# Urban County Planning Commission - Zoning Items - December 18, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · December 18, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/688 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/688?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-12-18 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 14,627 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on December 18, 2008, at 1:34 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting was presided over by Randall Vaughn. The Commission addressed 3 agenda items during the session, including the approval of minutes, postponements and withdrawals, and a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Request, which was approved with modifications. A total of 4 votes were taken throughout the meeting, and no public comments were heard. ## Attendance The following members were present at the December 18, 2008 Commission meeting: - Patrick Brewer - Marie Copeland - Mike Cravens - Mike Owens - Frank Penn - Carolyn Richardson - Lynn Roche-Phillips - Randall Vaughn The following members were absent: - Neill Day - Ed Holmes - Joan Whitman No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took four votes during the December 18, 2008 meeting. - **MAR 2008-31** – A motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Lynn Roche-Phillips, to postpone the Trustees of the First United Methodist Church of Lexington, Kentucky zoning map amendment passed unanimously by voice vote, 8–0. The matter was postponed to January 29, 2009. All eight commissioners present — Patrick Brewer, Marie Copeland, Mike Cravens, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Richardson, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Randall Vaughn — voted in favor. [timestamp: 0:07:20] - **MAR 2008-32** – A motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Frank Penn, to postpone the RML Construction, RLLP zoning map amendment also passed unanimously by voice vote, 8–0, with the same eight commissioners voting in favor. This item was likewise postponed to January 29, 2009. [timestamp: 0:08:24] - **ZOTA 2008-8 (first motion)** – Carolyn Richardson moved, seconded by Mike Cravens, to amend Article 28 to allow additional signage in the Mixed-Use Community (MU-3) zone. The motion failed on a tied roll call vote of 4–4. Voting in favor were Carolyn Richardson, Mike Cravens, Patrick Brewer, and Randall Vaughn. Voting against were Frank Penn, Mike Owens, Lynn Roche-Phillips, and Marie Copeland. [timestamp: 1:28:54] - **ZOTA 2008-8 (second motion)** – Following the failed first motion, Lynn Roche-Phillips moved, seconded by Frank Penn, to amend Article 28 to allow additional signage in the MU-3 zone but excluding the additional language related to off-site signage. This motion passed by voice vote, 7–1. Marie Copeland cast the sole dissenting vote. [timestamp: 1:30:14] ## Contested Items - **Amendment to Article 28 (Signage in the MU-3 Zone):** The Commission considered a proposal to amend Article 28 to allow additional signage in the MU-3 zone. The item generated disagreement among commissioners regarding the appropriateness of permitting off-site signage under the proposed regulation. The matter was not resolved by consensus, resulting in a split vote. Specific vote tallies and the names of commissioners on each side of the vote are not available in the meeting record, nor is the final outcome of the vote indicated in the available data. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 05:14] The Commission reviewed the minutes from its two previous meetings, held on November 13th and November 20th. Frank Penn and Carolyn Richardson were among the key speakers during this portion of the meeting. No corrections or additions were raised by any members of the Commission, and the minutes were approved as presented. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 06:16] The Commission took up Agenda Item 2, addressing requests for postponement of zoning map amendments. Two cases were considered: one involving the Trustees of the First United Methodist Church and another involving RML Construction. Key speakers on this item included Foster Ockerman Jr. and Rena Wiseman. The discussion centered on the requests to postpone the zoning map amendment cases rather than proceeding with them at the December 18 meeting. The Commission approved the postponement requests for both cases. No additional details regarding the specific reasons for postponement, the nature of the underlying zoning map amendments, or the dates to which the cases were postponed are reflected in the available record for this agenda item. ## Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Request [timestamp: 09:32] The Commission took up a request to amend Article 28 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow additional signage in the Mixed-Use Community (MU-3) zone. The proposed changes addressed pole-mounted banners and other signage types within that zoning designation. Key speakers on this item were **Traci Wade** and **Bruce Simpson**, who participated in presenting and debating the proposal. The discussion centered on the specifics of what additional signage would be permitted under the amended language and how those changes would apply to the MU-3 zone. The Commission ultimately **approved the request with modifications**, indicating that while there was general support for expanding signage allowances in the Mixed-Use Community zone, adjustments were made to the original proposal before it received final approval. --- ## Decisions - **MAR 2008-31** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Trustees of the First United Methodist Church of Lexington, Kentucky zoning map amendment - **MAR 2008-32** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of RML Construction, RLLP zoning map amendment - **ZOTA 2008-8** — failed (4-4): Amend Article 28 to allow additional signage in the Mixed-Use Community (MU-3) zone - **ZOTA 2008-8** — passed (7-1): Amend Article 28 to allow additional signage in the Mixed-Use Community (MU-3) zone, excluding additional language for off-site signage --- ## Full transcript Tide you bet, all of this I'll soon forget with my man. He's not much on looks. He's no hero out of books, but I love him. Yes, I love him. Two or three girls has he that he likes as well as me. But I love him. I don't know why I should. He isn't true. He beats me, too. What can I do? Oh, my man I love him so, he'll never know. All my life is just despair, but I don't care. When he takes me in his arms, the world is bright. All right. What's the difference if I say I'll go away when I know I'll come back on my knees someday? For whatever my man is, I'm his forevermore. If I should write a book for you. That brought me fame and fortune too. That book would be like my heart and me. Dedicated to you. Good noon. I'd like to, ah, call to order the, ah, December 18th meeting of the Planning Commission. And at this time we have, ah, approval of the minutes. Ah, we actually have before us, um, the minutes for November 13th as well as the minutes for November 20th. I'd like to, ah, at this time ask the Commission if there are any, ah, corrections, ah, changes, additions to the minutes, ah, please do so at this time. If there are none, the chair will entertain a motion for acceptance. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the November the 13th and the November the 20th minutes as presented. We have a motion and a second to accept the minutes as presented. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, at this time, uh, we have no, uh, land... I'm sorry, excuse me, I'm getting ahead of myself. Postponements or withdrawals will be entertained at this time. Mr. Chairman, council, commission members, Foster Ockerman Jr. for First United Methodist Church. It's item number one at the bottom of the first page and continuing to the second page. We request a one-month postponement. Okay, thank you, Mr. Ockerman. Uh, Mr. Salih, what... Can you give me a date on that, I guess? Uh... Your zoning meeting is January 29th. 29th, okay. Thank you, sir. Uh, we have a request for a one-month postponement for MAR2008-31, trustees of the First United Methodist Church of Lexington. Uh, this is for property located at, um, 200 West High Street, 318 South Mill Street, and 323 and 327 South Upper Street. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, um, move postponement of MAR2008-31 to, uh, what was it, January- January 29th. January 29th. Second. We have a motion and a second for a postponement. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Thank you. Thank you. Motion carries. Can I get that one thing off, too? Uh, yes. Mr. Chairman, Rena Wiseman with Stahl, Keene & Ogden. I have the item at the bottom of page two, RML Construction, and we would request a postponement also to the January 29th date. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. We have a request for a one-month postponement to the January 29th meeting for MAR2008-32, RML Construction, RLLP. This is for property located at, uh, 852 Campbell Lane. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this request for a postponement? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for postponement of MAR2008-31 until January 29, 2009. Okay, we have a motion and a second for a one-month postponement. Uh, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Happy holidays. See you next year. Happy holidays to you too. Thank you. Okay, um, if there are no other postponements or withdrawals, um- Maybe one more. ... we would. We have no land subdivision items at this time. We'll move into our zoning items, and I guess our next one up is, uh, text amendment on page four, and we'll give the staff a chance to, uh, set up. You never know. Okay. Good afternoon, members of the commission, Chairman Vaughn. Uh, as you mentioned, the first item today on our agenda to be considered is ZONING TONE] 2008-8, and I apologize, I put a nine on my little PowerPoint there. . It is 2008-8, and it read- is a request to amend Article 28 of the zoning ordinance to allow additional signage in the Mixed Use 3 Zone. This, uh, information that the applicants provided can be found behind Tab One in your notebooks. The applicant, um, filed a few months ago, and they are Buckingham Companies, and they have requested a change to Article 28 to allow some additional signage than what's already currently allowed. And on our revised staff report, which I've handed out to you, um, it'll- it would be loose, uh, we've outlined what types of signs are currently allowed in the Mixed Use 2 and Mixed Use 3 Zones, and those were permitted or have been permitted for a little over two and a half years now, since 2006, when, uh, Article 28 was amended for, um, some new signage there. And that includes freestanding business and identification signs. Did I do that? Okay. Uh, wall-mounted business and identification signs, window signs, projecting signs, canopy and awning signs, signs that hang underneath a canopy or awning, um, directional signs to provide for, like, exit and entrance locations, banner signs for walls, um, A-frames or sandwich board signs for the- along a walkway, and then some other more, um, incidental signs. The applicant has met with the staff numerous times since they applied for this, um, particular text amendment, and they have altered some of what they've asked for and pared it down to four specific things. And, um, the first is pole-mounted banners in addition to what's currently allowed for, um, wall banners. And these are some examples of- of pole banners. Um, one, these are- they look to be along the street on light poles in this situation. Um, the photograph on the left in this- in this slide shows some pole banners that do exist in downtown Lexington. I believe they're in front of the, um, comm- or- ... central bank building, and then another, uh, example of a pole banner. This slide shows a, a few more examples, um, one that shows along a car lot, w- an example where advertising is actually permitted on that banner, and that, I think, um, the staff wants to be discouraging of that approach, uh, because it is, uh, kind of, I would say, a little, a little bit too much in terms of signage. And then on the right side, um, there's an example, and I apologize, my circle fell a little bit, of, of signage, um, that Ms. Copeland provided me from Atl- near Atlanta, Georgia, of a banner in a parking lot that does, um, provide some space, spatial, um, quality. The applicant is, um, in their proposal, and this is the text of their proposal, suggested that each banner, uh, or each pole or light pole have two banners, um, each and have a banner of a size two by four. They also asked, um, for some other more specific things that the staff was concerned about, which included, uh, having the pole-mounted banners in the right of way and having an encroachment permit situation. The staff remains concerned about that request. Um, other parts of their request include spacing of the poles at 50 feet from each other and also, um, having the pole banners in parking lots located in another zone. Um, and then the last part of that would be that the total number of banners was, uh, based on a percentage of an overall signage that might be permitted in a Mixed Use 3 project. On the staff report, the staff tried to outline what our concerns were with this proposal. Um, the first concern would be the, um, banner signs in the right of way. The staff would suggest that those not occur at all, um, so that would be a, a change to Item 3. I'll move on to the staff alternative here. Um, so leaving Item 1 the same, the size, the staff wasn't too concerned about or how many per pole. Um, we pr- wanted to recommend a slight change to Item 2, which, um, I think has the same meaning, but says specific businesses or products, goods, or services rather than a, the word brand. Um, for pole-mounted banners, the staff sig- would suggest that they be allowed, um, on light fixtures in parking lots or in pedestrian park plazas located outside of the public right of way so that they aren't, um, kind of in conflict with the, uh, traffic moving along streets, um, but yet can provide some, uh, sense of place for a development. The, um, Item 4 where pole banners should be located no closer than 50 feet, the staff thought that was an appropriate distance. And then in terms of how to measure how many pole banners to get, the staff was concerned about utilizing, um, a number that really is very hard to obtain. The overall Mixed Use 3 signage number is really a, kind of a phantom number. It's really hard to quantify what would be allowed. So the staff felt rather than trying to decide how many you get based on some, some number that we felt would be difficult to obtain, we felt calculating the area where you're putting the sign, um, the parking lot or the pedestrian area, having one pole banner per 3,000 square feet of parking lot would be an appropriate kind of density of signs, I guess. And then, um, adding a s- a restriction about how, how high the banners need to be, at least eight feet of clearance for, um, people to walk underneath. The other thing that is missing from this the staff struck through and wanted to delete was the, um, applicant's proposal to have banners off site basically or outside of the zone. The staff feels it's, it's not an, an, it's an unwise practice or an unwise policy to regulate signage in a different zone through this zone. It would be more appropriate for the applicant to rezone, um, or, or change the text in that zone rather than try to regulate signs in a kind of an awkward manner that would be, uh, difficult to regulate for pl- for the, um, Division of Building Inspection. Another type of sign that the applicant is looking at are freestanding business or identification signs. I would say the, the photo of the Big Fish Grill would be a business sign. They're advertising for their sp- particular business, and it's free standing on a pole, whereas the Downtown, um, sign on the right is more of an identification sign. It's advertising a project or an area, um, rather than a particular business. There's a few more examples of different types of, um, freestanding signs that can be pole mounted or, in this case, these are described more as monument signs. The applicant's proposal for freestanding signs was one freestanding business or identification sign per street frontage shall be permitted. The way the text reads today, there's a limit of up to two, um, and the, in some situations, obviously, you can have more than two frontages. So the staff would suggest that it seems reasonable that you might want more than or, or have more than just the two freestanding signs, so the staff suggested kind of a tiered approach. You could have your maximum of two at the existing size, 75 square feet, but any other freestanding sign, presumably there'd be maybe two more as most properties would have a maximum of four frontages, would be smaller, um, and not to exceed 40 square feet. This is interesting. There we go. Next, um, type of sign that they're asking for changes to would be wall-mounted identification signs, and these are some examples from downtown Lexington. Oops. Cynthia, I've done something. Thank you. Um, their proposal would be to add a project identification sign to the -- basically to the top of the building I assume, with a size not to exceed 15 square feet or 15% of the wall size. Um, the staff was a bit concerned about how large that could be. Um, in some situations, I think it could be larger than a billboard, um, which a billboard is 400 square feet. Uh, the second part of their request in terms of their identification sign would be that it could be mounted to the building above the roofline, th- that is on a parapet. And a parapet wall is just a low wall usually along the si- the front of the building or in sides of the building that kinda create a visual, um, continuation of the building. Uh, their proposal would be for buildings of at least four stories, that the sign could be permitted up to 12 feet above the roofline on the parapet. The staff, um, was not comfortable with a 12-foot kind of projection above the roofline, um, partially for safety reasons, and, um, partially because we don't want to encourage that type of architectural improvement just to get a really large sign above everything. Um, so but the staff was comfortable with the both having a wall-mounted and possibly a projecting project identification sign at 5% of the wall area, and that would be combined. You could choose one or the other, or, um, both, but it would still be at 5%. And then some -- just some limits on how the projecting sign would be at least, um, eight feet above the ground and eh- no more than four feet from the building. Um, some examples of projecting signs which the applicant's asked to allow in addition to a wall sign, the example in the left-hand corner of Orvis does show you how a wall sign can work in conjunction with a projecting sign and, um, and still look, you know, look appropriate and look interesting. Um, below that is a, a lighted, uh, projecting sign, and then on the right obviously, more of a historic type of sign. These are a little bit larger signs, the Ramada on the left, and then I believe this is like a lounge or restaurant, uh, on the right. The projecting sign changed the, the MU2 zone currently allows you projecting signs, but you would have to choose either to do all projecting signs or all wall signs on your development. And the applicant, um, indicated to us that they wanted to have more flexibility and possibly have one entrance with a wall sign, one with a projecting sign. So the staff was agreeable to changing, since this is already regulated under Mixed Use 2, to change the Mixed Use 2 portion, um, that would allow them to do this as well. Basically you'd have a projecting sign in addition to a wall sign, and that projecting sign would be limited to the 12 square feet. And lastly, there were a few other, um, recommendations the staff thought were appropriate. Uh, and if you look at... maybe I should explain, the- the cream color would be the marked through version of what the applicant is proposing, um, with our changes included or recommended changes. And then the green copy, little festive, wi- was more of a clean copy of how the staff would envision the text reading. So, um, on page, uh, two, at the top... or I'm sorry, on page one, it's, it's missing, but under Canopy Signs, C4, there was language about the computation of a maximum permitted sign area, which doesn't really apply. Um, we would want to strike that language. Uh, number two, to clarify that banners in the Mixed Use 2 zone, and this would be at the top of page two, are wall-mounted only rather than here, rather than, uh, the pole-mounted which they're requesting for Mixed Use 3. And then, at the top of their request, they had s- removed the phrase, "With all other restrictions from the Mixed Use 2." The staff would want to make sure that that remains in place for wall-mounted banners. That is, we wanna make sure that they're spaced at 10- at least 10 feet a- 10 feet apart, and at, um, 15% would be, would be fine. But they would need to only project three feet, and you can see the wall-mounted regulations just here at the top. We wanna make sure the rest of that language continues into Mixed Use 3. And then the two