# Board of Adjustment - January 29, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 29, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3866 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3866?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-01-29 - **Last revised**: January 29, 2016 - **Length**: 12,835 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment convened on January 29, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The board considered three agenda items during the session, all involving appeals related to conditional use permits and administrative decisions. The board took three votes during the meeting, approving two conditional use appeals while denying one administrative appeal. The approved items included a Conditional Use Appeal by MAIN & VINE PARTNERS, LLC. and a Conditional Use Appeal by ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF LEXINGTON. However, the board denied an Administrative Appeal by STEVE PERRY & LEX PROPERTIES, LLC. No public comments were recorded during this meeting, and no presentations were noted in the available records. ## Votes and Decisions The board took action on three items during the January 29, 2016 meeting. **C-2015-75** - The board approved a conditional use permit for a drive-through facility for a bank by MAIN & VINE PARTNERS, LLC. The permit was granted with five conditions, including requirements that the facility be established according to the submitted site plan, that all necessary permits be obtained from Planning and Building Inspection divisions, and that parking areas be properly paved and landscaped per zoning ordinance requirements. Additional conditions required the appellant to enter into agreements with the Parking Authority (LexPark) for development extending into the Water Street right-of-way and to obtain encroachment agreements for the dumpster enclosure location. **C-2015-71** - The board approved a conditional use permit for access construction by the ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF LEXINGTON. The approval came with two conditions: the property must be developed according to the staff alternative layout and submitted application, with minor adjustments allowed to meet Traffic Engineering and Fire Department requirements, and all applicable permits including Zoning Compliance and Paving Permits must be obtained from Planning and Building Inspection divisions prior to construction. **A-2015-60** - The board denied an administrative appeal by STEVE PERRY & LEX PROPERTIES, LLC. No conditions were attached to this decision as the appeal was unsuccessful. Specific vote counts and individual board member voting records were not available in the meeting documentation. No transcript timestamps were provided for these voting actions in the source materials. ## Conditional Use Appeal by MAIN & VINE PARTNERS, LLC. The board reviewed agenda item C-2015-75, a conditional use appeal submitted by MAIN & VINE PARTNERS, LLC. The appeal requested a conditional use permit to construct and operate a drive-through facility for a bank in the Downtown Business (B-2) zone. Staff presented their analysis of the proposed development, which involved adding drive-through banking services to a property located in the downtown business district. The B-2 zoning designation typically requires special consideration for drive-through facilities to ensure they align with downtown development goals and traffic flow patterns. The staff report recommended approval of the conditional use permit, contingent upon specific conditions designed to address safety concerns and ensure compliance with existing zoning requirements. These conditions were established to mitigate potential impacts on pedestrian traffic, vehicle circulation, and the overall character of the downtown business area. During the review process, staff evaluated the proposal against established criteria for conditional use permits in the B-2 zone, including compatibility with surrounding land uses, traffic safety considerations, and adherence to downtown design standards. The drive-through facility was determined to be appropriate for the location when operated under the recommended conditions. The board ultimately approved the conditional use appeal, accepting the staff's recommendation to grant the permit with the specified conditions. This approval allows MAIN & VINE PARTNERS, LLC to proceed with construction and operation of the drive-through banking facility, provided they comply with all stipulated requirements related to safety measures and zoning compliance. The approval enables the development of modern banking services in the downtown area while maintaining appropriate oversight through the conditional use process to protect the interests of the surrounding business district. ## Conditional Use Appeal by ROMAN Catholic Diocese of Lexington The Planning Commission considered agenda item C-2015-71, a conditional use appeal submitted by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington. The appeal requested a conditional use permit to construct an access road for church property that would provide access to an adjacent property. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to specific conditions. The recommended conditions focused on ensuring proper screening measures would be implemented and that the proposed access would comply with both traffic department and fire department requirements. The conditional use permit was necessary because the proposed access road would serve not only the church property but also provide connectivity to neighboring property, requiring special consideration under the zoning ordinance. Staff's recommendation included requirements for appropriate screening to minimize visual impact on surrounding properties and ensure the access road met all applicable safety and traffic flow standards as determined by the relevant city departments. Following the staff presentation and any discussion, the Planning Commission voted to approve the conditional use appeal. The approval was granted with the conditions recommended by staff, ensuring that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington would need to implement proper screening measures and satisfy all traffic and fire department requirements before proceeding with construction of the access road. The approved conditional use permit allows the Diocese to move forward with their plans to construct the access road that will serve both their church property and provide access to the adjacent property, subject to compliance with the specified conditions. ## Administrative Appeal by STEVE PERRY & LEX PROPERTIES, LLC. The board considered agenda item A-2015-60, a third-party administrative appeal filed by Steve Perry and Lex Properties, LLC. The appeal challenged a decision by Zoning Enforcement to accept an as-built survey as evidence of compliance with an approved development plan and plat. The case involved a dispute over whether a property's construction matched the requirements outlined in the original development plan and plat documents. Perry and Lex Properties argued that the as-built survey should not have been accepted as proof of compliance, suggesting that the actual construction deviated from what was originally approved. Staff presented their analysis and recommended disapproval of the appeal. Their recommendation was based on their determination that the development was in compliance with the approved final development plan and plat. Staff maintained that Zoning Enforcement's decision to accept the as-built survey was appropriate and that the construction met the required standards. The board ultimately denied the administrative appeal, upholding the original decision by Zoning Enforcement. This outcome meant that the as-built survey would continue to be accepted as valid evidence of compliance, and no corrective action would be required regarding the development in question. The denial of the appeal affirmed that the property's construction was deemed to be in accordance with the approved development documents, despite the concerns raised by the appellants. --- ## Decisions - **C-2015-75** — passed (0-0): Conditional use permit for a drive-through facility for a bank by MAIN & VINE PARTNERS, LLC. - **C-2015-71** — passed (0-0): Conditional use permit for access construction by ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF LEXINGTON. - **A-2015-60** — failed (0-0): Administrative appeal by STEVE PERRY & LEX PROPERTIES, LLC. --- ## Full transcript You don't have to be beautiful To turn me on I just need your brother, baby From dust to gold You don't need experience To turn me on to Just leave it I'd like to go ahead and call the January Board of Adjustment meeting to order. First thing, a couple of housekeeping items. If you've got a cell phone, please turn it off. And if you need to take a call, please do so out in the lobby. I'd like to ask anyone who's going to speak today, would you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You can be seated. We'll go ahead, and I think we do have some December minutes that had gotten to us a couple weeks ago. The board has had an opportunity to look over those. If there are any changes, please remark, and if not, we'd like to have a motion to approve the December board minutes. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. We approve the December minutes of 2015. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Is there a second? A second. Thank you, Mr. Whitman. All in favor of sitting by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. I'd like to go ahead and sound the agenda. I will say if there's any opposition, we always like for you all to see if you can work that out in the lobby before you come up here. But first item is Maine and Vine Partners. Is the applicant present? We are. Thank you. Is there any opposition to Maine and Vine? Is there any opposition? Okay. Okay. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington is the applicant here. Thank you. Is there any opposition to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington? Is there any opposition? And I'd like to note for the record, Mr. Emmons, we had received a letter from Jacob Walburn that said the item Steve Perry and Lexington Properties has been withdrawn. Is that correct? That's correct. If the board will recall, I ask your indulgence, I think, on two separate meetings for additional time to work with us. While we feel very confident there are some issues with that property and discussions with various divisions of the government, including legal counsel, I don't believe the Board of Adjustment is the venue to deal with those, and so we will respectfully request withdrawal of that appeal. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Walbert. There is no action that needs to be taken on a withdrawal. All right. Thank you. And then I know that we have a board item. We've got an update on the zoning enforcement in regard to Old Richmond Road, and we'll hear that at the end of the meeting. Maine and Vine, please come forward, state your name for the record. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Jacob Walburn, appearing on behalf of Maine and Vine Partners. Thank you, Mr. Walburn. The staff has recommended approval subject to five conditions. Do your owners, your applicants, do they all agree to abide by those? Absolutely, they do. Mr. Chairman, sorry to interrupt. We have received three letters on this, two e-mails that I can pass out now, and one nine-page long letter that was received. We only have a single copy of this. It was received just moments before your hearing began today. Okay. So I can pass those out. ahead and do that mr image give us a minute if you would mr walden we'll look at these As you're digesting these long emails, I did want to go ahead and kind of summarize for you. The first one from Mr. Gunther is what I would classify as a letter of objection. and then following that was in a series of emails and you can see on that one it was copied in black and white but there's the uh the black and then kind of the grayed out uh from Mr. Graham poll he made original comments and sent in original comments to the board and then sent in a revision in the gray uh the grayed out things uh commenting on his comments earlier so it's a bit out of the ordinary, but I did want to kind of point those out to you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ammons. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. we haven't seen the one letter yet mr wally give us just one more minute mr chairman we think a objector may have also arrived since you called the case Mr. Walburn, I would suggest we've had an objector arrive and I would like to ask obviously anytime that we have any objection, we'd like for you all to work that out in the lobby and I'd like to go ahead and move on and call you back up after you've had a chance to talk to the person that's going to object. Perfectly accepted, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I'd like to go ahead and call the Roman Catholic Diocese, if they would approach, please. And state your name for the record, please. My name is Brian Hayes, and I'm Father Nick Pagano from the parish. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes. I know that there was traffic engineering in the fire department that had some questions prior to. And, Mr. Emmons, can you address that, or can we have somebody from traffic? Ms. Kalker is here. but I believe that the questions about the original geometrics of the entrance that were being proposed by the applicant, I believe that those have been resolved and that both the Department of Fire and the Division of Traffic Engineering are acceptable of the staff recommendation with the staff proposed layout of the entrances and the conditions. And if you'll notice that the condition number one is that the property shall be developed in accordance with the staff alternatives layout in the submitted application, provided that minor adjustments will be allowed as necessary to satisfy the needs of traffic engineering and the fire department. So that still gives some flexibility for those before this is finally permitted. You can see on the board the applicant's original site plan that had a dual entrances on the two lots, and there were concerns about the traffic flow with that original submittal. The staff prepared an exhibit, and it is this exhibit that we based our revised staff recommendation for approval on that kind of pairs that down to one intersection so that the future development of the senior living facility will come onto the corner of the church property and that the access point will be completely on the church property as it comes down through here, through the subject property. There are several utilities in this area, and this appeared to be, to the staff, the only logical layout that avoided all of the utilities and and still achieved the goals of this application thank you mr emmons i'd like to ask the board if they have any questions for the applicant mr glover i'm just looking at the map and the i think the one you're showing jimmy is the same one that was in our information package. Is that right? That is correct. Since it's an integral part of the staff report, we mailed that out to you with our staff report. We consider that as an important part of our staff recommendation. It looks to me, I mean, I think I understand the reason why this is the way it is, But it looks like that's an awfully sharp turn to the left as you ingress and a sharp turn to the right as you ingress this proposed future development senior living facility. And it's also a pinch point for where the traffic is going to come in and go out the church property. I mean, did you all consider traffic volume or flow or how that's going to be decided? Because all the traffic is going to go through that one space right there in the middle. And I can't envision that just by looking at the drawing. Well, if it makes you feel any better, where the staff got the original concept of the geometrics for how this intersection would work is straight out of our subdivision regulations as if this were a public street intersection for a four-way intersection. And so you can see the angles in those 90-degree angles. There is one offset, 80-degree angles, but a 10% shift in a four-way stop is allowed in our subdivision regulation. So, you know, in the staff's opinion, this would work even as if it were a public street intersection, even though it's in a private parking lot. Okay, so it meets the minimum standards, I guess, is what you're saying. Yes. Okay, so I guess my question is more appropriate to the applicant. I think your comment was, I guess, I mean, it has to do with traffic flow. This is a secondary egress exit for both Pax Christi and also for the development. So it's never, it is not intended at all as a primary entrance and exit, egress and egress. Also, one of the primary reasons there is because to allow emergency services to get in unobstructed, especially when we're having church services. We could have a line of three cars wide, 10, 12 cars deep, and if emergency services tried to go through our parking lot, they just would be inhibited. So this gives them the opportunity to get into the new development if necessary without being delayed. Well, I mean, yeah, and I understand that. I mean, that's a good reason for having two ways of getting in and out of the property. It just looks like if you own both of those lots, there could be more than just one road in. I mean, I assume you all considered that. We did. There were some other features that caused the conflict. There's a gas line that runs east-west along the common property line between Toronto Road and then the church and the development. It had a greater chance of being impacted or causing a conflict if we had a road that went straight across into the senior living facility. So we wanted to avoid that. And then there is about a three-foot grade difference and a retaining wall that's currently built in that area. So we would have to redesign or reconfigure something to avoid that conflict. It just looked like, I mean, it just looked to me like the original proposal would work better. I don't. Well, that was what we tried initially. And then when we got to looking into a number of other issues, including feedback from fire, feedback from traffic, and then the physical limitations and the utility conflicts out there, through a process of elimination, this is what bore itself out. Okay. And you say that other property next door, the proposed future development by a senior living facility, has another exit? I didn't know that part. They were approved for an in and out on Man of War. Okay. All right, that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Any other questions for the applicant? Jimmy, you had something? Mr. Chairman, if you're done, I noticed that on our agenda there is items 3 and 4 under the conditions of approval that are listed in the staff report. Did not make it onto the agenda. And for that, I can apologize. We were trying to beat the inclement weather to get the mailing out to you. But in our staff report, we are recommending approval subject to four conditions. Condition number three is that the gates shall only be permitted if both the Division of Traffic Engineering and the Fire Department agree to it. And condition number four relates to landscaping for properties at 161 Toronto and 173 Toronto. I got you. Okay. We are recommending all four of those conditions. And you agree to apply the type of. We've accepted all four. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Evans, for that clarification. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of C. 2015-71, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington, for a conditional use permit to construct an easement for the church property, which will provide access through other adjacent properties in agricultural, urban, and single-family residential zones at 4001 Victoria Way and 165-169 Toronto Road for the two reasons provided by staff and subject to the four conditions provided by staff. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. i'll second second sir you have your hand up well i had asked i had asked earlier if there was any opposition are you opposed to this well then then did you arrive late or were you not here earlier when okay because i had asked if there was any objectors if you'd like to come up and speak we We do have a motion on the floor and a second, but I want to give this gentleman an opportunity. Is that permissible? I agree. Tracy? It's up to you all. You'll have to swear him in if you are going to hear his testimony, but you already have the motion on the floor. We need to withdraw it. What is the, I'd like to go ahead and hear what the gentleman has to say. I think we've. You have to swear him in. Go ahead and say your name for the record, please. My name is Ron Winfield. I live at 173 Toronto Road. My wife and I have lived there for 32 years. I am opposed to the whole entrance and that whole development, but I know it's going to go through. So the main thing that I wanted to speak to today is the church has mentioned that they want to have a gate to control access to their property. And I think that they – I talked with them yesterday, and they repeated that they did want to have a gate there. I'd like to see a gate into the other property that's being developed, that's the assisted living. I think if that access there is not controlled, there will be a much greater volume of traffic that's going to come through the residential neighborhood, delivery trucks, and so forth. will use that very, very small entranceway to go in and out of that development. So you're asking if the applicant would put another gate on the other side of the property then? Yes, sir. I've got a comment. And it's actually drawn that way on the map. Yeah, and one of the recommendations is that the property be developed in accordance with the staff alternative layout, and I think that's what we were looking at is the layout. And that layout does show a property gate on that adjacent property, the proposed future development by senior living facility. I see a gate. Is that what you're talking about? Yes, sir. And in that revised Board of Adjustment State staff case report, number three talks about gates shall only be permitted. So it's like the gates have. I was concerned that they, at this point, they had not been approved and just didn't want that to get missed. I'd like to see that they are controlled because it is a quiet neighborhood up to now. Well, Jimmy, then I've got a question about that. Are those two recommendations inconsistent? No, sir. Let me further explain. The proposed gates, the staff used the applicant's submission, and we overlaid our recommendation over top of it. In the text of our revised staff report, we had mentioned that our proposed geometry of this was independent of whether there were gates or no gates. The fire department has expressed during the review of this application, has expressed some concern multiple times over having multiple gates that they would have to navigate in the case of an emergency situation in this one. The fire department has understood the desire for gates, but at the same time, they also are watching out for public safety. how the staff had recommended that was that the gates would only be approved if both the division of traffic engineering and fire department. So we didn't leave those gates up to, we were trying not to leave the design of whether there are gates and how they would be designed and constructed. We were trying not to decide that at today's hearing, but leave that up to the applicants, applicants the fire department and traffic engineering to to work out the logistics of that i can understand the concern of the fire department i'm not sure how you'd get a hook and ladder around that 80 degree corner quite frankly i think the the fire department said that in an emergency run they are most likely if they're trying to get to the assisted living facility they're going to come straight up through the pax christi which is the reason why they were concerned about going through multiple gates to get to that area. I did not want to let this conversation go without speaking up for the fire department. I don't see them here today. But they were intimately involved in the review of this application. I can also speak for traffic engineering. The way the development plan shows the site, the adjacent assisted living is permitted with a write-in, write-out on Manowar and accessed through Pax Christi Church. So traffic has a concern that if they gate both of those entrances, then we are creating a site with only a write-in, write-out access, and that would not be acceptable. It just wouldn't be, not enough access to the site. So traffic has already been in correspondence with the applicant to say that we would not approve the site with both gates up. We are, we're okay with the gates between the church, but not from the assisted living. So just to make clear, the first condition doesn't include the property gate onto the assisted living property, just like the map shows. I mean, I'm reading the text of the condition, number one, as being, I'm trying to read it as consistent with the drawing, and you're telling me that it's really not. It's not. I think that the drawing shows both gates. It does. And then the wording says that traffic and fire has to approve the gates. Sure. And we have both already communicated with the applicant that we would not approve it. Okay. We will approve it, but only with one gate. Thank you, Casey. Okay. All right, Mr. Glowder. I just want to say we've agreed to work with traffic. Our biggest concern was that there would be a gate on the Prox Christy side. so that cars aren't flipping through there. We have kids playing in our parking lot and stuff like that. Whether or not there's a gate on the other side, that was only put there as a recommendation. And if it's not approved, even very honestly, I think the assisted living facility doesn't want the gate there. They prefer not to have it. Thank you. Okay. Well, it looks like one gate it would be. We have a motion on the floor by Ms. Whitman. Is there a second? I think I seconded the motion. Mr. Glover, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with the project. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Good luck with the neighbors. And with the fire department. And with the fire department. Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll go back to Main and Vine, and you've already introduced yourself, Mr. Allmer. you had an opportunity to talk with the opposition. Did you all resolve your differences? We were unable to resolve our differences. Okay. What I'd like to do is I'd like to hear from the opposition first and then we're going to give you an opportunity to say something. Mr. Emmons, did you want to comment? No, sir. We'll go ahead and bring you back, Mr. Walden, in just a second. and we'd like to hear from the opposition. Thank you. My name is Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. I have to say I'm acquainted with Mr. Hollebeck. He's done some fine work in town. I very much appreciate the residential density right downtown. I appreciate the fact that he's making a substantial investment and wants to have a good development that contributes to the downtown. Nonetheless, I'm asking that the board not grant approval to a drive-through at this location. It's a really extraordinary, it's an important site for downtown. What's special about it is it's got basically two front faces on two of our major arteries, Maine and Vine. it meets out at the point a third major artery midland. A drive-through is not going to work at this kind of location. Compounding that, we have the Town Branch Commons project, which the city has substantial investment in on several levels, and this would have an adverse effect on the development of the public space, the town branch commons, as well as hampering the economic stimulus that town branch commons, the social stimulus as well, that it should bring to that whole area of downtown. I think probably the clearest way to do it, rather than walk through everything you've already reviewed in a letter, is that right? Yes, we've all reviewed. That's what I thought. So I think if I go then straight to first the sign, that's B, slide B. This expresses both the challenge and the opportunity of the site. A sign like this stood on the property as recently as a couple of days ago. This was for an earlier version, and they continually are improving as they seek to develop this site. But what you see here is you've got over 70,000 cars a day passing this site. That kind of prominence and visibility is important to the downtown identity, the town as a whole, and it's also a saleable commodity. What it isn't is an opportunity for a drive-through because the traffic is already as complex as can be at this triangular site where three main arteries meet. So, as I said, the development has evolved. And if we could go to the color notes, see the color detail. I'd like to just walk you through what I see on this site and what I see as the potential problems of having a drive-through. Your decision here, I'm very well aware, is about whether to grant a conditional use for a drive-through, and I'm contending that it would have adverse effect. It looks like cramming to me, and it displaces and crowds a lot of things on a