# Board of Adjustment - April 24, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 24, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3635 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3635?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-04-24 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 15,669 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 April 24, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Barry Stumbo presiding. The board considered eight agenda items, taking ten motions and votes throughout the meeting while hearing three public comments. The board approved four requests: a variance for Happy Home KY, LLC to reduce required parking for a triplex; a variance for South Elkhorn Village, LLC to reduce floodplain setback to zero feet; a conditional use for Ideal Exchange to relocate and expand a pawnshop; a conditional use for Shiloh Baptist Church to enclose a building for an elevator shaft; and a conditional use for Lexington Cemetery for additional mausoleum buildings. Three items were postponed: a variance request from Invictus, LLC/DBA Noodles & Co. to reduce front setback for a patio; a variance request from Windswept Ventures, LLC to reduce distance from residential zone and front setback; and a conditional use request from Central Kentucky Garden Shop, LLC for a garden center. ## Attendance **Present:** Barry Stumbo, James Griggs, Janice Meyer, Joan Whitman, Thomas Glover, Kathryn Moore, Casey Kaucher, Chuck Saylor, Jim Marx, Tracy Jones, Barbara Rackers, Jimmy Emmons, and Tammye McMullen. **Absent:** Larry Forester. **Late:** None. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included ten votes, all conducted by voice vote with unanimous approval or postponement. **Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes** The minutes from the February 27, 2015 meeting were approved on a motion by James Griggs, seconded by Joan Whitman, with all six members voting in favor [timestamp: 00:05:38]. The minutes from the March 27, 2015 meeting were approved on a motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Joan Whitman, also with unanimous approval [timestamp: 00:06:10]. **Postponements** Three matters were postponed: - **V-2015-27**: Windswept Ventures LLC variance appeal was postponed for 30 days on a motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by Thomas Glover, with unanimous approval [timestamp: 00:07:41]. - **C-2015-15**: Central Kentucky Garden Shop conditional use appeal was postponed for 90 days on a motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Thomas Glover, with unanimous approval [timestamp: 00:08:48]. - **V-2015-25**: Invictus LLC variance appeal was continued for 30 days on a motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Janice Meyer, with unanimous approval [timestamp: 01:01:08]. **Approved Variances** - **V-2015-26**: South Elkhorn Village LLC variance to reduce floodplain setback to 0 feet was approved on a motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by Janice Meyer, with all six members voting in favor [timestamp: 00:11:46]. The approval included three conditions regarding site construction, compliance with zoning ordinance requirements, and necessary permits. - **V-2015-24**: Happy Home KY, LLC variance to reduce parking from 5 to 4 spaces was approved on a motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Joan Whitman, with unanimous approval [timestamp: 02:01:07]. Four conditions were attached regarding site plan compliance, permits including Certificate of Appropriateness, parking area development standards, and outdoor lighting requirements. **Approved Conditional Use Permits** - **C-2015-21**: Ideal Exchange conditional use permit to relocate and expand a pawnshop was approved on a motion by James Griggs, seconded by Thomas Glover, with all six members voting in favor [timestamp: 00:12:46]. Five conditions were imposed, including restrictions on outdoor merchandise display and firearms sales without amended approval. - **C-2015-22**: Shiloh Baptist Church conditional use permit to enclose a building for an elevator shaft was approved on a motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Joan Whitman, with unanimous approval [timestamp: 00:14:22]. Two conditions required compliance with submitted plans and necessary permits. - **C-2015-23**: Lexington Cemetery conditional use permit for additional mausoleum buildings was approved on a motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Joan Whitman, with all six members voting in favor [timestamp: 00:15:27]. Three conditions were attached, including provisions allowing the approval to be exercised over an extended period. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the board during the public comment period. **Amy Clark – Opposition to Happy Home KY Variance** [timestamp: 01:14:20] Ms. Clark opposed the proposed variance for Happy Home KY, arguing that the project pushes the limits of zoning constraints. She raised concerns about the accuracy of the site plan data and stated that the project would exceed permitted lot coverage and open space requirements. Ms. Clark urged the board to continue the case until a complete and accurate plan could be submitted for review. **Chad Colony – Support for Noodles & Company Patio Variance** [timestamp: 01:31:54] Mr. Colony spoke in favor of his revised patio plan for Noodles & Company. He argued that the revised design improves safety by eliminating two hazardous parking spots and lowers the wall to enhance visibility. Mr. Colony emphasized the community benefits of the project and requested board approval, noting that delaying the decision could result in loss of summer business. **Jack Stewart – Concerns about Noodles & Company Patio Design** [timestamp: 01:49:55] Mr. Stewart, representing Pazzo's, expressed concerns about the proposed Noodles & Company patio. He raised issues regarding the patio's proximity to the adjacent business, the presence of combustible materials near the property line, and the potential for the structure to be visually and structurally invasive to the neighboring property. ## Contested Items **Happy Home KY Variance** Community opposition arose regarding a variance request for Happy Home KY, with concerns centered on lot coverage, open space, and plan accuracy. The applicant countered these objections by presenting arguments of financial hardship and an inability to secure financing without the requested variance. The disagreement reflected competing priorities between community concerns about site design and the applicant's financial constraints. **Noodles & Company Patio Variance** A heated discussion took place regarding a patio variance for Noodles & Company. The board debated the safety implications of reduced sight distance resulting from the proposed patio expansion. A key point of contention was whether eliminating all four parking spaces would represent a better alternative solution to the variance request. The applicant responded to the board's concerns by offering revised plans. However, rather than reaching a resolution, the board postponed the case, indicating that further consideration and potentially additional revisions would be needed before a final decision could be made. ## Happy Home KY, LLC – Variance to reduce required parking for triplex Happy Home KY, LLC requested a variance to reduce the required off-street parking for a triplex from 5 spaces to 4 spaces, representing a 20% reduction. The property is located in a Historic District Overlay zone. **Staff Recommendation and Rationale** Staff recommended approval of the variance based on several factors: the walkability of the location, the reduced parking need due to fewer bedrooms in the units, and the project's compatibility with H-1 design guidelines. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Kyle Holscher, Amy Clark, and Jimmy Emmons. **Opposition and Concerns** Opposition to the variance was raised, with concerns focused on: - Lot coverage issues - Inadequate open space - Accuracy of the submitted plan **Outcome** The variance was approved [timestamp: 01:01:46]. ## Invictus, LLC/DBA Noodles & Co. – Variance to reduce front setback for patio **Case Number:** V-2015-25 **Request:** The applicant requested a variance to reduce the front setback from 10 feet to 0 feet to construct a covered patio. **Key Speakers:** Chad Colony, Jimmy Emmons, and Casey Kaucher **Staff Recommendation and Concerns:** Staff recommended disapproval of the variance, citing safety concerns related to reduced sight distance for remaining parking spaces. The reduced setback would compromise visibility and create potential safety hazards for vehicles using the parking area. **Applicant Response:** In response to staff concerns, the applicant proposed revised plans that included modifications to address the safety issues. The revised design featured lower walls and removed columns, which were intended to improve sight lines and mitigate the visibility concerns raised by staff. **Outcome:** The board postponed the case for 30 days, allowing time for further review of the revised plans and additional consideration of the proposal. [timestamp: 01:01:46] ## South Elkhorn Village, LLC – Variance to reduce floodplain setback to 0 feet **Identifier:** V-2015-26 South Elkhorn Village, LLC requested a variance to construct a commercial addition with a 0-foot setback from the floodplain [timestamp: 00:11:46]. **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the variance, citing unique site conditions at the property that justified the reduced setback requirement. The applicant's proposal was reviewed as part of the Special Use Permit process, which provided an additional layer of review and compliance verification. Staff determined that the 0-foot floodplain setback would not result in adverse impacts to public health or safety. **Key Speakers** - Rory Kahly - Jimmy Emmons **Outcome** The variance was approved. ## Windswept Ventures, LLC – Variance to reduce distance from residential zone and front setback **Case Number:** V-2015-27 **Applicant Request:** Windswept Ventures, LLC sought two variances for an office/warehouse building project. The variances would reduce the required distance from a residential zone and adjust the front setback requirements. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended postponement of the case due to two significant issues: inadequate notice to affected parties and technical errors in the base map submitted with the application. **Key Speaker:** Jimmy Emmons **Outcome:** The board voted to postpone the case for 30 days [timestamp: 00:07:41], allowing time for the applicant to address the notice and technical map deficiencies identified by staff before the matter could be properly considered. ## Central Kentucky Garden Shop, LLC – Conditional use for garden center **Case Number:** C-2015-15 **Request:** Central Kentucky Garden Shop, LLC applied for a conditional use permit to operate a garden center with mulch sales. **Action Taken:** [timestamp: 00:08:48] The board postponed consideration of this case. Staff noted that the applicant had requested a postponement, and the board agreed to reschedule the matter to July 31, 2015. **Key Participant:** Jimmy Emmons ## Ideal Exchange – Conditional use to relocate and expand pawnshop **Case Number:** C-2015-21 **Proposal:** The applicant sought approval for a conditional use permit to relocate and expand a pawnshop within an existing shopping center. **Key Speakers:** Rich Coppersmith and Jimmy Emmons **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, determining that the proposed relocation and expansion would have no adverse impact on the surrounding area and that adequate public services were available to support the use. **Board Action:** The board approved the conditional use permit with five conditions imposed on the approval. **Outcome:** Approved [timestamp: 00:12:46] ## Shiloh Baptist Church – Conditional use to enclose building for elevator shaft **Case Number:** C-2015-22 **Request:** The applicant sought a conditional use permit to enclose part of the church building for an elevator shaft. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit, citing the minor nature of the expansion and the adequacy of public facilities to serve the project. **Key Speakers:** Ed Holmes and Jimmy Emmons participated in the discussion of this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:14:22] **Outcome:** The board approved the conditional use permit with two conditions imposed on the approval. ## Lexington Cemetery – Conditional use for additional mausoleum buildings **Case Number:** C-2015-23 Lexington Cemetery sought a conditional use permit to construct additional mausoleum buildings on its property. [timestamp: 00:15:27] **Key Speakers:** - Cliff Ashburner - Jimmy Emmons **Staff Recommendation and Rationale:** Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. The recommendation was based on the isolated location of the cemetery and the availability of adequate services to support the proposed mausoleum buildings. **Board Action:** The board approved the conditional use permit with three conditions attached to the approval. **Outcome:** Approved --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approve minutes of February 27, 2015 meeting - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approve minutes of March 27, 2015 meeting - **V-2015-27** — postponed (6-0): Postpone Windswept Ventures LLC variance appeal for 30 days - **C-2015-15** — postponed (6-0): Postpone Central Kentucky Garden Shop conditional use appeal for 90 days - **V-2015-26** — passed (6-0): Approve South Elkhorn Village LLC variance to reduce floodplain setback to 0 feet - **C-2015-21** — passed (6-0): Approve Ideal Exchange conditional use permit to relocate and expand pawnshop - **C-2015-22** — passed (6-0): Approve Shiloh Baptist Church conditional use permit to enclose building for elevator shaft - **C-2015-23** — passed (6-0): Approve Lexington Cemetery conditional use permit for additional mausoleum buildings - **V-2015-25** — postponed (6-0): Continue Invictus LLC variance appeal for 30 days - **V-2015-24** — passed (6-0): Approve Happy Home KY, LLC variance to reduce parking from 5 to 4 spaces --- ## Full transcript Thank you. We'd like to go ahead and we're a minute, 30 seconds late, so we're going to, are you ready? Over there, Tim. Okay. Very good. Very good. We'd like to welcome you to the April meeting of the Board of Adjustment. And a couple housekeeping items, if you would. Anybody who's got a cell phone on it, if you'd please turn them off. And if you do need to make a call, please do so out in the lobby. I'd like to go ahead and swear in everyone that is going to speak today. So if you're going to speak, would you please stand up and raise your right hand? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You can have a seat. Before I read the agenda, I know that we've got minutes for the March 27th Board of Adjustment meeting, and we've had an opportunity to take a look at those. Chair will entertain a motion to approve? So moved. Ms. Meyer? Ms. Whitman, second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? We also have February board minutes also from February 27th, and you all have had a copy of those as well. And if there's no changes, we certainly will entertain a motion to approve. Mr. Griggs makes a motion. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. I'm going to go ahead and read the agenda first and ask if the applicants present. If there's no opposition, we're going to hear those first. And for those that staff has recommended disapproval, we will hear those cases later on today. First of all, I'd like to ask Mr. Emmons, I think we have a couple postponements today. Is that correct? There are two postponements on today's agenda. one of them the applicant is here and the other one is not here today but I did talk to the applicant on the phone the first the first one up here is on page I'm sorry page 2 of your agenda it's item V 2015-27 Windswept Ventures LLC this is for a variance request on a property at 729 Bel Air Avenue I do believe the applicant is here in the audience, and I would just like to say that the staff's recommendation of postponement was based off of some technical issues that came to light during the review of this application. I already have set up a meeting on Monday with the applicant to try and work on their application to make sure that there are no technical issues that would prevent it from being heard next month. Was a postponement then for the month of May? A one-month postponement to your May 29th hearing. I'd like to ask, first of all, if there's anybody else in the audience other than the applicant that wanted to speak on behalf of this case. If not, did you entertain a motion to postpone for 30 days until our next board meeting? So moved. Thank you, Ms. Moore. We've got a motion. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover seconds. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That's a postponement. The next case appears at the top of page 3. It's C2015-15 Central Kentucky Garden Shop. This is a conditional use request for a garden center at 1400 Higby Mill Road. The applicant has requested a postponement until your July 31st, 2015 hearing. The staff would like to point out that their request for their postponement came in after the legal advertising. So it did have to remain on the agenda and the sign remained up on the property, but it came in before the agenda was published. The staff has told the several neighborhood associations and every neighbor that has asked about this, that this item would not be heard at today's hearing and that the applicant was requesting the postponement into the July 31st meeting. We've also told the applicant that it's so far out that when it is time for that July meeting, that they will need to redo their notice letters and send out new notifications to all of the required property owners. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Emmons? Anybody from the audience here pertaining to this case? If not, shall we entertain a motion to postpone until our July Board of Adjustment meeting? So moved. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Is there a second? Mr. Glover, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thanks very much. I'm going to go ahead and sound the rest of the agenda then. The first item is Happy Home Kentucky. Is the applicant here? Yes, sir. I'm present. Very good. Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition to Happy Home? Okay. We'll hear that a little bit later on. The second is Invictus, Noodles & Company. Is the applicant here? Thank you. The staff has also recommended disapproval for that. Is there anybody else here on behalf of that case? Okay, we will hear that case a little bit later. South Elkhorn Village, is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to South Elkhorn Village? Okay. Obviously, the next item, Wimpswept, is postponed. I think the next is Ideal Exchange. Is the applicant here? Is there anyone in opposition to Ideal Exchange? Okay. Shiloh Baptist Church, is the applicant here? Very good. Is there any opposition to Shiloh Baptist Church? Okay. Lexington Cemetery, is the applicant here? Very good. Is there any opposition to Lexington Cemetery? Very good. I think that that is the agenda. The first case is there's no opposition in South Alcorn Village. Would the applicant please come forward and state their name for the record? Rory Cayley with EA Partners. Yes, Mr. Cayley. The board has recommended approval subject to three conditions, Dean. Do you and your client agree to abide by those? Yes, we do. Very good. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that V2015-26 South Elkhorn Villages LLC's appeal for variants to reduce the required 25-foot setback from the floodplain to zero feet in order to construct an addition to an existing coffee shop in a neighborhood business. B1 zone at 4379 Old Harrodsburg Road be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the three conditions recommended by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Meyer, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good. Good luck. I think the next item with no opposition is ideal exchange. Would the applicant please come forward and state their name for the record? Rich Coppersmith. I'm sorry, your last name, sir? Coppersmith. Mr. Coppersmith. Mr. Coppersmith, the office, the planning is recommended approval, subject to five conditions. Do you agree to abide by those five? Yes, we do. I'd like to ask the board if they've got any questions for Mr. Coppersmith. No questions? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move. we approve B. 2015-21 Ideal Exchange, their appeal for a conditional use permit to change the location of a pawn shop within an existing shopping center in order to expand the retail space in a highway business, sorry, a highway service business zone at 510 East New Circle Road, Suite 125, based on the staff's recommendation of approval and subject to the five conditions. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Glover, Seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good. Good luck. Thank you. The next item I believe is Shiloh Baptist Church. Would the applicant please come forward? Ed Holmes, Shiloh Baptist Church. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those? Yes. Does the board have any questions? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve C-2015-22 Shiloh Baptist Church's appeal for a conditional use permit to enclose a portion of the building in order to allow an elevator shaft to be constructed in a planning neighborhood residential R3 zone at 237 East 5th Street for the reasons recommended by staff for approval and subject to the two conditions outlined by the staff. Thank you so much. Ms. Myers, is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Sounds like a good service to provide. Thank you very much. I think the next with no opposition is Lexington Cemetery. Would the applicant please come forward, state their name? Mr. Emmons? Mr. Chairman, there was a gentleman who came in after we asked if there was any opposition. We are trying to, he primarily speaks Spanish, and so we are trying to interpret on whether he does want to speak on this or not. So we're trying to deal with that at the moment just to make sure that he does it. So this gentleman is in opposition? I am unclear. He came into the office earlier this week. Your name for the record? Sorry, my name is Cliff Ashburner with Wyatt Taron Combs. We represent the Lexington Cemetery. Mr. Ashburn. Sir, are you in opposition? Are you opposed to their request? Sir, can you speak to the mic? I can try and track down some translation service. I thought he might have a written statement with him. He just has the staff reports. I still haven't figured out if he's opposed to your request. Nor have we. We don't know. Okay. We believe he's in support of the proposal. He's in support of the motion? Yes. He's in support. Very good. I was going to ask the two of you to go out in the hallway. Mr. Emmons? Luckily, one of our staff members, Dave Jarman in our Division of Planning, is fluent in Spanish, and he was not able to attend today's hearing. But he did give me a translation here asking if he wanted to speak and if he wanted to speak either in support or in opposition. And I believe we were able to just communicate that he is in support. in support of the application, not in opposition. Okay. Well, very good. The staff has actually recommended approval subject to three conditions. Do you agree to abide by those? Yes. Sir, you're welcome to say something if you would like. Gracias. Okay. Very good. I'd like to ask the members of the board if they have any questions. If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the appeal of C-2015-23 Lexington Cemetery for a conditional use permit to construct additional mausoleum buildings, accessory to the cemetery, in agricultural urban zone at 833 West Main Street, based on the recommendation of staff and subject to the three conditions. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck with the project. What I'd like to do is there's opposition on number one, so what I'd like to do is I'd like to move to the second item first. Invictus Noodle and Company, the staff has recommended this approval, but I'd like for the applicant to come forward. State your name for the record sir. Chad Colony. Mr. Colony. The staff has actually recorded disapproval and I'd like to ask Mr. Immons if he would mind discussing first and then we're going to give you an opportunity to address it. I'll go ahead and present from here. The staff recommendation on this particular case, first of all, to set the stage, This is a variance request for a setback in order to build a patio, a property located at 395 South Limestone Street. The property is in a B1 zone, which is a neighborhood business zone, and we are trying to pull up the aerial. The property is at the corner of the Avenue of Champions and South Limestone Street. The building is set up to have at least three tenants in it. On the very corner is the former location of the restaurant of Hugh Jazz Burgers. and then where you can see the yellow canopy coming out in front that used to be eCampus Books. That's the new location of the Noodles & Company. And then there's a unit up above on the second floor on this building. The site is, as you can see from this aerial photograph, is primarily built out within its entirety with the building on the site. In front of the building, there's about 30 feet from the face of the building to the sidewalk. And what is there right now is at the Hugh Jazz corner, there is a patio. And then there are four what we have called non-compliant parking spaces in front of what was the eCampus books and where Noodles & Company is going. Out of those four spaces, the applicant proposes to get rid of two of those parking spaces to put in an outdoor patio. For the most part, this is allowed. This is the applicant's rendering of the proposed patio. It would be next to the pauses. and the next one this is kind of a site plan showing how from a top-down view you would be able to see on the far left on the white would be the huge as patio and then the two remaining non-compliant parking spaces and then the proposed patio. This is just a top-down view and it's color-coded so that you can kind of see the area that has the yellow stripes is an area where the patio as it's proposed is allowed without the need for any variances. The area that's in the striped red is the area that's being requested for the variance so that the patio can come all the way to the sidewalk. The applicant's justification was actually a good justification and it's not without merit asking for the the patio to come out in this entire way. If you're familiar with this area especially as it stretches from the Avenue of Champions kind of down to where the tin roof is at Maxwell Street. That kind of two-block area is part of what has been designated as a pedestrian-oriented business district. That was designated by council in 2012, and that allows an 80% reduction in the required parking for all of the business uses in that corridor. So that's actually huge. There is nowhere else in town that has that sort of a parking reduction. The applicant has submitted and either I can show you what he submitted or he can or if the board wants to see them. But several photographs up and down the corridor where there are other patios that come out to the sidewalk similar to what is proposed. However, as the staff was reviewing this, part of the problem for the staff, and the primary reason why we are recommending disapproval, is kind of illustrated on the drawing. I've added the arrows. If the applicant is allowed to build a patio, albeit a shorter patio, their patio would have seated about six tables. If they built it so that it's seated about four tables and were not granted the variance, the two remaining noncompliant parking spaces would have a greater visual distance as they backed out across the very busy pedestrian sidewalk onto the very busy arterial street. and simply put, not granting the variance is a safer situation than granting the variance. The applicant did have an alternative interpretation on the safety, and I'll let him go over that. The staff does not disagree with that interpretation, but I'm sure it's not surprising to the board that we took the more conservative of those interpretations, and we just simply could not support the requested variance as it was submitted. We were in consultation with Traffic Engineering, and they also agreed, the Division of Planning and Traffic Engineering both are in recommendation of disapproval of this. We did, however, offer in our staff report an alternative that if all four of the noncompliant parking spaces were to go away in favor of the entire area becoming a pedestrian-friendly area and getting rid of those existing parking spaces, we would be in favor of a variant. So it's not a strong disapproval, but it's not a variance request that we could support and recommend approval to you. I believe that concludes our recommendations for approval are because, as it's listed on the two reasons for disapproval, is that by granting the variance, it would create an additional obstruction, which would lessen the sight distance for the remaining parking spaces that are there, and thereby increasing the potential for vehicular pedestrian collisions. And also, even though there is a precedent of other patios in this general vicinity of coming out to the sidewalk, those other ones that create that precedent also do not have the non-compliant parking spots that are here. I believe the applicant could further explain his position and his thoughts for his request. Thank you. Mr. Emmons, does anybody have any questions for Mr. Emmons? Ms. Griggs? I have one. Mr. Emmons, the parking for the entire building, is that a number that you try to determine? In other words, I noticed in your staff report that you don't know what's going on in the suite upstairs. And are there three uses, three spaces on the ground floor? Right now, there are, I believe that there are the four non, on this particular piece of property alone, There are the four non-compliant parking spaces in the front, and there are a, I believe that there is one, it would also be a non-compliant parking space, but one off of Lawrence Street that you can kind of get in off the back. For this applicant, as they were coming in and asking for their approvals for their restaurant, has demonstrated that they are able to get their five required parking spaces for their use. off-site and and be compliant with their off-site off-street parking Thus allowing them to open up independent of what the other uses are. I don't know It's my understanding that a new restaurant will be going into the corner where the Hugh Jazz is But I do not know who that restaurant is or how many seats So therefore we cannot determine its required parking and we are just we do not know what the upstairs use use is at this time. So I can't at this time tell you what the total required parking for all of the uses in this property is. So is that really, I guess you just look at parking requirements on the uses of individual spaces in a building and you're not concerned about the entire building? That's a code enforcement issue? Well, we are concerned about the entire building, but these two parking spaces were traditionally allocated towards the eCampus books, the last user that was there. And so whenever you've got the new user coming into that space and it was allocated, those two of those four noncompliant parking spaces, Hugh Jazz had previously gotten all of their required parking off-site whenever they were coming to the board. So they actually, there was a bit of a history with the Board of Adjustment. The Hugh Jazz did get a reduction to 50% of their required parking so that they would have less spaces overall to rent elsewhere in order to build their patio. Since that time, after the board's action on reducing that one, the council passed the pedestrian oriented business zone, which trumps the board's previous action and gives this area a greater discount than the board could even afford them. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Evans? Jimmy, did you all discuss doing away with all of the parking spots? I mean, did you and the applicant discuss that? We have. We've discussed it several times, and I believe Mr. Colony will tell you that he, of course, is a tenant in the building and doesn't have the authority over those spaces that were earmarked for the other users in the building. I know that he has been working toward that goal, but I don't think that he was able to accomplish it in time and chose to go ahead and request the variance that's before you today for what he could control. It looks to me like from the picture that this patio as planned is either an elevated patio or it has a brick side on the parking side. Am I looking at that correctly? Yes. Yeah, that's the one I'm looking at. And we can talk to the applicant about it as well, but that's my question in general. Any other questions for Mr. Emmons? If you'd bring the lights up, Mr. Colony. Good morning. Good afternoon. Can I approach and give you guys some visuals? Sure. Thank you very much. I think it is too. Right. I can't see the table tops. Thank you for having me today. My name is Chad Colony. I'm the owner of Noodles & Company here in Lexington, Kentucky. I've been a proud resident of Lexington, Kentucky for the last six years. My family and I moved here and we fell in love with the community and we decided that this is where we wanted to raise our family. I had since invested in a family business because we figured that would be the only way to stay here as I was previously in corporate America. I've currently invested over $2 million in the renovation of the old Long John Silver's on Nicholsville Road, turning it into a vibrant trade area, as well as this new location creating two great restaurants. I now currently employ over 80 people. I do believe in small business and I believe as a resident of Lexington, Kentucky that I am a good contributor to the community. Today I'm asking for a variance for the patio of my new restaurant. I believe this is merited for several reasons. First and foremost, I believe that a patio is good for commerce. It's good for the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. It creates a great outdoor environment for the family on limestone. It creates a great upscale urban look. and more importantly, as a result of safety, I'm reducing two very hazardous parking spaces going from four down to two. And I'll talk about that a little bit more. In order to justify my variance, the onus is on me to make sure it doesn't impede public health, safety, or welfare, will not alter the character of the general vicinity, cause a nuisance to the public, or is unreasonable. As it relates to public safety, I would contend that the current parking spaces are very dangerous. No question about it. It's very hard to back out in the street. It's a pedestrian area. There's a lot of students in that area. So my plan would actually eliminate two of those spaces, thus reducing the hazard from four to two. If you'll kindly turn to page number three of my photos, the way I'm going to refer to the parking spaces is one, two, three, four, and that would be from right to left. So in the far right is space number one and going right to left would be two, three, and four. If you flip to the next stage, I would contend in number four that that first parking spot is very dangerous. It is right up against Pazos. It offers almost zero visibility to the public. When you back out, you're basically backing out blind. In my plan, I would reduce those two spots and then the remaining third and fourth spots would have better visibility than the current spots. So I think that my plan would actually increase the public safety. During this process, I've been working with the planning division and Jimmy, and they've been very gracious, honestly, and I think they're fair. In the spirit of compromise, I think I can make a win-win situation here. So what I've done is we've actually revised our plans. If I could pass these out. I believe the major contention was in this plan here is we had pillars that sat above and would impede the remaining two spots. I worked with my architectural design team and they've actually removed those pillars. To answer your question, that stone wall will actually be lowered, so we are going to excavate the parking lot. So rather than build it up, we're actually going to build it down. I've worked with a civil engineer locally to do that. That wall would be no higher than two and a half feet. It's below a car window. And so any remaining parking that resides there would have virtually no impediment to visibility. Now, I'd argue that compared to the parking spots one and two, they will be greatly enhanced. And truly, if you look at slide four again, it's not necessarily the patio that's an impediment, but it's the car next to you. So if you're parked next to that SUV, you virtually have no visibility. So I would argue that all parking lots, one, two, three, and