# Board of Adjustment Meeting - March 30, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 30, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2455 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2455?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-03-30 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 12,671 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment met on March 30, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Louis Stout presiding. The board considered 11 agenda items, taking 9 motions and votes during the session while hearing 3 public comments. The meeting addressed a range of zoning requests, including seven variance approvals for property setback reductions and screening modifications, one variance denial, one withdrawn request, and two conditional use approvals. Notable approvals included variances for James P. Arnold's front yard setback reduction, Mary Margaret Bell's side yard variance for a detached garage, Anderson Campus Rental Properties' side setback variance, and Steve Perry's variances for an infill redevelopment project. The board also approved conditional use permits for Lorleeta Mundy's family child care operation and the Baptist Church at Andover's education center expansion. One item—Townes Entertainment, LLC's request for conditional use and variances for a restaurant—was postponed. The Gary and Stephanie Maybrier variance request for side setback reduction was denied, and Thoroughbred Homes, LLC withdrew its variance request to reduce front yard setback. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 30, 2012: * Louis Stout * James Griggs * Barry Stumbo * Kathryn Moore * Jan Meyer * Noel White * Thomas Glover * Chuck Saylor * Jim Gallimore * Rochelle Boland * Jimmy Emmons * Bill Sallee * Jim Marx * Wanda Howard No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included nine votes on variances and conditional use requests, all conducted by voice vote. The following decisions were made: **Variances Approved:** V-2012-15: James P. Arnold variance to reduce setback from 50 to 35 feet in A-R zone passed [timestamp: 00:15:36]. The residence must be constructed according to the submitted application and site plan, with all necessary permits obtained from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction. V-2012-16: Mary Margaret Bell variance to reduce side yard from 8 to 1.5 feet passed [timestamp: 00:20:54]. The detached garage must be constructed per the submitted plans with a minimum 3-foot distance from the property line. A gutter system must be installed to direct stormwater runoff away from adjoining properties, subject to Division of Engineering approval. V-2012-17: Anderson Campus Rental Properties variance to reduce side setback from 18 to 3 feet passed [timestamp: 00:22:36]. A 10-foot wide driveway and one to two parking spaces must be installed at the rear of the property off Edward Avenue, with design reviewed and approved by the Division of Traffic Engineering. V-2012-18: Setzer Investments No. 5, LLC variance to eliminate screening around outdoor storage area passed [timestamp: 00:31:24]. Mesh panels must be installed on the fence and gate near the Industry Road entrance to meet Zoning Ordinance opacity requirements. V-2012-20: Mike Schmeling variance to reduce alley setback from 7.5 to 2.5 feet passed [timestamp: 00:32:57]. The detached garage must be constructed per submitted plans and obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Division of Historic Preservation. V-2012-19: Steve Perry variance to reduce exterior yard, open space, and increase parking passed [timestamp: 01:39:28]. The townhouse project must be constructed according to the submitted application and site plan. **Conditional Uses Approved:** C-2012-10: Lorleeta Mundy conditional use for family child care passed [timestamp: 00:37:33]. Care for up to 12 children is limited to 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM; care for up to 6 children is allowed 6:00 PM to Midnight. The outdoor play area must be fully enclosed with suitable fencing. C-2012-12: Baptist Church at Andover conditional use to expand education center passed [timestamp: 00:38:47]. Tree line gaps must be replanted, and vehicular use screening of the parking lot must be installed prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. **Variance Disapproved:** V-2012-13: Gary and Stephanie Maybrier variance to reduce side setback from 40 to 19 feet was disapproved [timestamp: 00:58:27]. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the meeting regarding traffic, safety, and park replacement concerns related to a proposed development. **David May – Traffic and Safety Concerns** [timestamp: 01:00:03] David May expressed concerns about increased traffic and safety impacts from the development on the neighborhood. He specifically raised issues regarding safety for children and the effect of the project on traffic patterns along Burley and Francis Avenues. He also addressed concerns about the proposed park replacement. **Jerry Hancock – Park Replacement and Community Benefits** [timestamp: 01:13:07] Jerry Hancock, Director of Parks and Recreation, provided information about the park swap arrangement. He explained that the developer is funding a new park to be built across the street from the existing one. According to Hancock, the new park will be larger and better equipped than the current park. He noted that the neighborhood has overwhelmingly supported the park replacement arrangement. **Mr. May – Park Contamination and Safety** [timestamp: 01:30:15] Mr. May returned to address additional safety concerns. He raised the issue of potential asbestos contamination in the property that is scheduled to be demolished. He emphasized the need for appropriate safety measures, including signage to alert the public to hazards. Mr. May also stressed the importance of implementing traffic calming measures for children who will use the new park. ## Contested Items **Steve Perry Development and Park Replacement** Community residents raised significant concerns about a proposed development project, focusing on potential negative impacts to the neighborhood. The primary issues of contention included traffic congestion, public safety considerations, and the adequacy of park replacement plans. Residents expressed particular concern about traffic patterns on Burley and Francis Avenues and how the development would affect these routes. The proposed park replacement was also a point of disagreement, with community members questioning whether the replacement would adequately serve neighborhood needs. **Gary and Stephanie Maybrier Carport Variance** A heated discussion occurred regarding a carport variance request from Gary and Stephanie Maybrier. The applicants argued that the carport would be unobtrusive and would provide a beneficial addition to their property. However, the board took a different position, emphasizing that the application lacked special circumstances that would justify granting the variance. The board also raised concerns about how the carport would affect neighborhood character. This disagreement centered on whether the proposed structure met the criteria for variance approval and whether its design and placement were compatible with the surrounding area's established character. ## Thoroughbred Homes, LLC - Variance to reduce front yard setback **Identifier:** V-2012-8 **Request:** Thoroughbred Homes, LLC sought a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 22 feet on Fincastle Road. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended disapproval of the variance request, citing concerns about neighborhood character and the absence of special circumstances that would justify the reduction. **Outcome:** The applicant withdrew the variance request. [timestamp: 00:05:21] ## Gary and Stephanie Maybrier - Variance to reduce side setback **Case Number:** V-2012-13 **Outcome:** Denied The board considered a variance request from Gary and Stephanie Maybrier to reduce the side setback requirement on Nakomi Drive from 40 feet to 19 feet. [timestamp: 00:09:06] **Key Speakers and Presentation:** The discussion involved Mr. Emmons, Stephanie Maybrier, and David May. Stephanie Maybrier presented the appeal on behalf of the applicants. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended disapproval of the variance request. The recommendation was based on the finding that the applicants had not demonstrated special circumstances that would justify the reduction. Additionally, staff noted that granting the variance would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. **Board Decision:** The board denied the appeal for the side setback reduction. The denial upheld the staff recommendation that the lack of special circumstances and potential neighborhood character impacts did not support approval of the requested variance. ## James P. Arnold - Variance to reduce front yard setbacks **Identifier:** V-2012-15 **Request:** James P. Arnold requested a variance to reduce front yard setbacks from 50 feet to 35 feet on properties located on Athens-Boonesboro and McCalls Mill Roads. **Discussion:** [timestamp: 00:13:01] Earl Cooper presented information regarding this variance request. **Outcome:** The variance was approved with conditions. The approval was based on special circumstances related to the lot configuration and the applicant's demonstrated effort to preserve existing structures on the property. ## Mary Margaret Bell - Variance to reduce side yard for detached garage **Case Number:** V-2012-16 **Outcome:** Approved Greg Padgett presented this variance request, which sought to reduce the required side yard setback from 8 feet to 1.5 feet for a detached garage on Colony Boulevard. [timestamp: 00:20:19] The variance was approved with a modification to the proposed conditions. Rather than allowing a gutter as originally proposed, the approval included a requirement for a stormwater drainage system to be installed. This modification addressed drainage considerations for the reduced setback area. ## Anderson Campus Rental Properties - Variance to reduce side setback **Identifier:** V-2012-17 **Outcome:** Approved John Strom presented this variance request to reduce the side setback requirement from 18 feet to 3 feet on American Avenue. [timestamp: 00:22:03] The variance was approved with conditions. The approval included