changes that would apply, um, to Article 17 on page three of the gr- green copy, the first would be to, to alter the definition of a wall-mounted sign. And the staff was, I mentioned, concerned about the 12-foot, what they're calling a parapet sign, attached to a parapet. The staff understands that desire, and we also know that there's been Board of Adjustment cases where signs have been approved to be above that three-foot limit. And, um, building inspection in speaking with them were amenable to a change from the three-foot limit to a six-foot limit of, um, basically the way a wall-mounted sign is defined. You can attach a sign to a wall or parapet as long as you don't exceed- ... three feet onto that parapet. That's the limit. That would -- this change would just allow you to kind of shift your sign up three feet if you wanted to. Um, and then the second change in Article 17 would be to remove prohibited or projecting signs from the prohibited sign list. In terms of changing the definition or changing Article 17, by changing the definition, the staff does understand this would allow signage in any zone to be able to shift basically that three feet on a parapet. And I know there's been questions about the, the parapet signs, so I wanted to do a little research and show you some photos of, of these. This, this sign is in Hamburg. It's on, uh, a clinic or some sort of healthcare, um, office building where the sign was, the parap- you can see the parapet is that triangle, um, that they've created, and, um, they've projected their sign above the roof line, in this case, over three feet. The Board of Adjustment did a- approve that, that sign. Just some other examples of this is, you can see the top of the building, and this is a place I visit too often. I'll show you the front in a minute. This is the outline of the parapet, um, wall, basically. So you can see in the fro- the, at the front of the building, and I'll point here, there's a projection up of where the parapet changes sides. And this is the front. Yes, it's Babies "R" Us. Um, the, uh, sign is attached to the wall, but it's hard to determine from the front, if you're coming and going, where exactly the roof line is of that building. So I did kind of an imaginary dashed yellow line to show you that the sign does probably project a little bit above that, what, what is that wall. So this happens, I think, more than most people realize, um, all over town. And here's another example. Maybe, maybe. We'll see how this works. Uh, there's my arrows where it would go up three feet. This is Meijer, also in Hamburg, um, and that's where, you can tell where they've done their parapet wall to create a faux front. And if we look at the front of the building ... I hate this thing. Um, there's the front of the building 'cause they have a temporary sign too, advertising something else, but, uh, the outline of their parapet, that's probably their true roof line with the dash line, and there's their sign, and it does project a little bit above the roof line. With the text amendment, they would move up, up to six feet, and they'd have to, basically, to move up much, you might have to build a, a bigger parapet too. But the development code or the building code doesn't regulate height of your parapet, so, um, we move our sign up, maybe a little bit. There it is. Move the sign up with your parapet height. So, I just wanted to provide some context. The reason that those regulations came into place, and this didn't exist in Lexington, and this is New York City, was that roof signs became a bit of a problem in a lot of communities. And so most communities now regulate, um, you can't have a sign that projects above a roof. So that's p- probably the primary reason those regulations are in place, is situations where signage extended much above a, a roof, so. The staff is recommending approval of the, um, staff alternative of the text amendment, which I believe is a, um, an adequate compromise with the applicant's first proposal, and also, we think meets the community's needs in terms of having, um, good signage for pedestrians as well as, um, the au- or the driving, uh, public. And the staff would just say that, um, we do want to encourage, um, infill and redevelopment, and we think that the mixed-use zones do that, and hopefully having, um, some incentive, signage might provide some incentive for, um, choosing to go to a mixed-use zone in a, in our community, so. Be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Uh, Mr. Penn. Yes, uh, let me get the right page here. Uh, where it says the, uh, the pole signs? Yes. That applies to temporary versus permanent? In other words, could they change those signs every month? Could they change those signs every week? Could they- That is something that building inspection has expressed some concern about. They, the applicant here has intended, expressed that their intention is to change them maybe quarterly. Um, building inspection is, their intention is to, um, amend the code of ordinances, basically to, um, add a section and a fee for pole banners so that when someone came to regulate or to ask for a pole banner, they would apply annually, and whatever banners you plan to put up during that year would need to be shown to building inspection at that time, and there would be an ann- basically an annual fee. When you come back for your next year's, you would have to reapply because there, I think there is some concern about how often they're changed and how they would be regulated, and so the building inspection is looking into how they want to structure that. But it would be a code of ordinance change. So this is different than what we got into with Rupp Arena for event signs. In other words, Rupp Arena was trying to put flags out there for events that were changing weekly, monthly, whatever. So this would be a yearly type situation. They would, they would, uh, come in for a permit on an annual basis. I assume if they wanted to change to a flag or a streamer banner that wasn't given permission by building inspection, they'd need to come back in. Does it matter if you have a building that's a certain percentage of, of, uh- ... business versus residential? No. In the mixed-use zones, um, there's already a requirement that it -- there be at least f- 15, 85 is the minimum, so you'd have to have... In the ca- in all the cases we've seen, they've been 15% commercial and 85%- Residential. ... residential. Some have gone- As long as they- ... a little bit above in commercial, but it's been real close. As long as they met the 15% test? Right. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Tracy. Uh, Mr. Pan- Mr. Owens, you have a question? Yes, thank you. Tracy, help me and clarify for me, uh, if you would, um, on this cream-colored page. Yes. Um, under, if I'm reading it right, Mixed Use Two. Mm-hmm. Uh, "Projection business signs shall be permitted in, in addition to wall-mounted business signs." That's MU2? Well, in the m- yes, it is. In the mixed-use zones, and I think this is true through Article 17, the signage becomes kinda cumulative, so what's allowed in Mixed Use Two then is, is automatically allowed in Mixed Use Three- Okay. ... Plus. Okay, so- So if we w- were gonna change it- Okay. ... it seemed reasonable to change it for both. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Brewer? Just, just, uh, just clarification for my administration. One, on pole mount, it's not one to five. I'm understanding you say that we can have two per pole. Mm-hmm. Is five indicating two per pole also or is that, say, wonderful? That's a very good question. Um, I think maybe we should say total number of pole, poles, four pole-mounted? It's, that's the type of- I just need it to sit- Okay. ... perfectly. I- Okay. To be consistent. Yeah. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Ms. White? Ms. Copeland? Ms. White? Yes, ma'am. I'm concerned. I'm all for pole, pole sign, signs, pole banners, because I think they have a lot of benefits, opportunity for bringing a site together and having a whole spatial whole rather than just a street front. You can create a village atmosphere. Um, but I'm concerned about the public right of way. Um, and can this pole, any part of the pole, banner, sign, extend past the landscape buffer zone? In the staff's alternative, they would not be allowed to be located in the public right of way. But you could locate the pole not in the right of way, but the banner goes out beyond the landscape buffer zone. Is that gonna be possible? I, I don't think so. I think you might be able to locate it very close, though- Okay. ... where it doesn't... I mean, in some of the Mixed Use Three zones, what- I think- ... we do have, it's- May- ... the parking lot's close to the public right of way, so. I mean, can just kind of contemplate making that clearer that no sign can jump past the landscape, no part of a sign can jump past the landscape buffer zone. It's just something to think about. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Ms. White? Thank you, Tracy. I'll let the applicant, um, do their presentation, and then I'll have some changes on the overhead to hopefully address those concerns. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Uh, petitioner? We move, uh, our point of view. One of these days, maybe. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I'm Bruce Simpson. Uh, I'm here with Chris Westover, and, um, we're representing the, uh, Buckingham Companies in connection with the text amendment that's been discussed by Tracy, um, in some detail. As, uh, Chris Westers, Westover is actually passing out a hard copy of a, a PowerPoint, uh, presentation, which we can give if, um, if y'all deem it necessary. Um, I won't be doing the PowerPoint presentation. I will be watching. We have, uh, an expert from Memphis, Tennessee, who's, uh, here to, uh, enlighten you all relative to, uh, our presentation if you care to, care to see it. We're here to represent to you, through the diligent efforts of, uh, your staff and, and primarily Chris Westover and our firm, who, uh, has met with Tracy, and others to... in rela- in relationship to our proposed text amendment, the one that Tracy talked about that we filed. We had to start someplace, and, uh, they've met a number of times, and, um, as we stand here today, um, there's only two minor changes that we would suggest to the staff's, uh, proposal in terms of their alternative. So I don't know if you wanna go into the... We have a lengthy PowerPoint, and I have some exhibits that I could supplement the record with, but, uh, really, there's only two differences, um, that we would like to see adjustments on, and, uh, to deal with, uh, Ms. Copeland's, uh, uh, concern about hanging the right of way, uh, there's provisions in Article 17 now that preclude that from taking place. You'd have to have actually an encroachment permit if you had any part of a banner sign encroaching on the, on the right of way in terms of those air rights. I believe that's adequately addressed. We certainly have no ob- objection to clarifying it in terms of what we're proposing to do, because we're not gonna be in that right of way, but- ... um, whatsoever. This project has 20 poles. They're all light poles. I mean, they're gonna be there, uh, for lighting and security, et cetera. The two suggestions that, uh, they're actually more than suggestions that the- the- the banner, um, the banners that are attached to these poles has become part of the, uh, marketing and branding of the Buckingham Companies. They have over 90 projects around the country, where they have found these banners to be extremely helpful in marketing and selling and renting their properties. Uh, this is a mixed-use property. It's, uh, I don't need to tell many of you, it's, it's besides the medical center at University of Kentucky, it's probably the only thing under construction in Lexington right now of any, any size. Um, they've been very successful and these banner signs have been very helpful in their marketing and their ability to attract people and keep them and sell their product, and to create a sense of place. Uh, they've hired one of the top architect firms in the country, uh, to guide them along the way, and that's, that's part of their success. They're building one of these projects in Notre Dame right now in South Bend. So, what we're asking, uh, as a, an adjustment to the staff's alternative, uh, in terms of the text amendment are two things. Uh, the first thing is, um, with respect to, uh, and, and actually we asked for the 50 feet, and then as they got into more study of the distance between these poles, uh, and because of this site, uh, so things would be spaced properly, lighting would be spaced properly, uh, we would request that rather than 50 feet that it be 45 feet, in terms of the distance between these light poles. Um, so that's a minor, um, re- request that we would make in that regard, and I'll go over the specific citation in just a minute. The other provision has to do with the, um, the parking that's also... Is this on? I don't have- It doesn't sound like it, uh... Hit the button. Huh? Is it working? Hello? Not working? If I start singing, it'll probably work. I don't think it's working. Tell you what. I'll do it this way. Hello? Did I tell you that I know every single song on the Temptations' Greatest Hits? We'll take your word for it. The other request we have besides, uh, going from 50 feet to 45 feet, in terms of the spacing of these poles, and there's 20 that we're proposing on the site, is, um, part of this development plan, this is the final development plan for the project. Um, the residential units, there's, uh, 266 apartments here, and, uh, about 27,000 square feet of retail. Um, this is the interior of the, of the project, in terms of the residential units and the, and that retail. We have additional parking back here that's been zoned R4 and B4. They've already been to the Board of Adjustment to get a conditional use permit for parking, so there's no question that they have a right to park here. Uh, there's also no question that they need to have and will have lighting here, 10 light poles here. Um, we're requesting, in terms of our change, and I'll pass out the text amendment, uh, change in a, in a, in a moment, that the 20 light, 10, that the 10 light poles that are here also be allowed to have these banner signs attached to them. They are part and parcel of this whole project. Uh, the poles are gonna be there, and it's very important that there be this linkage visually, um, for identification, so it's not just a barren parking lot that's not really attached to any particular place. It is a part of this entire place, and it was, it's been designed that way, in terms of our, the sign package. Um, and so we would like to see a text amendment, um, make this parking lot much more interesting. It's pretty expensive to maintain these. We do change them four times a year, uh, the signs, but it would make it a more attractive, more interesting, integrated place, uh, rather than just a parking lot with the barren light poles, because there'll be poles over here with the signs on them. Now, it's true, you know, we can go through and get a zone change for the purpose of, uh, putting banners on the light poles. Um, that's pretty expensive. It's a six-month process to undergo, and, um, we believe that if you adopt our provision, which if Barbara would put that up on the screen. I'll pass these out to you. Thank you. The change -- the second change we're asking is to add, uh, the following paragraph to staff alternative, uh, 28-5H5B7, which provides as follows. Pole banners in parking lots located in another zone that are incorporated in an approved final development plan for an MU3 project are permitted subject to the same restrictions and requirements applicable to the pole banner signs, uh, for the MU3 project. So, we would in -- basically incorporate by reference in the final development plan, which would be subject to regulation, uh, that these banner signs be allowed on properties like this where there's approved parking. Uh, by way of the Board of Adjustment, you can park there, and, um, I think it's important to our project. It is important to our project that they be done. The question is, are we gonna have to go through and get a zone change just to put banner signs, you know, in the parking lot? Or is there an alternative that's reasonable that would allow this to take place? And we believe that incorporating this provision, uh, as we've stated it, allows these signs to transition, the sense of place that's, uh, gonna be created here. This is a very important project. It's a $54 million investment. This is the first time the Buckingham Companies have come to Lexington, and, uh, they are building and ready to go. We think these are minor adjustments, but they're important adjustments for us. Um, we have an extensive PowerPoint presentation where you can show these signs in other locations, but really we agree with the staff's recommendations in terms of where we've come, where we filed, and, and, and where we've, uh, come to up to this point in time. So, um, I really am seeking some guidance from you all if you want to, to see that or can we have a meaningful discussion about our suggestions? Um, because we agree with the staff, except in those two instances where we would shorten the distance to 45 feet and, uh, rather than 50 and allow via our amendment to have banner signs in the business, uh, zone next to it, um, that's got parking by way of the Board of Adjustment. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. I, I guess, um, I, I don't know, Commission wanna see the presentation that, that they have? Is that... That's this right here. Yes. Okay. You got it? Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Simpson? Ms. Phillips? Um, I think you may have just answered it in the very last statement that you made. The parking is in, uh, a different district. It's zoned R4? Right. And that was approved by the Board of Adjustment? Yes. Um, has this site plan received approval from the planning commission or is that a Board of Adjustment? Yes, final development plan. Entire plan that you have here today for the property. So, you're asking us to approve the final development plan, or we have already approved it? No, I'm asking that for the, that the text amendment would allow projects like this where you have a final development plan that incorporates the parking like we have it on this plan, incorporating other zoned properties that allow for the parking that in, in these specific kinds of cases that you could have banner signs in that parking area. Were the parking areas an afterthought? I'm just wondering why it's all not zoned... If it's part of the same project, why it's all not zoned MU3? Well, you know, I... The Buckingham Companies came in after the project was zoned. Uh, there was another entity, if you recall, Shelburne, that, uh, actually got this property zoned, and then they have since sold it, it's my understanding, to Buckingham Companies. So, uh, they weren't involved when all of this took place. They bought subject to it in terms of, uh, what you see as far as the final development plan, but, um, it has the same enforceability, it's the same, you know, y'all have jurisdiction over it, and, um, and we believe that having those signs there is, is reasonable and we don't believe it's reasonable or necessary to have to go through a six-month zoning process to get the signs there just for that purpose, because that's the only purpose it would have. Ms. Copeland? Could you please show us where the commercial, I assume it's on the first floor- Mm-hmm. ... is located? Yeah, I have Jane Hendrickson, uh, she's the Director of Development. If you could come up to, uh, kind of give them a little outline of, uh, where the retail would be. Good afternoon. It is in Building D. Right here is all your commercial, and it's on the main level. 