Music I'm going to go ahead and put it in the middle of the road. I'd like to I'd like to welcome everyone to the May 30, 2008 Board of Adjustment meeting. And at this time, I believe we did not have any minutes for approval, so we'll move on. And I ask for any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. MR. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I'm Bruce Simpson. Here on behalf of Cardinal Hill Hospital, which is identified in terms of its legal designation as an applicant on page number six, item four, we'd like to request a one-month postponement. One of the adjoining neighbors had some questions about our application. We wanted the opportunity to meet with them and come back at the June meeting if the board would so grant our request. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. in the audience that would be in opposition to this one-month postponement? If not, entertain a motion from the board. So moved. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been moved and seconded for a 30-day postponement until the June 27, 2008 meeting for CV 2008-51, Kentucky Easter Seals Society Incorporated. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Yes, ma'am. I'm not opposed, but in view of the seriousness of the sewer situation and so forth, one of the questions I had in this situation was whether or not there's adequate sewage to take care of the expansion, and is it since there's going to be a postponement, Is this something we could ask them to explore before next month? Be happy to address it. I anticipate that will be a question, Ms. Bell. Yes. And storm waters as well. I understand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Obviously due to what has occurred with the city government with the EPA decree and so forth, I'm sure this question will come up and will be addressed on several situations. Yes, next. My name is Marshall Estep. I'm here on behalf of the Panagia Panta Vasilisa Greek Orthodox Church. It's on page four. In conjunction with your all's recommendation last month to remedy our handicap parking problems and additional parking, we've run into another snag that we need to get a reduction in our setback from the Planning Commission. And to do that we need to prepare an application to them. We anticipate doing that at their August 11th meeting, which is two months. So we're requesting a 90-day extension from today to your what I assume is end of August meeting. Is that Yes. Could. August 22nd. August 22nd. Okay. So you're asking for a postponement until August 27th? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, sir. Anyone? Mr. Chairman, just since that's a fairly long postponement, we probably will have to re-notice. So if you just be aware of that, we'll have to send out new letters to the property owners. Okay. Certainly. Okay. that would be in opposition to this postponement? Any questions from the board? So moved. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until the August 22nd. Okay, thank you. 2008 for CV 2008-24. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Maloney. Please, Phil Maloney here on behalf of George and Grace Nays. I believe that's on page one of your docket. We were here last month and we asked for a postponement. I'm asking for another postponement for several reasons. One reason is that some of the utilities, for instance, Windstream didn't get out there until yesterday to look at the property. Secondly, we were able to meet with the building inspector's office and the builder that constructed this Florida room and deck just this past Wednesday. We need some time to work with the builder about a possible redesign that might resolve and come to some sort of resolution of this, which is going to require some ongoing discussion with him because we're not sure if he's real agreeable about rectifying some of the problems that we attribute to him. But we would like a 60-day postponement to follow that up because it's going to require discussing several options, all of which have financial considerations. Is this postponement for the 60 days going to involve discussions with the staff relative to their recommendation of disapproving? I'm hoping it will not require the removal of the entire addition, but it's going to require some design work and some exploration as to the cost of that design work and perhaps some demolition and rebuild. Had you planned to discuss any of this with the staff relative to their recommendation? Yes, I do. But I've got to have a design first. Right, sir. Okay. Anyone present that would be in opposition to this request for a postponement? Any other questions from the board or staff? So move it, Mr. Chair. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement of 60 days July 25th July 25th until July 25th meeting all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed thank you guys thank you mr. Maloney thank you any other requests for postponements or with yes ma'am Suzanne Van Word on behalf of CrossFit Lexington we have an appeal pending job on page 7C 2008-35 for 2610 Palumbo. We'd like to withdraw that appeal, please. Okay. What number is that? It's C2008-35. Let's see, CrossFit that's on Palumbo Drive. Asking for a withdrawal. Okay. And I guess you would be before us here shortly for the other one. Yes, sir. Okay. Staff, okay? Yes, we are. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Bolin, no motions needed on that. Thank you, ma'am. Any other requests for postponement or withdrawals? Yes, sir. This is in regards to C-200850. Is this appropriate time to present? I'm sorry, which one? C-200850. And the name? Logan Weiler III is my name. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm still apologizing. My question is, am I up here too early to talk about that case? I'm still, yes. Too early. Too early. Pardon me. Okay. Yes. Yes. That will come up a little bit later. Thank you. I'm sorry. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? If not, I will make a statement that anyone wishing to receive a transcript of this, you can check with the staff for this. And it can be prepared at your expense. And at this time... Show them cell phones or all. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stout. I would ask anyone with cell phones to either silence them or turn them off, one of the two. And at this time, anyone that does plan to speak today, provide testimony of any sort, I would ask that you stand now to be sworn in. And raise your right hand. Do you swear the information you are about to give shall be the truth today? Please say I do. Okay. Thank you. What the agenda, the order of this today, we will try and dispose of the non-discussion items first. Those are the ones that have been approved and require little or no discussion. discussion and it appears that the first one on the agenda today would be V 2008-52 Wynn Morris and Victoria Sward who appeals for a variance to reduce the required side yard side street yard along Skane Alley from nine feet eleven inches to seven three seven feet three and one half inches in order to construct a detached garage in a two-family residential historic district overlay zone on property located at 147 Forest Avenue, Council District 3. The applicant or representative present? Yes, please come forward. State your name and address for us, please. Tim Dobson. Tim Dobson? Yes. Okay. I'm here on behalf of poll rolls of poll. Okay. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval of this subject to three conditions. Have you or the applicant read the conditions and agree with them? Yes. Yes. Any questions or comments from the staff or board? Is there anybody in here in opposition to this? Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. We need to go through that. Is there anyone in opposition to this request? Present? No? Okay. Thank you. At this time, since you are present here, we will continue. Any questions from the board? No? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move that V-2008-52, Winn-Morris and Victoria swore the appeals for a variance to reduce the required side street yard along scheme alley from 9 feet 11 inches to 7 feet 3.5 inches in order to construct a detached garage and a two-family residential historic district overlay. An R2 zone slash H1 zone on property located at 147 Forest Avenue will be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the three conditions. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of V2008-52, Wynn Morris and Victoria Swart. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. And let me back up for one moment and run through this agenda real quick as far as anyone that might be in opposition to any of these that's scheduled on the docket either for approval or disapproval. V2008-53 Sheila Flynn or V2008-54 Sheila Flynn. Anyone in opposition to this? No? One is? No, let me run through the agenda first. And what I would ask since we've started here is that anyone that might be here in opposition to any of the cases, try and get with the appellant in between time. It might be more of a question that could be answered as to a real opposition, and it would help speed up the process. Let me continue through the agenda with that then. Anyone in opposition to V2008-55, Douglas and Dorothy Johnson here present today? V2008-56, David Coven. Anyone in opposition to this? CV2008-44, CNG Construction Company, LLC. This is for the property at 1705 Jennifer Road and 1504 Green Hills Road. Anyone in opposition to this? Next one will be CV2008-45, C&G Construction Company, LLC, for property located at 6295 8th and Spoonsboro Road. Anyone in opposition to this? No. The next one would be C2008-32, Johnny Winchester. Anyone here present in opposition to this? Okay. Thank you, sir. C2008-36, Liberty Ridge Senior Living. Anyone in opposition to this continuance present today? No. C2008-42, Kristen Meadows. Okay, thank you, ma'am. C, ma'am, we'll come to you and just be patient. C2008-43, Carla Jackson Stovall. Anyone here in opposition to this request today? Yes, one, okay. C2008-46, Lexington Dolphins. Anyone present in opposition to this? C2008-47, the Foundation for Advanced Architecture. Anyone present in opposition to this? C2008-48, CrossFit Lexington, LLC. Anyone in opposition to this? C2008-49, Twin Pines Christian Church. Anyone in opposition to this case? And then the last one is C2008-50, CMW Incorporated, Copper Hill Kingdom Hall. Anyone present in opposition to this request? Okay. Thank you. I would ask once again that anyone in opposition to any of these try and get with the representative. And hopefully questions can be answered. and simply that be questions and not in opposition. However, we are here to listen to everyone. We'll proceed on with the ones scheduled for approval without opposition, and that would be V2008-58, I'm sorry, 2008-56 David Colvin, who appeals for a variance to reduce the required side yard from three feet to zero feet in order to allow a fence to remain where located in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone property located 609 Skyview Lane Council District 12. Mr. Colvin, our representative here. Yes, please come forward. What number is it? State your name. I'm David Colvin. Okay, thank you, Mr. Colvin. The staff has recommended approval of this subject to three conditions. Have you read the three conditions and agree with them? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the board or comments from the staff on this? What will be the setback from the pool to the front? This is not the one revolving around the pool. This is 609 Skyview Lane, David Colvin. Mr. Marks, could you put a picture as far as this drawing? I'm sure. Let everyone take a look at it. You want the site plan or a picture of the site? Both. Both. just so that everyone is understanding what we're talking about. If I'm correct, subject property is to the left? Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. And now the fence that is in question, is it coming away from the one perpendicular to the house or running parallel to the side of the house? Well, this doesn't really show it too well. We'll move over to the site plan now that you've seen this one. Okay. If you kind of focus in this area right up in here, the ordinance allows the fence to come up to the back corner of the residence, which would be right in here. In this case, there's an offset between the rear of the adjoining residences right here versus right here. ordinance would allow this property owner to build a fence right along the property line all the way up to that corner. It would not allow the adjoining property owner that's the subject property to do the same thing because of the way that the rear of the house is situated. So it's one of those kind of quirky situations from a practical standpoint there's no difference on whose fence it is, the fence is there. Aside from that the only difference would be do you allow a connection from that magic point right there over there or do you require him even if there's a fence right in here perhaps the adjoining property owners do you require him to make a connection back there and we saw no benefit in requiring that so we recommended approval of the variance okay thank you thank you mr marks any other questions miss bell when was the fence built uh just after we We closed on the house about a year ago. Mr. Did you make any effort to check with, to get a, whether or not you needed a building permit? Mr. We actually contracted the fence out and the contractor took care of all of that. Mr. Are you saying that you had a building permit to do that? Mr. I honestly did not see the original permit, so. The contractor who built the fence for us I assume applied for it. The contractor tell you that he had obtained a building permit? He informed me that there could be an issue with the fence where he had put it but he He didn't state that it was in violation of code or anything of that nature. But he said there might be a problem with it. Yes. Did you ask him what kind of a problem? He said that in previous houses or previous fences he's built that the code is required where it was but he said because of the exception and the location of the adjoining property that it should that he presumed it would be acceptable. He's not infringing on his neighbor's property. No, he's not. Thank you. Any other questions? I would ask the staff a question, but it would cause for you to delay this meeting. And I don't want to do that any longer, and I have to, but I don't understand all of that, why one can do it and the other can't, you know, technically. And I understand that the staff has recommended approval of it, but it just doesn't seem to me like that should have been a case that had come before this board in the first place. That's my opinion. If I can respond to that, you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis no matter how much it doesn't make sense. Well, if you look at that, it doesn't make sense. A lot of the ordinance doesn't. Thank you, Mr. Hume. Any other discussion? Otherwise, I'll call for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to item V-2008-56, David Colvin. Colvin appeals for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 3 feet to 0 feet in order to allow fence to remain. We're located in planned neighborhood residential and property located at 609 Skyview Lane. Be approved. I'll second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of V2008-56, David Colvin. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Colvin. Mr. Cohen, I would suggest to you that it might be helpful to people in the future if you contact the contractor and remind him that it might be helpful for him to look on the website of building inspection to find out about how important getting building permits are and to give people accurate information. Absolutely. I have a considerable issue with him that he didn't bring this to my attention, so I will certainly talk to him about that. It's a situation that we see all too frequently, and unfortunately we have to deal with it after the fact. Thank you, Mr. Colvin. Thank you. The next case to be heard will be CV 2008-44. C&G Construction Company, LLC, appeals for a conditional use permit to construct a church addition family life center and an additional off-street parking and a variance to reduce the required side street side yard along Gaydrey Road from 30 feet to 24 feet to allow the building expansion in a two-family residential R2 zone and a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 1705 Jennifer Road and 1504 Green Hills Road, Council District 6. Yes, sir. Your name? Wayne Cowan with CNG Construction. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cowan. Thank you. Uh, let me get to this. The staff has recommended approval of this, uh, both the conditional use permit and the requested variants subject to six conditions. Have you read the conditions and agree with them? Yes, sir. Okay. Any questions or comments from the staff or board? Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I have a question. Is this a situation where we should raise question whether or not there is existing sewerage facilities that might be created by this addition? or any additional whether or not there is sufficient stormwater facility? I think that'd be a question for the engineers. Well, for the most part, I would agree with both Mrs. Bell and Mr. Stout. It is. And as mentioned earlier, as we were getting started, sewer capacity stormwater management has really come to focus in the last year. Ms. Boland, do you have any suggestions on this? Yes. Ms. Boland, I think one of the... Ms. Bell, I'm sorry. My question was to Ms. Boland if she had any suggestions on aiding with this. Or I could address it to Mr. Baraki. If you give me just a second, I'm working on some wording that engineering thinks would probably be appropriate. Okay. Thank you. In the meantime, we do have some letters here. We've got, I guess, it looks like two letters. One is in opposition to this, and both are in opposition to this. Mr. Cowan, did you know of this opposition? Yes, and I spoke with Ms. Saylor. I wasn't aware of the other letter. Lois Saylor was one of the oppositions. We spent some time going through the neighborhood and talking to neighbors. And I did speak with her. And after I spoke with her, she was in concurrence. Many of her objections were the construction process and the dust that it would create during the time. Okay. The other one is from a Danny Norton on Gay Green. We tried many times to contact him, was not able to contact him. I stopped by his house and was not able to talk with him directly. Not aware of that objection. Within your construction plans, did you all or have you given Ms. Bell's concern before you started this, did you ask questions or did you research or did you do anything that would cause this question to be questioned? We have analyzed the situation. We are currently going to build in an existing parking lot so the storm drainage runoff would be we're reducing the size of that parking lot by demolishing it and making a smaller addition. So basically your stormwater runoff off the top of the building would come down in a controlled manner and be dispersed in a manner not quite unlike what's there already. So the sheet drainage that the parking lot would have is very similar to what we would get off of our roof. So it is a hard scape right now. Is this a flood plain area? No, sir. Not to my information. I don't believe so. And as a follow-up, Mr. Cowan, sewage capacity, have you all looked into that? We haven't looked into the thoroughly. We are only revising the existing. We are not adding one toilet in the area for a nursery. So the existing sewage capacity for the church is at a 250 occupancy and we're not increasing the occupancy at all. Are you increasing the daycare you mentioned for the children? It's not a daycare. It's just a nursery. And we're just putting a small restroom in there to be accessible so that they don't have to go around to the men's and women's restroom and use it, it would be a convenience item in the nursery there right next to the men's and women's restroom. So there would be one toilet increased. Is it a nursery that is only used when the church? That is correct. Only for services or special events that the church needs a nursery to watch small children for. It is not an active daycare or anything of the sort. Thank you Mr. Cowan. I think you can appreciate after you you're I'm sure a resident or do quite a bit of business here and and with what has taken place both is a major concern at this time. I think we've got language coming. Let me have the staff put this up on the screen. Do you want me to read that in case there's any problems with my scribbles? Please go ahead since it's your handwriting. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall comply with any request for information or studies on sewer capacity if the applicable divisions determine such is needed. We word it that way because this could be kind of a joint question between engineering and the Division of Water and Air Quality. And if those divisions determine it's not going to be an issue in a particular case, then, you know, they wouldn't have to perform a study. but that gives them the leeway to do so if it's an issue in that particular area. You okay with that, Mr. Cowell? Is that an additional condition then added to this request? We're asking if you'd be acceptable to that at this point? Yes, I believe so. Okay. That would be the seventh condition then, Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. So now we have seven conditions to this. Any other questions? Yes, I have a question. Yes, sir. Rochelle, what if, and I know you don't like hypotheticals, but does this condition in any way make it possible if, for example, it would be found that there is not sufficient sewage capacity? Would this alone make it possible for the city then not to issue the building permit? Yeah, if the infrastructure is not there, I think they would be required to either take whatever steps would be necessary to satisfy the public health issues, or they would not be issued a grading or building permit. Thank you. I think the issue is that internally the administration is still working on exactly what processes are going to be set up to manage this issue. And so we tried to keep the condition such that it would be adaptive to whatever processes are created for requiring reports and such. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bellman. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to recommend CV2008-44 C&G Construction Company, LLC, appeal for a conditional use permit to construct a church addition family life center, an additional off-street parking, and a variance to reduce the required side street yard along Gedry Road from 30 feet to 24 feet to allow the building expansion in a two-family residential R2 zone and a single-family residential R1C zone on properties located at 1705 Jennifer Road and 1504 Green Hills Road in Council District 6 be approved with the six the seven recommendations approved by staff Second. Thank you. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of CV 2008-44 C&G Construction Company, LLC. And this is for property located at 1705 Jennifer Road and 1504 Green Hills Road. Motion has been made and seconded for approval. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Next case. Yes, don't go anywhere. CV 2008-45 CNG Construction Company LLC appeals for a conditional use permit to construct an 888 square foot addition to a church fellowship hall and to rebuild a detached garage and a variance to reduce the required rear yard from 25 feet to 4 feet in order to allow construction of the garage in the agricultural rural zone on property located at 6295 8th and Spoonsboro Road Council District 12. Mr. Cowan. Yes. The request here is recommended for approval subject to three conditions. Have you read the conditions? Yes, I have. And I agree with them. Yes, sir. Ms. Bell, do you see a need for a fourth condition on this? Yes, the same one that we had. The same one. And would agree to that also. Okay. Thank you. Would note though that this is a private, it's private sewer, private water, or a private sewer and private disposal. So they're on their own system basically. Okay. We don't have any problems with the conditions. We'll make sure that there's no problem with that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move that CV-2008-45. C&G Construction Company, LLC, appeals for a conditional use permit to construct an 888-square-foot addition to a church fellowship hall to rebuild a detached garage, an aberrance to reduce required rear yard from 25 feet to 4 feet in order to allow construction of the garage and agriculture rule AR zone on property located at 6295 Athens-Boonesboro Road, Council District 12, be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of CV 2008-45 C&G Construction Company. This property located at 6295 Athens-Boonesboro Road. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Thank you very much. Our next case that we'll go to, I think, will be C2008-32, Johnny Winchester, who appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a vehicle storage yard in a light industrial I-1 zone on property located at 2245 Frankfurt Court, Council District 12. Mr. Winchester I'm Johnny Winchester Approved for this conditional use permit the only thing that it's going to be hard for me to do is Gravel I mean blacktop this whole lot I talked to CNR asphalt and they want about $140,000 to start off with the blacktop this lot. It's sitting on limestone, it's sitting on the top. There's no creek around it. What I mean by top to top of the elevation. And I've got some pictures here if you all don't mind looking at them. It shows the city's property around it. It shows the city's property around They're on blacktop and they've also got quite a bit of gravel around that. And there's not an inbound lot in this town that has a blacktop completely. It's gravel or concrete or gravel or partials. If you can see the property right there you're looking at, it's that big, there's a big building there to the bottom. I don't know how to phrase this. I don't have no details. I brought a picture for everybody. That's the entrance to the location there. It's block top going in. That's old Frankfort Court. And that's the parking lot going up to the back lot. Now right there is the back lot on the left hand side and that's excluded, it's been growed up for years. There's never been developed there. That's what I mean by the top of the plain, it's sitting on limestone rock and it's a good base there and there's no creek. And that's the other back of the lot. And the back side of this here faces the fleet services, which actually that's where they park the police cruisers and the trucks and the cars that need to be worked on as wreck and all that. And that's the other side of the lot that actually the police in Palma lot is over there on the right hand side. It's where they use for fleet services, and they also park the, I think, the drug cars there. I think I might be mistaken on that. Of course, you can see some more vehicles. I took that picture from the street just to show you how the city's lot is there and how it sits right beside of it. That's another picture of the back. now this right here if you'll scoot that picture over a little bit and see the police car there that's a gravel lot right there that's what actually backs up to the other lot that i'm trying to get a permit for and then there it is again it's same thing that's a gravel lot back in there now they do have you know blacktop closer to the building but lord have mercy city's got a lot more money than I've got. But that's the reason I can afford to do it on a gravel lot, but on a blacktop lot, it would be almost impossible for me to do it. And like I say, there's Bluegrass towing, there's Windchap, there's towing, and there's Metro towing. There's three impoundment lots in Laxanon, and then there's KASP, and then there's KSP and then the other one, there's another lot out on Blue Sky 2. All those do have gravel lots on them. They park cars on the gravel lots. I know it is a Sichel and I know that it would be an ideal situation to put the blacktop underneath of that. But if you look at what you can afford to do when you're trying to put a lot together like this to start off with, now eventually, sure, I'd love to put a blacktop down. Mr. Winchester, I can appreciate your keen interest in the financial situations of this, and I don't blame you. As far as I'm concerned with the board, this is something that we've got to look at moving forward and not necessarily look at backwards as to what has occurred in the past and so forth. Mr. Hume, do you have any, can you supply any information as to any allowances that might be allowed? No, sir. We support it being black topped. So in other words, Mr. Winchester, the pavement would be required prior to a certificate of occupancy on this situation? Okay. Yes, sir. Of which, you know, I would feel compelled to see that there's a condition seven that asks this vehicle storage lot shall be fenced, paved, and spaces delineated prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the building inspection. Yes, sir. Okay. You would be agreeable to that? Yes, sir, but the only thing I can agree to everything else except for the paved lot. We've got problems if you can't agree with that. I know it. I know it. That's the reason I come to talk because it's the only thing I can do. Let me ask the staff and also the building a question. Knowing how hard rock he is over there, I'm going to ask him anyway. Does it say it has to be blacktop or concrete or what? Be either one. Solid surface. So it can't be rolled rock? No, sir. I tried. I know it. I appreciate it. Mr. Winchester, my thought would be for your purpose, if you're not agreeable to this at this time, it may be better for you to just simply ask for a withdrawal as opposed to being disapproved, which would prevent you from coming back at some point in time if you decided to change. Well, let me ask for a withdrawal then because I would. Would that be appropriate, Ms. Bowlin? Before you withdraw, let me ask one other question to building again. Realizing the financial impact that this is putting on the gentleman, could he get by with paving a percentage of it and with a requirement of him pave it within a specific time? And with you all determining which portion of it he paved? So I can determine he needs to pave 90% of it? Well, I understand what you're getting at. If he does that, we would want the non-paved area barricaded so he couldn't use it because I think that would be fair. You would have a grass. I think that would be fair. If he wants to pave 50%. I don't want to drag it out for 10 years if he wants to pave half now. I think we need to give him a specific time to get it done in writing. And if he doesn't, then he comes back before us, and that won't be very pleasant. Yeah, right. That's solid. Now, it has to be every time the first half needs to be paved, lined, landscaped, the whole nine yards. Yeah. 12 months later the remaining lot has to be done so or we come back in here for revocation that's right yeah that'd work say thanks thank you sir see it's not that bad i appreciate it a lot we we may need a condition written in regards to that primarily to work with building inspection and also i think i think also Mr. Chair that Mr. Winchester needs to put his hand to a piece of paper relative to this agreement so that there is no reversible discussions relative to what your responsibilities are yeah yeah sir you're right if you don't mind I was going to ask for a third and a third and a third I'd rather do it in two shots. I kind of agree with that. I kind of agree with that. I think it's 50% now and 50% later. Another option to make that easier initially would be to reduce the overall size of the storage yard that's proposed. So half of that might be equivalent to a third of what he's currently proposing. But he'd have to revise his site plan to reflect that. If the overall size of the storage yard is reduced. I mean, it's a pretty bark storage yard with 170-some spaces. I mean, it's substantial. And if you do that, you'll have to come back before us to get it approved again. Yes, sir. Can I make a suggestion that we postpone it for 30 days, let him revise his site plan, bring it up to me. We'll make up an agreement about what we're doing. Good. Put his hand to it, and then bring it back in 30 days for your approval. So what do you do now? I ask for a postponement. I want you to ask for a 30-day postponement. I ask for a 30-day postponement. Mr. Winchester, let me ask this, not to put the cart before the horse. Your intentions is that of a vehicle storage yard, not any sort of wrecked or junked vehicles. That's all I want is a vehicle storage lot. and the reason I'd like to have that lot is because I have not done any impounds for Fayette County. I didn't really want to get involved in that. And there's other companies that's going to be not having a place to park cars. So what happens if, I mean, I'm just throwing stuff up for suggestion. What happens if you've got a bunch of cars that's out here that's wrecked on the streets and then you don't have any place to take the car because nobody can afford a lot like that to start off with. I know Bluegrass has got it now, but what happens if they lost their lease? What would you do then? You know, I mean, that's just a scenario. Does that make any sense what I just said? Yes. You're banking on someone else's bad luck. No, I'm not banking on somebody's bad luck. I'm saying what happens if the reason I'd like to get into it is because I need to make a more profitable business because of this fuel economy. This fuel is killing me. And everybody is saying the same thing. If I could just go tow somebody's car and not ever tow anybody's car didn't want to be towed, I'd rather do that. But with this economy the way it is, I won't have to go to the family. The usage is a major issue. Mr. Winchester, what are you planning on bringing into this lot? Just cars that's been wrecked for storage just until the insurance company comes and gets that car and tows it away for a storage facility. Now, the city's got two terminologies of storage facilities, and one of them should be considered an inbound lot, and the other should be a salvage lot. But they're both warded in the, as far as the zoning goes, in the storage lots. But I don't plan on junking, obsoleting, or dismantling any car because I don't want to be in that kind of business anyway. Mr. Hume? Can you help us with vehicle storage definition? That's what I'm trying to find out. A disagreement about what we're doing here. So if you could give us a minute. You get into that vehicle storage and you open up a whole can of worms. And that's the truth. The President Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Hamm. Could I ask you to continue on with the rest of the docket? Let's set this aside for a few minutes while we can do some research on this to keep things moving along. I would, yeah, we could do that. Or as, you know, Mr. Winchester did offer a continuance for 30 days, and this discussion can take place with both things being of particular interest. one the definition of vehicle storage lot what his intentions are and then also work on the paving and asphalting yes sir that'd be great okay make a 30 day so mr. Winchester a 30-day continuance is to your liking yes sir if you don't mind I just send those 60 days that gives me okay if you don't mind that way you gives you plenty of time to research okay if not 30 days is I have no problem myself with 60 days. The primary consideration would be that you work with staff and Mr. Hume build an inspection to iron out all of these differences then. Mr. Chair, I move. He gets 60 days. Continued. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for a continuance of 60 days. That would be the July? July 25th. 25th. 25th, thank you. Meeting for 2008. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, sir. Thank you. Sir, may I ask you to continue? Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Please come forward. My name is Paul Rose. I'm adjoining, well, I don't adjoin the property. I've got a property about two doors up from this property. My main concern is not to have a junkyard and I think If in accordingly one of the conditions here this would be no wrecks Automobiles or trucks are gonna be brought to I don't mind the man using the property for you know in and out trucking or whatever But I don't want a junkyard we've got a nice subdivision and I just that's my objection I think that's one of the main concerns for everybody involved here. Mr. Rose. I appreciate it very much and if I'm sorry I missed bringing you to the podium, but with your allowance, we will continue with this for 60 days and see if we can work things out. I appreciate it. According to one of the conditions, it pretty much addressed the fact that there would have to be operable automobiles or whatever, and then there would be no junk. Correct. Thank you very much. Thank you. I believe our next case would be C2008-36 Liberty Ridge Senior Living. This is a continuance as far as an appeal 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 for our representative? Yes sir, your name sir? Good afternoon I'm Jim Black with JE Black at 735 Red Mile Road. Thank you for returning sir. This is recommended for approval. If Mr. Marks, if you would please bring us, give us a brief review. I think most of us remember, but give us a brief review as to what took place last month. Yeah, very briefly. The issue that came up last time was the removal of vegetation, which may have included some trees along the backside of the property there was a resident there that was concerned about the scope of the removal that took place there so it was continued in order for the applicant and that adjoining neighborhood to work out some kind of agreement with regard to revegetating or otherwise modifying their plans so it was more agreeable to the adjoining neighbors and this is the revised plan that mr. black will need to explain because I'm just seeing it for the first time myself. Okay, thank you. So in your opinion the neighbors have agreed to these changes? I've been told by Mr. Black they met with the neighbors several times and worked out an agreement so he can fill you in on the details. Is this the case, Mr. Black? Yes, we held two on-site meetings with the neighbors that were interested in this process and addressed their issues. Ridge wants to be a good neighbor and in order and we have a private agreement on all of those issues. In order to meet their concerns, we had to make some slight changes in the plan that has been before you and before the Planning Commission. And if I can show you the changes very quickly. Very quickly, because I'm not sure this is very relevant now, to tell you the truth. It's relevant, Mr. Chairman, because of the site plan we approve if we get to that point. We'll need to make sure we address the right site plan. Okay. We at least want to build what you think we're going to build. We appreciate that. So there had been a one of the issues for the neighbors was a walking path. These are for the occupants of the facility, and we originally had it going along this property line. These neighbors did not want that walking path there, so Liberty Ridge agreed to not have it there. The neighbors along Tinmouth Vale, which is these neighbors here, also did not want the walking path, at least very close to their property. But we have agreed to move it at least 12 feet away from the property line. And they wanted us to maintain this tree row, which in order to do that, and we've agreed, and in order to do that, we had to move these houses forward. Moving them forward meant bowling that road. And that's the extent of the issues that I think need to come before this board. We have the same number of housing units. We have the same square footage. We'll have the same parking places. We're just moving the road and a few buildings in order to accommodate the requests of the neighbors. Okay. So the individuals over there in the three houses there did not want the walking path. They'll use your walking path, won't they? The plan is to encourage these people to exercise, and yes, the hope is that they will use the path. They just didn't want anybody exercising in front of their house, is that what it is? So they said. I appreciate your efforts. I can say that much. From what I heard last month, the main concern was the cutting of trees, vegetative growth being removed and so forth and after being there within the last week it seemed like the vegetative growth was simply honeysuckle that was long overdue from being grown up and the cleanup is nothing but good as far as I'm concerned you know many of the residents have either walking paths or or gates in their fences to allow access onto your property which I think could be a concern for you. So yeah as I said I think I think you've done well. Any questions any other questions from the board? Mr. Chairman if we could just revise condition number one okay to reflect that it's the submitted application and revised site plan of May 30, 2008. So the expansion shall take place in accordance with the submitted application and revised site plan as of May 30, 2008, or as amended by the Planning Commission? Yes. Okay. Chairman, do you think this is a situation where we should have a certain condition asking whether or not there's sufficient sewage? That means we have the same condition as we had previous in the church? Mr. Black, were you around earlier for the earlier part of the docket listening to sewer capacity? Do you have any problem with something like this, a condition? I have, as a preliminary issue, obviously there has to be sanitary to serve this property. I have had a discussion with the engineers at the sanitary division discussing the line that we would be tying into, and they have given me a preliminary okay that that line has capacity. Okay. So would you be in agreement with a condition as such? Well, yes. They would not sign off on a plan anyway, so I don't see that I'm giving up anything to agree to that condition. Do you need it on the board? No. Before we be? No? Okay. So a seventh condition then? If you could, Mr. Mark, just go ahead and put it back up on the board so that everyone is realizing this. Okay, so the recommendation as approved by Mr. Black is now for seven conditions. of them mentioned in the revision as far as the revised plan as of May 30th and then the seventh condition shown on the board there. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that C-200836 Liberty Ridge Senior Living appeals for a conditional use permit to expand the existing assisted living facilities and agriculture urban zone on property located at 2550 Liberty Road be approved with the seven conditions as recommended by the staff. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of C2008-36 Liberty Ridge Senior Living. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Black. The next on the agenda would be C2008-46 Lexington Dolphins for a conditional use permit to enclose a community swimming pool on a seasonal basis in a single family residential R1 E zone on property located at 621 South Point Drive, Council District 12. Yes, ma'am. Your name? Christina Humphreys, and I represent Lexington Dolphins. The staff has recommended approval for this subject to three conditions. Have you read the three conditions? Yes, I have. And agree with them? I do. Okay. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board or staff? I think we should add the board for the previous about the ceiling. Ms. Bell, in this situation, there's no change. What is this? This is just simply a closure, yes. Okay. So still with three conditions. Any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that C-2008-46 Lexington Dolphins appeal for a conditional use permit to enclose a community swimming pool on a seasonal basis in the single-family residential R1E zone on property located at 621 South Point Drive, Council District 12, be approved subject to the three conditions for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of C-2008-46, Lexington Dolphins. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you Next next case Would be C 2008-47 foundation for advanced architecture Appeals for a conditional use permit to establish a historic house Museum in an expanded area residential e1 ea are one zone Probably located 832 Lock mirror place council district 7 Your name, sir? Gene Alexander. I'm here on behalf of Eagle Engineering. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Staff has recommended approval of this subject to four conditions. Have you read the conditions? Yes, sir, I have. Okay. Agree with them? Yes, sir, I do. Okay. Any questions from the board on this? No? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move that C-2008-47, Foundation for Advanced Architecture Appeals for Conditional Use to Permit to Establish a Historic House Museum, an Expansion Area Residential 1 ER Zone, property on property located at 832 Lock Mirror Place, Council District 7, be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of C2008-47, Foundation for Advanced Architecture. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Alan. The next case would be C2008-48, CrossFit Lexington, LLC. appeals for a conditional use permit to establish an indoor athletic club in a light industrial I-1 zone on property located at 1850 Bryant Road, Council District 6. Yes, ma'am. Suzanne Van Wert, representing CrossFit Lexington. I'm sorry, your last name is? Van Wert. Van Wert? Yes. Thank you. Staff has recommended approval of this subject to three conditions. Have you read the conditions? I have read the conditions and I've advised my clients as to those conditions. They are in agreement with them. Thank you. Any questions from the board on this? If not, yes. Yes. Approximately, how many people do you think on a given day would be attending some activity in this facility? We don't expect any more than 50 people at a given time throughout the day to be attending the facility. Essentially, classes are offered at various times throughout the day and are spread out. So we don't anticipate any more than that at any given time. Any other questions? I have a question and this might be for Jim. What was the determining factor in 50? That was their estimate of what they thought the maximum capacity would be. Okay, I was just wondering if I was going to be in conflict with the occupant load the building may be able to, I didn't want to limit them on something that perhaps the building wasn't capable of or in fact the building was capable of more so. Well, I believe the building has approximately 22,000 square feet of space. I mean, we can limit it to 50. I just had a question of where that number come from. That was our initial computation, the number of people that we anticipate attending an event. How do you manage, how do you plan on enforcing that? Well, we'll limit the size of classes offered throughout the day. Is this more of an aerobics class type atmosphere, or is it a variety of training? It's a variety of training. It's not an aerobic type. Is it always a class format? It's not always a class format, but it is a very structured format. and because it is typically overseen by a limited number of trainers there are only so many people that can participate at a time. Okay that's fine I was just kind of odd that you would limit yourself to so few people in such a large building. Which is fine with me. It may be that later down the line we find that there may be a need to increase that number but we don't anticipate that at this time and based on the fact that this is a new business and a new fitness concept I understand I just didn't want you to handcuff yourself to a certain number if you didn't have to well we're willing to increase that number if the board is willing to do that for us I would recommend just letting the fire department and the building inspector determine your occupant load instead of like you say you know you may be a huge success 22,000 square feet a lot of building yes it is so I just didn't want you to put yourself in a corner and have to come back again sometime if it weren't necessary so thank something to think about mr. chairman in view of the fact that this could be a you know substantial number of people during the day, I think we should have the same condition as related to surge capacity as we have on the other. Enoch? Mr. Brock? with 50 people in the space under consideration. Is this something that's needed here? Since the building is already existing, I don't see the need for that condition on this specific application. Thank you. Could you explain to me, please, what the significance is of the fact that the building is there. The fact that the building exists indicates that the permits were already issued for that construction and the sewer capacity issues would have been considered at that time. It would be interesting to see in the future what if rules apply just to new buildings or old buildings or all buildings. I think what you will see is that it applies to all buildings given the location of it. Mr. Brock? Yes. I have a question for Mr. Brett. Are you saying that condition number three, the athletic club, shall be used by no more than 50 participants at any given time is not necessary? From that standpoint, that would not be a consideration, I don't think. Yeah, we're getting that 50 number mixed up with a lot of different things here. We didn't force that number on the applicant. They volunteered that number. It appeared reasonable to us. We have to determine parking calculations based on participants. We have to adjust things based on other uses that have been approved in this building, which includes a golf simulation facility right next door, which had to go through the same thing to determine parking requirements. We're comfortable with the 50. I would not recommend changing that. The applicant's comfortable with that. And I do not recommend changing it. And if it gets to the point where they grow, then they need to come back before this board and get their approval. I mean, I don't think we need to restrain them anymore, I mean, they've agreed to what they've asked for. So I think if staff is fine with it, this board is fine with it, then let's let these people run on with their business. I agree. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that C-2008-48 CrossFit Lexington appeals for a conditional use permit to establish an indoor athletic facility and light industrial zone on a property located at 1850 Bryant Road be approved with the three conditions as set forth by the staff. Second. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of C-2008-48 CrossFit Lexington, LLC. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next case would be C-2008-49 Twin Pines Christian Church appeals for a conditional use permit to expand the church vestibule office addition in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 1139 Tanvar Council District 12. Is the applicant here? No? Anyone representing or anyone wishing to speak in regards to this? I think we can have anybody speaking. I move this be moved to June. Postponed. Postponed. Staff, you haven't heard anything of this? I have not heard anything from them. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move that this be moved to postpone until June. Can we bring it up again maybe later and see if someone arrives? Yes. We'll hold that postponed. We'll put it at the end of the docket. Next case is C. C. 2008-40. That's all the others. That's all the others, isn't it? No. I think it's item three. Yeah, I think this will be next. The next case will be the variance needed. V2008-53 Sheila Flynn appeals for variance to reduce each required side yard from six feet to two feet in order to construct a single-family residence in a two-family residential R2 zone on property located at 771 Florence Avenue Council District 2. Does the applicant here? Yes, ma'am. I believe there was a person who raised their hand as far as being in opposition to. Is that person still here? She has left. Her question was mainly on the borderlines and she had thought that it might move my property closer to her property. Okay. Okay. Explain to her. It was inside my property line. I'm sorry. Your name for the record? Sheila Flynn. Thank you, Ms. Flynn. This request, which is for 771 Florence Avenue, is recommended for approval subject to two conditions. Have you read the conditions? I read the conditions and I accept the conditions. Okay. Okay. As far as Mr. Hume, I think, or Mr. Marks, as far as the fire safety construction needed here? Absolutely. That's something covered under your building permit, I presume? Will be. Okay. I don't know if you've been made aware of the fire restrictions on this. Yeah, they had called us after we had turned the approval, the paperwork in for the variance approval and informed us about the fire-coded walls. We knew about that and the windows. Yes, ma'am. Okay, just so you're aware that the limitations on those openings and – Yeah. Okay, we're good to go. You're okay with that? Okay. The staff brought it up as far as a possible lot consolidation of three lots to two. You know, it seems reasonable to me. I guess you've got other reasons behind it. In that one location right there, that's a total of four properties. The one that 767, well, both of them are in my name, but I have a vacant lot in between the two. Okay. That does not belong to me. Oh, okay. I think that's the 769. 769 does not belong to you. Right. Okay. All right, Jen. Okay. So any other questions from the board on this? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend that V2008-53 Sheila Flynn's appeal for a variance to reduce each required side yard from six feet to two feet in order to construct a single-family residence in a two-family residential R2 zone on property located at 771 Florence Avenue, Council District 2, be approved with the two recommendations and conditions by staff. Second. Okay, thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of V2008-53 Sheila Flynn. This is for property at 771 Florence Avenue. If there's no other questions, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. The next. She was up again, isn't she? Yes. Yes. is V2008-54. It's same applicant Sheila Flynn appealing for variance to reduce each required side yard from 6 feet to 2 feet in order to construct a single family residence in a 2 family residential R2 zone on property located at 767 Florence Avenue Council District 2. Ms. Flynn would ask once again or state that staff has recommended approval for this subject to two conditions. I set the recommendations of the provost 767. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the board? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. I move that 2008-54 Sheila Flynn's appeal for a variance to reduce each required side yard from six feet to two feet in order to construct a single-family residence in a two-family residential zone and property located at 767 Florence Avenue be approved with the two conditions recommended by the Senate. Thank you. Motion has been made. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of V2008-54 Sheila Flynn for property at 767 Florence Avenue. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Ms. Flint. Thank you. Our next case that we will hear that's recommended for approval is C2008-50, CMW Incorporated, Copper Hill, Kingdom Hall. appeals for a conditional use permit to amend a previously approved site plan for construction of a church for the purpose of revising proposed stormwater management basins and associated parking in a single family residential R1A zone on property located at 1324 Viley Road. Mr. Chairman, just so we don't get confused ourselves over here, did we skip the Johnson appeal on purpose? It is recommended for disapproval. Those disapprovals come after the fact. Mr. Chairman, good morning. I'm Doug Martin, Murphy and Martin, and I'm appearing today on behalf of the Clay's Mill Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have several folks to introduce briefly Mr. Brian Hill of CMW, and he's been one of the main architects on the project. Mr. Leo Cavallaris, who's acting as a developer on behalf of the church, and Mr. Rob McMahon of Bennett Rosser, who's one of our project consultants as well. The church was granted a conditional use permit in November 2006 in order to build a new church at 1324 Valley Road. And today the church is asking to amend its previously approved site plan in order to address technical issues and to put together a final site plan for development. They're going to revise the size and location and configuration of some of the proposed storm water management basins. And they're going to revise the configuration of some of the parking areas. The applicant has read the staff case report and the church agrees to all of the staff's recommendations. The church will reconfigure the parking so that spaces all fall within the 15-foot setback line, particularly those next to Viley Road. And the church will eliminate three parking spaces next to Viley Road due to the sharp left turn angle coming off of Viley Road and to comply with the 50% rule. And the church will also preserve the vegetation that's sitting next to the hammerhead turn off of Sane Road. I'd like to introduce Bill Hill, Brian Hill, excuse me, of CMW, who's going to address the specific changes, why this plan is different than what was approved in 2006. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Brian Hill with CMW Architects Engineers. I realize you can't see any detail here, but I'll describe it to you. This was the plan that was approved two years ago. Can that be put up on the screen? No? Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. I'm just going to give you the context of what we're about today and while we're down here. The focus two years ago pretty much was the land use designation, a conditional use for a church. We indicated 115 parking spaces, the size of the church, the square footage, the setbacks and so on and so. The information that we used when we did the development plan for the church project was based on aerial photography information, some data information, some very crude boundary information and again the focus was the land use scenario. When we actually received the topographic and boundary survey, it was just a little bit different from what we worked with. So in order to have the program fit on the site with 115 parking spaces, the same combined square footage for the buildings and so on, some minor changes had to be made. And let me tell you one that impacted the development more than any of them. This green area is, I'll term it the environmentally sensitive area. we're at the bottom of that slope, there's a pond on the adjoining property. There's some tree massing in this particular area. When we got the topo, we started the construction drawings, we went out in the field, we met with Jim Redman with the city. It was sort of agreed in the field that if we did not grade to beyond a certain point, we would not impact, if you will, that environmentally sensitive area. Well, that area was a little different than we were more generous, if you will, with their initial conceptual plan than perhaps we should have been because we just didn't understand the topography and so on. So the new plan, we had parking in this area here. We had to pull this curb line back, take this parking and adjust it and shift it over here. The original plan had a detention basin here. You'll see in the staff's report there was concern from the adjoining neighbors and the Wolf Run Creek folks and what have you of the discharge from that pond. So we actually eliminated that pond, made this pond bigger. That's the essence of the site changes. That's kind of in a nutshell why we've had to amend this plan. Now, the original plan indicated a 50-foot landscape buffer. Once we got into the project, Mr. Cavalier, who owned the property, and he's since deeded it over to the church, said rather than the church maintaining this 50-foot zone forever, let's just give it to those adjoining property owners. The intent was a green space, a 50-foot buffer, to buffer the parking lot from those homes and the backyards. let's just give it to them so we deeded that over to them so we actually moved the property line up well it kind of backfired in that their plan that got approved indicated 50-foot landscape setback now we only have a five-foot landscape setback so it's the same area it's just we move the boundary line so that's something that we had to indicate if you will on our new development plan But building square footage stayed the same, parking stayed the same, amount of paved area basically stayed the same, some minor tweaking, if you will, to the entryway of the church where the drop-off is and configuration of that parking. But because we made changes and because there were conditions to Ural's approval two years ago, we were required to amend the development plan, and that's why we're down here today. Now, I'm sure you're going to hear a lot of concern from the neighborhood about drainage and number of parking spaces and access from Sane Road, all those, the same arguments you heard two years ago. You know, none of those have been modified. There's been a lot of discussion out in the hallway for the last hour about perhaps some calculation adjustments we need to look at. And we're certainly willing to do that and work with engineering. And if there's something we need to adjust, we're extremely confident that we can make that adjustment and accommodate the storm runoff. But I'm prepared. I'm a landscape architect. But I've got all the calculations that we did. I know. I understand the calculations. I know what we did. And I'm sure as part of our rebuttal, I'm happy to go into that. Just to give you just a little bit more of a background on the water quality issue, because you'll hear about that today. We have gone not the extra mile, we've gone just the extra state to address water quality. Each one of these curb inlets has what we call a snout, meaning when the water goes into the inlets. All the solids drop to the bottom, it's like a siphon and the water makes its way up and then is released into the pipe system. Then we've routed everything to this large detention basin. So you have the solids that drop into the basin of that. And then this final basin, we actually have a vortex unit that churns out all the solids and drops those and releases those actually into the channel. The original design that we did, we understood from Mr. Whalen, who owns the adjoining property, he didn't want air discharge to go through his pond. You'll, I'm sure you'll hear about his pond today. We designed it to miss his pond. We had a meeting out in the field a couple of months ago, and he felt like that to ensure there was always going to be, you know, a source for water to the pond, he asked that we'd redirect the routing and actually route it through his pond. So we've redesigned the outflow pipe that comes out of this last detention basin and have directed it toward his pond. We've got a baffling system. I've got the details. I'm happy to show you all if you want to see them. We've got vegetation we're going to plant along that channel. So we have about five or six safeguards in terms of the water quality and the detention impact that we've provided. And, you know, if we need to get into all the detail of that later, I'm happy to do so. But I just want to share with you, this is not about, in my opinion, revisiting issues about access off Valley Road. and the same road, hammerhead turnaround and detention and densities. This is about a minor, minor, minor, minor adjustment to our drawing, period. We just moved some parking around. We got rid of one small basin, made this one bigger, and basically that's it. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Any questions at this point or any move forward? Mr. Martin, did you have anybody else at this point? Not this point. We might bring some folks up in rebuttal, but at this point, I think we want to probably hear if there's any concerns about it. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Bowlin, if you would, please clarify for me. We did approve a conditional use permit in 2006. Today, am I right in saying that we're looking at an amended plan? We either approve the amended plan or disapprove it for the most part that the conditional use stands? Yes. I mean, at this point, they had a hearing and they were granted the conditional use. unless there were some kind of evidence of total change in circumstances since it was originally granted that would make this conditional use a detriment that was not anticipated at the time. That's just simply not an area to be looked at again. I mean, that decision was made based on the evidence and the conditions in the area. Our primary concern, I have to agree with Mr. Hill, is just what changes have been made because without these changes they could have gone out and gotten their permits and started construction. Without these changes, they still have the conditional use permit and the original development plan per se that may or may not have problems? That is correct. Okay. Yes. Mr. Barak, question would be your knowledge of this amended plan compared to what has been approved in the past. Where do you stand with this at this time? As far as the drainage analysis that was originally submitted, I did not do any in-depth review of that at that time, simply because it did not comply with what was originally approved by the Board of Adjustment. They had deleted a detention base and then they'd added some parking in an area that parking was not shown in initially. and just based on that fact, I did not feel comfortable authorizing permits for that construction since it did not comply with what the Board of Adjustment had approved. I have not seen any new calculations associated with the new layout, the two basins as opposed to the three basins. I'm not saying it couldn't work. I'm just saying I have not had a chance to look at anything to see if it would meet our guidelines and design criteria. Okay. Thank you. Given the opportunity of those calculations and this plan, given time, not in the next ten minutes, but if a continuance was made on this, would you have time to make a recommendation? Assuming those plans were submitted for review in a timely manner, then that review could have been completed by a 30-day period. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Burrow. And we will hear any opposition that is here, I believe. However, to address this first, Mr. Hill, I guess would be appropriate. Do you have information that would help Mr. Brock in evaluating this to the degree that he was just talking? We do have all that information. And actually, I think there was just so I can clarify and maybe Barry can help me out here. We actually have submitted the information, but as he said, it's true. When he saw that there had been a change in plans between the two plans, he got back with us. And that's what honestly triggered our recent middle of this development plan. He got back with us and he said, Brian and Pat Deming in our office, he said, I'm not going to review the new information until you all update your drawing and take it back to the Board of Adjustment because there's been a change in the plan. So we've submitted the information. He hasn't reviewed it yet. We understand why we have done that. Now, again, it's been pointed out by one of the engineers that lives in the neighborhood that maybe we've got a calculation that we need to look at and adjust. And we accept that if we need to make an adjustment, we'll be happy to look at it. We'll work with the staff. But let me say this, and you all know better than I. We know we have to satisfy engineering and traffic and everybody. We know that before we can ever get a building permit. So I don't know that this is the forum for me to try to convince you all that our calculations are correct or not correct, because we know we have to do that. This is all about just an amendment to the drawing. Okay, thank you. I'm not sure if this is a case for... Yes, ma'am? I feel sort of like we're up in the air in that we don't have the kind of important information that we need to maybe move on. I think I'm going to listen to some of the objectors. Yes. You're alluding to the possibility of a continuance. That is possible. I think we do have some people here that would like to speak in opposition too that we need to hear. My comment was, and Mr. Brock or Ms. Boland might be able to help, is the fact of a chicken and egg type situation. We've approved this once and now they're back before us with an amended plan because the calculations apparently were not correct. or, I'm sorry, it was a situation where property lines were learned due to dense vegetation, I'd say more than anything, that required some changes and so forth. And is this appropriate to go on and hear with the fact that engineering hasn't had a chance to look at it, but understand the fact that no permitting is going to be done until they are comfortable with the situation. So at this time, Mr. Martin, if your presentation is concluded for the moment, I will ask for any opposition that would like to speak to come forward. I would ask and offer, you know, remember the fact that we do have, This has already been approved for a conditional use permit and I would sincerely like for you to keep your comments directed towards what we're looking at today as far as stormwater, parking, vegetation type discussion. Yes, sir, your name? My name is Logan Weiler III and stormwater and vegetation is exactly what I want to talk about. I'm with friends of Wolf Run. We're dedicated to improving the habitat and water quality of our neighborhood stream. And we're keenly interested in storm water runoff in particular. And there are a few things that I want to make sure your board is aware of before they render a decision on this. Mr. Weiler, let me ask you this first, knowing that you were here at the last or a representative. Yeah, we're talking about new information and not repeated information. Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, sir. This is new information, or it should be new to your board anyway. I just want to make sure that you're aware of a few things before you do render a decision on this, even if that's 30 days from now. By our calculation, an addition of about 50,000 square feet of impervious surface would result and about 13,000 gallons of additional water per half inch of rainfall coming down on an area that's already saturated and floods on a regular basis. These are residential homes that flood regularly as a result of storm runoff. These are La Rochelle, Cherbourg, Bordeaux, Devonport and Alexandria Drive. Particularly La Rochelle which floods the most. And I want to make sure you knew that that was already a problem, and then adding more to it would invariably exacerbate that problem. I also wanted you to know that since 2006, when this was originally approved, there's been a lot of developments in regards to stormwater, most important of which would be the EPA noncompliance consent decree and so forth, And that if we continue permitting design plans that increase stormwater runoff, that could be used as evidence against the city, unfortunately, in that case. I present to you, on behalf of the Friends of Wolf Run, we recommend that the board postpone or reject the attempt to circumvent our stormwater controls when you do make a decision on this. And I present for your review a letter from our secretary, Ken Cook, and it includes a lot of details that will make a difference, I think, in your decision. Can I give this to you? Thank you, Mr. Reiler. Yes, we do have that. Okay, you've got it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Mr. Reiler. Anyone else? Yes, sir, your name. My name is Bill Smith. I'm President of the Holiday Hill Valley Heights Neighborhood Association. And if you could, just to start out, show these pictures if you could. This happened in April of this year. Thank you. This is a house located almost at the end of La Rochelle. This happened April 4th. okay you get the idea the bottom of their house flooded out i'm going to show you a video This is Lower Shell and Sherberg. Bordeaux. This is looking up Davenport. You can see it coming out of the storm drain there. That's what we deal with when it floods. As far as the numbers go, we did a little research ourselves, and we had in question of the 9,907 square foot of impervious area at 1332 Valley Road. We went out and measured it ourselves. And we came up with 3,824 square feet, which it changes the curve numbers, and we just want those looked at. We want to make sure that those numbers are correct before the project goes on. It shows that the soil type is B and it's Murray and it should be 61. On the drainage report that CMW presented to you, it shows that that pervious area is 74. We're in agreeance with the impervious area, 98% is going to run off. We're more about the pervious area to begin with the numbers, how they use their retention basins. I'm not going to go too much more into that, but we used this manual, which is a stormwater manual from the Fayette Everkontag Government. We got it offline. And we used the urban drainage design manual, publication FHWA. on the gravel. We were trying to figure out how they got 99 hundred square foot of impervious area up there. So that's just some research that we've done on our own as a neighborhood association. And we found in the urban drainage design that gravel is at 85 and not at 98. I have this information if you would like it. Okay. I'll hand it. Mr. Marks, please. We made you a folder there. We have major concerns. We have a petition in there opposing the construction of it again through the neighborhood. In November, you got another one with all our signatures on it. So this is nothing new, but we do have concerns, and we would just really like the numbers to be the way they need to be. We do have, which I did put that in there too, a case that has been filed, a complaint with the state, and on the review back, their workload is a little heavy right now, but they said that they would review and investigate it, the preliminary plan that it addressed. We feel that until they get back that it should be held off for as long as it takes. I do have another person that would like to talk to you about some other issues with it. I hope you take into consideration, and we do thank you for listening to our concerns this time, and thank you very much. Mr. Smith, what is your address? My address is 1274 Bordeaux. Okay. And I did, I took a liking to the people that I started talking to in the neighborhood. And my house did flood. My house is way up the hill on Bordeaux. It flooded because of slip-line sewers that they were putting in. They took a cap off, so I got to walk into that. So it is a little to my heart with this. Have a good day. Thank you. Anyone else? My name is William Anglin. I live at 1132 Kilrush Drive. Just to clarify his concerns when he's referring to the curve numbers, our concern is that in order to meet the minimum design requirements with the higher curve number that allows the designer to use a higher peak discharge than is truly there. And that's our concern. So with the correct curve numbers, the correct land percentage versus the gravel road impervious area, the soil type, it would reduce the existing peak discharge, which would actually put a tighter constraint on their detention basin design. And that's what we're looking at. You saw the video. It's already a bad area. and just if you dump any more on there, it just exacerbates the problem. So I'm just here to clarify exactly why those curve numbers are a concern to us. So thank you. Hi, my name is Carrie Manley. I live at 2433 Sane Road. I'm vice president of our neighborhood association. And I'm not here to talk to you about water. I'm here to talk to you about traffic and what engineering is going to do about the traffic flow in our neighborhood. This is the end of Sane Road. On the other side of all those beautiful green trees is where the church property is. As you can see, our street is not wide. It's a very narrow road. and even for those of us who live on Sade Road, if we are coming up and down our road and somebody else is coming, we have to pull over. Only one car can travel down our road at a time because so many people park on the street. So we would like to know how that is going to be addressed with traffic. We were told that the gate separating the parking lot and Sade Road would stay locked. If that's the case, then that's fine. Also on Valley Road, this is a view from Valley Road, which is a two-lane road. And if you can see kind of the middle of the picture where that white fence is, the blue mailbox, that's the entrance to the church property. You cannot see what's coming over the other side of that road. Picture three. This is coming from the opposite direction. You can see the street sign there says Calumet Terrace. at the very top of that hill again is the entrance to the church property. Not only is it going to cause traffic issues on Sane, it's also going to cause traffic issues and safety issues on Valley Road. Valley is not very heavily traveled right now, and there is no signal on the corner of Valley and Versailles Road. Turning left off of Valley Road or out of our neighborhood is extremely difficult because, as you know, Versailles Road is a four-lane highway. So we're just interested in knowing that those issues were taken into consideration also and that we're not going to have backed up traffic and safety issues in our neighborhood. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Manley. Others? Once again, I would remind everyone that, you know, we're primarily talking about parking, stormwater, and runoff and vegetative type situations here. Yes, sir. Your name? My name is Mark Whaley. I live at 1316 Viley Road, which is next door to the proposed development. I guess my concerns are probably water quantity first. The plans that I guess you are reviewing bring all the water to the final detention basin, and it's released out of a discharge area there. The calculations that, and I think these are some of the things that they're going to be taking a look at, that there might be some errors in the pervious surface areas and so on. So it may affect the calculations, and this number may be larger. It may be smaller, but I presume that there's a good possibility it'll be larger. But anyway, 10 CFS is 10 cubic feet per second, which Ken Cook, who spoke here last time, who's secretary with Friends of Wolf Creek, did some calculations. He's retired from the Division of Water in Frankfurt. informing that that would be 70 gallons of water per second, over an excess of 70 gallons of water per second. He said, you know, Mark, you can look at that as 75 bowling balls coming at you per second until the rain drops or as a 55-gallon drum and a half every second coming out of this discharge pipe. Whereas prior to the development, what's going on out there now, we have a large field uphill from me that pretty much absorbs 90-something percent of the water, I guess. We don't really have any erosion problems, and it's also leaving the property. Numerous people have looked at it that are more knowledgeable than me, but they say there's three subsheds, so the water's actually going sort of in three different directions. but it also is dispersed over a large area, whereas their plan concentrates it all to come out of one pipe. So the one issue that I have had and still have is erosion. And I think, you know, my soil is not going to be able to stand up to that. Then there's, I guess, a water quality issue. And that's one of the things I had asked. Brian and I met once, and I had asked Dave Gabbert, who's an engineer with LFUCG, and Jim Rebman to come out and sort of draw on their expertise in that. So those are some other things that I think still need to be assured as LFUCG City Ordinance 1673 requires that extra care be utilized when you're working in proximately to an environmentally sensitive area such as my spring. And Dave Gabbard has pretty much assured me that I do have what would fall under the scope of 1673. So the numbers that we have expressed some concern over, the fact that they're trying to use a 98 for a gravel surface, 6,000 square feet approximately, that doesn't appear to be correct according to the manuals and things. And then the overall configuration of all of the land, I think that should be, the manual says if it is a soil type B, and this was our, some of the engineers and folks that we had look at it said that it was a soil type B. So those numbers probably just need to be really looked at. You know, the video that they show. of this water, I mean, it looked like a river, going down La Rochelle Road and really just inundating the whole Holiday Hills area. I happened to be on La Rochelle on a couple of those streets the other day talking to a few of the neighbors about their concerns and the recent flooding. And an older couple there told me, they said, and I didn't know this, they said, you realize there used to be a creek down through here? And I was like, no, but if you really look at it, you go, well, obviously there was a creek here because this was the lowest point. And I have a spring, and the water that came from Calumet Farm in the old days, which some of the other videos that have been presented to the city council on other issues, like when Saddle Club was developed and there was a tremendous amount of flooding that would flow over the road. But we hope that you all will, you know, take a look at what is already a problem, them and hopefully that they will apply the right numbers and the city will look at them discreetly so that the Holiday Hill folks down there don't have additional water dumped on them. I guess one of the problems is Sane Road has no storm water system at all. Basically, there is a culvert at the very end of Sain on Bordeaux. So the water actually runs down the street on Sain, and for whatever reason, when they developed that subdivision, they just didn't feel that one was needed. So consequently, and I think this is part of the problem, the water is always dumped down on La Rochelle. So I've talked with a lot of different engineers, I mean dozens of them, and they've all tried to be real helpful, but the consent decree, LFUCG engineers, so the consent decree that they're working on now, there's going to be some issues addressed, and it's going to take a lot of time. And so it's like, well, would Sane and La Rochelle be one of these areas that might get some monetary help? And nobody seems to know that yet. So here, you know, I think this is a significant development. It's a 10,000 square foot building and 115 parking spaces. I guess 78,000 square feet total. It's just a lot of runoff, and I think that they want to maximize their use of the land, and I think most people can appreciate that, but by the same token, the engineering, the numbers, the runoff rates have to comply. So that's all I want to ask is that you all would look at that. And I also talked with Brian Hill today if it is approved, and we're sort of waiting to see. I do have a concern that I would have access to the Hammerhead T because I've been told that that would be a public road up to that point. And some of the folks years ago down at Planning and Zoning said to me that it was in the city's fairness and fair treatment of people to make sure that any public extension of a roadway that all people have a right to have. Can I ask you a question, sir? Yes, sir. How high does this property or this proposed project sit relative to the neighborhood? You mean in terms of feet, I guess? Right versus elevation. Well, it would be pretty much level with Sane Road. I've lived out there a while and walked around a lot. It's a slight uphill grade. As you go down Sane Road, as I recall, it tends to get a little steeper as you get down to the bottom of it. They call it Holiday Hills, but in my opinion, it's more of a valley over in there. But there are, like when you get up on limbs. So you, in essence, don't get much runoff from this vacant lot as it is right now, do you? Say that again, sir. So you, in essence, do not get much runoff from this vacant lot right now, that they're proposing this plan, do you? I feel like the absorption up there is really good. It's a farm. So we're not getting, not like it would be when it's all parking lot. So you can't say that because of the building that the neighborhood would be any more devastated than they are right now when it rains? I think they would be. It depends on the way the numbers work out. And I'm not an engineer, but if it was engineered properly, it would work. If you try to put too much into a small area where the numbers are not working, then I think you're going to add to the problems on La Rochelle and all those streets that they showed you the video of. Thank you. You answered my question. Thank you, Mr. Whaley. Would anyone else like to speak in regards to this? Are we letting them back up? Briefly. Okay, really quickly to answer your question, the church property is at the top of the hill. Like I said, I live at the end of Sane and the La Rochelle is the street right behind me that floods. Our house sits completely above that entire street. That's how high up it is. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Martin? Briefly. I think I know where we're headed. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cavalera would like to make a few comments in response, and I think we'll probably make a comment after that. I know Brian would like to say a few things. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman and staff, appreciate your patience. I know it's a long day. Just a couple of points to bring in. I think the video was marked 1992. I don't know if you caught that, but where she was showing you the video of the water in the streets, that was 1992. Saddle run or chestnut run went in 1999 with over 150 lots. So if it hasn't been affected since 1992 and that major subdivision went in 1999 up to 2004, if that's the closest video we have, then we're doing okay. Okay, just one, no, two other points. There seems to be a problem with this asphalt. We really didn't ask to put in more expensive asphalt. We did so because it was generated through these same people saying they wanted the water flow. The same goes for their water retention. Perhaps you haven't seen such a water retention except on Star Trek come through your table. Time and again, we've adjusted and adjusted and adjusted because of the complaints. We've worked solidly with the engineer of your department. Now, the new numbers, we would just ask if we could please have a vote today if it's within our realm to ask, and we could use that as a contingency that, of course, those numbers, engineering numbers, everything works out completely just so what they're supposed to, but we would desperately like to move forward. This has been long, time-consuming, and another meeting will be just like this. So we just ask, please, for mercy from all of you. Thank you. I didn't know to what extent the drainage issues were going to come up. So let me be a little more specific if I will. And just a couple of quick points. Kind of like Leo just did. The 92 video, I'm sure that shows up. You probably see a 92 video down here a couple times a year. I know Planning Commission does. That was the year the whole city flooded. And there were parts of Lexington that had never flooded. They flooded in 1992. With respect to this gravel coefficient, we're talking an area probably two or three times the size of this room, and there seems to be a discrepancy in the runoff coefficient we use for that gravel and we will make that correction if we're in error. It's going to be a drop in the bucket with respect to our calculation. The soil type, we'll certainly look at that and address any scenario there that we need to. Mr. Wayland said something about access to the Hammerhead turnaround. That will be a dedicated street. We are currently showing a guard rail at the end of that so that cars don't jump it and go onto his property and roll down the hill. But when a street is extended up to that turn around, that's a public street and he will have access to that. And then one other point before I talk about drainage. It was mentioned about access off of Valley Road and that being unsafe and the peak of the hill. We went through all that two years ago. We've actually moved the entrance to this church development to the crest of the hill and Father Heman who has the property that adjoins this that he sold the church, his driveway will actually come off the church's driveway. The gates will stay closed except for when they have service and the only one that will be open will be the one to Valley Road. The gate to Sane Road stays closed at all times except for an emergency. And fire, emergency vehicles will then have the provision to open that gate. The focus, the concern that you are hearing over and over and over with regards to this development seems to be drainage. I'm going to be a little more specific if I may. We originally had the third detention basin here. Two years ago there was concern from some of the neighbors and the Wolf Creek folks with the third basin and the discharge here but that was not necessarily a good thing. So we removed that basin. Now you've heard today why did they remove the third basin. The capacity that was in that basin we've enlarged this basin and compensated for that. When we first did our design on this project because it is a design site we have built in a 36 inch storm pipe for this entire length. Our calculation is only taking into account this one leg of this 36 inch pipe in terms of backup storage. We've built in a safeguard in our design so that if there's any error whatsoever with our calculation We have an extra capacity for this entire length of this 36 inch pipe to back that water up and hold that water. You've heard about water quality and Mr. Wayland's adjoining property and what have you. Every drop of rain that falls on this subject property makes its way across Mr. Wayland's property if it doesn't infiltrate and make its way down into the soil. This is the highest property around there. It's approximately 30 feet higher up here than it is down to this pond. This shaded area represents the watershed. It just sheets across this property down across Mr. Whaley's property. When we first had conversations with Mr. Whaley, he was concerned if we discharge the water in more than one location, we're actually going to harm him because he didn't want streams of water or these migrating pools of water coming across his property. So it was clear to us he wanted only one discharge. We have no place else to discharge water period from this site but to go across him because he's lower than we are. Everything sheets down. As I mentioned, the original design was this one right here where we actually discharged here. This water sort of migrated down this way intercepted here and makes its way on down to the low area down here. Okay? When we met in the field a few months ago, he had a concern about two points of discharge, requested that we move this pipe here and let the water actually come through his pond. So we've taken every bit of this and discharged it at one point, which is through his pond. I want to speak to the water quality. We've got a five or six stage safeguard we think built into this. As I mentioned earlier, every one of these curb inlets, every single one of them has, if you could put up that first image, Jimmy. It's kind of a strange description but it's called a snout. And you can see where you see outlet pipe. It's basically a funnel. and what happens is the solids drop to the bottom it's siphoned up and out so that first wash across the parking lot that makes its way into those curb inlets you've got that initial means of any paper cups or cigarette butts or oil or what have you theoretically will make its way down into the basin of that inlet and that thing would have to be cleaned out a couple times a year. Now if you'll go to the next image, Jimmy, if you don't mind. Okay. Well, can you, there you go. Keep on going, there you go. Okay. It's just a bunch of lines to you all, but that particular detail is the last structure, if you will, before the water is discharged into the channel it makes its way down to Mr. Whaley's pond. So we've got water going through a pipe that's first that has that first safeguard, if you will, of collecting any information, excuse me, any materials that should not be there. It makes its way into the large detention basin. Certain things evaporate off. The solids drop to the bottom. We have vegetation. We met with Mr. Gabbard. He gave us a specification on native vegetation that we need to plant the bottom of that detention basin with to absorb those nutrients and chemicals and anything that's going to be harmful to the environment to take those up into the vegetation. So we've got that in the bottom of this basin. Then it makes its way into this small basin. then when it leaves through this vortex what happens is the water gets into this unit it spins, the heavy solids fall to the bottom down into that bottom chamber the clean water is released through that unit and then if you'll go to the next one the final one there Jimmy then we have a channel that we built into this design that goes from this final head wall down through the woods, down to our property line, and then is released into Mr. Whalen's pond. Now, this channel is baffled with stone and or timbers. And again, we got a spec from Mr. Gabbard about native vegetation, so that whole