# Board of Adjustment - May 29, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 29, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3668 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3668?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-05-29 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 23,090 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 Planning Services Section met on May 29, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. Barry Stumbo presided over the meeting, which addressed nine agenda items including variance appeals, conditional use appeals, and administrative appeals. The board took 10 motions and votes during the session and heard 9 public comments from attendees. Of the nine appeals considered, seven were approved and two were disapproved. The approved items included four variance appeals (Invictus, LLC & Spartan Pastabilities, LLC; Pine Knoll Farm/Gillian Vallis; Emerge Development; and Greer Land Company), three conditional use appeals (First Alliance Church; Tates Creek Presbyterian Church; and Sumya Elgumati), and one combined conditional use and dimensional variance appeal that was disapproved (Windswept Ventures, LLC). The board also heard an administrative appeal from Brenda Mack, which was disapproved. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on May 29, 2015: * Barry Stumbo * James Griggs * Janice Meyer * Joan Whitman * Kathryn Moore * Thomas Glover * Larry Forester * Casey Kaucher * Chuck Saylor * Thomas Clements * Jim Marx * Andrea Brown * Bill Sallee * Jimmy Emmons * Tammye McMullen No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Board of Adjustment approved nine items during this meeting, with all votes passing unanimously. **V-2015-31** [timestamp: 00:04:03]: Approval of variance to reduce required setback from right-of-way from 30 feet to 25 feet to partially enclose an existing riding arena in A-R zone at 1101 N. Yarnallton Pike. Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously with all seven members voting in favor: Barry Stumbo, James Griggs, Janice Meyer, Joan Whitman, Kathryn Moore, Thomas Glover, and Larry Forester. Conditions included development according to submitted site plan and obtaining encroachment agreements from LFUCG and utility companies prior to enclosure. **V-2015-34** [timestamp: 00:04:34]: Approval of variance to reduce required side yards from 5 feet to 3 feet to construct apartment buildings on three lots in R-3 zone at 412, 422, and 424 East Third Street. Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed unanimously. Conditions required Zoning Compliance and Building Permits prior to construction, and specified that the variance applied only to side yards between the three new buildings, with exterior yards required to meet the 5-foot setback. **V-2015-35** [timestamp: 00:05:39]: Approval of variance to reduce required project exterior yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to build an addition to an apartment building in R-4 zone at 858 Malabu Drive. Motion by Kathryn Moore, seconded by James Griggs. Passed unanimously. **C-2015-28** [timestamp: 00:06:48]: Approval of conditional use permit to expand and pave an existing grass parking lot in A-U zone at 2201 Old Higbee Mill Road. Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously. Conditions included obtaining necessary permits and compliance with Engineering Manual requirements for paving, detention facilities, and landscaping. **C-2015-29** [timestamp: 00:10:05]: Approval of conditional use permit to construct a building addition to an existing church (nursery expansion) in A-U zone at 3900 Rapid Run. Motion by James Griggs, seconded by Janice Meyer. Passed unanimously. Conditions included obtaining necessary permits, paving and landscaping parking areas, implementing storm water management, and preserving existing tree lines and fencing. **C-2015-30** [timestamp: 00:11:11]: Approval of conditional use permit to operate a community outreach center in R-4 zone at 572 Georgetown Street. Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed unanimously. Conditions required parking lot re-striping within three months and documentation of extended parking agreements. **V-2015-25** [timestamp: 00:52:11]: Approval of variance to reduce required front setback from 10 feet to 0 feet to construct an outdoor patio in B-1 zone at 395 South Limestone. Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Larry Forester. Passed unanimously. **CV-2015-27** [timestamp: 01:37:14]: Disapproval of conditional use permit to extend I-1 zone regulations 25 feet into R-3 zone at 729 Bellaire Avenue. Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed unanimously. **CV-2015-27** [timestamp: 01:38:26]: Approval of dimensional variance to reduce required 100-foot distance from residential zone to 2 feet in I-1 zone at 729 Bellaire Avenue. Motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Joan Whitman. Passed unanimously. **AV-2015-32** [timestamp: 02:30:20]: Disapproval of administrative appeal to change non-conforming use from beauty salon to cocktail lounge/bar and parking variance in R-3 zone at 400 Chestnut Street. Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by James Griggs. Passed unanimously. ## Public Comment The meeting included public comments on two primary topics: the proposed Windswept Ventures driveway and Brenda Mack's bar application. **Windswept Ventures Driveway** Three residents spoke in opposition to the proposed driveway: - **Sarah Williams** [timestamp: 01:00:00] expressed concern about the safety of children and pets, noting that the proposed driveway would be only 10 feet from a residence. She cited a dog already killed by traffic and raised concerns about increased risk from 20-30 employees. - **Seward F. Taylor** [timestamp: 01:10:18] shared personal experience of neighborhood changes and expressed concern about increased traffic and safety hazards from the new driveway, particularly given the proximity to the Legacy Trail. - **April Taylor** [timestamp: 01:14:57] appealed to the board to consider the human impact of gentrification and requested that the driveway be relocated to the far end of the property. **Brenda Mack's Bar Application** Four residents spoke in opposition to the bar application, citing safety concerns: - **Theodore Berry** [timestamp: 02:04:49] highlighted violent crime in the area, including shootings at the intersection, and emphasized the danger of adding a bar to a neighborhood already affected by drug activity. - **John Williams Jr.** [timestamp: 02:09:44] stated that the area is dangerous and that a bar would bring more crime, violence, and drunken people to the neighborhood. - **Odell Moss** [timestamp: 02:11:28] shared personal fears of violence and expressed determination to stay in the neighborhood despite dangers, emphasizing the need to protect residents. - **William Bond** [timestamp: 02:18:52] stated that the neighborhood has become dangerous and that a bar would worsen the situation, citing the need for safety and peace. Two speakers addressed the bar application in support or defense: - **Andre Regard** [timestamp: 02:20:30] argued that the use is in the same classification as a conditional use in B1 zone and that the applicant is willing to accept conditions to ensure responsible operation. - **Brenda Mack** [timestamp: 02:24:13] stated she is from the neighborhood and wants to open a private, limited bar with controlled hours and drink limits to avoid contributing to neighborhood problems. ## Contested Items The meeting included three items that generated significant community concern and board discussion. **Windswept Ventures Driveway and Conditional Use** Residents strongly opposed the proposed driveway for Windswept Ventures, citing safety concerns for children and pets. Community members pointed to a history of traffic incidents in the area and referenced a dog that had been killed by a vehicle, arguing that the driveway would exacerbate existing hazards. **Brenda Mack's Bar Application** The application generated deep concern from residents about the potential impacts on neighborhood safety and quality of life. Community members expressed worry about increased crime, violence, and traffic, noting that the neighborhood was already experiencing drug activity and shootings. **Invictus Noodles & Spartan Pastabilities Patio Variance** The Board engaged in heated discussion regarding the proposed patio variance for this establishment. The primary disagreement centered on the extent of the proposed patio coverage. Board members and community participants raised concerns about pedestrian safety and the potential for the decision to set a precedent for future design requests in the area. ## Variance Appeal: Invictus, LLC & Spartan Pastabilities, LLC [timestamp: 00:12:32] The Board considered a variance request submitted by Invictus, LLC and Spartan Pastabilities, LLC for property located at 395 South Limestone. The applicant sought approval to reduce the front setback requirement from 10 feet to 0 feet to construct a covered patio. **Presentation and Revisions** The applicant presented an initial plan that was subsequently revised during the review process. In response to Board feedback, the applicant eliminated four non-compliant parking spaces from the original proposal and modified the structure design to feature a pergola-style construction rather than the initially proposed design. **Key Discussion** The variance request was discussed by Board members including Jimmy Emmons, Chad Colony, and Jack Stewart. The discussion centered on the setback reduction and the feasibility of the revised site plan with the reduced parking configuration. **Public Opposition** Public comment was received during the meeting, with opposition expressed regarding the variance request. **Conditions and Approval** Despite the public opposition, the Board approved the variance request. The approval included conditions designed to address safety and site management concerns. Notably, the Board required the installation of suitable barriers to prevent vehicles from entering the sidewalk area, ensuring that the reduction in setback would not create hazards for pedestrians. **Outcome:** Approved with conditions ## Variance Appeal: Pine Knoll Farm/Gillian Vallis **Identifier:** V-2015-31 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a variance request for Pine Knoll Farm, submitted by Gillian Vallis, to reduce the setback requirement from the right-of-way from 30 feet to 25 feet. The variance would allow for the partial enclosure of an existing riding arena located in an A-R (Agricultural-Residential) zone. [timestamp: 00:03:09] Lynn Pedigo presented the item to the Board. The applicant agreed to accept the recommended conditions associated with the variance approval. No opposition to the request was raised during the meeting. The Board approved the variance as presented. ## Variance Appeal: Emerge Development **Case Number:** V-2015-34 **Outcome:** Approved Benjamin Clements presented the variance appeal for Emerge Development [timestamp: 00:04:34]. The Board considered a request to reduce required side yards from 5 feet to 3 feet to permit the construction of apartment buildings on three lots located in the R-3 zone. The applicant agreed to the conditions imposed by the Board. No opposition to the variance was raised during the meeting. The Board approved the variance as requested. ## Variance Appeal: Greer Land Company **Case Number:** V-2015-35 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a variance request from Greer Land Company to reduce the required exterior yard setback from 20 feet to 5 feet for the construction of an addition to an apartment building located in the R-4 zone. [timestamp: 00:05:39] Matt Carter presented the variance application to the Board. The applicant agreed to accept the conditions associated with the variance approval. No opposition to the request was raised during the meeting. The Board approved the variance as requested. ## Conditional Use Appeal: First Alliance Church The Board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2015-28) for First Alliance Church to expand and pave an existing grass parking lot located in the A-U zone [timestamp: 00:06:48]. **Presentation and Discussion** Homer Strader presented the application to the Board. The proposal involved improvements to the church's parking facilities through expansion and paving of an existing grass lot. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit. The applicant agreed to accept all conditions associated with the permit, and no opposition to the proposal was raised during the meeting. ## Conditional Use Appeal: Tates Creek Presbyterian Church The Board considered a conditional use permit application for Tates Creek Presbyterian Church to construct a building addition for nursery expansion to an existing church located in an A-U zone [timestamp: 00:10:05]. **Presentation and Key Speaker** Jeremy Kelly presented the application to the Board. **Application Details** The proposal involved constructing a building addition to expand the church's nursery facilities. The church is situated in an A-U zoned area. **Board Action** The Board approved the conditional use permit. The applicant agreed to accept the conditions imposed by the Board as part of the approval. **Public Input** No opposition to the application was raised during the meeting. **Outcome** The conditional use permit was approved. ## Conditional Use Appeal: Sumya Elgumati **Identifier:** C-2015-30 **Overview** The Board considered a conditional use permit application by Sumya Elgumati to operate a community outreach center in the R-4 zone [timestamp: 00:11:11]. **Presentation and Discussion** Sumya Elgumati presented the application for the conditional use permit. The applicant agreed to the conditions associated with the permit. **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit. No opposition was raised during the consideration of this item. ## Conditional Use and Dimensional Variance Appeal: Windswept Ventures, LLC **Case Number:** CV-2015-27 **Outcome:** The Board disapproved the conditional use permit but approved the dimensional variance with conditions. **Overview** The Board considered a conditional use permit and dimensional variance appeal submitted by Windswept Ventures, LLC. The conditional use permit sought to extend I-1 zone regulations into an R-3 zone, while the dimensional variance addressed operable windows in the southern portion of the building. **Key Participants** The following individuals participated in the discussion: Ross Steintorf, Sarah Williams, Seward F. Taylor, April Taylor, Aaron Baker, Theodore Berry, John Williams Jr., Odell Moss, William Bond, and Andre Regard. **Conditional Use Permit Decision** The Board disapproved the conditional use permit to extend I-1 zone regulations into the R-3 zone. Safety concerns regarding a proposed driveway near residences were the primary basis for disapproval. The Board determined that the proposed use posed unacceptable risks to the residential area. **Dimensional Variance Decision** The Board approved the dimensional variance for operable windows in the southern portion of the building. This approval was granted subject to specific conditions that the applicant must satisfy. **Transcript Location** Relevant discussion of this agenda item begins at approximately [timestamp: 01:37:14]. ## Administrative Appeal: Brenda Mack The Board considered an administrative appeal by Brenda Mack to change a non-conforming use from a beauty salon to a cocktail lounge/bar, along with an associated parking variance request. [timestamp: 02:30:20] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Board members Jimmy Emmons, Billy Mallory, Aaron Baker, Theodore Berry, John Williams Jr., Odell Moss, William Bond, and Andre Regard, along with appellant Brenda Mack. **Board Decision** The Board disapproved the administrative appeal and denied the parking variance. **Rationale** The Board's decision was based on two primary concerns: - **Increased intensity of use**: The proposed change from a beauty salon to a cocktail lounge/bar represented a significant increase in the intensity of the non-conforming use at the location. - **Neighborhood opposition**: The Board cited overwhelming opposition from the neighborhood regarding the proposed use change. The combination of these factors—the more intensive nature of the proposed cocktail lounge/bar operation compared to the existing beauty salon, coupled with substantial community objection—led the Board to deny both the use change and the parking variance necessary to support it. --- ## Decisions - **V-2015-31** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance to reduce required setback from right-of-way from 30 feet to 25 feet to partially enclose an existing riding arena in A-R zone at 1101 N. Yarnallton Pike - **V-2015-34** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance to reduce required side yards from 5 feet to 3 feet to construct apartment buildings on three lots in R-3 zone at 412, 422, and 424 East Third Street - **V-2015-35** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance to reduce required project exterior yard from 20 feet to 5 feet to build an addition to an apartment building in R-4 zone at 858 Malabu Drive - **C-2015-28** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit to expand and pave an existing grass parking lot in A-U zone at 2201 Old Higbee Mill Road - **C-2015-29** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit to construct a building addition to an existing church (nursery expansion) in A-U zone at 3900 Rapid Run - **C-2015-30** — passed (0-0): Approval of conditional use permit to operate a community outreach center (health screening, food and clothing bank, etc.) in R-4 zone at 572 Georgetown Street - **V-2015-25** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance to reduce required front setback from 10 feet to 0 feet to construct an outdoor patio in B-1 zone at 395 South Limestone - **CV-2015-27** — passed (0-0): Disapproval of conditional use permit to extend I-1 zone regulations 25 feet into R-3 zone at 729 Bellaire Avenue - **CV-2015-27** — passed (0-0): Approval of dimensional variance to reduce required 100-foot distance from residential zone to 2 feet in I-1 zone at 729 Bellaire Avenue - **AV-2015-32** — passed (0-0): Disapproval of administrative appeal to change non-conforming use from beauty salon to cocktail lounge/bar and parking variance in R-3 zone at 400 Chestnut Street --- ## Full transcript Your seats. Good afternoon. Welcome to the May Board of Adjustment meeting. Just a couple of housekeeping rules, if we would. If you have a cell phone, please turn it off. And if you need to take a call, please do so outside in the lobby. Anyone who is going to speak today, would you stand up and raise your right hand? