# Board of Adjustment meeting - May 30, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 30, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3369 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3369?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-05-30 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 19,185 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment met on May 30, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chair Barry Stumbo presiding. The board considered 10 agenda items, taking 12 motions and votes throughout the meeting while hearing 4 public comments. The agenda included six variance appeals and four conditional use permit matters. Of the variance appeals, four were approved—for Solomon Van Meter (setbacks and driveway), Paul Schwartz (front yard reduction), SCW Newtown, LLC (fence height), and Jimmy Brashear & Gay Kanai (I-1 zone)—while one was denied for Diane Wilson (front yard fence height). On conditional use permits, the board approved amendments for Commonwealth Baptist College and Cohen Realty Investments, approved a temporary structure permit for IAMAW, District 27, and postponed matters for both Lexington Friends Meeting and Keeneland Association. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on May 30, 2014: * Barry Stumbo * Janice Meyer * Thomas Glover * James Griggs * Noel White * Larry Forrester * Kathryn Moore * Casey Kaucher * Chuck Saylor * Jim Marx * Tracy Jones * Bill Sallee * Jimmy Emmons * Stephanie Cunningham No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Board took the following actions on May 30, 2014: **Minutes Approvals** - Approval of minutes from January 31, 2014, moved by Mr. Griggs and seconded by Mr. Glover, passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:19:31] - Approval of minutes from March 28, 2014, moved by Ms. Meyer and seconded by Mr. Griggs, passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:20:02] **Postponements** - Case C-2014-35 (Keeneland Association conditional use permit appeal), moved by Ms. White and seconded by Ms. Moore, postponed unanimously [timestamp: 00:17:48] - Case C-2014-10 (Lexington Friends Meeting conditional use permit appeal), moved by Ms. Moore and seconded by Ms. Meyer, postponed unanimously [timestamp: 00:18:55] **Variances Approved** - Case V-2014-32 (Paul Schwartz front yard variance from 30 ft to 0 ft for off-street parking), moved by Mr. Griggs and seconded by Ms. Meyer, passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:26:37] - Case V-2014-37 (SCW Newtown, LLC front yard fence height variance from 4 ft to 6 ft), moved by Ms. White and seconded by Mr. Glover, passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:27:39] - Case V-2014-23 (Solomon Van Meter setback variances approved; driveway width variance disapproved), moved by Mr. Glover and seconded by Ms. Moore, passed unanimously [timestamp: 01:11:07] - Case V-2014-39 (Jimmy Brashear and Gay Kanai variances to reduce front yard, side yard, and parking in I-1 zone), moved by Mr. Griggs and seconded by Mr. Glover, passed unanimously [timestamp: 02:24:26] **Variance Disapproved** - Case V-2014-30 (Diane Wilson front yard fence height variance from 4 ft to 8 ft), moved by Ms. Moore and seconded by Ms. Meyer, disapproved unanimously [timestamp: 01:34:16] **Conditional Use Permits Approved** - Case C-2014-33 (Commonwealth Baptist College conditional use permit amendment for parking and basketball courts), moved by Ms. Meyer and seconded by Ms. Moore, passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:28:42] - Case C-2014-34 (Cohen Realty Investments conditional use permit amendment), moved by Ms. Moore and seconded by Mr. Glover, passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:29:59] - Case C-2014-31 (IAMAW, District 27 conditional use permit for temporary structure in B-1 zone), moved by Ms. Meyer and seconded by Mr. Glover, passed unanimously [timestamp: 02:26:38] ## Public Comment Four members of the public provided comments on two proposed projects during the meeting. **Diane Wilson's Fence Variance** Patrick Schneider [timestamp: 01:25:20] expressed strong opposition to the proposed fence, stating it would set a bad precedent and be unsightly. He emphasized the importance of neighborhood harmony and aesthetics. Amy Clark [timestamp: 01:28:03] also opposed the fence variance, supporting the zoning ordinance's 4-foot fence limit. She argued that the limit preserves neighborhood character and civility, and expressed concern about the potential for conflict over property boundaries. **Jimmy Brashear's Development** Stephen Vickroy [timestamp: 01:36:02] raised concerns about the proposed building's compliance with regulations. He argued that the building would violate sight triangle regulations and pose safety risks to both pedestrians and vehicles. He also questioned the zoning compliance of the proposed mixed-use structure. Doug Ball [timestamp: 02:11:00] focused on safety concerns related to the building's proximity to the intersection. He claimed the structure would obstruct sight lines for emergency vehicles and large trucks, and argued that it was out of character for the area. ## Appointments Larry Forrester was appointed to the Urban County Board of Adjustment. ## Contested Items The meeting on May 30, 2014 included two significant contested items that generated substantial community opposition. **Jimmy Brashear's Development** This proposal sparked heated discussion among attendees. Multiple neighbors and property owners presented detailed arguments against the project, raising concerns about safety, sight line obstruction, and zoning compliance. The opposition was substantial enough to be characterized as significant, with several speakers voicing their objections during the meeting. **Diane Wilson's Fence Variance** The fence variance request generated community opposition from multiple neighbors. Opponents cited concerns about neighborhood character and aesthetics, and raised questions about the precedent the approval might set. Despite the applicant's claims regarding neighbor disputes as justification for the variance, the community members present expressed their objections to the proposal. ## Solomon Van Meter - Variance Appeal for Setbacks and Driveway [timestamp: 01:10:00] Solomon Van Meter requested variances to modify setback requirements and driveway width for a property where he planned to replace an existing duplex with a single-family home. The variance application (V-2014-23) sought reductions to front, rear, and side yard setbacks, as well as an increase to the driveway width. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the setback variances but recommended disapproval of the driveway variance. Safety concerns were cited as the basis for recommending against the driveway width increase. **Board Action** The Board approved the setback variances as recommended by staff. However, the Board upheld staff's recommendation and disapproved the driveway variance due to the safety concerns that had been raised. **Key Speakers** - Solomon Van Meter (applicant) - Jimmy Emmons The outcome of this variance appeal was partially approved, with the setback modifications granted to allow the single-family home construction while the driveway expansion was denied. ## Diane Wilson - Variance Appeal for Front Yard Fence Height **Case Number:** V-2014-30 Diane Wilson requested a variance to increase the height of her front yard fence from 4 feet to 8 feet. According to the applicant, the variance was needed due to ongoing neighbor disputes. [timestamp: 01:12:15] **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended disapproval of the variance request. The recommendation was based on the determination that the applicant had not demonstrated special circumstances warranting the variance, and that an 8-foot front yard fence would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. **Board Decision** The Board unanimously denied the variance appeal for the front yard fence height increase. ## Paul Schwartz - Variance Appeal for Front Yard Reduction **Identifier:** V-2014-32 Paul Schwartz requested a variance to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 0 feet to accommodate off-street parking. [timestamp: 00:23:11] **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the variance with two conditions. The applicant and Jimmy Emmons were the key speakers during the discussion of this item. **Board Action** The Board approved the variance request with the conditions recommended by staff. ## SCW Newtown, LLC - Variance Appeal for Fence Height **Case Number:** V-2014-37 **Overview** SCW Newtown, LLC requested a variance to increase the height of a front yard fence from 4 feet to 6 feet for security purposes. [timestamp: 00:27:08] **Key Speakers** - William R. Sutherland - Jimmy Emmons **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the variance with six conditions. **Board Action** The Board approved the variance request with the six conditions as recommended by staff. ## Commonwealth Baptist College - Conditional Use Permit Amendment **Identifier:** C-2014-33 Commonwealth Baptist College sought to amend its conditional use permit to include parking and basketball courts. [timestamp: 00:28:42] **Key Speakers:** - Leon M. Dunn - Jimmy Emmons **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended approval of the amendment with seven conditions. **Board Action:** The Board approved the conditional use permit amendment with the seven recommended conditions. **Outcome:** Approved ## Cohen Realty Investments - Conditional Use Permit Amendment **Identifier:** C-2014-34 **Overview** The Board considered an amendment to a conditional use permit for Cohen Realty Investments involving modifications to a site plan and conditions for an extended-stay hotel. [timestamp: 00:29:59] **Key Speakers** - Jason Morgan - Jimmy Emmons **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the amendment subject to twelve conditions. **Board Action** The Board approved the conditional use permit amendment with the twelve conditions as recommended by staff. **Outcome** Approved ## IAMAW, District 27 - Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Structure **Agenda Item:** C-2014-31 The Board considered a conditional use permit application from IAMAW, District 27 for a temporary office trailer [timestamp: 02:26:02]. **Application and Staff Recommendation** The applicant sought approval for a temporary structure in the form of an office trailer. Staff reviewed the application and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to three conditions. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Matt Lynch and Jimmy Emmons. **Board Action** The Board approved the conditional use permit with the three conditions recommended by staff. ## Lexington Friends Meeting - Conditional Use Permit Amendment **Item C-2014-10** The Board considered a conditional use permit amendment for Lexington Friends Meeting to expand church operations to include childcare services and a play area. [timestamp: 00:18:22] **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the amendment with conditions. The applicant sought to add childcare and recreational facilities to the existing church use. **Key Participants** Bruce Simpson and Jimmy Emmons were the primary speakers during discussion of this item. **Outcome** The Board postponed the item for 30 days, deferring a final decision on the conditional use permit amendment. ## Keeneland Association - Conditional Use Permit Expansion **Identifier:** C-2014-35 Keeneland Association requested approval for a conditional use permit expansion involving a new structure and parking facilities. [timestamp: 00:16:46] **Presentation and Discussion** Bruce Simpson and Jimmy Emmons were the key speakers during consideration of this agenda item. Staff reviewed the expansion proposal and recommended approval subject to specified conditions. **Outcome** The Board postponed the item for 60 days rather than voting on the application at this meeting. ## Jimmy Brashear & Gay Kanai - Variance Appeal for I-1 Zone [timestamp: 01:35:26] The Board considered variance request V-2014-39 from Jimmy Brashear and Gay Kanai for a light industrial (I-1) zone property. The applicants sought variances to reduce front and side yard setbacks and to reduce parking requirements on the property. Staff presented a recommendation for approval of the requested variances, subject to two conditions. James Brashear and Jimmy Emmons were the key speakers during the discussion of this item. The Board voted to approve the variances as recommended by staff, with the two conditions attached to the approval. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of minutes from January 31, 2014 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of minutes from March 28, 2014 - **C-2014-35** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Keeneland Association conditional use permit appeal - **C-2014-10** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Lexington Friends Meeting conditional use permit appeal - **V-2014-32** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance for Paul Schwartz to reduce front yard from 30 ft to 0 ft for off-street parking - **V-2014-37** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance for SCW Newtown, LLC to increase front yard fence height from 4 ft to 6 ft - **C-2014-33** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit amendment for Commonwealth Baptist College to include parking and basketball courts - **C-2014-34** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit amendment for Cohen Realty Investments to amend site plan and conditions - **V-2014-23** — passed (0-0): Approval of setback variances and disapproval of driveway width variance for Solomon Van Meter - **V-2014-30** — passed (0-0): Disapproval of variance for Diane Wilson to increase front yard fence height from 4 ft to 8 ft - **V-2014-39** — passed (0-0): Approval of variances for Jimmy Brashear and Gay Kanai to reduce front yard, side yard, and parking in I-1 zone - **C-2014-31** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit for IAMAW, District 27, for temporary structure in B-1 zone --- ## Full transcript Let it rain, let it rain, rain, rain guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo The End Lost my mind before I knew it She was walking next to me singing Holding my hand just as natural as can be singing We walked on to my door We walked on to my door Then we kissed a little more Oh, I knew we was falling in love Yes, I did and so I told her all the things I'd been dreaming of Now we're together nearly every single day singing To our bitty-bitty-gum-bitty-go I was so happy and that's how we're gonna stay singing To our bitty-bitty-gum-bitty-go Well, I'm hurt. I'm hurt. She's mine. She's mine. I'm hurt. She's mine. Ready, girls are gonna shine. Oh, I knew we was falling in love. Yes, I did. And so I sold her all the things I've been dreaming of. Now we're together nearly every single day singing. We're so happy and that's how we're gonna stay singing I mean it Well I'm hurt She's mine I'm hurt She's mine When emails are gonna chime Oh yeah Do a diddy diddy Dum diddy do Do a diddy diddy Dum diddy do Do I did it, did it, dum did it, dum It's alright if you love me It's alright if you don't I'm not afraid of you running away honey I get the feeling you want You say there is no sense in pretending Your eyes give you away Something inside you is feeling like I do You say all there is to say Baby, break down Go ahead, give it to me Break down, honey, take me through the night Break down, break down, I'm standing here, can you see? Break down, it's alright It's alright It's alright Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh It's alright. It's alright. It's alright. It's alright. I've been down the Mississippi, down through New Orleans. Yes, I have. I've played in California. There ain't too much I haven't seen. No, there ain't. I thought I'm a ramblin' man Don't fool around with a ramblin' man Left a girl in West Virginia Up there where that green grass grows Yes, I did Got a girl in Cincinnati waiting Where the Ohio River flows Oh, girl I'm a ramblin' man Don't give your heart to ramblin' man You'd better move away You're standing too close to the flame Once I mess with your mind Your little heart won't be the same Oh, I'm a ramblin' man Don't mess around with any old ramblin' man Better not Well, up in Chicago I was known as quite a boy As I was down in Alabama They call me the man of joy Still do Yeah, I'm a rambling man Don't fall in love with a rambling man You'd better move away You're standing too close to the flame Once I miss with your mind Your little heart won't beat the same Lord, I'm a rambling man Don't mess around with any old rambling man I saw you there Just standing there And I thought I was only dreaming, yeah I kissed you then And then once again You said you would come and dance with me Dance with me Across the sea We can feel the motion Of a thousand dreaming Doctor, doctor Can't you see I'm burning, burning Oh, doctor, doctor It's the sun on me Give such delight We all leave before morning light Please don't go No, please don't go Because I don't want to stay on my own Doctor, doctor, can't you see I'm burning, burning? Oh, doctor, doctor, is this love I'm feeling? Doctor, Doctor Can't you see I'm burning, burning Doctor, Doctor Is this love I'm feeling People, breathe your love on me Take away my name People, put your hands on me I'll never be the same Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo If you need to take a call, please do so out in the lobby. and I'd like to ask anybody who plans to speak, would you please stand? Anyone who plans to speak, please stand. Raise your right hand. Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. Before I read the agenda, I'd like to ask Mr. Emmons if there's any postponements, withdrawals. Mr. Simpson is coming to the podium. I believe he has a withdrawal, and then the staff has received one letter. Okay. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I'm Bruce Simpson on behalf of the Keeneland Association. And we would like to have a two-month postponement of our application, which is on page six, item number five. I informed the staff about this on Tuesday. We sent letters out on Tuesday as well. to most of the people. I think there was another supplemental list that we need to get to. I informed Jimmy that before the July meeting, we would re-notice everybody again in accordance with the usual procedures. Very good, Mr. Simpson. Thank you. So you're asking for a postponement to the July meeting? Yes, sir. Very good. Does any members of the board have any questions for Mr. Simpson? If not, we'll entertain a motion to postpone this for 60 days to the July meeting. Is anybody in the audience, does they have any opposition to this? Okay. If not, we'll entertain a motion. So moved. Thank you, Ms. White. It's been moved to postpone. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Moore. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Ellis. Mr. Chairman. The staff has received one letter requesting a postponement for an item on your agenda at the top of page 4. It's item number 1, C-2014-10, Lexington Friends Meeting. The applicant requests a one-month postponement until their June hearing. they said that they had a productive meeting with the neighborhood association and they request an additional 30 days in order to continue discussing their application with the neighborhood very good thank you mr immons that would be for june 27th okay 2014 anyone in the audience have any comment on this case if not it surely entertain a motion and postpone for 30 days Thank you, Ms. Moore. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. All in favor signify by saying aye? Aye. Thank you. Postponed for 30 days. First item is approval of minutes. We have the minutes from January 31st, 2014. I think you all have had these for some time. Are there any changes, any amendments to the January? see no changes uh hearing none uh is there a motion to approve the minutes for january 31st 2014 so moved thank you mr griggs is there a second thank you mr glover all in favor signify by saying aye any opposed thank you we also have the march 28th meeting uh i think you all too have had an opportunity to read over the minutes of March 28th. Are there any corrections? If not, will Chair entertain a motion to approve the minutes for March 28th? So moved. Thank you, Ms. Myers. Is there a second? Thank you, Mr. Griggs. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you very much. What we normally do is we sound the agenda, and so I'm going to ask if the applicant is present And if there is no opposition, we're going to hear those cases first. If there's any opposition to any of the cases, we always ask that you all try to go out in the lobby and discuss things and see if we can't work those things out. So I'd like to go ahead and start with the first item of the agenda is V-2014-23. Solomon Van Meter, is the applicant here? Thank you very much. Is there any opposition to item number one? Any opposition? Chair, a portion of that application is recommended for disapproval. I understand that, Mr. Griggs, and we will hear from staff in a minute, so your case will be heard a little bit later, Mr. Van Meter. The second item on the agenda is Diane Wilson. Is the applicant present? Yes. Is there any opposition to Diane Wilson? request there is opposition again i asked that if there is opposition if you all could go out in the hallway and and try to uh resolve that we would appreciate it uh oftentimes we find that that there are is a meeting of the minds and and so i i see the folks standing up there miss wilson if you'd like to step out in the lobby and see if we can't resolve that Paul Schwartz is the applicant here, Mr. Schwartz. Is there any opposition to Mr. Schwartz? Very good. SCW Newtown is the applicant here? Very good. Is there any opposition to this request? All right, Jimmy Brashear and Gay Kanai, the applicant is here. Is there any opposition? Very good, okay. We'll hear that case a little bit later as well. The next item, Lexington Friends, is postponed. The IAM MAW, District 27, is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to this request? Yes, sir. Okay. Commonwealth Baptist College. Yes, sir. Very good. Is there any opposition to Commonwealth Baptist College's request? Okay. Cohen Realty Investments, I believe, is the next. Yes, sir. Is there any opposition to Cohen Realty Investments? Okay. Okay. And, of course, the last item was the Kenyon Association, which we're postponing for 30 days. I believe the first case with no opposition is Paul Schwartz. Would the applicant please come forward? State your name for the record. Paul Schwartz. Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. Mr. Schwartz, the staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? I do. Does any member of the Board of Adjustment have any questions for Mr. Schwartz? I'd like to see a drawing of this Y-shaped turnaround. Mr. Schwartz, have you considered just a straight pull-in and back-out or a back-in and pull-out? I'm just wondering if so much of your yard in concrete wouldn't be not the best alternative. I feel like it's more desirable to have a way to turn around within the property rather than backing out onto the street, just for safety reasons. Some of the big trucks out there, a crew cab's not going to make it. If you have a mini, I'm sure you could. Well, if a vehicle isn't able to turn around, then obviously there's no choice but to back up. Are you okay with that time? Sure, yeah. I like it better. I guess the widths there are 10 feet. Probably. Should we set the 10 feet width, or is 10 feet the allowable width coming off the curb? Yes. So can we dimension that to 10 feet and then you'd agree to that? Sure. Okay, thank you. I certainly will. And are you adding some green space? I see green on that drawing. Is that to sketch out the existing, or has there been discussion about a tree or grass? There's one tree that's actually in the right-of-way, and we don't intend for that to be moved. and we haven't figured out an exact landscaping scheme for the property yet. It is possible during the final permitting for this driveway that you might see a mirror image of that concept sketch that you saw, but the staff, it was intended to be a 10-foot wide, single-wide driveway for the modified Y shape. And one of the objectives was to protect the big tree in the front yard? Yeah. If you mirror image that concept, then we believe that it would be able to save that tree that you see on the aerial. By the way, Mr. Schwartz, the house has a nice look to it. Thanks. The shape of it. Thanks. It's been a difficult process because of all of the anomalies with this lot. Well, it's gone up fast. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. Any other questions? Mr. Schwartz? Jimmy, do you agree? I'll make a motion that we approve V-2014-32 Paul Schwartz's appeal for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 0 feet to provide off-street parking at a single-family residential property at 6497 Athens Boonesboro Road, subject to the staff's two conditions and the revised drawing. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. We have a second. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, Mr. Schwartz. Thank you. The next item on the agenda with no opposition is SCW Newtown. The applicant please come forward, state their name for the record. My name is William R. Sutherland. Thank you, Mr. Sutherland. Mr. Sutherland, the staff has recommended approval subject to six conditions. Do you agree to abide by those? Absolutely. Very good. I'd like to ask the members of the Board of Adjustment if they have any questions for Mr. Sutherland. Hearing no questions for Mr. Sutherland, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to the full year 2014-37 S&W East of the RIC, a vehicle of a range to increase the number of highway, a height of a front-line fence from 40 to 60, and a highway service business between 760 Shrews, you can apply as recommended by staff and subject to six conditions as recommended by staff. Thank you, Ms. White. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Glover. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Good luck, Ms. Sutherland. Go, Mayor. I believe the next item with no opposition is Commonwealth Baptist College. Your appeal for conditional use permit, would you please come up and state your name for the record, please? Yes, Leon M. Dunn. Thank you. The staff has recommended approval subject to seven conditions. Do you agree to abide by those seven conditions? Yes, sir. Very good. Ask the Board of Adjustment if they have any questions of the applicant. If not, chair and entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve C-2014-33, Commonwealth Baptist College's appeal for a conditional use permit to revise a previously approved site plan to include a basketball, to include parking and basketball courts in the agricultural AR zone at 3436-3440 Versailles Road. as recommended by staff and subject to the seven conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Moore. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck. The next item on the agenda with no opposition is Cohen Realty Investments. The applicant, please step forward, state your name for the record. Thank you, members, chairman. My name is Jason Morgan on behalf of Cohen, the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Mr. Morgan, the staff has recommended approval subject to the 12 conditions that have been listed. Do you agree to abide by those 12 conditions? Absolutely. The applicant will abide by the 12 stated conditions. Very good. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. Morgan? Staff, we're all good. All right. If there's no questions for Mr. Morgan, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that C-2014-34 Cone Realty Investments, DBA, CVH, Lexington, LLC, this appeal for a conditional use permit to amend the existing site plan as well as applicable conditions in a professional office high-density apartment zone at 2368 Professional Heights Drive, 120 to 126 and 128 to 134 East Lowry Lane be approved for the reason. recommended by the staff and subject to the 12 conditions recommended by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Glover. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Good luck. Have a great weekend. All right, I believe those are all the cases that have had no opposition, and so we're going to go back to the beginning of the agenda. Sullivan Van Meter, would you please come forward and state your name for the record? Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I'm Solomon Van Meter. I live at 211 West 2nd Street. I have a... What do I do? Yes. Living downtown has its charms, but it also has its challenges, and one of those, maybe the greatest of those, is parking. This property at Bruce Street, which I have recently purchased, is... I'm trying to get a picture of the property up on the screen. I'm sorry. I was looking at that. Great. I beg your pardon. This property is located on Bruce Street, which runs between 2nd Street and Short Street on the west end. It's the property outlined in red. It is a small, oddly positioned, excuse me, oddly shaped lot. It is wider than it is deep. It is downtown, located a short distance, about a block's distance from Rupp Arena. It is in the defined infill and redevelopment area. This is what was there until about two days ago. This is, if you can believe it, is a duplex. And what I would like to do is replace this duplex, this flop house, really, with a single-family residential dwelling. Bruce Street has no parking on the side of the street that fronts my property. This is looking towards Rupp Arena from Harrison Elementary. The opposite side of the street is not metered, and because of its location near downtown, it is constantly filled with cars parked there. I've got several shots here. This is an everyday occurrence. These pictures are taken on different days, and this is not a special day or any special thing going on downtown. It's basically impossible to park on the street, and that's not to mention what happens on Rupp Arena game days. What I've asked to do is, wow, that's really, that's sideways, I apologize, is to clean up the, basically clean up the setbacks, adjust them, actually in the back, adjust them, make them bigger. The building that's there is about a from the adjoining property owner's fence. I really apologize about this slide. and basically straighten up the property line so that I don't go back in exactly the same footprint. The staff report, in the staff report, there's only one issue of contention, and that is my request that I be allowed to have a 24-foot curb cut to be able to park on the premises. I've asked for a zero front lot line, which is what's existing there now. So whether that's a driveway or not, it's kind of depends on how you look at it. But what I'm really asking for is a 24-foot curb cut to be able to park two cars there. And this is the only issue of contention with the staff's report and recommendations. The Division of Traffic Engineering has taken the position that any off-street parking on this site is an unacceptable safety risk. And, you know, with all due respect, this is sort of, I think, a safety problem. I'm looking for a solution. But it also, and more honestly, I think, represents an uneven application of the zoning ordinances, singling my property out among all the rest, as we'll get to in a second. The zoning ordinance does provide for some flexibility to address unique safety concerns, which are raised in unique situations. But section 3-3, which spells out the so-called site triangle for intersections of driveways and streets, is the normal, sets forth the normal requirements. They're very detailed. It's a triangle with a 10-foot peak, 75-foot arm on one side, and a 55-foot arm on the other. And so what is required is that the zoning ordinance be applied uniformly, that everybody have the same treatment, and that's sort of the base case. People like me that purchase properties, and I've purchased other downtown properties to be fixed up were developed, but any properties, whether they're downtown or wherever they are, we need uniformity. We need to have the zoning ordinances applied the same to everybody or else you're in a state of uncertainty and uncertainty has a really detrimental effect on property values. So we need to be able to rely on the zoning ordinances being applied uniformly every time and what's written down in the ordinances. This is also a matter of fairness, because if the zoning ordinances aren't applied the same to everybody, it not only appears to be unfair, it is unfair. Now, I've met with, this case was filed actually the day I took title to the property. And I've worked with the staff, Mr. Emmons, and pretty closely on this. and I think we've tried really hard to come together on something that will work on this property. I thought that we'd gotten there, and I was a little bit surprised, frankly, that the traffic engineering folks wouldn't approve what we worked out. Oh, my gosh. I am so sorry. This is another sideways slide, but we did. I had my engineers work out the site triangle for this property coming out on DeBruce Street, and demonstrated both for a 24-foot driveway and for a 10-foot driveway that this is a feasible thing to do. It doesn't require significant changes. The property is 30 feet deep. It only requires some accommodation by me, whatever is built there, within the two feet between the sidewalk, past the sidewalk. So I have demonstrated that this site triangle can be observed on this property. So the question is, is there a unique safety, overriding safety concern that applies to this property? And as I've already mentioned, one of the things about this property is that every other piece of property on Bruce Street, every other piece of property that touches on Bridge Street has off-street parking that opens right onto the sidewalk. This is my next-door neighbor as you're facing my property to the left, or excuse me, to the right. This is the back entrance to the Opera House Square, which is across the street from my property. As you can see, it's set back in there. I didn't have the engineers look at whether the site triangle is observed properly in this case or not, but it's a fairly blind entrance, as you can see. The school itself has parking that opens right onto the sidewalk, although you can see out of the fence. It's not a garage or an enclosed space that requires concern about the site triangle. This is also the school's parking lot across the street. Three properties that actually have addresses on 2nd Street have off-street parking that lets out onto the sidewalk on Bruce Street. This is 462 West 2nd Street's off-street parking on Bruce Street. This is the house next to that, which is 458 West 2nd Street. It has off-street parking on Bruce Street. And this is 468 West 2nd Street, which has a garage, a single car garage, letting out right onto the sidewalk, right by the elementary school. And admittedly, this was, I don't know this to be the case, but I expect that this was here before the zoning ordinance. But nonetheless, it's there, and we haven't had anybody hit yet. Here's actually the occupant of that property backing out of his garage. I just happened to be there that day. Safely, safely backing out. There are many examples of garages everywhere in town, but particularly downtown, that open directly onto the sidewalks. And, you know, there hasn't been a rash of pedestrians being hit. People observe care the same as they do at intersections coming out of their garage at any time, backing up. And, by the way, there is mention in the staff's report about, you know, whether or not backing into a parking space or going in frontwards has some distinction. and there is no mention of whether you bike in or drive in forward into your parking space, your driveway in the zoning ordinance in 3-3. But in addition to all that, the property on the left side of my property has been recently, and that is in the last four years, approved for exactly the kind of parking I'm asking for, exactly the kind of parking I'm asking for. This is it. This is as you're facing my property. This is immediately to the left. And this was before the Board of Architectural Review because the property next to it is zoned in it, is in the H1 overlay. But it also went through traffic engineering approval, and this is what they worked out. This is exactly what the diagram, the sketches that my engineers worked at would require me to do on my property, whether it's a garage or a fence, it doesn't matter. The solid wall on the opposite from the sides is what creates the hazard. Here they are parked in there, admittedly backed in. On that drawing that you were just showing us, what's the distance from the sidewalk to the fence, like five or six feet? Well, yes, except that it's 10 feet from the edge of the curb. And my property line actually, at some point, a previous owner deeded a two-foot piece of what's the sidewalk. So just at the far right-hand edge of this, their property goes back two feet and jigs in. I am so sorry that my slide of the sketch, I think they may be in here subsequently, but the property line goes in. So ultimately the distance you're talking about is 10 feet from the curb front to the entrance to the parking area. Well, is the site triangle just based on the curb or is it based on the sidewalk? And I think some of the staff report's concerns is for pedestrians. So if we're looking at your garage door or that fence to the sidewalk. Well, let me show you that. In this case, I've actually got a copy of the diagram that they approved in this Board of Architectural Review case, and it is set out the same way. I have a hard copy, if the Board would like to see it, of the engineers' drawings that were done for me, and I, again, apologize about that. Would that be helpful? And the Board of Architectural Review, they may not be, I don't know if traffic engineering gets involved in their work. This was, there was a great deal of back and forth in traffic engineering that was in fact involved in this one. Okay. In fact, it seems that the only real difference is a difference in personnel. This was Mr. Gallimore, who had not yet retired when that case went through, and he was the traffic engineering staff person that reviewed it and worked that out. And who was working on this case? Someone who was from traffic engineering working on this case? Is it Casey? Yeah, right. So I think that that's the only real difference between these cases. This is the site triangle. And you see there on the left-hand side of the screen how the property line jigs back, Mr. Griggs, in answer to your question. So there, it does look like they go back about four feet from the edge of the sidewalk, but it's really the measurement, and I'll show you that as well. Oh, wait. Can you take that down now so I can get back to mine? This is what they had, and that's where they put it. There it is. That's what the diagram that they worked with and that the traffic engineering folks approved in that case for the property next door to me. The distance is five or six feet from the chain link fence or the fence to the sidewalk? The measurement that's set forth in the ordinance is 10 feet from the curb to where you start your sight triangle. 10 feet. Is your distance the same as this distance from the door to the sidewalk? After that, please. It's 75 feet on the left, 55 feet on the right, and 10 feet in the middle. And actually, because instead of one parking place, I've got two, I have to grow that out on mine. So I have, that's why you take the center line on both parking places. So is the distance from your garage door to the sidewalk the same as on this other one, like five or six feet? It's exactly 10 feet from that to the curb. I'm talking about the beginning of the sidewalk. It would be two feet in my case. And it'd be six feet in the example you were showing us. Four feet. That was only four feet. Okay. Yeah. But it's the same distance back from the street. And that's what the ordinance, the 3.3 or 3-3, is concerned with in their measurement. Because what they're, you know, they want you to be able to see cars. Cars and pedestrians. That's what it, I mean, the whole thing is about a safety issue for, you know, whoever's out there. Okay. Thank you. It's there. Okay. So, as I said, anybody who purchases property and anybody needs to be able to rely on the ordinance as being applied, even handedly and uniformly. It can't be subject to change in personnel at traffic engineering. The reason this is an issue of fairness both perceived and real, there's no reason why the property next door to mine, 10 feet away, their driveway, is approved and mine would not be. There's no indication of heightened or changed safety considerations for my property that don't exist anywhere else downtown or in any other school district or school zone. Finally, without off-street parking, the value of my property is significantly diminished. I bought it kind of in reliance on being able to have parking, and without it, I've got a piece of property that's going to be very difficult to put something on. So what I ask is that you approve the setback variances as requested and as recommended by the staff, that you allow up to a 24-foot curb cut for me to accommodate up to two parking places on the property, subject to observance of the site triangle specified by 3-3 of the zoning ordinance, and as illustrated in the site plan drawings that I have prepared and submitted that the staff has. Thank you very much. I'll be happy for questions. Anything else, Mr. Van Meter? Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. I'd like to hear from the staff, Mr. Evans. from the staff's perspective the first thing that i do want to point out is that the staff is in agreement with mr van meter on most of the requested variances and that we this is a one-issue discussion item that we are having here today. But to get right to the point of what we're talking about today on why the staff is recommending that this property, that the variances be approved with a condition that there be no off-street parking on the subject property, We've highlighted from the pictometry, Bruce Street, and highlighted the duplex in yellow so that you can see it for the subject property. As you can see, that building, and from Mr. Van Meter's pictures, you know that building was right up on the sidewalk, but it also had no parking on it. The zoning ordinance definitely allows, when you have a non-conforming parking situation, it allows a new residence to be built on that property without a parking requirement. but hence the reason why the staff does know that we can recommend approval of this with a condition such as this because it has on-street parking today and it can have on-street parking tomorrow. Staff's primary concern is for safety, and if we can switch to the next slide that was the applicant's submitted site plan. The proposed structure, although going from a duplex to a single-family home, will actually be larger in volume. The two-story structure that he is proposing will actually have more volumetric square footage than the existing building that was there. Therefore, all of the new regulations, all of the current regulations of the zoning ordinance, need to apply for this change of use from a duplex to a single-family home. So in doing so and applying the regulations for new construction, that's where we had to look at the safety of the proposed use. This lot is very, it's 60 feet wide. Normally, if you had a 60-foot wide lot, it would be about 180 feet deep. This lot is 30 feet deep. So it is much for the orientation it has to Brew Street. It is much it's an odd shaped lot for the orientation that it has. When we looked at the applicant's proposal, there isn't really room to move the