Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. I'd like to welcome everyone to the special November 15th meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Before we begin, I would like to say a huge thank you to the applicants. We did not have a quorum for the first time in 10 years at our October 25th meeting, and I appreciate everyone being here and rescheduling this day today, this appointment. I know everyone's busy, and I also want to thank the Board of Adjustment as well for readjusting their schedules. As you can see, we have a full quorum today, so we shall proceed. I'd like to ask for everybody to please turn off all their cell phones, and if you must make a call, please do so outside. Everyone that is going to testify today, I'd like to ask you to stand up and raise your right hand. If you're going to speak, stand up and raise your right hand. Do you agree to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. I'm going to read the agenda, but, Ms. Leonard, before I read the agenda, are there any postponements or withdrawals? There may be some postponements and withdrawals, but at this point I would open it up to the audience to see if there are any. I don't have any letters from applicants at this point. but I do suspect that there might be some. Very good. Sir, does anybody have a postponement withdrawal? Yes. Would you please come to the mic and state your name for the record, please? Kay Wesley Farley for the Ugly Duckling LLC. C. 2013. Uh-huh. Yes, sir. We had spoken with the zoning people, and so I wanted to, we're going to propose a postponement, so I'd like to agree with that or whatever so that we can have more time to prepare our information for you. Very good. Would you be ready at the December meeting? Yes, please. Okay, very good. Is there a motion to postpone item C 2013-62, Wesley Farley? So moved. Thank you, Ms. White. Second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Moore. I have a question about that. Are we postponing it just one week? Well, he said the December meeting, which would be December 13th. December 13th. All right. We've got a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the agenda and ask if the applicant is present. If no opposition, we're going to hear those first. If there is opposition, we ask that you all step in the hall and try to resolve those cases that staff has recommended disapproval, and they will be heard after those that have been approved by the planning office. I'd like to go ahead and ask V201363, John Kelly, is the applicant present? Yes, sir. I'm representing John Kelly. I'm the builder. Very good. The staff, is there anybody here in opposition or support of item B, 2013-63? I know that staff has recommended disapproval, so we're going to hear your case a little bit later. Item B, 2013-69 Green Development Company, are they represented? Yes, sir. Is there anybody here in support or against the applicant? Staff has also recommended disapproval, so we will hear your case afterwards as well. Jack Ballard is the applicant here. Staff has recommended approval. Is there anyone in opposition to Jack Ballard, item 2013-70? Okay. Item 2013-71, Jerry Hahn, is the applicant here? Yes. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in opposition to Mr. Hahn? Steph has recommended approval for that. No opposition. Nancy Pauly, is the applicant here? Very good. Is there anyone in opposition to Nancy Pauly, item 2013-64? Okay. The Nathaniel Missionary Society, is the applicant here? Very good. The staff has also recommended approval. Is there anyone in opposition to Nathaniel Mission? No opposition. Okay. L. Roberts Properties. The applicant is here. Is there any opposition to L. Roberts Properties? Staff has recommended approval. No opposition. Dr. Joseph Yoakam. Right there also. Staff has also recommended approval. Is there anyone in opposition to Dr. Joseph Yocum? Item 2013-67. Okay. And then item number 10, Central Kentucky United, Inc. Staff had recommended postponement. Is the applicant here? Mr. Emmons? I have spoken with the applicant, and they indicated that they agreed to a postponement. But I never got any of that confirmation in writing. I was waiting until now to see if they did or if there were any interested citizens for this. Is there anyone in opposition or in support of Central Kentucky United? Can we try and postpone this to the December meeting? Yes, sir. That would be fine. We can be able to put it on the legal ad at that point, and we'll notify the applicant. and the one interested party that I know of. Very good. If that's okay with the board, we'll entertain a motion to postpone to December. So moved. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Second? Second. Mr. Glover, second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Postpone until then, until December. Okay. What I'd like to do, the first item is item V. 2013-70, Jack Ballard, appeals for variances to reduce a required setback along Plunkett Street from 8 feet to 0 feet. And the second is the required side yards from 1.6 feet to 0 feet in order to construct a detached garage. Would the applicant come forward, please? Mr. Ballard, the staff has recommended approval for your request. I would like to ask if there are also four conditions to this. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Does the Board of Adjustment have any questions for Mr. Ballard? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the 2013-70 Jack H. Ballard's appeal for variances to reduce the required setback along Plunkett Street from 8 feet to 0 feet and the required side yards from 1 foot 6 inches to 0 feet in order to construct a detached garage in a two-story, in a two-family residential historic district overlay zone at 513 South Main Street as recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions. Thanks, Ms. Meyer. Do we have a second? Second. Second, Mr. Glover. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Good luck, Mr. Ballin. I'd like to call item 2013-71, Jerry Hahn. Would the applicant please come up to the podium? I appeal for a variance to increase the maximum allowable height of rear yard fence from 8 feet to 10 feet and single-family residential at 855 Glendover Road. You are Mr. Hahn? Yes, I am. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval. Mr. Hahn is subject to, looks like, just one condition. Have you agreed to abide by that condition? Yes, I do. Very good. Does the Board of Adjustment have any questions for Mr. Hahn? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve the 2013-71 Jerry Hahn's appeal for a variance to increase the maximum allowable height of a rear yard fence from 8 to 10 feet in a single family residential zone at 855 Glendover Road, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the one condition. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Is there a second? Second. Second, Ms. White. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, Mr. Hahn. Thank you. I believe the next item is Nancy Pauley, item 2013-64. Would the applicant please come forward? Appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a cocktail lounge in conjunction with an artist studio and a planned shopping center at 3851 Mall Road. You are, for the record? Nancy Pauley. Thank you, Ms. Pauley. Staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? I do. Very good. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions. Mr. Emerson. Mr. Chairman, the staff has received seven letters of support for this. I did not run any extra copies, but I'll pass them out. They're all very much in support of the applicant. Very good. Ms. Folley, if you'll give us just a second, we'll take a look at these. I'll go back. We'll get them in. Yeah. We can do it at the end. I'm just curious. Are these classes, are they like four-week classes or six-week or one night? It's just you come in one evening, and it's a two-hour class or a three-hour class, depending on the painting. and so you just come in and there's an artist that's instructing as you paint um they just kind of dumb it down this is your big brush this is your little brush and do this and do this and you can have a glass of wine and do a painting and take it home with them with yourself that night so it's a lot of fun Thank you. Thank you. your request. I guess that depends on the person. Thank you. Very good, and I think we've got a chance to look at it. Does the board have any questions for Ms. Pauley? Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve C-2013-64 Nancy Pauly's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a cocktail lounge in conjunction with an artist studio in a planned shopping center zone at 3851 Mall Road as recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions as recommended by staff. Thank you, Ms. White. Is there a second? Second. Second, Ms. Smith. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good. Good luck, Ms. Folley. Thank you. The next applicant is Nathaniel Mission Society. Would the applicant please come forward and state their name for the record? My name is Todd. I ought to represent CMW Architects Nathaniel Mission. Very good, sir. Your appeal for additional use permit to occupy an existing building as a church at 1109 Versailles Road. Staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Very good. Does any member of the board have any questions? Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion to approve. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the appeal of C. 2013-65 Nathaniel Missionary Society, Inc.'s appeal for a conditional use permit to occupy an existing building as a church in a wholesale and warehouse business, B4 zone, at 1109 Versailles Road, Suite 400, for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions listed. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Griggs. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you all. You've been approved. Thank you. Hello, Robert Sink. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here representing L. Roberts Properties, LLC, the purchaser of the property. Lee Roberts is the owner. He could not be here today, but Sandy Evans from his office is here with me today, along with Pat Darnell from Darnell Engineering, and we do agree with the staff report and do agree to the conditions they have listed of approval. Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. Again, staff has recommended approval subject to those conditions, and you've just stated that you will abide by those. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Murphy? If not, we'll hear a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2013-66L Roberts Properties, Inc. appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a vehicle storage yard in a light industrial zone at 2285 Maggard Drive. He approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions recommended by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Is there a second? Second. Second, Ms. Myers. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Murphy. uh the next item is dr joseph yokum uh is the applicant pleasant yes again i'm dick murphy representing dr joseph yokum and dr yokum is here today as well in the back who's a veterinarian who's sitting up this office and paul lee his architect is here paul ray smith of nai isaac commercial real estate is here and mike haggard of traditional bank and again we have read the staff report and agree with it and agree with the conditions they have listed. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Obviously, again, staff recommends approval subject to those conditions. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Murphy? Hearing none, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I have moved to approve C-2013-67 Dr. Joseph J. G. Yochum's appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a veterinary clinic in the neighborhood business zone at 4371-4379 Old Harrodsburg Road as recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions as recommended by staff. Thank you, Ms. White. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Glover seconds. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. White. And thank you all for having this meeting this week. The extra week means a lot. Again, we appreciate all the applicants being here today and readjusting their schedules as well. Thank you, sir. I think that that completes the no opposition and staff recommends for approval. I think we go back to the beginning. John Kelly, item B201363. The applicant is here. Would you come and state your name for the record, please? Yes, I'm Steve Taylor with TaylorMade Pools. Very good. Mr. Taylor's staff has recommended disapproval for several reasons, and I'd like to ask Mr. Emmons if he would brief the board. Thank you, sir. I have got some aerial photos and photos of the property that I can show. In this case, there is a request in order to enlarge the width of the driveway for the subject property. The subject property is located at the corner of Weston Park and, oh, I forgot the name of that boulevard. Ellerslie Boulevard. Ellerslie Boulevard, thank you. the during the construction of a pool in the rear you can see this is the 2013 aerial photography I'll lower the lights and on the subject property is located at the corner of that the driveway comes off of the off of the Boulevard even though the property is got a Weston Park address. During the construction of the pool in the back, the property owner had asked the people who were working on the pool to widen the driveway while they were doing it. Unbeknownst to them that there was a required permit for that, they went ahead and widened the driveway. In this particular case, the existing driveway is about 34 feet wide. If we can change to the next picture. These are pictures that were submitted by the applicant. This is the subject property and you can see the 34 foot wide driveway on the subject property. They also widened the area between the sidewalk and the street. That's actually public right away and not technically a part of the driveway. but they did widen the turn into the driveway so that it was all one continuous movement. The applicant also submitted several pictures of other properties in the neighborhood. The zoning ordinance currently limits the maximum width of a driveway outside of the infill and redevelopment area to 24 feet. This property at 217 Ellerslie Park Boulevard obviously has a 29-foot driveway. The staff could not figure out whether that was put in legally or illegally. I don't know if it was put in before there were limits on the width of the driveway or not. If we can turn to the next. And the applicant also submitted some other areas where there were a lot of pavement. However, on these other examples that the applicant submitted, that they didn't really meet for the driveway. They don't exceed the requirements of the zoning ordinance. In this particular case, if you can see the grassy area that's between the sidewalk