# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - July 22, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · July 22, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1460 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1460?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-07-22 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 12,249 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 July 22, 2010, 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, with Carolyn Richardson presiding. The meeting addressed 8 agenda items spanning zoning map amendments, development plans, a variance, and a text amendment initiation. Of the items considered, 7 were approved and 1 — the MAP Property Management Zoning Map Amendment — was postponed. Over the course of the meeting, 8 motions and votes were taken and 2 public comments were heard. ## Attendance **Present:** - Patrick Brewer - Mike Cravens - Ed Holmes - Mike Owens - Carolyn Richardson - William Wilson **Absent:** - Marie Copeland - Derek Paulsen - Lynn Roche-Phillips Six members were present at the July 22, 2010 Commission meeting. Three members — Marie Copeland, Derek Paulsen, and Lynn Roche-Phillips — were absent. No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took eight votes during the July 22, 2010 meeting, all of which passed unanimously 6-0 by voice vote. All six members — Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Ed Holmes, Mike Owens, Carolyn Richardson, and William Wilson — voted in favor on each item. - **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 0:09:52]: Mike Owens moved, seconded by Mike Cravens, to approve minutes from the May 13, June 10, June 24, and July 8, 2010 meetings. The motion passed with a correction to the June 24 minutes as noted by Mr. Owens. - **MAR 2010-3 — Postponement** [timestamp: 0:11:43]: Mike Owens moved, seconded by Patrick Brewer, to postpone the MAP Property Management Zoning Map Amendment and Walnut Hill Subdivision Zoning Development Plan to August 26, 2010. The motion passed unanimously. - **MARC 2010-2 — Brighton Animal Clinic** [timestamp: 0:28:29]: Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by Ed Holmes, to approve the Brighton Animal Clinic Zoning Map Amendment and Conditional Use, subject to four conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. - **ZDP 2010-36 — Man O' War Development Plan** [timestamp: 0:29:35]: Patrick Brewer moved, seconded by Ed Holmes, to approve the Man O' War Development Plan subject to the first 16 conditions, with condition #17 deleted. The motion passed unanimously. - **MAR 2010-4 — Virginia Bates Zoning Map Amendment** [timestamp: 1:34:22]: Mike Owens moved to approve the Virginia Bates Zoning Map Amendment. The motion passed unanimously. - **MARV 2010-4 — Virginia Bates Variance** [timestamp: 1:35:24]: Mike Owens moved to approve the Virginia Bates Variance with item E deleted from the recommendations of approval. The motion passed unanimously. - **ZDP 2010-34 — H. Howard & Carolyn Lee Thomas Property Development Plan** [timestamp: 1:37:32]: Mike Owens moved to approve the development plan with conditions 12 and 14 deleted, condition 13 resolved, and additions requiring removal of concrete block walls and noting conditional zoning restrictions. The motion passed unanimously. - **Text Amendment Initiation — Transit Stop Parking Reductions** [timestamp: 1:40:44]: The Commission voted to initiate a text amendment regarding allowable transit stop parking reductions. The motion passed unanimously. ## Public Comment Two members of the public addressed the Commission during the public comment period, both speaking in opposition to the Virginia Bates Zoning Map Amendment. - **Eleanor Leonard** [timestamp: 1:13:26] spoke against the proposed zoning map amendment, raising concerns about the potential impact of a tattoo and piercing business on the surrounding area. Leonard characterized the neighborhood as family-oriented and emphasized the business's proximity to schools as a significant concern. - **Karen Criccio** [timestamp: 1:19:20] also spoke in opposition to the Virginia Bates Zoning Map Amendment, focusing specifically on the accessibility of the proposed tattoo and piercing business to children in the neighborhood. Both speakers shared a common concern regarding the appropriateness of the proposed business type within the context of the surrounding residential and family-oriented community. ## Contested Items - **Virginia Bates Zoning Map Amendment**: This item drew community opposition centered on concerns about the nature of a proposed tattoo and piercing business and its potential impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Community members raised objections specifically regarding the business's proximity to schools, expressing worry about the appropriateness of such an establishment in that location. The record does not indicate the specific parties beyond community members who voiced these concerns, and no outcome information is available in the provided data. [timestamp: not available] ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 09:52] The Commission took up the approval of minutes from previous meetings. Mike Owens participated in the discussion, during which a correction was noted to the minutes from the June 24 meeting. The Commission reviewed the correction and discussed the minutes accordingly. Following the discussion, the Commission approved the minutes. ## Postponement of MAP Property Management Zoning Map Amendment **Agenda Item: MAR 2010-3** [timestamp: 11:43] The Commission took up agenda item MAR 2010-3, concerning a zoning map amendment requested by MAP Property Management. Rather than proceeding with a full hearing on the merits of the amendment, the discussion centered on whether to postpone consideration of the item to a subsequent meeting. - **Chris Westover** was the key speaker on this item, presenting the case for postponement to the Commission. - Following the discussion, the Commission voted to approve the postponement, deferring the MAP Property Management zoning map amendment to the next scheduled meeting. No substantive debate on the underlying zoning map amendment itself was recorded as part of this agenda item, as the sole matter before the Commission was the procedural question of postponement. ## Brighton Animal Clinic Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 28:29] The Commission took up agenda item MARC 2010-2, a proposed ordinance to amend the zoning map for Brighton Animal Clinic. The item involved a request to rezone the Brighton Animal Clinic property from B-5P to B-1, accompanied by a conditional use permit for the operation of a small animal clinic. Nick Nicholson was the key speaker on this item. The Commission approved both the zoning map amendment and the associated conditional use permit. ## Man O' War Development Plan [timestamp: 29:35] The Commission took up agenda item **ZDP 2010-36**, a proposed ordinance concerning the development plan for **Man O' War**. **Tom Martin** was the key speaker on this item. The Commission considered the development plan along with a set of accompanying conditions. A notable point of discussion involved **condition #17**, which the Commission agreed to delete from the plan's requirements before moving forward. The Commission ultimately **approved** the Man O' War Development Plan, subject to the stated conditions and with the deletion of condition #17. ## Virginia Bates Zoning Map Amendment **Agenda Item:** MAR 2010-4 [timestamp: 1:34:22] The Commission took up the Virginia Bates Zoning Map Amendment, a proposed ordinance to rezone a parcel from I-1 (industrial) to B-3 (business) zoning classification. **Presentation and Discussion** Dick Murphy was the key speaker on this agenda item. The proposal sought to change the zoning designation for the Virginia Bates property, moving it from an industrial classification to a business classification. **Conditions** The Commission's approval came with conditions attached, specifically to prohibit certain uses on the property. The record does not detail which specific uses were prohibited, but the inclusion of these restrictions indicates the Commission had concerns about ensuring the rezoned parcel would be used in a manner compatible with the surrounding area. **Outcome** The Commission approved the zoning map amendment for the Virginia Bates property, rezoning it from I-1 to B-3 with the aforementioned conditions prohibiting certain uses. ## Virginia Bates Variance **Agenda Item:** MARV 2010-4 [timestamp: 1:35:24] The Commission took up agenda item MARV 2010-4, a variance request submitted by Virginia Bates. Bill Sallee was the key speaker presenting on this item. The variance sought to reduce the required perimeter property screening, which represents a deviation from the standard screening requirements established under the applicable ordinance. Perimeter property screening requirements are typically intended to provide buffers between properties or land uses, and a variance of this type requires Commission approval when a property owner seeks relief from those standards. Following the presentation and any associated discussion, the Commission voted to **approve** the variance request, granting Virginia Bates the reduction in required perimeter property screening as requested. *Note: The available record for this agenda item is limited. Specific details regarding the property location, the extent of the screening reduction requested, any conditions attached to the approval, and the full substance of any debate or concerns raised during the discussion are not reflected in the available data for this item.* ## H. Howard & Carolyn Lee Thomas Property Development Plan **Agenda Item:** ZDP 2010-34 [timestamp: 1:37:32] The Commission took up agenda item ZDP 2010-34, the development plan for the H. Howard & Carolyn Lee Thomas Property. Traci Wade was the key speaker presenting on this item. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed development plan, which included specific conditions attached to the approval. Notably, the removal of concrete block walls was identified as a required condition of the plan's approval. **Outcome:** The Commission approved the development plan for the H. Howard & Carolyn Lee Thomas Property, subject to the condition requiring the removal of the concrete block walls. ## Initiation of Text Amendment for Allowable Transit Stop Parking Reductions [timestamp: 1:40:44] The Commission took up the initiation of a text amendment that would allow consideration of parking reductions for developments that install park and ride lots. Bill Sallee presented the item to the Commission. The proposed text amendment, if ultimately adopted, would provide a mechanism for developments to receive a reduction in required parking in exchange for incorporating park and ride facilities into their projects. The initiation of the amendment represents the first formal step in the process of amending the relevant ordinance language. The Commission approved the initiation of the text amendment, moving the proposal forward for further consideration and review. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of minutes from May 13, June 10, June 24, and July 8, 2010 - **MAR 2010-3** — postponed (6-0): Postponement of MAP Property Management Zoning Map Amendment & Walnut Hill Subdivision Zoning Development Plan - **MARC 2010-2** — passed (6-0): Approval of Brighton Animal Clinic Zoning Map Amendment and Conditional Use - **ZDP 2010-36** — passed (6-0): Approval of Man O' War Development Plan - **MAR 2010-4** — passed (6-0): Approval of Virginia Bates Zoning Map Amendment - **MARV 2010-4** — passed (6-0): Approval of Virginia Bates Variance - **ZDP 2010-34** — passed (6-0): Approval of H. Howard & Carolyn Lee Thomas Property Development Plan - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Initiation of text amendment for allowable transit stop parking reductions --- ## Full transcript So almost, almost a year and a half, March 5th last year we opened up. Right. It's been good. And you're doing, you do lunch and dinner, do you do late evening too? We do lunch, we open up every day at 11 o'clock, full menu, big quesadillas, big salads, fresh food, all of our produce is local, we buy all local Kentucky products, you know, serve until late in the night, kitchen's open late, and you know, after that, live music, so we keep going all day. It was entertaining on the weekends, how the construction guys sometimes had to clean up a little bit before they could start, right? You know, we made them clean up a little bit more, but the city was paying them, so they might have said, just kidding. Good point. Well, you know, I really don't think a lot of people are aware of the great food that you have here. I mean, you all really have... Hopefully the street will be what brings them back to try that out, so now they know they can get here. Yeah, right. Yeah. Well, you know, you've got those, what, four garage doors, and when you open them, it's great walking down the street, you can hear people talking, you can hear the music, it's very festive, and I know one thing, the construction guys, they ate here a lot, hopefully they'll come back. Yeah, hopefully. I mean, I want the construction part to go away, but I want them to come back, so... And stay and eat, buy more food, so, but, well, you know, like I said, appreciate all you've done. Thank you. And you're from Nashville, right? Born and raised in Nashville, Tennessee. And what did... You had an interesting past. What did you do before you started this? I played professional football in the Arena Football League for six years. I retired five years ago now, so I'm getting up there, I'm getting a little bit older. I think I got you beat. By two or three years? Yeah, by two or three years, so... But no, guys, I do appreciate all your hard work, and I think it looks great out there. I'll talk to somebody about that. And the first business on our agenda this afternoon is... June 24th and July 8th. July 8th. Are there any additions or corrections to be made to those? Madam Chair, in regards to the minutes of June 24th, 2010, the development plan that I did vote no on that. I was in on both of them. We will duly note that. Are there any other additions or corrections? If not, do I hear a motion that we approve the minutes with the addition for DP2008-137? Voting no. Madam Chair, if I may, I'll move to approve the minutes as corrected for May 13th, 2010, June 24th, 2010, June 10th, 2010, and July 8th, 2010. Your second? Good. Motion's made in second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. Thank you very much. Are there any postponements or withdrawals? Good afternoon. I'm Chris Westover. I'm representing the applicant, NAP Property Management. We request a one-month postponement to your August 26th hearing date. Is August 26th the correct date, Mr. Salling? Yes, Madam Chair. That is your next meeting devoted to zone change items. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Is there any objection from the audience for postponing this? If not, do I hear a motion for postponing until August 26th, the MAR2010-3? Madam Chair, I'll move postponement of MAR2010-3 until the August 26th, 2010 meeting. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. And I think we're now ready for our first hearing. Brighton Animal Clinic, staff ready? Yes, ma'am. We'll begin in just a moment. Good afternoon, Chairperson Richardson, members of the Planning Commission. First case today is MARC-2010-2. This can be found on your agenda at the bottom of page 1, and it is behind tab 1 in your notebooks. This is a request for a zone change from an interchange service business zone, which is our B5P zone, to a neighborhood B1 zone. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Pleasant Ridge Drive and Timber Creek Drive. And Pleasant Ridge Drive is a collector street that runs through what I would call kind of a southeast portion of the Hamburg area. Man O' War Boulevard and Sir Barton Way intersection is just to the northwest, and Plotted Place and Bryant Road are also just to the northwest. The subject property was rezoned to B5P in the late 1980s, so it has been vacant in this current zoning category for over 20 years. Some of the areas surrounding the property have developed, including a restaurant, gas station, hotel, as well as a car wash to the north and to the west. There's also industrial zoning and highway service business zoning along Bryant Road further to the south and west. The subject property is also bordered by single-family residential land use and zoning in terms of an R1D zone and R1E zone to the south and to the east. Like I mentioned, the property is vacant. The applicant is proposing to construct a small animal clinic at this location that would require a conditional use as well, and our staff has prepared a staff report and will present that, I believe, after the development plan in terms of that proposal in front of the Planning Commission today. Let me just skip through a few photos of the site. Again, you can see this property is vacant, as well as several to the north along Justice Drive and Bryant Road in this area. The subject property does have some topographical change. You can see the single-family residences to the rear. This photo does show sort of the back of the property or the east property line, and it does indicate there are existing fences at this location to provide a buffer between the single-family and the vacant lot. And an aerial photograph showing the single-family residential to the south and to the east and then the commercial in this vicinity. The comprehensive plan for this location does recommend highway commercial and interchange commercial, and this is a land use that has two definitions in our comprehensive plan. One if it's at an interchange, and one if it's at any other location within the urban service area. In this instance, the applicant has argued that the property is not at the interchange, and the staff would tend to agree. Therefore, a definition that allows more than just those uses geared towards motorists, that definition actually describes retail trade, personal services, and other professional services would be appropriate in this land use category. So in assessing whether a B1 zone is appropriate at this location, the staff agreed with the applicant and recommended approval for four reasons. First, the zoning and the land use in this instance are somewhat isolated because of the intersection of Timber Creek and Pleasant Ridge. There is no other business zoning further to the south and east of this location. In addition, it is bound by residential on two sides. Therefore, a B1 zone would make a better transition between the residential and the higher intensity B5 and I1 uses further to the west. And going along with that, the B5P does allow more intense uses, and therefore the B1, where it's less intense, is a better transitional zone next to a residential land use. The staff makes our recommendation subject to the approval of the associated development plan, and that would need to be forwarded to the council within two weeks. Can I answer any questions at this time? Are there any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chairman, members of the commission. At the bottom of page 2, ZDP 2010-36, Man O' War unit 2, section 1, lot 2B, is the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change? The layout that you see before you on this corner lot, here is Timber Creek Drive, Pleasant Ridge Drive. This is Justice Drive, which cuts through over to Bryant, which loops around in this area. You can see they're proposing a 6,000 single-story, square-foot building. The associated parking is 35 spaces. That is slightly over the requirement of 26. We have an access point proposed here at Pleasant Ridge, here at Timber Creek. A drive-through is proposed with this facility. And you see the buffering and landscaping that is proposed here. Interesting about this site is that B1 only requires a 20-foot front yard setback. This has platted on the property a 20-foot