There's nothing in the street that's any different to me And the slogans all they face are kind of high And the parting on the left is now a parting on the right And the fields have all grown longer overnight I'll tip my hat to a new constitution Make a vow for a new revolution I ain't afraid of the change on the left I'll pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday And I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again Don't get fooled again No, no guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Yeah! Meet the new boss Same as the old boss guitar solo I can't stop the way I feel The things we do don't seem real Tell me why can't I help cause we're running out of time Won't you ever tell me this place was given to me She drives me crazy like no one else She drives me crazy and I can't help myself I can't get in the mood people say I'm obsessed Everything you say is lies Don't you believe it's all a surprise When you are true there's no one that knows how She drives me crazy like no one else She drives me crazy and I can't help myself I can't help myself I won't let you fall I won't let you be alone She drives me crazy like no one else She drives me crazy and I can't help myself She drives me crazy like no one else She drives me crazy and I can't help myself She drives me crazy like no one else She drives me crazy She drives me crazy Summertime is finally here That old ballpark man is back in gear out on 49 Man, I can see the lights School's out and the night's rolling Man, just like a long-lost friend You ain't seen it a while Can't help but smile And it's two bare feet on the dashboard Young love and an old Ford Sheepshades and a tattoo and a you-hoo Bottle on the floorboard Perfect song on the radio Sing along cause it's what we know It's a smile It's a kiss It's a sip of wine It's summertime Sweet summertime Temperature says 93 down If the deposit can guarantee But fast swimmin' holds It's nice and cold Bikini bottoms underneath But the boy's heart still skip a beat When them girls shimmy off Them old cutoffs And it's two bare feet on the dashboard Young love and an old Ford Sheepshades and a tattoo and a you-hoo Bottle on the floorboard Perfect song on the radio Sing along cause it's what we know It's a smile It's a kiss It's a sip of wine It's summertime Sweet summertime The more things change The more they stay the same Don't matter how old you are When you know what I'm talkin' bout Yeah, baby, when you got Two bare feet on the dashboard Young love and an old Ford Sheepshades and a tattoo and a you-hoo Bottle rollin' on the floorboard Perfect song on the radio Sing along cause it's what we know It's a smile It's a kiss It's a sip of wine It's summertime Sweet summertime Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh guitar solo When you're young and so in love As we And bewildered by the world we see Why do people hurt us so Only those in love would know What a town without pity can do If we stop to gaze upon a star People talk about how bad we are Ours is not an easy age We're like tigers in a cage What a town without pity can do The young have problems Many problems We need an understanding heart Why don't they help us Try to help us Before this plain granite planet falls apart Take these eager lips and hold me fast I'm afraid this kind of joy can't last How can we keep love alive How can anything survive When these little minds tear you in two What a town without pity can do How can we keep love alive How can anything survive When these little minds tear you in two What a town without pity can do No it isn't very pretty What a town without pity can do music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music music But, you know, that data does, I mean, it acknowledges the existing flooding conditions there that occurred prior to development. And it also defines the floodplain relative to the, you know, conditions after development there. So it's not, you know, it's not like there's never been a floodplain there. You know, it's, there's a creek. There's always a floodplain with a creek. I understand your point, but, and clearly if there's a floodplain there, you're not going to, you're not going to change that doing a development plan. But mine, having not been here at the time that this was passed, I can only guess at what this is. No pun intended for the property. This recommendation to monitor the USGS data with regard to runoff had to have some objective. You don't monitor something to do nothing. So my guess is it was supposed to monitor it and see if the property development was exacerbating the flood beyond what the regular floodplain was. So it seems to me that the wording should have been more definitive as to what the objective was besides just monitoring. And I'm not saying that you wrote the note or it's your fault. I'm just saying that it seems silly to me that we would pass something like that or re-approve it now with a condition on there that, as Lynn put it, is moot. It does nothing. So do we put something else here that does something or do we just move it along? Would you like to answer that? Well, I can just comment to the extent I look at the data periodically that's in there and nothing really jumps out at me as really surprising about what's recorded there. The data doesn't, you know, it's recorded, it's available online, it's accessible to everybody. As far as I know, it always will be. It's not like the data is lost. But again, there's not a, you know, I can't directly correlate that data to the design criteria for the expansionary master, you know, stormwater master plan. It's a difference. Ms. Copeland, did you have a? Yes. I was interested in the SWM method because isn't a floodplain based on a rainfall and then that day, let's say that day's rainfall versus a whole week of rain and the SWM