thing will be lined with plants. So it's going to be slowed down with logs and stones and then vegetation. So you've got clean water, you've got a dissipated water that's leaving the site. And it was mentioned a while ago that there's nothing else we can do from a standpoint of stormwater detention, water quality. We have far, far exceeded the city's criteria in every way. We recognize we might have to tweak a calculation. Perhaps this detention basin gets just a little bit larger. perhaps one of these pipes gets just a little bit larger but other than that there's nothing else we can do to mitigate the stormwater concerns the water quality concerns let me say say again the video you saw was 1992 half of Lexington was underwater that particular day thank you Thank you, Mr. Hill. Questions from the board? For anyone concerned? Any comments or any motions? Well, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a comment first, and that is, you know, I think that obviously I was not on the Board of Adjustment when this was approved, but looking at the minutes and the notes and obviously residents expressed their concerns and I think that those concerns have been addressed. I think that you all have done your due diligence and tried to correct the problems and I think we've heard a lot of the things that we probably heard a couple years ago. I note in the recommendations as far as the conditions go, which you all I assume have agreed to. Obviously stormwater, Mr. Brock, is a huge issue here. Item number seven, a stormwater management plant shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the adopted engineering manuals subject to the acceptance by the Division of Engineering. So before you get a permit, it's going to have to be approved by Mr. Brock regardless. Looking at the parking and traffic patterns, those as well, there are conditions in this application that have to be approved by the Division of Traffic Engineering. So I understand the concerns of the residents. I mean, I've lived in neighborhoods that have had stormwater problems. It's a huge problem for this city. There's no question about that. However, I think you all have really gone above and beyond. The last time they didn't want the third retention pond, you moved that. We've got a 30-inch line moving the water down to the other retention ponds, making them bigger. I mean, I think you all have done your good work on this. And while I do am concerned with the citizens, I see no reason why we can't move forward with this today. because obviously the conditions and making sure that we have enough capacity to take care of stonemire, that's got to be approved from the beginning. So I'd just like to make that comment, Mr. Chair, and go move on. Thank you. Any other statements, comments, concerns? Yeah, at this point I tend to echo what Mr. Stumbo just said in light of what has taken place last year or two years. I believe the local government is very aware of storm water management control and working to take care of any situation that may come up before it does happen and that any oversight is is provided as needed so at this point any other statements questions or I'll entertain a motion mr. chairman I'd like to move that item C 2008 50 CMW in Copper Hill Kingdom Hall appeal for a conditional use permit to amend a previously approved site plan for construction of a church for the purpose of revising proposed stormwater management basins and associated parking and single-family residential zone on property located at 1324 Biley Road be approved with the conditions that's set forth by the planning office. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of C2008-50 CMW Incorporated, Copper Hill Kingdom Hall, subject to the 10 conditions set forth. If there's no further questions I'll call for a vote. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? One opposed. Motion passes. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you members. Our next case moving on would be V2008-55 Douglas and Dorothy Johnson, who appeals for variants to reduce the required side street, side yard, along Magnolia Gardens Place from 30 feet to 0 feet in order to construct an in-ground swimming pool in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 3025 Ashley Oaks Drive, Council District 12. I made it here. Mr. Kaley, yes, sir. Thank you for your patience. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. I'm here with Mr. Johnson. I guess we will start with a few pictures of our own of the property site. and this is probably highly unregular, but we found out yesterday that there is a requirement that the pool, this whole thing is discussion about an in-ground pool. The pool itself needs to be 10 feet from the sidewalk. So whereas we've asked to go from 30 to zero, we would now like to reduce that as going from 30 feet down to 10 feet. And hopefully that will alleviate some of the other concerns. The corner of Ashley Oaks and Magnolia Gardens is the house that we're talking about. This is looking along Magnolia Gardens the driveway there in front of you that is the privacy fence that they've had installed recently around their backyard it is in similarity with the property behind them they have the same 6 foot privacy fence around their backyard. And behind this fence is where we're talking about putting the in-ground swimming pool. This is from the back of their yard looking back towards that fence with the driveway. You can see that there's some blue gravel there by the house there, wanting for the deck and the patio to be in that area. The area we're asking for the pool would be accessible from the driveway into the yard. Can we change some light on that? The whiteout, the whiteout area, you can see the grill. Behind that is the piece of the house, it's the breakfast nook dining area that extends into the yard. That is the area that provides access from the house to the rear yard. The wooden steps to the right is where they would come out of the house into their pool area. Oh, okay. All right, we can try the next one. Sir, how close are you going to be to the sidewalk here? We're asking that we let the pool be within 10 feet of the sidewalk. Oh, my goodness. There's the area that we were talking about. Excuse me, Mr. Kaley. I thought when you started, you were saying that the 30 feet was... This is a corner lot, so we have two building lines. It's a 30-foot building line. And I guess the whole thing came about as they were going for their pool permit, it was decided that an in-ground swimming pool was an accessory use. Accessory uses cannot go over the building line. They have a fence permit the fences put up is probably about 18 inches behind the sidewalk and the fence You know that's illegal use up to the sidewalk edge. So we figured anything we did behind that privacy fence Would be acceptable Where are you measuring from though mr. Cayley as far as your property line is back of sidewalk from the sidewalk Yes, okay So you're asking for this to be within 10 feet of the sidewalk? Yes. Okay. Yes. The fence will still be there. But the fence is between where that will be and the sidewalk. Oh, yes. Yes. This in-ground pool will be in the backyard behind the privacy fence. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Continue. Okay. The area to the left of this screen is the other side of the property, furthest from Magnolia Gardens. as you read through a staff report they said that the pool could be relocated over to this area there's a few feet of grade change it's a little more difficult to build you'll notice that the railing there is the steps to the basement it would be preferred not to have the pool deck near the steps to the basement the other side of the yard that we're showing is where the family enters from and then this is from those stairs looking back up towards the area where we want the pool to be. You can see the street light out there. That's the street. And the grade change from here back up there. So the site we chose, and we didn't list all these small items as under the hardship case, grading, location of where the access points are from the house, from the driveway, keeping it away from the stairs to the basement. I assume it's my fault. I really didn't think that this was going to be that big of a deal. It seems one of those little quirks of the zoning ordinance or the building lines where an in-ground pool is an accessory use, but had they wanted to do an above-ground pool, there's no permit process they could have put it there. Whether it's an in-ground pool, above-ground pool, we're behind a privacy fence. No one's going to see the pool. No one's going to know it's there. the use itself just the use is fine for the area. It's the simple fact that it's been deemed an accessory use. I've talked with building inspection trying to find out what the list is for accessory uses versus not accessory uses. There's no actual list that we could go by talking with Bob Carpenter. Things that could go right next to that fence in the building line, kids' clubhouse, trampoline, fort, swing sets. You could park vehicles there. All these activities could take place in this building line with or without the privacy fence. We're simply asking to reduce the building line, and we're only asking for it to be behind the house from 30 feet down to 10 feet So then in ground pool, which is the accessory use can be installed where it fits the families needs the best Questions engineering will you say about this Building inspection what do you say about this? We'd like to see disapproved. She's be adequate space behind the house put the pool in It certainly is a it's considered an accessory structure for a few reasons. The Kentucky Building Code requires a permit on it and is under its jurisdiction as far as the way it's installed and some other elements about a pool It's highly and even though this is not really a finding of fact. It's highly unusual to put a pool in the front yard But we just felt like that It belonged further back than that. It's just It's a use that does require a permit and inspection. It's a structure, permanent structure at that. Can I ask, Mr. Hume, would you be opposed if they relocated it more centrally in the backyard? And is that an option for the applicant to move it away? Ten feet seems very close to the sidewalk. If they moved it behind the building line, we'd have no objection to it. The fact that it's encroaching into that front yard, which is really a side straight side yard, but sure, we'd have no objection to it at all. We might even look at the fact that the deck itself would not even probably be a problem if it were to encroach into the front yard because, you know, the structure itself is behind the building line. yeah with that we were am I correct that within the building line setback you can have a patio a deck you can we can pave through there it's the actual edge of the pool is what is the problem I believe that's what the problem was I haven't had a great deal of discussion with George and I'm sure maybe you have George Dillon and I think that was where the rub came in and you're right a patio can be poured without any building line consideration. Decks cannot be. Those are structures. Permanent structures and they require a building permit. That could be an issue in a front yard. Why wouldn't you? If you look at the site plan, moving the pool shape itself behind that building line, the lot itself narrows as you come away from Magnolia Gardens. You're just pinching it down. You also have the breakfast nook that comes out the back there which is their access point you're jamming everything up on that. We cannot put the pool further away from the house going towards lot 14. There is a 10 foot UE and drainage easement back there with proper engineering you can put the deck into the utility easement and drainage easement but you cannot have the pool shape itself. It all boils down as to the pool itself being constructed as an accessory use. As far as their uses in the backyard and how it slopes, this is the ideal spot for them. We keep talking about it being 10 feet from the sidewalk. We still are going to have a 6 foot tall fence up there. I mean if you're on the sidewalk you're not gonna know the pool's there Any other questions from the board? I don't believe there's anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak in regards to this up. Yes. I'm sorry the owner himself I was thinking more in the way of opposition but yeah you go ahead mine isn't so much a word of opposition to the disapproval because I understand the board's concerns and where the boundary lines are now those are defined as a front yard although if you came to my neighborhood I don't think anybody would argue that that is a front yard but that being beside the point if you look at the diagram again I know it was taken off sorry about that the builder has been given some leeway to actually put the side of the house parallel to Magnolia Gardens beyond the building line I forget what the terminology is for that it's an averaging so you're forcing me to put the pool actually three to four the pool edge three or four feet if my measurements are correct behind my house before I can start pool deck or before I can get to that first water line so it's just become aware to me that I can actually have my builder of the pool put concrete over that drainage and utility easement in the back if he does not alter the plain surface for the level of that and maybe someone here can actually speak to that I just heard that from George Dillon yesterday that being the case if 10 feet is excessive in terms of how close it is to the street can we start marching back in towards at least the parallel sight line of the house for the new building line because you're basically forcing me to shove my pool even further behind my house based on the averaging of where the house is actually position now you know it's all based on where the building line lines not where the house because the house was actually given an advantage by the averaging itself to be able to sit in front of the building line so you're already taking advantage of something to get the house in you know they've almost they've had to manipulate that a lot itself to get the house on it so the pool is going to be based on where the building line is not where the house it has to sit behind the building line okay well the another component of this since we've been talking about a lot of water in lot 26 I'm concerned about putting the pool in behind the house because of the one photograph showing quite a significant drop-off in the lot grading this is up towards my house the back of the lot is actually fairly flat if we get a heavy rain the backyard of my neighbor immediately to the right in this foot in this diagram actually fills up with a significant amount of water if you place a pool deck in here with it being up on a retaining wall which needs to be built into according to my pool installer there's going to be a retaining wall to this side of my property I'm concerned I'm going to have a nice little waterfall going into his backyard so it's a lot more than just where the building line is it's the shape of the lot which we've tried to demonstrate today and I'm not looking to establish a new precedent for someone being able to put a pool in their front yard I've had no one come to me in the surrounding 200 yard radius and tell me this is absolutely objectionable to them I've had plenty of people say I don't care what you do behind your privacy fence because it's six feet tall we can't see it I just asked for whatever lenience there is in that regard well let me ask a question on that as well the the reasons for disapproval were a granting request of any would alter the character in the general vicinity by allowing sizable accessory structures up to the property line along Magnolia Gardens I mean if we can put a fence along the sidewalk I would assume that everyone's concern is accessible structure accessory structures is someone trying to come in with a garage a second house something much more significant than a swimming pool so when this case and the approval of this building line reduction be subject to the I mean this case and be held up only to that swimming pool itself part of the file held in building inspection for this lot I'm not sure what your question is Roy well then they They say they're worried, or they're changing the character in the general vicinity by allowing accessory structures. No one's gonna see this, so we're not changing any character, so then there must be other concerns besides the pool, other accessory structures. But if we get a reduction in the building line just for this case, this pool, wouldn't that prohibit any other accessory structures? I mean, I don't think we're setting, like he was saying, I don't think we're setting any precedence about people getting second homes or garages or any other activities too close to a sidewalk. Marks, what do you think? It would perhaps limit the applicability of it to other cases, but I'm not sure that would be enough to address any other issues. There are several findings for disapproval there. Is that the accessory structure issue though? Because I don't think a pool is one of those things that hurts the neighborhood's character. Well, I think the issue here is it's permanent, and as unintended issues come up, it's easy to move a swing set. It's not easy to move an in-ground pool. So I think that's a main reason why building inspection takes the position that these are structures that are subject to the setback requirement. In other words, the permanency of it. Correct. Okay. And it's even dictated by the Kentucky building code so obviously they in their wisdom decides it's a permanent structure Other questions from the board Is there any way at all that you can reconfigure this pool to to meet the guidelines that are necessary? I Mean I hate to tell somebody they can't build a swimming pool in their backyard. I just think they need to You can build a swimming pool in the backyard. It's just that it was, as you go towards lot 26, you start getting into the other issues of the backyard itself. This was a flat area. This was the area that only affected his house. This is the area accessible from his house as it is now. The doors that come out the back go to this. Is it infeasible to rotate it 90 degrees and scoot it back? I mean, you're asking for quite the variance there. If you rotated it 90 degrees and moved it back 20, 25 feet, so then you're lessening the impact on the yard requirements. Then you just split up the backyard itself. You end up with two small green areas to either side. We took the area that was best suited for a flat pool deck area. Oh, yes, and he's, the fencing rules, I guess, have changed since his fence company put up something, and the neighbors who have their fences up around him. Where the pool goes, there was a new requirement. I want to say it's one and a quarter inch openings around. okay so this area also saves them the effort of having to replace the least amount of fence to meet the new requirements you know the other requirements they'd be talking about you'd have to have two fences for it if you can't replace the existing fence I've been finding out a lot of new stuff about pools I didn't know anything about is this gonna have a diving board and all all that other accessories? Much to my son's chagrin. I'll leave that old fence. Well, that was part of the thing. We kept asking about what the requirements were for a pool setback. I said, how far do I have to be from the fence? And they didn't know. They said four feet, I think, is what the city goes by. Six foot was a good rule of thumb. Yeah, we gave it at least four feet for emergency purposes. So that's why we decided 10 foot would keep us at least eight feet from the fence. 