setback along the entire perimeter, along with an existing landscape buffer is included. The plan was reviewed by the subdivision committee, recommended for approval. Subject to the conditions you can see, these are very standard conditions, primarily cleanup conditions beyond those that are our standard conditions. We do have a discussion item, and that discussion item is that access point on Pleasant Ridge Drive that I pointed out to you, this location right here. This is a revised plan that staff received. This access point has been shifted approximately 15 feet in this direction. Staff was originally concerned about the offset with Justice Drive. Throughout the years as access has been developed through here, it has generally been spaced at greater than 100 feet, and this one at the time originally proposed was less than that, slightly less than that. With this adjustment, it is approximately 115 feet from center point to center point with these access points as proposed. We talked with traffic engineering and the applicant. It was determined that the circulation on site would function better with these access points. It would allow the dumpster to be served in this location. This parking was changed to angle parking to accommodate a one-way circulation for the drive-through. This, as you saw in Ms. Wade's presentation, Timber Creek serves a large residential area through the south. There's a lot of residential traffic. It was felt that two access points at this location, closest intersection, could aggravate that residential traffic. It's not something we encourage in our regulations. We felt like that with the adjustment to create a little more distance and spacing, that this is indeed a good way for this site to work and to have access. With that, I would point out that staff would be comfortable with number 17 at the top of page 3, which has discussed the proposed access, that that could be removed as a condition on this plan based on the new submission that you see before you. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Are there questions, Mr. Owens? Yeah, Tom, as far as the driveway there or the entrance exit on Pleasant Ridge, you said that originally it was less than 100 feet. What is it now? It's about 115 feet from center line to center line approximately. Okay, thanks. Mr. Holmes? Yeah, you talk about the 15-foot buffer. Will that be detailed at the final development plan? Yes, sir, it will be, and it is platted. So we ask that that information be added to this plan because it was actually created on a plat. That's one of the unique aspects of this corner lot, that it's got these buffers and setbacks already platted on the property. So at what point do you get into what type of buffer will that be? Will it be, say, a landscape buffer? Yes, sir, Mr. Holmes, in conjunction with the setback as required, they will have to add any planning materials and that sort of thing required under Article 18. Are there other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. Commissioner? Oh, whoops, sorry, forgot the variance or the conditional use. We do have one more report to present to you today. This item is on page two of your agenda, item B. There is a request for a conditional use permit involved with this zone change. That indicates the C in MARC 2010-2. Our report is the second page in your notebook under tab number one. The zoning ordinance does allow the Planning Commission to hear and consider requests for conditional use permits that are filed in conjunction with zone change requests. The zoning ordinance states that in the proposed B1 zone, an animal hospital or clinic is a conditional use. However, the ordinance also says that such a use must have several circumstances associated with it. One, all exterior walls must be completely soundproofed to allow that use. Secondly, all animal pens must be within the principal building. And third, the facility needs to be used for the medical treatment of small animals. Those are all inherent in this conditional use request that's before you this afternoon. As Mr. Martin and Ms. Wade have told you, this small clinic is at the corner of Pleasant Ridge and Timber Creek Drive at the corner of the subdivision. The staff has reviewed this conditional use in light of the development plan and the zone change application. Our review indicates that since all the animals will be cared for inside the building and that there are no exterior pens proposed with this use, we think that subject property is fairly well suited for the proposed use. The setbacks of the building and the parking are generous on the site given the distances from the adjoining residential properties. As the photos indicated, the site is already fenced from those properties. And as Mr. Martin indicated, additional landscaping can be considered at the time a final development plan for the property is offered to the Planning Commission should the rezoning be approved. We think that the design features of the site have been provided in such a fashion to minimize the potential for negative impact to the neighbors for this proposed use. The staff, as we reported to you at your zoning committee meeting, has recommended approval of this conditional use permit for an animal hospital or clinic at this location for two reasons. The first being a small hospital or clinic should not adversely affect the surrounding properties to this location. And secondly, we find that all public facilities and services that are necessary for this use are available and adequate at this location. Our recommendation does also have four conditions associated with the approval. The first two are what I would call standard conditions. They're listed on the agenda. The last two bear a brief mention. The third condition is that all exterior walls of the building shall be completely soundproofed. As I mentioned, that is part of the ordinance. Finally, all cages and pens shall be located inside the building and in the treatment of animals. They may not be used generally for boarding purposes. At this time, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about our report or our recommendation on the conditional use permit portion of the application today. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Are there any comments or questions? Mr. Grifens. What level of soundproofing? Is there some detail on that or is it just up to somebody? There is no detail that's been provided by the applicant. Generally, that is done at the time of occupancy and building permits with the Division of Building Inspection. They are very familiar with this section of the ordinance and will evaluate things like the thickness of drywall, the window treatments, and things of that nature. If the Commission desired, we could reconsider that at the time of the final development plan, but I think that is an ordinary kind of on-the-list item for building inspection. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Petitioner. Good afternoon. My name is Nick Nicholson. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Brighton Animal Clinic. We are in agreement with the staff with regards to the zoning recommendations and the conditional use permit, and we welcome any questions that you all might have. Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment? Seeing none, we will close this portion and turn it over to the Commission for discussion or for motion. Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve MARC-2010-2, Brighton Animal Clinic, and I do the conditional use at the same time, including the conditional use for the reasons provided by staff. Motion has been made. Is there a second? Yes, we will do that. Motion has been made and seconded. Please vote electronically. It comes up. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I'll make a motion to approve ZDP-2010-36, Man o' War. Is there a second? Motion? Yes. The deletion of 17. Including the deletion of note 17. There is a second. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson, members of the Commission, our next item can be found on page 3 of your agenda and also behind tab 3 in your notebooks. This is MARV-2010-4, and it's a request by Virginia Bates. This is a zone change from a light industrial, which is our I-1 zone, to a highway service business B-3 zone for approximately one-third of an acre at 635 New Circle Road. And I apologize. As I was over there, I forgot I have two letters of objection. Tom, could you grab those? They're at my place, and I'll have him circulate those in regard to the zone change. In addition to the zone change at this location, the applicant is requesting a variance. The subject property is located on the east side of New Circle Road, and it is currently an I-1 zone and is bound on two sides, the northeast and northwest sides by light industrial zoning, and it is bound on the southwest and the southeast sides by B-3 zoning, the requested zone. Also in the vicinity, there is some R-1D zoning to the north. It is not adjacent to the subject property, but it is within close proximity. That is part of the Rickwood subdivision. Uses in the area include the Greens Toyota dealership across New Circle Road, a new central bank at the corner of Sunshine Lane and New Circle, just adjacent to the subject property. And along the I-1 property to the northwest is a large transmission line that is, I guess, a KU transmission line. So technically it doesn't have a building on it, but it is being used by the utility. The one thing I would mention is there's some residential zoning along New Circle just to the south, and this is Gates Elementary School, approximately 500 feet from this location. The property does have a structure on it, and the applicant is proposing to reuse the existing structure. Their proposed use is for retail trade and what building inspection considers a beauty shop. Their proposed use more specifically does include body piercing and tattoos. Both a retail use and a beauty shop are both principal uses in the B-3 zone. The 2007 – actually, before I get to the comp plan, let