method, doesn't it involve sequential rains and the buildup of water when you can't take any more and the water table's up? And how close are we to having SWM data in this area? I don't really know where that project is. Again, that's being managed in the Division of Water Quality, but I do understand that it's been, it's not progressed as quickly as they'd hoped because of funding limitations over the years. But yeah, that is a continuous simulation model. A SWM would be, it would, you would see, you'd see data throughout the, you know, throughout the duration of a storm. See information, you know, based on that, whereas the traditional method that's been used to use software through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ECRAS, it's called a single event type simulation. So you basically define a floodplain based upon the peak runoff from a storm for the floodplain, for the FEMA floodplain, it's 100-year, 24-hour. So, and that, you know, it defines the lateral limits of the floodplain. It models the, you know, the geographic features, cross-sections of the stream and the floodplain and the culverts and all that go into consideration in the model. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, Hillard, are you comfortable with that language in this, in this plan, leaving it in there? Well, I mean, we don't want to take it out, do we? I mean, I guess I don't object to it being in there. It's a... You want to change it to something else or is this, this work for what we were trying? I mean, it was probably put in there as a trade-off to get it approved. I mean, you know, you just got right down to it, that was probably a compromise and it's remained in there, so it doesn't hurt anything having it in there, right? I don't have any objection to it, I'm just trying to explain, you know, the correlation there and probably didn't do a good job. Does the staff or legal have any other insight onto this, into this recommendation that you'd like to share with us? Just looking at the minutes, the, this condition was offered by the applicant's engineer in 2005 and it's very rare that the planning commission approves a plan on a condition that the staff then take additional action. I think in this case, you know, there has been monitoring. We've not heard from the applicant's engineer to know if they're doing any monitoring of it, you know, for their purposes in developing the property or not. Thank you. Mr. Allman. Mr. Saleh, with what you just said, you referred to the applicant monitoring this. With this recommendation, who, was the city supposed to monitor it? Was federal supposed to monitor it? Was the applicant supposed to monitor it? Who was supposed to monitor it? That was not defined in the minutes. That's the mystery. Do you or the staff or legal have any recommendations on improving this recommendation to, you know, obviously it was put in there, but hasn't done anything in five years. I think you've heard today that engineering is monitoring it. And certainly there, from what I've heard, agreeable to continue to do that. There is some limitation in the data. I think the commission could address who they would want to monitor this information, you know, in reapproving this plan. As of now, we have not heard from the applicant. So maybe we should hold some questions and let the applicant have an opportunity to speak if that's agreeable. Yeah. Thank you. Rory Koehler with EA Partners. I won't be very enlightening since this project was Jerry Vandeweer's back then, and I just came upon it very recently, trying to finish up these plans. Coming into it, I thought the whole holdup on these not being recorded was 404 permit, which we now have. And I thought once the permit was in, the rest of guests was going to meet all the design criteria that we had over the years and approved and we're building to. So I can't really help you with this condition. I don't know how it got there. I wouldn't necessarily expect the city and the Planning Commission to take our recommendations or I guess the applicant. Yes, we've been watching it and everything's good. I assume you guys would want to have some of your own in-house people monitoring and keeping an eye on it. That would be my guess from what was said back then. Seems like we could, under the note, put a period after the words conditions listed below, strike the rest since we don't know what it means and go on with approval. Are there questions of the applicant? Ms. Phillips, did you have a question? Thank you. I wanted to ask the staff. Have there been, since 2005 when we originally approved as plat, have there been any regulatory changes that would impact this property that may affect the design as presented or affect any subsequent actions after this body takes action? Did the consent decree change anything with respect to this property? I don't believe so in that regard. The only regulatory change that has currently happened of course is our FEMA maps were updated so we operate with a different base floodplain elevation and of course they have to address that on their plans. Would that letter of map revision impact the design of these lots to accommodate a revised flood zone line potentially? No, ma'am, I don't believe so. It's an extensive greenway and an extensive area down in there and that's where the floodplain is located. One more question. I'll let this be. I'm curious, this is in regards to 2D. You've got 2G and 2F on either side of it. Wouldn't this data affect those plans as well? Why is this attached just to this one? Again, I'd have to review the minutes and my memory is that I believe it was a compromise in an effort to look at the gauge. There was a lot of emphasis at that time placed in that discussion on the gauge. But yes, they're all on the same drainage system. They're all part of the overall system