and the driveway, the driveway is fairly wide, but it's a looped driveway, and that is allowed. technically in this particular case in the EAR 1 zone. It's only the first six feet back from the sidewalk that actually counts as driveway. The rest of the pavement that you see is technically additional parking in the front yard, which is allowed in the EAR 1 zone as long as the overall lot has enough open space on it. In these cases, they do. In this particular case, 221 Ellerslie Park Boulevard, you can see it is a 28-foot wide, but you can see the additional parking and the flare to get to that additional parking space. And as I was mentioning, just as the zoning ordinance reads, it's actually only that first six feet back from the sidewalk that actually counts as driveway. So that flare, by the staff's determination, this would be an allowable additional parking next to the driveway. And then finally, 173 Summersley Place. This is a, you can see then an additional parking space that came off of the driveway. And in that particular case, you can tell it's 36 feet wide, but once again, that's all behind that first six feet, and therefore it's additional parking rather than driveway. The staff did prepare this exhibit in an alternative layout that would require the removal of some of the concrete that's there that would be compliant with the zoning ordinance that would allow the applicant to keep most of what you see in that same vein where they would be allowed the extra 10 feet of width as additional parking, and then they would have to taper back to the driveway. In essence, if the request of variance is not approved, this area here that is pavement will have to be removed and the grass will have to be restored if the variance is not approved. If we can go back to the first, actually, I meant the applicant's first page. We're putting the head on for the subject property back up. To kind of give you an idea where that would be, is they would have to remove about some of the pavement here and then restore the driveway flare to match up with the driveway. When the staff was looking at the requested variance for the subject property, we could not really find that there were any special circumstances for the subject property, and we did find that there is a reasonable solution that could still afford the applicant most of the additional parking that they desire and be compliant with the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the staff did recommend disapproval because we felt that this requested variance does not arise from a special circumstance that doesn't generally apply to other properties in the area. And that strict application of the zoning ordinance will not deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of their property. If there are any other further questions for the staff, I'd be happy to answer them, but I believe that sums up our staff report. Any questions for Mr. Emmons? Hi, everyone. Jimmy, when you talk about flaring out beyond the sidewalk to any width you like, as long as you don't exceed the coverage ratios for the lot, I thought you also said you had to have six feet. What was the six-foot dimension? Because it seems like if you flare off right at the end of the sidewalk here, you don't have six feet of 24-foot width. Yeah, you're right. If we can zoom way into that, the flare that the staff was talking about, that's not particularly codified anywhere in the zoning ordinance, but it is a common practice because you have to be able to have a reasonable amount of concrete so that you don't rut out your driveway. So it's been a reasonable practice to allow the flares at any time. In this particular case, because the EAR1 zone has a variable front yard building line, only the first six feet of the width of that from the back of the sidewalk to the paving actually qualifies as driveway in our zoning ordinance. I know that sounds strange, but it's where you have to draw the line between what's additional parking that's allowed and what's not. The expansion area residential zones do allow the additional parking, whereas many of our other zones, especially inside the infill and redevelopment area, do not. But that's because the expansion area residential zones were intended to have a certain amount of flexibility. They are probably the most flexible residential zones that we have. You can build single-family homes, duplexes, townhouses, apartment buildings. And so that's kind of where that comes in to it. And now that I keep talking, I'm looking at you, and I'm trying to remember if I actually answered your question or not. Would you read the part of the zoning code that says you're supposed to have six feet of driveway before you can increase the width and then explain to me how that flare is not increasing the width before the six feet ends. Thank you. I will find those sections of the ordinance. It's not expressly said in that way. The how you come to that six feet is that you look at what they're allowed in the EAR1 zone to have as their additional parking and their minimum front yards. And then you look at the definition of a driveway, and the flare, as I mentioned earlier, is not in the zoning ordinance anywhere, but it is a common practice, and it has been a common practice in this community for decades. All right, so this solution you have on the board is common practice, even though it's not specifically defined in the ordinances. The solution that we have proposed there as an alternative layout does meet all of our zoning ordinance requirements and the policies and practices. This would be approvable if it were submitted this way. A second question for you. Will you pursue those examples that the applicant put in front of you where it looks like the driveways are not in compliance? We certainly can. There is only one of those. The other ones do appear to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance because of the green space that they allowed. So it's the 29-footer that you might want to look into. It's the one property with the 29 feet. Thank you. I have a question, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. How did this application get before us? I mean, is this already built at 34 feet? Is that what we're looking at from the photograph? Yes, sir. The applicant might be able to answer that better, but to the best of my understanding, they were building the pool, and whenever the building, they had all of their proper permits for the pool, they also did this extra work on the driveway, unaware that there was a driveway paving permit that was required for it. Whenever the building inspector came out to do the final inspection on the pool, that's whenever the building inspector saw the wider driveway, and that kicked in this process of either correcting the violation or asking the board for a variance. Mr. Emmons, just so I'm clear, anything else, Mr. Gleick? No, thanks. Just so I'm clear, the white area, the 6 feet by 10 feet, is that what you're asking the applicant to remove? No, sir. The white area, the 6 feet by 10 feet, that would be the pavement that would be allowable under our zoning ordinance. So it would be the triangle of grass. This was based off the 2013 aerial before the driveway was widened. So this shows the original driveway. And the original, plus the allowable. The fix would require to move that green triangle that's not the white triangle. Yes. And a portion of the driveway. yes and restoring the flare in the in the right-of-way from