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You can have a seat. I don't think we have any withdrawals, Mr. Emmons. I'm going to, and I don't think we have any minutes either to approve. So I'll go ahead and read the agenda and see if the applicant is present. If there's no opposition, we'll hear those first. If there is opposition, we do ask that the opposing party step into the hallway and try to resolve the issues, and then any administrative appeals will be heard last. The first case is Invictus Noodles and Spartan Positibilities. Is the applicant with us? Very good. Is there any opposition? Okay. I believe the next case is Pine Knoll Farm. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Pine Knoll Farm? The third case is Emerge Development. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Emerge Development? Any opposition to number three? Greer Land Company. The applicant is here. Is there any opposition to Greer Land Company? Windswept Ventures. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Windswept Ventures? Okay. First Alliance Church. The applicant is here. Is there any opposition? Any opposition to First Alliance? Tates Creek Presbyterian Church. Applicant is here. Is there any opposition to Tates Creek Presbyterian Church? Sumya El Gumadi. I don't know if I'm doing that right. The applicant is here. Is there any opposition? Any opposition to item four? And then the administrative appeal or review for Brenda Mack. Is the applicant with us today? Is Brenda Mack here? Yes. Okay. We will hear your case last since it's an administrative appeal. I believe going back to the agenda, the first case with no opposition is Pinell Farm. Would the applicant please step forward? State your name for the record. Lynn Pettigo. Ms. Pettigo, the staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, we do. Is there any questions from any of the members of the board? Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that E-2015-31 Pine Knoll Farm Gilligan-Vellis appeal for variance to reduce the required setback from the right of way from 30 feet to 25 feet at its closest point in order to partially enclose an existing right arena in the agricultural zone at 1101 North Yarmilton Pike be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the two conditions recommended by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Forrest, second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, Ms. Pettigall. Thank you. The next item with no opposition is a merged development. Would the applicant please come forward? State your name for the record. Benjamin Clements. Mr. Clements, the staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Do you agree to abide by those? Yes, we have no problem with that. I'd like to ask if any member of the Board of Adjustment has a question for Mr. Clements. Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve V2015-34 Emerged Development's appeal for a variance to reduce the required side guards from 5 feet to 3 feet in order to construct an apartment building on each lot in a planned neighborhood. are three zone at 412, 422, and 424 East 3rd Street as recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Miner. Do we have a second? Second. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with your project. Thank you. Greer Land Development. Good afternoon. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter, the stack has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you and your client agree to abide by those? We do. Ask the board if they have any questions of Mr. Carter. Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that V201535 Greer Land Company's appeal for variance to reduce the required project exterior from 20 feet to 5 feet in order to build an addition to apartment building and high-density apartment zone at 858 Malibu Drive be approved for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the two conditions recommended by the staff. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Griggs seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck, Mr. Carter. I think the next with no opposition is First Alliance Church. Will the applicant please come forward, state their name for the record? Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Ammons. As the applicant is approaching, the staff did receive one letter of concern, not necessarily in opposition to this. I'll pass out a copy to the board now. Please do. My name is Homer Strader, and I serve on the board of First Alliance Church. Very good. Mr. Schrader, give us just a second and let him pass that out to us, and we'll take a glance at it. Very good. Ms. Schrader, this, actually this email that we have is in regard to some trees that you had wanted to save at one point, but the trees are no longer there. And it just says it would be nice to have a small section of road improve because they have curb and gutter on the properties adjacent to the property. Yes. These trees were on the right-of-way that's in front of our church. and they were old and they were what I call just boundary trees that just emerged, hackberries and things like that. And because they were right there on the street and they were falling apart, we took them out one by one as they lost limbs out of them. So they are all gone now. They have been there for a long time. They were within feet of the right-of-way, well, within feet of the surface. So they are all gone. Very good. And I would add that we recognize that trees are important to our environment. They're also important to the way our property looks. And within the past five years, we actually planted 40 new trees. And if you drive by there today, you'll see those. They're thriving. The way we've done, we've lost one or two, but they're doing well. And we did that with some help from the city. So we more than replaced the trees that were taken out that were there along the highway. Thanks for making that point, Mr. Schrader. The staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Do you agree to abide by those? We do. Very good. Does any member of the board have a question for Mr. Schrader? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve C. 2015-28 First Alliance Church appeal for a conditional use permit to expand and pave an existing grass parking lot on an agricultural urban zone at 2201 Old Higby Mill Road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? No, a second. Mr. Forrester, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next item on the agenda with no opposition is Tate's Creek Presbyterian Church. Would the applicant please come forward? State your name for the record. Name is Jeremy Kelly. Good afternoon. The staff has recommended approval subject to seven conditions. Do you and your client agree to abide by those? Yes. I'd like to ask the board if they've got any questions. Hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve 2015-29 Tates Creek Presbyterian Church appeal for a conditional use permit to construct a building addition to an existing church in an agricultural urban zone at 3900 Rapid Run Road based on the staff's recommendation of approval and subject to the conditions. Thank you, Mr. Griggs. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Meyer, second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Very good. Good luck with the project. I believe the last item with no opposition is item number four, Sumya El-Gumadi. Would the applicant please come forward and state your name for the record? And I know that I did probably not a very good job in enunciating it. So. Good afternoon. My name is Samaya El-Gamadi. It's okay. Well, that's fairly close. Thanks for being here. I know the staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes. Very good. Is there any questions from any member of the board? Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve C-2015-30 Sumia El-Gumadi's appeal for a conditional use permit to operate a community outreach center in a high-density ARFO 4 zone at 572 Georgetown Street for the reasons recommended by the staff and subject to the three conditions. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Is there a second? I second. Ms. Whitman, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Good luck, Samaya. Thank you so much. Going back to the, I believe that's all, the cases without opposition. We're going to go back to the first case that has opposition, Invictus Noodles and Spartan Positibilities. This is also, would the applicant please come forward and state your name for the record? Chad Colony. Mr. Collin, this is also a continuance from our meeting last month. Before we begin, I'd like to see if staff has anything, any report that they'd like to give. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, This case, V2015-25, is an amended application since your Board of Adjustment meeting last month. I will be very brief in my comments, and I will talk mainly from the supplemental staff report that outlines the differences between where this application was at your last meeting on April 24th and now. If you remember, the purpose of this is a variance request to allow some outdoor patio space on the front of the property at 395 South Limestone to have covered patios. There was a lot of discussion. There are existing four non-compliant parking spaces that back directly onto South Broadway and across the very wide sidewalk in this heavily pedestrian-oriented area. Originally, the staff had recommended disapproval primarily off of our concern for the safety of this particular application. the applicant was going to get rid of two of those four spaces, and we felt that it was left in unsafe situation to have the two remaining noncompliant staff reports. On May 17th, after your hearing, the applicant officially amended their application. If you remember, the board said basically go back, talk with the other business uses, and talk with the owner, and that's exactly what the applicant did. and that resulted in an amended application adding in both restaurants and an amended site plan that shows getting rid of all four non-compliant parking spaces. They are now requesting a variance to allow the entire area to become a covered patio area. If we can go on, this is just showing that it's for the entire frontage from the front of the building to South Limestone Street that is now requested as part of the variance. And the next is the site plan, showing that they will have essentially three patio areas, and all three of them will be covered. And the coverings are proposed to come all the way out to the zero lot line along the street. And the last picture is just an exhibit that the applicants have now shared of what the end result would look like once all of the patios with their pergolas and covered porches would be on there. Jimmy, can I interrupt you for just a second? That corner restaurant that used to be Hugh Jaspers, there was a case that went on. it was fairly controversial of bringing the covering all the way out to the street, and we didn't give them that. Has the law changed? We might have talked about that last month. There have been some material changes, both in how we regulate the area. Most notably, whenever that case was originally came in, the one that the entire variance was not granted in that particular case. One of the things that we now require for the infill and redevelopment area for business zones such as this is that we now actually require the structures to be brought forward so that they're in average with the other buildings. The Pazos building, which is the dark gray building that you can see in the rear of the photo, it's about 12 feet from the street. So we now require buildings, if they were doing a building addition on this, to be within five feet, either five feet in front of or five feet behind. So first of all, we have a regulation where we're trying to now bring buildings and structures out to the street for this type of area. Mr. Griggs, if I could also address your question. On the corner property, the variance that was approved by the board still has that covering, I believe, about 10 feet back from the right-of-way. That's what I remember. And none of the other businesses along that road are closer to the street than 10 feet away or 12. There are some now over the intervening years. But I don't remember any coverings quite of this. I think they had tables with umbrellas, but not any permanent coverings out to the street. So that's the reason for my question. And the reason why that we now have some overtime since that original case was not fully approved by the Board of Adjustment is because now that as we've tried to purposefully bring the buildings forward in our urban environments, in our commercial settings like this, the corresponding covered porches and projections into that building line have allowed several new covered porches to be built in this general vicinity since that time. So you are correct. This has been in front of the board. If my memory serves, it wasn't 10 feet, it was 9 feet. You allowed it to get within 9 feet of the right-of-way. They are now asking for the rest of that nine feet. But we are in a different regulatory environment now. But you're saying the objective is to average, that everyone be on an average? So are we going all the way to the street now, or are we just trying to go to that old existing line? Well, what you're trying to do is average so that it's compatible with the other setbacks. You're allowed to be five feet behind or five feet in front of the average of the buildings on either side of you. This being a corner lot, Pazos is the only building that they would have to average with. So this building, if they were trying to do an actual building addition, not just a covered patio as proposed, could, with just a permit, with just a building permit, not a variance, come out and be within seven feet of the right-of-way with a full building on that. That is a much different fact than was what is allowed in our regulations and, in fact, encouraged in our regulations now than was previously when this went in front of the board. I don't remember the exact date, but how many years ago it was. So I'm still a little confused. They can, by right, come out five feet in front of Pazzo's, but you're recommending that they come all the way out, which is the reason for this full variance? Yes, coming five feet in front of Pazos, that's for a full building addition. These are covered porches. And if it were not for one, there's one section of the zoning ordinance that says, notwithstanding any other things, you still have to be at least 10 feet back. And the staff is saying that in this particular instance, the variance is justified. because there are now other covered patios up and down this pedestrian-oriented area, because the nature of this area in the pedestrian-oriented business district is very unique, and it's our one and only pedestrian-oriented business district giving it that character. from the subject property up to Maxwell Street where 10 roof is on South Lime, South Upper Street. Sorry, South Lime. Sorry, I got to mix up. South Limestone. Also, we feel that the other thing in this particular instance is the benefits that we get by removing those four non-compliant parking spaces and increasing the overall safety for drivers and pedestrians in this pedestrian-oriented business area. We feel that all of these individual facts combine together to create a unique environment that justifies recommending approval of the requested variances to allow the covered patios. I can go into further on that, but I've just, you know, kind of basically summed up. If we need to ask another question, we will. Does anybody else have anything for Mr. Emmons? I do. Just a couple of points. First, I want to applaud the staff for taking a second look at this. And I share your concern, the staff's concern for the pedestrian traffic. This is a busily traveled corner. I know from a former life when I was a runner and ran through this area that there's a lot of traffic. I was kind of curious about one of the exhibits that you don't have up yet, but that was submitted with the application, showing what looks like an expanded sidewalk on the limestone side. Am I looking at that right, or is that just a... I think if we can go back to the site. Is that just the parking area? Is she right in front of the two proposed structures? That is actually, it's not expanding the sidewalk, but essentially that area is all driveway right now. And so can you drive on it? And so by cutting off the parking spaces, it becomes all pedestrian. Well, I guess that was my specific question. By cutting out the parking areas, would that designated area become then sidewalk? Practically, yes, because cars will