the street networks, and you do not have the amount of lights and pedestrians in those areas. Again, we are talking about this in a downtown environment. Slower speeds, greater conflicts, more vehicles, greater stopping and turns, and more pedestrians. Staff found that the 45 seconds was a good transition. However, found that there was greater scientific research and understanding for the 20 second, which allows for the applicant to increase the amount of advertisement that they might have during a light cycle, specifically for that red light to red light if someone is sitting there, and then also allows for them to operate their business advertised more often. The standard, again, in Lexington is 15 seconds set right now for the B3 zone. Staff sees that the 20 second is backed up by research, but also deals with our current context in the greatest way. Thank you. Mr. Murphy. Hey, Judy. Well, the only thing I'd say is that, that Mr. Krikorian was telling me. At any time we have about 10 movies playing, we have 10 movies coming in next week, and we need to get that information out to people. That's what marquees do for theaters. And we can argue about the research all we want. and the formula, the calculus formula, whatever it is that Mr. Bailey mentioned to you, factors in all these how long you're looking at something and where your eyes go and all that sort of thing. But the point I was making to you is that there has, the research shows that there's no correlation between that and actual safety on the ground. That as that report showed you, There are three types of eye movements when you're driving. Good ones, bad ones, and ones that don't impact. Good ones are when you're looking at your speedometer. Bad ones is when you're texting or going on Facebook on your telephone. The ones that don't impact are when you're looking at a sign. And there's still been no showing that that for on-premises signs creates any safety hazard at all. And I think the proving that is the Opera House again. We're not, I'm not saying we're going to do the Opera House because we're not. We're going to have eight seconds static times. But the Opera House has been operating for two years, I think. You saw what the interval was. You saw what they show there. And that works perfectly well. It gets the message out. They were advertising five future shows coming up over the next six months. They feel they need to have a quick interval to show five shows coming up in the next six months. We have ten shows coming up today. We have ten shows coming up this week. Movies come in for about a week. We think what we're proposing is safe and works. and complies with the standard that has been adopted throughout by all levels of government, other cities, and sign organizations as well. Thank you. I want to close the hearing at this point and turn it back to the commission for any comments. If you have a question you'd like to ask, go right ahead. I won't close until after you ask your question. Mr. Murphy or Mr. Krikorian, whichever. So is signage changing? Is it becoming more relevant to today and such? You have many theaters throughout the country. And have you found through different cities you have a different approach? And are you running into this in various cities and such? I'm just curious about how I'm not in the signage business. I'm not in the cinema business and things. And I'm curious how it is changing throughout the country, if there's an answer to that. Thank you. To answer your question, my experience is limited to maybe four or five projects we've done in the past several years, and all of those projects were approved with digital signage on the buildings. So that's kind of the way things have progressed over the past eight or ten years. which is the same as what we're proposing to do here. We do have a lot of different movies that are playing, and then there's movies that are coming, and then we have probably on an average of every week, we probably have about 20 other events you might not be aware of that take place in the theater, and we'd like to be able to have the time to let the public know about all of these events. We're not trying to compete with the Opera House to try to come up with the same number of ads that they have. We're just trying to do something that's reasonably spaced and safe and maximize the amount of exposure we can get for all of the events that are coming, and that's where we came up with the 8 to 10 seconds model. And is this location unique compared to your other locations? Do you find this to be? I think Lexington is unique. Yes. That's why we're here. It's a pretty special place, you know, being in downtown. But I think that every project we built, we take it personally. We try to build something that's really special. and I think we've done that here and I think that the project deserves the opportunity to let the public know what it is that we have to offer because if they don't know, they're not going to come there and that's just going to hurt our business. Well, thank you for your answer. Appreciate it. Thank you. Anybody else? Go ahead, Abby. Okay, my biggest concern with longer times for ads to present is that from a marketing standpoint, would they try to put more on the screen because it's on there longer? And as opposed to if I know it's just eight seconds, then my design is going to be a little different than with 20 seconds. Because 20 seconds, you can take in a lot of information in 20 seconds. So is there going to be some limitation on how much can be on a screen or font size or anything like that? I know it's probably getting too technical, but at the same time, I just feel like, knowing a little bit about marketing, I just feel like that longer period of time is more distracting than the shorter period of time. Because that just gives them kind of too much to be able to put out there. Have you all thought about any of that? So when it comes to regulation of any type of content that is put on a sign, is not something