garage back very far until you don't have enough room to put a garage at all. So it's kind of you agree with the applicant and grant the variance. there's maybe just a few feet that you could move it back, but not enough feet to get it to where you would be able to pull the car out, have it stop before it gets onto the sidewalk and look, and then move on out onto the street. If we can turn to the next. The applicant did work very hard during this last month. if you remember the original staff report on this, was leaning towards recommending approval of the requested variances and wanted to give the applicant the opportunity to come up with a design solution. This site triangle diagram that you see here, the applicant prepared six different site diagrams, and we worked with them in traffic engineering to get the one that we said this is the correct site. I say this because I want you to know that the staff did look at what Mr. Van Meter was presenting very seriously and took it into consideration. Still, with the site triangle, in order for those calculations and those regulations to take effect, it has the assumption that the car is pointing towards the street. on this particular property, and with all residential properties, it would be an impossible condition for the government to enforce that somebody only back into the subject property. If a property were to pull into the garage and be backing out, obviously their view would be obstructed for a longer distance, and the site triangle exhibit that is submitted doesn't really apply. You would have to have the car into the sidewalk area before you would be able to see where the pedestrians are coming from. The staff does understand that there are other similar circumstances, not just on Bruce Street that Mr. Van Meter presented today, but also throughout Lexington. but because there are other things doesn't mean that we need to support making a bad situation worse. The staff is recommending approval of the requested variances with the condition that there be no off-street parking for the subject property. If you look at your recommendations, you can see in our findings on finding A that we found that granting this requested variance would not adversely affect the subject properties and not cause a health, safety, or welfare. We added the clause in there as long as the proposed parking area is removed from the property. In addition to that, the staff is recommending disapproval of the driveway width variance. Part of that is on a technicality. The driveway and the zoning ordinance is defined, it's the shortest distance to get from the street to your required parking space. If the board grants the front yard variance to zero feet, there is no front yard. So as a technicality, there is also no driveway. Hence the reason why the staff had to spell out in a condition that there be no parking space on here because it would not be controlled by the driveway. But furthermore, the staff felt it important to point out that since we are recommending approval of this without any parking spaces on the property, You know, not just the technicality reason to disapprove the driveway width variance, but a substantive reason that we do not feel that it's safe. I believe that concludes the staff comments, if you have any questions for me. In short, it's when cars pull into the garage and back out, the sight distance is compromised. Ms. Glover? I've got a question. the garage next door. So can you explain to me the difference between how that garage got there? I mean, it has to do with how many feet it is off the sidewalk. Is that or can you speak to that? I highly suspect that the garage next door had been, the garage next door has probably been there since before permits were required. I don't know the history on that, but I suspect. And to the left, where they had the, Mr. Van Meter talked about the fencing and the parking space, but it's not inside a garage. That one I have not done any particular research on. My question about the site triangle, of course, is where is the apex of the triangle? Where does that begin? Where does it start? Obviously, there's a difference. If you're talking about the apex being the driver's line of sight, then it does make a difference whether you're backing in or pulling in forward. So what does the ordinance require about that? If we can put the graphic from Article 3. Here is Section 3-3. The graphic that you see kind of shows an intersection spacing, but you still apply the same formulas. M is the 10 feet back, but it's really kind of where if you were sitting in a car on the street pulling onto the major, approach, you would be sitting at M. That's kind of where you want your car to stop. Then you go 10 feet forward, and depending on the, uh, how much traffic, uh, the, how much traffic there is on the street, it's not how much traffic, it's the, the classification. Sorry, I could not think of that word, but the, the classification of the street, uh, the, the L and R, how far left and right you go. That's dependent upon the classification of the street. Larger streets with more traffic require a larger distance. And then you draw that triangle back to the stop position at M in order to get the area that has to be free so that drivers can have visibility both left and right. Whether you're looking at this diagram from a driveway going on to a local street or at a street intersection. It's still the same distance, same distances, same calculation, same geometry. From that explanation, I'm going to draw the conclusion that the site triangle begins at the end of the proposed garage door. For the site triangle as it was presented, it started, I believe you, for this particular piece of property, you start at the curb, you go 10 feet back. Back onto the property? Back onto the property. The 10 feet back from the curb of the street, so it includes the sidewalk and into the property. And because it's a double-wide driveway, that's the reason why the exhibit is not an exact triangle. It's accounting for both drives. You'd overlay two triangles, basically. Yeah, I understand that. Well, Mr. Van Meter suggested that his proposed plan complies with the site triangle. Do you all disagree with that? His proposal is to ask for approval with a condition that it would comply with the site triangle. The staff feels that that would be still unsafe and recommends, stands by our staff report. I'm not sure I understand. And you're saying that you agree that it does comply with the site triangle, but you're recommending the disapproval because of its proximity to the street and sidewalk, it would be unsafe? Yes, because if we can go back to the exhibit, the site triangle exhibit. in order for this exhibit to be correct and the site triangle to be there, one of the basic ideas is that the car will be pulling out of the garage, and that's just something that the staff cannot, we cannot enforce that somebody always back into this garage so that they pull out onto the street. Well, that's what I was asking. So that was the reason for my original question. I mean, obviously, your natural inclination would be to pull in straight forward and then back out. I mean, that's a common scenario. So are you saying that the site triangle does not work if that occurs and it does work if you backed in to pull out? That's the exhibit that you're looking at. Yes, it works only when the car is pulling out onto the street. It works only when the driver's eyesight are at the apex of the track. Yes, sir. I think the only closing comment for the staff is that there's, I know that there is a lot here for the board to consider. The staff does stand by our recommendation as is printed on the agenda and in your staff report. should you choose to disagree with the staff and agree with the applicant, there are some changes to those conditions that would need to go forward. And if you need, we can walk you through that. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Does anybody have any? Mr. Greggs? Mr. Van Meter, I don't know what type of architecture you lean towards, but you could open that site triangle up if the walls of the garage were not there. If it was a parking. Like the school has, where you have wrought iron security. All kinds of ways to do it, right. I think just to follow up, I mean, the ordinance obviously deals with, the 3-3 deals with, you know, chain link fences, all kinds of stuff. And it talks about driveways. driveways, it doesn't say anything about backing in or going in headfirst. It's just not there. And it's talking, the top, as it was explained to me by staff, the 10-foot line at the top of the triangle is the stopping place. It doesn't have anything to do with where the driver's sitting in the car, whether he's sitting in a VW bus at the front of his windshield at the front. It doesn't say anything about all that. Thank you. Did anybody else have a question for Mr. Van Meter? Mr. Van Meter, I have a question for you. I drove down the street, but I don't remember if there was an opportunity to perhaps contract with someone for an off-street parking space. If there was some sort of, I don't know, is there a church or is there a public building or something that would, you know. There's a school. There's a school. And there's just... Can I get to the... What about across the street from 2nd Street or something like that? I'm just trying to... 2nd Street is completely residential. With all due respect, I don't see that as a realistic, economically viable opportunity. Thanks. Anything else? well mr van meter we'll ask and see if the board on the board would like to proceed the one thing that i would have like to comment on i i know that you have made you've been working with with traffic and engineering and the planning staff you know quite a bit here and and i appreciate that due diligence but then the fact of the matter is too is that you did buy the property knowing that there was no parking there and that it would be off street parking and and obviously you've invested a lot and done a lot of great things downtown. So that's something that we consider as well, because at the end of the day, I think that I'm looking at the staff's recommendation, and obviously the property next door has been there for some time. We've got no jurisdiction over that whatsoever, but the property was bought without any parking in it. And so that's something, too, that we have to consider. This is always a difficult task, particularly when you are putting forward the time and the effort and the investment that you have as well. So I'd like to ask the board if they have any other questions of Mr. Van Meter or of the staff. I'd like to ask the chair, do you want a bifurcated motion on this? How do we handle these kinds of? Well, I'll ask Mr. Emmons, and very rarely do we have cases, or Mr. Salee, if the board wishes to approve the setback variances. Or just address them separately. I mean, I don't know how you... Just address them. What do you prefer, Mr. Emmons? What's for the record? If the board agrees with the staff, you can adopt the conditions just as they are. If you agree with the applicant, there are some fairly minor changes that you can make to the staff report that would bring this in. Under the staff recommendation under the findings in A, where it says that granting it will not cause a health, safety, or welfare problem, if you added a period there and just dropped the phrase, as long as the proposed parking area is removed, And then under the conditions, if you removed condition number three, and under the staff recommends disapproval of the driveway with variance, A is still applicable. But because that's the technicality that if you approve the zero front yard, the driveway is moot. the applicant has proposed and I believe this was in his presentation he has proposed an additional condition number three for you to consider. Thank you Mr. Evans. Mr. Glover to answer your question was that clear? I think if we agree with the staff's recommendation and after hearing both the applicant I think we can probably make one motion to cover both of them. Well, I would say if you want to... It's the chair's prerogative, I think. Well, I think that if you would like to go ahead and make a motion to approve the setback variances with the subject to the following conditions and disapprove the driveway with variance, that can be done in one motion. Can it not, Mr. Emmons? Okay. Okay. Is that as clear as mud, Mr. Glover? Yeah. But let me give it a shot. Mr. Chairman, I move that we, with respect to V. 2014-23 Solomon Van Meter's appeal, for variances to reduce the front yard from 8 feet to 0 feet, reduce the rear yard from 6.05 feet to 3 feet, reduce each side yard from 8 feet to 6 feet, and increase the maximum allowable driveway width from 10 feet to 24 feet in order to replace an existing duplex with a single-family residence in a high-density apartment zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area at 139 Bruce Street, I move that we approve the setback variances and disapprove the driveway width variance for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions proposed by staff. That will get the motion on the table. Is that acceptable? Sounds similar to the staff recommendation on the agenda. Okay. I'll second that motion. Mr. Glover makes a motion to approve the setback variances as he described and to disapprove the driveway with variance. We've got a motion to approve the staff recommendations as written, second by Ms. Moore. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. And Mr. Van Meter, good luck to you, sir. Thank you all. I believe the next case that we have with opposition and also staff disapproval is Diane Wilson as the applicant here. Would you please step forward to the podium and state your name for the record, please? Diane Wilson. Thank you. Ms. Wilson, your appeal for a variance to increase the maximum allowable height of a front yard fence from 4 feet to 8 feet in a single-family residential zone at 669 Mount Vernon Drive. The staff has actually recommended disapproval for this, and I know that there is opposition as well. and normally what we do in these situations, we'd like to go ahead and hear from the staff first and you have every opportunity to speak after they make their presentation and then if members of the opposition would like to come up, they can do so too. But as a rule of order, we'd like to hear from the staff before we hear from the opposition or hear back from the applicant. Mr. Chairman, for the record, this item is in the middle of page two. It's item V. 2014-30, Diane Wilson. This is a front yard fence height variance from the allowable four foot in height to a maximum of eight feet. And the applicant has put in their application if the eight feet is unacceptable. than she is requesting a six-foot height for the fence. The property is located at 669 Mount Vernon Drive. Up on the board right now, we have the applicant's site plan. It shows, quite simply, the layout of her property with the house. The area being requested for the variance is on one side of the property. If you were looking at the property, it would be on the right-hand side of the property from the front of the house to Mount Vernon Drive. This is the area from the primary wall plane to the right-of-way that is limited to a maximum of four feet in height for the fence. The applicant also shows some of the proposed fencing that she plans to place on her property, and those are allowable fences by the zoning ordinance, so those are not part of the request before you. So, Mr. Emmons, she is allowed to build a four-foot fence, correct? is allowed to build, the zoning ordinance does not prevent front yard fences that are four feet and under. Thank you. If we can show the pictures of the pictometry pictures. This is a section of Mount Vernon Drive. From Castle Drive to the end of Mount Vernon Drive, the property ends, the Mount Vernon Drive stubs into the University of Kentucky property. And you can see in the corner of that where they have some of the track and field and the baseball fields, that's where Mount Vernon Drive stubs into. The subject property on this aerial is a bit dark. That's primarily because the property has several large trees on it, and the aerial photographs show a lot of the shadows from those large trees. For the audience, the subject property is right here. The staff would describe that as approximately mid-block on Mount Vernon Drive. If we can flip through the pictometry pictures also. I just zoomed in a little bit more on these areas. The subject property is here, and for the audience, this is the subject property. We wanted to show that the character of the street is that not only do the lots not have fences in their front yard that are higher than four feet, I would say that the lots out there don't have any front yard fences in this subdivision, and we can show that a little bit more if we work our way back to Castle Road through the next pictures. The subject property is located in the top corner of this, and you can see that there are no front yard fences. And if we show the last one, that will bring us back to Castle Drive. Once again, there are no front yard fences. The primary justification that the applicant has given, she did present a very extensive justification for the proposed variance. It really kind of comes down to that there is a property dispute between her and her neighbor, and that she's requesting a taller fence as a result of that. The staff is sympathetic toward the dispute on that. However, the staff cannot justify recommending a variance for this that would be that much out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has submitted several pictures which are in your notebook. They're a separate thing so you can flip through them. and she's documented all of the cases that she could find that have fences that are near the street that are six feet or taller or so in that neighborhood. Primarily, most of the examples that she's given are corner lots to where those six-foot fences are in the rear yard. But she acknowledges this and makes the point, though, that still where it comes up on the side street still has the same effect from the street of having a fence in the yard. However, the staff does see that still as rear yard fences, even for those corner lots. In that case, Castle Road or any other side street would be a side street side yard. The staff ultimately is recommending disapproval of her request. We do not see that the requested variance does not arrive from any special circumstances or unique to the physical nature of the property. Also, granting this variance would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. And finally, strict application of the zoning ordinance does not prevent the applicant from putting a fence in the front yard. It just prevents the fence as it's being requested today. If you have any questions for the staff, I would be happy to try and answer them. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Anyone have any questions for Mr. Emmons? Just for clarification, Mr. Emmons, her request is to build an eight-foot fence, or in the alternative, a six-foot fence, if she only intended to build a four-foot fence, she wouldn't need this application. Is that correct? That is correct. So if you get a fencing permit. Okay. So whatever we do here would not affect her rights to build a four-foot fence, for example. Exactly. There is nothing that the board could do that would take that right away from her. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Evans. I'd like to ask the applicant, Ms. Wilson, if she would come back to the lectern, please. Ms. Wilson, I'd just like to ask, obviously you're warning the eight-foot fence, the four-foot fence is required. Can you give us a little reasoning? And you've heard the staff report that it's out of character with the neighborhood, and obviously you've been talking with them and some of your neighbors as well. And so I'd like for you to give you an opportunity to, you know, to respond to the staff report. Thank you. I don't know to what extent you have had an opportunity to review the materials that I provided in justification of my request. They have in large part to do with some very dissimilar preferences between me and my neighbor on one side, having to do with foliage in the yard. And the fact that there have been some frictions and problems along those lines has resulted on some occasions in this neighbor taking unilateral actions or planning to take unilateral actions, either affecting my property or my interests, without preliminary discussion. and one might say that if the circumstances were more conventional, if they were more normal, and one might expect in the normal course of events that there would be such a discussion initiated by the acting neighbor with me that a four-foot fence would be adequate. This behavior pattern is something that has had manifestations over many years. I've provided examples going back to the ice storm, when during the storm the neighbor entered the yard, trespassed into the yard with a ladder and a chainsaw and removed a partially broken limb from a very large panoak tree that I have in my yard, which I value very much. And despite the fact that I entered the yard and exhorted the neighbor about this, that did not have any effect. That's one example that I have provided. There are some other examples in which some overhanging limbs from a tree in my yard that is between our two houses had some overhanging branches, which the neighbor is entitled to trim at the property line. I have no reason to deny that. However, since they weren't trimmed properly, this resulted in death of these branches, so now there are dead branches in that tree. Relative to this same tree, several years earlier, the neighbor expressed concern to me about these branches and their proximity to his roof and asked me if I would attend to those. I did. I contracted a tree surgeon and had those trimmed appropriately, and I provided documentation to show that I took that action at his request. The more recent action about his taking unilateral action that resulted in death of the branches, I had no knowledge in advance of that. There have also been occasions when his son was living at home and doing some yard work for me on, according to pay, in which he has unilaterally sent his son into my yard to extensively prune a growth in my yard without my request, without my knowledge. And I am merely saying that I am not unwilling to hear in what I consider a very reasonable way somebody's request that some of my foliage is causing concern or problems. And if I'm given an opportunity, I will address that. But I have provided documentation of a number of instances extending over a number of years when I was not given that opportunity. And what I think I would be comfortable with is not only a physical but a more formidable psychological reminder that that's my property. The foliage in there belongs to me. I at least should have the initial right to address myself problems that may be being occasioned by my foliage for my neighbors. And that is the reason, and I don't have anything to add to it. I'm not planning to challenge this board's action, but I just request the board to act at this time. Thank you very much, Ms. Wilson and does anybody have any questions for Ms. Wilson? I just have a couple remarks and that is that it's very unfortunate and obviously one of the tasks of this board is to take these cases on the merit of what's allowable and what's not and we do take in the staff recommendations. We don't always agree with the staff recommendations as a matter of fact But on the other hand, we hear the case. And as far as some of the relationships and some of the things that have happened over the years, I emphasize with you and hope that that can be resolved in the future. What's before us is if we could allow a six- to eight-foot fence. And looking at the staff's recommendation, listening to them, listening to you as well, So as we proceed, I would like to give any of the opposition an opportunity if they would like to come up and make a comment. Would you please come up and state your name for the record, please? Mr. Chairman, as he's approaching, the staff did pass out at the end for the record. The staff passed. We have received two written letters of opposition. We passed that out at the end of our presentation rather than the beginning as we normally do. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Board of Adjustment and staff, thank you for your service. My name is Patrick Schneider. I'm a native of Lexington. I've lived in Mount Vernon for almost 25 years. I just want to say this whole thing is a bit embarrassing. We have a wonderful neighborhood. I can honestly say, despite being a U.K. neighborhood, Mount Vernon is a much nicer neighborhood. It looks nicer. It's a pleasant place. We had a block party just within the last 10 days, much nicer than it was 25 years ago. I will limit my comments to 90 seconds. We have 51 signatures from the 600, 700, and 800 block of Mount Vernon. Barrie, Providence, Eldemere, and Castle in opposition to this. These are all adults, no more than two per household, and these are all property owners. To me, it's a very simple issue. This would be a horrible precedent for the neighborhood, if not the city. It would also be unsightly. I will say this much. I'll try to keep any negative comments to myself. but Mr. Tonkray, I have seen him many, many, many times help neighbors in need, especially the elderly in our neighborhood. So I'm going to close and just say that we see this as a bad precedent. And this is embarrassing to me. From Mount Vernon, we have a very special neighborhood there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Schneider. Would anybody else? Yes, sure. You can bring those up to us. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Good afternoon. Your name for the record, please. My name is Amy Clark, and I live at Castle Road 628, so I'm two blocks, almost three blocks from the property. I used to serve on the Hollywood Mount Vernon Neighborhood Board. I do not at present. This is not a board communication. And I, too, want to thank you for your service, and especially when you have difficult, what seem to be very petty matters. And I just remind you that Freud reminds us that Othello killed his wife over a handkerchief. And it's these tiny things that really weave together the fabric of a neighborhood and help it work well. I would like to say that I love the lovely tall green trees along that border there. and it seems to me Ms. Wilson has done all she can to conciliate her neighbor in keeping lovely thriving trees and also keeping them out of his face as best as possible and hired skilled help and so on. So this whole thing is really regrettable. I'm glad we have a zoning ordinance that does not permit a fence higher than four feet in the front yard, and I hope that we stick with that and not permit a variance here and now. I would also ask the staff to take care not to bring this boundary line fence right up to the back of the sidewalk. I think the right-of-way is actually about a foot behind the sidewalk there. I think we can trust the staff to follow the rules, but it is important to allow a generous site distance for backing and so on. also it just looks nicer. And finally I'd say that we had a dispute with an owner of the property next door to us and it was maybe a year or two ago and all the neighbors came out in Hollywood and wrote letters and so on. It's the kind of neighborhood we have where we especially value the civility and the grace and beauty of our yards and our front yards and our interface with our neighbors. it's very precious to us, and sometimes we feel it's an embattled neighborhood because of the press of rental housing and so on. So we dig in our heels maybe that much more. So I thank you for your consideration, and I thank the applicant for being such a good neighbor, trying to be such a good neighbor. And we now have a spite fence that the neighboring property owner erected, and it's within the rules. It's four feet tall, and we just grin and bear it because it is within the rules, and we hope it will pass before long. So thank you. Thank you very much. Is anybody else in opposition? Yes, Ms. Wilson, we're going to give you an opportunity. I wanted to ask before you begin if there was anybody else that wanted to speak from the opposition. If not, Ms. Wilson? I would like to thank, is it Ms. Castle? Carter? I live on Castle. Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Carter? Clark. Clark, excuse me. I would like to thank her for her comments. And I would also like, since she brought this up, to say, she brought it up in this venue. I do not know whether this is the proper venue for it. If it isn't, I will withdraw it and address it somewhere else. But she did make a request specifically here about the fence, the front yard fence, not being allowed to be extended right to the sidewalk. I have inquired specifically with the Building Inspection Office and the Division of Planning to ask them about the regulation and to make sure that I got a clear understanding of that. The understanding that I got is that the fences must be a minimum of 10 feet back from the curb. I have measured my front space from the curb back 10 feet to include the green space between the Mount Vernon Drive and the sidewalk, and that measures 10 feet and 11 inches. If my understanding is correct, I have the right to put a front yard fence from the front plane of my house right up to the sidewalk, since that does not come within less than 10 feet. As I said, I have no idea whether this is the appropriate venue to even address that, but it was mentioned. So I'm just adding that as an additional comment relative to that. I find many people in the neighborhood very personable and convivial. I don't find them all that way. I think that's probably true for every neighborhood in this city. I have no interest in making a spike fence. I am trying to improve the ability to have a convivial and civilized situation involving me and my neighbor who have some very disparate preferences about our properties. Some things are attractive to some people, such as pastel flags sticking out from the front of your house, and they're not attractive to others. A lot of foliage is attractive to some people, and it's not attractive to others. It seems to me that a neighborhood in which people have a reasonable, not abusive, but a reasonable freedom to comport their property the way they would prefer would be ideal. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Wilson. Anybody else have questions for Ms. Wilson or the opposition? I think that we've heard quite a bit from both sides and certainly from our staff as well. I'd like to ask the board if their wishes. Mr. Chair, I would like to move that V2014-30 Diane Wilson's appeal for variance to increase the maximum allowable height of a front yard privacy fence from 4 feet to 8 feet in a single family residential zone at 669 Mount Vernon Drive. Council District 3 be disapproved for the reasons recommended by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Myers, second. The motion is made to disapprove Ms. Wilson's request for a variance. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Good luck, Ms. Wilson, and good luck to the neighborhood, and thank you all for being here today. I believe the next item that we have on the agenda is item V, 2014-39, Jimmy Brashear and Gay Kanai. Have I enunciated that correctly? Would the applicant please come forward? State your name for the record. James Brashear. Ann? I'm Lynn Pettigall. I'm representing Mr. Meshire. Very good. Mr. Meshire, the staff has recommended approval subject to the two conditions, and you've agreed to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Very well. Well, I know that there's opposition from them and from this request, and what we'd like to do is we'd like to hear from the opposition and then have you come back up and respond. Great. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, members of the staff, my name is Stephen Vickroy. I'm an attorney. I represent Doug Ball, who is the owner of 539 East 3rd Street, and I also represent Pfizer Investments, Inc., who is the owner of 549, 557, and 547 East 3rd Street. I've got a brief all-out on my opposition that I'd like to give. Our opposition actually focuses on two issues. The very first one actually has been discussed quite a bit already, and I apologize. I wasn't actually aware of Section 3.3 with regard to sight lines, but that's the first aspect of the opposition that I'd like to discuss with you. I don't know if Jimmy can put that up on the overhead for you, but this point right here is the intersection of East 3rd Street and Whitrow. Can't quite see it on the copy here. Looks like they covered it up when they leave the blow up for me. Mr. Vickrow, I think we're going to get a mic for you there. Oh, okay. Thank you. My apologies. With that said, again, this is the intersection of East 3rd Street and Whitrow Way. Our contention is the building is going to be coming to four feet from the existing sidewalk along East 3rd Street and it looks like it's southeast corner. And that four feet distance right there when it's extended out to the intersection is only 2.3 feet. With a crosswalk, although I don't think there's one designated there. Turned on. Okay. Did that help? I think it did. Wow. Here we go. So with that, again, there's only 2.3 feet of line of sight for a car that would stop at the crosswalk or a stop bar that's wither away. and there is no way on earth that a vehicle that's a standard length, that a driver would be able to see anywhere along East 3rd Street for traffic coming outbound on East 3rd. And that car would actually have to venture out into the intersection to be able to see past, again, the corner of the building. In addition, they also have planting beds here. I have no idea what they're going to plant in there, but if any planting obviously would grow up any height at all with regard to that, the height of the driver in a standard vehicle, the 2.3 feet is actually gone, and there is no line of sight other than the sidewalk. I have no idea whether traffic engineering has looked at this. I didn't see anything in the file when I was provided with a copy of that. But to me, again, this line of sight that was a tremendous concern with Mr. Van Meter's request, I believe is applicable here. It looked like the visual that I saw in Section 3.3 was actually a street intersection as opposed to a house with a garage and setback from a curb there. And with the scale, the building itself appears to be 8 feet from Withrow away here. And if you scale that back from the intersection, 8 to 10 feet where you need to take your line of sight is going to be at least close to where the recycling and trash bin is. And with that, it just seems that this is a terrible, terrible safety issue. And in fact, my client advised me that last year there was an accident at this intersection, Withrow Way, where a vehicle actually had ventured out, even though this building is not there now. Just because of the nature of the intersection, apparently that vehicle did venture out into the inbound lanes of East 3rd. That vehicle was hit so hard, they said it was turned over on its side. So with that said, there is a tremendous safety concern that we have with regard to the building being built so close to East 3rd Street. Granted, Withrow Way is a not heavily traveled street. Obviously, I can't argue with that. I have no idea whether they even have numbers on it. But with that said, even the risk to this one vehicle that would have to venture out onto East 3rd Street, to me, is not worth the risk that's going to be inherent with permitting this building to be built so close to East 3rd Street. Additionally, one of my clients, who is the owner of 539 East 3rd Street, says he gets regular deliveries by a tractor trailer. And that tractor-trailer does come into town on East 3rd Street. It actually has to turn, actually, on to Shropshire Avenue, which is going to be, as you're looking at this, it's going to be farther into town on East 3rd Street. It travels back Shropshire to Grinstead Lane, which is actually behind my client's property. And then when the vehicle leaves, it has to travel out to Grinstead. and then we'll make a right onto Withrow Way and come down that intersection and turn out. This regular traffic is difficult enough as things are, but with this building being built and the line of sight being limited at that intersection, I don't think it's going to be even possible for this tractor-trailer to exit Withrow Way on East 3rd Street. And in addition to that, the reverse is going to be true. Vehicles traveling outbound on East Third Street from downtown that may have to make a left onto Withrow Way are going to have limited line of sight as well. It applies, I think, both to traffic that exits Withrow Way onto East Third as well as turns from East Third onto Withrow Way. In addition, my clients have also discussed this matter with the fire department. the fire department. I don't know if that is a regular venture by the staff or not, but they indicated that the fire department indicated to my client that this does cause them some concern. So I would ask this board, at least, if it has any concern about the safety of fire department vehicles at this intersection, that they talk with the fire marshal about this before even considering this requested application because we know how big those vehicles are we know how difficult it will be for them to make turns and very well could be affected by this and I think that they expressed some concern about it and the fact that they they didn't know that this application had been requested obviously if traffic engineering has looked at at the line of sight has given any kind of recommendation I didn't see it in the file I don't know if the board has seen anything or if the staff has seen anything but I would also request if that has not been looked at that that line of sight at this intersection be addressed because I think it's a tremendous concern and finally this area town believe it or not although this is an I-1 zone is now becoming more residential the old bluegrass aspendale has been obviously torn down there are new houses being developed and i think that area is to the north of here there's a actually increased pedestrian traffic than there was in years past and i think there's some concern about the safety of pedestrians with the lack of the line of sight at that intersection as well as the fact that there There needs to be, obviously, room for them to travel if they're coming down the existing sidewalk on East 3rd, crossing Withrow Way. They need to have the ability to see oncoming cars, and oncoming cars need to have the ability to see them. In addition, it does not appear that the applicant in its drawing has provided any kind of pedestrian access along Withrow Way. You do see some pavers. You do see, I think, a concrete driveway. But you also see what appears to be some kind of structure, whether it be wood or brick, for recycling and trash bins, which obviously are a necessity. But that would appear to block pedestrian access along Withrow Way as well, specifically this one right here. So there's no allowance for pedestrian traffic along Withrow Way. The line of sight is obviously a danger to both vehicular traffic as well as pedestrian traffic. So I would urge this board to either postpone this and take a look at that issue or outright deny it based on those facts. Now, obviously, the staff did state that safety concerns appear to have been addressed. But I didn't see anything in the file that indicated that they went to this length to look at those items. They may very well have, and Mr. Emmons might be able to address that for you. But I didn't see it, and my client noticed it immediately upon getting this application. So I would definitely urge this court or this board to take a look at that issue. Secondly, although I think the board addressed this very slightly in its case report, I'm concerned about whether or not this actually falls within the zoning classification, whether this is a permitted or accessory use within the zoning classification. I know that this board isn't too concerned about it, but I think we do need to look at it before you pass this along to somebody else that might look at it. But in an I-1 zone, the only accessory used for any kind of dwelling unit is for a caretaker. Now, the way I look at the site plan, I think your materials probably have the first and second floor drawing. And I don't know if you want to put that up on the thing, Bill. But as I look at this, the entire second floor is a residence. and in addition on the left hand side is the first floor plan you're also going to see a two-car garage so with those items in the residence this building is is more than 60 percent residential in my opinion this is an urban residence with a catering business area attached to it And I don't think that this qualifies under the zoning ordinance. Now, granted, this may not be an issue that you're concerned with. I hope it's an issue that the staff might be concerned with. But this is more than a caretaker's dwelling unit. There's two bedrooms, two baths on the second floor, along with a deck, living room, kitchen area. And then with that, the first floor has a two-car garage along with the business area of the property. In my opinion, this isn't an industrial building. This is a house, albeit urban, contemporary probably, and not what we ordinarily think of as a house. But it actually is a house with a catering business on the side. And I don't think the zoning classification permits that. I don't think this is a caretaker's dwelling. I think the staff, even in its case report, indicated that the owner was going to live there. I don't think that qualifies as a caretaker's dwelling. And with that, we don't believe that this is going to be a permitted use or an accessory use in an I-1 zone. Additionally, and although this may not be an issue that this board is concerned about, one of my clients owns the property immediately to the east of this at 557 East 3rd. And according to them, there are large, and I mean large, trees that sit along that eastern border, which would be row held here. You don't see them on the site plan, obviously, because they propose that the building be built with a very minimum side yard. But it's my client's understanding that these trees may be over 100 years old, and they are either exactly on the property line or within, you know, the trunk covers both properties. and it's our opinion that this owner will not be able to remove those trees without our consent and therefore may not be able to build this property as it's proposed that's something that we're going to offer up for you to consider whether or not you think it's appropriate under your mandate I'll leave that up to the board but with that said that's another issue that I actually wasn't aware of till I got here today and I apologize for that and it It's not in my outline. But my clients are very concerned. They don't want those trees removed. And with that said, I think that concludes my presentation. If there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Vicroy. Is there any questions for Mr. Vicroy? Thank you. I'd like to ask, and we're going to get you up here in just a second, Mr. Brashear. I'd like to ask the staff, it raises a couple questions about the safety issues, and obviously is this acceptable, does this qualify under the current zoning, and about the trees as well. So would you care to respond to those? Did we look at those? The staff report did not address the trees whatsoever. I do understand the opposition's point that if the trees are half on the applicant's property and half on that, I believe that that would be a private matter between those two property