Music guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Welcome to the April 24, 2014 Board of Adjustment meeting. We would like to begin by recognizing Joseph M. Smith. Whereas we, the members of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Board of Adjustment and Staff, acknowledge the resignation of Mr. Joseph Smith from the Board of Adjustment in order to serve on the Lexington Fayette Urban County Planning Commission, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Smith for his valuable service to this board, having served on the board from October 2012, filling the unexpired term of Mr. Lewis Stout until March 2014, at which time he was appointed a member of the Planning Commission, and whereas the members of the Board of Adjustment and Staff feel that the service given by Mr. Smith will be greatly missed by this body, now therefore be it resolved, the members of the Board of Adjustment and the staff do hereby express our gratitude to Mr. Smith for his service to this board and the citizens of Lexington and Fayette County, and we the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Board of Adjustment and Staff do hereby wish for Mr. Smith much happiness and success in his new role as a member of the Planning Commission, and ask that he continue to give valuable guidance to members of this board, and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to him. We are happy and sad to present this to you. We will miss you. Thank you. Well, great. The first item on the agenda is approval of a minute. We have the minutes for January 31, 2014, and February 28, 2014 to be considered. Do we have any motions? madam chair before a motion i'm not sure that the january minutes were distributed to the board members we have distributed the february minutes thank you i move that we approve the february 28th minutes madam chair i'll second all those in favor please say aye aye opposed they are approved Thank you. Okay, next, before we sign the agenda, I'd like to have anybody who is planning to testify, please stand. And raise your right hand. Affirm that you are willing to tell the truth. Okay, thank you. And the other matter is if you have a cell phone or something that makes some sort of sound, please silence it. Okay, thank you. So first I'd like to ask whether there are any postponements or withdrawals of items that are on the agenda. Okay. All right. There being none of those, I will go through, identify the items, and ask whether there's anybody here, the applicants here, anybody in opposition. So first, V2014-18 Mitchell Construction Management. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? Okay, we'll move on that later. V 2014-19 Peter Tate is the applicant here. Okay, yes. All right. And is there anyone here in opposition? Okay, next item, V 2014-22 Melissa Ball. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? Next item, V2014-23 Solomon Van Meter. Is the applicant here? Gary A. Huff, V2014-24. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? V-2014-25, Suzanne Froelich. Is the applicant here? Okay. Is anyone here in opposition? Okay, thank you. V-2014-26, J&R Construction. Is the applicant here? I'm not with J&R Construction, but I'm the homeowners for whom they're doing. Okay, great. Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition? V-2014-27, Big Blue Rentals, LLC. Is the applicant here? Is anyone here in opposition? V-2014-28, Dwayne White is the applicant here. Madam Chair, Mr. White did call into the office and, oh, I think he just walked into the, he just walked into the thing. He was going to be a few minutes late. Okay, great. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition? V-2014-29, Patrick B. and Lisa A. Smith. Are the applicants here? Is anyone here in opposition? Okay. C-2014-12, Fotius Moratarius. Is anyone here in opposition? C-2014 Bill Mead is the applicant here. Is anyone here in opposition? C-2014-15 Tim Huber Ramsey Development is the applicant here. Is there anyone here in opposition? C-2014-21 Solar Eclipse LLC. Is the applicant here? Is there anyone here in opposition? Madam Chair, there were two applicants not here when you went through the agenda. We will step outside and try and contact those two applicants. Should I go ahead with the first matter, or do you want to? I believe that was one of the applicants not here. It's up to the board's discretion, but we'd be glad to try and contact that applicant if you wish. Okay. Do you want to go ahead and do that, and I'll just start with that. Okay, so what I will do now is I will go in the order where the applicant is here, and the staff recommends approval, and there is no opposition. After that, we'll go with things in which there's opposition. For those of you who have opposition, if you would like to talk to the applicants and see if you can discuss what your concerns are, please feel free to leave right now to do that. So the first matter we will hear is V2014-19 Peter Tate's appeal for variances to reduce the required side yard from 18 inches to 6 inches in the required rear yard from 20 feet to 8 feet in order to build an addition on the rear of a detached accessory structure in a high-density apartment historic overlay zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area at 101 Hampton Court. Mr. Tate. Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself. Peter Tate's a friend of mine. So please state your name for the record. Peter Tate. Have you read the staff's report? Yes. Do you understand the staff's report? Yes. Are you willing to abide by the two conditions set forth in the report? Yes, I am. Okay. Board, members of the board, do you have any questions? Staff? No? Okay. No comments. Anyone wants to make a motion? Madam Chairman, I move that the board approve V2014-19 Peter Tate's appeal for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 18 inches to 6 inches and the required rear yard from 20 feet to 8 feet in order to build an addition on the rear of a detached accessory structure garage in a high-density apartment R4 historic overlay H1 zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area at 101 Hampton Court for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions noted in the agenda. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you. Okay. Next, I'd like to call V2014-22 Melissa Ball. Would you please state your name for the record? Melissa Ball. The staff has recommended approval subject to due conditions. Have you read the staff's report? I have. Do you have any questions about it? I do not. And are you willing to abide by their conditions? I am. Okay. Staff? I have had no further comment. Board, any questions? Comments? Madam Chair, I move to approve V2014-22 Melissa Ball's appeal for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 300 feet to 140 feet in order to replace an existing tenant home in the agricultural AR zone at 5837. Jack's Creek Pike for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to conditions outlined by staff. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion passes. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, next I'd like to call V2014-24, Gary A. Huff. Would you please state your name for the record? Gary Huff. And have you read the staff's report? I have. Do you have any questions about it? I do not. And are you willing to abide by the three conditions that they have recommended? Yes, I am. Okay. Are there any questions or comments from the board or staff? No? Okay. Motion? Madam Chair, I move that we approve V2014-24 Gary Huff's appeal for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 10 feet to 8 feet in order to construct a deck in a two-family residential zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area at 735 West High Street, based on the staff's recommendation of approval and subject to their three conditions. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? passes good luck thank you okay the next item on the agenda v2025 suzanne frolic would you please state your name for the record and tell me how to say it suzanne frolic Okay. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Have you had the chance to read the report? Yes, I have. And are you willing to abide by the conditions they suggested? Yes, I am. Okay. Do you have any questions? No. No. Okay. Any questions? Madam Chairman, I vote I move to approve the 2014-25 Suzanne Froelich's appeal for our variance to reduce the required side yard from three feet to one and a half feet in order to allow a heat pump to be located in the side yard in a single family residential zone at 4520 Windsor Way as recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions as recommended by staff. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Good luck. Thank you. Okay. The next item on the agenda is V2014-26 J&R Construction. The homeowners like to come forward. Okay. Please state your name for the record. James Matthews. Nancy Cristiano. And the staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Have you read the report? Yes. Any questions about the report? No. Are you willing to abide by the conditions they've recommended? We are. Okay. Are there any questions, comments? Okay. I'd like to entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve V-2014-26 J&R Constructions' appeals appeal for variances to reduce a variance to reduce the required side yard from 10 feet to three inches from 10 feet three inches to five feet four inches in order to construct an addition to an existing residence in a single family residential zone at 298 lafayette parkway for reasons recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff i'll second All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Thanks for your consideration. Thank you all. The next item on the agenda is V2014-27, Big Blue Rentals, LLC. Madam Chair, as the applicant approaches, the staff did receive one email on this one requesting a postponement postponement without any reason why they wanted the postponement from Ms. Catherine Walton. But I am aware that the applicant and Ms. Walton had spoken last night prior to this meeting, and I believe he can let you know more of how their conversation went. But for the record, I did need to make sure I got this letter in. Okay, thank you. Okay, you want to please state your name for the record? Matt Jones. Okay. The staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Have you read the report? Yes, I have. Do you have any questions? No. Are you willing to abide by the conditions? And do you want to tell us about your conversation? I just got a call out of the blue when I'm from London, so I was driving up here, and Kathy and her daughter own the buildings. Her grandfather passed, or their dad passed it to them. Their nephew is the one who manages, is there day-to-day. There was another variance a few weeks back to basically tear down a house and build a six-unit, one-bedded apartment building on that lot. And she was concerned about that because the water runoff. And so she got mixed up because my property is the next one down the street. And she thought that was that one. So I got a call from her son out of the blue apologizing for any confusion in her his aunt might have created. And he said they have no objection to that. Okay, great. Are there any questions, comments? Madam Chairman, I move that we approve V2014-27 Big Blue Rentals LLC appeals for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 9 feet in order to gain two additional parking spaces for a multifamily dwelling in a high-rise apartment R5 zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area. located at 145 Transcript Avenue for the reasons stated by staff in its report and subject to the three conditions recommended by staff. Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Good luck. Thank you, ma'am. Okay, the next item on the agenda is V2014-28, DeJuan White. Would you please come forward? Madam Chair, as he's coming to the podium, the staff would like to point out to the board that the staff recommended approval of most of the variants that was requested by Mr. White. We are recommending the request was from 30 feet to 3 feet, and the staff is recommending approval of 30 feet to 5 feet. Okay, thank you. Would you please state your name for the record? DeJuan White. And the staff has recommended mostly approval with the changes that he just explained. Have you read the report? Yes, ma'am. I'm reading it now, and it says 10 feet. I really wanted 11 feet so that my roof edge could hang over 11 and my post could set back at 10. I only wanted one more foot. Okay. So you started out where you wanted three feet. It's the setback from the street. I'm technically just wanting to be 11 foot to the front roof edge. I can set my post at 10 feet. So are you willing to accept the condition that they have recommended them? That's the amended to allow a 10 foot front porch? Is there any way I could get 11 to the front edge of the roof line and then set my post back at 10? The board can certainly approve that. I think you would need to change, obviously, the approval on the very first line, and then the very first condition, the second line of that, you'd also need to change to 11 feet if the board were inclined. These findings would work for either variance. Could I ask the staff a question? In your staff report in the last paragraph before the recommendation, you say that the applicant would be willing to accept an 8-foot porch. Is that, I'm a little confused about whether we've got 11 feet or 10 feet or actually 8 feet. That was written based off of a conversation that I had with Mr. White early on in the process. I was, at the time I was writing the staff report, I was thinking back to that early conversation between Mr. White and I as he was sitting in my office. So I hope that doesn't change the board one way or the other. But the setback and the variance is written in terms of a setback from the right-of-way. And Mr. White is, of course, concerned about how deep his porch can be coming out from his house. And that's the reason why there are so many numbers being pushed around here. The staff recommendation with a five-foot variance, his house is essentially 15 feet back from the right-of-way, and a five-foot variance would allow a 10-foot deep porch. Mr. White is asking for an 11-foot deep porch, which would require a variance to the original three feet that was requested. Is the roof overhang, that's where we're really measuring from, correct? That is where we would measure from in the strictest sense. Thank you. So is the variance that the applicant is requesting, do you still want the variance to be from 30 feet to 3 feet? Is that right, or do we want it to be 4 feet? That's where I'm confused. I'm fine at 11 foot. But, you know, it's not really I'm just concerned to just get the overhang. I wanted to try to make it 10 foot, and then the one foot would be, of course, the overhang. I can make it six inches. I can make it whatever. I was just trying to keep 10-foot lumber is what I was trying to do. It sounds like it's neither five nor three but four. Is that right? I think four feet of a variance to four feet will allow the applicant to build what he wants to build. And I think we can make it clear that that would allow an 11-foot deep porch. Mr. White, do you understand what was just said? The measurement you're concerned about is from your house to the end of your proposed porch. Yes, sir. What the regulations are concerned about, the restrictions are from the street to the edge of your proposed, the farthest reach of your porch. Yes, sir. It's the same thing, but it's just measured from a different distance. Okay. And it sounds like if we give you a four-foot variance, then that will satisfy your request for an 11-foot distance from your house. Yes, sir. Is that all right with you? Yes, sir. The 11 feet being 10 feet of porch and one foot of overhead. Do you understand that? Yes, ma'am. Okay. We all understand that. Okay. And staff here, you don't think there's a significant difference between the three and four? We don't. These findings will work. A through E work for a five-foot variance or a four-foot variance. If you like, we can put the two changes I mentioned on the overhead if you'd like to see those. Is that, I guess the board would like to see those proposed changes. Thank you. I'm ready for a motion. Madam Chair, I move that we approve V-2014-28. Dwan's White's appeal for variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 4 feet in order to construct a front porch in a two-family residential zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area at 466 Roosevelt Boulevard, based on the staff's recommendation, and subject to the two conditions where the first condition is modified to allow an 11-foot deep front porch, and that is not the porch size but the total distance to the outside edge of your roof overhang. Thanks, sir. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, next I'd like to call V2014-29, Patrick B and Lisa A Smith. Please state your name for the record. Patrick B. Smith. Okay. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Have you had a chance to read the report? Yes. And are you willing to abide by the conditions? Yes. Okay. Do you have any questions? No. Okay. Staff, board, any questions or comments? I'm willing to entertain motion. Madam Chair, I move to approve the 2014-29 Patrick B. and Lisa A. Smith's appeal for variances to, one, reduce the required front yard along Chennault Road from 30 feet to 15 feet in order to build an in-ground pool, and secondly, to increase the maximum height of a fence in the front yard from 4 feet to 6 feet in a single-family residential neighborhood design overlay zone at 138 Chennault Road for reasons recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Good luck. Thank you. Okay, next slide I'd like to call C-2014-12, Fotios Moritis. Please state your name for the record. Fotios Moritis. Okay. The staff has recommended approval subject to nine conditions. Have you had a chance to read the report? And are you willing to abide by the conditions? Yes. Okay. Any questions or comments? Okay, and there were a number of changes. There was a supplemental report. Have you had a chance to look at that? Yes. Okay. Ready? Ready? Madam Chair, I move to approve C-2014-12 Fotis Morais' appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a pawn shop, including vehicles, in a highway service business B-3 zone at 1536 North Limestone, as recommended by the staff and subject to the conditions as recommended by staff. Second. Yeah, I know, so I'll skip that. Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay. Thank you. Good luck. Okay. Next, I'd like to call C2014-15 Tim Huber Ramsey Development. Is the applicant here? All right. We'll go back to the beginning. V2014-18 Mitchell Construction Management. Has the applicant arrived? Okay. Please state your name for the record. Mike Mitchell. Okay. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Have you read the report? Yes. Are you willing to abide by the conditions? Yes, ma'am. And do you have any questions? No. Okay. Any questions or comments on V2014-18? Okay. I'm willing to... Chair, I move that we approve the 2014-18 Mitchell Construction Management's appeal for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 17.5 feet to 10.5 feet in order to expand a detached garage in a high-density apartment zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area at 125 East 4th Street, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the two conditions. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Wait. Oh. The staff just realized that on the agenda, listed on the agenda is the old, there is a second side yard variance that was on the revised staff report that is in your packet. It's the first staff report in your notebook. There is a revised staff report. There are two side yards that are being requested. Staff is recommending approval of both. The first side yard is from 17.5 feet to 10.5 feet, and there is also a second side yard to reduce from 1.5 feet to 0 feet in order to expand the detached garage. The staff is recommending approval of both side yard variances for the reasons in our revised staff report and would recommend approval subject to the conditions that are in the revised staff report. My apologies for the typographical error on the agenda. They were so close, it just did not get caught. My apologies for missing it as well. I'd like to modify my motion, if it's okay with the board, to include that second variance, to include the required side yard on the northern side of the property from one and a half feet to zero feet in order to expand said garage, as explained in the revised staff report. Jimmy, was that just a typo? It was. this during the when this was first applied for it only included the first side yard variance. It was discovered during the writing of the staff report that the second variance was needed. So the staff had originally recommended postponement. So the reasons listed for approval and the conditions for approval that are listed on the agenda are correct from the revised staff report, but the heading is what got missed, and my apologies for that. I'll second. Okay, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion approved. Okay, the next item on the agenda then would be V2014-23 Solomon Van Meter. Is the applicant here, or do we have information? Madam Chairman, the applicant is not here. I was able to speak with Mr. Van Meter by phone. He did receive the agenda and the staff report and understood that staff was recommending postponement. He and his architect had hoped to get some revised information to the staff this week since receiving the report, but were unable to do so. He did tell me over the phone that he was fine with a one-month postponement, and my expectation is that the staff will receive revised information on this application in the next month. I ask to apologize for not being present. Do you need a motion? Madam Chair, I move we postpone V-2014-23 because of the explanation of staff. Second. And this will be postponement for one month? Yes. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Thank you. Okay, the next item on the agenda is C-2014-14 Bill Mead. Is the applicant here? Okay. Okay, the staff has recommended postponement. Is that the one that was changed? Yes. Okay. Okay, they still recommend postponement. All right, so if you want to go ahead and assume you're not interested in postponing. We had a hearing last month on this matter, and at the last hearing, the staff had a recommendation that, based on the evidence, you could go one way or the other. And we had a very full discussion about that. We were asked to come back because there were some issues about parking and the business plan, and we are ready to continue that discussion today. Okay. And the staff may want to present something before we get started. Okay. I'm not quite sure what to do since I wasn't here last month and this was a continued matter. If I should turn this over to somebody else or? not participate well you're chairing the meeting i understand you may just want to continue to do that but i don't know if you um feel like you have enough information to vote or not okay so i can it's okay to go ahead and share and then okay all right and we have information that we can uh put in that it might be duplicative for the other members that were there but we have information we can fully supplant the record that we had before okay thank you the staff wants to begin be glad to madam chair thank you the staff has received some revised information from the applicant I believe that this was forwarded to the board last week this information includes a revised site plan I have a rendered copy that I'll put on the overhead in just a moment also we've received a revised justification and revised scope of activity by the applicant I believe that was stamped and dated and forwarded to the board as well the staff has not revised our staff report and I'll explain that in just a moment Last month we showed a number of photographs of the entrance to the property at Old Richmond Road, which is in fairly close proximity to the bridge over the Kentucky River that leads to Madison County. And on their site plan, you can see where that is in the lower left corner of the drawing. The revisions that we have reviewed in the past month, since you continued this at your last meeting in March, are highlighted here in orange and are labeled, and we've drawn arrows to kind of indicate where the labels and the changes are. Beginning on the right side of the drawing, there are four new gravel parking spaces now proposed at the end of the driveway in close proximity to their barn, which is the largest structure on the property. And those would be behind the barn. And from my recollection of your meeting last month, would be primarily dedicated for employees on the premises. The existing parking spaces that were shown last month here are still on part of on the plan. Those are not changed. But almost everything from that point forward down the driveway are new improvements. that are proposed by the applicant. There's a circular drop-off area that is highlighted, and in addition, 16 parking spaces that are parallel to the driveway that are labeled as permeable pavers. And so there would be now a total of about 28 parking spaces in close proximity to the house and the other improvements on the property. The staff did not revise our staff report, primarily because the text amendment is still pending, reviewed by the Planning Commission. But you may recall last month that we have provided you with some findings, knowing that the applicant may not agree to a postponement to have their application line up with this other process that is ongoing. What we have done is the changes that have occurred to these findings, we've highlighted in gray, and then we've either crossed out or underlined the new language from what we presented to the board last month. So we take our responsibility seriously to you all to provide you with good recommendations, and should there not be a postponement of this, primarily with the applicant's consent, so that it would fall under the text amendment process that's ongoing, we would provide these findings just for your consideration based on whatever new information you may hear today. And as always, we'll be glad to answer questions later in your meeting after you hear this other information. Thank you. I'm interested in what text amendment has been proposed that might affect this application. Generally, recreation uses have been studied now for about two and a half years locally, and