four, with a car next to them, there's no visualization. So by reducing those parking spots from four to two, it increases the overall public safety. As it relates to the character in the vicinity, every restaurant in the area has a patio. I think this is a beautiful patio. We chose limestone to tie into Lexington to make it more friendly. I think everyone would agree that that would enhance the overall aesthetics of the area. As it relates to unreasonable circumstance, I do believe there's a precedent set within the area. The patios have been granted. And furthermore, I do believe that not granting a variance would cause me harm to my business by alienating being the one restaurant on limestone. And I also think as you look up and down limestone, there's a lot of places that go out and drink and have a good time, but there's not really any family restaurants. This is a great family restaurant. It's always an alternative for kids and families alike to enjoy an outdoor environment. A couple follow-ups. I have been working with Greg White. Greg White is the new tenant next door to me. He has a lot of businesses in town. I just spoke to him on the phone on the way down. His intention is to eliminate those final two parking spots. He said he'll be in front of the city with his plans. He wants those gone, too. Unfortunately, I can't give you. He said go ahead and tell the city that. Unfortunately, there's nothing on record that says that he will eliminate them, but that is his goal as well. And then finally, in closing, I would just say that I'm more happy to work with the city in a symbiotic relationship. I believe that the plan I offered overcomes their objectives, and I still believe that by going from four to two spots, it will increase the public safety. This patio will be built like it was with anyone else, all local contractors, all of my investors stay in Lexington, so I believe it's good, creates a more aesthetic-pleasing area. It's good for the economy. It's a nice place for the family to hang out. And I believe I should have the same rights as my neighbors. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cowan. Does anybody have any questions? Now, based on the picture you just gave us or the rendering or drawing, the color drawing that you just handed out, I assume that we've got no architectural structural problems with removing those columns? Yeah, I work with a guy at Reprise out of Minnesota, and his name's Charles. I worked with him all day yesterday and last night. He 100% said this will work great. So what were they there for? More aesthetic, just like it looks nice. The trellises are very light. There's not a lot of weight on top of them, and I think it just provides a nice look. We'll have lights up there just for a nice open seating area. I don't want to take up more time than is necessary, but I didn't really understand your argument about the reduction from 4 to 2 making this space safer. Well, if there were 100 spots and people pulling in and out, it's very dangerous. If you reduce that in half, it's less dangerous. So going from 4 to 2, there's less traffic. There's less amount of cars pulling in and out of a very dangerous situation. Okay. And I believe that the two spots that I'm eliminating, I believe, are the absolute most dangerous today. I mean, if you're parked in that number one spot against Pazzo's, I mean, even though they have a wrought iron fence, they've got beer posters and all sorts of stuff, there's zero visibility through that fencing, and you cannot see when you're backing up. There's loud music playing as well, so there's an auditory element as well. So if you are a pedestrian or a driver, you're seriously impaired. So I believe by eliminating the most dangerous spot, or the two spots, you're relocated to two remaining spots, which, again, Mr. Dr. Greg White is informing that he will eliminate. Is there, from what I understand, your argument is that by making this change, that will eliminate the first reason for the staff's recommendation of disapproval, that the obstructions that the staff was basing their disapproval on was those columns. So while you're here, can I ask Jimmy if that's in fact the case? I do believe that the proposed design solution definitely helps with the sight distance triangle for the cars that are backing out as they're looking at pedestrians and everything like that. I would like to turn the microphone over, though, to Traffic Engineering for their comments. Also, I think she can put their concerns into words better than I could relay them to you. Good. When traffic is looking at this and kind of analyzing the sight distance, I think when we're talking about sight distance towards Pazos, At that point, I'm more looking at the pedestrians because the vehicular traffic is one way on Limestone. So in a car backing out, if I'm in that spot, when I'm looking over my right shoulder, I'm not really looking for vehicular traffic at that point. So I don't know that I would totally agree that the two spots that he is proposing eliminating are the worst two spots. I think the spots three and four, as he was referring to them, the ones closer to the huge Asperger's. The site distance for the pedestrians is still important to me, but I do think that his proposal of lowering the wall and taking out the columns does address that part. Is it fair to say that by eliminating two of those four spots that the danger level to pedestrian is decreased? I don't know that I would state that. I mean, is it a mathematical conclusion? I guess that's my question. I feel like for traffic, the two spots still is not something I could support. you almost have a smaller window there because you're enclosing it. For the record, I don't control those two spots. If I had my druthers, I would create a nice little pedestrian area, and that's why I proposed to my counterpart. In spirit, he agrees to it. He's still working on his final plans. They're going to put two restaurant concepts in there. That's going to be great for the trade area. His intention is to expand patios on both sides, but he too is going to need to come with similar plans. But as of right now, that's his intention. But he doesn't have it. He's not as long as I am. Is it traffic's opinion that the elimination of all the spots would be a safer solution for this area? Yes, that would be probably the optimum design. That would be my choice. From traffic's perspective? Yes, sir. And from the staff's perspective, is it possible to eliminate all four of these spots? I do not think that the board has the authority to eliminate all four of the spots. Oh, no, that's not what I'm asking. I'm just saying if we had a proposal to eliminate all four spots, would we have grounds for disapproval? No. In fact, the Division of Planning, even in our staff report, has gone on record of saying that if all four spots were to go away, that we would be in support of the requested variants. But given that as it was proposed, we felt that it was a safer situation to not grant the requested variants. Okay. Ms. Wall? I have a question for Mr. Mannins. I recall when we considered a variance for the place on the corner that there was a long debate about the awning and a permanent structure there. And this appears to have a permanent roof type structure. How is this different? I don't remember exactly what the issue was, but I do remember we spent a long time debating that. I think I can answer that question. In short, the rules have changed since the board was looking at the original patio, the covered patio for the Hugh Jazz Burgers. The primary change in that is that in business zones that are within the infill redevelopment area, we now require building lines that are a build to. We have a build-to area that is based off of the average setback of the other buildings on the street. And at the time that went in, that regulation was not in place. So you had the typical suburban 20-foot setback. In this particular instance, the Pazos building is about, if I remember my measurements from in the field correctly, it's 12 feet from the sidewalk in the right-of-way. And our ordinance now requires, if you were building an actual addition onto this, that it can be five feet in front of that building or five feet behind that building. So a new building and a building addition, not just a covered patio, could be built as close as seven feet to the sidewalk. However, there is covered porches and patios are allowed to project into your required front yards up to eight feet. However, there's the one section that it's noted at the beginning of the staff report. It's in Article 15 that sets an absolute limit. Notwithstanding other setback allowances, projections have to be at least 10 feet back from the setback. And that is the applicable provision today that is being requested to be varied. Timing. I have a follow-up question to Jimmy. Last night I spoke to the landlord who owns the building, and he brought up the similar that they went through a long process in order to get the variance for their patio. He was under the belief that that patio variance was for the entire building and was questioning why I was here. I told him I'd rather appear from the city and make a compromise and make it right, but that was a follow-up. Do you know if that's possible? Ultimately, the variance for that, I don't think it was for the entire building. No, it wasn't. It was for the corner. That's what I was told. Yeah. It was for the corner. That variance for the covered patio was ultimately disapproved by the Board of Adjustments, so it wasn't in effect anyway. Previously, the variance to reduce the parking was in effect, but that became null and void with the adoption of the pedestrian-oriented business district. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Grace? On this same topic, I'm still a little baffled. The variance requested is from 10 feet to 0 feet, but is that only needed because of the covering? Or could they build a patio without a cover to the 10-foot? Is that 10 feet away from the sidewalk? In this instance, yes. The sidewalk and the right-of-way are coincident with each other. So would they be able to eliminate these two parking spaces and build a patio out to within 10 feet of the sidewalk without coming before us? I believe that he could place seating in that area. Even if it wasn't covered, I would question whether it can be raised or lowered. If there was just seating on the ground, there would be no question on that, being able to come closer. It's the construction. It gets into the ordinance. It's got very detailed on the height, on whether it's a patio or a deck, and sometimes that makes a difference on whether it's allowed to project or not. Well, in the drawing, it looks like his patio furniture is on the tarmac, that he hasn't raised it or lowered it. He's just built a wall around it. So that would be legal out within 10 feet of the sidewalk, covered or uncovered? The seating, yes. It's the structure that they're building around the patio area. Okay, thank you. Any other questions, Ms. Whitman? How high did you say the wall would be at that front corner? How high above the sidewalk? I talked to the architect this morning and said no more than 2 1⁄2 feet. I mean, I'm open to suggestions. How much, Mr. Calony? Two and a half? Two and a half. But if the city has a different opinion or if it wants it lower, again, I'm open to, you know, compromise and making it work for everybody. Thank you. Did you want to speak to this issue? Would you like to come forward? We'll get back with you, Mr. Calony. Please come forward. State your name for the record. i'm jack stewart stew architecture and i'm here to represent the owner of pazzo as the neighbor to this project basically find it very intimidating i guess to have this kind of proximity when the business is really away from where this is i mean it seems like it would belong in front of the business rather than away from the business where there's yet going to be another business I question the wooden combustible structure at the property line. Pretty sure that's not formidable. And I question, I don't see a property line on this site plan to see how he would build his peers that close to that building. It's got to come away in some way. It seemed like it would be better if it were just not that invasive to the other business. Paz's owner is very interested in having a critical mass in the whole area, that there's good business. and