that we can do because it is a restriction on the First Amendment, so the freedom of speech. With an eight-second marketing campaign, they could put the same amount on a 20-second, more or less. It's not anything that we can really get into. In terms of the research that we have done, that 20 seconds, if there is too much on there, no one will look at it. Again, it gets into the ability for an individual to take in the amount of information that's on the screen while also focus on the things that they're trying to do. That's what we're trying to really get a little bit more into. So when you're driving, if it's eight seconds and there's a lot of information, you're still going to look at it and try to get that information. If it's 20, you might be able to get some of that information. Yeah, kind of my point is that if, from a marketing standpoint, if I know I only have eight seconds, I'm going to limit the information that I'm putting out as opposed to doubling it and, you know, feeling like, oh, I've got more time for people to view it, so I can put more. So that's kind of my question. I don't know how to, you know, I don't know if you all see that as a potential issue. From the research that we did and the research that Mr. Murphy referenced, specifically picking up the eye movement of everything like that, typically it takes five seconds in a complex street system for the eye to recognize the message and start to absorb it. So even in that case, that would only give you three seconds to absorb it with an eight-second window, which is still very, very quickly. As you saw with the examples of the Opera House, there was a lot of information on a lot of those on a smaller screen that went very rapidly. We would rather, in this case, them show a single message, which is what they have to do, and then allow the reader to absorb it, move away from it if they want to, rather than fixate it or be pulled back for the next message. So that gets into the 20 seconds, the amount of speed that's going through, and the size of that screen. Thank you. Bruce? Yes. Mr. Bailey. We are, in our current ordinance, we do have 15 seconds for B3. I understand that what we are voting on now is an amendment for marquees for theaters. I understand that it's site specific that references your definition, or should be the Webster's definition, and we can interpret that to understand the signage. Was there a reason you didn't point to the 15 seconds that's already in the ordinance for B3? rather than come up with a number 20 seconds that has wonderful findings but not as specific of the findings that we can reference in the ordinance right now. So the 15 seconds, we actually looked at some of the rationale associated with that and we couldn't find the same solid foundation that we found with the 20 seconds. That 20 seconds is specifically tied to the time frame and the size of the potential screen. So that calculation has a sure footing than some of our 15. The 15 is actually a little, it's on point with something that, let's say if you were going 35 with the size that you would be allowed for a stadium. But it is not exactly on point. What we are looking to do with this most recent update is provide the greatest scientific background and rationale that can give us an answer. In this case, we started with 45 because we felt like that was an appropriate amount of signage for a light cycle. This body had voiced some concerns about how slow that was. Staff continued to do that research and did find this documentation which provides the most up-to-date information on how to calculate some of these things based off of the complexity of street networks, based off of the speed of everything that's going around, and based off of that size. So we would argue that the current 20-second recommendation is the best recommendation even over the 15. Thank you very much. Anything else before we close the hearing? Mr. Penn, can I just punctuate what Mr. Bailey said? The 15-second time interval was created in the early 2000s. So we're 20 years ahead now of that information. And so to his point, this is a more precise measurement, And there's been a lot more research on the duration necessary for signs in the past 20 years, especially for digital signs. And their trajectory has been an increase in the amount of time, not a decrease in the amount of time. Well, the information that is now available is that speed makes a difference. And so does the size of the sign. And so in our downtown, where the speed is only 25 miles per hour, you actually need to show the sign, since it's larger, longer. Because it's a more, as Mr. Bailey mentioned, a more complex environment. You have the pedestrian. What's not factored into the equation is also all the distractions that might be happening in your vehicle in addition to that. So the 35 to 55 mile an hour speed that we find on our highways then allows for a shorter duration. And again, on the interstate, when it's 80 miles an hour, the duration is eight seconds. So as you slow down, you need to have that up longer. Thank you. This could go on forever, but Mr. Bailey, Mr. Murphy, I believe, said that there is no evidence that links sign duration issues with accident frequency. And you're confident that 20 seconds is necessary to diminish potential for increasing accident incidents. So how do we balance those two statements? And yes, I would say that Mr. Murphy actually said that there's no statistical change or statistical significance. That gets to an alpha of .05. So you need to get to it. And I'm getting into it. I took a stats course once. So you're getting to a certain point in time in which you can say that this is the primary factor of why this is increasing accidents. There are various different studies that show that changes in signage, increased inattention and distraction of drivers does increase accidents. Now, does it increase it to a statistically significant level? The studies that have been done, which are primarily focused in on