there is a broad-reaching text amendment that has been initiated. Pardon me, it has not yet been scheduled for hearing, but there has been considerable work done on it since last summer, and there have been a number of reviews by the Planning Commission on it. It primarily will provide a lot more specificity to a class of conditional uses that are called outdoor and indoor recreational uses. That is a broad term that exists in many of our existing zones, and it results from the work of about a nine-month effort of a citizens committee appointed by the vice mayor to further list and place into the zoning ordinance a number of those types of recreational uses. There may be other parking and use restrictions associated with those. It's still very early in the planning commission's process. So if we denied this application today and the text amendment passed, he would not need to get a conditional use, or he would? I'm not sure that he would not need a conditional use for this. What the likely result would be would be after the one-year waiting period under your bylaws for a new application. It is quite possible then that there would be a new set of requirements perhaps for this class of conditional use that they might have to fall under. Like what? For instance, parking ratios or limitations on outdoor parts of their application. I'm trying to think of all of the, the text amendment is very lengthy and I'm trying to think of the individual parts of that. But that's still part of the unknown with the text amendment is just what conditions might be tied to these types of uses. And that's what would happen if we disapproved his application. If we approve his application, then he would be subject simply to the conditions that are in the alternate action number two approval. I think that's on this sheet that we've been given if we adopt that. Is that right? And if we disapproved it now and there's a zone change, would there still be a requirement to wait a full year? Or would it be considered a different application since there's a different zone? That's a good question. We have not talked about the possibility of a zone change with the applicant. I don't know if they've considered that or not, but a very good question. I'm concerned. Bill, what are the particular concerns? Are they parking, emergency services, utilities, facilities? What in particular strikes you with this application? Well, I think it's a broader question than just with this application. I think the staff is reviewing all of these uses that are falling under this ordinance revision in this type of fashion. So it's mostly about scope of those and also the uncertainty of what the final ordinance may end up as. There have not been the necessary public hearings yet at the Planning Commission. It's very possible that the current draft may be revised even further than it already has. It's that unknown. Are you talking primarily about the uses in this application that are not currently found in the AR zone or are very rarely found in the air zone, like weddings and receptions and class reunions and things that are intense uses that are not agricultural related. Right. They're more recreational than agricultural. That's right. And so this would be precedent setting if it was approved? It's possible that they would be. I think we all know that the text amendment is under review and on its way. So if it were precedential, how long is another unknown? Thank you. If we approved it, would the conditional use run with the applicant or with the land? Well, that probably depends on condition number nine in the draft that we've given you. That is a change from what we provided to you last month. The staff does understand that the petitioner is willing to restrict it just to their activity. That's our understanding. And that would make the difference. I have a question for legal counsel. Do you have any thoughts on how we can or cannot be bound by the fact that there's a pending zone change? It's not a zone change. It's a text amendment which will more likely clarify uses in the AR zone for recreational purposes. Because of the timing of it, I know there's a great push and a great desire to have these types of things put on hold until that text amendment is moved forward and adopted. However, I don't think that can be a basis for not approving something because it's not the law. The law today is what is in our ordinance, and that's what they've applied under. You know, the timing on that, we can't really tell you for sure. It was studied at length in a long series of meetings under the Vice Mayor's Task Force. It went to the council as a report out of that task force group. The council heard that report. The council referred it back to planning without initiating the text amendment, so there's no time limit. the planning commission has it at this point they're working through it in their work sessions and they're hoping to get it to a public hearing fairly soon but once they do that it'll have to be recommended to the council who may do as they wish with it refer it to committee or adopt it so it's difficult to tell you what kind of time frame we're talking about but it is not it's a proposal that may or may not be changed as it moves through the process so it is not binding at this time which is causing I know some heartburn for some folks but that's just the way the law is so. How long is I'm sorry, how long has the text amendment been under consideration by the government? The planning commission first had a work session review of the text amendment, I believe it was October of last fall. And it may have been, I believe it was October. They did not have work sessions in November and December, but they have reviewed it every month of this year at their work sessions. So if Mr. Mead had applied for this conditional use a year ago, we wouldn't be having, this text amendment would not be in the picture and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Is that right? I'm not sure that's the case. The staff may have made the same recommendation then a year ago as we have today. It would have been in the vice mayor's task force at that point, huh? Well, I guess my point is I hate to have – I don't like the idea of having somebody's application postponed because the government might come up with some condition or restriction or something like that. I think he's, I mean, I think his application, we voted up or down based upon what the law is, not what the law might become or such. I mean, I don't think that's fair to the applicant or anybody else. I mean, it may, I mean, and his application may fail, but I think he's entitled to go forward with it. and not be postponed just on the fact that something might be passed that might apply to property like his in the future. I don't think that's fair at all. And that's why we provided you with findings for either one, knowing that whether or not you postpone it is strictly up to the applicant's agreement on that. The staff knows that we do not have the ability to postpone and that the board doesn't without their consent as well. I think that I agree with Tommy that this ought to be voted up or down based on the law today and whether the facilities are adequate for these crowds and whether they're agricultural uses or not. So as you know, I wasn't here last month. Did you consider the substance of this last month as well? That is, you presented the substance. Okay. Okay, so I think clearly we're not going to postpone based on the pending proposal, since it's not... Our understanding, the petitioner is not in agreement with the postponement. Right, okay. All right, and it sounds like a majority of the board is also not interested in postponing based on a pending proposal. Okay, so I guess at this point, then, the question is really the public facilities and services, the parking question. what you had raised earlier. And I want to ask questions about that as well. His proposed plan for parking was across the street from his property, which has plenty of parking, and that he's going to provide buses to take people up into the depths of his property for these weddings and receptions and such and was that a part of the objection of staff it was it was we planned that in our report to you a month ago and has the modification on the overhead affected your recommendation about that it is not we think that there's still some possibility that that parking will be used. In talking with the applicants' representatives, we believe that instead of using the parking across the street, that perhaps this area down the hill would be more likely used. Apparently it has been used in the past. It's not paved. There's no gravel there. But our expectation just with dialogue with them in the past month is that the focus is now shifting to use what you're seeing on the overhand highlighted, plus overflow parking being down the hill in this location where the pin is. So is that what you're referring to as the possible 65-foot slope to reach the facility? It is. And as you can see from our revised findings, we've taken out the references to being across the highway. Are there any other questions for the staff? Do you have any other? Okay. No, but thank you. we're available for other questions that may come up okay thank you good afternoon i'm chris westover i'm the attorney for the applicants bill and nancy mead they're both here today also with me is um kevin warner with carmen and associates there was an extensive hearing uh last week and there were were two main questions that came out of that. One was the parking issue. And just as preface, what we tried to do initially when we suggested parking across the street in the B3 lot is as part of this recreational text amendment, there was talk among the staff and the committee to have these old B3 parcels in the rural service area used for something that would conjoined with an agricultural use so there would be minimal impact on the ar zone property so we thought that it would be appropriate to say well there is the the bar they are riptized and that we could use parking there well we are we are not going to do that all the parking will be on our site and um we have a site plan that that we will submit later to show you that so there will be no parking across the street there's not going to be any worry about anybody scammering up a hill or walking across the street there will be no that won't happen so all of our parking will be entirely on this on this slot we have been very busy in this last month we have met with the planning staff we've met with traffic engineering and there was one letter and it was not a letter of objection but it was a letter from the neighborhood asking questions about more information for this proposal and since then mr mead has met on i think maybe more than one occasion with that neighbor and we are here today to be able to tell you that we are able to answer the questions not just pertaining to the parking and the site plan but also to the the narrative the business plan that one of the the board members was was trying to figure out what exactly uh are we are we doing here um let me hand out the narrative Ms. Westover, who was the person who wrote a letter of concern? Was she writing personally, or is, I think she's the president of the Neighborhood Association. Right, right. I didn't want to mention her. But it wasn't an individual. It was the Neighborhood Association then that was concerned. Thank you. And the letter that was written, actually it was an email, stated there weren't objections at this stage, but that the writer of the email needed more information to make an assessment of just where this matter stood. And so Mr. Mead has met with her and also in a desire to address the board's legitimate concerns about just what is this. I have to say that this is primarily a botanical gardens. It is a unique property in Fayette County. The Meads have put more than 30 years of their life into it. They didn't just go out and buy some property to speculate and talk about something they were going to do in the future. They have taken over 30 years of their life, their children's lives, to improve this property. I'll have the meets come up here in a second to talk about it. But here's the narrative that I've handed out, and it specifies that there will not be large crowds. At the most, it would be 100 people. But all of this is accessory and subordinate to the main use, the gardens themselves. Last month, I tried to show a video of what the place looked like, and there were some technical issues. I'm going to hand out, and I think that Randy can also show this on the Elmo. And hopefully if this comes on, you can see what is already there, that they have done this for their own personal enjoyment. That's not it. Oh, yeah. Now it is. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I love you. Thank you. Thank you. i wanted to show you that to make the point that this has been a work in progress for years these people are not coming to you saying well if this is approved we're going to do these plantings and this is what we're going to do they have installed these mainly using their own hands to do that, and they have maintained it, and it is as much a part of them as a family member is a part of them. And if you look on the narrative here, this is really what they're trying to do. They mainly want to use this as a showcase for these very unique grounds. It's right there on the banks of the of the kentucky river and the main purpose is to preserve and protect this very unique spot there are some accessory kinds of uses that would be contemplated for example this would be a good spot if um for book clubs for uh if somebody wanted to do open air yoga you know that sort of thing, and a limited number, and I mean a limited number of events, such as a wedding or some such event like that. But as the narrative shows, the number of people would be limited, and the number of occasions would be limited. Because if you paid attention to the actual video, you see that many of these paths are grass. And by necessity, you can't have hordes of people scrambling all over it because it would ruin the very beauty that people are coming there for. So by design, this is intended to be a very low-impact type of use. And in the narrative, it also mentions that there will be no sales of food, no merchandising. If somebody wants to have food brought in, then under some circumstances, that's okay. No outdoor music, no amplified music. There would be none of that. The point of that would be to enjoy this really unique, beautiful spot. There is no other like it in Fayette County. uh the the needs after this hearing uh last month engaged in a dialogue with the representative from the neighborhood association and um those questions concerned well you know how big what kind of use you know that sort of thing there were a few inaccuracies and mr mead met with uh the this neighborhood representative and i will have him come up here in a second but i i think that their questions were were resolved and i think it's significant that in this part of the community there and with the the use that's proposed there was one letter raising questions no letters of objection. I don't think there's anybody here today objecting, at least when the docket was called, when this is an area with a very vigilant neighborhood, a very vigilant neighborhood association that is strongly protective of its rural community, yet this is being proposed, and there are no objections to this. It is a very low-impact use that would allow the preservation of this very extraordinary property. The Meads are, they've done this for over 30 years, they're getting older, and it takes a lot of work and a lot of expense to maintain something like this. The purpose of this application is to allow them to have some money coming in so that they can maintain this in the way that they have loved it and maintained it for all of these years. There was some discussion about the text amendment, and I'm glad that was brought up because I did a timeline. for the the text amendment the recreational use text amendment in the agricultural zones was first initiated by vice mayor gordon at a work group in february of 2012 over two years ago the work group met over 20 times it finished a little less than one year ago they sent the report to the council the council then sent the report to the planning commission um the planning commission has had this report since fall they've had many discussions about it it's a very important issue but so far the planning commission has never scheduled a hearing on it i don't know when they will they i mean that's for them to determine but it's important important to understand that there's no timeline they could take two weeks they could take six months they could take two years it there's no restriction on that time then when they act on it they can approve it they can disapprove it they can amend it they can do all kinds of things to it that don't have anything to do with this particular application. That's before it gets to the council. Then when it gets to the council, the council has the same prerogative. There's no timeline for the council to act on it. They can vote it up, vote it down, hold a public hearing, put it in a committee, and sometimes it's possible to put something in a committee which in effect kills it because it never has to come out and see the light of day. This is very different from a zone change procedure. So we're very concerned that our application is held up on the possibility, number one, that there will be a text amendment drafted and enacted, and number two, that if it is, that it might affect some of the uses or parking on this property. if Mr. Mead and Mrs. Mead said, well, the work group is initiated now in February of 2012, and now it is April of 2014, and they're still here. And in fact, to your point, there is a case on that Conley versus the City of Anchorage that advises groups that the way to judge a pending application is by the law in effect at the time. That's the only fair way because we don't have crystal balls. We cannot predict what the Planning Commission and ultimately the council is going to do. i would like to ask mr mead to come out here come up here and talk a little bit about his meetings with the neighborhood representative I'm Bill Mead. We met the weekend before last. They gave me their concerns. I addressed them. I don't really know what to say here. I can answer specific questions. I did answer their specific questions that they put in the email that was presented to the commission last month. They seem to be satisfied with my answers, and that's about all I can tell you, but I'll be glad to answer any specific questions you might have for me. I've been off and on associated with that neighborhood association for a long time myself because of being down there. And I have requested last year that you quit sending me emails for some reason. Please continue to do that. Um, we are, there's nobody anymore concerned with that corridor than I am. I don't, do I live there full time? No, I keep that house down there. I've been on that river at that area since I was five years old, which is longer than I want to admit. But, uh, I've put my money where my mouth is. I've shown how I'm trying to keep that place up and the area itself. And Gloria Martin helped me get some adjoining land that we've cleaned up. And I'm very passionate about my property and about the river in general. And please throw any questions you'd like at me. I welcome anything. Mr. Mead, that's truly a labor of love. It's beautiful. Thank you. And I applaud you for that. It's wonderful. I just, you, in your business plan, you talk about a small number of events for up to 100 people. And I know that there are concerns about the foot traffic on the grass and on the paths. So do you anticipate a couple of large events per month, or do you have any thoughts in mind of how you're going to control that, the large events? In all honesty, I'm trying to hold the door open. Staff told me in a meeting, don't back yourself into a corner now. I'd love to have 20 big events during the year that I could control. Do I expect that? Honest to God, I don't. What I'm looking for is to make that thing self-sustaining because I can't put the hours into it. My wife and I, we can't do it anymore. So I need to hire people to help do it. I'm saying 20 a year. Boy, in three years to get to that point, do I really expect it to happen in common sense terms? No. Will I hold the door open for it? I'd like to. But I don't have a problem reducing it either. But I don't want to back myself into a corner. And I have agreed that if we are granted permission to do this, it's good for a year. We'll be glad to come back and review this next year. And if I've done something wrong, take it away from me. I don't have a problem with that. I don't mind restricting it to me and my family. And if it's ever sold, we give it up. It's gone. I'm sincere about what I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes, and we're just honestly laying the thing out there. It was asked if this was a commercial venture. In the strictest sense of the term, it is because I would be accepting money for some of it. I've offered a lot of it at no cost, as I've done over the years. when I was approached about a couple of weddings and they would be willing to pay. I thought, wow, this can help. I got my mulch bill this morning for $4,600 that I did last week. These things are hurting me now. The economy has not been good for my construction business in the last few years. But I'm not poor-mouthing either. Don't get me wrong there. I'm willing to go reasonable limits and show my sincerity. I don't mind coming back here and slap me, take it away from me if that's the case. I don't have a problem with that. I'd like to say that generally it seems nice. What makes me uncomfortable here is that the first recommended condition was it shall be established and operated in accordance with the submitted site plan and application. And I assume the application then refers to this. This is awfully vague, and it just says it assumes the upper limit for major events, up to 100 people, would be 20 events. But then it goes on at the first part and says, well, we might need to make changes. So I don't see here anything that limits it, which means it would be consistent, actually, to have 200 or 250 people 40 times a year, which I assume that's not what you want. And so what makes me uncomfortable, the way it's currently written, is there's just too much room. I'm not sure of what we're talking about. I think what the point is that this is the business plan, this is your vision, but it's not a specific condition that says there shall be no more than X number of people. Oh, put it in there. I don't care. I don't have a problem with that. Because, you know, the way I'm looking at this, there just aren't any conditions at all. So, you know, if we're going to approve it, I think we need to make some more precise limitations. I don't have any problem at all with that. In my mind, I was telling you this is what I was going to do. And if it didn't come out right, I'm telling you before God and the recorder. So, for example, the small residence that was there, you're saying that it would only ever be used for a bride getting ready, a bride and groom getting ready, as opposed to you're not planning to have people stay there overnight or anything like that? No, no, that's my house. I've got clothes and things in there, but a bride has to have a private bathroom and be able to get ready if that's the case. So I just would feel more comfortable if we had conditions that were more precise about what can and cannot be done. There's no problem there. Thank you. Questions? Are there any other comments or questions? No, thanks. I'd like to hear the staff talk about the precedent-setting issues that are here. It's very worrisome to me to have these large non-agricultural commercial uses that have been held at bay in the rural part of Fayette County up until now. And I'm also worried about specifics, the number of people, the amplified music. I think there was going to be amplified music in the barn, but not outside. I just, there's not anything that really locks this use in so that it's not a disturbance to the area. And that Mr. Mead doesn't live there, I think that is of some importance. I think the people that are living there are the ones that are affected. So anyway, the precedent setting, if you could just speak a little bit to that. Certainly. Much of what was discussed during the 20-plus meetings of the task force were topics related to just what you've mentioned. And before that, the board even had a couple of cases that were associated with wineries and perhaps more specifically the ancillary uses that were proposed as part of wineries for things like wedding events and social events and fundraisers and things of that nature. All of that has kind of been the background to why the text amendment process has been reviewed, why it has taken a while to look at that, and why many people that have been involved with that think there's a need for more specificity. In terms of precedent, the period of time really that this could perhaps be precedential would be the time between the present and the ultimate adoption of the text amendment. I think once the text amendment is adopted, there would be a new set of regulations that would clearly impact any use like this that may come thereafter. But, Bill, it's not a foregone conclusion that this type of activity will be allowable conditional use in the AR zone. That's what the debate's all about. That's correct. And it's possible that a zone change rather than a conditional use permit might be necessary for this type. It's still a little early for that. But the reason there aren't a lot of activities like this in the AR zone is because it's generally been accepted that these are not agricultural uses and not appropriate in the AR zone. Is that correct? Right. A lot of the discussion has been over whether these activities are commercial in nature or if they are more philanthropic. and that seems to have been, at least for the task force and for some of the planning commission discussions, a very important distinction. Thank you. If we granted this application, could we do so, would it be appropriate to grant the use for a particular period of time, one or two years or something like that, and have it expire on its own terms after a particular period of time, subject to annual re-approval or something like that. Has that ever been done before? That's an excellent question, Mr. Glover. I can't recall