# Board of Adjustment Meeting - May 18, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 18, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2526 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2526?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-05-18 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 12,186 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 Planning Services Section met on May 18, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Louis Stout presided over the meeting, which addressed six agenda items involving variance appeals and conditional use permit requests. The board took eight motions and votes during the session and heard five public comments. Of the six cases presented, four were approved: Ball Homes, LLC's Floodplain Variance Appeal; William Mercer's Front Setback Variance Appeal; Jeff Spencer's Car Wash Conditional Use Appeal; and Campus Rental Properties' Sign Setback Variance Appeal. Two cases were postponed: the revocation hearing request for Inner City Breakthrough Ministries and the Conditional Use Permit Appeal for Brenda Tollett/BVC Holding, LLC. ## Attendance **Present:** Louis Stout, Jim Griggs, Barry Stumbo, Kathryn Moore, Jan Meyer, Thomas Glover, Chuck Saylor, Jim Gallimore, Rochelle Boland, Jim Marx, Wanda Howard, Jimmy Emmons, Bill Sallee, Ed Dove, Hart Terrell, Rena Wiseman, James Griffith, Kevin, John Strom, Diane Lawless, and Chris King. **Absent:** Noel White. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions All votes taken during this meeting passed unanimously with no opposing votes or abstentions. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 01:28:40] The Planning Commission approved the minutes from the December 16, 2011 and April 27, 2012 meetings. Motion by Barry Stumbo, seconded by Jan Meyer. **Postponements and Scheduling** A motion to postpone C-2010-20: INNER CITY BREAKTHROUGH MINISTRIES for 30 days or to a special meeting passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:08:17]. Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Barry Stumbo. A special meeting for C-2010-27: INNER CITY BREAKTHROUGH MINISTRIES was scheduled for June 8 at 1:30 PM [timestamp: 00:17:41]. Motion by Jan Meyer, seconded by Thomas Glover. C-2012-28: BRENDA TOLLETT / BVC HOLDING, LLC was postponed to the June 29 meeting [timestamp: 00:43:59]. Motion by Jan Meyer, seconded by Thomas Glover. **Variance Approvals** **V-2012-27**: Ball Homes, LLC received approval to reduce floodplain setback from 25 feet to 12.5 feet [timestamp: 00:31:04]. Motion by Barry Stumbo, seconded by Kathryn Moore. Conditions include compliance with the submitted site plan and obtaining all necessary permits from the Division of Building Inspection. **V-2012-30**: William Mercer received approval to reduce front setback from 20 feet to 3 feet for additional parking [timestamp: 00:42:19]. Motion by Jim Griggs, seconded by Thomas Glover. Conditions include constructing additional driveway pavement no more than 9 feet in width beginning at least 3 feet behind the property line, planting at least one small ornamental tree between the new pavement and the adjacent property line, and submitting an Administrative Action Plat for approval prior to permit issuance. **V-2012-31**: Campus Rental Properties received approval to reduce sign setback from 20 feet to 12 feet in an R3 zone [timestamp: 01:27:34]. Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Jan Meyer. Conditions limit the sign to 40 square feet maximum area and require it to include the property address and be maintained in clean and safe condition. **Conditional Use Approval** **AC-2012-29**: Jeff Spencer received approval for a conditional use permit to operate a full-service car wash in a B1 zone [timestamp: 01:06:06]. Conditions require compliance with stormwater and drainage regulations, prevention of excessive noise or traffic congestion, and maintenance of the surrounding area in clean and orderly condition. ## Public Comment The meeting included five public speakers addressing various zoning and development matters. **Ed Dove** [timestamp: 00:01:32] requested a postponement for the Inner City Breakthrough Ministries church appeal. He cited the need for additional preparation time, dialogue with planning staff, and resolution of a potential fair housing complaint, emphasizing the case's significance and complexity. **Jeff Spencer** [timestamp: 00:44:39] spoke in support of his full-service car wash operation in the B1 zone. He characterized the business as a community service, stating it causes no noise or traffic issues and has received no complaints. He requested approval based on its minimal impact and community benefit. **James Griffith** [timestamp: 00:52:10] testified in support of Spencer's car wash, noting that the business has improved the cleanliness of the parking lot and has caused no disturbances. He characterized it as a positive addition to the neighborhood. **Diane Lawless** [timestamp: 01:07:09] expressed concern about unsightly, permanent rental signs advertising multiple properties across residential areas. She called these signs a blight on neighborhoods and requested a postponement of the variance approval until the council addresses zoning regulations for rental signage. **John Strom** [timestamp: 01:14:03] explained that the proposed sign is a replacement for an existing one that has been in place since 1976. He noted that the new sign is smaller in face area and is intended to improve visibility for emergency services and residents. ## Contested Items The May 18, 2012 meeting included three items that generated significant disagreement among board members and community stakeholders. **Variance for William Mercer's driveway** Board members engaged in heated discussion over a variance request for paving a front yard driveway on a Y-shaped cul-de-sac. The primary concern centered on the precedent such approval could establish. One board member estimated that up to 400 similar properties on comparable Y-shaped cul-de-sacs could potentially seek similar variances if approved. Staff recommended a compromise approach designed to preserve green space while addressing the applicant's request. **Car wash in B1 zone** The Board was divided on a proposal for a full-service car wash in a B1 zoning district. The central disagreement involved whether the full-service operation qualified as a self-service use under existing zoning regulations. After debate, board members reached a compromise that approved the use contingent upon specific conditions. **Rental signage in residential areas** A council member raised strong objections to permanent rental signs proposed for residential neighborhoods, citing concerns about visual impact. Rather than proceeding with a vote, the council member requested postponement of the decision to allow time for the council to address the broader zoning issues underlying the signage question. ## INNER CITY BREAKTHROUGH MINISTRIES - Revocation Hearing Request [timestamp: 00:01:32] The Board considered a revocation hearing request for Inner City Breakthrough Ministries, a church operating in a B-4 zone that was not in compliance with its operating conditions. **Key Speakers:** - Ed Dove - Louis Stout - Jim Griggs - Thomas Glover - Jan Meyer **Discussion:** The applicant's attorney requested a postponement of the revocation hearing, citing the need for additional time to prepare for the proceedings and to engage in dialogue regarding the non-compliance issues. **Outcome:** The Board voted unanimously to postpone the revocation hearing. The matter was rescheduled for a special meeting on June 8. ## BRENDA TOLLETT / BVC HOLDING, LLC - Conditional Use Permit Appeal **Case Number:** C-2012-28 The Board considered a conditional use permit appeal for an indoor/outdoor recreational facility [timestamp: 00:20:21]. The matter involved speakers Bill Sallee, Jan Meyer, and Thomas Glover. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the appeal subject to conditions. **Board Action** The Board postponed consideration of the appeal due to the absence of the applicant. The matter was deferred to the June 29 meeting for further consideration. ## BALL HOMES, LLC - Floodplain Variance Appeal **Identifier:** V-2012-27 The Board considered a floodplain variance appeal by Ball Homes, LLC [timestamp: 00:21:54]. The request sought to reduce the floodplain setback requirement from 25 feet to 12.5 feet. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Rena Wiseman, Jim Marx, and Hart Terrell. **Decision** The Board unanimously approved the variance. In making this determination, the Board found that: - The structure is located outside the regulatory floodplain - Strict application of the setback requirement would cause unnecessary hardship **Outcome** The variance was approved, allowing Ball Homes, LLC to proceed with a reduced floodplain setback of 12.5 feet rather than the standard 25-foot requirement. ## WILLIAM MERCER - Front Setback Variance Appeal **Identifier:** V-2012-30 The Board considered a front setback variance appeal for William Mercer's property [timestamp: 00:32:11]. The request sought to reduce the required front setback from 20 feet to 3 feet to accommodate additional parking on the lot. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Hart Terrell, Jim Sallee, and Jim Griggs. **Presentation and Rationale** The variance was justified based on the unique shape of the lot and the absence of available on-street parking in the area. These factors were cited as creating a practical need for the reduced setback to enable parking on the property. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended a modified version of the variance proposal. This alternative approach was intended to preserve green space on the property while still addressing the parking needs. **Outcome** The Board approved the variance to reduce the front setback to 3 feet, allowing the additional parking as requested. ## JEFF SPENCER - Car Wash Conditional Use Appeal **Identifier:** AC-2012-29 The Board considered a conditional use appeal for a full-service car wash operation proposed in a B1 zone [timestamp: 00:44:39]. Key speakers included Jeff Spencer, James Griffith, and Rochelle Boland. The discussion centered on whether to approve the conditional use permit for the car wash operation. The Board weighed concerns about potential nuisance impacts and the precedent that approval might set for similar uses in the B1 zone against the applicant's proposal. Through discussion, a compromise was reached that addressed the Board's primary concerns. The compromise involved establishing specific conditions under which the car wash operation would be permitted to proceed. **Outcome:** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the full-service car wash, contingent upon the applicant's compliance with the negotiated conditions designed to mitigate nuisance concerns and limit precedent-setting implications for future similar applications in the zone. ## CAMPUS RENTAL PROPERTIES - Sign Setback Variance Appeal **Case Number:** V-2012-31 **Overview** The Board considered a sign setback variance appeal for Campus Rental Properties [timestamp: 01:07:09]. The applicant requested approval to reduce the required sign setback from 20 feet to 12 feet for a replacement sign. **Key Speakers** - John Strom - Diane Lawless **Discussion and Findings** The Board noted that this request involved a replacement sign rather than a new sign installation. The variance was characterized as a minor structural upgrade to existing signage on the property. This distinction was significant in the Board's evaluation of the request, as it differentiated the proposal from a new sign that would require full compliance with current setback standards. **Decision** The Board approved the variance request. The approval included conditions to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable signage regulations. These conditions were designed to address setback requirements while accommodating the replacement of the existing sign structure. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Postpone C-2010-20: INNER CITY BREAKTHROUGH MINISTRIES for 30 days or to a special meeting - **Motion** — passed: Schedule a special meeting for C-2010-27: INNER CITY BREAKTHROUGH MINISTRIES on June 8 at 1:30 PM - **Motion** — passed: Postpone C-2012-28: BRENDA TOLLETT / BVC HOLDING, LLC to the June 29 meeting - **V-2012-27** — passed: Approve variance for Ball Homes, LLC to reduce floodplain setback from 25 feet to 12.5 feet - **V-2012-30** — passed: Approve variance for William Mercer to reduce front setback from 20 feet to 3 feet for additional parking - **AC-2012-29** — passed: Approve conditional use for Jeff Spencer to operate a full-service car wash in a B1 zone - **V-2012-31** — passed: Approve variance for Campus Rental Properties to reduce sign setback from 20 feet to 12 feet in R3 zone - **Motion** — passed: Approve minutes of December 16, 2011 and April 27, 2012 meetings --- ## Full transcript I guess everybody here is going to be here, huh? Good afternoon and welcome to the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government Board of Adjustments meeting. for May the 18th. We welcome all of you, and before we get started, we would ask you please, if you have cell phones on your person's view, would please turn off or put on silent. If you must use your cell phone, we ask that you would step outside so you do not interrupt anyone next to you speaking or any of the board members speaking, please. we'll ask the staff if we have any postponements or if we have any withdrawals, please. None from the staff, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. My name is Ed Dove. I represent the Emanuel Christian Church and Catholic Action Center on the conditional use appeal C-2010-20, and we would request due to the severity or the importance of this issue that we have a postponement so we would be adequately prepared to address the issues. You're talking about C-2010-20? Yes, sir. Inner City Breakthrough Ministries. Is that it? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Staff, do you have a comment relative to this request? It's our understanding that there would be several people in the division, I mean, in the audience today to speak on this item. The Division of Planning is ready to make a presentation today, of course. We will see how many is here in support and how many is in here in opposition before we make that decision. Staff, do you have any questions before we? Mr. Dove, do you have any grounds for your request? I'm just kind of curious about what. Well, at this point, Your Honor, I mean, Mr. Glover, at this point, I've just been basically retained by the parties. I'm also working close with the Election Fair Housing Council, who is investigating a possible complaint that we need to discuss and maybe flush that out and maybe attempt to resolve the situation without a hearing. It's kind of an important issue, a big issue, affects a lot of people. So I think that just to push it through quickly without us being adequately prepared to address the pretty serious allegations I don't think would do anybody any good. Have you had any conversations with the staff about? I had conversations with Ms. Boland in the Department of Law. I have not had any conversations with the staff. No, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just clarify my position in case it wasn't clear. The staff really doesn't have a position on whether this item does or does not postpone today. I was simply trying to let the board know that if you do want to hear this today, that we are prepared to hear it. And it is also our understanding that there would be several people in the audience. So if I was unclear in my previous statement, I apologize. All right. That's all right. And it might take a lot of time also. Anyone else on the board have comments? I'm wondering what kind of conversations have been going back and forth for the last month or two or longer with code enforcement and the Catholic Action Center on this location. Why they didn't start working on this problem, why they didn't hire an attorney before the last minute. This seems like a delaying tactic to some degree. I mean, with all due respect, it's not a delaying tactic at all. It's just that we need to have more time to adequately address it. I mean, it's a very, you know, the issues are raised by the planning is pretty serious. And, you know, we hope that this will open up time. More time will open up communication between planning and the parties and maybe work out a resolution. My question actually was to the staff, wondering if you've threatened this revocation hearing with them for some length of time. It wasn't brought up with them just in the last month, was it? Well, to answer your question about code enforcement, I don't think they've been directly involved too much. Division of Fire has been very involved in ensuring that certain code requirements were met, regardless of what type of occupancy was in the building. we have been discussing this issue for several months there's been a lot of discussions about the different routes that could be dosed some of that could be taken some of that's addressed in the supplemental report that you all got which identified different options that could be taken at this point so the only thing I can think of is in terms of what they know about this is at the last hearing where it was discussed where we requested that you all schedule a revocation hearing at the last board of adjustment hearing So before I ask who all are here in opposition and who's in support, I would ask you all, are you all opposed to this being delayed for 30 days? We're not opposed at all. There might be some discussion of whether to have a special hearing for this or to blend it in with the June hearing. And there's a possibility the June hearing might be kind of full. Don't know for sure yet, but it's a possibility. Well, then before we vote on this, I want to ask all of those who are here in opposition to this particular request, would you please stand, please? Opposition to? Opposition, yes. So we've got five, six people, seven. As long as they understand it's an opposition to the entailants. Is that correct? This is not to the continuous. This is in opposition of the appeal. Are you in opposition to the church being in existence, or are you in favor of it? Well, we understood the government was saying this is an inappropriate use. But that's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you, are you in favor of the request or the proposal by the church, are you in opposition to it? Thank you all. Thank you. All of those in favor, please stand. Thank you. Our board is left up to us to accept the fact whether you want this case to be heard today or whether you want to grant the appeal. I grant to postpone it. Postpone for 30 days, I gather, right? That'd be fine. That'd be fine. We have a request for postponement of C2010-20 Inner City Breakthrough Ministries. It requests it to be postponed for 30 days to the June meeting. All those in favor of this, please signify a saying aye. Mr. Chair may be entertaining the idea of a special hearing. Oh, Jimmy, please. I would be in favor of that. In favor of what? At a special hearing. Special date. I hate any special meeting. Ms. Bolland, do you have any comments or suggestions? No. The only discussion that occurred between myself and Mr. Dove is he called me inquiring about the possibility of a postponement. I explained that that was up to the board and that he would need to ask the board that it wasn't a decision that was up to me, and that was