not be driving on it. The applicant, I don't believe, is proposing to do any street improvements or restoration of the sidewalk area or curb and gutter with this. but as this goes on one of the things it is in the public right of way and one of the things that we noticed is that if the parking authority wished to come in and re-establish some on-street parking some parallel parking spaces there that that opportunity would arise and just so i'm clear when mr griggs asked you the question about how it is this can come all the way out to the sidewalk without, as I understood your explanation, it's because there are other structures that have come out to the sidewalk in this block of limestone. Is that right? Yes. Our setbacks for business zones inside the infill and redevelopment area have a more restrictive setback that is intended to be, keep everything within the average of what the setback is. There is some flexibility, essentially a 10-foot build-to area in that instance. So that is way different than the 20-foot setback that was in place when this application was in front of the board several years ago. And so is it the intent of the regulations to encourage building closer to the sidewalk? In business areas that are already built. The intention of the regulation is compatibility to have a consistent street wall along there, still allowing for some design characteristics. and ultimately still allowing for variances if it's warranted. You said if it's already built. If there are other areas in this block that were already built, how did, I don't recall that any came before us in the past, so how did they get built to get into that average? Many of these buildings were built before zoning regulations applied. So you took into account the existing buildings that had not, okay, I understand. Thank you. I have a question for traffic. With this widened sidewalk, if I understand correctly, it's not curbed. So could cars conceivably pull off and have it be a drop-off zone? Do you all have concerns about that? conceivably if the curb is not constructed back yes they would be able to pull up there do you want that to happen it would be best case yes otherwise we will probably have to if it becomes an issue we would have to use markings and to attempt to address it that way. But wouldn't it be better to do that from the get-go? If we could get that. You know, from the beginning so that there aren't cars that are pulling off there with pedestrians and you know, the patios and the like. Is there something that could be some sort of barrier or curb or something? What would be a good way to resolve that so that would not happen? I believe the board would have the authority to make a condition that the curb be restored to the approval of traffic engineering, should you wish to. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Does anybody have any other questions for Mr. Emmons? Thanks very much. We're going to hear the applicant in a minute, but there is some opposition, and we'd like to hear that first, and then we'll give you all an opportunity to respond. step forward your name for the record please I'm Jack Stewart Stewart architecture and I'm here on behalf of the owner of Pazos and opposition basically the same issues we talked about before I feel it's a little bit out of scale and now it's gotten even larger of a piece of structure and I don't think that's any precedent for what's going on up that block there's nothing out to the street at the rest of puzzles the record store the house with the businesses in it mcdonald's the restaurant there's nothing like that and beyond that it's just i think decks with with the umbrella so it's if we there's a lot of covered deck okay out to the front that 10 foot position a lot of covered deck and then the rest is open i think that's much more friendly and neighborly to the street and like the idea of the cars being gone it's a more it's going to be successful business I would think so we just need to be a little less invasive and I think the next to the building in Pazzo is that structure still has to have a one hour rating to at least 10 feet and the masonry could do that it's a metal it's non-combustible but it still has to be protected so there's some building issues that really have to be addressed and the more you build that the clunkier it gets so just a little concerned about that so just feel like that's enough reason to consider not letting this roof come out that far I'm kind of curious how staff would respond to Mr. Stewart's comments. First of all, the one technical thing, as far as the building permit, we did recommend that the applicants will consult with the Division of Building Inspection inspection and apply for any permits deemed necessary because i am not an expert in the kentucky building code we did after last month's meeting i did reach out to building inspection and the response back was is that combustible materials if that's what was being proposed would not be allowed that close to the property line but they highly encourage because it is so complicated that the applicants just come in and talk to them and go through the building permit process to determine how the proposed pergolas and roof structures would, how they would apply in the Kentucky Building Code. So we have handled that through our condition number three, as far as the technical aspects on the Kentucky Building Code. The aesthetic aspects on this, it is true that Pazos in particular does not have a covered patio, but there are other covered patios in the general vicinity. If you want me to, the applicant actually submitted photos of the entire block from the subject property all the way to 10 roof. And we can go through those one by one if you want. But in general, there are some covered porches and patios and there are some that are not. I'd like to see some of those because I can't picture them. We'll just run through them. I believe they're in order. This is essentially starting at the corner of, on the subject property with the existing patio, and you can see the parking space. But, Jimmy, that's not covered. No, no, that is not. But going down through the street. And this is a picture looking from the subject property toward Maxwell Street, and you can see that there's a fairly consistent urban wall there. These are the properties that are nearest to it, and you can see that they have patios, but they're not covered. So can I clarify, whether they have a roof or not, they still need a variance to have the building line up to the zero, which everybody else has. For the covered portion of the patios. But do they need it, if they don't have it covered at all, would they still need a variance? I don't think, I think it's only the roof structures that require the variance to be a covered patio. So in other words, they could have the pillars that they want. So the only thing before us is whether or not they get a roof 10 extra feet. Correct. I'm sorry to be so slow, but I keep thinking that you're telling me there's many examples of these covered patios out to the sidewalk, and I'm not seeing any. Well, the last picture was the Two Keys Tavern, and that definitely had a covered patio. That's not a patio. It's a porch. A porch. I think it had a covered porch. And that's existed since the 50s. It has. And is that the only example of a covered porch out in the sidewalk? As we go along Maxwell Street, you can see that there are several decks and patios. The picture is a little bit dark on the big screen, but I think you can see there was a deck that was built, and they've put up a temporary covering over the one patio there. I don't remember which store that is. And then right next to that is the local taco, which has a permanently built covered porch that comes all the way out to the sidewalk. And did they get a permit for that, a conditional? Did they get a variance for that? They did get a permit. I mean, I meant a variance. I believe so. I believe that there was a variance on that property. I believe there was a variance for the tin roof property. We also, I remember, had a discussion on the parking to the rear of that property. And then the tin roof property also received a variance from Limestone for theirs as well. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Stewart? Thank you, Mr. Stewart. I'd like to bring the applicant up now. State your name for the record, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of the applicants today. As Jimmy mentioned, Noodles & Company was here last month and made a request for that portion of the property. And I'll put my slides. They're very similar to Jimmy's, but just so you can follow along with what I'm going to share with you. but as you've had some discussion already last month presentation on behalf of Noodles and Company to have a to use two parking spaces that's part of the leashed property that they have with the owner of the property that those would be eliminated and there would be a pergola Not a completely covered patio, but there would be a pergola like they have at Merrick Inn and what they used to have at the old Murray's patio off Harrodsburg Road. It's not covered. It's very much open air. It's more open air than it is covered. There's structures, and I'll show you our illustration, which we filed in connection with our application in a moment. But this is not a covered patio in the sense of a complete covered patio. There's just, it's more of a dressing up the property to create an ambiance for the guests that would dine closer to the street. Which, as Jimmy said, there's been a lot of changes since the Hugh Jazz fan case about five years ago in terms of the pedestrian-oriented development district coming about, the reduced parking associated with that, the revitalization of South Limestone Street and all the money that was spent to dress that up. They've encouraged exactly what we're proposing to do, to dress up the curb appeal, the street appeal, to have more pedestrian-oriented features closer to the sidewalk where people walk in, and we see instances of this in all the trips that we take in other communities where you have cafes, some with pergolas, some covered all together. These are very handsomely designed pergolas and, again, with more open space than covered. But you had a hearing, it got continued because the concern expressed with the existing situation of the four parking spaces that are leftover vestiges from many years ago that do create a public safety problem. People having to back out onto South Limestone into traffic. You requested that Noodles and Company get in touch with the people that were putting in a new restaurant next door, which they did. Greg White is here to speak to that. And, Greg, that's a great idea. We'll just amend the application. We met with the owner of the property. He agreed to give up all four spaces and to allow pergolas, open-air coverings, to be added to dress up the property, to dress up limestone like it's been dressed up for pedestrian-oriented use. And so we're now eliminating a serious issue about public safety with this application to have these patios with these pergolas. So if we go to the next slide, I know you guys are looking at a different screen. But these are the parking spaces right here for the benefit of the audience right here. existing spaces. Those will be gone. This was the existing patio. It's covered. We're asking for, you know, covering to go along for the street sidewalk, but actually we're going to have this part opened up back toward the building. Same thing with these areas over here. It'll be opened up toward the building for access. It'll be, there won't be any kind of pergola along that. But obviously, they'll have to comply with whatever building code because there's a separate review and permitting process that comes after the Board of Adjustment, as Jimmy explained, that deals with the types of materials and compliance with all the required building codes in order to move on with actual construction of the site. The next slide shows the drawing of the pergolas. as you can see they're very much open to air features really more of an amenity you can see all the gaps and there's actually more gaps and in this one but it's all very there's no walls up there's no covered ceilings whatsoever and either one of these it's it's more air than structure but if you've been to Merrick and I'm not here to I don't represent Merrick I'd be happy to but But there's no, it dresses up the patio. It makes it a nicer place to dine. It kind of adds a little feature that makes you feel more comfortable. And so that's the purpose, is to make a nicer front porch in this pedestrian-oriented district, the first of its kind in Lexington, to set a standard that, you know, this is good design. We're not creating some monstrosity. And in contrast, if we wanted to build, based upon the changes in the law, if we wanted to actually add space to the building, we could build it all the way up five feet past Pazos, a covered building, totally. And so we're asking, obviously, much, much less invasive kind of change, if you will, than a new building addition. we're asking for an amenity that we see instances of in Lexington that most of us, quite frankly, enjoy. It adds to the enjoyment of the social occasion of meeting with friends and having a bite to eat in an area of town that's been undergoing a lot of change, but good change. The next slide simply just shows the character of the neighborhood, and Jimmy has kind of gone through those. Probably need to square that one up a little bit. that's two keys, the historic two keys that many of us grew up attending. But everybody's built up to the curb, and it's difficult. Obviously, we're talking about a design element. If we were talking about a truly covered patio like two keys or the tin roof, maybe have more debate about that, but this is a pergola. These are open-aired. We can't change it unless we would have to come back before this body to change the covered patio feature that we're committed to, which is the pergola concept. And so it can't be expanded without coming back here. There's no plans to do that. And if we do, we'd have to notify everybody and have a hearing. But that's not in the horizon. That's not anything. and our thinking at this point, this is simply to spruce up this corner to make it a nicer kind of gateway from Kennedy's bookstore on down in what used to be the Avenue of Champions. Now it's, I think, Winslow Street all the way up past Pine to the old Good Samaritan Hospital, Maxwell Street. a nice, pretty much college-oriented eatery, a place to have a drink or two. But there's more people that are coming to the area, too, because it is looking better. We want to encourage businesses to invest in dressing up their buildings. This will be a radical improvement over what has been there previously. No offense to Hugh Jazz fans, but what's being proposed for Newtland Company and the adjacent restaurant that Greg White is going to operate is going to enhance the look and add value to the corridor and make it a nicer place for people to want to come and visit. So we believe that this is certainly not an adverse impact on anybody, and certainly without question we're actually improving the public's safety by eliminating these four parking spaces. So we're committed to doing exactly what we say under conditions that we have submitted to the staff and to the board. In terms of the parking on the street, you know, I could see that Lex Park would probably want to put some spaces there. And certainly we'd be more than agreeable to working with them on having metered parking there, which is, again, up to some extent along South Limestone. You know, in terms of curb and gutter, that's the first time I've heard that question. We certainly, to address your concern, don't want people, you know, coming up into the sidewalk area dealing with, you know, with pedestrians because we are already eliminating these four parking spaces. We don't want to come back to that kind of a situation. So we're certainly amenable to coming up with some kind of condition that guards against doing that. Working with Casey and the Division of Traffic Engineering to come up with something that, whether it's striping, putting parking spaces on there, I don't know what kind of expense is involved in reconstructing that sidewalk. It's a decorative sidewalk, for one thing. It's pretty expensive when the government paid for that new sidewalk to go in. So I hesitate to commit to going to that extent. But at the very least, you could put posts up, perhaps, to keep cars from coming through. Something to eliminate the prospect of people driving up on the sidewalk. All right. And I think that's what we're after, Mr. Sussan. We would be certainly willing to work with traffic engineering and coming up with something that's suitable that deals with that question. But this is really a nice amenity. This is dressing up downtown, which is, you know, really having a renaissance, and this is part of it. Piece by piece, we get more excited about downtown. This is really a project that really needs to be approved. I'd be happy to respond to any questions that you might have. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson, I can't object to pergolas because I've got one on my back deck myself. But my question is, are they permanent? I mean, these are going to be permanent structures that are attached to the pillars or posts that are part of that sitting area back there? They're set up to be permanent in terms of being in structural compliance with the building code. We certainly want to make sure we're protective of the public that's going to be there, and they won't be attached to the building. Are they structural elements? Structural elements? I mean, they have to be built and connected. We met with building inspection already with Nancy Maranero, and she said, you know, submit your plans. We'll go over what is required in terms of the structural elements to make sure that it is compliant with our building code. So that's a whole other review process that we have to go through after here. Thank you. The first condition is the covered patios and or decks shall be developed in accordance with the submitted application and site plan. And so could we add some additional wording so that we know we're talking about see-through pergolas and not covered patios? Sure. That would make me feel better. I mean, we have the illustration, Mr. Griggs, that I, if we go back to the illustration, Bill. No, the one with the showing the pergolas. Sure, if we reference that photo so that it doesn't get confusing five years from now. We're committed to building that and that only. Can we, to Mr. Griggs' suggestion, can we add that instead? Because cover does look like it's going to have some canvas extended, and that's not the case there. And I'd also like to consider if staff could help us develop a fourth condition regarding Ms. Meyer's concern about the curb. Because I do think that that is an issue. And something along the lines, Mr. Simpson, that you and traffic engineering can work out. If that's acceptable to the board. And I would, along that line, if I could just suggest some language that the applicant would work with the Division of Traffic Engineering to come up with suitable barriers to preclude cars coming up on the sidewalk. Very good. I'm curious of traffic. Would you propose bollards or something like that in that area, or is that not really a concern for you? I mean, I can see how it would not be a concern for you. I think that we do need to look at providing something to ensure that we don't have cars parking there. I did think of bollards. I would prefer to look at the curb and gutter idea. I definitely agree. I don't know how feasible that would be. So it might not be an option, and then we would have to look at bollards or markings or something. Very good. Does anybody else have any other questions for Mr. Simpson? Thank you, Mr. Simpson. I, too, would like to echo Mr. Glover's remarks and appreciate the applicant, you know, working with his neighbors and eliminating those parking spots because, A, you know, this is something obviously we couldn't support. We wanted to continue to see if we could reach some kind of a resolution. And, you know, personally, from my opinion, I think that the design is very tastefully done and very fitting for the college campus. And obviously, if we can have an additional condition and have those issues regarding the curb and gutter or whatever you all can decide on that's acceptable to traffic engineering and to Mr. Griggs' remark about just changing the wording and the first condition from covered patios. have you done that Mr. Adams I believe I believe that we're still working on the language where we're almost done my one comment as far as getting into the design of separating the pedestrians from the traffic I want to make sure that we're not hemmed in on one particular design here today obviously a concrete planter might accomplish the same thing but be a little more visually appealing than bollards it sounds there could be multiple things that it sounds to me like that's something that traffic engineering and and as casey's already said that she'd like to study the issue a little bit more and it seems as mr simpson and his clients are are certainly amenable to come up with a solution to to eliminate what could be a dangerous situation We'll make an attempt here at what the board's described. The first condition would change the term covered patios to pergolas, still having to meet the application and site plan. Then the fourth condition would read, suitable barriers shall be installed to the approval of the Division of Traffic Engineering to prevent vehicles in the sidewalk area. is that amenable to the board i just have a question do we need the decks there i thought you said that we didn't need to approve anything with respect to anything except the covering at the top that will be determined on the height of the decks if it's three feet or less i believe it's not part of the variance if they happen to be over three feet technically they would need a variance for that all right thank you very good and what's the plan is it going to be over three feet or not i think all we've seen is pictures that's a building code issue but generally decks do have to meet building setbacks there are some instances where an on ground deck that's not a requirement a concrete patio obviously doesn't have to meet a building setback but building inspections had a long-standing interpretation about decks when they do and don't have to meet building setbacks. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Salih. Any other questions? If there's no other questions, it's your own, obtain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the 2015-25 invictus llc and spartan possibilities llc's appeals for a variance to reduce the required front setback from 10 feet to zero feet in order to construct an outdoor patio in a neighborhood business b1 zone at 395 south limestone for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions um we have come up with today with the change of language on the first condition and the addition of the fourth condition thank you miss myers we have a motion to approve is there a second second mr forster seconds all in favor signify by saying aye aye any opposed very good good luck with the project I believe the next case we have with opposition is Windswept Ventures. Would the applicant please come forward? One of our board members had to be excused for a personal matter. We're going to go ahead with the Windswept Ventures again. Your name for the record, sir? Afternoon. My name is Ross Steintorf, attorney here in Lexington. I represent Windswept Ventures, LLC. Mr. Jim McFarlane is here on behalf of the applicant as well. He is there. Very good. I know that there's some opposition, Mr. Steintorf. Have you all had an opportunity to try to work that out? We have not here today. Previously, there have been some phone calls exchanged between the parties. I feel fairly certain, at least based on the description from my client, that some of those have been fairly adversarial, so I'm not certain that we'll be able to work it out. Very good. Well, the staff has recommended approval of the conditional use and also of the dimensional variance, and they were subject to four conditions. And you and your client agree to abide by those? Absolutely, yes. Very good. What we'd like to do now is have you take a seat, and we'd like to hear from the opposition. And so if someone would please come forward and state your name for the record. And I know that there could be multiple speakers, and we would just ask in consideration If any of the speakers have anything additional to add to your comments, for example, please, we welcome them. But one thing we don't want to do is get into repetition and repeat things over that have already been voiced as a concern. So go ahead, Pam, your name. My name is Sarah Williams. I reside with my father at 709 Beller Avenue. Me and my father have been lifelong residents. We have three generations of our family who have been present. Based on that, that gives us knowledge of the neighborhood that I feel like has been assumed and is not so truthful in reading through the staff case report regarding the neighborhood. The main issue that we have several people here supporting us on right now, and we also have other signatures from neighborhood members who are not able to be here, and specifically from the lady that lives next door to this property that is proposing these changes. the thing that we take issue with is the conditional use permit because the conditional use permit would allow for the construction of a driveway a mere 10 feet from a residence where there are children present and between the three to four residences down from where this business is located there are at least 10 school-aged children that are used for three generations of families of playing on this street uninterrupted. Okay, so, and if the board's main mission, and as outlined in the zoning ordinance in the Section 1-3, if the purpose is to ensure to promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of community members, we argue and we assert that the construction of this driveway would impinge upon, impede upon the safety of especially the children in this neighborhood. and one definite reference to that is the fact that we've already had a family dog from one of these residences within three residences of where this this driveway is wanting to be built and this business wants to be we've already had a dog killed so if a dog can be killed already from the traffic the patron was a patron to the brewery that actually made it all the way down the street I would like to note that this is a dead-end street so we don't have a lot of traffic that comes down through there at all as a child I'm 32 years old as a child I was able to ride my bike with my twin sister down there unimpeded, no traffic, for however long power transmissions, as noted in here, in the staff case report, has owned that area, there has been minimal traffic. I would like to note that what is not noted in here and all the history that is covered regarding that property is that the main business for power transmissions occurred at their location on the corner of Broadway and Del Camp, not at this location at the end of Bel Air. So the traffic that came in and out of there was very, very minimal, almost non-noticeable for decades at this point. It was used to store vehicles. So if anything, you might have a car attached to a tow truck come down at obviously not a high rate of speed where children can respond or people in the area can respond to be safe. And so what he's wanting to do is construct a driveway 10 feet from a residence, and I've spoken to the owner that wants to build this. He said he will have 20 to 30 employees making use of this driveway. His words to me were that this would be no more traffic than what comes out of a residence. Excuse me, 20 to 30 people, unless we have an apartment complex down here with several residences in it. That is a lot more. And it does impinge upon the safety of our children and of family pets, especially when we already have a family pet that has been hit and killed. So two things that I would point out on here. It says it is likely to have less constant use of this particular area of the property than before. That is an assumption that any resident on that street who has been a long-term resident on that street knows that this is a false assumption being made. There will be a definite increase in traffic, and it will definitely impede upon the safety of our children who play, who are all under the age of 13. Several of them are toddlers. Okay. So another point I would make as far as assumptions within this staff report as to why you all would approve it and why we definitely raise objection to it is that it should not have a detrimental effect on the property next to it. It will because this construction of the driveway is only 10 feet away. As I ask John, I'm not calling his last name, I don't remember, it starts with an S that I spoke to personally. It was not adversarial. It was very truthful. Truth can't hurt. I don't make no apology for that. But what I would point out is that it would be detrimental. As I ask him, I want a yes or no answer. Don't give me an intellectualized rationalization as to why you think it's right when it's money lining your pocket as to these employees coming in and out. I want a yes or no answer as to if you want a driveway for a business for 20 to 30 employees built within 10 feet of where you lay your head. He couldn't give me that answer. And my thing is, if you wouldn't have that done to yourself, why would you perpetrate that on another person? Okay, so then moving on down in the section where it says the staff recommends approval of the conditional use, and it also states again the portion of the property will not adversely affect the subject of surrounding properties. And it will. Right now, there's a stockade fence there separating the closest residents from this area. The only thing that this has been used for, and at least I know that I can recollect in the past 10 years, is to store cars. There was no major traffic in and out of there. And even though Power Transmissions is based there, their main business, as I stated before, is on the corner of Bel Air and Del Camp. That is the majority of their traffic for that business. It never reaches the end of Bel Air. We've already been affected to the fullest extent having to bear the negative consequences of gentrification in our neighborhood that we were not given a voice on with the coming of the West 6th Street Brewery there. I'd also like to mention my dad worked at that bakery for his entire life and retired from there. So we have been subjected to a lot. And as I told John when I spoke with him on the phone, we're not asking you to pack up your business and move, even though this is a street we've known we've been able to ride our bikes, use the telephone lines going across the street to play volleyball with, because that's how no traffic, how much little traffic came down through there. We're not asking you to move your business, But what we are asking you to do is to not have the construction of that driveway. From the first conversation I had with him, he called me back within 30 minutes, I'm assuming, because I got at his heart and saying, you know, would you want this done to you? You know, and he called me back and he said, well, the driveway, it's preliminary. No, it's don't give me that. It's not preliminary. If it made it to the map that was mailed out to the residents and you all have it on here to grant him approval of it today, that's not preliminary. So let's not play those political games. So I would ask you all to consider the humanity of us and our children. Like I said, there are over 10 young children. There are several family pets. And understand the construction of a driveway 10 foot from a residence. And within three residents close to where this business is going to be at and this construction of this driveway is going to occur, that there are 10 children present in the in and out of 20 to 30 employees every day is going to greatly change our lives and our ability to keep our children safe in ways that's already been threatened with the brewery coming. And I would point out again, there has been a family dog already killed. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Does anybody have any questions? I do. Yes. So what do you think is an alternative? He already has a driveway down there at the end. There's another driveway. That's the thing. And, I mean, for any traffic that did come out, that was the driveway that was used, and it's much further down towards the dead-end part of the street. So that would give the children and the adults and any people who are walking, because the Legacy Trail is also going to back up to there, further warning as to when somebody might be coming out because it's coming out further down the street. Whereas if they're coming out from behind a stockage fence, and he plans on building trees right there as well, so you've got a stockage fence and trees that are going to block view for the person coming out and for the children and adults that are walking, please just move it down and keep it away from the trees, keep it to where it's not behind a stockade fence and don't have it literally only 10 feet from a residence. So that's what we've asked of him. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Anybody else have any, Mr. Griggs? I have a question for staff. On the drawing that you provided us, we don't see how the parking arrangement or the traffic for parking on the property is. It's not designated at all. So I'm curious about how, if they've got a lot of trailers that are part of their business, how are they going to park on their property, and how are they going to get turned around in there? And how are they storing large pieces of landscaping equipment? essentially as you can see from the photo the the vast majority of this property is already is already paved if it's not if it's not got building on it the the entrance that's at the northern end of the bel air street there's a large gravel parking area that comes in off of bel air street and goes around the back of the building and in this particular photo which was the aerial photograph from 2013 this is when powers transmission was still there and you can see all of the parked cars even in the back area there's parked cars in the area that is actually zoned R2. The proposal I'll do this first. This is the applicant's revised site plan that correctly shows the zoning lines and everything on that. Unfortunately it's a little bit harder to read. It does show the new proposed concrete exit. I've tried to draw in here just for clarification to kind of separate out there are two distinct parts of this application. The conditional use which is the use of the 25 feet of the southern end of the property that is currently zoned R2 and their proposed use is to put in a new driveway so that the circulation of the traffic can come in Bel Air and come out on the new driveway, essentially completing the circle around the property. The variance, the dimensional variance portion of this is highlighted in the pink, and that is to allow operable windows for the subject property. in the industrial zone, in order to have operable windows, windows that you can open and close, those type of windows have to be 100 feet away from a residential zone. Because of where this zone line is, this zone line is actually 2 feet from the building as it exists today. The building itself is 2 feet inside the I-1 zone. however it's 27 feet from the property line that's the 25 feet plus the two so I just kind of wanted to say this this use this application is really down to those two distinct things can they extend the regulations of the I1 zone that 25 feet into the residential zone and can they have operable windows on that southern side of the property. To address the windows, which is a little bit easier, the applicant is proposing to put the professional offices aspect of their business in that southern side of the building. In that particular case, the purpose of the regulation of the setback on the operable windows next to a residential zone is to protect the residences from noise and odors and other types of nuisances that you would normally get with an industrial use. The fact that this area is being limited to only office uses means that that use would be no greater than something that you would normally find in a business. So we do feel like that they are meeting the intent of the zoning ordinance for the windows. As far as the operation, the use, the conditional use aspect of it, the point that the staff was trying to make in the report is that by, it's pretty obvious that previous property owners, who probably did not even realize that this property was split zoned, had been constantly using that area for storage of vehicles. and whenever I looked at past aerial photographs and I visited the site, I saw some evidence that what is now a grassy area between the building and the property line. I've seen some evidence that that used to be a graveled area. So I suspect I'm not in any way trying to, I'm not explaining to you how we've come to our decision. I'm not trying to, the neighbors have got a lifetime of experience out there, so I'm not trying to argue with them. But how we came to that is that we suspect that that area had been used for quite many years as an industrial use, unknowing that it was actually zoned R2. Our staff report goes into great detail of kind of how this occurred. It's not uncommon in this general vicinity for a lot of the industrial uses to have a little bit of residential zoning on their property. Whether that was by design or by happenstance, I can't tell you. I wasn't even alive during that time. But there is a long history that even predates zoning of this area having a mixture of industrial and residential uses kind of mixed in together in close proximity. So the staff, based off of the evidence that we had and the research that we have done, have recommended approval for the reasons that we list in our staff report and on the agenda. If you would like me to go into more detail, I can. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Any questions for Mr. Emmons? I do. I have a question. Mr. Emmons, the staff report says that granting the variance would permit the building to, or the owners of the building, to create operable windows on the south side. do they need a variance in order to make windows? They do. They can put windows, but they would have to be stationary windows that would not be allowed to open. They want the ability to open up the windows and let the fresh air in. In the light industrial zone, the 100-foot setback, setback the purpose of that setback is to protect nearby residences from the ill effects of being near uh you know a machine shop where you've got noise and sure noise noise going out rather than air coming in i understand and and so uh one of the primary factors in the in the staff review on that is the applicant proposing to only put their office uses if this were an office zone next to a residential, there would be no such dimensional requirement for operable windows. Any other questions for Mr. Ellis? Sir, did you want to come up and please come up and state your name for the record? Yes, sir. My name is Seward F. Taylor, pastor, my life missionary Baptist Church. I've lived on Beller Avenue now for 32 and a half years. Adored the neighborhood because it was an older neighborhood. Adored it, number one, because I worked at what used to be Rainbow Bakery. And then from Rainbow Bakery, it was Honeycrust. I spent 38 years there in the business. While at work, my twin daughters, along with my son as well, when I got ready to get out from work, I could call and say, hey, Dad's getting ready to get off. I should have brought some of their pictures at home. They would beeline it to me to get out from work. And traffic again was just, it was a neighborhood. It was not what now it has taken to be. I will not beat the brewery to death in standing here, but it has created such a monster within the neighborhood. I won't reiterate what she said, because I'm quite sure that you heard what she did say. But as we look around the neighborhood, it is just about gone. And when I say that, I have to call the guy at the brewery and tell him, can you tell someone to come and move the cars out of the driveway? We'll use that and then we'll get to where we're going. No, he says, I've asked everyone to stay out of everybody's driveway. We had to call the city to get the city to paint back the curb is where they were supposed to be because they put in new sidewalks and painted none of them back. But I go on down now to the Atlantic Cape that we got down there now. I hear all what you had to say about the history of the place and the way it was. No one really used the place. That was before your time and before my time. We can't count in the early 1900s. We can't look back that far and look at that. But I can tell you why we were there. The people that were there did not use the place highly at all. Yes, there were cars on that residence. We, the Neighborhood Association, called in and got it cleaned up at one time. We, the Neighborhood Association, when they put a fence around that was an electrical fence, we called and got it took down. These were kids in the neighborhood. I know you're trying to protect your property, but there are better ways to protect your property than that. Then the landscape sweep that's going to come through. if all he needed was windows, let's go to the other end. It has never been there since we've been there. I do believe that it's going to create a problem. When you have your land escape that's going to come through, you have all these trucks that's filled with mud, dirt from going out doing land escape. I've done a little bit myself of land escaping. And it's going to create a monster. You talk about the windows will only be up and there'll be no smells. There's no way you can't deterrent diesel. There's no way you can't deterrent tires that are used. I'm sorry. There's no way that you can't. I'm sorry. I'll say that again. There's no way you can deterrent diesel. I've worked in diesel trucks all my life. And when you go down the road, the diesel is just. And when you guys come out, you got 25 trucks that's going to come out. Plus, you're going to work on them. Plus, the city bought. I hate to keep changing because you told me just three minutes, and I'm trying to get it all in if I'm talking fast. At the backside, the length and the width, the city came in and bought part of the property that belongs to LandSweep. They did that so they could run their land escape trail all the way around to the other end. which creates enough problems as it is. I have grandkids. I do not dare to let my grandkids in the street at all now. Why? Because of the traffic. I'm on my porch one night with my wife and holding one of my grandkids. These four girls come down the street. Who's going to drive? Who's going to drive? They got their key in the air trying to find their car. And, you know, what I needed to do right then was call the law. You know, and don't know who drove, but their car beeped at the end of the dead end street. That's exactly what it was, the dead end street. Now it has opened up with the legacy trail now and it's going to open up with the lens with land sweep and it's going to be a monster It's gonna be a monster to come in and out of the driveway with all the traffic is going to be I see where he had the new Structure how he's gonna set it. I don't believe That he needs to come in from the left side of his building Let him come in from the far end where he's got it the other end where every company that's been there since I've been there for 32 and a half years At the other end always use the other end of the building. There's no point in turn something down They don't need to be tore down and put back again once again Hundred years ago. I could not say 1900s I could not tell you what was going on within the building, but but but our neighborhood has become a total wreck And I believe with this land escape with coming in from that other side If he's gonna put the mud let him put it at the other end of the street at the data and part it together I appreciate it very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you Does anybody else from the opposition want to speak? April Taylor. I look a lot like her. That's my twin. That's my dad there. And what's your name, ma'am? April Taylor. Ms. Taylor? Yes. I really, I don't want to get into the particulars of it. I just rather appeal to you all, human being to human being. Our lives have changed drastically. This neighborhood that is my home. Looks nothing like it did when I was growing up. This is a very small thing to ask you all to do. And so I plead with you from that standpoint. Our neighborhood has become completely gentrified. We already have people who come in our neighborhood and look at us like we're the ones who don't belong there. And I just want for a moment for you all to imagine what that's like for us. And, you know, as they've said, this driveway can go at the other end. And it may seem like a really small thing to you all and a small thing to them. But for us, this is major. This is the one thing that we're able to fight for and say, hey, give us this one thing. So that's all I have to say. Thank you, Ms. Taylor. Could I ask you a question before you sit down right here? Do you have a big problem with the windows being operable if there's not any noise coming out of them? There's no noise and no smells if it is office space and there's not going to be any kind of diesel smell or anything like that. I don't have any issue with that. Our issue with the windows is that it appears as though the way the permit is written, that permission for the windows would by default grant permission for the driveway. So our only issue with the windows is that if permission is given for the windows, that it doesn't somehow default in some kind of legalese crap where they wind up being able to come in and put this driveway in. I think you have a really good argument about the driveway, especially given the extra time that people on the street. I've almost been hit walking with my child in a stroller, you know, from people pulling in and out of driveways, just not paying attention. I think it would be a good idea to get the cars to start at the far end so you can see them sooner. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Taylor. and that appears to be the big issue here is the location of the driveway and the first part of this request, and that's the conditional use. I'd like to bring the applicant up, and Mr. Steindorf, you've already stated your name for the record. We've heard very clearly from the neighbors that this is a huge issue regarding this driveway, regarding the new driveway, and how can we resolve this? Why can't you not use the other end? Well, I think part of it may be an understanding of the use of this driveway and of the use of this building. First of all, I appreciate the fact that they believe their neighborhood is changing, but this piece of property has been industrial property, as you've read in the report, since the 1900s. Nothing has changed about this nature or this use of this property. The fact that he has purchased it now to use it for his business is not a zone change, a request for a variance, anything else like that. But to focus directly on this driveway issue, the misconception that I think that there is, and if we can go back to that slide with where the proposed driveway is, his idea in that was not for his work trucks to come in and out of there and loop all the way around. The idea for that is it was going to be a car-accessible driveway only for purposes of the office staff who are parking on this end where the office is to enter and exit so that they're not entering and exiting where the equipment, where his landscaping crews are coming in and out of. That end of the building, the end that landscaping crews come in and out of, has a three-door bay. It's, for years and years, it's an industrial use. This end, where he was proposing the driveway, he was proposing for the office staff only, which he estimates to be, how many, two to three? About four cars. But realistically, Mr. Stavroff, you know, having this, ma'am, you're going to have to wait for just a second. If you have something to say, we'll bring you back up to the mic, but we don't want to hear anything from the seat. I mean, just from a practical standpoint, I mean, you know, having only employees that are working in the office doesn't seem to be very realistic to me. I mean, you know, the trucks could use a driveway. Anybody could virtually use a driveway. I'm going to let Mr. McFarlane address that because he can tell you about the features that make that unlikely. Logistically, to get a truck down that driveway and out, say, a proposed curb cut on Bel Air would be really difficult. It's a narrow space. The trucks wouldn't really be able to turn on the southwest corner of the building and get around there very well. I wouldn't want them to. And when they come out, if they were to come out on Bel Air, there's actually a telegraph pole right there. So they wouldn't be able to negotiate that telegraph pole either. So I don't have any plans to use that for trucks, for deliveries, for anything other than the Ford Escape that I drive, the Ford Escape that my account manager drives, the vehicle that my wife drives. just that's just the plan was for that just to be convenient to office staff. Logistically it would be a problem and a worry to me to have trucks, trailers, using that side of the building. So I'd put would you consider eliminating that driveway? Would you consider eliminating that driveway? Yeah, at this point, we were trying to get the zoning change, the conditional use, to I-1, because we found out after we purchased the property that that was R-2. I'd go through traffic and engineering and do anything that they said to make that safe, And if they said that wasn't safe, then we wouldn't have the driveway. But you couldn't, you know, I would like it out of convenience for the office staff, but if it just becomes a safety issue, then that's fine with me. We've got other ways to get out, and that would be exciting. I can tell you I won't support this unless you eliminate the driveway for these folks. Okay. May I say one other thing? The concern here, too, that they've expressed is the increased traffic on this street. The existence or the variance of this driveway is not going to increase the traffic on this street. One car, the same folks are coming in and out of this business. The same level of traffic would be on this roadway. And I understand that that's a major concern of theirs. And I'm sympathetic to it. But at the same time, this piece of property is an industrial piece of property, as the reports. Well, and Mr. Steindorf, as you said, has been operating this way for decades. So, you know, I echo Ms. Meyer's sentiment. I don't think it's as much about the traffic. I think it's about the proximity of where the driveway is. And I think it's a safety hazard. And I'm not going to support it unless you agree to eliminate it. Okay. But we would like to have the I-1 zoning for the property. Can you tell me why that's important, that you have the I-1 zoning, if you're not going to be using that space, if you leave it in turf? Why is it important to get our zoning removed? Well, I want to make it gravel. I want to be able to do like everybody else has in the past, since the early 1900s. Why would it matter to have it gravel? It's only gravel if it would be a thoroughfare. You can't really... No, we could leave the fence and not have the driveway, but have gravel and use it for industrial purposes. What kind of industrial purpose is 10 feet away from the house next door? We're a landscape company. Maybe I would want to keep some potted plants there, keep some bags of mulch on that side of the building. I think it might be a good idea to protect the neighborhood to leave it like it is. You've got a huge site there. Well, part of the planning is to buffer it off. It's got a six-foot privacy fence there, and they require more landscaping to buffer it. I believe it might be easier to control the activities there if it's just left as the residential zoning on that side of the property. For myself, that's what I believe personally. I have a question for, it probably pertains more to staff, and Ms. Meyer brought it up and I was thinking about it myself. The request is to extend the I-1 boundary on the south side and to reduce the 100-foot distance to a residential zone. There's nothing in here about the windows. And it seems like the one thing that we have agreed on, at least it sounds like it on the board, is we're not so concerned, the neighborhood's not so concerned about the existence of windows. The conversation seems to be about the use or not use of this strip of property for a driveway. So I'd like to get to something