highway signs, things like that, say no from a statistical point of view. But that does not mean that there are no increase in accidents. Now, from our research, we have found that 20 seconds is the appropriate amount of time for an individual to take in their surroundings and the sign on complex downtown streets at a speed limit of 25 at the safest possible route. So, in this case, we are not saying that adding digital signing will not impact any type of distraction or inattention that could lead to an accident. We are saying that this is the best information that we have to provide the greatest and safest possible signage in this area. Keep looking around. Anybody else has something to just have to ask? Mr. Murphy, I know that you want to speak, and let's make it as brief as we can. Okay. I was going to mention, the reason we started questioning the interval time is because Ruggles' sign told us, and Ruggles, as you know, they're used to be in Lexington, they're in Versailles, they work all over the country, they're a very well-known sign firm, install these things all over, they said, you've got to reduce that, because what we found is that the longer the interval, people sit there and say, wait, the next panel must be coming up soon. I'm going to wait and look at it. And they said their experience is it keeps cars stopped looking for the next panel, and people stopped on the sidewalk looking for the next panel the longer you make the interval based on their experience. And the research which we looked at showed, well, there's no, on driving, There's no correlation between on-premises signs and accidents. And we look at the Opera House, and there's been no showing that the Opera House has caused accidents or for people to trip and fall on the sidewalk or anything like that. I think we, and the formula is a very complex formula, but the federal government, the state government, 10 other cities I mentioned to you, The associations aren't using that formula. They aren't using it because it doesn't result in effective signs that work for the business and are safe. That's why we're here. Thank you. We basically had two sets of rebuttals, but I understand that. We want to be fair and we want to do this, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. And it's about that time. I really want us to look at this as what's best for our community. And Mr. Nichols, are you wanting to make a motion? Is that why your name's up here? Are we ready for a motion? If so, let's hear it. Okay. Number one, Mr. Corian, thank you for being in our community. We really appreciate it. This has been a complex Zoda for us to all digest here. I hope that we've been accommodating to you and your business. But we also understand that we've got responsibilities to our community here, which is unique. And we're lucky to have a very good staff here that can provide us the information so we can make decisions that we think are appropriate. And with that being said, I would like to recommend approval of PLN Zota 22-00001, 2-00001, amendment to Article 17, signage regulations to allow a digital marquee electronic message display. Referencing the staff's approval with the staff's alternative text that we have been reviewing. Verge of motion, is there a second? Judy, any discussion on the motion? So this is a motion to approve the staff? Staff's alternative text. Which is 20 seconds. Yes. That's at the end of your motion, right, Mr. Vickles? Yes, sir. That's using staff's recommendation, which is an increase in size and a reduction from 40 or 45 seconds to 20 seconds. Right. Which hopefully accommodates Ruggles' request to reduce. Okay, we've got a motion to second, and that's a comment time. Mr. Davis? I can't support that motion, and I'll tell you why, B, Commissioner Nickel. I think both applicant and staff work together in good faith, and I believe that they both feel that their arguments are well founded. And I just, I wish that we hadn't come to such a stalemate over a difference of 12 seconds. So I'm going to vote against this motion, and if it fails, I would like to have another discussion about another number rather than 20. Something I think a little more reasonable. Very good. You've heard discussion of that. Any more discussion? Okay, I've got a question with regard to the motion. So if we vote it down, that says that they still don't have permission for the digital sign altogether. well that's that's an interpretive question but the motion mr nichols put up there is that we support the staff's alternative and so that's what we're doing right now we're voting on that motion and then if that motion fails then we'll discuss it and come back with another motion so we we have to suspense with this motion before we go forward yes miss worth is seconded it vote when it comes up on the screen hmm well four and two six four and one is five three and one is four so the nays have it Yeah, the motion failed. The motion fails. Okay, now we're back to staying within our commission, and hopefully we will discuss among ourselves and come up with another motion. I can try a second motion. I move to approve PLN Zota 22.1, amendment to Article 17, signed regulations to allow digital marquee using the staff's language with the exception of substituting an eight-second requirement for the 20-second limitation on duration. So, Healy, you're seconded by Graham's motion? Okay, the motion is made by Graham, seconded by Healy. Let's have discussion on that. Mr. King. I'd just like to point out that the eight seconds that we keep referring to, the U.S. Department of Transportation recommended eight seconds. K.A.R. said at least eight seconds. U.S.S.C. said a minimum of eight seconds. And in terms of research, from my perspective, eight-year-old research on a subject like this is not current. I would like to say that I thought the staff answered the eight seconds fairly clearly discussing that that was for highway. They discussed that highway cars operate at a much different speed than 25 