basically the extent of our conversation. Then we're going to ask for a motion, whether it be the motion, the request be granted or not. Do we have a motion on the floor to grant the postponement to June 30th, the June meeting? Mr. Chair, I move that the item C-2010-20 Intercity Breakthrough Ministries hearing that was scheduled for today from last month be postponed for 30 days or to a special hearing at the pleasure of the Board. Do I have a second? I'll second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Opposed. Motion passes. You've got your 30 days. And, Your Honor, what day would that be then, the next meeting? The motion on the floor was either for June 30th or for a special meeting. You want to vote on a special meeting? Yes, I want to vote on a special meeting. And we have a motion on the floor for a special meeting. Do I have a second? Well, I sort of like the idea to leave it either for a postponement to the June meeting or a special. We've got to make a decision. What are we going to have a special meeting? Well, I wondered if the staff and the applicant could make that determination based on the load for the June meeting. I think the board would have to decide the date today. Would we? Yes. Well, that's why I was confused about your motion, because it seemed like it was looking for it either way. It was. I wanted to give enough flexibility for the board to have further discussion about it. I guess the motion really was to postpone it and then to have a discussion about whether to have it at a special meeting or to have it at next month's hearing. And I don't have strong feelings either way about that. It's more of a scheduling issue, I think. So in that respect, it would be nice to know what's on next month's docket. It would be nice to know if there is a convenient time if we decide to have a special hearing, when that would be. So, what's your preference, I guess? Personally speaking, my feeling is just putting it on the June agenda. I don't know why we would need to have a special hearing for it. That's my personal opinion. If you want a hearing, then we'll have to vote for it. We'll have to select the day that we're going to do it that everybody's going to be here. Well, this seems like an important issue that may take some time. It's already been alluded to. And if the June docket is full or fairly full, then I think it bears the special meeting and our time and effort to give it the fair shake here that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. Then I guess, legal, we open here to vote on the special hearing, or we've already voted to postpone it. So what is our position here as the board right now? Well, the motion that you passed was in the alternative. So there is no conflict in having another motion that sets a special hearing date if you choose to do that. In the absence of another motion, I guess it would have to stand on June 30th, because that's the only thing we have to go on right now as far as official action. Or June 29th, I'm sorry. I don't know how we can arbitrarily sit here and select another day in June if we don't know what the schedule is for our June meeting, how heavy that's going to be. Mr. Chair, it might be helpful to know how long either side estimates that their side might take. I noticed a number of witnesses that stood up on each side. You know, we could extrapolate about the length of such a hearing with the witnesses that stood up, but that would be a guess. it would be helpful to know from each side what they think. Well, in support of what you all are suggesting, I've been around here a long time, and I know that this next hearing is going to be bigger than this one. I will tell you that right now. If you think it isn't, then I've got some ocean property in my backyard I'll sell you. But I will tell you there's going to be more people here, either in opposition or in favor. So probably the best thing for us to do is to have the staff to come up with a rational date that we can have this and notify everybody, but I don't think we can set that date today. June is a very, very bad month for me. I'm on the road a lot in June. I'm going into surgery in July, so I don't know what to tell you. But I do want to be here, and so it's a situation where we need to decide, but I don't think you can pick a date today relative to what the agenda is going to be like in June. Mr. Chair, some of us aren't going to be here for the June meeting, the June 30th meeting. There are three of us sitting here right now who know that we're not going to be here for the 29th of June. So we're getting into issues of, you know, are we going to even have a quorum for the June 29th meeting? So that's another something, you know, that comes into play as well. That tells me a lot of why you want the special hearing. So that ends that. Well, Mr. Chair, I concur with Ms. Myers. I actually will not be here on June 29th. I'll be out of state myself. So I would be in favor of a special hearing sometime mid-June. That would be fine. I will promise you all I will not hear this by myself. Okay, so you want to pick a date? Or you want the staff to pick a date and notify everybody involved? Should we just pick a date now for notice? It would be preferable for the staff if this board, since they are postponing it, Technically, it should be 2A, date certain, and that shouldn't be by action of staff. If you're not going to be available, then you won't be available. You won't be here. We can't control that. I propose June 22nd. I am out of town. How about the 15th? Then you're going to have to chair the meeting because I'm out of here. I'm not going to be here. And June 15th? I'm out. I'm out for two weeks. I'm out the 14th through the 25th. Could we move this to July? It'd be fine. Give me a time in July. What is our regular meeting date in July? It would have to be, you have a calendar over there? Yes, sir, the 27th, Friday the 27th is your normal meeting date. And I won't be here for that day because I'm in surgery on the 27th. Lucky man. That's all depending on how you look at it. Mr. Chairman, did people throw out June 8th as a possibility yet? June the 8th? That's next Friday. No, that's two weeks. Oh, I'm sorry. No one mentioned June the 8th. Actually, that's three weeks. Everybody there, June the 8th? How about that? You're out. I can't speak for the availability of this room on that date, but maybe we can get that. We can try and check on that. Generally, Friday afternoons are not a problem. Does the 8th sound good to you? Your Honor, it would be fine if we could start maybe at 1.30 instead of 1 o'clock. Sir, we're not going to spend three hours up here to decide that. We're going to start the meeting at 1.30. Thank you very much. June 8th. Can we just have a motion to make it official? We have a motion for June 8th. So moved. Second. 1.30. 1.30. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed. Thank you. June 8th. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now, may I ask the staff to please make sure that the notifications are sent properly. Would you please? Because if you don't, we'll be moving this to August 8th. Any other postponements or withdrawals? And we will sound the agenda, please. case number V201227 Ball Homes Inc. Anyone here from Ball Homes? Ball Homes Inc. is represented. Thank you. Anyone in opposition to Ball Homes? No opposition. No. Case number V2012-30, William Mercer. Is there anyone here in opposition to William Mercer? No opposition. Case number 20112-31, Campus Rental Properties. Anyone here in opposition? One opposition. We will move the cases where we have individuals in opposition to the rear, and also those who do not have opposition, we will take your cases first. Case C2012-28, Brenda Tollette. Brenda Tollette. Staff, have you heard anything relative to Ms. Tillett? No, sir. I do not see her here in the audience. The plan is recommended for approval. Just last month or earlier this year, you approved this same request on a different lot, but she had a need to change her lot, and there is a new request in front of you. Staff, do you feel we could hear that since we've done this in the past, or in this case? Okay. Mr. Chairman, we'll try and contact her by phone. Yeah. We have case number 2012-29, Jeff Spencer. Anyone here in opposition? This is an administrative review case. That brings us down through all of our cases. Staff, do you have any questions, concerns relative to where we are? No, sir. We have not received any letters on any of these. As it comes up, if I have anything to add, I will speak up. Case number one, V2012-27, Ball Holmes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I am here on behalf of Ball Homes, and we have reviewed the staff report and the conditions set forth, and we're in agreement with those. We'll be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, we'd ask for you to approve this request. The staff has recommended approval subject to the conditions which you have said you've agreed to and you've read. Are there any questions from staff or from any of the board members? I have a question about, I'd like you to explain how our local ordinance is more restrictive than the FEMA guidelines. In a nutshell, FEMA regulations essentially say that you cannot build in the floodplain below the flood elevation how high the water will get. Our local regulations require you to be two feet above the height of the floodplain and 25 feet away from the edge of the floodplain. That is far more restrictive than what FEMA has done, and in fact, Lexington has been applauded by FEMA and pointed out to other communities as a model for our floodplain ordinances. The request today is to the 25-foot setback from the floodplain. This proposed structure is not in the floodplain. It's just the setback from the floodplain area that they are requesting