adjacent to a floodplain and that is, as you can see in that dark gray area, the drainage area coincides with the stormwater management plan and the floodplain is within that area. Okay. I'm done. I think this is going to be heard again somewhere down the line anyway. Anyone on the commission have any other questions of either staff or the applicant? If not, does any member of the commission have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move approval of Plan 2005-269F. I think that's the one we're talking about, the re-approval of it. Is there a second? Motion's made and seconded. Please vote electronically. Motion carries. Next item. Madam Chairman, members of the commission, if we turn to page four at the bottom of the page, item I, this is a final record plan, 2006-221F, the guest property, unit 2F. Again, referring to your big picture, this is the unit 2F, immediately upstream from unit 2D. You can see off Castle Bridge Lane, once again, the lotting pattern that was established on this plat and we cross-hatched this area so you will know this has been recorded. So what you see before you is a re-approval so that they can record this section, which is the greenway. And they have to get it approved before they can do that. Now, again, it's all part of this through here and this greenway area associated with the stormwater management area as well. The issue, as planning understands it, has been that the city has concerns about accepting these greenways due to maintenance concerns. So we have seen several re-approvals for that reason because the only remaining section happens to be a greenway section. That is the case with this particular plat. This plat was filed too late to go before your subdivision committee and it was too old for staff to recommend re-approval so that's why you see it before you today. It is recommended for re-approval and subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda. And there is no recommendation to monitor the USGS on this particular plat. Ms. Copeland, do you have a question? But if we do re-approve it, all of a sudden we're the maintenance committee, the city is the maintenance department for that greenway? Not until it's recorded. It has to be recorded and transferred to the city and that has not happened on much of the greenways in Guess due to maintenance concerns. So if we approve it. It will allow this plat to be active and allow them to record this section at such time then that the city would like to accept it as a greenway. So the city could say we're not ready to accept it yet. Yes ma'am, they can say that. And we're not aware at this time of the exact schedule when they're going to try to start bringing those greenways together and developing trails, etc. That's still an ongoing concern. Are there other questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant? Rory Cayley with EA Partners. We're in agreement with the 10 conditions and request approval. Any commission members have questions? Mr. Owen. Mr. Cayley, I'm sorry, maybe Mr. Martin mentioned this, but you've got several development plans here for re-approval. Why is this one tardier than the other ones? Oh, these all came from, Jerry Vandeweer had them first, and when I was going back through looking at what was recorded, they had 2F recorded, and the title block, it didn't have a section 1, so I didn't know I had a section 2 that I had to re-approve. It wasn't until after I turned in my other papers and we were trying to locate all the acreage of unit 2 that I found out there was truly a section 2, which was just the greenway to 2F. So I think I got the letter in the day of the subdivision committee or the day after. And I guess, Mr. Martin, you said this has not gone before technical? Is there a need for it to go before technical? It has been before technical. Oh, you did? Yes, sir. It's just this is a re-approval. It's been through the process. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other questions of the applicant? Not the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Craven? Madam Chairman, move re-approval of Plan 2006-221F, Guest Property, Unit 2F. Is there a second? Motion has been made and seconded. vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Mr. Marty. Madam Chairman, members of the Commission, the next item on your agenda is on page six. It is item C, development plan 2010-26, Griffin Gate Office Park. This is an amended final record, pardon me, development plan. It is located out off Newtown Pike and the intersection with Citation Boulevard. Here is Olivia Lane. This is the Red Cross area here, and, of course, across the road you'll find Coldstream Park. On out is the interstate and the Marriott. This again is right at that intersection with Citation Boulevard, and there was a right aid approved by this body across here several years ago. This particular amendment that you see before you is for the Better Business Bureau building here in the rear of the property. Now this is a two-story building with a basement. They are asking for approval for 923 square foot addition here. It is basically an enclosed patio. This is the associated parking and access with this property. This plan is proposing an access point right in, right out only on Citation Boulevard. During the technical review of this plan, there was considerable discussion about the exact location of this point, and there was some grade concerns expressed at that time. So this point, access point that you see before you could change its location slightly to accommodate those grade issues. It will be a right turn, right out only. There is a median present to prevent that abuse where people try to force their way left. Currently everyone here, and especially these Red Cross folks with their Meals on Wheels and that sort of thing, they have to go to