# Board of Adjustment Meeting Part I - October 26, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 26, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2841 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2841?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-10-26 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 39,406 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 Board of Adjustment met on October 26, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with the Madam Chair presiding. The board considered five agenda items involving variance appeals and conditional use requests, taking 11 votes throughout the meeting and hearing 6 public comments. The board approved four of the five items under consideration: a parking reduction variance for a boutique hotel and art museum project by 21C Lexington, LLC; a conditional use revocation hearing for live entertainment at Southside Pub; a conditional use appeal for an extended-stay hotel by Cohen Realty, Inc.; and a conditional use appeal for nightclub hours by Sims Entertainment Group, LLC. The board denied one conditional use appeal for a rehabilitation home submitted by Stanley Gross. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 26, 2012: - Craig Greenberg - Juan Castro - Tony Hodges - Wendy Ritchie - James Laird - Dick Murphy - Gene Coppinger - Bruce Simpson - Chris Westover - Jeff Stidham - John Talbot - Stanley Gross - Jim Thomerson - Dr. Larry Kopsik - Ben Hoffman - Bill Farmer - Diane Lullis - Bob Sessom - Amy Clark - Robert Putt - Mr. Marks Stanley Gross arrived late to the meeting. No attendees were recorded as absent. ## Votes and Decisions The Board approved ten motions during this meeting, with one denial. **V-2012-75** [0:19:55]: Approval of a variance to reduce parking spaces from 90 to 45 for a boutique hotel/art museum in the Lexington Center Business (B-2B)/Courthouse Area Overlay (CHA) zone passed by voice vote. The applicant must provide documentation of a renewable parking agreement for at least 45 parking spaces prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and obtain all necessary permits from Planning and Building Inspection before hotel operation. **C-2012-67** [0:24:45]: Approval of a conditional use permit to operate a restaurant with live entertainment in a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone passed by voice vote. Conditions include obtaining required permits, prohibiting outdoor live entertainment and outdoor speakers, limiting hours to Friday and Saturday nights ending no later than 1:00 am, and sound-proofing to prevent nuisance to surrounding neighborhoods. **C-2012-68** [0:27:29]: Approval of a conditional use permit to operate a nightclub/bar with live entertainment and dancing in a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone passed by voice vote. Similar conditions apply, with live entertainment limited to Monday through Saturday nights ending no later than 2:00 am. **C-2012-69** [0:28:39]: Approval of a conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children in a Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone passed by voice vote. The facility must comply with Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services regulations and obtain occupancy certification before caring for more than six children. **C-2012-71** [0:29:12]: Approval of a conditional use permit to establish an athletic club/indoor recreational facility in a Wholesale and Warehouse Business (B-4) zone passed by voice vote. The applicant must stripe the existing rear parking area within 30 days and obtain necessary permits before commencing operations. **C-2012-72** [0:45:02]: Approval of a conditional use permit to amend a previously approved site plan for a golf course in the Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone passed by voice vote. The proposed UK team facility is limited to 11,628 square feet, and the septic system must be re-evaluated by the Fayette County Board of Health. **A-2012-73** [0:48:13]: Approval of an administrative review for a second kitchen in the Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone passed by voice vote. **C-2010-53** [0:56:23]: Continuation of a conditional use permit for Southside Pub with indoor-only live entertainment passed by voice vote, maintaining the original seven conditions including no entertainment on Sundays. **C-2012-60** [3:01:56]: Approval of a conditional use permit to construct an extended-stay hotel with accessory parking in Professional Office (P-1) and High Density Apartment (R-4) zones passed by voice vote, with extensive conditions regarding parking, landscaping, stormwater management, and deed restrictions. **C-2012-70** [4:42:20]: Approval of a conditional use permit to extend nightclub closing time from 1:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. passed by voice vote, with conditions limiting occupancy to 275 patrons and restricting operations to Wednesday through Saturday, 8:30 pm to 2:30 am. **C-2012-55** [4:16:25]: Denial of a conditional use permit to operate a rehabilitation home in a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone failed by voice vote. ## Public Comment Six members of the public addressed the meeting with concerns about two primary issues: a proposed rehabilitation home in the Georgetown Street neighborhood and operating hours for a nightclub. **Rehabilitation Home Concerns** Tom Blues spoke at [timestamp: 3:28:40] about the Georgetown Street neighborhood, expressing concern that the proposed rehabilitation home would undermine long-term neighborhood revitalization efforts and harm property values. He emphasized the need to preserve a stable, family-friendly residential environment. Linda Godfrey addressed long-term zoning consequences at [timestamp: 3:33:25], warning that approving the rehabilitation home would set a precedent that could negatively impact future redevelopment and stability in the Georgetown Street neighborhood. Adrienne Takur spoke at [timestamp: 3:40:32] about precedent and neighborhood character, arguing that the large occupancy dwelling contradicts the neighborhood's revitalization goals and would be inappropriate for the area, despite acknowledging the need for rehabilitation services. **Nightclub Operating Hours** Bill Farmer spoke at [timestamp: 4:28:21] about the need for proof of good neighborliness, requesting a two-month postponement to allow the nightclub to demonstrate improved behavior and prove it can be a good neighbor before extending operating hours. Diane Lullis agreed with the postponement request at [timestamp: 4:32:06], citing ongoing safety issues and the need for the business to show meaningful changes before being allowed to stay open later. Robert Putt shared personal experience at [timestamp: 4:48:47], describing being repeatedly woken by noise from the nightclub during the summer. He emphasized the need for accountability and trust-building before extending hours. ## Appointments The following appointments were made during this meeting: * **Kathryn Moore** was reappointed to the Board of Adjustment * **Jim Griggs** was reappointed to the Board of Adjustment ## Contested Items The October 26, 2012 meeting included three items that generated significant community debate and Board discussion. **C-2012-60 - Extended-Stay Hotel** Neighbors raised substantial concerns about the proposed extended-stay hotel, citing stormwater management, traffic impacts, privacy, and noise as primary issues. In response to this community opposition, the applicant submitted revised plans that included an 8-foot fence and stormwater mitigation measures. These modifications led to a compromise resolution. The Board approved the project with 12 conditions and established a six-month review period to monitor compliance and impacts. **C-2012-55 - Rehabilitation Home** This proposal generated heated discussion among Board members and the community. The central disagreement centered on neighborhood stability, safety concerns, and the appropriate definition and use of a rehabilitation home. Neighbors expressed opposition based on concerns about transient occupancy patterns and potential negative effects on neighborhood revitalization efforts. The intensity of the debate reflected fundamental disagreements about the proposal's compatibility with the area. The Board ultimately denied the application. **C-2012-70 - Nightclub Hours** The proposed change to nightclub operating hours resulted in a split vote among Board members. The applicant characterized the modification as a correction of a legal error in the existing approval. However, neighbors took a more skeptical stance, demanding evidence of improved operational behavior before supporting extended hours. The Board approved the request with conditions attached and scheduled a six-month review period. This outcome reflected an attempt to balance the business's operational needs with community accountability and oversight. ## Variance Appeal: 21C Lexington, LLC - Parking Reduction for Boutique Hotel/Art Museum The Board considered variance request V-2012-75 from 21C Lexington, LLC to reduce required parking from 90 to 45 spaces for a boutique hotel and art museum project in downtown Lexington [timestamp: 0:13:46]. **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff presented the variance request and recommended approval. The recommendation was based on several factors: the urban downtown setting of the proposed development, the availability of existing parking options in the surrounding area, and precedent established by similar properties in the downtown district. **Applicant Position** Craig Greenberg, representing the applicant, affirmed that 21C Lexington, LLC would comply with the conditions attached to the variance approval. **Board Action** The Board approved the variance request. The approval included two conditions that the applicant must satisfy. The variance allows the boutique hotel and art museum to proceed with 45 parking spaces rather than the standard requirement of 90 spaces, reflecting the Board's determination that the downtown location and available alternative parking resources make the reduced number appropriate for this use. ## Conditional Use Revocation Hearing: Southside Pub - Live Entertainment The Board held a revocation hearing for Southside Pub's conditional use permit related to live entertainment [timestamp: 0:48:45]. The hearing addressed violations of the establishment's permit conditions, including unauthorized outdoor entertainment and Sunday operations. **Key Participants** The hearing included testimony from Bruce Simpson, Rhonda Tiefert, and the Board chair, among others. **Presentation and Evidence** The applicant presented evidence demonstrating compliance with permit requirements and addressed the violations that had prompted the revocation hearing. The applicant also offered an apology for past issues related to permit violations. **Board Decision** The Board voted to approve continuation of the conditional use permit for Southside Pub. Rather than revoking the permit, the Board decided to maintain the permit with conditions in place to ensure future compliance with the established requirements. ## Conditional Use Appeal: Cohen Realty, Inc. - Extended-Stay Hotel The Board reviewed a conditional use permit application (C-2012-60) for an extended-stay hotel with accessory parking [timestamp: 0:56:57]. **Presentation and Concerns** The applicant presented revised plans addressing neighbor concerns. Key issues raised during the review included: * Stormwater management and drainage * Traffic impacts and circulation * Privacy concerns for adjacent properties * Noise generation **Applicant Response** Cohen Realty, Inc. submitted enhanced plans that included: * Improved landscaping * Additional fencing * Stormwater mitigation measures **Board Discussion** Key speakers in the discussion included Chris Westover, Jeff Stidham, Dave Leonard, Mr. Gallimore, and the Board Chair. The Board carefully considered the revised plans and neighbor feedback before reaching a decision. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit with 12 conditions attached to the approval. The conditions included a requirement for a six-month review period to monitor the project's performance and ensure compliance with the approval terms. ## Conditional Use Appeal: Stanley Gross - Rehabilitation Home [timestamp: 3:12:05] The Board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2012-55) for a sober living rehabilitation facility proposed by Stanley Gross. **Application and Presentation** The applicant presented the facility's role in recovery services and identified a qualified supervisor for the operation. **Concerns Raised** Neighbors expressed multiple concerns about the proposed facility: * Safety issues * Parking impacts * Effects on neighborhood stability **Board Decision** The Board denied the application. The denial was based on concerns regarding: * Adequacy of supervision at the facility * Overall impact on the neighborhood ## Conditional Use Appeal: Sims Entertainment Group, LLC - Nightclub Hours The Board reviewed a conditional use appeal from Sims Entertainment Group, LLC requesting an extension of nightclub closing hours from 1:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. [timestamp: 4:17:58] **Key Speakers and Presentations** The discussion involved Jim Thomerson, Dr. Larry Kopsik, Robert Putt, and the Board Chair. The applicant explained that the requested change in hours resulted from a legal error rather than a functional operational shift at the establishment. **Concerns Raised** Neighbors expressed concerns about the proposed extension, citing potential impacts related to noise and safety issues associated with extended nightclub operations. **Board Decision** The Board approved the conditional use appeal with conditions. The approval included: - A noise mitigation clause to address neighbor concerns - A six-month review period to evaluate the impact of the extended hours The conditional approval allows the Board to reassess the arrangement after six months of operation under the new schedule. --- ## Decisions - **V-2012-75** — passed: Approval of variance to reduce parking spaces from 90 to 45 for boutique hotel/art museum in Lexington Center Business (B-2B)/Courthouse Area Overlay (CHA) zone - **C-2012-67** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit to operate a restaurant with live entertainment in a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone - **C-2012-68** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit to operate a nightclub/bar with live entertainment and dancing in a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone - **C-2012-69** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children in a Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone - **C-2012-71** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit to establish an athletic club/indoor recreational facility in a Wholesale and Warehouse Business (B-4) zone - **C-2012-72** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit to amend a previously approved site plan for a golf course in the Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone - **A-2012-73** — passed: Approval of administrative review for a second kitchen in the Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone - **C-2010-53** — passed: Continuation of conditional use permit for Southside Pub with indoor-only live entertainment - **C-2012-60** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit to construct an extended-stay hotel with accessory parking in a Professional Office (P-1) and High Density Apartment (R-4) zone - **C-2012-55** — failed: Denial of conditional use permit to operate a rehabilitation home in a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone - **C-2012-70** — passed: Approval of conditional use permit to extend closing time for nightclub from 1:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. --- ## Full transcript Transcription by CastingWords Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to begin with a resolution that the staff has prepared prepared for Lewis stout our chair so I'd like to say that whereas we the members of the Lexington Fayette urban County Board of adjustment and staff acknowledge the untimely passing of mr. Lewis stout and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize mr. stout for his valuable service to this board having served on the board from February 1990 until June 1999 and from June 2005 until September 2012 serving as vice chair of the board of adjustment from July 2006 until he assumed the position of chair in September 2010, then serving in that capacity until September 2012 by unanimous vote of his peers, whereas the members of the Board of Adjustment and staff feel that the service given by Mr. Stout will be greatly missed by this body and by the entire community. Now, therefore, be it resolved, we, the members of the Board of Adjustment and the staff, do hereby express our gratitude to and appreciation of Mr. Stout for his service to this board and to the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County and we the Lexington Fayette urban County Board of Adjustment and staff to hereby express our wish that the community remember and always recognize mr. Stout's invaluable contributions to the board and to his community be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to mr. Stout's family and spread upon the minute book of this body dated at Lexington Kentucky this 26th day of October 2012 Mrs. out we greatly appreciate all that mr. South did and we're very sorry for your loss we will always remember and appreciate him and we'd like to give you this okay now moving on to the regular agenda we have the approval of the minutes at this point there are no previous minutes to be considered so next I would like to sound the agenda before I do so I'd first like to ask anybody who intends to testify please stand and raise your right hand and do you affirm that you will tell the truth in your testimony okay and if anyone has any cell phones we ask that you either turn them off or put them in silent mode okay so first what we will do is I will go through the agenda, ask if anyone has anything that they wish to postpone or withdraw, please come forward. Madam Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy on page six under items E, Administrative Review number one case a 2012 45 cherokee park neighborhood association i've been before you two times before postponing this and the neighborhood and my client who is the owner of the property have agreed to postpone it one more time i do want to assure you that we have been working with each other having communications and it's been a good process to go through it's just we have dealing with a neighborhood association and schedules of other people we haven't been able to uh final finalize things yet so uh the request of the neighborhood association since i was going to be here anyway i agreed to come and formally ask you for a one month further postponement of this staff the staff would also like to confirm that we did receive an email request from mr john park and that requesting the one month postponement to your november hearing staff has no objection board members okay do we need a motion or okay is there a motion madam chair i'll move i'll move one month postponement for item a 2012 45 chair of key park neighborhood association second all those in favor aye aye opposed okay thank you any other matters for withdrawal or postponement Okay, I will now go through the agenda. I will identify the item. If you are here to represent the applicant, let us know. And if you are here to object, please let us know. So first, V-2012-7521C Lexington, LLC. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? C-2010-53 Southside Pub. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? C-2012-55 Stanley Gross. Is the applicant here? Madam Chair, I do not see him in the audience. Okay. We will try and contact Mr. Gross by phone. Okay. C2012-60, Cohen Realty, Inc. Is the applicant here? Okay. Is anyone here in opposition? C2012-67, Nancy Luna. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? C-2012-68, Tony and Lisa Hodges. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? Okay. C-2012-69 Wendy Ritchie. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? C-2012-70 Sims Entertainment Group LLC. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? Okay, C-2012-71 James Laird. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? C-2012-72, UCKY, LLC. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? A-2012-53, Efren and Vladimir Alami. Is the applicant here? Is there anyone here in opposition? A2012-62, Clyde Simmons, Jamie Shear, et cetera, are the applicants here. This is A2012-62, Clyde Simmons, Jamie Shear, Amy Clark, Sherry Heumann, and Karen Bassetti. We will also attempt to contact them by phone. Okay. A-2012-65, Mike Barker in Columbia Heights neighborhood. Is the applicant here? Madam Chair, I see Mr. Barker walking in the door right now. Okay. Mr. Barker? Okay, Mr. Barker is here. Okay. Is there anyone in opposition? This is a neighborhood opposition. A2012-73 Alice Levy Settle. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? Okay, that's the final item on the agenda. So what we will do now is for things that there is no opposition and the staff recommends approval, we will go ahead and consider those matters first. For things for which there is opposition or the staff recommends disapproval, those will move to the end. If you're here in opposition, we would ask that you go out and talk with the applicant together, see if you can work out your differences, and then come in, and we will consider contested matters after we've considered the uncontested matters. Okay, so again, anyone who's in opposition, if you'd like to go outside and talk to the applicant, this would be your chance to see if there's anything you can work out in advance. Okay, so that brings us to V2012-7521C at Lexington LLC. Yes, I have a question if you are in opposition, but the applicant is not present. If the applicant's not present, it's going to be difficult to go out and talk to them. So I would say sit tight and the staff is trying to find the applicants and you'll have a chance to talk to the applicant when they get here. Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, before we begin, all of the items, staff would like to note that all of the conditional uses that do have to have a sign posted, the staff did post the signs on all of those cases and all of the neighborhood notice for every case that's on your agenda did go out. Just a blanket statement for all of those items. Okay, great. Thank you. For the 21C Lexington, LLC, the staff has received one communication via email. It contains several letters in support of the project, not necessarily in support of – it doesn't speak to the variants one request one way or the other, but it is in support of the 21C hotel. Staff will pass that out now. Okay, thank you. Okay, so is the applicant for V2012-7521C Lexington? Here, you want to come forward, please? Okay, would you state your name for the record, please? My name is Craig Greenberg, and I'm president of 21C Museum Hotels. Okay, and have you read the staff's report? I have skimmed the staff report, yes. Other folks have been dealing more closely with them on our team. Okay. And do you or your client have any questions about the report? We simply hope you support the staff's recommendation to approve the variance. Okay. And would you be willing to abide by the conditions the staff has recommended? Yes. Okay. All right. Staff, do you have any questions, comments? No, ma'am. Board members? I have one question. If I read this report accurately, it sounded as if traditionally you only use a third of the parking spaces as would be expected in a hotel. Can you explain how that occurs? Well, I think there's a general misperception as to the number of parking spaces that are used on a regular basis for hotels, particularly ones that are mostly focused around valet. A lot of people either that are staying at a hotel such as this might be coming together in a car, they might be taking a cab, or the hotel is not 100% full. In terms of the restaurant and other uses, some people may not choose to valet with the hotel, might choose to park several blocks away where they can get a much more reduced rate parking or maybe not even have to pay for parking at all. And so this will be sufficient to serve our hotel. Well, I was curious that you needed so little parking. That surprised me. Will you be using valet to transport the cars down to the public library parking lot? We will have valet offered at the hotel, yes, but it certainly won't be required for guests to use that. Well, thank you, and good luck. I had a question related to that. I mean, it seems to me that you're looking at the Louisville Hotel and saying that this is what we need. And my question is, are there fewer parking requirements in Louisville? Do people take planes there, or is there more public transportation? I mean, is it fair to compare what the needs of a hotel in Louisville are with the needs of a hotel in Lexington? I think it is very similar. We're taking the same approach with the hotel in Cincinnati, Ohio, that we're opening up next month, where we have 66 more hotel rooms than we do here, and we have much fewer parking spaces than 66 hotel rooms. I mean, this should be ample to cover us. Steph, can you respond to that at all? As the staff was looking at this parking variance, we have traditionally, since the board has been allowed to have parking variances, we've looked at those three factors, the parking generator, the walkability of the area, and the availability of other parking options. In short, as the staff was reviewing this request, this is really the most justifiable parking variance request that we've seen that's become in front of the board. It's from the staff's opinion, parking generator, walkability of the area, and availability of other parking options. Not one of those is more important than the other, but together they all paint a picture of how appropriate the variance request is. And in this particular case, we felt that the applicant had supplied valid information that they do not need 100% of the parking that's required by the zoning ordinance for this boutique hotel, which is really a unique hotel that combines a restaurant, a hotel, and an art gallery experience together. It's not a typical Hotel 6 or anything of that nature for this particular project. So the staff feels very comfortable that this variance request should be recommended for approval. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Motion. I move to approve V-2012-7521C Lexington LLC appeals for a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 90 to 45 for a boutique hotel art museum in the Lexington Center Business B2B courthouse area overlay zone at 145-151 West Main Street, 167 West Main Street, and 100 North Upper Street. as recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is Stanley Gross here now? Madam Chairman, he is not. I was able to contact Mr. Gross by telephone. He is en route to the meeting. He thought he would be here within 30 to 45 minutes from the present time. Thank you. Also, I do think there are citizens here that wish to comment on that appeal. Okay, next item that's not contested would be the C-2012-67 Nancy Luna. It's the applicant here. Please state your name for the record. My name is Juan Castro. I'm with JCC Consulting Group. We're the bookkeepers for Nancy Luna. And have you and your client read the staff's report? Yes, ma'am. And do you understand the staff report? Yes, ma'am. Do you have any questions? No, ma'am. Are you willing to abide by the conditions that they have recommended? 