to modify this in. In this particular case, this floodplain is a part of the overall guest development. And as a part of doing that development and building Hayes Boulevard and other roads, it was necessary to change the floodplain. So if you can think about it, oftentimes when I'm explaining floodplains, you've got the real floodplain and then the regulatory on paper floodplain. In this particular instance, this house is outside of the real floodplain because of the changes that have been made in the drainage system. But it's not changed on paper yet because there are still a couple of things that they need to do in the overall guest development. They submitted one massive application for the entire 500-acre development. And so FEMA has approved all of the changes, but they can't say it's all done until everything in the 500-acre development is completed. So I hope that explains the situation. So this 500-acre development is still under development. It hasn't been fully developed yet. Is that correct? That is correct. There are still undeveloped. And so what is existing, what infrastructure is in place right now is in place so that this floodplain is, in fact, reduced. Correct. That's right. My opinion is that? Exactly. The real floodplain, there's no threat of this flooding from the real floodplain, but it is within the setback of the regulatory floodplain. In either case, are we in either the regulatory or the real floodplain? It's the setback. So the question I have is that also you suggest that when everything is all done, they'll get the approval and it won't be within 25 feet. Suppose they never do the rest of the development, and so they get a partial approval. Even with a partial approval, does that mean this will be within 25 feet? Because my understanding is upstream that they haven't done. So if they decide we're not ever going to develop upstream, when they get approval here, so it still would be within 25 feet. The staff still feels comfortable that this request for a variance is justifiable for the reasons that we presented, whether they finish it out in the future 10 years from now or tomorrow. We believe that this is a justifiable variance request for the reasons that we've listed. So even if they never do the rest of the development? Even if they never did the rest of the development. Because the infrastructure is in place to handle this particular property. This particular property is in between Hayes Boulevard and a regional retention basin, and all of that work is done. So the choke points of where the water is actually coming through is complete. Does that matter? Right. Any other questions? I have one. Ms. Wiseman? Yes, sir. Were you given a heads-up that there might be a question put to you about a case from five years ago with Ball Homes? Yes, sir. Could the staff speak to that and then maybe you could respond? I don't know what the question is. I was given a heads-up that there would be a question. I'll answer a question once it's posted. Oh, so you haven't researched the variances that were not granted back in 07? You'll have to make your question specific, okay? I'm sorry, but I think I know what you're asking, but in fairness to all of us, can you make an answer? Oh, sure. There was a variance request by Ball Homes, number V, 2007, 42, and 43. I think there might have even been a, there was a third one, might have been 44. Yes, sir. three snout houses with two car garages in the front that were over the front yard building setback, and we granted a variance for one that was just a sliver over. Matt, excuse me. This does not seem to be pertinent to this request. Well, only in that it shares that it's the same applicant, and I think so I'm questioning. I would like to know more about it now before we grant them another variance because this variance that they applied for in 07 for these two houses I think was at least one of them may have been ignored and is still out of compliance. And I asked the staff to do a little research on that and so maybe they could explain this question to the board and we could see if it would create a concern about granting this variance because I think maybe we need to get Ball Home's attention. That was my... Okay. I'll answer your question, but first I would like to object for the record for a board member bringing up matters beyond the application that is before you. I would like you to vote on this matter separately from that matter because that's extraneous and ought not to be considered. Now I'll answer your question. i think that was aram park there was a surveying mistake we had a lengthy hearing the board approved one of the variances the board denied two of the variances with the assistance of building inspection ball homes went back and made modifications to the two homes that were denied so that they are now in compliance with the ordinance and each have certificates of occupancy that i have copies of if if you would like to see. Well, that was my question. The staff has no record of these variances, of these houses being brought into compliance. I asked them if they did, and they didn't, so raising the question with them at this hearing and giving you a heads-up so you could discover it seems perfectly appropriate to me. Well, you know, I have an office number that's listed, and anybody could call me anytime or ball homes and ask that question directly. I just don't think it's appropriate to bring it up at this hearing, Mr. Griggs. But I'll give you those copies of the COs. Well, I wouldn't have known to call you in the first place. I don't know that you're Ball Holmes lawyer for everything. You know, Ball Holmes is Ball Holmes. I mean, you could ask Ball Holmes. But your point, and I would like to, on behalf of my client, take issue with your statement that Ball Holmes needs to be watched. I didn't say that they needed to be watched. You said that there may be the opportunity. That is not the case. This is a different situation. That was a clear mistake, and they had to deal with it. We asked for permission to modify. We were denied. We rectified it. And now we're talking about a regional detention system, and we're going through the process that was established on Planning Commission Development Plan notes set forth three years ago. So I appreciate your interest, but, again, I don't think it's appropriate, with due respect, that you bring it up at this consideration on this property. Well, I disagree with you, but we can leave it at that. I certainly understand that you do, but I did want to speak up for my client, and they're certainly entitled to follow the procedures of this community in terms of seeking variances. There will probably be before you at some point in the future for variances, because they build hundreds of homes and buildings, and that's why this board exists. Do we have any other comments or concerns? If not, I request a motion, please. Mr. Chair, item V-2012-27, Ball Homes appeals for a variance to reduce the required 25-foot distance from the floodplain to 12.5 feet in order to construct a single-family residence and an expansion area residential on property located at 3829 Castle Bridge Lane be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Case number V2012-30, William Mercer. Mr. Chairman, as the applicant is coming up to the podium, the staff would just like to point out the original request for this was two zero feet. The staff has recommended approval of a slightly different variance to three feet. We have given a graphic that also depicts the written recommendation to the applicant and have been in conversations with them. we do not think that they are in opposition to the revised recommendation so are they revised on here no it's it's printed on your staff report in there it's just the um the original request was to zero feet the staff has recommended approval to three feet with some additional conditions i just wanted to point that out to you just make that clear when it comes time for motion making it wasn't per the request, it's per the staff recommendation that's listed in your agenda. You, Mr. Mercer? No, sir. My name is Hart Terrell, and I'd like to thank you all for letting me speak on Mr. Mercer's behalf. Mr. Mercer, the staff has, well, excuse me, I'll call you Mr. Mercer again. The staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Have you and your representative read and understand these conditions? Yes, sir. Do you agree to abide by the reconstructions of these conditions by the staff? Yes, sir. Do you know what they are? Yes, sir. Staff, do you have any comments? No, sir. We're just available for questions if you have any. Any comments or concerns from the board? I am a little worried about this as a precedent setting. event. Do you know how many of these Y-shaped street courts there are in this city? Mr. Griggs, I don't. They were allowed under our subdivision regulations for about maybe 10 years. There is a higher concentration of them in this particular neighborhood than in most around town. They have been prohibited by our subdivision regulations for, I'm going to I guess 10 or 15 years now, and we've had very few of this design since then. I would guess there may be 40 of these type in the community. So if there are 40 of these Y-type cul-de-sacs, and on one side of a Y cul-de-sac, this particular one, there are six houses. So the other side, I think there's less, but you could have as many as maybe 10 times 40 of these. So there could be 400 of these. And if we're talking about basically eliminating the grass on 400 home fronts, I think that this would be the precedent that would allow it to go forward. I'm not sure that that's a good idea. And that, sir, is the reason for it was that concern about the solid slab of concrete around the end of these White Sacks, which is the reason why the staff has recommended