owners. But the staff did not review the trees. Take the easy part of the question first. The other two questions that were brought up, as far as the site triangle, I was looking through the file, and I could not find my work that I was doing as I was writing the staff report, but we did look at the site triangle for this. I do have to admit, as I'm looking at the regulations here, do you remember that M distance, how far back you go from the curb of the street? I do remember during my calculations that I used an M value of 10 rather than 15 as called for in the zoning ordinance. It was definitely not the intention of recommending approval of this that the building would be in any site triangle. So the staff, if that does or does not make a difference when they go to get a building permit, I wanted to make it clear that the staff intends for this building to be outside of the site triangle. That's part of the reason why we said in our findings that it would be outside of the site triangle. As far as the questions about the FAR and the uses, the light industrial zone does allow the manufacturing, compounding, assembling of food products. It also allows the catering of those, the first floor business use of the subject property. and the I-1 zone also allows for the accessory dwelling unit for the watchmen or caretakers. The fact that the owner of the business and the owner of the building, it has been a common interpretation for a live-work environment, be it for a sculptor who's using the light industrial zone, but it's a common mechanism when you're trying to create a live-work project to allow the owners of the property to also be their own caretakers of the property. And it's been a common interpretation that those dwelling units that are allowed as accessory dwelling units are permissible for the caretaker, even if you're the owner and not hired professional security personnel. The opposition also brought up questions about the floor area ratio and the fact that there are two-car garage on the first floor. And the staff, the garage itself does not count in the definition of the floor area ratio. However, the proposed business is a catering business, a catering use. So the vehicles, it's the use of that garage area is still a business use. It's the vehicles that are used to transport the food that is prepared to its final destination. So the staff still sees this dwelling unit that is being proposed as accessory to the business use, which will be on the first floor. And it is the staff's opinion that the use that is proposed is compliant with the I-1 zone. There were three, with this proposal, there were only three items that were not found to meet the zoning compliance, and that was the front yard setback off of 3rd Street, the side street side yard off of Withrow Way, which is an alley, and the number of parking spaces provided. These uses require a minimum of six spaces. They are asking for a variance to 50% of the required, as you can do within the infill and redevelopment area, in order to allow three, two parking spaces inside the garage and one to the rear of the property. That is, that's the staff's comments on our review of this application. If you have any other questions for me, I would be happy to try and answer them. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Anybody? Mr. Glutter? I do. Mr. Emmons, what difference would it make if this were a residential zoned area? I mean, Mr. Vickroy raised that point, and I'm curious to know if that would alter staff's opinion about whether or not this should be permitted or allowed. The primary use of this property would be the catering business, which would not be allowed in a residential zone. It is the, from the staff's perspective, from the applicant's proposal and from the staff's perspective, this is a catering business with an accessory dwelling unit above it. Mr. Vicroy, they are of the opinion that this is a residence with a business below it. The staff described this entire use in our staff report as a live-work environment. And this is one of the, for the use that they're proposing, the catering use, the manufacturing of the food products and delivering it, they really do need the light industrial, possibly the B4 zoning to do that. Thank you, Mr. Immons. Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Immons or Mr. Vicroy? I'm assuming there's no sidewalk on Withrow Way. It's an alley. It is an alley. There's no expectation of a property owner to provide pedestrian traffic on their property, so these recycling areas and planting boxes are just landscaping on the person's property, right? Yes, sir. And these big trucks that make deliveries to your client, they're in some way going to be adversely affected by this landscaping? Or are you just talking about the site triangle? With regard to the trucks, the site triangle, and obviously if they turn back in to inbound East 3rd, I don't know if they go over the existing sidewalk now, but it could cause some concern about it. You mean if they end up backing onto this person's property? No, not backing on. Coming down here and then making a right-hand turn. I mean, this could be compromised. I don't know if you've seen a tractor. You mean from a site standpoint? From a site standpoint and an actual physical standpoint. Well, physical standpoint, they would only be impacted by this development if they're on his property. Right. No question about it. I mean, it's still a safety issue, though. Well, I don't know if that's the case or not. Well, that's true. I'm making an argument. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Brashear, you've been very patient. It's your time to step up. You all have heard staff and you've heard from the opposition and you all have already introduced yourselves for the record. So your response. If you don't mind, I'm going to pass you all. Please do. Some additional information that we've had done since. We do have a copy of that, don't we? She's got some, she's got some. This is a modification to what we have. The reason I provided you all with these front and side elevation is so that you can understand that I do a lot of historic renovation preservation. I've been in business for almost 30 years in downtown Lexington. I live in downtown Lexington. And I'm very aware of what urban infill is and what we're trying to, you know, restore or try to bring these areas like East 3rd back to, you know, be inviting to people. There's parks across the street. There's mixed residential and commercial in that area. We've looked at everything in the process of doing this. and I've taken into consideration the distance from the sidewalk to the front porch. The fact that the front porch is open and the actual start of the facade of the house sits back another five feet, six inches. When you look at these boxes with the plantings in them, that's just a rendering of some of the thoughts that can be modified or whatever. But the sidewalk, permeable pavers, maybe that's what we're using or whatever, something that's environmentally going to work there. There is four feet of walkway there for the person with the business who lived there to be able to walk from the front porch all the way to the back. So a walkway rather than a sidewalk? It's just a walkway, and it's going to be smooth. So if somebody wanted to walk from the front back there, then nobody's going to stop them from doing that, obviously. With regard to the Herbie's and Rosie's storage there with that little fenced-in area up next to the front porch, that can be moved. That's insignificant. I wouldn't do anything to try to cause a hazard regarding traffic, or pedestrians for that matter. also we've provided enough space in the rear for a handicap person be it need to happen and it is a handicap accessible on the interior of the first floor but people are not going to be coming to this business and walk-ins off the street this is strictly an in-flight catering company they make the food and take it to the private jet service bluegrass field that's how this works. It's all cold food. Nothing's prepared hot. The owners have another residence, so they're here, and when they mostly here, but they travel a bit. So it's nice that they're there to watch what's going on and enjoy the space as well. And with this mixed-use downtown, I think this is an ideal situation to provide this. And we've got a front porch area that's open, and we also have a rear-covered porch. those are open areas so in regard to square footage on the second floor it's really not that much and we have modified the rear of the residence and shortened it both stories because of the handicap parking i went through building inspection and i also talked with traffic engineering casey thank you and everybody's given us the go ahead jim tucker is our building inspector. So I happen to know the two gentlemen that own these properties, Pfizer Investments and Mr. Doug Ball. It appears to be a little bit of a witch hunt, I think, in the process of Mr. Bashir buying this property from, what's the name? Community Ventures. Mr. Ball and his partner own a lot of property on East 3rd. I've got little circles on them where the FT or FI. And the tent and awning business that's up near the equestrian estates, says Doug Bolt, on the 539, I think that's what that says. anyway their big trucks are coming in through that residential entrance in equestrian residential area and coming down the back street which is behind this block and i think too they're upset the fact that we he bought the property and they they in conclusion want to have that whole block. And I think their plan was to do some manufacturing stuff, interesting, different stuff like that, but more industrial. And the whole reason that this is being picked at is because of the property transfer. And that's what started this. And we are in no way trying to cause anything. If you look at the corner of our front lot where the alley is, there is no curve there. It's at a corner. Which one of those pieces of property is? 559 is ours. I1, yes. Oh, thank you. That is an alley, and it will remain an alley. And, you know, there's also residential around in there all involved together. So I took all that into consideration. I have a question. Is the catering business, does it already exist somewhere else? Where is it moving from? Can you explain that to them? On Lewis Street, which is probably on here, it's less than half a block away from this site. Okay. So currently you live somewhere else. That's your catering business, and then you want to? It's the same situation. It's light industrial. I live upstairs, and my catering business is downstairs. I'm merely downsizing and moving half a block over. Okay. Thank you. I think that the key to this thing is somehow that I think in the future that people have thought maybe that this alley could be turned into a wider street, that they could get semis down. That's what I kind of got in the back of my mind. We're under the impression that it will always remain an alley. And that we'd like to keep this mixed use with a mixture of business and residence together and try to accommodate the architecture of what's around it in downtown Lexington. I think that's all I need to tell you. Any questions for me? Thank you, Ms. Pagel. Any questions? Mr. Vickler, do you have anything in response? Yes. Oh, one other thing. The trees. We will address those trees, but I'm pretty certain they're on Mr. Beshear's property. They are somewhere between two and three feet from the line with 557. They are clearly on 559. They're clearly on 559. It has been recently surveyed by Community Ventures for us. I have the survey. Okay. The pens are, it's very clear that they're on 559. Thank you. And just to clarify, 559 being your property? Yes. Yes, okay. Just briefly in response, I just want to let you know I'm not coming here with any kind of suppositions, any kind of allegations against the property owner that, you know, witch hunt, whatever the case. I want you to know that I have argued facts. The issue of the trees, if a survey shows what it shows, it'll show that. But the one thing I do want you to consider that I had forgotten to just state as I was leaving my presentation last time is Mr. Emmons has indicated that his line of sight calculations that he has done were done on an improper apex of the triangle that Mr. Glover was talking about before. And I think he says he needs to go back and look at that from a 15-foot standpoint. So we have no idea with either of those line of sight triangles, when you go back 15 feet from, I assume, the extended line of the curb is what we're talking about, as it crosses Withrow Way. Alley or not, you're still entitled to it. It's still a right-of-way that people are allowed to travel on. So with that said, without knowing whether or not the line of sight catches any part of that front porch that you saw on the front elevations or not, it hasn't been addressed yet. And so we don't know whether or not the staff would recommend disapproval or approval subject to conditions that they, again, recalculate the size of this building, the size of the porches and everything that they're going to build before that can happen. Because if it does violate the line of sight, then I think the staff recommendation possibly could change. And so with that, the board doesn't know right now how the staff will address that until they look at that and determine it. Actually, the first condition that the applicant has agreed to is that the building would be modified slightly if it's required to be modified by traffic engineering. Okay. With that said, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vicroy. Anybody else have any? Yes, Ms. Pettigrew. I have no problem with adjusting with this line of sight issue. We have to move the building back. I have no problem with adjusting anything to get that worked out. Well, thank you. As Mr. Griggs pointed out, I think that the condition covers that. Would that be correct, Mr. Ammons? That is correct. I was going to point out that exact point before Mr. Griggs did. Mr. Griggs is very good at that. Actually, Mr. Ball would like to address the board? Sure, absolutely. Thank you. My name is Doug Ball. Could we leave this up? I personally own the property at 539 East 3rd Street and in partnership on the surrounding properties adjacent to his property, a property that Jimmy has worked out a deal with Community Ventures on. The property behind 559 with a two-and-a-half-story building will be used as useless. There will be nothing except the building will look at a two-and-a-half-story building with no site whatsoever. With tractor-trailers coming into my building at 539, what happens is a 56-foot