that we can agree on before we go anything further than that. Can you address that, please? I'd be glad to try, Mr. Glover. We have two recommendations that appear on the agenda. One is for approval, the dimensional variance, and that is totally related to whether or not the windows on this wall are operable, openable or not. The reason for the variance is the ordinance requires stationary windows and doors within 100 feet of a residential zone. The use of the property basically between the building and the residence to the south, that is the subject of the conditional use permit. And, of course, that's the driveway area, and whether or not it's allowed for storage of plant material or pavement for the driveway, that's more the issue with the conditional use permit. So I think from the staff perspective, the board does have the ability to separate those two issues. For instance, you could approve one, deny the other, approve both, deny both. All of those, I think, are before you. Yeah, that was my question. Could we separate those issues? so at least we're going to do some good here for the applicant that doesn't do any harm to the residents. I think that's our concern. Right. I think for the variance portion, the fact that these were going to be offices was the most significant issue for the staff, whereas many industrial uses do not have any offices, and so that potential for nuisance to the neighborhood seemed diminished in our review. I have a question. What happens if later it's used for industrial purposes? I think that's the reason that we have the condition to the variance that we believe is enforceable. I think it's the third condition. Yes, for accessory office space. So does that prohibit them from ever using it for industrial purposes, or do they have to change the windows if they want to use it for industrial purposes? think the latter, they would have to change the windows to stationary if they ever wanted to convert that office to another use. Very good. Mr. McFarland and Mr. Steindor, I think that you've probably heard echoing through the board that we really don't have a major issue with the, well, I certainly don't have a major issue with the operable windows and the variance. But obviously, as far as the road goes, we would like to see the road eliminated from this. And I'd like to see if we couldn't come up with any – we have to have some conditions on why we would disapprove it unless you want to withdraw it. And because I do think that it would have an adverse effect, and I do think that there's a safety issue. And lo and behold, what I'd like to do is I'd like to ask if you have anything else to add. Regarding the safety issue, I mean, I don't know that there's any evidence at this time before the board. I guess what I would ask is that if you would like us to approach traffic and engineering or any of those other divisions and say, is there an additional issue if there were an additional driveway here, maybe that might be a way to approach it. Well, that's not what's before us today. I mean, we've got the two issues, the conditional use and then the dimensional variance. And I'd like to ask the board if they have any other. Well, let me just explain something. From what I heard from the neighbors and the Neighborhood Association, it sounded like that the main concern was the effect of West Sixth Brewery at the corner for an increase in the traffic and significant impact to this residential neighborhood. And I'm sympathetic to that impact. I wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood that had a big brewery down at the beginning of my dead-end street. I think that was their main concern. So to the extent that you heard objections, it probably stemmed more from their frustration at the operation of the brewery and the people driving to and from that brewery that has spilled over onto your application. So I think we're trying to find a workable solution to accommodate their concerns with respect to your application, while not just completely denying your application. That's my comment. Thanks. Does anybody else have any other questions or comments for the applicant? Does the opposition have anything else to add? sir you come come on up to the mic you all can have a seat I would love them to leave that 1900 out he has bought the property planning on to acquire that opened in I would I'm so glad to hear that the neighborhood needs to be the neighborhood lovely neighborhood and that's my only objection is the opening of the fur in next to the house there's probably not five six foot if I was to measure it from where that fence is it's not that far to where the house is where he's talking about coming out there's not five or six foot the house just says right here and the fence is right here and there's only 25 and a half feet I believe in between and if someone should come out mad or angry or upset or whatever and come around there and run into that house just fence just that place sitting right there it's not like you've got a half street in between the houses you know when you come around there my only objection i appreciate i'm thankful for weight that you feel again that you that you all feel the neighborhood as i say i hope to stay there to my duration i don't plan on leaving and when i say my duration i hope to stay there until it's over the wife and i and the grandkids and like i say i would love to have the street where they can ride their bicycles i don't let them out at all now at all and the reason i I don't let him out at all is because of the traffic. And honestly, I believe by it coming at the end of the street, all for his business, I'm glad for a business. There's nothing wrong with the business. But when it comes to tearing down what's going to be tore down right next to it and the traffic that we're going to have, it's just too much. It's too much. It's too much. And like I say, one more thing. They want to talk about what used to be and how the cars were over there and how it was disarray. We called a city on many, many, many, many, many occasions to get them to clean up the railroad track, which first belonged to CXS. It's where they used to use to bring flour and meal to the bakery in my earlier years there to the bakery. After that ceased, the bakery ceased. It was filled with people living on the railroad tracks, living in behind. Neighborhood Associates would call on many occasions. I would call the cops at night to come over and see someone burning wood in the behind. Someone that building like I said had been vacant for a while. The last guy was there was from Hawaii He didn't stay no time at all, you know And like I say, it's just gonna be a monster to come up at the end of the street If it's only gonna be four or five people in the office doesn't go around the other end Thank you Thought you have you talked with traffic about? What you could do to maybe help alleviate the problems. I'm thinking speed bumps I'm thinking signage or have you all had a conversation? We did. I did. I had a conversation with, I think it was Tiffany. But anyway, when I talked to them, what I was talking about was to keep individuals from parking in the neighborhood, they were going to give numbers, yeah, where you belong, park in the neighborhood. And if you did not belong there, that's how bad it has gotten, you know, that we've also taken that step to get it put, you know, the stickers put in the cars, so that those that come by at the brewery or down the street or wherever it is, that does not belong in the neighborhood. Our neighborhood was lovely, but it's going down. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. I only had really one thing to add. In the personal conversation that I had with John, I believe that's his name, the owner of Winswept that's bought the property, he said he plans on having 20 to 30 employees. Now, as to whether or not all those employees will use that driveway, there's a big difference from two to three. I would assume for the people that are going to drive like the industrial-type trucks, you're going to have to drive something to get to work before you drive off in that industrial truck. So I would stick with before he's trying to, like, defend the fact that he wants the driveway in front of you all and says two to three, I would go back to the conversation in which he specifically quoted 20 to 30 employees. And so that's what makes it a much bigger deal for 20 to 30 employees to be coming into that driveway and getting point in time is much different than what the two to three he's quoting today that I think make his case seem a little more appealable. But I would definitely be interested for the question that was asked about traffic, for traffic to look further into that overall neighborhood to come in and see what can be done. Because beyond Bel Air, several of those side streets, people are parking on both sides. There's already been cars, like, totally wiped out at this point, honestly. And so if we could do something to maybe coordinate the speed bumps and to coordinate the painting of the side of the road where it's yellow, where you can't park, to do that at certain points, especially at corners, that would be good because I know there are several people who have had their cars damaged at this point because it's just so congested over there. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Thank you. And it obviously is a concern. Maybe that's something the Neighborhood Association can talk to Traffic and Engineering about, and obviously that is not the issue before us today. I'd like to ask if the board has any other questions of the applicant or the opposition. Yes, sir? State your name for the record. Thank you. Christian Torp. I need not reiterate everything I said, but I support all the contentions of the neighborhood residents. but I would like to bring it to you all's attention that the person wanting to run a windswept venture said that they did not know it was a residential zone on this property that they're starting a business in. Clearly they hadn't done the due diligence necessary to run a business and I don't think they've done the due diligence necessary to realize or think about the impact their business will have on the neighborhood. And I just would like to bring that to your attention and thank you all. Thank you very much. you can have a seat Mr. Steindorf do you have any other remarks or going to give you an opportunity to respond nothing in response other than to say you know this is approved by the staff we agreed to the conditions we don't think the impact is going again we're talking about traffic and the same amount of traffic is going to be up and down this road whether that's there or not and And Mr. McFarland's expressed his intention about what to use there and the reasons why it would only be in that use. And we think it's an acceptable use. Thank you, sir. I will ask the board how they would like to move forward and at this point would entertain a motion or motions. I'd like to break this down into two motions. All right, Ms. Moiner. the first motion would deal with the conditional use portion of this request um i move i think a motion uh regarding cv 2015-27 windswept ventures llc's appeal for a conditional use permit to extend the regulations of the i1 zone 21 to extend the regulations of the i1 zone 25 feet to the southern property boundary in the r3 zone i make a motion to disapprove the applicant's request for the following based on the following findings of fact number one the property is already served by sufficient access access points and two the proposed use of a driveway for 20 to to 30 employees has the potential to increase commercial traffic to the detriment of the residents in the area. And number three, the proposed use may endanger the safety of residents, particularly children in the neighborhood. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. There is a motion on the first request. Is there a second? A second. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? sorry but we've gone ahead and disapprove the first um your second okay recommendation or motion second motion uh regarding cv 2015-27 llc windswap ventures llc's uh appeal for a variance to reduce the required 100 foot distance from a residential zone to two feet in a light industrial i1 zone at 729 bel air avenue i move that we approve that request for variance as recommended for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to two conditions one the southern property of the building with the operable windows shall be used only for accessory office space otherwise the applicant must comply with the provisions of article 821 8 article 821-21 of the zoning ordinance and number two a zoning compliance permit any certificate of occupancy shall be obtained from the divisions of planning and building inspection respectively prior to occupancy of the building additionally any paving and or remodeling permits must be attained from the division of building inspection thank you miss meyer we have a motion to approve is there a second i'll second the motion miss whitman seconds all in favor signify by saying aye aye any opposed your second request can i ask a bookkeeping question if it's not too late do we need that paving portion in the second condition or should that be deleted we were go ahead if the applicant wanted to put any paving down on the existing gravel parking lot it would still require a paving permit so it's if it's applicable they have to get the permit if otherwise it would just be in non-applicable part of the condition but it does not permit But the first motion to disapprove the use does not permit the driveway as proposed in this application. All right. Mr. Mayor? Okay. I'd like to make, I don't know that this needs to be a formal motion, but I'd like for traffic engineering to understand, And I believe that the board would encourage some type of study of the parking and traffic problems on the street that have occurred since West 6 Brewery is open. Because it's been open long enough that the problems are pretty well defined. And I bet it's time to look for some solutions. I can let you know that although obviously there are not solutions that we've come up with, I know it has been looked at and we are aware of it. And we will definitely continue and are more than welcome to get together and work with you all on that. We are aware of it. There's just a lack of parking out there, and the overflow is coming into the residential. Thank you, Casey. Folks, this concludes this case. So we wish the applicant well. We wish the neighborhood well, and hopefully we can provide some relief because I think it is a very sensitive situation. and so a lot of things are changing particularly a lot of our neighborhoods so maybe this will help just a little bit so good luck to both of you thank you all for being here I believe we have one more case and that is our administrative appeal Brenda Mack I know that Mr. Emmons has got several things to pass out so I would ask that we take a five minute break thank you I'd like to reconvene the Board of Adjustment. Our last case is an administrative appeal. Brenda Mack is the applicant with us. Would you come up and state your name for the record, please? Brenda Mack. Thank you, Ms. Mack. Ms. Mack, you were before us prior to, and I know that there's some information that staff has passed out, and I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Emmons. I know that there's some opposition here, but we're going to give you all equal opportunities. So if you take a seat, we'd like to hear from Mr. Emmons, and we'll go from there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. First housekeeping, this is, the case is AV 2015-32, Brenda Mack. This is an administrative appeal to change one non-conforming use. That former use was a beauty salon to a new non-conforming use, a cocktail lounge or a bar. And it includes a parking variance to reduce the required parking for the requested use, all in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone for property located at 400 Chestnut Street. During your break, I did pass out several pieces of paper to you. I've got one more that does not have a copy. I'll have to pass around the original to the board. I just wanted to describe briefly. They are all letters of opposition, but the loose letters that you have there, I believe about six letters, those are individual letters in opposition to the requested use, whereas the packet that had the red paperclip on it, it was a packet that was delivered to the staff, I think about earlier this week, that has a lot of different information in it, And that was delivered by the Neighborhood Association President, Ms. Billy Mallory. Also, I was just handed, just prior to the meeting, an additional petition, I believe, in opposition to the requested administrative appeal. And I've got one copy of this, so I'll go ahead and pass this out to the board now. non-conforming uses are uses that are not allowed two months ago this particular applicant at this particular piece property was before the board at that point in time they were appealing a decision to deny the ability to file an application on the subject property because the staff had determined that they had lost their nonconforming status. After a very long hearing, the board did agree with the applicant and parceled out that there was enough evidence that this site had not lost its nonconforming use status and that the applicant could file an application and directed the Division of Planning to accept that application. The board made no determination of whether the proposed use would be allowed or not allowed, just that today's application could be filed so that you can get to the question of whether this site should be allowed a change in the nonconforming use