me go through a few photos. This photograph does show the subject property, and it has kind of an odd-shaped structure on it. In addition, the industrial use to the rear, which has a rather large building. In this aerial photograph, the central bank is under construction just to the southeast, and then the large car dealership across New Circle Road. Single family lots to the north. You might note that all of the ones in this picture appear to be vacant, and that is because LFUCG purchased those within the last 10 years in terms of mitigating a flood issue along Dartmoor in that area. This is the structure as it appears today from the front of the central bank property looking at the front of the building. You can see there's also a billboard at this location. This is the rear of the building, and this will come into play in terms of the variance that's requested for zone-to-zone screening. You can see there is a small structure that's one story. It looks to be possibly an addition that the previous owner was putting on that possibly was never finished. It is a two-story building at the rear and a one-story in the front. This is the northwest property line, and it is adjacent to the transmission line, and you can see where the pavement is and the building edge are approximately the property line in this location. And this is the southeast property line. You can see where central bank has done new landscaping with the trees and shrubs as well as a small iron fence and curb to provide the buffer that they are required to have. Another aerial photograph showing the existing industrial uses in the area. In this photo, you can also see where Yates Elementary School is to the south and, again, where the single-family lots are vacant, but the rest of the neighborhood has been built out. Just looking to the south rather than the north at this viewpoint. And then lastly, the comprehensive plan does recommend highway commercial and interchange commercial. And in this location, again, because it's not at an interchange, that would indicate retail trade-type uses and personal services. This is a very common land-use recommendation along New Circle Road as well as the retail trade land use. B3 is also a very common zoning category along New Circle Road, and since that is what the applicant is requesting, the staff feels that it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and it also is consistent and compatible with the adjacent zoning in this location. However, because of the single-family zoning and use just to the north and the elementary school to the south, staff is recommending conditional zoning restrictions. In summary, the zoning committee and the staff are recommending approval because the zone change request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and is compatible within the immediate area. And there are four land-use categories or uses that the staff is recommending be prohibited at this location, and those include adult uses. They'll be listed on your agenda and the staff report. The adult uses include adult arcades, massage parlors, bookstores, video stores, et cetera. Also suggesting prohibiting cocktail lounges and nightclubs, kennels, and then outdoor loudspeakers or music. Again, the staff feels these restrictions are necessary and appropriate at this location due to the proximity to single-family residential as well as the Yates Elementary School to prevent the most intense and detrimental land uses at this location. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Are there questions for Zwei? Thank you very much. Good afternoon. If you would turn to page 4, we're going to look at item C, ZDP 2010-34. It's H. H. Howard and Carolyn Lee, Thomas Property. As Tracy explained, this is located at 635 East New Circle Road. They have presented a final development plan showing the existing building on the lot, showing this is New Circle Road, how the building faces New Circle Road on the north side. They have their pavement and their landscaping along the front and rear and the side of the property. The subdivision committee has reviewed the plan and has recommended approval with 14 conditions. The first one, that the council approves the zone change. Conditions 2 through 5 are just sign-off conditions from different agencies. 6 through 11 are clean-up conditions. We have three discussion questions. Number 13 is discussed access and circulation. After speaking with the engineer and traffic and solid waste, the access and circulation to this property is in a right-in, right-out type situation because we have median through New Circle Road at this point. And so we resolve that situation. We also have number 14, discussed vehicular use screening. As Tracy noted, that there is a variance been requested for the landscaping. So Bill is going to present that to us. On the condition 12, we had discussed plan status. They submitted a final development plan, and there was a question whether or not they would be able to meet our discussion questions. But since they've been able to resolve these, we believe that now this, with their final development plan, that they have met the status. With that, if you all have any questions. Are there any questions? You all recommended then that we could delete. Approval. The committee had recommended approval for this plan. With the deletion of number 12, is that what you just? Yes. And then the condition number 13 to resolve, which is the access and circulation. Thank you. Are there any questions? Commission members? Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Sally. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next item is on page four, item B of your meeting. There has been a request for a variance filed by the applicant since your zoning and subdivision committee meetings on July 1st. This staff report for this item should be the second report under tab two in your notebooks. The requested variance is to reduce the required perimeter property screening for the subject property along its borders or proposed borders with light industrial zoning, and that variance is from a dimension of 15 feet to zero feet along the northeast and northwest property lines. Article six of the zoning ordinance does allow the planning commission to give consideration to variances when they are requested in conjunction with rezoning applications, such as the one Ms. Wade has described to you. Ms. Gault was correct. The condition number 14 listed on your development plan is a result of this application, and should the planning commission approve this variance, then that discussion item could be stricken from your consideration of the development plan. We've rendered on the development plan the extent of the variance that is proposed. Article 18 of the zoning ordinance requires a 15-foot buffer be established when a business zone adjoins an industrial zone, and if the property is rezoned as requested, that would be necessary along these two property lines. There are two different colors indicated on this exhibit. That is because there are two different options for this buffering. At a minimum, a 5-foot buffer is required by the ordinance that consists of a solid fence, berm, or wall. However, if those are not provided, then the buffer must be a minimum of 15 feet in width that contains thick landscaping material. The applicant has asked that this buffer not be required along the subject property. We have a photo on the overhead that I think can describe well the existing condition of the property. I'd like to point out a couple of items to you. This is looking from the north to the south at the rear of the subject property. This is New Circle Road, the right-in, right-out access that Ms. Galt described. This is the rear of the subject property, and there's a light industrial user adjacent. To the northwest is an electric utility, of course, a tall pole there. The subject property, the building, is constructed on the property line, and the portion from the corner of the building to New Circle Road is encumbered by an access easement for the electric utility. Staff believes that requiring the landscape buffer in this location would be a hardship to the applicant, requiring a portion of the building be removed and a renegotiation of an easement that's been in effect almost 60 years. The small addition that was started and not completed that Ms. Wade described in her presentation is proposed to remain, and that virtually is the only true solid screening proposed as part of the development. In looking at the rear of the property, there is a great elevation change from about the midpoint of the property back to the industrial neighbor, and there is some question that if the buffer were constructed at this location, it might not even be visible from New Circle Road because, as the photos indicated, it is a one-story building on the front that slopes down to a two-story appearance to the rear. From a practical standpoint, a buffer along that portion of the property would probably serve the subject property more than the adjacent industrial use, in the staff's opinion at least. The Landscape Review Committee met on Tuesday of this week and reviewed this application and did not voice any objections to the extent of the landscape variance proposed. The applicant is proposing to widen the landscape buffer area along the rear of the property, but is still requesting a full variance to give them the maximum amount of flexibility in augmenting the fencing and the existing volunteer landscape material that exists along that property line. The staff has recommended approval of the requested landscape variance for several reasons. First, we find that granting the variance would not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor alter the general character of this immediate vicinity. Secondly, we do not believe that the approval of this variance would result in an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance. Thirdly, the special circumstances that we find with the subject property are the adjacent access easement for