tractor-trailer goes down Grindstead, which has a barrier between the houses behind us and the new residents. They can barely make the turn on Winthrow Way, which is not an alley. It is a street. It is a maintained street by the city of Lexington. You can call it an alley, but it is not because it goes up through Nelson now, and it goes back into where the school district is. It's used constantly. Last year, for instance, there was a very bad wreck here. Exactly. A lady came down through here. She blacked out. somehow or another made the turn going downtown. But when the fire trucks came down 3rd Street, they could not turn on Winthrop Way. They had to go down U.S. 60 to Midland, turn around, go all the way back up East 3rd, go behind our building and get to the back of her while she was upside down and power lines was on her car. And that was before there was a two-and-a-half-story building. put four feet off of Third Street. There is no way anybody can drive down Winthrow Way and make a right-hand turn onto Third Street and see traffic. It is impossible. There is not any way possible that a 56-foot tractor-trailer can come down a street and turn right onto Third Street. There is no way a tractor-trailer or a fire truck or a bus could come down Third Street going out of town and make a left-hand turn on to Winthrop Way if you allow a two-and-a-half-story building four feet off of the street. I don't know. This is nothing between the owner or anything else. Our plans for this, we have torn down 547. We've taken that out. 549 is scheduled to be coming down this fall. The 555 property, Mr. Reeves, we have an option on the property with Mr. Reeves. Mr. Reeves is an older man that simply did not want to come down here, but he strongly does not want this to happen. He does not want to be next to this property, two and a half stories high. And we either want this portion of this area to be long-term care facility for the area, or we want to put some type of services as far as restaurants, as far as something, services that could be used by the community behind it. There is nothing from McDonald's all the way over to Limestone, basically eatery. There are some developments over on National Avenue and on Delaware. But putting a two-and-a-half story on a lot that is 38 feet to 40 feet wide and 80 feet deep, to me just simply does not make sense. They can call it what they want to, but it's a residence. They're going to live there permanently. Anybody that wants to put a third-floor patio, I don't quite get that either. I mean, it's a little bit more than a business. This business belongs in a warehouse someplace where cars can come and go. Let's address the issue of his garage. If you allow this, just like on Bruce Street, so he's going to back out of his garage. He's going to back out of his garage. He sets off how far off of Winthrow Way? Four feet? So what does he do? He backs out of his garage onto Winthrow Way. How does he see people coming down Winthrow Way? How does he see people going out Winthrow Way? So he's obviously doing the exact thing. He's backing out into ongoing traffic and not seeing it. a pedestrian a car coming down third street going out us 60 would make that left hand turn if a pedestrian was coming down there and his building is four feet from third street the pedestrian is not going to see the car until the car hits them this is just to me it's just totally out of character for a corner lot now if he wanted to put this piece of this property on 557 where you don't obstruct that, that would not be an issue. And to be quite honest with you, this thing all rolled down because Community Ventures promised us in basically an agreement that this was going to be green space. It only became Mr. Breshear's property when Community Ventures made the back door deal to get his property on Midland Avenue. So they, this came about real quick. We were told about Community Ventures, it would never be developed because it was no space. But when they wanted to buy the property from Mr. Beshear on Midway, all of a sudden they traded him this little piece of property. And if I don't know actually the ownership, if you look on the PVA, it still says Community Ventures owns a property. We really don't know what's going on, to be quite honest with you. As far as the trees, I build, I walk lots all the time, property lines. The trees are on our property, and they won't come down. They may not be 100 years old, but they're beautiful walnut trees that need to be trimmed up, and when you start taking down canopies in this area, you totally take out the character of this area. This area should be designed for long-term care facility, and that's what we've got in our mind. We worked with the city for a great deal of time and tried to work with the homeless, with the Catholic Center Agency, the Action Center. They have interest in that old medical building there, but I don't think the city is going to be able to work with them on it. It's just I don't want to get much into more of it because I've worked very hard to get this property and it just needs to be dealt with in the right way. And a two and a half story living residence that you work out of with a terrace and a patio on the roof doesn't sound like a catering business to me. And as far as out walking out your second floor onto balconies, his balconies will be on the sidewalk. If he's only four feet back from the sidewalk now i mean it's it's it's i'll just leave it at that it's it's totally out of character for what they're trying to do so and i appreciate your time and i don't do this very often but thank you all thank you mr ball does anybody have any questions for mr ball not for mr ball i had a question for mr emmons as i understood mr emmons the what you said that condition one was sufficiently flexible enough to allow for a correction of your site triangle calculation. Is that right? Absolutely, sir. And who does that? Ultimately, that would have to be provided prior to getting the appropriate permits to build the property. Traffic engineering would have to sign off on the site triangle before issuing the permit. Okay. Thank you. And I'll say one other thing. Ms. Pettigo seems to think that engineering, as traffic has signed off on it, my conversations with traffic yesterday said that they were going to review it. They told me that the stop sign now is on his property, the stop sign. So where is the stop sign going to go? The person I spoke to in traffic said, well, we may be able to move it across the street, meaning they would put it somewhere on community ventures property so that when you come down winthrop away you'd look at it across the street well that is fine except when traffic backs up from midland avenue all the way to race street and there's a tractor trailer sitting there no one will be able to see the sign because the tractor trailer is too high it's um i spoke this morning and i spoke before with the fire marshal and i spoke with the battalion chief. They are unaware of this, and they both said it was a bad idea. They can't get a fire truck. If this building is built on this corner, you are stopping an emergency vehicle from coming down Third Street and taking a left-hand turn to go up Winthrow, and Winthrow now has a street that goes up Nelson, so it goes back into the neighborhood. It's not an alley. It is a street, and it should be considered like all other streets. We all should have access to it. And with this building being built, you're going to deny me for my trucks coming down the back to get out. If you try to come down and take a right-hand turn, you can't turn a 56-foot truck with something built four feet from the street. Is that because you have to get on their property to turn the truck? No. If you're not on their property, then anything they build on their property should not affect your... They're not even observing sidewalks. They're not even having pedestrian sidewalks downwind. You know, there's a lot of streets in Lexington that you can't drive tractor-trailers on. You can't take a tractor-trailer down Grimes Mill. In all I-1 areas, you can get tractor-trailers in and out. If these people contain their building on their property, they haven't done anything wrong. Well, they haven't built this building yet. It just seems like you're trying to control what they're doing on their property because your tractor trailers are inconvenienced. That's not fair. No, sir. What I'm trying to do is for you to keep your streets open to traffic. It is an I-1 building, I-1 lot, that is light industrial, and trucks have to come and go. They have to have access behind Grindstead, and they should have access to come down Winthrow Way. And if his building is sitting right here and I come down this Winthrow Way, I'm going to have to drive my truck out into 3rd Street in order to look to traffic coming down. The building is 4 feet from the street here and 10 feet from the street on this end. So, therefore, I can't even see down 3rd Street because the building is closer on this end. There must be something that I'm not understanding, but it seems like... Well, let me ask you this. Have you actually driven down Winthrow Way? I'm just looking at these drawings. Well, that's... And to be honest with you, that's some of the problem. We look at a lot of drawings and we Google, but nobody seems to want to take a car and sit there at 5 o'clock on Winthrow Way and see if they can envision a two-and-a-half-story building right there and look down 3rd Street and make a right-hand turn. There's a sight triangle that will be adhered to, and there's an open front porch. You mentioned that pedestrians might not be able to see a car, but there's an open front porch. You can look through an open front porch. If I'm walking, if this is his building, 3rd Street is here, and this is his building, if I'm a pedestrian walking down here and somebody comes down 3rd Street and makes this turn, how does the pedestrian see the car? You don't think that a pedestrian needs to see if a building is four feet from the sidewalk, and you don't see where a car coming down Third Street making a left-hand turn, there's no way they can make contact because the building is too tall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ball. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to ask the applicant if they have anything in response, and we'll move on. It's insane. Just two quick things. The building is not two and a half stories, and we are eight feet, at least eight feet from the side yard on Withrow Way. And we are four feet at the corner at the closest point from our front porch to the sidewalk, then the sidewalk, and then to the street. Okay? And that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Well, we've heard from the applicant and the opposition, and I'd like to ask the board how they'd like to proceed. Mr. Griggs? I'll make a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve V2014-39, Jimmy Brashears, and Kate Gennady's appeal for variances to, reduce the required front yard from 20 to 4 feet, reduce the side yard from 20 to 6 feet, reduce parking by 50% in a light industrial zone at 559 East 3rd, based on the staff's recommendation of approval and subject to the two conditions. Mr. Grigg has made a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Glover seconds. all in favor of approving the appeals for variance for item 2014-39. Signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion. Motion is approved, and good luck, and hopefully it will be safe. But, again, I think it's a beautiful structure and building and enhances downtown, and wish you the very best, and Mr. Ball, wish you the very best, too. Thank you for your time in coming out here today. I believe we've got one item. I-A-M-A-W, District 27. And now there was opposition to this as well. Yes, Chairman. State your name for the record, please. Sorry. Matt Lynch here on behalf of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 27. I also have with me Union Representative Chris Bradley. Okay, very good. Well, the staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Excuse me, do you agree to abide by those conditions? We do. Very good. Well, thank you. I'd like to go ahead and, as we often do, like to hear from the opposition and then give you an opportunity to respond. We met with the opposition after he was identified and were able to amicably resolve his opposition, which had more to do with a temporary sign and didn't really have anything pertinent to what the board is considering today. Very good. We're glad to see that that worked out, and we appreciate that because often it does. So obviously there's no opposition. This is subject to three recommendations from the board, and you've agreed to abide by them. Does any member of the Board of Adjustment have a question for the applicant? if none uh the chair will entertain a motion mr chair i move to approve c 2014-31 i am aw district 27 appeal for a conditional use permit for a temporary structure for up to 180 days in a neighborhood b business v1 zone at 5693 briar hill road uh per the recommendations of staff and subject to the three conditions outlined by staff thank you miss meyer we have a motion to approve is there a second second very good all in favor signify by saying aye aye very good the motion is approved but before you leave you have to tell me what i am aw stands for it's the machinist union chairman very good very good well good luck with with the project and thank you for that. If you don't mind. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. See, it takes a machinist to know that. That's right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman. Chair, I'd like to announce if any other board members have any other thing to add today? Staff, anything to be heard at this time? Just one item, Mr. Chairman. We would remind the board members that you do have, I believe, two training opportunities before your next meeting. Pardon me, just one. It is next Wednesday at 4 p.m. in the Division of Planning Offices. The American Planning Association will have another one of their audio conferences in the training series, and this one is entitled Density in Neighborhoods. For any members that are interested, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Saleh. Anyone else? I just would like to make an announcement that I will not be attending next month's board meeting. I will be on vacation, but I will be back in July. And I'll announce that I'll be leaving for France, so I can only stay until about 3.30. You cannot delay your flight to France, Ms. Warren? No. Thank you very much. If there's no other business, we stand adjourned. Thank you all very much. you