# Board of Adjustment Meeting - May 29, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 29, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/925 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/925?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-05-29 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 26,851 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment met on May 29, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Peter Brown presiding. The board considered nine agenda items, taking 10 motions and votes throughout the meeting while hearing six public comments. Of the nine items presented, eight were approved and one was deferred. The approved items included variances and conditional uses for a range of projects: a front yard variance for Broadview Buildings, Inc.; conditional uses for live entertainment and dancing at Club Facilities, LLC; a drive-through bank for Ball & Wright Capital Holding Co., LLC; a columbarium addition for Lexington Cemetery Co.; a visitor and education center for Mary E. Wharton Nature Sanctuary at Floracliff; a church expansion for St. Luke United Methodist Church; family child care operations for Donita K. Hughes; and a drive-through pharmacy for Joy & Associates, Inc. The board deferred action on a conditional use request from Kerry and Tina Ball for a temporary real estate sales office. ## Attendance **Present:** Peter Brown, Louis Stout, Carolyn Edwards, Barry Stumbo, Kathryn Moore, Jan Meyer, Jim Hume, Barry Brock, Jim Gallimore, Capt. Charles Bowen, W. L. Wilson, Chris King, Bill Sallee, Jim Marx, and Wanda Howard. **Absent:** Griggs. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took action on ten items during this meeting, with nine passing and one failing. **C-2002-2: Postponement of Revocation Hearing for Episcopal Diocese of Lexington, Inc.** [0:01:20] Motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by Louis Stout. The postponement of a revocation hearing regarding non-compliance with 2002 conditional use permit conditions was approved unanimously by all six board members: Peter Brown, Louis Stout, Carolyn Edwards, Barry Stumbo, Kathryn Moore, and Jan Meyer. **V-2009-33: Variance for Broadview Buildings, Inc.** [0:18:14] Motion by Barry Stumbo, seconded by Carolyn Edwards. Approval of a variance to reduce the front yard from 300 feet to 178 feet in the A-R zone at 3229 Iron Works Pike passed unanimously. The approval includes conditions requiring construction per submitted plans, obtaining necessary permits, providing access via private drive only, and compliance with Department of Health sewage requirements. **CV-2009-31: Conditional Use Permit for Club Facilities, LLC** [0:22:01] Motion by Carolyn Edwards, seconded by Jan Meyer. Approval of a conditional use permit and variance to offer live entertainment and dancing at 3256 Lansdowne Drive in the B-1 zone passed unanimously. Conditions include limiting outdoor entertainment to 6:00 PM through 9:30 PM Monday through Saturday, soundproofing requirements, and noise restrictions to protect surrounding residential properties. **C-2009-25: Conditional Use Permit for Ball & Wright Capital Holding Co., LLC** [0:30:46] Motion by Jan Meyer, seconded by Barry Stumbo. Approval of a conditional use permit to construct and operate a drive-through bank facility in the P-1 zone at 998 Governors Lane passed unanimously. Conditions require construction per revised site plan dated May 28, 2009, Division of Traffic Engineering review, and storm water management compliance. **C-2009-26: Conditional Use Permit for Lexington Cemetery Co.** [0:32:26] Motion by Louis Stout, seconded by Carolyn Edwards. Approval of a conditional use permit to add a columbarium to an existing mausoleum in the A-U zone at 833 West Main Street passed unanimously. **C-2009-27: Conditional Use Permit for Mary E. Wharton Nature Sanctuary at Floracliff** [0:35:54] Motion by Jan Meyer, seconded by Kathryn Moore. Approval of a conditional use permit to construct and occupy a visitor/education center in the A-R zone passed with five votes in favor (Carolyn Edwards, Jan Meyer, Kathryn Moore, Louis Stout, Barry Stumbo) and one abstention (Peter Brown). **C-2009-30: Conditional Use Permit for St. Luke United Methodist Church** [0:41:41] Motion by Louis Stout, seconded by Barry Stumbo. Approval of a conditional use permit to expand the church and accessory parking in the R-3 zone at 2351 Alumni Drive passed unanimously. **C-2009-28: Conditional Use Permit for Donita K. Hughes** [1:23:02] Motion by Louis Stout, seconded by Carolyn Edwards. Approval of a conditional use permit to provide family child care for up to 10 children in the R-1D zone at 668 Lombardy Drive passed with five votes in favor (Peter Brown, Louis Stout, Carolyn Edwards, Barry Stumbo, Kathryn Moore) and one vote against (Jan Meyer). **C-2009-29: Conditional Use Permit for Kerry and Tina Ball** [1:59:12] Motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by Barry Stumbo. Approval of a conditional use permit to establish a temporary real estate sales office in the EAR-1 zone at 2149 Winning Colors Lane failed. The roll call vote resulted in two votes in favor (Louis Stout, Barry Stumbo), two votes against (Peter Brown, Jan Meyer), and two abstentions (Kathryn Moore, Carolyn Edwards). **C-2009-14: Conditional Use Permit for Joy & Associates, Inc.** [3:11:07] Motion by Carolyn Edwards, seconded by Jan Meyer. Approval of a conditional use permit to construct and operate a drive-through pharmacy facility in the B-2 zone at 366, 370, 376, and 400 East Main Street passed unanimously. ## Public Comment Six speakers addressed the board on various matters during the public comment period. **Episcopal Diocese of Lexington Compliance** Rev. Bryant Kibbler spoke at [timestamp: 0:09:11] regarding the Episcopal Diocese of Lexington's compliance status. He revealed that the Diocese had been unaware of 2002 conditions until 2008 and had recently resolved a miscommunication concerning the site plan. Construction was scheduled to begin in June. **Child Care Permit Opposition** Joan Atwell spoke at [timestamp: 1:00:59] in opposition to a child care permit. She expressed concerns about children pulling flowers, throwing rocks, and accessing her yard. She also warned of safety risks posed by dogs and an uncovered pool. **Real Estate Sales Office Opposition** Three speakers opposed a proposed real estate sales office. Dave Winters spoke at [timestamp: 1:27:03], arguing that the office would cause traffic congestion on narrow streets. He noted that the applicant already operated a second office within the same subdivision. Sue Winters spoke at [timestamp: 1:35:23] in support of her husband's concerns, stating that parking issues and traffic would negatively impact residents' ability to access their driveways. Pam Moravik spoke at [timestamp: 1:36:58], contending that a business office in a residential neighborhood is inappropriate. She suggested that the barn site would be a better location for the sales office. **Pharmacy Drive-Through Support** Martha Jenkins spoke at [timestamp: 2:45:48] in support of a pharmacy drive-through proposal. She shared her experience as a former Board of Adjustment chair and urged approval of the project, emphasizing the need for convenience retail in downtown Lexington. ## Contested Items The meeting included three items that generated significant community opposition or heated discussion. **Real Estate Sales Office at 2149 Winning Colors Lane** Neighbors raised concerns about a proposed real estate sales office in their subdivision. The primary issues centered on traffic congestion and the impact of narrow streets in the area. Additional concern was expressed about having a second office of this type within the same subdivision. The disagreement resulted in a tied vote, and no action was taken on the proposal. **Child Care Permit at 668 Lombardy Drive** A neighbor objected to a proposed child care permit, citing multiple concerns about the operation. The objection focused on worries that children using the facility could access the neighbor's yard, as well as concerns about the neighbor's dogs and an uncovered pool on the property. The permit was put to a vote that resulted in a close outcome, with one council member abstaining from the decision. **Pharmacy Drive-Through at 366, 370, 376, and 400 East Main Street** A pharmacy drive-through proposal sparked extensive debate among attendees. The discussion centered on three main areas of concern: traffic impacts, pedestrian safety, and architectural design of the proposed structure. Staff members and the applicants worked extensively throughout the review process to address the concerns raised by the community and decision-makers. Following these efforts to resolve the issues, the proposal was ultimately approved. ## Broadview Buildings, Inc. - Variance to reduce front yard from 300' to 178' in A-R zone [timestamp: 0:17:06] **Proposal** Broadview Buildings, Inc. requested a variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 300 feet to 178 feet in the A-R (Agricultural-Residential) zone to construct a single-family residence. **Key Speakers** Michael McCoskey presented the variance request. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the variance based on special circumstances specific to the property, including: - The location of a former residence on the site - The presence of underground utilities - The need to preserve the rural character of the area **Outcome** The Board approved the variance for Broadview Buildings, Inc., allowing the front yard setback to be reduced from the standard 300 feet to 178 feet for the proposed single-family residence construction. ## Club Facilities, LLC - Conditional use and variance for live entertainment and dancing **Case Number:** CV-2009-31 The Board considered a conditional use permit and variance request for Club Facilities, LLC to offer live entertainment and dancing at a restaurant located in the B-1 zone. [timestamp: 0:19:50] **Key Speakers:** - Bruce Simpson - Fred Eastridge - Ron Turner **Outcome:** The Board approved the conditional use permit and variance request. The approval included specific conditions designed to minimize potential disturbances to the surrounding area: - Restrictions on operating hours for the live entertainment and dancing activities - Requirements for soundproofing measures - Noise control conditions These conditions were incorporated into the permit to address concerns about the impact of live entertainment operations on neighboring properties and the community. ## Ball & Wright Capital Holding Co., LLC - Conditional use for drive-through bank [timestamp: 0:23:20] The Board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2009-25) from Ball & Wright Capital Holding Co., LLC for a drive-through bank facility in the P-1 zone. **Key Participants** The discussion involved applicants Jimmy Ball and Steve Wright, along with Board members Richard Murphy, Charles Hite, and Matt Carter. **Proposal and Revision** The applicants submitted a revised site plan that addressed previous concerns regarding access and circulation issues. The Board found this revised proposal to be a better alternative to the initial submission, indicating that the modifications successfully resolved the primary concerns that had been raised during earlier review. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the drive-through bank facility. ## Lexington Cemetery Co. - Conditional use for columbarium addition The Board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2009-26) for the Lexington Cemetery Company to add a columbarium to an existing mausoleum located in an A-U zone. [timestamp: 0:31:54] Dan Scalf presented the item to the Board. Staff analysis found that the proposed columbarium addition would not adversely impact surrounding properties. The Board approved the conditional use permit for the project. ## Mary E. Wharton Nature Sanctuary at Floracliff - Conditional use for visitor/education center The Board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2009-27) for a visitor and education center at the Mary E. Wharton Nature Sanctuary at Floracliff, located in an A-R zone [timestamp: 0:33:31]. Charlie Sither presented the application to the Board. The proposal sought approval for a conditional use permit to allow the development of a visitor and education center at the sanctuary. The applicant agreed to accept conditions on the permit, including limitations on paving and environmental safeguards to protect the natural character of the property. These conditions were designed to minimize the facility's impact on the sanctuary's ecological resources. The Board approved the conditional use permit, allowing the visitor and education center to proceed with the agreed-upon conditions in place. ## St. Luke United Methodist Church - Conditional use for church expansion **Case Number:** C-2009-30 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a conditional use permit application for St. Luke United Methodist Church to expand its building and parking facilities within an R-3 zoned area [timestamp: 0:38:30]. **Presentation and Discussion** Chris Howard presented the application to the Board. The proposal involved expanding the church's existing structure and parking capacity in the residential zone. **Conditions Approved** The Board approved the conditional use permit with the following conditions: - Landscaping requirements for the expanded areas - Stormwater management provisions to address drainage and runoff from the expansion - Traffic design specifications to manage vehicle flow and parking operations **Board Action** The Board granted the conditional use permit, allowing the church to proceed with its expansion project subject to compliance with the approved conditions. ## Donita K. Hughes - Conditional use for family child care **Agenda Item:** C-2009-28 The Board considered a conditional use permit application for family child care operations at the property of Donita K. Hughes [timestamp: 0:59:51]. **Applicant and Proposal** Donita Hughes presented her application for a conditional use permit to operate a family child care facility. The proposed operation would accommodate a maximum of ten children. **Conditions Approved** The Board approved the conditional use permit with the following conditions: * Supervision requirements for the child care operation * Pool safety measures * Fencing specifications for the property **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit for family child care, subject to the applicant's agreement to comply with the conditions regarding supervision, pool safety, and fencing. ## Kerry and Tina Ball - Conditional use for temporary real estate sales office Kerry and Tina Ball requested conditional use approval for a temporary real estate sales office in an EAR-1 zone [timestamp: 1:59:12]. **Application Details** The applicants sought permission to operate a temporary sales office for real estate purposes within an EAR-1 zoned area. **Opposition and Concerns** Neighbors opposed the proposal, citing traffic and parking concerns as primary issues. These concerns were significant enough to influence the Board's consideration of the request. **Board Action** The Board did not take action on the request due to a tie vote. This deadlock resulted in the matter being deferred rather than approved or denied. **Outcome** The conditional use request was deferred, leaving the application unresolved at the conclusion of this meeting. ## Joy & Associates, Inc. - Conditional use for drive-through pharmacy **Agenda Item:** C-2009-14 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a conditional use permit application for Joy & Associates, Inc. to operate a drive-through pharmacy in the B-2 zone [timestamp: 2:05:21]. **Presentation and Key Speakers** Gary Joy, representing the applicant, presented the proposal along with Kevin Phillips. Rena Wiseman also participated in the discussion. **Application Details** The applicant submitted a revised site plan that addressed concerns related to traffic flow and pedestrian safety. The revised plan demonstrated modifications made in response to Board feedback or staff recommendations regarding the drive-through pharmacy's operational and site design elements. **Board Findings** The Board determined that the proposed drive-through pharmacy constituted a necessary addition to downtown retail services. The revised site plan was found to adequately address the traffic and pedestrian concerns that had been raised during the review process. **Approval** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the drive-through pharmacy operation in the B-2 zone. --- ## Decisions - **C-2002-2** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of revocation hearing for the Episcopal Diocese of Lexington, Inc. due to non-compliance with 2002 conditional use permit conditions - **V-2009-33** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance for Broadview Buildings, Inc. to reduce front yard from 300’ to 178’ in A-R zone at 3229 Iron Works Pike - **CV-2009-31** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit and variance for Club Facilities, LLC to offer live entertainment and dancing at 3256 Lansdowne Drive, B-1 zone - **C-2009-25** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for Ball & Wright Capital Holding Co., LLC to construct and operate a drive-through facility for a bank in P-1 zone at 998 Governors Lane - **C-2009-26** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for Lexington Cemetery Co. to add a columbarium to an existing mausoleum in A-U zone at 833 West Main Street - **C-2009-27** — passed (5-0): Approval of conditional use permit for Mary E. Wharton Nature Sanctuary at Floracliff to construct and occupy a visitor/education center in A-R zone at 7950 & 8000 Elk Lick Falls Road and 6350 Cedarcreek Lane - **C-2009-30** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for St. Luke United Methodist Church to expand church and accessory parking in R-3 zone at 2351 Alumni Drive - **C-2009-28** — passed (5-1): Approval of conditional use permit for Donita K. Hughes to provide family child care for up to 10 children in R-1D zone at 668 Lombardy Drive - **C-2009-29** — failed (2-2): Approval of conditional use permit for Kerry and Tina Ball to establish a temporary real estate sales office in EAR-1 zone at 2149 Winning Colors Lane - **C-2009-14** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for Joy & Associates, Inc. to construct and operate a drive-through facility for a proposed pharmacy in B-2 zone at 366, 370, 376, and 400 East Main Street --- ## Full transcript Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music The May meeting of the Fay County Board of Adjustments. Mr. Griggs will not be with us today. Unfortunately for him, he's in the south of France vacationing. I asked him if he wanted me to join him in by speakerphone and he declined. First of all, I'd like to ask you all to, if you have cell phones, to please turn them off or switch them to vibrate or silent mode. Then I'd like to take a moment to remember a long-serving member of the board, Joanne Bell. She passed away recently, and I learned a lot from her while she was on the board, and she was a good friend. and I just wanted to recognize her and say that she's my friend and I'll miss her. We have two sets of minutes prepared from the December 2008 meeting and the January 2009 meeting. And I'll just ask if the board members have reviewed the minutes and if there are any motions. Move except. Second. All those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Minutes are passed. Now we'll sound the agenda. And we'll ask that anyone that wishes to postpone their case or withdraw their case come forward to the podium, please. Mr. Marks, are you aware of any postponements? No, I'm not. Okay. None of those then. Then, let's see. I'm going to call through the agenda to see if there are, which cases have objectors. The first case is V2009-93, Broadview Buildings. Are there any objectors here for that case? Is the applicant here for that case? Okay. Okay. Next case is CB2009-31, Club Facilities, LLC. Is the applicant here in that case? Mr. Simpson? Are there any objectors here for that case? The next case is a revocation hearing. The Episcopal Diocese of Lexington is the respondent