site that's already over-challenged. Basically, it looks to me as though what's happening is that area, that greenish area that looks like a pocket comb, that's all public land. It's, in fact, public right-of-way, and it's being used and usurped, to my mind, for site circulation, for dumpster storage, in a way that is going to have a huge impact on its function as an important element of the town branch commons, the linear park system. Okay. There is significant transportation money passed through from the federal government to link. Could I have the bike map for a moment, please? if you see where you're seeing down here, but if you see the point there where this water street comes to a point, all the blue lines are existing bike paths, and you can see that they all don't meet. and the transportation funding is going to make these bike paths all meet, and they're going to meet at that point along. They're going to run continuously from Vine, continuously along Midland, and they meet there. It's not optimal to have extra traffic, drive-through traffic, exiting on and off Water Street, exactly where you're siting bike lanes. And if we return then to the color diagram. Thank you. We don't know where these bike lanes will be yet. Could they be beside the linear park? That's a sheltered, a nice, attractive place for a bike lane. Would they be on the right-hand side instead? What I've done is put in speckled possible bike lanes. and the full bike lane in tan is already existing on Main. So there's an impact on the bike lanes. An exit has been added to the parking lot onto Main. I think it's presently constituted as entrance only. That was its former constitution. So you're getting a bit of a challenge with anything coming around the point on that. But the issue here really, look at the drive-through. You can enter from Main or from Vine Street. You make your way to Water Street, and all these red routes are possible ways to get around here. I see points of conflict where anyone entering from Maine heads straight through to Water Street to make a sharp turn into the drive-thru lane. Meanwhile, people will be coming from Vine to make a turn into the drive-thru lane. And in my experience, drive-throughs are especially crowded at commuter times when traffic is already at its peak and has some challenges there. So you've got a point of conflict entering the drive-through lane. As cars come out of the drive-through lane, there's two lanes coming out. They're immediately adjacent to the parking ramp, which has both an in and an out. You've got to cross over the drive-through to get onto the parking ramp. So all of this looks really, really challenged. If you look, counting, you can see that there are one, two, three, four, five points of access onto Little Water Street within about 250 feet. and these are all double points of access, some in two directions, but all of them double width. This is for a site that is barely an acre. It's just under a one-acre site. And our zoning ordinance says that you're not to use the public right-of-way for your site circulation, your traffic your parking lot the traffic should circulate all together within the parking lot I think they've really usurped Water Street almost wholly for the circulation on their private property and site and I think all this will have a terrible impact on the town branch commons please bear in mind that the entire Greenish area is public land, public right-of-way. It's hard to recognize that. The purple, the pink, sorry, the pink magenta line, the hook-shaped area, that's the owner's property. That's the private property being developed. Now, I'm aware there are challenges on the site. There are constraints on the site. Possibly the biggest one is the blue line running through. That blue line is the Town Branch Creek, buried in a culvert, what is it, eight feet high or something, under the site. That's a constraint for the design of the site. It's also a terrific opportunity because it's exactly Town Branch that is giving us this park here. So if people walk along in the park area, and by the way, the park area has been in great part given over to 22 parking spaces, if people are walking along in that area, on the back of the building, because we have to call it a back, on the Vine Street front of the building, you're going to face in and out parking ramp, double out drive-through, drive-through facilities along the whole back area at people height, where you're walking, where you're seeing things. And the points of access from vine to water stand to have a whole lot of traffic to and fro. All in all, I think if you lose the drive-thru, you have a much, much better plan. I'm not altogether happy that the parking ramp is where it is. I would love to see the parking ramp turn sideways so that it goes into the parking lot. But as I say, this site has challenges. As long as it's in large part tenants in that underground parking, probably not going to be too great of a disturbance. It was challenging and time-consuming to review this plan. It's certainly someone who has a track record of doing successful developments downtown, and I think that's great, and I think there's a way for him to do this development. I would rather he made his money with cafe space or a penthouse dining room or retail frontage where he has a drive-thru. I don't think that this downtown location is a good place for a drive-thru. And I think that the whole Water Street area has gotten really quite, quite crammed. I have a few other questions. It's not clear to me. Along the yellow there, which is, I believe, where the buried electrical is, an earlier plan in 2011 submitted to this board asking a conditional use indicated that there was a right-of-way to be closed there. I would like to know, is there a right-of-way? Was it ever closed? The record of that right-of-way closure is elusive. I'm not really sure what happened there. I detailed in the letter the amount of millions of dollars that the city is putting into making this a great place to live, to have recreation, to have healthful journeys to and from work and shopping, and to bring economic stimulus to the whole area. I don't think the drive-through contributes to that. I think it really injures that. I do think the project as a whole, the density, residential density downtown, is very welcome. I believe that's it. Let me just look for a moment here. The bike lanes, incidentally, are part of the downtown streetscape master plan, and the zoning ordinance does indicate for B2 that they should follow this plan. Just to emphasize, I do not believe it's in accord with the zoning ordinance to use Water Street for site circulation, and the citation for that is in the letter I sent you as well. Isles and access drives shall be designed so as to provide adequate vehicular maneuvering wholly upon the property being served. I guess I'll just close by saying I am not as young as I used to be. I'm not as daring as I once was. I sympathize very much with people who want to be outdoors and on the street, even in heavily, I don't want to say trafficked, in areas with heavy traffic, be out and doing. When you're not as sharp as you used to be, it doesn't feel safe. Ask yourself if you and your children, especially young children, would think of using this as a park, as a green walkway to get from one place to the next about your adventures in business downtown? Would you let your children do that? Would you let your children on a bike lane near all that? Would you yourself, particularly if you're not as young as you used to be, really think we have a usable linear park, Or would you find that it is compromised rather than advanced and furthered by the addition of a drive-thru to this particular site? I will say that the last time I opposed a drive-thru, it was a Planning Commission matter. The drive-thru was, in fact, deemed just unsafe, too much for the site. There was a lot of talk that the owner couldn't make it work financially without the drive-through. This is nothing but hearsay, but last week I learned he's getting with pass-throughs $30 a square foot. So I would wish that this developer, too, could find a way to support his investment without a drive-through that so compromises our enormous new public investment and revitalization. of the town branch. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Does anybody have any questions for Ms. Clark? You can be seated. Mr. Walburn, we've heard about the right-of-way, we've heard about the impact on the town branch commons, we've heard pedestrian and other traffic concerns, and I'd like to hear what you have to say to address those. Certainly. We have a lot to say, obviously. Fortunately, this is a spectacular team that has been put together to deal with this project. We have representatives here today that have done the site plan. We have the architect here today. We also have Mr. Hollaback. You all know Mr. Hollaback. He's been around Lexington for a long time, has a lot of experience, and a lot of time and investment tied up in this property. So rather than try to butcher what he whispered in my ear as we did it, I'm going to let him address many of the points that were just brought up to you directly, and then I'll circle back at the end to tie up any loose ends. All right, Mr. Walden. Good afternoon. Thank you guys for your time and effort on this project. Just for the record, Mr. Hollaback, would you introduce yourself? Yes, sir. My name is Phil Hollaback. I've been in Lexington 15 years, worked downtown, live in the Chevy Chase area. Some of our prior projects are the Main and Rose project, which is right across Main Street from the site. 25,000 square feet of retail, 100 condos. that project has won streetscape awards architectural awards across a multi-state area the nun building project which was an award-winning project as well and then