another business is fine. It just seems like this is not appropriate to be in a good neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Does anybody have any questions? Thank you, Mr. Stewart. You can have a seat. Mr. Greggs? Looking at the top view or the plan of this structure with its columns and this terrace or wooden lattice above, It looks like it's not connected to the building at all. Does that make it a separate structure? And does that, if it's not connected to the Noodles building proper, does that affect whether it's allowed to be put there? To be honest, I don't actually know the answer to that definitively. It would be an accessory structure if it wasn't considered attached. You're correct, but I apologize. I don't have a definitive answer to that question. Mr. Collin can probably answer that question. Actually, I don't know that I know the legals. I would be more than happy to attach it if that was an issue or a holdup. Mr. Collin, my biggest issue is I don't like any of the four parking spots. I think it's one of the most dangerous intersections in town, particularly with the student traffic, and I'd like to see all of them eliminated, And I'd like to reach some kind of compromise because right now I just am not leaning toward allowing this patty to extend. And I appreciate your willingness to eliminate the two parking spots. But if we've got 100% of danger, you're cutting it to 50%. There's danger nonetheless. I mean, I think that these spots are just a detriment to public safety. One of the things that I'd like, and I know that you and Mr. Immons have talked about this, you know, that if we deny this variance, you know, you'll still have the ability to apply for a shorter patio area. I know that the staff solution was having four tables, and obviously the parking spots would be removed. But if you're talking, the adjoining business said that they were wanting to eliminate their two spots. You would actually have the opportunity to come back before this board and extend the patio if the other two spots were eliminated. Would you be opposed to that? No. I mean, again, I want to work with the city, and I talked to Greg this morning. said he would. It's more about timing for me. I'd like to have it done right away. We're encroaching upon the summer, the busiest time for pedestrian plastic down there. I have the students going away. I'm worried about my own business from a cash flow standpoint. The sooner I can get that patio out there, the more I can impact my business and attract customers during that time period. I guess the way I look at it is right now with four traffic spots, it's terrible. I agree. We all agree it's dangerous. I think that is currently the worst scenario. The second best scenario is eliminate two and the best scenario is to get it down to zero. So if we had a path and Greg would agree to eliminate those two, I would like to be able to go forward with the construction of my two, eliminating two spots with the agreement that he has to take those away within said time. I understand. My big concern is that even eliminating the two spots, it's still, I think it's still extremely dangerous. And I would just like to try to reach some kind of compromise. And I really appreciate your investment in the community and embracing Lexington. And obviously, you've invested quite a bit of money and employing quite a bit of folks. And, you know, we're here to try to help the applicants. And, you know, we're not here to stand in your way. But this is a very unusual circumstance, and it's a very dangerous spot. And I think that you have some options available to you. if we can get cooperation from the other property owner in eliminating those two spots. I'd like to try to reach some type of a compromise here because I still think eliminating the two spots still is going to create quite a bit of danger. I'm just wondering if we can't possibly approve a partial of your patio and then you come back to us if the other two are eliminated and we do that. I think that that would be fair. I know that you want to move forward, but I personally am not prepared to do that today. Okay. And what would that look like? Could I create, I mean, from a construction standpoint, I don't know if I can create half and then continue to create. So I can work with my architect to see if that's even plausible. And I can also work with the other tenant to see how quickly he can get in front of the wall and move forward. Or would he, if he provided a letter with his intentions, is that enough? Well, I'm even wondering, and again, I'm just speaking, I'm not speaking for the board, but I'm wondering if you would like to consult your architect to talk about the feasibility. And I know you want to move forward, but I would much rather have this issue studied a little bit more in length and see what our other options might be. And would you be willing to postpone this for 30 days and come back to us next month and see if we can't come up with some type of a solution? I'd really like to hear what your architect says because for overturning the staff's decision today, I can't speak for the board if they want to make a motion to approve. That's their prerogative, but I'm certainly not willing to move forward with granting your approval. Well, I know that Mr. White is coming to the city with recommendations very shortly. And if those start to proceed and we can collectively work together, I would be more than happy to come back in 30 days with a recommendation that hopefully that we work all together in creating a safe area. Mr. Chair? It would be a continuance if he wanted to consult with his architect and come back next month. But let me just suggest that maybe we could approve his request if we added a condition that it couldn't be built unless all four parking spaces were gone. Then he would not have to come back to us, but he could resolve the issues with the other tenant. And when he does, then his request is approved. I'd like to ask, Ms. Jones, what do you think about that from a legal perspective? Well, the only concern I would have about doing that is if the other tenant doesn't get it. You know, what happens if in 30 days they haven't worked something out? Why would there be a time limit on it? Why not just give him what he wants with a condition that the forced basis have to be eliminated? You can do that if you'd like to. I mean, it will prevent him from building until they can produce something that shows that all four spaces are going to be eliminated. But that's acceptable if that's what the board wants to do, and he's agreeable, or the continuance method would be available, too. I would say that's – I think the optimal plan is to get rid of all four spots. Right. I understand that. And Mr. Griggs, I appreciate you offering that, but I don't think that I would prefer to support a continuance and not have that condition put on it at this time because there's so many answers to the question. We'll give you time, Mr. Collin, to talk to your architect, to talk to the adjoining property owner, and come back and see if we can't find a way to resolve this for all of us. And I would say if, in fact, for whatever reason, if Mr. White or something falls through there, I'd still like the ability to come back and argue the same points if, in fact, those spaces stay. That would be my only contingent. If we just continue this generally without any conditions, we're, in effect, giving him a chance to answer questions and solve problems without requiring any particular thing. So I would support just a 30-day continuance so we can have more information, so he can get more information, perhaps other people, to speak to us and explore alternatives to what we've got, whatever they may be. I agree, Mr. Glover, and that's what I'm trying to suggest. And I think that I would feel more comfortable moving that. And I, again, can't speak for the board, but I see a few heads nodding. So if anybody has any other questions for Mr. Colony or staff, please ask them. And if not, I'd like to entertain a motion to continue this for 30 days. I have one more thing before we continue this, and that is for Pazzo's concerns. I really didn't understand. I don't know that there's a fire issue with this flimsy wooden structure. I don't know that you have a right to suggest that they are blocking your presence on the street. I just wasn't exactly sure what your objection is. just in case we continue this and you wouldn't be back here next month. I just think as it goes forward to the street, it's a little invasive to the adjacent patio. And from a building point of view, for a combustible material structure to be that close is, I don't think, permittable. And to build a foundation that he shows for this is too close to the building, I think. Mr. Emmons, will you look into, before we get back next month, if this is continued, whether this is an accessory structure and whether there's rules about combustible materials on a property line? I will ask the commercial section of building inspection. Thank you. Again, not opposed to having other neighbors in a more, I guess, positive way. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Any other questions? Mr. Glover? Mr. Chair, I move we postpone, I'm sorry, continue V2015-25 Invictus appeal for a variance for 30 days. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Meyer, second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, Mr. Conley. We'll see you next month. Thank you. Appreciate it. I think the last item that we have is Happy Home. And I know that there's some opposition to Happy Home, and when the applicant is ready, I'll ask him. Sir, I know there's opposition to your case here today. Have you two had an opportunity to discuss the – state your name for the record. Yeah, my name is Kyle Holscher. I'm the single member owner of Happy Home Kentucky LLC. I have reached out to Amy via phone and also e-mail, but she had not returned any of my phone call or my e-mail. So we could step outside and speak with her or go ahead and move forward. Let's answer the last one, whatever you prefer. I would prefer, and normally it's our protocol, for any applicant in opposition to step outside. So I'd like to ask for a 10-minute recess. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Come on. What's in this? Thank you. ORCHESTRA PLAYS Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ We'd like to reconvene the Board of Adjustment. The applicant and the opposition have had an opportunity to go out and talk a little bit. Have you resolved your differences? Good afternoon. Unfortunately, I don't believe we were able to reach an agreement at this time, so I think we both would appreciate the opportunity to present our cases to you. Very good. Well, Mr. Holscher, the staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir, I do. I've got very reasonable conditions, and I'm more than happy to abide. Okay. You can have a seat. We'd like to hear from the opposition, and we'll bring you back. Thank you. My name is Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road, like the applicant's property in a National Register historic district. Just briefly, I'd ask that you deny the variance because it allows a density and intensity of use that's really too great for the lot size and for the traditional neighborhood design in the surrounding vicinity, the residential area. My impression is that others of my neighbors share my views on this. I'm a little more hopeful that you'll hear us and we could win a judgment on it. I think that's why there aren't other voices here beside me today. Second, I would ask that you not judge this case if you're inclined to grant approval, not judge it without first seeing an accurate and complete plan to get the whole picture and so that the public can get the whole picture and have an opportunity for comment in advance. I would say that when the staff make a judgment that we don't agree with, make an act or interpretation. Our appeal is to you. When you make such a judgment, our appeal is to circuit court, and that's complicated and expensive. So I would rather that we both had the whole picture before the judgment is made, because it's better to come to you for a first hearing. And finally, I'd ask that you look very closely at the Board of Adjustment permission to vary the parking requirement in an R3 for an R3 use. As I read it, such a variance, which is only possible in the infill and redevelopment