that the board has done that. It's obviously common for the board to set six-month or annual reviews of a use, even multiple times. But that's usually with the presumption that the conditional use will remain or continue or stay attached to the property. And what I'm asking is a little bit different. It is. It is. And I recognize exactly what you're asking. I might defer to Ms. Jones on that. I cannot, in my experience, remember a time the board has done that. I'm not sure whether you can or not. much more often than not the board has set a time limit of review in 12 months review in six months always knowing that should there ever be an allegation that the conditions are not being met you could at any time schedule a revocation hearing but as to whether the board could approve it for a set period of time i might need to defer to miss jones on on that question So I have another question on this. So the ordinance, then what they're asking for is a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor recreational facility. Is there any definition, I don't see a definition in here of an outdoor recreational facility. That is not currently defined in our ordinance. That is part of the text amendment package, is that and many other new definitions that would be inserted into the ordinance. Because to me, a wedding is not a recreational activity. So I can see that yoga outside would be an outdoor recreational activity, but weddings hopefully are fun, but not recreation. If you look at just the standard definition in a dictionary of recreation, and I've got one here. it is refreshment of health or spirits by relaxation or enjoyment that's your dictionary definition but i need to emphasize this is not a place for weddings this is a botanical garden and anytime there is one use there are subsidiary uses that are possible to do and we strongly believe that this particular gardens is so unique, so unusual. That is the main interest that among the uses that are being proposed are art classes, photography classes, landscapers can have a seminar on, you know, flora and fauna and the bluegrass, that sort of thing. It's to promote this wonderful and unique gardens. And sometimes people might want to use it for a wedding or might want to use it for a neighborhood meeting. It just depends on how that's characterized. And Mr. Mead has said he would be willing to limit the size and number of events. So it would be very reasonable to try it for a year and come back and see how does this look. Mr. Griggs, you had a question about what kind of precedent, and that's a very interesting question because what we're dealing with is a conditional use. And under the statute and the ordinance, the definition of a conditional use is one that might be okay in a particular zone, but there are particular issues related to it. So you have to look at the specific location and maybe put on conditions to make sure that that use will fit at that particular location in the zone. What I'm getting at is that this on its own would substantially limit any precedential effect for this use because the analysis would have to be, where is this? What are the roads? What does it look like? And I would hazard to guess that there are very few other properties in Fayette County that have been tended this lovingly for so long with this very unusual aspect that could come in here and say, here is my garden, this is what I want to do. It is really unique and suitable for this. I would grant you that every property in Fayette County is unique, but I can also foresee that a horse farm would come in with a legitimate argument that say their pastoral setting and the woods around the edge are just as well-maintained and unique in that they should have weddings and class reunions. And it would be hard to tell them that they're much different from this, in my opinion. I don't think they could get it in under an outdoor recreational activity, though. It would have to be maybe something else. We are very willing to put on conditions to make sure that this is operated in full conformity with what we're trying to do. And finally, I need to emphasize that this part of the county in the Rural Land Management Plan in 1999, when it was adopted, it discussed that these areas right by the river are environmentally sensitive. And in fact, that some forms of traditional agriculture aren't conducive to some of these areas because of the steep slopes. And if the Meads wanted to turn this into an agricultural property, I guess they could graze it with livestock. They could crop it. But just a look at the topographical and other constraints, this land, it is much better for its current use as a passive gardens than it would be for any agricultural use. It would be a shame to plow it all under and plant corn, even if you could grow corn there because of all the trees and the thin soil and so forth. That he has been able, and his wife, have been able to grow these beautiful plantings is a testament to their green thumb. but it is not very conducive to your traditional bluegrass agricultural crops. And so this use is a balance to preserve this unique area that has environmentally sensitive areas and allows a low intensive use at this location and will not cause a disturbance to any of the other neighbors or it will not impair the integrity of the agricultural area. I was going to ask Mrs. Mead to come up here as well. She has something that she would like to say. I'm Nancy Mead. I'm Bill's wife. I just wanted to read a statement to you. Bill and I began this journey in 1979 when we bought this piece of land at the Fayette and Madison County lines. It was overgrown, trashed with old trucks, tires, refrigerators, and large amounts of garbage. We worked to clean it up to try to control the invasive plants and to begin a dream of what might be. We traveled to botanical gardens in the U.S. and Asia. We accumulated ideas and tried to imagine what we might be able to accomplish after seeing many incredible gardens. Collins. Colin Powell stated, a dream doesn't become reality through magic. It takes sweat, determination, and hard work. For 35 years, we have worked hard and long on our garden project. We have celebrated birthdays, weddings, births, and we have mourned the loss of loved ones there. Friends have called it paradise. being said, the last thing we want is to have anything destroy what we have worked so long and hard to develop. It is a serene, peaceful, zen-like garden atmosphere. We only want to share with others who will appreciate the beauty. It will not be open to the public. Our plans have never been to have loud music or large parties. The gardens are not conducive to that kind of activity. We only have two neighbors, and they have never complained about us in 35 years. We have, although, had to clean up a great deal of horrible trash thrown onto our property from U.S. 25 over the years. We're now reaching our retirement years, looking forward to continued additions to our gardens. Physically, it is becoming more difficult to do the long hours of labor required to maintain the land. We are striving to generate income to allow to hire the heavy work out to younger workers, and with the hope that it can become self-sustaining. We have tried to give as much detail to our plans as possible to show our intentions clearly, concisely, and honestly. Unfortunately, some have drawn their own conclusions without seeing our property or talking to us. Our intentions are to preserve our land and our gardens for our future generations. I take great pride in the legacy left by my ancestors who go back to Jamestown, Virginia. Some of them, some were the first people to come to Clark County, Kentucky. We hope to leave a wonderful natural legacy to our future generations by paying it forward. you thank you and there were questions about the site plan Kevin Warner is here I'd like to have him come up now so he can show you the site plan and how all of our parking will be entirely on our site I'm Kevin Warner. I'm a landscape architect with Carmen. And I've zoomed in on the plan here to show a little more detail that you might not have been able to see on the overall site plan. But as was pointed out previously, the parking in the rear was for employees. As we talked about, events that might be held here, caterers or somebody like that might use that area. It could also be used as overflow. The parking that we've added out along the front is designed to be low-impact, permeable pavers so that it does not create additional runoff. It preserves the greenery of the natural environment that we're trying to protect with this development. The number of parking spaces is really based upon the same type of requirement you would have for other facilities where you might have gatherings. And in a conditional use in an agricultural zone, you would be allowed a church, for instance. And the church would be based upon, the parking would be based upon one car per five seats in your sanctuary. So that's one example that we used to kind of come up with the number that we're showing. Obviously, Mr. Mead didn't want to put a whole bunch of parking out here and destroy the natural beauty. So it was a balancing act to try and provide enough parking for those rare occasions when you would have a larger gathering, but not put in too much that kind of overwhelms it when you're dealing with a small class, a photography class or a yoga class. It has a handful of people. You don't want to put a giant parking lot out there. So we feel like the number of parking spaces that we're showing is a good balance between the usual 90% of your events and then the larger events. There is opportunity for overflow behind the barn. Mr. Mead is willing to gravel that parking back there as necessary. And I think that's something that would probably be reviewed at that one-year stage, you know, if that gravel is enough back there to meet those needs. but all in all I think the site plan right now is a balance between the preservation of the natural environment and providing the infrastructure necessary to serve the groups of people we see using the facility. Any questions about the parking? That pretty much concludes our presentation. But I would like to hand out some letters of support. We handed these out the last time, but I would like to hand them out again since there are a couple other members here. But note that the letters of support include people who have a very strong and passionate interest in preservation of our bluegrass resources. Let me hand these out. For example, Claire Sipple has on her own, just up the road there, the lower Howard's Creek Nature Preserve. I mean, she is an ardent preservationist, and what she's trying to do is to preserve this very unique heritage. One of the letters of support is from John Karloftis, the noted landscape architect, who sees the potential to photograph the gardens and to use that as a backdrop to showcase the bluegrass landscape in Fayette County, Kentucky. And as I stated earlier, there are no objectors here that I'm aware of unless they just came in. And there was a letter with questions but not objections. And so we feel that we have met all the requirements of the ordinance. We should not be held to waiting for some point in the future when the law may change or may not change. And that the evidence in the record supports what we are asking to do. In light of the comments that Mr. Mead earlier in response to questions, yes, we are very willing to limit size and number. Mr. Meade had a question, and I guess I'm not musically oriented, you might say, but amplified music, there are, and here I show what I don't know about music, there are loudspeakers, but what if you have a guitar that there's some amplification in the barn? I don't know. He is willing, though, to have a condition imposed that would limit any kind of the outdoor loudspeakers and to limit amplification of the type of music that we all know what we're talking about here that would be a nuisance to the neighbors and others. But I'll hand this out, and we are happy to agree to conditions limiting the size and number of events. of events a one-year review a limit of the conditional use to mr mead and his family so that when that is done it expires mr glover asked a question about whether you could impose a condition and have it terminate and i'm sure you'll hear from your counsel i i believe there's very little authority in the law to do that that would be difficult to do unless it were for a one-time event but on a a long-term event i'm not sure that i have ever seen a conditional use that is limited that it expires when i guess if the text amendment were enacted i'm not sure that there's the authority to do that. I'm curious to hear from legal. Well, I haven't, I can't tell you that I've researched that question, but I can tell you that I can't think of any instance, as Mr. Salley said, where we've ever done that. And when I look at our ordinance, what it says is that, you know, in considering and granting conditional use permits, that you have to determine whether or not they would be suitable to specific locations in the zone and only if certain conditions are met, and also that they wouldn't have an adverse influence on existing or future development of the property or the surrounding neighborhood. So I'm having a difficult time trying to not being aware of any authority, trying to determine how you could make, you could, you know, look at a situation such as this in a certain circumstance place specific conditions on it, determine it wouldn't be adverse, but then say, oh, in two years we're going to terminate it. I'm just, from a logical standpoint, I don't know that we're going to find any authority to say that, which might be why it's not been done. But what I might suggest is that if you have some concern about that, and since the applicant's agreeable that maybe you do put some additional restrictions if you're so inclined to approve this, that would address the things you're most concerned about or the impact it would have on the property or on any of the surrounding neighborhood? Well, the conditions for approval in the proposed, we got from staff two proposals, one if we want to disapprove and one if we want to approve the application, And in the approval application proposals, number eight says, for example, loudspeakers are not permitted. So that answers the question about sound and outdoor lighting is not permitted. So I'm not concerned about that. I am interested in, if we wanted to grant this, what limits might we put on the things that were brought up, like the number of events or the number of people or number of people per event or per year or whatever, whatever kind of limits we might put. It seems to me that if we can put geographical limits, if we can put attendee limits, If we can put limitations on lighting and sound and retail sale of merchandise and such, we ought to be able to put limitations on the time of the condition. Now, I'm just being devil's advocate because I don't know about it ever having been done before either, but I'm just a citizen panel member. So, but it seems to me that that wouldn't be outside the scope of our authority to do. But I don't know about that. Well, also I might say that the other part of it that's giving me pause on that issue is also that, you know, all conditional uses are reviewed annually. You all have the authority to put a six-month review or a 12-month review on any conditional use that you grant. And the theory behind these conditions is, as you know, if those get called into question on a review or on a complaint or otherwise, that you all have the authority to review that. And it can either be fixed, it can be stopped, or the conditional use can be revoked if those conditions aren't being met. so I'm just having a hard time trying to determine how if you place conditions on something and you say as long as you do these things this is okay and those are being met that you would put a time on it and say okay now we're going to stop it whereas if you put conditions on it and those are not met then you do have a reason to change it or to change something or to stop it. Well, one of the conditions that was proposed, for example, was that the conditional use attached to the property as long as Mr. Mead owns the property. Right? Right. And we have done that before. Sure. And that's not, I mean, that has nothing to do with the use of the property. It's a condition that's not attached to the use of the property. It's based on the, you know, the purported lifespan of an individual. So I'm kind of curious about why we don't limit, why we don't put time limits on conditional uses, because we already do, based on one that's been proposed, Mr. Mead's ownership, the time of the ownership of Mr. Mead's property. So that may just be idle conversation for purposes of this, though. But I would suggest that if we do propose to approve the application that we put some kind of limits on either the number of events or the number of people attending, plus an annual review, simply to give us a little more control that we might otherwise have. Thanks. i would also suggest that if another condition would we would specify no overnight paid guests that might be added to that and i agree with the one-year review and i you know i'm open to either limiting limiting the number of events you know like i have written down the number of events of over 50 people are limited to two ten per year or two per month or however whatever the board's pleasure is. I also think there are two ambiguities here. The loudspeaker. I mean, here the conditions expressly say no loudspeakers. They don't say no loudspeakers except in the barn. And the proposal seems to be that there would be loudspeakers in the barn. And then the second thing is food service. It says no food service is permitted. Are caterers not food service? Because they're clearly contemplating somebody would be allowed to have a caterer. So, you know, if you look at the definition in 8.1.D.11, it says commercial, non-commercial outdoor facility, recreational facilities without outdoor lighting, loudspeakers, retail sale of merchandise, restaurants, or food service, and the like. so I mean it seems like there's at least an ambiguity since you could say that it means no caterers and it means no loudspeakers anywhere I think that the food service that they're talking about there is if you go to a ball field that is a permitted conditional use in the AR zone You can buy a bag of potato chips or a hot dog, and that is food service. But they're not going to say you can't bring a bagged lunch or an apple or, in this case, a caterer, because the caterer won't prepare food there if there's going to be a caterer. It would just be bringing it on site, just like you would bring your lunch if you wanted to bring your lunch. That's not food service in the sense of selling anything on the premises. There would be no sales. The loudspeakers? The loudspeakers, it's stated in my business plan. The way it was stated was there would be no outside loudspeakers because that's the way it was presented to me is there could be no outside loudspeakers. So that's the way I put it down. I have no problem. We don't want loud music. it's that simple my example to Christine a while ago was if you have an acoustic guitar player playing and he has to have his little amplifier is that technically amplified music and you can't have that or are we talking about big speakers we don't have big speakers I don't have the electricity to do that I have no desire for that so how do we define that staff Mr. Emmons and I conversed about that very topic a few minutes ago I think mr. marks may want to weigh in on this as well I think if the annual inspection showed that there were speakers mounted to the wall inside the barn that could possibly be a violation of this I think if for reception or an event they had someone with an amplifier let's say to a guitar or other music I'm not sure that that would be considered a loud speaker since it is part of an amplifier mr marks may want to weigh in on that but that was our conversation about five minutes ago what about a d i think the same thing if the dj you would expect would probably bring floor mounted speakers or some type of equipment that wouldn't be permanently affixed to the facility and could those could we could we condition it that you know any amplified you know amplified music and i think you've already said that it's it's contained into the it's contained in the barn i think that's in your business plan um i haven't been to a wedding recently that didn't have a dj and towers of speakers and an artificial dance floor set up and i think this barn is a tobacco barn it's not insulated sound proofed in any way and these djs they rattle the windows that's what people do and they do it till two in the morning and they're falling down drunk that's what wedding receptions are about so that's what we're talking about approving here and i don't think that the conditions that are being set are in any way limiting that activity and that's what will occur i've got a question about you've you've set hours and you've said um right uh that friday let's see thursday let's see over the weekend they're until 11 and you're allowing time for cleanup so is everyone off the property by 11 o'clock in my opinion that's when it has to shut down They may have an hour to clean up and be gone. Okay, so there would be people on the property essentially until midnight? Yes. Okay. Can we have a problem with limiting that to a degree? Oh, I'm sorry. I don't have a problem with limiting that to a degree, but I had my son's reception there with a DJ, and we didn't have any falling down tracks, and we had no people objecting because there are no people around us. We're sitting in a bowl. The nearest person around is my brother that owns 40 acres, and behind me is hundreds of acres, and beside me is nothing. In front of me is the river. But the thing, we don't want it personally. We don't want people bothering us, and we don't want to bother anybody else. But as far as loudspeakers go, don't want it. Mr. Mead, there are people living on that river road all the way to the end. There are houses there, and some are occupied. We have one. Well, I'm just suggesting that there are neighbors that would be impacted by loud music, and that that's the fact. I'll be glad to bring him in. He won't be impacted, I assure you. The other house is abandoned, and we have a letter in here from the other landowner recommending that we do this. And I've never even met the woman. She lives in Somerset, and they're wanting to build a house there, but she's all for this. So you've spoken about having a contract that you're going to have with these potential people that are going to have weddings or reunions there. And in the contract, it's going to state very clearly what they can and cannot do. That is correct. And the reason for that is because I didn't want to – in my meeting with the Neighborhood Association representative, There was concerns that this was open to the public. Open the gate at 8 o'clock in the morning, you close it at whatever time at night. And you come and go as you wish. That's not the case. It's only by reservation. It's only by contract. You sign the contract, this is what you have to do. And if you don't do this, you can't sign it. I know you can't do it. It's all by contract. So I just wanted to make it plain that this is not open. and it's in all honesty the price would probably regulate who can come in and not also staff are there any other comments we have tried to take notes on the board's comments regarding conditions we'd be glad to share with you what we've written down if you'd like to look at that there may be others that may be under consideration. It's up to the board's pleasure. Anyone have any other questions or comments at this point? Okay. We'd like to see what you have. these are at the end of the findings that Ms. Westover has provided to you and I've drawn a line there just to indicate that their condition number four seems to be just a different wording of what the staff has provided you in our condition number nine The key difference here is the very last phrase, by the appellant or a member of his family. So this condition four could actually substitute for what the staff had provided to you earlier for number nine. Number 10 is a condition not offered by the staff that the applicant has volunteered. 