Olivia. There is no light. So they have a problem, and it is our understanding that a lot of these folks will go through the adjoining development and work their way to Sugar Maple and the light there. So this right in, right out should help the function of this property. Again, it is a small addition overall on this back area. There was some discussion and concern at subdivision about an easement in this area. Our research showed that any easement that exists is not on this property. There is an easement down here, utility easement. So this property, although there is service provided back in here, that service apparently is not located in an easement on this property in question. There are a considerable number of sign-offs required on this development plan, as it is a final. We have engineering and traffic building inspection, street addressing in the urban forester, division of fire and waste management, this being a final development plan, are also sign-offs. We have several clean-up conditions, and then number 12 on your agenda, you'll see denote Board of Adjustment approval of a variance. It will be necessary for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance for that addition before they can build it, and they will need to denote said approval on this development plan prior to its certification. As of this meeting, they have not received approval or disapproval. We've postponed at the Board of Adjustment the last two meetings. The plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee and recommended for approval. And with that. Other questions? Mr. Perreira? One quick question, Tom. You mentioned that this will help with the traffic from the Red Cross Wheels program. Is that because there's a lighted citation? Yes, sir. There is a light in a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane, and it's a fully functioning intersection. Ms. Phillips? Since this is kind of a triple frontage lot, that rear property line is the side yard, and that's with the variance to the Board of Adjustment? Well, yes, ma'am, in the sense that it does have frontage here and here. The entire property itself is triple frontage with Newtown, Olivia, and Citation. This is an independent lot. So it has double frontage here and here, and they will need to receive the variance along this property. Ms. Phillips, the variance is because the adjoining property is zoned agricultural, and there is a provision of the ordinance that says when you abut a more restrictive zone, you must have the setbacks of the more restrictive zone on your side of the line as well. Yes, in the AR zone from side and rear yards, they're 25 feet. It's just a foot or two. The actual request is down to zero, from 25 to zero. What is the existing? They added the 923 square feet, but what is that existing wall from which that existing rear wall from which that 923 square foot patio addition, how far does that sit back? The patio that it's built on appears to extend out to the property. Does that answer your? No. I don't know how to phrase it otherwise. The back wall? Yes, the back wall of the building. How far? This building right here? Yes. It's approximately 20 feet. And 25 is a requirement? Yes. I believe the building predated the golf course. Right. This area has been out here quite some time. So they're making a noncompliant situation worse? They are seeking a variance so that they can meet the requirements of the zone. Other questions? Mr. Martin, you just mentioned the patio extends out to the property line? Based on this plan, it appears to be, and also we do have some pictures when we looked at it, and it appears to be, if not on the property line, very, very close. I'm sure the applicant could probably. Wouldn't that necessitate a second variance? It's my understanding that the single variance should satisfy. Okay. Mr. Owens, if that were a deck, you are correct, it would require a variance. But since it's an at-grade patio, it does not. Three feet, yes. Three feet elevation is the cutoff. My next question. It's an at-grade. It's not a two-story extension into the side yard, the rear yard. Right. It's just a patio now. It's a slant. It runs across the back at grade, but the property slants this way. So as it runs here, this patio is elevated next to Olivia. But back through here, it is at grade. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, I don't think I heard the answer to, it may have been a rhetorical question, but I think it's pertinent. Lynn said this is a noncompliant property that we're going to make more noncompliant with this variance, or with this addition. The addition does not comply. They do need a variance, and that's what variances are generally requested for when there's difficulty in complying with the setbacks in a zone. In this particular case, as Mr. Sally said, this has been here for a very, very long time and predates many of the requirements. Mr. Olin? Mr. Martin, I'm sorry. Not to speak for Mr. Brewer, but when he's saying noncompliant, the patio structure enclosed, I take it as being noncompliant because was it permitted? Is it something that was built, the addition with a permit through building inspection? It is our understanding, but that should be elaborated on either by the applicant or building inspection that, no, it was not permitted, but I would want that to be verified by the parties directly involved. Okay. We'll get to that. Ms. Copeland? This is a commercial building. Yes, ma'am. And so was a commercial builder involved? Again, I can't answer that question. I'm not aware of the nature. All builders consider themselves commercial builders when it comes to patios and that sort of thing. Was he a professional builder, I believe? Yes, ma'am. I was there at the site and sent the staff pictures, and I was told you had taken pictures. Yes, ma'am, we do have