as it's requested. Our staff report, you can see that we have several different sections of the zoning ordinance that we have referenced. In fact, most of the first page of our staff report is just repeating different applicable parts of the zoning ordinance. In the staff review, as we look at any kind of change in one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, the staff looks at is the use similar in intensity to the previous use. And there is more than one way to measure that intensity. However, in all of the ways that the staff looked at this, we found that the proposed use would be more intense than the previous use, and therefore we are recommending disapproval. Really, to kind of sum up our recommendation on how we find it more intense of a use, the first one would be is kind of in which zone are those uses first allowed, because that's a measure of that intensity. If we can put up on the board, this is just a listing of our zones as they appear in Article 8. And I know I've told the board this before, changes in nonconforming uses, we get one or two of those a year. But I just want to reiterate that, as you can see, those listing of zones, they are generally listed in the least intense zone first. our agricultural rural zone, the zone that has the least amount of use and the most amount of open space. And those zones generally get more intense as you go down the list. So the R1A zone is more intense than the AR zone. The R3 is more intense than the R1A. P1, B1, B2, it goes on down to the B4, I1s. And finally, the P2, which is our office, industry, and research part, one of our more intense zones that we have in our zoning ordinance. Whenever we look at the past use of the subject property, the last recorded use of the subject property was for a, the board had approved a change in the nonconforming use to allow a beauty salon. Beauty salons are first allowed in our zoning ordinance in a limited capacity in the P1 zone. That's a professional office zone. They are allowed unrestricted in a B1 zone, a neighborhood business zone. Whereas the requested use of a cocktail lounge or a bar, it's first allowed in the B1 zone as a conditional use with requirements that it be so far away from residential, dimensional requirements that it be so far away from residences. And it's also, it's first allowed as a freestanding use in the B3 zone, which is our highway service business zone. You primarily find the B3 zoning categories along our major arterial roads, like New Circle Road, Nicholasville Road, Richmond Road, those major arterial corridors. So it is a much more intense retail zone. So at first blush, you know, kind of measuring the intensity of the two uses, looking at the zone in which they're first allowed, the proposed use would, this would indicate that this was a more intense use than the previously approved use. The second thing that we looked at would be parking. The parking required for a beauty salon would be one space for every 200 square feet. The parking required for a bar would be one space for every 150 square feet or one space for every three seats in the bar, whichever is greater. I'm not trying to confuse you, but the bar requires more parking. In this instance, the building is so small that the beauty salon would have required five parking spaces. And not knowing the number of seats, but just based off of the square footage of the site, a bar would require seven. So it's more parking spaces that are required because the implication is that it's a more intense use. If there were more seats in this site, it could easily escalate on the number of required parking spaces above and beyond the seven that we would know about. The third thing that the staff looked at in trying to measure the intensity of this use and kind of what type of impact would it have on the neighborhood? But I think it's fair to say that the beauty salon's hours of operation are a lot less, and the proposed bar would have greater hours of operation and would go much later into the evening. Also, the cocktail lounge and the bar, it would have the inherent possibility of noise, possibly even, you know, possibly entertainment and those types of things that you naturally find at a neighborhood bar. So looking, and to the staff, the fact that, you know, most barbershops would close at around 6, maybe stay open a little bit later, depending on what they're looking at. and most bars stay open until 2 or 3 a.m., we found that to be a major difference and would have a major impact, negative impact, on the neighborhood. Primarily for those reasons, and because the proposed use is more intense than the previous use, we found that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance for 4-3E or 7-6C which would require that they be of at least equal or lesser intensity than the previous non-conforming use the staff did note that recommending disapproval of this requested use does not necessarily mean that the nonconforming use status of this property is lost. Another, a different type of nonconforming use application, or even possibly a conforming conditional use, such as a church or a community center, could be requested on the subject property at a later date. It would have to be a completely different application, but we felt that it was important to note that, especially considering the long hearing that we went through just two months ago to establish they had not abandoned the nonconforming use on this subject property. The associated variance requests in order to reduce the amount of required parking for the subject property is the required parking is completely dependent upon the use of the property. This particular site has no parking on it. There is a little bit of a backyard area, but primarily this building covers the entire subject property. and there is no opportunity to put any new parking on here. Obviously, the barbershop was approved with zero parking, so there's a certain amount of nonconforming parking that would be able to be calculated in. But any new use of the property, the parking is going to be dependent upon that. We feel we are recommending disapproval of the parking variance because it's inappropriate to grant a parking variance if the use is also disapproved because it could be a different use could have a completely different parking requirement and calculations. I believe that concludes the staff. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Emmons? Thank you, sir. Thank you. We'll hear from the applicant in just a second. I'm going to ask the opposition if they'd like to come forward and state their name for the record. And I will, much like the last case, anyone can speak. We don't limit that, but I will ask you that we don't want to hear something that we've heard before. If you have something new to bring up to the podium, that would be fine, but we don't want to hear repetition of the previous speaker. So with that said, ma'am, your name for the record. My name is Billy Mallory, and I'd like to make a correction that I am past president of the William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association and now serve that in an advisory capacity as well as serve on the East End Community Development Corporation. I have provided you with letters from both of those organizations in addition to a petition from the members of the Neighborhood Association. The last petition that was turned in today is from Greater Liberty Church. It is within a half block of that property. I've also provided you with several letters of opposition from property owners, from the family dollar store that was requested to use their parking space. But we have several other residents who are here, as well as two attorneys that I would prefer that they speak, because I've spoken in those letters that you have. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the board, my name is Aaron Baker. I am one of the attorneys that she references. I am also a resident of Chestnut Street. I purchased my home there in 2004 before I began law school at UK College of Law, and I've lived there now for 11 years. I actually also now own the empty lot next to my house, so I actually own two pieces of property on Chestnut Street. Something struck me in the discussions that were being had earlier about Sixth Street Brewery. Mr. Glover said he wouldn't want a brewery at the end of his street. And ladies and gentlemen, I don't want a bar at the end of my street. The thing is that I love this neighborhood. I'm from this neighborhood. I live in this neighborhood, as do the people that are here with me today. The person who's proposing to open this bar doesn't live in this neighborhood. And I'm concerned about the sort of person who wants to open a bar in a residential neighborhood. Chestnut Street is historically a low-income area. We have lots of families with small children. We have elderly people. We have young professionals all living on our street. And I'm concerned about the change to the character of the neighborhood if we were to allow a bar to open on the corner. Bars mean more traffic, more intoxicated people, and more noise. And our residential neighborhood doesn't need any of those things. Now, I do want to point out that the applicant might counter that there's a bar at the other end of the street. There is, the other end of the 400 block of Chestnut Street. There's also a homeless shelter and a small convenience store. That bar was the site of at least one shooting in 2013. The convenience store was busted a few years back for selling crack pipes. They call those glass roses. And that corner is notorious for drug dealing. By contrast, the other end of the street where this building is, is calm by comparison. And I'm concerned that if we open a bar down there, that it's going to turn into the same sort of environment that's at the other end of the street. But I really want to address the substance of the application that's in front of the board today. We're talking about changing one nonconforming use, a beauty salon, to a new nonconforming use, a cocktail lounge and a bar. The previous non-conforming use was Rashida's House of Style. And I have not, I don't have a good enough memory myself to remember when they stopped operating. I know that they stopped operating because they got robbed. They decided they were going to move out to Georgetown Street because that would be safer. I called Rashida's today. They said they moved in 2009. So unfortunately, I don't have the benefit of having heard what evidence the board heard at the last meeting. But my understanding is that a nonconforming use, when it's been discontinued for over a year, cannot be resumed. And so my position here today is that the board, under Article 4, would not have the power to approve this change to a nonconforming use. If Rashida's House of Style was a nonconforming use, which stopped in 2009, then they had a year to start operating again. Nothing has operated in that building since then. and I drive by there every single day. I live on that street, and that building has sat empty for the last six years. And so if they don't have a nonconforming use in that building right now, it can't be transformed into a different nonconforming use. And I think that it's important to look to what Article 4 says the purpose of allowing nonconforming uses is. The idea of nonconforming uses is that there were uses that were in place before the zoning ordinances took effect, and that we didn't necessarily want to say, well, if you've had a neighborhood bar for the last 100 years on the corner and you still want it there, we're not going to make you take it out just because we started having zoning ordinances. But it's the intent of the zoning ordinance to permit the uses to continue until they're removed, not to encourage their survival. And the nonconforming use at Rashida's House of Style was removed six years ago. And so I don't think that there's any reason to think that this board should or even has the power to allow a completely different nonconforming use to begin starting today. I think it's also important to note, as the staff apparently did, that a nonconforming use under Article 4-3-E, a nonconforming use can be changed to a different nonconforming use if it's in the same or a more restrictive classification than the previous use. The idea being that we're not going to allow a strip bar to open up at the end of this street because the only place that would be allowed is in B3. And B3 allows just about anything. R3 doesn't. And so the fact that a beauty salon was allowed there is one thing, but a bar would certainly not be allowed in the same zones that a beauty salon is allowed in, as the staff noted in P1, for instance. And so I don't think that it meets the qualification as being in the same or a more restrictive classification than the previous use. So ultimately, I could go on for quite some time, but the board's been here a long time today, and I'm sure that some of my neighbors will have something else to say about this. Just as far as the parking goes, I do want to note that while obviously it doesn't make sense to approve a parking variance if you're not going to approve the nonconforming use, There's very few houses at the end of that street that have a driveway. Most of them do not. Most of these are older shotgun-style houses on very narrow lots. Those folks that live in those houses need street parking, and that's the only parking that's available to them on Chestnut Street, which is a one-way street which only allows parking on the left side of the street. And so if we suddenly had a bar open up down there who tried to claim that some of that was their parking, it would cause parking headaches. And their proposal to use the dollar store's parking lot is interesting in light of the fact that I believe the dollar store was not aware that they were proposing that. It's two blocks away, and as far as I know, they don't want people going to a bar parking in their parking lot. So I don't think it makes sense to approve a parking variance when they would need at least seven spaces. Seven spaces would take up a quarter of Chestnut Street's parking space. So I will yield the floor to anyone else from Chestnut Street. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Baker? Mr. Baker, the board is always sensitive to challenges to its determination of what it can and can't do. I think the issue of whether or not the property, whether or not the non-conforming use has been abandoned has already been determined. As I'm reading from the staff report, we did that in March. So that's not the issue before us. It's the change in the use. But thanks for your comments. Thank you. Yeah, I understand that that was apparently the case. I received notice by virtue of living on Chestnut Street of this meeting. I didn't receive any notice of that meeting, or I would have been happy to present evidence, because, like I say, as far as I can tell, there has been no use of that building for the last six years. Yeah, that's race judicata for our purposes today, but thanks for your comment. I understand. Thank you. Yes, sir. Come forward and state your name for the record, please. Excuse me. Good afternoon. I don't guess it's quite good evening yet, so we're trying not to hold you long. But my name is Theodore Berry, and I'm an attorney. And there are a few people from the neighborhood who are here, if everybody would just stand, people who oppose it. You hear from Billy Mallory, you can have a seat. And Mr. Baker did an excellent job in his presentation. and my mother is one in the pink over there, a purple lilac. She's 83 years of age. She lives next door to the property. She lives at 368 Chestnut Street, and the property in question is 400 Chestnut Street, directly across the street. And Mr. Moss is 83 years old, and he lives next door to my mother. And there's Mr. Hodge, who owns eight pieces of property in the neighborhood, and you heard from Billy Mallory, representing the Neighborhood Association. Speaking, first of all, of parking, right now, when I go to visit my mother, whenever there are two people visiting this proposed shop, they drive to the facility sometimes, the owners, and when they park, there is no parking in that block, as Mr. Baker said, you have to park 150 feet or more away or in another block altogether because there's no parking as it stands now. So trying to get a variance for parking to grant a variance for parking would have been inappropriate if you approved this. And the store that they were proposing is over 300 to 400 feet away. And we certainly don't want drunken people walking 300 or 400 feet from the facility to not save a lot, but to the dollar store at 2 o'clock in the morning. There's already heavy traffic on the street. There are loud noises. They wake the people up there every night. Just tremendous traffic. And there have been many shootings in that area. One year, a few years ago, there were two weekends in a row where people were shot right at that very intersection of Chestnut and 4th Street, and the ambulance had to come to take them away. In the last few months, there was another shooting there. I believe somebody was killed right there at that same intersection. And yes, there is a bar located a block away. Not only was there a shooting there within the last year, but there have been people killed in that bar. And we don't need any more shootings. We don't need any more injuries and any more deaths. And so I know you voted on the fact that they could raise the nonconforming issue. But I'd like to know what evidence could have possibly been used for a facility that hadn't been operating for six years. And we didn't receive any notice on it. Maybe we weren't required to receive notice. But certainly, whatever evidence was used, I don't want to call it bogus, but it mystifies me as to what kind of evidence you could have used to determine that they were using it in a non-conforming use capacity. But I also agree with Mr. Baker that I think the regulations require and demand that you rule against approval of this nonconforming use because of the intensity, the increased intensity in the area. And you've already, and Mr. Baker spoke to that again extremely well, so I won't go over all of that. But the bar had to move because there weren't enough parking spaces. Not the bar, I mean the beauty parlor. And now you're going to bring on a bar. With the drug traffic and everything else in the area, we don't need any more drunken people walking down the streets at night and all the loud noise. and I ask for you to consider my mother, her neighbor, Mr. Hodge, and the neighborhood, the neighborhood association, and all the other people in denying this request. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else want to speak? Yes, my name is John Williams, Jr. And Mr. Berry and I, I'm 67 years old. And Mr. Berry probably remembers it. But at that restaurant up there on the corner, my cousin got killed up there. And this area is very, very dangerous, and it's drunk, and sell crack, and it's terrible. And we just do not need this in our neighborhood. And I pray. I really do. And before y'all make a decision, go by there. Get in your car and ride up Chestnut Street. The church is right there. There's a church. Then you can put an old restaurant here where drunks, alcoholics, crack sellers, killers, I mean, those are all in this neighborhood. And then Hawkins Avenue is a known place for drugs. Hawkins Avenue is just one little block up from Chestnut Street. And like I said, I'm an old man. I'm 67 years old. but all of my life coming up I've seen this area because you know I've seen it and it's really a bad area and the way to truly make a determination one or two or three y'all need to ride up that street and you'll see all the problems you can see it because it's right out there on the street and there's no need in adding more problems for these people thank y'all for listening And too many of you, I have a blessed day. Thank you. I'm Odell Moss. I'm 83 years old, just like Mrs. Rosalie is. she lives right next door to me on the corner on Chesterton Street at Chesterton and 4th Street I live right next to her on on the Chesterton Street side I first moved there some 53 years ago because I'm the last of the people on that street for being alive but what I'm saying is that it was a quiet place a lovely place to raise children. People were friendly with one another. Of course, time changes. As time changed, things got worse. Now, it's good to have plans for whatever you're going to do, rules, regulations, and guidelines, and how you're going to zone. But the truth is, you have to look at the people that is in that area. Now, forgive me for saying this. I got rid of all of my lone guns. I sure did. But I held on to my two short guns. And for the simple reason is, I could not let them go because of how things had gotten bad in the area where I live. now and of course I'll be dead soon nobody gonna live too much longer than what I am but nevertheless I'm not gonna let anybody chase me out of where I am if you want to if you want to chase me out where you are then you're gonna kill me or I will kill you it's simple it's not difficult it's just hard to understand at all. Now, Sister Barry here, she lives, like I said, she lives right on the corner, 4th and Chestnut. Well, I feel sorry for her, because just in the last few years, the Lexington State Police Department has spent untold thousands of dollars, had to have been, in order to chase the drug dealers and the drug sellers off that corner, see? I mean, they spent some money but what they did do was when they slowed them down was they moved from fourth and Chester to fifth Chester and Mr. ladies and gentlemen they're running they're running almost wide open of course police is able to slow them down a little bit and now they got helicopters coming over so often this ain't no this ain't no easy thing I don't know where any of you live and it's not my business. I'll start clarity. But where you live, I guarantee you don't live where we live in the situation where we are. That was one time that five or six men were killed up there at the fifth and sixth street area. And this was just about two or three years ago, if it's been that long. And almost all I could do is, well, I'm glad I'm not up that far up, see. What I'm saying is, folks, we can generalize all we want to, but somebody has not given no thought at all. This place has been a salon place. So you're the salon place and you're going to change it into a booze place? We're going to have some problems. We're going to have some problems. I don't care what the doctor tells me. He tells me what's going to kill me and all that. Then when he first of the year, he tells me I got something else. What's going to kill me then? But that's not his business, see? The Lord is my business. And consequently, I'm going to live right where I am until he calls me one way or the other. So I have, I got to live. That's the way I'm going to live. But something's got to be wrong with somebody up here. It's to allow a place that's small and no park, no place to park. and the sidewalk is right on the side of the building. It's right up on the building. The sidewalk itself. And around the front, you only got a small distance. And on the other side of the building, you've got a house that I guarantee is not six feet away from the side of this building. Then where are these people going to park? Mr. Will, So I'd like to ask you to wrap it up because we've been hearing about the crime and we've been hearing about the neighborhood and the drugs and so forth. If you've got anything else to add, please do. Yes, sir. My truck parked in my driveway just behind Sister Rosalie's house there, and 20 yards off of the street, it's been shot up twice. I guarantee you, none of you have it. That's my point. Thank you, sir. Before you sit down, I'd like to make a comment. I'm up here in front of you, this way, right here. I've been on this board more than a decade. One of the first cases that came before this board when I joined was the Catholic Action Center at Fifth and Chestnut. And I've been here, like I said, more than 10 years, and there's never been a vote I've made on this board that I've regretted more than allowing that Catholic Action Center to open there. That's my point. And since it opened, I've seen the fences built in the front yards and the no trespassing signs, and I know it did a lot of damage to your neighborhood. And all I want to do now is apologize for my part in that. I'm so sorry. Thank you, sir. Sure. Yes, sir. And I won't let any more damage come to that neighborhood if I can help it. Amen. But there is a difference between the beauty salon and the ball. Gentlemen, I'll let somebody else speak, but I don't want to hear anything that we've already heard. We've heard you loud and clear. So if you have something new to add why this should be denied, please do so. My name is William Bond. I'm here to represent the Great Liberty Baptist Church as a deacon of the Great Liberty Baptist Church. I no longer live in that neighborhood. I grew up in that neighborhood. I grew up on Chestnut Street. I lived all over East End. My mother lived at 330 Chestnut Street on the other end. I got a service. I don't think my mother ever knew until my brother told her. I went and got some. Because she had a daily weapon license to drive over Chester Street where I grew up at. I never did think I'd have to get a weapon to drive on the street that I grew up on. And like some of the rest of these people have said here, you just need to drive down that street. You need police escort, FBI, to go down that street. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Byron. I'd like to hear from the applicant. Please come forward and state your name for the record. Andre Regard on behalf of the applicant. Thank you for having me again here. Obviously, I was here a couple of months ago. And we spoke a little bit then about the type of nonconforming use. And as you recall during that meeting, we determined that the most important issue at that time was to determine whether or not we could have a continuation of a nonconforming use. And the board did vote in favor of that. After that meeting, we met with the Division of Planning and talked about what the use of the property was going to be. And really, based on the use, the only defined use would be a cocktail lounge. I know we had talked about maybe trying to fit it into some other use, but that is the use. As Jimmy mentioned, a cocktail lounge is a conditional use under AB1. And therefore, it is subject to the board's decision on whether or not to grant that conditional use. And we respect that the board is going to be able to make that decision today, hopefully. This whole issue of intensity from a procedural point of view, there is nothing in the regulations that discuss intensity of a use. It uses a vague phrase of a use that is, I think Jimmy did quote it, the same or a more restrictive classification. So Jimmy did point out the classifications. A beauty salon is a use in B1 as a conditional use in B1. It's also a use in P1. So we're really in the same classification. I don't know where intensity comes from. It's not described in the planning and zoning regulations. So the use is in the same classification as a conditional use, of course. So therefore, we feel that it is appropriate to be in front of the board on that. The applicant is willing to listen to any conditions that the board would put on for the use, if there were time conditions or any other conditions. I certainly respect the letters that have been submitted and respect the comments that have been made by the other parties. Of course, when we were here last time, we did submit signatures as well. Jimmy tells me it's in the file from the last meeting, but there was a petition that was submitted and was circulated to the board at the last meeting of people who signed in support of it as well. On the parking issue, of course, we aren't on the parking issue unless we get through the nonconforming conditional use. It was my understanding initially that the dollar store was going to support the parking. It's come up to Mrs. Mack's attention that they no longer were going to do that. So there is a deli and market which does fall within the regulated area. Of course, you know, we have the infill regulation, and the infill regulation says if it's within 300 feet and you can find parking within that area, you're allowed to do that. And the reason the infill regulation exists is for exact situations such as this, a situation where you're looking at a commercial use of a commercial building that is in an area That's an infill area because we're not growing our boundaries. We aren't looking to grow our urban service area. So for the record, I'll make a copy for Jimmy, but here is a letter from the deli saying that the parking could be made available, that the deli has. They're within the 300-foot zone. Really, other than the procedural point that it is allowed as a conditional use, that it is not a less restrictive use. it's in the same zone, albeit a conditional use, I do believe that the application fairly fits within the regulations and is properly before the board. And, of course, Ms. Mack is here to answer any questions, and we would wholly support if there are conditions that the board would like to put on as far as hours of operation or those sorts of things, we can certainly discuss them. Thank you, Mr. Does anybody have any questions? Thank you, Mr. Regard. Did you have anything to add, Ms. May? Well, I heard him say that I don't live in the neighborhood, but I'm from the neighborhood. I've lived there all my life. I don't live there now, but I know what goes on in the neighborhood. I'm not trying to create anything that's going to harm the neighborhood. All I wanted was like a private little club to have a few people to come and have a limit on drinks and not have the same categorizing that they have. I don't want the same, the people that they're talking about shooting and shooting, that's not the kind of people I'm going to deal with. That's not what I'm going to deal with. I'm going to deal with grown folks. To me, that's young people doing that craziness. So that's what I'm here for. I'm trying to do something for my, you know, for the neighborhood, for me, for us, you know, young people. I mean, I'm sorry, for my generation. You know, I'm trying to stay out of the way. I'm not trying to store no trouble. And I wanted to close the bar at a decent hour and a limit on drinks. I had a limitation on drinks, too. I'm not trying, and it's supposed to be private. And how often has the police been called? I had the place open for a few months. Maybe the police got called once because it was a lady outside drinking beer, and it didn't come from me because I didn't sell beer. She came from up the street somewhere with the beer. I have no control over that. I cannot control people, what they do, but I want to have some kind of handle on what comes in my bar. I'm not just letting anybody come in and everybody goes out just drunk and is going to create a problem with people. That's not what I'm trying to do here. Like I said, I'm from the neighborhood, too. Born and raised East End. Yes, I am. I also go to the church. I belong to the church that he's talking about. Just a few feet away. You know, I'm not trying to harm the neighborhood. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to harm it. I'm just trying to start a little business and make a living. That's all I want to do. And, you know, if it comes to push come to shove, if y'all can just give me some kind of time limit on trying to show y'all that I'm not trying to hurt y'all, some kind of time limit, if something is going wrong through the time limit that y'all can put on me, then, you know, kick me away. But give me a chance. Y'all categorizing me as everybody else. Y'all stereotyping. I just think it's not fair. Just make your comments. Okay, I'm sorry. Okay, but that's what I'm saying. Just give me a chance. Thank you, Ms. Mack. Does anybody have any other questions for Ms. Mack? Thank you very much. Ms. Rivard, anything to ask? No, sir, I'm just getting my papers. Ladies and gentlemen, I think that we've heard some, you know, some very compelling, very poignant stories from our neighborhood. And, I mean, there is just overwhelming opposition to having a bar. And I personally cannot support it. And I couldn't support it the last time, and I can't today. I just, having, granting this administrative appeal, I think would have an adverse effect to the neighborhood. I just don't think it's a very good idea. I think that obviously as a property owner, you need to be able to use your property to make a living. I have nothing against that, Ms. Mack. But for what you're asking our board to do today, you know, is looking at the staff's recommendation for disapproval, you know, the scope, the intensity doesn't meet the requirements of Article 4.3E or 7.6C. obviously the parking is a huge issue but this you know a bar like this is not something that is allowed that I'm comfortable approving for the neighborhood and I can't speak for the board but I would think that they are probably they can make up their own mind but you know developing a business wish list that includes a grocery store, a public market, a pharmacy, general merchandise, hardware, laundromat, you know, an ice cream shop, perhaps even a movie theater, although it probably wouldn't be conducive to that, you know, a business wish list like that to me would be much more acceptable to the neighborhood than to have another bar because that whole area has had its share of more than its share of crime and tragedy. And I'm not advocating that this is going to add to it, but it certainly is not going to detract from it. And with that said, I'd like to ask any of the board members if they have any other questions or comments. And if not, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we, I guess there's, since there are two requests to the appeal, we probably need to have two motions. I have two motions. Yes. I move that we disapprove AV 2015-32. Brenda Max appealed to change one conforming use to a new conforming use for the reasons stated by the staff in the denial of the administrative appeal. Secondly, I move that we disapprove the application 2015-32, Brenda Mack's appeal for a parking variance to reduce the required parking by 50% in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 400 Chestnut Street for the reason that the staff has indicated in the staff report for disapproval. Thank you, Mr. Glover. We've got a motion to disapprove the administrative appeal. Is there a second? I'll second both of those appeals. Thank you. Mr. Griggs, second both. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. We wish you well, Ms. Mack, and we wish the neighborhood well and safety. Thank you all for coming, and thank you for your patience. Thank you, sir. I'd like to ask if there's anything else to come before the board. Anybody wants any staff items? Chairman, we have no staff items. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Salee. I would like to ask Mr. Glover, our next meeting is going to be on June 26th, but we would like to ask our Board of Adjustment members to come a little bit early. So can we come about 15 minutes early? Would that be okay? Sure. All right, very good. Well, with that, everyone have a good weekend, and thank you all so much. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. ¶¶ Backstabbers Bye.