11 or 12 were ones that we tried to jot down during the last 10 or 15 minutes of discussion number 12 we weren't sure of the number that the board was considering for that type of a restriction i think if there if if we approve it then i also would want to see a limit on the number of people that can come as well i mean they talk about a hundred people in here but again it's not at all binding. It's a very broad proposal. I think I would agree with Jan that 50 is more suitable for the amount of parking and the size of this facility. And I don't see in these conditions where it talks about the times. These findings of fact that the applicant has given us I see one through four, and then the second page is one through five. I'm a little lost on what the conditions are, actually. Well, the condition main one is to be in conformity with the submitted site plan, which, as we've said, is pretty in application, which is pretty flexible. I think one through four on your first page are actual findings. Okay, we're here. And on the second page, those appear to the staff in conditions. yeah do we want Jim at a time time I think that the times the days of the week the time the number of events in total per year should be defined in here because If they're not, then there's no limit. We're agreeable to all of that because this was in the business plan. The difference between the narrative and the conditions is that the narrative is a general statement, but it's part of the site plan and application. But with the conditions, to be more specific, we're agreeable. i i had a question we we were unclear about the limiting it to 50 guests is is that or is it limiting the number of events of more than 50 people but less than 100 i i didn't catch the the statement i i was referring to the larger events and limiting the number of of larger events from you know from 50 to 100 to say you know one per month yes that was right okay i understand that yeah right that's what i wasn't clear about i think you said you've had uh you You've already had an event or two of 150 or so people there. Yes. Is that what you consider a large event, 150? We're trying to hold it to 100, yes. Okay. That's strictly because if you're going to pay the amount of money that I'm asking, which is going to limit the number of events I can get, 100 people for wedding reception is not a whole lot, but it is more than that is a whole lot for our property. Yeah. I was going to say the impact your property would be affected. Exactly. More than 150, I'd say. Well, so we're we're wanting to hold it at 100. OK. And I don't mind limiting the number of events during the year, but there is a wedding time of the year that people like to have their weddings. And I don't mind up to a reasonable amount. And you can limit me to one for December as far as I'm concerned. But, you know, May, June and July is a wedding time. Well, my feeling is that if we limit the upper limit of major events for up to 100 people, if we limit that now, we decide on a number, the applicant can always come back and ask for more, depending on the one-year review and how it all works out. Let's start small and we can review it and see what happens. Sure. Take it from there. I just ask don't limit me out of being able to do it. Right. What about 20 big incidents on top? I can do that or less. I don't have a problem with that. I'm just not in favor of this. You were doing it on the other ones. I think the concern is how many it should be per month. And I think if you say 20 events April through October, recognizing that most of them will be held in three months, that's 20 events in three months. If you say, I guess if you'd say an average of... Well, it doesn't change it. Well, then you could put a number on per annual. Right, but I think if the point is you want to, I mean, do we want to limit the number of events, or do we want to limit how frequently, you know, if it's three days every weekend, or, you know, I mean, most of the weddings will occur in that three-month period. Well, now we're talking about commerce rather than coming. Right, but are we concerned with the impact on the neighborhood? I mean, isn't it more of an impact three days in a row than it is once a month? Mr. Mead has just said maybe one event per week. That seems like a reasonable. One per week with a cap of 20? With a cap of 20 for the year? Sure. and this would be for more than 50 people so the photography class of 20 people that it doesn't apply to that this would just be for like a reunion or something like that Thank you. If the board wished, then you could piggyback what we just noted, 12A, on the end of 12 there. And then could we just have comma and no more than 20 such events in a year instead of the upper limit? And then I also would like a separate one that just says that there are no more than, you know, wedding, if we say 100 people, or we're talking about 100 guests, or, you know, have an absolute number, and we'll assume that the people who work there will be a reasonable number of people. Yes, that would be, we would be agreeable to that. and we would welcome a yearly or six-month review there's more i'm not sure we have your latest comments up there we may need to add those or Okay. Would it be possible just to set at the week, add comma instead of the period and say, and no more than 20 such events each year? Okay. We can do that. And then as a separate 13, major events can include no more than 100 guests. trying to define the major events as groups of 50 to 100 backs then that should be somewhere in there the 50 to 100 is what triggers the max of these yeah quantities of events yeah I thought that it was not in the parentheses there I didn't see the word 50 they could have you know yoga classes of 70 people and it wouldn't be, they wouldn't consider that a major event, I suppose. It seems like when you get 50. I'm not sure, I'm not sure I would, I mean a yoga class with 70 people is different to me than. What they're talking about now is saying that the major events are 50 to 100. They could just put major events in parentheses 50 or more guests. Yes. Yes. Say all events shall include no more than 100 guests, wouldn't that? That covers it. That's what we're intending, an absolute maximum cap. So I guess Mr. Grigg's question is, if a yoga class of 75, is that falling within this limit or not within this limit? I mean, I suppose if you could get 75 on a regular basis. What I was trying to do is determine that there would be an event with over 50 people, regardless of what it is. It triggers it. Yes. And that's not written in here anywhere. I think there was a comment suggesting that that sort of event was anything over 50 people. But that's not what's written up there right now. It just says a similar event, and I would say yoga is not similar. It would be safer and more definitive to put a number because you can count. You're counting the number of these large events per year, and you have to have something that triggers it to make it a large event, and that would be when there's more than 50 attendees, whether it's a class reunion or a wedding reception, whatever. So we could change that instead of similar, say, other event with 50 or more attendees. That provides more clarity for everybody. We've tried to edit the 12th condition, and that's a little different language than you were just discussing. That's our attempt. No more than 20 such events each year attended by 50 or more persons. Ms. Jones, do you have any comments? I think it says what you want it to. I guess we could wordsmith it to death, but I mean, I think it says what you want it to. Okay. Are there any comments, questions additional? I'm still a little lost on the hours of operation. Is that in these conditions somewhere? Mr. Griggs, they are not. I think it is part of the application and site plan under the first condition. I think it should be in the conditions for approval, the hours of operation. We're agreeable to that. It might be that on the days of the week, in the narrative it says not open on Monday, but it's possible that over time maybe Tuesday may work better. So I would be reluctant to limit as a condition what day of the week would work better. But a time of day, yes. I would suggest maybe using what in condition number one where it says the recreational facility should be established and operated in accordance with the submitted site plan and application. And then to add to that, say, specifically included but not limited to the hours of 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. during the week and 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Friday through Sunday. I mean, that's what's in the business plan. Does the staff consider this business plan to be part of the application? Yes, sir, we do. But when the conditions are recorded at the courthouse, that's not part of it, is it? That's correct. So to have it recorded at the courthouse for people to find it, it should be in the conditions. Right. And that's why we've taken the one about the hours of operation, which is their third bullet, and drafted that to where it could be a 14th condition. Available hours shall be 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday through Sunday. That's straight from their submission. Now, are we allowing unlimited amplified music inside the barn? I don't know unlimited is the correct term, but I think we're talking about non-permanently installed loudspeakers in the barn. That is not allowable under this conditional use. Is that in these conditions? I don't see that written like that. No loudspeakers. I think condition number eight would cover that. That controls outdoor lighting and outdoor loudspeakers? I think we would interpret that to mean all loudspeakers, not necessarily an amplifier. There's a comma after outdoor lighting, so we would interpret that to mean all loudspeakers. Right. All outside amplification is prohibited. And this is a small matter, but thinking about the yoga class, What if a yoga class met three days a week, but they wanted to meet on Monday? I hate to keep changing things, but could we just say four weekdays or something, so there would be some flexibility there, or weekdays instead of Tuesday through Thursday? So if the yoga class wanted to meet on Mondays, we wouldn't have to come back to the board. not sure that the loudspeakers and all would be an issue from 7 to 9 a.m so we could even consider changing that to an earlier hour beginning early day type of activities 7 a.m perhaps or something like that so you're asking to change 14 to monday instead of tuesday or just say weekdays so that if Wednesday is a good day to not have an art class, but Monday is, there would be some flexibility. I don't see that it makes a substantive difference the particular day of the week, but the number of days a week or the number of events, that's relevant. What you're proposing is to scratch through Tuesday through Thursday on number 14 and insert weekdays? Weekdays, yeah. But I think you actually want it to be Monday through Thursday because I think you still want 11 p.m. for Friday through Sunday. I don't see a problem with changing Tuesday to Monday up there. so what is the 7 a.m is the 7 a.m replacing the 9 a.m i think that's an option the board could consider again that the staff would not expect large crowds at that time of day wake up yoga we don't think you'll hit your 50 at that I don't know if Mr. Mead wants to be down there at 7 a.m. Are you requesting that it be changed to 7 a.m.? Me? I don't know where the 7 a.m. came from. Okay. You're okay with 9 a.m.? Okay, we'll leave it at 9 a.m. I can find it at 8 a.m. if you want to. I don't know. All right, any other questions or comments? I'm willing to entertain a motion if anyone would like to. Or if I could make a motion without stepping in it, I would. Let's see. Madam Chairman, I move that we approve. The application of the C 2014-14 Bill Meads appeal for a conditional use permit to operate an outdoor recreational facility, a botanical garden in the agricultural rural zone at 9086 old Richmond Road for the reasons Stated, what are we calling this? Staff. Stated the staff. Staff exhibit. Exhibit. and subject to the 14 conditions shown in the overhead. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Motion passes. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks to the people who are waiting. Thank you very much. All right. The next item on the agenda is C-2014-15, Tim Huber, Ramsey Development. Is the applicant here? Please come forward. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Please state your name for the record. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. Also with me is the property owner, Jim Baker, Tim Edwards from the applicant the Ramsey Development and Robert Bush from Magnolia Springs which is the assisted living facilities. The staff has recommended approval subject to six conditions including some changes in the streets that you had not originally wanted. Have you had a chance to read the staff's report? Yes we have. And are you willing to abide by the conditions? Two through six, we have an issue with the first recommendation. Okay. So should I begin with staff? Would you like to present first? The staff is ready to make a presentation explaining our condition. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chairs, Board Members, my name is Jimmy Emmons with the Division of Planning. For the record, this application C-2014-15, there are two staff reports, the original staff report, which had recommended postponement, and a supplemental staff report, which updates our original staff report. These two reports work in conjunction with each other for the full staff recommendation. With that, the staff would like to start off, if I can lower the lights just a little bit. And just like we have two staff reports, our staff presentation will actually be in two parts also. I'll set it up and then I'll turn it over to Bill who will finish up this presentation. The property is, the entire property is about 30 acres of undeveloped land in the Masterson Station area. On this one, and we'll keep coming back to the overall property, this isn't the last time you'll see this picture. What is before you today is about 7 acres of that total 30 acre property. So you can see kind of highlighted the entire undeveloped area, which actually has three sub-streets to it. Lucille Drive coming in from the west. Lucille Drive coming in from the east. Lucille Drive is a collector street, a larger street in the system. So, Estrella Drive, coming in just north of the subject area that you will be looking at, and CeeLo Vista Drive, which is also Estrella and CeeLo Vista are both local streets that stub into the property. CeeLo Vista Drive stubs directly into the area that you're being asked to make a decision on today. Also on this property, Citation Boulevard will generally be running from the kind of the southwest to the northeast at the far edge of the subject property. If I can show the applicant's site plan now. The use that is being requested as a conditional use is for an assisted living facility. This property is currently zoned R3 and an assisted living facility is a conditional use. They are proposing a two-story building. It would be about 94,000 square feet in total. They are proposing about 100 parking spaces. I think just under 100, I think it's 98 parking spaces for the subject property. They are proposing to have their access completely off of Magnolia Springs Drive, which will be a new collector street, which will connect up to the new Citation Boulevard, which is at the bottom or the south side of the property. In looking at this, the design of their building lends itself well to creating courtyards and other features that are quite common to other assisted living facilities that you have seen. They'll have a drop-off area in the front along with the, as I mean, the wings. I do believe that the board members and we didn't mention this specifically in our staff report with other assisted living facilities it sometimes it has come up and is an issue I don't know if this is regulated by law or not but they all always have transformers and generators for backup electricity for this type of use and in this particular case that is proposed to the rear of this structure, it would be about 100 feet away from the nearest residential lot, so that it would, in essence, be about two lots away. The staff doesn't see that there is any other screening that's proposed for these uses. In the past, I know that the one that's located off of Richmond Road, very near the Jacobson reservoir that one they had their generator up near the street and essentially in the backyard and next door to a residential structure this one is much farther away than that one the during the technical committee review there was one other comment from another division of the government and that was from the fire department they did express some concern about this particular design of their site layout, noting that they were concerned about gaining vehicular access to the green space area to the rear of the building. They recognized that they would be able to get vehicular access along the Magnolia Springs and through this parking lot and back into the service area, but they did express some concern about not being able to drive around the entire building. Other than that one concern, there have not been any other major concerns about the particular site layout of the use for the assisted living facility. The staff does see that this assisted living facility at this location, upon completion of all of the public infrastructure, that this site would be a good place for such an assisted living facility. However, paramount to this discussion is the completion and the design of that public infrastructure. One of the primary, and the discussion before you today, we'll focus on this, condition number one that the staff is recommending is recommending that CeeLo Vista either be continued through to the collector street as it's currently approved today instead of hammerhead a hammerhead cul-de-sac as being proposed by this application or that it be turned up and connect to Estrella Drive. If I can go to my PowerPoint presentation now I'll try and explain further some of the staff's concern about the public infrastructure. This is a very big picture of the entire Masterson Station area. The subject property is highlighted in yellow. That's the full 29 acres, not just the seven acres that you're being looked at. And as we look at this area, first I'm highlighting the areas, the arterial roads. Primarily you have Leastown Road and Newtown Pike, and you can see Citation Boulevard as it goes across through there. Citation Boulevard is planned and under construction today of completing the connection between Leastown Road over to, I'm sorry, I called that Newtown Pipe, but that's Georgetown. That's Georgetown Road. It's currently being connected from Leastown Road to Georgetown Road. Then today it connects from Georgetown Road over to Newtown Pike. There is also a collector street system that is partially built in this area. You can see several of the dead ends in that collector street system. And once again, once the collector street system is complete, there will be good connectivity between the arterial roads, the collector system, and the local streets as it comes through here. But as the staff is concerned about today, the path to get here, the staff described that as kind of a winding kind of mixture of how you get to this site. So I just kind of wanted to show you that if you came in off of Leastown Road and to try and today get to the subject property, you would essentially need to go around this path through the collector streets and through the local streets in order to get to the large 29-acre site. the applicant has agreed to build the collector system that would connect Lucille Drive to Magnolia Springs Drive out to the future, well, in front of this facility. However, they have not agreed to completing Lucille Drive all the way across so that it would connect up across the entirety of the undeveloped property that they own. If you were to come in off of Greendale Road, another way that you would get to this property, you can see that you would have to come up Greendale Road and go a very long path on that. And I did not have time to do the path, but you can see that it would essentially be the same. If you came off of Georgetown Road through Spur Road, you would have to come down through Sandersville Road and then connect back up to get to the subject property. Once again, this is very similar to the picture, and I just kind of wanted to leave that one up as we kind of focus in on the subject property. And right in this corner is where they're proposing it, and you can see all of the dashed lines of the incomplete collector roads and the incomplete arterial roads that are in this area that we're looking at. The staff met with the applicant. The applicant submitted an additional letter in addition to their, as a result of that meeting, outlining that they agreed to build Lucille Drive from the west to Magnolia Springs Drive and then Magnolia Springs drive down to the subject property. And although it is good to get that commitment to build the collector streets because that means that this would be serviced by a collector street, one of the major changes on that that the staff has asked for is for the continuation of CeeLo Vista. to get rid of the hammerhead cul-de-sac and continue that street either straight through the property to the collector street as it's currently approved on our plans and currently approved by the planning commission, or as an alternative to swing that road up and connect the local street, CeeLo Vista, into Australia Drive. At this point, I would like to turn the presentation over to Mr. Salee, who will probably do most of his presentation from the slides there. He'll finish up the staff presentation on this. Thank you. Mr. Emmons is correct, and most of what I need to present to you I'd like to have on the overhead. As the board knows, when you consider a request for a conditional use permit, there is a finding that is mandatory for you to approve that permit. And that finding is that the public facilities and services are available and adequate to support the proposed use. As Mr. Emmons has highlighted, there is only one street currently serving the property that you're being asked to approve an assisted living facility for today. There is good news. We understand from talking with our Division of Traffic Engineering that the arterial roadway citation is anticipated to be constructed and completed about the time that this proposed facility might be open and ready for occupancy. So that is a positive. In addition, the applicant has agreed to construct a portion of the collector street to help ensure that. The debate is really over the local street portion of this application. On your agenda, the staff finds that with this information, public facilities are available and adequate if they are constructed in the timely fashion that we currently today anticipate. if there is a connected street system in this area. The truncation of Cielo Vista is, in a way, contrary to this finding. And so that is why the staff in condition number one has requested that the cul-de-sac not be a part of this approval. the exhibits that we handed out to you just before the start of the meeting help explain the staff's purpose in recommending this condition. Several years ago, the subject property, I should say, is in the area of the Red Circle, although it does extend as far south as to the right-of-way of what's planned to be Citation Boulevard. This area has had plans approved for about a decade now, although the streets are only built as you see in this exhibit. But the currently approved plans by the Planning Commission would have this type of connection to the future collector, to the arterial, and have three local streets intersecting that planned collector street. These streets could not be constructed today only because too much time has elapsed from the time the Planning Commission approved this version of the street layout to today's date. The applicant is asking with their request that the approved street pattern be altered in this fashion, to where Cielo Vista would have a hammerhead cul-de-sac, would not extend to the Collector Street, and that it would have access through the Collector Street or through that Hammerhead. The staff recommendation would be that Cielo Vista extend at a minimum to Australia Drive, which is the next local street immediately to the north, and that would still, in our opinion, allow the development to proceed as you see it on the site plan. The collector street could still be possible. We would have a connected system of local streets around this use, and from the staff perspective, there would be no issue with whether or not there are available and adequate public facilities for the requested conditional use. The only hesitation the staff can anticipate from the applicant and as to why this is not an acceptable alternative would perhaps be that they have a need for a certain amount of acreage to be associated with this use. This particular street pattern, we think, could be accomplished without a great loss to the open space and the lot that they have proposed, but assuming for a moment that for whatever reason they must have a site that is near the acreage that they are proposing to you today. we would offer one alternative for consideration. The Collector Street has not been built, and as such, its location can be shifted in a fashion that would still allow the subject lot to be very close to the size that they are showing on the site plan that they have submitted to you. Thus, even if that were the reason why this street extension is not proposed, The staff believes that there is a workable alternative to that that would still allow them exactly the same size facility with nearly the same number of parking spaces. We would have an interconnected local street system, and the development could proceed as it's been planned. We have copies of this staff alternative that we'd be glad to circulate to the board, but that is the basis for the staff's recommendation, both in the findings for approval, stating that with the planned construction and with this one change, we would have all available and adequate public facilities to serve this use, and secondly, that the local street system would be connected and interactive to allow this use to proceed. The reason this is so important to the staff is identified in the area that's labeled B1 that you see in the upper right-hand portion of the drawing. That is the zoning designation for that property. It has frontage on Greendale Road, and it is a very short distance north of the planned arterial of Citation. This street, Cielo Vista, is the main intersection of the street accessing Greendale and that commercial development. and there is planned and approved access to business lots off of the street that you're being asked to approve as a cul-de-sac. We think that there will be demand from pedestrians and vehicles to use the street to access that commercial area should it be built in the future. So that is why the staff has felt it important to present this information to you today, to explain our recommendation and to ask you to consider seriously our first condition recommended. I should point out this plan for the street system is also progressing through the Planning Commission. The applicants have postponed those plans for a month as they did this conditional use request. But this is the first hearing on the matter, and we felt it important to explain our recommendation to you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions for staff before? Okay. If the applicant wants to respond. Take a minute to set up some stuff. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Wait a minute. I'll slide it up. All right, let me have that little one. Madam Chair, members of the board, against Rory Kaley with EA Partners. What I've handed out to you, and which is up here, you have a blown-up version of the area. Maps look very similar to what staff had proposed overhead. The second drawing is the second 11 by 17 is the site plan. from the Magnolia development kind of shows what their plan is for this facility you can see multiple walking paths throughout the property using up this large green area that they are wanting to have with the property as well and then the stapled together is from them as their package as well several pages about the facility itself towards the back you'll see a smaller version of this site plan trees parking lots activities for their more active clients with the staffs presentation and the first condition that we're having questions with it really is the access points on what you have there you can see that what we're proposing is the solid orange line called Magnolia Springs. We would construct that to Lucille Drive collector out to another collector. We would connect it to Citation Boulevard and Arterial. So for this one user we're proposing on building a collector street to two main streets that would provide access to the site. The local street system is Estrella and Celio Vista. Celio Vista is the one that has the hammerhead to it that will, for the purposes of the cliently use, wishing to terminate in a hammerhead. I think if you look at this as the staff is talking about bringing traffic from the future neighborhoods. These areas here in Yale are not yet developed. We have development plans in all of this. They will tie back into the rest of Masterson Station. If we're worried about these people coming through here to our business district, this is the area in red, the clear choice is Lucille Drive, which is a collector system. They also have Greendale Hills, which this orange line here is now the constructed position of it, gives them access onto Melundi Way, which is a built collector right now, and it is projected to come through the business development as this is built. This collector will tie into Lucille. So between Lucille, Melundi, Greendale Hills, Citation, our proposed Magnolia Springs, this area has great connectivity as as all your collectors and arterials. Local street is Estrella, which we are still proposing to continue through to the site, overall 30-acre site we're looking at today, and on through to the rest of Masters and Station Development. Terminating this one street here, I do not believe will hinder anyone's flow to the business district. It does benefit this user. gives them more area. Everything is quiet. They have, I'll let him explain their clientele, but they use the trails around there. They do have very active members. The Colesac design, the hammerhead is a legal design. It's in the subdivision regulations. We correct design. The length of that street is 750 feet. You can have a cul-de-sac up to 1,000 feet, so we meet that. There is nothing improper about the cul-de-sac design nor the request of it. A cul-de-sac is not a wrong design element. It's not a bad layout. We have them all over town. A lot of people prefer to live on cul-de-sacs. I don't believe that this one in itself is evil. The continuation of Celio Vista into the site or through the site, as one of the first staff report of Commons was, where they were wishing it to come through to the Magnolia Springs, would create the building to shift towards Citation Boulevard. Right now, the building sets about 120 feet from the property line, the right-of-way. We have met with the fire department, and they are asking to have a fire lane come along that edge and at least around to the back corner, a turnaround area for them, to access the building and all sides. They do not need a full 360-routed drive. and they just need to access both wings. Pushing the building towards citation and the addition of the fire lane that we've agreed we would add greatly reduces the amount of open space they'll have. This wing is also their memory care Alzheimer's. The larger, the quieter the area. There's no parking down there. That is all beneficial to their clients that are in there as well. And I had one question. Currently, to get to the 30-acre site here in the middle, Celio Vista is built. You can go to the end of this street. You can access the property. Estrella is connected. You can access it. Lucille is constructed to here. You can access it. Lucille is constructed on this side. This 30-acre piece right now has four different streets, two of them being Lucille, but they're coming from different directions where you have, those are both collectors and then two locals. The addition of our Magnolia Springs out to a collector and to Citation Arterial greatly improves the overall connectivity of the site. I was concerned when staff was talking about having only one way to the site, and their one map showed what I thought was more of a difficult route, where if you're coming in Greendale Hills, they had you coming around Cielo Vista up to Lucille, around and coming in this way. That's not required. All these streets have access onto this. The street construction of Magnolia Springs, if we're approved here and we get through planning commission like this, that is an aspect that can be constructed while the building is going up. Building's a 10-month minimum project, plenty of time to build Magnolia Springs Drive, put the sewers in the ground, take care of stormwater management facilities. There is currently sewer system running in these streets towards this direction. The developments that are over here are also having sewers. It's just a matter of tying the systems together. Infrastructure is not going to be a problem as far as getting this ready for them. At this time, I would like to ask, well, first, I guess, do you have any questions for me? Then I'll bring up Mr. Bush to go through a little bit about what the Magnolia Springs assisted living facility is like. You said there were four ways in and you were including Celio Vista as a way in? Yes. It's a pedestrian way in, is that correct, with no parking? Well, onto our site right now, it is a public street that gets to the site. We're proposing to, right now it just stubs at the property line, so our proposal is to terminate it correctly with a cul-de-sac. There would be pedestrian connection from that onto the site. But, you know, the other aspect of this is also what we do through planning commission where we're establishing lots. And to have a legal lot, you have to have a legal frontage. Celio Vista provides the legal frontage to that lot right now today, the seven-acre site. I see that it comes up next to your property, but it doesn't seem like useful access. And maybe it would be for an emergency, but there's no parking. Well, no, and we're not, when this is built out, we're planning on having only some sort of emergency access through there. We're not trying to tie our parking lot into it, but there's a difference between what you have at the end of the day and what you have when you're trying to get your permits began. We have legal street frontage today, which is Celial Vista. If we were to do this in single family, we would be extending that road to make the single family homes. You were talking about the convoluted method that staff had devised to get to your building and that they were. To get to the site before the building is up, just for construction, just to get us onto the property. Well, maybe I'm not understanding the importance of getting to the site if you can't park your car there. Maybe I'm just not understanding the legalities of it. The site, well, the two different periods, the period now when we start to work and the period when it's completed. When the project is completed, we will have built Magnolia Springs as a collector street to Citation and out to Lucille. So it's got, it's fully developed. And at that point, citation to Magnolia Springs from Greendale or Leastown is your main access to this spot. Did I answer that? I think that you're probably doing fine. Bill, is the problem with this site the short term where these roads aren't built, or is it in the long term where there's a backup of traffic that you think could be alleviated by connecting Silla Vista over to Australia? I think it's more long term. We believe in the short term that the streets are likely to be constructed along the same timeline as the assisted living facility. And so that is reassuring at the level of arterial streets and collector streets. The closing of the local street has more of a long-term implication because it does impede how residents in this area, both the existing homes and also the future homes that will physically be closer to this facility, will want to try and get to the neighborhood business area. The only other neighborhood business area in this general area is not until you get further south on Citation at Leastown Road. And so we think there will be great demand by the residents in this area to want to get to those stores and shops and so forth. So closing off that as a local street connection is of concern to the staff for that reason. And that certainly is long term. The street right below it is a loopy cul-de-sac just north of Citation. Yeah, that's Merluna. That's where you were? No, that's just the name of that street's Merluna. Oh, okay. Now that, as Bill explains that, and he's worried about the long-term aspects of this, this, I mean, go back to how much, when we're fully built out, all this is developed, Masterson Station and all this connection. if we're worried about getting the community to the B1 property. Citation out to Leastown Road. Lucille Drive from the business district connects back to Sandersville Road. This collector, Sandersville, will run through here, runs up to Spur Road. Local street connections, which will serve the first 100 houses off the site. You still can use Lucille. You have Estrella coming down through here. Staff's recommendation that we take Celio Vista and instead of hammerheading it, but turning it up to where it hits Estrella, I don't see how the population that may be coming down Estrella is going to find dropping down and using Celio Vista that much more advantageous than just coming the rest of the way and then picking whichever side you wanted to go to of the business development. so there are my counting these it looks to me like they're about 20 or 25 houses on cielo vista is that right yes that's close would there likely ever be more than that not with this design no all the lots i'm so all the lots are built there yeah these are all constructed i mean i'm sorry all the lots are recorded um majority of the houses are constructed at the time of this map which is a little dated so right now that street operates in a stub dead end i mean we're giving them a hammerhead so they'll at least have you know a way to leave if someone gets down there and has to turn around so if we're thinking about long-term impact then by opening that up at least you have these 20 houses that don't have to go across because you've already got this other cul-de-sac so that looks like about another 20 houses right so so conceivably these 40 right the cul-de-sac below there's got about 20 also okay yes okay so that so presumably they would be the 40 houses that getting out of the the area might want to go up there as well right oh that may have wanted to go that way right yeah yeah they can still come around to these streets or back out depending on where they're heading through the neighborhood. My understanding of the idea of connectivity is that cul-de-sacs aren't good because you have too many people on the same street. So I'm just trying to figure out how many people, if we look at these, are... Well, yeah, there's also a large opinion of whether cul-de-sacs are good or not. I personally hate these hammerhead turnarounds, But nine times out of ten, there's houses built around them, and the parking, each have driveways off of them, and it's terrible. But without any houses around this hammerhead, it would probably work pretty effectively. And when I chose the hammerhead over the regular cul-de-sac ball, the balls tend to come into the property further. And it would be more of a dissection to the open space of the assisted living. That hammerhead, you can kind of keep it squat and closer to those family. Holmes. I have a question about our process, and that is, what are we to take into account when making this decision? the basis of our decision. I can put that on the overhead for you. I mean, surely it's more than simply whether we like cul-de-sacs or not. That can't be right. You're exactly right. The ordinance prescribes in Article 8, pardon me, 76A3, that the board shall provide for the continuation of existing or proposed collector streets and whenever possible provide for the continuation of local streets that's straight out of the zoning ordinance ultimately i believe the planning commission will decide the street configuration in this area because this is an amended set of street layout if you will for the development not just the subject property but all of the 29 acres that mr emmons showed you very early in the hearing but this is basically the the section of the ordinance that binds the board in this this instance in the staff's view 7683 and if I can add that I'd say that we're here for conditional use is the assisted living compatible with the neighborhood yeah the call the sack is gonna have to be argued out in the Planning Commission as well So you're saying even if we don't approve it with this condition, the Planning Commission could require it? If you approve the document or the project in front of us with conditions 2 through 6 and not 1, we will still have to get Planning Commission approval for the Hammerhead as well. Could they require you to build the connector street or whatever we want to call it? Yes. It may kill the deal, but that, I mean, if they felt that cul-de-sacs were bad and this one needed to connect and they voted that way, yeah, that would be their recommendation. We had to come to you guys first because they could not act on a development plan with a use that was not approved. So my question, I guess, to staff is, how will the Planning Commission treat our approval or disapproval? In many instances where the Planning Commission and the board are reviewing related applications for the same piece of property, the staff always reports to either body any actions the other body has taken, and I anticipate nothing different in this case. They have elected to come to you first before they go all the way through the Planning Commission process. But the decision that we make is not binding on the Planning Commission. I agree with Mr. Cayley. I think the planning commission could decide how the streets will connect in this area. I believe that's correct. Since that's their area of expertise, why don't you folks accept our approval of your conditional use with all of these conditions and then fight your battle where you're talking to an audience that has more experience than we do on the roads? Well, you're still trying to make it a condition. They couldn't overturn your condition, I don't believe. Just like the last case where you were having everything that was spelled out on his, whatever he turned in, you wanted it as a written condition of the board of adjustment. If you say I have to connect that street, I don't see how I could get even going from the Planning Commission without it connected. Bill, is there a way that we could give the Planning Commission some wiggle room? I think if you added to the end of number one, or as amended by the Planning Commission, or as amended by action of the Planning Commission, that might give the opportunity for the Commission to consider the cul-de-sac proposal and still allow the conditional use to be approved. Would you be okay with that kind of a modification to condition one? The only issue with that is it doesn't seem to further 76A3. That's our only hesitation on that. But clearly the condition can be modified as the board desires. I mean, when I read 76A3, it sounds to me like we should just include that condition because it says whenever possible, and here it would be possible to provide for the continuation of local streets. And that's the basis of our recommendation. The addition of or as amended by Planning Commission, that happens quite frequently on the plans we do when it has to go to both bodies, especially the conditional uses because, you know, I get there and they might have me tweaking dumpster locations or something. As you read the ordinance, you know, it starts out that, you know the emphasis I believe is for those collectors we're extending the collector to a collector and arterial early in the process before the rest of the houses are coming in and you know we have a driving user I'd hate to think that that is written to just rule out the possibility of cul-de-sacs in the neighborhoods. Just to make sure I understand, Bill, if we approved it as written without the wiggle room, would that bind the Planning Commission or not? I'm not sure it would bind the Planning Commission. I believe that if the Commission ultimately approved the cul-de-sac, that the applicant may need to return to the board for modification of that condition possibly. That might be the result if the Planning Commission agreed with their proposal to cul-de-sac Cielo Vista. If the Planning Commission agreed to it and they sent it back, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm just feeling uneasy about making a decision on traffic that doesn't come to us very often. Right, which I understand. That's why I wanted, you know, the conditional use permit to be based on the use. Let the Planning Commission deal with the subdivision layout. So I still think conditions two through six could be approved. Condition one, site shall be developed in accordance with the submitted site plan or as amended by Planning Commission. And then it does fall in the Planning Commission to discuss with us what the correct street alignment is. Yeah. Well, I think we ought to approve it with the condition given the language in A3. And the only question is whether we should add unless amended by the Planning Commission. I mean, if we add as amended or unless amended by the Planning Commission, that means they don't need to go back in front of us. And that's the only difference in adding or not adding that language. That sounds better. And it sounds like it's more advantageous to the applicant as well. Certainly save us another case on the future docket. Okay. Are you drafting language? Yeah, let's give this to Joe Smith. Thank you. would that require our site plan is submitted to be modified or would it we would just go with the development plan at playing commission i think it would mean that prior to the staff being able to issue a zoning compliance permit he would need to demonstrate that that condition has been met okay so it would be the final development plan would be the deciding design document that would be reviewed for compliance not the board of adjustments site plan yeah i think i think we defer maybe to ms calcar on this but i think our expectation from planning would be that the remainder of the plans would go through the planning commission and then we would know exactly how that condition would fall out I was just trying to clarify, as they provide all this goes well, they go in for a building permit. Their Board of Adjustments site plan that gave them conditional use would be different than possibly what the Planning Commission's final development plan was. When's it going to the Planning Commission? I'm scheduled for the 8th. Okay. I just want to make sure that I didn't have to change any I didn't have to amend anything on this BOA development plan docket that it's now being pushed on to the subdivision committee's final development plan for the drawing and that this would just be the conditional use permit is that what you said Bill he doesn't have to change the plan but they it would be reported to them right that this condition was put on there well i think i think the site plan would in essence be replaced by the final development plan it's involving the same property and that plan would not be certified until it met the approval of the plant all the conditions of approval by the planning commission okay that's how we would anticipate that working there are other comments or questions we'll entertain a motion madam chairman i move that we approve c 2014-15 tim huber ramsey developments appeal for conditional use permit to establish an assisted living center for seniors in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone at 2930 Spur Road, subject to, for the reasons recommended by staff, and subject to the amended conditions, the six amended conditions. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to take a five-minute recess. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The property C-2014-21, it is for a conditional use request for a parking lot, which would be accessory to a professional office building on property located at 2101 Palomar Trace Drive. The property, if we can show the site plan, the site plan that the applicants had submitted, the property that is before you with the address of 2101 is highlighted in yellow. The P1 property is beside it, and they are showing it in tandem to show how this parking lot that's being requested from you today will be accessory to the P1 lot next door. The applicant's proposal would divide this existing lot up into three distinct areas. The area highlighted in yellow with the number one, that would be lot one, and that would continue to be a residential zone. And even though it is a part of the property, it is not a part of the conditional use that is before you today. Lot two would be the parking lot, and lot three would be a detention basin that is currently on the property but would be expanded and modified for the subject use of the property. If I can go to my PowerPoint presentation now, I can work you through this use. The subject property, even though it does have a Palomar Trace address, which is at the Palomar Trace is the cul-de-sac. The subject property is this property. It currently has access to both Harrodsburg Drive and Palomar Trace. There is a house on the property that faces towards Harrodsburg Drive, but appears to be accessed on a daily basis from Palomar Trace. It could be my sinuses, that sound there. This is the submitted site plan, as I showed to you at first. And what the staff did for these next couple of things is that we superimposed the proposed site plan on the aerial photography. So you can see how the proposed will meet, will work with the surrounding neighborhood. The staff was reviewing this conditional use request and didn't see anything really out of the ordinary whenever you were looking at a parking lot as a conditional use for the accessory. Until the final thing that we looked at were the contours on the site. And in this particular case, between the high point, which is on the P1 lot, which I've highlighted in the gold color, to the low spot, which is the detention basin on the subject property, there's about a 26-foot difference in elevation between those two sites. The staff recommended postponement primarily based off of our not knowing that much of an elevation difference, what kind of effect that would have on the subject property. Because if you go back and you look at the development plan, it did not have any of the topographic information. We were unsure if there was going to be a need for significant retaining walls in order to make this conditional use work or what that type of grading and or retaining walls would have an effect on the neighbor. As you can see, primarily, the existing house the applicant is proposing to tear down and building new house back. So primarily, there are just a few residential neighbors that are immediately adjacent to the proposed parking lot. The applicant has responded this week by, oh, here we go. And primarily the staff's concern is up in this corner of the proposed parking lot where the parking lot will interface with those residential lots that are around it. That is the focus of the staff's concern. The applicant responded earlier this week by providing some topographic and grading information. If we can pull that up on the overhead now. The staff received this, what I would call is preliminary grading information. Oh, and it is preliminary grading plan noted on there. And that just shows how this site could be graded with the extreme slopes. And I'll let the applicant and their engineers explain this more. But in general, they are proposing to expand the detention basin so there would be more cut in the detention basin than what's there today. There would be some grading that would go up to the parking lot. Most of the parking lot for this conditional use that you're looking at would probably be built on fill or the land would be regraded so that it would be kind of more level with slopes coming down so that they can control the drainage. And then in the vacant lot, that would be the residential lot, they would take the grade and slope that back up to the Palomar Trace cul-de-sac. If we can flip to the next. I think some of the staff still does have concern, even if there are not retaining walls left, just because we haven't had a chance yet to really look at this grading plan and what effect it would have on this. Yesterday was really the only day that the staff had to look at this grading information. We do still question whether with the amount of grading that would have to go in there in such a tight space so that their grades match up with the neighboring properties, how you will be able to get the grading and the required landscaping in. If I'm just going to go ahead and put it out there if we can show the last picture or if we can flip the page. I believe that if you are asked to make a determination today for approval, the staff would feel much more comfortable at this point in time removing those six parking spaces, increasing the green space. Thereby, with that extra amount of space, the staff has no worries that the applicant would have enough room to be able to get the grading and viable landscaping and screening in. If you stick with the staff recommendation of postponement, there's no guarantee next month the staff might be recommending this exact same solution, or we might have had time to look at it and recommend approval of the site plan that was submitted by the applicant. At this point in time, if forced into what could we recommend approval of today, it would be that alternative. staff does still officially recommend postponement even with the new information that was presented it will be available for questions throughout the hearing and of course once you get to your deliberations we will be helpful in trying to craft any language that you wish thank you very much that concludes the staff presentation thank you mr murphy Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here representing the applicant, which is a company called Solar Eclipse, LLC. And that is a company owned by three people. First one is Dr. Butch Schroyer, who is here with us today on the second road. Dr. Schroyer is the veterinarian who runs the Animal Care Clinic, which is just two doors down from this on Harrodsburg Road. It's right next to the Chase Bank. Jimmy Ball, a builder in town, is the second owner. And our third owner