pictures if you'd like to see them. Please show us the pictures, please. Okay. Okay. This is a picture looking north from the parking lot at the patio and the enclosure towards the end of the patio. That would be looking in this direction towards the patio. You can see some folks are sitting there, and they're not enjoying the patio enclosure, but they are on the patio. It was a pretty day. The next picture, that's the Olivia side. You can see the elevation to the patio and a nice close picture of the enclosure, which is at that end of the building. The next picture, that's an aerial, and that helps give you a view of the relationship of the entire enclosure to the building and to the property line running along the back of the property. We have some more if you want to see them, but those are the ones that we showed the patio. Character of the building, close up, some metal building underneath a double electric pole thing. Well, again, the previous two photographs are the ones that I took that I believe address that. You can see the patio and the materials. And then on the previous one, the original picture, you can see the service drop on their property. That is the service drop to the building. Well, it's a double transformer. Yes, ma'am. I'm sure they have a large demand for electricity in the building. Metal and glass building. Are there additional questions of Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant? Madam Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Mike Moiser. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. To go right to the questions that you've been raising, we have Neal Kingery here. He's president of the Better Business Bureau and was involved in trying to get this done the right way and it turned out being done the wrong way. This is not a situation where an owner willfully undertook to do something without a permit. Unfortunately, it's a situation where an owner used an approved Better Business Bureau contractor who failed to get the required permits. And the reason we're here today is because this was discovered in our process of trying to get this additional access point and we realized that we needed to correct it. So Mr. Kingery can answer questions about that. Roger Ladenberger is also here who can answer technical questions about what we've got to do to make it right. I'll answer any questions you have of me. Does anyone have any questions? If I may, let me just make one comment. Mr. Moiser, let me say for the Planning Commission we express our condolences for the death of your father. Are there other comments from the applicant? Thank you, Commission. I'm Neal Kingery, President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau. And I guess I'm usually on the other side of the fence and this is my first occasion of being on the noncompliance side of the fence, so I apologize profusely for that. Just so you'll know, we have adjusted some, I guess everybody has an eraser on their pencil, I hope, anyway. We have adjusted some policies and procedures. During the interesting points made, I would like to tell you that we did not necessarily want a sunroom or a patio. Frankly, there had been some conditions because on the back of this property is the Marriott-Griffin Gate Golf Course. And that happens to be right behind that fence is hole number 10, I believe that is right. And it is a par three golf hole. And we get on an average of 15 to 20 golf balls there a day. And while we have requested the tenants of the building, who is the United States Department of Agriculture, Child Care Council and some others, that they not go out back and sit in lounge chairs to cause us some potential litigation. We originally were suggested by a board member of the Better Business Bureau that we might want to put a patio or something back there if people wanted to go outside to take a break. The commercial contractor that we got a donation from was Champion Windows and Doors, which I think was one of the questions. They came in and asked us, you know, they said they would help us. They agreed. And, again, we're, you know, you may or may not know this, and I'm almost embarrassed to tell you this, but for our core business of getting rid of scheme scams and answering complaints and helping consumers and businesses solve and resolve conditions, we are the number one rated BBB in the nation. But, unfortunately, that's our core business, and our core business does not, just like a lot of people we answer complaints for, did not concern us in construction. And, again, I said we have adjusted policies and procedures, and upon discovering that, and you can see some of the pictures for asking, and our purpose, by the way, for asking for the access point out on the citation is because there has been multiple accidents of people pulling out off of Olivia Way that does not have a light. And we also share an opening, and we allow Red Cross, because of all their buses, to use the openings and come through our parking lot as the Better Business Bureau and recognize that that would help them, it would help the community, and it might eliminate some problems and conditions. So when we discovered the problems, we immediately asked what we had to do to become in compliance and started taking necessary action. And that's why I'm here today. Thank you. Are there questions? I don't know if I have a question. I appreciate what you've said and the willingness to come into compliance. I guess my biggest question right now would be hearing from building inspection to see what we need to do or what you need to do to come into compliance. And let me assure the commission that we'll do whatever is necessary. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Applicant, have any? Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Stephen Herod, and I represent building inspection. Anybody have any questions? The simplest one is what are we dealing with here as far as this enclosure? Where are we? You tell us your history as far as BBV is concerned. Up until about three hours before the meeting started, I didn't even know this was an issue. I generally don't handle these cases for building inspections, so I'll answer every question the best I can. But the main concerns are the encroachments into the side yards and then the fact that there were no building permits ever issued for the front or rear additions. Front or rear? So we've got two enclosures? Yes, on the front of the building where the fire department connection is located, there was an enclosure placed there, so the fire department connection couldn't be accessed. Okay. I guess my next question, besides the variance that is proposed here, the additions or the buildings themselves, the building itself, are they in compliance? Would they be in compliance? The front addition wouldn't be very difficult at all to bring into compliance with the Kentucky Building Code, but the rear addition would be an altogether different situation. The rear addition, located as it is to the property line, there are several very direct violations of the Kentucky Building Code. When I was out there earlier, I measured from the face of the building to the fence where I assumed the property line was, measured about three feet. At that point, according to the building code, you must have a rated wall and the wall couldn't have any openings. As it is, it's solid glass. It wouldn't be able to be rectified with a variance that would have to come from the Office of Housing, Building, and Construction at state level. Ms. Copeland? What is the problem? How did they make a mistake at the front? The enclosed, well, just the fact that it didn't get a permit, but the fact that the fire department connection, and Captain Bowen can speak to this better than I could, the fact that the fire department has to hook up for their trucks to the sprinkler system cannot be accessed right now. If you can go to the picture of the front. Did I see a picture of the front validation? Do we have one, Tom? Yes. Captain Bowen, Lexington Fire Department. The problem with the front of the building is that they haven't closed the fire department connection. That's what we hook into. So it's a public safety issue for the occupants, public safety issue for us if we respond there, because that's what we would actually hook into to supply the sprinkler system. So the fire department connection, in essence, cannot be enclosed at all. So they do need to either remove that or extend it outside that enclosed area. Okay. Mr. Owens, do you have a question? Captain Bowen, we're talking about a commercial building that's sprinklered. I'm sorry, but with a champion window type addition on at least the back side, if not front side, is that sprinklered? Okay. That's not in my area, but I have talked to Captain Scott Hickey with Lexington Fire Department. He's advising me that that front portion, the addition you see there, does need to be sprinkled, and also the rear addition that they've added on does need to be sprinkled. And I've talked to Roger Ladenburg. He's aware of it. They're advising me that they are going to bring things in compliance. But for my sign-off, we need to see it. I'm sorry. You're saying you want to see not only the connection extended out? Well, they have two options. They could either extend the connection outside that enclosure there, or the second option, they could just remove the glassing. Right. All the glassing could be removed. So those are the two options there. But if they do keep that front part, that, like I said, according to Captain Hickey, that will have to be sprinkled, and then the addition will have to be sprinkled as well. But you're asking that the two additions be sprinklered and part of your sign-off? Yes, sir. Yes, I am. Because, like I said, the fire department connection, if they don't remove the glass, then it has to be extended out as well. Okay. Thank you, Captain. Are there other questions from commission? Applicant, did you have any other comments? I just wanted to say that with regard to the front, what was done was the square grid that you see with the glass was added. The sprinkler connection is actually, if you look to the lower right, that's where it is. We've either got to move that out or we'll just take the glass down like it was. Two quick questions, Carol, whenever you're ready. Mr. Brewer. I'm a little dismayed by all this as well. So let me just make sure that I'm understanding this correctly. We're being asked to provide a variance so that we're being asked to approve this, which is already out of compliance, correct? So that you can rectify the two problems? Or are we recognizing the two problems and allowing them? Now, I see the fire department is clear that you're not going to sign off on this until they fix this part. But the company that did this didn't do it properly. Are we then condoning what has happened by approving this? Mr. Martin. I don't believe you're actually condoning it. We're recognizing the reality of the situation and that problems do exist. They intend to rectify the ones that are public health and safety oriented. And, again, you're being asked to approve this addition as an amendment to this development plan, with the caveat, of course, that the Board of Adjustment will also have to grant the variance. Okay. And my second question is, is the contractor that did this still Better Business Bureau certified? Okay. Go ahead. Well, there's not a short answer to this. There's two answers. The original Champion Windows and Doors is a franchise. The franchise owner has changed. The original franchise owner that did this is gone, and then there's someone else that