# Board of Adjustment Meeting - April 25, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 25, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/888 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/888?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-04-25 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 37,403 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment met on April 25, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Mike Owens presiding. The board considered 17 agenda items, taking 16 motions and votes throughout the meeting while hearing 8 public comments. Of the items presented, the board approved 8 requests, postponed 5 items for further consideration, and allowed 3 applicants to withdraw their applications. The approved cases included variances for Manchester Development, LLC to eliminate landscaping requirements in an I-1 zone and for Robert M. Harrison to reduce side yard setbacks in an R-1C zone, as well as conditional use permits for various residential and commercial purposes, including a home occupation wedding florist business, a nightclub, an equine swimming pool facility, and church-related improvements. ## Attendance **Present:** Mike Owens, Carolyn Edwards, James Griggs, Louis Stout, Joanne Bell, Barry Stumbo, John Bryant, George Dillon, Barry Brock, Jim Gallimore, Rochelle Boland, Jim Marx, Barbara Rackers, and Wanda Howard. **Absent:** Kathryn Moore. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included 15 votes and decisions on various zoning and development matters, all of which passed unanimously. **Procedural Matters** The board approved the minutes from the July 27, 2007 meeting, with the motion made by Mr. Stout and seconded by Ms. Edwards [timestamp: 0:05:36]. **Postponements** Four items were postponed to future meetings: - V-2008-40: Rev. and Mrs. George Naze, postponed until May 30, 2008 (motion by Mr. Stout, seconded by Ms. Edwards) [timestamp: 0:09:22] - C-2008-33: Pull-A-Part, postponed until June 27, 2008 (motion by Ms. Bell, seconded by Mr. Stout) [timestamp: 0:20:18] - C-2008-32: Johnny Winchester, postponed until May 30, 2008 (motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Mr. Griggs) [timestamp: 0:24:44] - C-2008-35: CrossFit Lexington LLC, postponed until May 30, 2008 (motion by Mr. Marks, seconded by Mr. Stout) [timestamp: 0:49:31] - CV-2008-24: Panagia Greek Orthodox Church, continued until May 30, 2008 to allow for redesign of parking and compliance with ADA and traffic requirements (motion by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Grady) [timestamp: 4:20:56] **Approved Variances and Conditional Uses** Nine applications were approved with conditions: - V-2008-38: Manchester Development, LLC variance to eliminate landscaping in I-1 zone (motion by Mr. Griggs, seconded by Mr. Stout) [timestamp: 0:33:12] - V-2008-39: Robert M. Harrison variance to reduce side yard from 8' to 4'6" in R-1C zone (motion by Ms. Edwards, seconded by Ms. Bell) [timestamp: 0:34:52] - C-2008-27: Beta Chi of Kappa Kappa Gamma conditional use for sunroom conversion in R-4 zone (motion by Mr. Stout, seconded by Mr. Stumbo) [timestamp: 0:37:44] - C-2008-28: Jeanie Gorrell conditional use for home occupation as wedding florist in R-2 zone (motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Mr. Stout) [timestamp: 0:43:11] - C-2008-30: Jeffrey Blandon/Stephen Chandler conditional use for nightclub with live music in I-1 zone (motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Mr. Stout) [timestamp: 0:47:56] - C-2008-23: Eric McInalen conditional use for equine swimming pool in A-R zone (motion by Ms. Bell, seconded by Mr. Stout) [timestamp: 0:55:29] - C-2008-19: Trinity Baptist Church conditional use for canopy in R-1C zone (motion by Mr. Stout, seconded by Ms. Edwards) [timestamp: 1:05:14] - C-2008-29: Amanda Bowman conditional use for family child care in R-1C zone (motion by Mr. Stumbo, seconded by Mr. Stout) [timestamp: 1:45:03] - A-2008-37: Laura Scott Adkins administrative review for sign in B3 zone (motion by Ms. Bell, seconded by Mr. Stout) [timestamp: 2:02:44] **Withdrawn Request** V-2008-41: Frederick Cotton's variance request was withdrawn after the applicant agreed to comply with staff's recommended plan [timestamp: 1:49:58]. ## Public Comment The meeting included eight public comments addressing a proposed church expansion project, with speakers both supporting and opposing the development. **Support for the Expansion** Yvette Harrigan [timestamp: 2:38:50] praised the Greek Orthodox Church as a well-maintained and beloved neighbor, stating that its presence enhances the neighborhood and expressing support for the expansion. Louis William Rahm [timestamp: 2:40:26], a resident of the Hollywood neighborhood, submitted a letter in support of the expansion, stating it would enhance the area's architectural character and noting that the church has been a good neighbor. **Opposition and Concerns** Kate Savage [timestamp: 2:52:34], a preservationist and president of the Columbia Heights Neighborhood Association, opposed the expansion on historic preservation grounds. She argued that the Byzantine church design is incongruous with the neighborhood's American bungalows and contended that demolishing a house on the verge of being listed on the National Historic Register would be a crime. Mary Margaret Lowe [timestamp: 3:06:26] expressed multiple concerns about the proposed church, stating it would dwarf nearby homes, block sunlight, increase stormwater runoff, and cause traffic congestion. She urged denial of the variance, citing the neighborhood's pending historic designation. Eugene Lacefield [timestamp: 3:13:21] warned that demolishing homes one by one would erode the neighborhood's character and could lead to more commercial development along Tates Creek Road, characterizing this pattern as "death by small nicks." Stuart Connelly [timestamp: 3:18:04], whose mother lives adjacent to the project site, expressed concern that past construction had flooded her basement and washed debris onto her driveway, and feared similar issues with the new project. **Other Comments** Song Kim [timestamp: 0:07:46], a neighbor at 315 Retrac Road, expressed concern that steps to the appellants' covered porch encroach on his property and may lower his property value by about two feet. He stated he had no objection to the requested postponement. Richard Murphy [timestamp: 0:17:25], representing the Townley Park and Meadowthorpe Neighborhood Associations, requested a two-month postponement for case C-2008-33 to allow time for neighborhood coordination, noting that the applicant had already scheduled a meeting with the associations. ## Contested Items **Panagia Greek Orthodox Church Expansion** The proposed expansion of the Panagia Greek Orthodox Church generated significant community opposition. Neighbors raised multiple concerns about the project's compatibility with the surrounding area, including the scale of the expansion and its Byzantine architectural design. Residents testified about potential negative impacts including increased traffic, parking challenges, and the demolition of a historic house. Additional concerns were raised regarding the risk of increased flooding and neighborhood congestion resulting from the expansion. **C-2008-33: Pull-A-Part Auto Salvage Yard** This case involved a heated discussion centered on a proposed two-month postponement of the project. The debate focused on environmental impact concerns and potential economic effects. The applicant and board ultimately reached agreement on extending the postponement after the applicant confirmed coordination with neighborhood associations regarding the project's implementation. **C-2008-29: Family Child Care in Residential Zone** A proposal to operate family child care in a residential zone resulted in a split vote among board members. While the applicant and staff had reached agreement on the conditions for the operation, a neighbor raised concerns about noise and traffic impacts on the residential area. The board ultimately approved the request after the applicant committed to working directly with neighbors to address their concerns. ## Rev. and Mrs. George Naze - Variance to reduce rear and side yard requirements **Case Number:** V-2008-40 **Issue:** Rev. and Mrs. George Naze requested a variance to modify yard requirements in a Planned Neighborhood Residential zone. Specifically, they sought to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5.5 feet and eliminate the 5-foot side yard requirement. The variance was needed to retain an existing sunroom and deck on their property. **Key Speakers:** Phil Moloney and Song Kim **Staff Position:** Staff recommended disapproval of the variance request. The primary concern was the lack of special circumstances that would justify the reduction in setback requirements. Staff also noted that approving the variance could set a precedent for widespread circumvention of established zoning rules. **Outcome:** The applicant's attorney requested a 30-day postponement, which was granted. The matter was not decided at this meeting and will be reconsidered at a future date. [timestamp: 0:06:10] ## Pull-A-Part - Conditional use for auto salvage yard in I-2 zone The applicant requested a conditional use permit for an auto salvage yard to be located on a former landfill site in an I-2 (Industrial) zone. [timestamp: 0:10:01] **Key Speakers** Matt Carter and Richard Murphy were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended postponing the application to allow additional time for alternative access planning and environmental permitting related to the former landfill designation of the property. **Outcome** The application was postponed for two months. This postponement was granted following requests from neighborhood associations who indicated they needed additional time to coordinate their response to the proposal. ## Johnny Winchester - Conditional use for vehicle storage yard in I-1 zone **Case Number:** C-2008-32 **Applicant:** Johnny Winchester **Request:** Conditional use permit for a vehicle storage yard in an I-1 (Industrial) zone **Background:** The property in question already hosts a moving and storage business. The applicant sought approval to operate a vehicle storage yard on the same site. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended postponement of the application to allow for submission of a detailed site plan and clarification of the proposed operations. **Outcome:** The application was postponed for 30 days to allow the applicant time to provide the additional information and documentation requested by staff. [timestamp: 0:23:37] ## Sonja Gregory - Conditional use for school in A-U zone **Case Number:** C-2008-31 **Request:** The applicant sought a conditional use permit to establish a school on a property that contained an existing greenhouse. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended disapproval of the request, citing several operational and safety concerns: - Inadequate off-street parking for the proposed school use - Traffic conflicts with landscaping trucks that currently operate on the property - Operational incompatibility between a school and the existing greenhouse operations **Outcome:** The applicant withdrew the conditional use permit request. ## Ralph Senninger - Conditional use for recreational facility in A-R zone **Case Number:** C-2008-34 **Request:** The applicant sought a conditional use permit for a recreational facility in an A-R (Agricultural-Residential) zone located in a floodplain area. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended disapproval of the request based on several identified constraints and concerns: - Floodplain constraints affecting the proposed site - Inadequate access to the facility - Sewage treatment issues - Conflict with the historic character of the Clays Ferry Rural Settlement **Outcome:** The applicant withdrew the request. [timestamp: 0:25:40] ## Manchester Development, LLC - Variance to eliminate landscaping in I-1 zone **Case Number:** V-2008-38 Manchester Development, LLC requested a variance to eliminate required landscaping in an I-1 (Industrial) zone for a vehicular use area. [timestamp: 0:32:07] **Presentation and Discussion** Barry McNees presented the variance request to the board. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the variance with conditions. The conditions were designed to maintain visibility and appearance standards despite the elimination of the required landscaping. **Outcome** The motion to approve the variance passed unanimously. ## Robert M. Harrison - Variance to reduce side yard in R-1C zone **Case Number:** V-2008-39 **Applicant:** Robert M. Harrison **Request:** A variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 8 feet to 4 feet 6 inches in an R-1C zoning district for a room addition. **Staff Recommendation:** Approval, based on special circumstances and minimal impact to surrounding properties. **Outcome:** The variance was approved unanimously. [timestamp: 0:33:44] ## Beta Chi of Kappa Kappa Gamma - Conditional use to convert porch to sunroom in R-4 zone **Case Number:** C-2008-27 **Request:** The applicant sought a conditional use permit to convert a porch to a sunroom in an R-4 zoned area. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended approval with conditions. **Key Discussion:** Tom Burke presented on this matter [timestamp: 0:35:28]. The applicant requested a slight increase in square footage beyond the original proposal, which was approved during the discussion. **Outcome:** The motion to approve the conditional use permit passed unanimously. ## Jeanie Gorrell - Conditional use for home occupation (wedding florist) in R-2 zone [timestamp: 0:38:16] Jeanie Gorrell applied for a conditional use permit to operate a wedding florist home occupation in an R-2 residential zone. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to seven conditions. **Applicant Position** Gorrell agreed to all seven conditions proposed by staff. **Outcome** The motion to approve the conditional use permit passed unanimously. ## Jeffrey Blandon / Stephen Chandler - Conditional use for nightclub in I-1 zone Jeffrey Blandon and Stephen Chandler applied for a conditional use permit to operate a nightclub with live music as part of a mixed-use development project in an I-1 (Industrial) zone [timestamp: 0:43:43]. **Application Details** The applicants sought approval to establish a nightclub featuring live music entertainment within their mixed-use project proposal. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to six conditions. The conditions included revised parking requirements to address the anticipated demand from the nightclub operation. **Outcome** The motion to approve the conditional use permit passed unanimously. ## CrossFit Lexington LLC - Conditional use for indoor recreational facility in I-1 **Case Number:** C-2008-35 **Request:** CrossFit Lexington LLC sought a conditional use permit for an indoor recreational facility in an I-1 zone. **Outcome:** The applicant withdrew the request. The motion to postpone was granted. **Details:** During the meeting, the applicant indicated they would pursue an alternate site rather than proceed with the conditional use permit application for the originally proposed location. Following this withdrawal, a motion to postpone the matter was approved. [timestamp: 0:49:01] ## Eric McInalen - Conditional use for equine swimming pool in A-R zone Eric McInalen requested a conditional use permit to construct an equine swimming pool on property zoned A-R (Agricultural-Residential). [timestamp: 0:50:15] **Key Speakers:** - Eric McInalen (applicant) - Don Todd **Application and Negotiations:** The applicant sought approval for the equine swimming pool project. Through the review process, negotiations occurred between the applicant and the reviewing body regarding the project's conditions and site plan. **Conditions Agreed Upon:** As part of the approval process, the applicant agreed to several modifications and conditions: - Relocate the equine swimming pool to a different location on the property - Return paddock areas to pasture use - Meet additional unspecified conditions **Outcome:** The conditional use permit was approved unanimously. The motion passed without dissent from the reviewing board. ## Trinity Baptist Church - Conditional use for canopy in R-1C zone Trinity Baptist Church requested a conditional use permit to retain a canopy located in an R-1C zoning district. [timestamp: 0:56:06] **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to two conditions. **Applicant Position** The applicant agreed to the conditions proposed by staff. **Outcome** The motion to approve the conditional use permit passed unanimously. ## Amanda Bowman - Conditional use for family child care in R-1C zone **Case Number:** C-2008-29 **Applicant Request:** Amanda Bowman sought a conditional use permit to operate family child care in an R-1C zone. **Key Speakers:** Amanda Bowman and Donald Graves participated in the discussion. **Issues Raised:** A neighbor expressed concerns about noise and traffic impacts that would result from the proposed family child care operation. **Resolution:** Following discussion of the neighbor's concerns, Amanda Bowman agreed to work cooperatively with neighbors to address their issues. The motion to approve the conditional use permit passed unanimously. **Outcome:** Approved *[Transcript location: approximately 1:06:20]* ## Frederick Cotton - Variance to reduce front yard in R-2 zone **Case Number:** V-2008-41 **Applicant:** Frederick Cotton **Request:** The applicant sought a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 14 feet in an R-2 zoning district. **Reason for Request:** The variance was requested due to a measurement error. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended disapproval of the variance request. **Outcome:** The applicant agreed to withdraw the request and comply with the required 20-foot setback. [timestamp: 1:46:10] ## Laura Scott Adkins - Administrative review for sign in B3 zone [timestamp: 1:51:10] This agenda item involved an administrative review for a sign in a B3 zone. The applicant, Laura Scott Adkins, sought approval for a 176 square foot freestanding sign. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions. In response to these conditions, the applicant agreed to combine two signs to meet applicable size limits and withdrew the request for a parquet sign. James Golden participated as a key speaker during the discussion of this item. The motion to approve the administrative review passed unanimously. ## Panagia Greek Orthodox Church - Conditional use and variance for church expansion The board considered application CV-2008-24 for a conditional use permit and variance to allow Panagia Greek Orthodox Church to expand and replace its building. [timestamp: 2:11:59] **Applicant and Supporters** The church's representatives, including Hank Goretti, Dennis Korunis, and Alex Christofaridis, presented the expansion proposal to the board. **Opposition and Concerns** Multiple neighbors opposed the project, raising several concerns: - **Scale and design**: Neighbors questioned whether the proposed expansion was appropriately scaled for the location - **Parking**: Significant concerns were raised about parking availability and adequacy for the expanded facility - **Traffic**: Opponents cited traffic impacts as a major concern - **Historic preservation**: Historic preservation issues were raised in relation to the project Key speakers expressing opposition or concerns included Sam Mashney, Marshall Estep, Yvette Harrigan, Louis William Rahm, Kate Savage, Mary Margaret Lowe, Eugene Lacefield, and Stuart Connelly. **Board Decision** Rather than rendering a final decision, the board voted to continue the case to a future meeting. This postponement was intended to allow the applicant time to address specific deficiencies in the proposal, including: - Redesign of the parking plan - Compliance with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements - Compliance with traffic requirements The case was not resolved at this meeting and remains pending further review. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approve minutes from July 27, 2007 meeting - **Motion** — passed: Postpone V-2008-40: Rev. and Mrs. George Naze until May 30, 2008 - **Motion** — passed: Postpone C-2008-33: Pull-A-Part until June 27, 2008 - **Motion** — passed: Postpone C-2008-32: Johnny Winchester until May 30, 2008 - **Motion** — passed: Approve V-2008-38: Manchester Development, LLC (variance to eliminate landscaping in I-1 zone) with three conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve V-2008-39: Robert M. Harrison (variance to reduce side yard from 8’ to 4’6” in R-1C zone) with three conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve C-2008-27: Beta Chi of Kappa Kappa Gamma (conditional use to convert porch to sunroom in R-4 zone) with two conditions, including increased square footage to 437 sq ft - **Motion** — passed: Approve C-2008-28: Jeanie Gorrell (conditional use for home occupation: wedding florist in R-2 zone) with seven conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve C-2008-30: Jeffrey Blandon / Stephen Chandler (conditional use for nightclub with live music in I-1 zone) with six conditions, including revised parking requirement from 138 to 23 spaces - **Motion** — passed: Postpone C-2008-35: CrossFit Lexington LLC until May 30, 2008 - **Motion** — passed: Approve C-2008-23: Eric McInalen (conditional use for equine swimming pool in A-R zone) with three conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve C-2008-19: Trinity Baptist Church (conditional use for canopy in R-1C zone) with two conditions - **Motion** — passed: Approve C-2008-29: Amanda Bowman (conditional use for family child care in R-1C zone) with four conditions - **Motion** — withdrawn: Withdraw V-2008-41: Frederick Cotton (variance request) after applicant agreed to comply with staff’s recommended plan - **Motion** — passed: Approve A-2008-37: Laura Scott Adkins (administrative review for sign in B3 zone) with conditions including transfer of unused square footage and withdrawal of parapet sign request - **Motion** — postponed: Continue CV-2008-24: Panagia Greek Orthodox Church until May 30, 2008 to allow for redesign of parking and compliance with ADA and traffic requirements --- ## Full transcript Music I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo I'm going to go. Good afternoon. At this time I'll call the April 25th meeting of Board of Adjustment to order and welcome everyone here. I would ask as far as telephones either turn them off or silence them one way or another. Thank you. First order of business today would be approval of minutes from the July 27, 2007 meeting. So moved. Mr. Chairman. Motion has been made. Is there a second? Second. Motion's made and seconded for approval of the July 27th 2007 minutes. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. At this time we will sound the agenda asking for first for any postponements or withdrawals. If anyone has any postponements or withdrawals, please come forward. State your name, please, sir. Chairman Owens, Phil Maloney, and I'm here on the matter. I think it's number 3, V200840, Reverend and Mrs. George Nays. We would ask for a postponement of 30 days to your May meeting. That would be, it's on page two, item number three, Reverend Mrs. George Nays. Reasonings, Mr. Maloney? We have been trying to get the utility companies out there, and we've called them multiple times, the DIG number, and with all the rain, they just haven't been able to get out there. So we've got some out there, but we would like to talk with them, find out where the utilities in question are. and the other reason is we'd like to get our builder out there, which has been kind of sensitive, getting the builder to come out there who built this addition. So I presume you're working on the other concerns that the staff has as well? We hope to do so. Okay. In 30 days we'll allow us to address those concerns. Okay. Thank you. I would need a motion for postponement. Move. Is there a second? Second. Chair? Yes. Do you think we should ask if anyone in the audience? Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Anyone present that is here to speak in regards to this case besides the appellant? This would be a... 319, retract? Yes. Yes. Would you be in opposition to a postponement for 30 days? Yes. For 30 days. Okay. Actually, I am at 315 Richard Road. I own property. Okay, if you would, come to the podium to the microphone, sir, and state your name. Okay. Hi. My name is Song Kim. I own the property at 315 Richard Road. And I think my neighbor is like a big covered porch on the side of my property line. And the side steps I think encroached to my property line. So I told the owner maybe they have to remove the you know Side steps which is on out my property line. So okay. Yeah, but other than that I think they have some rooms, but it's okay, you know with me But I think I I'm concerned about sighting on side steps I think they may roll the value of my property because I think about two three piece is on the my property line So okay, so you're the resident to the right right probably okay All right, then would would you be in opposition to a postponement for 30 days? I Guess it. I don't mind. Okay Okay, you can leave that with mr. Marks and We can note that yeah, I think something doesn't bother me at all But I think at the side I told the owners about that and I see miss grace nays Understand what I'm trying to say. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you Anyone else here in opposition to this case? If not, we do have a motion. I believe we did have a second. Mr. Stumbo, did you second? I think Ms. Edwards. Ms. Edwards did? Okay, thank you. We do have a motion for postponement on the floor of V2008-40, the Reverend and Mrs. George Nays. All those in favor of postponement for 30 days to the May 30, 2008 meeting, please say Aye. Any opposed? Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Okay. Any other postponements? My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you turn to page 7, item 10, C-2008-33, pull apart, we request a one-month postponement. Okay. Any questions from the Board on this? How long? Does this a one-month postponement? That's correct. Until the May 30, 2008 hearing. Okay. Ms. Bell? Okay. Mr. Griggs? I do have a question for staff about this. Since there's time and the staff report was somewhat light, would it be possible to anticipate questions from us about the economic and the environmental impact of this, that people be prepared to answer questions on those topics? Certainly. It would just be helpful to have it in writing. So some of it, I imagine, would fall on the shoulders of the applicant, not necessarily, at least initially, the staff. Well, I guess what I'd like to know is that before I vote for approval on the pull-apart application, that it's environmentally benign, including at a time when they might pull out that there would be assurances that the site was cleaned up, and the economic impact, how much the city is going to gain from this lease as opposed to what it's going to possibly cost us, including maybe devalued property taxes surrounding it. In other words, there's a lot of admirable construction on Lee's Town Road, just inside New Circle Road, that that recovered landfill is a viewshed to. And if those properties lose 5% of their value because of that pull-apart being located there, there'd be a loss of tax revenue. I wonder if the amount these applicants would be paying on their lease would offset that. Maybe that's far-fetched, but I'm just wondering about why the city's interested in doing this economically. Two questions there. One's real easy to answer because in the lease it specifies what the city is getting as a lease payment. Has it been compared with what the economic damages to the area might be? Oh, no, no. That's the second question you ask. That's a very complicated question. That would require a pretty extensive evaluation. Don't you think it would be worth thinking about? I think maybe Rochelle has something to say here. Ms. Bellin? I think if we start getting into telling someone, whether it be the government or a private entity, you can't use your property because it's a viewshed that improves the value of the neighboring property, that's a taking. That's just not what the board looks at. I mean, they can look at traffic impact, watershed impact, things of that sort, but I don't think you can say to anyone, whether it be the government or someone else, you can't use your property because when it's vacant, it's providing a benefit to surrounding properties. And it sounds to me like that's what this question is about. Well, I was actually thinking that the benefit to the city that those tax bases stay stable would be. I think that's a decision for the council and when they decide whether or not to approve that lease. I don't think that's really in the jurisdiction of this board. This board is looking at zoning questions, not the economical wisdom of the government's decision in deciding to lease the property. Well, I feel like I'm supposed to be looking out for the community as a whole, and that's what I'd like to be convinced that I'm doing when I vote one way or the other on this. I think it's going to be up to the government whether they choose to try to provide information that really doesn't fall within a zoning question, because as Jim Marks said, I have no idea we'd have to probably hire outside appraisers and everything else to try to get some kind of economic information of that sort. And that really doesn't fall within a zoning decision. Ms. Bellman, would it be appropriate to let Mr. Griggs supply these various questions and let them get them to the, let the planning get them to the applicant? I have no problem with that. And I think that the lease is certainly relevant in terms of looking at terms in the lease that may have been put in to assure a minimal impact and protection of the environmental situation, protection of the measures and remedial action has been taken in closing the landfill. I think all of that is very relevant because that has to do with physical impact of using that property. I think all of that's relevant and he can certainly pose the questions and if they have information available I'm sure that they will provide it but I just don't think they're going to have a lot of that so I don't think you're going to get some of the economic information you're asking for is all I'm saying. There's no problem imposing those questions and I'm sure the divisions of the government will provide what they can provide. All right. Jim, the question is real easy. It's just there's an economic downside to this and there's an economic upside from the lease payments. And I just wonder if it would be possible to help me feel confident that the city is going to benefit from this. That's the only question. I understand the question and it's easy to get you a copy of the lease for starters. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Jim. Jim, are there specific regulations about the disposal of batteries? I recently read an article about a small community in upstate New York where there was an auto kind of situation, something like this one. and even though they had regulations regarding the disposal of batteries, apparently they weren't enforced and all that. It caused all kinds of problems because it was also on one of these fills. And I'm just wondering, I would find it helpful if you would let us know what has to be done with the batteries and if or if not in their plan they have cited how they're going to dispose of such poisons there's a whole slew of things that when the vehicles come on a lot are taken off and disposed of so we probably could should address batteries in addition to all the other things that I think Matt and some of the environmental folks he's working with probably will be prepared to have a lot of that detail. Thank you very much. Okay any other questions from the board at this point? Yes up yes Mr. Murphy. Thank you Mr. Chairman I'm Dick Murphy and I'm here on behalf of the Townley Park Neighborhood Association and also with us is Shirley Young president of the Meadowthorpe Neighborhood Association Michael Prazer is here the president of Townley Park. Townley Parks and the other associations as far as I know aren't taking a position on this one point trying to gather some information on it they do not have an objection to the postponement they we are requesting two months though because the what we've just heard in the last week or so there's various neighborhood associations that do have interests in this and in trying to coordinate their schedules it's going to be difficult for them to come together and make any kind of decision within the one month period. So we're asking for a postponement until June. This agreement was signed with the city back in June of 07, so there doesn't appear to be an overwhelming speed issue on it since it's only coming to you in April of 08, so we don't feel the two months will be too much of an issue on that. I understand that somebody from Pull Apart is coming to talk to the Townley Association and the Meadowthorpe Neighborhood Association next week on that. So we are getting together to talk about it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Carter, first I guess maybe I should ask, are there anyone else in the audience that was here to speak in regards to this case? Okay. If not, Mr. Carter, would you be acceptable to a 60-day postponement? Well, the owner, I was unable to reach him, And he had previously told me to ask for one month, so I would have to ask for one month only Okay With mr. Murphy saying do you know if there's a representative planning to meet with neighborhood associations? Yes, that's serious Do you have any knowledge just maybe why that hasn't been done in the past already? Particularly given the information that this lease was on almost a year ago We say we kind of think we contact well I'm not sure who made the first contact whether I may have been us okay my neighbors okay contacting them okay sorry thank you any questions from the board in regards to the postponement it makes sense to me that since this has taken so long that two months is is not unreasonable okay when there is a kind of concern that seems to exist here so my motion do we have a motion no but I'd be willing to entertain like to move that it's be postponed for two months. Okay. Motion has been made for postponement on this case which is C-2008-33 pull apart for a postponement of 60 days which would take it to the June, help me, Ms. Rackers. June 27th we believe. Date, I do have a calendar right here yes June 27th would be the date so motion has been made before before a second it I'd like to ask mr. Murphy a question regarding the neighborhood associations is this the this is not the first they've heard of this particular project is mr. Murphy well I think we'd my two presidents are saying yes it was. I think they just heard about this last week. So there was no notification that went out to to the neighbors of this within this area regarding this particular project? Mr. Marks can you have a standard notice went out with 400 feet and I can take a look at the map and see if that particular neighborhood is relatively speaking. Did it go out within the last five days or within the last 30 days oh within the last 30 days and and someone didn't know one of your people received it mr. Murphy no and I don't know if the 400 foot was measured from the boundary of this operation or from the city-owned property or what but they just became aware of it and less well I don't I don't have a problem with the with the motion and the 60 days which is probably in my estimation would be the best I do have a problem though with all of a sudden that things are not looking like they go in the way people think they ought to go that you come forward all of a sudden and make a complaint relative to to to to this particular situation I do think these 60 days probably ought to be there but I also think that people who are concerned about it should have been more active with it prior to the day or prior to five days ago now how that is to be done I don't know other than a no for notifications but they've known about this project now for evidently for some time well there was there was no notification when the City Council took up the issue and I do not know how how and when my folks found out about it and whether they're within the 400 foot list or not I wasn't asking for a postponement so much on lack of notification but need to coordinate these groups that keep coming in and say they want to find out about it as well Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with that and with that I'll second the motion. Okay, thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement until the June 27th hearing. If there's not any other questions, I'll call for a vote. All those in favor of the postponement, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes for postponement until June 27th. Thank you. yes sir yes your name sir my name is Johnny Winchester okay on page 7 number 9 C 208 days 32 okay yes sir I came to the building inspection department asked for a permit to operate a impoundment lot just you know to store cars and they told me that you had to have a right of refusal and then I went to the planning and zoning and they told me what positions and what things I should do and I thought I'd done everything that I was supposed to do then when I got this letter from Jim he recommended that let's postpone this thing and I'm asking to postpone it for 30 days because I don't think I've got everything in writing exactly the way I was supposed to add and I don't think he does either that's the reason that he wanted to postpone was that right Jim that's pretty much right we just need a lot more detail as to how the two uses are going to be undertaken on this one property. Okay. All right, then. So, Mr. Winchester, you're willing to work with Mr. Marks? Yes, that's what I want to do now. Yes, sir. On this. Okay. All right, then. Are there anyone in the audience who came to speak in regards to this case? If not, questions from the board or I'll ask for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to go ahead and recommend that C-2008-32 Johnny Winchester appeals for conditional use be postponed for 30 days. Yes, sir. Okay. I'll second that. Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for postponement of C-2008-32 Johnny Winchester until the May 30th, 2008 hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Winchester. Thank you. Y'all have a good day. Thank you. I appreciate it. Are there any other requests for postponements or withdrawals at this time? Mr. Marks. We have two withdrawals. I think one you may have gotten a copy of the letter of that you're aware of already, but that's Ms. Gregory, conditional use for the school on page six, item number eight. So we have a letter of withdrawal for that. Okay. We also just got a letter of withdrawal for the Ralph Sinninger application, conditional use for the recreational facility on the Kentucky River. And we have a letter of withdrawal from Mr. Sinninger. That's page 7, item number 11. Okay. If that is all the postponements and withdrawals, I'll continue sounding the agenda to see if there's others besides the applicant that wish to speak, any objectors. I would ask, in some cases, objectors simply have a question, not really an objection to, but not understanding the process. So if that may be the case, I would encourage anyone to get with the applicant and discuss this prior to, and it may resolve some of the questions that are in someone's mind. The first case, and continuing on, would be the Manchester Development LLC. It's V2008-38. Is the applicant here in regards to this? Yes. Thank you. Are there anyone here in objection to this? No. Okay. V2008-39, Mr. Robert Harrison. I have been here. Yes, thank you. Anyone in objection to this? No. The next case is recommended for disapproval, which is Mr. Frederick Cotton, V2008-41. Is the applicant here? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cotton. Anyone in opposition to this here today? No? Okay. Thank you. Pagania Greek Orthodox Church CV 2008-24 the applicant here? yes thank you anyone in opposition to this? okay thank you Trinity Baptist Church is a continuation C 2008-19 is the applicant here? yes any opposition to this? okay thank you Mr. Eric McInalen, C2008-23 applicant is here. Anyone in opposition to this? We were here earlier in opposition. I think we've resolved all issues. There's one other point I need to discuss with them. If you would like to give us leave to do that, we might resolve that question. If you all do have time to do that, and you can let us know. Okay? Yeah, I understand. Next case is C2008-27, the beta-ca of kappa-kappa-gamma sorority house. Is the applicant here? Yes. Okay. Anyone in opposition to this? No. Thank you. Jeannie Gorel, C2008-28, is the applicant here? Yes. Thank you. Anyone in opposition to this? Amanda Bowman C2008-29 applicant here yes thank you anyone in opposition to this ok thank you Jeffrey Blandon Stephen Chandler 2008-30 applicant here ok anyone in opposition to this no Next case is C2008-35, CrossFit Lexington LLC. Is the applicant here? No. Okay, we'll wait on that. Anyone in opposition to this? No. Yeah, we'll deal with that a little bit later. C 2008-36 Liberty Ridge Senior Living is the applicant here thank you sir anyone in opposition to this one okay and then A 2008-37 Laura Scott Adkins Cummins Sign Incorporated applicant here okay thank you anyone in opposition to this no okay All right. What we will do is try and clear the agenda of the non-discussion items first, meaning those scheduled for approval that have no opposition thereof. The disapprovals will come later, and we'll try and move through this the best that we can. before we get to that two things one anyone who wishes to have a transcript of this meeting prepared at your own expense you can do so just contact the planning staff and at this time I would ask anyone who plans to speak to provide any testimony We do need to swear in so I would ask that you stand raise your right hand for that Do you swear the information you are about to give shall be the truth? Thank you So the first case we will hear is V 2008-38 38 Manchester Development LLC appeals for variance to eliminate required landscaping for a vehicle vehicular use area and a light industrial I-1 zone on property located at 896 Manchester Street Council District 2. Applicant here. Yes, please come forward and state your name. My name is Barry McNeese with Manchester Development. McNeese? McNeese. Okay, thank you. This is recommended for approval by the planning staff, subject to three conditions. Have you read the conditions? I have. We're in agreement with those conditions, yes. Okay. Does the board have any questions in regards to this? If not, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend we approve V2008-38 Manchester Developments, LLC, appeal for variance on the required landscaping in the vehicular use area in the I-1 zone on property at 896 Manchester Street, based on the staff's recommendation and their three conditions. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. McNeese. Thank you. The next case is V2008-39. Mr. Robert Harrison appeals for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 8 feet to 4 feet 6 inches in order to construct a room addition in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1824 Farmview Drive, Council District 7. The applicant here, yes. Please come forward. State your name for us, please. Robert M. Harrison. Thank you, Mr. Harrison. The staff is recommending approval for your variance, subject to three conditions. Have you read and agree with the? Yes, sir. Okay. Any questions from the board on this? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to recommend for approval V2008-39 Robert M. Harrison's appeal for variance to reduce the required side yard from eight feet to four feet six inches in order to construct a room addition in a single-family R1C zone on property located at 1824 Farm View Drive with the three conditions as set forth by staff. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. There's no other questions. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Harrison. The next case that we will hear, going down through here, I believe is C 2008-27, the Beta Chi of Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority house applicant here yes please come forward state your name my name is Tom Burke mr. Burke how are you I'm fine Thanks. The staff has recommended approval of this subject to conditions. Have you read the conditions? I have, but can I go over those one more time? Okay, please. To meet the square footage requirement is one. The square footage is just only five or six square feet shy of what we actually have to outside face a stud. You can give us a little bit of leeway on that number. That was probably just pulled from the scaled on the drawing or something. Okay, what is a square footage of the proposed addition? Or enclosure? 437 square feet outside faces stud. Mr. Marks, can you provide some clarification for... That's fine. Yeah, that's fine. Oh, that's fine. Okay, thank you, sir. Okay. Okay, so with the change that that shall read not to exceed 437 square feet, you are in agreement with the two conditions. Okay, thank you. Any questions from the board in regards to this? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that C-2008-27, Beta Chi of Kappa Kappa Gamma, appeals for conditional use permit to convert a porch to a sunroom for sorority house in a high-density apartment or for a zone on property located at 238 East Maxwell Street, Council District 3, be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the two conditions. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next case would be C2008-28, Jeannie Garel, who appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a home occupation, wedding florist in a two-family residential R2 zone on property located at 3860 Sugar Creek Drive, Council District 4. Yes, ma'am, please state your name. I'm Jeannie Garel. Thank you. If I can turn the pages. The staff has recommended approval subject to seven conditions. Have you read the conditions? Yes. And agree with them? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from this board on this? Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make sure that can you talk about the genie a little bit about the business, obviously there's not going to be any retail going on. Is that correct? Yes. So you will just be doing floral arrangements and that sort of thing for special events and weddings and so forth? I do bridal shows and have a booth and then get my business from there. And then usually meet my customers at the site, like the church or reception hall or wherever it's going to be. Well, that was going to be my next question in that how many customers Would they be using your off-street parking? Would you have a lot of customers visiting your floral shop? No. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am? Ms. Bell? I'm a bit confused by condition four and five. No client shall come to the home, and yet you're limited to two weddings or special events per week. Why the limitation of two per week if the clients aren't permitted to come to the home and she said that she meets the clients at the church or whatever? There is still activity associated with running a business out of your home. You have to deliver the materials to the wedding site or other special event. And it is a fairly tight property. They basically share a driveway with the adjoining property. that's just what we thought was a reasonable limit to make sure there's not continuous you know van traffic going in and out of this property. Does that make sense to you? Well I have another job so I mean I probably won't do more than one a week that's the most. Thank you. Any other questions? I do have a question there's a there's a statement in here as far as a condition three ensuring compliance with 300 square foot restriction apparently originally it was started out being more than that have we worked our way down to a 300 square foot well if you have let the work areas where I work right it's not considered storage or if I have candles storage stored somewhere is that considered a work area there would be a question for mr. marks I would think so I get to print the building inspection um actually this is going to be inspected by mr. Hume and he's gonna make the judgment call when when that's done but 300 square feet is gonna be that's gonna be our starting point obviously we're gonna make a call if it's out of line we'll we'll go from there okay I'm just a little concerned about approving this and and getting getting into the situation and then finding out there's yeah apparently we're stating subject to 300 square foot restriction and you know I hate for mr. human go out there on the initial visit and find out there's more than that I just need a clarification of some are you storing your candles within the 300 square foot I don't I mean I have a work area where I work and it's small are you storing your candles within that area right it's beside that area then what's what's the concern if she's doing that if if if she's you know by can statement of the conditions if she's working within that 300 square foot restriction I have no problem yeah I work within that. Right. Okay. Okay. So any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion for item C, 2008-28, Jeannie Correll, appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a home occupation, wedding florist, and two-family residential on property located at 3860 Sugar Creek Drive be approved. I'll second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thanks. The next case would be C2008-30, Jeffrey Blandon and Stephen Chandler, who appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a nightclub with live music and dancing as part of an industrial mixed-use project in a light industrial I-1 zone on property located in 903 Manchester Street Council District 2. The applicant here? Yes. Your name, sir? Stephen Chandler. Thank you. Jeffrey Blandin. Thank you, sir. This is recommended for approval by the staff subject to six conditions. Are there any questions from the board on this? Mr. Chairman. Yes. Over here. Thank you. I'm sorry. We do have a modification to condition number three that we'd like to put up on the screen. Okay. this one use is part of a large number of other uses that will be taking place in this what's called an industrial mixed-use project along Manchester Street the original condition required them to have all of what's called phase one parking which was a term used when it went to the Planning Commission for approval of a development plan that phase one parking was for 138 spaces this particular use doesn't come close to needing all those spaces and since I guess they're getting really close to being ready to open their business they didn't want to have to wait till all of the phase one parking was completed so to accommodate that we've revised this condition to reflect that at the minimum they'll have to have their required parking which is 23 off-street spaces available and dedicated for their use before they get an occupancy permit. Okay. You all agree with that? Yes, sir. Any other questions from the board in regards to this? I would have one. I believe last month we gave approval for the indoor recreational area in an alcohol-free nightclub in the back. and now we've got a, I would presume, nightclub for adults with alcohol in the front. Is that the subject? Yes. Intentions of keeping everybody separate. Do you have any plans for that? Well, our interest is on Manchester Street, and I think the skate park is in the back of the property. I don't foresee there being any problems. We're going to enter. We have to be of age. in Manchester when the other property adjoining property is in the back of the building with no internal doors connecting as well right right I understand no internal doors yeah my concern is just simply the thought that you've got adults going to an alcohol nightclub and you've got youth right next door and and I would think there'd be some co-mingling inside or not inside but outside and that that is a little concerning. Do you have any security plans as far as outside? Yes we do. We'll have security in the parking area out front and also security inside the premises inside of the building. Sorry. Any other questions? If not I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman I'll move that C-2008-30. Jeffrey Blandon and Stephen Chandler appealed for a conditional use permit to establish a nightclub with live music and dancing as part of industrial mixed use project in the light industrial R1 zone on property located at 903 Manchester Street Council District 2 be approved with the modification of 138 to 23 parking spaces and subject to the six conditions recommended by the staff. I'll second that. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you good luck good luck yes next case C 2008-35 cross CrossFit LLC CrossFit Lexington LLC appeals for conditional use permit to establish an indoor recreational facility athletic club in a light industrial aisle one zone and properly located 2610 Palumbo Drive Council District 7 is the applicant here No. This was Schedule 4 postponement. So Mr. Marks, can you enlighten us any on what might be going on? I met with them recently because they have found an alternate site that they're going to be actually applying for that will be on next month's agenda. But they weren't sure that one was going to work out, so they're not ready to withdraw this site yet. As far as I know, they don't have any objections to postponing and since they're not here, I'd recommend you go ahead and take action. Okay. I move it be postponed. Okay. This would be a 30-day postponement until May 30th, 2008. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion for postponement passes. Okay. Mr. Eric McInalen, Mr. Todd, did you all get together? Mr. Chairman Don Todd, on behalf of the initial opponents, Mr. McAnallen and myself and my clients of Med, we've resolved our opposition subject to their amended proposal, which I've got a letter summarizing what we've agreed to which we can either read into the record or make a part of the record and with that as a part of the agreement we would withdraw any opposition we have. Okay, so you're in agreement with what you've got before you as far as the amended proposal? Yes, the relocation or what we call their proposed plateau which moves the proposed location of the swimming pool from its original site east of barn 2 to a new site west of barn 3. And our agreement to withdraw opposition would be predicated upon them by actually building the pool at that location. That there would be no expansion of any parking facilities along Long Valley Road and that the paddock areas which were originally the proposed site be returned to and used for pasture turnout. Those are the paddock areas adjacent to my clients, the moors. That any discharge from the swimming pool or backwash be retained as in their proposal in a reservoir slash lagoon built with 100,000 gallon capacity and that the chemicals will not be deposited in any free-flowing watershed or stream approximate to the property. Further, that upon completion of their construction, that their portion of the property along Long Valley, which is gravel, will be paved. And that the construction of this project will be subject to an inconformity with all state and local guidelines regarding discharge points and water quality. Thank you, Mr. Todd, for summarizing that for us. Mr. McInellen. Yes, sir. I would take it you've been involved with this since you're the applicant and you're definitely in agreeable agreement with all this? Yes, I am. Okay. All right then. Mr. Marks, do you have anything to add? Each of you should have gotten a package that describes the new proposal, the changed location for the building with the pool. Okay. Any questions from the board if you had a chance to look at this? Mr. Chairman, I just want to first of all applaud the young man and his group for going back to the table and working this out. I see no problems with what they've done and I would support it wholeheartedly. And I wish everybody that comes before us would be as willing to do what you've done with your project. And I applaud you for it. I would, yes ma'am. Okay, one question real quick, you know, since we have moved the exerciser and building, the new location seems fairly innocuous as far as to anybody. Have you had any conversation with Mr. David Banks, your neighbor, in regards to this? Personally, no, but I know that he speaks not daily, but he stays in touch with Mr. Reed next door. So you know no problem in that direction? Okay. None whatsoever. All right, then. Mrs. Bell? Under the C2008-23, Eric McAllen, appeal for a conditional use permit to construct a building for an existing horse training facility containing an equine swimming pool in an agricultural rural zone on property located at 2349 Long Valley Lane be approved with the three conditions recommended by the staff. I'll second. I do thank the parties for working on this. And. Madam Chairman. Mr. Todd. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman. I was looking at her and said Madam Chairman. I apologize. Could you amend your proposal, your motion to include those conditions that we set forth in our letter? Because we have not reduced it to a formal contract and have it signed. Certainly. Okay. We also need to make sure condition number one is relevant to the revised site plan that was distributed today, not the original site plan. Condition five. the conditions of mr. Todd was talking about mr. Marks are they included in this packet I'm sorry what was the question the conditions that mr. Todd was talking about no no that's just something new to me on the board real quick sure you guy we hand wrote in one socket friendly for you okay any questions from the board We're okay with it. Okay. Thank you. So motion is has been made and seconded. Seconded. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you both for working on this. Thank you. Very nice. The next case that we will hear would be the Trinity Church C 2008-19. This is a continuation. Mr. Marks, if you could bring us up to date. I want to make sure we don't miss Mr. Cotton, did you? Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cotton, yes. no we're have known to hopefully will not miss him since he's the recommendation recommendation is for disapproval okay I'm gonna pass out the is that a packet that the applicant prepared okay the engineers letter okay Okay, thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, please come state your name for the record. My name is Jay Robison from Trinity Baptist Church. I'm sorry. Jay Robison. Robison. Thank you. I can walk you through some of the stuff that you've got there before if that would help. Briefly. Sure. When we came before you last month there was one neighbor that was speaking in opposition and I was able to meet with Mr. Owen on April the 15th for about an hour and we talked about some of the concerns that he had then. Amongst the concerns that he had were about the type of structure that we have, whether it was certified or not certified. He did some research on people that sell these kinds of buildings in town and there are some that are certified and not certified. I'm glad to say that ours is certified. There's a copy of the specs, the engineer specs, which are done by an engineer that's approved in the state of Kentucky here. And then also there's a copy of a brochure that tells about that this type of building should be able to withstand 120 degree winds as well. Then I think the biggest question that maybe the board had last time was about not just the structure itself but was it installed properly and so you asked us to have an engineer that would come and take a look at that you see mr. Clary from Hogue Engineers he came looked at the structure initially and said it was a sound structure but he recommended that we add one more anchor and so there's a bill there from where we had the company come back and they installed not one but two more anchors to ensure that it was set and then mr. Clary came back by the the property again to ensure that they installed the additional anchors correctly and that's when he wrote the letter that you've got before you right now. One of the other questions was the distance of our building from the sidewalk that's adjoining on the back of our property and because the road behind us curves just a little bit there, the front of the building is 39 feet away from the sidewalk, the back of the building is 47 feet away from the sidewalk. Thank you, Mr. O'Bison. Mr. Owen, you were here, I believe? Yes. It sounds like you have had discussions with the applicant and church on this, not going back through what was discussed last time. Are you in agreement with this now? No, sir. The information that I brought to Jay in our meeting confirmed what I already knew, even though I'm not a structural engineer. I talked to, I researched four different companies. Two of those companies, Eagle and Steel, I talked to their corporate headquarters, to the people who actually installed them and so on and so forth, rather than just the sales people. And the Steel people said they had the exact same occurrence in Missouri, which has similar weather that we have here. instead of using the umbrella effect that I said would happen here he used a different term but he said yeah the things flew up in the air and landed and damaged property next door he said by nature of the building it will do that unless it's put into a proper footer similar to a house but on a slab with anchor bolts and so all my information that I gathered I gave to to the pastor showing again my concern for the safety of the thing there are two two angles of this which jay just covered the 130 or 40 mile per hour per hour certification actually has to do with the structure and how it's built at the factory and that's fine i don't have a problem with that based on what i'm seeing again from my own perspective it looks like it's built very soundly it's how it's attached to the ground the most way I can say this to you is that anytime you have a pothole for example that we drive over and on in our city roads it's all that expansion and contraction that leads to that pothole well that's the same thing here you have these these anchors regardless of how many you have in there and they're in that soft black top with the soft sub layer so as it expands and contracts that That loosens up those 32-inch, and that seems to be a standard length as to everybody I talk to in the industry. That holes that those 32-inch stakes are in, it's going to expand and contract. It's going to loosen them up, and therefore you have no foundation. It has to be in a concrete with anchor bolts. And then the other thing is, and I suggested this to the pastor too, that there's another way that you can mitigate this. I did some informal surveys around town. and looked at everything, spoke to the salesman, spoke with the corporate headquarters, and if you take the back off of these things, now you've given the wind a place to go. So it's less likely it's going to go up, it's going to go out through probably if we're lucky, and it's going to mitigate those winds. And how you do that without interfering with the integrity of the whole structure, I don't know because I don't build them. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board? I would say that we have been in touch with not just a salesperson but we've been in touch with the factory itself about the issue and also the representative for the state of Kentucky. I will point out that there are 26 studs securing it along the sides and now eight anchors around the back. Even if there were, which I don't anticipate, but if there were to be something that would give in one or two of them, you're talking about 32 places where it's held in place. He asked also about our insurance and obviously our insurance would cover any, you know, damage or any structure that would be there. Thank you. Any questions? I don't have any problem with the structural integrity of the building or its attachment to the ground, but I am still concerned about your building it without a permit and so that any neighbors who objected to its location had no chance to speak, but they're not here today. So I guess you've not got neighbors that are having a big problem with it. Only one is Mr. Owen and of course I've tried to... That seemed more structural than aesthetic. Right. And we have several people from the church that live in the neighborhood and receive some of the letters when we pass that out in advance. Still you take the opposition's opportunity away when you build something before. Sure, certainly. And we accept full responsibility for that. I will confess that was an ignorance on our part. I would dare say that at least this company knows now that when you build in Lexington, you do have to have a permit because they were quite responsive when we told them about what needed to happen. Thank you for coming back. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board or thoughts? If not, I'll entertain you. So let's see here. Once again, Mr. Roe-Vison, the staff did recommend approval subject to two conditions. Correct. I think Mr. Marks, we're still good with the two conditions. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And you are in agreement with those? Fine. Okay. All right, then. If there's no further questions, I'll ask. Mr. Chair, I'd like to, before I make a motion, I'd like to make a brief statement. Sure. You know, I appreciate Mr. Owen's concerns, and he's done a lot of due diligence on this, and I appreciate what Trinity Baptist Church has done as well in trying to resolve this. And I know under extraordinary circumstances, you know, a wind will take up any building. It'll take up a house for that matter. But I think that in reading the letter from Pogue engineers, which are structural engineers as well, I think that you have done everything that our committee has asked. So, therefore, I would like to recommend approval for the conditional use permit, item number C, 2008-19 for Trinity Baptist Church, to allow the 930-square-foot canopy for church vehicles to remain as built in a single-family residential zone, properly located at 675 Strader Drive, with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Second. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for approval. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. The motion passes. Thank you. The next case that we will hear is C2008-29. Ms. Amanda, maybe I should just say Amanda Bowman, appeals for a conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 321 Taylor Drive, Council District 2. Is the applicant here? Yes. Please come forward and state your name. Hi. I'm Amanda Bowman. Thank you for being here. This is recommended for approval by the staff subject to four conditions. Have you read the conditions and are you in agreement with those? Yes, I am. I did have one question about one of the conditions. It involves the adding of fencing in the back. Yes. There was also a comment in the approval letter that we got, or recommendation, I'm sorry, about there being ample parking for stacking in the driveway. And so we were wondering if we could forego the fencing and use that parking if it would be considered adequate. Is that one way in and the same way out? Yes, it would be. We can add the fencing. It's going to be a double drive? It's just a question that we had. Is it going to be a double drive or a single drive? It's a single drive. You'd be asking your parents to back on to Taylor? If we did that, yes, we would. I wouldn't do that if I were you. Okay. That's fine. Then yes, I agree with the recommendations. Okay. And the additional fencing will fence out the driveway and turn around? It will separate the parking area from the grass area, yes. Okay. All right. Any other questions? No, sir. We have one opposition. Any questions from the board? Yes, please. Ms. Bowman, the approval for 12 children, up to 12 children, as I understand the cabinet, community-based services, et cetera, that that 12 includes any own children of school age? It does, yes, ma'am. How many children do you have? I have one child of my own, and I have in my care one niece at this time. I have one child of my own who is 11, and I have one niece who I care for. Okay. So this would be eight additional children, then? Ten. Ten additional children. Oh, yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board for Mrs. Bowman? No? I believe we did have someone in opposition to this. If please come forward and state your name. Good afternoon. I'm Donald Graves. I own the property at 317 Taylor Drive, which is adjacent to Mr. and Ms. Bowman's residence. First of all, I want to thank you for the time and your consideration that you're giving me today. and I also want to point out that I have no ill feelings or harbor no resentments against Mr. and Ms. Bowman. We have had several amicable conversations trying to find a way to resolve my issues and concerns. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to do that. It's my hope today that after listening to what I have to say that maybe y'all can offer suggestions, I'm new to this. I'm new to Kentucky. I'm a Louisiana boy, so if I create a point of order, I apologize in advance. I just want to be a good neighbor. I think y'all have in your possession a letter from the neighbor across the street from mine, Mr. Michael Craig, and my concerns and fears pretty much mirror his. you know we do have a parking traffic issue because of Meadowtharp Elementary School which is right around the corner on Forbes I don't have so much of an issue with that because I think that school is an asset to our community and there are certain things that you're willing to accept that help your community out. I think Meadowthorpe's a wonderful school. I've heard nothing but good things about it, even though I have no children there. So that, you know, there are certain times of the day, usually around between 7 and 7.30 in the morning and between 2 and 15 and 3 o'clock in the afternoon where traffic was backed up to Leastown Road and several blocks back down Ford's. But, you know, it dissipates. I don't know what Ms. Bowman's situation is with employees or pickups and drop-offs and what would that attribute to that. Maybe nothing whatsoever, but it is something that I would like to have addressed. I'm not in Lexington by choice. I love your city, but I'm a Cajun boy at heart and someday I'm going home. I'm here because my daughter recently became a single mom, and we're here to help my two grandchildren. We bought this piece of property at 317 Taylor. It was a flip home that had yet to be refurbished. We had a buy-sell agreement with the owner before it was ever refurbished with the condition that $65,000 worth of improvements be made on the home. Now, this is not my first rodeo. I know what it takes to maintain property value. And that's the reason why this was done. Because I knew that I was not going to stay here. Now, I won't waste your time speculating on property values with these types of businesses next door to them. You would be in a better position to tell me how this affects property value. But my concern is this. As a potential buyer, I would have never given this property a second thought had I known that there was a daycare center there, and I'm sure that I'm not alone. You know, and as someone that's looking to sell a home in the next four or five years, that concerns me greatly. Now, here's my big issue. My wife's a registered nurse. She has a tough job. She works a 12-and-a-half-hour shift, and unlike Louisiana, her patient load is sometimes six or seven a day. I don't know why Kentucky doesn't have restrictions on that, but they don't. Because of her patient load, often, well almost always, she has to do her charting after she finishes her shift. That means a 12 and a half hour shift now has turned into a 13 and a half, 14 hour shift. She works at night. And the bedroom window faces the backyard of the Bowmans. And with this many children, I'm concerned about the noise disturbing her sleep. It's a legitimate concern. My wife's 58 years old. She's not a young lady, and she needs rest. And I don't know if any of y'all have ever worked a night shift, but I have. And the good Lord never intended us first to work at night, because if you try to sleep in the day, if you wake up, you might as well get up, because it's over. You're not going back to sleep. You know, if you slept an hour or four hours, you're done. Now, we do have a problem with New Circle being somewhat close to us, but we've kind of adjusted that. We never hear it inside anymore. If we hear it, we don't notice it. But now, I'm kind of between a rock and a hard place here because in one of our conversations, Ms. Bellman, I'm new to this. I've never had to deal with this before, so y'all please be patient with me. she informed me that she does not have to have a license to keep up to six kids in addition to relatives. And that she does keep several relatives and the six kids. So I've got a problem with her without the license. So I need some help here. And I'm appealing to y'all for that help. I'm appealing to the Bowmans because I really believe they're going to be good neighbors. They're just moved in. And I want us to be good neighbors. so I don't know where to go, what to do, or which direction to turn. So y'all help this Cajun boy out. I was going to ask you if there's been a daycare there for some time. No, sir. They've only recently moved in. So this is all new? Yes, sir. Okay. I thought if they'd been existing with six plus their own then. Now, you know, like I said, I'm really in a bad situation because she doesn't require the license to keep six kids and however many relatives that she wants. So I'm going to have a noise issue when these kids go outside to play, and they deserve to go outside to play. I know she may be required to let them go outside to play. We did talk. There was an area directly behind my house, which was once the play area for Meadowthorpe School, which part of it has been turned into a parking lot, and I understand that they have acquired property on the other side of the school that is now used for the playground. They're still a grassy area there, and we talked about maybe putting a gate in their fences so maybe they could use that area. I don't know. Have y'all? Not our fence. Yeah. It's not? We just run into brick walls here. Okay. Thank you. Anything else, Mr. Rice? Well, I'm not here to argue semantics. I'm understanding your concern. I'm not arguing the semantics or the language of the regulation that allows this. I just am a little concerned at what point it could be abused. Okay. Thank you. Recognizing the fact that that, as has been stated, she can take care of up to six children without having this conditional use in itself. Mr. Chairman, can we just clarify that it's a total of six, it's not six plus relative? Thank you, a total of six. Thank you. It's not six plus relatives? I can't speak for the state, but with the local government, it's a total of six. Questions for the Board? For either Mrs. Bowman or Mr. Reyes? I think it might be helpful for the gentleman to contact the community-based services, the state child protection and child welfare program, to find out some of the specifics about the licensure regulations and so forth. It's my understanding that they're always interested in hearing concerns about the neighborhood, particularly when they're asking for a permit for a facility for 12 children. to 12 children and so I think that you know that's something that is available to any citizen it does concern me that within this very small amount of space that there is the school and gather from one of the letters there is another home on this street which is caring for young for children is that is is that so May I expound on that? Yes, ma'am. Across the street and several houses down from the Bowman, there's a lady that's already keeping a few children in her home. On the other side of Forbes, there's another lady that is keeping a few children home. Both of these have been doing this for years, and I guess that they've worked out their problems because when I kind of campaigned the neighborhood to finally get everybody's feelings on this, I didn't hear any objections about them. And there's a reason, I think, for that in a lot of cases, because this board has not only heard your kind of concerns from neighbors, but we've heard these cases consistently. And all across Lexington and Fayette County, you will find where you have neighbors who may have been disgruntled at the beginning over these things, which they are, they've been approved by staff and they follow the state guidelines relative to the number that they can have, plus their own children. It is legal to do that. Now, I'm not arguing with you or saying I'm showing less concern of your concerns because I think your concerns are legitimate. However, it would be, in my opinion, a little bit disconsiderate of this board if we denied this case based upon the fact that the children are going to be playing in the yard and making noise or because there may be some traffic that you don't like. And understanding your concerns, it was very difficult for this board to make a decision relative to those kind of complaints. Yes, sir, I understand. I understand that it's lawful for this. And like I said, I didn't come here to argue the language of the regulation, but strictly to express my concerns. My primary concern is with my wife and her. Well, maybe we could ask the individuals, Ms. Bowman and the staff, to maybe try to work out another condition where it might be able to assist not only you but other neighbors relative to the Noah's factory if that's the big concern. However, I just don't see setting aside and setting a precedence for that, and I think that's what we would be doing. I wish I had known how this worked before I got here because I would have liked to have asked for a continuance on this in hopes that Mr. and Ms. Bowman and myself could meet with the Metatharp Neighborhood Association. We have a very strong neighborhood association in hopes that maybe they have dealt with this issue before and that maybe they can help us resolve some of these issues from their past practices. But unfortunately, I didn't know how this worked, and I would just kind of green when I walked in here. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ms. Bowman. Are there any other questions? I have one for Ms. Bowman. If you don't mind before she goes on. Is there any way that's amenable from you to your neighbors that you could do everything in your power if this is approved to adhere to or at least be concerned about some of his concerns? Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I've done some research on, well, I currently work in a home daycare that's not located on Taylor Drive that's family operated. I realize that every home daycare is going to be different because you have different clients coming and going for your services. I do keep a sign in and out log as required through the license. And using that log, I have found that the children really kind of stagger in and stagger out. I have very few children who would be arriving during the time that Mettathorpe Elementary's traffic is at its most extreme. I have no children that leave at that time because I'm a full day service. So most of my children are staying until between four and 5.30. So they're not being picked up at 2.45 in the afternoon when Metathorpe is releasing. When I added it all up, I had between 1 and 3 children arriving between 7.30 and 8 o'clock in the morning. Metathorpe Elementary School opens their doors for children to be dropped off at 7.15 and school begins at 7.45. So I am going to miss most of that traffic with the other parents coming later. The pickup time for Metathorpe Elementary is from 235 and the office tells me it takes about 30 minutes for the children to all be released. They have about 450 students and about half of them are bus riders so the rest are cars coming through. Again, my children nap from 1 to 3. I do have a daily schedule. I'm a program that has a daily routine. My kids are not out all day. I know at a larger daycare where you have several different classrooms of children, You have their restrictions about how many children can be on the playground and what age groups can be together. So there are children, different classes out throughout the day. You know, I'm basically one small group. The maximum amount of 12, honestly, I doubt I'll ever keep it. I had mentioned to Mr. Marks that I would be happy to drop that to where I would not be able to accept any more than 10 children yet still be a licensed facility. This would give me the same amount of children that I would be able to keep if I were a certified facility, is my understanding, which would be six unrelated children and up to four related children. As far as the noise, we've talked about that. We have fencing. We have shrubbery. New Circle Road does go by, so there is kind of just traffic noise. There is some school noise during the day. I'm happy to try to adhere to a schedule with the kids where I don't have them out for long periods of time. I completely respect our neighbor. I do not want to disrespect he or his wife in any way. We can also go for walks. There are several neighborhood parks. So there are several options for having the children outside. So I guess to answer yes, I'm happy to work with my neighbors in any way that I can. Did you talk with him about blocks of time that could be quiet? Not specifically. I did mention that I was happy to, you know, that I do keep a daily schedule and that, you know, for example, right now I take the children out at the other daycare around 10 to 11 and then later after nap. So they're not out, you know, for four and five hours in and out. He, you know, it said, you know, with his wife sleeping during the day, he didn't really know if that would be a whole lot of help. But I'm happy to do that. And, you know, anything I can do to alleviate that, I'm happy to do. Well, this might not be workable, but if we recessed this for a few minutes, do you think you all could talk about a four-hour block of time that would be quiet that might partially solve his problem? And then we could make that a condition? I would be happy to do that. Yeah. I'm here to work it out. Well, if the Chair is okay, maybe we could go to another case and come back to this one in a minute. Okay. Thank you. We will continue this momentarily. And at this time, what we will do, we will go ahead to case C-2008-36, the Liberty Ridge Senior Living, who appeals for a conditional use permit to expand the existing assisted living facility in an agricultural urban AU zone on property located at 2550 Liberty Road, Council District 6. Is the applicant here? Your name, sir? My name is Jim Black with JE Black, and the architect has stepped out for a moment, and he will be here momentarily. Are you prepared to go on? I am. Okay. The staff is recommending approval on this, subject to six conditions. Have you read the conditions and are in agreement with them? We are in agreement. Okay. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Black? If not, at this time, I believe we did have one person in opposition to this. I said no. I'm thinking. That we'd like to hear from. Yes, sir. Please come forward. Your name, sir? Phil Kuhl. Could you spell the last name? KUHL. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cole. Cool. And your address? Cool. I'm sorry? Your address? 2525, Tin Mouth Vale. Tin? Mouth, M-O-U-T-H. Okay. And your concern? Well, I was returning home one day and I noticed there was a lot of commotion going on right on the property line and what it was was a bunch of the the tree line was actually being taken down and I'd say around somewhere in there with a 50 percent has been cleared and we really didn't know what was going on the people that live on that border of the property line and then about seven to ten days later we got the appeal notice for the condition use permit and we were kind of overlooking the plans and it said that the tree line was to remain intact and so after seeing that and looking back on actually how much of the tree line was removed we were all really concerned because you know if that wasn't the fact that some of the tree line was removed when the plan said that it was to remain intact then what other dimensions maybe were on the plan that we were kind of not sure would be upheld for example like how close is the houses or the assisted living buildings would be to our property line and as a As a matter of fact, when the trees were being removed that day, I actually went in the back and I was actually removing some debris from my yard. And granted, it wasn't very much, but it was enough to where I would just pick up the cut-down branches and place them back on that side of the property. And I know I was reading through some of the – I know that this staff recommended approval for the Conditional Use Permit. And one of the reasons was that the permit should not adversely affect the subject or surrounding properties. And if work was done that close to where some of the debris was landing in my backyard, then I don't see how that's by any means positive to properties that close and the fact that they were working that close. And I talked to my fellow neighbors who were boarding the property, and they kind of had the same concern, too. We just really didn't know what to expect, that the work was done that close. and I understand that the church is really to enhance the community and I think by building these that they would be but the fact that they're that close, I don't think by any means it's enhancing a part of the community as far as our neighborhood and our subdivision and that really got us all concerned that the work was, like I said, the tree line was being destroyed and when I said it wasn't, about 50% was removed and we took before and after pictures to see how big of a difference it was before they started messing with the tree line. And when I asked the gentleman when they were clearing the area, they said, you know, don't worry about we're just doing the underbrush, but it was more than underbrush because like I said I was removing branches from trees and anyone could see from the before and after pictures that more than underbrush was removed. Okay, thank you. Do Mr. Marks or do you all have a diagram that you can put up on the screen to show this property? Yes. Mr. Cole, where is your property in relation to this? We are on the... Let's see how they got on it. Yeah, I believe we're right down at the bottom. Oh sure. Thank you. We are about right here. Down at the bottom. Okay. All right then. And you're saying that these trees are being removed or they're just being limbed up and the underbrush cut? I'd say 50% were removed. Okay. 40-50%. Okay. There are still some trees there and the underbrush was removed like the gentleman said that we're doing the work But there were some trees removed. I think the fact that I know some the other half of this plan is different than what we got and We have some more details and it just says the existing tree line to remain intact previous site bit visit by the urban forestry department and So that kind of I think one tree is too many and to be that close like I said to where there was some debris in the yard Really worried us. Okay. And did you say you had pictures? Yes Would you hand them to Ms. Rackerts back behind you to the left please? Yeah, first one's just taking looking out into the backyard. That's after the work has been done. And then I have another picture actually when we bought the home less than two years ago. I'm sorry, did you, this is a before picture? No, sorry, this is after. After picture. Can I have a before picture? Before picture? Yes. This is smaller. It's from the MLS when we bought the home less than two years ago. I don't know if you can. And our house sits up because it really slants down, and so we're seeing pretty high up. We're seeing about probably 20 feet up if we look straight out into a perpendicular or parallel to the ground, excuse me. Okay. And we're talking about the same view, same picture? All from my backyard, yeah. Okay. Same angle, same everything. Yes, because I think all this was out there. Okay. Like I said, there was some debris in the yard, too, that I went ahead and returned. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any questions from the board for Mr. Coole at this point? I do have one question, Mr. Coole. Sure. How close, how much backyard do you have from that deck? What is the distance to your property line? It's about 21 to 24 feet. Okay. Right to where those trees start. And that's from the very the foundation for there from that photo It looked like a lot of the vegetation was in your backyard Yeah, right work kind of hungover and so it's gone now. Yeah, of course. Yes if you and you can see from that picture Okay, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Black Thank you, Mr. Cole, thank you Mr. Black, can you provide any clarification for? I'd like to speak. I'm John Wallace. I'm from building God's way were the architects for the project. John Wallace? Wallace, W-A-L-L-I-S. Thank you. Can you provide any clarification? Yes, when we did the master plan and started the project, Mr. Black was hired to do the civil engineering, which we're in the process of doing right now. Part of the reason the brush line was cleared was to do an accurate survey of the back property line. To my knowledge, no trees were removed from that area. I mean, the underbrush was removed on our property. I'm sure some of the limbs and things were cut, but the company we contracted to do it was instructed only to remove the underbrush. And as far as we know, that's what was done. One of the things we found when we originally walked the site was in the underbrush and in those trees where were obvious areas where people were congregating. We found empty alcohol containers, some other things, small engines. One of the concerns of Liberty Ridge was for the security of their residents. And that was one of the reasons we also wanted to clear the brush out just to open that up. It's never the intent of any part of this project to remove that tree line to the point that it wasn't there. One of the concepts we're trying to keep is a neighborhood feel and a green space and kind of a natural environment for the residents. Are you planning to put the tree line back? We have not removed it as far as I know. He says there aren't any trees there. How'd they get down? As far as we know, all that was removed the underbrush that was around the trees. Did you just tell us the trees were removed? Yes, I think as you can see from the picture. Back up please. The first one. it's as far as we know what was removed as an underbrush and that one was thick it was very thick with underbrush and when the original garden homes were done the urban forester walked the site and found no trees of significant size or growth that needed to be remained remain intact during the development it's not our intent to go in and clear out the back of the site we want to keep as much of the green space intact as possible we had to clear it so we could get accurate surveys of the property and do the work we needed to do so so young man the trees that you say were removed were they this size oh yeah I'd say similar there was a lot of underbrush removed also there's no there was no accurate tree survey done to verify what was removed or what wasn't so if there wasn't any survey done you couldn't say that there were trees were removed or that they were there may be there may have been some trees removed all I saying when the company that was contracted by Liberty Ridge to clear it was told only to remove the underbrush there may have been some trees that were dead or that had to be removed to get the underbrush out but there were no trees taken out that were of any significance is there a plan to replace any landscaping there or to have a stockade fence or any visual barrier between the houses and your back property line we are going to do some landscaping we haven't decided to what extent yet we're gonna let that area grow back keep it more maintained than we have in the past as far as Liberty Ridge is concerned because they haven't been using that property very much and just have they've kind of let it go but this plan is proposing to have houses go around back in that area and we're going to do everything we can with with the plan to keep as much as that intact as possible well I was thinking your opposition might be happy to know that you're going to put a vegetative visual barrier back to replace the honeysuckle that was removed if you're intending to do that he would probably be glad to hear it I said we haven't defined what that will be yet that's one of the things we're looking at right now could I ask the staff what the requirements are there as far as is there a zoning difference and a requirement for a I'm not sure yet I was just looking that up I'll just take a second thank you mr. Wallace yes any plans at this point for any sort of offense we've been discussing it with Liberty Ridge the last board meeting they had it was discussed the possibility maybe putting a stockade type fence up okay we in no want to create any kind of animosity between us and the neighborhood and you know the all the everything that was supposed to have been cleared was supposed to been on our property and we're doing it for reasons to push the project forward and get accurate surveys and clean up the debris and stuff that was in those areas mr. marks still look doesn't appear to be a required buffer on that zone. It's an AU zone bordering an R1E zone. But it's certainly within you all's discretion to require a buffer along there or reestablishment of a buffer of a reasonable width. Mr. Wallace, would it be agreeable to you if this was continued until next month for you or your applicant to get with the neighbors and see if you can come to some sort of agreement as to a buffer or you know whether it's landscaping or fencing come to some sort of agreement and bring it back to us next month right well I mean there's also a 10-foot utility easement goes along that property line that's part of the project and I would say you know our intent with the project was to meet all the requirements of the current zoning code we have in no way made it any worse than it is. It seems to me that a lot of this is still in the planning stage. You know you're not for sure about landscaping, you're not for sure about a fence or fencing. You know it appears that you're going back to the applicant Liberty Ridge and saying well we're in discussion with this. So I would think a continuous of 30 days would be appropriate. The discussion of the fence started once we cleared it out and we saw how much was taken out maybe that was something we needed to look at I mean my desire is to get approval today so we can continue but I mean we're if we need to work that out we will I think it would be extremely helpful to take some additional time and work out some of these details because it just doesn't seem to be settled enough I think for us to make a decision today Mr. Cooldin, where are you going to say? Did you have something in addition? I think what you guys just stated, I think that was kind of hit the nail on the head. Step forward just a little bit to the microphone. I think what you guys said about how we're not really sure what's the next step, what's going to be replaced, what's not. I think that's what kind of got a lot of us nervous. We don't really know what's going there as far as new vegetation or fence, what have you. Like I said, you know, that's why we're kind of nervous for all we know. I mean, technically the house could be right where those trees are right now. And the fact that nothing's really set does scare us. And the fact that. I think building-wise, you know, building-wise is restrictions and limits as to what can be done. And that will take place. I'm just kind of curious right now as to the buffering. Mr. Kohl. Yes. Are you representing your neighborhood association are you representing just yourself I was the representative for the people of all the surrounding streets that back up to this mr. Wallace you've been in discussion with mr. black would did you come to any sort of decision as far as a possible continuance I will be more than happy to work with the neighborhood and come to some kind of resolution what we have to do. And we don't want to try and force something on them they don't want. Okay. But as to the question as far as the continuance, are you in agreement to that? If, if. Yeah. If that's what we have to do, we'll do that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other points? I'll make the motion. We continue. Okay. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for continuance for 30 days, Mr. Stout? Mr. Stout, 30 days. 30 days. 30 days until the May 30th hearing. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? This has been continued until May 30th. Okay, Ms. Bowman. This is C2008-29, Amanda Bowman. Yes, ma'am. Can you provide us any information as to the… We were not able to work out a specific schedule because his wife works different shifts at different times. So I came up with an offering and he just didn't feel like it was going to make a difference. So we just kind of agreed as neighbors to work on this. And I said, I have no problem if we're outside and your wife is trying to sleep, getting away from you, saying, you know, hey, please keep it down. And so we just agreed to work together as neighbors to try to avoid any issues with noise. Okay. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion. Mr. Stale. Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion, please, on C-200829. Amanda Bowman appeals for a conditional use permit to provide family child care up to 12 children of single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 321 Taylor Drive, Council District, to be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions. Thank you. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? I'd just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that these folks here seem to be very reasonable residents, and I trust that you all will work out something that is going to be good for your family and your wife, and you've both been very reasonable, and we appreciate that. Yeah, you should. I would concur. If there's no further discussion at this time, I'll call for a vote. All those in favor of C2008-29, Amanda Bowman, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Next case would be V2008-41, Frederick Cotton, who appeals for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 14 feet in order to complete construction of a single-family residence in a two-family residential R2 zone on property located at 459 Greenwood Avenue, Council District 2. Your name, sir? Frederick Cotton. Thank you, sir. At this point, since this is recommended for disapproval, I would ask the staff to present the information they have. We'll get an aerial view of the property up here. This variance request relates to property on the north side of Greenwood Avenue. It's a short drive that connects Price Road and Georgetown Street along the north side of Lexington. The property is zoned R2 to Family Residential. it is within the defined infill and redevelopment area if you follow through the weave of the zoning ordinance you end up with a property with this amount of frontage having a required front yard of 20 feet and that was based on each of the adjoining residences the normally required is 30 feet but they average this because that one is set back a little further and this one's closer they averaged that and the average which is allowed by the zoning ordinance came to 20 feet so the required front yard is 20 feet now the residents you see here that's my understanding that's was burned down I don't know exactly how long ago but the applicant did get a permit to rebuild on this property with the required front yard of 20 feet there was a measurement error made relating to the sidewalk and where to measure that 20 feet back from and it ended up being the footers poured along the front 14 feet back so the requested variances to reduce the acquired front yard from 20 feet to 14 feet we really struggled with this to try to find anything relating to a a special circumstance other than the measurement error to justify the requested variance, and we just weren't able to come up with anything. The special circumstances regarding how this property is situated, at least as far as a building, a potential building would go, relative to each of the adjoining properties has already been addressed with the 10-foot reduction of the front yard from 30 feet to 20 feet, so we really couldn't use that. If there's any good news in this, the error was caught before they built the whole house. So there is a manageable, at least what we consider manageable, option to leave the front footer in place, use that for a porch, which to some extent is already required because of the infill and redevelopment rules. They would have to put a new footer at the rear and extend each of the side footers back six feet to connect up. So that's the best we can offer is to allow that front footer to remain and be used for a porch. Mr. Cotton? Yes, sir. Why wouldn't you extend the back footer six feet and go on and build your house? I was about to say I wouldn't have no problem with what he just said. I can do that. I mean, if I can't get to 14, I can do that. That's what I would. That's no problem in that you do because that it would be very difficult to approve what you're asking bar. That's fine Yeah, I could do that just stand six feet Miss Bowen if mr. Cotton's an agreement agreement with the suggested Plan from planning staff Do we need to hear this do we need a motion on this? Should he just withdraw this? well it's up to him I mean obviously with the board's permission since the hearing has started he can withdraw it alternatively the board can just simply adopt the staff's recommendation and disapprove it it seems as if since he's going to go ahead and comply with the required setback I don't think it's really bottom line gonna make any difference to him which way it goes okay thank you that's it miss it would make I accept the recommendation is fine open up would you be willing to withdraw this case yes can I hear that from your lips yes sir I'll be willing to draw this case thank you okay thank you if that's the case is no further action needed okay thanks thank you Next case that we're going to hear will be A2008-37. It's Laura Scott Adkins, Cummins Sign Incorporated, who appeals for administrative review to allow a 176 square foot freestanding sign and a logo on a non-continuous parapet for a Saturn dealership in a highway service business B3 zone on properties located at 1440 and 1460 East New Circle Road Council District 5. African here. Yes, sir. Your name, sir. James Golden. Goldman. Golden. G-O-L-D-E-N. Thank you. And your request, do you understand where the staff and building inspections coming from on this? Yes, sir. Okay. What we're doing is we are the national supplier for Saturn signage. And this is their new image. They're trying to do it everywhere. We know we're not going to get it everywhere. But you've got to try. Yes, sir. We've got to try. Especially the pylon sign. That's our hardest hit area right there. I'm sorry, especially the what sign? The pylon sign, the pole sign, freestanding sign. Oh, okay. Okay. What we want to do is just replace it with the same size sign. However, it does have a solid pole cover. Correct. Okay. And the thing is Saturn is not gonna let us vary from their design So if you know if you disapprove, which is gonna mean is he's probably had to reduce the size And that's gonna hurt him. Okay It will hurt what their sales are there Yes, very good. We all we believe in signs period. Okay, all right Mr. Marks as far as the freestanding sign difficulties with that the main difficulty is just the design of it it includes a solid structural feature all the way from the top part where the actual text of the sign is down to the bottom I guess we can put up a place something Mr. Goldman, while he's doing that, am I understanding you right that in somewhat of a compromise, you'd be willing to forego the parapet sign if you could go with this one? Reluctantly, yes, sir. Okay. All right. Just trying to clarify things. So what we've got here is the proposed sign is here. This is apparently the existing sign here. With the proposed sign, because of the way the rule reads as to how square footage of a sign is measured, and I'll show that next, this entire area has to be included as part of the sign. And if you include all that, it comes to 176 square feet. The allowable size is 75 square feet. This is a B3 zone. So they're way over as far as square footage goes. So filling in that opening adds to the square footage, which makes this illegal. Am I correct? Right. The rule allows for that area is basically the pole cover area. The rule allows that to not be included if it doesn't extend for more than six inches on each side of the structural member that supports the sign. There are two structural members in this sign. Okay, well you can show us exactly where those are and how the six inches relate if that works. But because, at least from building inspections review, it was more than six inches on each side, They had to include that whole area as part of the sign. Would you put the signs back up, please? I guess my question is, from a visibility standpoint, what is the difference between the two signs, other than you're looking through one and directly at one? Why would you want to see that? That's the only difference. That's not a visual barrier in there. You know, and we've been through enough of these signs that at some point, you know, you've got to ask the question, what's so important about that? I guess that's what I'm trying to ask. It's easy to modify to get around this, you know. Because I look up at the sign over there. I can see the sign, and I can see through it. And it tells me the same thing. And I look down here, and I see the sign. you say it's illegal because the space is being filled in to make it beyond the square footage, I see the same thing, except I can't see through it. This bewilders me sometimes when we look at these signs, and I know it does you all as a staff, but it just doesn't seem to me like it's all of us making a whole lot of sense. Well, all automobile manufacturers are going to change their image every 10, 12 years, somewhere in there. And this is the new design that Saturn has come up with. They want to stick with it nationwide. That's why I'm here to request that we get this variance. Well, let me ask staff a question. If they drop the sign down, I know you won't do this, but I'm just asking a hypothetical question. If they drop the sign down height-wise and fill in the space and it meets the requirement, could they fill it in? not sure i followed that sorry mr stout either the one on my left up there which exists they drop it down out of the air well six feet and fill the space in could they use the proposed sign well we'd have to measure it up but i think it'd still be over i I mean, they're way over with the proposal 176. Well, let's just say it's not 6 feet. Let's say it's 12 feet, and they drop it down where it meets that requirement. Could they make a solid sign legal? If it's less than 75 feet, I think. The issue isn't the height. It's the square footage. I understand that. It would have to meet the 75 square feet. Yeah, I mean, if it's 6 foot tall, it couldn't be more than, what, be 6 foot by 12 foot? I don't know. I'm not very good at math. I understand what you're saying, and that really is what I wanted to hear. And that tells me I don't understand why filling that space in makes any sense. Well, I think it's a matter, you know, you have to have an enforceable regulation, and if you did have a sign up on a pole with a support on each side that was 6 feet long by 12 feet tall, okay, that's legal. Now are you going to tell them, and we don't care if you fill in that whole area below, so now you have a 12-foot wide huge expanse underneath it that's solid? I mean, where are you going to draw the line on, in essence, creating a huge wall that has a sign on top of it and saying that's okay? I think the feeling was this was a way to try to control overall size of structures along the roads. Is the sign that exists all one structure? I think the sign that exists was interpreted as the two sides are the support structure, and therefore it doesn't count towards the sign size. The problem with what they're proposing is there's a reasonable provision to be able to cover your supports to make them look attractive, But if you get more than six inches beyond covering the support, you're now creating more sign area. You're creating a larger visible mass to attract attention, which in essence becomes a sign. Ms. Bolin, is there a limit to the number of vertical supports you can have? I don't believe so. What if they added more vertical support so that if you covered them with six inches of material on either side, it would finally fill the whole area? I think if it becomes solid, building inspection is going to say, no, you're trying to circumvent the zoning ordinance. Here's a refusal. Go to the Board of Adjustment. Okay. Thank you. One thing that we didn't really explore, it wasn't part of the application, the notion of transferring unused square footage. This is a corner property. They could get two freestanding signs. I don't know if the applicant has that Information at this point as to whether or not a freestanding sign exists or is proposed on the other corner. I believe it's Young Drive. That would, if they don't have a freestanding sign there and none's proposed, that would give them an additional 75 square feet they could transfer. That would get them pretty close to 176. It would give them 150 square feet. Would that be doable, Mr. Goldman? Yes, sir. If you want to make the stipulation, there's only one sign, we would be glad to accept that. One freestanding sign, Mr. Marks, out of 150 square feet? Right. Okay. You'd be acceptable to that? Freestanding sign, how many square feet? 150. 