an alternative to this request that would still allow the applicant to get their additional parking space but would not completely pave over their entire front yard. May I add something? Mr. Greaves, we have got a photo of this particular street just to show you. I think it will illustrate some of the uncertainty with the Y cul-de-sacs that we have. This particular street on, I'll put my pen here, on the one side of the street has four homes and the other side seven. And obviously the density of the homes on these Y cul-de-sacs has a great implication on the amount of the front yard that's paved. So I think that's why the staff will always look at the individual circumstances. For instance, this variance is for one of the homes on the right side of the drawing. The left side, the homes there would not automatically have the same precedent in the staff's view. I hope that helps. I have a question. Is there, has, you know, in situations like this, is there any discussion about any permeable surfaces that would come into play? I know it costs more, but in the long run, as far as stormwater and the like, is there any discussion with the staff? I'm not sure the staff has discussed that with this applicant. We have in other development situations, but I'm not sure about this particular case. Any other questions? Did you want to make a comment about the permeable surface? Yes, sir. We looked into that, and we probably wouldn't be in opposition to that. The biggest problem with the property is an overgrown tree. It doesn't show on the triangle now because it's small in this photo, but it's gotten very big. We have four-inch roots invading the driveways in the neighbor's property. There's a very shallow soil surface and hard clay underneath, so the roots are just expanding and tearing up the drive. That was the original reason for wanting to make a change. and we've had vehicles hit when we've had company because they have to park in the street. Unfortunately, we have some drinkers on the court. It's just become really unmanageable, and we're having problems with people complaining about their cars being hit. We've got four driveways emptying into that one side. There's a hammer sack next to us, and then I think another wide sack. It's just the design, and this particular area, I believe, was overbuilt. so we're trying to solve two problems at once basically with this motion are you a landlord on this property no sir i'm speaking on my landlord's behalf i live at the property oh you're the occupant yes sir okay so you would be willing to put in are you the the landowner would be willing to put in a permeable i haven't discussed it with him but i brought it up to jimmy And our first option was to go with the concrete surface. I don't know what his finances are. I can't speak on his behalf on that. I'm not sure exactly what's being considered. I'm looking at the graphic that's included with the application, and I just want to make sure I understand what's being requested. Are you discussing paving stones? The grass comes through? Well, you know, I was last night at the new agri-science high school facility out on Leastown Road, and it's all permeable. It's pavers. But as I was driving here today, I also saw a truck that said something about permeable concrete. I don't know what the cost difference is, but I think that there is a cost difference. But I think it's an option. for situations like this. Is the proposal, and this is my question directly to staff, really, is the proposal to allow permission to pave the shaded area on the graphic that's supplied in our application? That was the original request. Based on the staff's review, we've recommended the additional pavement to allow one parking space as they have requested. But in our review, the amount of concrete that they were proposing was excessive for the side-by-side parking. This graphic that's up on the screen right now shows what would be the additional parking area that is being requested in pink, and green would be the green space that would remain. for that. Okay. That is our recommendation. Can you? And Bill has just put side by side, as the request originally came in, the entire front yard, except for a one foot strip next to the adjacent property, would have been entirely concrete as it's shown in the pink on the right hand side. Are we going to get a request next week from the occupier owner of 2808 to pave the rest of it, and what are we going to do about that? The staff felt comfortable that even though this lot is, that there are two other lots at the end of the widest act that could claim the same thing, that the amount of precedent that could be set for this would be fairly limited as you look at this. That's also for the reason why the staff has recommended the modifications to the request. Can you explain, one, the one with the circle around it, I assume that's a driveway already, and then two with the circle around it, is that the driveway for 2808? Yes, ma'am. Yes. So they already have a double driveway, two-car driveway? No, ma'am, that's single. That's single. This is a close-up of the subject property. This property is the triangular-shaped lot without the swimming pool in the center of the photograph. And you can see the area, and you can also see the shadow of the tree, which Mr. Terrell spoke of, in the front yard. Is that all you have, sir? Yes, sir. Anyone else here have any questions, concerns? Not out here. Motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the 2012-30 William Mercer's appeal for a variance to reduce the required front setback from 20 feet to 3 feet. Is that correct? to allow parking in the front of the residence at 2806 Casey Court. But it would be additional concrete as recommended by the staff. It would be subject to their four conditions and the shape that's shown on that drawing. We'd be very grateful for that. Thank you. Second. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, like one. Thank you. Motion passed. Thank you, sir. Case number C2012-28, Brenda Toilette, is she here? Mr. Chairman, she is not. I attempted to call her, and I was not able to contact her. I did leave her a message and told her that the board had called her case and that they may or may not act on it in her absence. What is the staff's, I mean the board's pleasure with this? Well, Mr. Chair, personally, I'm not going to vote on something that the applicant is not here representing themselves. I feel the same way. If we showed up, it seems like the applicant could show up as well. You know, I hope there's not an emergency with Ms. Tollett, but I don't feel comfortable bringing this up, and I would have to oppose it if it did. So what do we do? Do we push this until June? Can we push it to the end of the agenda, and then after we hear the other matters, if she still hasn't shown up at that point in time, move it to June? I'll second that. We'll wait until the end of the meeting before we make the decision on it. We have case number 201229. Jeff Spencer. Mr. Spencer? Yes, I'm here today to request the approval to do the hand-washed car washing in the back of my facility. Mr. Spencer? Yes. Mr. Spencer, the staff is recommending disapproval of this administrative appeal. The staff has listed reasons for that. Anyone here in favor of this motion or in opposition? I brought James along with me here. He lives directly across the parking lot there. He is for it. He says he feels that it's... Well, we're going to listen to the staff. You might have a seat right there. We'll listen to the staff. They're reporting first, sir. You're on. Do you want this case, AC 2012-29? Please talk a little louder, please. Yes, sir. This is for a property located at 1820 Bryan Station Road. It's also better known as the High Acres Subdivision on Bryan Station Road. if you're going out Bryan Station Road, it's past New Circle. It's bounded by both the High Acres and Rookwood Subdivision. The applicant, the reason for the appeal in front of the board today is that there was a complaint about the applicant's business, which is washing cars in this zone. This property is on B1, Neighborhood Business Zone. In the B1 zone, carwashing establishments are only allowed as a conditional use if they are a self-service car wash. What Mr. Spencer does with their car washing is that it's not a self-service car wash. You bring your car to them, and they use a hose and a bucket and rags and wash the car. That would be a full-service carwashing establishment. Full-service carwashing establishments are first allowed in our B3 zone and as a principal permitted use. So the staff could not find that what the applicant is doing is substantially similar to a self-service carwash. Generally, there are two kinds of self-service carwashes that most people would be familiar with. the type of stalls that you pull up to and use a wand to wash your car, or an automated system, usually in conjunction with a gas station. Seeing that the staff could not agree with the applicant that their car washing use was substantially similar to a self-service car wash, the staff also recommended disapproval of the requested conditional use. If you have any questions for the staff, I would be happy to try and answer those. Let's hear you. The only thing that I have is it states there on the Article 816, you know, under the B-1 zoning, self-service car wash is provided with the surface water. I know you're determining what self-service car wash is, the definition of it. But like I said, having an individual come in and wash the car, either way, the car, to me it's interpretation. And we were asked to find anyone that objected in the community. I feel that it's a service that's being provided through our location for the community. And all it required is to have proper drainage, and it wasn't obstructing any traffic, and it