the sidewalk to the street right could do you do I yeah okay anybody else have any other questions for mr. I thought I saw Jimmy put that photograph back up showing the 34 width I I was when I first saw it I thought I I saw a column or something, but okay. That's a protective column because of the gas meter there to make sure that someone pulling in would not hit the gas meter. Okay. All right. I was trying to figure out what I was looking at. Very good. I think we'd like to hear from you then, Mr. Taylor. Well, I can only say ignorance of the rules is no excuse, but that's all I've really got here coming in to give you I've been a general contractor in Lexington for five years and never had any violations of any type until we got to this property and not necessarily with this particular issue but this is kind of the the end of it I can only say that mr. Kelly apologizes for not being here today he every intention but he had to go to the doctor we improved this property by over a hundred thousand dollars and if you went out and drove by i don't think you would find that this driveway extension is in any way a negative feature for this neighborhood or the property in question a lot of the comments i've heard have been about frontage this is a side street I realize that the ordinance does allow for cars to be parked but I think if you went out you're just kind of seeing the driveway if you looked at everything that's been done on this property everything that's been done is to enhance the neighborhood as far as improvements go once again no excuse for me not knowing this rule but I I learned of it when George brought it to my attention attention as you know what if you do if you'll indulge me just to walk you through this project just a little bit originally we pulled a fence permit but if you don't know anything about building swimming pools it's an adventure every time we dig a hole we don't really know what we're getting into whether it's rock or whatever on this particular pool we went down we submitted our plans they were approved not showing the driveway improvements and not showing the deck improvements because the owner had not decided totally on what he wanted to do with his deck. So we had pulled a fence permit, pulled a pool permit, with the intentions of pulling a deck permit once he decided what he wanted to do with the new balusters and new stairs and everything. While we were digging the hole, the deck collapsed into the swimming pool hole. so we called an engineer in and I thought was doing everything properly we knew we needed a deck permit but we went ahead and reinforced the deck got got new reinforcements put in all engineered stamps and I then got cited for building a deck without a permit so that's how this I think kind of started and obviously everybody at the building department knew we were going to pull a deck permit, but we started the work before the permit was issued. So I got fined $500, first time ever in anywhere getting fined anything. In the meantime, the driveway that was in place was an extremely poor repair. I don't know what the original person did, but the driveway was coming apart. It was heaving. It had huge cracks. Mr. Kelly asked us to repair, replace. It was a replacement of the driveway. In the meantime, he requested this additional spacing, which I did not pull a permit because I had no idea that I was supposed to pull a permit. So actually, I'm here before you looking for forgiveness, and hopefully that you can look at this. And I'm sorry you're just looking at the driveway, but if you look at the whole project, It's really beautiful what's gone on in his backyard. Everything from taking a rickety deck and putting in treks and new balustrades to a nice sidewalk, beautiful fencing. And there's no one living next door to this particular property. It's a very large green space. It is a side street. Even though it's the main street coming in, the front of his house goes around the bend. And I'm looking for forgiveness. No other excuses. This was my problem. I should have known the rules, and here we are. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Glover? I've got a question, Mr. Ammons. What kind of precedent would we be setting if we granted the application? That's always hard to say, but if you look at the unique circumstances of this particular lot, It does back up to a greenway within the development, and it's also a corner lot on two major streets within the Ellerslie Boulevard area. So in that sense, you're not going to have very many extra driveways along Ellerslie Park Boulevard to deal with in the future because of that large open space. Very few of them are going to be at the corner of the two major streets within that local subdivision. It looks to me like the other driveway in the picture up to the top left, I'm not scaling it with my eye, but it looks to me like it's larger than 24 feet that you've got marked on Mr. Kelly's driveway. is that the 29-foot driveway that's also in this picture? No, it's not. In all honesty, when I went and started taking pictures and documenting the other large driveways, I just assumed a sample space of four was going to be enough. Unbeknownst to me, some of them complied, and I was not aware of that, but I stopped when I got to four. And honestly, I never even went down Weston Park Boulevard. I kind of came in Ellerslie and hit every, and I didn't, I just walked it. It took me five minutes to find what I thought were very large driveways over the ordinance. But I have a feeling I could probably go through that subdivision and find a lot more than what I've documented today. Let me ask you another question, Mr. Taylor, while you're here. I'm somewhat familiar with concrete a little bit. And I know you can cut concrete with a saw. How much trouble would it be and how much would it cost to take the part of the driveway out that doesn't comply with the ordinance? considering I do most of this work in-house I don't think it really gets down if I was to guess probably $1,500 but the problem is all of these driveways have a nice tooled finish on the edges so now everywhere where we have to make alterations it's going to be a jagged saw cut but then it's going to look like it's been cut. My opinion is it's going to deteriorate from what looks very good right now. Of course, I'm kind of biased on that opinion. Because you built it. Because I built it. Mr. Griggs? I didn't scrutinize the work you did in the backyard. I'm sure it's beautiful, but that apron, the way it flares out at the curb, 39 feet, another maybe four on one side and five or six on the other. You're getting close to 50 feet. I thought it was really too much concrete at the curb. I thought it didn't enhance the property or the neighborhood. Just my opinion. I understand. Mr. Taylor, before us, many times over the years, we've had folks that have not pulled their permits properly, and we have been asked for forgiveness several times. And quite frankly, we don't normally grant forgiveness because we feel certainly as a licensed contractor, you know, you should know these issues. I think that, you know, that obviously it's a beautiful home and a beautiful pool area and so forth and residence, but I don't think that you're going to have the support of this board to approve your appeal or approve your variance. And so I'd like to ask the staff, if we do vote to have this corrected, what is a reasonable time, Mr. Marks, Mr. Emmons, to have the owner? It always helps to hear from the applicant about what constraints they have and getting the work done. So we're always pretty reasonable in a reasonable amount of time. Swimming pool business is getting into the slowdown phase now. So, I mean, making these alterations will, I mean, I can get it done in 30 days. I wish Mr. Kelly was here because I was coming into this thinking very positively. 