100%. Okay. And staff, do you have any comments? No, ma'am. The staff did receive two emails that had letters of concern. In general, the staff has received some phone calls about this one, but typically the way those calls have gone is that once the caller has kind of understood what the applicants were asking for a restaurant with, it's a Mexican restaurant, and they wanted to be able to provide entertainment during some limited hours on the weekends, then generally the people have not had any concern. That's how the phone call kind of ended. They were not concerned once they actually understood what was being requested. Anyone on the board have any questions or comments? Wouldn't mind seeing these letters. I'm going to make a lot of the ingredients. Thank you. I would say that the concerns that are based in the letters have to do with the entertainment and the alcohol involved and probably noise issues. And so it seems to me that I would like the record to know to be reflected that these people have an outlet, that they can call the city and have their concerns known. And if there are problems down the road, it can certainly come before us and we can address it then. Madam Chair, I'll move that item C-2012-67, Nancy Luna Appeals for a Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Restaurant with Live Entertainment in a Neighborhood Business Zone at 1416 Village Drive be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you very much. Now I'd like to call C2012-68, Tony and Lisa Hodges. Would you please state your name for the record? Tony Hodges. Tonya Gilbert, the manager. Have you had an opportunity to read this staff report? Yes. Do you have any questions? No. Okay. And are you willing to abide by the conditions that the staff recommended? Yes. Looks like the staff has some letters for us to consider. Do you have any other comments or questions for us to consider besides these letters? I'm sorry, I didn't. I said, do you have any questions or comments, anything other than the letters for us to consider? No, ma'am. The staff has received one letter of opposition, which we have passed out on this use. Thank you. Board members have any questions or comments? Madam Chair, I move to approve C-2012-68 Tona and Lisa Hodges' appeal for a conditional use permit to operate a nightclub bar with live entertainment and dancing in a neighborhood business B-1 zone at 828 Lane Allen Road as recommended by staff and subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. I'll second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, congratulations and good luck. Thank you. And next I'd like to call C2012-69 Wendy Ritchie. Would you please state your name for the record? Wendy Ritchie. Have you read the staff's report? Yes, I have. Do you understand the staff's report? Yes, ma'am. And are you willing to abide by the conditions set forth in the staff report? Yes, ma'am. I believe this is the first case where the staff doesn't have anything to pass out to you on this one. Okay, great. And you have no comments? The staff has not even received one phone call on this particular case. Okay. Any questions, comments? Madam Chair, I move to approve C-2012-69 Wendy Ritchie's appeal for a conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children in a single-family residential R1D zone at 3088 Glenwood Drive as recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions outlined by staff. I second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Congratulations and good luck. Thank you. And the next we'll move to C2012-71 James Laird. The applicant please come forward. Hi. Please state your name for the record. James Laird. And have you received and read the staff report? Yes. Do you have any questions? No ma'am. Are you willing to abide by the conditions set forth in the report? Yes. Do you have anything for us to consider. The staff has not received any letters on this one. Great. Questions? Concerns? Motion. Madam Chair, I recommend we approve C-2012-71 James Laird's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish an athletic club indoor recreational facility in a wholesale and warehouse business zone at 2551 Regency Road. Is that the correct address? That's a good question. I haven't got it memorized yet. Well, in the first notice we got, it was listed as 2539. It's 255-2551, Suite 101. That's what my motion will contain. Based on staff's recommendation for approval and subject to the conditions. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Congratulations and good luck. Thank you. Now I'd like to call C-2012-72, U-C-K-Y-L-L-C. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm Dick Murphy. I represent U-C-K-Y-L-L-C, and we're here on behalf of the University Club of Kentucky, and we I'll just introduce who we have here we've got Mark Hill who's executive associate athletic director at UK we've got Golda Borst who's women's golf coach at UK we have Danny McQueen who's the owner of UC KY LLC which in turn owns the golf course behind me is David Franklin my co-counsel and counsel for UCKY LLC and Cheryl Butala is in the somewhere in the back our there she is she's our designer from Brett Construction and we have reviewed the staff conditions and do agree with those conditions and I could put on a presentation but we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have about that. Staff do you have any letters or questions comments? No ma'am the staff has not received any letters on this application. The staff does have, should the Board wish, I do have copies of the 1999 minutes from approval. That was the last time that the University Club was heard by the Board of Adjustment. I do have copies of those available if you would like me to pass them out to you. Thank you. Any questions come up? Mr. Murphy, I've got a question. What's going to go in the new two-story building? Well, that's going to be a training facility for the University of Kentucky golf team. The sole reason for this application is to provide an improved facility for the two UK golf teams, men's and women's both. This is the home course for the University of Kentucky golf teams. It has been for 15 years or so, and they want to upgrade this. Now, I'll give you an example. I'm not a golfer, so I've had to learn about all these things in doing this. They have a place there where you can hit a ball. You're going to be in a heated enclosure, and you can hit a ball outdoors, so that allows people to train properly without having to wear a coat in January and getting their muscles to the right temperature so that when they're practicing hitting, they can actually improve their game on it. They'll have a facility for short game. They're going to have locker rooms here. They're going to have day offices for the two coaches out here. Right now the goal is to have better training for the existing members of the golf team, number one. Number two, they want to be able to host NCAA regional tournaments here at their home home course and number three it's for recruiting new student athletes to come to the UK and play golf we're competing with southeastern conference teams which are in generally warmer climates and it's important to have facilities which are competitive with the Alabamas and LSU's and that sort of thing here Any other questions? We'll see if there's a follow-up question. Yes, Mr. Murphy. Or maybe I could I direct this to the staff, Jimmy? I hate to require a tutorial on zoning laws, but I thought that there was isn't there a 12-month period when you have to act on a conditional use, and this conditional use that they're modifying is from 13 years ago. The zoning ordinance does have a part of the ordinance that says that you need to get a building permit for your use within one year. But it goes on further to state that it's not automatically disapproved if you don't get your one year, if you don't act on that within one year. after that one year time the board does have the authority to set a hearing on that conditional use if the applicant has never acted on their approval that they got from the board and the board could then choose to revoke that approval if the applicant had not acted on it within a year but it's not an automatic disapproval within the one year after the one year period has gone by Does that answer your question? It sounds like it might not be possible to understand your answer. I'm sorry. In this particular case, the applicant has had approval. In fact, the 1999 approval, which was the last time they were in front of the board, the board approved an expansion that equaled 13,760 square feet. That was predicated on the reallocating some buildings that were approved prior to the 10,000 square foot limit and that were never built at that time. And in fact, in that case, that had been more than a year's time, too. So the board did not remove that square footage just because it was not built within a year. and there was also some buildings, in particular a pavilion that's existing today that the applicant was willing and ready to remove. In 1999, it was determined that they could have, with the amount that they were approved for and the amount that they were willing to remove, they could have had up to 15,000 square feet, but the board they were asking for and the board approved 13,760 square feet. The staff took that 13,760 square feet that was approved and in talking with the applicant they are no longer requesting that the pavilion be removed and so in doing that and I've looked at every building permit that was issued since the 1999 approval and there was only one accessory structure for 372 square feet that was approved. That's how the staff came to the recommendation for approval for an 11,628 square foot structure. The staff also had put in a recommendation, is also recommending a condition that if the university did need some additional square footage that the applicant would still have the opportunity to remove all or a portion of the pavilion to transfer that square footage to this location. This is a 300-acre golf course. And as you can see on the site plans that were submitted, there were lots of buildings that were existing prior to 1995. and they have been back in front of the board every time since. So they had a permit to build something over 3,000 square feet that they never built. Then we passed a law that said they could only add 10,000 feet more, and so we're taking the square footage that they never built and adding 10,000 square feet onto that, and that's where we are today. Essentially, yes. In fact, from your minutes, there was a very protracted hearing that the board had on that very first case whenever the board did decide to allow the approved but not built square footage to be added to their additional 10,000 square feet. So it was interpreted for this site by the board that they were allowed 10,000 square foot expansion to everything that they were approved prior to 1995. The staff has taken the position that they were no longer entitled to the full 15,000 square feet, but in 1999, when you approved a 13,760 square foot additional buildings on this site, that that set the new upper limit for any requests going forward today. I don't want to belabor the math on this, and this might not be pertinent either, but in the back of my mind, I'm thinking about the cost of doing this while every day we read in the paper about faculty and staff cuts at University of Kentucky, which affects the education of the people of the Commonwealth. So it seems it's not easy for me to get behind this. Thanks for your explanation. Mr. Gregg, just for what it's worth, I mean, it's sort of a side issue. I just checked with Mr. Hill, and this is coming out of the athletics budget. No state dollars on it. And they have worked very hard to come up with a financing way where they can do this without a major impact on the U.K. budget on it. And we did go over the numbers with Mr. Emmons, and I initially thought we had more square feet than he said we did, but we agreed with his numbers on this. And the short version of it is that prior to 1995, prior to the ordinance going into effect, they had approved a 3,700 square foot residence on the property. In 1999, they agreed to give that up in return for being able to, in essence, shift that square footage into other structures on the property. And in 1999, the board voted to approve that. And if there's any questions about that, I can go into that further. But we've been over the numbers very carefully on this, and I agree with this. And it's because of the unique circumstances that they did have approved square footage prior to 1995, and the board in 1999 sort of established what those square footages were. The U.K., some of that was built. A building permit was obtained for part of that. unfortunately the ownership of the club changed mr mcqueen got it in 2003 and uk has been trying to find a financing mechanism since the initial one fell through on doing this that was contemplated that they have in the year 2000 and i might mention mr mcqueen is building this the owner of there's no state money involved so you know it's not taken out of any other part of the budget that would otherwise be available for uk i've got i've got a question this could have been built 12 years ago right yes and tommy as you may recall this was situational danny owned the golf course and the University Club you know they started the alumni and tried to get it going into a private and they made substantial improvements for it it never went Danny acquired it back the the UK golf team has been there you know all this time and he's been providing it and and again Golders here if anybody has any questions it's just gotten to the point that you know they can't compete recruiting wise or otherwise with the facilities they have and through working with Mark and Danny and the finance people in the UK athletic department Danny's agreed to go ahead front all this get it built so that hopefully they can be competitive but there's been construction off and on you know from 99 Ford you know it's ever ceased being what's there now it's two golf courses Well, I mean, I am a golfer, so I know what's there. Okay. What's there in this particular spot that you're going to build, this particular upgrade? Yeah, it's going to take up part of the practice. You've got the main clubhouse. It's just going to expand behind the clubhouse into the practice area. Take up the practice tees. Okay. So you're just expanding back from the front of the clubhouse back towards the practice area? Yes. Okay. Towards the pavilion? Yes. Okay. Okay. And you could, maybe you misunderstood my question. If it had been built 12 years ago, it would have been there for the past 12 years. Right. But now you're just getting the money. Right. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Madam Chair, I'd like to go ahead and move forward and make a motion. And, you know, we share, I certainly share Mr. Griggs' concerns about faculty salaries and so forth, but this is a little, yeah, we all are. I think we're all concerned with that and the underfunding of higher education. Certainly that's not under our jurisdiction today. I know that Mr. McQueen has made a tremendous investment, and obviously I'd like to go ahead and see these facilities built. So with that said, items C-2012-72, UC KY LLC appeal for a conditional use permit to amend a previously approved site plan for a golf course and AR zone at 4850 Leestown Road be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. So the next item is recommended for disapproval and then we've got three neighborhood applications and then Do we have these administrative reviews right now? Yeah. Yeah, so the administrative reviews, I'm not quite sure whether these count is contested or not contested, whether they should go to the front or not. The Simmons, Barker, and the other Barker appeals, items 3, 4, and 5 on page 6 of your agenda, I think by their very nature they are, since they're third-party appeals, they are contested hearings. And then the last one, you have recommended? Alice Levy-Settle, A, 2012-73. The staff is recommending approval. This is not a third-party appeal. This is an administrative appeal for a second kitchen. This one could be an abbreviated hearing if there is no opposition, which I do not think there is. Okay. All right, so A2012-73, Alice Levy Settle. Is the applicant here now? Want to come forward? Please state your name for the record. I'm Gene Coppinger. Thank you. And have you read the staff's report? Yes, ma'am, I have. Okay, it's not subject to any conditions, but do you have any questions? No, ma'am. Okay, staff? Staff has no further comments. We have not received any written comments on this one. I'd just like to ask your relationship with the applicant. I'm the construction manager of the project. Madam Chair. I'd like to hear if the staff has maybe Jim Marks. Do you have any opinion on this? We're fine with it. Any other questions or a motion? Madam Chair, I move. We approve A-2012-73. Alice Levy settles application for this second kitchen. at 601 the Grange Lane based on the staff's recommendation of approval. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Good luck. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Okay, so that brings us back to the beginning of the agenda, and the first item we have not considered with opposition is C-2010-53 Southside Park. For this we have a revocation hearing scheduled. Madam Chair, as this is a revocation hearing, Mr. Marks will do the majority of the presentation. The staff has received some emails on this, which we will pass out. We have a combination of ones that are in recommending approval, ones that are in favor of Southside Pub and a couple that are in opposition to it. I also have a letter to pass out from Mr. Bruce Simpson, their attorney. Mr. Marks? I think a lot of this can be summed up with some communication issues on everybody's part. When some new management came in about a year or so ago to Southside Pub, what we've been told is they weren't aware of the conditions. They are very aware now, and I think the letter you got in your package from Mr. Simpson, which you'll elaborate on, indicates at this point that their intent is to comply with those conditions now that they know exactly what they are. when we corresponded with Southside Pub we had assumed that the management that was in place when it was originally approved back in 2010 was still there so we sent a letter to that we got no response to that partly because I think new management was in place there and they kind of were like what is this, what should we do kind of thing so I think at this point Mr. Simpson is prepared to explain what's happened and what they're willing to do and our understanding is that since they became aware of the conditions that they've been compliant with those. Thank you. Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Madam Chairperson, members of the board. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here today on behalf of Southside Pub. And Jim is exactly correct. the folks at Southside Pub, they've had live music there under previous names. There used to be Caddyshacks over at Mill Pond Center, and even before that, for more than 25 years, they've had live music. However, this summer, operating on the assumption they could have outside music, they did have outside music, and a complaint was made in August, which generated a letter from Mr. Marks to the management of Southside Pub. In response to that letter, they canceled all the remaining outside events immediately. And so there weren't any communication back to Mr. Marks about doing anything. They just stopped doing what they were advised that they couldn't do, which was have outside entertainment. And then there was some confusion that was generating, further confusion was generated from that incident into the notion that the Southside Pub was seeking an expansion of their conditional use permit to include outside entertainment. And that, in part, generated one or two letters that you have in opposition. In fact, the neighbor who stood in opposition when the case was first called thought, when she came down here today, that we were seeking expansion to have outside entertainment. and we're certainly not. We're here to say, as the owner has expressed to the neighbor, our apologies of our error in this, but it's been corrected and we've been in compliance. In addition to the letters that you all have before you, I have Southside Pub, obviously live entertainment is critical to its operation. We have 811 signed petitions in support of the club being allowed to continue as it has been for the past 25 years. In my packet, if you want to get into all of this evidence, I have two letters from the Neighborhood Association, Willow Oak, which is directly behind the closest neighborhood, two letters from the Neighborhood Association in full support of keeping the live entertainment. We hold the club, holds meetings there for the neighborhood association. It's had about 10 different charitable fundraisers from the American Heart Association to the Lafayette baseball team. It is really a vital part of the community. And in fact, I believe that the neighbor that came down here in opposition to thinking this was going to be an expansion of outside entertainment is here in support of keeping our live entertainment. And we also have another neighbor that came down to also express, on behalf of the neighborhood, their endorsement, if you want to get into all of that. But I think Jim summed it up. We got put on notice, no live entertainment. And we're committing to you, as I did in my letter, that we will not have outside entertainment. We will stick to the live entertainment that the facility has had for more than 20 years. Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Simpson. Any comments? Is there any opposition to speak? Does anyone in the audience want to speak on this matter? My name is Rhonda Tiefert. I think you have a letter either from my husband or from both of us. and I am the neighbor who was under the impression they were applying to get the permission for live entertainment. That is our only opposition. We feel that Southside Pub is otherwise an asset to our community and is a very popular place. We have no opposition to their continuing operations as they have been. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else in the audience want to address this? No. Okay. All right. I guess are we ready for a motion to... Mr. Emmons, how should this motion be stated? Obviously, from hearing from Mr. Marks and hearing from the neighbors and Mr. Simpson, obviously, we're not going to be revoking this conditional use permit. So is the motion to continue allowing the conditional use permit and limiting the entertainment to indoor? I believe that would be an appropriate motion. I would just make it clear that in that motion that you are not revoking the conditional permit. And as based on the evidence today, you allow it to continue to be used with no outdoor live entertainment. Does that sound good, Mr. Marks? I guess more generally that they will continue in compliance with the seven conditions that were outlined when it was originally approved, which includes things like no entertainment on Sundays, and there's also general conditions about managing the noise emissions so it's not disturbing to the neighborhood. Well, did you write all that down for me? So I'd like to go ahead then and make a motion to continue the conditional use permit subject to the conditions that had originally been set forth by the staff. Thank you, sir. I'll second that. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Good luck. Okay, the next item is C2012-55 Stanley Gross. Has the applicant arrived? We do not believe so. Okay. So we will move on to C2012-60 Cohen Realty, Inc. Would the applicant please come forward? As the applicant is coming forward, the staff has received several communications on this one, which we will pass out. Okay. Thank you. I'm sure I think the applicant outside talking still to the people in closing we also received this letter from vice mayor Gordon which I remember I think that was enough for each member to take one. Mm-hmm. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, we believe everyone is present for both the Cohen Realty and the Stanley Gross applications. Okay, would the applicant please come forward. Would you please state your name for the record? My name is Chris Westover. I'm an attorney with McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie, and Kirkland, and I represent the applicant along with my partner, Jason Morgan. Thank you. And have you read the staff report? Yes, I've read the staff report. We agree with all the conditions and will abide by them, and we have some additional conditions to put forth at the appropriate time. Okay. All right. So would you like us to go ahead and hear from the opposition, or is there something you would like us to consider beforehand? We were having a very good discussion in the hallway, and we think that we have addressed most of the neighbors' concerns anyway. So in the interest of brevity, I would recommend, if appropriate, to hear from the neighbors, and then we will address all of the points as they bring them up. Okay, thank you. So if the neighbors would like to come forward. I'd like to provide a packet. Could you please state your name for the record? My name is Mary Ware. I'm an adjoining property owner at 2347 Heatherway. And are you here to speak on behalf of all of the neighbors or just yourself? I am. Okay, great. Thank you. I will, but we do have some neighbors who have some specific points to address. In your packet, you're receiving a petition in opposition of this development and some data reports and a list of conditions, many of which we just had a very healthy discussion about. I'm a 25-year resident in this area, and I speak for myself and all of the adjoining property owners who have signed this petition, as well as other neighbors who feel they will be negatively impacted by this development. our first and foremost concern is stormwater drainage and we have been round and round about this the neighbors that i represent my neighbor myself because i sit at the bottom of this development i sit downhill from all of this and my neighbors two other of my neighbors and myself have experienced over the years, the 25 years I've lived there, stormwater manhole covers that are raised with extreme rain, flooding basements. We've dealt with that for many, many years, sump pumps and flooding basements, and water standing in our yards with heavy rains. Many reports have been put forth before us at meetings with the Cohen group and references are made to the 2002 and 2004 stormwater reports that have been previously done for other proposed developments. But the truth of the matter is that the demolition of the crab shack, the excavation with the development of Trader Joe's, and changes made in the professional Medical Heights parking lot are significant changes to the landscape since those reports were made. And the changes have really yet to be defined, and they haven't been addressed, and nothing has been submitted since these reports. These reports are 8 and 10 years old. Therefore, as property owners, we feel very strongly that the impact of these changes with regards to stormwater is really unknown. And actually we feel that a comprehensive hydrological survey really needs to be done before this excavation ever starts. One of our major concerns is, and I'm going to just address this issue next and then that will be all for me, is traffic flow. And it can't help but be negatively impacted. If you consider adding 105 plus vehicles with maximum capacity of this hotel to Lowry Lane or Nicholasville Road with any year-round activity in Lexington, this is a recipe for disaster in an already troubled area. I will refer to the Lexington Police Department Division of Traffic Summary and Comparison Report for 2010. The intersection of Nicholasville Road and Lowry Lane was ranked 38th highest intersection for collisions with 14 reported. One year later we are now number five with 23 collisions reported. That's a 65% increase in collisions in one year and coincidentally that was about the time that Central Baptist put in their parking lot behind Walgreens which also empties into the entrance of this development. The report continued to state that the intersection is number one for running red lights with 14 reported in 2011. Collisions that include parking lots are the highest on Fridays between 4 to 6 p.m. We have witnessed the difficulty of the turn lanes, particularly during rush hour times, trying to turn east or west into Trader Joe's and then into the the turn lane backing up, trying to turn west into Regency Center. I just witnessed that two days ago. And we also feel that traffic from this establishment will no doubt wander through Brookhaven, Zandale, Glendover, and Lansdowne neighborhoods trying to access Tites Creek Road. In conclusion, at the end of the day, this is about preserving an old established neighborhood. We play in our backyards with our children and grandchildren. We sit out on our decks. We're used to the quiet of the evening and the weekends. Presently what we have behind us now are professional one and two-story developments, buildings, businesses that operate eight to five. At the end of the day there's no cars, no nothing going on, and there's no traffic on the weekends. And that's what we've come to know and come to be used to. And that's also what we as property owners bought into when this changed from agriculture to P1 years ago. We bought into the idea of professional businesses back there that operate 8 to 5 and no weekends. And so we really feel like that a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week, 365 day a year business is really not suitable for our neighborhood and for our community right in that area. It would be very disruptive, and I leave that with you on behalf of the names on the petition that I represent. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Brian Peterson. I live at 148 East Lowry Lane, directly behind the proposed project. I just want to mention just a couple issues that are of concern to me. Two primarily are the privacy issue and crime. That's of big importance to me. The privacy issue, the safety, like I said, my backyard backs up right to this development, right to that large bur oak. I'm concerned that a four-story hotel, extended stay motel, is going to have a direct view down into my backyard, the place where I like to come home and relax. That's a great concern to me. The walking trail as well, I can reach over my back fence and pretty much shake hands with anybody on that walking trail as I look at that diagram. The bigger concern for me is crime. If you pull up any crime maps, you can pull them online. If you look at the extended stay America on Wheel Height Drive, which is just a mile or so up from where we are, and compare the crime maps within 1,000 feet of that extended stay versus the crime maps for Lowry Lane. It's a dramatic difference in the occurrence of criminal activity. That's of great concern to me. The proposed project is going to bring in a lot of vehicles, a lot of unoccupied vehicles. It's going to attract thieves. And my concern is the thieves, once they're there doing the criminal activity, where are they going to go? Are they going to try to jump over my fence, cross through my backyard to run away? I don't know if that's been addressed. If you recall, this past summer, there was a string of car thefts throughout the city. One specific individual was targeting women, and one was taken in front of HomeGoods, if you recall. It was in the news. They tracked that gentleman down, and he was based out of the Extended Stay America on Wheelhide Drive. He had stolen at least seven cars that they were aware of, and that was his base of operations. That's a concern to me. I don't know if it's something that the Cohen people can address or deal with. I would just like to be heard on that issue. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Michael Ware. I live at 2347 Heatherway. I would like to address the issue of having an inadequate barrier between the proposed development and our residences. That is, the residences that back up to the proposed development. In private meetings, there has been mention of a six-foot slat board type fence that might be installed to be considered as an adequate barrier. The group of residents that have met and talked about this does not feel that a six-foot fence, wooden fence, would be an adequate barrier to the light pollution, to the noise, or offer much security from anyone wanting to hop a fence to be in our backyards. And considering that it's a four-story building, And it offers little line of sight protection from just the casual viewers that will be in the hotel. We just a moment ago left some discussions where they have proposed to use an eight-foot fence with some plantings of trees. and that seems like that might be an adequate compromise under the circumstances. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm Bill McAtee. I live at 2029 Delwood Drive, which is right up from the project. I'm the president of the Zandell Neighborhood Association. And on September the 25th, we sent you a letter where we stated when we were beginning to get into the issues, we summarized the issues that we saw involved here. and we said that we would like to see this worked out, but we would recommend denial of the project unless all these were met satisfactorily to enhance the quality of life in our neighborhood. We have since been involved with a whole series of conversations that have been working on this in a very positive way as recently as we were outside. I have written a letter today that I will file here with your copies that raises one issue that was not dealt with in the study, the staff study, and that's traffic. And it's a very significant issue. I have attached the original letter there to make sure you had it. What we feel like is that before this proceeds or as this proceeds, that this study needs to be done because in 2002, we as an association were deeply involved in the restructure of that intersection. And we came to some suggestions that worked for a while with signage and various lanes going in different directions. But over the years, the signage has disappeared or is ignored summarily. Some people can't quite understand what a no left turn sign means, and it jams up to traffic coming off of Nicholasville Road trying to get on the service road in front of Walgreens and Old Charlies. What happens this last week, I experienced where the traffic coming off of Nicholasville on to Lowry Lane trying to get onto the service road was jammed up. And it was 4.30 in the afternoon on Friday afternoon, and I was sitting in the middle of Nicholasville Road, and it got kind of scary when the light changed. But this is something that's fairly significant. With the influx of new traffic coming out of where the Baptist Hospital's parking is and the new Trader Joe's and now 105 more, even though it may be staggered. We don't really know, but it doesn't take but a very few cars to make that thing back up and it becomes very dangerous. And I just simply wanted to go on the record. And where we are is simply that we do appreciate what the Cohen Group has done and what the staff has done. But we request denial for this application. it remains until an adequate study of the traffic issues involved are made and satisfactorily resolved and along with these other issues that seem to be well on the way to being resolved. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak in opposition? I'm Julian Beard, 809 Glendover Road, and council person for the 4th District. And this is in my area, obviously. As a result of work that's gone on for some period of time and also right out here on the mezzanine, I would say that we have mostly 90, 95% of the issues solved. but the 10 or 5 percent are significant issues as Mr. McAtee mentioned for instance. I have one pet peeve which I was told out there is going to get fixed. As you come off of Larry Lane in behind Trader Joe's, there is a very small narrow driveway with an island in the middle of it. fire apparatus cannot get in there. They'd have to jump the curb and bounce around for a while to get there. And if it's an EMS unit getting out of there, that isn't going to be very good. I would like to see some alteration of that. That's not in their arena, but that's their problem to figure out how to get it done. And hopefully that will help, because as people approach, if they're going into Trader Joe's, if they're going to this location, people have to slow down. They can't just whip in there. They have to slow down and almost realign themselves to get into this driveway. I don't know how many of you have ever seen that problem, but it is a significant problem, and I'd like to see that fixed. And hopefully they promised they would somehow get that figured out and get it fixed for me, and then we're going to have a name on there. It's the Beard driveway. Other than that, we've made a lot of progress today, and so I really have no other issues that haven't already been discussed by some of my constituents. So thank you all very much. Thank you. My name is John Morrison. I live with my wife at 2037 Heatherway. And I haven't coordinated any of my conversations with anybody here except for my wife. I just wanted to indicate and by the way Mr. Glover I spoke to you before coming here I didn't know you were on the committee if I said anything nice I'll withdraw that and if I responded with anything nice I'll withdraw that too I didn't know you were coming either I had no idea and I'm a lawyer dealing criminal defense so this will probably be my first and last time coming here I'm also the elected official. I'm the Fayette County Judge Executive. I won, as you may know, I defeated a 30-year incumbent, got more votes than the mayor. I appoint some people to boards, not this particular board, and I shouldn't have that authority. I'm trying to eliminate, do the proper thing with government. I go to a lot of meetings and call myself a self-styled regional planner. I'm a member of the MPO and the I-75 Nicholasville Bypass Interconnector Road Committee, and generally I believe in the hard work that goes into planning. In fact, one of the planners for this city, Jim Redman, and I were lucky enough to have, quite a few years ago, caught a landfill that was being put into McConnell Springs, and it was stopped. I'm quite interested in those things. I believe in infill rather than destruction of our valuable farmland and agricultural soils. And certainly as a Republican, I'm interested in avoiding unnecessary, unreasonable restrictions on private business. But last Wednesday, while I was at the Bluegrass Ad Area Development District meeting, my wife indicated that she had been to another meeting, a meeting involving this. about a block away from my house and she was concerned about our investments and improvements for the home so I just thought I'd present myself as available to you because I know something about this as it turns out this development is in my walking area for many years I've been a dog walker you know that people who take their dogs out. And I've been concerned about this particular property. I walk by real and quite frequently. Mr. Ware, I haven't talked to him or anybody else about this. Officer Gerson, I see his police car out there. But I'm aware of what's going on in this area. There is a, I guess it's called a detention basin, detention basin, and it seems quite inadequate to me. If you'll notice, there are some large conduit pipes coming into this, coming into the basin and then going out of the basin, and it looks like it floods quite recently. And I think what they're proposing is that there should be a new hydrological study. If you'll notice, this is on a slope. If the hotel is going to be built, and I think it's quite reasonable to be built, to put the parking spots there, they'll need to put infill. On a slope, as you may know, there's going to be a lot of stormwater coming off. Black topping anywhere is going to deal with pollution and with stormwater. And, of course, Fayette County is part of the Lexington Urban County government. It's part of the consent decree to reducing stormwater. Well, this is going to increase stormwater, and it's going to be a serious problem. There's already a problem with, as I understand, with flooding in the homes. I observed this. I thought it was a creek. At least that was my original impression of going past this detention basin. It's not, but there's still water in it. There's water in it last night. My concerns are the property values. Obviously, I've been told that the two appraisers, my wife's talked to a couple appraisers, and it might increase property values. But more than that, there are these burroques. One of them looks real big and old, and I'm sentimental, I guess, as a Tree City USA guy. That's what we do to protect these trees. And I don't know how you – I'm going to defer to Dave Leonard, our city arborist, on how to protect these trees. But I doubt that over a long haul, a tree in between a parking lot and some homes is going to be protected in the long run. The traffic in the area, I speak as a neighbor. I go by this place, and we're real frustrated. But, of course, we're not the only people in Lexington that are frustrated by traffic. at the NPL meeting yesterday, no, two days ago, they spoke of a Nicholasville Road corridor study that's going to be in because they recognize the problems on Nicholasville Road. In this particular location, with the new Trader Joe's business, we're having difficulty with people coming in and out of that property and across the street from that on Lowry Lane there is what appears to be a nice area for people who want to commute and leave their cars behind the Zandell Shopping Center. But between these two areas they're crossing up and they're causing a bunch of confusion, and that's not to mention the traffic light confusion to get across Nicholas River Road anywhere. It's really difficult. It's a long stoplight. so my concerns are primarily and and I'd be glad to tell talk to you about it because I see this property I'm concerned about it but I want to be available to you because I know this property and I'm aware of some of the issues you have to confront and the stormwater just seems so difficult if if the Cohen Realty Company wanted to put to have access to Heather way and I don't think they're intending to do that but that is their right as property owners that would cause additional confusion and a whole bunch of problems to the to people in the area I just don't know how it could be done with that small piece of property that goes between Heather Way and this particular piece of property. It would have to go over the detention basin, detention rather than retention, and I just think that it would cause serious, serious problems. There's just no way that from my observation of this property, when it rains and when it doesn't, is that the difference, the hydrological difference, seems to be quite significant and is an obvious problem and should have been fixed by now. but it's going to be made worse, and particularly in light of our city problems with the stormwater. I don't believe I have anything to add. Again, I have not coordinated any of my ideas with these other people, but I'm real familiar with the location, how it's built, how a proposed development would go on to this location and what it would take to put in enough parking spaces to accommodate. They said 100. Who knows how many people might have to be accommodated in an extended stay residential facility. It might be more than that. People in an extended stay may have more than one person to stay with each residential facility. There are people who come into town, work with two or three who live in a facility. I don't know how they're going to run their business. I don't want to arrogate anything, but I'm suggesting to you that Officer Gerson's idea that they're going to bring in traffic, well, we've accepted traffic in the area, but it's going to be an invitation to some problems. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Okay, thank you. Thank you. We would ask at this point that if you want to speak in? Yeah, just things that we have not already heard. Thank you. I just wanted to recall something that he said. I'm his wife. I'm Sari Larson. He said that I was concerned about the property values. He said we spoke to some appraisers, and they said it would increase. They said it would decrease. That was all. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Is there anyone else in opposition who would like to add something new? Okay. All right. Ms. Silver. Thank you. In light of some of these comments, we can fully address every one of the comments, as well as put on our own evidence as to why this particular property is ideal for this use. First of all, this is not a hotel. This is, under the zoning ordinance, it's separately defined as a multifamily apartment on a short-term lease. So we will show you some evidence relating to that. Mr. Morgan, can you please hand up the exhibits and save one or two for some of the, like Mr. Beard and the staff. I think it's important, first of all, to address some of the specific comments and questions raised. Traffic, traffic is an issue, but the whole nature of an extended stay hotel is that it's interspersed throughout the day. It's not a.m. or p.m. peak hour, unlike an office building or even a more conventional hotel. The people that stay here are here for business, and they may stay in their room for most of the day. An extended-stay hotel is often used by people who are on an outpatient basis being treated at one of the local hospitals, for example, yet they need to stay for a period of time. For example, if you lived in Pikeville and you had a doctor up here that you were seeing for, let's say, radiation treatments, that you could stay here during the week and then go back home. So these are not people that would create the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. There are also people who stay in these facilities because they have loved ones in the hospital and they might be there for a while. And so this is the type of accommodation. It's considered more like an apartment and less like a hotel. So the traffic then is not the conventional traffic where it's busy in the morning and busy in the afternoon. And in speaking in the hallway with Mr. McAtee, we have also agreed to an additional condition that this plan, and it will have to go back to the Planning Commission for the development plan approval, that we would agree to do a traffic study if the Division of Traffic Engineering thought that it triggered the a.m. or p.m. peak hours that would necessitate the study of a traffic and possibly some traffic improvements. Some of the traffic issues raised by the neighbors, we don't have any control over. If there is a sign that says left turn and the sign is faded, that's a matter that's easily fixed. but that's something that the city needs to fix. In terms of where we started and where we are now, we feel like we've made a lot of progress, and we feel like the plan that we're presenting today, and based on the neighborhood's comments, we've made a much, much better plan than we initially filed, and we have made an infinitely superior plan to the current approved development plan that if we built it would have more impervious surface, more parking, there would be a three-story office building right on the Lowry lots on the rear property line there. So I'll take just a few minutes and we'll go through some of this. I think the first thing I want to do is call Roger Leidenberger. He is the person who came up with the development plan, and I want him to talk us through the plan in order to show you how we are addressing the neighborhood's concerns about landscaping, buffering, and all the other issues that they raised. Do you want to show the first plan? There it is. Can you show the very first plan? Hello? the currently approved plan is shows two medical office buildings that's what I'm screen now and it's outlined in green it's the same site that we're proposing for the hotel the medical office building site the medical officer and development call for a three-story building and a four-story building I can't tell you the number of square feet right off the bat and about 110 parking spaces the impervious area of that development the hard surfaces rooftops paving sidewalks amounted to about 66,000 square feet and that plan produced an open space of open area green space of about 28,000 square feet. I'm going to jump forward just to give you a direct comparison our hotel plan proposed although we're not looking at it now those is one building and the impervious area on our develop on our hotel plan is 56,000 square feet that's 10,000 square feet less than the medical building site development, which is presently approved. In our hotel site, we've also been able to create a large, open, park-like area that is actually one acre, maybe a little more than one acre. The entire site is just a little over two and a half acres, and we've been able to create one acre out of our two and a half acre site as just open green space. And that came about mainly because of our effort to protect the two ancient bur oak trees. Dave Leonard, our arborist, says that the big oak tree, the big oldest one, is about 250 years old. That predates the state of Kentucky, actually. the parking for our development is less than it would have been for the medical office building the green space is greater and the overall development is less intensive than the medical office building site would have been if you have any questions i'll be happy to try to answer them Thank you. Fencing. Fencing. Fencing. Fencing. Great. We've been meeting with the neighbors behind us on the east side of the property, circled in red, who live on Heatherway and the ones on Lowry Lane. The ordinance requires us, the landscape ordinance requires us to do one of two things, either a double row of a six-foot hedge or a six-foot fence. Because of space limitations in our efforts to try to preserve the bur oak trees, we've chosen to do the fence option instead of the double row of hedges. So we've agreed to build a solid wood eight-foot fence all along the back of the lots on Lowry Lane and on the back of the lots on Heather Way. And in addition to that, on the Heather Way side, we're planting, I think right now we've been talking to Dave Schlender, the arborist, about it. I think what we're thinking about now is arborvitae to help additional, to provide additional screening with the eight-foot fence. along the heather way of the lowry lane side there are areas where we may be able to supplement the existing tree line but we're trying we have to be careful not to interfere with the burrow areas and their their root systems so it'll be a little bit less intensive on the lands down on the lowry lane side than on the the east side of our property the lighting there was a question earlier about the lighting I talked directly to the architect we're using those shoebox down lights which I know you're all familiar with they're just straight down there was a question about the like the jogging trail and in the areas where the jogging trail might be dark we're using bollards or two or three feet tall that just directly shine a little bit of light onto the jogging trail. So none of that is directed anyway at all toward the adjoining residential uses. Have I forgotten anything? Dumpster. Dumpster. We had a dumpster location which nobody liked, and they told us real fast about that. so we we had it it's kind of in the within that red circle you see it was back toward the so right now it's up where the arrow is we've moved it up next to our building and that is that we've taken that out out of the picture that hasn't been an item of discussion for a long time and i think the neighborhood's happy with that i hope they are i have a question right here yes The lot on Heather that's vacant right now, is that owned by this developer? What's going to happen with that? Yes, that one lot that's at the top is owned by the present owner, and it will be part of the property that my client will acquire if his plans are approved. It's always been part of this property. Although it's vacant and we keep it mowed, there are no plans to use it except as a single-family residential sometime in the future. We have no plans to do anything with it. And there are some notations and some conditions that we have placed on the plat itself, and I think Chris has some additional language that deals with that maybe within the last day or two. We restricted it to single-family use if it's ever developed at all. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. In quick response, Mr. Griggs, yes, we are very willing to impose a restrictive covenant on that lot that says that it will be used only for R1C type uses. It is not our intention or plan to use this for access in any way. And in fact, there's already a type of restriction on it. There are reciprocal easements on the entire property that date from several years ago where the adjoining property owner on Heather Way would be allowed to garden the lot for her life. But we are very willing to do a deed of restriction saying that that will be used only for single family. We don't want to use it for access. We don't want to use it for any purpose. There was a lot of concern about stormwater. And as you probably know, under our current regulations, we are not allowed to have more runoff post-development than currently exists pre-development right now. And we are fully aware of our obligations under the law. And also what we are proposing here has less impervious surface than the approved certified final development plan. And we will be doing substantial planting in that area, and that will also reduce stormwater runoff. Finally, before any approval is given to actually begin development, there will be another stormwater study done. We take stormwater very seriously, and there are some existing problems in the neighborhood that we didn't create, and we can't entirely solve by this, but there are things that we can do on this property to make it much better. And in light of that, I'd like to call Vince up here to talk about stormwater and the impact of this development on stormwater in the neighborhood. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Vincent Severance. I'm a civil engineer with Stantec here in Lexington. I was the design engineer for our former company, FMSM Engineers, back in 2002. Back then, we worked with the previous owner, Jeff Ruttenberg, of JCR Realty. And back then, we worked with the city to design the stormwater detention facilities for the full development back in 2002, which included the two office buildings. We've submitted a copy of that report to the city. Susan Fluker has a copy of that and I think everybody is up to speed on what was done back in 2002. So back in most of the construction happened in 2004. The area was redeveloped along Nicholasville Road as it is today. New stormwater sewers were installed and two basins were enlarged on the backside of this property to provide additional detention for the 2002 development plan. Since then the medical buildings were never constructed near the Burr Oaks and as we have it today this new hotel layout actually has less impervious than what we designed for in 2002. If we're requested to work with Mr. Cohen to finalize the drainage study, we will do that. We'll work directly with the city and the infrastructure manuals as required. Any questions? I'd be glad to try to answer them. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next, I'd like to call Dave Leonard. He is our arborist, and he's tired of hearing me say this, but I think he is the most passionate and serious advocate for tree preservation in this entire community, and he's done it all of his life. And I think it says something for our client who hired Dave to protect those trees. It says something about our client's commitment to want to do the right thing to preserve the trees, to do a green infrastructure project. So I'm going to have Dave come up here and talk a little bit about the burr oaks and our proposed landscaping. Thank you. Gee, thanks. Hello, Council. I'm Dave Leonard. I've been aware of these trees since I was well in the 2002 I was brought out again to look at the trees and was remarkable you know to find them in Lexington and preserved at that time and then to come back on and have the pleasure of working with them is really nice and certainly I'm sorry we had a and a person that didn't discuss things with us earlier that come up here, but we have taken every precaution to keep those trees. And it would be very stringent, and I would be on guard a lot because I'm on the side of the trees. I'm not on the side of any development or neighborhood. And anything that's been here, they've actually grown, the large one has actually grown from 59 inches to 61 inches, two inches in diameter in the eight years since we measured it previously. So it's doing very well. And it's not, one thing, it's not been affected negatively by, that's a double negative, by the infill that was created. There was three to five foot of fill put over a large part of the root system in 2002. And I would have had heart failure at that had I known it but it the tree has not shown any problems with that and that's one testament to the hardiness of burr oaks and actually has continued to increase in growth so I we've come up with a plan basically keeping it at the area that it was in 2002 to protect the trees to actually clean up under the trees right now there is a lot of garbage under the trees there is invasive weeds like honeysuckle and a lot of invasive euonymus vines that are climbing up the tree and they're actually detrimental to it they have not been cared for by the present owner so we want to make sure that is done and that it's a pristine nice area and the trees are placed on a management plan and will continue to contribute for a while we also worked with the neighborhood as far as planting in the clay soils that are evident there. Arborvitae would be a great tree. They're evergreen of course. That's the tree of life, arborvitae. And the variety we chose is a green giant that grows to 30 or 40 feet very rapidly. And it's a nice more not quite columnar, a little bit larger at the base than at the top. There's some wonderful examples of it. We had some pictures of them tendered. I don't know where they are now. And then we continued we wanted a kind of a double staggered row of those to give it really a full barrier there and to catch a lot of storm water. And then we also designed the ball cypresses in the left-hand corner around the storm retention basin to help with that. So I think we've really addressed the protection of the trees. We want to do a really nice job with the landscaping. Actually, we want to bring in soil that is good quality soil in the cutouts in the parking lot for the trees. We want to make sure they contribute for a long time because that was one of the problems. With a lot of landscape issues right now, in the drought years we've seen trees dying in a lot of the businesses here in town and they're not being replaced. And we want to design this so it is a sustainable planning. so and if anybody would like a bur oak acorn I brought a few they're actually these would still germinate if you plant them in your backyard but you have to promise not to plant them under power lines because they get a little too large yes Chris could you please tell the board about the little bit more about the bald cypress how tall they grow the effect on stormwater okay bald Cypress are a deciduous conifer. They turn beautiful kind of rusty color and at this point picture may be forthcoming I don't know and they are known to be a swamp tree but they are also drought tolerant which is unusual for a lot of trees but it is that's the way it is it works great and they're actually that's a picture of one in in my front yard in the fall so if you have a group of six to eight of those in that one area they're going to be drink a lot of water it is also the actually the ball cypress is the present the largest tree in Lexington Kentucky and there is one growing on I don't know the address it's old Paris Pike at the interstate and it's the Lundergan's property now and it's 130 feet tall and eight and a half foot in diameter so qualified as the largest tree in town and it is certainly but that's you can see on my farm that is a south facing slope 45 degrees it's a very dry slope and the trees flourishing there so I don't think have any problem with the ball cypress they should do very well so thank you all you have anything else chris you want to see mr leonard i'd i'd like one of your burroaks i don't plan to be in my house another 250 years but uh i'll plant it for thank you i planned it for somebody appreciate Dave, save me now. How long do you want to get it in the ground this weekend? About two inches deep. I think if Dave gives you that, he's probably going to check to make sure you planted it correctly, too. He takes a very personal interest in his trees there. He's welcome in my yard any time. But in terms of the landscaping, we are doing everything we can to address all of these concerns. and we intend to have that row of Arbor Vita that will provide a substantial visual and sound buffer. They grow fast, and they'll be on our side of the fence line, and in addition to the fence, that should provide a very adequate buffer between this project and the surrounding residential properties. And the bald cypress grove actually was something that I was talking about with Jim Redman. And it's just like a rain garden, only it's trees. And every little bit helps. And what this developer is trying to do is, as much as possible in this infill development, to have something that is attractive and sustainable and environmentally friendly. And now I will ask Jason to bring up Jeff Stidham to talk a little bit more about this developer, this development, and how this extended stay facility serves a very important need in this community. Thank you. And I have the pleasure of, one, obviously representing Cohen Realty, Inc., but also the pleasure of working with Mrs. Chris Westover, which is an experience in and all of itself. So I would like to call Mr. Stidham here. He will discuss, as Chris mentioned, the type of use of home to this extended stay, which is, as Chris has said before, more of a residential type, apartment type business than it would be such as a hotel in the downtown district. So, Mr. Stidham, if you'd come up, please, and talk a little bit about the use and a little bit about the economic impact. Also, a little bit about the sustainability of the building, green-type design, you know, that's good for the environment. Thank you. I'm Jeff Stidham. Thank you for this opportunity. We met with, or I did, with Mary and all these good folks several months ago with the intention of talking about the low-density, low-impact of this property type. I've enjoyed working with them. I also met with Mr. Beard some months ago just to give them an idea of what is hopefully going to be developed here. It's a very low-intensity, unobtrusive use. We do consulting work for hotel developers, Marriott, Candlewood Suites, and various others, Hilton. And we do nightly stay, and we do a lot of extended stay work. I've actually done 30 of these extended stays in the last five or six years. It's interesting there's not been a hotel built on Nicholasville Road in 20 years. and we lost Greenleaf and Howard Johnson's both. They became old and outdated. This product is really a new state-of-the-art Hilton concept. It's called a Home 2. And you'll see in your materials, one of the attempts that they made was to create a residential sense of community in an extended stay hotel. It's a huge difference. The average stay here is 10 days to 2 weeks. This is not an extended stay America where you can stay for $219 for a week. I think that's their rate. This is $80 a night. It's not an inexpensive hotel. But, again, it is designed for long-term stay. And the design elements, which you can see, are very detailed. This I show because it really has, that's about the scale. I don't think the one proposed here is quite that big, but it does give a sense of how the hotel is going to look on the site. And this next photograph I want to show you really addresses some of the features. One of the top left is a larger scale, larger hotel, But you can see the trend today in these hotels because there's so much medical application for patients. The consultant was David Parker. His firm, I believe, is UDS, and they do consulting work for national hotel chains. The site, to fit Hilton's criteria, has to have the right population, the right access, the right demographics, the right need. He interviewed University of Kentucky, Medical Center, St. Joe, Central Baptist. As a matter of fact, the U.K. said they would put one of these on their own property. Could they do so? Because these hospitals need these. They're hard surfaces. Many people are starting to believe that carpets, frankly, after a while are not clean. And you can probably not tell it, but the bottom left photograph, that shows a room. That's a hard surface room. all the common areas and all our various kinds of tile and other kinds of hard services. This is probably an $11 million investment. I think the current PVA value of the site is about $650,000, so it goes to $10 or $11 or $12 million in value. 12 to 15 new employees, all suites. They really are designed for business travelers, consultants, auditors, government travel, families relocating, and most importantly, families who are here for people going to the hospitals. I don't know if we gave you the handout or not, but these outpatient procedures today, people don't convalesce in the hospitals, but they do have to go back every other day. so they stay for a longer period of time. These things have very large refrigerators and kitchens, and it serves a very nice breakfast. Again, I said there's no alcohol here, there's no restaurant, there's no lounge, there's no entertainment. A very quiet kind of a neighbor. And when people are convalescing or their families, it might be fun to eat out one or two nights, but it's also fun to have a big refrigerator where you can go across the road to Trader Joe's and get dinner. or bring leftovers home from the restaurants. We learned this from UK, or from the medical center. Cardiovascular, these folks are in intensive care. Families stay close. And even after a day or so, oftentimes the patients have to stay close. Hip replacements, 20 days to a month recovery. I had no idea. But anyway, it's a very, very unobtrusive use. Let's talk about parking for a second. There's going to be about 120 parking spaces here. Our company, we were lucky enough to represent Bingham McCutcheon when they recently came to Lexington. As you all know from the press, they went to the IBM building at Coldstream, and that building had 270 parking spaces for 45,000 square feet. The first thing Bingham McCutcheon did, they have to have more parking than that today. Office buildings have changed. There's now 400 parking spaces has been approved at the IBM building. If this property is going to be developed for that kind of use, it's going to have a lot more parking than this hotel is going to generate. And I'm estimating the number of parking, I think, at the IBM is 270. I believe that I understood that they got that number increased. was it built to 400 or i think it was an increase of 90 spaces as i recall okay from 270 then to 360. so i was i was high on that number and you know they intend to bring another 150 jobs here the average average job is 60 to 70 thousand dollars a year and they will add additional parking spaces now where they go in cold stream to do that that's i guess to be determined by the the folks here. So it really has much less impact. You're talking about half as much traffic coming and going. They don't come in at 8 and leave at 5. It's very scattered kinds of traffic patterns. There's also, luckily, three access points up there. You can come in from Malibu. You can come in, right turn in, right turn out beside Trader Joe's. And You can go out on a narrow lane, so that further disperses a much less intensive traffic pattern. I think I've covered everything that I had to cover here. Again, this is not a party environment. There's no basketball, football, weekenders that come to stay here. it's just a good low density low impact kind of development which is what I wanted to tell Mr. Beard and the family early on this is the last handout Hilton's very serious about being a good neighbor they're quiet they're safe and and the efforts that they make to keep them green, plus the efforts that this guy has made to keep it green and improve those great trees, I just think it's a good use. Mary in the paper this morning was quoted as saying she realizes something back there is going to happen, and she just wanted it to have the least impact. And that's exactly what an extended stay of this caliber does. it's just a lot less impact than 50,000 square feet of office buildings, which are apparently what are approved there, would have. Anybody have a question for me? I have a question. Do you have a security person on site? Absolutely. There's, again, 12 to 15 new employees, and it's very secure, because there's a lot of families that come there. And I think those details would be in that package that you have. That's correct, and if I may. just to follow up Mr. Stidham's testimony. In your packets marked as Exhibit 6, you will find a lot of information, various printouts, publicly available printouts on the Hilton property home too that can give you an idea of the history, the type of use, the type of amenities, the type of sustainability that they try to incorporate into their development, whether it's recycling in the room, whether it's recycling on the hallways or the use of high energy type bulbs or Blue Star energy type appliances. The whole purpose of this type of design is energy efficiency and environmentally sound development. And on that same line, as far as the development, a little bit on the economic impact of this type of development, Mr. Stidham mentioned, of course, the raw value type PVA value with $10 to $12 million of development into local subcontractors, local material providers. Our local Lexington-based construction industry, of course, will obviously benefit from that. And then lastly, I do want to say two things that marked as Exhibit 7, Mr. Stidham talked about the local need in the community, whether it's business professionals, people who need to stay over 10 nights, somebody who is seeking, for instance, NICU treatment, neonatal intensive care unit or cardiovascular type services at our three hospitals that are in close proximity, whether it's the University of Kentucky, whether it's Central Baptist, or whether it's St. Joe's, you'll see MapQuest documentation as far as the distance to travel from the property to these three hospitals. And then lastly, in addition to being a good neighbor and building environmentally sound type properties. Home 2 in Hilton is a socially conscious neighbor. They have a Your Two Hands program where they try to give back to the community via local fundraising and charities by donating back a portion of the proceeds, of course, that they garner from rental of these type of units to various, and a lot pet friendly as a dog person, I would say. I'm glad to see that type of charity on there. So if you have any more questions, Of course, Mr. Stidham, where I can happily address them with respect to economic development and so forth. Thank you. We also have a representative from the current property owner who's here to say something to you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is John Talbot. I'm here on behalf of Professional Heights, the owner of this property, and one of the adjoining office buildings. First, I want to thank you all for your service. As you heard, the property's been vacant a long time. I think this is the first real interest in the property since at least 2002. I'm not sure even how real that interest was in 2002. I think it was more speculation about building an office building as opposed to a real developer standing before you to do a project. We believe, of course, this is a good use and appropriate for this area. And we say that not only because we're trying to sell the lot, but also we own the adjoining office building. It's a good step down. There's just not been a lot of demand as a test of the fact there's been no interest in a property for the past 10 years. So I think it's a good step down from the adjoining uses. We think that the neighborhood has really been able to secure some great advantages because in order to do an extended stay, we've had to come to you to get a Board of Adjustment approval to be an extended stay. So therefore, we've had to work on the trees, not only the oak trees but also the arborvitae to deal with the stormwater to talk about traffic. Two things actually I was surprised at earlier. Professional Heights did not construct the island that Mr. Beard talked about. That was one of the other adjoining property owners, but I'll look into getting that addressed and removed because I don't think that's – I think it was done in an effort to control the Trader Joe's traffic. The other thing is I was kind of surprised to learn about not taking care of the bur oak trees. now talk to the professional heights owners and see if we can't get that developed. But anyway, I do think that this is an appropriate use, a good use for the neighborhood, and be a good neighbor, and ask that you approve it. Thank you. Thank you. I think this sums up all of our witnesses. I'd just like to briefly go through this exhibit book and just sum up. Let me start by saying that here in Lexington, we have incorporated a policy that we shorthanded by saying we're going to grow up and not out. What that means is that we want to do intelligent infill development within the urban services area in order to protect our precious agricultural lands. And in doing so, when we look in the urban service area, sometimes there are bypassed parcels or parcels that don't develop, but they are next to existing neighborhoods. And so development in a situation like that requires the utmost sensitivity and respect for not just the site and the features on the site, but also for the neighbors in the surrounding area. And we have tried very hard to do that here. We think that this is a very appropriate development in scale and use for this particular property. it will provide an appropriate step-down in intensity between the B1 and the Trader Joe's and the more office building types and the single-family residential lots. Thanks to the neighbors, and I do thank them, we now have an even better plan. We have agreed to an 8-foot solid wood fence all around there, except for the area where the detention basin is where we're going to plant bald cypress. we can't put a fence there. It would interfere with the drainage. We're going to do more landscaping. We've lost parking spaces that, in an ideal world, we would have liked to have had those parking spaces, but we took them out because of sensitivity to the adjoining property owner who didn't want cars coming into the spaces with lights on, and that would interfere with the enjoyment of her lot. We also lost a few parking spaces because of Mr. Leonard, who was ardently concerned about protecting those Baroque trees. So we feel that this project is an example of what can be accomplished with intelligent and sensitive infill development of an appropriate use and appropriate scale and the exhibit book just pretty much has additional information about that for example an extended stay hotel by definition as you see here in exhibit one is considered a multiple family dwelling and it is not a hotel a hotel has a separate definition the extended stay type facilities they're only permitted as a conditional use in a P1 zone a professional office zone and you can look through the professional office zone and they they don't have let's say entertainment type uses if you look in contrast at the definition of a hotel, your more conventional hotel, those are permitted in downtown zones, the B zones, the 2B, the 2A, and so forth, and in the B3, which is the highway service commercial zone. And look at the other uses in the B3 zone. You can have cocktail lounges, nightclubs, bars, you know, restaurants and that sort of thing. So hotels can tend to have a more intensive impact, particularly with regard to residential neighborhoods around them. And in this case, this is a totally different animal. This is a multifamily apartment that can be leased on a short-term basis. Earlier today, we called over and confirmed that even the hotel room tax does not apply to these if people stay for more than 30 days. So it's just a whole different lower intensity, more like the R4 apartments that are on Lowry Lane, more like that. I've also included included some goals and objectives from your comprehensive plan that talk about sensitivity to the built and natural environment, which we are striving to do. The economic development impact of this project, not only will it increase property values, there will be construction jobs. Typically, there are local contractors who will be on the job doing the work, there will be somewhere between 30-45 new jobs created in this community, and this often has a spin-off effect. So there are, like I said, there are these goals and objectives in here, as well as some references to green infrastructure. Green infrastructure is a relatively new term, and a tree is a type of green infrastructure, but it's the recognition of the importance of preserving those natural features that are so important to our environment. And we have taken that into consideration, and part of that is the stormwater. We are not going to increase the problems in that area. We will do everything we can to minimize the problems. We're going to be doing additional work on the site as well as we will be doing a new study to make sure that nothing we do here is going to have an adverse impact on the existing neighborhoods around it. I'm trying to see if there's anything else. We are only, there are some maps on page under tab 7 that shows how close we are to the university, to Central Baptist, to St. Joe, how convenient and handy it is for people who have patients that they're visiting or outpatients who need to stay somewhere while they're in Lexington during the course of their treatment. Finally, I would like to show you on the last tab, tab 8, there are three additional conditions that we would ask you to impose on us as part of the approval. And there is one more that when we were in the hallway that Mr. McAtee asked for. I'll go over that with you. But the first condition is to restrict that Heatherway lot. We don't want to use it for access. We don't want to use it for parking. We don't want to do that. And let that be a single-family residential lot. It's a buildable lot. Maybe somebody will buy it and use it for a single-family house. The second condition for the solid wood fence, we've agreed to that. Instead of the minimum six foot, we want to do an eight foot solid wood fence everywhere except down in the area where the detention basin is. One of the people, I think Mrs. Ware was saying, that the fence will be located near the top of the grade behind the Heatherway lots. It's a small technical point, but the Heatherway lots are a little bit lower, and then there's a little drainage swale or something. if we put an eight foot fence down there although that would give us more usable property it would not have the same barrier effect for her property so we are willing to move the fence closer to our development and put it higher on grade so the eight foot fence would have more of an impact and then the trees would be on our side of it the fast growing arbor vita trees Mr. McAtee's condition that we agreed to is this plan, assuming you approve it today, will still need to go back to the Planning Commission because it's going to be an amended development plan. And we are agreeable to a condition that says that if our division, the Urban County Government's Division of Traffic Engineering, looks at the numbers and determines that a traffic study is warranted, that we will do a traffic study. We don't think that one will be necessary because unlike a lot of professional office uses, we're not going to have the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. We're just going to have throughout the day. But we are willing to add that as a condition as well. I think I have touched on everything, and I will close now and answer any questions that I might. Can I ask a quick technical question? Is there a typo in number one? I don't think you mean. That's a very big possibility. I don't think you mean a deed prohibiting restricting. I think you mean. Oh, yes, yes, yeah. It was kind of a last-minute writing yes, a deed restricting yes. Yes. Mr. Beard had a great idea, and I think it helps a lot with the traffic issue, Bill. and that is that there are three ways in and out of here. And I think signage out on Malibu, it can be very small. People are looking for this. You bring them off of Malibu. Coming in, Nicholasville Road, beside Trader Joe's, there's already an access point which services that development. We put a small sign down there, right in, right out. And then we've got the one sign on Lowry, and I think that also would help to minimize some of the traffic issues. Thank you. Ms. Westover, I have a question. Yes, sir. I'd like to applaud your client's efforts to come to agreements with the Neighborhood Association, but I'm still left here with 100 signatures in opposition, and their concerns about this being a 24-7, 365-day event. And the traffic will be, these people staying here, they will be coming out in the morning and going back in the evenings because that's what commuters do. They're here for a reason. They're going to be doing their tasks during the day like everyone on Nicholasville Road is. So I also have sympathy for them with their backyards being quiet in the evenings and the weekends from these professional offices that are there now. And so I don't see this as a step down between the professional office space and the residential because the residential, the office space is pretty much abandoned in the evenings and the weekends. So I really appreciate you all's efforts here, but like Julie and Beard said, you all have come together maybe 90%, but there's 10% that these folks are still concerned about, and I didn't hear anything in your presentation where I was seeing nods of approval from the opposition. I'd like to know whether they're satisfied with this or if they still oppose. Thank you. May I just speak briefly? First of all, we were dealing with some of the neighbors, but not all of the neighbors, and I think some of the people signing the petition were not actively involved. I can tell you that all the neighbors that we knew about who were interested, we were dealing with them, and the people on this petition may not have been involved or know about how we've worked on this and have devised a better plan. That's one thing. The second thing about the traffic is if somebody is a patient in the hospital undergoing, let's say, some sort of outpatient procedure, they're not necessarily going out in the morning and coming back at 5. They may have an appointment at 1 or 2, and it might stay an hour or two. Or if you've got a loved one who's in intensive care, you might be leaving in the morning, but you may not be coming back until 2 a.m. So there are many different types of people there, and that is different from professional office use where there is more traditionally, you come between 7 and 9, and then you leave between 4 and whatever. So there is much more flexibility, and many of the people who stay at these work in their little studio apartment, too. So overall, there's less impact in terms of traffic for this than there is for a more conventional professional office use, or even, for that matter, a hotel, because of who the residents are and why they're there. It's more like an apartment building, and that is how it's defined in the zoning ordinance. It's more like an apartment building. There's an R4 apartment building on the corner there on Lowry, and in nature it's more like that. Well, I appreciate your target audience being medical patient related, but it's not a sign on the door that says they have to be part of that demographic. No, it's any number of people, from people who their pipes burst in the winter and they need a place to stay for two weeks until the plumbing is fixed. I mean, it is a wide variety of things. But there is a very great need for this type of use in the medical community, and we are growing all the time in Lexington. Health care is becoming probably one of our biggest health care industries, and we need the support industry to go with that so we can properly accommodate people who have to drive for miles away and stay somewhere. So that is a bona fide element of it. Well, I just was hoping that I could hear from the opposition before we close this out in case they were sold. I just also would like to note in the exhibit book, as far as the business professionals, the type of clientele for Home 2, specifically the way these units are designed, it has kind of like a working wall that is the kitchen and has a specific area that is, you know, you pull out for office type use. Business professionals who come into the community who need that type of office in their unit. So that will affect, of course, the traffic patterns. They will be working in those unit offices. And I can speak actually myself from personal experience that I have done a lot of hurricane litigation. So I would go stay when Katrina hit for two years in this very type of unit. And I would work out of the unit myself. So I would sit there with my laptop and stay there predominantly most of the day doing my work, and that's kind of the design of these type of units. So I do believe, respectfully, that that does affect the traffic flow, so unlike the 8 to 5 medical office building traffic. If you want to come forward, I think Mr. Griggs is interested in your views. first of all I would like to thank the Cohen Realty Group who came together as of this morning with the bulk of their conditions you know the people on that list sir were in attendance along with the vice mayor and Councilman Beard's assistant Willie Fogle last Tuesday night to be well informed of this, of all of the things that we had to offer at that time and all of the conditions that were given to us at that time. Ms. Westover was brought on the first of the week to mediate because