here. Thank you, sir. Next case is C. 2009-14, Joint Associates. I know the applicants here. Are there any objectors here for that case? Well, go ahead. I didn't note if there were objectors or not. I didn't see any. I'm Rena Wiseman. I did like to request that that be put at the end for a hearing on that one. Will do. All right. Thank you, Ms. Wiseman. Next case is C2009-25, Ball and Wright Capital Holding Company. Is the applicant here in that case, Mr. Murphy? Are there any objectors here for that case? Next case is C2009-26, Lexington Cemetery. Is the applicant here in that matter? Are there any objectors here? Next case is C2009-27. the Mary Warren Nature Sanctuary at Florida. Are you the applicant? Are there any objectors here in that matter? And 2009-28 Donita Hughes. Ms. Hughes here. Are there any objectors here in that case? Your objector, ma'am? All right. Thank you, ma'am. This case, C2009-29, Carrie and Tina Ball. Are you the applicant? Are there any objectors here for that case? Okay. And next case is C, 2009-30, St. Luke United Methodist Church. That's the applicant here. All right. Are there any objectors here for that case? And the final case on the agenda is A, 2009-32, the Liberty Worship Center. Is the applicant here in that case? Okay. Are there any objectors here? Okay. If I could, I would like the Board to, I just got here, I apologize, to postpone the Episcopal Diocese of Lexington until next month. Mr. Chair, I would object to that. Building inspection objects to postponing this case. They've had adequate time, ample time, and have dragged their feet tremendously to get to this point. And that's not the reason that they're not here. I talked to their attorney, who just received the notice of this, and he could not be available for this hearing, and ask if he could wait until next month to prepare a response. Sir, forgive me. I don't know who you are. You're an attorney. My name is W.O. Wilson with the Department of Law. Okay. I'm here on Rochelle Baldwin's behalf. All right. Thank you. And who's the attorney that's representing the Episcopal Diocese? It's Buck Hinkle. Okay. I think I saw a priest in the would you come forward to the podium please sir would you state your name please Brian Kibler Attorney for the City's asked that this be postponed and I wondered what you knew about that It would be our preference to. We have met several times with Jim Hume and last time we met on March 10th with a portion of the city. The original plans that were drawn and the proposal was that we would pave the parking lot and part of that involved exiting onto Kleiser Avenue, which is adjacent to our property. When we met both Mark Arnold, the landscape architect, and I came away from that meeting with the understanding that there was absolutely no way we would be permitted to exit onto that property. So we were under the understanding we had to start a new plan as to how that might be done. The confusion that occurred was he thought I was going to notify him to start. I thought he was already going to start on it. We have a proposal, very sketchy for doing it. We are, if we can get permission to change and now have all of our exit and entrance onto 4th Street, as well as drainage and such, we would be ready to start construction as early as the 26th of June once we finish our camp for children of the incarcerated and for one week before that for the children who are reading below grade level where we have a reading camp for them for here in the city. All right. Well, this is a 2002 case. Is there any dispute here that you haven't done what you agreed to do? There's not. You know, all I can say is that I became aware of it when I received a letter from Mr. Hume in early February of last year. That was the first I had come on in the previous December of 2007. Our previous administrator had suddenly left. And that was the first, in fact, when I received that letter, I started digging through files to find if there was anything, because I was under the understanding that everything was completed. I have found out since that time that it was not. All right, thank you. Let me ask Mr. Hume. It sounds like they're admitting that they haven't done what they were supposed to do. So given your patience here, and they've tried your patience, I'm in favor to do what you suggest. But would you please tell us what you think ought to happen here? Well, given the runaround I've been given, I'd rather go forward with a hearing. I mean, they've really not been very cooperative with this whole thing. and seven years down the road, my patience has gone with it. Well, we have an admission that he's not compliant. I understand that, and he's admitted to me a number of times that late. Okay. Yes? Can we set a deadline for completion of the walk? Well, it sounds like that they're wanting to amend their plan. I wonder if the planning staff has any suggestions for us. If that's going to happen and if it's significant enough amendment that building inspection can't approve it on their own, it's going to have to come back to you all anyway. So I think their goal should be to get on as soon as they can for an amended conditional use application rather than to waste time going through the revocation hearing. Yeah, I think we've got an admission here, so I don't know that we have to have a hearing. I think what, just to keep the pressure on you, Father Keebler, and the diocese, I think it might be wise to postpone this one month and to see if you and the diocese have a revised plan filed, see if you can work something out with Mr. Hume's office. And if not, then we'll have a full hearing next month. and I don't know what sanctions we can – I don't know that we can close down the whole diocese, but I don't know what sanctions we can impose, but we'll certainly – Would it behoove them to go ahead and apply for an amended plan and go ahead and get that in the works? Because that's what it's going to come down to. We cannot come to an agreement with their new plan. And they've waited so long to do the old plan that now the powers to be will not accept it. Well, it sounds like it's not quite fair to place all the blame on you. but you're who's here now. Yes, and we do not dispute in the slightest that we drop the ball. Okay. All right. Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Young? I guess, Mr. Brown, if we could just over here, sorry. The timing here is kind of critical. I've missed the official filing deadline for the June hearing, so to keep things according to the normal filing schedule, they'd be looking at a July hearing, assuming they met the next deadline, unless you all wanted to waive the filing deadline if they wanted to shoot for June. They'd have to get something in real soon, though, for that to meet our legal requirements for notice. I'm comfortable waiving the filing deadline. I don't know about the rest of the board. July is fine with me. I just think it's from 2002 to 2009, it's time for something to happen to this project. Can I just ask a question to clarify? Is the problem here that you're using the existing building and you were not supposed to be using it until something was paved? Is that the basic problem? That's the problem, but here's the – and then I think I know where you're going with this. There's a certificate of occupancy issued for the building, but it was issued in the dead of winter with their promise that they would come back in the spring to do the right thing. So I trusted the church to do the right thing, and they failed. So if you're asking if there's a CO, yes, ma'am, there is. But it also had a note that the conditions should be met. And when was the CO? I think it was December of 2003. It was in the winter of 2003. So our choice, though, at this point would either be say you can't use the building until it's paved in agreement with building inspection or give you a couple months to reach an agreement with building inspection and have a new plan? Is that basically what's going on here? Yeah, but they're not going to reach that agreement with them until they complete the project. Well, I think they want to amend their proposed project. Is that right, Father Koehler? My understanding is we have to because we cannot use that alley anymore. The access you thought you had, you in fact don't have. I guess our question to them is can they do it in two months? Yeah, how long is it going to take you to actually do this? I can call this afternoon to start having the trees removed. And we already have a preliminary plan minus the drainage issue, which we have to go with streets and engineering. but we are as I say we have this initial landscape plan of where it would go and how that would be changed Mr. Chair I'm sorry to interrupt you there was a proposal here that made a lot of sense postpone the revocation hearing until July which is the deadline they have to come back for their revision if you pass their revision I will drop the revocation and we can do it all in one meeting and not have to repeat ourselves. Thank you. That makes sense to me. Is that okay with the board? Mr. Marks? Is that okay with you, Father King? It's fine with me. In that case, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2002-2 Episcopal Diocese of Lexington, Inc. Replication hearing be postponed for two months until the July 2009 hearing. Second. All those in favor of Ms. Moore's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, Father Cable will see you in July. Good luck to you. Thank you, Mr. Hume. I want you to submit a whole set, Coach. Okay. Okay. All right, we'll go back to V2009-33 Broadview Buildings. Is the applicant here in that case? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Michael McCoskey of Broadview Buildings. I'm sorry, what's your last name, sir? McCoskey, M-C-C-O-S-K-E-Y. Okay. Thank you, sir. I neglected to give everyone the group's away here. I ask anyone who's going to testify here today that they raise their right hand and swear or affirm that the testimony they give here today will be the truth. All right, thank you. I also got a little distracted. I wondered if there's anyone here who's here for a case that they didn't hear called. All right. I'm sorry, Mr. Murkowski. The staff's recommended approval of your application subject to four conditions. Have you reviewed those conditions? Yes, I have. And do you agree to abide by all those? No problem there. All right. Any questions for Mr. McCoskey? Not at all. Any questions from the board for you? All right. If there's no questions or discussions, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move the item V, 2009-33, Broadway, Broadview Buildings, appeals for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 300 feet to 178 feet in order to construct a single-family residence in the agriculture AR zone on property located at 3229 Ironworks Pike be approved with the conditions as set forth by staff. Second. Thank you, Mr. Stumbo, Ms. Edwards. Although, any other discussion? If not, then all those in favor of Mr. Stumbo's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? All right. Mr. Mikoski, good luck to you. Thank you. All right, you too. Thank you. Okay. All right. Next case is CV 2009-31 Club Facilities, LLC. Bruce Simpson Good afternoon, Mr. Simpson. Bruce Simpson Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here today on behalf of Club Facilities, LLC, which is the Signature Club. Ron Turner is with me. We've reviewed the staff report, staff recommendations, the conditions of approval, and we agree with all of those and agree to abide by them. Bruce Simpson Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Any questions for Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson, I do have one question. I know that you agreed to the limit of 9.30 p.m. outside. Is that like an acoustic guitar player? We're not going to have a live band out there on the back porch, are we? No, it's background-type music, conversational. They want to have, if you've been out there, it's dining outside, and so you want to have the music low enough so people can talk back and forth across the table. So it's very low-key intensity, and usually it's one musician playing an acoustic guitar sometime, and maybe an organ or something like that. But the ambient noise with the swimming pool is louder than what we're talking about. Thank you. I want to make a call once again for any objectors. I want to make sure no one drifted in late. Any other questions for staff or Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson. Neighbors are okay with this? You've had conversations with them? We have. This case actually is the culmination of where we are today through a series of negotiations with the Lansdowne Neighborhood Associations to rezone the property, which went through the Planning Commission, the Urban County Council in March and April of this year. And then we have not heard any objection from our application for this permit. This is merely a continuation of what the use was when it was a private club. We're not doing anything different than what was done previously. Mr. Simpson, will there be any structures built for a bandstand or anything, gazebo or anything like that? No, no new structures will be added or constructed in connection with this application. Okay. All right, any other discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Chair. Go ahead. Madam. CV 2009-31 Club Facilities, LLC, appeals for a conditional use permit to offer live entertainment and dancing as part of the operation of the open-to-the-public restaurant and a variance to reduce the required 100-foot setback from the nearest residential zone to 19 feet in a neighborhood business B1 zone on property located at 3256 Lansdowne Drive in Council District 4 be approved subject to the six recommendations made by staff. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I second. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. All those in favor of Ms. Edwards' motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Good luck to you, Ms. Schubert. Thank you. You're welcome. I Next case, I have a C2009-25. Ballinwright Capital Holding. Staff's recommended postponement. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. We have a supplemental report that I think should be in front of you there. Yeah, they gave it. Oh, okay. Sorry. This plan was recently revised to address both the access and the circulation issues. It actually was approved by the Planning Commission yesterday, So our supplemental report that has findings and conditions does recommend approval. Okay. All right. Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. present the applicant, Ball & Wright Capital Holding Company. Jimmy Ball and Steve Wright are the two principals in that. Jimmy Ball is with me today, along with Matt Carter, our designer from Vision Engineering and Chas Heide, a planner. And we have reviewed the revised staff recommendation form. As Mr. Marks mentioned to you, we had a revised plan that went through the Planning Commission yesterday and was approved by the Planning Commission and is actually identical to the plan you have today. Obviously they could not approve the drive-through. You have the jurisdiction of the drive-through facility. But we have reviewed that and along with the conditions of approval and agreed to the conditions of approval. Okay. Well, congratulations on your outcome yesterday. Obviously we haven't had a chance to review this. Now do you want to move forward with us today? We would prefer to, if that's possible, we'd prefer to move forward with it today. Okay. Because it's a matter of getting the permits for the building to get underway and be constructed. Okay. Let me just see what the pleasure of the board is. It was already approved. I'll add. If it's any comfort level, the actual design of the drive-through hasn't changed at all as a result of addressing those other issues. other issues. It's the same as the original submittal. Well, then it would be helpful if either you, Mr. Marks, or Mr. Murphy would tell us what's changed. It looks like the traffic island is proposed to be reduced. That's correct. So that access will work much better now. The only other change really is regarding the border between the two adjoining properties, that the way it was approved by the Planning Commission, it still allows for some flexibility there if that adjoining property can be developed so where there's internal circulation, which is desirable. Circulation by vehicles between the two lots is the goal. Okay, and you want that to happen, is that correct? Okay. And we have kept open that possibility, so we have flexibility to require as the development progresses. Well, Mr. Gallimore, in my recollection of this case from last month, it was like the main objection was the traffic island median in the street that's adjacent to the lot there. So what's your thoughts on this? The revised plan that was taken to the Planning Commission shows, in our opinion, a better circulation pattern and it also does allow for potential connectivity to the adjacent property. It's not guaranteed at this point since the DP has not been shown for the adjacent lot, but there still is a shot for interconnectivity. the circulation for waste management and the drive-through seems to be better than what was originally offered since the drive aisle has been reconfigured. So we're satisfied with what has been submitted to the Planning Commission. So you don't have any serious heartburn? No. Okay. All right. I might add that we have right across Governor's Lane from this property. I'll put a picture up. Another building which my clients have constructed, which has fork bank in it with a drive-through lane, very similar configuration to what we're doing. Ours will be across the street, and it'll be Whitaker Bank. But this is the, it's not coming out real well, but this is the, there we go. This is the one across the street. Governor's Lane runs right over here. Beaumont Center Circle runs behind the building behind me. Our property would be over on the left side of this. But this front entrance faces Governor's Lane and our building is on the other side of Governor's Lane. It would be facing the same way. This has a drive-through facility on the rear of it and facing Beaumont Center Circle, ours will have a similar pattern. And my clients built this one. It has worked out very well and the one on the other side will be similar type configuration. Just using it as an example because they are out there. They built this one. It has a drive-through for a bank like the other one will be. So So it's something that is working well out there on the site right now. We had postponed it to make a number of amendments to the plan that the staff had suggested to us, the main ones being as you have discussed, we are reducing that median feature to allow safe exit and entrance into our entrance point here. And the other one was we kept flexibility on our property so the interconnectivity could be provided. We would not be the stumbling block to interconnectivity. In other words, on this lot we have that potential to still be there depending on whatever the other lot owner does in the future. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Marks, are you aware of any problems with this current building? I'm sorry, Mr. Hume, forgive me. No, Mr. Hume. No, I'm not aware of any issues. Okay. I am not either. Okay. Thank you both. All right. Well, what's the board's thinking on this? Do we go ahead and make a motion? Okay. All right. Is there any additional discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, KC-200925 Ball & Wright Capital Holding Company, LLC, appeal for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a drive-through facility for a proposed bank in a professional P1 zone on property located at 998 Governor's Lane be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions as outlined by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. I'll second that, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Stumbo. Any other discussion? Nothing. All those in favor of Ms. Meyer's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. All right, next case is C2009-26 Lexington Cemetery. Mr. Chairman, Board members, my name is Dan Scaff, President and General Manager of Lexington Cemetery. The staff has recommended approval of your additional use and subject to three recommendations or three conditions. Have you reviewed those conditions? I have and we'll agree to those. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Staff or any discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to C-2009-26 Lexington Cemetery Company appeals for conditional use permit to add a colibarium in the existing mausoleum and an existing mausoleum to an existing mausoleum in agriculture urban AU zone on property located 833 West Main Street, Council District 2, be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the three conditions. Second. Thank you, Mr. Stout, Ms. Edwards. All those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes unanimously. He's got a funeral to get to. So, all right. We'll move on to the C2009-27 Mary E. Warden Nature Sanctuary, if for it. Charlie Syther, President of the Florida Cliff Board of Directors. We have reviewed all the conditions with the assistance of my builder and my architect, and we agree with them. I've got a question for Mr. Hume. I hear you. Yes, sir. I wanted to get your input on the gravel parking lot. That seems to be the only problem. We oppose to that. We would like to see the required parking paved and also the access to the required parking to be paved. In the incidental driving area, we don't mind having gravel on that. But for the required parking and that access, we ask that that be required to be paved. Now, is that the way the conditions are drafted? No, there's some paving required. I just don't know if it's... No, it's not. The only paving required as part of the recommended conditions are the access from Elk Lake Falls Road and the handicapped parking space and the access from that space to the actual ramp that goes to the building. With what Mr. Hume is recommending, you'd have to pave the additional portion of the driveway up to that 18-space parking area and pave at least six of those spaces in that parking area. So there's some conflict between Mr. Hume and what the recommendations are? Yes, sir. Any questions for the applicant or discussion? I'd like to say that I have visited Floor Cliff on occasion. I've been out there for a wildflower walk with my daughter and enjoyed it. And also that Floor Cliff is a state nature preserve. and I'm on the board of the State Nature Preserves. I'm one of the commissioners, so I have to abstain from this case. But I'm not, by doing that, I'm not in any way saying I don't support what you're doing here. Any questions or discussions? If not, I understand a motion. Mr. Chair, I, relating to case dash C-2009-27, the Mary E. Wharton Nature Sanctuary at Fort Floorcliff, appealed for a conditional use permit to construct and occupy a visitor education center as part of an existing nature sanctuary in the conditional agricultural zone, AR zone, on properties located at 7950 and 8000 Elk Lick Falls Road and 6350 Cedar Creek Lane be approved as for reasons stated by the staff and subject to the six conditions outlined by the staff, which includes caving only the apron access and the handicapped space. and ADA ramp. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Any discussion before we vote? I'd just like to know that the board may be setting some kind of precedent for in the future for any kind of facility, and the parking issue and the gravel issue, that's a great concern to this government. Even if we curb the gravel with railroad tires? The curbing of the gravel is not the issue. It's the actual gravel and the problem it creates. Mr. Chairman, I think the staff will take that into account every time you have a conditional use application before you. Oh, about the paving issue? Yes, sir. Rest assured. All right. Mr. Hume, thank you for your input. I appreciate it. All right. Any other discussion? If not, I'll ask those to support Ms. Meyer's motion. Please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? And just note my abstention, please. So the motion passes. Good luck to you, sir. Thank you very much. All right, next case, C2009-30, St. Luke, United Methodist Church. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chris Howard with Carmen on behalf of St. Luke Church. I would just like to say that we have read the staff's report and agree to the seven conditions listed by staff for request approval. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair, there's a letter that's being passed along that is an opposition letter. Okay. All right. Thank you, Ms. Evans. Now, it's Mr. Howard? Yes, sir. Okay. Now, when I was reviewing the recommendations or the conditions, it seems like, as they often are, some are open-ended. and I just want to make sure that you realize that that you're going to have to continue to work with staff on the traffic engineering, storm water and landscaping. Yes and we have just we also have a development plan moving forward that has been through technical review committee last Tuesday I think and we were recommended for approval in that meeting and the president meeting was fire who was in agreement with the inner circulation that's been improved by connecting the front parking lot and the back parking lot, therefore connecting the Mount Tabor access as well as the perimeter Drive Act. We also are aware that we have to provide detention and meet the stormwater manuals. Since that meeting and since this application, we have done enough preliminary calculations with stormwater to confidently say that yes, we can meet those manuals by using the basin in the rear of the property. We also understand that the additional landscaping that's being requested by staff in areas that are already built, we understand that we would go back in and recreate some of that screening whether it's been lost or was never put in the first place, I'm not sure. But we understand those open-end ones and that there's some additional work that we have to do in order to construct this rather than just the new portion, that there's also some infill areas that need to be addressed as well as part of this. All right. I just wanted to make sure that you understand that. It sounds like you do. Any questions for the applicant or any discussion? All right. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move that C-2009-30 St. Luke United Methodist Church appeals for conditional use permit to expand the church and accessory parking in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone on property located at 2351 Alumni Drive Council District 7 be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the seven conditions. I'll second that Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Stout and Mr. Stumbo. Any other discussion? If not, all those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Good luck to Mr. Chairman. I need help from staff here. The last case on the agenda is Liberty Worship Center, but the staffs recommended disapproval. Do we hear that now or do we hear it at the... I guess the question is that will be a full hearing and all the others are also full hearings. Okay. So it can go either way really. Okay. Well, before you take a seat, sir, Ms. Wiseman, I think we've heard all the cases where there were no objectors. And I wasn't sure whether you wanted to be the first case, whether objectors or the last case. Okay. All right. All right. Well, since you're already up here, sir, I presume you're from the Liberty Worship Center? Yes, my name is Glendon Ashcraft. Okay, Mr. Ashcraft, thank you for being here. Thank you for being here. In this case, you've applied for a sign. Yes, this is correct. And the staff has recommended disapproving your request. I understand. But you still want to move forward and ask for your sign. Okay. Okay. Well then this will be the first one of our cases where we're going to have formal hearings. So I guess since it's a disapproval, we'll ask the staff to present their side first, and then you'll get a chance to respond. Okay. I'm going to try to get that first slide up. I think that's better. This property is located right at the interchange of Interstate 6475 and North Broadway, Paris Pike. The church property is right in here. It's currently zoned P1. It has a long history of other zoning prior to that. This request involves an existing structure back here that you can't see real well. I'll show another slide that shows it up much better in a second. That structure is about 50 feet tall and about 20 feet wide, and what they'd like to do is place a sign on it. It's been there for some time without a sign. I don't know exactly how far back the actual signage was removed. This is the off-ramp from the interstate. You can see it backs up right to that off-ramp. There are some other much taller signs in this immediate vicinity, red roof end. On one side, I believe a day is in. On the other, there's a long history of appeals with regard to the height of that sign there. Most recently, one was not approved. They wanted to make it even taller because of visibility issues. You can get a little better picture of the actual structure that we're talking about right in there. Why is that structure there? This property was previously zoned for business use. I think it was a dinner theater years ago. Oh, we can't pinpoint exactly when that was up. We are assuming that it was put up when it had a business zoning about the time there was a dinner theater. In between there, I think there was also a radio or a TV station before the church took over the property. In your estimation, is that a sign platform there, or is it something that was there with the TV or the radio station? No, that's a sign structure that has the signage removed. Based on the current zoning of this property, which is P1, professional office, they are allowed just a 10-foot tall, 50-square-foot sign. What they're proposing is a 200-square-foot sign to be placed right up there, which would be five times taller and five times larger. On top of that structure? I don't think on top, but in using the top portion of it. And I'll show another slide here. Can I ask a quick question? The thing on the other side, is that the red roof end, the higher? This one here is the red roof end sign. Yeah. And they're proposing one to be higher than that? No, no. They're just proposing to use this portion of the existing support structure, which is coming up next on your, there you go, right in here. Okay. Now, from the actual interstate, this sign here has limited visibility. So this sign is not visible at all from the interstate. It's slightly visible as you come off the off-ramp. You can catch it depending on the amount of leaves on the trees. You can catch a glimpse of it as you're going through there. So our recommendation is maybe to work with these folks and get that thing taken down and work with them on relocating it, certainly not at that size, but an alternate location. I don't know exactly what other signage they have on the site at this point, so that would be another issue. In my opinion, that probably should have been taken down a long time ago, because if it's left there, it just insinuates that it's for a sign, in my opinion. And if I were looking at that with the naked eye and coming up there, well, it must be going to put up a sign. I mean, that's what I would think. That's just a citizen looking at that. All right, is that your presentation, Mr. Marks? Yes, it is. All right, thank you. All right, Mr. Ashcliffe, would you like to respond to that? Yes. We understand that we are a P1. We're surrounded by the interstate businesses which are B5P, which our location was at one time. In our area, the block we're basically in, Shell, Fazolis, Chevron, Days Inn, Red Roof, all of those surround our property. All of them have tall signs. Our sign would be shorter than those signs that are existing today. One of the main reasons is not for interstate visibility, but coming off of Radcliffe Road, off of Parris Pike, there's no visibility to our church at all. And this would give us visibility from that access, from this view, not necessarily from the interstate view. It's no one's fault here, but our church is in the lowest plain of the whole area. It's surrounded. It's kind of in a hole. The other buildings are taller. In front of us is property that's owned by Transylvania, Isaac's Properties, and other folks. It actually says higher than our church. This is strictly for visibility to our church. Is that a double-sided sign? We would like it to be double-sided sign, but if it has to be a single-sided, we would make it the single-sided facing outward. But the proposal was for double-sided, yes, sir. I asked that question because you said it wasn't there specifically for the purpose of the people viewing it coming off the freeway, but on the other side. Yes, sir. That's where the most visibility is. Like this gentleman said, from the interstate, it has very little, you can see it because of the trees. If the trees weren't there, you could see it readily from the interstate, but the fact the trees have grown up on the access to interstate, it's not very visible from the interstate. Then I guess my next question would be, why does it have to be as large as you're wanting it? Honestly, this is just a thing that I made up personally. The sign was 50 foot tall and 20 foot wide, so I just laid a sign in that size. If it would be acceptable, maybe a 9 by 12 sign someplace in that structure. It has to have some height to it or you still can't see it from the road. I have a question for staff. So if this was a regular sign case and there wasn't an existing structure, you would simply say there are no variances allowed and they can only do what's permitted by the ordinance. Is that correct? I'm not sure. I followed the first part of that. Sorry. If there weren't an existing structure here and they came in with this request, you would simply say that no variances are permitted for signs. Is that right? Yeah, there's specific language in the ordinance that prevents you all from allowing more square footage on a site than the ordinance allows. So the only reason that you're not. You can pursue a variance for the height. That's something within your authority to do. So a variance for height is, we are allowed to have a variance for height. Yes. But not for size. Correct. Okay. The dilemma here is if you get into reducing the size of the sign is how is a smaller sign going to look placed on that existing structure. It's just going to be really, I mean, we thought about that and just didn't get very far. Are you amenable to a sign that's smaller? Leaving that support structure the way it is? It's just really. I don't think smaller would, that would be appealing with anything. No, I agree. I agree. Mr. Stout, also to address your question, the height would still need a variance. Of course, you don't have a variance application. We didn't have findings to review for that. The other thing we weren't sure of is whether they had any unused square footage on their church building that could be dealt with in terms of a transfer. There is no? We're not aware of any on the church building or how much might be available to transfer. How close is your building? and I've been by there several times over the last several years. How close is your building to that sign apparatus there? I'm going to say it's 100 foot, 125 feet. Then it wouldn't serve you well to have one on the building then, would it? No, sir. The building is sitting down, so it wouldn't help any to have a sign on the building unless it had some height on the roof, which would be much less cosmetic than what this sign would be. Well, I think you need a sign, but I don't think you need a sign that large. And I, personally speaking, I think it would be unfair to you sitting in there in the middle of people that have got signs all around you, and you're not permitted to have one for visibility, but 200 square feet just seems to be a pretty good-sized sign. What if we amended it to, say, an 8 by 12, which is 96 square feet? You'd have to work that out with the staff to see how that works. How far have you all gone with evaluating this particular structure as to whether it could be modified or not? Zero. We haven't done anything. Well, that's the only thing I would support is maybe modifying the structure somehow, maybe giving them some credit for fixing that part of this. Is there also a freestanding sign at the front of the church property at all? There is one small sign up next to Haggard Lane, next to the red roof sign. Is that on your property, sir, behind you? All the way. Is that property? I don't believe it is. That's not on your property? No. Okay. But this is on your property? Yes, it is. That sign would be required to be removed if it's offside. I think it probably should have been required a long time ago because it just offers an invitation to put up a sign on it. Mr. Ashcraft, it sounds like that the staff is not strongly opposed to maybe having a sign a little higher than what's permitted. But I don't know that we're allowed to grant you a sign as large as you want. I just don't think we, even if we don't. Does anyone know what size we can? So if we resubmit, what should we resubmit as far as height and square footage? I think we need to do an assessment of all the signage that you have on your property. We'd have to resolve the issue of the sign that's not on your property one way or another. And then there might be some reasonable effort to give you some credit if you were to remove that structure in the sense that it might overall reduce the nonconformity of the situation. That existing structure, even though it doesn't have a sign on it, it's a pole support structure. It's nonconforming. So there's a little bit of latitude there maybe to do something. Well, Mr. Martin, we are allowed only to grain up to 50 square feet. That's what the ordinance says. Mr. Ashcraft asked how many square feet can he just propose a 9 by 12. Are we even allowed to grant that? As a transfer, and then also within the context of reducing the overall nonconformity, you might be able to scrounge a few square feet. I can't give you a number on that. That's a judgment call. Mr. Chair, do you think it would be in order to grant a continuance so that they can? That's all I was just going to ask. That makes sense to me. Does that make sense to you, Mr. Marks? Mr. Ashcraft, are you okay with that? Maybe postponing this for a month, what we call continuing, since we've already started the case, to allow you to work with staff and maybe come up with a compromise that lets you have a sign that's a little higher than law allows, but still does not exceed the square footage. That's a better alternative than having nothing. Okay. There you go. No wonder you're in charge. So if you're in agreement with them, the staff, it sounds like the staff does. I have one other question for the board. There was, Mr. Walker came by last week and said something about our sign that's on other properties, which he was going to say, but if you go around Lexington, all over town, there's signs on property that doesn't belong to the sign holder. Why are we all of a sudden the exception that we have to move our sign when these other signs are all over Lexington? You can go to multiple churches in Lexington, and they have signs in people's yards. As long as a person that owns the property doesn't object, why is that a problem all of a sudden for us to have a sign there when these other people have them all over town? I don't know the answer to that. Mr. Hume, can you provide any input? There are a couple of older church signs that have been out there existing prior to the ordinance that are off-site. I'm not sure what else he's talking about in that respect. Your sign is not one of them. It was put up without a permit. It was put up on property not your own. So therein lies the problem with that. But it's been there since 2000, about 2000, 2001 or 2002. I'm Pastor Turner. I would just like to say on the small side, I've been here about a year and a half, and we did not realize that there was no permit or anything issued in regards to that. we are trying to do the right thing by coming through the board today and getting things right. And I talked to Mr. Walker, and the storm blew that smaller sign down. We just thought we were correcting the problem by putting it back up, but there was no disrespect or anything in that regard. We get this quite often. I appreciate you trying to do the right thing. So it sounds like to me that everyone wants to work something out. Next steps. Go back down to the... Okay. We can get together next week. Okay. That's okay. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll have a motion here to continue at one month. So moved. I make that motion. Okay. All right. I second a motion. Okay. Ms. Edwards. All right. I want you to have a sign. Thank you very much. All right. All those in favor of Mr. or Ms. Edwards' motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed. We'll see you next month, sir. Thank you. Take care. Next case is C2009-25 Ball and Wright Capital Holding. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. Okay, I'm sorry. We've already disposed that case. Next case is the C2009-28 Donita Hughes. Is the applicant here? Hello, my name is Donita Hughes. All right, Ms. Hughes, thank you for being here. Thank you for having me. Now the staff's recommended approval subject to six conditions. Have you reviewed those conditions? Yes, I have. Have you agreed to abide by them? Yes, sir. Okay. I think we'll do it at this point and let you have a seat and let the objector address this, and then you have a chance to respond to their objections. Okay. Okay. Want to come forward, please, ma'am? Okay. Good afternoon. Could you state your name, please? Joan Atwell. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me here on the board and letting me speak. I am against this for the reason that all that separates Donita's home and ours is a chain-link fence. And I have been there 49 years at my residential. And I'm just telling you the side what I experienced. And back they've had, I've seen at least five to six children there. I have a lot of flowers down at the back end of my yard. And I have flower beds down there. and these little children, I was going down there one day to work in the flowers, and I noticed my peonies had been pulled and thrown in my yard. The little children was down there, and I said, who is pulling my flowers? And they said, we don't know, we don't know. I said, look, you all are pulling, you're reaching through the fence, you're getting my flowers and pulling them. I said, let's don't do this. I said, I don't put them out to be pulled, okay? And I said, you need to go tell the man up there on the porch what you're doing. And then I have found little stones, rocks in my yard where they've thrown them over there. And this is just not feasible. I mean, you know, the way the children do, and I throw sticks and things they've thrown over in my yard, and I think if, you know, people should watch the children more closely in doing this. I can't let my little granddaughter go back there. I here lately have not been able to get back there and work in my flowers because there's two dogs, and they'll come down, flying down through that yard. a bargain like if they could get to me, they'd tear me apart. And I think that this also is an endangerment to the children that are there as well. And I'm not the only one that has criticized this. I'm sure that you have gotten others that have. But this is, I'm just telling you from my viewpoint. Yes, ma'am. And I appreciate you hearing me, but I just, that yard's a mess over there. And I just, I think about the little children that are there now, how they keep from getting hurt over there. There's wood where the trees have been cut down and whatever's happened there, they've piled it up, the little children. And there's just ways over there that they get hurt with the big swimming pool there. and things that's just not appealing. And I just wanted to let the board know this. All right. Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, ma'am. Let's see. Are there any other objectives here? All right. Anyone have any questions for Ms. Atwell? All right. Ms. Hughes, would you like to respond? Thank you once again. As far as the pool is concerned, I had an inspection from the state this past year. I have a letter saying the date that they came to my house. They have passed my inspection. I have my dog records showing that I have license for my dogs. I also have city license and the rabies shots. The state came by and approved for both of my dogs. My swimmer pool was there before I bought the house. We are looking into tearing the swimming pool down because we do not use it. We find that it's cost-effective not to run it because I've talked to several people who've owned pools and they say it costs more money to keep it up than to keep it going all summer long. Even though my kids would love to have the swimming pool there, we use the Y. There is a pool cover that is required by the state to have cover over the pool. That was approved by the state also. As far as the flowers is concerned, I apologize for that. I was made aware of the flowers, and I built a playground to keep the children from going back to that part of the fence as well. As far as my dog's going back there, there is a chain-lick fence that does go back. I have a shed back there as well, and my dog stay on my property. my dogs stay chained in the fence when the children are outside on the playground. I bring my dogs in. One dog has a cage that stays in, and the other dog, she stays up on the couch. And we interact. The children go outside. The dogs come in. My husband goes out, and he cleans up the yard for any feces or anything of that nature to make sure that the kids do not have feces on their shoes or anything like that. I have been in, I have opened up a daycare since 2006 where I first came down and applied for occupancy to have up to six children. The reason why I'm asking to have up to 10 is because when I first opened up, the state said I could have six unrelated and four related. At the time, I have four children. One's 22, one's 19, one's 13, and one's 10. And so my 19-year-old daughter just had a baby. Unfortunately, she's pregnant again. The extra additional four children would just allow for my grandchildren to come over and still allow me to keep the six children. That's the reason. And I have from the certification of the Cherokee Cal home page 5 of 12, where it states the maximum number of unrelated children in the care of a certified family child care home provider shall not exceed six at any one time. A provider may care up to four related children in addition to six unrelated children for a maximum of ten children at any one time. As of last year, 2008, the state came in and decided to go with the Zoning Board's recommendation that no certified child care provider can have up to six children. So then I looked into other means without trying to get in trouble with the state as to where I could still have my family members, which is my grandchildren now, come over and still be in compliance with the state. when they come over, my daughter does live with me, and I will always be over capacity as far as they're concerned, because I will always have seven or eight kids there. All right. Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Hughes? Ms. Hughes? Yes, ma'am. Does the state require that you have helpers with you with these children? Yes, ma'am, it does. I'm certified. I go to school at BCTCS. to get my associate's degree. I have my CDA. I have my associates also, and my husband takes the recommended nine hours a year training. Also, we both are CPR and first aid certified. But when the children are there, is there another worker that's there with you as well? Yes, that's my husband. Okay. So there's always two of you on site when all of the children are there? Yes, and according to the regulations, it's one child, one adult per 12 children. I'm asking for 10. So as long as an adult is there on my property with a CPR and a first aid, as far as state regulation is concerned, staff to ratio, I'm always in staff to ratio. But nine, tens at a time, two of us is there. Me and my husband are there. I have concerns about the fact that you have a pool and dogs and that the state only is required one person to be on the side at that time. I think that's a lot of, you know, you only have two eyes, and they're going to be looking in a lot of directions at the same time. Well, that's why we built a playground to minimize their, you know, movements. And like I said, the pool is covered. It has where it was open because it had stairs. We blocked all of that off. We have a pool cover. We blocked all entrances around off to the pool. And like I said, it does have a pool cover. The state person came, walked around my property of this year because I have to get recertified every two years. And they came and walked around my property. They, like I said, they checked the records for my dogs. They found that I was in compliance with my dogs. They found that I was in compliance with the pool. So they're the ones who, you know, gave me certification to recertify me for another two years. How old are the children? The children I have in my daycare, Javen is anywhere two to six years old. I have a question for Ms. Hughes, Mr. Chair. The lady who commented back there earlier seems to think that there are times that the kids have gone unsupervised if they're throwing rocks and pulling flowers and throwing sticks in the backyard and so forth. Are these children supervised the entire time of year? Yes, sir. Like I said, I do apologize. I was made aware of the flowers, and I do very sincerely apologize for the ladies' flowers. I really do. But like I said, I rectified that situation by putting a playground in the middle of my yard to keep the children in that vicinity of the yard of my playground. It has a slide, it has climbing toys, it has a swing, and it has a seesaw. Now, as far as the logs that the lady is speaking about, a storm came through and knocked one of my trees over. So we chopped it up, and I liked the scenery. That's why I have the logs there, because to me, it reminds me of going to Gatlinburg. It's my personal use, it's my personal taste, so that's why the logs are there. I wanted to ask Mr. Marks, too, I know in the report you had some, or obviously the staff had some concern over the yard and over the animals and the pool. Would you comment on that? I think our comfort level went way up when we found out that the state had looked at those two very issues already, number one. And number two, when we found out that she was willing to limit the additional children above six to just family members, that kind of increased our comfort level as well, mainly for the reason that as family members they're more familiar in general with the site and they're likely to be more stable in their longevity of their relationship rather than paying customers that might come and go more frequently. Ms. Hughes might have some more detailed information about that, but that's kind of the general summary. Thank you, sir. All right. Any other questions for? I have a couple of concerns. Scott? I guess all of us, me, probably more than anybody else, only I've heard so many of these cases relative to child care that I dream about them sometimes. and I do understand the concerns of neighbors. More though, I'm concerned about the youngsters who are on properties. How do you cover your pool? It has the, I got the papers that came with the house and it told me the size of the pool and I went to Aurora and got the pool cover. Is it a plastic cover or is it a felt cover or what kind of covering is it? It's like a tarp, like plastic, and it has these strings that you... All the way down the sides and on the ends. And you wrap it around the... So there's no way any of your children could loosen those. No, my husband is, as far as the children and safety, that's our number one concern as well. We go out every day and make sure that nothing is loose or jarred from the pool area. Like I said, we haven't used that pool since we bought the house. We bought the house in December of 2005. And I was going to use it, but then after talking to a lot of people, I decided against it. And like I said, I'm looking into ways to totally take the pool out. I just haven't found anybody that I, you know, accompany or somebody who does that type of work to come in and take the pool out. But it is covered. It is inaccessible to the children. My other, I guess, recommendation to you for this would be that the lady back there says your children are pulling their flowers through the fence. The only thing I would suggest that you do is to maybe try to find a covering to go on that fence to keep them from being able to reach through to pulling their flowers. I do understand her concern, and I think it's a very valid one. also I do understand that you've been approved to have your business there not saying that it's good or bad but I think that in order to keep neighbors somewhat happy they're not all going to be happy I can tell you that right now somewhat happy they have to be in a position where you do not disturb their comfort as well and if their comfort is disturbed then they're going to be disturbed. And that's going to create a problem for you. And I have to agree with her. I think that when you have youngsters that you're responsible for and they disrupt the comfort of neighbors, regardless of what situation, I think that is a detriment to your program. Yes, sir. I understand that I can find some type of covering to go against the fence so the children won't have access to her flowers. And trust me, I understand her concern. If they were my flowers, I paid that much money, I would be upset also. So I understand her concern. I really do. Chairman, that's all I have. Any other questions or discussions? If not, then I'll entertain a motion. Ms. Atlow? Yes, ma'am. Please come to the podium. Just what kind of covering is going to be on this fence? I mean, I object any tarp or anything on that fence back there to downgrade my property. The fence belongs to her. The fence belongs to me. Who said it belonged to her? She just said it was her fence. It's both. No, the fence is not hers. Well, if the fence is yours, if the fence is yours, ma'am, then she can't do anything with it to alter it. The person behind me, before they moved there, we put a fence together. we went half and put that fence up back there. Then it's your fence. So, well, okay then. It's my fence and it's my property. How come that somebody can move in and just do what they want to? I don't think she indicated that. I mean... I don't think anyone in this room indicated that, ma'am. Well, let me ask you to put it this way. When they move in there, I don't think that, you know, I keep my property up. And I don't want someone coming in around me and downgrading my property with whatever they might throw over a fence. See what I'm saying? Yes, ma'am. I understand that. I don't want no junky looking stuff, that's what I'm saying. Now, how would you put something over that fence there unless you put, I thought they had to have something like a privacy fence around a daycare center or something that they, you know. But I just don't want my fence, something thrown over it just to, and say, well, I did that. In the past, we've required or allowed those vinyl slats that you slide through the openings on the chain link. But I was curious, Mr. Yume, do you have any details about the kind of fencing that you all require for child care? There is none, no. It's just a fence. A chain link, wood, no, there's nothing specified for that application. Just a fence that a child can't get through. Yes. Okay. All right. And you know, talking about these dogs, whoever came out and authorized that she had the dogs, I never knew you could have dogs around a daycare, day center, around little children. because dogs, even your own dog that's a friend of you, it'll turn on you in just a split second. Are the dogs offensive to you? Yes, they are, sir. Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Yeah, they really are. Thank you. Thank you. I'm ready to make them. Any other questions or discussion? Okay. Yes, ma'am. Please. I'm not the only person in my neighborhood that is adjacent to Ms. Atwell's property that has dogs. Mine just happens to be a little bit bigger. Second of all, a certified daycare provider working out of the home are permitted to have dogs. We're not allowed to have snakes. We're not allowed to have frogs. We're not allowed to have fishes, reptiles because of the salmonella poisoning that gets transferred to kids. I'm just telling you what the regulations say. I see your face. I'm just telling you what the regulations are telling, you know, what we can and what we cannot have. If I was a type 1 or a type 2 center like your Big Bluebird or Kids and Caper or a Kinder Care, a Hollis or any of those daycares, then you are not permitted to have animals, not unless you get permission to have somebody come to your property visit for a C&I dog to show, like for show and tell. But for a certified home provider, according to state regulations, I'm allowed to have my dogs. And like I said, I'm not the only one in my neighborhood that has dogs. She's just probably a little bit more offensive because my dogs run up to the back of the fence. but the fence is going across. The dogs do not get into her yard. And for the most part of the day, my dogs come in at, I let the kids out at 10 o'clock. The dogs come in from 10 to 4 because that's what time the children go to sleep from 12 to about 3.30. And then my daycare closes at 6. and then we let the dogs back out at 6 o'clock. Now after 6 p.m., you know, my dogs are allowed to be in their fencing area. They might be offensive to her after 6 o'clock. They might be offensive to her before I open them up. But I paid for my dogs. I paid the license for my dogs, and I paid for the rabies for my dogs. And it says I can have my dogs. All right. Thank you, Ms. Hughes. Anything else? All right. There's no other discussion or questions. I'll ask for a vote or for a motion. I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, before I make a motion, I'm going to ask this young lady one question. You don't have to stand. You can just sit right there and say yes or no. Do you leash your dogs to her fence? Well, when you tie your dogs up in the yard, do you leash them to the fence? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move to C-2009-28. Donanita K. Hughes appeals for a conditional use permit to provide family care for up to 12 children with single family residential R1D zone on property located at 668 Lombardi Drive Council District 6 be approved as recommended by the staff and subject to the six conditions. Just to clarify, Mr. Stout, we had recommended 10, so. Recommended 10. It said 12 in here. She requested 12, but the staff recommended 10. So we just want to make everything consistent. With clarification of 12 children being now 10 children. I'm also going to recommend to you off the record that if you're going to keep this business it would be a safety element for you to get that pool either removed or covered with a material where the youngsters cannot get into it. All right. Is there a second to Mr. Stout's motion? Second. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. All those in favor of Mr. Stout's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Opposed. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Motion passes 5 to 1. Is that well? If you're going to speak, you need to come up to the podium, please. I'm not here to dispute her word. But those dogs have been out there untied while those children are playing. I don't see how she could say that. God hears me, and I'm telling you the truth. Well, you have an idea of what the conditions are and what she's supposed to do. So if you see violations, you need to contact building inspection. They're the ones who monitor these conditions. And so if you see the kids out there without any supervision or you see them out there with the dogs, then you need to contact building inspection and they'll come inspect. And then if there's a violation, they report back to us. I have never seen this lady in her backyard. Never. I've heard it must be her husband sits on the porch and he'll holler at those children. And the dogs are out there playing. I can't see why she said that. Thank you, Ms. Amel. Next case is C2009-29, Kerry and Tina Ball. Okay. Hello, Board, staff. Good afternoon. I'm Kerry Ball, Kerry Ball Builders, and I agree with all the requirements that you're asking me to do. Okay. Staff's recommended approval, and you've read the recommendations and agree to abide by them. I think what we'll do, since there's an objector, we'll let the objectors speak and then let you respond to them. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Dave Winters, and along with my wife, Sue, we live at 2157 Winning Colors Lane, which is adjacent to the property that is proposed by Carrie and Tina Ball for use as a temporary real estate sales office for the Walnut Grove Estates. Approximately in the middle of February of this year, Carrie Ball started using the above address, 2149 Winning Colors, as a real estate office. Despite notification from the city that a conditional use was required for the property, he has continued to use this office up to this date. The above address was constructed by First Kentucky Homes, which you can see in Exhibit No. 1 and 1B, then sold to Carrie and Tina Ball on March 30 of 2005. Carrie and Tina Ball occupied that house as their primary residence until they moved to their current residence of 4,000 Real Quiet Lane, which is my Exhibit No. 2. The proposed use raises several negative issues, which I'll address at this time. The proposed use will be the second office for Carrie and Tina Ball within the Walnut Grove Estate subdivision. Exhibit 3 is a picture of Carrie Ball's website. The upper left-hand corner of that website clearly shows an office address of 4,000 Real Quiet Lane. I do not believe a conditional use has been granted for that property address. Two, even though the Board of Adjustment does not get involved in deed restrictions, I feel it's important to introduce two sections of the restrictions into evidence. These are the developer's own deed restrictions and indicate their feelings towards non-residential use of the property in the subdivision, Exhibit No. 4. Further, the developer put into a provision for a model home to be used as an office, Exhibit No. 5. However, 2149 Winning Colors Lane can no longer be considered a model home since it was occupied as a private residence for over two years. The streets of Walnut Grove Estates are very narrow. See Exhibit 6, please. When a car is parked along the curb, another vehicle can pass by, but many delivery trucks have trouble. I have personally witnessed trucks having to jump the curb to get by and others having to back up and turn around because they can't get down the street. The application for the proposed use is for an information center office for Walnut Grove Estates. That's according to the application. However, in actuality, the applicant is planning to use the site for both this subdivision and a companion subdivision called Walnut Grove Reserve. It's the exhibit number seven. Walnut Grove Reserve is located approximately one-half mile north of Walnut Grove Estates in an area formerly known as the Hatfield property off of Hatfield Lane, which can be seen on Exhibit No. 8. It would seem far more appropriate for a joint subdivision sales office to be located at the brand-new barn situated on the east end of Walnut Grove Estates, which is in Exhibit No. 9. That barn has an unfinished interior and can easily accommodate an office. it also would have sufficient parking off-site, actually access to the site, so as to not impact the narrow streets of the subdivision. I therefore ask the Board of Adjustment to deny this application based on the following findings of fact. One, the proposed use as a real estate sales office is inappropriate at this location, since the expected traffic that could be expected from two subdivisions would overwhelm the narrow streets of Winning Color Lane. The net result would be an adverse impact to the residents and a safety concern for all those who drive on that street. Second, the proposed use as an office in a residential home would be the applicant's second office in the same subdivision and thus not permitted. Let me add one further item to this. We're talking about a subdivision that is now over six years old. I moved in in 2003. If the developer at that time had wished to have a sales office, it would probably have been more appropriate at that time to establish a sales office early on. To come in six years later and take a currently vacated house, which had been residential, and convert it into a sales office right next door to me, I think is really inappropriate. A sales office is designed to advertise the builder's expertise at construction. Well, this particular house was not built by Kerry Ball. He occupied it as his residence, then moved out. And now it sits vacant and is for sale. I agree, it's for sale. But now to just say, well, because it's sitting there empty, let's turn it into a sales office. I object to that. And we are talking a six-year-old subdivision here. The board has any questions. I'll be glad to try to answer them. I know that there are probably two other people who would also like to speak briefly on this matter. Mr. Winters, I'm reviewing your Exhibit No. 9, and I presume that's your neighborhood. That is, yes, that is my subdivision, Walnut Grove Estates. Okay. Now, how many of those lots that are platted there have not been built on? Well over half. There are probably 20 houses out of like 64 that have been built. Okay. And that's just a rough estimate. But anyway, the extreme right-hand edge of the map, there is only one house that is under construction. It has two houses up there. One is occupied. One is for sale. And then way off, where I noted the barn, they want this to be an equestrian community where people, if they wish to have a horse, can board the horse at the barn, exercise it up in that area. We're talking about an area that is well away from the residences. We're talking about a barn that was built last year, so it is brand new. There's nothing wrong with the construction. The interior has not been finished. So you have a large box. That box is going to have a tack room in their office. So why not put the sales office up there? Plus, with all that land around that barn, you have plenty of room for parking for all the contractors and everybody else who comes to a sales office to say, you know, where do I find this? I've got to talk to you about this plan, all this other kind of stuff. Move that over because having these people trying to park in front of the residents on Winning Colors Lane is a big problem. Just so I'm clear, there's 60 or so lots designated. 20 or so have been built on. 40 or so are built vacant and ready and are available to build on. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Winters? All right. Thank you, sir. Any other objectors that would like to address the board? Good afternoon. I'm Sue Winters and Dave is my husband. And I agree with everything you said. Also, I will point out that we are on a corner lot. There is a house directly in front of us. And then the ball residence is next door, Kerry Ball Residence. If, like during a tour of homes, we cannot get out our driveway unless I go out and put no parking signs in front of my house. the streets are so narrow when the people across the street have a party. They try their best not to park in front of my driveway because you can't pull out. Also, anytime we've had guests in, we do the same thing. We try to get them to park one side of the road, not both sides. And it's very dangerous coming around that curb. And we just have constant travel in and out of that house during a grantor or sales office. And I am real estate myself, so I understand the need to advertise. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Any other objectors? My name is Pam Moravik. I live in the second house that's completed along the main access road in this neighborhood. I've lived here for two years. My objection is it's a residential neighborhood. There should not be a business office in a residential neighborhood. The barn site is far more appropriate, and the addition of the second development on the sign will only bring additional traffic into the neighborhood, up the street. that's not necessary at all, there's an access road that eventually will connect the barn to this second neighborhood, which is now under construction. And so that's, I don't know how many lots, about 75 other lots that are for sale over there, that all that traffic could be routed through that neighborhood into the barn. The barn sits exactly in the middle between the two neighborhoods. So I think you should understand that also. So I think it's a safety concern, and I certainly wouldn't want to be living next door to it. Fortunately, I'm not, so I'm here to support my neighbor's concern also. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Any other objectors? If not, Mr. Ball, would you like to respond? There will not be a connector road back to the barn from Walnut Grove Reserve. It's two separate communities. We're going to connect them with walking trails and horse trails and green space. But that barn, there's no road going back to the barn. It hasn't been put in yet. We prefer to sell some more lots before we spend the money. And the 4,000-row quiet lane, I do live there. It's mainly the address is because I live there. That's where I live, but I don't use that as a sales office. Not building any houses. I don't have any suppliers and contractors coming by. They will not come by. That is strictly a sales information center. I think Dave and Sue probably operate a business out of their house. You don't have your office in your house. Dave doesn't operate his stuff, but anyway. But it's just a sales information center to try to drive some traffic into this house to promote the subdivision and the wonderful thing that it's done. We are 80% green space out here. And part of the deal with development and everything was to put in 80% green space, but that 20% of not green space includes the street and the house. So we actually have green space between the homes. They're well buffered between the houses. And actually, I think this no parking sign that Sue Winters has, I let her have them, because whenever we do have a Grand Tour home, I put up no parking signs on one side of the street wherever the Grand Tour is going to be. And that house is not in the Grand Tour. There will be one in the subdivision in the Grand Tour. And it's the house that I'm living in. You know, it's for sale. As a builder and developer, you better be selling today or trying. It's just one sign, and it's smaller, and it's really pretty. It's a nice-looking sign. I leave the houses open. It's got a little bit of furniture in it. There's no building construction sales. It's just an information center. I have little flyers and fact sheets in there, so I come in and pick them up. I don't even man it. I just leave it unlocked. Somebody comes by, I go down there and talk to them and, you know, try to sell them a house and generate some income for Fayette County and myself. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Ball? Mr. Ball, I've got a question for you. Don't you anticipate some traffic, you know, stopping there and coming into your sales office and possibly congestion? We love traffic. traffic is a good thing. If you didn't have traffic, we're in trouble. If the house is there for two years, it won't be fun. I don't expect to be there for two years. But out there in that price range, we're at the end of a dead end street. Walnut Grove Lane ends right past our subdivision. So the only traffic we get, most of the part, is customers driving through. I mean, we don't get, it's not like a, I don't know if anybody psychs against 10 or 15 customers a day. Usually we'll get maybe one customer driving through it at night and they just see that and they'll call me to want to see some stuff. But it's not like you have four or five customers pulling in. And the driveway, I think holds like seven or eight cars to park in. And usually there'll be one car parked in the street if there is somebody there, but the traffic isn't, you know, I wish there was a whole lot more. We wouldn't be here if it sold out. All right. Any other questions? I just have a comment. I think your concept is great. And from a marketing standpoint, me as a potential customer would be far more interested in seeing what you have in the way of space for my horse or open space rather than me driving into the house. I mean, that's just, that's my buy, you know, that's the way I look at things. And I think the barn idea is fabulous. It's a great idea, but when we open up the barn, we plan on horses being in the barn. But in the meantime, it's mud. Well, right now you can't get back to it. It's a mud road. If you go back down, let's see where those little accesses. You go down, come in the main, right there, that corner right there, see those trees, that property line going back right through there? That's the road. It's an old farm blacktop road that's been, we've ran a sewer line through it, there's mud over it, and you know, it's just, it's not existing. We're in the process of putting up our fences for our paddock land in the back right now, but it's not, you know, it's not pasture land yet. It's not fenced in. And when the barn gets in, people that are coming to look, yeah, we're going to take them back there and let them see. But the person back there, we're going to probably lease the barn out is what the plan is. The lady's going to give horseback riding lessons. We're going to have a riding rink back there in pasture land and the horse trails and all that. But that will be her office. And it's not like we don't have a manned office. We don't have any material. We've got a desk in there. Somebody wants to come in and sit and talk. But we don't have anything in there to even write a contract with. You know, so, okay, yeah, we'll go do that at some point. You know, whatever. But it's just the house. It's a model home. And you saw the sign. And the house, like you say, has been there for a while. We're just trying to get some interest. Oh, there's a reason to stop here because there's a lot more to this development. Because right now, we've just opened up that back row, the final phase, which you can now get back to the barn if the blacktop was in. And we want to get people back there, but we can't get them back there yet. We can only tell them about it. Actually, right on the other side of the barn, we have like 100 acres. On the outside of that barn area, it's out of the urban service area. And that's a neat thing to tell people about, but like this past spring, I can't drive them back there. It's too muddy. Well, we want to blacktop it, but you still can't use that as a sales office. I mean, people aren't coming back there to board their horse. They're coming back there to hopefully buy a home site and a house. That can never be used as a sales tool, but not a sales place. I'm sorry, horses have an odor. Some people don't like the odor. Yeah, two years, believe me, I wouldn't be out of there. I have a question, please, for Mr. Hume. Is that legal? We actually cut the top part off of the... I think they're allowed a two-by-two. I can't see that far. No, it's two-by... I think it's a little bigger. We have variants. I'll have to check. We've had some discussions on this sign already. Yeah. We're trying to work out the details on that. If it's not, then every sign in town is illegal. Well, that's not the point. Oh, I know, I know. I'm just saying, I tried to, what it was, I reduced, I think it's two by three, and I think I'm like six inches too big on one side, six inches too big on the other. And I said, well, what I can do is I can trim it. I can take that gold border off and the gold border off, but the sign's not going to be nearly as pretty. Well, in fact, if this is legal, and if I had a nursery, I could put the same sign in my front yard. You have a nursery. If this is legal. And I've sit here and listened and listened and listened to pleas about people who want to get into child care business, about having big signs in their front yard, and the answer has been no. Well, no, this house. Why would this be legal in your front yard? What I did, this house, I did move into it. I sold a mother house, and I bought it from my mom and dad. That's not what I'm asking. Let me put something here. Signs are allowed at a temporary sales facility. Signs are specifically prohibited in a child care, in a residential area. So they're apples and oranges. So don't make one try to fit the other. But I think what this sign says here, Info Center for Warnett Grove Estates, Warnett Grove Reserve. Then in the middle it says Homes for Sale. And below it says Horse Stables, Pasture Land, and 80-acre Farm. If that's part of the development, I don't care what it says at this point. I'm more interested in getting this case decided one way or the other. I can always take the ordinance and narrow the sign down to whatever it needs to be. But as far as your examples there, those are two opposite things that are strictly allowed and prohibited. Any other questions? And I am a partner in First Kentucky. I'm not a partner, but I am vice president of First Kentucky Homes. So I am the builder with that house. Well, I want to ask you one question, and then I'm going to shut up and let this go on. If you lived next door to this project that you are, this office center you have here, would you object to this? Absolutely not. You know, there's for sale signs on, you know, there's $5 million homes for sale out there. They all have a for sale sign in front of it. And I'm actually, you know, if those agents, if there was legal suit, they could probably tell me the law, but if they want to put their information in there about their house for sale, I wouldn't have a problem with it unless y'all had a problem with it. But basically it's to promote Walnut Grove estates and the pasture land and the farmland that all ties together. And then the communities connect the, well, on the other side of that, where that pastureland ends, that's where we're doing 55 lots in Walnut Grove Reserve, it's a similar type development. You know, it's pretty much the exact same thing. And, but it's, it's, we're not in yet. Mr. Ball, I'd like to ask you a question. because I certainly understand the neighbor's concern about traffic on the road and parking and so forth. Is it possible, is it a compromise that might be, can you put a sign out there that says that people that are coming into your sales center can only park in the driveway? You said there's generally no more than a few cars at a time. I mean, I have no problem with that, but that's putting up another sign. I mean, I think it's – I think as little as traffic as you get for $800 to $1 million homes, it's not like they're – you know, most people that – you'll have a few curious lookers that can't afford it that just want to come out and see something. But, you know, the only time we get a huge amount of traffic is like with a grand tour of homes or something like that. And I personally go around and I stick all the signs up, the no parking signs. And I think Sue actually kept four or five of them. I told her she could have them. And, you know. What the theory of a country road and those subdivisions are, you're supposed to be going slow enough that when you drive by your neighbor, you can shake their hand. That's the way you drive through a subdivision like that. And I don't think I've ever seen anybody speed around there. Pursuit has like a triangle to island and a triangle to island. So it's just wide enough for one car to go through. And I just haven't seen anybody ever whipping through there. Mr. Chairman, I will have to recuse myself in this case because I happen to be friends of the Biles. But I would like to say this is not uncommon. If you will go out to Stewart Hall, if you will go out to some of the other neighborhoods, you will see very similar signage and people welcoming in to look at a home and pick out things. So this is not an uncommon thing. Now, the roads are probably much more narrow, but that's the concept. But I did want you to know, as a real estate professional, this is not uncommon. Excuse me, what's not uncommon? The sign's not uncommon or the temporary sales