100% it's going to be up to him what he wants me to do. If he wants me to do the alterations and make the changes, I'm assuming it's ultimately up to the homeowner at this point. He's aware of everything that's going on. Not that I'm trying to buck the system. my position with him will be if they want me to change it, I'll change it. I mean, I want to continue to do business in Fayette County and do that with a favorable light for everybody that works for the building department in this process. So I'm not going to buck the system. Well, let me ask Mr. Emmons or Mr. Marks, I guess, if the owner does not want to comply with this alteration within 30 days, what are the ramifications of that? Well, first and foremost, if the property owner does not agree, I mean, if they choose to file suit against any action of the board, they would have 30 days in which to file that suit. So that right there is your first 30 days on looking at anything as far as enforcement. I don't think that we could do anything until we knew whether the applicant was or wasn't going to do that. beyond that i believe that like mr marks was saying is that you know our our goal is compliance here and not to not to drag things out but the um i would say that uh like anything else that beyond that 30 days if the if we haven't had any action we could always report back to the board but but given the current schedule with the earlier meeting in December, you'd be looking at the end of January before we could report anything on it one way or the other. Very good. Can I just ask, as I've gotten this gentleman's opinion and I'm kind of getting a feel for yours, is everybody else feeling the same way, or is this? Ms. Meyer? I thought there was a lot of concrete there when I went out and saw it. I did. And, you know, it's the main boulevard into that subdivision. And, you know, some of the other, you know, shots that you showed where there was the parking spot and then there was some green space, you know, there was green or there was a plant, there was a tree. You know, for me that's far more attractive. And there's a lot of concrete there, I think. Does any other member of the board have any comment? I can just say I feel bad. I'm sorry, but I think it's a bad precedent. It doesn't seem like there's really any special circumstance. Well, there's definitely no special circumstances except me. So the appropriate remedy is the zone changer. I just had one other question. Yes, sir. Did they ding you for another $500 on pouring this without a permit? They did not. Okay. I was wondering if there was a way that we could recommend to code enforcement that they not. No, I just paid $100 to come visit you all, which I guess is the normal fee for this process. They did not. And George understands me. I just don't pull. I don't do work without permits. Of course, I say that. I got dinged $500, but everybody down there knew exactly what the project was. Well, I'd like them to give you that $500 back if there was one to do. Well, you are the nicest man in the world if you can handle that, because I was told there's no appeal process, that you got it, there's nothing we can do, you started it without the permit. I'm looking at George and I'm going, you knew I was going to pull this permit. We just didn't know what we were going to do yet. And he's like, well, you were supposed to. Anyway, everybody at the city has always been very nice to work with. I've never had any problems with anybody until today. Just kidding. Mr. Taylor, thank you very much. And we appreciate your candor here today. And I think you find a consensus around the board that it is a dangerous precedent, I think, that we would be setting. And we certainly don't want to punish Mr. Kelly and you. But, you know, our job here is volunteers uphold our planning and zoning ordinances. And that's our primary purpose here. So I think at this time, does anybody have any other comments? If not, the board or the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we disapprove John Kelly's appeal for a variance to increase the maximum allowable driveway width from 24 feet to 34 feet in an expansion area residential zone at 460 Weston Park. based on the staff's recommendations. As far as a time to have it repaired, why don't we give them 60 days? 60 days, Mr. Emmons? Actually, and I'll let Tracy jump in on this if I'm incorrect. If the motion is to disapprove, I believe it would just be up to the normal enforcement through the Division of Building Inspection or our Zoning Enforcement Section to ensure that it's time of compliance in a normal time. I don't think that the board necessarily needs to put a time frame. If you wanted to recommend that, that would be fine. I'm okay leaving it in your hands. It'll fall into the normal procedures. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Mr. Griggs has made a motion. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Myers, second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We wish you well, Mr. Taylor. Thank you for coming up here today and hope we can get this resolved. Thank you. Green Development appealed to variance to eliminate a portion of the zone-to-zone screening and professional office at 2429 Members Way. Would you state your name for the record, sir? Yes, Timothy Morris. Mr. Morris. I'm the partner with Green Development. Mr. Morris' staff has recommended disapproval, and I'm sure you've read their reasons. I'd like to ask Mr. Emmons if he would report first, and then we'll give you a chance to respond. Much like the last time, I can start off with some photographs. The subject property is at 2429 Members Way. It's a professional office park area that is located off of Harrodsburg Road. The applicants have requested a landscape variance for the subject property. The properties to the rear, the landscape variance would apply to a single property line, and that would be the rear property line. In this 2013 aerial photo, you can see the building as it was under construction, and then you had the parking lot, a retention area, and then the area where the landscape variance is requested. In this particular case, it's a request for a partial variance. The applicants are not asking to get rid of all of the landscaping. Typically, from a P1 to a residential lot, there are two options. You can provide a 15-foot wide buffer that had a tree every 40 feet and a double row hedge or fence or earth mound that was up to 6 feet tall. That 15-foot landscape buffer area can be reduced to a 5-foot landscape buffer area. If you put in a 6-foot tall privacy fence or privacy wall, the trees are still required. In this particular instance, the applicant is before you today in order to request that the trees be allowed without the fence. Because of the construction of the detention basin, they went down to the minimum of that five-foot landscape buffer area. So there's only room to put the fence and the trees at this point. there's not room to put in the wider landscape buffer area with the trees and the shrubs. The applicant has said that the reason for this request is that before they put in the