wasn't causing any problems. And we had a temporary approval for about the last 30 days, and we've not had any type of problem with this whatsoever. And like I said, it's just been an added value service to the community. And the staff that's back there doing that type of cleaning are not – it's just, to me, it's an interpretation. There's several places in town that do wash cars the way that we're washing cars. I have a question. Do you have staff? Do you have employees? Right here is the gentleman here. Kevin is the one who does the primary cleaning of the vehicles. He uses a bio, you know, his cleaning detergents are all biodegradable. Everything drains. We probably have a drain from this podium to that wall. Well, really what I was wondering is how big this was going to get. If there's just one car being washed at a time, or do you have several lined up? No, it's typically one car at a time. I have the American Merchant Mall there. What I'm doing is providing it maybe for a customer who's coming in and shopping in the store. They can take the car around back and have it washed while they're visiting in the store. So you're soliciting customers on the other side of the shopping center? Exactly. So it's just a service that we're at. But there's no lining, there's no piling up, there's no nothing. He actually goes out and picks some of the vehicles up. He's got it to where he'll go out and pick up some of the vehicles as well. Thank you. Mr. Spencer, how many cars do you typically wash a day? Kevin, can you answer that? About 7 to 8. And it's just during regular work hours. When you get there, about 10, about 9, 10. And then he leaves by 5 or 6 o'clock. Is this an indoor or outdoor facility? Outdoor. Outdoor. I mean, it's at the back of the parking lot. I don't know if you can see it very well in that picture. I've got a better picture of it here. It could be allowed. How was it that it came to building inspection that this was going on and against the rules? That complaint came from someone. And what happened on that complaint, we found out it was a neighbor who thought that they thought a car wash was going to be built because of the fact that we were letting people know that we would be washing vehicles at the location. and then there was one of the neighbors who submitted a complaint to the city stating that they didn't want a car wash at that location. So that was the reason why we had to come here today. And like I said, I looked under the B-1 laws, you know, rules, and it stated that self-service car wash is approved, that surface water from such establishments shall not drain onto adjacent property and that adequate on-site storage lanes and parking facilities shall be provided so that the public waste shall not be used for a used purpose. Anyway, there was no obstructions. We had proper drainage. And that was the reason why I went ahead and implemented that program at our location. And like I said, this gentleman here lives directly across the street from the parking lot. He sits on his front porch, and he watches them work all day long. And he's here today saying that it doesn't bother him one bit. My house is in the right-hand corner. Sir, who are you? Your name, please. Let him have a microphone, please. I'm James Griffith. And my house is directly right up there in the right-hand corner there. If you look at it there, you will see it where the car is parked out in front of the house. I can look directly across the back. And there has never been no problems or anything, no music playing or anything. I don't even hear them talking over it or anything. What's going to happen if this is approved and you look out there and see 20 cars lined up? Don't bother me none at all. I mean, when Mr. Spencer came in with the merchant mall, I went over and talked to him. And I asked him, I said, one thing that I would like is to have the parking lot kept clean. That parking lot's never been cleaned as well as it is now. When it was empty, Ace Hardware was in there, trash constantly blew over into my yard. Now that they're in there, it's constantly clean. They keep it up and they do a really good job. Thank you. Staff, let me ask you a question, please. Give me the rationale difference from B1 zone and B3 zone. The B1 zone is our neighborhood business zone. You will find those zones in much closer proximity to residential subdivisions than you will the B3 zone. For instance, this high-acre subdivision is completely surrounded by single-family homes. The B1 zone is a less intense zone than our B3 zone. The B3 zone is our highway commercial business zone, and you will generally find those zones along New Circle Road, Winchester Road, Nicholasville Road, along our major arterial roads. The B3 zone as a land use, and we're very careful whenever somebody requests a B3 zone, they are generally more insulated from the neighborhoods because they are along those major corridors. Car washing establishments have been in our ordinance as a self-service car wash in a B1 zone as a conditional use since 1973. And it's also since that time the full-service car washing establishment and self-service car washing establishments have been allowed in the B3 zone. It's because a full-service carwashing establishment, typically with the amount of traffic, the employees, the music, those other nuisance factors that you get with a full-service car wash, are better suited for those B3 zones and along those arterial roads where they are more insulated from the surrounding neighborhoods. It's not about the size of the operation. It's really about the use of the operation because we absolutely have, you know, as we looked at this operation that was being proposed, the staff could not find where they take your car and wash it and then return your car to you could in any way be considered a self-service car washing establishment. Can I say something? Yes, sir. You're talking about the noise and the music and everything. So what about the people that's coming at the Dollar General store? They make more trouble than anybody does. We're not going to get into that. This man makes no noise at all over there. You know, I think the issue here is whether the rationale the staff has versus B1 zone neighborhood business and B3. And I don't know whether this is a situation where we can develop a president-setting situation regarding this or not. I don't know. But from where I sit, I don't see how this can be done. I really don't. Without us putting ourselves in a position down the road to do this or another. Mr. Chair, I just asked the legal staff, because I don't see them doing much harm there, but I was worried about the precedent setting, and Rochelle doesn't see an easy way to let them operate without it setting a very bad precedent. I just don't see how we can do it. I have a question. Is the staff thinking about this that because there are full-service and self-service washes allowed in B3 and B5P, that therefore because it's not listed in the permitted uses or accessory uses in a B1, that it can't be done? Is that right? It's a little more than that. We have actually separated out a self-service car washing facility and all car washing establishments and placed those particular uses in different zones because of the potential nuisance factors of a full service. Well, I mean, I see the difference. I mean, if this were called a car detailing business or, I mean, I'm trying to find a bright line here if I can. You know, it seems like that we shouldn't be, this business shouldn't be characterized by what other businesses are doing in other zones that are permitted. So just because it's not listed, for example, or anything like it is listed in a B1 zone, is that the reason for recommending disapproval? It is prohibited in this B1 zone because the zoning ordinance specifically allows the self-service in the B1 zone and all car washing establishments in the B3 and B5P zones. It's not like we don't have any provisions in the zoning ordinance to have this sort of an establishment. Well, have you all determined that this is a full service? Yes, sir, we have. And it's not a self-service, so therefore it must be a full service? Yes, sir. The staff can only describe what the applicant is doing as a full service car wash. How do you do self-service in a business B1 zone anyway? If you're going to approve that, what can I do? You're saying that I can have a business and I can have people wash their cars in the parking lot? The typical standards for a self-service car wash were, as I described earlier, the stalls with the wands that people pull into or an automated machine usually associated with a gas station. Okay. But you're saying that a self-service is not permitted in the B-1. No, it is. Self-service car washing is permitted in the B1 zone as a conditional use, approvable by the Board of Adjustment. So you can't wash cars in B1s, but I can't. Self-service car washing. It makes sense to me that you can allow a building to come in there with stalls in it, and the people come in there and wash their cars themselves, turn their stereos up as loud as they want to, make all kinds of noise, but you can't let this man sit over and wash six or seven vehicles a day. Sir, we really appreciate your support for this, but it goes beyond that. And what we're trying to do is to make sure that we don't create a problem for us down the road or for the community down the road. It's not whether we like it or whether we dislike it. It's an issue. It's whether or not it's right for what you're wanting. That's what it's about. I mean, I just don't see it happening, but it might. Jimmy, I've got a question. Is Mr. Spencer's business that he's operating, would that be allowed in a B-3? Yes, sir. But obviously it's not allowed in a B-1. I'm thinking, is there any way, could you find space in a B-3 and move your