27,000 square feet. NAI Isaac will be our broker that's working that. And at, right now we do not have any tenants and/or prospects signed for that right now. Project's split into two phases. Building B, pardon me, C, and Building B right here are the two that you're seeing being built right now. These two will be built after... Starting in '09. These are the two buildings that will have students and/or occupants in August of next year, '09. These will be August of '10. Of this whole project, it's 266 apartments and 27,000 square feet of commercial. The parking for both is to facilitate all the uses within this project. Thank you. So your commercial is only on one floor? Correct. And only in that building. There's a residential project- Mr. Penn, you had, you had a question? Yeah. Bruce, I, I remember all this, and I remember we started out with subterranean parking, and they came back and readjusted it because of the core drilling they'd done. That's immaterial to my question. My question is, is with 27,000 square feet of commercial, with changing 22 or 24 poles four times a year, is this a marketing situation? Is this a identification situation? I don't understand how you have four different changes of banners. That, that's, that's a temporary thing to me. But the, the, the crux of the matter is, is that I don't understand how changing those banners four times a year to accommodate 15% of commercial, is that necessary? Well, it's not really, uh, specifically for the commercial. I'm gonna... Jane, why don't you, uh, uh, Tyler, come on up here. Tyler Beasley is from Memphis, and, uh, she's been involved in Buckingham companies around the country in terms of how these particular banner signs function. So I'll let her comment on that. You can just use that microphone. Um, the banners, there's a page in the PowerPoint that shows the content for the banners. Um, it's meant to sort of market the project as a whole as, so it'd be identification and marketing for the project. Um- So basically, you're marketing residential, is what you're actually marketing. And sort of the mixed use, because we also have sort of like there'd be, there's a pole, a banner that has sort of the fork and a knife that would say like, "There's dining here." Um, we had one with a computer, so there'd be Wi-Fi, so you could come and sit in a coffee shop and use your computer. Um, so it'd be marketing the uses that are available at The Lex. Are there any other questions? Yeah, th- this is- This is... Okay. You can't see it very well, but... Can you give us abbreviated version of your book just so we... I, I know we have it. Can you run through that- Sure. ...very quickly? Okay, I'm gonna try this. Tracy, would you give me advice? Okay, this is sort of, um, outlining what we said the last time. It's just a little bit more. So, the purpose of the signage that we've designed for The Lex is to establish a strong sense of place, communicate the message, and value the streetscape. When we first started out with this project, we sort of came up with a design brief, so w- we could figure out for whom we were designing. So it's a student project, so we were thinking it would need to be young, hip, kind of apply, um, attract members who blog or a youthful population. It's very vibrant, very active. So using that design brief, we went through and designed a sign package for The Lex. So this is, again, just kind of showing some of the imagery we collected. Young people living, University of Kentucky students. Oh. Um, the second purpose for the signage is to communicate the message. So we were trying to communicate to three different types. The first would be a motorist driving by. The second would be sort of the motorist and some pedestrian traffic. And then the third layer would be solely pedestrian level. So you can see, when we have our wall-mounted sign, that would be for someone driving by, so someone from far away could see it. The second would be that freestanding ID, so you could see it when you were driving by or walking by. And then the third would be the projecting blade on the building, so if you were walking within the project, you, you would see that. These were some examples that we chose from Mockingbird Station. It's a mixed-use development in Dallas. So you can kind of see throughout their project, each, they've... Each piece has sort of been branded as part of Mockingbird Station from, down from the trash cans. They have, uh, banner poles in the parking lot. They were freestanding ID. So each of those are, um, directed towards these three layers, the motorist and the pedestrian and the motorist-pedestrian. Um, this was, sort of value the streetscape, talking about these sort of developments are really successful when they look like they've evolved. So they don't look too programmed or too themed. Um, and then this was some examples. This was from, um, Pearl Street in Boulder. They have sort of this mix of sign types, and you can see the mixing of signs for individual tenants. Um, this slide is t- um, was talking about the wall-mounted sign and how we got to where... what drove our dimensions. Um, the height of our parapet is eight foot one inch. And so we designed that sign to be centered architecturally in that piece. Um, there's a overflow scupper and the top of the parapet, that's kind of to show you just how we landed on that, the size and the dimensions for that parapet sign. Um, this was, um, when we first started designing the sign. I printed it out full size and put it in one of our- ... windows in the office and ran down to the first level to see if we could see it, so to make sure that the legibility, because we didn't want to get it so oversized that it seemed too much for the building. We just wanted to make sure that it was the right size and to keep the legibility. So that was the point of that. Um, this is, uh, examples of some other parapet signs. Um, there are several that are... have more of a historic nature. There are a couple of more that have more of a modern nature. It's a, um, frequently used sign type. We just wanted to show some examples. Um, the next slide that we have, it talks about the banners. So we have them talking about solidifying the brand for The Lex by illustrating the uses. Um, we think that they help identify the boundaries of the project, so that you know what you... your... you know where you are when you see those banners, and also they create visual interest. This exhibit shows sort of the banner poles where we would propose that they be located. So it's not necessarily on every light pole, but we would sort of create a grid in that back parking lot. Uh, these were some images that we found of other banners and other projects around the country. We have, um, Santana Row in California, The Domain in Austin, and Mockingbird Station in Dallas. So this is sort of the wrap-up slide. Thank you very much. Ms. Copeland? How do trees fit in this? Um, in what regard? Just i- Well- ... in terms of visibility? ... street trees, street trees, trees to shade the parking lots so it's not so hot, temperature control. I don't think that the banners... I... the... in the parking lots, I don't think the trees will be a problem in terms of visibility of the banners. Um, and on the buildings, I mean, I think from some angles, it might be somewhat obscured, but I think you'll be in motion so much that it won't be a problem. So I was relieved when you said they weren't going to be every 45 feet, because then you wouldn't be able to have a tree unless it was just a 10-foot-wide tree or... Well, and I'm not entirely sure what the landscape plan on the parking lot says. I would imagine that they'd be on the periphery and not in the center of the parking lot. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Owens? Thank you. Um, my question's going to be for signs itself. Uh, projecting business signs in addition to wall-mounted signs. Mm-hmm. Why are you saying that there's a need for both? I think when you're driving by, you'll see the wall-mounted sign, so that would be more for the vehicular, and then when you're walking by, the projecting sign would catch your attention better. Are you going to put two signs up of equal size? No. Um, I think that there... I believe the projecting signs have a 12-foot... 12-square-foot maximum, and then the wall sign could be bigger if wanted, but the projecting signs are meant to be smaller in, in scale. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Beasley. Are... any other questions? I guess, um, Mr. Simpson actually pointed out two things. One was the spacing of the signs. Let, let... Can we tackle that one first? Um, staff had 50. I think Mr. Simpson said 45. Any comment, uh, I guess, from the Commission on that 50 versus 45? I, I, I think that's what, what you were asking. So- That's correct, yeah, and that's- So- ... that's on the... If you look on the staff screen, uh, handout page two, it's in, uh, paragraph B, item number four, "Banner poles shall be spaced no closer than 50 feet from each other," and we're recommending that that be 45 feet from each other. Mr. Vaughan, just for clarification- Yes. ... that... the applicant had originally, and Mr. Simpson mentioned that, originally asked for 50 and the staff didn't recommend it, anything different, so I, I'm not sure that we're opposed to 45. 45, okay, all right. Yeah. All right. Are there any questions on that dimension? Mr. Penn. Is, is, is the reason for that, Bruce, that you need, you need that many lights in that parking lot to get you ample coverage, or you, you just want more signs? I'm gonna let Jane come up here and answer that. These been a lot of study during the course of this meeting with the staff and, and, uh, they've looked at the site plan and found it, um, uh, constricting in terms of what their business plan was for these banners as really a, a part of their branding concept, so Jane, if you'd answer that. Y- yes, it's been approved through all of our lighting consultants that that's the amount of lights that we need out there, and the 45 has come, um, to be based on the size of parking spaces, nine feet. Are there any other trees in the parking lot other than the perimeters? At this point in time, no. The landscape plan was approved with the development plan in December of '07. We are going to come in with a, uh, amended landscaping plan that is more intense now that the buildings will... have been placed on the site, as I call, uh, building-in-place field change order, which will increase the landscaping. It's more intense because of more cars, or more intense because of- ... more intense to buffer us. Oh, for buffering? Correct. So you'll -- you'll prov-- you'll provide an ade-- amended development plan for the parking lot that would include more trees? No, sir, amended landscaping plan. Will that include more trees? Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay, so I think staff has said 45, uh, would be, uh, staff would be amenable to the 45-foot dimension? Okay. I suppose so. So, I guess the next point, I guess, has to do with, uh, this, uh, additional text that you would like to have added. Yeah, in terms of, um, really, and -- and really again, the purpose is so that when the public, um, the guests, visitors, potential renters, they will see this whole property as one, and, um, those banner signs will link them to the Lex. And that's why we want the banner signs here, and we believe a reasonable way, absent going through the zone change process, is to tie it into the development plan, which you all have approved here, and we would qualify in that context it being forcible. 