requirements for a rear driveway and a traffic engineering review to address concerns related to the property's site plan and access. ## Setzer Investments No. 5, LLC - Variance to eliminate screening for outdoor storage **Case Number:** V-2012-18 **Outcome:** Approved Jason Banks presented a variance request to eliminate screening requirements for an outdoor storage area located in an industrial zone. [timestamp: 00:31:24] The variance was approved with conditions. The applicant must comply with the approved site plan and meet fence opacity requirements as part of the approval. ## Steve Perry - Variances for infill redevelopment project **Case Identifier:** V-2012-19 **Overview** The board considered an appeal for variances related to an infill redevelopment project. The variances sought to reduce exterior yard requirements, reduce open space requirements, and increase parking provisions for the project. **Key Speakers** - Rory Cayley - Jerry Hancock - David May **Discussion and Considerations** The board evaluated the variance request with attention to neighborhood compatibility and the project's relationship to existing park space. The discussion centered on whether the proposed modifications to standard requirements were appropriate given the infill development context and surrounding neighborhood character. **Outcome** The appeal for variances was **approved with conditions**. The approval was based on findings that the project demonstrated adequate neighborhood compatibility and that the development would result in the replacement of an existing park, which supported the variance request. [timestamp: 01:00:03] ## Mike Schmeling - Variance to reduce alley setback **Identifier:** V-2012-20 **Outcome:** Approved Lynn Pettigale presented this variance request to reduce the alley setback requirement from 7.5 feet to 2.5 feet for Mike Schmeling's property [timestamp: 00:32:27]. The variance was approved with conditions. A Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Division was required as part of the approval. ## Townes Entertainment, LLC - Conditional use and variances for restaurant **Identifier:** CV-2012-11 **Type:** Conditional use and variances for restaurant **Outcome:** Postponed to April 27, 2012 [timestamp: 00:07:00] The conditional use appeal for Townes Entertainment, LLC to operate a restaurant with live entertainment was postponed during this meeting. Mr. Emmons presented on the matter. The postponement was necessitated by incomplete documentation and neighborhood concerns that required additional time to address. The applicant and staff were directed to resolve these issues before the matter could proceed to a final decision. The hearing is scheduled to resume on April 27, 2012. ## Lorleeta Mundy - Conditional use for family child care [timestamp: 00:34:06] A conditional use permit for family child care was presented for consideration. Alita Mundy spoke regarding the application. The conditional use permit was approved with the following conditions: * Hours of operation requirements * Fencing specifications * Compliance with state regulations The permit allows for the operation of a family child care facility subject to these conditions. ## Baptist Church at Andover - Conditional use to expand education center **Identifier:** C-2012-12 **Type:** Conditional Use Permit **Outcome:** Approved The conditional use permit for the Baptist Church at Andover to expand its education center was presented and approved by the board. [timestamp: 00:38:13] Tom Lambden addressed the board regarding this agenda item. The approval included specific conditions that the applicant must satisfy, including compliance with the submitted site plan and requirements for tree replanting as part of the project. The conditional use permit allows the church to proceed with the expansion of its education center subject to these conditions. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of V-2012-15: James P. Arnold variance to reduce setback from 50 to 35 feet in A-R zone - **Motion** — passed: Approval of V-2012-16: Mary Margaret Bell variance to reduce side yard from 8 to 1.5 feet - **Motion** — passed: Approval of V-2012-17: Anderson Campus Rental Properties variance to reduce side setback from 18 to 3 feet - **Motion** — passed: Approval of V-2012-18: Setzer Investments No. 5, LLC variance to eliminate screening around outdoor storage area - **Motion** — passed: Approval of V-2012-20: Mike Schmeling variance to reduce alley setback from 7.5 to 2.5 feet - **Motion** — passed: Approval of C-2012-10: Lorleeta Mundy conditional use for family child care - **Motion** — passed: Approval of C-2012-12: Baptist Church at Andover conditional use to expand education center - **Motion** — passed: Disapproval of V-2012-13: Gary and Stephanie Maybrier variance to reduce side setback from 40 to 19 feet - **Motion** — passed: Approval of V-2012-19: Steve Perry variance to reduce exterior yard, open space, and increase parking --- ## Full transcript Music guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to the Lexington-Fayette County Board of Adjustment meeting for March the 30th. we would ask that all cell phones please be put on silent or off. And if you have to use your cell phone, we ask that you step outside, please. We do want to hear cell phones ringing during the meeting, if you don't mind. If you're here in opposition and you and the applicant can get together out in the hall to discuss your concerns relative to their proposals, you may feel free to do so. If not, we will hear your cases as they fall. Any cases that come here that are contested will be moved to the end of the program. Any cases that have been recommended for disapproval by the staff will be moved to the end of the program, and we will take them in order. Those cases that have no opposition will be heard first. We would ask all of you in here who are going to be testifying, if you would please stand and raise your right hand please all of those who are going to be testifying please stand and raise your right hand you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you, have a seat somewhere my mic went off we have approval of the we don't have any minutes to be approved right now, do we? Okay. Any postponements and withdrawals, please, by the staff? Mr. Chairman, if there are none from the audience, the staff has received communications on two items on your agenda. The first being on page one of your agenda, item V 2012-8 Thoroughbred Homes LLC. This was a variance request for a property at 1203 Fincastle Road. The staff has received a letter from the applicant withdrawing this variance request. However, since this was a continued item from last month, it would be best for the board to take an action accepting the withdrawal in this case. Do I have a motion from the board to approve the withdrawal, please? Mr. Chair, I move we withdraw V-2012-8. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify the saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Withdraw. You have another? Yes, sir. The second item on the agenda would be on page four of the agenda, item under conditional use appeals, Item number one, which is CV 2012-11 for Towns Entertainment LLC. This is a request for a conditional use and variance for a restaurant with live entertainment at property located at 122 West Maxwell Street. The applicant has sent the staff an email request requesting a one-month postponement postponement to your April 27th meeting and ask the staff to relay that to the board. The planning staff has also contacted the neighborhood associations in this case and let them know of the applicant's request for a postponement. Is there anyone here in opposition to CV 2012-11? Anyone here in opposition? Sir, do you understand that they've asked for a postponement? That'll be fine. All right. Thank you, sir. Do I hear a motion to accept the postponement until April 27th? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, likewise. Thank you. That case is moved to April the 27th. And that concludes all the communications that the staff has received. And I think on one year you had on V2012-16 Mary Margaret Bell, we have a clarification in condition number three. Am I right? Yes, sir. If you would like me to do that right now. Yeah, if you would, please. Item number four on page two, which is V2012-16 Mary Margaret Bell. the staff would like to if we can put this up on the board the staff would like to do a slight modification to condition number 3 which is at the top of page 3 on the next page where it says a gutter system will be installed we'd like to change the word gutter to a storm water drainage system will be installed this is acceptable to both the applicant and the neighboring property owner Okay. That's just a change. That's a recommended change to the condition. And the applicants have approved it. The applicant is in agreement with that, as is the neighbor. So we will start the cases. V-2012-13, Gary and Stephen Maybrier. Gary and Stephen Maybrier, are you here? Is there anyone here in opposition to this particular case? Now the staff has recommended disapproval, so we will be moving this case backwards, okay? And we will call you when we are ready for you. Case 2, V2012-15, James P. Arnold. Is there anyone here in opposition to James P. Arnold? No opposition. We will take you here shortly. B2012-16 Mary Margaret Bell, I believe, has... Mary Margaret Bell. Anyone here in opposition? We will take you in order, sir. V2012-17 Anderson Campus Rental Properties. Anyone here in opposition? All right, we'll take you as we come. The next case is V2012-18, Setzer Investment No. 5, LLC. Anyone here in opposition? No opposition. V2012-19, Steve Perry. Is there anyone here in opposition to Steve Perry? Thank you. We'll take you as you follow, sir. No, there was opposition. Was there opposition? One opposition. Okay. V2012-20, Mike Schmeling. You're representing. Anyone here in opposition? No opposition. CV2012-11, Towns Entertainment, LLC. That's postponed. That's postponed. C2012-10, Norwellita, Monday. Norwellita, Monday. Staff, do you know anything about this? No, sir, I don't know the applicant. We do have one letter of opposition in the file, but that's the only communication that we have. Well, we will deal with that when we come with it, but we have no opposition here, right? No opposition here. We don't have the opposition. Okay. C2012-12, the Baptist Church in Andover. Is there anyone here in opposition to the Baptist Church in Andover? All right, and we will short-stark these cases here with case number V2012-15, James P. Arnold. I'm Earl Cooper, attorney for Mr. Arnold. We have looked at the staff case report, the two-page analysis dated March 22, and we feel that they've certainly understood the issues and went through it in great detail, and we agree with their analysis and recommendation. We'd have heard you all to accept it. So the staff has recommended approval with two conditions, and you've read and you agree to abide by those conditions. Yes, sir. Are there any questions from staff? I have a question. Oh, sorry. The staff would just ask to repeat your name for the record. We didn't get it. Earl Cooper. Earl Cooper. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I thought he did that. Okay. Okay. Staff, do you have any questions? I have one. Members, board members. I'm wondering on the front facade, I see that you've got the two-car garage and an entrance on the side. Yes, sir. And your site plan is not showing the leach field, but I know it's in close proximity to the house. I just wondered if you'd consider bringing the driveway around and have a garage entrance on the back. I had not considered that, but it's a possibility. The lane is sloping, as you know, so the more you go back, the hardest is going to be to get into the garage. If you go in the side, it's going to be easier elevation-wise to get into the garage. The acidic tank is right there. You're correct. So we need to move it straight back, probably 30 feet. Well, I wouldn't want to direct the work to any great degree, and I appreciate what you're trying to do here. but if you hadn't considered a rear entrance garage door, I think it might look better from the road, given that these are scenic byways and we're so close. It's a good point. If we can, I would really like to consider that, because maybe we can do it, I mean, honestly. Well, just that you would take a look at it's all I would request. Absolutely. Thank you. Any other questions, concerns? Not out here. A motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve V-2012-15 James P. Arnold appeals for a variance to reduce the required setback along both Athens, Boonesboro, and McCall's Mill Roads from 50 to 35 feet in the agricultural AR zone on property located at 7210 Athens, Boonesboro Road, as recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Salee. I was just handed letters regarding that case as I was outside and was trying to distribute those to you. Were those letters in opposition? No. We'll hand these out to you. They did look like letters of concern. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Borough Road, and we have not received a return on that letter. Well, relative to this, we had already taken a vote, unless this board has something that you think is substantial relative to this, and it is my feeling the vote will stand as it's taken. Well, you might want to ask the law department if they have an opinion, but I'm okay with that. Yes, ma'am. Any vote that's taken if a member, that was a unanimous vote, I believe, was it not? Yes. Which means that any member, since you were all on the, shall we say, winning side of the vote, can make a motion to rescind that vote and to reconsider it. But, again, if the record will show that you've reviewed those documents and did not feel that there was any reason to make that motion, I think that would be sufficient as long as they were considered. That's my recommendation. Any other concerns relative to the board with this case? Thank you. The next case is V2012-16 Mary Margaret Bell. My name is Greg Padgett. I'm with Padgett Construction, representing Mary Margaret Bell. And we agree to the staff's conditions with the modification made. They have recommended approval to this case with three conditions, and you have read it and you understand and you will abide by the conditions. That's correct. Are there any questions from staff? No, sir. Any questions from the board? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve B-2012-16 Mary Margaret Bell's appeal for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 8 feet to 1 1⁄2 feet in order to construct a detached garage in a single-family residential neighborhood character overlay zone on property located at 377 Colony Boulevard as proposed by staff and with the conditions by staff. Do I have a second? I'll second it, but I also noticed that the conditions were as modified. Yes, sir. If the request was to one and a half feet, the staff had recommended to three feet, which the applicant agreed to. I correct that as the amended conditions. Thank you. That's where we talked about the drainage, right? Yes, sir. And you agree to that? Correct. Do I have a second to the motion? A second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Thank you. V2012-17 Anderson Campus Rental Properties. good afternoon john strom representing anderson communities now the staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions have you read the conditions yes mr chairman do you understand and what do we do you agree to abide by the conditions We agree to all conditions. Are there any questions from staff? Any questions from the board? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I move the approval of V-2012-17 Anderson Campus Rental Properties Appeal for a variance to reduce the side set back along Edward Avenue from 18 feet to 3 feet in order to construct a residence in a single-family residential zone on property located at 341 American Avenue for the reasons recommended by staff and with the conditions attached. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Thank you. V212-18, Setzer Investments No. 5, LLC, please. Hold on, I have a question. Who has questions? About what, sir? Sir, we asked if there was anyone in this room that was in opposition and no one stood. Well, I didn't understand what you're saying up there. Sir, I am not going to grant you that because I specifically made it very clear and I asked three times. If there was anyone in here in opposition. What did the outspend mean? I don't know what that means. Legal, where am I with this? I thought the gentleman had indicated he was in opposition to the next case, Steve Perry, I thought, the one of the next cases. That's the only one I have here. I don't have anything in opposition for a set of investments. We're talking Anderson Campus rental. Do you have the right case, sir? The chairman can go ahead and hear what the gentleman has to say, and it would be the same situation as the last case. If you choose to do so, then you can determine whether you want to make a motion to rescind the previous motion. Come forward, sir. Come forward, sir. We'd like for you to tell us who you are. I'm Jerry Ginter. I live right next door to that property. And we'd like to know, I mean, where is there probably going to be? Is there going to be three feet from my house or close to the fence? Will somebody on staff explain to this gentleman what we're doing here, please? Because all I know, they said we can ask questions to the people that bring the house. Yes, sir. The applicants are, we have the site plan up on the screen. The applicants are proposing, the entire lot is 25 feet wide. The applicants are proposing that they would be, I presume that you are the property owner right next door? Yeah. Okay. How far over? They are proposing the house to be three feet off of your fence, which is the minimum side yard in this instance, because this lot is only 25 feet wide and inside our infill redevelopment area. Are they going to have the back door in the back or on the side? The applicants have said that the back door will be on the Edward Avenue side, so the back door will come out towards Edward Avenue and not towards your property. Okay, what about the parking? Where are they going to be parking at? They are proposing parking that would be behind their house and come off of Edward Avenue, and it would be essentially behind your solid fence. Okay, how far back from the fence? because I do not want them to run up and hit the fence when they park back there. What the applicants are showing is to pull off of Edward Avenue and come in and park two parking spaces. They would be very close to the property line. But the conditions of approval that the board just passed also had the exact design of those parking spaces to be reviewed and approved by the Division of Traffic Engineering prior to a building permit. So our traffic engineers will be able to look at that. Can I make a request through the engineering that this be done to assist this gentleman's concerns? since we voted on this to be approved, I would like to at least to be followed up that the parking engineers make sure that this is done prior to any development. Would you please? We'll try to do what we can with all the conditions that are based in this approval. The condition of approval read with a minimum of one parking space and a maximum of two. So if they're not able to fit both parking spaces onto the property without causing a problem, they could back their site plan back down and provide a single parking space for this single-family dwelling unit. Well, I do understand this gentleman's concern relative to his property, and I just want to make sure that even though we've approved this, that the developers understand that there could be some type of interference if they're not very careful. The applicant is right behind us. We'll be happy to work with any traffic engineers to make sure this is done properly and take his concerns into consideration. Sir, is that all right with you, sir? Yeah, and I've got one other question I'd like to ask. Yes, sir? Who is going to be the owner of this property? Are you the owner of this property? No, sir, I represent the property. It's Anderson Campus Rentals. Okay, you represent Mr. Anderson. right? Yes, sir. Okay, the biggest question I have, when they do rent that property out, are they going to keep the trash picked up like these other rental properties on American Avenue? They won't pick up the trash and it blows in my yard and you all wouldn't want somebody else's trash blowing your yard. That's the biggest problem of these rental properties. the rental property owners will not come up, make sure the trash is picked up placed in the herbities. And when the herbities blow over, the tenants don't go and pick up the trash. And all that trash blows up and down the street all the time. And I want to know if the owners are going to plan on picking up the trash. Sir, I don't know if he's able to address that issue for you or not. I just don't think he is. I think you're asking something that should be directed to the city authorities and not to the developers. Okay. Well, to me, if he's the owner, he should let me know whether they're going to pick up the trash or not. I can speak with you afterwards. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Any staff, any assistance that we can do in this case relative to the parking situation back there, I wish we would extend that to this gentleman if at all possible. Please, thank you. Case number 2012-18, am I right, Setser Investment? Yes. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Jason Banks. I'm with Banks Engineering. Here on behalf of Setzer Investments No. 5, LLC, we have read staff's conditions of approval and are in agreement with them and would ask for your approval. They have recommended approval as subject to the conditions you read and you understand and will abide. Yes, sir. Are there questions from the staff? Yes, sir. Questions from the board? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move we approve V2012-18 Setzer Investments' appeal for a variance to eliminate the required screening around an outdoor storage area in a light industrial zone on property located at 1133 Industry Road, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the three conditions. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you, sir. Thank you. The next case is V2012-20, Mike Schmeling. I think you skipped one. No opposition on this case. My name is Lynn Pettigale. I live at 559 North Broadway. I'm representing Mr. Schmeling. The staff has recommended approval. subject to two conditions. Have you read? Yes. Do you understand? Yes. Staff, do you have questions? Board, do you have any questions? If you do not, I will hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve V2012-20 Mike Schmeling's appeal for a variance to reduce the required setback along an alley from 7 1⁄2 feet to 2 1⁄2 feet to accommodate an addition to a garage in a high-density apartment historic district overlay zone on property located at 616 West Short Street as recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions recommended by staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Our next case is 212-11. That has been postponed. The next case we will do is C2012-10, lower leader Monday. Mr. Chairman, we did receive one letter of opposition. We're circulating that to the board now. All right. You may go ahead and tell us who you are, please. Good afternoon. I'm Alita Mundy, and I reside at the address 2832 Winter Garden. Ms. Mundy, we have a letter here in opposition from a Mr., your neighbors. Even though the staff has recommended approval, there are five conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, sir, and I agree to abide by them. Do you understand those conditions? Yes, sir. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Now, can you tell us why any of your neighbors would be in opposition to this, please? I did not get to read the letter, but I'm aware of the address, and that address is actually not beside me. It's across the street, so I'm not aware of what he put in the letter. Okay. Does the staff have any comments? No, sir. And then we'll wait until the board reads this letter, if you don't mind. And they'll probably have some questions for you. Yes, sir. You have already applied for your license and approval? Actually, as of right now, I am a certified provider as of right now. As you might guess, this letter is about noise and traffic. Do you understand there's limited hours for this application that you're applying for today? Correct. As far as the traffic, I provide transportation, so I only have like three parents who drop off and pick up, and I have allotted spaces for them to use in my driveway. Is it okay if we let her know who this letter came from? Yes. I was thinking if you knew who this was, you might take the time to go over and make sure you have good communication with them, and if there's a problem, that they would feel free to talk to you about it, because otherwise they'll call. Yes, sir. I'm aware of the address. As I said, it's not like a neighbor beside me. It's a neighbor that's across the street in a house down. Well, the address is 2829, but I won't put their name over the microphone. Yes, sir. I understand. I'll go over and introduce myself. Well, please do. Thank you. Are there any other questions and concerns? I think he's giving you some real solid advice because we've dealt with these child care centers before, and people are concerned about traffic, and they're concerned about noise. and I think sometimes it's better to walk across the street and let the people know who you are and what you're trying to do and at least console them a little bit. Yes, sir. Any other questions? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve Lorlita's Monday KC 2012-10 appeal for a conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children in a single-family residential zone on property located at 2832 Winter Garden as recommended by staff and subject to the five conditions as recommended by staff. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Good luck to you. Thank you. That's funny. Yes, sir. Case C2012-12, the Baptist Church at Andover. Mr. Chair, members of the board, I'm Tom Lambden with Midwest Engineering. I'm here representing the Baptist Church at Andover. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, sir. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Do you have questions relative to any of the conditions? No, sir. Staff, do you have any questions? No, sir. Board, questions? If there are no questions, I will hear a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend we approve C-2012-12, the Baptist Church at Andover's appeal for a conditional use permit to expand the church in an agricultural urban zone on property located at 3330 Todd's Road, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the three conditions. Do I have a second? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Thank you. And we'll go back to the front, and we will take the case V2012-13, Gary and Stephanie Maybrier. Mr. Chairman, we have received one letter on this. I'll pass it out to the board now. Okay. Will you all tell us who you are? I'm Stephanie Maybrier. Gary Maybrier. Now, Mr. and Mrs. Maybrier, as you well know, the staff has recommended disapproval, and they've given three reasons as to why. and you are here to defend your case, so you got it. Well. I'll tell you what, before you do that, let's let the staff give their rationale as to why first, please. So just have a seat right there, and we'll listen to the staff talk about it, and then you all can come up and address the questions or concerns. This is a property. Yes, sir. This is a property located at 644 Nakomi Drive. The applicants are requesting a variance from a 40-foot setback to a 19-foot setback. This property is at the inside curve of a 90-degree turn in Nakomi Drive, so it's at the corner of Nakomi Drive and Nakomi Drive. The property right now, we have a few pictures to go through first. This is an aerial shot of the subject property. There are two driveways on the subject property. The first one comes off of this side of Nakomi Drive and has a driveway that goes to a two-car garage, and I'll show you that in the pictures. There is a second access about where the pin is located that comes off of Nakomi Drive and comes back to a shed. It's off of the second driveway where the carport is requested to remain. If we can go through some of the pictures. This is looking at the house straight on, and you can see the paved driveway that goes to the two-car garage. And then we have a series of pictures that essentially take you around the corner. The carport is in place on the subject property currently. And as you come around, you can see the carport here, and you can see the second driveway that comes off of Nokomi Drive and the carport. On this particular one, the staff would like you to look. Also, as you look at the rear yard of the subject property, the staff does believe that the carport could be moved on the property to be compliant with the zoning ordinance by moving it instead of on the side of the garage, moving it to the rear of the garage in the rear yard. it would be able to meet the 40-foot setback and still come off of the existing driveway. The last slide there. The driveway currently does have a fence with a gate across it, and the staff acknowledges that if this garage were moved to the other side of the fence on the back of the garage, they would either need to get out and open the gate to access it or also move their fence accordingly. As the staff reviewed the subject property, the staff could not find any justification or any special circumstances for this property. If we can put the overall right back up. As you can see, this is actually a fairly large lot suburban neighborhood. The property is zoned R1B, one of our larger single-family residential zones that we have in Fayette County. We could not find any special circumstances for the subject property that would actually allow it or that would pertain to this property that would not pertain to other properties in this general subdivision. And we also found that approving this variance would actually be out of character with the other properties in the neighborhood. The staff, seeing a lack of a sufficient justification for the request, has recommended disapproval for the three reasons listed on your agenda and in the staff report. If you have any other questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer. Yes? The second driveway that's gravel when it comes off the street, and then there's a part of it that's concrete as it gets closer to that shed in the back? That's in that side street, side yard. Are there any requirements about paved off-street parking in a side street side yard? The zoning ordinance requires that your required parking spaces be behind the building line, but additional spaces can be in front of the parking spaces, could be in front of the building line if they were appropriately screened. Well, I think these are appropriately screened. there's a thick hedge all the way down that side of the property. And the staff has no problem with the existing driveway or the shed that was in the rear. This variance request was for the carport, which was installed at the side of the garage. How was it that you discovered this carport? I'm not positive. I believe that there was a complaint that led to somebody saying, well, you can't have your carport here because it doesn't meet the required setbacks. And if you wanted to ask the board to apply for a variance, we went through the paperwork and the application materials with the applicants. Can you, I see the neighborhood character by looking at this particular photograph. Can you pull in a little bit closer, zoom in a little bit closer on the property itself? My eyes are over 40 years old. And this picture does not show the carport, is that right? No, the carport was apparently put up after this aerial photo was taken. This is from 2010. I have a picture if you'd like to see. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Then we will ask you, if you all come forward and make your case, please. If you would leave that picture on, I want to say something. Can you show this picture? First, I'd like to thank you for letting us come today and to ask for approval on our carport. I've read the case report. I do understand that there is room behind the house. However, it's just less desirable because we have an entrance to the garage under the carport there. There was an existing entrance into the garage, and the driveway was already there. And, of course, the fence, if we put it behind the house, to me it's less appealing. it's going to place an unreasonable burden on us in that we have to either move the fence we have to level the yard a little our backyard is just make a little more we'll have to put another parking space there add gravel to it level it out there's flower beds there that doesn't matter but we will have to make an additional parking space there where we already have one. And, you know, this reduction, it doesn't affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the character of the area. I don't understand. So I might point out to you, I'm right here, that where you have it located now, you can't see it out any of the windows in the front of your house, and you can't see it out any of the windows in the back of your house. but your neighbors can see it from their windows. So another way for you to look at it might be that it's unappealing to them. Well, we've talked to all our neighbors, and not all of them, but the ones within five or six houses each way. In fact, there was a couple that couldn't make it. They wanted to come and help us. I understand what you're saying. It don't look good on that, but it looks good in color. I understand what you're saying. But, you know, not giving addresses. There's other things that are unappealing about their homes as well. Let me ask the building a question because I need to know. Should there have been an approval for this addition to that situation, please? Yes, they should have gotten a permit, and they did not. To be honest, didn't even think about that. Because we're worth that building, I guess, didn't think about it needing a permit to put it up. There's another problem here that I see if we approve this. I mean, because we're setting a standard or a precedence here, you know, And you don't, there's not a lot, you know, I drove around the neighborhood. I didn't see any other carports. And if we start approving one, then, you know, there's a precedent that's set. And then, you know, how many other people are going to come along and want them as well? And so I, you know, if I were a neighbor, I wouldn't, I would not want to be looking at that, you know. I just wouldn't. But that's one thing. If we thought it wasn't attractive, we would not put it up. I mean, that's everybody's different opinion. But our friends that live on the curb, there's about six houses. They all think it looks great. I would not beautify my house if that was an eyesore. Because our house is, in my opinion, the nicest one around. You know, and there is no other lot like ours. No one else has the access and the driveway that goes to the back. No one has that. So for us, it was just a perfect place to put it without, to me, I would rather see a carport sit there than to see it stuffed up behind my house. Is that the principal entrance to the garage? No. So there's another entrance to the garage on the front side of the house? And the garage is a two-car garage, is that what you're saying? So this would accommodate a third car? Yes, I bought her a toy for Christmas. And there's a door that goes in from that area? I see what you mean. Well, could I say something that even though, okay, if we get this disapproved, we're still going to park the car there. We can park the car there, but we can't have the canopy. You know, sometimes you, and I know this is probably the first time you've been down here, but when you come down here and you make a request and then it's found out that you've done something that you shouldn't have done, It makes it awful difficult for this board to support additions that the staff is not recommending relative to the need. I'm sort of probably sort of like you. I wouldn't have looked at that as a development, but that's why I asked the question. It is. and whether that would have been approved by this board or not in the past, I don't know. And I just don't think that this board should set in the judgment to determine or not whether it looks good or it looks bad. Nowhere else in the neighborhood has this. I mean, that was pitched. Nowhere. I mean, it's not a matter of whether it looks good. I understand. No, the pictures of the eyesores. If we lived in an upscale area. But you can't tell the people that live next door to you that their property is any less upscale than anyone else's in the neighborhood. I'm not saying that. We live in upscale. You know, apparently we had one person that opposed this out of the whole neighborhood. You know, the concern here is the staff has made, to me, three pretty solid reasons why that this should not be approved. And I will be very honest with you, I agree with them. I don't see where you've provided any strength in justification. Why? Could you repeat the three? The applicant has not provided sufficient justification related to special circumstances that might apply to this property and do not generally apply to other properties in the neighborhood, that do not generally apply to other properties in the neighborhood. There are no other properties in this subdivision that have an accessory structure in front of the building lying. There is adequate room on the lot for the applicant to move the carport, which probably shouldn't have been there in the first place, to behind the garage and still be accessed to the secondary driveway. I'd like to add one other thing. I don't want you to feel like you're being beat up, but we've been sitting behind this board a long time, and we see neighbors cringe at what's being done around them, and they won't come forward because the relationships are too valuable. Your neighbors that you say all think it's lovely, if I was your neighbor and I cared about you, I'd say it's lovely too, but after my door was closed behind me, I would be shaking my head. They wanted to come down, but everybody has to work. I'm just telling you that it's hard for neighbors to be truthful sometimes about how they feel. Okay. Like I said, okay, we take it away, and this is to protect her car that I bought, her convertible. It's to protect it from elements. Now, we take it away. It's for a reason. It's for a reason. It's not there just to make everybody mad. It's to protect our investment. I guess I don't know this to be true, but we were told that we can still continue to park our car there in that gravel. area, that parking space. But we just can't have the car from there. To protect our business. So to me, that's tacky. But we can put it behind the house. That's like we're parking the car in the yard now. Yeah, we put it in the back. Why wouldn't we be granted an allowance at least to make it be an actual parking structure? Can I build a garage there? You have to seek a permit to do that, sir. Right. And can I build a garage there? We can't address that to you. You have to submit that to the staff. Staff would have to submit it. Also, you have to involve building. That's something we can't recommend to you or not recommend to you. So how do I go about the permit to see if I can build one? First of all, I'd get me someone, a designer, to come in and look at that property and have them to investigate it for you to see if it's legal. But the primary reason this is being turned down is because it's in front of the building line. And if you're asking to build a permanent structure in front of the building line, you're going to be faced with the same arguments that you're being faced with today. You're not being penalized because it's already there. We don't like that. But you're being penalized because it's in front of the building line, and there are no other examples in your neighborhood of people building over the building line. You said the front of the building line. You mean the side? It's in your front yard or your side street side yard. or 40 feet from the street. It's just the rules, and if we didn't have these zoning rules, then your neighborhood wouldn't look as beautiful as it looks. Well, they say, you know, I've got pictures of the neighborhood, the stuff that just looks beautiful compared to our neighborhood. You know, but I won't complain because life's short. Well, you know, I do know that variances are given, and I don't agree with the reasoning that's been given. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? If not, I'll hear a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I move that we disapprove the appeal of Gary and Stephanie Maybrier V. 2012-13 for a variance to reduce the size setback along Nekome Drive from 40 feet to 19 feet to construct a carport in a single-family residential zone on property located at 644 Nakomee Drive based upon the recommendations of the staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. The next case is V2012-19, Steve Perry. Hello. Yes, sir. Who are you, sir? Rory Cayley with EA Partners on behalf of Steve Perry. Mr. Perry? Rory Cayley. We have a gentleman here who's in opposition, and if you all would just have a little seat there, we'll bring him up and let him express his concerns, because I gather you all couldn't step outside and work this out, I guess, huh? So if you'll come up, sir, and tell us who you are. Afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is David May. I live on the corner of Francis and Burley Avenue, and I'm here to speak for the people of American and Burley Avenue, which several of them have asked me to do. Mr. Perry has taken under contract or has bought the property on Burley Avenue. I think it's 301 up to 315, something like that. And he's asking to make variances in said property. I've talked to the preacher across the street, the pastor, and he says they want to move it from 20 feet to 6 feet right next to the church property. And also what the people have seen at the last meeting was a building to be constructed that is entirely different from what is to be constructed now. They want to construct units instead of one big two-story building. I have this thing here. which shows, you know, somebody, I think you'll see what we'll say. The parking places were supposed to be around the property. The building sat in the middle. This here is the new one that was put in the mail. to me, you know, and supposed to have been to the neighbors, but none of the neighbors have come forward yet with said paper. And I want to present this to him. Is that okay? That's fine, sir. Let's see this. Well, this is the new concept of the properties. There's supposed to be 22 to 24 units to be installed. Am I right, Mr. Perry? 22. 22. Now me and him get along good. I've got no quims. I'm neutral in this, but I've lived there almost 75 years in the neighborhood. We fought for years to get our park in there. Now he's going to build, if he gets the park, or the property beside my house on Francis Avenue, to corner Francis and Burley to establish us a new park. But we fought for years to get the old one across the street, which is a very nice-looking park. It's not nasty, dirty, torn up like most of the parks get. And some of the neighbors once in a while take care of it. But now the park will be gone if the deal goes through or if the property is sold to Mr. Perry on this side of the street. But they want to know the traffic impact that it's going to make, which to me is astronomical, because American and Francis Avenue is down to almost just one lane of traffic where it used to be a peaceful neighborhood. You could drive up and down the street side by side, Not worry about your mirrors being knocked off, going through a one-lane traffic. Now, these are the people who live on Merck and I live on Burley. And they're saying, are we going to get the same influx of traffic? The school buses come down Edwards Avenue, turn on the Burley, turn on the Francis. Francis is a 15-foot street. And you know how big a school bus is. The house on the corner of the Rogers home has been hit by automobiles, trucks, I guess a dozen to 15 times since I've lived there on the corner. Traffic impact. When they put the street in from Virginia Avenue to Simpson, everybody and his brother used that as a shortcut to go to Waller Avenue right through our neighborhood. And it's got to be a terrible problem. We've asked about it. We've never got no answers. But they've asked, these units are changed. The whole concept has changed. The building is not the same as what a lot of them looked at and thought maybe they may lack it. but now some of them are talking about these units that come to me I say there's nothing I can do except go down talk to the people and see what you people think about it or see if you want to recommend traffic impact study on this thing about your school bus about the trash and garbage that may be blowing over top the buildings into the church lot into the church building. So, you know, I'm at my ends on it. I'm here to express their views to you and let you know. I don't want to make Steve mad. I think he's a pretty nice fellow. But that's what it's all about. You're getting a... The park that you're going to get, it's going to be replaced, is it going to be the same size? No, ma'am. It's going to be, I think, about 20 foot smaller. Our park we fought for years to get with Maloney and a couple others on the council years and years ago, the old Riddell property. I think it's 160 foot, if I remember correctly, by 120, if I remember correctly about it. This park is 122 by 110, I think. Something like that. I don't have the exact figures. Maybe Steve does. But it is smaller. And the basketball court it had on it sits way down, sits across the street. There's sidewalks. The one on this side, they're putting it on, putting it on upper end, right next, almost next to my house. And I'm catching that from my wife about a ball bouncing up and down constantly in her windows. So, I mean, things like that, I don't think, it's very irritable. But his paper, with his before, he had a small basketball court down back of the church building down in the very corner. I have one thing he's leaving the trees on the street which is very nice you know on the right street down in front he's got a good mind on him I have to agree with that he wants to do what the neighborhood would like so he met with the neighborhood and showed them this large two story building with parking around the perimeter and they've changed it at the last minute we've never seen the bigger building But if your concerns are about traffic or the number of bedrooms, do you know whether this new plan is more parking or more cars or more bedrooms? I think his plans go from 50 to 60. Is it 60 units you have? Parking places. Was it 60 parking places? If I read that thing correctly. He's got 60 parking places. but when he had his big building, he was parking on four sides. I mean three sides. On the south side, the north side, and on the east side. But all of that traffic would still come to Burley Avenue, wouldn't it? Both plans put all the traffic on Burley. The entrance is off of Burley Avenue and on Burley Avenue. You go in, like I'm going in off of Edwards Avenue. I'm going into your building. I come out on the other end, come out on Francis, can go up Francis Avenue because we had it made one way. So there's a difference in the traffic pattern when he made this change? Oh, the traffic, it comes down off of Simpson and on the Burley and then turn on the Francis from 4 o'clock to 6 o'clock in the afternoon. It's just out of the ordinary. Would you like to hear what the traffic engineering people say about this? I would. What have you got to say about it? Seems like to me that this plan's been around for quite a while, and this is the first that I have heard of any type of traffic implications. So I'm not familiar with the area. I think there's a lot of places in town from 4 to 6 o'clock you're going to find congestion. So I don't know that I could weigh in on this without not having any traffic counts or not have visited the site and done any type of survey of the activity on burning. When the Planning Commission allows for a complex with 22 apartments and 88 bedrooms, do they not do a traffic impact study for an area as congested as this? As far as I know, that is below the threshold to where a traffic study would be asked for. Mr. Greggs, usually. As far as going through the Planning Commission process. Okay, thank you. Usually there's only a traffic study involved if there's a zone change request, and it's expected to generate more than 100 trips in the peak hour. This particular development did not need a zone change, but about 160 townhouses is the threshold for a traffic study. So this is about 22, so it's just a fraction of that. See, I think there should be a study made of this thing before it's approved to satisfy the neighborhood and to satisfy Mr. Perry to see if this is going to be very detrimental to our neighborhood, which it is going to increase the volume because you know with that many parking places, they're not all going to park in that building. They're going to be parking out on the street. They're going to be parking across the street. Same as they do on American Avenue up there. They have facilities for everybody to park. Their vehicle's behind all the apartment buildings they built. We call them apartment buildings. We don't call them housing buildings because they came in there. There's four to six different named people living in each place. There can't be relatives, that many. One thing I noticed about this application, one of the variances is to allow for more parking spaces than are required. So I think they're doing all they can to add off-street parking to alleviate the congestion on the street. Yes, sir. One of the things they're asking for approval of is more parking spaces than the zoning ordinances allow. And another thing that people are talking about as all little kids, they're concerned for the safety of the kids in that very bad part of the district for traffic. I see what you're saying. See, we've got a whole lot of two to 16-year-old kids, plus we've got 75 or 80 maybe college students down almost every day playing basketball over here. And they park, some of them do, but most of them just walk right down the street to go over to play ball. And we've got our school kids coming in and our school buses. And that's the major concern is the safety of our kids and also the church over there, which there was supposed to be somebody here today to speak for them, but they never showed up. So I'm left with a job. Well, I sure thank you, sir. But like I say, I'm 75 years old. It can go swing either way. I won't be mad at nobody. I'm a friend to everybody. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Let's hear from the applicant, please. Okay, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, commission members, My name is Jerry Hancock, and I'm the director of Parks and Recreation here in Lexington. And David May is unofficially known as the mayor of that neighborhood. He takes good care of letting us know what is happening. He's been a great advocate for parks and for his neighborhood for a long time. David May is a great guy. As the director of parks, we've been involved in this conversation for, gee, nine months now. And the position of the Division of Parks and Recreation is that the developer came to us and said, would you consider swapping some property for the existing park on Burley for a brand-new park of comparable size somewhere else? And we've now looked at two different locations. We've come back with the assistance of the neighbors and identified three housing lots that are under contract that Mr. Perry is willing to buy and level and construct a brand-new park with all new amenities for about $115,000 at his expense. So the citizens of Lexington come away with a brand-new park in an era where we do not have money to maintain, upgrade, enhance the existing Burley Park, which is 15 years old, and that's a little tired. So Parks is very much in favor of this concept and have worked with the neighbors throughout. We have held two public meetings, the first of which generated a lot of concerns and a lot of questions about our design, about the size of the basketball court, the size of the playgrounds, whether we'd have 2-5-year-old or 6-12-year-old equipment, etc. We've gone through half a dozen different iterations, the last of which was presented to the neighborhood at a public meeting in which people from a quarter of a mile were invited by mail and came. and the vote at the end of that day was 15 to 1 in favor of the neighborhood getting a new park. And so that piece of the puzzle is pretty clear. The citizens win. With respect to the development details, a number of items came up at the last meeting that I'll let Mr. Perry describe how he has worked them into the plan, but the question of parking came up and Mr. Perry has increased the amount of parking on the site and the addition of a basketball court came up to alleviate some of the pressure on the park. So from our position, Mr. Perry has met the neighborhood's concerns and objections, and we're left with something dramatically better than what we had before. So I want you to know that Parks and Recreation favors this proposal, which will go on the docket on the 9th of April. We have a memorandum of agreement between the parties to make all this happen, if all of the variances and whatnot are approved and the building plan is approved. But I'll let Mr. Perry speak to the exact details that Mr. May brought up. Good afternoon. My name is Steve Perry. What I'm trying to accomplish here is our first proposed plan that Mr. May had given Bill was for a three-story apartment building, 24 units. We have met numerous times with Rory, myself, and Jerry, Mr. Hancock. What I'm trying to do is make the best fit for this property as I possibly can. I have changed back to townhomes, which reduced from 24 units to 22 units. I am not building a three-story apartment building. We are going two stories now. Okay? After meeting with the Neighborhood Association and all the neighbors and the park board, And as you well know, parking in this area is a big concern to everyone. This is why we're requesting as much parking as we possibly can on this property. The concerns as far as traffic goes, the 313 Burley Avenue was a daycare. It actually had a maximum occupancy of 60 children. I don't think we're changing as far as many people coming and going in a day's time. I don't believe we're increasing that much, if any. I guess the point I'm trying to get to is it is a concern of mine as well as the neighbors that are going to be using this new park. Okay? That we make traffic as flowable as possible, if that's the right word. And we realize that there is going to be small kids crossing one side of the street to go to this brand new park. Okay? I am in full agreement to and even pay for any type of marking for crosswalks. Jerry and I have spoke about this. There's more to it than just building a new park. We want everything to be perfect when it's done. Do you have any questions? I have a couple of questions. Okay. Not that I'm in opposition. And if I can't answer, I might have to. Not that I'm in opposition to anything you're trying to do. It's just that you look at a structure like this and you look at where it is, and anybody that lives in Lexington knows that when you put something up like this, the area is going to become more congested relative to automobiles or whatever they're driving. And I understand that. But did you consider doing a traffic study within this particular project? If you haven't, are you going to attempt to do one? And I guess I do understand what has changed now from the original plan. You were going three stores, now you're going two. Yes, sir. Was the neighborhood presented with this earlier, or is this a new plan that they have not seen? The townhome development is new. That is correct. Okay. Okay. The development has been presented to them for twice. Now we've met with the Neighborhood Association, myself and Parks, over what we propose to do with this property. So as far as a change, yes, but they know that there is a development coming. And my other question would be how many entrances and exits will you have relative to this property, and what roads would they go out on or come in on relative to where the people are going to be living here? Our entrances and exits are shown here on the screen, have not changed from either one of our proposed developments. Correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, we might have shifted them a few feet, but Mr. May has commented. We have some pretty nice existing trees out here that are on Burley Avenue, and I've expressed with Rory. If you jump in, Rory, that, you know, I really like to keep those and try and design the project around. I think, for my clarification, I think if you, in viewing this, I think this is a pretty good project from what I see. But I think it could ease a lot of tension if there are easy ways in here and easy ways out of here where traffic doesn't meet with each other coming and going. relative to what you're trying to do. Yes, there's two ways in and out. Each entrance is two-way traffic. This configuration, before we had parking that circled around an apartment building that was centered. In this one, we put the residences towards the exterior, and we tried to locate all the parking interior so it had less of a visual impact. Both of them are on and off of Burley. We've accommodated the solid waste. There's a dumpster located in the back for all the pickup. In the drawing, both Edwards and Francis are alleys, and they are one-directional each way. They were mentioned quite a bit in people cutting through. Buses being on there, I guess, is pretty impressive. They are very tight. Burley's itself is a 24-foot wide asphalt, 6-foot sidewalk on our side of the property. so that's a bit larger than usual. The other side of Burley has no sidewalk at all. I think it's used for parking quite a bit. We are asking for the increase in parking from what's allowed in the infill and redevelopment area. They limit us, and we are trying to get as much off street as we can. On Edwards and Francis, Is this an invitation for people who are visiting this complex or living in the complex to use these two streets for parking as well? I don't. I would hope not. I don't think there's enough room. Like Rory had mentioned, they are one-direction alleys. I don't think there's enough room for a person to park. And with the trees, there's a final development plan is what has been in front of the Planning Commission and approved. This is residential zone, so there is requirements of canopy that will have to be planted with the development. So there's a great number of trees for such a small area that will be going back in after this is done. I'm assuming this is all rental property? Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Are you targeting college students? I mean, is that where you think your tenants are going to come from? No, we're not marketing just two students. Oh, I understand that. But that's an area that a lot of students do live, correct? Yes, ma'am. I mean, we are less than a half mile away from St. Joe, Lexington Clinic, as well as the University of Kentucky. Are these two-bedroom condos, three-bedroom condos, or what are they? Three- and four-bedroom townhouse. There's some rich students if they come over there. Yes, sir. I'm curious about the park. Mr. Hancock, you said that there was going to be a new park come out of this whole proposal. Yes. Where is it and how close is it to this piece of property? Perfect question. It's directly across the street. If you can see, I don't have the clicker. Across which? So Burley Avenue is the street in front of the complex. I'll take it from you. The beauty of this is here's the project in question. This is Burley Avenue. The existing park is right here. Steve is also buying some property adjacent to make this square available to him. The park is going to move directly across the street from this street, property here, here, and, well, three properties. I can't tell you exactly what they are, but there are three properties comprising about 0.6 acres or so, and we're giving up 0.63 acres. So it's almost an exact size swap. It is a few feet shorter. but the replacement park is directly across the street. Okay. Good. Thanks. Is there parking in the park area as well? No, sir, there will not be as there is none in the existing park. Where will the people park? People will walk to this park. This is a neighborhood park with a couple of small playground areas. This is not a destination. People will not drive to this park. It's meant to serve the immediate neighborhood. All right. Thank you. In connection with the park, I'm interested in parks. Is this going to be a private park? Is it going to be deeded to the city? Is it going to be maintained privately? Do you know about how this works? This will become an LFUCG property. We are charging Steve with the obligation of buying those homes, leveling those homes, building the park, giving us the keys before he does anything to disturb the existing park. So once the new park is built to our specs and turned over to us, he'll then be allowed to begin his development. It'll become city property, as is the existing park. But you don't have the authority to approve the development. You just have the authority to approve the park, right? That is correct. So what if we approve the development and the