establishment there? Then you would be able to abide by the planning and zoning law. But again, to answer Mr. Stout, I mean, I understand what you're saying about the fact that this will set a precedence, but I thought that was the reason why we do have these meetings and we have these hearings and we do get special consideration once we review it. And that's what I'm saying. If I have a special allowance allowing me to do it, if anyone else in town wishes to do it in the same circumstances that I'm trying to do it, by coming before you today and discussing how I do it, the way it's done, and getting everyone. We sent out over 50 letters within 1,000 feet of our establishment, and we did not get one complaint. The community has accepted us there. We've been welcomed there, and we're just trying to provide services and trying to grow a business and do well for this community. That parking lot is an extremely large parking lot. I have it in a secluded area in the back of it. I mean, I've thought of everything, but that's what I'm asking for, is you to look at this as an individual case, make a decision, and I know it can set a precedence, but each individual that wants to come down the road beyond this point won't have to come in here and do the same thing that I'm doing. I went through a lot of things to be here today and met all the requirements and all of the requests of the city to be here today to ask for your permission to do this. So, I mean, each individual that wants to do this beyond my point, from this point forward, I feel if they do the same things that I've done, and I've got individuals coming in and saying that it's a plus to the community and it's improving the community, that's all I'm asking you to review and to take into consideration today. I appreciate what you're doing for the community, but I have to say that as a board member, we have to interpret self-service. that this is just not self-service. There's nothing self-service about it. It seems to me that if you want to do this and you want to have a very narrow exception, there's a possibility to ask for a text amendment and have added into B1 a very narrow description of this particular type of business, and then it would be interpretation and it would require a zone change. But while I appreciate what you're doing for the community in good conscience, I just can't possibly interpret self-service to be something where somebody else does all the work. It's just washing cars. Yes, Jimmy. Rochelle has some language that might allow us to sit in. She's going to put it on the overhead. I see. And there is only two, him and his brother, that washed the vehicles. And they haven't played any. Anybody read that? Mr. James, have they played any music over there? Loud, get loud, squealing tires? No, squealing no tires. Car backed up. If I don't go out on my front porch, I don't even know they're there over there. We understand what you're saying. You've already given us that. We understand. We appreciate your support for that. That's not what we're addressing here. We're addressing here whether it is rational relative to the zone that you're in versus the zone that you could be in. Without having to require you to go to planning and zoning, we're on your side, so the best thing to do when we're on your side is to chill. Let us work. We're looking for a way to help you. And I do appreciate that. Staff? I think you've got two sets of findings to support either action of the board. Any other questions or comments from the board? If not, we will hear a motion. I can support that. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to see something worked out with Mr. Spencer. And since we've got two findings for approval, and this might be a good compromise, and obviously small business is a struggle, and after hearing all the testimony and the questions and Ms. Bolin's response, I could support this compromise and allow this to continue. So that was a motion? Yes, sir, that is. Do I have a second? I'll second. We have a motion for and a second. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you all. Thank you. Sir, you might want to get a copy of those findings for approval so you understand what you agreed to. I think I'm not sure how. Maybe they'll need to mail them to you, but there were some requirements. Next case we have is V201231 Campus Rental Properties. Do we have anyone here in opposition? All right. Young man, you come up and introduce yourself, and before you talk, we're going to allow the opposition to speak, all right? Yes, sir. My name is John Strom. I represent Anderson Campus Rental Properties. And you're John who? John Strom, S-T-R-O-M. All right. We'll hear the opposition, please. Thank you. My name is Diane Lawless. I'm the third district council person, and this is in my district. This particular company has signs that are out 365 days a year for years in front of their properties all along Euclid, High, Maxwell, Elizabeth Street area, Waller Avenue. and they have different websites like MyUKHome, MyUKApartment, et cetera. And they're in front of buildings that are already rented or for buildings that they all take you to the same website. And it has been a struggle because it has previously been in building inspection and therefore a criminal offense, but it is very unsightly in the neighborhood. It trashes the neighborhood surrounding the U.K., and there have been numerous complaints. However, because it has been under building inspection and a criminal offense, nothing has been done. It is now being moved to planning as a zoning issue and will be a civil penalty, And the council is looking at these regulations on rental signs that are advertising for multiple properties and are left out all the time. While this is an apartment building, I'm sure it will have, because the current one does, that website that advertises for this particular rental company. So I would ask that at least you postpone any decision on this until the council takes up this issue and looks at the zoning and what the penalties would be for having these signs that are illegal but previously have been under building inspection rather than zoning and previously therefore been a criminal offense instead of a civil offense. And we are currently looking at that issue. It is, if you drive down Euclid Avenue or Maxwell, Waller Avenue, Elizabeth Street, you'll see these signs and you'll see how, I mean, these are residential neighborhoods that already are dealing with properties that are decaying and left to fall apart, and this just adds to the unsightly situation. So I had a discussion, I guess he left. I had a discussion with Chris King just this week about it, and like I say, the council is taking this up, that this will be a sign that does not advertise just for this apartment building. It will be for all their properties as the current sign is. And to bring it up, give a variance on where it is so more people can see it while we're looking at this whole sign issue. So my objection is that it is not just about this apartment building, and these signs are absolutely atrocious and extremely unsightly and tacky throughout these residential neighborhoods. So, if nothing else, I would ask that it be postponed until such time as planning and zoning takes over the sign issue and the council deals with that zoning ordinance regarding signage in front yards. But there are signs that have been there 365 days a year, literally for years, the same properties. So, and they're all, like I said, they have different websites, but they take you, there's two or three companies that do this. This is one of the more egregious ones, and they take you all to the same website. And so I would ask at least to postpone it until planning and zoning can. I didn't know if my time was up at council meetings. So I'd ask you to give us time to look at, as this transition goes to planning, to enforce. and while we look at the sign ordinance on rental signs as well as other types of signs. Thank you. And thank you for your volunteer time. Thank you. Yes, sir. I just wanted to say that we're not talking about the little small rental signs that are in front of properties here. This will be the sign that is there to indicate this is Woodland Village Apartments for parents coming in to see it. for emergency vehicles if they're coming in. And currently, I believe it was two years ago, large utility signs or poles were placed in front of the property that are currently blocking the sign from various angles. I have pictures I can show you today if you'd like. I've looked at this. I understand her concern relative to the signs up and down there. I mean, if the council comes in and institutes a regulation where the signs can't be there, then that sign will have to be taken down. In my opinion, I don't see a problem with this particular sign. It doesn't hinder anybody. I mean, I don't think it does, other than the fact that it might add one there that you don't like. But if the council is going to do something with it in the future, then it would have to come down. I don't see a problem with this, personally speaking. Could we see a picture of the proposed sign? what the verbiage is going to be on the sign? Certainly. I have a couple. I can show you what an existing sign that we have looks like, and I can show you the verbiage for what's on there, if that's okay. Okay. Mr. Strom might have better pictures, but this is from their application. their application had both a black and white copy of the existing sign on the property and the proposed sign on the property. How much bigger is the proposed sign than the one that's there? The face of the sign is actually slightly smaller. It's the structure that will be holding up the sign that will be bigger. How much bigger? I believe it is the current sign is 17 square feet, and the