is Jake Reardon, who is not here today with us. But those are the three owners of Solar Eclipse LLC. Also with us today is Bill McAlpin, who's of Eagle Engineering, who is our engineer. Chaz Height, who is a professional planner. I had a handout, which I put at each of you all's places while you were on the break. It's just a very short one. Hopefully you all have it there. and if you don't, I will get you another one. We received the staff recommendation of postponement when the mailing came out, and at that point, since the issue was concern about use of retaining walls, we asked Mr. McAlpin to do a preliminary grading plan, which is not normally done until a later stage, but we asked him to do a preliminary grading plan to determine if retaining walls would be needed on this site. And his plan is here, right next to me, and as you can see, it was the one the staff presented to you. We've just colored it up here. This is the property we have before you today, 2101 Palomar Chase Drive. Next to it is the property on Harrodsburg Road, which is the site of the proposed professional office building. The brown is the parking area. Obviously, the building is here. Parking area comes over here onto the property on Palomar Trace. This is the detention basin, which is along Harrodsburg Road right here. and then this is the new building lot which is being created at the back so and I'll talk about that a little bit more later later mr. McAlpin did determine that we can do the grading on this property without any retaining walls he meets the required slope it has to be five percent or less slope in order to do that and the maximum slope he has in any places four and a half percent and so this can be done without any retaining walls at all. I wanted to give you a little background on this because this is the property next door at 3581 Harrodsburg Road was the subject of a zone change. If you could put the aerial photograph up on the overhead there, this is very similar to the aerial photograph that the staff has. It's just zoomed out a little bit more so you see a little bit more. Of course, here is Harrodsburg Road. Here is Wellington Way, and as you all know, Wellington Way is one of the main entrants from the north to the Palomar Shopping Center. Down here, there's a central bank and a AAA office and an Arby's and the center itself in here. Coming in Wellington Way, right at the corner is Chase Bank, and you turn and you come in at extension of Palomar Center Drive, and this is Dr. Schroyer's office, the animal care clinic. What we got rezoned just last month, as a matter of fact, through the Urban County Council was this large tract of land, which was the Dozier property. That's what we got rezoned, And then what we have before you today is this remnant parcel from Palomar Trace Drive, which is owned by Mr. Jim Baker and his wife. And that's what we have, the conditional use application before you today. But this property here, we got the back part zoned R3, the same as the properties on the other side of Palomar Trace Drive. Palomar Trace Drive was built out in the 90s, and the road is right through here. It was built on one side. It serves this property. So what Jimmy Ball and Dr. Schroyer, Mr. Reardon, are going to do is build similar houses on the other side along this road. It cul-de-sacs here, and one of the things we did, we had a number of meetings with the neighborhood throughout the zone change process. That's people living on Palomar Trace Drive. And the critical thing in that was that there be no vehicular access from the area in front, which we got zone P1, and the area in back. And that is continuing over to the application we're presenting you today. We want to emphasize that there is no vehicular access from the front of this property, the P1 building, which will be here, or our proposed parking lot up to Palomar Trace Drive. If you want to get from this point on the property to the cul-de-sac back here, you're going to have to drive over a mile through the neighborhood to get there. And that was at the strong request of the neighborhood group we dealt with, and we agreed to it. Staff agreed to it. Our access is from a point right here on Harrodsburg Road. As you can see right here, if you look at it, there's two driveway aprons that were constructed by the state when Harrodsburg Road was four-laned about ten years ago to serve each of those driveways. When we got our development plan approved for the zone change, the state strongly advised us, said they wanted us to have a joint access driveway with the Baker property next door. Possible they would prefer that rather than keeping two driveways right there. That made a lot of sense. So that's what started all this in motion. As we were getting our development plan approved, went to the state. They said they'd like to have one access point there. We said, sounds like a good idea. So we started talking to Mr. Baker, who's the owner of the property next door. At that point, a number of other issues came up because in our discussions with the people on Palomar Trace Drive, remarks were made to us that they were hoping we would buy this house and tear it down and replace it with another house. and that is because this house was built at Faces, as Mr. Emmons mentioned, Harrodsburg Road. It was built in the 1950s. It's a ranch. These houses were built about 15 years ago. They're a different architectural style. The back of the house faces the cul-de-sac, and we had remarks that they were hoping we'd take that and tear the house down. And another issue that came up was our stormwater detention. We were going to be doing a basin on the property, probably underground stormwater detention, which would detain it for a period before it drained into the basin on the Baker property because that's where it goes anyway. From there, it goes under Harrodsburg Road and drains out this way, down away from the neighborhood here, it drains out that way. So Solar Eclipse realized that there would be a benefit to them if they purchased this entire property and could use the basin there instead of building another basin where the water was going to go into that basin anyway. You know, why tear up, excavate more than we have to do to take care of our water when we could take care of it there? And obviously, then we discussed, they discussed if they're going to buy the property, they could take that house down and replace it with a building lot, same size as the lots on Palomar Trace Drive, and build a house that is more in character. The current house is located over here, sort of on the side. By doing this, we'd build a house more in the center so you'd have more even spacing between the houses one, two, and three along the cul-de-sac right there. So they felt that they could do that. And also we had the opportunity then to do perhaps some additional parking on this property for the property we got the zone change on. Now, that would allow this building to be a little bit larger because we could have a little bit more park in here and build this building a little bit larger. That, in turn, would allow them to subsidize the fact that they're tearing down a house which is in good condition, but not architecturally in style with the rest of the street, and replace it with one which will be in keeping with the street and what we're doing on the other side of the street. So sort of a convergence of forces after we got into the zone change brought us here. And the reason I'm explaining that, we've heard rumors, people saying, well, this was just in the works all the time, and we got the zone change, and then we knew we were going to do this. Well, it's not the case. It worked out through the discussion that was brought up in the fact that we were going to try to share the access point. Then we got into taking the house down. Then we got into the drainage, and then we got into the parking, and it all became totally logical that it would make sense for Solar Eclipse to buy the lot next door and make this application to you. The, again, I want to emphasize there's no vehicular access and that applies to the lot we have before you today up to Palomar Trace Drive or to Sally Drive, which is the drive immediately behind us here. There is no direct access between Sally Drive and Palomar Trace Drive either. There's a lot of cul-de-sacs in this neighborhood, apparently by design, the way it was done originally. In order to make this application in your ordinance, there's a section 16-3, which allows us to apply for conditional use for you for parking in the R3 zone, which is accessory to parking in the, or a building in the P1 zone. And we put that in the exhibits, and I just needed to go over those with you. If you could put up the first page of the exhibits there. We have to meet six criteria in order for you to grant us a conditional use to do this. As I said, they're contained in section 16-3 of the zoning ordinance, and we do meet all those criteria. The first one, it's a little hard to read, A here, but it's that parking has to be accessory to and for use in conjunction with the adjacent P1 zone, which this meets that. B is that the parking has to be located on premises containing more than 5,000 square feet, which we meet, and which abuts the P1 zone for at least 50 feet, which we do third is the parking area will be used solely for the parking of passenger automobiles which we will no commercial repair work or service will be conducted no charge will be made for parking no signs will be placed on the subject property other than those designating ownership where the entrances and exits are and conditions of use that sort of thing which we meet the d is that the entrances and exits to the parking area are more than 20 feet from adjacent lot lines or a residential zone, which we are. E is that the parking area will meet all zoning ordinance requirements concerning surfacing, lighting, landscaping, screening, and minimum yards and setbacks, which we do. And the last one, F, is sort of a statement, so everybody knows that the permit can be revoked if the above conditions are not complied with after the permit is granted. So we do meet all the conditions of Section 16.3 of the ordinance. And I want to mention to you as well the comprehensive plan. You don't have to judge this on the basis of the comprehensive plan, although I know most of your staff reports have a section in there about the comprehensive plan. And as you know, in 2003, the city did a small area plan for the Indian Hills neighborhood, which is just up the road. At that point, the city stated that the desire was to keep Harrodsburg Road as a professional office and a residential corridor. This certainly does this because we have a professional office there, and the property behind us will remain residential. In addition, as you all know, for the last, at least the last two or three comprehensive plans, the emphasis has been very heavy on redevelopment and infill, because we are not expanding the urban service area. And when we don't expand the urban service area, as everybody has mentioned over the years, we must make use of vacant spaces inside the urban service area. This definitely does that, as the goals and objectives in A2 support infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area. The goal C1A calls for strengthening efforts to develop a variety of job opportunities that lead to prosperity, and that's what we have in the office. Page 97 of the plan, they advocate redevelopment as a strategic component of growth, which is what we're doing here. And I won't read the other parts, but I mentioned some of those in my proposed findings and conclusions to you. As I mentioned to you, the plan we have proposed does not involve any retaining walls. Now, I understand we, there are, and when we were doing our zone change, we were in close contact with the neighbors on Palomar Trace Drive, which is the drive right behind us. And they were very impacted by the fact that we're going to be developing houses across the street from them and a professional office building down at the end of the street. But no, no access to the, to the P1 from the end of the street. We worked with them very closely, but I understand that there have been concerns brought in, and I know you all have gotten some emails from people on streets farther back, Sally Drive and McNair in particular, and I understand there's some people here today concerned about those. And I understand in particular there's one house there. If you go back to the overhead, there's one person here with a, kind of located here, the swimming pool, which is adjacent to our lot line right there. This is a lot, again, we're asking the conditional use permit for, and here is the lot with the swimming pool right there. There we go. There's the pool right there. There's the house right here. Here is our lot line. This line here is a concrete flume leading into the retention basin. If you go out there, the retention basin is very green, looks very nice, but it is a retention basin. It does have the concrete flume going into it. And we understand the staff concerns about that. And as Mr. Emmons was putting up the slide asking if we could take away these six parking spaces along that line, I think the driveway is about here on that property and then the swimming pool is about down here on the property. But if we could take away those six spaces, that's what he would be advocating for today. Although if we went next month, we might be able to show that we could use those. We think we can, but we would certainly be agreeable to taking those away to giving a larger landscape or buffer area between us and the people behind us on that, on Sally Drive. There's been some other zone changes in this area. Recently, the daycare center has been rezoned to B1 for redevelopment. Of course, we've been rezoned for professional office building here with the support of the staff. But I did get a chance to look over some of the communications you've received from neighbors and just wanted to talk about a couple of the issues that were raised there. One was traffic, and as I said, and I cannot emphasize enough, there'll be no vehicular access into the residential streets. All our traffic will come off of Harrodsburg Road here and come out to Wellington Way at Palomar Center Drive. That's our circulation pattern for the front. There'll be no way you can get from here to the residential roads. And I do want to mention, too, we did do a traffic study, traffic impact study for the zone change and presented that to the Planning Commission, which accepted that and granted us our zone change. There's been concern about lighting, what kind of lighting we will have. And as you all know and usually require, and I communicated to the clients that all lighting has to be directed downward, and the light bulb, if you will, the light source has to be shielded from visual line from adjoining property owners with shoebox type or similar type lighting, which they understand and agreed to. There was concern about some people stated that they felt there will be drug trafficking going on in the parking lot here since it is a parking lot, or there will be teenage drinking going on in the parking lot since it's a parking lot. And this will be developed. Now, Jimmy Ball has built a number of professional office buildings. I'll give you some examples of them are the Whitaker Bank building in Beaumont. which is across from the Kroger and Beaumont, the building which Fork Bank occupied across from the Kroger and Beaumont. I think Florida Tile is in that building, too, and Rector Hayden Realtors is in one of those buildings. He's built a number of bank buildings in Hamburg as well, very successfully. They're managed well, and part of the management is not allowing that sort of thing to go on. We don't think it would be going on here anyway, but since that was a concern I wanted to mention that I wanted to mention too that our plans for the zone change with our parking lots were reviewed by the police department as part of the plan review for zone changes now there's a police department representative for community planning who looks over plans now going through the Planning Commission and did not have any issues with design as far as activities that might be going on in the parking lot. The other thing that was mentioned was potential devaluation of property. I want to emphasize that I think the house that's on this lot right now that's going to be torn down is assessed at I think $180,000 in the PVA. That will be torn down and will be replaced by a house marketing, we think, in the $400,000 or up range. That will be the similar range of houses for the houses that are being built on the south side of Palomar Trace Drive by Mr. Ball. That is a higher value than the assessed values in the area. we will be raising the values in the area by doing this development because Jimmy Ball is used to and accustomed to building high quality high-end houses and we'll be doing that here those will be built adjacent to our building here and we are not concerned about property values there because we know what the houses will be worth. We know they will be built well, and we know they will be raising property values. So with that, I know there are going to be some concerns raised. I know Mr. Simpson wasn't hired until a couple days ago. We haven't been able to, we talked about getting together or whatever, was unable to do that. I think one of the people from Sally Drive was at the neighborhood meeting that Dr. Schroer and Jim Ball had last week. We regret that we couldn't communicate with them more about this prior to this, that we weren't aware people behind there were concerned about it. But we think we have a good plan for the property. We think it works logically. There's no reason for us to be digging up another, a second retention basin when our water, even if we had the second basin, would go to this basin anyway. We feel that the new house will be an improvement and something that is in line with what our neighbors felt was appropriate and good for the property. We feel our parking will be oriented to this building and will be appropriate and good for the property as well. And it allows us to have one access point to Harrisburg Road, which I think the staff has acknowledged makes a safer traffic situation there. So we feel very strongly that this is a good plan we have presented to you. I have given you some findings. If you should hopefully choose to vote in favor of this, which I hope you will consider for adoption on this. And with that, I do have Mr. Bill McAlpin here, who's our engineer, who can answer any questions you all have about the plan or grading or stormwater. And, of course, Dr. Schroer and Mr. Ball are here who can answer any questions about the development as well. So we thank you very much for your attention to our application, and we'll be responsive to any issues that may come up. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? No? Okay. Thank you. in that neighborhood association, which is directly adjacent to the proposed parking lot and expanded detention basin. I will get into the main substance of my presentation. I'll highlight what that summary will be. I did want to respond to several of Dick's points since he just made them. Dick had mentioned that they had had several meetings with the residents of Palomar Trace. Um, they've had no meetings with the members of the Harriots View Neighborhood Association, no contact, no reaching out whatsoever to that neighborhood association. Um, I got retained late. That's true. Um, I talked with Dick and, um, about the possibility of postponing. Uh, he said his clients did not want to postpone. They wanted to be heard. And that's why we're here today. Uh, he came up to me at the meeting right before it started and wanted to talk. and I'm like, it's a little late to have a talk. We're going to have a hearing on a major change in land use affecting what any reasonable person, upon looking at this application, would conclude the most impacted neighborhood is not Palomar Trace. The most impacted neighborhood is Harrods View. We're the closest to it, and we're the most impacted about it, and that's why I'm here. This neighborhood has a lot of history for me personally because it is the neighborhood, Harry's View, where I got my start, so to speak, in getting involved in land use issues a number of years ago, way back in 1988. And I lived on Sally Drive, and I later lived on McNair Way. and when we were there, everything that was south of this property, there wasn't a Palomar Trace, there wasn't a Palomar Shopping Center, there wasn't anything, Butch Royer's office was there, but there weren't any commercial buildings. And so we obviously, being on the last line of developed property facing undeveloped land as a neighborhood, became quite concerned about what was going to take place there. And beginning in 1988 and continuing through up, including to today, the neighborhood's been very active and very involved in the areas that impact them the most and for which they get a notice of a zone change. so the culmination of that early involvement particularly for the the property on the backyards of sally drive that's now palomar trace including the single family home that the applicant wants to tear down because they don't believe it's worthy enough to be a part of palomar trace all of that came about as a single family residential development because of the initiatives of Harriet's View. In fact, we worked out an agreement with Jim Baker, who was here before you earlier in connection with assisted living. Jim Baker owned all of that property, and we worked out an agreement with Mr. Baker that that property would all be developed as single-family residential homes, including the subject property that's before you today, 2101 Palomar Trace. We worked out an agreement. We put that agreement to record in the form of deed restrictions that provide that the entire development shall be used for single-family purposes. I will cover that in just a moment, but I wanted you all to know that that was part of the background of Harrodsview and really how Palomar Trace came into being, because it would not have come into being but for the initiative of the Harrodsview Neighborhood Association. Now, I have passed out a booklet that I just want to review very quickly with you in terms of the provisions. Dick passed out the ordinance that allows parking to take place in the R3 zone, which is what this is on. Now, there's deed restrictions that preclude it from anything other than single-family use, but they're trying through your approval through the Board of Adjustment to put a parking lot in there which would accommodate 82 parking spaces and expand the detention basin, add light poles and lights, and what historically has been on this property since 1960, a single-family residential home. This has been part of a neighborhood that has been single-family oriented since 1960. Now, Palomar Trace came along in 1993, and prior to that, Harrod's View was started in 1988. So the question, the threshold question in terms of the principal guiding law for you all, of course, is set forth in the Zoning Ordinance 7-6 specific powers. I've highlighted it for you. and your threshold determination is in determining or approving a conditional use, is that the board shall have the power to hear and decide applications for conditional use permits to allow the proper integration into the planning area of uses, which are specifically named in the zoning ordinance, which may be suitable only in specific locations in the zone, only if certain conditions are met, and which would not have an adverse influence on existing, meaning the subject property itself, 2101 Palomar Trace, or future development of the subject property, or in surrounding neighborhoods. Now, we believe the evidence that we will introduce will show that their proposal to tear down a house and use 70% of the remaining property, it's about a two-acre site for this house, with a beautiful backyard, it's been a beautiful backyard for many, many years, is adverse to having a viable $400,000 house, which is going to overlook 82 parking spaces and a super expanded detention area. The people that bought into Palomar Trace back in the 90s and continuing through today bought with knowledge that this house, a nice house, 1,700-square-foot ranch house, was there on a two-acre parcel with a beautiful backyard. They didn't have a problem with that. It didn't cause them any concern about diminution in property values. I will show you photographs of the house. It's in good condition, and there's residents in it right now. We don't believe the applicant can satisfy the requirements for your approval under Article 7-6 for conditional use. The property that they want to put the parking lot and enlarge detention basin on is zoned R3. Palomar Trace is zoned R3. and the R3 designation under the zone clearly states it is a planned neighborhood residential zone. It doesn't talk about being a planned accommodating professional office parking zone or any other kind of business. It talks about a planned neighborhood residential zone, and the first sentence speaks clearly to the intent. This zone is primarily for multifamily dwellings and other residential uses. That is the first clear-cut statement that this is the purpose of this zone. Now, they want to seek a conditional use, which under the law is allowed, but it's allowed in the context of the previous ordinance that I cited to you, seven days, six, for conditional uses, and whether or not this destruction of a backyard to put in 82 parking spaces and a larger detention basin, I don't know anyone who would look at that and back up to it, would find that that is an appropriate use of a backyard next to a single-family residential zone that's been there for 26 years. This house has been there for more than 50 years as a single-family use, and now they want to change it. Now, a couple of things about how we got here. Dick mentioned that, oh, we just found out about this after our zone change for Dr. Schroyer got a piece of property zone that was also residential, which has a nice house that's going to be torn down to accommodate another house, which is going to be torn down to accommodate his professional office building. And just so there's some clarity to what the history is about this office building, I need to show a couple of exhibits. When Dr. Schroer went before the planning commission in December of last year for what used to be the Dozier property, which is this property in here, He sought an application for professional office use and for single-family