we recently helped bank finish off the 500s on main project phase two that was a project that was just kind of hulking and decaying for years and we came in and finished that out for them Additionally, we've just gotten the TIF district approved for Midland Avenue, which is going to transform the gateway even further into our downtown. But really, aside from the business side of what I do, I would say at least a third of my day or more is spent on community involvement, specifically bike-friendly and pedestrian-friendly projects. As a refresher, we were very, very involved in the Legacy Trail, not just getting the funding but helping to make that a reality. We've been involved with the downtown streetscape master plan, the downtown master plan, those projects that were mentioned earlier. We fought hard for some of the issues that Mr. Pohl brought up in his letters. When we spoke on the phone, he said, Phil, I get it, we're 100% in lockstep on those issues. We've tried to get a more pedestrian two-way street system downtown. we'd love to see that corner at the intersection of main vine and midland become a four-way stop with a left turn those aren't things we can control those aren't even things the city can control those are state controlled roads but we are certainly in favor we have the scars on our forehead from beating our head against the wall for years to make it a more pedestrian friendly environment. As I bring that back to this specific site, Town Branch Commons, as it goes along Vine Street and adjacent to our site, one of the things that Mr. Pohl first mentioned in his letter was, gosh, we want to make it pedestrian friendly. And I said, we work specifically with the city and consultants. Town Branch Commons actually goes adjacent to the site. And he said, oh my gosh, I overlooked that. I'm so sorry. That's great now that I see that that's there. We've been working with the city, their consultants, and different departments for years and years on this site. We worked with Stan Harvey and Scape Consultants out of New York on the Town Branch Trail. The green space that you see along Vine Street and at the point, those aren't measurements I came up with. those are the specific measurements that the consultants gave us. In fact, the park at its narrowest point is 22 1⁄2 or 23 feet wide at its narrowest place. The drive-through in question is across that park, past the parking spaces, past Water Street on the other side of Water Street. Additionally, the park that you see at the point where Main, Vine, and Midland come together is only possible because we're willing to swap that land with the city to make that happen. That's all land that's currently ours. So one of the conditions of this approval you'll see is it's conditional upon a land swap or encroachment agreement with the city. I'm not sure of any other private sector developer that's reaching out to work with the city at this level. Not only are we doing that here, but we're working in conjunction with the city all the way up Midland Avenue from Main Street all the way up to Midland to make sure that Town Branch Commons works. If you see the new paving on Midland Avenue, it now has bike lanes and has 11-foot wide traffic lanes instead of 13. That's because of our communications with the state. So hopefully that shares a little bit of our passion for a pedestrian-friendly environment and a bike-friendly environment. It's important to note that I would not let my kids ride on the downtown bike lanes that we have right now. There's no separation from cars. Nothing. Just like everybody else, we completed the Legacy Trail. We still load our bikes up on a bike rack and have to drive out there. Town Branch Commons is going to start to change that. They won't be bike lanes. It will be a bike path. The actual path will be on that Town Branch Commons that you see on that site plan. That's a dramatic, great change. And I would let my kids ride on that. I might be scared of them going too far off to Vine Street, which has traffic counts of 24,000 per day. I certainly wouldn't be afraid of them going onto Water Street with the drive-through. So we have a lot of experience with creating a pedestrian-friendly environment. I feel very comfortable about that. Some things that you can't see in plan. This is a five-story building. It's got beautiful glass windows like Main and Rose does on all three sides, on the Main Street side, the front side, and the Vine Street side. It's wonderful looking. You have to put your back of house somewhere. We don't want to put it on Main Street. I don't think that's the appropriate urban planning. It can't go in the front. It is going to go on Vine Street, and it will be very well hidden. Keep in mind that Main and Rose also has a back of house. If you were to go to the Main and Rose property, you would see the back of house on Rose Street. Again, we've won streetscape awards and architectural awards for that. We will do things right. The surface lot at the front will be hidden by the park. There's an elevation change, so the park will be higher than the surface lot. So I love this city with all my heart. We are going to do things the right way. The drive-through certainly is needed for the tenants we need to make this project a reality. This isn't a Johnny-come-lately project. We've worked for at least six years with the city to make it a great project. I think the staff report says that each iteration has been better and better. But the thing that is a must-have to make it work is the drive-through. I'll stop there for a second. I don't know if I've addressed. You're good. Mr. Glover? Mr. Hollaback, why do you need a drive-through? You've got plenty of parking space. You've got access, ingress, egress to the building. I think Ms. Clark makes some good points. there's a congestion of ingress and egress onto and from back into Water Street. It looks to me like there are lots of places where people could get in trouble with pedestrians and cars, and that doesn't look like a good idea to me. So it would be great if we could do projects without any parking, and in some cities you can. We aren't yet a city that can survive without cars. Not everybody rides the bus. We don't have a walkable community yet. And the same is true for drive-thrus. If you look across the street at Main and Rose, you'll see an empty space where Dunkin' Donuts used to exist. And Coach Cal hung out there every morning. It was great for quality of life at that end of town. It was great for our project. It was great for the residents. We need to create the retail amenities to draw the residents to live downtown. If we don't have those amenities, we're not going to have people living downtown. It just won't happen. Dunkin' Donuts is gone because 60% of business at those types of places comes from a drive-thru. We aren't looking to put a fast food place in there. We are looking to put a bank. It's a bank that is new to the market, a $12 billion bank. they require that and they will take half of the commercial space. And without them, you know, there's not a project. This isn't something I'm making up. We've worked for years to attract tenants to downtown. So the question isn't, you know, in my mind, drive-through or no drive-through. The market demands it. Our job is to do it right and do it the best way possible. Thank you, Mr. Olvec. Anybody have any other questions? Mr. Walbert, did you want to add something? Just a few brief points. I won't try to do it without notes. That would not be good for anybody. I wanted to let Mr. Hollaback speak to you because he speaks with a voice of experience that I simply just do not have the ability to bring. But I have been privileged to work on a number of infill projects. In Lexington, we talk about the urban services boundary, the need to redevelop downtown, the need to concentrate our density. And I've got to tell you that this site probably has literally every infill challenge you can have on a site. You have the town branch culvert that we have been told we simply cannot construct over top of, that that is just simply not a tenable option. There's also an electrical vault that supplies the power for the University of Kentucky. It would be seven figures to relocate that vault. We're working with a site that has some serious constraints. That drives a lot of our design. I understand Ms. Clark's concerns, but I frankly think they're a little overstated, and I'd like to explain why. As she correctly pointed out, Water Street is a public right-of-way. One of the interesting things about this project to me was finding out the extents of right-of-way and where they went. Unbeknownst to me, Vine Street, once upon a time, was actually a railway. And Vine Street now occupies the former railway right-of-way. That is solely under state control. Vine Street is a state road. Then we go to Water Street, which is a local street, and exclusively under local control. And trying to get all of these interactions to work together, the different appropriate sign-offs that we need to change the right-of-way, to make edits, is quite difficult. So I put up the site as it exists today because I want to show you something. The access points that are coming off of Main Street, we're not creating or changing. They're there right now, and they're going to remain there regardless of what happens with our project. Now what can I tell you about Water Street? Well, the great thing is it's one way. As you can see here, I believe, we don't have the pointer, do we? Technology is smarter than I am. So we have an entrance here, and we have an entrance here, and the road goes one way in that direction. The question I would have is, if you're not accessing our site, why would you go onto Water Street? If you have the ability to get on Water Street here, and Water Street is two-way in this location, this is our