Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, and we are ready to call this Board of Adjustment meeting to order. Before we get started, I would ask that all of those in here who plan to participate in this program, that if you would stand so we can swear you in, please. Do we need to do that? No. I do. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth? and nothing but the truth. Thank you. We would ask that if you have cell phones, if you would put them on silent or turn them off. If you have to use your cell phone, we ask that you would step outside, please. Before we get into the meeting, there are several things, some things that you need to, present to you relative to the agenda. We're going to take all those cases that have been requested for postponement and redraw first, and we will call the agenda as it is listed. We ask that if there's anyone here in opposition to any of the cases that we have, that if it is possible for you and the applicant to step outside and try to work out your agreements. Outside, that doesn't mean fisticuffs or anything like that. It just means to have a little conversation in case when you come back in, we might be able to alleviate some of the tensions that are involved in some of these cases. If you can't, then we will hear your case in opposition toward the last of the meeting. All cell phones, please turn off. We would ask the board to look at your October 28th meeting minutes. If you have read those, we will accept a motion for approval. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of October meeting. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. We will call the staff. Is there anything you need to bring to us relative to postponements or withdrawals? I believe Mr. Simpson will be showing up shortly at Boone Creek Adventures. He's here. I was missed. Mr. Chairman, Bruce Simpson, on behalf of Boone Creek Adventures, that's page 3, item D. we have been meeting with representatives of the neighborhoods in that area as well as Fayette Alliance and we have agreed to continue our discussions about our application and would like to postpone until the December meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Staff, you don't have any concerns with that board? Any concerns? Anyone opposed to that? Anyone here opposed? Staff, do I have a motion to accept the postponement? Mr. Chair, I move we postpone until the December meeting, the Boone Creek Adventures case. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. any with any other we regarding boone creek they're trying to set up some possible tours for interested parties including board members of course i think that probably would be advisable and we're trying to keep i think rather than all at once smaller groups to possibly avoid the having to do legal notice for an official board of adjustment quorum, that kind of thing. I can give you some tentative dates if that will help you do maybe over the next few days. I think also on the boards concerning the board here, I think we would like to have as much information about this as we possibly can. Written information so that we can go through it. I am totally lost with this situation, Mr. Simpson, and I don't want to may have to sit here and make a judgment on something that I do not understand thoroughly. So if there's anything that you haven't submitted to the staff where they can submit to us, I would appreciate it if you would do that, please. I think the tours are planned to start around noon to 1230. And what date is this on? The possible dates are November 21st, 23rd, 29th, or the 30th. What day is the week of those? Anybody got a calendar handy? December 21st is a Wednesday. Is Monday the 21st? Monday? December. Days the 18th, 19th, yeah, Monday's the 21st. So that's going to be Monday, Wednesday, and the end of the week, I guess, or the following week. Tuesday. following tuesday and wednesday following tuesday and wednesday 29th and 30th okay mr simpson's kind of coordinating all that so if you can give him the input about what days would work best for you well why don't we have the the board to contact the staff i can pass it on sure that's fine do that if you don't mind please thank you mr simpson any other cases where we are having postponements of withdrawals all right we will call the i think one's coming here hello elizabeth pitchford i'm with ruggles sign company who are you please ruggles sign company Elizabeth Pitchford. It's listed under case A-2011-76. David Bennett, Lexington Green. Dash 76. All right. It's on page four. And your request? For a postponement as recommended by staff so that we can gather further information so you can better review the case. Do you want that for one month or do you want it December or January? I'm going to actually defer to Jim real quick. You think one month will do it? Because I know we have to go to the Department of Law, too. There's a fair number of issues there, so January might be safer. Do I have a motion to accept by the board, please? Mr. Chair, I'll move that item 2011-76, David Bennett, Lexington Green be moved to January Board of Adjustment Meeting. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Are there any more? Case V2011-72, James M. Lutka. Is James M. Lutka present? You don't have to come up right now. I just want to know if you're here. Are there any, is anyone here in opposition to James M. Lutka? Lutka. It's Lutka. Lutka? Anyone in opposition? V2-2011-77. Sable Holdings. Anyone here from Sable? All right. Is there anyone here in opposition to Sable Holdings? Oh, Lordy. We've got a bunch of them here. Hold your hands up again, please. Let me see who we got here. Are you all from... Okay, thank you. Plenty. V2011-78, Lexington Land Company. Is there anyone here in opposition to Lexington Land Company? No opposition. Lone Creek has been postponed. V2011-75, Gary Clark, DVM, PLLC. Is there anyone here in opposition to Gary Clark? No one, no opposition. Okay. We will start with James M. Lutka. this is t.j manges he's a partner in the uh um restoration of 432 north broadway and he'll kind of give you a summarization of what we're trying to uh propose and who are you sir james m lutka Mr. Lutka, the staff has recommended withdrawal of the alley setback variance. Are you familiar with that? Have you read that information? Correct. I think that's the only point in question is the sight line going back to the alleyway, and we have a proposal to try to rectify that issue. Has that proposal been submitted to the staff? No, it has not. Also, the staff has recommended approval of the requested side yard variance. So, staff, do you have any concerns? The only thing I can offer is that the site triangle issue is not something under Ural's purview, so it's not something that we can really address right now. It's a condition of the recommendation. It's something that has to be looked at in many cases by traffic engineering. I don't know that they've seen any revisions on this plan yet or not. So that's why we structured this as simply withdrawal of the alley setback. And that's just something they're going to have to address through the permitting of any fence revisions for that section of the fence. And so you have not submitted this any to the staff or to engineering? No. Then since we are not in position as a board to determine or to make a decision on this, I would suggest that you accept that withdrawal on that portion and submit your application to the board and to engineering. and look at the approval request made by the staff regarding the second portion of your request. Because it's no use us discussing that if we can't act on it. Right. Is that agreeable with you? Just to submit it to the traffic and to the planning commission. You just submit it to the staff and also, will you all submit it to the engineer or do you want them to do it also? Well, Mr. Gallimore is right there, so we can pass it on, whatever. You want to give a copy of that to the staff and a copy of that to the engineering? I would suggest that you do that. Can we do it currently? Right now it would be. They can get copies made for you before you leave here, I gather. I'll make sure it gets in the right place. All right. As I said, the staff has recommended approval of the requested side yard variance. and without us discussing the upper part of it, we will ask that have you read those, that approval and the recommendations? Also, have you read the conditions? Staff, I mean, board, is there any questions that you might have regarding this particular portion of the Lutka case? Then if we have no questions, then may I have a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I'll move that item V201172, James and Luck, appeal for a variance to reduce the required side yard from three feet to zero and an alley setback from, well, we disregard we are not acting on the alley setback. So obviously appeals for a variance to reduce the required side yard from three feet to zero be approved with the conditions as set forth by the staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. I think we need some official action on the withdrawal. I think the issue is he doesn't need a variance from the alley. I mean, that's what the staff explained in their report, that the variance he requested is only a setback required for buildings, not fences. So he doesn't need that. So that's why we're saying to withdraw it, because you don't need a variance to that. All you do is discuss with traffic engineering whether it's going to be a site triangle issue, but that simply is not a Board of Adjustment question. So that's why staff said to just withdraw that one, because you don't need it. So we don't need to take any motion on that, do we? Well, he needs to agree to withdraw it, and then the withdrawal needs to be accepted by the Board. Mr. Lutka, do you agree to withdraw this? Yes, sir. Okay. You don't need to take official action, but we need it in the record that he was withdrawing there. Thank you, sir. The next case is V2011-78, Lexington Land Company. Now, we did ask if there was anyone here in opposition, and we saw no hands. All right. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy representing Lexington Land Company. Craig Harden, the president, is with me today, and we agree with the staff recommendation and the conditions proposed by the staff. Board, do you have any questions or concerns? I do have a couple of questions. The staff, in their report, points out the applicable parts of the zoning code, and I read them twice, and I'm not clear. I mean, I don't really understand why this building is able to be expanded. Well, maybe we could just start from scratch. This is similar to a case that we had on Aylesford, and everybody was in agreement, and it's an improvement to the neighborhood. is there something about the zoning codes that require you to come back there we were going to address that with you to see whether a amendment to the zoning ordinance could be initiated what it is is we're in the r3 zone of course this is an area where a lot of these houses were built as single-family houses a hundred years ago very big single-family houses and probably 50 or 60 years ago they're divided up into a number of units like this one has four you had four units in it in the r3 zone you're allowed a floor area ratio of 0.5 in other words you can build the total square footage and all floors together can be half of what the square footage of the lot is and in this case now craig had gone through the board of architectural review to get approval of his exterior changes gotten permits for all his remodeling in the r3 zone to move it from four units to three units but the house would look it would work a lot better just with two units because it was originally open and we'd like to keep areas open rather than chop them up the problem is we found out and this was sort of discovered late on both both these is that when you do a two unit house in the R3 zone, you're supposed to comply with the lot requirements for the R2 zone, which has a 0.35 floor area ratio as opposed to 0.5 in the R3 zone. Now, we started out above 0.35. I mean, we were above 0.35 to start with. We met and still meet the 0.5. It was really designed when you're building a new duplex on a vacant lot in R2 in R3 excuse me you have to meet the 0.35 Floriere ratio it never contemplated that people would be reducing the number of dwelling units in existing R3 property so every time that happens you're going to get caught in this situation that we have to come back and ask for a variance because the building started out above 0.35 and we want to do two you know if we were leaving it as three units we'd be fine we wouldn't be coming in front of you at all because we meet the point five point five FAR but just wanting to move it to two which is again allowed in the zoning ordinance but we have a different yard requirement puts us on that point three five and we have to come back to you on that to vary it to allow us to go to point five on this so I may I don't know if I managed confuse things or try to explain things but it's a it's a to me a little glitch in the zoning ordinance because nobody thought about the fact that you'd be reducing units in existing buildings in r3 this ordinance was designed for building new duplexes in the r3 zone or what have you mr murphy so the way you get to have a duplex with a 50 coverage of the lot is to get a permit to build or expand your triplex or fourplex, then before you're finished, but when you have legal building permits in place to expand the building, then you convert or make an application to convert it to a duplex? So in other words, you had to do this in a certain order to have a big duplex on this lot. Is that right? Well, no, not really, because what Craig was remodeling this building to start with, What he did was he tore off a non-compatible addition that had been added on later on and got approval from the Board of Architecture Review to do that. So he tore off some and he added on. Now, the net result in this case is that he is a couple hundred square feet more than what he started out as. it's not as much as it appears because he tore off that back as approved by the Board of Architectural Review. Now the order he did things isn't all that relevant because even if we started out before he did any remodeling at all and wanted to do two units we'd still have to come back in front of you on that because the building started out above 0.35 floor area ratio. So regardless of whether he had started any construction on this or gotten any permits or whatever, I know in this particular case, we'd have to be coming in front of you for a variance if we want to do two units. If we want to leave it three, or actually it started out as four or more units when he bought it a year ago, or less than a year ago. If we want to leave it there, we don't come in front of you. It's just this quirk as I see it in the zoning ordinance makes us come back to you all on this. Well, I only have one more thought about this. These zoning ordinances are so complicated that after reading it three times, I was still baffled. So if the zoning ordinance need to be altered a little bit, now I know you're a bargain at any price, but if they could adjust these ordinances so he wouldn't need to come before us to do this work, could you could we recommend to the staff that they talk to planning and zoning about a text amendment to maybe clarify these this zoning ordinance and and make allowances for what you need to do i think so i think that'd be good we'd be happy to talk to them and much as i love to come in front of you with variances like this it would be better for the clients not to to have to do that every time. It really would. Thank you. I have one question. If you were not making it any bigger, would you still be here asking for a variance? Yes. And Ms. Bowling, do you have any comments? I think Mr. Murphy has explained it pretty well. It's the act of converting it to a duplex that subjects the structure to the lower floor area ratio. Now if you were just changing it and you didn't do anything structurally, would you still be here? Yes. Okay. So the way that we get this clarified, which you wouldn't have to be here, is that you have the zoning to restructure the definition? Yes, that's right. How difficult is that, staff? I think a text amendment would be relatively simple. We'd have to consider whether or not it's in what situations it's reasonable to truly expect a .35 floor area ratio to apply to family dwellings. So would you have to definitely point out the .35? It might just get bumped up to .5 in certain situations. I just can't say how it would all fall out. Any other questions or concerns by the Board? If not, do I hear a motion, please? I'll make a motion. Mr. Chair, with regard to V2011-78, Lexington Land Company's appeal for variance to increase the allowable floor area from .35 to .5 for the construction slash retention of an addition to a multifamily dwelling being converted to a duplex in a planned neighborhood residential slash historic district overlay R3-H1 zone on property located at 354 Linden Walk. I recommend that we approve that based on the staff's recommendations and subject to their conditions. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. The next case is C2011-75, Gary Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Joe Hoffman, and I represent Dr. Gary Clark. Dr. Clark is present this afternoon, and Dr. Clark agrees with the recommendation and commission conditions set forth in the staff report. So you have read the conditions the staff has recommended approval, and you've read the conditions, and you understand? That's correct. And the people you represent understand that? That's correct. Staff, are there any questions or concerns? If not, may I hear a motion, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve C-2011-75. Gary Clark, DVM-PLLC, appeals for a conditional use permit to establish an animal clinic in one suite of an existing shopping center in a neighborhood business B-1 zone on property located at 1590 Lee's Town Road, Suite 128 in Council District 2, as recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions outlined by staff. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Let me see here. The next case is A2011-76. Dave Bennett. That was the one that got postponed. Oh, excuse me. To January. I failed to write that down. Post poll. And that brings us to our case of 2011-77, Sable Holdings. Sable Holdings. Now, we have an awful lot of people here in opposition to this. And if you'll just put that chair, pull the chair out there and set it right where we can sit. The staff has recommended approval listing several reasons. And also they have listed four conditions. So before you all get started with this, we want to, I think, listen to those in opposition first, if you don't mind. Actually, Mr. Chairman, we'd like to hear their case. You haven't heard anything about this case? I'm not met with them, so we'd like to hear what they're going to say. Then continue, sir. I'm Timothy Zeph Maloney. I own Sable Holdings. What's your last name again? Maloney. Okay, Mr. Maloney. Yes, sir. I own Sable Holdings, and we purchased this property a few years ago on speculation. But John and Lisa Cox, who are here, have asked me to apply for the change that we've requested. So basically I'll turn it over to them and let them explain. I support what they say and they're representing Sable Holdings in this instance. All right, sir. Hi, Mr. Chairman. Tell us who you are, please. Pardon me? Tell us who you are. I am Lisa Cox. I have, for the sake of clarity, made copies of what I'm going to say. So can I distribute that to you? Just bring them to us. You need to give staff a copy of it as well. Thank you. Okay. I'm not used to public speaking, so excuse me if I stumble. I want to thank you all for being here and thank our supporters. We're clearly outnumbered. We have a lot of supporters who have supported us verbally, but they couldn't be here due to conflict of interest. I'm Lisa Cox. My husband is John. We're purchasing the property at 615 and 617 West Short from Zeph Maloney. We both grew up here in Lexington. We have strong family ties and a love of old historic Lexington. We currently live downtown and have owned and operated a successful small business for almost three years now. John and I have been working with Zeph and the City of Lexington for several months, trying to find a solution to the many problems involved with the unique and beautiful building at 617 West Short and the business at 615 West Short. We've more specifically been working with Jimmy Emmons in the City Planning Department and Amelia Armstrong with Historic Preservation to find a plan that would be acceptable for all involved with an eye towards restoration. We have followed all the guidelines set forth by the Planning Department. Our goal with this property is to simply divide the business aspect from the residential features of the property in order to secure bank financing. We have a letter from our mortgage broker supporting this. That's the second page that I distributed. The business is legal and nonconforming and has been operating since the 1950s. Current zoning requirements state that it must remain the same type of business or be less intensive of use. Any changes must go through the same public review process we are going through now. The plan we have proposed is actually making a completely nonconforming property two separate parcels, one that is a conforming residence and one that is an even more restrictive nonconforming business we plan on complying with the nonconforming use of the business property and restore the house to live in ourselves our intentions are to pull up most of the blacktop and install lawn and landscaping to beautify the property however because there is a legal business we must also allow for a certain amount of off-street parking based on square footage of the business there are no plans to change the business aspect of the property, nor could we under current zoning conditions. In addition, we plan to redo the exterior of the cinder block garage visible from the street to make it blend and fit in more with existing buildings. We have a before and after rendering of the two lots with proposed landscaping provided by Brian Belcher and Case Davis, owners of Beaver Creek Hydrology. I'm sorry. We've been perplexed by the opposition of the Neighborhood Association. We were not included in any of the meetings because they feel we are not the actual applicants for the variances, when in fact we are in contract to buy the property from Zeph Maloney. We feel the reception from the neighborhood has been hostile, and there's no spirit of compromise. The argument seemed to be fear of the uncertain future use of the business property and how the division will affect other properties in the neighborhood. We can only assure you that there are no plans for future development of 615 short, and we would not legally be able to do so. The Neighborhood Association seems to want this building to simply go away, but in this uncertain economy, we have to consider the income it provides. I believe that we all have the same objective here, to restore a beautiful historic house that at present is not habitable. There have been other attempts to purchase this property, but each time the prospective buyer was scared off by the huge difficulties they were faced with. There's probably not another parcel in Lexington that is exactly like this one. Jimmy has assured me of this. I believe that we are the last best hope for this old beauty. If the variances are not granted, we cannot get financing, and therefore this house will definitely continue to decline for an indefinite period of time. A lose-lose situation for everyone. If the variances are granted, we already have a crew ready to work. Jim McGee will be tearing down the shed at the rear of the property that has already been approved, by historic preservation as a non-significant addition, and will also be performing any approved asphalt removal. Chris Hoff will be the contractor in charge of renovation. He specializes in and has worked on many historic houses in this neighborhood and was also involved with Atomic Cafe and Doodles restaurants. We have already been through meetings with the Planning Department and the Board of Architectural Review and received their support, as well as the support of historic preservation, and we ask for your support as well. Thank you very, very much. Can I introduce other people that will be speaking with me on our behalf, or how does that work? Yes, we may as well, and we'll let the opposition speak after you. Anyone in support, please come forward, who wants to speak. My name's Chris Hoff, and I'm not actually... Tell me who you are, please. I'm sorry? Who are you? I'm Chris Hoff. Chris? Chris. Christopher Hoff. All right. John and Lisa asked me to actually oversee the hiring of contractors and the work that's done on the building because I do have experience with restoration here in Lexington. My brother Tim Mellon developed a 3rd Street area of the Atomic and Doodles, as she said, and I have 22 years experience in working with historic homes and things like that, So they've asked me to just kind of keep an eye on things and make sure that the historical preservation of the home is kept intact and that nothing's really damaged or done, you know, incorrectly while they're doing the renovations. And that's pretty much it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Hello. My name is Case Davis. I'm president of Beaver Creek Hydrology. I'm a personal friend of Johnny and Lisa and have known them over the last couple of years. I'm a graduate of the University of Kentucky and have been around Lexington for quite a while. And they've been just wanting to express how excited they have been to be able to take a home in downtown Lexington and to help spruce it up and make it more viable for the historic nature of the neighborhood. and i've been over there with them and looked at it and it definitely could use some work if you all have seen the property and i think that they have a good vision of what what they could do for that building and they simply just would like to purchase it and live in it and i just wanted to pass that along thank you anyone else anyone else in support and before we listen to the opposition side i want to staff do you have pictures you can put up up around up there up on this we do would you put them up there and then also we would ask you if you have anything you want to add regarding this case we understand that you have recommended approval but is there anything that you need to add to this situation before we listen to the opposition? Well, there's a lot that can be said. I think it's a mixture of maybe some confusion on the part of the neighborhood opposition. There's large concerns with whether or not the subdivision of this property will somehow encourage the continuation of the non-conforming use. And, of course, there's provisions in the ordinance that say you're not supposed to do that. In our assessment, we didn't think that it was reasonable to predict with any certainty at all as to whether or not the subdivision would either encourage or discourage the continuation of that nonconforming use. We pretty much called it a toss-up. Now, if you're forcing someone to make a prediction or a judgment, we came out on the side of, if anything, the subdivision of the lot would discourage the continuation of that nonconforming use because of the parking situation is what we referenced in the staff report it's going to be a much more restricted situation there with the parking if the lot is subdivided right now the business kind of overflows into the residential area quite a bit under this new arrangement it would be a physical boundary between the two lots in terms of the parking situation so it will be much more restricted any different business that might want to come in there would have to deal with that. The existing business, Bluegrass Upholstery, is going to have to deal with that. So in our minds, the subdivision would discourage the continuation of the nonconforming use. Another thing that we didn't mention in the staff report that maybe we should have is regards to the possible conversion of that nonconforming commercial use into a residential structure. With the subdivision of the lot, that's entirely feasible, that you could tear down that commercial building, construct a conforming, residential, single-family detached structure, totally complementary to the way that that neighborhood has developed. The lot frontage on that is very comparable to the other lots along that block of Short Street. So that's another possibility that would actually encourage the discontinuation of that nonconforming use. It's another option. It may not be something that the potential buyers right now are interested in doing, but down the road they might change their minds, and then any future owners would have that option if that lot was subdivided out. So to be honest, we don't understand the concern about the continuation of the nonconforming use with this subdivision. We've heard it said over and over again. There have not been any specific reasons given for why they feel that will result in an encouragement of the continuation of that nonconforming use. So I think what we're most interested in hearing is the specifics of why they feel so strongly that that's going to happen. So I guess that's our position right now. I'm not sure I understood which photos you wanted me to show up. Just want me to run through the ones we have? I want to see the house if you have it. They don't have pictures of it? We don't have anything smaller than this. This first photo we'll try to get up shows pretty much all the frontage of the current lot situation. The residential structure on the left and the commercial structure on the right. So I gather the area that will be taken up, the blacktop area, is that where the car is parked? Yes. The upholstery shop does use that as a parking lot. I can't hear you. Come up front, please. The upholstery shop does use that as a parking lot. The entire area around the house is black topped. So that portion that's attached to the house is coming down? Yes. This next photo might show better some of the parking that's going to asphalt that's going to come out. Again, the cars in back are directly related to the upholstery shop. That would all be restricted. I believe the upholstery shop uses that as a break area for when people make deliveries or pickups. There's quite often people hanging out back there and none of that would be occurring. I'll ask you a question. What's that property next to the white? That's the next door neighbor's parking. No, right in the back there? Yeah, what's the building next to it, right there on the left side? It's a cinder block garage that we want to update and make more historical. What's the one where the car is parked down front here by the driveway? That's the building behind us. That's Ballard Street building. That's not a residence? Sorry? That's not a residence to the left there? Oh, to the left, that's our neighbors. The 6-0 And that's a residential area? Yes. What's on the right side? It's the business, and then I believe it's Mark Naylor's house that overlooks the parking lot. And that's a residence? Yes, that's a residence. And how long is this? 1950, the business. And the house is since 1890. And it was all built legally when it was built. It was a mixed-use family business that that neighborhood is actually known for. nothing I mean we're only going to make it less intrusive to the neighbors I believe with our landscaping and restrictive use of parking and hanging around we want to landscape the front make a clear division and like I stated in my like I've already stated whatever else goes in there next has to go through a public review process as well it can't be any more intensive of use than what's there right now All right. Thank you. I have a question. Excuse me. Have you met with the Neighborhood Association or these people or a lot of these people who are here to explain what you'd like to do here? We would have liked to. We have met with mutual friends to try and broker a meeting, and they have never considered us an actual applicant, even though we are in contract. And by proxy, I believe we are the applicant. we've tried and it was discouraged at every turn if i could say something to help answer your question too i was invited to meet with the neighbors many of whom i know and it didn't go so well but at the end of the meeting i did say to them uh you know i'd like could we you know invite or would you like me to invite john and lisa cox and i was told no so at that point so So they haven't seen any of these renderings or anything, any of the plans that you all have? I'm not sure about that, but I couldn't answer that. They can answer that. They've not seen this particular visual rendering of what we want it to look like, but we have cc'd Bill Johnson with a lot of correspondence regarding this. We've tried. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? The only other comment I want to make is I find it strange that they wouldn't invite you in to hear what you're trying to do. As a neighborhood association, we face these things every month, and normally the applicant in the neighborhood association tries to deem to work together. So I'm anxious to hear why they wouldn't accept you in for their meetings, for you to explain this particular project. So, Mr. Simpson, we're ready for the opposition, please. You pass those out, Mark. Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Adjustment, I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of the Historic Western Suburbs Neighborhood Association. We do have a number of people who have shown up in connection with this particular matter. some members of the association others president of other neighborhood associations in downtown Lexington and also the Bluegrass Trust for historic preservation. Bill Johnson is a president of our neighborhood association I will let Mr. Johnson when he comes up to address you share with you his position about meeting with the applicant in this case and in point of fact a meeting with And the applicant did take place, the owner of the property, Stable Holdings, met with the neighborhood for about an hour or so, explained what he wanted to do with the property, what the prospective purchasers were going to do with the property. So there was a clear communication, a clear understanding of Mr. Maloney's intent and the prospective purchaser's intent as regards this particular piece of property. I think the notion that the neighbors aren't interested in meeting is a smokescreen for what before you today is being asked to finesse the zoning ordinances and the subdivision regulations to allow for a continuation in the future of a nonconforming use, a nonconforming lot, and a nonconforming structure. I'll get into the details of that shortly, but I wanted to address specifically at the outset this question of meeting with the neighbors and the neighbors not understanding or appreciating what the intent was of the applicant, because that such a meeting did take place. Mr. Maloney, who came up here, is the owner. He purchased the property in March of 2010. The property was actually never on a multiple listing service. there was a sign in the yard and he purchased it certainly he had every right to do so subsequently one of the people in the neighborhood called him and asked what he was going to do with it he was going to preserve the business and one of the representatives in the neighborhood offered him sixty thousand dollars more than what he paid for it to purchase it to keep it as a residential property but he wanted more money i think he wanted a hundred thousand dollars and so in any event he's here today with a prospective purchaser to seek a subdivision of this property for the purposes of sale. Now I want you to understand and what I think is abundantly clear from the applicant's request and presentation is that they are coming to this board as they went to the Planning Commission and I will show you what the Planning Commission did shortly. They're coming here as justification for a subdivision of this property, which has been as it has been for 200 years, because they need financing. They can't get financing, is what they said is their justification, which is what Mr. Maloney represented to the board when he met with the board, that they need this subdivision of property to get financing. There's nothing in the zoning ordinance or the subdivision regulation that talks about an exception that you can come and get Planning Commission approval and Board of Adjustment approval in order for you to get financing to purchase a property that has a historic house. The document that was passed out to you is part of the exhibit document that this house is on the National Register of Historic Places. It was built in the late 1800s, this document here. It has an addition that was placed on it back in the 50s, back when the property was zoned B4, warehouse. That whole area was a whole different neighborhood back in the 50s. In 1969, Fayette County rezoned all the property in Fayette County, and that property became R4 residential. And since the early 70s, as Mr. Johnson explained to you, that neighborhood has changed radically from what it used to be. It's transformed into a number of historic properties. People have invested millions of dollars all through that area to restore it, revitalize it, refurbish it, and make it something really special, which has been a policy of our government for the past 10 or 15 years to invigorate downtown, clean it up, make it attractive, make it safe, make people so people want to come down here and invest, and do what the western suburb people that are here today and live downtown. We made a policy decision 10 years ago that we were going to preserve the rural services area and we were going to grow up. And that meant a focus on downtown. And western suburbs, those folks that are here today, have invested their money to further that goal. So it is important to them. They're not here just because they're against the applicant or against the prospective purchaser. what they see is an impermissible subdivision of property and a request for a variance that is merely an accommodation for a prospective purchaser to seek financing. And I'm suggesting to you, in fact, stating that as a matter of law, there is no exception. In our zoning ordinances or the law of the Commonwealth that says you can get a variance and a subdivision of property in order to get bank financing, That is simply not the case. I will go over shortly the policies which have been established by law which strongly disfavor continuing nonconforming uses. Now, the staff says we're confused about nonconforming uses, and that this really isn't going to encourage nonconforming uses. I have two realtors who will testify that by subdividing this property, it makes it more likely that the house will be devalued in terms of its historical residential use, and more likely that that freestanding lot where the bluegrass upholstery shop has done business for 50 years will remain because it can be conveyed fee simple. And further, they will say that it is more likely that if it's left on the market as it is, then someone will come in and tear down that addition where Bluegrass Upholstery is and transform that lot like the rest of the neighborhood in the 600 block of West Short Street into a single-family home consistent with the character of the neighborhood. That's why we're down here, because it cuts against the momentum and the motivation and it's in violation of the very policies and laws that we've adopted in this county and in this state. I will share with you a Kentucky Court of Appeals case that talks about discouraging this kind of activity from taking place. So we're down here in a very serious way because there's been a lot invested, a lot of time and equity in terms of what these neighbors have done to clean things up, and Bill will share that with you. I do want, I think it's important to understand that this is like a two-step, could be argued to be a three-step process. Because it comes to you today, you will see this under tab 12, and I'll put it on the overhead projector. Under tab 12 is what the Planning Commission did in connection with this particular piece of land in approving the subdivision. what you're seeing here this is West short street this is the property that's in question 617 and 615 this is the whole tract right here and the Planning Commission approved a subdivision that allowed, in order to get what they needed, they had to get 6,000 square foot minimum because this is an R4 zone. So they had to have 6,000 square feet, and so they approved this kind of configuration, kind of a zigzag all the way back. All these are buildings that you see here. And then you have the historical structure right here. So it comes to you, now, this is not an approvable subdivision, just so we're clear. This is not an approvable subdivision, and they can't get financing, and they can't sell this lot unless you all approve the variances that are being requested. If you don't approve the variances being requested, then they can't do the thing they want to do, which is subdivide the business lot, make it available for subsequent resale, fee simple, to somebody else to continue a non-conforming business use that has been in existence since the 50s. So if you approve this by variance, you're going to encourage this business use to remain because it will remain more marketable. This business has been here for 50-some years. There can be another kind of business that comes in that is equal to or less than the type of intensity, if you will, as this use. Now, that's, of course, subject to a lot of argument and further discussion and likely will be if this becomes a freestanding lot, which our realtors that will testify will indicate to you. It is more likely to be and remain than be extinguished, which is what the ordinances of the urban county government and the law and the commonwealth encourage. So what are the variances that they want? The staff didn't go into that. It's in the report. But just so we're clear, in order to get a subdivision approved, and you all have to punch their ticket by doing the following. You have to reduce the required front yard frontage from 50 to 35 feet. You have to reduce the minimum front yard from 20 feet to 5 feet. You have to reduce the minimum side and rear yards from the required setback each to zero. And you have to reduce the usable open space from 20% to zero. And you have to have reduced the parking spaces from five to three. And finally, the setbacks for the existing accessory building from 1.5 feet to zero. So they're going to zero to accommodate what's there, and you all have to give your blessing to it, which in my judgment, as I will get to you as I close, cuts against the policy of not encouraging the continuation of nonconforming uses. So the other important feature that we're here today to discuss is a couple of issues in the staff report. The staff report on the second page says that these buildings, let me follow up with another photograph which is listed for you that kind of shows the overall surrounding property. This will be under tab number four. This is an aerial shot of what we're talking about. This is West Short Street. This is historic 1886 of thereabout structure. Over here is bluegrass upholstery. right next door and it goes back this way and turns and comes back here now the lot configuration that you saw it kind of zigzags it comes out a little bit goes back and then kind of gets funny back in here so that it ends right back in here it's not a straight line like you see most subdivided lots it's a zigzag configuration which is why you have to grant these ordinance of these requested variances so all of this is a is a commercial business that wraps around this residential property and by subdividing out you know it's going to remain this is an addition it's not a residence to accommodate a resident it would all have to be torn down the other significant part of all this is that they could buy this property today. They could buy it, and that business could continue. They don't need to subdivide it for this business to continue. It's a non-conforming use. It can continue, and they can move in that house and live in it without subdivision. They're saying they need you to do all of these things, the Planning Commission and you and Historic Preservation, to do the zigzag lot in the variances in order for them to get financing. And I'm telling you, there's nothing in the zoning ordinance that says there's an exception to any prospective purchaser to accommodate you, your financing, for us to have to go all of this in order to preserve a nonconforming use. Now, the staff said that on page 2, the building is not connected to the residents. The building is not connected to the residents, which would lead any person that read that to believe that, well, it must be freestanding, two buildings that are freestanding but not connected. Under tab number two and tab number three, Excuse me, tab number two. This is 615, 617. Right now they're on the same lot. You can see they're adjoined. The next slide shows an even closer version. These buildings are connected right now. This is not a residential use. This was an add-on that was done in the 50s. But they're connected. The staff report that says they're separated is not accurate. Again, if they want to do what they want to do, they can get the money from some other source, restore that house, and keep the business or not keep the business or bring in another qualifying nonconforming use if they want to. And it's not anything to do in our laws that says, oh, yeah, if you need financing, you can go through the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, the Board of Architecture Review, and finesse the zoning ordinances that say you can't do it, ask for permission to do the very thing that you don't need to do if you really want to operate the business. So there's no exception for financing. The other thing that's puzzling about the request is that while they could maintain the business, maintain the home without subdividing it, by subdividing it, the staff's position is, well, we'll reduce the parking from what it is now. So what does that say to Bluegrass Upholstery or future users of that property? Are they, and then they're under a lease, are they going to leave? Is the lease going to be terminated and somebody else is going to come in? I mean, if the intent is that it's the consequence of approving this is to cause the business to fail, why not just tear it down? You know, I mean, why keep it? Why keep a huge building like that, wraps clear around the residential piece, if there's not a future intent to keep it going? And it's attached. It's attached to the building. So it also begs a question. The staff report indicates that although no detailed justification for a parking reduction was provided by the applicant's variance application, Staff observations and discussions with both the appellant and the potential buyers of the property all support that three proposed spaces are adequate to support the business as it has operated historically. So the staff is saying, in the report anyway, in contrary to what they said today, that limiting the spaces will cause the business to leave, they're saying, well, it'll have three, and that's about all they've ever needed, and so it'll keep going. Which is it? In point of fact, in terms of the parking, if you look under tab number five and tab number six, and I'll have Mark Naylor, who lives next door, come up here shortly, share with you his observations. about the parking. This was a photo taken on November the 4th. This year, nine cars at 1 p.m., November the 4th. The next photo was taken November 17th, eight cars and a trailer for Bluegrass Upholstery, because no one's living in the house. And then, and Mark will tell you that over the course of as long as he's been there, average of seven cars in that lot pretty much all the time. So they're seeking to reduce it down to three. One of those is a handicap space. They're averaging seven. They're going to reduce it to three. and the staff believes that's adequate to keep the business going by their own staff report, they think the business will survive. That's what the staff report says. It'll be consistent with the previous use, and if it's