current existing sign, which is a sign just on two little 4x4s, is currently 17 square feet. The proposed sign and structure, the frame around the structure, would be a total of 25 square feet. However, in 2009, part of the reason why you're probably seeing this variance is because originally the frame around a monument sign, the frame was counted in your allowable sign square footage. in 2009, along with other changes in the zoning ordinance, we changed it so that the frame around the sign is actually not counted towards the sign. Both the existing sign and the proposed sign are well under the allowable 40 square feet for this type of a sign. I've tried to highlight in pink. You can see if the, whoa, if we can get it. clear here, kind of the difference between the existing sign and what the proposed sign. I believe the applicant also has a picture of a similar sign that they have in other locations to what they're proposing today. It's because in the R3 zone, a sign for a freestanding sign needs to be set back 20 feet. The existing sign is 12 feet off of woodland, and they are proposing to just replace this with a new structure. So if I understand, Ms. Lawless, your objection is that there are multiple signs. I mean, there's a sign that's showing, you know, like Park Hill or Woodland Village, but then there are other signs saying $473 a month for rent. Is that what the objection is here? That and if he's talking about emergency vehicles, the address on that is 2500 Alumni Drive. It's not Woodland Drive. Well, they're just showing different property. Okay. But, you know, they've got a website and they've got an address and a phone number. But, you know, it seems to me that you have to have a sign advertising what's there, some sort of sign that says this is Woodland Village so people can locate it. Well, and I guess as Mr. Griggs was talking about with Ball Homes getting their attention, I came here today just to express my concern. We are working on this, and if you approve it. But the purpose of these signs has been to advertise their properties. And, again, it doesn't even have an address on it. So if an emergency vehicle is trying to go to 201 Woodland Avenue, how would they know that? Would they go to AndersonCommunities.com and look it up? Ms. Lawless, I'm trying to understand your problem here, and I don't know if it's a permanent for rent sign that you don't like, and it being a for rent sign in that it directs you to their website, or if it's the lack of the address, or if it's the size of it? I think it's size, location, it has no address, and it's they're advertising other properties. And can you tell me what this text amendment might be, how it would change the requirements on this sign if it comes to pass as you would hope it would? Well, like I say, this is being moved now from building inspection to planning. And so we're hoping. Now this is a somewhat different situation, and there is an apartment building there rather than a single residence. But I think at least it should have the address on it if that's the purpose of it. And, you know, I understand if you pass it. We are looking at those zoning laws around rental signs as well as other signs. Well, did you say that building inspection or code enforcement has been really lax in enforcing? Not code enforcement, building inspection. And what is illegal about these signs at the moment? You're not allowed to leave a sign. You're not allowed to put a sign up in front of a property that advertises if that property is rented or that advertises other properties. Oh, I didn't realize that. Which is what has been done. and I get numerous complaints. I've had people in the neighborhoods volunteer to take photographs and go to the website, taking them to building inspection, but because it was a criminal offense, it was a low priority. Now that it can be a civil penalty as it's moving to planning and zoning, but that transition is just now going on. One last question. If we voted favorably on this application and this sign is erected and then this legislation comes to pass several months from now, this one would be grandfathered in. It would not be taken down. What's before the board today is the location of the sign, and it's because the overall structure is getting larger and they're wanting to replace the existing sign with a new sign. It's the location of the apartment identification sign that is before you today. The staff did not review the copy of what the applicant proposed to put. that did not factor into our review of this dimensional variance request. So they wanted to move it closer to the street, basically? The current sign is 12 feet from Woodland Avenue. The zoning ordinance would require it to be 20 feet. Because the overall structure was getting larger, the staff determined that a variance would be needed or the applicant would need to take it back down to the existing square footage of the existing sign in order to replace the sign. You said that the existing sign is 17 square feet and that the proposed sign and frame was 25 square feet. Why are you counting the frame? simply because it's the point that the staff was trying to make is that the structure overall is getting larger. How the sign is calculated, there is an existing 17-square-foot sign that has no frame around it. They are proposing a 13-square-foot sign, which is a smaller sign, but the total structure that you can see the pictures, the columns that they're proposing, the total structure is getting larger, and that's the reason why it was determined that a variance was needed to place this back in its current location. The existing sign is 12 feet from the right-of-way? Yes, the proposed sign will be 12 feet from the right-of-way. So they're proposing just to build a newer, more permanent structure in place of the one that's existing? Yes, sir. Okay. Can I ask a question? Is the current sign in compliance, or why would they need a variance? The staff looked into the prior history on this. A development plan was approved for this. A development plan was approved for this apartment complex in 1976. I could not find any permitting history on a sign permit being issued. I would hazard a guess that that sign has been there since 1976 when the building was built. But I could not find any permitting history one way or the other on whether it was permitted. And I could not find in our history database whether any variance was granted back in that time or not. So I just don't know how the original sign was placed there, but it is there today. But currently it is out of compliance, the current sign. Honestly, I do not know the answer to that. I know that it is 12 feet from the right-of-way, but I do not know if it was legally put there or illegally put there. I'm devoid of information that points me one direction or the other. Okay. Thank you. Just as a clarification, we bought the property in 1997, and the sign was there in 1997, and we have not done anything with it since. We updated the phone number on it. It was the only thing we did. Do you happen to know what the setback was in 1977? I looked at the 1975 zoning ordinance, and in the R3 zone for a freestanding sign, it should have been set back 20 feet from the right-of-way, which is the same regulation that we have today. So it probably is illegal. Once again, I don't have any evidence. There's no record of whether it was put there legally or not. I just know that it does exist. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear a motion. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. You have read like conditions? Yes, sir, I've read and we do agree to those conditions. And I will hear a motion. I'll take a crack at it. Mr. Chairman, I, with respect to V-2012-31 campus rental properties, appeal for a variance to reduce the required 20-foot setback for a sign to 12 feet in a planned neighborhood residence R3 zone on a property located at 401 Woodland Avenue. I recommend approval based on the grounds given by the staff. And subject to the conditions cited. Do I have a second? Mr. Chairman, I'm going to second it, but I wanted to thank Ms. Lawless for being here today, and I certainly understand the issue up and down Euclid Avenue, and I appreciate your comments today. And I look at this as a replacement sign for the building, and I think the other issue is a much larger issue, and I wish the council well on that, but I'm going to second Mr. Glover's motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Opposed. Let's have the hands, please. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion passes. Thank you. We have to vote to approve the minutes of April 27th, I believe. Brenda Collins. Yeah, I forgot about her. Brenda. Brenda, you haven't heard from her? Mr. Chairman, she has not called me back. Might just recommend you postpone it to your June 29th meeting. I move. So moved. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, postpone to June. We have minutes of April 27th. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. Second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Any other business from the staff or board? If not, I'll hear a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chairman, we would point out one item on the bottom of page 4 of your agenda. There is a training opportunity in the Division of Planning. the first week of June. It will be held on June 6th. That's a Wednesday afternoon from 4 until 5.30, and it will count an hour and a half toward your training requirements. Thank you. I will advise this board and the staff that on July 27th, I will be going in for knee replacement surgery and probably going to be out of commission for about four to six weeks. So I will keep you abreast of what that situation is. Best of luck, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. What's that? Thank you.