there was no communication between Mr. Cohen's group and the neighbors. And so all of this was brought on to us immediately. And so a lot, a lot of this information that was given to us this morning in our little powwow outside was disseminated to any of those people on the petition. I would like a clarification for Ms. Meyer regarding security because I did ask that question. And correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Westover, but you said there was no official security, but there were people who were, you know, regular hirees that would be there. There is no official security. I hope that you had an opportunity to read Ms. Gordon, Vice Mayor Gordon's opinion on this. She does not feel that it is a suitable fit for our neighborhood, and she lives in one neighborhood over. and so she feels very passionately about this development and did express her opinion on it as well. The bottom line for this, in my opinion, is the will of the people who live there versus the sales pitch. And you had a very nice sales pitch, but this does not suit our neighborhood and is not a good fit for the neighbors. and I hope that will be a consideration in your decision. Ms. Ware, I have a question for you before you leave the podium. Were you involved in the professional office plan that was approved some time ago that this one has been compared? No, sir. I've known nothing about that, and apparently that is either an 8- or 10-year-old plan that never came to fruition, so I'm not sure. They're throwing that at us now, saying, well, this building, had it been developed, would have been closer to the Lowry Lane residence. It never came to fruition. I knew nothing about it. I had no chance to comment on it, and it never happened. I'm curious what the Neighborhood Association would like to see done instead with this piece of property, other than what is being proposed today. Well, I can't speak on behalf of the Neighborhood Association, because Mr. Beard is not here to speak. them but I can pretty much honestly say that we would prefer to have a very low impact one level two level facility that operates eight to five Monday through Friday no weekends professional building such as what we have right now with a dialysis clinic and then as you elevate up that grade there is another two story with some type of a basement that comes out that is also eight to five business So it's very quiet in the evenings, very peaceful, and I think that was what we bought into when it went from agriculture to professional development zoning. And that's what we expected to have. We're not foolish. We know that this is going to be developed. We've had the luxury for the past 25 years that I've lived there of not having it developed. But we would welcome a neighbor that suits our lifestyle and our neighborhood. Are you familiar with or do you have any experience with either this particular company that's developing or proposes developed property or any development like it? No, sir. Okay. No, sir. Madam Chair, I'd like to ask a question. And we've heard from the applicant and the opposition, and it seems like there's three issues that have been discussed quite a bit here, and that's stormwater drainage and control. Traffic flow has been the biggest one in parking. I'd like for Mr. Gallimore to weigh in. Obviously, you've been out there and know these traffic patterns, and I'd like to hear a little bit from staff because they actually did recommend that this be approved. As far as traffic flow goes, I was involved with the development plan the last time it was approved, having the dual office complexes. There were the same concerns then about traffic. There were the same concerns then about the intersection of Nicholasville Road and Lowry Lane. As we all know, Nicholasville Road is a very high-volume corridor, So naturally you're going to have more incidents along a Nicholasville Road corridor than a road of much smaller volume. So sometimes when you talk about the number of accidents or the number of incidents, you need to normalize that by the volume. And I'm not saying that's going to help the situation at Lowry Lane, but it does help normalize it as comparing it to other intersections within Lexington. And I'm also not going to say that there cannot be improvements made to Lowry Lane, but it's not like we have not tried to improve that, even when that property was redeveloped. On the other side of Lowry Lane, just recently, we tried to work with the developer on some improvements because we realized there are some stacking and queuing issues there. The other thing I'd like to mention, too, going back to the previous approved plan for the dual offices and at the time that that came through, one would have thought those would have been medical offices, which are a very high trip generator. If you assume it would have been a medical office developed for those two office buildings that were approved, that would generate about 1,900 trips a day just for those two office buildings. In learning about this particular development being an extended stay, all suite-based type operation, based on their proposed plan, it would generate slightly over 500 trips a day. So as far as traffic trips go, you are talking about something based upon the trip generators that would be much less traffic volume than what was previously approved. Now, the question is about the distribution of those trips. It probably is true that an office building, you're going to see most of your trips during the eight to five time period and you're going to have some peak hour trips that are fairly high i think this type of development you're talking about you're going to have trips outside that time window and there's a reduction in the peak time hours so in the peak hours this development would be less of an impact but it is true as has been discussed there's going to be trips going on in the evenings and all throughout the day so you're going to see a normal a more distribution of trips so like I said on the one side you're going to have a lot less impact as far as a number of trips but it's what has been talked about these trips are going to be distributed probably throughout the day and evening hours as opposed to the normal working hours for traffic flow goes I know there is supposed to I think the developers already mentioned changing the way traffic flow works a little bit on the Malibu side and removing that traffic island in order to make that more of a full-use access point. However, I would not want to guess the percentage of vehicles that will enter that access point versus the Lowry Lane side. I still think the way it's currently configured, probably more people would elect the Lowry Lane side unless they were trying to go back through the neighborhood. But if they're going to try access a Nicholasville Road leaving the property they're probably going to use Lowry Lane. Now if they're coming to the property and they're coming inbound on Nicholasville Road then they may well elect to take Malibu down to the shortest route if you will. I hope that helped answer your question. Thank you very much. What about Stormwater? Well, based on what's been presented today, I think it's pretty obvious that from a stormwater perspective what they're proposing is less intense than what currently is on the books as approved. Regardless of that fact, however, and it's been said several times, they will still have to do a revised drainage study, and we'll be basically looking at kind of three components of that study is what's changed in the drainage area since the last study was done. mentioned Trader Joe's and Trader Joe's did put in an underground detention system that Joe's Crab Shack did not have at the time so that may have a positive impact on this drainage area. The second would be the impact that the proposed impervious area they are creating has on the drainage area and the third and just as important is what impact it has on the downstream problems that exist. The current manual does allow us to put more stringent requirements on them if there are downstream problems that they could address on their site. Like I said, based on what they presented, you know, 10,000 square feet less of impervious area plus the plannings, you know, it sounds like they're on their way to showing that. However, before we ever approved anything they would have to present a drainage study that we fully accepted. You know, we would have to go back and try to document what downstream issues exist, how they could address those with their plan. But that's basically the process we would go through. And if it came to a point where they could not document based on the manual requirements that they were going to meet the stormwater requirements that we put on them, they would have to come back here for relief of a smaller building or something like that. So, you know, ultimately they're going to have to prove to us that what they're doing does not have an impact on the downstream property, and potentially they could be improving it based on what we see when we look at those parameters. Thank you. Did you want to ask staff as well? Staff? The planning staff's original recommendation on this property was for a postponement based off of primarily two main issues, the stormwater and the overall parking situation for the overall Medical Heights Plaza. and as you can tell we have met with the Division of Engineering and agreed with them in our recommendation. We feel that the stormwater issues for this subject property will be dealt with appropriately if this site is approved by the board today. Moreover, on the overall parking situation, on the overall development plan, the detention basin that is just off-site to the south of this property. That development plan had originally shown a parking deck that would be built over top of the basin, and that parking deck does not exist today. We were concerned because the overall medical heights plaza was getting very close to their minimum required parking. We were concerned that in order to meet their minimum required parking, somebody was going to have to build that deck over top of that detention basin. Since that time, they have submitted their revised plan, overall final development plan for the overall shopping center to the planning commission, and they have proven that the overall site works without that parking deck being built over top of that. Primarily that's because the proposed use of the extended stay hotel actually requires much less parking than the approved square footage that would have been office space on the currently approved plan. That being said, the overall shopping center is very close to meeting their being at their minimum required parking. I believe that when it went to the Planning Commission, there was only about nine additional spaces overall. But those nine spaces, this particular extended stay hotel, on its property and the property that it controls for its parking, it meets and actually exceeds the required parking for the extended stay hotel. So some of its additional parking is going to meet the parking needs for the entire shopping center. With the clarifications on both of those issues on the stormwater and that this overall site will meet its minimum required parking, the staff felt that this use was appropriate for the subject property, being that an extended stay hotel use is really one of those uses that is partially residential, partially commercial. It's kind of a mixture and a blending of those two uses, and we felt that this location would make a good transitional use between the residential neighborhood and the rest of the commercial uses elsewhere on the property. That being said, the staff did recommend approval subject to several conditions that were listed on your agenda. based off of the testimony that was given today by the applicant, if the board does wish to approve this use today, the staff has prepared some additional conditions that based off of commitments that the applicant has made today. Should you wish to see those, we'll be happy to assist you at that time. Thank you. Are you in opposition? Um, I'm, no, not really. Okay. Not really in favor or opposed anyone. Okay. I don't want to open up too much public comment, but you have been standing there. That's fine. My name is Terry Bell, and I'm one of the eight to fivers. I wish it's more like seven to 637 most of the time at the building next to this vacant lot. So, you know, I'm there on a daily basis. I'm Monday through Friday. So sometimes Saturday, sometimes Sunday, but mainly Monday through Friday. I'm not a resident there. One of the things that goes back to the original Jim Nudy issue when he was developing this whole thing was that Professional Heights Drive is a private drive. It's not city road. The original plans for this was for the street that comes in beside Trader Joe's to go straight back and take a right and go between our building and the dialysis clinic and then straight over to Malibu there and also into the Lowry Lane access. So I'm not sure how they're coming into this. And like I said, I look forward to the neighbor, whether it's the extended stay or whether it's someone else. We'd like to have something other than a vacant lot there. It would help our situation, we think. I'm trying to rent some office space quite a candidate. But that being said, the access now, if they come in, unless there's access, will it be access immediately behind Trader Joe's into the hotel property? What was the question? Will the access be directly behind Trader Joe's into the hotel property, or will it be coming around and through what is, quote, professional heist drive now? There are three access points, yes. Are there three access points in the parking lot? Trader Joe's is on the left, the blank space, right there, yeah. Okay. And our entrance is down here is an extension of the Trader Joe driveway that comes from Nicholasville Pike. It is? it's an extension of that driveway. Very good. Okay. That was my question because I wasn't sure on that and I thought if they were feeding up between the other one then there's going to be a lot of winding and turning on a street that is not publicly funded, that is not double wide, you know it's not true thorough street. That was a concern. Does it help? Yes sir, that helps a lot. So I guess that's pretty much all I wanted to say. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone on the board want to? I've got a technical question, Jim. Perhaps you can answer it. The seventh condition I haven't seen before on any of our previous matters, and I see it a couple of times on our agenda today. What is that about? This particular property is actually subject to a final development plan approvable by the Planning Commission. In order for the applicants to build the hotel as they're proposing, it requires approval from both the Board of Adjustment on the use in the site plan and from the Planning Commission on a final development plan for the subject property. In short, the board has control over whether this use is approved or not approved, and of course control over the site plan or elements of the site plan as you see fit. The planning commission would have control over the physical development of the property, where the building sits, parking circulation, access, things of those matter. This final development plan was heard in front of the Planning Commission just earlier this month and the Planning Commission chose to postpone their action until the Board of Adjustment has had a hearing and made a decision on the use. They felt that it was premature for them to make a decision until such time as you made a decision. multiple times that there are uses that have to be approved by both bodies and sometimes it matters in what order and sometimes it does not. In this particular case should the board approve this use we would just like a notation on the final development plan for that the Planning Commission has so that we can reference back to to today's minutes and hearing in case there are any questions about what the board's action was today. And can I ask a question on the eight-foot fence that they have agreed to? I know that some places in the zoning ordinance, it limits fences. Is eight feet okay under the zoning ordinance? An eight-foot fence would be allowed in the rear and side yards, which in the areas that the applicants are proposing that would meet our zoning ordinance requirements, a maximum of eight feet. the minimum of a six foot privacy fence would be if they were using a privacy fence in order to meet their minimum required landscaping and buffering requirements. That's where that minimum six foot comes in. I have a question about the four stories. Is this the only four story building in the area? I believe it would be if it was approved. Is there any reason why it has to be four stories? There are marked reasons in order to have the right number of rooms for the project, but I will say the current certified approved development plan that is for office buildings has a four-story and a three-story office building on the site. So the existing one that can be built today already has a four-story plan and more impervious surface, a dumpster closer to the residential zone, and so forth. I am a novice to this process, but in attending the planning commission, We were actually granted or a continuation was granted based on stormwater and placement of dumpsters, which was in question at that time. That was my understanding. It wasn't based on the approval of this board. And I could be wrong, but that was my understanding. Thank you. Jimmy, I have a question for you. You were talking about this as being a good project as a transition piece from professional to residential, but this property is owned P1, so professional office use is a principal permitted use, right? Yes, sir. This use, this extended stay, is a conditional use. And aren't conditional uses normally conditional uses because they're more intense and they need to be considered based on their impact of the surrounding neighborhood. And I think that Julian Beards and Linda Gortons and this petition and the people in opposition are talking about the 24-7 views into their backyards and the day and night car door slamming and the disruption of the peace and quiet that they're used to and the principal permitted uses they would embrace. even if there's more stormwater, even if there's more traffic, they would prefer that over having all these people looking into their backyards. And this is a conditional use, meaning it's more intense than the principal permitted uses, in my opinion. Okay. Anyone else on the board have any comments or questions? I have one question. I'd like to see what the staff language is on the additional conditions before we resolve this one. May I just speak briefly to point out that with the eight-foot fence and the tall growing trees, trees, there will be very little way that the residents in the extended stay hotel would be able to look down into these properties. This building sits so far back from the residential properties, and with the screening, there really would not be that question, unlike in the approved certified development plan where a three-story building is right on the Lowry lots. How high is four stories in feet? 45. Gentlemen, we haven't heard from. Come in. In addition to the three conditions that the applicant had presented at the end of their packet, the staff list based off of the conversation that the applicant has said today. The staff would recommend condition number eight, which would put a condition on all the lighting so that it would be restricted as the applicant agreed to today. And condition number nine is just the, if the Division of Traffic Engineering determines that a traffic study is warranted, then the applicant agrees to provide such a study. And that's directly from the applicant's commitments at their presentation today. So would there be 12 conditions then? Yes, sir. And what does it mean to agree to provide a study? I mean, what's the effect of providing a study? I'm trying to figure out how best to answer your question because the first part of that is if the Division of Traffic Engineering determines that a traffic study is warranted. Given the traffic counts that Mr. Gallimore gave today, albeit preliminary, would indicate that this type of a use would have less traffic than what is out there. So my guess is that they would probably find it not warranted. But I don't want to tie that down today without all of the proper numbers and analysis going on. I was simply trying to, and you can see it's on a separate sheet of paper so that we can pull it off or put it on, I was simply trying to get down in words what Ms. Westover had said that they agreed to that she had not provided for you. But I guess what I'm saying is I'm not quite sure what the substance of providing a study is. You know, you provide a study and... Typically a traffic study, whenever you do it, it will look at any types of points where traffic improvement, what the current situation of the traffic is, if there are any physical changes that could be made that would alleviate traffic problems that would be created by the new use that is being proposed. So they make recommendations that if there's a problem, this is how it should be resolved, and you're agreeing to agree to those things if, in fact, it's required. Okay, thank you. My name is Jimmy Brumfield. I'm at 144 Lowry. This concern just popped up here with this last gentleman. They've been talking about three access points, but now he says they say it's not public access off of Nicholsville Road and not public access off of Malibu, not public county roads. That's potentially going to put every bit of the traffic on Lowry Lane. If I understood what they were saying, I just wanted to bring that concern up. Could we have a clarification there? To my knowledge, this property would basically have three access points. One off of Lowry Lane, which would probably be the most highly used access point. You would have access off of Malibu, which has direct access off of Nicholasville, very much like Lowry. And then, of course, you have the easement running up by Trader Joe's that would tie into this. So three points of access is about as good as it gets. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Beard, did you want to? Mr. Beard. He's not here. Mr. McAtee. Oh, McAtee. I'm sorry. Mr. McAtee, did you have something you wanted to say? I just wanted to go on record. I think I concurred with what you said about how to do the study. I just wanted to make sure that was in agreement with that. Okay. This is obviously a very difficult case. And we now see the recommendations, so the proposed conditions are the nine listed plus the three additional conditions that Ms. Westover has recommended with the correction of the typo on the first one. Okay. So are there any comments, or are we ready for a motion? I have a question, and this is directed to the people who are going to be affected by this. Given the testimony you've heard today and the explanations and the new information that you may not have had prior to being here, are you any closer to maybe thinking that this is an okay use? I understand about the intensity and the 24-7, 365, but honestly, I'm on the fence here. I see the need. I can also see how it would affect you and how you would like to have a quiet neighborhood that you've always had, and you'd also like to have the evenings that you've had and the weekends. But I'm just curious to see if anyone is any closer to thinking that maybe this would work for you. I'm Michael Ware at 2347 Hathaway. While Coen Realty has offered a lot of solutions to problems that we perceived and which were real problems, the one thing that is still left unclear in my mind as to what can be done is with the stormwater. in 2002 when we stepped out of our woke and stepped out into the floor into 8 inches of water in the early morning I know people will keep saying that the water issue is not an issue but when you step out into 8 inches of water I know real time, real events irregardless of what the studies are saying and watching manhole covers float up and off of the place out in the street during the spring and the fall, there's an issue. And I can't see how, whether it's less than what was proposed back in 2002 for a four-story office building. The fact of the matter is that never happened. We're looking at what's going to happen now. And anything you add additionally just exacerbates a problem that's already there, whether anyone wants to address it or acknowledge it or not. And that's my concern is, yes, some things have been resolved, but we still have a water issue. We still have flooding. Neighbors have flooding. Neighbors have built, at their own expense, private berms on the back of their yard to keep the water out, but yet here we have a development that maybe they can do something to help this situation. I don't know, but there are certainly engineers within the city and private engineers that surely can get a handle on this and figure this out before the bulldozers start and before this is a finished deal. Thank you. We very much appreciate all the attempts that Ms. Westover has made to bring the two parties together to work out this situation. Ultimately, we do not feel, and I think I can speak for everyone on the petition, everyone who attended the meeting, everyone I've spoke to that hasn't signed that petition, that this type of business is not suitable for our neighborhood. Not just those of us who adjoin the property, but those of us who travel through this neighborhood. That being said, we are very grateful at how gracious they have been to come here at the 11th hour to offer moving tracks and eliminating parking spaces and putting up tall 40-foot shrubs. We appreciate that. But at the end of the day, it does not fit our neighborhood. Thank you. I would just like to quickly point out that we cannot agree more on the stormwater issue. We do not intend and we will not do anything until we are cleared completely by the Division of Engineering that the water will not be any worse post-development than it is pre-development, and we hope it will even be reduced by our plantings, the less impervious surface. This is really a superior plan to the one that is currently approved and could be built with just applying for a building permit tomorrow. So we really feel like this is much better. We'll give green space between the residential lots on Lowry and on Heather Way. And we would respectfully request approval with all of these conditions. we really want to be a good neighbor and we intend to do everything possible to show the community that we will be this good neighbor thank you thank you madam chair i have a couple comments and number one miss where i used to live over off david drive and i'm very familiar with the area and um you know we we are a volunteer body and we listen to some very very difficult cases and and I've I've been on this board for several years now and very rarely do we hear a passionate case like this both from the applicant and from the opposition. I'm not sure if there's a perfect development that could go in that area but I think that the applicant has done we have worked very hard with you all and you've mentioned that you've complimented them many times. I think the stormwater issues have been answered I I know that there's got to be further approval by the Urban Planning and Zoning Committee, a possible traffic study in the future. Looking at this use, this extended stay, which I think that there's a huge need for it in this community. I work in the medical field here, and so I do know that there's a need. Although, in respect for Mr. Griggs, it's going to be used by a lot more things than just families of patients at Central Baptist or UK or St. Joe. Right now, there's only one extended stay around that area, and that's for the kids' parents at the Ronald McDonald House on the UK campus. And it's full. We can never get a reservation there because the need is so tremendous. But looking at the energy efficiency of the plan, the low density, the low impact, the three-axis, the need for the families, working very hard to reach a compromise on this, as you have. As Mr. Beard said, you know, 90 to 95 percent, and yes, there are big issues, but 90 to 95 percent from the cases that we've heard over the years is a lot better percentage than we've heard when you have many applicants in opposition. The extended stay, I think the Cohen group have done a tremendous job. I think the neighborhoods, Ms. Ware, you all are very passionate and you all did your due diligence. And I really admire the respect that you had for one another as you try to resolve this issue. And I think most of the issues have been resolved, and I don't know that there's a perfect development. But with the recommendation of the staff and with the conditions that set forth, the nine conditions plus the three extra conditions that they have added themselves, that Cohen has added, unless my colleagues have any other comments, I'm prepared to make a motion. Madam Chair, I move that item 2012-60 Cone Realty, Inc. appeals for a conditional use permit to construct an extended stay hotel with accessory parking and professional office P1 and high density apartment R4 zone at 2368 Professional Heights Drive and 120-126, 128-134 East Lowry Lane be approved with the nine conditions as set forth by the staff and the additional three conditions as set forth by the applicant. I'll second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Opposed. It passes. Thank you all, and good luck. Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to take a five-minute recess. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, I also believe that, oh I'm sorry I apologize. I am sorry Stanley Gross. Stanley Gross. in 2012 55 Stanley Gross sorry good afternoon my name is Stanley Gross on the property at 427 Georgetown Street and I am asking for a conditional use on that property it would be my intent to have that property as a rehab as a sober living facility there are some concerns that some of the people have the neighbors have in that area one thing that that I'd like to say is when I this this house was primarily used for as a single family resident when I bought the house that was my intent to maintain that which I've done for the last five or six years it is continuously a problem as far as the type of tenants that that is drawn to that house and in regards to being able to maintain keeping it manicured it's it it's it has been an eyesore many times that I've been there and and observed a mess just with the several different turnovers with different families that I've had over the years it for the last eight to nine months we've been occupying this as as a as this type of home that I'm asking for and the facility is has been cleaner and more maintained than any time that I can ever remember there are guidelines that the tenants there are are to maintain and cleanliness of the property is one of them since since this has been going on I have had some questions or concerns about the parking the parking is terrible there even as a single-family home there is space to park for one automobile the facility has five bedrooms in it and with one parking space well since then I have worked with big brothers who's across the street and the city has also talked with them and we have been able to come up with a solution that we think a parking solution that would help in that area as far as not being available now. The majority of the people that come to this facility in fact don't have automobiles anyways. They're trying to survive. They're trying to maintain. There's a there's a need for these facilities in Lexington. I don't know that Georgetown Street has a particular need for this type of facility, but there is a need for them and and they are all over Lexington and and it's a good thing. There are some other concerns. The neighbors, I keep on getting asked how it's going to benefit the neighborhood. I don't know that it can benefit the neighborhood. I do know that the tenants that are associated with this facility will not carry on activities in a manner of what we see on Georgetown Street and other areas. These people are trying to stay sober. They are trying to live with other people that are sober, and they try very hard. And that type of facility, you don't see people carrying on in a manner that's unsuitable like you do in other parts of that area, that neighborhood. There is some concerns of smoking that has been carried on outside the house. We don't allow it inside the property. so with those concerns we have provided an area in the back of the property for that reason alone that the tenants will be able to go back there and stay out of sight of the streets and other neighbors while we've been there we've cleaned up the property around us the fences have all been cleaned up and it's much more suitable now than for the past six years that I've owned the property. It looks much better than it has since then. That's really all that I'm asking for and if the neighbors has some questions or concerns I'll be happy to answer them if I can. Have you read the staff report? I have read the staff report. Do you have any questions about it? No, I'm agreeing with the staff report. And you're willing to abide by the conditions? Absolutely, yes. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience here in opposition? Could I ask a question before he sits down? Yes. Are you licensed? How do you know how to manage a group of, are these men and women just men? They're just men. And how? There is not a license required. it just comes with dealing with these people over the past years. I do have a supervisor that has provided a resume that is very qualified with supervising and maintaining the house for me. Well, I'm wondering if you don't have to have a license, and with all due respect, but there was some bad judgment in having 12 mattresses in that place and not proper egress and not coming to get a permit. So I'm just wondering whether this is a recipe for disaster. Well, when I first came up with this thought, I had no idea how many people would be there or how many people would not be there. I knew there was a need. I've been involved and talked with people at the Hope Center and other places that deal with this type of facility. And we just put beds in there. We have never had any of those beds full. Right now, I have four people that are there right now. the most I've ever that I've had ever there was eight people that's the most that I'm asking for the conditional use permit to accommodate as eight people like I said we there are 12 beds there that they've never been used and if this is granted the other four beds will be removed but that I hope that answers your question and I did check with with Frankfort to see if there was permits or something that I needed to do to to forward this and there is no one asked for anything mr. Gross I have a question for you and I know the staff put on a condition condition number five that a qualified supervisor you know following up mr. Griggs what does that mean what is a qualified supervisor because obviously that was in the staff report that and parking were in the staff report and and uh and what type what makes a person a qualified supervisor do they have to have some type of of license or certification or mr stumbo what the staff was referring to is mr gross has submitted to their the resume of mr Holcraft and he has 10 years of experience in social services and and more on five years of experience in dealing with people with addictions and everything of that the staff felt that he was qualified and there I'm not aware of any regulations or anything of that nature but But the intention of that condition was that there be a supervisor that lives at this property and that they be at least as qualified as Mr. Holcraft in case he moves on to a different job and that they needed to hire somebody else. So I'm looking through the file here. We do have his resume on file. It was submitted as part of that. That would be our measuring stick for a qualified supervisor. Mr. Gross, is there any type of treatment for the folks that are still there? No, sir. We do not try to teach. We're not qualified to teach. All that we are qualified to do is to provide somewhere for people with these problems to exist with other people with these problems. There are rules that the House has and certain things that they are required to do to maintain being able to live there, but all this is is a living facility. Thank you. How is this funded? Is this an outreach from Hope Center or is this something that is supported by churches in the area or is it just you? The people that live there, the tenants that live there, they pay a weekly fee to stay there is how it's funded. But we are directly, Corey, my supervisor, he's closely attached to the Hope Center and other departments, which when people graduate from that facility, most of the time they're not ready to go home. They need a place like this to where they can exist, and the rules are very strict. The people that are there go to meetings. They're mandated to go to meetings five times a week while they're there. They're required to work. it's a positive thing that there's a need for this. I hope I answered your question. So it's essentially a transitioning phase from the Hope Center back into normal life, so to speak. And once people still are not perfect, they still mess up, And when that happens, then like I said, we are contacted very closely with the Hope Center, and that's dealt with. But if that happens, then they have to leave. There are rules that is enforced strictly. Thank you. Okay, thank you. One more. I'm trying to get my head around this. You suggested that there's quite a few of these around town, so I was going to ask a staff member if they could report on how those work out, and then you mentioned some of the rules that require going to meetings and going to work, but they don't have cars. So how does that happen? That's up to them. We don't mandate how they get to work, where they work. We do require them to work. They can catch a bus. They can walk. They can get rides with their employers, which is what I tend to find that happens mostly. Their employers will come by and pick them up and then drop them off. There are curfews. They have to be in at a certain time. Most of their meetings are after work in the evenings. So, you know, their days are pretty much structured unless they're working nights. They go to work and they come back in. they go to meetings and they come home. That's pretty much their day. Jimmy, do we have other examples of this in Lexington? I have not been doing the Board of Adjustment job long enough to come up with other rehabilitation homes or other facilities like his off the top of my head. I'll look around at some of my colleagues and see if they can help answer that question. Likewise, I'm not aware of any recent conditional use permit applications for these. Years ago, it was a permitted use in the B1 zone. I believe still is when there's a distance from residential. That change was made in the last decade, I believe. Looks like someone in the audience, do you have an answer to this question? Yes, I'm the Reverend Bob Sesson. You want to come state your name, Mr. Mark? I don't know whether it's particularly like this. There are rehab houses in the city. The Shepherd's House is well known in this community. They have three houses, and they do rehabilitation for people coming out. Do they fall under rehabilitation home under the zoning ordinance? Do they have conditional use permits? I do not know that. Thank you. All right. Thank you. The opposition, if you'd like to come forward. As the opposition is coming forward, we did receive a letter today from Ms. Godfrey. That is, during the break, I placed one at each of your monitors in front of you. It's up on the upper top there. If you need any additional copies, I've got that. And if the board would like, I can circulate the file copy of Mr. Holcraft's resume and the other materials submitted by Mr. Gross if you would like to look at those during the hearing. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the board my name is Tom Blues I serve on the Urban County Council and represent the 2nd District of which the Georgetown Street area is a part let me say I appreciate your service and your endurance. I know what it involves. I want to speak to this issue because I've represented this area for a number of years. The Georgetown Street neighborhood is fragile. It strives hard to be a residential community despite all of the problems that confront it. And, of course, there are many. What we have here is a proposal for a conditional use permit for a rehabilitation facility that Mr. Gross has just characterized as a, all this is, is a living facility. There are lots of concerns here. The parking is one, and I think you'll hear more about this. I won't go over that. The adequacy of the building itself, the single-family house, to accommodate several occupants. The safety of the building for several occupants. And, of course, the whole question of what a rehabilitation facility is. Is there a rehabilitation plan, or is this just, as Mr. Gross has said, just a place to live? Nobody doubts that recovering addicts need help and assistance and structure jobs. but there are needs too for fragile neighborhoods who are trying to recover and sustain themselves as residential areas as this area of Georgetown Street endeavors to do. In fact, two houses are being constructed right now through REACH, 431 and 433 Georgetown Street. And I think there's a serious question about whether such a facility can have a chilling potential for sale of those houses and another one across the street. But if those new residential dwellings are successful and we have new homeowners, new neighbors, stable families, then the neighborhood moves forward as it strives to do bit by bit. So the question for me and the question for the neighborhood, and you'll be hearing from some of the neighbors in a moment, is should a need for a rehabilitation facility, so-called, prevail over the need for a stable, safe, family-friendly residential site? And that's the question I think that is at stake here. One thing I've learned in my years on the council, and one thing I know that you're well aware of, is that conditional use permits have long-term consequences, most of them for the good. But some of them do not work out well for neighborhoods. And I'm very familiar with some of those cases over time. So I ask you to really consider not just the need for such a facility, but also the need for a fragile neighborhood's residential component, for the safety of family and kids, for the stability of the street. And I'm sure that you'll be listening carefully to Ms. Godfrey and Ms. Thacker as they put forward their side of this issue. Thank you very much. Thank you. My name is Linda Godfrey, and I have an interest in the property of 383-409-411 Georgetown Streets. and you have a copy of a letter that I submitted. Thank you for letting us have a voice. As people who are actually long-term property owners in the area, we have been involved on Georgetown Street for more than 35 years, and we have worked hard to try to help stabilize our little section of the community. And we have further encouraged the redevelopment of this area because we also have encouraged young people to come back and move into the area. And 385 and 387 is a couple, the young professional couple that you will hear from, that's trying to rehab those properties and bring it back into a neighborhood-friendly setting. If you notice from my letter, I'm very concerned about the long-term consequences of conditional use zoning, what that means not 90 days from now, not another nine months from now, but what that means nine years from now, because it does have long-term consequences once that door is open. Also, I have concerns about the impact that the previous nine months at 427 Georgetown Street, some of the things that we have had to deal with and I'm sure will continue to have to deal with with the current zoning. For example, people laudering in the neighborhood and sitting on our window sill that are different, unprecedented. These are issues that we have not had. people being somewhat belligerent when you ask them to keep moving past your property, which we have developed a relationship in that neighborhood where those people who are indigenous to the neighborhood, they tend to know us, we know them, and they keep moving if they're not engaged in any positive activity for that site. But now we have a whole other element that's been introduced, and these are people we don't know, we don't recognize and who are not pleasant when we ask them to move along. Also, parking is of a very, very big concern. People who are visiting the home or whatever, they are parking in our driveway. And I don't think it's appropriate for me to have to get to Mr. Gross's permission to enter and exit my property. The other concern we have is that the property owner has not done any outreach to those people who are in the immediate vicinity of this proposed living space that he is working on and developed. There has been no contact in terms of what his plans are, what our concerns are, how he might address them, or if the people that he is attempting to house are of concern to us or have proposed any concern. As to the resume for the individual who's supposed to be supervising the house, it looks like most of his experience is in relation to his academic training. And in terms of community outreach, it's all been internal processes that he's been involved with, enclosed organizations, and nowhere is there any evidence that he has any experience in community outreach or community assessment of the impact of what he is charged to supervise. we're also concerned like I said about the residential homes that's being built and the fact that it's going to be problematic for people to move into those homes when they are faced with this property and the changes that's occurred I do feel that the property itself has been cleaned up somewhat, but that could be a very temporary process, and it doesn't matter. It could be a mini Taj Mahal if the behaviors that are emanating from that have a negative impact. So I thank you once again for hearing our voice, for being aware that we've been there for a long time. We will be there for a long time to come, and we do not want to see short-term transitional processes put in place, creating long-term changes in terms of the zoning and potential for other things that could come into that space. Thank you. Before you leave, can I ask you to clarify your question on your comment on the driveway? They are using your driveway, or you need to ask their permission? I'm not sure. I didn't understand. Well, my concern is when you are driving down the street and you're looking for a residence or whatever, and these are people that are looking for Cecil House, you pull in the first space you see if there's no place on the street. So we have a driveway that is, you know, next to this property, there is a beauty shop, and she has the fence. and then the next driveway is our driveway so it's open so you're saying that in the past since this is so open as a rehabilitation home people are using their drive your driveway just to turn around or no they pull in and if you don't see them to ask to remind them that that's private property and we have posted it a month ago and there's been several instances since we posted no trespassing signs my husband goes into that property he loads his truck and if he has to get out then he's stuck if somebody's parked there that's visiting because that means we have to stop and go and find those individuals who is this before we can get out and you know and was that a problem before this rehabilitation home no okay not at all that's a new problem Thank you for taking the time on this long afternoon to continue to hear our concerns. My name is Adrienne Takur. My husband, Yashwanta, and I own the two residences at 385 and 387 Georgetown Street. I will add that I am an attorney at Henry Watts Rain in Marino, and I am speaking somewhat from a legal perspective as well as from a property owner and a would-be neighbor to this rehabilitation home. As we go to speak here, I think it's important to listen to the words that Mr. Gross said. I have never met him. I have never seen him until he came one hour late to this hearing today that he requested. And I think it's important to note that he says that these men will not be ready to go to their own homes, to their own communities, to their own families, to their own children. but they are okay to live next door to me and my husband, my eight-year-old son, my retired mother, and my three-year-old daughter. I think that says something about his intent. In addition to the fact that he says that he didn't have any idea of what he was doing when he moved in there and that he does currently have an excess of the occupancy limit available for people to come there and that if it is approved, he will remove them. He did not say that he will remove them immediately because he is currently in violation. So I believe that those comments speak to his intent and the lack of confidence he's been able to instill in us as neighbors as to why we should be open to him coming into our neighborhood. More specifically, the nature of a conditional use permit is contrary to the single-family improvements that have been occurring along the Georgetown Street area neighborhood corridor over the last 15 years. I did grow up there during the 80s and early 90s, and I left Lexington for 10 years. And I chose to come back there. I considered other neighborhoods, but it was important for me to come back there as a young professional who could add. My husband and I have invested tens of thousands of dollars into the two properties that are just two doors down from this proposed facility. and it is disconcerting that if a conditional use is granted for a facility that does not meet the goals of the community, does not meet the residential overlay that has already been put in place, does not meet the sustainable, economically viable, and revitalization efforts that are taking place not only right there on Georgetown Street, but across the street on Newtown Pike, two blocks away on Jefferson Street, three blocks away on Old Georgetown Street, that what you do is you set a precedent that the importance of these revitalization efforts that have been improved and approved by city boards and other neighbors are insignificant. Further, for the record, I'd also like to say that it is really not an issue specific to Mr. Gross or an issue specific to whether or not people need a rehabilitation facility. I completely understand that. but any sort of large occupancy dwelling in this block would be detrimental for reasons that you've already heard specifically to the conditions that have been placed by the staff in their report and if I might ask you who it might be helpful if board members and madam chair have an opportunity to see the mission and guiding principles that have been presented by Mr. Gross as well as the resume of his supervisor. When you take a look at his mission and guiding principles, he says he wants to be supportive to increase this supportive environment to enhance the recovery and create a lasting connection within the recovery community. He does not mention that he intends to help these people have a connection with the community that they are going to be living in, I might add, on a temporary basis. No member of the house there will be allowed to stay for more than six months. There will be one permanent resident. So far we have one supervisory employee whose job is to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week to supervise this facility. And then there are seven other occupants who may change at the maximum of seven new people every six months. he does state that there is a curfew from 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday and parenthetically it says unless staying gone overnight I do believe that that is a typographical error with the use of the word gone but it still doesn't mean anything so there's a curfew unless you're staying overnight I'm not sure if there are going to be lots more people there visiting during the day and then they're going to leave it's simply not clear At the current zoning, at $70 a week, the owners will be able to receive $280 per person total. Before occupants, it's $70 a week. It's $280 a week. At $8, it's $560 a week that he is pulling in there. That type of business as a residential facility is not one that is about improvement and a condition that should be allowed in a residential area. That is about business. It's not about residents. Then in the proposed outline that is attached to his report, there is a drawing of the facility as well as an indication that there is to be some parking across the street. The conditional uses do say that he is to provide a plan for that in the event that the condition is approved, but it is private property that may or may not stay in the same hands, and if it is sold, the lease for the parking spaces may not travel with it, and that will be completely independent of the conditional use that may be granted. Also, the parking spot that is there is only about 10 feet wide. Finally, in the resume of Mr. Holcraft that is attached there, he is an educated individual. He does have a degree in a Bachelor of Science. He has been a public information chair for many years, doing student organization, except for the last two years, where he worked in Portland, Oregon. He doesn't have any connections to this community or what its needs are. As to his connections with, and respectfully he's not here to defend himself, but as to his connections with the Hope Center or other people, I think it's of note to mention that the Hope Center is not here in defense of this conditional use application or in support of it. I would also like to note that I did a simple Google search for Sober Living Rehabilitation Center 40508, which is our zip code. Within two miles of this address, there are 11 large-dwelling rehabilitation centers. within two miles of a residential area that is supposed to be revitalized and built up into a community. There are 11 facilities, some of which house hundreds of people. I don't have any issue with them, but I'm saying that the addition of more compounds and contradicts and is inconsistent with the use and needs of our neighborhood. so I ask you respectfully to consider the precedential nature of this decision and to take into consideration that a conditional use really is a change in the nature as to what is existing what the neighbors would like for the neighborhood to be and what the city in the past has said they would like for the neighborhood to be thank you Zachary I've got a question for you before you leave the podium Yes. Is your objection to this particular place that it shouldn't be in this particular neighborhood because of sensitivity of the neighborhood? My objection is that a large occupancy dwelling in this area, whether it is for teenagers, college students, rehabilitating addicts, it's inappropriate for the space. It is on an area of Georgetown Street right where it turns into a two-way, where it's coming from Newtown Pike one way. On the west side, it's one way in front of our houses. And then one parcel before 427, it becomes two-way. There's a large median there. There's a bus stop there. There's a fast food restaurant there. There's just too much for there to be a large number of people living at that particular place. and it contradicts everything that we've been working for along the corridor over the last 15 to 20 years. Is there a better location for this kind of house? I actually believe that the best location for this kind of house is, one, an area that can handle the volume of people that will be there, one that is closer to services that the people might be able to use. There is not a public space for these people to visit within one mile. The closest park is one mile away. Duncan Park is one mile away. And otherwise, there is no public space. When you go one mile across the street east, you have Eastern Strait Hospital, which is now being renovated for Bluegrass Community and Technical College. When you go one mile south, you come to the intersection of Maine and Newtown and Oliver Lewis Way where the Salvation Army is located. And when you go two feet west, you have someone else's backyard. Do we know, to the staff, do we know how the square footage of this home? Just curious. Not off the top of my head. I'll attempt to find that out. According to the PVA listed yesterday, the square footage of this house is slightly over 1,800 square feet. He says it's a five-bedroom house. Generously, it's a wood frame house that's newer to the neighborhood. For example, our homes were built in 1900. This is a wood frame house that has been resided with vinyl. So it's a newer home. if you estimate that the public spaces, let's say the living room is 250 square feet and the kitchen is 250 square feet, then you have 1,300 square feet for five, no, actually seven, seven grown men to live. Actually, according to the site plan and according to the drawing on the plan that was provided, the house is 1,190 square feet. Oh, it's even smaller than what