site. There's no reason to go on Water Street other than to utilize the parking, the existing parking, again, that's already there that we didn't put there, or to access this site. That's it. Water Street is not a well-traveled street. Anything that develops on this site will increase traffic to that area. That's simply a fact of the matter. This isn't a Starbucks. This isn't a restaurant or food-oriented. This is a bank. Banks require drive-thru, frankly, because banks are in massive competition with online services. Most people do their banking online. To get some of this business, you have to have a drive-thru to be a bank. Why do we need a bank? Because we have to have an anchor tenant. We have to have somebody who can make the project viable. We have a bank ready to go. this project can happen if we meet their concerns. This project cannot happen if it cannot be economically viable. I understand Ms. Clark's points. I really do. I think it is far more appropriate to have a bike lane on the outside of Vine Street than it would be to be on the interior. And with regards to the linear park, we're actually handing that land over to the city to have their trailhead, to have the start of the town branch commons. We've actually proactively worked with the city to try to address every single concern, up to and including getting the dimensions they would require for the park so our plan can adequately reflect it. I think in summary, we have – actually, there is one more point I would like to make. Some of you may be aware that there has been a drive-through approved not once but twice previously for this site. I understand that that was a controversial application, and I know there was great concern. In our conversations with the staff, and I'll let staff speak for themselves, but I believe their report reflects the same, that this is the best incarnation of this plan that they have seen. We have taken great pains to minimize the impact of the drive-through on the site, to make it not visually dominant, to try to address all of the concerns that have raised. And I would point out that staff recommended approval with somewhat limited conditions. And so, frankly, we would request the same. and we think this is a great project, can really, really revitalize a very important gateway and corridor within Lexington. We think it's a worthy project. We think we have adequately addressed all of these issues and would ask that you support the staff recommendation of approval. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Walbert. Any questions for Mr. Walbert? You can have a seat. Yes, ma'am. Would you please come to the podium? and introduce yourself for the record, please? Sure. I'm Doris Benson. I'm Byron Romanowicz's partner, and we have the property at Vine, Rose, and Water Street. And Town Branch runs right under our building. And my question for this project is, are you relocating Town Branch as where it exists now, and how are you going to do Town Branch around our property? Okay. That's really just kind of a question that I need. Okay. All right. Mr. Hollibank? I think the Town Branch culvert, which is a 96-inch culvert, is not something that is being moved for our project. I don't think that Town Branch Commons is envisioning moving that pipe either. As far as the routing of the park itself, I think that may be a question for the Downtown Development Authority who's leading that project. Okay. Ms. Benson, is your property the one that's right adjacent just to the west of this one? Okay. Yes. That's what I thought. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, we did meet with water quality. Obviously, the site gets very substantially constrained. You can actually see the outline on this plan, the dotted line of that culvert. The site gets substantially more constrained when you can't build over top of that culvert. We really, really, really tried, but they were simply not having it. And I can understand why. There's a good reason for that. So we have honored that request. but there is frankly no ability nor desire to relocate the town branch culvert. That's just not a tentable option. Thank you, Mr. Walmer. Ms. Clark, did you have something that you wanted to add that you haven't already? Something different? Yeah, a few small elements. I would say that I supported the TIF for this property because I think there's such great potential. And I wonder whether some of that city tax funding actually state the tax money could make it a better site without the drive-through. There are financial constraints, and that's what a TIF recognizes. There was mention that Vine Street with $24,000 a day is pretty scary, but water looks a lot safer. Your question here is, does it look safer with or without a drive-through? That's a conditional use. Will it be an adverse effect or actually not hamper the future development, the present development of the near vicinity? I'd just like to say if you say no to a drive-thru, you'll be surprised what they can do. I'm impressed with what they've done already with the constraints they have on this site. And I think it's possible to say no and get something that's better for the developer and for the public. There was a question about moving the main right-of-way. It was said that the access onto Main Street is not moved. I'm sorry, not the right-of-way, the access point there. I thought that the old right-of-way came directly in line with Eastern Avenue, which is the unmarked to the upper part, and Grand Boulevard. It looks to me as though the access point has shifted over, and I believe in general one likes to have access points and intersections align rather than being offset. That may be clearer on the color image that I furnished. The color being editorial, the plan below it is the applicants. Finally, I think it's really important to consider that this drive-through, The aquamarine box seems to be where the physical facility, where the money changes hands, is on this drive-thru. It actually has no physical connection to that building. It's not a window on the building. It could as well be a kiosk. It could as well be somewhere else. It's a very odd kind of bank drive-through to me. How do you have a drive-through that's just kind of nearby? I guess you have a very long pneumatic tube. But if it can be there separate from the four walls of the building, can't it be elsewhere? Couldn't it be a walk-up kiosk, sort of a grab-and-go drive-through? And then finally, I would say that I believe it's a Hollebeck development where I use the FedEx. And it doesn't have a drive-through, and there's plenty of sort of grab-and-go parking. I've never had a problem there. I think there are ways to do better. I think we develop, we plan for the future, and the enormous promise of this Town Branch Commons is really constrained by cutting five double-wide access points into that tiny strip of public right-of-way. What if you wanted down the road if Town Branch Commons takes off? What if you wanted to bring the water up? What if you wanted to have a park area there? What if that were actually the best way to go? Once you've got five double-wide points of access, you're really constrained. And I'm saying this because on Euclid Avenue, they're looking at a redesign of the whole corridor, the whole commercial corridor. And one of the worst things that the designers, the planners had to grapple with was tons and tons of drive-through entrances and exits and all this paving and wasteland. And it's very hard to organize the space and organize the movement of traffic safely in a way that invites people to walk and take their children out when you've signed away quite a lot of your freedom to use this public land. Thank you, Ms. Clarence. If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise one point simply because I'm a lawyer and I'm obligated to do this on behalf of my client. This board hears testimony and has to make findings as appropriate based on that. Mr. Hollebeck, who is an experienced real estate professional, has told you that the economic viability of this project is dependent on that drive-through. I suggest to you that Ms. Clark's not an expert on economic viability and that her invitation for you to turn it down and hope it comes back better is, in fact, more dangerous than approving this drive-thru. Approving this drive-thru is not dangerous. We've taken great pains to make it safe. The staff has agreed and found it to be safe. We'd ask for your approval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Waller. Does anybody have any other questions? I've got a question for traffic. You knew I would, didn't you? What do you all think about these five new cuts onto Water Street? I'm sympathetic to Ms. Clark's argument that this is going to increase traffic before you do. Obviously, in deference to Mr. Holbeck's plan, any development on this property is going to increase traffic. I agree. I'm just trying to listen to both sides, but I'm curious about what traffic has to say about this part of it. Right. So when traffic reviewed this site, we looked at it as does the drive-through, is it going to generate enough additional trip generations to adversely affect the adjacent roadways? And it doesn't. It's a bank drive-through. And as we've changed, historically bank drive-thrus were used more frequently, and just nowadays they're not. And so the trip generation, the traffic that will use that drive-thru is negligible relative to the uses of the building and just as a development. So, and as far as five new, I think we have to understand that the site plan is approved and those access points are approved. So we're just looking at the drive-through point. If the drive-through traffic is going to be negligible, why have it? I mean, that's the, I guess that's one thing about that. I'd like the applicant maybe to address that. And the answer