consistent with the previous use in terms of parking, then the non-conforming use is going to survive by subdividing the property. We believe it's less likely that the property would be developed as a whole for single-family residential development if you approve these variances that coordinate with the zigzag subdivision that the Planning Commission approved. Under tab number one, we have several photos of the neighborhood just to give you an indication of what our neighborhood is like. Let's run through those pretty quickly. Those of you who grew up in Lexington like I did and have observed the changes downtown will certainly appreciate that this is not the way it used to be on West Short Street. A lot of investment, private equity, private sweat equity, I should say. in order to get to where we are today. None of those property owners came before this board seeking a subdivision of their property to allow any of the previous nonconforming uses that existed back in the 50s and the 60s and the early 70s. They faded out. They bought these properties and sold them. The neighborhood even did. Sold them on the condition that the only way you could purchase them is that you had to build a single family home. And then it became a historic district. They got that approved in order to preserve the character of this neighborhood, which is historic. Western Suburbs is a historic neighborhood. That addition to that building, there is nothing historic about that building. There is no policy that encourages it preservation. But if you approve this subdivision of property, you are approving benignly or directly the future perpetuation of a non-historic structure and historic zone. Again, another reason to deny this variance. Under tab number two was the pictures that we've talked about in terms of the roof, and we go to the parking. I do want to have Mark Naylor come up at this time. Mark is a resident. He lives right next door. And Mark is an architect, landscape architect. His resume is on tab number seven. He's registered in 13 states. And I'm going to ask Mark basically to share with you his experiences of living in the neighborhood, his knowledge about the amount of parking that's taking place, his concerns about the proposal, And then I'm going to have a couple of specific questions that address unintended consequences if you all approve this in terms of the impact it's going to have with respect to the Kentucky Building Code and the firewall compliance that's going to have to be addressed with a commercial structure and a residential structure standing side by side. Mark. Good afternoon. I guess what I'd like to say going all the way back to the first meeting I'll fill in a little bit here I'm going to get off course of what Bruce wants me to discuss right now is when we met with Mr. Maloney we heard a lot of different things which kind of spooked us we like to know what's going to happen. among the variables were that he in fact was going to finance the property for these for the developers and that if something didn't work out with the upholstery shop he might take it and store antiques in it so to call us hostile and say well you know we weren't willing to meet is not true as Mr. Johnston will testify to but what we heard was not good to us because we're looking for for, you know, bluegrass upholstery can stay there forever, but what we don't want to do is create something that's even harder to get rid of in the future, which is what Article 4 contemplates when you read it. As far as the parking goes, these photographs, we've taken them in the last two weeks. I've lived at this house since, Megan help me, 2000. Yeah, I'm immediately on the right or the east of the property. So we've never not had a problem with Blue Russell Coulson. We've always gotten along with them and You know what you see before you as far as these cars. That's the way it always is We have delivery trucks coming and going the difference now is that when they pull into the lot There's an in and there's an out if you look at the latest plat that that was done at Planning Commission You're creating a parking lot that really is only going to hold two cars So we're going to ask the seven to nine average to go down to two cars And there is no way to get out of the parking lot if you really look at the site plan The only way they can get out is to back into short street, and we've all been reading the paper It's getting ready to become two-way, so We're just concerned about all those issues and and where it's going But this is all very evident as far as what we see every day in terms of parking Yeah Mark, you were present with Mr. Maloney when he owns a property that came to meet with the neighborhood. Is that right? That's correct. And I understand that in connection with the discussions, he explained that he was going to provide an easement through the residential property to serve the bluegrass businesses next door to the upholstery shop. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. Did he explain why that was needed or how it's going to work? No, in fact, one of the questions we had was, you know, where are the drawings? Show us the drawing. What are you trying to do? And we handed him a piece of paper, and he did sketches for us about how he wanted this to work. And he drew a configuration of an easement that was going to go from West Short Street. I will show you. We've recreated it on the plat from those of us that were at the meeting with Mr. Maloney. Let you see it here. Can you rotate it 90 degrees so it makes more sense? All right, so Short Street's on the bottom of the page. That's great. Thank you. Short Street's on the bottom of the page, and this is what Mr. Maloney drew for us, that in order to keep the business going, there was going to be an easement granted from Short Street to the rear. about where L4 is, which is one of those zigzag property lines. There is an overhead door there, and he explained to us that the upholstery shop needed to be able to get deliveries and equipment, whatever, from that point around to Short Street. So again, when we're seeing all this, and we really want somebody to redo this house, we're trying to figure out, okay, you're financing it. We've got easements running through the property. We don't have enough parking for the business that's going to remain and the whole thing just doesn't make sense to us So this was what we were showing one of the one of the things that mr Mulling sketched out for us, but we did that they ask Are there drawings are there renderings and he said there are no drawings. That's what he told us Now mark you're a Registered landscape architect is that right? That's correct. And what kind of business are you in generally? Well for the last 25 or 30 years primarily commercial design really all over the United States so I've done a whole lot of parking lot design putting buildings on sites stormwater retention that kind of thing what about dealing with issues of like we're going to have here if this is approved these variances are approved a commercial building next to a residential in terms of building code issues that would have to be addressed well anytime you are obviously well accustomed to the zoning ordinance building setbacks landscapes buffers that's what you deal with every month when you come here there's a whole whole extra set of things that are going to happen here the building code doesn't really worry about zoning requirements what they worry about is their own code their own code specifically gets into two uses especially when they're adjoining like this and a very important part of the code whether you're talking and commercial which would be the upholstery shop side or if you're going to use the residential code which you know I don't know how the fire marshal would do it but for the building side you basically have a manufacturing use which is use F under the Kentucky building code up against residential the code is very specific about proximity of firewalls to two uses which means in this case we probably need a two or three hour firewall between the two uses which the fire marshal here in town would dictate. May I interrupt here for just a second? I don't know that he should be anticipating what a fire marshal or building code plan reviewer is going to do. That's all speculation considering there are no plans and no formal applications on this. And this may fall under a completely different chapter known as Chapter 35. And I'm not too sure if he's qualified to give this scenario. The significance of this particular testimony, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, is the impact it will have on historic structure in order to comply with the building code. Mr. Naylor does these kinds of assessments, draws up these plans, deals with fire marshals, has for a number of years. And the photograph that we have now, it's not too visible there, but Mark, if you could get over here and talk about, based on your assessment. Let me address your concern, because I'm in no way trying to usurp the building department or the fire marshal. All I'm trying to say, as an adjoining owner, I'm trying to make sense of this. I go to two registered architects in my office, look at this with me, let's talk about the impact of a new property loan, which is really what we're here talking about. what is that going to do to the old house? Because our concern as preservationists downtown is preserving that older house. So I go to them. We start through the code, and there are some very obvious sections in the code that have to deal with all of this. So I'm not disputing that there is enough firewall. I'm not even worried about that. They are connected at this point. We're trying to put this precise property line down between the two. and when you go to the building code there are restrictions on openings and windows in proximity to a property line the fire marshal may say you know what it's been this way no big deal we won't worry about it if you look at the code however either code anything within three feet of that line would have to be closed you wouldn't be allowed to have have the opening once you get more than three feet away you might be able to also if the buildings are sprinkled that'll help and make a difference, but my point is, and again, I'm not trying to step on any toes, that based on the help I've gotten within my office from registered architects, there are concerns about what would happen to the windows with the historic structure because now you're taking a brand-new property line and dropping it down between those buildings. So there is a concern there. And, Mark, did you try to project if the building were to be restored, restored just the residential building and the and the uh that commercial addition that was added on in the 50s as that was torn down uh did you come up with a rendering of what the property would look like well honestly i can't take credit for this but but a friend did this for us um and i don't know how well you can see it it's one of your exhibits there yeah um my house is on the right um and i think one of the things you're going to hear from the other neighbors we're not here today saying that bluegrass upholstery needs to be torn down that's not what we're saying we're not here saying that they need to go out of business or that these people shouldn't shouldn't renovate this house and return it to its glory which is just like this what we are saying is that the upholstery shop it was decided by the City of Lexington in 1969 when we got the new zoning atlas should not be there we're patient people I've been there for 30 years waiting for something to happen everybody in the neighborhood's patient So we're not out to get anybody here. But this is ultimately the goal. And there's all kinds of examples of this up and down Short Street. So if you go even down to Parker Place, this setback that we have is exactly like it is. So these houses staggered up and down the street all the way down through there. But this is a good indication of what it could be someday in our dreams without the upholstery shop there. Mark, getting back to the easement that Mr. Maloney explained to you was going to be necessary from Short Street, that would be wrapping around the residential structure to get to that long building that's next to it. Is that right? That's correct. So as it was explained to us, it would go in. There's a door. It doesn't show up real well in the photograph. There to the left of that one post. In here somewhere? To the left. Right there. And I'm just repeating what he drew for us and showed us. Okay. that he was going to have an easement going through the residential portion, wrapping around the house to serve the business in the rear with trucks. That's correct. Okay. The door for bluegrass upholstery. All right. And you live right next door at 609? Directly to the east. And is that your house right there, 609 West Short? It is. This is actually the third property in the neighborhood we've owned. This is the second house we restored. When we bought this house in the year 2000, it was originally a triplex. We spent 15 months returning it from a triplex back to what it was originally, which was a single-family home. Our kitchen, which I want to show you at some point today for obvious reasons, was built in 1817. The main part of the house was built in the mid-1840s, and the last part closest to the bluegrass upholstery was built in 1865. we did another house at 640 had too many children and had to move to this one we had another house that we bought that's next to the gas station at the corner of old georgetown and main street that was at a commissioner sale it was going to be sold the owner was going to tear it down and put a subway in my wife and i had never been to an auction in our lives we went down bought it at the commissioner sale held it and then resold it to somebody that renovated it so we've been in the neighborhood for a long time. Anything else you want to add before I bring anybody else up? I would like to show, I've got, and then I'll sit down, two photographs I'm going to show you really quickly. We're talking about unintended consequences. These are going to be hard for you to see. All we know is what we've heard today about, you know, what's going to happen. Well, we're going to keep the bluegrass upholstery. We're going to renovate the old house. We're going to do this. We're going to do that. What you guys have been asked to do is give all these variances, which remove a lot of control on that property. This is a picture. I don't know how well you can see it, but I'll pass it around. This is our kitchen that looks out onto the parking lot. If you guys grant the variance down to zero, conceivably we could have a brick wall built over four windows in our house. That's one of the reasons I'm here. Now you could argue, and people have argued this with us, it'll never happen. We're going to leave the bluegrass upholstery there. We're going to do this. We're going to do that. That could be torn down because you guys have been asked to remove that front building line all the way down to five feet within five feet of the street. So conceivably it could be torn down. something could be built out on short street and block all of our windows that have been there since 1817 so then when you talk to staff they'll say oh but the boar would never approve that and i've talked to the boar one of their members and he's like you're right but he said there hadn't been a case yet since i've been on the boar that when they were it was appealed to the planning commission it did not get overturned so we're not leaving anything in the bag we don't trust that somebody else is going to protect us that's what's happened to you all planning Commission had it, now you've got it. So we don't want to take any chances with our property. We have too much invested and too much time. Our children are here with us. We've raised a family. We're one of three families on the street, and, you know, we don't want it. I would like to make a comment here. The purpose of these variances is to allow the structures to remain as they are. The variances, if granted, would not allow additional construction to the zero property line or the front setback because the conditions on the variance would be that they apply to the site plan that's been submitted to this board today. It would not justify anything beyond what that site plan shows. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, we're not contending that this approval of these variances would allow future construction that would go in that direction, only that approval of these variances would legitimize the subdivision plan that would allow for a freestanding commercial lot that, in my experience, incrementally over time, people get comfortable with changes, and then it's a lot easier to expand those changes, either in terms of a residential expansion down to the street over a period of time or not. And if you deny these variances, let the thing stay as it is. They can keep the house and keep the upholstery shop, and the neighborhood is happy. When you subdivide it, you create a whole different set of circumstances and precedents that we're concerned about. I do want to have Jim McKeegan come up. He's with Turftown Realty. to talk about his assessment of the property, the proposed subdivision. Jim, if you just state your name and your occupation and how long you've been employed in that particular occupation. My name is Jim McKeegan. I've had my real estate license, I believe, since 1986, so coming on to 24 years. I've been at Turftown for about 16. you facilitate the sale of residential and commercial property yes sir and I also specialize in the downtown neighborhoods okay and in terms of assessing this property for perspective residential use if the property is subdivided so that now you have a freestanding business next door on a subdivided track and a residential tract next to it what's the potential for diminution of value of that residential structure as opposed to not doing it and that that business use going away well first of all i think that if it's if it's separate uh the business use would not go away uh the business use would stay um also if someone desired uh to to return it back to its original configuration it could be impossible if they didn't own the business lot and you never know why people are forced to sell property or things change. I think to try to sell it for residential and a piece of property that would be renovated would be very difficult with the business, a separate business lot next door, and I think it would tremendously devalue the house, the old house that's existing. When you had asked me about testifying, I called a client of mine that lives at 609 West Main Street, and those of you who have lived in Lexington for a number of years might recognize or remember, Marion Laughlin bought the house at 609 West Main Street, and at the time of his purchase, it had a concrete block tavern built around his Greek Revival house. And when I moved to town, I always used to point that out to people, can you believe there's a Greek Revival house behind that concrete block bar? And lo and behold, one year, the building started coming down, and there was this gorgeous house, which is presently on Main Street, and it looks like it's always been there, but it was surrounded by a concrete block tavern. Now, true, they didn't try to subdivise it or whatever, but I think there is a market for people to buy attractive properties with good-sized lots downtown. Sir, did you understand what our legal representative stated here just a few seconds ago relative to what they can and what they cannot do? What cannot happen to that property once it's approved? Apparently not. Now, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my question is that this property is more marketable and is more likely to be purchased for residential use and that that non-conforming building next to it, that add-on, would be torn down and the property would be restored to residential purposes exclusively, just like the rest of the street. Yes, sir. I agree with that. And also, in my business, people have a tendency to fall in love with the houses. It's more of an emotional purchase with the historic houses than in a modern subdivision. And the fact that that house, that lot has been in its present size since 1825 when it was first sold by Mary Todd Owen Russell Wycliffe, who that was part of her farm back in the 1820s. And the fact that the original house structure on that lot is part of the rear addition of the Italianate house in the front, I think adds a lot of cachet to the historical story of the house. I did some research on the house in the past week, and I have a nice four-page history on the property and the house and the families that have lived there that have been in the neighborhood, and that's generally what sells the historic properties downtown. It's not just the bricks and the mortar. It's the whole package. It's the history and the charm and the neighborhood. Okay. Any history on the bluegrass on that addition that was built in the 50s? The first time it showed up in the city directory as bluegrass upholstery was 1963. I went back to the Sanborn map at the preservation office, and in 1948 the house was still on one large lot. So that's about all I know about that. Does the upholstery shop in that building have any historical significance? Not in my opinion. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have Bill Johnston, the president of the Western Suburbs Neighborhood Association, address the board at this time. I'm Bill Johnston. My wife and I live at 645 West Short Street. We've lived there downtown for 39 years and lived in the West Short Street for 25. I'm also president of the Historic Western Suburb Neighborhood Association, and 617 West Short Street is in our area. Before I get started, we had actually no idea that the property was being subdivided until after it had already been through the Planning Commission, so no one tried to contact us on that. After we found out, quite by accident, that it had been subdivided, we met with the applicant on the subdivision request, and that's when we had a meeting, and Mr. Maloney went through his plans that have already been described. I did have some conversations with a neighbor of ours who also knows the Cox's very well, spoke very highly of them, and it didn't make sense for us at this point in time to talk to the Cox's because they were not the applicant. And we felt like we needed to deal with the person who had filed the application. Although I did give my phone number to the intermediary area and said that anybody who calls me, I'll talk to them and I'm always nice on the phone. So that was something that never happened. But it wasn't just because we refused to say absolutely no. Whether that got communicated or not, I don't really know. But a lot of the people in this room have worked really hard to make this neighborhood rise from the depths of near demise to what it is today, and this is really not any kind of an overstatement. The people that actually saved the western suburb some 30 years ago moved into the area at the time that this city was actually parking its fleet of garbage trucks right in the center of our neighborhood. So that gives you some idea of, and that's a half a block from 617 West Short, So that gives you some idea of how this area was regarded by most residents of the city when people started coming in to try to do something with it. Put up number two, please. The first picture you saw was actually what the neighborhood looked like before. And this picture is one that shows a lot of the same shots and trying to be brief as I crammed as much as I could. But as you can see, this looks a lot more crisp, a lot more colorful. The buildings are a lot more straight lines, and everything looks so much better than it did 30 years ago. And I wanted to – and that's a direct result of people putting enormous amounts of their effort and time into it. Put a number three if you can. Can you rotate it? Please. there you go the top the top one I wanted to find a picture of the garbage truck lot I've been looking for one not too hard but casually for several years I found out that people don't take pictures of garbage truck lots so it's been really hard to find one but I did come across this one from a person who lived there in 77 and this is taken from behind I need a pointer so I have a pointer. Up there you can see if you've got better eyes than I've got on this screen you can see there actually is an outline of a garbage truck there. That's where the garbage trucks were parked. This picture is taken from behind the houses that are in front on West Short Street, behind these houses, looking across old Georgetown into the garbage truck lot. Now, this is 10 years later, 1986, and here you've got the garbage truck lot. So here, this picture is taken in front of those same houses now, looking across the intersection into the garbage truck lot. Trucks are gone. There are cars parked there. There's a fellow who lived in this car, and I've met him several times. And there were some other cars there that nobody ever lived in or drove. They were just abandoned. So it was pretty rough. And then this, if you can move the slide up just a little bit, the other way. This is the same picture taken from the same spot as this one was today. And you can see that it's a little hard to see, but you can see that there are new houses here. The Neighborhood Association actually bought this lot right after this picture was taken. We hired an architect to design the houses. We hired a builder to build them. We were the developer on this lot. We bought the lot from the city. The city owned this at the time. And then infill houses have taken place here. So we actually have taken this neighborhood that was more or less a forsaken place and made it into something that people can be proud of Let's see Number four please Rotate okay, thank you. This is the burnout house that used to be the Cunningham funeral home that caught fire and it was torched actually in 2000 and the neighborhood was able to obtain this building through a donation and Now if you look at what's there we work with Holly Wiedemann Who created one of the most interesting? Striking condominium complexes anyplace if you can show the next slide, please That's if you rotate it This is what is right there in that same spot right now. And over here is the inside of the Artec condominium complex, which is really a work of art, which is what we, when we worked with Holly, that's what we wanted to have. So we were very active in having that done. It took a lot of effort. It took years of work trying to get all that taken care of. number five. Other long-term western suburb residents individually transformed several buildings on Jefferson Street that has also led to the re-violation of that street, and that's called the Jefferson Street Revival, which was, that's not a picture here, but it was pretty much the pitch for years, and after people went through and bought these houses individually restored them and made them into really gorgeous houses and they're really excellent pieces of property both commercial and residential that is what triggered the Jefferson Street revival which seemed like it happened overnight but it actually happened over a period of about 20 years now the all of you know what's happened in this neighborhood is like other neighborhoods in old Lexington and it was not an accident it was the people who lived there that made it happen at times really at odds with everybody else in the city it seemed like and all this is an attempt to explain our passion for our western suburb we have all invested hundreds of thousands of dollars each with our passion creativity energy and time in making this neighborhood what it is today now the 600 block has been long tainted by the completely out of place presence of the bluegrass upholstery business and the building addition. I've had out-of-town visitors ask me what's with this as they were going down West Shore Street and I thought the same thing when I went down West Shore Street the first time. So I refer to this as an addition because as you saw in the previous other pictures it is the the building is not a separate building is integrated into the old house it's not a pretty addition but it is an addition it's not a separate building and we can skip over seven eight nine because you saw those that showed the roofs how they're intertwined and the that picture right there how those buildings really are intertwined with each other when we heard the property had been subdivided the neighborhood was very concerned for many reasons. I want to say that we have no problem with the property as one parcel. That's the way it is now. We're very happy for it to be left that way, but it is the subdivision that we see as the issue, and subdividing a property is not a temporary event and should be looked at very carefully in a situation such as this, and here's a reason. Here's a summary of our reasons. You want to put number 10 up, please? one oops thank you it's not logical we it never has made sense to us it's not like it's not unlike subdividing a family room addition except this happens to be a very large and unattractive addition I can't figure this out Number two, number 11, please. It encourages the survival of nonconformance. And this is something that not everybody agrees with, but we all agree that the zoning ordinance says that the idea is not to encourage the survival of a nonconforming zone. And isolating the nonconforming uses of separately owned parcel will increase the likelihood that the property will stay nonconforming in the foreseeable future. If I own a piece of property separate, and this is a separate piece of property that has nothing on it but a nonconforming use in a residential area, I'm going to work really hard to make sure that that nonconforming use doesn't go away, because if it does, I can't get it back. And here I have an ability to have a commercial enterprise that would be effectively a B1 enterprise that I can use to probably make a better return than I could if I tore it down and had to build something else in there. So I don't see that as, we don't see that as something that is going to help, the subdivision is going to help the non-conforming use go away. Next slide, please. It damages the value of the old house. The value of the old house will decrease relative to the rest of the neighborhood, which will affect the properties in the rest of the neighborhood. Any potential buyer who buys that house, if you've been in it, it has to be renovated. There is no question about it, and it will require a building permit. And if you get a building permit, there's going to be an issue, because I've done rehab on several houses in downtown, close to a dozen. and the fire code comes in and says you cannot have openings within a certain distance of the house next door. And once you get a building permit, everything changes, and you've got to start making some changes there. And I can see that all the windows on that east side of that building will have to be bricked up. And if I'm correct, that's not good for the historic fabric of the house. in a historic area where owners are very strongly encouraged to rebuild their windows rather than buying new ones, these owners will end up breaking them up completely. Plus, the house will still be attached to this commercial addition next door, seriously affecting its architectural beauty and skewing its position on the lot. No longer will it be centered in the lot. It will be crammed up on the east side of the lot. Next one, please. That's hard. Okay, the last one is that it perpetuates the 1960s mistakes. The 1960s were not a great time for architecture in general, and historic buildings in particular. Glaring examples of this are the destruction of the fabulously striking atrium in the old courthouse that we're now looking for money in order to recreate. and the leaky and unattractive character-destroying addition that was put on the front of the elegant old city hall building, now demolished, that was on Martin Luther King. There are many others. Another one of the mistakes in the 1960s was the construction of this upholstery building addition. And to encourage the perpetuation of the nonconforming use by isolating it into one parcel has the real potential to ensure this mistake remains uncorrected indefinitely. number 14 please need to rotate it I ran out of ink but a house has been mentioned resided in the center of this large parcel for at least 185 years this is what the house probably looked like at one time sometime prior to the 1960 period when the upholstery shop was created so now here we are contemplating to significantly alter the history and historic character of this property in order to accommodate the existing of a building addition that we all agree should not have been put there in the first place. So this variances should not be approved. This property should not be allowed to be subdivided. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I have a question before Bruce gets started, and this is for planning. If you're creating a new lot, will the upholstery business exceed the maximum allowed for lot coverage because what you're doing is creating a non-conforming new lot. No, it will not. For the, oh, just so everybody knows, you don't see me very often. Jimmy Immons, I'm with the Division of Planning. I'm our infill and redevelopment facilitator. And so I go kind of across the board sometimes for board of adjustment. Usually I'm for Planning Commission and sometimes text amendments. I do just a little bit of everything. When this property did go in front of the Board of Adjustment, there are, and they were proposing the, not Board of Adjustment, when it went in front of the Planning Commission and they were proposing the subdivision, we did an analysis of those things that could be varied by the board and the ones that could not. The minimum lot size, the coverage, and the FAR are things that are not variable by the Board of Adjustment, and the proposed subdivision of the property did meet all of those minimum requirements, which then allowed the Planning Commission the opportunity to recommend approval of the subdivision of the property subject to the Board's decision on whether to grant the variances of the setback requirements, requirements, those things that are within your purview to decide. There is also the reason why it had to go to the Board of Architectural Review was that one of the proposed lot lines was going through a shed roof on the subject property that would need to come down. So they did have to go to the BOAR and see if they could get approval to remove that shed roof so that there would not be a lot line going through that shed roof. They did go to the BOAR, and they were approved to remove that shed roof. Should you approve the variances that are requested today, the applicants would then need to go back to the Board of Architectural Review in order to get approval of the grand scheme of the reduction in the asphalt and everything in agreement with the site plans that you would approve today, should you choose to do so. So you're saying to us that the zoning board did approve the subdivision? Yes, they approved the subdivision of the property subject to your approval and other conditions. Thank you. Jimmy? Yes, sir. Isn't there notice given to the neighborhoods when there's a subdivision of a property? How is it that it went through planning and zoning with these neighbors being kept in the dark? The subdivision of property does not require any notice. Subdivision of property under state law is a ministerial act. If a property comes in and it meets the requirements for zoning, then the Planning Commission is bound to approve it. If you were in a situation where every time somebody wanted to subdivide a property and you notified all of the neighbors, you would end up with situations where they might come down and they would be very aggravated by the outcome, but the Planning Commission might not have any choice but to approve it. So, Jimmy, did the Planning and Zoning folks approve this subdivision because they were required to legally? They did not have... In this particular case, since they approved it conditioned upon the variances, that was not something that they felt that they would have been absolutely required to approve for this subject property because it didn't meet everything. And so for those things that it did meet the items in the zoning ordinance that are not variable, and the applicants have come to you asking for the variances for those ones that are listed in the staff report. My point is that they made the recommendation to subdivide this property based on administrative, the technical aspects of the case. They weren't considering the neighborhood and the ramifications on the neighborhood. I wouldn't say that the issue of whether the neighborhood was involved did not come up. At the Planning Commission subdivision committee, which is half of the Planning Commission members, and they make a recommendation to the full planning commission, this particular subdivision of property was discussed at length. Of concern from the subdivision committee was not so much the separation of the commercial lot from the residential lot. They saw that they were concerned with trying to minimize as much parking in front of the historic house as possible. It was with that in mind that then myself accompanying the applicants approached historic preservation, and that's where they came up with the plan on the ways for the parking variance to try and reduce the amount of required asphalt that would be on the subject property. Thank you. Can I just ask one more question? So when you were talking about dividing, are they still going to be attached, the two buildings, when it's subdivided, When you were saying something was going to be changed, the shed, is that behind? It's the – I could show on a picture. The common wall – let me find one of the pictures that we're – Thank you. What the staff is saying is that there was a new lot line would come between this common wall and common wall, and then would go through this little shed roof that is in between this shed and the residential property. And it's where that lot line was going right through smack dab through the middle of that little roof structure. In one of the other pictures, you saw where the furniture was stored underneath the shed roof. That's the shed that had to come down in order for the... That shed comes down, but the two buildings are still connected? Yes. this is the roof that i was referring to that goes in between the house and the shed right here and that's what has been approved for removal the steps that are at the back of the house come up on top of that shed to to get to the upper rear portion of the house So is that the part that's going to come, that they're suggesting to bring down? That is the part that the Board of Architectural Review has approved to remove. And the reason why it needs to be removed for the subdivision of the property is that a lot line is proposed to go through that roof structure instead of in between where the walls are abutting each other. Did that answer your question? I guess my question really is that the two buildings will still be connected, and you can have two separate lots with a connected building. I think it's important to focus on the nature of the connection. I don't think it's continuous. I don't think it's functional in terms of passage. There might be some other folks here that can explain the details of that connection if need be. Building, are you familiar with that building structure? No, sir, I have not seen it. it could just be merely that one roof has tied into the side of the building i don't know it would seem to me there was two separate walls there but i haven't seen it so no it's it's the staff's understanding that there are two exterior walls that that are butted up against each other the pictures um that the opposition had brought in where the roofs were interconnected. Those are the first that we had seen those pictures today. I'm looking in tab number two, I gather. And it does look as though, face that building and look right through it. It looks like the house and the business end of it connects back there where the pipeline runs back and attaches to part of that home all the way down to the end of the house. And then whether it separates from there all the way back, I don't know, but it does look like it's part of the house to that extent. Is that true, or is that separated, or isn't it separated? I think it's pretty obvious that the clay tiles on the upholstery shop go right into the bay of the old house, and they are sharing a wall there. the upholstery shop's wall is discontinuous as it goes past that bay. That's what it looks like to me because of the way the clay tiles on the roof system are into there. So in your opinion, Jimmy, would that make both those buildings one? I wouldn't call them two separate buildings when they're attached like that. Do you have anything else to add? I was just conversing with Jim. Even if the, whether they do or do not share a wall, there's a proposed lot line that's going down through there that if the variances are granted on the side, on the side yards, then that would still create a property line through there, whether they shared it or not. Not unlike a duplex split where you have two separate units and a common wall down the middle, and you would be able to run a line through there. When you're talking about the actual thickness of a line, it's zero, so you're able to go right along those areas. so in your opinion is irrelevant this attachment is irrelevant thank you mr. Simpson thank you mr. chairman I'll address the comments of the staff in my closing but at this point I'd like to have Foster Pettit address the Commission and then Linda Carroll with Bluegrass Tusk and Phil Poynties with Northside and we have some other folks and then I will close following their presentation. Anybody ought to be able to explain this you ought to be able to. Thank you Mr. chairman members of the board my name is foster pettit i live at 316 west 2nd street which is a commercial piece of property upon which i built a house but i've been involved in commercial real estate for since 1965 on main street and short street i bought a house many years ago next door the lot that that my friend has just discussed he this was 635 west short just west of these the principal properties here I bought it because Dick DeCamp who's executive director of the Bluegrass Trust at that time said it's available some slum slum landlord may buy it and not fix it up would you do so so I said I'll buy it and hold it and find somebody to fix it up, which I did. I bought a house and lived there on West 3rd Street, 411, fixed that up. I know what it's like to fix up old houses. It's expensive, but it's rewarding. I have had a real estate license for many years. I worked with Haymaker Bean, all in commercial, and I have a few thoughts I'd like to share. I believe if this is granted, and you sort of separate these conjoined twins, at least on paper, you are creating the reality, I think, that the non-conforming use is likely to continue for some time. It's a separate unit. Someone could buy it and do, I suppose, whatever they could do under the rules. I do feel that it would make it more likely to continue that nonconforming use if you grant this. I also have some advice for this couple who wants to buy it and fix it up. It's going to take a lot of time, a lot of money, and we like people to do that. but I don't believe I'd want to be in their shoes, spend a lot of money, who knows how much, and have a separated commercial property next door that may go on forever. I'm not sure that adds to the value of your property if you ever want to sell it. So I think it's in their interest if you do not grant this. I think someone ought to buy the whole thing, and I'm not sure why you can't get financing to do that. Zef Maloney, a good friend, he's got a lot of money. I think he could pull that off or do the financing as he suggested. I just think it is a mistake for the neighborhood, for the people who want to buy this property, and I'm not sure they've thought down the road that long. Maybe they have. I appreciate their interest in wanting to preserve this property, but I think I wouldn't want to buy it and fix it up and have that property next door thinking it is free to be there as long as someone wants to operate that business. And I like the people at Brewgrist Upholstery. I've used them many times, and they're fine people. But I think it's a mistake here for you to grant this for all parties concerned. Thank you. My name is Linda Carroll. I'm the president of the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. I'm here in that capacity today. We sent you a letter. I hope that it got delivered to you. Yes. I'm also a downtown resident, 30-year resident in Mulberry Hill Historic District, which is primarily the 300 and 400 blocks of North Limestone, so I appreciate everything these folks are going through today. In our letter, we pointed out to you that the neighborhood was platted in 1815. For 196 years, this was a single lot. And in a ministerial act that took a matter of hours, it was subdivided with no public input. Now, if you pass these variances today, that subdivision will stand, and we have asked you to vote against it. Thank you. My name is Phil Points. I live at 424 West 6th Street. I've been there since 1964. Deeply involved with the Northside Neighborhood Association. I can tell you that in our board meetings, we have not made a position on this, but many of the board members who would like to have been here today have as individuals expressed, as I am now, our keen support for the position of our western suburb neighbor. and I don't think there's a space like this, a lot like this, that exists in our district and there may not be more than one or two others around but it just seems to me that everything I've seen in their position and have talked with them previously, this is a bad move if you support these variances and allow the separation of these properties. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Bill Barr. I am a resident of Lexington. I live in 404 North Limestone. I've lived downtown since 1995. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I'm not here today to speak on behalf of historic preservation. This is not a matter of passion, although this particular suburb, western suburb, is a passionate group, and rightfully so, for the amount of effort, money, time, and dedication they have spent, not just for their own personal gain, but for that of Lexington. I'm not a member of that group. I live on North Lyme. It's not about historical preservation, although my wife and I were proud in 2006 to accept the city's Historic Preservation Award for Residential Structure. And clearly, 617 West Short is a building worthy of historic preservation. In my opinion, this is a matter, an issue, of the rights of the citizens of Lexington to be able to rely upon their urban county officials to clearly, accurately, and fairly comply with the laws. As a property owner, I am entitled to rely upon the laws of this urban development area to be able to develop my property and to know what to expect. I think it is clear that 4.2 of the zoning ordinance is controlling. that ordinance says in permanent part that it's not the intent of the zoning ordinance to encourage the survival of non-conforming uses. If you'll look at the plot, and I'd ask that you put this up. what else can you call the gerrymandered line that has been subdivided in these two lots let's forget that you're supposed to have 50 feet of road frontage let's forget that the side lot lines have been asked to be weighed look at the property line that has been established and you're being asked to waive requirements for. It does nothing else but encourage the continued use of a non-conforming structure. It is clear that's the purpose. There is no other purpose other than to permit the non-conforming use. While you say the subdivision has already occurred, it has not occurred. It has occurred conditionally upon your approval of these requested variances. The application of the law is clear, and I ask you on behalf of not just Lexington, not the historic district, not these property owners, but the citizens of this community to apply the law as it's been adopted. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, there's other people that want to testify that's part of the office that's open. Does anyone else in here want to speak in opposition? Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is William Findlay. Mrs. Findlay and I reside at 623 West Short Street, the property immediately to the west of the subject property of this hearing. We purchased our home in January 19, 2006, excuse me, and after several months devoted to reverberation and repairs, moved into the house in May of 2006. In addition to the purchase price of this historic house, we made additional expenditures of approximately $45,000 to make this house suitable for occupancy. I might add that during the slum period of this area, this single-family dwelling had been converted to a duplex. And predecessor owners of this property made substantial improvements to it to convert it back to a single-family dwelling. and I have no idea how much money they spent, but I'm sure it was substantial because we are the beneficiaries of a very good job that they did. So the $45,000 we spent just on refurbishment is minuscule, I'm sure, compared to what was spent previously. Now, when we acquired this property, we were aware of a commercial establishment, next door to the east of us. We considered this business to be a detriment to the neighborhood, but we were assured by Linda Ruzin of Rector Hayden Realty that its continuance was temporary, pursuant to variances granted years ago, with the expectation that the business would be discontinued in five years or so. at which time the property would revert to solely residential use. With that assurance, we preceded with our purchase. Our total investment still exceeds the appraised value of our home, which is not a proper subject for this hearing, but it does illustrate our commitment to the future of this area and neighborhood. now comes a new owner seeking to subdivide the adjacent property into separate parcels whose purpose seems only to enable the owner of this property or his prospective buyer to continue the existence of an intrusive commercial establishment on short street in perpetuity In fact, we were told that the continuing cash flow into the future from a commercial establishment was necessary for the owner to achieve his financial objectives for the property. It's hard not to contemplate the intention to perpetuate a business activity if cash flow is that important. over many years a former slum area has been developed into a delightful desirable residential area adjacent to downtown we fear that the proposed variances will change permanently the character of our unique neighborhood diminish prospective property values and encourage further extensions of commercial activity into this residential area. There must be numerous other areas in this city better suited for such commercial establishments without destroying a charming, unique, historic neighborhood close to downtown. Now, why would we jeopardize the future of this area, either the homeowners or this board, to benefit a speculator who may have little or no interest in the future of Short Street. He has already declared his intention to sell this property. He's only had it for a little over a year. He's declared his intention to sell this property and to achieve a substantial profit, which he's entitled to because i think he made a bargain purchase in the first place nobody quarrels with that but the change to jeopardize the future of our neighborhood seems to be poor policy we implore this board to reject the proposals that have been presented to you thank you Good afternoon. My name is Ellery Findlay. I live at 623 West Short Street. and Meg Smith has asked me to read her statement as she and her husband are both out of town and unable to attend this meeting. So I shall proceed. Members of the Board of Adjustments, my name is Meg Smith. My husband Leon and I reside directly across the street from the property in question. Our address is 624 West Short Street. I have already submitted my specific technical concerns regarding the applicant's proposal via a letter of opposition to the staff dated October 31st. I trust that you have already reviewed these more technical concerns, so I would like to use this opportunity to speak on my profound opposition to the spirit. what is being proposed with the property in question. My husband and I fell in love with the 600 block of West Short Street a little over six years ago. He and I were looking for a home to renovate to create our residence downtown. We came upon a rundown duplex loaded located right in the middle of this unique block of West Shore immediately after purchasing the property we hired architects and designers to help us work with the Board of Adjustments and the Board of Architectural Review after all that is what we were told was expected in order to protect this precious historic area after an extensive planning and approval process, we invested over a quarter of a million dollars to make this rundown duplex a residence we are proud to call home. Throughout this process, there are two things I would like to share regarding our experience. One, the unique out-of-place commercial property across the street and, second, the process of working with the Board of Architectural Review and, to a lesser extent, the Board of Adjustments. I would like to comment on the first, the obvious abnormality in the neighborhood, the cement block commercial property attached to the beautiful historic house at 615 and 617 West Short. The purchase of our property and our subsequent investment was done in reliance on the representation that the very odd, out-of-place piece of commercial property across the street would eventually revert back to residential use only. The proposal before you today is completely inconsistent with all the information we received about what would happen to that property. To subdivide a lot that since the 1800s has been a core feature of this block is blatantly inconsistent with everything we were told about Lexington's commitment to historic preservation. In addition, the subsequent variance requests seem to step all over the unique attributes of this piece of property in an effort to simply comply with words on a page. The second point I would like to share is a recollection of a conversation I had with a friend of ours. I made the statement that I wished more young families were willing to move downtown and renovate and restore these beautiful old homes. The gentleman I was speaking with said, It is never likely to happen because it is cost prohibitive to do so because of the approval process. Most people have to hire architects, etc., to find their way successfully through the process. But, and this is the important part of the conversation, he then said to me, the benefit of the process, however, is that once you make your way through the process, it's really nice to know these very same folks will not let your neighbor paint his house bright purple, which kind of makes it worth all the trouble. I feel like that is exactly what is happening. We followed all the rules. We worked within the boundaries, in some cases not having anyone flex to try to meet our needs. Instead, we redesigned our plans because it was what was in the best interest of preserving the historic nature of the neighborhood. But now we sit here with the potential of the last crown jewel of our beloved block being painted bright purple. And for what possible logical reason? Is it simply to help a businessman who admittedly has no interest in this block make $200,000 by flipping this property? Is it fair, trade, for ignoring the investments we have all made and our commitment to developing this area in a manner consistent with the principles of historic preservation? Over the past six years, we have loved every day we have spent as residents of this special block. Despite our growing family, we refused to leave the block in search of a larger home in the suburbs. After all, the transformation that has occurred on the block has been nothing short of remarkable. I think it is fair to say the residents of this neighborhood are extremely passionate about what we have created, a complete revitalization of an area most folks neither wanted nor attempted to wander into. We are proud and fiercely protective of anything that is inconsistent with our commitment to continue to improve our neighborhood. That is why we are here to oppose the subdivision plan and subsequent variance requests. Because we ardently believe your approval of these proposals will do anything but improve our precious neighborhood. Thank you for your time and attention. Apparently so, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to respond to some of the questions very briefly that were raised in terms of what the Planning Commission did before it came here and the importance now that rests with this board. I've been privileged to practice law in these cases for over 20 years. One of the things that troubles me greatly is when the public is not informed about meetings. in which the government makes decisions. And in the case of the Planning Commission, when they adopted the goofy configuration under tab number 12 for a proposed subdivision of property, the Ziegen and Zagin, to accommodate 6,000 square feet to have a freestanding lot that could be sold, the reason that's always been explained to me, well, it's ministerial. We know, the government knows, we don't need the neighbors coming down, the public coming down because we're just going to make the decision based upon our judgment that this is in conformance with the regulations and the zoning ordinance and the implication is we don't make mistakes that's the implication when the public is not informed we don't really need your review because we don't make mistakes it's ministerial trust us well in this case the planning Commission did make a mistake. They approved a subdivision of property that did not conform with the land subdivision regulations, which I have set forth under tab number 15, which simply states that pointed or very irregular shaped lots shall be avoided where possible. That's on the second page of tab 15. Pointed or very irregularly shaped lots shall be avoided where possible. Well, it was certainly possible here, and they didn't do it. They approved it. Now, what they did do in the absence of any public review at the Planning Commission level, it was on what they call the consent calendar. There wasn't even a discussion of it at the Planning Commission's full hearing. It was on a consent calendar. Anybody have any opposition to this case? Of course not. Nobody was notified it was coming up for the commission for a decision. So they approved it. In my judgment, they erred. Now it comes to you. The critical importance of your all's mission today is, in order to give this proposed subdivision of property vitality, life, and completion, you have to approve these ordinances, these requested variances. If you don't, then that subdivision becomes unenforceable. It can't be recorded. It will not be subdivided. And is the applicant any worse off than he is today? Absolutely not. He has a lot with a residence and a commercial business that can continue as long as he wants to own it and maintain it in that manner. The business will not be shut down. It will be allowed to exist as a nonconforming use. But if you deny these requested variances, there is one thing that won't happen. and as an attorney who advises clients about the acquisition of property all the time, and they say, well, I want to buy that Bluegrass upholstery. I say, well, unless you get it subdivided, you can't buy it. You might lease it, but you've got to buy the whole lot. Well, I don't want to buy the whole lot. I just want that commercial part. I say, well, you've got to get it subdivided. If you get it subdivided, you're a fee simple owner, then you can sell it to anybody you want to sell it to. They have to conform with the uses in terms of the intensity, certainly, that the upholstery shop has had, leaving open for future debate what they might be, as might be decided by this body. But there's no harm to the applicant in denying this. All it is is saying to the prospective purchaser, go find another lender that will finance this property where you can restore the house and continue the business. File another lender. There's nothing in a zoning ordinance that says because you can't find the right lender, to buy this property that you're entitled to subdivide it by going through the planning commission on this gerrymandered lot configuration, coming before the board of adjustment, seeking exceptions to the setbacks down to zero in order for you to subdivide it and own it. They want to subdivide it and own it because they can sell it and make money and sustain the acquisition of the property. They can keep the money from the business by owning the whole thing. They're not harmed at all. Find another lender. You know, the burden on the neighborhood and the exception to the historic character of this neighborhood that's been developed is substantial. You've heard from two experts in real estate that say subdividing this property, if you approve these variances, you're setting this nonconforming use to go on and on and on and on, which flies in the face of the law that this body has adopted, which the Urban County Council has adopted, which was quoted to you earlier by Mr. Batt under tab number 17, excuse me, tab number 16, which says, it is intended that the nonconformities, be they nonconforming uses or nonconforming lots, shall not be enlarged or extended beyond the scope and area of their operation at the time of the ordinance being adopted. They are not to be encouraged. They are for survival. Everything that's talked about nonconformities is to limit their use, limit their scope, so that they die a natural death, if you will, fade away. They're not favored. And when cases like this come to the attention of the courts under tab number 18, I cited a case, the Attorney General v. GLB Johnson, where our highest court, in terms of evaluating the policy of nonconforming uses, said this, The policy and spirit of the zoning law of this state ordains the gradual elimination of nonconforming uses and the general intent of ordinances dealing with the subject matter is to hold nonconforming uses within strict limits. What we're asking you to do is not enable, through the approval of this variance, not enable this subdivision of land which will allow this nonconforming use to go forward. We believe that we're not hurting anybody. If you turn it down, Mr. Maloney can still own his property. Bluegrass upholstery can still operate. They can still try to sell that house and let somebody live in it. All that can happen. But if you subdivide it, if you approve these variances and give blessing to what the Planning Commission did without public input or review, then you are allowing that non-conforming use to go forward in perpetuity which is not encouraged and not allowed by the laws of the Commonwealth. Based upon the facts in this case and the testimony and the law respectfully I don't believe you have a choice except to deny the requested variances. I'll be happy to respond to any rebuttal or questioning that might further develop in connection with the applicant's case. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. We want to give the applicants an opportunity to come back and address some of the concerns that your neighbors have. So when you come up, please give your – we don't want to rehash everything that you've gone over, so anything you want to address relative to what you heard. in opposition to your plans. This is what we're interested in hearing. I want to apologize for all the problems that this has caused, but I really think these are great people. And, yeah, I'm going to make a little money. It's nothing like the figures I've heard. But I thought it was kind of funny how everybody's saying this is a residential neighborhood when there are four corners on that 600 block of West Short. There's a business-owned property on the south corner of this end. There's a business-owned property on the north end of this, and there's a little art gallery that I presume is business-owned, all kind of sandwiched in that property. I'm not 100% sure this is all new to me, but Bill did a great video. I love history and I thought it was great, but you said the city bought a lot and built a few houses on it? No, we bought a lot from the city. You bought the lot and then you all built the houses. How many? You built more than one house, I guess? Three. So you subdivided into three lots, and that's in the same block just right up the road. I didn't know that. I was just kind of curious. What was it? It was three separate lots. sir let's go ahead on and make your presentations he's made his no I'm just asking I didn't know that I was just for my own knowledge I apologize and and that's really you know all I want to say thank you I've learned a lot today yes Bill Johnson is a developer and he has a lot of powerful friends and Mark has a really nice kitchen wish I had it what they are not really paying attention to is not just the fact that we could sell this lot but we could also sell it to some of our neighbors who might want a large a lot of them of their own and eventually we would love to see that building gone as well it affects us more than anybody else in this room and the other thing that I've learned is that most of the people that came up here to talk did the same thing that we're trying to do now. We're trying to buy a rundown building and turn it into a livable home. My husband and I don't have children. We have two dogs. We just like the opportunity to do what everyone else here has already done, and it's not without a lot of thought and weighing the financial consequences. This will be the third home we've ever owned, the second one in Lexington. it's been always my dream to live in an older home and it comes with a big wart on its side and we just have to deal with that for a while because the income i don't want to discuss our finances but the income of that will help finance the restoration of the house and it's just something that we will have to deal with for a little while longer and according to the zoning laws it will be diminished use it will be more restrictive for the parking. They showed a lot of pictures of cars in that lot. And we've spent a lot of time, we don't live next door, but we live downtown. We walk by there every day. One of those cars is broken down and needs to go for sure. And a lot of the neighbors have used that as their own personal off-street parking space. So I don't really know if anybody's done account if those cars involved actually belong to the upholstery shop. The trailer involved is our trailer. We've gotten permission from Zeph to park it there. So that is ours and not anything to do with the upholstery shop. And I just really just want the opportunity to do the same thing that anyone else wants to do at our age. Buy a house, live in it, enjoy it, safe neighborhood. Could I ask you a question please? Right here. I'm sorry, in front of you. You said that the income from the upholstery shop would help with the restoration of the house? It would definitely help, yes. But are you buying the house and the other lot? Yes, we are. Well, wouldn't you be able to have the same scenario if you just bought it unsubdivided? Has anybody tried to go for a loan lately? According to our mortgage broker, we cannot get a home loan that has a business, a nonconforming business on it. But you're buying the whole parcel. You're buying both. You're going to have a loan on the other building as well? Yes. Separate loan. And the thing also with the variances is since we are buying both, if we were to leave it one parcel, assuming we could get financing for it, we still would have to ask for the variances to take up as much lawn as we want, I mean as much asphalt as we want. If we don't get the variance, we can't tear up the asphalt. It will stay asphalt across the whole front until a variance is given. Even if we bought the whole place as one, you have to get a variance to put a yard, which we want a yard. We want to make this place beautiful, but you do have to give a variance. We want to put a fence to minimize the view from the street of the upholstery, to make the house look exactly like it is a single-dwelling house, like we did in our photos. Well, I heard your wife say that it would be her dream that that upholstery shop, the whole building that wraps around, be gone eventually. Well, we don't own the back part. That's behind the street. That's Ballard. We're not buying that. But we would love to tear the upholstery building down. Until we fix the house, that place has to stay there. But if we don't get the subdivision, that whole place is nonconforming now. The whole plot is nonconforming. We want to minimize the nonconforming use. Well, I wonder if there would be a scenario where with a legal document you could buy the parcels subdivided and separately and there would be an agreement that the neighborhood would accept that required within a certain time period that that building be torn down and the lot be reconsolidated. We couldn't give that because we don't know what the future is going to hold. Nobody does. I guarantee if any of these people bought it, I know for a fact that they would try to subdivide it and keep the business. It was just an idea. Yeah, I know. I understand. All I'm saying is, again, nobody knows what the future holds. I know what our ideal goal is. We would love to have that as a yard. And we could offer first rights of refusal to anyone in the neighborhood that may want to buy it. Just to ensure. Mr. Nader could buy it and make a big yard for himself. Just to ensure that it would stay nonconforming. Or, I'm sorry, it would be less invasive. It would be residential then. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? I just need to reply to one thing, Mr. Chair, and very quickly. If they wanted a variance to tear up the asphalt to put in a lawn, they could do that if they needed one. You don't need to subdivide the property in order for that to happen. These buildings are attached. They're joined at the hip, and there's no need to subdivide them. there's nothing in the findings that you have to make to get a variance that provide any relief for any applicant to say i can't find a lender or my lender that i've gone to won't approve my purchase of this property that's not a hardship that has been created for these people they don't even own the property mr maloney owns the property he bought it knowing that they were joined together, joined at the roof, and will remain joined at the roof. And even if you subdivide it by proving these variances, they remain joined at the roof, and you will perpetuate a use that was never intended after 1969 and which has never existed in this neighborhood because people have bought lots and made them into single-family lots into a very historic neighborhood. it. If you follow the law under variances, which is set forth in every decision that you have to make, you cannot make any finding based upon the evidence in this case thus far that approves these variances. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, right here in front of you, do you have findings of fact that would support your argument? I do. It's under tab number 19. Yes. Wow. Thank you. Thank you. thank you Mr. Simpson, can I ask you a question, please? Yes, sir. Who's operating the business? Bluegrass Upholstery. Who operates it? They do. people that own the business I suppose. Mike McKenzie All right, thank you. How do they make money on it? How do these two people make money on it? Come to the mic, please. Would you please? I want to ask you a question. If you purchase this property, what is the lease extension on the business? It has yet to be negotiated, but we will offer them a lease extension. So you don't know what the extension, you don't know what the lease is on the business? We're trying to get it. so they could be there they could be there forever and you all are wanting to excuse me mr maloney come up come up front please Yes, sir. My question was, what is the length of the business agreement for the business? Is it to be renegotiated, or is it to be something that will end in a period of time that these people are trying to function? Their lease is month to month. It's Bluegrass Upholstery owned by Mike McKenzie. their lease. They have a month-to-month lease. I haven't renewed it because I want to sell the property, and I'll let the future owner do that. I mean, for me to re-sign a lease, knowing they're going to buy it, it's just not, you know, it's not fair to them. So if you buy this property, are you asking the upholstery company to discontinue their business there? No, we are not. We will give them the opportunity to renew their lease. Why wouldn't you ask them to move? Why would we not? Yeah. Like I said, the income from the upholstery business will help finance the renovation of the house. So we'll give them the opportunity, and if they want it, it's entirely up to them. Thank you. Are there any other staff you have any concerns right here? This case has gotten really, really complicated. It is. I'll try to be really quick. I think a lot of information has been presented that's not relevant. The issue of why they want to go through the subdivision, the financing challenges I don't think is relevant. All the testimony about marketability and diminished values of properties is speculative. I'm not sure that's very relevant. The issue of the buildings being partially attached, I don't think that's relevant. The parking variance, they focused a lot on the parking variance. Well, this can all happen without the parking variance. The practical implication of that is you have more pavement that's going to stay on that commercial lot. They have room there with the existing pavement to put in the five required parking spaces. i'm not sure how that they talked about the easement going from short street back to the rear of the property i'm not sure how that's relevant i think that's a continuation of pretty much how that business operates now to some extent um there was concern about a two-story addition immediately adjacent to one of the neighbors that can't happen the way this variance request has been structured and recommended for approval the front yard reduction from 20 feet to five feet based on the site plan presented that's not necessary the staff has recommended that that one be withdrawn and I guess all in all in our minds at least my mind there's still a lot of uncertainty about whether or not the actual subdivision of this is going to encourage discourage or whatever the continuation of that non-conforming use so I would encourage you all to as much as you can focus on what's certain not what's uncertain and what's certain is what they wanted to do with that residential structure in terms of removing a lot of pavement, making this a lot more presentable from the street in terms of being residential, not commercial. So I'd hope you'd be able to focus on that a little bit. It was interesting that case that Mr. Simpson brought up talked about continuing non-conforming uses in a much more strict limits. Well, in our perception, that's what's happening here with the subdivision. It's going to be a much stricter situation for that non-conforming use to continue with this subdivision, partly because of the parking arrangement. They'll be much confined. Right now, that business use overlaps into the residential area quite a bit, and that can't happen with the subdivision. Mr. Eminence, do you have anything more to add? I'm not sure where you're going with this, but if you do want the staff to take a look at the findings that Mr. Simpson developed, we've taken a quick look, and I think a lot of those are not applicable. And we'd like at least a chance to consult with Ms. Boland if you all want that advice from us about those proposed findings. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I usually don't say anything but staff, but we were left out of the public discussion on this when it was before the Planning Commission. The government determined they knew best, they didn't need the public input, and they made a mistake. Please don't duplicate the mistake. Jim's trying to justify the staff position. I appreciate that. I'd try to do the same if I were him. But this case, there's no evidence to justify the findings that you have to make for this variance as a matter of law. There's no hardship to Mr. Maloney. He hasn't testified one bit. and the prospective purchasers are not the applicants before you determine this case. Mr. Maloney, Sable Inc., is a developer, and he is the applicant. It is not the prospective purchasers. Their intent is to keep this real estate business going as long as they can make it until they want to flip it to somebody else. Under the law, you have to deny this application. You can pick and choose what findings you want to make. I'm sure Rochelle has already come up with alternative findings to turn this variance down. But based upon the law, I'm very serious. This body cannot do anything but turn it down. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. I think we are ready to vote. Why don't we, what Jim said about them reviewing these findings of fact to disagree, why don't we see what they have. Let's have a short recess and let the staff take a look at this. We're going to take a break. We need a break. I need a break and look at these findings relative to our decision and then we will come back here in 10 minutes, please. Thank you. guitar solo I'm sorry. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The variances will allow an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance because the need for the variances is entirely self-created. A second reason, the strict application of the provisions of the regulation would not deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or create a hardship on the applicant because the applicant could still continue the operations of the upholstery shop as well as the use of the residence. And a third reason, the applicant purchased the subject property in March of 2010 and therefore knew or should have known of the restrictions and constraints regarding the subdivision of property and variances which would be required. Thus, the applicant had to be aware that such governmental approval might be denied before he purchased the subject property. Do I have a second? Mr. Chair, I'd like to second, but I'd like to make a comment on that. This has been a very difficult decision, a very complex decision for all of us here today. And at the end of the day, I just can't support the variance as it is. I really feel for the Cox's. You all are working very hard in trying to get financing, Mr. Maloney, and I hope that there are other avenues that you can proceed and other alternatives to be successful in purchasing the property. But for the conditions that are set forth by Mr. Griggs, when we have so many people coming out in this community from this historic neighborhood and what they've done with the Western Corridor, I tend to, as long as it meets the criteria of the law, and we do have backings for that, I tend to side with our neighborhood, because if I lived on Short Street, I too would be concerned. So, Mr. Chairman, I will second Mr. Griggs' motion to deny. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Motion passes. Thank you all for coming. I think that ends our... I think staff's got a couple. Staff, you have a couple of things you want to bring forth? Two items. Meeting and filing schedule for 2012. Meeting and filing schedule for 2012. Did you all have a chance to... Oh, yeah, we were supposed to do that. Look at that. Where is that? Do we need a vote on that? Mr. Marks, do we need to vote on that to approve it? Yes, please. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the... Do I have a second? Second. All in favor signify the same. Aye. All opposed. Motion passes. What's the other one? Reappointment of Karen Angelucci to the Landscape Review Committee. Reappointment of who? Karen Angelucci. I have a motion to approve. So moved, Mr. Chair. Second. All in favor signify the saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carries. That's it for us. Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Marks. . Thank you.