landscaping and before they put in the fencing, they went to the property owners. The office lot that's before you today shares the boundary with only two property owners and those property owners have submitted a letter to the board we'll get there a letter to the board stating that they would like to have the landscaping just the trees that they don't that those property owners do not want the fence I'm sure that the applicant will go into into more on that but i definitely wanted to make sure and got that across to the board it is in our staff report and jimmy i didn't understand you oh i'm sorry the uh adjacent owners wanted what the the adjacent residential owners who the landscaping they asked for just the trees and not the fence which is what the applicant has asked for in this landscape variance request so they are supporting the application they are supporting the application so they would be against the staff recommendation for disapproval does that make is that enough double negatives for you the and really it's because according to the applicant they went to the those property owners before installing the required landscaping and talked to them and and that was their wishes which is the reason why they are here before you today. The staff does find that that is a unique circumstance to where the property owners who the landscaping is supposed to protect them don't want it. But the staff, as we were looking at this landscape variant, could not find any special circumstances of any other kind of physical nature. there's there's nothing physically about this property that's any different than any other commercial property next to any residential property the the landscape buffer area was there there there is room to put it in and to be able to meet the landscape meet the required landscaping for the ordinance the staff noted that as you these property owners right now might not want that fence but as they move out and new people move in somebody might in the future say hey where's our required fence you know why didn't we get a required fence in through there so as the staff was looking at this really kind of on the fence if we can look at the rest of the pictures these are pictures that the applicant has submitted on the subject property you can see the edge of the parking lot, the retention basin, and you can see the backs of their properties and where they want to continue the trees through there. This is a picture just looking at the backyards of the adjacent properties, of the residential properties, and this is just a picture of the completed office building on the subject property. And we're back to the submitted site plan where you can, the area of the variance. This did go in front of our landscape review committee. They discussed it for, I believe, about 30 minutes and looked at several different angles. In the end, the Landscape Review Committee decided to recommend disapproval of this one because essentially there were no special circumstances to this property. The committee did recommend, however, that if the board were to grant the variance, that it also recommended that if you're going to go with just trees, that you have more trees than one tree every 40 feet, as the zoning ordinance requires. and they recommended the applicants are proposing to plant white pines. They recommended that those white pines be on center 15 to 20 feet, essentially doubling the amount of trees that could go in. Seeing that the staff could not find that this requested variance comes from any physical unique characteristics to the subject property and that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would not deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of their property. The staff did recommend disapproval of this request. Is the reason for, I'm sorry. I was just going to mention one other thing that occurred in the Landscape Review Committee is the thought that this professional development would probably be operated between 9 and 5, But if a different group was in there and they were operating after dark, this landscaping buffer is supposed to also protect these backs of these houses from the headlights of automobiles. Absolutely. Thank you for bringing that up. Is the reason for the request, because there's not room, for both the landscaping requirement and the retention basin requirement, that's what I understood? There is room to put it in, but because of the less space, their options are less. They have to put in the fence and the trees in order to meet the landscaping. There is room to do that, but they don't have enough room to put in the option where they would just put in trees and more hedges. could you put the picture back up where the retention is and could you show me where the fence would be and where the trees would be on this property the the drawn-in line that you see right here is essentially the edge of the retention basin and so the applicant would bring continue the trees down through here and then the fence would be primarily on the residential side of the trees beyond that all of that would fit on the applicant's property so the the double hedge row would be too wide and would encroach on the requirement for the retention basin is that yes in order to have the double hedge row you need at least a 15 foot landscape buffer but that 15 foot landscape buffer can be reduced down to five with the fence when this retention basin was designed it was designed knowing that they were going to reduce it down to the five and put up the fence and the landscaping so can you explain is the fence are the neighbors going to see the fence or the trees they would see they that they would see the fence with the trees coming up behind the fence naturally the neighbors don't like the idea of a fence they would prefer bushes and trees and the purpose of the buffer zone is to separate the residential side from the the building that just got built is that correct it does it's the zoning ordinance requires it from the commercial prop requires the screening from the commercial property to the residential property in this particular case if the zone to zone screening were to put in place according to the zoning ordinance there would not be any additional landscaping required for the vehicular use area that was one that was one potential concern that if the tree that if the fence was not there then the vehicular use area screening the parking lot screening wouldn't be there. And so you would have that potential of headlights shining into the backs of people's properties. And as you can see from the photo, the way it's designed, they are going to be pointing at the backs of this property from the parking lot. And the size of the retention basin is fixed? At this point, I believe it is. we've got our city engineers there and we've got an engineer at the podium for the applicant. If you've got enough money, you can engineer anything, but I would say that that retention basin was designed and fairly well fixed at this point. My thought is that if you don't have the expense of having to put in a fence, can you put in more mature trees and thicker, closer together as the landscape committee recommended, and maybe not just white pines, maybe you put another conifer and you kind of stagger them to make it thicker immediately so that you take care of the headlights and you satisfy the request of the property owners, the residential people. I would like to clarify, just in case I got this across wrong, the Landscape Review Committee did recommend disapproval of this request and to put in the required landscaping. There was the thought that if the Board did approve the variance, then it would be appropriate to have trees thicker. I just wanted to make sure I was clear in what the Landscape Review Committee did recommend. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Does anybody else have any questions for Mr. Emmons? So, Mr. Emmons, you mean that the Landscape Review Committee is not finished with this? No, they are finished. They recommended to the board that disapproval of the variance request, which would mean installing the fence and the trees per the zoning ordinance. And there was no option to the fence if we disapprove it. Is that right? In other words, if we disapprove it, they have to put up a fence. The point that I'm trying to get across was is that if you approve the requested variance, they recommended that you also consider increased density of trees in order to mitigate the lack of a fence. But I think what Mr. Glover is asking is if we go with the staff's recommendation for disapproval, they've got to build the fence and also the trees will be 40 feet apart. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Would you bring the lights up, please, and we'd like to hear from the applicant. All right. My name is Tim Morris. I'm the Chief Financial Officer of CMTA, also a partner in green development, which is the building that you're looking at. Can you put the picture of the building back up? We've been in Lexington since 1967. We're a mechanical and electrical engineering firm. We engineered this building, and Lexington's going to be proud of this building when we get the final results in. It's going to be a lead platinum building. It'll be the only lead platinum building in the city. It's fully geothermal. We put a lot of thought and care into the aesthetics of what our building looks like. And in doing so, we wanted our parking structure and the outside of our building to do the same. When we began to look at the landscape ordinance and look at what we were going to do around the side, and we began to meet with the Emory's and the Payne's. They're the two neighbors that back up to this area. I guess, can you put the other picture back where the retention basin is? We got to know to them, and in their backyards, they don't have a fence around any of their yard. And when I walked through, especially Mr. Emery, who oddly enough just was inducted into the U.K. Tennis Hall of Fame last weekend or two weekends ago, but he's a really cool guy. they're going to be left with a fence going down their yard with no adjoining fence anywhere else in their yard. The next fence over, the next yard over, which backs up to Radwin and Brown, which is a CPA firm beside us, they don't have a fence. There's not a fence all the way down the parts of the street there. and that's why the pine trees that are there now we want we thought we could put some dense level area of pine trees there to make it aesthetically pleasing to both the neighbors in the community and build something that we're all proud of how it looks in 5, 10, 15 years. We are not against putting as many trees there as we want to put there or as many trees as you would require us to put if we want to make it denser then we'll put them every four or five feet whatever whatever makes sense to build up the barrier between uh you know what we need to do but especially speaking with the um the homeowners and the the people that we're dealing with day to day um you really can't tell from this picture and i didn't have a picture of it but our parking lot that retention wall is about an eight foot retention wall and miss uh And Ms. Payne said, you know, my grandson comes over here. He loves to look at that wall. It's so pretty. Y'all did such a nice job to not just put that ugly concrete stuff in there, you know, that we have to look at. We like sitting out here and looking at your building and looking at the wall. It's pretty. It's almost, she said, you ought to tell them that that's the barrier enough, that you've already got an eight-foot barrier there between us and you. And we like to look at your building at night. We sit out here and, you know, my grandson goes over and plays, throws balls up against it. And so we just don't, we've never wanted our yard to be fenced in. And we never wanted a fence. And, you know, and I said, well, we don't really want to put a fence up. But, you know, they're telling us that that's what we have to do. And we'll do that. That's what we're told to do. We're prepared to build an eight-foot privacy fence all the way down. And just when you look at it and you're stepping on the property, it's not going to look good. because you're going to have a fence that starts at point A to point B with nothing around it. You know, nothing on either side of it for either homeowner. The other homeowner is going to have three end places in their yard that's not fenced. So it's not accomplishing anything for the homeowner. But, I mean, we want to be a good citizen. We want to be a good corporate partner with our people that it backs up to. and that's why we said you know we put a dense level of trees there I think over a period of time it would look very nice does anybody have any questions for mr. Morris mr. Morris how good of an engineer can you be if you didn't see this coming I don't want to be a hypercritical but I mean most people that build things don't have to come before us after they built a brand new building asking for a variance and they'd look at these in advance and figure it all out beforehand. No, Tommy, it was all figured out ahead of time. He's just doing this because the neighbors are requesting no fence. We knew what the rules were. We were prepared to do it. We knew what the rules were. We were prepared to put a fence up and when we started measuring it and we started working with them, they were like, we don't want a fence. So then I went down and met with Tommy and said, what's our options? And this process began. And that's because there's a limited space between that retention wall and the edge of the property. Yeah, either way we had a problem. We couldn't put a fence up with trees and a double row hedge because the double row hedges were going to be coming down into the retention basin. There just is not enough room between our property line and when the retention basin comes down. to accomplish that so we that's really what we started talking with tommy is you know what uh what do we want to do uh what do we want to do and the trees have to be on the other side of the retention basin they couldn't be on the retaining wall side for example i mean i don't know how these things work in order to meet the the zoning ordinance it could be but i i don't know if there is physically enough there is there's enough room on the uh where they're proposed i don't know if there's physically enough room next to the wall to to put in the trees without interfering with the operation of the retention basin. We did a lot of site work on this for this piece of land. Members Heritage owned it before we were actually in South Creek Park right across the drive you know quarter mile from where this building is and we bought when we bought the land from Members Heritage it you know we put almost a hundred hundred fifty thousand dollars in site improvements in the plan. And that included the retention basin and other things that we had to comply