office? Both. Very common, both. You know, you'll go through Blackford Parkway and probably find five. And then they've got all their 10-foot, 8-foot wide signs on the right-of-way of Man of War, but that's a different issue, I know. But then they have their signs in front of their office, 10 feet by 8 feet, and I think they're quite a bit bigger than the size of mine with banners and everything else on them. But I don't want to throw that stone because maybe one of those guys will buy a lot from me. All right. Any other questions for Mr. Ball? Okay. I think Mr. Winters has something else he'd like to add. I don't dispute what Ms. Edwards has mentioned about real estate sales offices existing in the signs. But I think if you check around, you will find I'm not aware of any location in the city where you can go to one sales office for multiple subdivisions. Well, when I've gone out in those areas like Stewart Hall and so forth, I see a Barlow office or I see somebody else's office. That's for their properties only, not for this subdivision and somebody else's subdivision, and bring all your traffic over to one location. My wife mentioned trying to get out of a driveway. The problem that you have with a narrow street and a driveway is when you come out of the driveway, you have to come out wide enough in order to be able to make the turn so that you don't clip the corner on your property. That means it's a significant problem if there's somebody parked on the other side of your driveway. And that's why, as you mentioned, our neighbor across the road and us, we do not have driveways that go like that. They're apart. And whenever we have functions, we try to keep people away from the driveways, realizing that you can captivate your people in their homes because they can't get out of the driveway if somebody parks on the other side. We don't have any restrictions on our parking that say you can only park on the even side of the street and not the odd side of the street. So we have people park here, park here, and now you're weaving your way through. I understand the need to create traffic to the subdivision to sell properties. That's why you have advertising. That's why you have all the multiple signs all up and down Walnut Grove Lane and everything else to cause people to come down to your subdivision. But you don't need everybody from two separate subdivisions gravitating to one single-family house. It was a single-family house for about three years before it was vacated and now turned into an office. All of this happened after we had already been there. The house was built, the house was occupied by the Balls, vacated by the Balls, and now want to be turned into an office all during the time frame while we have lived in that same location. We've had discussion of the barn, and Mr. Ball has indicated the road's not ready. It's not the greatest. It's gravel and old asphalt because it was an old road going up to that barn. The barn is not ready for horses. He's indicated it's not ready for horses. It is not going to be ready for horses for quite a long time. They're not ready. The pasture is not ready. The desire for people to put horses is not there just yet. So there is nothing really wrong with saying for a temporary one to two year period of time, since the horses aren't going to be there for one to two years, use that as an office, and dump a little bit of gravel on the worst portions of the road because there is still asphalt on part of that road. That would be a far better solution to this whole issue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wood. The barn, we're probably going to lease the barn out to an individual on Walnut Grove Lane that is going to lease the barn. We're negotiating with her. The barn is, we're going to lease it to her. She's going to pay the association, which money will go to them and to us, or to the people that live out there, or us, the developers right now, to the tune of about $30,000, $35,000 a year is what she's going to pay to lease this barn. When she gets that barn, she's going to put horses in it. And we're hoping to get that open here in just the next couple months. It's a horse barn, and it's going to be a horse barn. And as soon as we get it ready for a horse barn, it's a horse barn. You know, it's not a sales office. You know, the lady has to go back there. She's going to have all her pack equipment and everything else. It's a 24-stall horse barn where two or three of the stalls are for the person that's going to manage the barn. She's going to pay a lot of money to do that. Mr. Boll, I have a question for you. Mr. Winters testified that there's approximately 60 lots in the Walnut Grove estates. Is that? There was 62, but those two right there on the bottom, we've actually exiled them out because people have actually transferred part of those lots to their lot. Okay. Because to maintain that 80-20 rule, you can actually customize the lots out there. It's like Sue and Dave, I think their driveway goes into the green space between my house and their house, what, six or eight feet? Two feet? Two feet? Well, yeah, y'all bought it. Well, Sue and Dave, y'all bought half a lot? They took about half? Took a big chunk. How much did y'all buy? They bought 30 feet by 50 feet to put in their backyard. Anticipate someday for whatever. They do a great job of taking care of their yard. There's no doubt. All right. Okay, so you agree it's approximately 60. Approximately 20 of those have been built on? Approximately 20 have been built on. Okay. And we've got, my dad's got three for sale, and I've got two for sale, and our Tom Gullis got one for sale. So out of the remaining 40, you yourself own two? Two houses. Two houses. Two houses. Well, my brother just left, but we're partners in the development. We own all the lots. Okay, you and your family. I am the developer with my dad, Jim Ball, our brother, Jimmy Ball, and Tom Gollum. Okay. All right, so you and your family own the other 40 vacant lots. And we own Walnut Grove Reserve, and we own the farm in the back. And we're tying the communities together because not with roads. They cannot connect by road, but they will connect by course and trails for the people to walk on and stuff like that. It's gorgeous. You need to come out there and take a look. All right. Thank you, Mr. Ball. Any other questions or discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I move that C-2009-29 Carrie and Tina Ball's appeal for conditional use permit to establish a temporary real estate sales office, an expansionary residential E-A-R-1 zone on property located at 2149 Winning Colors Lane Council District 12B, approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the four conditions recommended by the staff. Okay. Is there a second to Ms. Moore's motion? I'll second the motion, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you, Mr. Stumbo. Any other discussion? If not, I'll ask all those in favor of Ms. Moore's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. That was Mr. Stumbo and Mr. And all those opposed? Abstain. Okay. Oh, it's... 2, 4, 1 opposed. 2 abstentions. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the bylaws restrict you from voting. Oh. Okay. That's the reason it didn't add up. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Marks. Appreciate that. It might not make any difference anyway. I think I'm going to join Ms. Meyer in voting to disapprove. So that makes it 2-2 with two abstentions. So the motion does not pass. Are there any other motions? That's the motion you'd like to make. C-2009-29, Carrie and Tina Ball, appeal for a conditional use permit to establish a temporary real estate sales office in expansion area EAR 1 zone on property located at 2149 Winning Colors Lane be disapproved. So Ms. Meyer has moved to disapprove. Do we have a second? All right. There's no second, then I presume the motion failed. So the record will reflect that no action was taken. All right. Well, that means that the request is not granted. because there's so many more of these accounts that allow each other. I can't understand why I'm not going to know about it. But with the... What can I do to make it happen? Well, I don't know if that's our job to justify our actions. I think we have to take action, and we have. Well, that's one benefit of the tie vote since no action was taken, and you can reapply at any time. I think you just need to take heart to what was said at the hearing today and see if there's any modifications you can make to address what was said. I'm trying to find out what the problem is. I understand that. But I don't know that we have to justify our votes. Well, I know that I guess I'm saying it's about meeting the criteria. I'm just trying to figure out. I'd be happy to talk with you about that. Sure. All right. We'll move on to what I think is our final case, the 2009-14 Joint Associates. Now, it's my understanding there's no objectors. I believe there are. and that Ms. Wiseman wants to be heard on this matter. Mr. Chairman, I have a real brief overview just to kind of get everybody up to speed with where we're at, if that's okay. All right. Yeah, and I have a few comments, too. So go ahead, Mr. Marks. this is the one from the ones in our packet Thank you. She's going to tell us about this. See, see. Thank you. I think we're ready, Mr. Chairman, if you all are ready. All right. Chair, the board ready? Yes. Okay. All right. Thanks, Mr. Morris. Just to get familiar with the site, we're talking about the property at the peninsula of Maine coming in there, vine coming in here and just the tip of midland coming in up this way there was a lengthy discussion at the hearing last month regarding the design along the north side of the building along east main street the two issues of concern well were the location of that drive aisle right there along the north side of the building and this at that time was proposed as an entrance and exit and Those were the two issues that were discussed at length. The case was continued to today. The staff and all the other players have reconvened, and this site plan is a result of that meeting. This area here where there's an existing curb cut and access previously was proposed to be closed. Now that's proposed to be reopened up and serve as an entrance and exit. And this, which was previously proposed as an entrance and an exit, is now an entrance only, and it's designed to prohibit anybody coming along this drive aisle from attempting to exit out onto Main Street. There has been one additional tweak since this plan here was colored up with regard to this proposed entrance and exit right here. the state transportation folks, one of that shifted a little bit closer to this intersection, about seven feet, so that this pedestrian crosswalk could straighten up, and people turning in would have less of a sharp turn accessing the main parking lot. And everybody has been agreeable to that minor change. It was a shift of just seven feet over towards the intersection. So as far as the overall site in terms of traffic circulation and access points and all that, I think we're all in agreement we're supporting this plan. The only issue from our perspective that's still kind of hanging out there is regard to the architectural features of this building that's proposed right here. That's addressed in condition number seven. I think the applicant has some renderings they might be showing for their most recent submittal regarding some of the architectural features. I'm going to show one other slide here. The downtown master plan identifies this location as a major gateway into the downtown Lexington. So the presentation of this building on this property is a really important issue. This 3D drawing here, a graphic, kind of gives you a gross visual presentation of the building that's proposed. It doesn't show any detailed architectural features, but it's presented. This is a view from the end of Richmond or East Main looking to the west. Just to give you an idea, we're talking about a large box building on this peninsula that's depicted here. Now, how that building presents itself to the people coming down Main Street into Lexington, it's obviously a big issue. That's why we drafted condition number seven the way we did. The renderings that they most recently submitted, the elevation drawings, I think we're getting closer, but we don't think they yet comply totally with what we envisioned in condition number seven, And we can get into that, I think, in more detail a little bit later, depending on how much detail you all want to get into. But staff is continuing to recommend approval subject to those seven or actually nine conditions. All right. Thank you, Mr. Marks. Any questions for staff? All right. Ms. Wise, before you get started, I just wanted to make a couple statements. It's first of all that I've spent a lot of time going by this site, walked it a couple days ago. I think if this site were a woman, I would have stalking charges pending against me now. I spent so much time there. I drove by this morning, and your engineer was out there with his tripod taking pictures. Maybe I'm a stalker. I don't know. Second of all, I'd like to thank both sides of the staff and the applicant. I know that everyone, by reading this report, I can tell everyone's worked very hard to try to reach a resolution that pleases somebody a little bit. And then, I can't remember the other. Oh, I wanted to have kind of a straw poll here, and I think it might maybe shorten your presentation some. Is there anyone here, any of the board members that are opposed to having a, I'm not saying at this location, but generally having a drugstore with expanded shopping in it downtown? I don't think, I just wanted to make sure the applicant knew that. I don't think that anyone thinks that's a bad idea. Last week I wanted some cough drops and had to go out to the pharmacy at Loudoun and Broadway. and I was the only one there at 9 in the morning that wasn't buying vodka. So I was like, well, maybe we do need an alternative. I don't know. But anyhow, I'm sorry. I don't mean to slow you down, Ms. Wiseman. Please go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Marks, did Ms. Wiseman get one of these? Is this handout that's been circulating? I'm not sure, but I'll get that one to him right now. Okay. She needs to have that. yeah I took one past on she's from Okay. Okay. Okay. Ms. Chairman, I'll proceed if this act is acceptable. And I will try to be efficient with this Presbyterian, I don't know where that came from, presentation. But I did want to at least be able to give you all an overview of this application. We did cover a lot of ground last month. We've covered a lot of ground this month. And I would be remiss if I didn't start out by saying that on behalf of Gary Joy and his company and the landowners, how much we appreciate the patience and understanding of staff. Chris King and his staff have been very good to work with. Jeff Neal and Mr. Gallimore have spent a lot of time on this plan. So I think you all should take heart that your staff certainly understands the importance of these proposals, and we appreciate the time and attention that they've given us, and we do appreciate their recommendation and agree with it. But I wanted to take some time to go through it because I think it is important, and I wanted to kind of – some of you had some questions and concerns, and I hope that we can show you that we may not have addressed them to your satisfaction, but we have certainly tried to address many of the comments that we heard. The first thing I want to put up is an aerial because it's a very good Now? Okay. Yeah. I warn you, I'm trying two new things. I'm retrying the laser pointer for the first, second time, and a PowerPoint. So we'll see how this goes. This is, I don't know if you can make that a little lighter. This was taken actually from the CMW building across the street. If you can pull that back, because I think it actually shows more of Vine Street. I think this is a very good photo of a couple things. It shows our property very well. This is the Integra Bank, and we go back to that white building is Coach Craft. So what is before you today is this property and specifically the drive-through that will go approximately in that location. A couple things that are important, I think, from this slide, with particular interest to our case, is this situation and how this property does have the challenge of all these roads coming together at this point. And you can also see, we talked a lot about pedestrians, but this is a merge. They don't slow down movement. That's a tough park for crossing. That's tough here. We're going to talk about that. So there's a lot of crosswalks, and it's kind of a tough situation as it is now. The other thing about this, for everybody that's interested in downtown and following downtown plan, I think this is a really good slide to show you what the problem is with Vine Street because it's just a one-way speedway. And with the implementation of the plan, which is going to take time, and that becomes two-way and this becomes two-way and we have more street storefronts, it's going to be a much better situation. But again, that takes time, and we think what we're bringing to you, what CVS wants to do and what these landowners want to do, Phil Hollaback had to leave, Les Kimbrough had to leave, is an important step in fulfilling that plan for downtown. I want to give a little background for what this is all about. I mean, obviously, what you asked the board members about, the need for convenience retail, and I've got a little bit in the presentation about that, but that's important. It's something that we've been talking about in the downtown area for many, many years. We're not there. We're far from it. And it's one of those components that you're going to have to have to continue to get people to want to live downtown, the downtown neighborhoods, and an amenity for the people who work here and also an amenity for the people who come to the hotels downtown. When they're here on a Saturday or a Thursday night, they might want to go out and buy cough drops or buy those sorts of things. You forget things sometimes when you travel, and you might need toothpaste. And there's no place for anybody to go downtown to get those sorts of things. So that's something that we want to fill with this proposal. The other thing that we need to understand is that with pharmacies today, the trend is that they are freestanding. That's how they're being built now. And they have drive-through windows. and that is because of convenience for the people who use the pharmacy. It's convenient for elderly people who don't want to get out and go to the back of the store, hand the prescription. They can stay in their car, drop it off. They can come back and pick it up and talk to the pharmacist at the window without having to get out of the car. If you're a mom with a couple of kids in car seats and you've just been to the pediatrician and you've got to fill a couple prescriptions, it's awfully nice to be able to pull into a drive-thru and drop that off and get them home and then at some point hopefully come back, you know, or have your husband or somebody else come back and pick it up. But it's a convenience. That's why the pharmacy sector is doing that, much like banks. Banks now all have drive-thru windows because it's a convenience to the customer. There are times when you would rather just drop off your check, cash a check, and not go into the lobby. So that's a convenience that the pharmacy will offer. So if there's going to be a drugstore downtown, I think we want to assume it's going to be freestanding and it's going to have a drive-thru window. The major chains that do these probably aren't going to come downtown if they can't do that. I mean, we may not like it, but that's just, I think, how it is. The other thing to understand about it is that it's not, while it's a convenience, it's not the major part of the customer traffic. Their studies show, and counts we've done bear out, that 25% on average of customers use the drive-thru. Everyone else comes, parks at the store, and goes in. But that 25 percent, having that convenience, is extremely important. But it's a very low traffic generator. We've got some numbers to talk about that. The