the utility and the fact that the subject property does slope considerably down from New Circle Road to the rear property line, meaning that landscaping would have minimal value if it were provided along the rear property line. Fourthly, we believe strict application of the zoning ordinance would create an unnecessary hardship to the applicant, requiring one of several things, including possible removal or demolition of part of the existing building and renegotiation of the easement that I mentioned earlier. Finally, we find that the circumstances surrounding this variance are not the result of actions taken by the applicant since the development of this property was done decades ago, long before the applicant had any interest in acquiring this property. We do have a recommendation that has a number of conditions tied to it. The first four I would categorize as fairly routine, including a note be added to the development plan under D that all necessary permits shall be issued by the Division of Building Inspection prior to occupancy of this property. In terms of condition number E, that condition suggests that the access easement that the utility has a right to be denoted on the development plan. I would point out that easement is noted on the development plan. It is not dimensioned, and so this condition was intended to more clearly delineate the bounds of this easement. We understand from talking with the applicant's attorney earlier today that that easement is undefined, so that particular condition could be deleted. It would not result in any additional information to the development plan that already exists. Finally, the most unusual condition is the last one, item F. The existing wing walls on the northern end of the existing building should be removed if that area is to be used for off-street parking. As the development plan suggests, two off-street parking spaces are proposed at that location. The off-street parking is very tight on this site, and just for safety purposes should the variance be approved, the exterior walls on that uncompleted addition, if you will, would serve as some screening. However, the entrance to those parking spaces, the walls do need to be removed in those locations, and that's what that condition F recommends. With that, I would be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about our recommendation to you on the landscape variance portion of the application. Are there questions for Mr. Owens? Mr. Owens? Bill, on that last one that you were mentioning, the wing walls, if I remember right, you're talking about the concrete block walls that looked like there was an addition started that never did get finished. Yes, sir. Are you talking about both walls or just one wall? We're referring to the wing walls as the ones that are at an angle, and generally this location on the property, not the two, if you will, exterior walls to the unfinished addition. The other question I've got, the easement, the property to the northwest, that's not part of this property? The property line's actually running that black line? Yes, this is the property line. The power pole is adjacent, and they basically have a right to come across the subject property to get to their property. Are there other questions? No, thank you, Mr. Salley. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy, representing the applicant, Virginia Bates, and with me today on the second row is Virginia Bates and her partner, Jonathan Smith, and also Mike Robbins from Foster Roland, our design firm, is here, and Chas Hyde, a planner, is here with us as well. Two people could not be here today. One, the estate representatives. This is owned by, as the staff mentioned, the estate of Mr. H.H. Thomas, and John Pittman is his executor. John was the son-in-law of Mr. Thomas. He is out of town. And Foster Pettit, a former law partner, is the attorney for the estate. He also was the son-in-law of Mr. Thomas. They both had to be out of town. They expressed their regrets for not being here, but they're, of course, both Mr. Pittman and Mr. Pettit are in support of this application. Just to give you a little history of this, as staff mentioned, this was owned by Mr. Thomas, and he operated originally, probably started in the late 50s, a metal shop on this property. He made metal parts. As I understand, he made parts for IBM, perhaps in the Selectic typewriter, and used it later on for other metal type uses. It went out of business. The last 10 or 15 years, it's been used primarily for different used car sales facilities on this property. As the staff mentioned, I have a few pictures of the area too, just wanted to show the staff mentioned the business and industrial uses around us. That is a picture of the building. That's the staff's picture. The bright yellow color is going to change on that building. Well, this didn't come out real well. This is a picture of, maybe we're adjusting the brightness on this. This is looking north, and I put this in along New Circle Road. Here's New Circle here. We're looking north. I put this in to show the base of the steel transmission tower. These are, as you can see in the staff's pictures, this isn't just a telephone pole with lines on it. This is a high voltage transmission line which goes through there. On the other side, you can see one of the used car lots. Then on the next picture, picture two, we show the, again, this is a view looking to the north, which would be to the left of the property as you're facing it from New Circle Road. This is what's our neighbor right on the other side of the KU transmission easement. This is the Tri-City Auto, and on the other side of that is Key Auto. Next picture is right behind us. This is another view of that warehouse you saw in the aerial photograph. You'll actually more see this long side of the building than this side, but this is a long windowless warehouse facility behind us. I don't know what they do there. They have, the warehouse has erected a chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire which are directly along our back property line through there. The next picture is across New Circle Road. That's Greene's Toyota, as the staff mentioned, and then the last picture I took, and hopefully we can see this on here, I took it just to show the median on New Circle Road. Since it's been reconstructed, that out there is a non-mountable median. I didn't go out to measure it because of traffic, but it's about eight inches in height, and it's a solid curb, and what that has done is prevent left turns into this property or out of it, and not only for this property, but for all the properties along New Circle Road. They've made it a safer situation if you, here's our frontage right here, if you're coming south on New Circle Road and want to get here, you are allowed to take a U-turn on those signs. If you see those new signs, you can take a U-turn or you can turn left, and if you want to come in here from that lane, you have to go up to the light, make the U-turn, and come back here. So it results in a safer situation. We have, as a result, only a right in, right out situation out of this property, which is a safer situation. On the development plan, just had a couple things. I think we've addressed most of the major issues on this plan. Right now, we have, this property is essentially paved border to border. There's a little bit of green space along the front of the building here, but other than that, it's paved property line to property line. We will be, as you can see, adding some grass, some grassier landscaped areas through here, taking out some of the paving to do what landscaping we can on here. You can see we have some along the right side, along Central Bank. We have added some in the rear, along the industrial area here, and we really don't have much opportunity to do it along here. This addition in the back, I talked to Mr. Pittman and Mr. Pettit about that, and apparently a previous tenant had wanted to do an addition and started it, then realized it was either in an easement or a required yard and could not finish it. But it did, the walls actually are allowed as fences or walls and actually do provide better screening up against the chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire than what they had there before. So the owners allowed that part to stay and that's legal, that's a legal wall under building inspection. It just wouldn't have been legal to be a building there. So that's sort of the background on that and used for parking. We plan on using it for parking, too. We agree with the staff recommendation about taking off those portions of the wall. And while I'm mentioning that, remind me to say we do agree with all of the staff recommendations as they have related to you. But we have, through the process, we've worked with the various divisions. Of course, as far as stormwater goes, we're reducing the amount of impervious surface and they've indicated this is a sufficient plan. We've worked with traffic engineering. We've worked with solid waste on the location of the dumpster and we've had approvals from all those agencies. And we are, as the staff mentioned, therefore going ahead with this as a final development plan as it is labeled on the plan right now. The wanted to discuss the variants a little bit. As the staff mentioned, we are requesting a variance. There was a little uncertainty as to whether we needed a variance because really it's designed to be put on the industrial property to screen it from us since we are the lower intensity land use. But since the industrial property is developed, it was building inspections ruling that technically a variance is needed. So we did apply for the variance. They indicated they didn't have a problem with granting the variance, just that we needed to get one on here. As the staff mentioned on this left side of the property, the building is built on the property line. We have verified that through on the ground field surveys that the building is on the property line. On the front here, the easement that was granted 60 years