I found. I have 1,192 square feet. That's even worse. So let me ask a question to the staff. So this is in a neighborhood business zone. So residential use would not be a permitted use, is that correct? A residential use is only permitted in the B1 zone above the first floor. There's only one exception to that, and that would be for a business operator who had an accessory part of their dwelling, say, to the rear of their business. Thank you. And given the parking, this isn't going to work very well as a business, is it? It's a very similar problem that we raised in the report. It's hard to see how the site could accommodate the parking requirement for a business. If I may say, our houses are kind of grandfathered in because they've been residential since they were built despite the zoning is why we live there. And have you also noticed a change in parking? I mean, since it's become a rehabilitation home, your neighbor has said that there have been problems with people pulling in and out of their driveway or parking there. Have you had similar problems? We have. One thing that I notice is, as I mentioned, it's right where the street becomes two-way. At the time that the occupancy changed, I did notice that there were single families living there before, and they would have one or two cars. The driveway is slightly wider than one car. Occasionally they would have guests and they would pull up into the yard, but there's no street parking on that entire block of Georgetown Street. And so what I have noticed is anywhere from one car in the driveway to five cars parked illegally on the sidewalk in front of that place and adjacent. The lot had been vacant where the reach houses are going to be built, which is north, the two parcels north. But they're not going to be vacant now because the houses are being built. The parcel south is Rashida's House of Style, and anecdotally, she has said that people visiting there park in front of her property area. And she is a business, and she does have a lot of traffic, but she also has like a 15 or 20 car parking lot in front of her business that she has developed, improved, and fenced off for the use of her clientele. and anecdotally again she has mentioned to me that people standing outside smoking have thrown their cigarette butts into her property and she has asked them to stop and that they have not it was the first time hearing just now for mr. Gross that he he's asked him to do so in the back furthermore I'd say two weeks ago, for example, a man, two men in a pickup truck pulled into our driveway, which is south of 385 and in front of the residences, and we asked him why he was there, and he said, well, I'm going up to a barbecue at the group home, and I said, well, you can't park here. This is my private driveway. He says, well, where am I supposed to park? I'm invited, and I said, but you haven't been invited to my home so I'm gonna have to ask you to move your car I I don't mean to say that people who are rehabilitating from addiction problems are all like this that's not my issue but the addition of so many people will compound and create an opportunity for this to be an ongoing problem for me to have the enjoyment and use of my property negatively impacted. Thank you. Thank you. Before you leave, can you tell us about the REACH houses, or maybe staff can, but those are two new homes that are being built with off-street parking. They'll be for sale to the public, or is there special needs like a Habitat? As I understand the REACH organization, and this is just – I did some volunteer work there a few years ago and that would be my only understanding of the organization. REACH is a nonprofit organization that helps people repair their credit and understand the importance and the nuances and the significance and the responsibilities that are associated with home ownership and they go through a year-long program. REACH then buys properties throughout the city. There are several in our neighborhood and the housing is affordable and then REACH clients are offered to purchase these houses for sale. The two houses from the way they look now, it's really two parcels and it's very wide and the houses appear to be narrow with a common driveway in the middle that's going to go up to an open area behind each of the houses. Actually I spoke to the folks pouring the concrete there and there's going to be a driveway beside each one. Oh, okay. But you're very happy to have those houses there and it's another stepping stone to the revitalization of the street. Those homeowners are going to to be a continuation of the improvement of that street? Yes, because those homeowners are going to be people, individuals that are living in their homes. They're not going to be business opportunities with a six-month turnover. I'm wondering who in their right mind would buy those houses with this use right next door? I'm telling you, even at three doors away, I'm concerned about how I can walk our dogs in front of this house continuously with a three-year-old and an eight-year-old. Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions? Does Mr. Gross want to say? Yes, thank you. Everyone kept on insisting that this was a rehab home, and that is not the intent at all. It is not a rehab home. and I believe the property, I'm not sure why it says 1,100 square feet, but that would just be the bottom floor. It is approximately 1,800 square feet. There are five bedrooms in the house. The last family that I had there had five children, which ended up being one less person than the max that I would ever have. The property was continuously horrible and was never maintained and that's what I've been up against for the last five or six years that I've had the property and now that this is here I'd be much more inclined to walk my child besides something that is clean instead of filth falling out of the front yard. So are you saying you don't want a rehab home here? I do not want a rehab. No, it is not a rehab home. It is a sober living facility. I'm not asking. We do not rehabilitate anyone. That does require licenses and stuff that we do not have. so would it be considered a boarding house no i don't think it's it's really a boarding house it's probably falls closer to a rehab home except that we do not teach people we do not instruct teach there's no teaching let me ask you a question so what takes place you say they have to work yes do they work full-time? Yes, they're required to have a full-time job. Okay, so they're not working, what do you do? While they're not working, they are, like I mentioned earlier, they're required to attend at least five meetings per week and the majority of these people do anywhere from seven to eight and they're They're not there to be educated. They're there to live with other individuals that are sharing the same problems they have. And when I mention they're not ready to go home, they're not ready to go home and live with their families that may or may not have caused them to be where they are right now. They are needing to go somewhere where they can live in a safe, clean environment, which is what my intent was by not being ready to go home. How many baths are in this two? Two full baths. I have a question for staff. What is 100.982? The definition of rehabilitation home ends with it does not apply to uses regulated by KRS 100.982. We're putting it up on the screen. Thank you. I think the main difference is disabilities versus supervised residents. Thank you. So as I read the definition of rehabilitation home, it says such homes may provide counseling in educational, vocational, and other areas by a paid or volunteer staff and generally have 24-hour-a-day supervision. So despite what he says, this could be a rehabilitation home, but it's not your typical rehabilitation home because it doesn't provide counseling. Is that correct? From the staff's perspective, The use that Mr. Gross has proposed as the sober living facility does meet the first part of the definition as a building providing a supervised residence for persons recovering from the effects of drug or alcohol abuse. The zoning ordinance definition of a rehabilitation home is not specifically tied to what might be a state definition of a rehabilitation home for the purposes of drug courts or anything of that nature. It does give the board the authority, I believe, to approve this use as it is. Conditional uses tend to be conditional uses whenever you have a wide variety of iterations of this use that could be at any location. I mean, a small rehabilitation facility as Mr. Gross is doing, you could also have a very large facility with a lot of services that are provided that would also qualify as our definition of a rehabilitation home. It's because of that wide variety of uses that this is a conditional use and appropriate for the board to look at. After having visited this home, the staff could, with the eight residents that are being proposed, the staff could only see that this would fall under one of two categories, two similar definitions in our zoning ordinance. And that would either be a boarding house or a rehabilitation facility. It was important to the staff, and you can see it throughout the body of our staff report and in our conditions, that they did have a qualified supervisor living on site. That was kind of the tipping point that what his described sober living facility is similar enough to a rehabilitation home that he could request the conditional use today. Otherwise, if it did not have that supervisory aspect, I believe that this use would have been more similar to a boarding house and would not have been a permitted use in the B-1 zone. So boarding houses are not conditional uses in B-1? A boarding house is not. In fact, it's actually a prohibited use in the B-1 zone. This use is a nonconforming single-family home, and as we mentioned in the staff report, It could continue being used as a single-family home, and up to four people that were unrelated would be allowed to continue to live in this facility as a single-family home and under the existing nonconformity that is there. Thank you. I have, I guess, maybe a question but more of a comment. I'm somewhat familiar with the City's Task Force on Homelessness and some of the people that serve on that task force. and I'm curious that if we disapprove this particular use or facility, where are these people going to be and where are they going to go? If we disapprove it, are we contributing to the increase in the population of homeless people in the city? You're asking me? Well, sure. Okay, I'm here. I'll try to give you an answer. Your concern is valid. We do have a large homeless population, but Mr. Gross has not proffered that these people are homeless. He has proffered that they have addiction problems and that they could go to a home, but for whatever reason, the people that refer them to him or however he comes in contact with them, which is something that we don't know, we don't know how the residents are going to be selected, and it's not in his proposal that I've seen. that they're not homeless. They could go home, but that it's better for them to live next to my home than it is to go to their own homes. Well, it may be that everybody in Lexington that's homeless has a home. I don't know that those statistics have been created. I'm just wondering if, in the grand scheme of things, this is one of the things that the city could do or approve for solving the overall problem And I understand your or anyone's wish not to live next door to a rehabilitation home. I understand that. I also am aware of the fact that this type of facility is not specifically defined or not specifically regulated, or the people that own it or run it are not licensed or otherwise qualified. And maybe this is part of the problem that we have in this town with homelessness. But I'm just expressing my concerns about that, and I'm curious to hear any comments about it. Thanks. If I might, I didn't say that I didn't want to live next to a rehabilitation home. I said I did not want to live next to a high occupancy dwelling of any type. And it's really not about who is living there. it is about the issues that will be created by the volume of people, the congestion, and the proffered intents of the homeowner who has an address in Nicholasville and who has admitted that he has had difficulty in the past maintaining his property when he's had tenants, who has said, yes, that these tenants are going to be better because I have rules. So is he saying that in the past five years, except for the last nine months, he hasn't had rules for his tenants? and that somehow he's created a way that he can determine for sure that these people are going to be better or worse and that seven grown men, which I would offer is actually eight with a supervisor, is extremely distinguishable from a family of eight even with children and parents or maybe a grandparent. It's a completely different situation. And that is really what I am saying. I'm not saying that these people don't deserve a place to live. I'm not saying that they're bad people. I'm not saying that our city or even our neighborhood doesn't have an obligation to help them. I'm saying that the number of people in this house as adults who will be transient every six months is not appropriate for the use, the history, or the desires of the neighborhood. If the number were less, if it were six or five, would that address your issues? If the number were four, then he wouldn't have to ask for a conditional use permit. but if there were six or five he would I think it's too many grown men in one space in that area, you know, if the house were further down the street where it's two way where there might be a driveway, the house doesn't even really have a driveway it has like a carport area, it doesn't even go it's actually in the, it's between like the curtilage and the street it does not go past the facade of the house Can I address your question? Sure. You were concerned about the homeless and that issue and the commission that's looking at the homeless issue and perhaps what should come out of this today is that that commission should be looking at a definition of rehabilitation homes and coming up with something that would help neighborhoods in terms of defining what it is and how it should function. Thank you. Okay, are there any other questions? I have a question. If we were to approve this today, is there some way that we can condition it that this use is not transferable to a different entity? absolutely a null and void condition seen that as long as mr. Gross owns and operates the rehabilitation home would be we can draft that condition should and it's non transferable yes we can make the typical language that you would see is that this use would be null and void should the owner cease to own or operate this use at this location? If I may, although obviously I do not wish to have it approved, but if it were, I believe that for the safety of the neighborhood and of the intersection that we do need to have some sort of impact study for the impact on the value of property to have so many facilities in a small area. you know this is an area that used to have a housing project that was taken down for off-site housing section 8 housing and homeowner neighborhoods and so when you start to put more and more of that back in are you returning to what you took away before number one number two we need a traffic study to see what the impact is of having street parking there with a double yellow line the people are going to have to cross they will have to cross the double yellow line if they're coming from one way and they also have to cross that street which is extremely busy. I think we need a clearer explanation of the nature of the the operations required and how the occupants are going to be selected to live there. That is not included in his plan. He said he doesn't need a license, he's not going to educate these people, he's not going to help them. So what's the purpose really? We need a full explanation of services and we need a clear explanation on the phrase I mentioned that was ambiguous about the curfew unless you're going to be gone overnight I guess just a clarification of what he means would you to a six-month review if this were approved to have to have some of these things issues looked at and addressed or an end to seek to come back and see how it has worked out if you've had some communication with mr. gross and see if that has some things have taken care of themselves perhaps speaking personally and I think I would speak for my husband too we are not opposed to having conversations with mr. gross we have not had any with him or his staff at all in the last five years if I were to agree to a six-month review I would and I'm not saying that I do I think I would require that some of the questions being answered up front so that we know exactly what we're operating under what's going to happen for that six months so that it's not I've heard all of the concerns I'm going to straighten those up for the six months So I can come back and say, well, this is what's happened, and then it's approved. I think that we would need an agreement of some sort of exactly what is going to happen, what sorts of communications are going to be conferred, and how the plans are going to be revised and communicated to the neighbors before I would be able to agree to that. Thank you. I just have a comment, a brief comment. I understand rehabilitation is important and it's needed, But I'm familiar with that REACH program and those two homes on Georgetown Road. That is a serious investment, and it will be challenging to sell those homes because those are going to be first-time homebuyers, not going to be rental property. And I think, in my mind, that has some deep concern because if those homes do not sell in a timely fashion, it's going to have long-term effects on any other development or any other nonprofit organization taking the time to put in an investment to rehab property to make affordable homes available for people that want to buy homes. Because over there, because of the way that it's structured, they have the ability to get a home that's affordable where they couldn't afford to buy it somewhere else. That's it. I'd just like to say that I see a serious problem with houses for the homeless here. It's a serious problem. On the other hand, we are talking about people who can actually afford rent, so we're talking about low-income housing basically for these people. And to me, an awful lot of this sounds much more like a boarding house than a rehabilitation home. And also when we look at the location, we're concerned with the particular impact on this, and I see the parking and traffic is a serious problem, so I'm inclined to disapprove. No further comments. I think we can entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to move that we disapprove C-2012-55 Stanley Gross' appeal for a conditional use permit to operate a rehabilitation home in a neighborhood business zone at 427 Georgetown Street. based on the testimony here and these findings of fact. The nature of the neighborhood revitalization and testimony before the board, this will have an adverse influence on the neighborhood and future revitalization. Second, granting the application will adversely affect the public welfare because the supervision for the proposed use of a rehabilitation home for recovering addicts would not be adequate. Based on the testimony before the board, the use is more like a boarding house than a rehabilitation home, which is not permitted in a B-1 zone. I'll second the motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay, the next item on the agenda is C-2012-70 Sims Entertainment Group, LLC. Is the applicant here? Want to come forward? Madam Chair, I do have some items to pass out to the board. Would you like to state your name for the record? My name is Jim Thomerson. I'm counsel for Sims Entertainment Group, LLC, the applicant. Members of the board, you've had a long afternoon, so I'll try and be as efficient as possible. I'm not sure. Well, I've read the report to the staff. We agree with it. It recommends an approval. Are you passing out that letter? I would state that the matter before you is to change a very narrow one is to change the closing time for the business from 1 a.m. until 2.30 a.m. Other than that, there's no other changes except for some additional conditions that the staff has recommended. You'll see in the report there the additional recommendations of seven through nine are added, which I understand are typical for nightclubs. And this is a matter that initially was approved in 1991. And in the report, on the first page of the report, you'll see the six conditions that existed back in 1991. It has operated as a nightclub at this location under a variety of names and a variety of operators consistently since 1991. At the time that it was initially approved, it was a closing time of 1 a.m., and that was consistent with what the ordinances were at that time. In 2007, the ordinance changed and moved the time to 2.30. Unfortunately, my client has only leased the premises since late 2011. So in 2007, it appears that the current occupier of the property that was operating in nightclub at that time simply started operating until 2.30 in the morning like every other nightclub in town, despite the fact that the paperwork from 1991 said 1 a.m. So in fact, the nightclub has continued to operate until 2.30 in the morning, like every other nightclub in town until about a month and a half ago when we received correspondence from a neighbor, a local citizen, that said, hey, your paperwork actually says 1 a.m. At that point, we initiated this process to get that modified. We also took advantage of that opportunity to close the nightclub for remodeling purposes. It's been closed for about three weeks now. I will say that I have Dr. Larry Kopsik, who is one of the owners, and Ben Hoffman, who's our manager, with us today, if you have any questions. But the facility has been closed for about three weeks for remodeling purposes and for the purposes of we had some changeover in staff. A general manager who was basically running the show during the summer months and some of the spring months is no longer with us. We wanted to change the nature and the environment of the nightclub to make it to go from a rap hip-hop kind of thing to more of a the music is going to be more of a 60s 80 techno kind of crowd and we wanted to change the environment because to be perfectly blunt there was just not the kind of environment that we approved of in in our in our business. So that change is going to take place. There's going to be a new name. There's going to be a new environment. It's going to be a new moon nightclub. So we're trying to kill two birds with one stone. Since we learned of the 1 a.m. on the paperwork and needing to make this change to 2.30 to match the local ordinance, we took advantage to close the facility for a period of time to redo the remodel and change the atmosphere and the environment. Mr. Thomerson, let me interrupt you just for a second here. I'm sorry. Is this the old Blue Moon visibility? It is. It's on the beer trap side and not the Charlie Brown side of the street. It is right next door. Yes, it's right next door to beer trap. Okay. That's all. Thanks. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. That's fine. so with that being said and the narrow nature of what's before you today we we think that we agree with the recommendation of the staff we think that the the new time of 2 30 is going to be consistent with a number of things it's going to be consistent with prior approvals of this board for other nightclubs that operate the same way that this this nightclub does it's consistent with the local ordinance that changed in 2007 to allow the closing time to be at 2 30 the property is completely surrounded by B1 zone property as is pointed out in the report and also the time is consistent with other alcohol and foods selling establishments in that in that locale Now, the beer trap does close at midnight, but the others in that area stay open until the legally allowed time. So I don't want to preempt. I know that there are some people here that are going to want to speak. I know that they have complaints that are directed at this nightclub in particular and nightclubs generally. the fact that you have a couple hundred people leave a nightclub at 2 or 2 30 in the morning you know it's just the nature of the beast i know that there are complaints about that the matter before you right now though is just changing a one and a half hour time frame from 1 a.m to 2 30 a.m so i don't want to preempt what they might say we appreciate the efforts of staff in looking into this matter and we agree with their recommendation and i'll i guess i'll hold further comment until some of the neighbors speak uh before you leave what other similar establishments are in the area you have um uh charlie brown's is open until 2 30 and um What I have is Glen Creek Brewery, but was actually known as Buddies, which is right down the street at the intersection. The beer trap is right next door. And to be honest, I don't know. I think it's called T-Bar, which is up the street the other direction, that wood lawn. I'm betting they're open until 2.30, but I don't know the answer to that. Chevy Chase, is also open until 2.30. So those are the other local facilities that are open until the legally allowed time. Thank you. Before we have opposition, I just want to ask the staff, do you know how many nightclubs are subject to the 1 o'clock closing time? Honestly, I do not. But our records are not really well set up to search for that type of a condition on other nightclubs that were done. So we're having to look at those on a case-by-case basis as we get complaints. We don't have a database that has conditions that we can start pulling up and seeing those types of similar uses. For instance, there could be other nightclubs that have operated continuously as a nightclub since the 90s like we have. And in those cases, they should have come before you back in 2007, 2008 to have their time changed to 2.30 when the ordinance changed. To be perfectly blunt, we were just ignorant of what the paperwork said. And the moment we found out that our paperwork said 1 o'clock, that our condition said 1 o'clock, we filed this. I'm not as familiar with the ordinance that changed the closing time as I probably should be, but it seems to me that I'm assuming from your statement that the change to the 2.30 closing time made it required everybody to reapply to close at that 2.30 time, that they were bound by the 1 o'clock. I would have assumed that the change in the ordinance permitted those who were able to stay open to 1 o'clock to be able to stay open to 2.30, but I could be wrong. I did pass out a copy for all of the board members of the council ordinance from 2007. That ordinance actually deals with the sale of alcohol, not necessarily the nightclub or the dancing. Those items are conditional uses before you. So that's the reason why there are some uses, such as a restaurant that might have been selling beer until 1 o'clock that did not have live entertainment or dancing that never came before the board, and they could continue the sale of their alcohol until 2.30. So does that make any sense? There's a slight distinction there. The ordinance is on the sale of the alcohol, not on the hours of operation of the nightclub. You probably explained it fine. It's my understanding that it's deficient. I'll work on that. Thank you. Thank you. So if there's anyone in opposition who wants to come forward? Good afternoon. Thank you all for your long service today and for your first day on the job, welcome. I'm Bill Farmer. I reside at 549 Culpepper Road. My wife and I own a small apartment building at 311 South Hanover, so we're part of the notice area. In my family, Farmer's Jewelry is operated directly adjacent to this piece of property. If I were in your all shoes quite simply i would vote to postpone this for two months these people these businessmen these neighbors have uh they've not conducted themselves in the way that i would want to give them this leeway legally one of the reasons that this was a one o'clock closing time ties to the work that was done in the neighborhood at the time that this club came into existence also mandating that they would not be open on mondays and tuesdays there are only certain days that they can be open. There's been a lot of neighborhood interest in this particular business for many, many years. And I think it was kind of one of the things that was written into their lease that they can only stay open until one o'clock. And so they were not able to change based on the fact that that's