two lanes are there because one lane by the window is where you can actually talk to the pharmacist, pay for it. That's where you pick it up. The outside lane is where you drop it off. so while we are here from the narrow legal sense for the drive-thru window we understand where this is, we understand the prominence of this and so I wanted to go through and talk about some of the issues concerning downtown and how we think we've addressed them and why we think this use and this building is going to further what we want downtown I guess you can take that off now. Here goes. This is what we call 14A. This was the plan that was before you. Oops, I've already . This was the plan that was before you last month that showed the single entrance back here where we had so much conversation about the access onto the road. As staff has explained, we have now modified that and these, what I put in your book are those are the copies of the slides, so if they're hard to read you can go along. But what we've outlined here are the changes that we have made to the plan from the one that you saw last month than even the one that's in your notebook. With respect to access to Main Street, the two major changes are this, is that this entrance is this access point, which is a driveway that exists now next to Coach Craft, has been narrowed to about 17 feet. It was 45 feet before when we had a lane in, a lane out. It is now an entrance only, and we've extended curb so the people coming here will have to turn this way. This is not to encourage people to come out. If you want to exit onto Main Street, we've now revived this entrance that exists now so that you can enter or you can exit. The expectation is that the people who want to use the drive-through will come here. The people who want to come to the front of the store If they're coming from here, here, they'll come in here and park in the front store. Again, the one reason that this lane is significant, if you're coming down Bind Street, you can come in this way to the drive-thru rather than getting back out and making that movement, putting you out in the street. If we go to two-way, which is the plan eventually, what the lane also has a benefit. If you are coming from this direction on Main, this direction on Midland, again, if this is two-way and that lane is not there, you'll come through here and turn left against two lanes of traffic. traffic. You would do the same thing if you were coming down Main. With the lane, someone coming from Richmond Road can turn left, come in here. This has been, we have the opportunity to switch this to where then it would become a right in only as opposed to a left in only. this traffic can come in without having to cross two lanes. The plan that's in your packet was what we submitted to the transportation department. Their suggestion was that we shift the entrance seven feet this way, and you can see the result is that that crosswalk is no longer skewed. It's a straight crosswalk. This is another change. This is a raised crosswalk to make it a safer movement from the person coming down the sidewalk who wants to come into the store. That will be a raised crosswalk. By the same token, somebody walking down Vine Street, this is a raised crosswalk we suggested as well. I think it's important in terms of the pedestrian friendliness or pedestrian accessibility. The one time that the drive-through interferes with pedestrians is this point right there. Even without a pedestrian drive-through, they're going to have to cross this entrance. They're going to have to cross this entrance. Down here, this is right-of-way. This is Water Street. So they still got to cross Water Street to get to the building. And we are showing the raised crosswalk there. So this is the one place where you could say that having a drive-through interferes with pedestrians being able to get into this store. And with the shifting of the access, they only have this very narrow point to do that. We were also we shifted this building back about 13 feet. Again, that allowed us to avail ourselves of using this entrance. This island got a little bit bigger, so we picked up three spaces. At the suggestion of Mr. Emmons, Jimmy Emmons of Planning, we increased this radius to allow for a better transition from cars coming in off Vine Street so they'd have more time to make the decision as to which way, if they're going here or going here. This is a change, you might recall, in the first plan we had two lanes coming out. could be side by side. Mr. Gallimore suggested that might not be an ideal situation if you think about coming out of the bank and there's two of you sitting there wondering, am I going to turn left and he's going to turn right? We thought that that was a good idea. So this is narrowed down to 18 feet, so that's a single lane. So there's two cars, but then they will have to let one go one at a time. This lane remains the same. One other point. We also, as a suggestion, we can't control this, but we suggested that it might be good for the city to go ahead and put raised crosswalks in this lane and in this lane, that on Midland, on Vine and a stop sign, this is not a stop situation. And if you had a raised crosswalk here and a stop sign, that would greatly help pedestrians not just to get to this property but just to get to downtown. So those are the changes in the plan. That's just the plan without the changes marked. We also have landscaping that we had on the plan before, but this was done in large measure to soften the appearance of the drive aisle as it presents to Main Street. This would be a four-foot sort of a wrought iron fence with railing with stone columns. The actual stone will be determined by the ultimate that stone brick on the building with the shrubbery behind it. It'll be behind the sidewalk within the six-foot buffer. We had questions last month about why we couldn't move the building, why we could not move the building and not have the parking field. One of the things in this downtown plan is not to have the parking lot visible from the public realm. Well, obviously one problem is that there's a lot of public realm in this property, so it's very difficult with all the street frontages not to show some of it. But the biggest constraint is that purple line there, which we talked about. That's the town branch. It's in a 96-inch culvert, and you cannot put a building over it. You can put parking over it, but you cannot put a building over it. You could move it at significant expense. And our earlier plan showed we were going to cross a little bit here, and that was going to cost $200,000 just to move that little bit. It would be cost prohibitive for any development to have to move that much of town branch. What's the result? You've got about 25% of this very valuable downtown land that's not buildable. And so we're using it for one use that we do need, which is parking. Rena, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the intended group bank building is over it now. That's right. So it's built in error? Well, I think I understand from Kevin that under today's engineering manuals, we would not be permitted to do that. There have been a lot of changes in the last five years or so that things we used to be able to do, we can't do anymore. Okay. All right. Well, that's because I know there's a building around there right now. But we don't want to redo that mistake. Right. Okay. All right. Can I ask? Sure. I didn't understand last month, and I still don't understand. What is a culvert? It's a culvert. It's a big concrete box. Yeah, it's a large concrete pipe that houses the town range. It's a big concrete pipe or box. It's a pipe. It's a round pipe, so it's an eight-foot diameter pipe, a very large pipe that houses the town branch. The creek. The creek that runs through downtown. The water that runs through downtown. Okay, thank you. Right. No. If you were to eliminate the drive lane and move the building closer to Main, you've got the same constraint. You maybe lose six or ten parking spaces in this area, but you've still got, you know, there's a lot of the sites that you can't build because of the location of Town Branch. Traffic was an issue. The reason we did this was to show you that as compared to what is a typical downtown use, which is a drive-through bank, this is very comparable. In the PM, a pharmacy will generate 124 trips. In the PM, the drive-in bank, 103. Now, remember, a drive-through pharmacy, only 25 percent on average are using the drive-through window. So not all of those trips are going to the window. But in the p.m. peak at a bank, most banks close their lobby at 4 or 5 o'clock. So most of those trips will be at the drive-thru window. So the numbers are comparable, but in terms of activity at a drive-thru window, you would expect and you will have more at the bank just because of the way the bank functions. And in the morning, there is a little more traffic at the drive-thru bank than is at the pharmacy. And that's important because we have lots of drive-thru banks downtown, and that's a convenience that we enjoy for those of us who work and live downtown. The one thing I wanted to also point out on this is convenience market with gasoline pumps, that's permitted in the B2 zone. You would not have to come here to get that approved, and that is the biggest traffic generator right there. Not only are the rush hour trips high, but throughout the day, it's a very heavy traffic generator. This slide just shows you that it counts on Walgreens, their drive-thru, that at any given time, there's very few cars in the drive-thru lane. And this was done between 4 and 6 o'clock on a Thursday in March. And you can see at most there was one car in the queue. Again, if you think about a bank at the drive-thru in the rush hour, they are typically, you know, usually behind one or two cars waiting to go through. That's not the case at the pharmacy. It doesn't operate that way because you've got fewer of your customers using it. It's more spread out throughout the day. If you even think about a Starbucks, you usually have a lot more stacking and fewing in those drive-thrus. So this is not a situation where you've got cars idling and adding to noise and so on here. This is what we have. Maybe we should hand out the ones. I think these are better. You already have them in the packet? Okay, you already have them? Okay, fine. Yeah. Now, Rena, you can see why I would ask for these, because it's very helpful. Yes, sir. And we understand that. And we did not, we weren't hiding anything. We didn't want to show anything until we felt like we were on the right track on this. Now, let me say, this isn't the final product. This is a working product. A work in progress. Jim mentioned condition seven, which requires us to have our elevations approved by planning staff and building inspection. But this is the beginning of the conversations that Gary has had with the staff. They have been wanting to emphasize brick. They have emphasize windows, height, this shows more height, I think on the Main Street side or this point here, which faces as you're coming to Richmond Road, I think that's 21, 23 feet, which is essentially two stories. So there is more height there. This would be the back between that and Coach Craft. So, again, we're not showing you this to say this is the way it's going to be, but this is the starting point, and this is where we've gotten to this point. And there's been a lot of time spent on this, both from Gary's perspective, talking to the architects, getting renderings back to Chris, rejecting ones that Chris and his staff didn't see. because we knew that they wouldn't like them. So this is what we're showing you as to that's our good faith effort to try to be mindful of where we are in the downtown area. Now, one other thing about the architecture and the entrance. If you remember when Phil Hollaback spoke to you last month, think about this as not just this one piece of property, but this is an entire block that we hope will redevelop. And Phil and his partners as the landowners have made, were very insistent that this building be placed at a certain point so that if they get, if they are able to get new contracts on those properties next to us, Coach Craft and on down, that there's enough room between this property and the chamber building to put in a parking structure and multi-level mixed use, just like they had originally planned before it was not possible to get a parking structure. So this is just a piece of that. This does not forestall that happening. There's enough room to still do a parking structure and do the multi-level above it. And also, I think Phil mentioned in the plan that he originally had for this, there was a parking lot in the front on that point. There still was surface parking in front of the drugstore that was shown, and there was also a drive-through. All right. This was just to demonstrate to you that we do have drive-throughs downtown and there are drive-through banks. We have 10 drive-through banks in Lexington. I wanted to emphasize quickly Community Trust No. 5 and Southern Oak, which you've never heard of because it isn't there, but the address is relevant. 473 East Main Street. Martha Jenkins remembers that address. Community Trust is on High Street and was before this board in 1997 for a drive-thru facility in the B2B zone, and it was approved by this board. And one of the things it says, it's not going to be an adverse impact. This is right downtown on High. It will provide a means for the bank to offer greater service to its customers. And that was approved unanimously by the Board. Now, 473 East Main Street. I don't know if that rings a bell with many of you, but that was McDonald's. McDonald's on Main Street. And this is a headline from the Herald-Leader in 1997 that McDonald's drive-thru rejected third time. For the third time in 14 years, the Urban County Board of Adjustment yesterday rejected a proposal to build a drive-thru lane at a Lexington McDonald's near the historic Belcourt neighborhood. That was one of the most controversial conditional use applications this board ever heard. They were here in 1983 before the ordinance even addressed drive-thru windows, and it was turned down. They came back in 1988 and were turned down, and each time the room was full, Kerr Brothers, Bell Court, Second Presbyterian, get your McButt off McMain. Does anybody remember those buttons that were being worn? That was extremely controversial. The reason I put this slide in there was that in 2001, 473 East Main, a developer proposed to put a drive-thru bank on that same property, the very same property that brought hundreds of people to this room and had him demonstrating out on East Main Street. They proposed a drive-thru bank. Her brothers was there to support it, as was the neighborhood and the board. moved and approved unanimously this drive-thru facility. They ultimately didn't get the bank. It's still a Mexican restaurant, but it's still relevant that at that point in downtown, we found that a drive-thru facility limited to a bank wouldn't harm the area. It'll be more comparable to surrounding uses. It's going to create less traffic if it's limited to a bank than other uses that you could have there. And as you can see, what we're proposing is very similar in terms of traffic to a drive-thru bank. Need. Do we need this? I know that that apparently goes without saying, but it's in my PowerPoint, so I'm going to show it. 1982, there was a study commissioned by something called the Lexington Economic Development Commission, and they did five different studies, and one was to look at economic. And they said that to be a truly regional city, Lexington needs a more vital retail component downtown. It's critical that downtown offer retailing opportunities that will provide the convenience, retail support, and necessary services to help make these in-line neighborhoods truly attractive living areas. We were not having the inward migration downtown in residences in 1982. We were just trying to encourage that. But this says that if households continue to move back, there will be an increased demand for downtown trade, particularly convenience goods, such as food, beverages, drugs, and cosmetics, the kinds of things that you will find at a CBS, and you will find at this CBS. Downtown plan does not just look at land use. It looked at demand for retail. This was the appendix to the downtown plan, and it says, there is very little in the way of convenience retail in the downtown study area, and the convenience sales downtown capture barely 1% of all sales in the Lexington MSA. We don't have any grocery stores. Emphasize this point. The only full-service drugstore in the study area is a Rite Aid at the corner of Main and Lime, and this is not the larger store format being developed by drugstore chains nationwide. They don't build them that way anymore. But we don't even have the Rite Aid downtown. What did the study recommend that we could do in terms of potential at this point? We need more growth, but it says, In an incremental standpoint, capturing a quarter of the spending potential, the downtown could support an additional 10,700 square feet of convenience retail. This is the size of a typical newly built freestanding national chain drugstore. Right there in the plan. That's what we're asking to do. Ours is a little bit bigger, but we're going to bring to the downtown area what your market study said you could support. And again, this was written when Rite Aid was still downtown. Not to be facetious, but this is a map of the downtown development authority area. And the yellow dot is where the property is, and as you can see, we have no pharmacies in the area of the development authority. Where do we go if we live, work, or stay in a hotel downtown? We've got Rite Aid on Loudoun, where you've got your cough drops, a mile, a quarter, a fourth away, four-tenths. Euclid, Kroger's, Rite Aid East High, Rite Aid Broadway, Walgreens, Richmond Road. Those are not within walking distance for most people downtown. They're not within walking distance of people in the senior citizen apartments. So we have definitely a need. Where do we go? This is just another slide that if you look for groceries and sundries on your Google, this is what you get. George's Deli, the cigar store, the very nice new wine market, and three gas stations. You can go get some things at these places. But again, this is not the sort of retail array that you would want if you're trying to encourage people to live downtown, work downtown, and so on. It's this need that brings us to you today. That's why CVS wants to be here. It sees the need. And the need is why we have support for this. I don't know if Jim handed those out, but last month we had a letter from Woodward Heights. We had a petition from the Main and Rose. We had a letter from a resident on North Lyme and a petition from urban county government employees in support of this. But also I'd like to call Martha Jenkins, who's patiently waited through two of these sessions, who came here and would like to speak to you about this proposal. and many of you will recognize that Martha served on your side of the desk for many years and was chairman of this board. So, Martha. My name is Martha Jenkins. I don't live downtown. I've lived on Glendova Road for 42 years, but I'm very interested in what goes on downtown, and I've been interested in this proposal since I first read about it. Having been a member of the Board of Adjustment several years back, I know how hard the staff scrutinizes every detail of a project like this to meet all the ordinances and the regs and the requirements that the city mandates. And I know also how the members of the board sometimes have to agonize over their decisions in cases like this. And I also know how hard an applicant has to work to get his project to come in under all these requirements that the city has and to make his project look right in a visible spot such as this and to provide a service, a good service, and also to come in with some economic feasibility in these weird times. And as Rena has told you, conventional wisdom and all the people who really know about these things say we do need a mix of good, successful retail if you want your downtown to thrive. And this looks to me like it will fill a void for people who work downtown, people who live downtown, people surrounding downtown. And I think we all know that a modern-day drugstore isn't just a pharmacy anymore. I think the grocery aisles, the household supplies, all the other things will be very welcome downtown. Now, this project has taken a lot of time on a lot of people's parts, a willingness to work together, to compromise and make things do right, not to mention a leap of faith on the part of a developer who will go into a project like this in these times. and in order for the board, the staff, to come to the point that they can recommend approval for a project like this has really taken some doing, but it has happened. And it looks to me like this project is a win-win situation for everybody concerned, and I would urge your support. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Jenkins. I just have one more slide and I'm done. I have great pleasure in actually quoting, if I can read it now that it's all blocked out, a Herald-Leader editorial that was written when the Rite Aid store closed a year ago. So let me get it. I'll read it from this because there's a couple of things that I know you can read it yourselves, but I did want to emphasize a couple of points. The points they make, I think they make, you know, succinctly, which probably I have not been succinct. But they point out that our anemic retail scene downtown has shrunk to nonexistence. Residents of three downtown apartment buildings for seniors will no longer be able to walk to get a prescription filled. That's important. I mean, these are people who live downtown and depended on that. And there was a motion when that store closed. The bakery across the street will not have a close-by place for milk. And it goes on to talk about we really need to have this, and we've been pressing it for many years. And the last part of that editorial says, well, maybe there's some things we can do. We can do tax incentives, a marketing effort, a small business loan pool, on and on. This project that we're bringing to you today didn't require any of that. It required a lot of hard work, and as Martha says, a leap of faith by this developer to invest. A leap of faith by the landowners, who also have a lot invested in downtown, that this is going to work out. and I think the hard work of the staff in making this project work and also making sure that it's done in an appropriate way. So we think I'll just highlight the last thing that was said in this article. The point is the need is now and it's time to act, and I think it is time to act. It's a good project. It takes more work to get the architecture, but we believe we have addressed all the issues. We would ask that you approve this for the reasons that the staff has given you. We agree to the conditions. And we, again, appreciate the chance to come back today with what we think is a better plan. And we're here to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Thank you. It's about the famous McDonald's drive-thru. I voted against that. I well remember it because McDonald's is so successful that their drive-ins are just overwhelming. But when the time came that the bank wanted us to give them a drive-in, it was so much less intensive and seemed like a whole different ballgame that we readily did agree to that. And I think this project, in its intensity as far as its driving goes, is much more like a bank than it is like a McDonald's. Thank you. You've got a good memory. I can't remember back that far. Ms. Weissman, I don't know if you want to address this or have the engineer fellow. I apologize, I can't recall his name. Yes. My recollection from last month that the rationale behind having the entrance and exit down here was that it was safer because it was farther away from this intersection. Yeah, that's the way I recall from last month, probably the first one of last month. Having it all the way, what is that going to be? South down Main Street, but have it farther away from where Midland and Vine come into Maine. And so it would be safer. Now, my concern is that you've, I think it's good that you've made it entrance only down there now. But my concern is now that you've opened it up closer to the junction of all those streets. Right. And I just want, I don't know who wants to address that, but that's my concern. Well, I'll take a crack at it, and then Kevin can pick up the debris from what I'll say. Two things, that's right, but when we went back to the drawing board to figure out a way to get out onto Main Street, this is what we came up with. One point that we had, and we also had talked about keeping that entrance before we came to you, but that's what we were encouraged to do. the conflict there's two conflicts at that point one is the traffic coming around that lane on Vine and coming into Main Street that's very, there's minimal traffic there, there's not many people that need to do that because most people if they want to get out on Main they'll turn left onto Rose Street and take that route so only if you're stalking that lot if you are a stalker though it is going to be a complete rush hour in and of yourself. But I think the traffic counts something like 37 in the PM peak. So every couple of minutes. So number one, there's not a lot of traffic. Number two, our recommendation was that regardless of that, you need to slow down that traffic. And that's why we recommend that there be the raised crosswalk and the stop movement, because there's no stop movement there. Across the street at Midland, there is a traffic signal. So you do have to wait, But you don't have to wait. And if you had a stop sign there, that would slow that down. The other concern was what about cars coming out of Midland and crossing the lanes to get over into this entrance? But, and Kevin's been out while you were there taking pictures to look at that in detail. And the fact of it is, is that when the Richmond Road coming to town has a red light and they are stopped and the Midland traffic has a green. So if you want to come from Midland and come over a couple of lanes, you have a clear shot to do that because the Richmond Road traffic is stopped. And people do that now. So we felt given that traffic pattern, given the load traffic on that lane, and then with the added suggestion of putting the stop sign there, that on balance we felt this would work. The last point on this is that when we took Plan 18 that's in your packet to the state, it was the state that suggested we actually move it a little closer to the intersection so we could straighten up that crosswalk. So, you know, that's how we analyzed it, and we felt that that was the good solution. And now the – And here's Kevin. Okay. Pick it up for me. Just briefly, the 14A that you saw that had the entrance closed, the real driving force behind that was when we first did this plan, the building was shifted to the right about 13 or 14 feet from where it is on Plan 18 that you have now. And the initial entrance layout that we submitted to the Department of Transportation indicated that entrance move to the right from its existing location about 60 feet. And that's the one that the state and your traffic engineering department both said, no, that's too close. So then that's when we sort of investigated traffic patterns that would leave through the rear of the store, like the plane you saw last month, to get it all away from the intersection. Because at that point, we sort of resigned that particular, you know, that existing entrance. We'd resigned that one and said, well, it's not really going to be possible. we need to move it 60 feet. They're not going to let's do that, so let's just kill it all together and we'll move the traffic to the rear. Since then, we have moved the building back to regain an alignment that would allow us to use that existing entrance. And like Rena said, we submitted that to the state a couple of weeks ago, and they came back with the approval of the reuse of that existing entrance, and with the further suggestion that we move it a little bit closer, not much, seven and a half feet closer to the intersection to allow us to straighten up that entrance. So it wasn't, the site plan before was not going to let us use the entrance in its location. But with the shift of the building away from the intersection, that allowed us to regain use of that and again, move it very slightly toward the intersection and at the suggestion of the DOT. But that's why the entrance was closed initially, because we wanted to move it 60 feet, and that was a no-go. Now, you've got the note there, recommended raise crosswalk and stop sign up at the apex there. Right. Now, that's not on your property. How does that happen? That will have to be – You ask the state? The state would control that. That's what we suggest. It's not, and if you've stalked in the site, you've seen that the traffic flow through there is fairly seldom. It only happens once every couple of minutes. Well, slow down if I've quit stalking. Yeah, right. The one feature that we have agreed, I think, to fix is there's a planter right at the terminus of the existing crosswalk, and there are clearance issues there. There's only a foot and a half or so on each side of the planter, so a wheelchair cannot navigate that sidewalk as it exists today. So we've shown to remove that planter altogether to allow a wheelchair access around that corner. Now, is the planter you're talking about on the inside of the hedge? The planter? Yes, sir. No, it's that square that's outside. It's right in the middle of the sidewalk. It's in line with those others where the trees are. I see it on here. I just didn't see it on when I was out there. Yeah, right. Somebody was pointing to it. Yeah, I see it on the planter. I just don't recall seeing it when I was out there. Oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah, like I said, there's no room at all, a foot and a half on each side of the planter to get around it. So you can walk it, but a wheelchair wouldn't be able to navigate it. Okay. As far as the stop sign and the raised crosswalk, that's going to be up to the DOT to implement or not. It's what we've suggested. And we have a video. So if you're concerned about the traffic movements and the rest of you haven't visited the site, I'd be happy to show it. It's just straight video of the traffic movements that actually happen there and how the traffic light stops the east main traffic from coming downtown, and then all the traffic is free to flow from Midland. They seem to have no – the division of the lanes, not everybody shoots from Midland all the way across to the near lane to us. It looks like it's about even. It's about a third in each of the ones. Some people do shoot all the way across all three lanes, making that right on to Maine. but my observation was that it seemed to be fairly distributed across all three lanes on Main Street there. There's no fight to get to that lane. There's no real conflict of traffic that happens there now. We don't anticipate one when we build here. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any questions? I'm sorry. Sir, what was your name? That's Kevin Phillips with Ender's Engineering. I'm sorry. I didn't recall that. Any questions for Mr. Phillips? All right. Now, what about for Ms. Wiseman or anyone else? Actually, I've got something. Ms. Wiseman, first of all, I want to say, and I think our chairman said it early on, you know, there is no question about the need for it downtown. We all support that. Ms. Jenkins was very eloquent as well, and I think that this is a project that has support. But my big concern the last time around was, you know, was the entrance and exit onto, you know, where those three rows converge and flying around. And, Kevin, I know you just addressed it, and Ms. Wiseman, you did as well. I'd like to ask Mr. Gallimore. I know that the state has obviously approved, you know, you moving this entrance and exit back up to the property. But I'm like Mr. Brown here that I thought it might have been a little bit safer to keep it toward the end of the property, although I wasn't really comfortable with that either. It's just a safety issue for me. So I wanted to ask Mr. Gallimore his opinion on this revised plan as far as traffic goes and a safety issue. I think the latest plan that you're seeing is about the best compromise that you're going to see weighing pedestrian and vehicular traffic. If you recall in the last hearing, we were very concerned with the exit condition down by the drive-thru onto Main Street. And this proposed entrance eliminates that conflicting movement. So I think kind of what you're looking at is a compromise in situations. Keep in mind, too, where that entrance is. They have come with the raised sidewalks to emphasize the pedestrian aspects. The very latest revision, as Kevin mentioned, shifted the driveway a little bit to satisfy the state's requirements, but what that also did is straightened out the pedestrian access. So I think when you weigh everything into account, this is a much better plan than what you saw last time. Okay, thank you. Any other questions or discussions? I have a question about the drive-through lane, and I apologize if I'm being redundant, but I'd just like to know why you all feel that is so critical to this, that it can't front onto Main Street, that the building cannot front onto Main Street. You're asking why we need that parallel lane? Okay. Right, right. Again, what… It goes back to the town branch creek, I think. Part of that is the purple line. Do you know what number is that? We had the slide that, all right, there it is. Is this where the building footprint is constrained by the town branch? So can you go to the next slide? Just like that. Right. It was really decided that if you push the building up to the sidewalk, the entrances on to Main Street would stay. The entrance at the rear of the store is going to stay whether you have a drive-through or not. It's going to be a service drive for trucks. They have to have a delivery. So there are going to be two entrances onto main, two vehicular paths out onto Main Street. If you put the traffic back out onto Main Street and have them go down main and turn left back in and eliminate that parallel lane, you impact the pedestrian twice. You cross the sidewalk twice, one exiting one coming in. With the parallel lane, you only impact them once, and it would only be the customer traffic, not the passers-by. So we feel like we've reduced the interaction of the vehicles and the pedestrians by having the parallel lane. Mr. Phillips, that kind of makes sense, but I'm not sure I understand it. Maybe Ms. Wiseman can help you translate it. When you say impact the pedestrians, explain a little bit. We cross their path. Their path is the sidewalk parallel to Main Street. Right. So if the building were shifted forward and you were asking traffic to exit the site, to come back into the site, to go to the drive-through. Okay. So we would cross their path of pedestrian way going out onto Main. That's once we would cross them. We'd go down Main. We'd turn left back into the site. We would cross their path again. Okay. So by having the parallel lane again, we would only impact them once, and it's at that narrowest point where there's a 12-foot raised crosswalk is what we show on our current plan. That's the only place we would impact them. And theoretically that would only be customers you would be impacting and not traffic that would just be walking up and down Main Street. I'm sorry, I don't understand why somebody would go on there and come back off. I still don't understand. It's the traffic. It's the evening traffic coming down Vine Street. They want to get into the site, so they would get into the site off of Vine. They would enter the site from Vine. But why would they enter the site off of Vine if they want to do the drive-thru, if the drive-thru only runs one way? One way, right. So if they're on Vine Street, then why wouldn't they just follow Vine, go around, and go on Main? I think there's a perception, and Gary probably may be able to answer that better, but I think once you see the drugstore, you want to get into their parking lot, then you realize, oh, I need to go to the drive-thru. Now I'm stuck, and I can't get back out without going back out on the main street. So we'd rather capture them off of Vine, have them circulate internally rather than keep them out on the street. You just put them back in the intersection, too. You're just going to keep these cars coming back here. You're just going to put more traffic. You know, ideally, you get this business traffic off the road. You get them here and put them in that lane. If we keep it without that, they're going to have to come back, get back on to Maine, come back in, cross that sidewalk, and then they'll have to come back out. Whereas here, they just come in, cross that, and then they're out. Mr. Chair and Ms. Wiseman, was it not stated by CBS at the last hearing that they would not put the facility in without a drive-through? Yes. And CVS also has made it clear to us that that is critical to their plan. If another reason, if this becomes two-way, if you don't have that lane, then anybody who's coming from this direction or this direction, they'll have to come down main, cross traffic to turn into the drive-through. They'll have to cross two lanes of traffic and come back and make a left turn there. Whereas if we have this lane, they'll be able to come down, turn left, on to Vine. This will be converted to a right in only, and then they'll make that movement. So this will work both with this is a one-way and this is a two-way. You're making this traffic flow better in terms of getting them off the road into the site and making it avoiding crossing lanes of traffic and avoiding crossing the sidewalk. Again, the drive-through, like it or not, is what's going to be part of a major drugstore of the kind that we want downtown, and that is going to be part of it. But again, in terms of, I think, Kevin, it's the previous slide that probably shows us better. But the only time that the drive-through interferes with the pedestrian is in this point right here where they cross. I don't know if you... The only point this lane interferes with the pedestrian is right there at that short crosswalk. The pedestrian coming from downtown is across this driveway, or this driveway coming this way, or Water Street this way. But it makes this site work much better for the drive-through and for those customers. It takes the stress off the intersection. If we can internalize the circulation, get the people off the street, let them circulate on our property, keep them out of the street, keep them out of the intersections, I feel like that's a safer and better alternative to keeping them on the street and in the intersections. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion? Okay. If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. I'd like to recommend that C2009-14 Joy & Associates Incorporated appeals for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a drive-through facility for a proposed pharmacy in the downtown business V2 zone on properties located at 366, 370, 376, and 400 East Main Street in Council District 3 be approved as recommended by staff. subject to the nine conditions. Second. Mr. Chairman, there's one real simple correction on Condition 1 to reference. The most recent site plan would be May 26, 2009 instead of May 13, 2009. As amended. Thank you. Ms. Wiseman, you're okay with that, aren't you? Okay. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor of Ms. Edwards' motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Selected. All right. Now, are there any items the board wants to discuss? Mr. Salee and Mr. Marks want to discuss the training opportunity? Mr. Chairman, as listed on your agenda, there is another APA audio conference slated for the end of June. As usual, that will be on a Wednesday afternoon in the 7th floor conference room in the Phoenix building. We certainly encourage the board members to attend if you wish to get some training hours in. Thank you. Anything else? Okay, our next meeting will be June 26th. If there's no other business, come before the board. I'll declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you. I'm out. Thank you.