ago to Kentucky Utilities, actually these are two lots, but the same person owned both lots at this time. Our lot and the lot that the easement is on, and the easement requires this property to grant access into the utility easement over this property. As you probably saw in the pictures, there's no direct access from New Circle into the easement because of that big steel tower sitting there. And I talked to Mr. Pittman, the executor today, who is very familiar with the property since it was in his family, and said that, yes, that they're required to keep that open because when there's an emergency, that's how the KU trucks get into that transmission line, and that is required to be kept open. So we don't have an opportunity for it here. In the rear of the property, as we mentioned, right behind us is that long windowless warehouse building along there, which you can't even see out to this property anyway. They have chosen to construct the chain link fence with the barbed wire on the top. We are going to put planting area in there as we can on there to add some landscape area to the property, but we cannot meet the full extent of that. As the staff mentioned, the elevation is up here is such that even if you're looking back, you're not going to be probably even able to see that, even if the screening were provided on that property. And as I said, we do agree with the conditions of approval that the staff has recommended. As the staff mentioned, this zone change does agree with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan recommends highway service or interchange service business use for this property. We're requesting the B3 zone, which is the highway service business zone, which allows the range of retail uses which the comprehensive plan recommends. So we are in total agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan on this property. But I do want to discuss the issue about the use of this property, because I know in the letter that the Eastland Parkway Neighborhood Association sent to you, they have expressed some concerns about our proposed use. We have mentioned to the Zoning Committee and the Subdivision Committee some of the planned use for this property as an establishment which does tattoos and body cursing. And that's not the only use for the property. They'll be selling retail. They'll be selling clothing, jewelry, sunglasses, candles, that sort of thing, and some discussion of having other artistic pursuits such as photography and blast blowing and that sort of thing. But part of it is, as we mentioned, tattooing and body piercing. And the letter from the neighborhood said that they did not approve of that use, and that's their right to express that sentiment to you. But they also did say that this was an adult use and likened it to the stretch of Winchester Road where all the strip clubs and adult bookstores are located. And we take issue with that. And first of all, we take issue because Ms. Bates has agreed to the condition which the staff has asked you to impose, she's agreed to it, about prohibiting adult uses on this property. So she is agreeing to a condition which will prohibit all those adult uses, the strip clubs, the adult bookstores. I talked to Mr. Mathers on the telephone, who's the president of the Eastland Parkway Neighborhood Association, and he said the neighborhood did not want a hustler store in this area. And this will absolutely not be that hustler store or that type of store. And not only has Ms. Bates said it won't be, but the staff is asking for a condition which we agreed to which would prohibit that type of use from coming on this property. As far as the tattoos and body piercing in general, that use is regulated by the health department. It's inspected by the health department. You have to meet high standards from the health department. The building inspection classifies these as beauty salons under the ordinance, and it makes sense because people get tattoo artists consider themselves artists, and people receive tattoos because they feel that that is an artistic statement. They feel it improves their appearance. Now for somebody of my age, my generation, maybe we don't agree with that. But one of the interesting things about doing zoning work is you learn a lot of things about a lot of different things you didn't know about before. And in looking at tattoos, the Pew Trust did a, there's a Pew Research Center which I think is affiliated with the Pew Trust which is a public policy institute, that did a survey three years ago in 2007 which indicates that in the age group of 26 to 40, 40% of all Americans have a tattoo. 40%, 4 out of 10, almost half of all Americans in that age group have a tattoo. U.S. News and World Report reported that in the 1990s, this type of use was the sixth fastest growing retail venture in the United States. I talked to Mr. Pittman today, the executor, he's in, was in Sarasota, Florida, happened, and he said, I expressed the concern that the neighborhood has expressed to him. He said, well, my goodness, he said, I'm here in Sarasota and this is considered an important part of the business, part of the community down here. It's mainstream. You know, it's considered a normal thing down here. So, and a lot of people have tattoos not only for what they consider artistic reasons, there are cosmetic reasons, for instance, camouflaging, scarring from operations, people get them to put in eyebrows if they don't have eyebrows anymore. People have used them for lip liners and that sort of thing. So there's many different reasons people do this. But it has become not something which is some small subculture, but it's become something which is a mainstream part of society. And we feel that here on New Circle Road, which is a major retail quarter of this community, it's appropriate to have something which serves at least 40% of an important demographic of the adult community. I would point out, too, that we do not directly border any residential zoning. Now, we do have some on Dartmoor Court, which is relatively close that Tracy had mentioned. The closest lots over there have been raised. They're vacant due to that flood control project that she mentioned. But even to get there, you cannot walk to this facility. I mean, maybe that's good or maybe that's bad. In this part of the community, you cannot walk to this facility because we have a fence in the back with three strands of barbed wire, which we did not put up, but which is there, which prevents any pedestrian access that direction from the neighborhood. To get there along the road system, it's almost a mile because you have to drive up New Circle Road, which does not have sidewalks, into the neighborhood and up there. I'm just pointing that out to mention to you that we don't have direct contact or access into the residential area, if that is a concern for some of the people. The, and again, you're looking today at the zoning, the B3 zoning of the property, whether that is the appropriate zone for this property, not necessarily this particular use. As you know, uses do change. Even though that is part of the proposed use, which is coming in here, that does not mean it will be a permanent use. The permanent uses will be only those allowed in the B3 zone, which do not conflict with the restrictive zoning conditions, which are being requested by the planning staff. And again, I guess I'll save any, I'd like to respond to whatever neighborhood comments there are. We certainly recognize that Eastland Parkway Association or the neighborhood is an outstanding neighborhood. We certainly recognize their right to come here and voice their concerns to you. I think we also, as a property owner, have a right to present our concerns to you and point out to you that this is a service. It's truly a service which appeals to a very large segment of the population and is an accepted part of life now, not only in Lexington, but across the country. We agree with the comprehensive plan. The staff has recommended approval, as have the subdivision committee and the zoning committee and the landscape review committee. We agree with all of the conditions that the staff has put, both on the zone change, the conditions of approval on the development plan, as they have discussed. Some of them can be deleted, as they discussed, and the conditions on the variance. Mr. Selley mentioned one of those could be deleted, too. And I think this is a good adaptive reuse of this building out here. We need to have a greater range of uses than the used car lots that have been in here. I think it's a good use for this property, and I think it's going to be a good use for the area. We thank you very much, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Mr. Mervy, can you just briefly explain what you're proposing as far as the landscape buffering or the landscaping, particularly on the back side of the property and then on the right side of the property as well? We have, on the rear, we are proposing marker here. Here is where the wall is, which does screen the back of the building. So the wall is right on the line, right up against that chain link fence, so we're not proposing anything right here. Right here in this area, from about this point here, we have three feet of pavement, which will be removed and planted. We haven't proposed any particular plantings there. We have to work within the confines of what we have. Here it's six feet wide, a little wider down in this area. Here we have removed, we're going to be removing paving along the right side. I don't have a scale with me, but it appears that this may be about 15 feet or so at this point, tapering down to a narrower area. We haven't gotten into what precisely we'd be planting on there as far as trees. We're a little, again, constrained on sites, so we'll have to be looking into that. But that's what, and that's all not there today. This is all the result of removing pavement. One other question as far as the operation itself. Do you have any idea what Ms. Bates is planning as far as the hours of operation? No. She's