150. You're going to lose one panel. Okay, if that's the best we can get, yes, sir. Okay. I think that's a wonderful compromise. There you go. You'll be in here at 8 o'clock trying to get this. So do we need a recommendation for that? A motion for this? This moment, I would presume. I think if you, I think this is an administrative appeal, so it's not really so much of a findings effect issue. I think if you make a motion acknowledging that the applicant has the right to combine two free allowable freestanding signs and therefore if the applicant is only going to have one freestanding sign this board would allow him to combine them for 150 square foot sign I think you can make that motion and that allows him to work within those parameters thank you mrs. Bell second and it has been seconded We still need to figure out what to do with the other sign. The other sign? Okay. I think the other sign, Mr. Goldman has agreed that if he can get this one sign, he will be happy, right? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. So the parapet sign no longer is in play? We would, again, either need a withdrawal of that request or I should say of that appeal, portion of the appeal, or a motion to disapprove that portion of the appeal one or the other. Yes, we will withdraw that request. So is everyone in agreement, recognizes the motion and is together on it? Yes? Okay. Motion has been made and seconded then. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Goldman. I'm going to come out and buy a car. I believe if I'm correct and I would like to say thank you for the patience our last case is CV 2008-24 Panagonia Greek Orthodox Church who appeals for a conditional use permit to modify and expand an existing church involving demolition of one building in a single-family residential R1D zone on property located at 920 Tates Creek Road, and a variance to increase the allowable distance between the church and required parking provided at Cassidy Elementary School from 300 feet to 475 feet in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1125 Tates Creek Road Council District. three if is the board ready to proceed on or would they like to take five minutes break let's take it before we get to that then we'll take five minute break on this and resume rather quickly I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of I'm going to go to the next video. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the road. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of guitar solo I'm going to go. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the road. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The I'm going to go to the next video. The board is back. I think everyone is back. And once again, I'd like to thank everyone for their patience in clearing the docket to allow the lesser discussion items, I believe, anyway, to take place. The remaining case of the day is CV 2008-24, or Pentagonia Greek Orthodox Church appeals for a conditional use permit to modify and expand an existing church involving demolition of one building in a single-family residential R1D zone on property located at 920 Tates Creek Road and a variance to increase the allowable distance between the church and required parking provided at Cassidy Elementary School from 300 feet to 475 feet in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located located at 1125 Tates Creek Road, Council District 3. This is recommended for approval by the planning staff. Is the applicant here or a representative thereof? Yes, Mr. Chairman. Your name, sir? My name is Hank Goretti and I'm an attorney representing the Panagia Greek Orthodox Church. Thank you, Mr. Gray. I'm here with representatives from the church. Thank you. Mr. Owen, is it your practice to get a staff report before you want me to make a presentation or do you want me to present first? At this point in time, since this is recommended for approval, I'll let you go right ahead. I would like to distribute proposed findings. I'll give you a little bit more detail than the staff. How are you doing, sir? I'm doing it. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be here this afternoon before the Board of Adjustments to request your approval for a conditional use and a variance for a proposal that we believe will be an improvement to the community, to the neighborhood, and that will provide a necessary expansion of the Greek Orthodox Church here in Lexington. I'm going to call several speakers from the church first to explain why they are making this request and then we'll call the architect who has prepared the drawings, the site plan that is before you that the staff has recommended to be approved with the exception of one request to remove the loop road on Melrose Avenue. But from my perspective, this is attempting to maximize the use of an existing favorable site in an existing neighborhood that the Greek Orthodox Church very much likes to be a part of and wants to continue to be a good neighbor in the neighborhood. This proposal has among its features a design that retains the existing structure, and you'll hear a little bit about how the church arrived at that process. But it does some very important changes and additions in order to enhance the worship experience for the Greek Orthodox Church. And the representatives from the church and the architect will explain those to you. At this time, I would like to call Dr. Dennis Korunis from the church to begin to explain why we are here to make this request. Dr. Thank you, Hank. Thank you, members of the board and staff. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. My name is Dr. Dennis Korunis. I'm the vice president of the Panagia Ponte Vasilisa Greek Orthodox Church. The priest had to teach me how to say that a few years. It's a tough tongue twister. I was past president and I've been involved in the building committee as chair for the last eight years. So I want to try to explain the need for our current expansion. The Pontifacilissa Greek church was established in 1948. Our congregation has slowly grown over the past 60 years. Many of our older parishioners, including some of our founding members, can no longer attend the services because of the inaccessibility of our church. Our restrooms are located in the basement. We have no handicap access since we were built 60 years ago. Also some of our members with disabilities can't attend services because of the lack of accessibility. And then services such as weddings can't be accommodated at our site because we can't hold the extra capacity needed for the larger services. This is our Pascha, our priest had to leave today because it's our holy Friday today. He's now having a service that started at 3 p.m. We have three services today. On these special occasions, then we are overcrowded. This location has been a good location for us. It's centrally located for all our parishioners to attend and then to move to a remote location at a larger site, we really created a hardship to our community. We've been good neighbors there for 60 years and we like to remain there. We've been involved in a number of different community and outreach projects and we like to continue to be there. I should tell you that the current design has been actually evolved over this eight year period that we have worked on. And we have been fortunate to have a talented architect, Professor Alex Christofaridis at the University of Cincinnati. He is also with synthesis architecture firm. And he actually is also a Greek Orthodox Christian and has a special interest in the design of Byzantine Orthodox churches. So we have had a working relationship with him for a number of years on the design of the church to try to come up with these needs. He was actually instrumental in the initial design of the only other Greek Orthodox church in the state of Kentucky, which is the Assumption Church in Louisville, Kentucky. Before they built their new church, which is now under construction, he was quite involved with that. So we have asked his expertise to help us. worked closely with us as this plan has evolved to what we think is a refined and really excellent plan to suit our needs. I also wanted to just introduce Mr. Sam Mashney who is a member of our church, he is a member of our parish council and he could describe to you his personal experiences to show you why our facility doesn't really meet our current needs. Sam? My name is Sam Maschney. Actually, I was married in that church for 45 years ago. But fortunately, I'm still in the church. I'm one of the parish councils. But I got one son. He is handicapped. He's on a wheelchair. he cannot stand up I have to do everything for him unlucky that we cannot get him to the church we have steps we cannot take him down to the basement either I have to take him to next door church to the faith and I have to keep my eyes on him all the time to watch him he cannot come to ours so that's what we are working on to accommodate this plus the other parish members. Last summer, my granddaughter got married. We cannot have the wedding in that church because such a small community, a small church. We want larger than I have to go rent another church with a lot of money, not just to pay for the other church, just to use it for an hour and a half, two hours. That's exactly why we are working on to get this approved. And with your power and help, I would appreciate it. We will thank you all very much. See what you all could do for us. Excuse me, could I ask a question? Mr. Ashley. This construction project is monumental. It's going to be very, very expensive. And the first speaker, and you have said that you have two primary reasons, two problems you're trying to solve. One is handicap and accessibility and the hope for a larger church for special occasions. And yet for 60 years, you've had weddings in this church. And weddings haven't necessarily gotten larger. There's always some big weddings and some small weddings. And for the price that you're going to spend to build this project, there are many ways to address the accessibility issues. And if you just need to have another 30 seats, there's ways to make a minor expansion to the church to handle the larger congregation. I'm trying to think of a real good reason to make this massive construction. Thank you. The next speaker is going to be the architect. I think he can give a better answer to your question than Sam here. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Grady. Okay? Yeah. Okay. This time I would like to call Alex Christopher Ritas, who has already been introduced by Dr. Quirinus, to explain the basis for this design and try to answer your questions. Alex Christopher Ritas. I'm an architect, also certified planner, and I've been working, as Dr. Quirinus said, for about eight years with the community working through several different schemes and options to find the best way to accommodate both the needs of the parish as well as those of the larger community. In designing the church, I sought to first respect the zoning. First thing I did was read the zoning requirements, meet the church's functional and religious ceremonial needs, to keep the existing church and to create a proposed design which is sensitive to both the neighboring structures yet to have the new structure take its place as a church, to be sensitive to the scale of the existing structures, to reduce water runoff instead of increase it. So we took several steps to make that happen and to create a good buffer between our property and some of the neighboring residential properties. Just to explain some of the functionality of the existing church, we mentioned handicap accessibility and the need to increase the church's size. Also looking at the existing church, this is the existing church structure right here. You can also see it. Does it help you all? It would. It would, yeah. I'll point to both so everyone can see. That's the existing church right here. The reason the walls are white is because those are existing, and then the darkened in walls such as these here, that's new structure. if that helps you follow the plan a little bit better. The existing church, like we said, there were handicap accessibility issues. Also, in terms of its liturgical function, there's a very small space at the front of the church to allow for ceremonies such as weddings and baptisms. Ceremonially, the church needs to have at least 10 to 15 feet in order to be able to circulate around a baptismal font at a baptism. Also, at a wedding, there's a similar circle around a wedding table that is used during the wedding ceremonies. The church has not ever been able to do that properly. also the church faces west currently which it's the only Greek Orthodox church in its diocese I believe that faces west typically Orthodox churches still face the east as they did when they originally built in the 3rd and 4th centuries when church construction really began so that's another thing that we wanted to correct yet one of the good things about having the church face west was that the existing church front faces Tate's Creek or Tate's Creek Road, and we decided to keep that because there is a nice ceremonial front for the entire community, which we're keeping. But on the other hand, the existing church should face east, which we're currently doing with the proposed plan. Also, a lack of a dome. Typically, not typically, but the dome is the church's ceremonial center or symbolic center. That's on the inside of the church. The underside of the dome typically has the icon of Christ, which oversees the congregation. And that's something that's a long-held tradition in Orthodox Christian churches. and in planting this church, we wanted to make sure that at least that tradition, which is very central, is kept. So that's two things there, the lack of the dome that we wanted to correct and the enlargement of the ceremonial space. Could we move to the other image of the street-level perspective of the church? I wanted to talk a little bit about how the church was designed with a neighborhood in mind. Like I said, the front of the church of the existing structure is to remain as a ceremonial and functional entry for the whole parish. There is also handicap accessibility from the back of the site for a handicap van and for people to go in directly at ground level. but for the aesthetics of the street we thought it was important to keep that entrance because it's for 60 years been so much part of the identity of the neighborhood and of this parish the church building itself right here it's really designed so that we kind of remain sensitive to the scale of the neighborhood And we do that by keeping a cornice line here, which is congruent with the front porches on the adjoining houses. The apse is made at the same level as the house next door to it, the roof line of the house next door. so that the defining part of the church, which is the dome, happens at the base of the dome right here is just under 35 feet off the ground level to stay within the limitation requirements. But it's the dome that kind of sits on top as the ceremonial or the symbolic symbol of the church to its neighborhood. Historically, churches have always been set in residential neighborhoods or towns, and they've always had kind of a, they've been larger than homes around them. And this church as well, yet there was definitely an attempt made to be sensitive to the scale of the houses around it and have it hold its place as a church in the neighborhood, but not to have it be at the same size as the homes. Mr. Tear, I'd like to ask, how tall is the dome? The dome is 17 foot 6 inches. So that would be 35 feet plus an additional 17 feet, is that correct? Yes, yes. We would see it classified the same way that a steeple and other churches have steeples, which kind of go above that 35-foot limitation. And ours is very much a symbolic part of our church as well. Another thing, if we can go back to the other plan again. Sorry to keep going back and forth. But it's important to point out that this plan calls for an underground cistern which would take all the rainwater that comes off the roof here, off the roof of the existing church into the cistern. Any area that's paved here, and we are not going to... Could you put it up on there, please? The cistern would be underground right here and would collect rainwater from the roof of this new church, the roof of the existing church, so all the downspouts would go directly into that cistern, therefore really minimizing the amount of water runoff. I know that was an issue that's been brought up, and we're actually minimizing the contribution to water runoff during rain. So where will the cistern overflow to? The cistern would slowly, after a rain, it would be able to hold the capacity of at least a 6-inch rain, probably closer to 10-inch rain. The overflow would reconnect back into the existing sewer system. But any water that's in the cistern would be piped back into the building to be used for gray water. For example, for flushing toilets, for cleaning water, watering plants outside. So much of the water would end up being used on site. site. I think if we get a rain that's more than 6 to 10 inches we're going to have bigger problems than this site. But the way this is designed, even then the severity of the problems would be alleviated by some of the steps that we're taking. Sir, you mentioned that at least some of the water, I guess, would make its way to the sewer system directly? If we ever get more than 10 inches of rain in the cistern. Stormwater? Stormwater, yes. Not sewer water. There's only stormwater that's handled there. I have a question about this system of storing water for use in watering or flushing toilets or cleaning. toilets or cleaning. If you don't empty that cistern in preparation for the next rain and leave it half full, then isn't your capacity diminished? It would be if it's not completely empty. But how many times do we get more than a two-inch rain or a three-inch rain in such a short period of time? So we can also, after heavy rain, the cistern, the water could be pumped out to slowly be pumped back into the sewer system so that I'm sorry, the stormwater system. Thank you. This is only stormwater. It doesn't touch the sewer system. It seems like a system that would have to be managed or else it might be full when we have a six-inch rain. It would be managed. Another step that we took was to make sure all our new paving would be permeable pavers and the only parts that would not be permeable would be the walking lanes. For example, this drive right here would all be done in permeable pavers so cars can drive over it and the only non-permeable part would be the direct access into the church. And that's so that people don't get their heels stuck in between the crevices that permeable pavers typically have. We had also, one of the conditions is that we do not have a second curb cut. So this area right here, by the conditions of the approval, we're not going to do. We're going to remove that and just allow some space for a car to be able to back in there and exit the property. I wanted to point out that the existing church is roughly 2,700 square feet, and that's to remain. The community house, which is going to be taken out for the new building, is another 1,219 square feet of footprint. When you combine those together, you're roughly at, it was 2,786 plus 1,219, just over 4,000 square feet. So the building footprint is doubling. It's not tripling. If you take all the existing structures that are there, we're doubling the building footprint, yet we're reducing the amount of water runoff from the property. So if there are any concerns about water runoff, I hope that helps alleviate them. Are there any questions? You explained to the board the evolution. You were first asked to propose a drawing that would not retain the original building. Yes. Yes. You discussed that with the board and how you arrived at this design. Originally we talked about using both properties, making a clean slate, and then designing a new church structure. Through discussion of that, looking at the costs, I think it would be cost prohibitive anyways. We thought it was important to keep the existing church structure. I think it would alleviate some of the concerns of neighbors as well. And we thought we could do better keeping the existing structure and adding on the church. And we're just able to do it within the property. As you can see from that site plan, it's a pretty tight fit to get the new church in there. But we're able to do it and stay within the building setbacks, side yard, rear yard, and front yard setbacks. as well as the height limitation of 35 feet, excluding the dome or steeple. Are there any further questions? Mr. Baritas. At this time, are there any questions? If not, yeah, go ahead. My name is Marshall Estep. I'm also a member of Panagia Panta Vasilisa. And I just wanted to make a few points about the project itself and the church, the proposed church. The positive attributes of the project are that we are going to be closing one entrance off Tates Creek Road, the only entrance off Tates Creek Road, and all traffic to the church will be to the side on Melrose, which will have a new entrance. And as we discussed earlier, we proposed two curb cuts on Melrose, but we've since, upon recommendation of the city, gone back to just one. Also, the stormwater, it's a positive net improvement from what the situation is now. Now all the stormwater goes into the storm sewer system. And the character, I think there's some concern about the character of the church in relation to the neighborhood. But we're talking about Tate's Creek Road, which is within two blocks of this property. There's three churches. Our church is in the middle. There's two schools, Cassidy and Morton Elementary, which have 1,500 students a day coming and going. There's 20,000 vehicles that go drive by on Tates Creek Road each day. It's a major commercial corridor in the city. And we have a collection of several small businesses, the Rite Aid, a hardware store, and several things within a block and a half also. And there are single family homes and several multifamily homes in that same district. So what we're talking about is a corridor that's a mixed use corridor now. And we're not proposing any significant change to that. And we're going to maintain that character and the composition of the neighborhood won't change. We're not having that kind of, the church doesn't impact the residential streets behind us. more associated and tied to the Tates Creek Road corridor. Thank you. Any questions at this point? No. Mr. Crater, go ahead. I wanted to call Yvette Harrigan, if she's in the audience. Good afternoon. I'm Yvette Harrigan. I am not a member of the parish. I simply am a neighbor. I live on the corner of Tates Creek and Cochran Road in the 900 block of Tates Creek on the opposite side of the street. And I've lived there for eight years, and I was notified of the hearing because I live within the 100-foot radius, 1,000-foot radius, I'm sorry. And I just wanted to say that the Greek Orthodox community has been such a lovely, lovely part of my neighborhood and of my day-to-day life. And the thought of losing this church and its members is heartbreaking to me. I certainly hope that that is not the case. There's less disturbance from the church on that end than there is from Diane Evans School of Dance, which is right across the other corner from me, and from Billy's Barbecue, which is to my right. Every home in that block, of all those homes, the church has the most well-manicured, most pristine lawn, always the best-looking part of the block, and the traffic is really not an imposition to the community. I've been there on Friday nights for their Greek dinners, and I bought lots of baklava there, and They're just a really lovely, lovely addition to our community, and I'm in support of the recommendations for the modifications. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a letter from another individual, if I may, and file this with you. This is from Louis William Rahm to the Board of Adjustments. whom it may concern, I reside at 705 Sunset Drive in the Hollywood neighborhood. Since purchasing my house in 1994, I have seen many changes in the neighborhood. Most have been positive. I am writing to voice my support for the proposed expansion of the Greek Orthodox Church in the neighborhood. In my view, this project will enhance the appearance and architectural character of the Hollywood neighborhood. Moreover, the church has been a good neighbor by always maintaining their property in an exemplary manner. It is my opinion that this would likely continue into the future. Signed, Louis W. Rahm. And I will follow that. When Dr. Clarennes testified there was one aspect that he failed to mention, I would like to call him back to mention one more aspect. Mr. Grady had also recommended when we had retained him to help us with this matter that we make contact with the community to make sure we have community support for this. When we heard of some opposition to our plan, we had our staff recommendation, we modified our drawings and then once they were printed, we actually offered and held an open house so that we could try to explain our plans to any members of the neighborhood that would like to. So we did have the open house two weeks ago, I guess it was, and then it wasn't well attended, but people from the neighborhood association, some of the people from the board of directors were there and saw the plans and were pleased by them. We were able to answer any questions about the plans. We wanted to give our neighbors an opportunity to really see the plans in detail and discuss it with us one-on-one. And we had all the drawings there for them to review. And as you said, it wasn't well attended. Go ahead and tell them how many people. There were two people there and we had about 12 parishioners there. That's because you gave two days notice of the open house. Excuse me. Yes. Okay. We'll give you a chance to speak here in just a moment, ladies. Okay. Yeah, we had to have the drawings done by the architect and printed and then we I understand. I understand. Thank you. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Grady? Yes. Your Honor, there are two more photographs that I would like to ask the board to look at, if they can be put on the screen. The photograph that you're looking at now is the Faith Lutheran Church. In the center of the photograph, this is a high-tech device that is... This is the Faith Lutheran Church. This is Melrose. And this is Tate's Creek. And this is the existing Greek Orthodox Church. This church came before you in the 1990s to ask permission to double their size. And they were granted the permission to double their size. And so they are the corner across from us. If you go to the next photograph. This is the existing Greek Orthodox Church. This is the parish house or it's also the office buildings, and this is what would be demolished to be the location of the new church. But our footprint is, from our perspective, a smaller footprint than the adjoining church directly across the street. We are seeking to double our size just as they did and we believe we are doing it on less space. We are doing it, we believe, more efficiently and we think that that is good for the neighborhood and good for the community. And a part of that, of course, is because we have an agreement with Cassidy School and that letter to that effect is in your file to have 40 available spaces in their parking lot for our off-site parking. And because of that, because that is over, that's 475 feet, we have requested a variance from the 300-foot requirement in your ordinance in order to continue using the existing parking at the Cassidy School to meet our needs. The staff report determined that we would need 28 spaces, and we have a reservation of 40 spaces at that location. So we believe that we will be using this property efficiently in a way that is compatible with the neighborhood, that meets the church's spiritual and physical needs, gives the church room to grow, and we believe this is well-deserving of a conditional use permit subject to the conditions that the staff has recommended and conditions that we agree with. So we would ask that you grant the conditional use, impose the conditions, and we would ask that you grant the variance as we requested. Can I ask you a question, please? Yes, sir. Do you have the agreement with the school for 40 spaces? Yes. How many members are within your church? 80 to 85. 85? 80 to 85 families. So would 40 spaces, does 40 spaces meet the requirement that you would need for all the people who attended your church every Sunday? 85. The staff, as I understand the staff's analysis, they calculated that with the additional seating going from 110 to 140, we would need to have 28 off-site parking spots. And we have 40. I hope I'm not misreading the staff analysis. The minimum required is one space for every five sanctuary seats. So based on the 140 sanctuary seats in the expanded church, that's where we come up with the 28. So you still have the possibility of parking on the streets? Yes. My expectation is that we will continue to park on Melrose as we have for 60 years and possibly park on Tate's Creek. We will continue to park on the street as we have for the past 60 years. Thank you. Mr. Marks, would you show the previous picture again, please? I would, but I don't have control of that. Mr. Rackers, if you would, please. Somebody can, though. You want the lights down? Not necessarily. I just wanted to see the layout again of the parking lot. And now the building was situated. and how it contrasts to the Greek church. Thank you. Mr. Grady, since Mr. Stumbo went back to this picture, you were talking about the Lutheran church having an expansion, which seems fairly obvious. The parking there, that's all parking for the Lutheran church, correct? It is my understanding that all the parking that you see That covers the area north of the church. I think I'm north. Well, behind on the side of the church belongs to the Lutherans. Okay. So their expansion, it appears to me that they've got almost twice the space that the Greek Orthodox Church has, lot-wise. Am I correct? Just roughly? I'm eyeballing it as you are, yes. Okay. All right. Okay. Actually about three times, Mr. Chairman. Three times the space. It's a little over an acre. The faith church is a little over an acre. The subject property of the great church is about a third of an acre total. Okay. So they have three times the space that you do. As far as what appears to be a parking lot behind the parish house, is that correct? Is that where deliveries are made now? I would presume so. Deliveries are usually just made on the Melrose side. Most of the times parishioners pick up things ourselves, but small vans and trucks will go onto the Melrose street for deliveries. I'm saying now, currently. Yes. There's no driveway or anything on Melrose, is there? No, just stop and park at the curb there. They just stop and block traffic? No, it doesn't block traffic. They just park there. It's usually, well, if it's a big truck, it would block traffic, but if it's a van, they would just park there and deliver things to our base. What is the parking lot used for behind the parish house? We have some parking on Sunday there that parishioners park there. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. As Mr. East said, that's the entrance that would no longer exist on Tate's Creek Road. Correct. Correct. Any more questions? Yes, I think I have one. If you include the availability of parking and the arrangement that the church has with Cassidy School as a resource, a basic resource, how much larger is then the Lutheran Church than the Greek Orthodox Church in terms of the availability of land? I can only try to eyeball mentally how large a 40-car parking lot would be. I don't know enough to answer that, but that's what Cassidy has offered us. It just seemed to me we were comparing apples and oranges. What amount of space was available to the Lutheran Church in a contiguous space as compared to what is available to the Greek Church with X amount of it being off-site, so to speak? Ms. Bill, I agree with you that in looking at the total footprint of the Greek Orthodox Church, it is necessary to consider the 40 spaces at the Cassidy. but your zoning ordinance I think wisely invites people to reuse existing parking lots when their owner isn't normally using them. So we don't have necessarily to create more parking solely for the Greek Orthodox Church when we have the advantage of having another existing parking lot that doesn't get at a school, elementary school, that doesn't get much use on Sunday morning. So it is part of the footprint technically, but it's also a parking lot that's being recycled in a way that we think is actually very efficient and good for the community. It seems to be a pattern of many of the churches on Tates Creek, which some of them have arrangements with UK to use that parking spaces around the stadium. I think your zoning ordinance intends to encourage that. I think that is a good planning feature. Are there any more questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grady. At this point We will hear from any and all opposition So please come forward state your name and address, please My name is Kate Savage. I live at 619 Columbia Avenue. I'm in the Hollywood Terrace neighborhood. I'm also president of the Columbia Heights Neighborhood Association, although I'm not representing them at this time. I believe you have received at least seven letters of opposition that you should have on file that have been emailed over the last few weeks. Those people couldn't be here because, of course, they have jobs. I would first of all like to state that I think that these people have been very good neighbors. I like the church. I don't have anything against them. But I am a preservationist, and I do feel that this is not a good move for my neighborhood. this is not a neighborhood church. The congregation come from all over Lexington. I'm not sure that you could even call it a parish church because a parish usually serves the people who are living around that particular place of worship. As a result, I feel that the congregation doesn't necessarily have any loyalty to this neighborhood. You couldn't really expect them to. They come once a week on Sundays, or they come for a bake sale, or this is Holy Week for them. This is their Easter week. So they've been very busy. This is Good Friday, as has been stated earlier. They come for weddings, but this is not something that is around the clock. It's not the same as the people who live, work, and play in this neighborhood. And that's one of the wonderful things about Hollywood Trace. at Hollywood Terrace. We work, we live, and we play in this neighborhood. We're here 24 hours, and we support it. These folks come and go. They come to worship. I agree. That's wonderful. I do have some slides. I am in the food business, so I'm not a videographer. I put this together yesterday as a result of some photographs I took actually yesterday. The light was failing, so I probably need the lights dimmed, otherwise you won't be able to see the subject. And I will need some instruction maybe. If I push up, oh, there we go, my number one. I would argue that this is a very incongruous building for the neighborhood. If you take your eye down Melrose, which is that road leading backwards, you'll see the first house behind the church, And you can see how already that is going to be dwarfed by what I can only really think, and again, I'm not an architect, but the word was used by the architect. This is a Byzantine church on Tate's Creek. These homes in this neighborhood are typically American bungalow. They're single-story homes. They are R1. this is the front again sorry the light is failing this is the front of the church last night and the home right next door that they plan to demolish they keep talking about expansion but really it's replacement they are knocking down a perfectly good building sorry it's really dark but there's nothing wrong with this house nothing wrong In fact, in one more month, this house will be on the National Historic Register. One more month. It's already on the federal list. This is at the state level that this house will now be on the National Historic Register. And if you pass this, I can assure you there will be a wrecking ball there tomorrow because they're anxious to beat that deadline. and I think that it's a crime to willy-nilly knock down a sound building that has historic merit. This is the Faith Lutheran Church and you can see this is a much more modest building. It's single story and as we've seen in the slide that we just looked at earlier they can accommodate their parking. It's all there in one lot of land. the parking over at Cassidy I think this was earlier yesterday but the church service was going on was empty they don't use the parking at Cassidy and their congregation is the same size today as it's going to be when they have their replacement church and they don't use the Cassidy parking space I don't blame them they've got to cross Tates Creek Road it's a very busy road this is another site of the Tates Creek property There's the corner of the church and then this sound building next door, National Historic Register building that will be demolished and replaced. Can I ask you a question? A Byzantine church, yes. I don't mean to interrupt you, but would you explain to me what the historical value is there in that home, please? I'm not sure what the criteria is, but I know that it has to meet a criteria, and it's gone through a very lengthy process of about three years in order to reach this point. and the whole of the Hollywood Terrace neighborhood will be moving into the historic register classification. It has an age to it. It has to be of a certain age and has to be noteworthy in some architectural way. I'm sorry I don't know more than that. If you could educate me just a little bit in this. If there's historical value there, if there's age there, significance there, I would think someone would have to file to start this process. The National Register process? Yes. Yes, it was filed several years ago. By the neighborhood. If the church owned it. No, it goes forward as a collective body of homes in a particular neighborhood. It's not just singled out. Okay, thank you. Yeah, it's the whole Hollywood Terrace area that will receive that. And there are tax benefits as well. Sorry, I lost my steam. I'm sorry. Oh, that's okay. Could I ask you a question? Did you say that that was a photograph of the Cassidy School parking lot on a Sunday and no one was using it? It was last night during the Maundy Thursday services. I will show you in the next. This is Melrose last night where all the cars are parked. I was wondering, do you know whether they use that parking lot on Sundays typically? No. No, this is the congregation parking for their Holy Week. This is Melrose and the back of the church. There is some parking behind the church and some green space. You can see I think they use it for playground area. And this parking will go with the expansion or rather the replacement property. So those cars won't be able to go there. they will either go on Melrose or Tate's Creek or maybe over to Cassidy. I don't know. This is the little house next door. 839 Melrose. American bungalow. And again, I'm sorry you can't see it that well, but can you see where the fence is? That's the property line that abuts that little house next door. And that church is going to go all the way up to there. I saw on the plan they do have intentions to plant some evergreens, but that's awfully close to a little tiny house, typical of the neighborhood. I really feel that having gone through the H1 process in my neighborhood and having learned a lot from that experience, that it seems to be that it's very hard to get a voice and to have yourself heard and not to be railroaded by the big guns, by the attorneys that come in who are paid to say certain things and have their services paid for. I would like to know what their intention is with the old church property and also point out that not next to the replacement church, but the next house on, they also own. In two years' time, will they be back here wanting to demolish that house to maybe put in a rectory? I think there is a longer phase plan possibly here that we're not aware of. This might just be the tip of the iceberg. I worry about the green space which is at the back of the present church which will disappear and I was interested to hear about their sewer concerns and the way they planned to handle that because that was obviously something that I was going to be concerned about as well and I think apart from the fact that in here the agenda you do state that the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, and will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity. And I cause you to stop and look and tell me in your heart of hearts if a building that has a very distinctive Byzantine character to it is in keeping with this neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Savage? Yes, Ms. Bell, Ms. Savage, question for you. Ms. Savage, I certainly can see that the Dome is somewhat different. But a question I have is there are so many churches in your area, including the Catholic Cathedral. and it certainly is a very different design than the Lutheran church, which is very different than some of the other churches a little further out. What I'm trying to have you think about is the cathedral isn't at all like any of the houses in that community, but it certainly represents a deep, deep faith in most of the symbols and so forth. Now I can certainly see that this does not reflect the bungalow and the lovely bungalows in your area. But why shouldn't this be in a sense related to the neighborhood with its difference and the cathedral just across the street is related to the neighborhood? Because typically with a Catholic diocese, the church services, the neighborhood, and as a Catholic I can vouch for that. The people who attend Christ the King Cathedral are probably people who live in and around that area. I know you aren't aware of this in terms of percentage, but if it's membership, how many people do you think really of the 100% of the people who are members of Christ the King? Well, typically... In the general area of, let's say, a mile. Typically a parish in the Catholic Church operates that way. They get a break on the school fees if they're members of the parish and they live in... There are very distinctive lines of the parish. and I can vouch for that because my son went there and I was four houses over Marquis and I was not within the parish boundary and we were not entitled to the break on school fees so I know that Christ the King probably services most of their members are probably in that neighborhood and I can't tell you the percentage. The reason I ask is that my friends who go there do not live in that neighborhood which is the reason that I've asked the question. Well, that's quite possible. They would never close the doors to anybody who wanted to go. I would suspect that this church is the... Well, this is a single church. It services the whole city. And so why right here? And why demolish a house in order to accommodate it? Well, let me ask you this question. Where else in the area do you... You've commented on its Byzantine design. Where else in the area is there a Byzantine design that this would fit in? I have no idea. I think that's something that I've just wondered where you had in mind. Well, it makes for a mishmash of architecture, frankly. Thank you very much. Thank you. My name is Mary Margaret Lowe, and I live at 855 Tremont Avenue in the Hollywood Terrace neighborhood. I want to thank the Board of Adjustment and the planning staff for their careful and sometimes difficult work on behalf of our neighborhoods. But I'm here to speak out against the requested zoning variance for the replacement of the Greek Orthodox Church and the demolition of the historic parish house at 920 Tates Creek Road. My first point is about zoning. The zoning for this site, this house, and this neighborhood is single-family residential. The current church facility is already in variance with the zoning regulations, and the proposed replacement church, which is three times the size of the current building, would only increase the non-conforming use in this zoning. I'm sympathetic to the church's need for expansion, their liturgical requirements of the Orthodox Church, but this is a residential area. My second point is on proportion. The houses in our neighborhood are mainly small bungalows, as you've heard. Typical houses are around 1,200 square feet, with some less than 1,000 square feet. The proposed height and size of the replacement church would dwarf nearby houses. You may have read the article in today's Herald-Leader, it would be like an elephant perched among mice. If you look at the diagram of the church, the site plan of the church there, you'll notice the dome tops out at about 52 square feet. If you look all the way over to the left as I'm facing it, you'll notice the small, single-story houses. Most of them, as I said, are around 1,200, but there's a house immediately behind the church that is less than 1,000 square feet. Can you imagine sitting on your porch, and there's a building that's 52 feet high in the air just 10 feet away from your house, and that is the setback that they have requested is 10 feet from the property line. It is so large that it will completely block the sun from several backyard houses and will certainly result in the death of any sun-loving plants and possibly even trees. The basic roof line, it's true, is 35 feet, which is similar to the houses on Tates Creek Road. But the total dome height is 52 feet, which is four times the size of the houses immediately behind it on Melrose and on Sunset. There's been a lot of talk about similar facilities, for instance at Faith Lutheran Church, but that church has three times the area of the site of the Greek Orthodox Church. In fact, their parking lot for Faith Lutheran, their total parking area, is larger than the entire site of the Greek Orthodox Church as it now is. The safety of the parishioners and the tranquility of the neighborhood is seriously compromised by a total lack of on-site parking. Off-site parking is almost 500 feet away, and in fact, the parishioners do not use the Cassidy parking lot, as we've seen from the photographs, and I've been there many times. They park on Melrose. They park illegally on Tate's Creek Road in the bicycle lanes. They block driveways, and I have several neighbors who have complained about their driveways being blocked on Sunday mornings. Also, as outlined in the planning staff report, these expansion plans do not properly request a variance and provide for true handicap parking in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. my next point is about the historicity of the neighborhood and as we said they're very close to accepting our neighborhood on the National Register of Historic Places and the classical pediment of the current Greek church fits in very well with the classical American bungalow and four square houses that you see on Tate's Creek, on Melrose, on Sunset and And one of our other concerns is in addition to the historic Paris church house that they have at 918, the Greek Orthodox Church also owns another house at 912 Tates Creek Road. And I would like for the representatives of the church, the people who are the leaders of the church to look me in the eye and assure me that you have no future plans to destroy the historic house that you own at 912 Tates Creek Road and make a parking lot out of it. Ms. Malone, if you would please direct your statements towards us. Ms. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm afraid they're going to just take down all the houses for needed parking later on. My next point is on flooding. The proposed replacement church will increase both the paved area and the amount of surface runoff. You should have a letter from one of my neighbors about the house at 809 Sunset, which is currently involved in a lawsuit with the city because there's no way to fix the sewage back up at their house, and they've had to move. Their house is not saleable because of sewage runoff. And perhaps the architect is not local. he doesn't know that we do indeed get two and three inch rains two or three days in a row. We already have problems with sewage backup, with flooding of our basements. A better alternative, real estate prices in the Chevy Chase neighborhood are very stable, very strong. Greek Orthodox Church, as I said, owns two houses, the one at 920 and also at 912. They could sell those houses and buy a much larger lot that would include some on-site parking and would answer a lot of the questions about the appropriateness of the scale, the proportion of this building. In short, granting this zoning variance will exacerbate what is already a non-conforming use. It will cause a hardship to the neighborhood in the form of increased stormwater runoff and traffic, congestion, and by blocking the skyline and sun from nearby homes. And it will send the wrong message by failing to protect the architecturally significant fabric of our historic Hollywood neighborhood. Please deny this zoning variance. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Malone. Thank you. I would ask any who do speak to, you know, we welcome your comments. Just try not to be repetitive to what's already been said. We would appreciate it. Yes, sir. Your name and address. I'm Eugene Lacefield. Come forward. Eugene Lacefield and the Hollywood neighbor at 855 Tremont. Don't be repetitious. Well, looking at the pictures of the Lutheran church, what came to me was the huge parking lot around it, a vast, empty area. And to me, I see down the years from now, these folks will come and they have the right to buy houses around them as they've obviously bought the house beside them. And they'll come to you and they'll say, we need parking for our 150 people. They talk of disabled people. It looks like currently they do have a little parking for disabled vehicles. But in the new facility, 500 feet away for parking disabled people or maybe right on the road beside the church, I would think that a new facility that's modernly designed to handle disabled people would be a better picture. To me, tearing down a house in the neighborhood is not conducive to maintaining the fabric of our neighborhood. And as a defeated 8-1 member of the neighborhood, I groaned to come back here a few months later and listen to the first house in our neighborhood being spoke of as being tore down. Sir, can I ask you a question? Is anyone living in 912 and the house right next to the church, please? I don't know. I think it's a piece of the church now. The parish house, the house next to the church is used as the parish house. So that is used as the ministration and parish for the church, right? What's 912 used for? That's a house that we do own at the sacrifice by the temple. It's occupied by a renter And and while we're on this subject of the house next door who can tell me the historical value of the house Mr.. Estep Yes, either come to the microphone or We could let mr. Lanzo finish Go ahead. The neighborhood association, the Hollywood neighborhood association board applied for historic status for the entire neighborhood and the 40 or 60 people who don't want to be in the historic neighborhood have the right to write a letter and to opt out of the classification as being historic. It's my understanding. I'm not certain if that's the way it's actually going to work. We have written such a letter regarding the church and the parish house next door. We have not written a letter. I don't know about any other letters for other people. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry for the interruption, Mr. Lancel. Please continue. So I was talking about tearing down houses. To me, I kind of see it as a matter of death by small nicks of our stable neighborhood. I mean, you knock down one house here. How many houses can be knocked down on Tate's Creek on that block, which as folks have said is one block away from hardware stores and restaurants? How many houses can you tear down before suddenly it's no longer R1? It becomes more business orientated and very logical to start building businesses down Tate Street Road as you nick the houses down one by one for various reasons. I have a vague impression from reading the Lexington Herald that another church was denied building permits out on the edge of Lexington for zoning reasons of size and lot. I see this is a very similar situation and wonder why one is denied and another gets an exemption. We have a fine neighborhood that's in walking distance of UK, and some could say it's walking distance of downtown. We have our middle school and our elementary school. I see this as a neighborhood that expansive church is a detriment to the homes and people living in homes in our neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. Blitzer. Your name and address, sir? Stuart Connelly and my mother lives at 914 916 Tate's Creek which is the house beside the white one they're going to tear down and I'm sorry what is your last name Connelly only only only why thank you her main concern is actually construction every time they've done anything over there they've caused her problems they built that parking lot behind the existing house and flooded her basement they did fix the problem by putting a curb in but that was after hindsight they put a fence in between her house and them and they went to washing it and washed everything on it onto the cars in her driveway she's concerned when they start doing construction there that they're going to cause her problems and plus the height of the building she has flowers on that south side of her house, which she'll probably have to transplant because they won't grow with that building being that tall and that close to her. That's her main concern, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Any questions from the board? Mr. Grady? Mr. Chairman, I would like to address anything. You had asked if anybody was going to speak in opposition. I'm not sure if you asked if anybody in the audience was going to speak in support Thank you. Do you have others? Is there any anybody else that like to speak in regards to this case? Yes, you've been here, but come ahead come ahead I'm sorry. I have to clarify a few things for one thing that the dome is on the Because the position of the church, the sun would be from the south, and therefore the shade would be mostly on our own property. The shade from the dome would not really affect neighboring properties because the sun's coming from the opposite side. So we wouldn't be casting a shadow on the adjoining property because of the direction the sun predominantly comes in from. So we're definitely minimizing the amount of water runoff. There's quite a few things. I think the church itself was designed to be compatible with the scale of the bungalow homes in the neighborhood. There is definitely some sensitivity paid to that. But the church itself has to have the character of the church with the dome. So there are definitely attempts made, and I think we made quite a few attempts to keep the massing sensitive to the existing neighborhood. I don't think we came in and kind of wiped the slate clean and tried to impose ourselves in a negative way. There's many things that the design did to be refined towards being sensitive towards the neighborhood. Thank you. Questions from the board in regards to this? No? Any comments? Do you have a question? I would, and I guess I would address this to our friends sitting across the way as far as traffic is concerned. Mr. Gallimore, the way the parking, or deliveries or the parking space behind the church is proposed now what are your thoughts on that the current parking situation yes it is as as as proposed as proposed yes as proposed concerns me uh particularly in the fact when you looked at the picture early of what melrose looks like on a sunday now with the church ramping up its enrollment plus the fact of eliminating their own site parking which probably holds about eight or ten cars i think a lot of the neighborhood is going to get very frustrated and come to traffic engineering want us to start curbing yellow curb possibly going to residential parking i'm also not happy with the church layout because the fact there is not a normal pickup drop-off area that you see in most church designs. There actually is the driveway that is allowed to be left is probably not ADA compliant for handicap operation. We typically treat church parking lots with commercial standards that do not allow backing them onto the street or backing in from the street so probably the best that we could do with that one lane that's left is call that some type of loading area where maybe we could keep a van off the street if the church is getting supplies or something of that nature so in my mind you're talking about a site that has zero on-site parking looks like existing conditions they're already filling the streets on the neighborhood i don't know if i don't think it's been balled out but i'm pretty sure that one side of melrose is already uh signed for no parking because the narrowness of melrose so that forces everybody to the other side of the street and the joint or the shared parking would be a great idea and concept It doesn't appear that the geography in this situation, it works well. Our measurements show that it's about 600 feet walking distance from the church to the front loop of Cassidy Elementary. That might stack a quarter of the cars that are in the parking requirements. And then if you have to go to that back lot, you're talking about walking over 900 feet. So I'm of the impression that as was bought out earlier that I do not think that the Cassidy Parking, even though it may be leased by the church, I don't think it will get utilized Other than maybe for major overflow events, but for regular services I think people are going to try to find places on the street Which seems very limiting already Okay, thank you, sir Mr. Chair, I guess I just have a couple comments I'd like to make. Number one, I don't think that with the Greek Orthodox Church that you can compare it to the Lutheran Church because their property is three times the size of yours and they had a lot of room for expansion, a lot of room for parking, and it appears evident that a lot of the parking that goes on at the church is off Melrose. And I know that that creates and can create not only a very difficult situation for the neighbors, but also for emergency vehicles if there was some type of activity there. I am not opposed to the Greek Orthodox Church expanding. The thing that I guess concerns me the most is the scope and the size of the project. You all are taking your building and increasing it three times. And I also, Mr. Grady, I do have a concern, too, with the 52-foot high dome that goes in, because that is a little out of character in the neighborhood as well. I know that residential, that zoning, RD1, allows up to 35 feet, And then, you know, and steeples are allowed on top of that. But I'm having a hard time comparing the dome and the steeple as one and the same. And those are just some of the concerns that I have. Mr. Stombo, the figure three times, I was trying to correct that earlier in my presentation and in Mr. Christopher Rydis. There is currently a 4,000 square foot footprint. And this would take it to 8,000. that is it keeps an existing building that has a 2,700 square foot footprint and it adds a new worship center that is sized to meet the needs of this congregation where the current building is not. So it is doubling the size, not tripling the size. And the staff report indicates that's parallel to what the Lutherans did in the 90s. Sure, they have more space. They were fortunate. But doubling the size is not out of precedent. I mean, it's already happened across the street. We are asking that in the case of a Greek Orthodox sanctuary, that this board consider a dome to be like a steeple on a Roman Catholic church or on a Protestant Christian church. Their dome is, from a religious significance point of view, the same as our steeple with a cross on top of it. I mean, it is a part of their religious structure shape. It doesn't, nobody lives in it. It's not occupied. It is a symbol for their church. but I would like for the board to consider the value to the neighborhood of a design that retains the existing structure that structure has already been complemented by the opponents and rather than demolish that we have built around it as a way to try to retain that structure in place and reuse it and still meet the church's needs Mr. Grady and I appreciate the you know you keeping the you keeping the exist existing building it's a beautiful building and and there's no question about that again to me my big concern is is tearing in the the building next door you all own so I and with all respect to the preservationists I mean I I like to conserve as much as as as anyone as far as as the structures that we have but it is your property you're the property owner and I think you ought to be able to do what you want to with the property. But again, looking at the size and scope of this and looking at the traffic, looking at the traffic problems, that's where I really have a concern. And there was also some voices mentioned a little concern over having a drop-off in a pick-off area, you know, particularly for those, you know, that need to be the, particularly the elder patrons of the church and so forth. So I'm just making these general comments to you because I, I do see that it does encumber somewhat on the neighborhood, and it does have some adverse effect on the neighborhood. I'm not sure that you've heard testimony that the existing church is adversely affecting the neighborhood. What I think you've heard is that... Mr. Grady, I'm not saying that the existing church is adversely affecting. I'm saying that once all the... I see this problem becoming larger than what it is. if you all go through with doubling the size of the church. And obviously, since you're trying to increase the size of the sanctuary, I assume that you're going to be trying to recruit more members in your church as well. I mean, we certainly have a current situation with the parking, and that just appears to be fact from what we've seen and what we've heard today. I'm not saying the building itself adversely affects, But I think the structure that you're talking about building, there is some question to that. Mr. Snow, the staff report notes that this church has been here 60 years, and it was located here before there were parking requirements. That is, that's one of the realities. This church was built in 1948 before you all were here to impose parking requirements on them. Now, what they're doing is adding handicap accessibility in the rear, I mean, accessibility and handicap parking, and I think Alex believes that he has a design that is ADA compliant, and we believe it is an improvement by having that handicap parking at the rear of the church, where they can come into the church. We believe we are improving on a current situation. but the church is going from 110 seats to 140. The church population is not doubling. It has grown slowly over 60 years, and I don't think they see that they're going to evangelize all of the rest of Fayette County and double in size. They just want to have enough room to be able to have a wedding with their parish, with their congregation inside the church. but they are, I mean, if the board requires that every problem be solved, you're essentially saying leave Hollywood, go someplace else. And I think that's unfair to a church that has been a good neighbor in this neighborhood for 60 years and wants to remain. We're trying to take the current situation and make it work better than it's currently working. And so I would ask that you at least recognize a part of this problem is because it's a 60-year-old church at this location, not a brand-new church. Mr. Grady. Excuse me. I hope. No. I'm done. Thank you, Mr. Grady. I didn't mean to interrupt. Mr. Grady, you mentioned parking. Sure, 60 years ago there was no parking requirements. Personally, I have no problem with parking over at Cassidy School for most of the people. What I am seeing is the fact that you are eliminating parking on site. And in reference to what Mr. Gallimore was saying, I think to be ADA compliance, you're trying to be ADA compliance inside the building to have accessibility to get them in. However, I cannot see these people having to be transported from Cassidy School. I cannot see them having to park on Melrose to get into the church. At the present time, I believe there's one parking place possibly behind it. Now you're going to ask a handicapped person to back out onto the street. If there's a vehicle that happens to be there, it blocks the access for any other vehicles, delivery service or anything else. I do not think that the city would like to see vehicles stopping for delivery on Melrose Avenue. I do not have a problem with an expansion. I do not. I think there needs to be some on-site parking. I think there needs to be accessibility for vehicular traffic, such as a UPS or a whoever, or a larger truck to be able to come onto the property and safely get back off the property without having to back onto a street. Right now you have that. You can come on. You've got the accessibility off of Tate's Creek. You can go into the back of the parish house, turn around and come back out. That in itself is my biggest problem. I think this will impact the neighborhood in eliminating that and creating traffic problems. Those are my thoughts right now. It sounds like the board is saying that the only way the Greek Orthodox Church can stay at this location is to tear down the existing structure and convert that into parking. That's what... I'm not an architect, simply put. I would think an expansion could be developed, drawn out, to allow for some parking on site, though. Those are my thoughts. Sometimes a modest expansion can be made and there are real genuine improvements and problems solved. But sometimes you've just outgrown your site. And I think it's that recognizing that might be a hard pill to swallow, but you can't put five quarts in a gallon jug. And that's what I think you're trying to do. I mean, our architect believes and apparently the staff believes that we have put this drawing, this design on this property in a way that's compliant with your zoning requirements. That's why I got a staff approval recommendation. So that's why we don't feel like that we are oversizing the property. If we were, we would not have gotten a staff recommendation of approval. And where we have that recommendation, we believe we are complying with the legal requirements. And as I think one or two of you have said, it is our property and we have the right to do on it what we are allowed to do as a matter of law. And here we have tried to meet the church's needs as well as stay compliant with your zoning requirements. and I would ask you to Obviously, I'm asking you to follow the staff recommendations. No I don't like to hear you say that I really don't because I as much as I have served this community in this position on the board over the last 15 16 years combined We've had to deal with situations like this and then and they're not easy And if you view what you're trying to do to be an aesthetic value to where you are, I don't see how it works. Yes, you own that property. Yes, you have the rights to do certain things under the guidelines of the regulations and the rules within Lexington and Fayette County. but you have the rights to do that withstanding that there are people who live around you that should also be somewhat happy with what is going on within that particular situation I think the I have no problem with the with your with your building structure because I think every church has its right for its design from a spiritual standpoint as you want to design it I have no problem with that my concern is just what's been stated here and what we were stated to the last meeting just where do you park I don't think it's safe I don't think it's a value to your church I don't think it's a value to the neighborhood to have to on Sundays avoid your parking I think that's a hazard and I think it's can be a danger somewhere down the road. Whether you plan to expand or not is irrelevant to me. I don't care whether you plan to expand or not. If you owned all three of those houses in a row there, I think I would understand the deal much better. But you don't. You understand you own the one next to your church and the third house. If you owned all three of those, then I think I would know what the deal is going to be. But to come to us with the understanding that you're trying to squeeze a huge barrel here inside of a basket is kind of complexing to me. And please understand, I respect what you want to do, and I respect the development and the plans that I see. But it's awful tough for me to sit here and say, as a person who's lived in this community since 1965, would understand why you're trying to cram that corner. I can't understand that. Mr. Stout, if I can reply, I had suggested that it was better for the neighborhood not to demolish houses for parking, but to use an existing parking lot. and your suggestion seems to be that the church's future should be to try to acquire more lots in order to have a parking lot as large as the Lutherans. And that may be good from a planning point of view. I don't think that's really good for the neighborhood point of view. And we approach it from the point of view of not trying to tear down houses to build parking but to use the parking that is there. And the point I was trying to make to Mr. Stumbo was we don't believe that the existing church and its existing population has imposed much of a burden on the neighborhood. And so we believe that that church, 10 and 15 years from now, if it's only 30 more seats, is I think we think unlikely to be the traffic congestion that I think the opponents fear. We believe that the current traffic is not causing much of a problem, and we believe that some increase can be handled by the neighborhood, and that's better than tearing down houses. I agree with you. In 1948, you didn't have Tate's Creek Road problems as you have today. I totally agree with that. I worked in the area for a long time, so I know how congested Tate's Creek Road has become, and I know how somewhat congested the area where you are right now has become. I mean, there are food places across the street from you, down the street from you. So I do understand what is going on in that area, and I do understand what you're trying to do for your church. Please don't misunderstand me. I do understand that. What I don't understand is how such a small place there can become a large place without creating an aesthetic value problem. Mr. Stout, I'd like to just clarify a couple of points, particularly on the parking. I'm Dennis Karunas. I'm a member of the church since 1973, and I feel like I'm very much part of that neighborhood, not just a transient person coming in and out. My son was baptized there. I met my wife there, and we are very much participants in the neighborhood. the parking has always been along Melrose Street for many years. And so that Mrs. Savage gave a picture of the fact that we weren't using Cassidy parking last night's church service. And I think that if you ask Father George, yes, he would have liked to have seen 80 parishioners there last night, but there were only 30 parishioners there last night. So Mrs. Savage was correct. There was nobody parking at Cassidy School. 15% of our parishioners either walked or rode their bicycle like I did to church so that they weren't parked on the street. We walked or rode bicycles. Other parishioners carpooled and went there. So there were only 30 parishioners in church last night. That's why Cassidy was not used. And we've been using Melrose for many years to park, and we park sometimes all the way down at the end of Melrose only on Sunday, and there's not a lot of activity there. Our deliveries are usually only one or two deliveries a month. The majority of the things that we do, our parishioners buy, say, at Sam's and take in their cars, park on Melrose, and we haul them down into the basement so we could cook our baklava. We don't have a lot of deliveries, only one or two deliveries a month. And so that's never been an issue. The Greek Orthodox Church has not grown very rapidly. I was chairman of membership for many years. And so we have people that come and go over the years. So we have only a slow growth over the years. But we're the only Greek Orthodox Church for all central and eastern Kentucky. And we have some parishioners come from far away to go. so I don't think we should be punished for the fact that we're not a local parish just for people of Hollywood terrorists. I don't think that's our mission. We're to help the Greek Orthodox faithful in this whole region. And so I think that the parking is not as much of a problem because we accommodate by using the side streets going all the way down Melrose and parking, and it's only for a couple of hours. Our services start at 10 o'clock, and if you go by there at 2 o'clock, the street's completely empty. It looks much like it is there. And if we see parishioners parking illegally, we ask them to move, and we even put cones up in front of them. We try to, in our bulletins, we try to educate parishioners of not parking illegally along Cates Creek Road and other places. So we park along Melrose Avenue. And so I think that we're a slow-growing community, and this will serve us for the next 60 years if we had this addition. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that at least one of the problems I'm having is that is, you know, what is the authority of the board? I think all of us know that the parking problems all through that area have been very, very serious for a long time. The streets are narrow. It's congested. Students park as far away from there. Parking is a problem. One of the questions that I ask myself is how much greater is this plan adding to the existing parking problem? I'm extremely familiar with the parking on Melrose. One of my very best friends lives at the corner of Castle and Melrose. I cannot tell you how difficult the parking is. For those of you who are not familiar with the area, the parking has been atrocious for years. So, you know, one of the questions is what additional parking problems will be created by this new plan? The other thing I think we have to recognize is that one of the really major problems in communities is the local church on the corner that served an immediate parish when that no longer really exists in many, many places. So here is a church that was built when people walked to church. Now people drive, and the police will tell you that all around many of the churches in our town, on Sunday, in other events, cars are all over the place, and there is an unwritten policy that they're not going to ticket people because there is inadequate parking at many of these places. So what difference will this make? And I personally have a difficult time trying to think that it's going to make such a substantial difference that that would be the reason. Now, I think this whole question of is it an appropriate design keeps running through all of our comments. does a church with a Byzantine dome fit into the community? I mean, should we expect that a church has something that is somewhat different than some of the churches we are much more accustomed to? Should we have some kind of, do we have the authority of saying this is not an appropriate design in this neighborhood? And I would suggest to you we do not have that kind of authority. So I think that many of the troubles that we are having now have persisted in this area for years and years and years. And it's sort of come to a head. But I can find no reason to deny this. I would prefer that they have certainly a different arrangement for handicap parking. I think that's a necessity. And for older people, it's people with handicaps. And I would ask that we might want to continue this and ask them to come back with some plans for that population. But I cannot see what is substantially different today than existed yesterday and last year and the year before that and so forth. It's just a very, very difficult situation. But that's the way it is. And we're not talking about a membership that's going to increase in leaps and bounds to have the size membership they do after 60 years. There's not a lot. I mean, we do not have a substantial population in the area. It's not going to be like Quest where they start with members of 28 and now have 4,000. We weren't talking about that kind of expansion. So I would like to see if there isn't some modification made for the handicap. But I just cannot see. And let me also say I'm really impressed with the efforts made to control the stormwater. And the controls that they've put in for the stormwater adds to that community in the sense that it reduces the amount of water that will remain on the surface if they built a huge parking lot or something. And I think it's extremely important that we begin to use the absorbing bricks and all kinds of other materials as they are planning to do here. so mr. chairman yes you miss to try to resolve this issue of some handicap parking a little mr. chair thank you miss Bell yes miss Edward I would totally agree with miss Bell I think the style and character of the church would be very pleasant and add a real touch of diversity that is very very attractive and something that we certainly push for in our community I too am only concerned with the the handicap parking and I'm trying to decipher it here on the plan and maybe if the architect would come up and show us that because I thought I saw several places for handicapped parking and access but maybe I'm seeing the wrong thing those those designs are not acceptable on our guidelines okay so that's part of the reason that planning had originally asked for some of them to be eliminated and the remaining one I have issues with as far as the design of it that's like I'd like to point out to everybody's concerned about the traffic you know you're talking about a building that is dublin and square footage but only 30 more parishioners it makes me think that there may be other uses for this facility than just being a sanctuary like I'm assuming it has been in the past so from a traffic standpoint I'm concerned that it's not just another Sunday thing the other 30 parishioners if there's going to be other uses for the property there's definitely a lot more square footage for something also they've already said weddings and all kinds of other social events like every other religious organization the things that always concern me is if they were going to come back for daycares and things of that nature. Are you all coming back for daycares? No. I'll ask someone from our parish council, but I don't think my clients plan on putting in a daycare center. They do run some Sunday school classes in the current church, which we're going to continue to do. But as they've stated many times, we're not looking to increase the parish by more than, we want to have the 140 seats as opposed to the 110, so that on a few days of the year when we have some overcrowding in the church, we can accommodate that within our facility. But there's not going to be a daily increase in the amount of traffic that comes in. The traffic will stay the same. And we've tried to address the handicap parking issue and the on-site parking issue as best as we can. If you'd like, I can talk you through that a little bit so you can understand how that is planned to work at this point. Well, if building has a problem with it and it's not satisfactory, obviously it's going to have to be changed. Yes, and that was in the conditions, and we can certainly make some of those changes. I was asked to put on as many parking spaces as I could on the site. And so in doing so, I'll point it to you right here. This area has enough space to accommodate two more tandem parking spots. But when you put in tandem parking spots, there's obviously the issue of one car blocking the other. And therefore, I included one more curb cut right there. So that was one way to accommodate your packing as much as we can on the site, which would have made a total of three, perhaps four cars. It's not the best solution, but we're working with what we have. As far as the... Excuse me, sir. Oh, yeah. If you would back up, I apologize for asking to do this, but back up and talk about the tandem parking once again. Mr. Gallimore had stepped out, and I would like for him to hear. Sure. your