with. Okay, I've got another question. What is the precedent setting value if we approve this application? I mean, we need to ask that question because our options are approved or disapproved. So we know what's going to happen if we disapprove. What's going to happen if we approve the application? Is that a legal question or is that a... No, no, that's a very good question. In this particular case, and we did note this in the staff report, so it's part of the hearing, the staff did see that, you know, this particular business only shares a property line with two residential properties. And if I can put up the notice map that shows the property lines, property boundaries. The subject property is in the center of the circle and you can see there are two properties, 224 and 229. I'm sorry, 220 and 224 New Market Way that share a property boundary with the subject property. And 224, they share about 80% of their property line. And I believe that the applicant was stating you know one of the concerns that the property that the residential property owner had especially at 224 is that if the fence went up most of his backyard would be fenced in but not all of it so it's kind of having the um their con their concern is the the negative barrierness to that i do believe that if the board did want to find it a special a unique circumstance that both that it only shares a property boundary with two property owners and both property owners have requested the variance. That is something that is unique in this situation, but in the end, the staff could not find anything physically unique about the situation. Mr. Evans, just looking at this and listening to the applicant, and obviously if I'm one of the property owners and I don't want an eight-foot fence in my backyard, basically I think that I'm leaning toward granting the appeal because I think there are some special circumstances because you've got two property owners that are involved. And it appears to me like the applicant and the homeowners have been working together pretty well. And if they're willing to plant trees that are 10 feet apart or 15 feet apart, and they're willing to cooperate with us. And obviously, I know that the landscape review committee disapproved, but they also left a little bit of a door open that's saying that if we did want to grant this variance, that they recommended that the trees be doubled and might even increase that. And obviously, Mr. Morris is willing to do that. So I'm inclined to grant this variance and with the condition. And if we've got a little special, give me just a moment, if you would, Mr. Morse. While you're looking, let me ask a question of staff. The concern of staff, as I understand it, is not for these current owners of both properties that are principally concerned, but future owners who if if somebody on either side of this buffer zone were to sell to somebody else then who might object to some future use of the property is that is that as I understand it that's what that that is one of the staff's concerns. Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions for the applicant or from. And did you not say this building is nine to five, five days a week? Yes, we're a nine to five business. So headlights aren't going to be an issue. And we intend to be there a long time. Thank you, Ms. Morris. Thank you, Ms. White. If there's no other questions, I think we're ready to hear a motion. Ms. Chair, I move to approve the 2013-69 Green Development LLC's appeal for a variance to eliminate a portion of the required zone-to-zone screening in a professional P1 zone at 2429 members' way for the following reasons. Number one, granting the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. two, it will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity. Number three, it will not cause a hazard or a nuisance to the public. Number four, the request of variance arises from special conditions relating to the retention basin and the neighbor's requests to eliminate the fence with the following conditions. Number one, the trees shall be placed every 15 linear feet and shall be dense evergreen trees. Ms. Myers has made a motion I'll second Mr. Glover second do you agree to abide by this Mr. Morris we've got a motion and a second all in favor signify by saying aye any opposed very good thank you all very much you'll have to come out and let me give you a tour of our building thank you so much before we continue on I actually skipped over a couple items in the beginning, and we actually have the September 27th minute meeting that we need to approve, and I know that you all have had an opportunity to take a look at that. If there's any questions, any concerns, if not, we'll entertain a motion to approve the September 27th Board of Adjustment Minutes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the September 27th minutes. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? Second. Second, Ms. White. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We also have October 25 minutes, but there weren't very many minutes there, Mr. Emmons. But I guess that we have to approve those anyway. It is a record of what happened. It is a record of what happened, as you all see, that we obviously didn't have a quorum. So I would ask a motion to approve the October 25 minutes. So moved. Mr. Griggs moves. Mr. Smith seconds. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. Any opposed? Very good. I believe that we do have the first board item. Mr. Emmons, we got a copy of the 2014 meeting and filing schedule, and I know that that has been presented to the board for review, and if there's any discussion, I think that we need an official motion to adopt that if it's acceptable to the board. Yes, sir. That is correct. The 2014 schedule very much mimics the 2013 schedule, except if the board will notice, we did change the meeting time to 1.30, assuming that the board would like to continue meeting at the 1.30. Is that acceptable, Mr. Glover? 1.30 for the next year? Very good, Mr. Glover. Well, if that's the case, if everybody agrees, is there a motion to approve the 2014 meeting schedule? Ms. White moves. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Griggs, second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We'll ask now, Mr. Emmons, if the staff has any items that they'd like to present or to be heard at this time. I am not aware of any. Thank you. Okay. I know there was a House Bill 55 training opportunities, but that was on November 6th, so that has been long gone. So, very good. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. Yes, Mr. Glover. I move that pursuant to KRS 61.8101C to go into closed session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. Thank you, Mr. Glover. There is a motion to go into closed session. Is there a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? This meeting will go into special session. I'm sorry. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the road. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next week. Oh, yeah. You want me to adjourn? I've got next week's maintenance for you. Yeah, I'd say the government has a little bit of postage. So we're not going out until you've got some out. I don't know. Go out. Well, you can do that. Yeah. Well, we have to come out of session, though, because you adjourn. I believe you just kind of announced that you're coming out of building a team. Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. Meeting is adjourned. Uh... Thank you.