purchased the franchise or moved in and took responsibility for that same company name, brand name. So it would be unfair for the Better Business Bureau to try to take actions against someone or express our concerns against that company when they were not the ones that originally had it happen. Does that answer your question? It's sort of like if you bought your car and the dealer went out of business and someone else bought the dealership, but they had not done what they were supposed to do, the other dealer primarily will not resolve a problem that was created that they had no control over. Are there other questions? Ms. Copeland. A building inspection, please. Isn't it true that on a commercial property you have to use a commercial contractor? Yes, ma'am. If it is somebody that the city recognizes and approves, you get a license, and therefore you can work on a commercial building? That's correct. Was this contractor that they used a commercially approved license by the city contractor? I do not know that. I could find out easy enough, but I don't know that right now. Could you find out quickly? Yes, ma'am. Great. Ms. Phillips. Tom, with respect to the property line that runs in this direction, I understand we're looking at the whole development plan, but is this patio that we're talking about, it is the entire length of the rear of that building or side? It is the entire length of the rear of the building, yes, ma'am. Okay. Where is that champion constructed? It is this area that you see here. Okay. That was my question. Yeah. Because the way that's drawn, it looks like that is the existing, that was the existing footprint of the building. Typically you guys highlight and show us what's new and what's different. It's an excellent point. There's a very faint line right there, and they've labeled it as such. It's not rendered well here. I understand your question. That is the 923 square feet. But the raised patio, there is a raised patio along the entire perimeter? It is at grade. Okay. That's at grade. Until it gets over into this area next to Olivia, and due to the grade changes, the patio is above grade. I understand. Okay. Thank you. According to our office, Champion is registered as a residential contractor only at this time. So they're not registered for commercial construction. So they shouldn't have been working on the building at all. But that could have been different back then? Their registration needed to be upgraded to a commercial status. Just out of, just quick, I mean, it could have been different then, and does it really matter now? Just out of curiosity. I mean, they've admitted that Champion messed up. Oh, yeah. Mr. Herod, we're, you know, one, we, I shouldn't say we, the access to Citation is needed. Get this where it's at an approvable state. Can that addition come into compliance with local and state ordinances? According to the Kentucky Building Code or the zoning ordinance? I would say both. You know, we're dealing with a variance here, but, yeah. If the variance were issued at the state level through the Office of Housing, then the rear addition through the variance would be brought into compliance with the Kentucky Building Code. The front addition from the standpoint of the building code is very easy. There are no real, other than the fact that it's not currently sprinkled, no severe building code issues existed. Okay. Another question, Mr. Martin. Is it possible, with what Mr. Herod just said, to add a condition to this, whereas, you know, I guess we're still depending on a variance that is needed, but if a condition that the building additions shall come into compliance with local and state ordinances as far as building codes are concerned? First of all, I believe the variance requested before the board, if granted, will allow it to be located where it is. Yes. The Kentucky Building Code is an issue that Building Inspection has to enforce, and they will have to comply with the Kentucky Building Code or, as Mr. Herod stated, seek a variance from Frankfurt. Do we need a condition? I believe that's a given under the enforcement of the Kentucky State Building Code. Okay. This is for, obviously, we're all kind of uncomfortable with the situation with the building. The access onto citation sounds like it's in everyone's best interest. Is there any way that we can separate those two issues and allow for the building approval to, you know, the location of the building to happen at a later date and we just approve the driveway today so that we're separating out those two issues? Well, it is possible to attempt to condition that sort of thing on a plan, and often we do with timing conditions. But it may be, in this particular case, fairly difficult. They do need to go to the Board of Adjustment, bottom line, before they can utilize that patio, or else it will have to be removed. And it will not be certified until that happens. And I believe if we separated the two, I'm not sure how we'd certify the plan to allow the access point. And that's the difficulty, I'm afraid, that we face. Question again for inspection. So we've got a bad situation here that we recognize the state level will have to provide a variance also. How long have these two structures that are safety issues and should have not been built this way, how long have they been in existence and have they been cited for violation by either your office or the state? I do not know how long they have been there. And to my knowledge, they have not been cited prior to this. Sir, could you tell me how long they've been there? The front glass enclosure, because the roof and the columns were already there, the front glass enclosure was added last year. Just for your information, we never locked those front doors, and so there is access always to the front of it. But, of course, the ordinance says it's going