guessing, estimating probably 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., something like that. Thank you. Are there other questions? Mr. Kravitz. Is this a new business? Yes. Completely. They don't have another location now? She has worked in other locations, but this would be a new business coming in here. Other questions? Thank you, Mr. Murphy. At this time, we will hear from any citizens that have comments that they'd like to make. First of all, I'll call for citizens who are in favor of this proposal. If not, we'll hear from those who are against the proposal. At this time, three minutes per person. If you'll please state your name and address, please, for the record. My name is Eleanor Leonard. My husband and I live at 1806 Charleston Drive. We've lived there since 1974. And we're some of the founders and initiators of the Eastland Parkway Neighborhood Association, which was incorporated in 1981. You have received, as I heard, a letter from our current president, who is out of town at this time. I do ask that you read it and consider it in this hearing. And I believe there's another letter in opposition also. I hope you will consider. The reason Eastland Parkway is interested in this is that Eastland Parkway Neighborhood Association includes in their area property up to New Circle Road and to the old railroad bed. And that would include Sunshine Lane and also Kilkenny. Where Sunshine Lane would meet if there weren't a barricade there. So any resident could walk down that lane, cross the barricade, and walk right up to this property. Our neighborhood, it was developed in the 50s and 60s. We have apartments, four plexes. Single family brick homes. It's an older neighborhood. And our association spends a lot of time and effort to make sure that it does not decline, as so many older neighborhoods can do. We are family oriented. And we want to maintain that. Many of our members are on vacation right now and can't be here, but we do have a group of us here. Seven of us, I believe, are here. Like our president, many people are on vacation. And, of course, many people work this time of day. We have three reasons why we object to this. The first one is the business itself. We do not think that a tattoo and piercing business is conducive to our family oriented neighborhood. We have many young children, most of whom attend one of the two elementary schools in the area, Dixie Magnet School and Yates Elementary. Yates is in our area. It's just not a type of business that we want our children exposed to and so close and accessible to. Number two, we feel there's no compelling reason to make this change. If someone absolutely must have a tattoo or body piercing, there is a tattoo parlor, just a few blocks north of this location, on the other side of New Circle Road, or they can go right to Eastland and Winchester Road, right across from Eastland, excuse me, Winchester Road, right across from Eastland Shopping Center. There is another tattoo business. So the public is well served in our area by this business. Not the space business, but by the business of tattoo and piercing. There's plenty of B3 property all over this area along New Circle Road, and we feel there's plenty other places where this business could locate. We don't think there's any need to make the change. We need I1 and B3 along New Circle Road. And for that, that is one of the reasons. The third reason we object, I think is taken care of by the conditions, so I urge you to adopt those conditions if you do accept their petition. But if it is changed to B3 and those conditions are not accepted, it's just a little farther than 500 feet from the school, and it would meet the criteria for an adult business if Ms. Bates decided no longer to have her business there. And we are very concerned about that, because we have enough adult businesses in our general area on New Circle Road. And for those three reasons, we object to this change. There may be some other members of our neighborhood association who wish to speak, and I'll be happy to turn it over to them. Thank you, Ms. Leonard. Are there others who would like to speak? Come forward and give your name and address, please. I'm Karen Criccio. I live at 1602 Martha Court. I thank you for hearing us and all the people that could be here today. Because of the time frame, many of us are working, and also the fact is all you have is the strong and the hardy retirees that are here, so I'm among those. But I want you to just focus on the children. I was a community health nurse for 25 years at the health department, and that was my neighborhood. That is my neighborhood. I lived in the home we are now on Martha Court for 25 years. There's multitudes of children all over in the apartments, on Jennifer Road, and that area is very accessible to walk to. I've walked there to Greene's Toyota, because we own Toyotas, and I've crossed the street. You can easily get there from the back of Yates School all the way over to this establishment. Just think about the children. Would you want your grandbabies? Would you want your children associated with anything like this? I don't know what else to say. I have to reinforce that, because I'm so inclined to, but it is definitely a children problem, too. I know what they want to do, but think of our children and all the multitudes that really are in that neighborhood. Any questions I can answer? Thank you very much. Are there others who would like to speak? If not, then we will go to rebuttal and closing statements. Petitioner? As I said, we fully respect the neighborhood. It's an outstanding neighborhood, but we just have a different view on we cannot agree that this would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. As I said, it would be extremely difficult to walk here. Obviously, it's not impossible, but it's difficult to walk here. It's certainly not easy to walk here to this site if that's an issue. And as far as the children go, that is a choice that parents make. As all of us who are parents know, we have to make decisions for our children and direct them to what they cannot do as they grow up. You cannot get a tattoo in Kentucky if you're under 18 unless you have an express, written, signed, notarized consent of your parent. Tattoos are not given, and Ms. Bates would be very careful about that, that they cannot be done. And as I said, they're regulated by the health department or they cannot be in that business. The discussion, if there are others in the area, maybe there are. Obviously, we don't think there would be those of this quality in the neighborhood, but on the other hand, it's not the role of zoning to regulate economic competition. In other words, there have been a lot of case laws around the country. They've refused to zone for Kmart just because there's a Walmart there. You have to look at the land. It's not trying to balance economic competition. It's what the proper use of the land is going to be. And again, looking at this land, this property is vacant. I've talked to the owners of the property, Mr. Pittman, Mr. Pettit. They have tried to sell this property as I-1 light industrial property. The problem they have on this is as all industrial processes go, the small, this is a third of an acre property with an even smaller building on it. Back when they were building Selectric typewriters at IBM, they did job a lot of that business out to small shops around Lexington and central Kentucky. And there were a lot of businesses that really prospered when they were making those. In today's atmosphere, business atmosphere, it's a little different. Now, Mr. Brewer, you know a lot more about me about what they did back in Selectric typewriters, but it's a little different now in that buildings of this size just can't make it in the manufacturing type climate right now. It's too small to attract manufacturing type use, which leaves in the I-1 zone really the default use is what? Basically in this stretch with the used car lots we have on the other side, it's selling used cars. They haven't been able to market it successfully for that use in this. This is a, again, as far as the adult use, as I've mentioned to you, this is not an adult use under our ordinance or I think in anybody's conception of it. For adult uses, for the strip clubs and the adult bookstores, they, yes, they are allowed a B-3. They do have a 500-foot spacing from residential and schools and that sort of thing. But Ms. Bates has agreed to a condition that we not do any adult uses on this property. And she's agreed to that happily and voluntarily that there will never be adult uses on this property if you impose the conditional zoning restriction, obviously unless that's changed, but we have no intention of changing that and it would have to come back through you and the City Council to change that. So she has agreed to the condition that those not ever be on this property as well as the other conditions which the staff has recommended to you as well. And again, I guess we just have a philosophical issue. I understand that and choices for children are what parents have to make for them. As was pointed out, there are tattoo establishments in the area which children will see. I don't think seeing something is necessarily good or bad. It can prompt discussion about whether somebody ought to have a tattoo if they want it in the future. But it's a choice that parents make. But my other point is it's a choice that adults make too. And as I pointed out to you, there's 40% of that 26 to 40 demographic have tattoos. This is not some strange subculture of people that are going to be running down the neighborhood. This is the people you see every day in your everyday business at church or whatever who may want to have a tattoo. They may want to do it because they feel it's artistic and makes them look better. They may want to do it because they've had surgery. But there are many reasons people do it. There are many people who do it. And just because I or somebody else wouldn't want to do it doesn't mean I should deny a person the right to have a legitimate business, which is a mainstream business, which is wanted by many people. But again, I want to direct you back that the decision you're making today is on B3 zoning for this property. It's not particularly on this use or any other particular use in B3, but whether B3 is the appropriate use for this property. And looking at everything we have, looking at the comprehensive plan, looking at what the staff has recommended, looking at what's around us, central bank is around us. They're, by the way, the lender who's going to be lending to Ms. Bates to buy this property. We feel this will be a good use for this property. We feel B3 is a good use for the property. The police, by the way, looked at this as part of the review for the technical committee. They submitted a report. In their words, no concerns with this property. And I think this is a better use for the property than the sort of hit or miss uses we've been able to have over the last few years on the property. And I'll leave it at that. We feel this is the correct zoning to put on the property. And we think with the conditions that the staff is asking us to agree to, which we have agreed to, this is the appropriate zone for the property. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Is there anyone from the objectors who would like to comment in rebuttal? Would you come to the microphone, please? Thank you. I wanted to know if Mr. Murphy could check with the health department. I believe that it is checked by the state health department, not the local health department. And if that's the case, I'm not sure how easy that would be inspected. That's where I am. Okay, thanks. Thank you. I'm informed that it's county health department inspection. They inspect at least two times on surprise visits throughout the year to these establishments. Thank you. Staff? Staff has no rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. Then we will close the hearing and I will turn it over to the commission members. We will need to take these votes in order, the zoning first, then the variance, and then the subdivision plan. Comments? I'm not sure if it would be for Bill Selle or one of the staff. My concern right now is the concrete block walls that's in the back. They're being mentioned as a visible barrier, et cetera. My personal thoughts are they don't like them. It looks like a cubby hole for who knows what to occur. Are they allowed? Would they be allowed? Were they built under a permit? Do we know? Personally, I like to see them come down with a chain link fence. But that's my thoughts. Those are my questions. I believe that the walls are permitted as one of the options for landscape screening. I'm not sure whether the interrupted addition, let's call it, was ever issued a permit by building inspection. Generally, when you see that type of thing, and it's not completed either, it's a financing issue or a permitting issue. I think the commission does have the ability to require the walls to be removed if you desire that. Since this is a final development plan, this is probably the time to make that decision as to whether all the walls need to come down or a portion of them can remain. Thanks, Bill. Certainly. Certainly. Mr. Murphy, what would your feelings be as to that wall? We were discussing that as you asked the question of Mr. Sellee. And probably the concern that had come up is that the easement and the car lots on the other side don't maintain the grass and the weeds and stuff. And the wall, at least on that side, does prevent that from coming over on this property and screens the On the other hand, if you all would feel better with those walls coming down, they would be okay with taking those walls down. I just wanted to give you some of the other thinking on that with screening the property on the other side on that. But they're okay with taking those down if you all feel they ought to come down. Are there other comments from any of the commission members? I'm sorry, what? Give a comment. In general, my thoughts, you know, one, I appreciate the concerns of the neighborhood as it relates to the children. And I do agree with Mr. Murphy in that fact that I firmly believe that the values start at home. Because I do remember at a very young age if I attempted something like that, I would probably have had a permanent type of tattoo from my father on my backside. But, you know, I do agree with that fact. The way I see this, this is a legitimate business and would be governed by the county health department per se. And, you know, for those reasons, personally I would like to see the walls come down. I think an open atmosphere back there would be more conducive for safety as far as I'm concerned. But, you know, otherwise, you know, I'm okay with what has been proposed here today. I do have one question. I believe that you said that the police had looked at, you brought up that safety problem. The police had looked at that area and did not see any safety problems because of the wall the wall was creating? I believe Mr. Murphy mentioned that. I am not sure from the technical committee meeting about a month ago whether the police department was in attendance at that meeting or not. I cannot say, all the departments have to respond to the plans and tell you now under the new system you all have whether they have concerns. And as you can see in the bottom, it says no concerns. On the other hand, I do not know whether they looked at this wall particularly or not. Okay? So I cannot say to you that wall in the back was not a concern. They just overall pictured. So you make the decision on that wall. Thank you. I was just a little confused. I heard one thing and then another. So I'm easily confused sometimes. Since there, are there any other comments or concerns from the commission members? If not, then we will, I will entertain a motion on the petition for the zone map amendment MAR 2010-4. Madam Chair, since I've been talking the most here, I'll start this and see where we go with it. I'll move for approval of MAR 2010-4, Virginia Fades. As far as the zone change is concerned, I would like, well, let's see here. We're just doing the zone change. Yeah, that would just be for the zone change itself. And then the variance would come later? Okay. So I'll move for approval of the zone change itself, MAR 2004-10. Is there a second? Motion is made and second. Please vote electronically. Motion carries for MAR 2010-4 for the zoning. Now the chair will entertain a motion regarding MAR V 2010-4, which is the variance that has been requested. I'll continue my efforts. I'll move for approval of MAR V 2010-4, Virginia Fades, the variance regarding landscaping. Is that deleting number E under the recommendations of approval? Yes, ma'am. The motion has been made to approve MAR V 2000-4 with the elimination of item E under the recommendations of approval from the staff. Do I hear a second? Motion is made and second. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Now we will take the subdivision committee ZDP 2010-36. I suppose I'll continue. Quick question as far as number 14. Are we rewarding that as far as resolving? My understanding was that we were going to delete 12 and resolve 13. Is that correct? 14 is now being deleted. 14 would now be deleted because of the variance. I would like to move for approval of ZDP 2010-34 with the current 11 conditions deleting 12, making 13 to resolve access and circulation. I would like to add for the removal of the concrete block walls behind the building. Are you deleting number 14? Deleting 14, yes. But you're adding one back? Adding one back, yes, ma'am. Sarah? It might be helpful to add that the conditional zoning restrictions need to be denoted on the plan as well. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. The conditional zoning restrictions need to be denoted on the plan as well. The conditional zoning restrictions, yes, as far as adult arcades, massage parlors, etc., cocktail lounges and nightclubs, kennels, and outdoor loudspeakers for music be noted. There's a second. All in favor, please vote aye electronically, or nay. Motion carries. Thank you very much. The next item on our agenda is commission items, and we do have one commission item. Did we actually vote on the development plan? Yes. We did, didn't we? I just wanted to make sure. Don't scare me like that. We do have one addendum item for the commission. It's the initiation of the tax amendment for allowable transit stop parking reductions. That's a mouthful. And it's in the back of your agenda. Madam Chair, we have prepared an addendum for your meeting. This appears on page 9. It is the only commission item. This is the text amendment that we presented to you last week at your work session. I believe the TAN sheet has been put at your place today with an updated draft of that text amendment. As we talked about last week, this would allow consideration for a parking reduction of up to 10% for big box retail developments that do install park and ride lots on their facilities. If the commission were to initiate this text amendment today, the staff would be preparing the required notification letters to all of our registered neighborhood associations. There are now more than 250 in the county, so that will take a little bit of time. But we would schedule it for a public hearing on a fourth Thursday of a month upcoming for the planning commission. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Are there any questions regarding this initiation? Not. Do I hear a motion from the commission that we initiate this text amendment? Madam Chair, I move that we initiate the text amendment for allowable transit stop parking reductions. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Do any commission members have any other business that needs to come before us? Staff have anything else? Madam Chair, we'd only see if there were any audience items. I'm sorry? We'd only remain to see if there were any audience items. Is there anyone in the audience who has any comments? If not, then meeting adjourned. Thank you very much.