miles per hour. That seems logical to me. I think the fallback should be the 15 seconds in the ordinance, and I would motion to amend the current motion to change that to 15 seconds if there's a second to that amendment. We need to address the motion on the floor first. Yeah, let's... Is an amendment possible to the motion on the floor? Yes, while it's still on the floor, you can make a motion to amend. We won't be able to record that in Granicus because we've already started that motion. Yeah, that's where I was going with this. We can either take a roll call vote or just a hand vote of that. I think that's where I'm going. I was just, I think the clearest way for us to do this is we've got a motion, a second, on the eight seconds. Let's take that motion, discuss it, whatever you want to do, then we'll vote that up or down. Because trying to amend that motion to change the eight seconds creates problems for a lot of people. It doesn't create a problem for us if there's an amendment. If the amendment is seconded, that's fine. I'd rather deal with it straight up than amend the motion and go through all that. So the chair would like to vote this motion up or down and go on from that. If that's agreeable with the commission. If it's not, we'll do it the other way. Yeah, I have a point of discussion. Had there been, and I don't fault one side or the other, but have there been some sort of compromise or effort of compromise before this was brought to us to meet? You both are deadlocked in your positions. Have there been some, I'll give, I'll give, you give, but seeing none, I've defaulted to eight seconds, and I will support this motion. Okay. All right. Anybody else before we vote? Are we clear on what we're voting on? We're voting on the staff's alternative with eight seconds is what we're voting on. All right. we got a motion we got a second let's go forward i'm not seeing he didn't come up yet for us motion passes Thank you all. We're done. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. Interesting. I didn't expect that. I think you changed it. All right. If you go to page three, number two. 30 seconds to look at 500 things. All right, if you don't mind Daniel's up, let's try to keep moving here. You're going to be fussing at me, it took too long. I promise I'll be quick. No, let's do it right. From page three, item two. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum planning staff. The next item on the agenda is ZODA 22.9. This is an amendment to Article 820 in order to permit banquet facilities in the highway service business zone. As subtly suggested by the name, this is a text amendment to allow banquet facilities in the B-3. Defined, they're defined as a building made available for use for meetings, social events. They can include entertainment, alcoholic beverages, as well as temporary structures. Prior to 2007, this was not a listed use in the ordinance. It was only permitted as an accessory to existing uses. In 2007, the use was defined, added to the ordinance, but it had some very specific restrictions on where it could operate. It could only be a part of an adaptive reuse of a residential structure. In 2012, it was changed to the current format, which allows it as a principally permitted use in the B1, B2, B2A, B6P, and the mixed-use and adaptive reuse zones. Currently, it is not a principally permitted use in the B3 zone. However, an accessory to existing uses such as hotels, private clubs, country clubs, restaurants, museums, and places of worship, it is allowed to operate as an accessory use. The applicant is coming before you today in order to allow that as a principally permitted use at some of the larger scales. It could benefit from these larger event centers, larger event facilities could benefit and could be appropriate in the B-3 zone. Staff recommends approval as well as the zoning committee recommended approval as well of this text amendment for the following reasons. The first is that it's in compliance with the comprehensive plan, specifically policies relating to providing entertainment and quality of life opportunities in Lexington and Fayette County area. The second is that the use is already permitted to operate as an accessory use to many uses that are found in the B3 zone. And that at a larger scale, banquet facilities are a similar character to other highway service businesses and are of a similar intensity of use. So staff recommends approval of this request and would be happy to entertain if you have any questions for staff at this time. Thank you, Daniel. Any questions for Daniel? You believe you did a good enough job that there's no questions? It's efficient. I certainly thank you. No further questions? What is the action on this item we need to do? We need to approve the Texas amendment. Then the chair will entertain a motion to, want to make a comment? Go ahead. Public comments. Is there any public comment? Go right ahead. I'm sorry. Thank you, Anthony. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Mark McCabe of Vision Engineering, I'm wearing approval. I want to appreciate your consideration. Thank you. How's that? That's quite all right, Mark. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you out. But I knew you were, so I, all right. Then you've heard it from the applicant, so. Mr. Chair, move to approve PLN's ZOTS 22.9 amendment to Article 820 to permit banquet facilities in the highway service business B3 zone. By the reasons provided by staff. By the reasons provided by staff. Okay. Any, can I get a second on that? I did. You did, I see it up here, Judy. All right, any discussion before we vote on the motion? I'll vote when it comes up on the screen. Thank you, Daniel. All right, we've got one more item. Are you leaving, Bruce? Did you send me, are you leaving? Okay. All right. Tracy. Good afternoon. Thank you. Autumn's on vacation this week, so I told her I would go ahead and deliver the PFR presentation to you all. Today's public facility review request was from County Public Schools for Lafayette High School. They currently already have a softball field, obviously, but they need to construct a field house, new dugouts, and then also a small parking lot associated with that. Before we get too far down the road, I know how Tom likes to tell you new information and nuggets of information. Today is the 50th anniversary of the Title IX passage. And on June 23, 1972, President Nixon signed into law the educational amendments to the Civil Rights Act. And that allowed for what we now have, equal opportunity for everyone in education, which also includes, in this case, sports. so the yeah the baseball field at Lafayette I'm sure for quite a while has had a field house so now the softball field will also have a field house the proposals could construct the field house dugouts and then a parking lot this is the location of Lafayette high school along Lafayette Parkway. And I'm not as familiar with, where'd Brandon go? He lives over here. With the roads in this area, because I don't live on that. Reed Lane, as well as it has frontage on another. You all probably have been there more than me. Lafayette Parkway, Reed Lane, and Spring Hill Drive. This site is very well utilized by Fayette County Public Schools. So we have a football field, the baseball field, and then further to the northwest corner of the site, the softball field. On the site plan, you can see where this is the proposed. So these are the two, sorry, field house, new field house along the third baseline, two new dugouts, and then an additional parking lot. Where the field house is being installed is where there are currently some parking spaces. So that required, I guess, replacing those parking spaces. And then the school system chose to increase the parking area slightly to allow for, I think, 11 additional parking spaces, 12, on the site, in addition to the clubhouse or fieldhouse and dugout. The staff evaluated the proposal. Obviously, the use of the site is not changing. It's just bringing this particular facility into compliance with the Title IX requirements for equal opportunity and education. The goals and objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan obviously support public facilities, especially for public schools, and that those facilities be available to our community and provide for enjoyment and a higher quality of life. So the staff has found that these improvements made to the Lafayette High School are consistent with the comprehensive plan, and the goals and objectives related to public school, also being sensitive to the surrounding context, not being car-centric, so the parking lot's being screened by 11 trees, I believe. And, yeah, support the provision of schools, and then also their associated extracurricular and athletic activities at this location. Basically, the Planning Commission, just before they get their building permit, we have to find that it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. Any questions for Ms. White? So is this Fayette County school system that pays for this? Yes. And also, do we ever consider when we're doing new, quote, parking lots, more impervious kinds of parking or not? Is that something we try to, why we got a shot? I think some of our partners that do public facility reviews or do public facilities do contemplate that. I'm not sure to the extent that Fayette County Public Schools utilizes pavers. they tend to be more time-consuming to maintain. Just curious because I know there are grants to try to get those things and then so then it's like why don't you put them in to begin with rather than have to get a grant. So okay thank you. Any other questions from Ms. Wade? This doesn't change anything I think this is probably a really good project but just as a matter of practice do you know whether the schools consulted the neighborhood. I don't know if they consulted the neighborhood. My experience is they typically don't engage the neighborhood before they make a change on the site. But that doesn't mean they didn't hear. Okay, thank you. That's just a matter of practice. For their larger projects, I believe they've started to do that more. Ask Tate's Creek. Yeah, Tate's Creek High School. I think perhaps they learned some lessons there. Healy just made a great comment. He said, ask Tate's Creek. So what we need to do is to have a motion that says it complies with the comp plan. So I'm not trying to cut off debate here, but if there's any other questions or statements, then the motion should be that we review this and we move that the plan does meet the comp plan objectives. Is that right, Tracy? That it meets the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Judy? Mr. Chair, Planning Commission has reviewed the information submitted in support of PFR 20-22-5. FCPS Lafayette High School softball field and agrees that it supports the comprehensive plan goals and objectives. Is there a second? Second by Ivy. Vote when it comes up. Thank you Tracy. Thank you. I think that's the end of it. How? That's the end of it. I think Mr. Duncan has looks like he's coming to the microphone to share a few words with you. I thought he was back there asleep. I didn't know we were going to wake him up or not. How could you fall asleep in this riveting situation? Mr. Chair, I would like to remind you all that you do have a planning commission work session next week. It's not listed on your agenda, but there is a Thursday meeting, and it is on the calendar, for 1.30 next Thursday, and we'll be in the Phoenix building on the third floor, so we hope you all can be there for that. At that meeting, amongst other things that the staff will be reporting, you will have the report out of your nominating committee for officers, which you will then consider at your subdivision meeting in July. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Stand adjourned. Thank you for coming. Thank you for staying. And staying awake. Anthony? I knew that when I saw that, this is going to be a long time. Thank you.