to that is very simple, because the tenant insists upon it. I know you're a slave to your tenants, and I know all developers are that, but, I mean, if it is negligible and if the future of banking is going to be more online, like instead of the past, I mean, I do have concerns about it. You know, so I would say this. I think the points that Ms. Clark has brought up and what we've mentioned, our objectives are the same, to create a great development for the future of this city. That is a very identical objective. The tactics about how we get there, there will always be differences of opinion on how you get there. Differences between designers. But I will tell you this. We have a world-class team between EOP. You guys know the buildings EOP has done around the state and the awards they've won. Barra Partners has done outstanding site plans. They did the main rows site plan. we've worked with countless departments in the city and gotten their recommendations and based this on their recommendations we've worked with the city's consultants so this isn't kind of a a last second uh shoot from the hip sort of site plan this is a years in the making site plan with countless consultants from the public and private sector people that i've got enormous faith in Maine and Rose was built out of steel instead of wood because I'm so concerned about the future. My two little girls, I want them to go down there 20 years from now and look at that building and this building with pride and say, my dad did that. I don't want it to be a stick building that has started to fall apart. And the same is true for this site. I can sit up here before you right now and say I will be so proud of the urban planning belief system that went into this design. It's not a drive-thru plunked in the middle of a parking lot like you might see in suburbia. It's very site appropriate. It's very forward thinking. It's coming from a guy who is as bike and pedestrian friendly as you can get, who wears his heart on his sleeve about his love for this town. and gosh, I would have nothing but pride when anybody, my children or anyone else, looks at this site today or 20 years in the future. Let me ask you a specific question about the drive-through since that's what we're considering. The traffic that goes into that drive-through can come from, it looks like, two different places. it cannot come from the first entrance onto Water Street as you're going east because you can't turn right. That's a one-way street. So it has to come from either turning off of Vine Street onto Water Street or turning off of Main Street and driving through the parking lot and then turning right onto Water Street. Is that right? Correct. And those are the current ingress and egress conditions, and we kept them the same. Yes. I mean, those are constraints of the development itself. It's just the way the property is situated. And I understand this is a difficult development. So where do the cars go when they come out of the drive-through? They have to turn right. Exactly. And so then they have two choices as well. Is that right? They can continue on straight and run into Rose Street, and they have to turn right at Rose Street. or they can turn left at that first intersection and get back on East Vine Street. Is that right? Yeah. Okay, just to make sure I understood. That was really the only reason I'm asking, just to make sure I understood the traffic patterns and where they were going. And the same with people coming onto Water Street from the parking lot itself. They have those same choices. Is that right? And just as a point of background, as we did look at other innumerable other drive-thru locations, other locations meant that if somebody missed the drive-thru, they'd be circling the entire block. We tried to do this to minimize traffic and circling the block. I think it's the most hidden, best location for the drive-thru. Thank you, Mr. Oloment. Thank you. Anybody else have any other questions? Thank you, guys. Thank you, Mr. Holliday. We've heard from the applicant. We've heard from the opposition. Does staff have anything else to add? I don't think we have anything specific to add. If you have any questions for us, we have multiple people from multiple divisions here. We can try and answer your questions if you have them. Thank you, Mr. Evans. I share some of Mr. Glover's concerns regarding the drive-thru, But I also am familiar with Mr. Hollebeck and his associates' work, and I always think that they have the city and safety and environment as a huge concern. We've looked at several ideas for this piece of property. I think even back in the early 2000s when this project first came before this board, and I know that you all have done a lot of due diligence in coming up with a workable plan. So I have a tendency to lean towards supporting it, but I do share Mr. Glover's concerns. But I also think that it looks to be like a very viable option and a beautiful building, and I think that you all always have the looking at your work, Mr. Hollebeck, has always been very well-respected and well-received. And I'd like to see developers that work with the city as closely as you all have. But I'm only one vote. So with that said, I'd like to ask if anybody has any other questions. And if not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve C-2015-75, Maine and Vine Partners LLC appeals for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a drive-through facility for a bank in downtown. Business B2 zone at 366, 370, 376, and 400 East Main Street based on the staff recommendations and the five conditions as proposed. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Is there a second? Yeah. Ms. Whitman seconds. We've got a motion and a second to approve. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with the project. Thank you very much. And thank you, Ms. Clark, also. And on a personal note, Mr. Romanowicz, there is a few people that have had the impact in architecture that you have had. And if anybody's getting younger in the room, it's you. It's great to see you out here today. Thanks very much for your time. Thank you, sir. Also, I thank you that you see that this board is not a rubber stamp for anybody. We try to go through all the appropriate questions and explore all the controversy that we can. Thanks, everybody. Thank you very much. I believe the next item on the agenda, we had requested an update from zoning enforcement in regard to 7524 Old Richmond Road, and we'd like to hear from Mr. Marks. Mr. Chair, I think I need to recuse myself from this particular action. I do have a question. Is there something for us to vote on in this or is this just a report? No, this is just a report. Okay, I'm going to stay to listen. Good afternoon. I don't really have a lot of new information to pass on since we first, or not first, but first last discussed this in mid-December of last year, I can tell you the property is still vacant, which in our minds is the most critical factor at this point. While the property is vacant, there are no timelines associated with when certain improvements have to be completed. It's pretty much up to the property owner while that property is vacant. We do have an expectation, of course, that all improvements will be completed before another business moves in and starts to operate. We've clearly communicated that to the property owner, and they understand that and have committed to abide by that requirement. Our position at this time is that there's no basis for proceeding with the revocation hearing. We are hopeful that after today you'll be convinced that we don't really need to have any more monthly updates as well. You're probably tired of hearing from me about this stuff for, I think, three months in a row now. So I'm very happy to report that Mr. Craig Musick with the MICA group is here today to kind of fill you in on what's going on with the property, and I'm sure you have some questions for him. We certainly welcome that. If you would come and state your name for the record, please. Craig Musick with MICA group. I work for the owner of the the property. He has a construction, environmental, remediation company here in town. And I'm the ops manager for that company. So I'm kind of, this has kind of been passed off to me late October, early November. I've been working with these guys, Mr. Marks, to get everything back in order. And I can tell you that we have got our stormwater permit approved and stamped and in. We have our site plan in to be approved. We've had our CAD drawings and everything reviewed. We've made those revisions and those are back in as well. The next step for us would be paving. As you know, the pavement plants right now, our blacktop plants are closed, but as soon as those open back up, it's our intent to get the paving down, get us back in compliance, and get everything up to speed in regards to the conditions that you guys set forth at inception originally. It's been quite some time that's passed since he's done anything with it. We had a landscaper in there that was not conducive to zoning and the stipulations that you guys had set forth. So we have since moved on from that particular tenant, and we are working with a couple local ecological firms. to look at doing some temporary storage or some bulk storage of native plants that they do. They have other facilities that they grow them in, and they feel like our facility could be a good place to store or kind of a middle area. As you know, it's not zoned for retail, so everything would be wholesale, that sort of thing. So that's kind of where we are or where we're at as of today. Thank you, Mr. Music. I think a lot of the neighbors in Neighborhood Association, We've got Dr. Gonneau and Dr. Martin here, and we've all been concerned with the property because it is an eyesore. Sure. But we were all very curious as to what the intent of the property, and we wanted to see some progress being made. Yeah, and we've since replaced the panels that have been down. I've had a crew out, and we've cleared and grubbed, done some dozing. We've got all that stuff back in order. It looks much more aesthetically pleasing than it did three months ago. So all those items have been addressed. And once we get the pavement in, then at that point the rest will come behind. So we're making progress. Thank you, Mr. Music. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Music? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Dr. Guneau, would you like to introduce yourself for the record? Anything to add? My name is Dr. Lisa Gonneau, 7525 Old Richmond Road. And I appreciate Mr. Music joining this conversation after four months. And I'd like to correct Mr. Marks, this is actually the fourth month we've been here. So I remember it vividly. I just kind of want to remind everybody for the record, too, that when you look up this conditional use permit, it does say Aaron Jameson and Marvin Feldpausch. Those are the two names that appear. And they are the ones that came and requested and received this conditional use permit. And when you look on the Secretary of State's website, the business shown for this location is Enviracide. It is not MICA Group. even though Mr. Music, I understand, is representing Aaron Jameson. I think it's important to state that. And this investigation actually started because I'm the one that sent some photos to the planning folks about my concerns. So I just wanted to state that again. If you'll indulge me for a minute, we received a status update in November that said zoning enforcement was advised by the micro group that they intend to proceed with making needed improvements on the property. Recent efforts include a submittal of a revised site plan, initiating actions to obtain a paving permit, which involved consultation with building inspection, engineering, and traffic engineering, arranging for review and permitting by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for an improved access to Old Richmond Road, and providing engineering and construction details for the greenhouse building. And then last month, Mr. Marks presented an email from Mr. Music, and it says in here, spoke to the District 7 Department of Transportation on December 9th. They're in receipt of our encroachment permit, and it's in process. One of the things I'd like to note is those panels, unless I'm totally crazy because I watched the whole process, it is right outside my front door, they weren't actually replaced. Two people showed up on January 12th, and one person was on top of the building, one person was underneath, and they pushed those panels back up and used their drills to try to fix what was already there. and i'd like to say in light of what these emails and status updates say as of mid-january i checked because i asked last time i said well if this is moving forward i'd like to receive copies of this which i didn't hear hear peep so traffic engineering has no new documents since November building inspection has no new documents engineering had one letter from Palmer engineering even though mr. music's email from last month said it would be Pogue engineering who came out and made a site visit and then there was I guess what's considered a revised site plan which when I looked at it it was from micro group and it doesn't really show much the the property lines are definitely not correct, and it's not to scale. So I'm not sure that really means anything. I have an email from January 19th from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Office of Legal Services, and they have no new or revised application submitted, even though it certainly makes it sound like things are moving forward. And when you look at the property, the property certainly hasn't changed. And I feel like I've been redundant the last few months, but I mean, there are several things to note about this. I've asked for this hearing since October. It's definitely the, I've tried to follow the procedure that's in the zoning ordinance, and I've listed several things that I've presented here at this meeting. I mean, I could go on and on about that. I do feel that there really is no conditional permit now. It's never acted upon, never finished. There's no plan that was shared until today. I'm still not really sure what that means by these ecological firms. So basically, to me, this looks like it should be a new application all over again. They really should not be able to lease this. They never had an occupancy permit on this. And if I'm correct, which I do think I'm correct, from what I understand, if you look at the Urban County Council document from October 2015, there was a resolution to accept the bid of MICA Group to contract for leaf and yard waste removal for the city. So I think there's a bit of a conflict here with the city doing business with the MICA Group. I do respectfully, again, request the revocation hearing, and I have a letter which I would like to give out to you all. And this letter is from the Todd and Todd Law Firm, who has been retained to represent Old Richmond Road, Inc. in this matter. And if you can read through the letter, they're also requesting this revocation hearing. And attached to that are all of the letters that I have already submitted to not only the Board of Adjustment, but to other members of the city, and to Derek Paulson, to James Duncan, to the mayor himself. So there's also been a letter from the Neighborhood Association as well. So thank you for your time. Does anybody have any other questions from Mr. Marks or the staff at any of that? Because Mr. Marks has been in enforcement's position and there are currently no jobs for reputation. Is that correct? That's correct. And again, I have to emphasize that there's no active business use taking place on the property right now. I know in previous discussions there was a lot of attention given to a December 1, 2015 deadline. That was given at a time when the previous landscaping business, Lawns by Lichtefeld, was there occupying the property and attempting to get their business underway there. That December 1 deadline is totally irrelevant right now, so there's no deadlines for them getting these improvements done while the property is vacant. that's just the way it is and the timetable is totally at their discretion if they want to take a year to get everything ready for a new business to come in they have a year if they want to try to get it ready for spring then they've got two months and they've got a lot of work to get done in two months As you know, I've made this point before, and I think it's really important. This property, according to the zoning ordinance, this should have been brought back before the board a long time before now. It was not out of business. It never complied. And if you look at the 2006 meeting, the other neighbors were told this will be enforced. Nothing has changed on this property. I think it's an eyesore. I think it needs to be addressed. Just to play this out a little bit to give you all a picture in your head of what might happen if you did proceed with some type of revocation request and say it was revoked. That greenhouse building is going to stay there. There are all kinds of agricultural uses that don't require conditional uses. They can use a building like that. You see them commonly all over Fayette County. So as long as the building is maintained, then it's going to stay there. It might be a use that's not subject to conditional use requirements. It's a principal permitted use in the agricultural rural zone. If a tobacco farmer wanted to go in there and use that to store tobacco seedlings, no conditional use required. There's lots of other examples of agricultural uses that could be undertaken there. So I just wanted to give you a feel for that, how this could play out, depending on, you know, what happens. I'm absolutely not. I'm absolutely not. I'm absolutely not. I'm absolutely not. I'm absolutely not. anyway. But anyway, at the end of the day, I don't think that this board is prepared to move forward with a revocation hearing. I just don't think that the conditions warrant it, and we didn't have support for it last time unless other members of the Board of Adjustment would disagree. And I hope you move forward because I've told Dr. Martin and Dr. Gonneau as well that it is an eyesore and something needs to be done with it and uh and we see some efforts uh uh being made maybe not as fast as uh as the neighborhood would like it but i don't think that we have any grounds for to hold a revocation hearing at this time and it's not something that we would support with that said does anybody have any other comments i mean i agree this is obviously a building that is concerning the neighbors and i think that the fact that you finally showed up and represented yourself but but i don't yeah it's it's difficult for for us for at least for me to sit here and and say that we're going to uh revoke this um again like mr mark said i don't think that we're going to have we're still going to have a building there i mean it's more of a code issue it seems like if the building's falling down i don't know if we revoke the conditional use what but what that gives you on the other side. That's just my thinking. It seems like it's a code issue. Thank you, Mr. Neum. I'd like to go ahead and move on. And I don't think that we will be asking you to make an update at next month's meeting, Mr. Marks. I'd like to ask if any staff member or anybody has anything else that any board member would like to present or be heard at this time. Mr. Glover, the next meeting of the board will be February 26th, 2016 at 1.30 p.m. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you all for your time, and we stand adjourned.