park falls through? He won't get – he's going to give us enough money in surety to make sure that everything happens before we sign the agreement or ask the council to do so on the 9th. So he will be obligated to complete the project regardless of what happens across the street. Mr. Glover, I believe I can answer that question also. Sure, thanks. As you know, I also do infill and redevelopment responsibilities, and I reviewed and presented this plan as it went to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved this plan with a condition that they document the ownership of Burley Park prior to us certifying the plan, which would allow them the ability to get their building permits. He's not going to be able to own the park until the new park is built, and as Mr. Hancock said, has given the keys over to the city. So that Planning Commission condition of approval will guarantee that the park transfer goes through before Mr. Perry is allowed to pull any building permits on LFUCG property. So you're saying we don't need to attach as a condition anything about the park because it's going to be taken care of? The Planning Commission has already done that with the approval of the development plan. The latest development plan was approved on March 8th, earlier this month, the plan for the townhouses. Another condition of approval was provided that the board grants the requested variances to the zoning ordinance that are before you today. It was noted then and will note now that should the board choose not to grant these variances, then the applicant would have to go back to the Planning Commission to revise their development plan to meet the zoning ordinance. Thanks. Any other questions? Any other concerns? Staff, do you have any questions? No, sir. I see Mr. May. Is that right? Mr. May has got his hand up over there. May I speak? Sure. So we wouldn't dream of not allowing you to speak. You got me. Now, you know, that's our biggest concern is the traffic problem and also when this thing was going to come into effect. You know, we knew that if Mr. Perry built the park, when he threw his last shovel of dirt, then he took over if he purchases the other property, the park property. I mean, he gets the park property, but he's got to purchase the property across the street, the three residents that's involved into it. And I don't think anybody realized that. It's got to be bought before and okayed to be cleaned up by the house in the middle. It's got asbestos shingles on it, and that's a big concern. and there's a few things that we'd like to have straightened out before we can turn our kids and my great grandbabies loose over in a park that I'm concerned may have some contamination. I didn't want to bring that up. That's a playing dirty pool. But what I'd like to hear from you folks, recommend traffic impact, check the school bus, The safety of the kids. I was a scoutmaster for years. That's one of my big concerns is kids. I've raised a good family, but I want it to stay this way. You know, where the kids can come onto the ground and not wear it about a car, whipping around the corner, hitting the corner post where the entranceway was, and come sliding up into the park because it's been done several times. And then also, the parking places, it looks like, can you run that up there for me, please? That's what you have right now, isn't it? This is your plan right now. Yes, sir. Where the housing portion of it was, that was all parking places on the other one. Do you understand what I'm saying? Yes, sir, we do. That was all parking places on the other plan that Mr. Prairie had. But now you've gone. The big building, that's what I say, those were the parking places. The big building sat in the middle. And he parked around it. But now you've got the housing around the outside. if you move the variances down to six foot you can't park a vehicle in a six foot area right next to the fence so what's going to be done with said property but I'll leave that thought with you people you're the ones that are supposed to check, see fine tune this thing but I appreciate you letting me speak today I hope all of you have a nice day thank you One thing I would just like to comment on is Mr. Hancock and I have talked about putting some additional signage on Burley Avenue after the park is built. In our meetings with the neighbors, we have learned that there's a deaf child in this area. have a sign posted on the street for a deaf child as well as any other signage necessary. And I believe Jerry could probably add to that what is standard when we have a park, whether it be new or old. Let me just say very briefly that we're in the parks business, which is primarily kid-driven stuff. And so a playground to us is a sacred institution. We're very much interested in the traffic impact and the speed. David May has brought up lots of instances to us of people speeding in the neighborhood now. It happens in every neighborhood. Some of our parks have some of the fastest thoroughfares in the city. Go to Shiltoe anytime, and you'll see people doing 60 miles an hour. So we're very interested and concerned with the traffic here. We'll sign. We'll put in walkways. We'll do what we can to make sure people are aware that there's a kid-centric thing in this neighborhood. It's going to attract kids. Kids always want to go to where the newest playgrounds are. So we're very concerned about that, and we'll work with Steve to make sure he signs, and traffic engineering helps us get signs. We can't put calming devices because of snow plows and school buses. But the school buses are making the turns there. We're not changing the road. None of this proposes any of that. We're going to try and slow the traffic down. The traffic may be increased because of more residences, but we'll do everything we can to make people aware there's a playground and they ought to slow down. We'll help that effect. I have a question in relation to that, and this is for traffic. What about the installation of speed bumps? I mean, is that a consideration? I don't know how that occurs or when that occurs or what criteria has to be met. Speed humps are generally something that, as a project, is driven by the priorities within the neighborhood. The city itself does not install speed humps anywhere in Lexington. At one point, we did have a budget set up to where we had some matching funds, according to the income levels of the neighborhood. However, those funds are dried up now. However, if the neighborhood did want speed humps, we would be glad to help them maybe try to locate them and come up with a cost figure, but it would be up to the neighborhood to pay for the speed humps. Is that something the developer, Mr. Perry, might consider doing? Yes, ma'am. I brought that suggestion up in one of our meetings, and we had an issue with the school buses. I believe the bottom step, and I could be wrong, but the clearance with the speed hump, the school buses can't go over it. Okay? And this is closer, this piece of property is closer to South Broadway, and there's more kids being delivered towards the end of Burley. Speed humps are also an issue with snow plowing. Yes. So we're going to have to possibly put a stop sign. Or does it have to be a certain height, or can it be wide? I don't know how it works, but does it have to be a standard height? Or just something to slow these vehicles down? Or something. I mean, does it have to meet a certain height, or can it be modified so that the bus could go over it? I'm sure it can. To answer your question, as far as the cost goes, I mean, we really have no problem putting a speed hump in or buying a couple of stop signs, whatever it takes. We don't want to do this development and do these improvements as much as this cost and have anyone hurt over there. Okay? I want my tenants to be able to use this park as well as the neighborhood and everybody enjoy it with no big towns. And I'm sure there's going to be a ton of small kids coming once we get these playgrounds put in. A better option might be stop signs on both ends of the park. Stop before you get close to it, then you've got to come to a dead stop while you're at it. That will slow them down in the middle of the block anyway. That might be the best solution. And having it well marked, you know, with crosswalks and having it very visual. Lots of yellow paint out there. It's not a well-attended park today for a variety of reasons. It will become more popular. We'll do everything we can to make it visually apparent that there's a kid-centric thing ahead. Slow down. One last thing. Regarding asbestos or lead paint, I guess there's a demolition permit that's required, and somebody makes sure that we don't end up with title on a piece of property that's contaminated. We'll be crossed appropriately and adequately before we start to build a public amenity. Well, it would just be nice for the neighborhood to know that those things are looked at. They will be done. Thank you very much. I have a motion, please. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve V-2012-19, Steve Perry's appeal for a variance to reduce the required project exterior yard from 20 feet to 6 feet, reduce the minimum required open space from 20 percent to 18 percent, and to increase the maximum allowable parking from 50 to 60 spaces in a high-density apartment zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area on properties located at 301 and 313 Burley Avenue, based on the recommendations of the staff and subject to the conditions, the two conditions that they've attached. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you. Thank you. I think that is the end of our appeals for the day. Staff, you have? Staff just has one item to bring to you. If you remember several months back when I first started in January, There was a request from the board to change our standard notice letter that goes out to people to inform them that they need to send notices to the Division of Planning to bring it to the board, and we have made those changes and will be implementing them in the coming months. All right. We were going to get something about the required training. The required training. I do not have those numbers for you today, but we will get them to you. Thank you. Any other questions or concerns? If not, I'll hear a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Meetings adjourned. I'm out.