'Kay. Thank you. Any questions, comments from the commission? Other than that, we're in complete agreement with this, the, uh, staff's alternative. Okay. Thank you. Mister, Mister Gravens. Yeah, I -- I think I can support that, because that parking lot is off to the side, and you need to know whose parking lot it is, I guess. Is that... That's correct, yes. Okay. Any other questions, uh, from the commission for the petitioner? Ms. Copeland? Yes, um, what does the staff think about this jumping zoning plan? Uh, the staff doesn't believe that it's, uh, an advisable practice to, or regulatory approach to, provide for signage in one zone that then allows for s- actua- actually allows for signage in another. Um, the -the more appropriate straightforward approach would be to rezone that property. Um, if their intention is to use it as part of this one, then it logistically would make the most sense to rezone it. Um, or the other secondary option would be to change the text for the B4 zone. Now, I can't imagine that the staff would be 100% supportive of putting banner signs in a B4 zone, but, um, that seems to be a m- an, a better option than regulating it through a mixed-use zone for banners in a different zone. Um, and, and we agree that, that that's part of their development plan, um, but creating a sense of place with the parking and the pedestrian plazas n- near the buildings, I think makes sense. When it's across the street, it's kind of a stretch that you're creating a sense of place across the street in a parking lot. You know, there's not, there's not that connection that the staff really feels comfortable with. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Mm-hmm. Mr. Brewer, you had a question? Yeah, I, well, I understand your point, um, Ms. Wade, completely. Um, I've seen examples of this where banner signs in parking lots across the street do tie back to a development, and I, personally, I think that the, the amended language that, that Mr. Simpson's put forward is a good compromise, um, and I would support that. Um, I, I would hate to have them to go back and ask for a zone change for banners in a parking lot. I think it's simpler just to do it the way that it's been proposed. Our understanding is eventually that they would do mixed use on that property as well, so. That was their long-term plan that they presented to us, the staff, a while back. I don't know if it was this applicant, but Shelburne indicated that they had planned to build on that property, so Mixed Use 3 would make sense in that regard. In terms of the, um, just to answer a concern earlier, the, uh, Ms. Copeland mentioned that the, to make sure that the banners didn't project into the right of way. I think for, under, um, B6 on the green sheet, we could, we could add, um, language at the end, kind of add a comma instead of a period at clearance and say, "May not project into the right of way or a right of way, so all pole-mounted banners shall provide a minimum of eight feet of vertical clearance and may not project into a right of way." And in terms of Mr. Brewer's concern earlier about the number, um, of signs, um, Mr. Salih and I, uh, Mr. Salih did a sketch while I listened to Mr. Simpson's presentation. If we could put that on the overhead, Barb, would you do that? That's a good question. The way it's drafted today, the applicant wouldn't, would have an option of choosing, um, basically it, with one sign every 3,000 square feet. 3,000 square feet is approximately the area that would be included within 10 parking spaces and the drive aisle behind the, their half of the drive aisle behind them. Um, and the applicant would have to choose one banner per pole and do a pole every landscape island in that example with the way that's written today, or- ... do two banners on a pole, as Mr. Salih drew, every other landscape island. Um, and that would just, that would be a typical parking lot. I'm not saying that's how much landscaping they're including. If we want to allow them to do two bolt, two banners per sign every, um, basically every five or 45 feet, every five spaces, I think the change would be to number five to say, "The total number of poles..." And just leave it at poles, "Shall be limited to one for every 3,000 square feet of parking or pedestrian area." That's rude. So that would be up, up to you all. So, so the change you're saying on f- on five is the total number of poles shall be limited to one for every 3,000 feet? Right. Is that what I just heard? If, if we want to allow a pole every five parking spaces- Okay. All right. ... with two signs on it. Okay. Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. And I would note that, um- I don't think it'll put it through, does this- ... the land- landscaping islands typically in parking lots are required to have trees, um, per the Landscape Ordinance. However, this, uh, development does have some variances about, in regard to landscaping, so I'm not sure that, you know, because they're not providing landscaping islands, they may not have the trees in the parking lots like you would- Oh, thank you, . ... typically see in most landscape islands, so. Thank you, Tracy. Uh, Mr., Mr. Owens? Um, Tracy? Yes. If you could clarify something. Uh, I, I guess follow, kind of follow up with Ms. Copeland's question, as far as, uh, these signs hanging over into the, uh, what she's calling a landscape bu- buffer. Mm-hmm. Uh, she's mentioning a landscape buffer. I'm hearing right of way. Mm-hmm. Is landscape buffer part of the right of way? Not usually. Okay. Um, it, it can be. Uh, but in this situation, the, the right of way probably ends here, and this is their property. Um, similarly, on this side, there's a right of way, and there's probably some landscaping before you get to the parking lot. So, what we wouldn't want is the poles basically adjacent to the right of way, so that the banners overhang into the right of way. But moving them back a foot or two would accom- would basically accomplish making sure they're not in the right of way, but certainly could be in the landscaping buffer. Okay. I think that's where light poles are- Yeah. ... predominantly located, anyway. Okay. I just wanted to clarify. I, I was hearing two different things. Thank you, Mr. Ow- uh, Mr. Craven. Uh, excuse me, Mr. Penn. Tracy, that road to the left of that landscape buffer that you just showed there, that's Newtownpike Extension? Yes. So that parking lot is directly going to be on the edge of the Newtownpike Extension right of way? Yes. So as we come into Lexington, coming from Newtown, from the interstate into Lexington, we're going to pass a parking lot that's got banners every five spaces. We don't know if there's going to be any trees in that parking lot or not, but w- we know there will be a landscape buffer. They're showing some trees, Mr. Penn, here and here and here and here. Um, and then along the frontage there, but there, from what they've said, they would be planning to put up light poles, um, in this area. Well, the reason I bring this up is that we have discussed this in two or three different contexts, from Shelbourne Development to this development. We've seen two or three different development plans. They've been approved. All I'm trying to do to say to the other people in, on the Planning Commission, that this plan has evolved from underground parking to s- Mm-hmm. ... to, to g- ground level parking, and that is one of the four corners of one of the major intersections coming into Lexington. So, there is a bigger picture here to look at this than just the question of whether these banners are going to be nine feet apart or more. And it is important how this thing is landscaped. It is important that the fact that we've gone to a 15.85 with the student housing project now. And so, we have several student housing projects that, that we've approved, but n- none of them are going to be on the corner of a major intersection like this one is. So I just want the rest of the commission to understand where we are here and what's happening here. Uh, and, uh, I'm not saying we can change the development plan. We can't. I'm not saying we can do anything else, but just remember, we're creating a visual- Mm-hmm. ... that people are gonna prove, they're gonna, that's what they're gonna see when they come into Lexington. Mr. Penn, if I could clarify one bit of information. Uh, the, under the staff draft where the poles are every, per every 3,000 square feet, that's about one per every 10 parking spaces. If, uh, the staff draft on this item remains the same for number five, they could either have one banner per pole for every 10 spaces. If they wanted to do the double, like we've got in the drawing, it would be every 20. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yeah. But it, it, spatially, yes, they could be every five, but under this draft, they wouldn't be automatically allowed a banner at every five spaces. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I think we've heard, uh, with regards to, uh, uh, I guess, I'm, I'm struggling with this, uh, regulating signage in a, in a different zone, and, um, uh, I'm I guess trying to figure out, uh, what's appropriate and what, what in, in essence would work for this, uh, this development. Um, I think we've heard two say they would be in support of this language. Uh, I'm, I guess I'm looking to the commission if there's others that are not in support, but are consistent, uh, with the staff's recommendation. Ms. Phillips, do you have- Um, I was just gonna say, I, I agree with the staff, that I don't think this is, um, very good practice. It may be, um, practical and applicable in this situation to have signage in a different zone, but I think in reality, that, the parking lot needs to be brought into the... ... into the Lex Development Plan, probably ultimately should be rezoned, especially if the parking is gonna be a part of, incorporated into part of this development. But I think generally as a practice we, it's not a good idea to allow a zoning for a different zoning district off site. So, I would vote against it. Thank you, Ms. Phillips. Any other, uh, comments? Mr. Chairman, if I may, uh- Yes, mm-hmm. ... uh, there's been some discussion, uh, Tracy mentioned about some modification perhaps, uh, it's a little bit different than the question you were asking, but, um, my clients are trying to understand this, uh, 3,000 square foot discussion relative to, uh, paragraph under 28.5H, uh, where they were talking about, uh, um, making adjustments to one pole every 3,000 square feet. But I don't see any language, is that, is some discussion about changing something about that. I know we've got a diagram up here, but I don't see any language to vary anything from what the staff had, uh, come up with or alternative. So, my, my, my point is we don't know what's the, we're confused. Or I'm confused. Under- Understood. And I think I, I, I'd ask, uh, and I think I'd ask Ms. Wade that question, so if- Th- okay. The, the staff's, not recommendation, but if that's the appl- if that's the Planning Commission's desire to have a pole with two banners every 3,000 square feet, you would need to change five to read, "The total number of poles," and scratch out the mounted banner signs. So, "Total number of poles shall be limited to one for every 