10 foot met what George was talking about, 10 foot from a sidewalk. I guess that must be, I don't know what code that is, but that was the number given to Mr. Johnson, which is why we're now asking for 10 feet. And that would be, you know, he wants to have fence, he'd have a green strip, then he'd have his pool decking, and then 10 feet from the sidewalk, well behind his privacy fence, he'd actually have the pool edge. Or if not 10, you know, 12, 15, some number that doesn't make him put it over in the back corner of his yard where he it doesn't help him Thank You mr. Kaley any other questions from the board here Move forward is there a reason that I'll call for a motion Mr. Chairman I'm going to move that B-2008-55 Douglas and Dorothy Johnson's appeal for variance to reduce the required size street yard along Magnolia Gardens place from 30 feet to zero feet in order to construct an in-ground swimming pool in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 3025 Ashley Oaks Drive Council District 12 be denied as recommended by the staff based upon the reasons submitted. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Second. Motion's been made and seconded for disapproval of V2008-55 Douglas and Dorothy Johnson. All those in favor of the disapproval please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Sorry Mr. Kaley. Thank you. Next case. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I believe we have someone here from Twin Pines Church if you want to go ahead and do that one. I'd rather just continue on at this point. Next case would be C2008-42 Kristen Meadows who appeals for conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children in a single-family residential R1C zone on property located at 3518 Willowwood Road Council District 8. Applicant? No. No. Is the applicant here? Is the applicant? What case is this? Krista Meadows too. Is the applicant here? No? Okay. Just one second ma'am. Let everybody get to it here. I'll find it here. One more. There you go. Okay. I think we're all on the same page now. This is recommended for disapproval. Your name is? My name is Diana Rast. And I represent actually the residents in that neighborhood. And you are here for what purpose? Well, we're here because we thought maybe the appellant would be here too. Okay. We met actually with her representative earlier this week, and we had a very open discussion. Are you in approval of this or disapproval? No, we are in agreement with the judgment of the Board of Adjustment. Okay. All right, then. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak in regards to this request? No. Your concern, briefly? Well, we submitted a letter to you with some signatures on it. We're not certain that you received it. Since that time, we've had some more signatures, so we want to present that. And the residents have other concerns that they wish you to be aware of that, you know, we're prepared to present a case, if you like. And they're contained in this document that I would like to give the copy to. Okay. Let me ask this question to the board. Does the board need to hear anything else in regards to this? Honestly, I don't think so. I mean, it's all in the letter. I know that we've had a lot of discussion and there is a lot of concern regarding, for example, the actual traffic on that road and, you know, parking issues, which we agree with. Ms. Ross, my question is to the board as to do they need to hear any further information on this before rendering a decision? I don't think so. No. Board. I don't, you know, I don't know whether it's relative that the appellant be here in this particular case or not. I mean, I most certainly don't want to hear anything regarding the objectors without the appellant being here. Okay. I personally don't want to hear that. I mean, I think, you know, I wouldn't want the appellant being here by themselves knowing we had objectors. I wouldn't want to listen to her either without both parties being here. Well, you know, it's always a case where they have the opportunity to be present at this hearing. Mr. Chair, I agree with Mr. Stout, and I'm prepared to make a motion if you'd accept that. Okay. the I think it needs to be postponed yes yep okay mr. Ross tell you mark front I I don't see how we make any decision without the applicant not being present on the other hand I'm very concerned and and appreciate people's taking their time and making the effort to come here so which is what a postponement means but I suspect technically we she should we have to postpone it the applicant asked for this hearing the applicant was notified of the time and the place of the hearing and this board can certainly proceed on this case if if it chooses to do so. Okay. Thank you. Can I just say that we actually did meet with representative of Ms. Meadows on Tuesday of this week, and he indicated that he may or may not be here. So we are here in case you was. We understand. Yes, sir. My name is Brian Schliffke. I'm a resident in the area, and when your letter came out, our Gainesway neighborhood association presided by Mrs. Diana I don't ever use her formal name called and we had a meeting at that meeting we had our councilman there and we took under advisement we discussed the pros prongs and all that we scheduled a second meeting this past Tuesday of which a representative of the house was there we had 20 to 30 some people there at the end to try to just, you know, let those people know how the neighborhood felt. We asked for a vote of how many people would be in agreement to a babysitting service of six or less whereby there is no board, they do not have to go and get accreditation by the state. My daughter goes to a daycare, two-year-old, or salesman. Most people, maybe 60%, 70% said no problem. Then the question was asked, how many people are opposed to changing the nature to a daycare 12? Not one hand went up. So at that meeting, we went out and asked people there to sign this letter that we wanted to be a point of record for you all. And I then canvassed the neighborhood that is truly affected, winding court, winding draft. Because all of our cars go up to AT. We have to turn left or right on Willowood. And we have probably gotten, other than the people that are away, that we didn't have the letter, probably 90% of signatures which we want to pass to you. And that is, but we had a vote in front of one of the representatives to show the concern of the neighborhood. Thank you, sir. He would have to come to us anytime. Well, you know, this request is for approval from up to 12. They don't have to come to the board for approval of up to 6. So. I have a question for Ms. Bullen. Yes. If we disapprove it now, she would still be able to renew the application in a year. Is that correct? After a year. Yeah, after a year. Yeah, I mean anything that's just that goes through disapproval Has a waiting period of one year before it can come back again or she could have Six now without coming before us and come before us again in six months to increase it to 12 But be a year before she could apply again for one year. I mean excuse me. Yes, okay Would ask real quick mr. Marks have have you been in contact recently with miss meadows? No, I have not Okay. Any reason to know why she's not here today? I suspect when you get a disapproval recommendation from the staff, it's fairly common that they don't want to battle it out, so to speak. I'll make a motion. Okay. Yes, Mr. Stenberg. Go ahead, Mr. Stenberg. Chair, go ahead, Mr. Stenberg. Mr. Chair, I want to move on this case, please. I'm going to move the C-2008-42 Crystal Meadows appeals for conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children in a single family residential R1C zone on property located at 3518 Willowood Road Council District 8 be denied as recommended by the staff based upon their findings. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for disapproval of C 2008-42 Kristen Meadows. All those in favor of the disapproval please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion for disapproval passes. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Our next case is Carla Jackson Stovall C2008-43 who appeals for a conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 12 children in a townhouse residential R1 T zone on property located at 2483 Woodhill Drive Council District 7 African good afternoon African is here your name please I'll Carla Jackson Stovall I resided 2483 we'll hear a job I'll receive the letter of disapproval and I'm here to defend myself um I got the recommendations and when I proposed the drawing of the extended parking I did that because I was talking to Jim and he said he didn't believe that the driveway would be sufficient that's when I proposed the additional parking so okay just still don't it who did you say you were speaking with yeah okay thank you we've got several gems around here okay outside okay my existing driveway you know he didn't he wasn't sure if it would be sufficient enough to accommodate my daycare. So I propose the additional parking. Then later on after we done all the paperwork he found out that it was sufficient. I didn't need that. So I don't propose to do the additional parking now because my driveway is sufficient. And I also do drop off and pick up service for my clients. I take care of a lot of children, the parents that doesn't have transportation. I pick up the children, drop them off. I have one parent that currently picks their child up and drops them off. So the traffic wouldn't be a problem, I don't feel. I also talked to the president of the Woodhill Association and asked him his advice, you know, could the community help me come up with an idea. And he recommended that I talk to my neighbors that's by me to get their consent if need be the parents could park in front of their home with the most of five to ten minutes, enough time to come in, sign the kid in, and put that stuff away and leave and vice versa when they pick their child up. And I accomplished that. I have letters from Betty Chambers who lives across the street behind me. Do you need that? Okay. And I also have a letter from Victoria Lewis. Her home sits right behind me on Lockwood and Betty Chambers' home is on Lockwood also. The home on the right of me, there's no one living there. And I also have Christy Thompson, she resides on Woodhill. I have a letter from her stating that it's fine for me to have a daycare there. don't see where it would be a disturbance to her and her family and also from the other neighbors on Blackwood and me I'd like to hear from the staff relative to this proposed the original proposal and and the the new proposal what what is she talking about the original proposal included this new parking area here and this new parking area here what's existing there now is just the one-lane driveway right in here and I think when Miss Stowall first came in it's typically what we asked them about parking because it's always an issue with these kind of applications and it was indicated that she had a a fairly short narrow driveway and that's probably when I said well you need to think about the parking requirements and how you're going to meet that. Now this part this driveway we measured it out is barely adequate for two required spaces. There's one required for the dwelling and one required for the family child care for up to 12 kids so you couldn't get two vehicles in there. It's a little tight but it does meet the minimum requirements. Could or you could. You couldn't get two vehicles. As currently paid? As currently paid. Excuse me, can I say something? I have pictures of my vehicle that I use to transport my children in, and I have a parent SUV also parked in my driveway. Mind you that my driveway, I mean my vehicle, is not all the way pulled up in the driveway. So I feel that it should be adequate enough parking, you know. Staff, were you speaking in terms of parking for drop-offs or pick-ups or were you speaking in terms of parking for employees? Just in terms of the general requirement. The ordinance really doesn't specify as it has to be for an employee or for dropping off and picking up. We know the reality of these is when parents do come to a site, they prefer just to do it as quick as possible, which means park on the street and go. So that's a little history, but she's now agreed. We had problems with both of these areas, especially this one here. Woodhill is designated as a collector street, which means it has higher volumes of traffic than a local street, has a higher designated speed limit, and it's just not advisable to to put in an additional parking area there where they'd have to back out onto a collector street. So the problems with this other area was it's just too tight. There's not really room for a vehicle to get in here all the way and make that turn. Even if there was space maybe for one in there, that space would be blocked partially with one vehicle parked in there and totally blocked with another vehicle parked in the driveway. So we didn't think that was viable there either. But she's dropping that for now. So I guess we need to move on to the other issues. What are your feelings about the other issues? Well, the other main issue was on street parking. She's right at the corner here. From that spot there all the way down here and around the corner, Woodhill is marked for no street parking. For all the streets along that section of Woodhill. So that option is out for her as far as on street parking, which means that to on street park in front of her property, which is of course preferred to avoid disruptions to adjoining properties, that just leaves Woodhill. Again because of the collector street designation of Woodhill, it has periodically high volumes of traffic, 35 mile an hour speed limit. We were uncomfortable recommending that an additional use be authorized that would require on street parking on Woodhill. Now she did mention about that she does a pickup service, which I think we need to maybe talk about that some to see how set in stone that can be and if that's something reasonably that building inspection can kind of keep tabs on, it might be an option to look at. Well, I would be concerned about that particular situation and also I would be concerned about an agreement whether she's going to pick up and deliver. up children and then take them home i think she mentioned that i do i don't know how you police that uh it's a very tedious situation there on that corner i can tell you and unless she did go get the children bring them there and then take them home the the parking on the street wouldn't be necessary because she could park in the driveway but if she didn't do that and even if she parked her van on the street from one time to another she'd still be creating the same kind of problem we're talking about and i don't know how you how you police that i really don't well it gets a little even more complicated because of the extended hours that are proposed which is a little bit unusual. The care is proposed from 6.30 a.m. to 11 p.m. and Monday through Friday and on Saturday. So that was an additional concern that kind of pushed us over the edge, so to speak, as far as impacts. Mr. Hume, your thoughts on monitoring this? I think you're making it an unenforceable situation. it's just as much as i would like to see you with this business i wish it was somewhere else you could put it because i will tell you that corner there at times is very dangerous and i'm over there i have friends that live over there i know what you're trying to do and what you want to do and I applaud you for wanting to do that. But I think to have you to stand there and tell me that you're going to guarantee this body and this city that you're not going to park on the street and that you're going to deliver every child from 6.30 to 11 p.m. is a real harsh guarantee. Okay, sir. I do that now. I have children. Their parents don't have transportation. I pick them up. I take them home. I have one parent that picked their child up and at 11 o'clock I'm there waiting at the door for the parents. Where does she park? She parks in the back in my driveway. This is what I do. And I work closely with the Kentucky Refugee Ministries and they help families with home, housing, childcare. Also, they're a majority of my clients where their parents, the parents don't drive. They have no transportation. That's why I offer this service. And they ask me constantly would I be considering licensing to help for more families. And that's what I like to do. I like to help people. I like to work with children. I love them. doubts in my mind that you don't that you don't love and appreciate young people this is my thoughts are as much for your benefit as it is for the children's benefit from a legal standpoint I I just see too many obstacles that you're going to be faced with here with this particular situation situation and I think staff was pretty lenient in finding their reasons. I mean, I just think it's a tough situation to put you to the gun to say that you will never park on the street over there in that area and that you're going to deliver every child from 6 30 a.m. to 11 p.m. now with the exception of one picking up that's harsh I mean I'm on the that's that's tough that is tough I'm telling you now that that's that's tough for you to follow and tough for you to be restrained to do and I mean I'm also on the bus line also you You know, that's why I chose those hours because people work afternoons, parents catch buses, you know. So that's why I decided to work those hours so people that catch the bus, that has the afternoon shift. Mr. Chairman, just to remind you, we do have someone else here that might want to speak at some point. Oh, thank you. Yes. Ms. Ovalle, at this point, let me hear from the other person wishing to speak. with the chat hey there my name is James Mason I live at 2484 Woodhill Drive just directly across the street from Ms. Stovall the only opposition that I had to was the plan here with the Woodhill parking and the curb was going to be cut and I realized it was going to be a dangerous and bad situation right there she is already apparently alleviated that problem. But sitting here listening to this, I just thought I would interject another. As a person who lives there, I have lived there for three years now. And personally, I know that Ms. Stovall here, her van does not ever sit on the street. I mean, there's no guarantee, of course, like you were saying, but it really doesn't. And that Larkwood, if there's any way that it can be incorporated, I take my son in the morning sometimes to a neighbor of hers, and she watches him. And it really isn't that busy on that street, and there's never been a problem parking. Street parking has always been wide open. I go in the mornings, pick him up. Sometimes very early mornings I have to drop him off, and it's never a problem. Just thought I would put that into it also as a person that lives right there and is able to help out a little bit. But my objection was only with the Woodhill part, is that the street parking on Woodhill is already sometimes congested. And adding anything to it would be just an issue that would be just another big problem. Thank you, Mr. Mason. Thank you. I don't think she has room control. She's here really for a playground. Thank you, Mr. Mason. My comments, Ms. Stovall, is one, you are obviously operating a child care center, which is fine. And what you're attempting to do is fine as well. Commend you for it. However, I think it's just too problematic as far as pick up and drop off, considering the fact that you may pick up and drop off. You may provide the transportation yourself, but I just see this being too problematic to allow this to happen. Yeah, that's my opinion. I'm not sure what the rest of the board wishes to do at this point in time. Any other questions from the board? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Is there any suggestions or any recommendations that I could do? Is there any recommendations or suggestions that I could do? I don't know if there's anything you can do with this particular situation relative to what you want to do. And I really believe that the staff would have bent over backwards to help you if there was anything possible there, within there, without putting a lot of things in jeopardy from safety and for all concerned. I just find that this is, and it's hard for me to say this, tough to approve because of the circumstances that it's surrounding you know I I want to see you in this business because I think you're a sincere person I just wish you could find it somewhere else and I don't know how to tell you to go about doing that I just wish it was somewhere else that you could do this and without without these type of concerns and believe me we We have, you're not the only one that we have scrutinized and tried to help consistently to do things better with this type of thing, especially when it's involving children. In neighborhoods that even though the gentleman said the traffic wasn't heavy, in that area it can be heavy. And I just would hate to see you under that type of gun with this type, with this particular program. And while I can tell you very honestly, I cannot support this program being in this site under these circumstances. Anything else? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion on 2C-2008-43 Carla Jackson Stovall Appeals for a Conditional Use Permit to provide family care for up to 12 children in a townhouse residential R1T zone on property located at 2483 Woodhill Drive, Council District 7, be denied based upon the reasons submitted by the staff. And I'm seriously sorry that I have to do that. Second. And I'm sorry, too. Motion has been made and seconded for disapproval of C-2008-43 Carla Jackson Stovall. All those in favor of the disapproval, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion was disapproved. Sorry, Ms. Stovall. Ms. Stovall, good luck with everything. You do a very admirable work, and sometimes the decisions of this board are very, very difficult to make, and this is one of them. Wish you the best. I believe our remaining case is C2008-49 Twin Pines Christian Church, who appeals for a conditional use permit to expand the church vestibule office addition in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 1139 Tanbark Road, Council District 12. Yes, your name, sir? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Wayne Hayden. I'm from the Hayden Company in Nicholasville, Kentucky, 208 South Main Street, Nicholasville. I have here with me Steve Carroll. He's the building committee chairman with Twin Pines. I apologize for our delay in not being here earlier today. I had the times wrong. I'm on the board of adjustments in Nicholasville for the city down there, so I know the work you all do is valuable, and I apologize for keeping you all waiting or delaying anything for you all today. You just got to be the last on the agenda. Okay. But what we are asking for is something that was essentially it was approved back in, I believe, 1998, according to the planning records. At that time, we had addressed putting in a driveway, additional parking, and a NorthX addition. This same size was on the footprint. I think what was approved was a smaller size of 5,000 square feet. but this is the same size footprint as far as what we turned in on our application for planning 8 500 square feet is what it shows on the plan it's 85 by 100 i believe we have the exterior look from man of war and from tanbark road to show you as well as the the floor plan or the preliminary floor plan is going to be basically like that as you can see on the the overhead there the dash line represents the footprint of where we're talking about building and that's an 85 by 100 area the parking and everything has been taken care of in that time frame from the the previous approval the The stormwater runoff has been taken care of for the previous approval. It's been constructed is what I mean by that. And we expanded the stormwater to meet the building and the driveway. We'll start to work with vision and engineering to make sure that any additional size. I think that's going to be a wonderful addition out there. I like that. I'm sorry? I said I think that's going to be a wonderful addition out there. I like that. And all we've done really is change the size on the application. You had 5,000 approved before. It's now 8,500 is what we're asking. You can see the size down there. I think it's 7,000 or 7,500. The actual footprint is 7,000. Yeah, and then you've got a little bit of a second floor mezzanine there that keeps it within 8,500 square feet. this has been their plan all along when the disciples of Christ planted the church there is to build a multi-purpose building first that they could worship out of and then build an orthx and eventually a sanctuary this does not increase the size of their sanctuary doesn't increase the number of people that they have worshiping in the sanctuary it's more of a gathering It provides an additional bathrooms upstairs, and it provides some child care rooms, nursery, preschool-type rooms, and a kitchenette that they can maybe have a fellowship dinner, a warming-type kitchen, not a commercial kitchen by any means. Okay. Any questions from the board in regards to this? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move that C-200849 Twin Pines Christian Church appeals for a conditional use permit to expand the church in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 1139 Tanbark Road, Council District 12, be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the three conditions. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of C2008-49 Twin Pines Christian Church. If there's no other discussion, I'll call for a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Congratulations. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. I believe that takes care of the items on the agenda. And does the board have any other items that need to be discussed? Yes, I have one. Mrs. Bell, microphone on. Several times I have asked about the Mary Queen of the Holy Rosary Parish and their agreement to give to the city the right-of-way. And I was not here in September when this hearing was heard, September of 2007. And it was at that time that they agreed that they would do this before the October 2007 meeting. And what I'm interested in is whether or not they have transferred this land to the city, this right-of-way to the city. And I've inquired by a number of people, and Jimmy, you were out at the time. And I think I've talked with Mr. Hume, then I spoke with someone else and I'm just wondering if or if not they have carried out their commitment. It's been a while, so I want to clarify whether or not that that requirement was just that they would provide something in writing that they did agree to dedicate the right-of-way. at the time where it's needed. Let me read it if I can find it here. A motion was made by Mr. Owens, seconded by Ms. Edwards, and carried unanimously, conditioned upon agreement to dedicate the right-of-way prior to the November 17th meeting. And I'm just wondering whether it's been dedicated as they agreed to do. Well, there's timing issues involved with the construction, and I guess setting exactly how that was worded at the time aside for the moment, they don't go about trying to get the dedicated right away until there's a certain point where the construction is in the plan or close to, you know. Other guys can fill you in on how that works, but I'm just saying it's a timing issue as to when exactly you get the dedication in most cases. Well, would you find out whether it's been done or not? Well, as far as I know, they haven't changed their agreement to dedicated. I don't know that it's actually been accomplished yet because that project is so many years down the road still. Well, I think it's just interesting that, you know, in the minutes it says that they agreed upon. If I can interject, a party, the church itself cannot just force the property onto the urban county government. either. The dedication would have to be accepted by the urban county government. And it's my understanding the issue is there has not been a decision made as to exactly what will be done there and when it will be done. So frankly, I don't think the urban county government is really ready to take possession of that property at this point. I think the issue would be when the plans are made and we go to the church and say, okay, now we need the right away if they refuse I think at that point they would be in violation but I think the situation is the government really hasn't wanted to take over responsibility for that until they know exactly what's going to be done with it. I think in a way Rochelle this makes the point of a question I have and I think it's for me it's a serious question and that is that the board arrives at a decision, and that decision has to do whether or not to approve, and if so, with what conditions. And there's no real feedback to the board if there has been any change in that, whether or not it's been carried out. In other words, it seems to me that one of the things we need to talk about is how information from the appropriate points in government which work together concerning decisions of this board can perhaps be reviewed and the board then informed when a decision has either not been carried out by the people or another kind of decision has been made or some different negotiations have taken place or this type of thing. In other words, this board acts and then it's like nothing happens after that in terms of informing the board when something should happen. And I think, for example, this was an illustration and it would be helpful to have known that and then it would become part of the minutes of the board. Jim Hume's job is to do annual inspections of the conditional use permits, and he has brought reports to this board when he finds that a permit holder is in violation of conditions. I do not believe that we would find them to be in violation of a condition if the urban county government were not willing to accept dedication of that property yet. And I think that's the situation there. if we go to them and ask for the property and they refuse it, that would be brought back to the board as a violation of the condition. But at the same time, you have something in the minutes of this board which says something is going to happen by such and such a date. Now, when that's not going to happen, then it seems to me the board should be informed and it should be part of then the minutes during the meeting in which the information is given to the board. I think it's something for the board to think about in the future. How to keep in contact with the appropriate parts of the government. I can appreciate Mrs. Bell's concerns and I know Mr. Griggs isn't here but he has spoken in the past in regards to conditions that maybe was set forth that was or was not taken care of. At some point the board has to release the responsibility and trust if I may in the building inspection and traffic engineering and those people that are responsible for following through on this. I'm sure sometimes something gets lost in the shuffle. But in In most parts, they have got to act upon it. Obviously if they see something wrong, they are obligated to bring it back to us. Each and every condition I think could be problematic. We may never get out of here. But Ms. Boland, I'm not sure. We've touched on it before, some sort of a workshop, maybe just to have everybody involved to sit down and let the board maybe hear the process and to give them confidence that, yes, Mr. Hume is, in fact, following through on this. So, you know, that would be my best suggestion at this point. Yes, sir? My only comment here is, and I understand what Ms. Bell is saying, but has there been a complaint from the city? No. I just, you know, if you look at, in a way, some of the terms at least expressed in the material by the group that reviewed the government organization and so forth, there was a comment, I believe, about there were times when there was not the kind of linkages there should have been. And certainly from my experience in this board, there have been times when It wasn't, and it's not a reflection. I'm not really talking too much about Jim at all. It has to do with things that happen in planning. It happens to do with sometimes information, which over time we see patterns that perhaps we should be more active, proactive in letting the Planning Commission sense that some of the zoning regulations, regulations that are difficult to enforce and in the sense that today the swimming pool and the yard might be somewhat symbolic of sometimes problems with some of the zoning regulations. Don't you feel though that if the city government attempted to access this particular piece of property that you're speaking of and were not allowed to do that, don't you think that he would know and would intervene and bring forth the regulations that this board has stipulated? Oh, I think eventually the board would get to know, but I'm not sure just how, you know, what the route might be in getting it to know. I mean, you might see it in the newspaper as well as anything else. I'm just saying that it seems to me that there are, at times, important things communicated, not communicated, between the related divisions of government. that's all and I thought it would be somewhat reluctant times not to bring this up and I do think the workshop some of the issues that we may or may not have would be very very helpful thank you miss I said in the workshop last week that this we did it yes I I didn't find you so entertaining. This would be one that we would design based upon our interests. So I don't know if I've been familiar with these workshops. I'm not casting dispersion on any of the staff. They didn't set them up. But I left there wondering why I was there. Once again, I appreciate Mrs. Bell's concern. And to clarify, when I mentioned Jim a moment ago, that was just as an example. Sorry, Jim. I wasn't pointing any fingers. Ms. Bolin, you were involved yesterday in an ad hoc committee meeting that I think at the end of it talked a lot about process. and I think process is hearing processes at times and being reminded of them per se if nothing else would go a long way to giving confidence that's needed here I believe from what Mrs. Bell is saying and from what I've heard from Jimmy Greggs and others it's something to look at I've mentioned the consent decree a couple of times, more than twice this meeting, but I believe with that taking place, everyone is very concerned with what did occur in the past and steps are being taken to have a process that does work and that there is accountability and in that you know we alleviate ourselves from from what the past put us into the board here I think as miss Bell's relating to is just concerned that you know we put conditions on on various things and and you know she wants to make sure I want to make sure that those conditions are met and as I said a moment ago, you know, we've got to believe in Mr. Hume and the various departments that, you know, it's their job to make sure that it does. And if not, then, you know, we've got to know, and I think, you know, we do, that they will bring it back to us in one form or another. Or, you know, as with, you know, I think the church on Viley Road today, you know, it came before is because there were problems with stormwater management and you know whether it's Mr. Brock or engineering they couldn't live with the plan so you know an amendment had to occur. Those are my thoughts at the moment. Anything else as far as items that the board should bring up? There is a on the agenda training opportunity coming up a very exciting training opportunity and i'm sure miss moore is going to be really interested in attending so that's on wednesday june 25th yes yes uh yeah we'll know you will you will notify us and remind i get a little note on the sheet that you sent out on the itinerary sheet somebody writes me a little note that says don't forget oh you mean when you get your package okay um and i think do do we not have something else to attend an all-day seminar or something that possibly is scheduled for the month of june so the ka company k yeah anyway everyone got information about it it's totally a separate thing i believe that everyone was notified about. The Kentucky Association of Counties, which is June 19th. Any items from the staff? Any other items from the staff? No? If not, the next meeting date is June 27th, 2008. If there's no other items, I'll declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. you