what their lease said. But I would just say to you, we all know, we know good neighbors. and I understand that there has been a change in attitude, a change in style, a change in the promoter or the promotion or whatever, but I say let's let these people prove that they're the good neighbors that they want to be before we give them this leeway. Let them operate until one o'clock for a couple of months. Let's make sure that they are the good neighbors that they represent that they are and then I will come back here and help them with your all's consent in a couple of months to stay open until 2.30, but I'm not convinced. There's been nothing about their representation in the neighborhood that makes me believe all the changes that are engendered here. They did not attend a merchant's meeting until after a serious problem was presented. We're very lucky that no one has been shot in Chevy Chase. People have been stabbed. Damage has been done Neighbors know That this is a problem place On certain nights I'm appreciative of the fact that they want to run A better business there I want them to run a better business there I want them to be successful there But they have to prove first They have not done so They have not done so I believe you all have the ability to postpone this for two months And let them prove on behalf of all of us Rather than take a chance We've taken a chance We did not know them. They were unknown to us. They came to a meeting after the problems presented so horribly in our area. So many parts of Lexington are doing well. Ours is, too. We have new businesses. We have new life. We have pedestrians. This business can participate in that. They need to tailor themselves accordingly and deport themselves accordingly. That has not happened. I appreciate that they've been closed for three weeks. It's made things easier on us in the cleanup phase and the going and coming phase. Give them the opportunity to prove their worth. Postpone this for two months. Let them operate to 1 o'clock. And I'm sure others will follow and have other details that I don't know. Not as many of these places stay open until 2.30 as you would think. People get sleepy in Chevy Chase fairly early. These people can be good neighbors, and we want them to be. Postpone this for two months. Thank you very much. I'm Councilmember Diane Lullis and this establishment is in the third district which I represent and we had never had issues prior to the last few months in addition to the establishment that these folks have there are also two more down Euclid near the corner of Woodland and Euclid where there's been shots fired fights and it seems that it's you know pretty been very dangerous so I agree with Councilmember Farmer that we postpone, you know, giving them this. There are apartments in the building across the street where the new graders and McAllister's, et cetera, that face that bar. And I can't imagine that they're going to suffer greatly if this is postponed and given an opportunity to show that they are going to make changes to make it a more neighborhood friendly, retail district friendly operation. So I too want every business that is a good business, has good business practices, and patrons that do not disrupt to be successful. and I want to help them be successful. And I'm not sure what 1960s techno is, but it sounds like I'll probably be more familiar with it than what was there before. So I agree with Council Member Farmer that they should be open for a couple of months and let's see what changes are made. And thank you very much and thank you for your service. I'm Bob Sessom. I live at 101 South Hanover Avenue. I'm president of the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association. The Ashland Park Neighborhood Association over the past summer received constant complaints. We are joining to this property. Where we back up was our responsibility. With trash, with noise, and I understand that they had a manager who was no longer there. I agree with the previous two speakers. I do think that we would like to see them be able to go to 2.30 or whatever, but there's a cleanup act, and we really, at this point, are not really feel comfortable enough that they'll do what they actually said. So I think that the two months, let's see. Let's see if they get their act together, where they clean up and do what they need to do, and that act to come back. I think it's just irresponsible to just go ahead and say, okay, we're going to move it to 2.30. Keep on going like you're doing. Thank you. Can you expand upon what the problems were? it's more than trash it's fights it's gunplay is it the clientele that the rap music well they're apparently changing the music but we we had a number of uh residents there on hanover right there at um at high street who could hear the noise that distance which may be a block block and a half a couple of the residents indicated to the board that they had gone down and previously and asked them to please turn it down or close the doors or whatever and were kind of rudely addressed in that particular area. Is this a new problem? It was worse this summer than it's been. I'd like to ask staff, have you received, has building inspection received complaints over the summer? I'm not aware of any zoning complaints on this particular property. Mr. Marks? I think most of the complaints were going through the council office. That's how we got word of it. Can I ask the applicant, how would you feel about a two-month continuance on this matter? I spoke with some of these individuals out in the hallway. They raised that issue. Dr. Kopsik is right here. first off the change that's being requested is really not a functional change it's not as if unfortunately we've been operating until one o'clock in the morning and now want to start operating later we have in ignorance and so has the the entity that existed at the nightclub that existed prior to us have been operating until 2 30 as it is so there is no there's not it's not as if we're suddenly going to be operating later than what we have been. We're simply trying to correct the condition that existed and should have been changed a number of years ago. So it's not a functional change. But in reality, if we're not permitted to stay open until the legally allowed time like other nightclubs are, we'll be bankrupt in two months. I'm old, but people that go to these places that are in their 20s, 30s, they don't arrive until 10 or 11 o'clock at night, 12 o'clock at night. It's just the way it works. Now, if the board is inclined to accept the recommendation of the staff and have this matter come up for a six-month review, that's one thing. But if we have to suddenly – you're knocking off 40% of the business's income earning time. Now, I will also say that a number of these issues that have been raised truly have nothing to do with the time of operation. and they don't point i mean yes we when you have a fight breakout after a football game you're not sure who caused it the murray state person or the uk person or the uofl person or whoever but you know there's a fight after a football game well we know that over the over the summer months an environment came to exist at our facility that we didn't approve of and we have taken steps over the we have gotten new management not ownership and new management we are changing the atmosphere and the in and the environment in the facility we are not going to permit that type of activity that's going on but talking about, you know, a number of times, I was talking about the trash, okay? The trash doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you close at 1 or you close at 2.30. That's an unfortunate thing that's happened, but it doesn't have anything to do with what's relevant today. It also, noise. There's talk about the noise. Now, I will point to the recommendation of the staff on the second page. You'll notice on the first page there were six conditions that existed. And by the way, with all due respect to Councilman Farmer, if you read condition three that existed since 91, we were permitted to be open on Mondays and Tuesdays for private parties. normally that doesn't happen normally the business is Wednesday through the latter part of the week like normal nightclubs are that condition continues on where private parties are Mondays and Tuesdays but my point is this you'll notice that there's six conditions from 1991 added on to the staff recommendation are conditions 7, 8, and 9. 9 is new, and it is applicable to us as it would be other nightclubs, which has to do with outdoor speakers are prohibited, which we don't have any of those. And the doors to the nightclub shall remain closed during the times when live entertainment is offered. So if there was a complaint about noise, the new condition that's based on the staff's recommendation, should address that matter. Let me interrupt you while you're on that. It seems like with the amplifiers that are available and the digital music, it doesn't need to be live to be a nuisance. So this condition should say, when entertainment is being offered, I think the doors should be closed. I'll be honest. When I read that just now to you, I realized that it really makes no difference whether there's a stereo playing or whether there's a band playing. And I think we would definitely agree that whenever there's entertainment being provided, the doors should be closed. And that addresses the noise issue. So you've got noise issue, trash issue. I understand the concerns of the neighbors, and I understand the complaints of the neighbors, because we feel them the same way, and that's why we're making the changes that we have, which are separate and apart from the matter that's before you today. But I wanted to explain to you, Dr. Kopsik wants to be a good neighbor. I mean, he's leased this facility since November of 11, and we are taking steps to make sure that that's what kind of neighbor we are. We are simply asking that we be permitted to stay open until 2.30, which is the legally allowable time, which is in fact no functional change from what's been going on already. In fact, this idea that let's let them stay open until 1 o'clock actually is a functional change to what's existed in the past and kills us. Okay, thank you. It's a long night, isn't it? My name is Amy Clark. I live on 628 Castle Road. I'm in favor of the club continuing. I think if it is a venue for live music, that's an important thing to have in the neighborhood. It sounds as though they've been persistently in violation of the existing conditions of their use since 2007. I would ask that you add additional conditions and alter conditions somewhat. I concur with the staff that 275 is a more appropriate occupancy limit than the 302 that they had lately been or that was in their application I guess there are 190 seats by their application they offer zero parking to their guests there are 10 parking spaces required in the conditions for their employees. One of the issues, especially if they're staying open later and pretty young people are pretty cranked up at 2.30 in the morning, is going to their cars, going through the neighborhoods, making their way home. Part of the problem that I have heard about from neighbors in the Woodland and Euclid area, that intersection down the road, seems to have to do with people traveling from other club scenes or other parties looking for the next place to light. So changing the hours of operation does have an impact on how the guests at the establishment leave and how they interact with the neighborhood afterward. I've asked them to put up a program that I guess has now about $120,000 committed in public funding to redesign Chevy Chase Intersection. and maybe if you can enlarge it a bit, it would help. This is upside down. North is south. The long green, actually the shorter green road, that's Euclid. What I'd like for you to see, if you can, is that a big piece of this intersection redesign has to do with parking. A lot of money, a lot of resurfacing and paving and painting and so on, And I'm not sure, but the total number of parking spots won by it, if this will indeed be the plan that goes through, it might be 20. I don't think it's right for one business establishment to offer no parking whatever to its guests when other businesses in the immediate area at least make an effort. I realize it's an older use. It's grandfathered in. Not everything can happen. There is a parking garage immediately across the street on Euclid there. It seems to me if the requisite parking is 66, as they mention in their application, maybe we should ask them to provide 45 or 30 or something, free parking for the first people who get there or maybe for the later ones, actually. but I think finding a place for people to stow their cars would be a help. There's one other impact, that green median strip down the middle. That's where the beer trucks unload. They're not the only business on Euclid that's unloading beer from the turn lane or the middle of the street across traffic. and bear in mind that Euclid gets 17,000 cars a day but if they could have some accommodation for some of their guest parking and in addition perhaps accommodation for offloading the freight in the back I don't know but I think there's a back way in along by the behind the pizza place there's something anyway I would offer for your consideration additional conditions if If you are to renew the conditional use in the face of their persistent violation of one of the conditions, I would ask at least that you add conditions regarding furnishing guest parking and freight offloading beer trucks. Don't you think that a requirement to provide additional parking would encourage patrons to this establishment? and the lack of parking would discourage them? Just asking the questions. I mean, if you have no parking, it's going to be harder for people to go there than if you have lots of parking, right? I think what I'm thinking about is the impact of the parking on the surrounding neighborhood and on the other businesses. The impact of the parking itself. Is that what you're saying? The impact of guests seeking parking. Okay. Are you thinking we could starve them out by not offering a place for them to store the cars? I'm asking if that isn't your better argument, to limit traffic by providing no parking at all. I'm just asking. you know I I'd like to think that it they do offer live music at times and I'd like to see venues for live performers it's probably not my period of music not the techno nor the earlier I guess I'm a little befuddled thank you thanks My name is Robert Putt. I'm an owner of a condo in Chevy Chase Plaza, former name of Mr. Hoffman over here. He was a great neighbor next door, literally. My role here is really primarily to speak for myself as an owner living right across the street. Having bought the unit in June of 2010, lived there since August 2010, and experiences there. I also serve as the president of the board of directors for the condominium association. Do I have a copy to this? Yes, I do. okay then i won't spend a lot of time on this if you have questions about it feel free to ask um it probably does reflect some of what i have to say but again this is the uh letter that came from five board of directors and their opinions uh and their thoughts what they representing what they felt was best. As far as an individual living there, I will say that until this summer, I barely noticed the club was there. And I typically am a person on Saturday evenings that goes to bed 11, 12. We all know that there's going to be disturbances when they have a street Fair and everything's open. We all know when UK wins the championship it was going to be loud. You know, once or twice I've heard the Chevy chase in, open their door for about 10 minutes and close it. But I cannot tell you how disturbing it was this summer. I mean, literally for six weeks in a row, four of those I was awakened from my sleep to go on my balcony, observe, listen for a half hour I obviously have the first week start taking some sleeping medication that actually allows me to sleep during firearms in the building puts me out that much and I still was woken up and I will say that the street noise you hear in those condominiums is very low especially for the age of the building I bought that unit because of a well a lot of it the one the location the convenience having lived in the neighborhood for 11 years previously also but i the way the building is constructed with concrete floors and ceilings you barely hear neighbors at all at all you don't even know they exist typically um so to hear you don't hear music inside the problem is really um the lack of i don't know different management this summer i don't know so to speak ben was in charge before when it was nice and quiet and now and it wasn't this summer but i don't know all i know is that probably for the first time in my life i made a 9-11 call about noise disturbance and i know the next door neighbor did i know that results of this summer you know put some other neighbors in jeopardy and fear because of some of the trespassing that went on for parking etc etc uh stalking i don't know what else to say i could go on and on and on and all that as you said from a legal perspective may or may not apply but the point is they have lost the trust and unfortunately the support of the people who live there and really wanted to succeed I agree with the council person's recommendations. And in fact, if it were me living there across the street, I would say make it six months. And in fact, it really needs to go through the summertime to really see the effect of are they able to manage this environment or not? Because it was not there before. And I don't know what guarantee I have that it won't be there again. I know I have vehicles like 9-11 again. I didn't bring all the dates of the complaints they were filed I didn't bring when you know the vice group went in I can tell you that the violation was discovered by two individuals one of those being an attorney on our board as far as the time closing situation I can tell you that that time closing happened with the first Saturday of September from the documentation I have on file from the council people and from the police. So all I can say to you is to earn my trust back, you're going to have to prove it. I'd love for you to be successful, but as a neighbor across the street who gets woke up at 2.30 to 3.30 on four Sunday mornings and even sleeping medicated, you know, not real happy about it. And I won't go into the effects that necessarily happen to other entities entities like the commercial entity that is below us on the first three floors of the plaza versus the top two floors. But I think it's kind of like when you have children and they prove themselves to do something wrong and then you know you so to speak put a rule in place it's kind of like where are those limits until you can show that you earned the trust of your neighbors. I want to offer to you, no matter which way the board goes, if it continues to be a problem, you can always call building inspection. And if it's a continuing problem, there could be a revocation hearing. At this point, much of this seems to be going to where there should be a revocation rather than expanding the use. But keep in mind that if you're not happy, do call building inspector. Yeah, and I'm not sure about the hours of the others, but I can say I know Glen Creek closes at midnight. I asked someone, was there eating the other night? What are your hours? In fact, I called on a Sunday to see if they were even open for like a brunch thing. You know, what are your hours at the other places? Like I said, I've never heard the Chevy Chase Inn past one, to be honest. And in fact, I've heard them twice for 10 minutes and living near what, two years now? This was consistent. It was long. it was prolonged and i be honest would love to see the place be successful if they can manage it it takes 230 to be successful fine but i tell you what it will be watched very closely by those neighbors who live there and they will report anything whatsoever happens expect immediate action mr marx i just wanted to clarify that zoning enforcement is with division of planning now so they would call division of planning not building inspection yes in fact i think you were copied carbon copied on the electronic email of this and i think it was councilman farmers aid who said to direct complaints to you nice to meet you um so um that's kind of where we're at right now um it obviously is not what we feel is in our best interest as neighbors across the street but we do believe that the success of Euclid Avenue is in our best interest. Those units were bought for the convenience, a lot of it for the character of Ashland Park, Chevy Chase, and the convenience located there on Euclid, and the fact that they are constructed such that it is a nice, quiet building. Thank you. Are there any other comments, questions, staff? Do you have anything you want to add? No? Okay. just one one comment we appreciate that we've had two neighbors come to us and come come before you today and say that they want us to succeed the reality is is that if this is delayed and and the time change is not made we won't succeed we won't exist the the board does have a mechanism that if there is any doubt about the situation approval adopting the staff's recommendation with a six month review is an option that is available that will, I think, allow a win-win for the neighbors and the business itself. The individual who brought up the issue of parking, there are no nightclubs that, I don't want to say no, it's just not typical that you have a nightclub that offers the kind of parking that's being discussed. It's just impossible in a metropolitan, even living on the edge of a metropolitan area. So that was addressed to the parking issue. But if anybody has any other questions. Mr. Thomerson, would you and your clients be amenable to several reviews? A two-month review was suggested. You've suggested a six-month review. If we adopted both of those things, would that be reasonable for you? I would think the answer is yes, and I think maybe I'm misunderstanding. It was my understanding that the request regarding the two months was don't allow this time change for two months, and then one said six months, don't allow the time change, and then let us come back to you at some later date. If that happens, we won't be here to come back to you. But what you're suggesting, our intentions are to be a good citizen and a good neighbor. We have no problem in doing what you're suggesting. My suggestion was that a two-month review and a six-month review with your staying open at whatever hours you're operating now, in order to allow both you and the neighborhood associations or the objectors to make a record for us to have something to review in two months, six months, a year, whatever we decide might be appropriate. My understanding of what he's saying is that they really want the extension of the hours. If they don't get the extension of the hours, they won't be in business in two months. It won't last that long. So if there's an approval and an adoption of the staff's recommendation and we come back in two months, three months, four months, whatever you want, we have no objection to that at all because we feel confident that the atmosphere is going to be different. And we feel confident that the neighbors are going to feel differently about us. So we have no objection to that at all. Well, my suggestion, I can't take credit for the authorship of it, but the suggestion that I voiced was a suggestion for multiple reviews at a two-month, six-month, 12-month period of time in order for allowing both you and your neighbors to make whatever record that is we need to review in those time periods. So long as it's an approval with a two-month review, and I guess that... That was my suggestion, yes. I agree entirely. As far as the frequency of the reviews goes, the practical reality is we can have a review as frequently as possible, regardless of what's specifically a condition in here based on complaints we get from the public or whatever. So I would suggest not loading this up with a lot of paperwork. If you want to ensure that at least one occurs regardless of whether or not we get complaints or there's problems, then we could add a six-month review if you go down that road. But we could do a one-month review if we get a lot of complaints and concerns. I guess that's my point. Mr. Marks, how would that, if there's significant complaints, for example, how would that be brought back? We would just bring that to your attention at a hearing. And we would document it as well as we can. But we'd have to, in order to review it, we'd have to give appropriate notice to both the applicant and the neighborhood. That's easy to do. We want to be amenable to the board and our neighbors. We know that that sort of review process puts our lives in the hands of people who just want to call and make complaints. But we would have to defend those complaints if that arose. But nevertheless, what we want is to be good citizens and neighbors, and that's our intention. Well, Mr. Marks, I have a question for you. if you did a three-month review or a six-month review, if we agreed to do this at 2.30, if they got numerous complaints, what would be our recourse? Cut them back to 1 o'clock? You could revise the conditions. We can do a revocation, go through that. Another thing I want to mention is that a review is based on compliance with the conditions, so you're going to have to look real carefully at the conditions. I understand that the staff was trying to mirror the conditions as much as possible with how it was approved previously, but if we're going to go down this road of the review, I guess my general suggestion is we might want to add a condition number 10 that specifically looks at disturbance from noise, which is typically how if a totally new facility came in, for example, some of the other ones on today's agenda, there's a general condition about noise being managed so it doesn't disturb the surrounding neighborhood, that kind of thing. So you might want to think about condition number 10 that will give us something to hang our hat on, so to speak. The activity could be disturbing but still comply with all these conditions. I guess that's my point, the way that's worded right now. I think that that is tried to be addressed by condition number 9, But if the board wants to add an additional one on there, if there's two, three complaints about noise over a certain period of time, we'd have to, I suppose, come back before you and give an explanation for those individual complaints or defend ourselves with respect to those complaints and address the matter at that time. Again, we have no problem doing that because of what our intentions are. Jimmy, can you show us the typical noise condition that would be put on a new application? Yes, sir. If you look on your agenda, right on the same page that on page four of your agenda, if you look up just two cases earlier for Tony and Lisa Hodges, condition number six is that this use shall be soundproof to the maximum extent feasible using existing technologies with noise and other emissions, not creating a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood. That mirrors the language that is in the zoning ordinance today. That condition, the language is right there for you. It would be easy to add such a condition. And the staff has no, on condition number nine, as it's proposed, the staff has no objection to removing the word live entertainment. so it would just read outdoor entertainment and when entertainment is offered, striking the word live, and that is okay with the staff. I'd like to hear from the opposition if they would think this is a fair compromise, that we allow them to stay open until 2.30, but we have a review either in three months or in six months, and that we include this more stringent noise condition that would be, if it was violated to a great degree, there would be reason for a total revocation hearing of this conditional use? That would be my question, as Mr. Stumbo raised. And the Association, our Ashton and Park Association, is where's the teeth that this can be enforced? I mean, we're in favor. We're not opposed to the entity existing there or the hours. It's just got to have something, some accountability for behavior. Well, does this seem satisfactory to you? Yeah, with the consequences that you said if it's violated. Do you have an opinion on when you'd like to review, or could we make it six months and then you let your constituencies know that it's their responsibility to make a record of these violations? We can do that. I guess if there are abundant complaints that you would review,