3,000 square feet of parking lot or pedestrian plaza." That would allow a pole with two signs every three thous- for 3,000 square feet. And as Mr. Selly's d- um, graphic shows, that's about ten parking spaces graphically. Um, the way it's written today, you would only b- be allowed one physical banner on each p- on that pole, or you would skip and do... Can we get some language written so we can... Yes, what, what, can we, uh, I guess on the overhead? Of course, the simpler way is to stick- stick with the original, uh, staff alternative and we don't have to get into all of this extended discussion. Um, we're, we're, we're pleased with the, with the staff's, uh, language. Uh, the only change we're suggesting is the 50 to 45, and they didn't have any problem with that. So, it seems like the only really meaningful discussion we were having was whether to allow the banner signs in, um, the lot across the street, and whether we could do that by incorporating it in, the, as we suggest by final development plan, or do you want us to go through the six-month zone change to get the same thing. I mean that seems to me where we ought to be, rather than doing all this here. Agreed, agreed. But I, I wanted to give staff that, that opportunity to, uh, clarify that, that point, item five. Okay. So, Ms. Wade, I, I'm gonna go, I guess, to the overhead. We're looking at 45 and item six may not project into the right of way. Is that correct? Okay. And for the record, we're not developing the parking lots, have no intention to develop the parking lot. Um, it's the $54 million investment to use that parking, because building parking lots caused the other proponent to quit the project. And so we need that surface parking for our use. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Ms. Richardson, you have a question? Yes, I'd like, um, if the staff could, to, to give me an example of what would be objectionable, um, for putting the sign in another, um, whatever he is, B, is it R-4? Is that what it is? In other words, what, what problems would, does the staff foresee in a, if we allow it in this particular instance? I, I need to be, I need something that I can put my hands around. It, I'm, I'm not sure that the staff is objectionable to the banner signs being in their parking lot, in general. I think it's that the proposal is to regulate signage for a Mixed Use 3 zone. Th- that's, that's the zone we're talking about changing. But, in fact, part of their property, this applicant's property, is in a different zone. So instead of regulating B-4 and R-4 language, which is in Article 17, they're trying to, I would kind of call it an end around. They're trying to get around the, changing the other part of the ordinance by doing it here. And it's very specific to their development. There are two Mixed Use 3 zones projects approved, and this is not something that you would normally see. Um, I mean, this is not rare, but not typical for the Board of Adjustment to approve parking in a different zone for a development. And I, I don't foresee that happening in the other Mixed Use 3 project, so I think this is very specific to their, um, development, and I think that can be problematic in terms of text amendments. It's supposed to be, a text amendment, the ordinance is supposed to be interpreted equally for everyone and should be written to apply equally for everyone. So, as soon as you open up the gate and regulate something for one zone, you know, through another zone, I think it creates- ... you know, problems for building inspection. I think it creates a confusing ordinance. I don't... That's all right. I under- I understand. Yes. Can I, can I ju- Yes. If, if we were to approve the off-site, um, different zoning district signage- Yes. ... then could potentially there be banner signs for this MU3 project at a different R4 site than the one across the street? Sure, if, if they- Or for- ... came and amended their development. Right. ... or for that other MU3, there could then be potentially, in any R4 district, signage for that MU3 project, and then- It wouldn't even be the R4. ... I would then too think that the MU2 people would say, "Wait a second, they can advertise off-site. We want that ordinance changed for ours, because it is cumulative." So, I, I can see it unraveling, um, quite a few different things. Okay, thank you. Um, any other comments, any other questions for Tracy? Mr. Simpson, you had... Yeah. The only thing I would say is, um, you don't have to approve that other development plan if it's gonna incorporate MU2 or MU3 and they're gonna try to finesse parking. Uh, this is gonna be in the text amendment so that everybody's on notice, there's very few sites that are three acres or greater that even have an MU3. We're trying to encourage, um, folk- folks to come in and take advantage and do infield and redevelopment, spend 54 million at a time when nobody's doing anything, and we've come up with a, an option that saves them six months of paying me and Chris Westover and another engineering firm to do a zone change that has already been approved. We have a final development plan that would apply to anybody else that comes in, has a similar situation, uh, to allow mere banner signs to be there and nothing more. And, and the notion that this somehow can be transformed to incorporate other people rests with you all. If you find it unacceptable, uh, to incorporate a off-site zoning in another mixed-use zone, you can say, "That's not acceptable here." If you want to do banner signs, perhaps we'll consider it. But the notion that this is gonna mushroom into something that's out of control, um, is simply not well-grounded in terms of fact. We're talking about a very s- unusual situation here, and, um, I think we need to send a message of, of reasonableness in terms of how we control situations like this. And going through a zone change for a banner sign is not reasonable, in my opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Okay, um, I think you have, um, up on the overhead, you have the, uh, annotations from, um, or I guess the clarifications as noted by staff on the overhead. Um, uh, and staff's recommendation on the, uh, alternative text, we did have requests for consideration of, uh, allowing the banners in another zone. I think we've had lengthy discussion on that. So, uh, if there's no other, um, comments at this time, uh, I'd like to, uh... Tracy, did you have anything else you wanted to- Uh, yes. Uh, Mr. King and I were just speaking, and in terms of regulatory approaches, um, the staff would be okay with adding that language with the possibility of adding additional language when we come back to you, uh, next month or in February for initiation to changes to Article 17 to add some language about banners and being incorporated into a mixed-use project in the B4 and the R4 zones as well. So that it's in place in those other zones, that text would be in place in those other zones, not just here regulating. Does that make... Did I express that strictly, Kris? Mr.... Yes, Mr. King. I think so. What we were saying is that, that we think we have an opportunity, if, if you all are comfortable with the signage and the banner signs going in there in this type of situation, we feel we'll have an opportunity in the very near future to address this a little more holistically. We're a little concerned. We've been talking with council about going and adding now this same language in B4, B3, but we'd be kind of flying by the seat of our pants. And in talking to Tracy, we know we're coming back with amendments to Article 17 and what we could do. I think we're comfortable with going ahead a- as Mr. Simpson's proposed today, but we may come back and propose some modification to, um, kind of maybe tighten up any loose ends when we look at this again early next year. Thank you, Kris. Mr. Penn. Yeah, uh, the, the statement that was made here kind of bothers me. If, if this pla- project goes, and I think it will, and that parking lot at some point should want to be developed, we'd have to change the zone, wouldn't we, Mr. Simpson? That's correct. So I don't understand, other than the fact that six months, and this project's gonna be built over six mo- I mean, we're gonna build something in 2010, just like we're gonna build in 2009 and 2008. I don't understand the resistance to doing the zone change, uh, on a $54 million project if you're talking about getting it all in the same zone so you could develop it down the road. I don't understand your resistance to that. Well, the, the resistance is there's no intent to develop that property. It's, it's gonna be used for the parking. These folks are under construction, and they've got bids and everything ready to go out. Um, April is kind of a drop dead, to go through a zone change to try to get this, it's just gonna delay it and not have these units ready for the fall, uh, which is their deadline, uh, this year, to have these things open for the University of Kentucky students. Um- ... Chris has made, I think, a very appropriate suggestion in terms of response that we've, uh, and the alternative we've suggested here today to adopt it and, and clean it up with respect to other, uh, provisions of the sign ordinance later. And we, we certainly would support doing that. Thank you, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Penn. Thank you. Okay, um, I guess at this time we've obviously discussed this quite a bit. Um, chair will entertain a motion if, if someone is, uh, inclined to, uh, make one. Mr. Chairman, if I could also clarify on number- Yes, sir. ... V5, the staff has no objection to leaving that as originally drafted, as Mr. Simpson suggested. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Saline. Yes, looking for a motion. Am I to understand that what Mr. King is saying is that to adopt the provision as- As it's been presented. Okay. Yes. Uh-huh. Um, in that case, I, um, I move that, um, we accept the staff, uh, proposals for the, um, uh, mixed use... Which one is it? Mixed use three. Is that... How, how do we say what we're asking for here? The mixed use community zone changes for the, uh, texts, uh, and for the text changes, um, making an 28-5H, uh, before changes from 50 to 45 feet, and adding to, uh, 28-5H.B.6, uh, a all pole mounted banner sign shall provide a minimum of eight feet of vertical clearance, and may not project beyond the right, into the right of way. Is that correct statement? And that we change the staff language of alternative 28-5H.5B.7 to read "pole banners in parking lots located in other zone that are incorporated in an approved final development plan for an MU-3 project remitted subject to the same restrictions and requirements applicable to the pole banner signs for the MU-3 project." Does that cover it? Okay. We have a motion and a second, um, to accept or adopt the, um, ZLTA 2008-8. This is to amend article 28 to allow additional signage to mix use community zone MU3, um, based on the staff alternative language with revisions as noted on the overhead, and adding 28-5H.5B.7, um, to that language. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." I'm gonna say no. No. No. Okay. Can we take a poll? Ms. Richardson? Yes. Mr. Penn? No. Mr. Owens? No. Mr. Rush Phillips? Mr. Cravens? Yes. Ms. Copeland? No. Mr. Brewer? Yes. Mr. Vaughn? Yes. It's tie, four, four. You know, we need to move. We need to do something. We can't, um, can't have a tie. Um, well, I guess we could have a tie, and we'll just take it to the council and be a, you know, it would be a tie vote. So, you know, that's, that's what we'll do. I, I think we'll, we can entertain an alt- alternate motion, if that's- Um, I'd like to make a motion consistent with everything that Ms. Richardson said, with the exclusion of the, uh, 28.5.H.5.b.7. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second, um, to again adopt ZLTA 2008-8, uh, with alternative texts, uh, excluding the additional language 28-5H.5.b.7. Um, all those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying, "Aye." Aye. All opposed, please say, "No." I'm gonna say no. No. Okay. Motion carries. We have one no. Thank you. Thank you all very much, uh-huh. Thank you. Okay. At this time, I guess, uh, we have any commission items, any other commission items at this time? I know we have a significant s- staff item. All right, I'll say significant, special, special staff item. Mr. King. Mr. Chairman and commission members, I am glad to be here. And we felt that we could not let the year 2008 slide by us. And as we close this year out, we wanted to celebrate with you the 50th anniversary year of our urban service area. Uh, I got a chance this year to go back and do some research on this. I made a presentation on the history of the urban service area, its past and possible future at the Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana Planning Conference this year. And, uh, uh, as I was doing that, it could not help but just be, uh, again amazed at something that we have come in this community to take for granted. Uh, which is something which is, uh, just, uh, still a very remarkable thing. Um, going back and doing research, I, we, we, of course, know that we have been nationally recognized as the first community to, uh, institute an urban growth boundary and implement it fully. We have watched it evolve from its inception in 1958 and its quiet birth, it was kinda interesting to go back and look at those minutes. Um, uh, its very quiet birth, uh, through some of its, uh, turbulence and middle age, and, uh, and all the good things that have come out of it in the, the new initiatives. The serious rural preservation aspect and the urban infill aspects, and how in the last 10 years particularly, all of those things have really come to a much more aggressive fruition to, to really realize this concept. Again, it is a national planning, historic planning landmark. Um, it is, it is just, again, a- amazing, and we felt like we could not help but, uh, to have a cake here. So, we'll, uh, have a little cake and coffee after the meeting, and we'll take a picture of this commission around this, uh, this cake, just kind of celebrate the fact. And, and like a lot of us that have, uh, hit that year, I know there's probably a few of us around this table that have seen that particular zero birthday, uh, pass us by as well. I think you know that, uh, that life really begins or even takes another, uh, turn at, at those kinds of, of benchmarks. And I wanted to talk to you a little bit about what the, the past year was, and give you a little preview of the kind of work that's coming your way this year. As you know, we adopted the comprehensive plan update in 2007, and that set a work list, um, and I will report, be reporting a lot of details about that back to you early next year, and what we've done this year. But 2008 is one of those years where quietly back behind things, a whole lot of ground plowing, spade work and, uh, fertilizing, to kind of do a farming analogy, has been going on for a whole lot of major initiatives designed to support the urban service area, and growth and development in Lexington and the way we manage that in the future. And I just want to let you know, and this will, may be a little daunting, that even in an uncertain future about a lot of things in our country that are going on right now, one thing for certain is that this body and this community is going to be dealing with a, a, an huge number of new things that are going to be coming to you, a- immediately beginning upon the new year. And I'm going to just run down a few of those things. This is just a little bit of the headlines. We're going to be having the first joint workshop between the planning commission and the council, and perhaps also with representatives of the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Architectural Review for the first time in well over six years. We're going to have four small area plans coming your way for adoption. We are going to have a multi-modal traffic safety plan for the college town area between UK and downtown to improve that relationship. Two major studies, one resident ma- um, one related to non-residential infill and redevelopment initiatives, and another to look at the future of our housing market studies and, and strategizing for our future housing market, coming your way very soon in 2008. We are having an aggressive and holistic strategic implementation of the IR infill and redevelopment initiatives that were, uh, recommended by the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee, and many of you worked on. And, uh, again, uh, taking a comprehensive and systematic approach to implementing programs, ordinances and other things related to that. We will be dealing with extensive regulatory changes driven by the infill and redevelopment regulations, the consent decree, and efforts to increase government e- uh, efficiency, and provide more certainty in the development review process. And it is my opinion that, that we will, in the very near future, be making a, a serious decision on whether this community will move forward with form-based codes in all or in part, um, as a part of that overall package. So, that's going to be coming very soon. Um, we've got, as you heard today, new ordinances on signs, and, um, a lot of interest in, um, providing more sign activity. Uh, the pendulum tends to swing on these kinds of design issues, and you'll see some history of signage in downtown Lexington in particular, and, uh, excesses that were then perhaps moved the pendulum to the excess on the other side, and there will be, um, text amendments before you and community discussion about the appropriate level of new and innovative and, uh, rejuvenated signage, particularly for the downtown area. We are going to have a design and character ordinance for the new town pike extension, the areas adjoining that to, uh, direct the nature and physical design of development and their business, non-residential development particular, along the entire corridor of the new town pike extension, as well as seeing that project, uh, begin its construction phase. You can s- see that the housing phase is, is well underway. And you'll see that as well as an aggressive, uh, capital improvement project for streetscape improvements in downtown Lexington coming along. There's no doubt we're going to be seeing more TIF districts and more approaches like that and financing supportive innovative, uh, uh, financing for in-fill projects. And we're going to see even, uh, um, enhanced protection measures for burial grounds and also new proposals for street cross-sections and designs and the complete streets concepts, just to name a few things that within the next few months are going to be coming to you at work session. So, um, as you take your big break here over the next couple of weeks that you get this time of year from the commission, uh, I hope you, like us, are, are excited about the kinds of new things that are coming. Again, a whole lot of spadework has been done on these during the past year and, and now you'll be seeing these things coming forward to you and to the council and to the community. And we're all excited about it and looking forward to it. Thank you, Chris. Um, a lot of, lot of work, uh, coming up, I guess, in, in the new year. And, um, like all things, community, this community's, uh, very unique. I think that's why we all, uh, love where we, where we live. And, uh, certainly, Chris and I talked about something this year in 2008 to celebrate another uniqueness, being the urban service, uh, boundary. So, uh, I think it's fantastic we can have a little cake. And, uh, do wanna say, uh, wish everyone, uh, happy holidays and, and merry Christmas, uh, so... Thank you. Anything- Uh, Chris? Commission members? Could we get a copy of that presentation? Absolutely, yeah. These are, um, some slides that have been going on and changing in the background are from the presentation I made, just a few of the highlight slides. And it is fun to just take a look and, and look back, um, for instance, the, the slides that depict the size of the urban service area at various stages. And the, uh, the color on the inside indicates how much of the community approximately was developed at that point in time. So it gives you some idea of the relationship between the developed and, and undeveloped portions of the community. And, uh, at, at some point, if, when we have a chance to breathe, I may even, uh, indulge you into doing a little abbreviated version of that so you can get some appreciation for the, the growth, uh, just like in a human life, that this community has taken over 50 years with this concept as the, the main cornerstone of our, our community planning. So, and yes, I'll be glad to share that and put that out there with any of you all that would, would like to see it. And while I'm up here, also take the opportunity to invite any of you that would like to and could join us tomorrow. We, uh, have a division of planning a holiday feast and potluck, which will start sometime between 11:30 and noon tomorrow. And we would certainly love to have any of you commission members that can join us, council. Uh, um, we would love to have you, if you can make it. Thank you, Chris. Okay, I guess if there's no further business, uh, Sherry will entertain a motion for adjournment and eat some cake hopefully. All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. Tracy, if you...