area, requires a development plan approved by the Planning Commission following Article 9. And I'd be interested to see whether the staff concurs in that. That's how it looks to me. I think the applicant and I agree on one thing. It's a property that would be happier with an R2 development than an R3. This issue is really not about off-street parking, but rather about floor space relative to lot area. That's to say the FAR. R2 permits an FAR of only 35%. You can build floor space equal to about a third of the lot. R3 permits an FAR of 50%, so floor space equal to half the lot. I think for the developer, the economic constraints urge building floor space equal to half the lot. So the issue isn't really off-street parking, but it's lot area and green space. The lot is relatively small for the zone. The minimum lot size for R3 is 6,000. This lot is somewhere near 6,250. And this lot is crammed, absolutely crammed, in the proposed R3. I guess it's R3 use. It's not clear that an R3 use of this size requested can fully meet the other, the further constraints of the zone. A complete picture of the circumstances of the site is needed to make a balanced judgment. Walkability is not the only issue here. Both the findings of fact and the conditions advised by the staff in its recommendation of approval make reference to the site plan. They refer to open space and numbers of bedrooms. the findings do. That's finding A and C and D. The condition one says the site is to be developed in accordance with the submitted plan and application. What's at issue here is when everything is pushed to the limit, really pushing the envelope, we need to have accurate and complete measurements of things. We need to have record of all the things that pertain to this site to judge whether it can work at all and whether then the parking variance is justified. I'm talking about, I'm trying to summarize here, the dimensions and areas are illegible and sometimes absent. I'd like to see the required open space of 20% reckoned out and reported. I'd like to see the lot coverage of 25% reckoned out and reported. The parking, the vehicle use area, and any required landscape buffering associated with that are also not reckoned and reported. Some of the dimensions are missing. The width of the driveway, which may change. I don't know what width is wanted. The porch width. just simply if you multiply the length by the width, you don't come up with the reported area. So I think the plan is deficient enough. If it's not useful, it's not sufficient to make a fair and balanced judgment. The front lot line is missing, the property line in the front. So all this wouldn't matter if it were kind of sort of nearly all right and we're good to go. but actually everything is just totally pushing to the outer limit of what's permitted. And if it goes this way or if it goes that way, it's going to exceed those limits, and these are limits that can't be varied. So what's going on is you don't have what you need to know whether it would be fair to allow this much building, this much intensity of use, this much population density on this lot. In asking for a variance, the applicant is asking you to exercise your discretion in overriding what the zoning ordinance asks you to do. It says if you have a number of bedrooms and you have a number of units, dwellings in the R3 structure, you reckon the parking on whatever you choose the parking that gives you the greatest number. And the staff and the applicant are saying, well, but there are only four bedrooms. And that would give enough parking already, give us a variance. So they're saying, well, please judge it differently, reckon by the lesser calculation for parking. There's a lot of if-only math. If only the bus stop were a little nearer, the bus stop alone would say you don't need this parking spot. That kind of thing. There's a sort of brinksmanship going on. How far can I get with buildable area? And it's something I don't mean to say this particular applicant is doing something ugly or wrong. I just think that it happens naturally, that the developer is going to want all he or she can get, and the public may find that that pushes too much, that pinch that's too much. And so what happens is there's a plan put in, can I get away with this much? Will this work? Well, then there's another plan put in. And last time I was before you, there was a question about could we have a complete and accurate plan? Could we resolve difficulties and details before it comes to the point of judgment? I think that's important, if for nothing else, so that you don't have long nitpicking hearings. But I don't think it's something where it's right for the board to judge in advance and ask the staff to clear up all those details afterward because there are a great many of them and they actually make it a live or die in terms of whether the project is viable or not. The site plan remarkably doesn't show really anything that gives it an R3 use. The number of bedrooms is not denoted on the plan, and yet the number of bedrooms is the reason for granting a parking variance. There's a single entrance front and rear shown on the plan. There's also a side entrance to the porch, but there's one front door on the existing house. There are two HVAC units shown. So there's nothing really about this plan that says we intend to have our three. It's my impression from talking to the applicant that he doesn't want to build more than two dwellings, that he wants the extra FAR that comes with building or getting permission to build more than two dwellings. That's for him to express about his own situation. But the question here is, he told me in the hall that he spent about $211,000 on this property. It requires a lot of structural work and then after that a lot of rehab and renovation. He says it's not economically viable for him to do anything less than enjoy the FAR, the floor space equivalent to half the lot area. On a lot that's already near the minimum size for everything in the zone and on a lot that's no different from its neighbors, It's really all the lots on that block, all the lots in that residential area are roughly the same size. They get a trifle larger toward the other end of the street. There's really nothing extraordinary in this property. There's no needless hardship he'd undergo in building within the constraints of what is a permitted use, an R2 use, in this R3 zone, and just having a little less floor space. The applicant claims that it would be catastrophic for his business if he didn't get relief from the R3 parking requirement and the concomitant floor space and buildable area of the zoning ordinance. There's a sign in front of the property that offers cash for houses. It offers a decision in one day, doesn't itself represent someone who's in that kind of financial difficulty. He claims that it's some kind of a dispersed property that has a history of neglect and problems. He bought it in an arm's length transaction not long ago for, he says, total cost $211,000. I find it difficult to believe that someone would not be willing to relieve him of that property at that price. That's for him to argue. I do think he knows what he bought when he bought it. He knows its constraints, but also its benefits. He has a number of properties. I'm acquainted with him because he actually looked at the property next door to my house. It's a duplex property. It has almost identical square footage, lot size, to the property he's purchased on ransom. And I was glad he was interested and wanted to invest. He's done some very fine properties on East High within the Aylesford H-1 overlay, as well as the National Register District. We don't enjoy the protection of a H-1 overlay in my National Register District, So I was glad he learned that the buildable area couldn't be increased, and so it was not a property he was interested in investing in. I would not want to see even the four parking spaces permitted by the Board of Architectural Review in the backyard next to my small lot. I think three would be enough. As far as the Board of Architectural Review and its judgment about how many parking spots belong on the lot, that doesn't concern us today because the appeal for that decision is to the Planning Commission. It really has nothing to do with it. But it comes to you to say, please, just tell me I can get by with one fewer parking spaces so that then I can have a 50% floor space in relation to this tiny lot of indeterminate size because we can't see an accurate plan. What is described here looks to me not really like extraordinary hardship, but a regular business plan. It's buy low and sell high or rent high, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's how you make money. But this board and this zoning ordinance exist to put reasonable constraints on the way people use their residential property among their neighbors. It's pushing the envelope. It's my impression that this applicant will build what he can within the legal limits, and it's commendable that he really respects the legal limits and cares about them. He's here for a variance. He didn't just start building it. He has certainly demolished enough that it probably constrains his choices and his opportunity to sell. He bought a property on Chevy Chase at the corner of Romany and Providence, and I wish I had a picture for you. It was a little stone cottage of about, I think, 1,700 square feet. It's twice that now. He blew out the back to a full two-story addition. Clark, can I stop you for a second? That really is not relevant. It's not relevant. To what we're talking about today. Okay. I think the sense is that the request is to build more on a small lot via a variance on a parking constraint. And I think 50% of the lot area in floor space is too much. I think R2 probably would accommodate everyone pretty well. It looks like a good compromise. It was R1 before. And I especially would ask that you consider continuing this until you can see a proper plan. I'm aware that it's very important for investors to move and move quickly. He's already faced a number of delays. When an applicant hands in a plan that doesn't give definite information about the size and shape of the project, it's hard for the public and, in my view, the board as well to render a full and fair and speedy, timely decision. so I would ask that you continue until we can see a plan. He looks to me to be at or over the edge on several of these constraints. The required open space, the lot coverage, and the relationship of parking, vehicle use area, and required landscape buffering to the whole of it. It's not even clear to me about the paving requirement, whether he's over the walkway paving kind of thing. So thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark, before we leave, does anybody have any questions for Ms. Clark? Because I've got a question for you, Ms. Irwin. She's raised a number of questions about, you know, do we have the information that we need to have to make a judgment or a decision on this case? And it talks about lot size, open space landscaping, and I'd like to get staff's opinion, you know, regarding that. I believe that the board does have the information that you need. The request of variance is on the number of parking spaces. It was brought into question on whether the board had the authority to grant such a variance, and yes, you do. In Article 7-6 of the zoning ordinance, it grants the board the specific ability to grant parking variance is up to 50% of the required parking. In this particular instance, a triplex would require five spaces. A 50% reduction would be 2.5. You could allow a reduction on this particular site from 5 to 3. 