thoughts. Sure. The intention here, and it was through a conversation with Mr. Marks as well that we had over the phone, was to put on as many parking spaces as we could on the site. And in doing so, we decided to pave this area with permeable pavers, which would allow for some tandem parking right along here. Not really a through lane, but if somebody parks there and they're blocked by the car behind them, they would have a way out through that curb cut. It's as simple as that. It's not really meant to be a throughway, but if there's a car there, it wouldn't be a throughway. An alternative, because that was put in the conditions that we shouldn't have that other curb cut, would be to allow this area right here, and I'll point it out, this area right here as an area for a handicapped van that parks here and I'll point it again to turn down the lights a little bit is it oh is that better this is where a A handicapped van might pull up and stop right here. In order for that van to come out, it would back up into this space and then make its way out to Melrose. It's the best we can do to accommodate that situation, but it allows a car or a small delivery van to come into the site and then back out head first. I also want to point out, there are many homes in the neighborhood along Tates Creek Road. They have a driveway where you pull in and perhaps back out, especially for a UPS truck. I don't know if there is something in the works and zoning to make a change to that, but with as busy a street as it is, I think our situation is much safer in the proposed plan than what the situation is for most home deliveries. As Dr. Karunos pointed out, we have one or two deliveries a month to the church. Most homes through UPS and other means have many more deliveries than that into narrow driveways and they pull out into Tates Creek Road, Melrose. So I think our situation is safer than the status quo in the community. May I ask a question real quick in regards to parking? I believe one right now, the tandem parking, as you're calling it, parking there parallel to Melrose Street is not being allowed. So that leaves the one parking space to pull into that you were mentioning is handicap accessible than it may be. If a handicapped person is parking there and as you've indicated there may be an increase in weddings, if someone is making a delivery for a wedding, where are they going to go? How are they going to get to the ‑‑ They will have to just stop behind the handicapped van and drop off. Currently, the park on Melrose, now they're at least able to get off-site. There's also enough room to the side of a handicap van. The parking spot would be, the vehicle itself is about 10 feet. There's 24 feet of width there, so there's an extra 14 feet where a second vehicle could come in and drop things on and off, but temporarily parked. Obviously you've got a vice versa situation if there's a delivery van sitting there and a handicapped person comes in and parks, we're going to ask a handicapped person to back out to get out of the way of the van. I've met most of the delivery trucks there, myself or my wife, and those are usually during the week. I would say I don't know of a single delivery that's ever come during a church service on a Sunday. So it's not an issue, or even on a wedding on a Saturday. Would you ever have a handicapped person come to your church during the week? That might be a possibility, yes. And if, okay, so. But the deliveries are typically during business hours when people are, church members are not there. Right, but if a handicapped vehicle, if a handicapped spot is taken by a handicapped person, are we limiting the accessibility to the church for delivery? We have only one or two deliveries per month, so that would be a very extremely rare situation if the two happen at the same time. But you're increasing your uses with wedding services and other things. so if it increases are you going to increase the number of vehicles I don't want to argue I'm trying to get a vehicle in and out and your members who may be handicapped most likely what would happen if a vehicle comes in when there's a delivery van parked and I'll show you right here this is where the handicapped van would be A delivery vehicle could back out into here or would stop just directly in front of the church entrance temporarily, one or the other. So there is a way to accommodate it. It works. It's not the best solution, but a vast improvement over the current situation. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a suggestion if I could. I think that first of all, I don't think that you're hearing any opposition in opposing the expansion of the church. You all have been good neighbors and so forth. But there is just reoccurring concern from this board about on-site parking for many of the things that you've just heard for handicap accessibility and making sure that if a delivery is that I have a real concern with with providing some on-site parking and I think my colleagues here do as well. What I would like to ask, would you be opposed to coming back to the Board of Adjustment and modifying your plan to show that there is some on-site parking that is going to be available because it's a huge concern I think for all of us. Okay. There is, I don't know if the plan that I showed, it showed where the parking is and We basically are using the available space in accommodating a handicap. So you want me to show that you can accommodate two vehicles on the site? Or exactly what should I show? If you go by ADA standards, you need at least two parking spaces for the total number of parking spaces. Now, a church is exempt from that, but most of the time that's what the churches go by. And typically offer more on handicapped parking because it's pretty common knowledge that you have a lot of older parish members. So I think you want to be over on the line. The other issue about the parking that you're offering, you're showing us a parking space. You're not showing us the way that the vehicle can maneuver. You know, cars don't turn on a dime. You're not going to get a delivery truck. There's a certain turning radius that you probably want to show. You're not going to get a delivery truck to pull up on that driveway and then back out in that little short nook that you're showing for two handicapped spaces. Nor are you going to get cars that can actually maneuver and make that turn so tight to turn into that loop. That's the reason why it went out initially. Yeah, there's going to be some backing in and backing out. It'll be a three-point type turn. You're not meeting the guidelines. You're just finding the space for a vehicle. It has to be able to maneuver in and out. That's true. Mr. Gallimore. As your design is now, it's tight. Sure. To me, to make this thing work, if you want some on-site parking, be it handicapped or regular parking or both, you're going to have to make some changes. It's not just going to be moving some lines. Mr. Gallimore, clarify what you said there for a moment. In accordance to their size, the ADA recommendation would be how many handicapped parking spaces? ADA requires one handicapped parking space per every 25 regular spaces. Okay. So in their scenario, under the guidelines by the zoning regulations, they would need two handicapped parking spaces. One of them would need to be van accessible, which is the real wide striping that you see in most retail places. that's so that if someone is in a motorized wheelchair or something with a unloading ramp that they can get in and out. That's the other issue. You don't have all the width there that you talked about in your little driveway because you've got an 8-foot parking place and you've got an 8-foot unloading area that cannot be blocked. That's federal guidelines. If you're going to have handicapped parking, you're going to have to go by the ADA standards. I'm sorry, Mr. Gallimore, you said one for every 25? Regular parking spaces. Parking spaces. I think the recommended parking for this was 38 spaces. Yes. 28? 28. Okay, so it's still two. Okay. And my point was, too, normally a church will go over that, just knowing what the typical congregation ratios would be. What's your thoughts as far as accessibility for deliveries, whether they have in here or not? uh i'm sorry would you repeat it i'm not sure i their access or the accessibility for deliveries if they're coming through the parking lot yes i think any anytime you can get a vehicle to turn around on the park that's on parking lot and not back out of a parking space it's going to be a safer safer bet particularly for the church on Sundays Tate's Creek you know is probably not it's not like trying to get out on Tate's Creek at 5 o'clock afternoon I would presume okay so the ultimate access would be off of Melrose and it would be a parking lot where you could turn around I mean as far as access management guidelines goes that would be the best arrangement okay a parking lot that accesses Melrose thank you is that something that's typically reviewed by the board of zoning adjustments or is it during the zoning application after the general the plan has been approved or do you typically what we normally try to do is not get in a position to where this board may approve a plan and then when you come for your building permit which I'm a member of the review team for that then I will be in a position where I cannot approve your plan I understand because it does not meet our guidelines mm-hmm we do try to look at them up front and as I mentioned that's one of the reasons that the loop was tossed out originally I worked with mr. marks on that it might be a good idea for us to meet in person and try to work it out so very much I need to say this just because I'm concerned about what the expectations want me because we've looked at this in great scrutiny the only way you're going to get even a handful of parking spaces and an adequate way to drop off people in like a turnaround scenario they're going to have to cut into the building quite a bit I just don't want y'all have the expectation they're going to be able to leave this building size proposed the same and put all this other stuff in there it's not going to happen we've tried I just want to be realistic with everybody about how this is going to play out but thank you mr. Marks I appreciate that mr. Marks I think maybe understanding mr. arts maybe that exact comment should be made to the applicant so that they realize to come back here and get approval for a modest expansion they need to cut the building size down so that they can put the parking in its place. I would support a modest expansion to the church. I just don't want to see the neighborhood impacted adversely. Thank you. Mr. Gregg, are you supporting that the partial demolition of the existing structure? I can't be involved in your design. I just think, as I've said before, that you're trying to put too much on the lot at the expense of the things that are absolutely necessary. Obviously, from my perspective, we're improving on a current situation. I don't agree with that at all. That's your opinion. There has to be one or two things done here relative to your expansion and relative to this board approving what you want done. I'm not happy with what is going on right now and some of the other board members aren't happy with it. And while I respect Ms. Bell's opinion, she is absolutely right relative to that area, relative to the parking. It may not enhance the over parking in that area, but yet it may. I guess my concern more so So as to why you would not consider looking at your development where you could create something there that would make not only your parishioners happy, but your neighborhood happy. Because they don't want to see it, period. But sometimes they get what they want, sometimes they don't. I think that you are trying to, and again, as I told you, I'm not against this proposal. I'm just against the aesthetics of it because it doesn't seem to be – it's too extensive without having the requirements that goes along with that extensive project. Mr. Stout, we have made some neighbors happy. Some neighbors have expressed support for this. I understand. I read some of that. That is noted. I read some of that. But unfortunately, they don't vote. unfortunately they don't approve. And unfortunately we're trying to help you to come up with something where we can approve this. It's what we're trying to do. I think what I'm hearing from some of you is that if we had two dedicated handicap spots, one where it's currently shown and another one that we will have complied with the ADA requirements. Well, I think that's just part of it. I think there's another thing there that was just mentioned relative to deliveries coming into your property and having to back out of it is another problem. You know, you're just solving a problem and creating a problem. You know, and for you to say that, well, they can deliver on the street, that's what we're trying to get rid of. And I don't know how you do that. And he's explained it very well. It can't be done unless you cut some of your development down. Now, I'm not saying you need to do that or that you ought to do it. All I'm saying is for me to support this program the way you want it done, I can't do it. I'm just being honest with you. I can't do it because I see some problems here. And not only because these people are here, who I respect for being here, it's just the fact that I think down the road that you're going to have more problems with this from the standpoint of what you're seeking right now. And I can't do that. And in all due respects to you and to your clients there, I just cannot do it. and Ms. Bell eased this a little bit when she made her presentation because I will tell you I'm ready. I was ready to make a motion to deny this on four real strong rational reasons. But I am also open for you all to take this back to the drawing board to re-look at it again. And if you're not willing to do that. What I'm trying to do is to get some indication of what the members of the board want as opposed to what staff wanted because we thought we had satisfied staff. But you haven't satisfied these people. That appears to be the case. And if the issue is being able to have enough pavement for delivery trucks to turn around, and to have two handicapped parking. If that's what we have to hit, at least we can leave here knowing that's what is expected from another design. But I'm just trying to find out what is the goal that we fail to meet and that we must meet. We thought we had met the goal once we got a staff recommendation of approval. So that's why I'm a little perplexed. about what changes are needed That we give you something rather specific so that when we come back, it's not something else That's what I'm asking for miss Bell. I Think we've reached that to miss bail and and and again all due respects to you I You know I think we we need to have this group to meet with the people across the room over there in engineering and traffic, and we know what these people have done, and we respect what they do. But I think when you have one side of the room approving, the other side of the room not in favor, then I'm open to give you a chance to straighten that out with this side of the room. If you all can come up with something to do it, then I would recommend that this be postponed, not postponed, but continued until May. Because I'm sitting here trying my best to find ways to to vote in your favor I'm telling you that right now, you know And and if you've been around me here in this meeting long enough know that if I was against you there's nothing to change my mind I understand that but but I but I am I Do understand the neighborhood from the standpoint of what they want Versus what you're trying to do And I think this can be a happy medium for both if it's worked out to the point where nobody's put in jeopardy And the safety is there relative to what you are wanting to do and that's just where I am with this I just want to make a clarification of this because we're saying that we have one or two Deliveries a month and and we're trying to respect the neighborhood not tear down our home on 912 Tates Creek It doesn't make sense to take away more green space for one or two deliveries per month We're not talking about... We're just talking about satisfying traffic's requirements. Yeah. With traffic not buying into this plan at this present time is the largest part of the problems that I'm seeing. Okay. You know, personally I'm seeing a parking lot that's behind the parish house that could handle eight or ten vehicles and probably does handle that. handle that going away. I'm seeing a parking lot that probably could accept deliveries with a vehicle delivery truck turning around and pulling back out onto Tates Creek and you know now none of that what is proposed none of that is an option and you know you know. We never get any deliveries off of Tates Creek we just don't they don't put behind our parish house. I don't I don't I don't think I you better you better talk to traffic on that I don't think they're gonna like the idea of you know delivery truck stopping on Melrose Avenue I don't think. The neighborhood is concerned with traffic we're also concerned with proportion though the large size of this facility in a residential neighborhood It is a very large building. Ma'am, they have churches out there on Tache Creek Road across the street from neighborhoods that are larger than this is ever going to be. Oh, sure, yeah. And I'm not, while I respect your concerns, that's not my major issue here. My major issue is safety for people going into this church, coming out of the church, onto roads that are busy with traffic. I respect what you're saying but up and down Tate Creek Road there are churches out there that are enormous and That have designs that that are not always pleasant to look at and people live directly across the street from them Much less than 900 feet. So I'm not going to let that deter my vote one way or the other You get together with traffic and understand specifically what they they require that has it is based in an ordinance or something it's not what they that any of us might like aesthetically or anything like that but it has to do with what what the regulations are and really all of them seem to me to address the issue of safety and I don't think any of us want you backing out on roads and things like that and it might involve doing something with that other piece of property that you don't want to tear down I don't know but I think they're they're what's crucial my client has authorized me to support a action to continue this to allow us to satisfy traffic directly rather than indirectly as we have tried to up to now yeah so if that is an action that the board will consider we will support that we will try to have a modification that hopefully all of you could support mr. council I think you're very wise that's a that's a that's a great idea mr. grad and we appreciate that and I did want to say one other thing mr. chair if I may I think that that that would probably satisfy this this board and you know as mr. stout pointed out that sometimes that the two sides don't always agree and and and with planning they do a terrific job for us we don't always agree with them 100% of the time either and and obviously there are sometimes issues that are brought up and and that's why we have these type of meetings so we can all make sure that we're all all singing from that same hymnal we will try to sing from the Orthodox in emerald thank you thank you very very much thanks to channel yes was that something mr. Brock I just wanted to make one comment no stormwater has been an issue that has come up to some extent today and if you are looking at having them go back to redesign the site to comply with some parking regulations I'm just wanting you to understand that that may not necessarily comply with stormwater regulations so it might be good to have both of those issues addressed instead of doing something parking related and then it causing problems stormwater related so I appreciate that very much you know mr. I would yeah I don't know if you can do this in 30 days time I don't know if you'd like a continuance for 60 days but you know the the appreciate what they're attempting to do with the water runoff collection area reuse and so forth however I don't know how much of that has been put forth before the engineers that would be a good suggestion as well as making sure everything else is in compliance when we're changing making changes as well. Mr. Chairman if my client and I recognize that additional time is needed we will certainly communicate with staff and communicate with this board. My hope is that we we will be able to satisfy these requirements within 30 days and I would like to ask that you schedule us back here on May 30th. Okay. I appreciate that. I would also like to say I appreciate everybody's concern, neighborhood as well. You know, I'm not going to apologize for a continuance because I think it's most appropriate. I thank everyone for taking this time to be here today though and if need be be back on May 30th. So if I'm understanding things right, Mr. Grady and his applicant are in agreement to a postponement for 30, I'm sorry, yes, a continuance for 30 days. I would hope everyone else would be as well. So I'd ask for a motion. So moved. Second. Motion has been made and... Any questions? Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for the continuance of CV 2008-24 the Pananiya Greek Orthodox Church all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed motion passes thank you all mr. chairman I have a question if my memory is correct we were to in the fall review the Catholic schools responsibility it was a condition that if the church traffic on clay's mills increased by 10% or more they were to put in a turn lane okay and we've not done that and I think we ought to because from the last time we discussed this you pointed out traffic pointed out that the traffic had increased more than 10% mr. Gallimore mr. Bryan do you all have any information as to whether any further investigation on this or looking into this has taken place as far as I believe it's Mary Queen is a Mary Queen of the Holy Rosary the church out on in school out on Clay's Mill traffic wise any studies done as far as the amount of traffic yes I believe mrs. Bell would like for you to look into that to then you probably have to get with building inspection I don't know if staff would be needed or not to look into that as far as if there's a study that has been done if not could you report back and let us know what is going on when you say a study now when Mary Queen came through they did do some counts of their existing traffic and then they did some calculations of what they would be adding to that traffic I guess I'm not seeing the applicability of the Mary Queen study to do to do what I remember is that we were discussing this talk about rescheduling it to schedule it because it was just like a six-month review or something and the other conditions was that you said well it's over 10% because of a study that was done I know that's why I said what he provided that information what we did with Mary Queen is is we tried to strike a deal with them that through their increased enrollment that they would not increase traffic and what the mindset was was to give financial incentives to the parents to enhance carpooling they did not meet that goal but they did they did their traffic was not proportionally increased by their increase enrollment so there was some help so that's that's what we try to work out with Mary Queen like I said it wasn't successful but I think everyone kind of felt that they made an honest effort towards meeting that goal and it's just hard to get people to to share rides it's a condition are you going to enforce them or not and so I think we cannot be selected for something the review was completed for that facility yeah my concern with this site was too you know we kind of discussed some handicapped parking in a pickup drop-off area combination delivery lane I can't force them to build an inspection to provide any on-site parking so you know my other concern is you're growing the church which increases parking demands and you're eliminating the on-site parking that they have so you're kind of you know you're really gonna I feel that it's really gonna stress the situation on the street but I think mrs. Bell's concern was was a traffic study that was supposed to be done in accordance with Mary Queen of the Holy Rosary after a certain time period had taken that like that was doing by the applicant okay yes that was done and that's what I'm saying they we had an initial target not to increase the number of trips inside the to the church for school purposes mm-hmm they they did it before and after study and their after study they did not meet the goal but we felt that they made a pretty good effort and they did not increase proportionally by the increase in the enrollment so that that was done and I think I still have all that information but was that considered at the six-month review was that done before the six-month review I think that's where we did it I think maybe if we look at the minutes of that meeting where we had the six-month review because I think that was all discussed and we could at least come back in May and let the board know exactly what the staff believes the status is of that condition it may be that that that report came back and when the conditions were reviewed at the six month review it made it maybe that the board determined that adequate steps were taken by the applicant to in in spirit fulfill that requirement I just don't remember the facts of it so I think I think my memories know that it all was as successful as what I'd originally plan so I will review the minutes of the review and and the wording of the conditions and determine whether legally there's anything else that they need to fulfill on that aspect okay the other thing I thought I'd mention to you also that didn't come up is another reason I'm more sensitive to increasing traffic on Melrose and parking we're probably going to have to yell a curb that approach to taste Creek from Melrose because people are parking right there coming off of Tate's Creek and it's kind of creating a safety concern so we're gonna have to take some down-street parking to make it a safer situation okay that might should have been done already but I guess what my point is you know if we're going to increase the demands we're gonna have to be more concerned about that corner clearance okay if I if I can yeah right we may a motion on this is continued the opposition is left the applicant is walking out the door I'm very concerned about evidence seeming to be going in the record after we've in essence ended this I think maybe the comments should be saved for the continued you know just because any people aren't here to respond thank you miss Bowen are there any other board items at this point in time that I'm a wheelchair okay one real quick before we get to that stuff it's real quick staff items there's a house training opportunity Wednesday May 28 2008 4 p.m. Division planning conference room it's May 21st Mr. Chairman yep I'm sorry May 21st okay anything else from the staff no if not motion has been made and second for adjournment all those in favor please say aye I will reconvene you may 30th Thank you. Thank you.