residences. Zoned, to be zoned, R3. Planning Commission approved all of this. They also approved the professional office use over here. Dr. Schroer's office is over here. When they approved this in December, it went to the Urban County Council. The Urban County Council just rezoned this property. on January 30th of this year. On January 30th, this was approved. And when they approved this property, there was sufficient parking available for the building that they said they wanted to build at the time. And that building, by their own plan, was 26,800 square feet. January 30th of this year, less than three months ago, this was what was approved. now they could have asked to rezone the Baker property which is the property they're trying to backdoor through conditional use to accomplish the same purpose they could have asked for a zone change on that property at the time this property, the Baker property, Dick talks about the comprehensive plan every single plan that's been adopted in this county has recommended residential use for the Baker property. Not one plan has ever recommended office uses. Now, the 2013 comprehensive plan doesn't have a recommended land use, but it talks about more than any single category of review is that zone changes have to be compatible with surrounding properties. And yes, we need infill, but we don't do it without consideration of the impact on adjoining properties. What's the impact going to be? This has been a, the Baker property has been a backyard and prior to that a front yard since 1960. Always as a residence. Never as an office. So in any event, less than three months ago, Dr. Schroyer had an office building for 28,000, excuse me, 26,800 square feet. And he had the parking. He said, well, I'm going to put my underground storage vault for my detention here, and I'll put parking on top of it. And that's how you get more usable space. So this is in January the 30th. On March 25th, less than two months later, even though the Baker property has been used for nothing other than a residence, since 1960, and no comprehensive plan has ever recommended it for professional office use. It is always recommended for residential use. Because it's zoned R3, they say, hey, we can get a conditional use permit, because the ordinance allows for it, to put 82 parking spaces on what has been a backyard of a single-family subdivision since 1993. Now, you can say, well, maybe they just had an epiphany after the zone change. That's for you to determine. But the net result of what they want to do and why we're here, based upon their own application for the conditional use permit, is that the building has now gone to 38,500 square feet, an increase of 11,700 square feet, which they couldn't have gotten by a zone change. I don't think the staff would have ever recommended going into the Baker property to rezone at professional office to put the parking in. So what they're trying to do is come in through a different forum, the Board of Adjustment, and get a conditional use application on what is a backyard for 82 parking spaces, having to expand the detention basin, expand their professional office, get rid of their storage vault, and dump all of their water in the backyard of this property next to the homes in Harries View. That's why we're here. That's exactly why we're here. They had plenty of parking to accommodate what they said they wanted in December to the Planning Commission and in January to the Urban County Council. And now they want to end run that process and come back to you and say, well, we really need 11,700 square feet, but to do that, we need more parking in the backyard of 2101 Palomar Trace. I have some photographs to share with you if Bill will put those up. There are also, all of these photographs, by the way, are under tab number four because the lighting really isn't that good in here, and I'm not that good of a photographer. So you can see them closer in the booklets that you have. For some reason, you all get the, not the public, but the board gets a better view of this because it's more lit up. So this property right here is the Dozier property. This is the future site of the professional office. Dr. Dozier lived here for many years. I knew him. He had an observatory back here. He's since passed away. But this house is coming down. This house right here is coming down to make way for the professional office development. It's going to be right in here. But this is the way this neighborhood existed. This is the subject property right here. This is a single-family home with a full basement, 1,700 square feet on the top. And this has been the backyard right here. Next slide. This is more showing the Harrodsview neighborhood. These houses sit up and look down right on top of the backyard here. This is, as Jimmy mentioned, 26 feet difference in height from this area to this area. Next slide. This whole property is the subject property. It's been a single-family home. This is the part that they want to tear down the existing house. They're going to seek a variance, I understand, to build a different kind of house right here, a $400,000 house, and it's going to overlook the next slide. 82 or even 76, even if you take out these, there's still going to be 76 parking spaces all throughout here on the backyard of a $400,000 house. Now, I have been privileged to represent a number of residential developers. I have yet to see in any residential development that was properly planned or even improperly planned, a developer who believes that putting a $400,000 house or any house overlooking, because it slopes like this from the house down to where the detention basin will be, 82 parking spaces and a huge detention basin. Next slide. This is looking from the backyard of the Harrisons on Sally Drive, and this is the site of the future parking lot, and the detention basin is over here. I ask you to look at these trees that you see because that has yet to be mentioned in any of this. If this was going to be a zone change, the Planning Commission would have a number of questions about what about the significant trees on the property and how would they be impacted and which ones will be destroyed and what steps are you going to take to take care and preserve these trees. We've heard none of that today whatsoever. And I'll show you some additional views of the existing tree stand in this backyard that's been in existence, backyard to backyard, for more than 20 years. Next slide. This is from, again, looking from the halls. They live over on Sally Drive. Looking at the future parking lot and expanded attention. You can see how green it is now, and you'll see some more photographs. It's a very nice piece of property. Left, if somebody wanted to tear down the existing house and build a $400,000 house with two acres, they could do it. Or just upgrade the existing house if they wanted. Next slide. More of the existing trees on the property all through here. And based on their development plan, many of these trees will have to come down. Some of these trees have been here 30 or 40 years or longer. Next slide. You can see just how big these trees are. There's a couple of neighbors in relation to height of the trees. some of these trees. I know one of them had to be at least 80 feet tall. Next slide. This is the single family home that they want to tear down. As Jimmy indicated, the people that rent this property right now mainly access it from Palomar Trace. This house was first on the block in Palomar Trace. It didn't scare any of the homeowners away from purchasing their homes on Palomar Trace. I don't understand the compelling reason to have to now tear it down in order to have 40% of the rest of the lot being a parking lot and the other 30% being a detention basin. Next slide. This is the Harrison's kitchen looking out their window about 5.30, 6 o'clock at night. This is what they see now. It's backyard to backyard. It was as it It was planned to be from 1992 on, single-family homes backing up to single-family homes. They've got a great view. This is well-maintained. You saw the trees. This is what they see now. Next slide. This is what they will see if you all approve this development. Next slide. That may be the last one. Yeah. That's it. Okay. I have a copy of the PVA listing for the property. Of course, it hasn't been sold. Jim Baker has rented that house for many, many years. It's in great shape. It's probably got the nicest backyard on the Harrisburg Road area. You saw it for yourself. I'm trying to understand the compelling reason to destroy all of that backyard and its historic single-family orientation for the purpose of allowing Butch to add another 11,700 square feet to an office building. He just got approved on January 30th of this year, which had all the parking that he said he needed at the time. Under the next tab, tab number six, is the agreement that I referenced with Jim Baker that was executed in 1993. It was actually a supplemental agreement. We had one agreement. It was executed in 1992 that had actually for more houses. and Jim came to me and he said, would you think the neighborhood would object if I reduced the number of single-family homes? And the neighborhood accommodated his request. We filed a supplemental agreement. In the agreement, I have highlighted for you some of the provisions, but the principle, one, is that it's single-family orientation, single-family uses. All the way around, Jim Baker signed it. He still owns this property. He still owns the property that we're talking about now, converting into a parking lot, a large detention basin, and subdividing it out. His property was listed as Lot 21 on the deed restrictions that specifically provided for single-family use. I actually prepared the deed restrictions for Palomar Trace. They specifically state in paragraph 2, all lots in this development shall be used for single-family residential purposes only, not for professional office. That's what Jim Baker agreed back in 1993. Signed his name. His wife signed his name. Harrodsview signed their name. Now, we have to go to court, if necessary, to enforce these restrictions. I suggest to you, based upon what is glaringly obvious here of trying to use this body to finesse another 11,700 square feet of professional office space by dumping the parking on us on an existing single-family home that was always intended to be a single-family home for more than 21 years, isn't good planning, isn't consistent with this body's review of how applications for conditional use ought to be considered, and therefore should be summarily denied. I have prepared findings of fact to support the denial, and based in principal part on the radical change in use from a 21-year history is a beautiful backyard abutting the homes on Sally Drive, putting 82 parking spaces, 76 parking spaces, 50, it doesn't matter, right up next to us. Having this backyard take all the stormwater detention from Butch Snyder's expanded professional office is a radical change in use. It's not compatible with the homes on Sally Drive. 82 cars coming and going, people using their keys to lock and unlock their door, fender benders, horn sounding, people that don't live in the neighborhood walking around to go to work when all times before they had a beautiful view, a beautiful backyard, there's no need to change it to accommodate professional office expansion that they never could have gotten approved had they gone through the planning and zoning process. I would not reward that kind of approach to development. It has a substantial impact on the homes in Harrodsview. We're being sacrificed. I suggest there was a reason we weren't contacted, because they knew the greatest impact was against the homes on Harrodsview. And the homes in Palomar Trace could probably say, you know what, if you wanted to build a $400,000 house and tear down that existing one, we really wouldn't object. So I could see why they wouldn't have a problem. But there was no reaching out to the folks in Harrodsview. and in any event I don't believe under the guiding principles of the law for conditional use that you all have to consider which I've included under my tabs and what they have to show and the impact that this is going to have without question they've met their burden and it should be denied. There are a few neighbors that want to speak to you and I'll let them come forward at this time unless you have any questions. it's kind of intense um i i feel like my life is on the line because uh i'm lewis harrison i am this property that has the pool it's a it's a carefully chosen property and so maybe that's I mean, this is really a quality of life issue for me, which is maybe why I'm so nervous at this time. But this is a carefully chosen property from the fact that in the previous 12 years, my wife and I have pursued our careers and moved seven times in 12 years. We have two little boys, not so little now. They're 12 and 14. we decided four years ago to find a property that we could settle down on at least until our gentleman grew up and graduated from high school we had saved and worked hard for a long time to be able to create and nurture an environment where that would include a pool so that we could have the kids want to be home and have their friends come to us. It helps us guide them in good decisions. And it currently serves as we research to make sure that our property could hold the pool and that the back property and all surrounding properties would not interfere with that. And now it's a place to have cookouts. It's a family gathering place. Our neighbors come over. It's where our basketball team comes to celebrate wins. Our football team comes. We know no strangers to kids. We bring them all over, feed those big old guys all the time, and it's great. It's great. It does me good as a homeowner and a dad to know that I set out to design a plan to nurture an environment where my gentlemen could be there and they actually want to be there. So that makes me feel good. But the quality of life issue for me personally is with this parking lot going in is that the open windows and the open doors and the security we feel leaving our kids at home while we run a few errands now becomes a little bit of an easiness about what's going on over there. I'm not, I mean, I'm working very hard to make sure my guys stay out of the Fayette Mall parking lot or Kroger parking lot or something like that. And so now there's a congregation point that we've had issues in the neighborhood at Palomar, whatever that, where the McDonald's is, with some kids getting mugged and having their money stolen. But this is not a – I mean, a parking lot is not a pretty thing to look at. There's no such thing as a pretty parking lot. The topography actually does nothing to help. The grading actually would exacerbate the problem as I look down on it. The privacy issues that we have suddenly become non-private. I'm open – I'm literally an open book. So based on just a simple quality of life issue from where I sit every morning and every evening and go to bed every night and have celebrations with my kids and their friends, I would ask that you not grant this permit. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for not interrupting. He's the main player. Hello, my name is Tanya Bell. I live next to Louis. I'm actually at the very end of Sally. My house is the one that ends the cul-de-sac. We have a 1.15-acre lot. I actually am the, what you would deem the retention area. All the water from Sally and McNair drained down into my area. 40% of my lot is graded down low, probably six times a year, spring, fall. It becomes, we deem it, Lake Bell. All the water comes down. The water comes up high. It comes up to probably about this high. Within an hour, it all flows out. What they're talking about doing is taking away all of the green area that's over at the Palomar place. They get rid of all of that grass that is in that area. Where's the water going to go? Well, it's not going to absorb into the parking lot, so it's going to come into my backyard. as it stands right now. It comes up to where they've graded my backyard. And you can pull up a slide and see the way my backyard is graded right now. But when this water comes down, it's going to come down. And I've lived at that house for 10 years. We've never had any water in our house whatsoever. You get rid of all of that green area over there, all the water from Palomar Trace and all that where they're putting the new $400,000 houses. Where's that water coming? It's going to come down, and it's going to end up coming back through where Lewis's house is and come back down into my area. It's going to flood my house, and it's going to flood the neighbors. Same thing happened when they put in the funeral homes. All the houses back in that area started having their basements flood. That didn't happen before they put in the funeral home and got rid of that area. That is my main concern. I don't have a direct view of the parking lot. I have a side view of the parking lot. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Malia Hoard. I'm a business owner here in Lexington, Kentucky. I have lived in the Harrods Butte area since 1998 with my husband. We have three children, although one is 26. We have two boys that are 12 and 14. I am right on the corner of Sally and McNair Way. I actually am literally one, two houses away from Palomar Trace Road and can directly see that area from our front porch. What we have failed to talk about is the safety of our children. Palomar Trace has been invited into meetings. There's less than 10 kids on that road. If you take Sally and McNair Way, you have 49 kids under the age of 20. that we are talking about. Those 49 kids on a daily basis, you can come into that neighborhood that is all dead ends, and you will find them riding their bikes, skateboarding, walking their dogs without parent chaperones. You will find them either in my backyard, the Harrison's backyard, the Bell's backyard, because those are the only backyards that there's any open green space. you'll find our boys and the girls running around the backyard that they want to take and make into a parking lot because the closest park that we have is down at Harrods Hill, down by the Harrods Hill Park. So my concern as a parent and as a business owner is that I now have moved into one of the safest neighborhoods that has one of the best school systems that we moved in here because there was that green space separating us from the projected pell mart center that had just gone up and knowing that beaumont was going to be exploding with construction to feel that we had a safe home and a buffer around us and we do we live in a little bubble and we would like to keep that bubble because right now we're grooming 50 of the new leaders of this town in this community and i want to know that when they go out at night and want to run down to their neighbor's yard they're going to be safe and with the parking lot we've already seen the crime rate come up with the palomar center we take that into consideration we have to go into extra security when they want to ride their bikes there because there have been break-ins there have been i used to have a business that was temporarily in there for nine months and there was a great concern of crime now we're moving this store this office building that's now been enlarged and we have to think about all of the riffraff if you want to call it that's going to come into there and what will happen at the parking lot at night my other concern is that we haven't really talked about the intersection of palomar the palomar shopping center with wellington if anyone's ever commuted there with chase bank and central bank and the pal and the panera bread and the daycare it is a living nightmare with traffic and there's no traffic light there because there's already a traffic light on Harrodsburg Road. And now we're bringing in a 35,000 square foot office building. And what kind of traffic and kind of congestion are we going to have for that as well? So, you know, there's a big consideration, which I'm really surprised that other business owners haven't taken into consideration of these 49 kids. And why wasn't that question asked about how is that going to impact the safety of these children thank you my my name is linda richardson i live on sally drive for the last seven years i have um two two two boys, one is under 20. Malia just spoke about this. But as I understand it, as I think this was presented, it sounded like the ingress-egress for this development was on Harrodsburg Road. You stated that the state approved a driveway on Harrodsburg Road. Now, I did a little research. I found an ordinance for Harrodsburg World called the Transportation Policy. It's ordinance number 92-87. And on page, it would be page three or four. Number two, it says access spacing. And going down to, OK, access spacing for new development and redevelopment should be at least 1,600 feet apart. And then skipping down, no driveway access will be permitted for new developments. However, existing driveway access will be retained until development occurs. At that time, the driveway access shall be closed. OK, so this ordinance says that there can be no access onto Heronsburg Road. Now, does the state approval supersede this ordinance? okay and if it does okay that places this driveway at the beginning of the turning lane for Wellington now I drive this every day several times today Harrodsburg at this point is really really busy the traffic goes fast people zoom into that turning point and if you look at this on an aerial aerial view you'll see that the driveway is positioned just at the beginning of of the turning lane. And even, excuse my nervousness, on the site plan, it shows that the construction vehicles will be entering and exiting from the present driveway at the beginning of the turning lane. So I'm just very concerned with traffic safety. And I think the whole thing is a really bad idea for the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Debbie Snyder. I live on Sally Drive. I wasn't planning on speaking, but after hearing everybody, I thought I needed to put a little bit of my own words into it as well. I've lived on Sally Drive since 1992. And our kids are grown now. Our youngest is 21, so you can't include him in that under 20, but he's close. But I guess the thing I'm feeling is my kids, when they were younger, they had a lot of green space. And that's one of the reasons we bought that house Over the years, that green space has disappeared. Palomar Trace, you know, Palomar was expanded. Palomar Trace Boulevard was built. And now, as I looked at those screens where there's just that little bit of green space left, and that's all that our neighborhood has is that little bit of green space. And I just feel that it's so important to keep that green space there because of our children. And like I said, my kids are all grown. They grew up in that area on that street. and we loved that area because of the way it was and kind of disappointed over the years as it's lost all that green space. So I would hate to see that disappear just because it's been instrumental in our family to have kids be able to run around safely in the streets and have their fun growing up. It's a great neighborhood and we've loved it there. It's a great location. Everything about the neighborhood is awesome. And I think for the families that have smaller children, I just really want to support them because it's been so instrumental to our family. So I just really want to support them in this. Thank you. My name is Robin Wilkinson. I also live on Sally Drive. In addition to the safety, I'd like to bring up the noise issue. Once all that green space is taken out, just the buffer from the noise from Harrisburg Road is going to be that much more. We can all hear it somewhat from the street anyway. But once you take out all those fabulous trees, we're going to have absolutely no buffer whatsoever. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Meredith Hall. My parents, Ray and B. Hall, live at 2128 Sally Drive. We are next door neighbors to the Hairstons. I am one of those kids that grew up in that neighborhood. I was 12 when we moved there, and we moved there because it was quiet and peaceful and a wonderful place to live. I also have been the child care provider, the residential babysitter for all of the children that live in this area. I know all of them. They all know me as Miss Meredith. It is, safety is, and I know this has been a main concern for everyone, and safety is an issue for everything, everywhere. But safety for the children, yes, very much. And safety also for my parents, who very soon will be senior citizens. I hate to admit it, and I hate to date myself. But as a successful child from this area, and my sister, who also is very successful, we would like to have this space remain the way it is. Because, you know, the children are our future. so we appreciate your time and thank you very much thank you at this point I guess I'll mr. Murphy if you would like five minutes to but are you still with the neighbor you're on the wrong side members of the board my name is Michael Walsh and I live on 2153 Palomar trace Drive I will be very brief and concise and I may run over my time and I don't do that with any disrespect to the board I've lived at that address since 2001 and I've been very involved in all of the development activity that has taken place since I've lived there so I can provide some additional perspective as well as address some of the comments that mr. Murphy has brought up and also that mr. Simpson has brought up. I'll be as brief as I can. Just to add what's already been shared about Palomar Trace Drive, the street was developed about 20 years ago. There are 24 houses on that street. Nine of those homes are still the initial owners of those homes. Nine more are the second owners of those homes. So the average length of residency on that street is close to 15 years. you've got nine residents that have been there for 20 years of the second homeowners their average length of residency is 14 years the conditional use request today is the fourth development event that has taken place since I have lived on Palomar Trace Drive you can check the minutes from the March 28, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission. Some other dates include March 11, 2004, September 9, 2004, and most recently, December 19, 2013. Now, at all of those events, the only residents from the public to engage the planning commission or the planning staff to discuss the development have been residents from Palomar Trace Drive. That seems to contradict what Mr. Simpson had said earlier about Herod's view being a very active neighborhood association. At the time that this conditional use request was submitted, they may not have even been in an active status. But throughout all of those development events, the feedback and the concerns from the residents of Palomar Trace Drive have always been very consistent. The primary concern was when it came time to develop Dr. Dozier's field across from the homes that were there, that the homes or that how that property was developed would be that it's developed with single-family residences similar in style, materials, and size to what already existed on Palomar Trace Drive. The other issue was to minimize the encroachment of the P1 activity that was going on in that area. No one ever sought to stop any development, and no one ever felt entitled that the area should remain unchanged for their personal enjoyment. when it came time for the zone change plan for dozer's property the residents met and a strong majority two-thirds of the homes on the street met to express those concerns through the planning commission's subcommittee zone or sub zoning subcommittee meeting the subdivision subcommittee meeting and they were present at the planning commission meeting as well throughout that process, we became educated in things like zoning regulations, infill, redevelopment, comprehensive plan, the micro, macro implications of all of those things. I would like, I don't necessarily oppose a larger office building as a result of this conditional use request. I would like to see it less than 38,500, but I don't see that it's detrimental to the area if it's more than 27 000 square feet the new home on the baker property is certainly perceived as desirable for the majority of the residents on palomar trace drive that i've spoken with seeing that there is additional acreage available with the baker property that wasn't available when the zone change went through i would also like to see perhaps more be done to provide a greater buffer between the street and the proposed office building or if possible even add one more residential home to round out the cul-de-sac but in general no one on palomar trace drive is wanting to stop this our concerns remain the same as they have always been that the homes that are built across from us are consistent in size, style, and material with what's already there, and that the encroachment of the P1 be minimized as much as possible. To add to some of the comments that I do apologize, but Mr. Murphy said some of the concerns about a parking lot were teenage drinking and drug use. Dr. Dozier's Field had always been a congregating point for that same activity. Individuals came from Sally Drive to use Dr. Dozier's Field for that very purpose. As far as devaluing the property, so few homes have sold on Palomar Trace Drive that it's very hard to get an indication of that. Six years ago, a single-family home that backs up to a parking lot of the Wellington Way office condominiums sold for over $300,000. So it doesn't – that may not be the most desirable backdoor neighbor, but I can't say that it's devalued the property. In terms of traffic, the multiple development plans that Mr. Murphy mentioned, there's one where the daycare center is going to be converted to a coffee shop, an office building. Their traffic engineer did a traffic study which showed that the road connection between Harrodsburg Road and Palomar Center Drive that's going to encircle this office would actually alleviate traffic congestion. And I just apologize greatly for running over my time, but thought, since I've been actively involved in that entire development history, that that information might be helpful. And if you have any questions later, I'll be glad to answer them. Thank you. I apologize for running over. My name's Jim Baker, and I'm the present owner of that subject property. Hadn't planned to be here today other than I had a hearing earlier, and I thank you, by the way. Everything that Dick Murphy said today was accurate. A lot of things that Bruce Simpson said today, and I consider Bruce a friend, was not correct. I was involved with the development of a lot of property out that way, including Harrodsville, Palomar, Palomar Trays, Harrodsview. Harrodsview, I've developed with co-developer Steve Hayden and J.C. Riggs. I currently own one house in Herodview, which is on Lyon Drive. No one backdoored anybody on this BOA. What happened was I was invited to bid on the Dozier property. I have made a decision in my life to start selling off some of the property that I do own. I did not entertain bidding the Dozier property. When I developed Palomar Trace, there was supposed to, well, when I developed Palomar Trace, there was a stubbed-in street. I believe it's McNair. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bruce. Did you live on, yeah, okay. I worked with Bruce Simpson because he lived on the corner of Sally Drive and McNair Way. He said, we sure would like to see this street stubbed. Well, you know, my early meeting today, they don't like stubbed-in streets. But I said, okay. And I was going to build townhouses where Palomar Trace is right now. And Bruce said, I came to him, said, how about single-family homes? I don't recall it exactly that way, but I wasn't opposed to putting in what I put in. But I know it was zoned R3. R3 is residential, but it's also residential, could be apartments, townhomes, duplexes. I chose to put in single-family homes. McNair Way was stubbed in, and it was designed to go through and tie into Wellington Way. But to accommodate Harrodsview, to cut down any traffic going through their neighborhood, I agreed to that. As far as this property goes, I know Jimmy Ball very well. I've done some development with him in the past. I saw him one day, or I called him maybe, after they had already bought their property and was going to go in for zoning. I didn't come to that zoning hearing, even though I was a Jason property owner. I said, Jimmy, all I want is don't put the dumpster next to my property, my house, that I have rented out for about 20 years. and if you have an access off harrisburg road i'd like you to kind of coordinate it to where my driveway would tie into their access they said okay and from that point it got a little more involved in the fact that i i said to jimmy you know you guys probably ought to buy my property now this was after the fact i just want to make it i want to make it clear bruce that nobody was backdooring anyone as far as trying to get something approved. I went to Harrodsview personally before I wrote a contract to agree to sell because the developments that I've been involved with I tried to do right by the people even though they bought 20 years ago. So I went to Mr. Harrison. He knocked on his door and I'm fortunate to catch him. I am very busy doing more than I should these days, but I did try to contact the people I thought were most impacted. That was Mr. Harrison that backs up to the greenway that you saw, the detention basin that I had to put in when I did Palomar Trace Drive. And that serves Palomar Trace Drive. The other lady that backs up to the detention, I don't know her name, I didn't write it down. when we did Herod's View, that detention was put in to handle Herod's View. So Herod's View was done first, then Palomar Trace. I bought that land later and did that development. So there's two separate detentions. When that detention, if these gentlemen went over their situation here, they're going to either redesign it, they will tear it up, maybe cut some sod out, but eventually it will be grass again, just like it is now and just like the other detention. I even asked Mr. Harrison, I said, the property's for sale. Would you like to buy it? He said, I sure do like that green field in back of my house. And a lot of residents like everything to stay the way it is, as long as they don't have to mow it, pay taxes on it, and so on and so forth. Herod's View, if I'm not mistaken, either all of it or most of it, is also zoned on the comprehensive plan, original comprehensive plan before it was developed was R3. The co-developers of Herod's View and myself decided that we like single-family homes, so we pretty much down-zoned the property for the use, not the zone. but for the use. And I think that whole area has worked out very well, and I think a lot of people are happy they bought there. I believe that's about all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Baker, right here. Yes, sir. I'm looking at this supplemental agreement and deed restriction that you signed with the neighborhood. How do you reconcile what's going on today with that promise that you made to the neighborhood, these neighbors that you say they just want everything to stay the same, but they had reason to think that it would stay the same. Well, let me say this. You know, theoretically, the old house that's there is really a nice home. And when I developed Palomar Trace, I decided not to tear it down. I could have torn it down, extend the street out farther, put in more residential lots. Or, in retrospect, I could have put a bunch of townhouses out there, but I didn't. I signed that in good faith at the time. I'm not desperate to sell this property. As a matter of fact, if things don't work out and they decide not to buy it, I'll try to sell it to someone else. Maybe one of the neighbors in Harrod's view. But at the time, I agreed to those restrictions. I'm not trying to backslide on anything that I ever signed my name to. But they're not asking for a zone change. It will be used for residential. I'm not sure if residential prohibits a large parking lot in it. I'm not allowed. I mean, I should know this, and I don't. I'm a residential developer primarily. At my own house, can I expand my driveway and put a pad for 20 cars? I think maybe I can. But anyway, I don't want to bypass what you ask, but I guess you'll have to make the call. But someone could tear that house down and build a big house with swimming pools and tennis courts and all the things that would be allowed in a residential zone, and you wouldn't have a parking lot necessarily, but it wouldn't necessarily be green space. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, you reserved a few minutes, as I recall. Pardon? I believe you didn't use about five minutes of your time. Thank you. Thank you. And I appreciate the people who have spoken to try to clarify the manufactured story that was presented to you by Mr. Simpson about how this happened. It concerns me. Well, it doesn't concern me, but his clairvoyance is flawed about ascertaining mind-reading people and seeing how things are determined. And I'm glad two people who are directly involved put the record to rest on that. I do want to state that, yes, we did have discussions about postponing this. When we talked Wednesday, I said that if he wanted me to postpone it, all I wanted was an assurance that we'd have some rational discussions about compromise, not binding anybody to compromise, but just having discussions about this. He said he could not assure me of that. It was just as easy to oppose it as to fight about a postponement. So when he called me yesterday asking me if I was going to postpone it, I said, well, I'd talk to my folks, pass that on. No, we're not going to postpone it. But we certainly would have liked to have an opportunity to talk to the neighbors about this once we found out they were concerned. We did not have that opportunity. I'm going to hit on a few items going by at random. We are aware of the deed restrictions. We are aware of the deed restrictions. We have seen those before we entered into this. Those run to the property owners on Palomar Trace Drive. It is possible that we will have to get the permission of all the property owners on Palomar Trace Drive before we can do this to fulfill deed restriction requirements. You all do not enforce deed restrictions. Those are privately enforced. Those deed restrictions Mr. Simpson gave you ran to the owners on Palomar Trace Drive. They were entered into by the Harrodsview outfit called, I think, the Harrodsview Neighborhood Association, Inc., which was dissolved 14 years ago. That is no longer in existence. But we acknowledge it does run to the owners on Palomar Trace Drive. It does not run to owners on Sally Drive or McNeer Drive. But we do acknowledge we may have to deal with those. That's something aside from you. You all don't get into deed restrictions, as I've been taught for many years by the city law department. But I just want you to know about that. We're well aware of those. We're well aware that we're going to have to comply with those on that. And we have been working closely with the people who live on Palomar Trace Drive. As far as detention goes, as I think has been clarified, our detention from this property... is going to go to this detention basin regardless. It's just whether we have to construct some underground vaults to detain it for a while before it goes there or not. This was constructed with part of the subdivision. It's a constructed detention basin that wasn't there 40 years ago. It was constructed in the front yard. Everybody who's been complimenting how well the front yard along Harrodsburg Road looks is complementing a developer who built a detention basin there. He built it. It's not readily apparent in some parts that a detention basin is there. It gets deeper towards the road. We anticipate that we're going to have to make it a little bit deeper in the middle. I talked to Mr. McAlpin about whether we're going to be able to keep the trees along Harrodsburg Road. He thought he would be able to keep the trees along Harrodsburg Road. Those were planted apparently about the same time the detention basin was built, about 20 years ago. But that is a constructed addition to the front yard of this house along Herodsburg Grove. Now, I think it's been clarified that there was not an evil plot to tear down the existing house on the property, that that was brought to us as an idea by others. It would be certainly cheaper for my clients to leave it up. I don't understand all the criticism about taking it down when it's certainly not a financial motive to take it down. The motive is that we were told by the people on Palomar Trace Drive that we sure wish you would have taken that down and replaced it with a house. And that's exactly what we're doing. If you want to imply evil motives to that, I guess somebody can, but there are no evil motives. It certainly costs my clients a lot more to do that. The water goes to this basin. As Mr. Baker pointed out, there are other basins for the Sally Drive area. It goes to our basin here. It flows down here. It goes under Harrodsburg Road. It's not going to be flowing up toward the people on Sally Drive. It's going to be flowing down as gravity dictates into this detention basin and then on Harrodsburg Road. We're not going to be flooding anybody's house along Sally Drive or McNair Drive. We will have a fence along this. The question is, will small children be getting into the parking lot? No. there would have the there's an existing detention basin there which I don't think anybody has said that's a attractive nuisance but this is going to be fenced with these developers so the people can't get into the detention basin right there there was discussion about the or about the access to Harrodsburg Road right here we went over that on the zone change and in addition to the somebody else, Ms. Westover represented somebody else who got a zone change for the daycare center up on Wellington, at the corner of Wellington and Palomar Center Drive. And they did a traffic study to indicate this would make that intersection much better. That's a bad intersection now where Palomar Center Drive intersects with Wellington. We did a traffic study, too. Our traffic consultant had the same conclusion. That is a much-needed feature of all the properties in this area to have this outlet to Harrodsburg Road. Again, not for residential use, but for the commercial use on Palomar Center Drive. I checked out that ordinance that was mentioned, and that was passed 27 years ago in 1987 in response to the problems on Harrisburg Road when it was a two-lane road on there. We are confident we, I don't, if that applies to everybody, we comply with it. But there are many more that have been approved through the last years that do not comply with that, have been approved. The property was four-laned, the highway was four-laned about 10 years ago. And as you can see from the aerials that you have and this, the state installed a median opening here. It installed aprons on this side and an apron on this side for a full service access. That is a state or federal highway which is administered by the state. The state has final authority over state highways. As I mentioned, many of the trees will stay, we feel, on that. We'll have a fence around the property. uh this property has been uh and i understand i i understand the feeling where people who have looked out over a yard want to be able to continue to look out over a yard over the years that's a natural feeling on on people's when people own a piece of property but they don't own this property my clients are purchasing this property mr baker owns the property right now it's been the subject of a detention basin before, which was constructed on the property. It faces Harrodsburg Road. Mr. Baker's done a good job making a nice entrance on the rear of the property to Palomar Trace Drive. But we're responding to what the neighbors have told us on that. But again, it's not a part of the Sally Drive subdivision, the McNair subdivision. It's a part of the subdivision of Palomar Trace Drive. and we have been in close contact with the neighbors who live there. If we need to, we have said we have agreed with the staff consideration about taking these parking spaces away. If we need to move some more to make it farther away from the people on Sally Drive, we can do that as well. again this part of the property this this is oriented to the professional office property let me just make sure i was taking sort of random notes as we went through here i want to make sure i try to cover everything that has come up on this one the Again, we feel very strongly that we have a good plan to present to you. I laid out the evolution to you so I could tell you why we came to this conclusion. The only thing that's before you is the parking lot. The detention is handled by grading plans and construction plans through the Division of Engineering. They will need to sign off of that. Mr. Saylor has seen our plan and said it can probably work, but obviously qualified that by saying he's got to get a final plan. This will allow us to share an access point. It will make Harrodsburg Road safer. It'll make Harrodsburg Road safer to have two access points combined here. it will this detention basin won't go away but we will add a little bit of volume but why should we tear up two properties to have a detention basin again that's not something that's before you the parking here yes it's going to allow us to do a slightly build a larger building it is and that will help pay for the house if we have to do that if not it'll make this building more in line with what a normal three-story office building is we made it smaller than it was before than most of what Mr. Ball has built before. And Mr. Ball has built very attractive, well-sized, appropriate office buildings, both in Beaumont, Hamburg, and other places around the community. Again, we meet all the requirements of the ordinance about accessory parking. R3 allows, as a conditional use, parking accessory to adjoining professional or business uses. That's an allowed use in R3 as a conditional use, as are many other conditional uses you deal with all the time. We thank you very much. We present this to you sincerely. I think you see we've had a great deal of interaction with our residents on Alomar Trace Drive. We understand the concerns, and we think we can deal with the concerns of the people who live on Sally Drive and McNair Place. Thank you very much. At this point, do you have any questions or comments from the board? Well, I have a question of staff. I need some surrebuttal time with respect to what Mr. Walsh said. Depending on what staff said, you might be happy, so just let him. I'm sorry? You might be okay with what he's going to ask the staff. I do have a, let me ask staff a question. The staff originally recommended postponement, and we didn't postpone the case. we got pretty heavily into it, would the staff disagree with the continuance of the case to consider some of the issues that have been raised by residents of the... The Division of Planning would not object to a continuance. And what do the counsel for the applicant and opponents think about a continuance? and before you come up with comments on that all of these letters that we received halfway through this hearing were from opposition asking for a postponement and they were never considered at the beginning of this hearing yes we are willing to do a continuance we'd be happy to sit down with the neighbors and try to work out something which is mutually agreeable. Well, I find that odd and in light of the fact that I'd asked him if they were going to postpone, and he said no. And now, after we've heard the case, he's in agreement to postpone and talk to neighbors that they knew full well were the most impacted, and they ignored us until we showed up today. I object. I asked if Mr. Simpson was going to ask me for a postponement. He said no. He said it would be just as easy to oppose as ask for a postponement. I don't mind how these things are characterized, but I want to get that on the record. I always, and you know that, I'm always willing to work with neighbors on this. The question on the floor, Mr. Simpson, is whether you would oppose a motion to continue. Because that's the only motion that we're going to get out of this board today, I think. If the board is desirous of postponing to reflect on the hearing, I defer to the board's wisdom and would certainly not oppose that. Well, the reason for the continuance would be to allow the parties that are here today to consult with each other to see if you can work something out. We didn't ask you to step out in the hall earlier because we knew this would be contentious. But we have heard a lot of information. It's in the record. We won't have to hear everything next time, but we'd like for you all to take some time to get together and talk about it and with staff, because staff's recommendation originally was to postpone this matter. So we started it so we can't postpone it, but we can continue it. No, and we were inclined to postpone, but I shared with Dick that I wasn't going to come down here and spend time trying to argue a motion to postpone, knowing I'd have to prepare the case, increase legal fees to the neighbors, and I said, if you want to post voluntarily, we won't oppose it. But he wasn't willing to do that. If this board is inclined to postpone, we're perfectly willing to speak with whoever about this case. Well, I think the inclination is to continue it because we started the hearing. And that means that all the testimony that we've heard today is in the record and will be considered when the case is finally decided. But we wanted you all, counsel, to confer with each other to see if you could address some and all of your concerns. and also with staff because the staff had originally recommended, had some concerns about it, and originally wanted to postpone this matter. So that's the motion I'm making is to continue this matter until for how long? How long do you need? I like getting things worked out, so I'm willing, anytime is fine with me. Your next meeting is scheduled for May 30th. That is the Friday after Memorial Day. That is five weeks from today. I do know there's going to be a couple of significant cases on your docket at that point in time, so one of which I'm going to be involved in for sure. We can postpone it for two months. I think that would be better. I'm sorry, continue it until June, if that's. That would be better for us. Since there's this agreement, they've got it. They can't build right now anyway in light of the agreement. So two months. All right. Two months. I'll second that. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's continued until June. That date is June the 27th. No, we did that already. Okay. Are there any items a board member wishes to present to be heard at this time? Staff? Thank you, Madam Chair. We have two very quick items. The first is to remind the members that we learned today or late yesterday of a training opportunity for next Monday afternoon from 4 to 5.30 in the Division of Planning Office. It is a webinar offered by the American Planning Association, and this could count for an hour and a half of your required training time. Mr. Emmons also has one item to present. The Board of Adjustment, along with all boards and commissions in the government, were invited by the Senior Services Commission to go to a livable community summit on Thursday, May the 8th. The staff did pass that out to you. We do ask you that if it appears that four or more board members would like to go to this, then we do need to go ahead and advertise that. If it looks like we're going to have four or more members going to this livable community summit, We can get the advertisement in to the Herald Leader for Monday, on Monday, for a Wednesday advertisement and meet the legal requirements. If there are less than four members going, obviously there is not a quorum and no issue on that. But we did want to bring that opportunity up to you before we adjourned. Jimmy, some of us are confused about what you're talking about. I apologize. Any time that a quorum of the Board of Adjustment gets together, there are open meeting requirements. No, no, we're confused about what event you're talking about. Oh, I'm sorry. I just passed out the Senior Services Commission. They sent out an invitation to their Livable Communities Summit on Thursday, May the 8th, from 1 to 3.30. Even if it looks like there's a possibility that four or more of you will go, we can go ahead and advertise it as a meeting of the Board of Adjustment. But there are enough members here today to kind of determine whether we need to advertise this on Monday or not. So you have to have a public notice? Anytime there's a quorum. Anytime there's four. If there are four of us that go, you have to tell everybody. Yes. I won't be going. That solves the problem. It does. Thank you very much. So you're invited, but less than four, we will not advertise it. Finally, thank you for your service. Thank you.