5 to 4 has been requested by the applicant. It also says in here that it will comply with Article 16.10. And we'll have this flip. And the biggest point of how your authority relates in Article 7 to 1610, 1610 are essentially the parking variances that are allowed by right. If you flip the page for the rest of the regulation. What it's really referring to is there in item 5 where it says the total maximum amount of parking cannot be, even if you did the by-right reductions, the Board of Adjustments reducing it by 50% has to include any of those by-right. So if you took the maximum 15%, the Board would have another 35% that they could grant as a part of this. you couldn't grant 50% plus 15 for a total of 65%. That's how those two regulations work together between the parking variances that are allowed by Wright in Article 16 and the authority that's granted to the board in Article 7. As far as the facts in this particular case, the staff has spelled out in a very detailed staff report. We looked at this variance as we do all variances in the justification. And the applicant's proposed justification for their parking variance was actually a very good and detailed variance application. And when we looked at the unique circumstances for this, the staff did find that the proposed variance is justified. It's justified by, in addition to the required legal requirements of granting any variance, the unique situation that it doesn't cause a negative safety issue, that it's not a circumvention of the zoning ordinance, we addressed all of those. But as we have with all parking variances, we've also applied the additional filters in looking at is it an appropriate justification to grant a parking variance. We looked at the walkability of the site. We looked at alternative parking in the area, and we looked at just kind of just the overall picture of is this a justifiable request. And we would recommend to the board that, yes, it is a justifiable request, and we have said so in our staff recommendation and our reasons and with the appropriate conditions that we have recommended. If you want me to go through those one by one, I can, but. That's all right. Thank you, Mr. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Emmons? Mr. Greggs? Is it building inspections responsibility to check these numbers, these ratios that are required in the zoning code so that the lot coverage and the pavement coverage and the building ratio is that? Do they really go to the, you know, I can sort of see it happening at the counter, the building inspection counter, and they would average things down or average things up to make it easy to do the math and not really worry about how close it is. If it's close, they'll just say, that's fine. That's how I imagine it. One, I don't think that they've looked at things and said it's close. Since I've been doing the Board of Adjustment, any time something doesn't meet, they send the applicants up to talk to me personally. So I've seen a lot of times that people come up from building inspection, and I think they do that. One of the things that it sounds like a very simple question of what you asked on who's got the final authority on this, you have to understand this property is zoned R3 with an H1 overlay. So there are actually multiple people that have to look at this and give authority on this before they can actually get the permits for what they're doing. The exterior of the site, being an H1, is the exterior of the site is controlled by the Board of Architectural Review. There was a first application to the BOAR. They disapproved that. The applicant came back with a new application that matches the proposed site plan that you have today that they did approve. Then when it went to the R3 zone, that's the H1 portion of this, the R3 allows for single-family homes, duplexes, and multifamily, which is a triplex and up. This is a three unit triplex for the single family and the duplexes. The authority to review and the zoning compliance and issue the permits for the single family homes and the duplexes lies solely with building inspection. Of course, the division of planning is there to help anytime they are concerned about something not meeting. And oftentimes they'll send people up to talk to us. Once it becomes a triplex for multifamily and commercial developments, those require the Division of Planning to issue a zoning compliance permit prior to building inspection issuing the building permit. So in this particular case, because the R3 zone allows different types of uses, in this particular case they are proposing a multifamily. So before a building permit could ultimately be issued and finalized for what they're asking for, the zoning compliance permit would have to come out. When we looked, I did meet with the applicant. After they had been to the Board of Architectural Review, had gotten their Certificate of Appropriateness from them, They went to building inspection and they found that they were in a push down, pop up situation. That if they did this, then they didn't comply with that. If they did this, then they didn't comply with that. The applicant actually had multiple options on things that he could do. Ultimately, he chose to build a triplex to build within the physical limits that the Board of Architectural Review had approved on the outside to redo the inside use to the triplex. And in that particular instance, it would need five parking spaces, and the board had the authority to grant four as was proposed by the applicant and approved by the Board of Architectural Review. And we've gone into detail and said all of this in the staff report. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been in the staff report thus far. So I've been talking so long I think I've forgotten what the original question was. The question was, who makes sure that all these ratios are within the allowed zoning ordinance? For a multifamily, ultimately the Division of Planning would have to review it for a multifamily and issue a zoning compliance. Well, and where do they get their data? Do they take it off of this builder-developed site plan where he's got the building rectangle as 32 foot even by 34 foot even? Now, that might be exactly accurate or it might be rough. Further back on this addition, he's got it 17 foot 9 1⁄2 inches, which adds quite a bit of credibility to his measuring. but there's nothing here that says this has been put together by a licensed surveyor. And it does not need to be for a site plan. Well, he needs to be in compliance with these ratios. They do need to be in compliance, and they would have to demonstrate that before we would issue them in compliance. Hold on, Mr. Olsher. We'll finish up, and we're going to bring you up here and let you respond to all of this. So I'm just saying that Ms. Clark has some points that this thing is approaching the limits, limits and I just was wondering how we're sure that it doesn't go over the limits in every one of these ratios that she's mentioned. Prior to construction, they would have to get the appropriate permits and they would have to show all of that. For the purposes of the variance that is being requested of you, there was enough information on the site plan to get at the question about the parking, which is the variance that is before the board today. The use of this, whether it's a triplex, duplex, single-family home, or sixplex, that's allowed by the zoning ordinance, and that's not in question at today's hearing. What's in question is the number of parking spaces. And for that purpose, this site plan is sufficient to evaluate the requested variance. I've got a question for you, Mr. Emmons, about the landscaping. We've got an infill and redevelopment area, so we're increasing density. So in this situation, an infill redevelopment, are there landscaping? So we're going from a single family to a triplex, and is there landscaping that's required? There is a vehicular use area screening. There's not zone-to-zone screening required for this particular area, but the new parking lot that would be constructed would have to be screened. The applicant's proposed site plan indicates that there would be enough area. It would be the property to the south, which as you're looking at this, it would be the property on the left on the driveway side of this where those two parking spaces are, this indicates that there would be enough room to get in the vehicular land use screening. If not, whenever we go to do the zoning compliance permit, we'll have to look at that in particular. But that doesn't necessarily change the question of the numerical number of parking spaces. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Does anybody have any other questions for Ms. Simmons, Mr. Simmons? Ms. Clark, do you have anything to add that you haven't already stated? Yes, a couple of things in response. First of all, I'm encouraged, and I wonder if the staff could clarify. It sounds as though it's the zoning compliance permit that makes the final judgment on whether the open space, the lot coverage, that kind of thing is in good order, which would mean that then our appeal for that is to the Board of Adjustment. as a separate process. Is that right? So I misstated, misapprehended the case. Mr. Adams? Presumably, yes. If somebody had a question on the validity of a zoning compliance permit that we issued, that somebody could appeal that decision as an administrative appeal to the Board of Adjustment. I correct myself in administrative review in front of the Board of Adjustment. Not unlike other ones that you've heard in the past. So I appreciate the correction on that. I misapprehended that. I would still say that just as in the last application that you reviewed where the question was about a cafe, it was really also about the parking, the parking and the cafe. And what you really had to look at was the complete picture to make a reasonable decision about the variance. And I think, in general, that's a good practice. And I think the more things that are at issue or hanging on the edge or pushed to the edge or beyond the edge, because I think some of these measurements are already over the edge, but I can't be sure without the numbers, I think it's important to get a fair sense of the complete picture, not every little detail that is for the staff, but does it work or doesn't it work before you go forward. I would also say that in terms of the financial hardship, I'm aware I'm sympathetic with somebody who wants to build it and get on with it. His money is tied up. That's an important consideration. The financial hardship associated with it, this is someone – I just want to say this is an area that has not only an H-1 overlay but a National Register qualification as well. And the applicant is aware and has put to good use the tax credits available, the financial incentives for building and redevelopment in this area. As long as he follows the federal guidelines for historic rehab, he can qualify for up to 40% of his building expenses back. There's some strings attached. In practice, I would guess it's more like 30% you'd get. This is for things like HVAC and foundations and gutters and everything, including paint. You know, so I just really, I think he's actually shown us elsewhere in town that he can do a credible job of building something that fits well in the neighborhood. And I think on the parking, I wonder if his appeal really isn't to the Board of, sorry, the Planning Commission on a Board of Architectural Review decision. It sounds to me as though his real preference would be to build duplex rather than triplex, and it's the parking requirement that's the problem. So I appreciate it. Thank you, Ms. Clark. The African has been very patient. Come on up, Mr. Holscher. You've heard from staff and you've heard from Ms. Clark, and we'd like to hear your response. Yeah, before I respond directly to some of the previous statements, I did prepare a statement. If I'd be allowed to just read that briefly, it would give you a little bit of background understanding about the project itself. Essentially, the request is simply about parking, although Ms. Clark didn't state any concerns about parking in particular. I'd just like to put a little bit broader perspective on things as well, if that would be okay. Thank you. So to the members of the BOA and to all the residents of Lexington, Kentucky, thank you for your interest in the restoration project at 125 Ransom Avenue. I am personally very excited about this project. I am always excited when I have the opportunity and am able to find the means to restore a historical home that has fallen on rough times to its former glory. This property has, in fact, fallen into a state of terrible disrepair. Over $60,000 is needed just to repair the foundation, the box gutters, eaves, and roof. The walls are literally crumbling from foundation issues, and the constant barrage of water coming in through the box gutters has destroyed the plaster and threatens to rot away the framing itself. Once the renovation is complete, not only will these immediate threats be corrected, but the property will have all new plumbing, electrical, paint, refinished floorings. Simply put, the property will have new life again. I have financing in place for a $300,000 renovation