to be, I guess it's a definition of access, and we don't have a problem arguing with the definition. If they want it gone, we'll take it down. So that's not a, you know, and the back patio, it's been several years. I don't know how long it's been. I mean, it's been years. And to your knowledge, have you been cited by either the local office or the state office for a violation? Absolutely not. And, you know, other than this is devastating by itself, we haven't been cited for anything. And like I said, we were discovered when we were doing the development plan that, you know, well, this wasn't done, that wasn't done, so what do you mean? Obviously, I was concerned enough that we had hired a great team to make sure we could get everything done and get it done quickly. And please understand, I'm not trying to point fingers at you. I'm just trying to find out what, how bad is it, how long has it been bad. You can point fingers. It's on my shoulders. But it seems to me that somebody, if this has been up that long and it's been a violation, that somebody from our team or state. It's been years. But, you know, that doesn't make it right, and we want it right. Thank you, and we appreciate you coming forward and trying to make it right. Are there additional questions? Mr. Cribins. The patio itself, without anything built on it, is not, I mean, it's okay to the building inspector, right? You can pour a patio out there without anything built on it. I believe so, because it's not in the grade, it's not in violation. It's okay in zoning. Okay. And, Mr. Martin, I believe there's enough. The approach is not built yet, is it? The lower approach. The lower approach. Under the citation. Is that already built too? Access? No. Access? No. No, sir. I just built that too. And I've got pictures to that effect. Okay. Well, it looks like to me, are there enough sign-offs on here to protect us? I mean, there are. We can approve this plan, and then it's got to go to the BOA and the building inspectors on record of knowing about this. So I think that's beyond the scope of our purview to keep batting this around. I think it's in the hands of those people. It is a relatively small square footage amendment. Yes, sir. And it does have all the major sign-offs associated with a development plan, with the obvious exception of the green space and pedestrian. If they don't get the variance, they just tear that thing off there. I mean, sometimes they just blow off, but they could just tear it off and be in compliance. Yes, sir. Mr. Copeland. I'm ready to make a motion. I've got a couple of questions, too. I'm sorry. I would like to hear from, you know, we've been talking about building. As far as the access, I've got a couple of questions about the access. I think it's needed, but I'd like to hear from traffic on the access of it. Are we providing an access that's coming out into a turning lane, and is that okay with traffic? And then there's a couple other questions. But it seemed like a no-brainer as far as bringing an entrance out at that location. I believe the turning lane does start about the edge of that property line, so they are basically coming out into a right-turn lane, but it extends pretty far back into the property. So you're okay with coming out into the turning lane? There seems to be that. The other two questions I've got, one, there's a stormwater collection basin, detention basin cut into the curb there. I would presume you can manage around that? You'd have to. The boxes get moved all the time. I'm sure that could be worked out. We're not real firm on where that access point has to be, so there's some flexibility to work out with the grates there. Just one other note, with citation, where the access is, we're talking about a right-hand turn lane, two lanes of traffic going straight across Newtown Pike, and then a left-hand turn lane. Are we okay with people coming out of this, turning right, and going across three lanes of traffic to get to the left turn lane to go into town? That's what we're trying to remedy, because I see it all the time where the Meals on Wheels and other people, they're going down to Sugar Maple to get to a light. We need this, but these are just questions that we need to recognize. I was looking at it as an existing situation. It's probably not ideal, but it's a whole lot better than not having that access point there. Okay. All right. Thank you, Jeff. Are there any other questions from traffic? If not, I think we've probably batted this around about as long as we can. Does the applicant have or staff have any other comments? If not, I'll turn it over to the Commission. We'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, Chairperson, I'm sorry. I move for approval of DP 2010-26, Griffin Gate Office Park. With the 14 conditions, I would like to change the verbiage in number three for building inspections approval of two additions and landscaping and landscape buffers just to make sure everybody's clear on what we've got to do. Is there a second? I'll move the motion. Second. Motion's made and second. Any comments, concerns? Motion. If not, we will vote electronically. Motion carries. Thank you very much. The next item of business that we have is the performance bonds and letters of credit. Everyone has a copy? Do I hear a motion for release? So moved. Motion made. Second. All in favor, please vote electronically. Motion carries. Are there any other issues or any other concerns that a Commission member would like to bring before us today? Are there any additional staff? Madam Chair, just a reminder for the Commission that a week from today at 1 p.m. we do have a work session planned for you, and we'll meet right here in this room. Thank you. There's no one left in the audience to comment, so I will hereby declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.