to create a very high-end residence. It is very similar to a project I completed at 623 East High Street. That was a six-plex slum that I had renovated into a luxury triplex. It was a case where I was doing the opposite and reducing the total density of the property. I always enjoy reducing the density where I can. In fact, 10 out of the last 10 renovation projects I have completed have either reduced the density or kept them as single-family homes. Unfortunately, an additional unit on 125 is going to be required to achieve the financing. The only issue for preventing the plan from proceeding is merely an aesthetic issue. I'm requesting that one less parking spot be required so that there's more green space in the backyard for future residents. I personally don't have a strong opinion whether there are five spots or four spots, but I've been working diligently for seven months now with the Board of Architectural Review, and they have a very strong opinion that they would prefer four spots versus five spots. This is in line with their recommendations as another division of planning and historic preservation. This project will be completed under the guidelines of not only the Lexington Board of Architectural Review, but also the Kentucky Historic Preservation Department and also the United States Federal Historic Preservation. The renovation to the interior of the house will be entirely reversible. Long term, it will be possible to return the property to a single family home once the renovation costs have been recovered. For the meantime, there is absolutely no other way to finance the renovations. I have personally tried to sell the property three different times, and the couples looking to buy the property were unable to secure financing because the property simply won't appraise as a single-family home due to the extent of the renovations required. So what would happen if the parking spot is not approved by you today? Well, for one, I will lose all my financing. That would mean I have no money for any of the repairs required for the project. without adequate funds for the property, it would remain in a very poor condition. Being in a poor condition, it would only attract the very worst of residents, and it would decrease the value of the neighborhood rather than increase the overall property values of the neighbors. I'm happy to have the staff share my contact information with any other citizens of me watching at home and have a personal interest in the project. I've reached out to all of my neighbors on the street, including reaching out to Ms. Clark as well. Unlike the way she previously characterized the neighbors, they're actually quite excited about this project. The house has been sitting vacant for over two plus years. If you look up at the eaves, they're literally rotting and falling down. You've got raccoons and birds nesting. All that water is just rushing into the interior of the house. As you guys are probably well aware, there is a large number of abandoned properties that are in a state of disrepair in the city. Last time I checked, the number's gone way beyond 100 is growing closer to 200 properties that are sitting either vacant or completely neglected here in the city. I'm one of those rare people that have just a tiny bit enough money to go in and take on an ambitious project like this. Most of the, say, more well-to-do construction folks here in time are real estate professionals. They don't really want to bother with these sorts of neighborhoods because it is very difficult to follow all the guidelines and rule. My very first application for this project was submitted to the City of Lexington on September 24th. Coincidentally, that's exactly seven months to the date today. I am just a very, very small investor. investor. I only own two other properties for Happy Homes Kentucky and they're also in these same neighborhoods and I do have funds lined up to do a great deal of repairs to them. I don't do this for the financial gain. If you look at the numbers of this project and I'm happy to share those with you in private, this project's a loser. You know if I could unbuy it I would. It's at best a break-even prospect if you approve the parking spot today and i can get started if you don't i'll really be completely left without any options whatsoever and the property will remain in a deteriorated state so although the uh the question today is about parking which ms clark really didn't comment on at all there is a a greater um i guess background related to the project i I really wholeheartedly enjoy doing this kind of restoration work. It gives me personal satisfaction to find a home that is just beyond repair and find a way to save it since so many of them are not probably well aware of all the properties that were just bulldozed on Euclid Avenue near the new Kroger. It's a challenging business to come in and protect these properties, and frankly I'm probably in a little over my head financially on this one. And I really have no idea what I'll do if this is not approved. It will be kind of just the minimum band-aids to try and hold the property together because I'll really be lost without any options. The sign that Ms. Clark referred to in the front yard is actually not my rental company sign, Happy Homes Kentucky. That is the general contractor sign. I don't have the funds to come in and pay cash for a property like this, nor do I have the cash to do a renovation like this. It's completely based on financing from the bank, which is in jeopardy at this point. Thank you, Mr. Holzer. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions for that. Could I just comment a couple other things that have been spoken about previously? Landscaping was a question that came up. There is a full landscaping plan in place that's been submitted to the Board of Architectural Review and the staff level and historic preservation. I'd encourage anyone who has a concern to reach out to that department and review it, and I'd be happy to take anyone's opinion into account and make adjustments. I think it's a very nice landscaping plan. Before, when you saw the site plan, what's not shown in there is the entire right side of the property, behind my property and several properties next door is all a B2A zoning. These are all massive commercial structures that are built as close to the property line as possible. This property being zoned R3 probably should be more realistically zoned B2A. In my naivety, I didn't request the zoning change because I was told it would take about six months, and here I am seven months later wishing that I had got that process started sooner. But I do have a viable business plan that allows me to at least break even in the short term to recover the cost of the renovations. And I'd very much like to get started on the project after a very, very long delay. Just to correct one thing that Ms. Clark said, I do thank you for coming today. You're clearly someone that loves Lexington very much and is concerned about the development. I just think that we disagree, as you mentioned before. what is the best way to proceed in this case. As someone that has invested a large amount of my own money into reviving the city, I hope that I have a little bit of credibility that I do know what I'm doing and that I will make sure this is a wonderful property. As far as the accuracy of the plans go, there are a different set of plans required for the city in addition to what's been presented today, and I can validate the accuracy of those plans. And one comment on the National Registry. It is a very difficult process. Usually you can receive up to 30% of eligible renovations, so not of the total cost of the renovation, but only portions deemed eligible. However, here on the state level in particular, those funds are never allocated in their entirety, and rather than to pick winners and losers for projects, in general, only about 10% of the requested amount is granted, if granted at all. But these plans have been carefully reviewed by Mike Radeke here in Frankfurt for the Kentucky Historic Preservation Office, who also oversees the federal submissions for the state of Kentucky. And these are actually built off of his recommendations. I'm trying to take a very responsible approach here and make the very best possible property for my neighbors who I think maybe Ms. Clark was a little bit misinformed. They're actually quite excited about this project. I've reached out to all of them personally in communication. Many of them have gotten back to me and we've had long conversations. They are quite excited to see a property that's been sitting vacant for over two years, literally rotting to the ground in front of their eyes to have a new life again. They're familiar with my previous track records, and I don't have student housing. I have nothing against students, but when you're spending $300,000 on a project to make it very nice, you tend to attract very much young professionals, hospital administrators, doctors, tend to be who reside in my properties. So sorry for being so long-winded, but I have waited seven months to have a chance to come and speak with you today. I'd be more than happy to respond to any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Osher. Questions for the applicant? Mr. Osher, you can have a seat. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Clark, did you have something that you wanted to add? First of all, I want to say that I really do appreciate the work he has done in Lexington and look forward to him doing more of that. I would hate to be the one that says your whole company has to go down in ruin. We agree very much on wanting to have usable open space. What we disagree on is how much is actually possible under his program. I think the floor space is what's at issue. As far as eligibility, I was reckoning the National Register financial help at commercial percentages, which I believe is 20% from the feds, and that doesn't vary. And I quite agree that the state funds that could contribute as much as 20% more toward the qualifying expenses are sadly restricted and it might come out to about the half. So I would say in toto for commercial, it may come nearer to 30% of the qualifying expenses than 10%. I think the neighbors have had a lot to say at several Board of Adjustment meetings or in correspondence, Board of Architectural Review meetings or in correspondence. it's my definite impression that they wanted to see less parking than even the Board of Architectural Review granted and the issue really is the open space on the lot so there's a lot to agree on and I hope there'll be a way to make this project viable within the design of the neighborhood thank you very much Ms. Clark does anybody have any other comments? If not, I would ask the board's pleasure and ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the 2015-24 Kyle E. Holcher DBA Happy Home Kentucky Inc.'s appeal for a variance to reduce the required parking for a triplex from five spaces to four spaces in a Planned Neighborhood Residential Historical District Overlay Zone at 125 Ransom Avenue for the reasons expounded by staff and the applicant and subject to the four conditions listed in the application of the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? I second the motion. Ms. Whitman, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Your motion carries. And Mr. Holscher, good luck with the project. And Ms. Clark, I want to say to you, we wish we had more folks that were as passionate about this city as you have. You've been before this Board of Adjustment, and you're always well prepared to do your homework. And I just want to applaud your efforts as a citizen to come out here today and make sure that we're all doing the right things. And I think Mr. Holscher has certainly gone through the right channels through this process, and I commend you for that and wish you well on the project and wish you both well. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate the kind words. Sometimes you can lose the motivation in a long process like this, so it does mean a lot to me. Thank you. Very good. Good luck. I'll ask if does any member have anything to say, anything to add? I'd like to know, Mr. Glover, that our next meeting will be May 29, 2015. And with that said, does anybody else have anything? All righty. If there's no further business, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you all for your time. Thank you. Thank you.