# Board of Adjustment - June 24, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 24, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4004 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4004?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-06-24 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 16,433 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment met on June 24, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Barry Stumbo presiding. The board considered eight agenda items, including six variance requests, two conditional use permits, and one administrative appeal. The meeting included five public comments and resulted in eight motions and votes. Of the eight items considered, seven were approved and one was denied. The approved variances included a request from Earle & Diane Benezet to reduce the required side yard from 8 feet to 3 feet, Bruce Webb's request to reduce the required distance from a residential zone from 150 feet to 40 feet, and Leah Taylor's request to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 0 feet. The board denied CM Chevy Chase LLC's variance request to reduce required parking from 54 to 34 spaces. The board also approved three conditional use permits: one for Bluegrass Christian Assembly to replace a swimming pool and install a bath house, one for First United Methodist Church to construct a church addition, and one for Southside Church of Christ to demolish and rebuild a Sunday school facility. Additionally, the board approved an administrative appeal from Employment Solutions, Inc. to change a non-conforming use. ## Attendance **Present:** Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Chad Needham, Larry Forester, Jan Meyer, Casey Kaucher, Thomas Clements, Jim Marx, Tracy Jones, Andrea Brown, Bill Sallee, Jimmy Emmons, and Tammye McMullen. **Late:** Thomas Glover **Absent:** Branden Gross ## Votes and Decisions The board voted on eight items during this meeting, approving seven and rejecting one. **V-2016-33** [00:05:56]: Approval of a variance to reduce the required side yard from 8 feet to 3 feet for a detached accessory building in a Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone at 1732 Houndstooth Glen. Motion by Jan Meyer, seconded by Joan Whitman. **Passed unanimously, 5-0**. Conditions included compliance with the submitted site plan and obtaining all necessary permits, including a building permit for the storage shed prior to construction. **V-2016-35** [00:08:53]: Approval of a variance to reduce the required distance from a residential zone from 150 feet to 40 feet to occupy a building as a gymnasium in a Professional Office (P-1) zone at 1122 Oak Hill Dr. Motion by Larry Forester, seconded by Joan Whitman. **Passed unanimously, 5-0**. The applicant must obtain a Zoning Compliance Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for the athletic club facility prior to commencement of use. **V-2016-36** [00:12:35]: Approval of a variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 0 feet to construct a single-family residence in a Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone at 916 Bravington Way. Motion by Chad Needham, seconded by Larry Forester. **Passed unanimously, 6-0**. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and an occupancy permit upon completion. **C-2016-29** [00:17:28]: Approval of a conditional use permit to replace an existing swimming pool with a larger one and install a bath house in an Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone at 7463 Athens-Boonseboro Road. Motion by Jan Meyer, seconded by Thomas Glover. **Passed unanimously, 6-0**. The recreational facilities shall be for sponsored church camp activities only and not offered to the general public. **C-2016-30** [00:18:58]: Approval of a conditional use permit to construct a church addition up to 10,000 square feet in an Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone at 4131 Todds Road. Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Joan Whitman. **Passed unanimously, 6-0**. Multiple conditions applied, including temporary access via Todds Road until Polo Club Boulevard is constructed. **C-2016-32** [00:20:37]: Approval of a conditional use permit to demolish an existing one-story building and rebuild a new two-story building as a Sunday school facility in a Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone at 1533 Nicholasville Rd. Motion by Larry Forester, seconded by Joan Whitman. **Passed unanimously, 6-0**. Exterior changes require Board of Architectural Review approval. **A-2016-31** [00:22:49]: Approval of an administrative appeal to change a non-conforming use from child care facility to adult day care facility in a Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone at 3600 Appian Way. Motion by Joan Whitman, seconded by Jan Meyer. **Passed unanimously, 6-0**. **V-2016-34** [01:46:24]: Approval of a variance to reduce required parking from 54 spaces to 34 spaces for office/restaurant uses in a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone at 630 Euclid Ave. Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Larry Forester. **Failed, 4-2**. Voting in favor: Barry Stumbo, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Chad Needham. Voting against: Larry Forester, Jan Meyer. ## Public Comment The meeting included comments from multiple speakers addressing a proposed parking variance for CM Chevy Chase LLC. **Opposition to Parking Variance** Amy Clark opposed the parking variance, citing concerns about pedestrian and traffic safety [timestamp: 00:26:15]. She noted that the proposed development required 35 parking spaces but only provided 34, and expressed concern about increased congestion in the area. Ms. Clark advocated for requiring off-site parking leases as an alternative solution that would be fair and balanced. **Applicant and Developer Perspectives** John Talbot, speaking on behalf of the applicant, defended the variance request [timestamp: 00:23:59]. He emphasized the property's design intent and the use of public right-of-way for parking. Mr. Talbot stressed the importance of certainty for leasing and noted that the applicant had resolved concerns with the adjacent clinic owner. Jason Taylor provided a developer perspective on the parking and use intensity issues [timestamp: 01:07:40]. He explained that the development was originally designed for retail and service uses with lower parking demands, but market demand had shifted toward higher-intensity uses. Mr. Taylor argued that the variance would provide certainty for leasing and suggested that parking issues could be addressed at a later time. **Staff Rationale** Jimmy Emmons explained the staff's three criteria for evaluating parking variances [timestamp: 00:43:28]. These criteria are walkability, availability of alternative parking, and parking generation of the proposed use. Mr. Emmons noted the area's walkability and existing parking options, but acknowledged that the applicant's self-created parking deficit remained a concern. **Administrative Announcements** Jim Duncan introduced himself as the new Director of Planning [timestamp: 01:48:44]. He announced that Jimmy Emmons would be transitioning to transportation planning and shared upcoming organizational changes, including the relocation of the Board of Adjustment to zoning enforcement and the launch of the Acela Civic Platform for electronic applications. ## Appointments Jim Duncan was appointed to the position of Director of Planning. ## Contested Items **CM Chevy Chase LLC Parking Variance** A parking variance request for CM Chevy Chase LLC generated significant community opposition during the meeting. The primary concerns centered on traffic safety, pedestrian safety, and parking availability in the affected area. The debate reflected broader disagreements about balancing development intensity with neighborhood impact. Community members raised concerns about how the proposed variance would affect local traffic patterns and the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity. Parking availability emerged as another key point of contention, with opponents questioning whether the variance would adequately address parking needs or exacerbate existing shortages. The discussion was characterized as heated, indicating strong feelings on multiple sides of the issue regarding the appropriate level of development and its effects on the surrounding neighborhood. ## Earle & Diane Benezet – Variance to reduce required side yard from 8 feet to 3 feet **Case Number:** V-2016-33 **Request:** The Board considered a variance request to reduce the required side yard setback from 8 feet to 3 feet for a detached accessory building in a Single Family Residential zone. [timestamp: 00:02:38] **Key Speakers:** Earle Benezet, Diane Benezet, and Jimmy Emmons presented on this matter. **Outcome:** The Board approved the variance. **Basis for Approval:** The Board cited the following factors in granting the variance: - Unique site conditions that justified the reduced setback requirement - Lack of adverse impact on neighboring properties or the surrounding area - No willful violation of zoning regulations by the applicant **Conditions:** The applicant agreed to comply with two conditions imposed by staff as part of the variance approval. ## CM Chevy Chase LLC – Variance to reduce required parking from 54 to 34 spaces [timestamp: 00:02:38] The Board considered a variance request by CM Chevy Chase LLC to reduce required parking from 54 spaces to 34 spaces. Despite staff recommendation in favor of the variance and the applicant's agreement to the proposal, the Board rejected the request. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Board members John Talbot, Amy Clark, Jimmy Emmons, Jason Taylor, and Tony Barrett. **Outcome** The variance request was denied. A motion to approve failed 4-2. Following the rejection, the Board adopted a modified condition related to the project. **Issues Raised** Board members expressed significant concerns about the variance, including: - Traffic safety impacts - Effects on pedestrian safety - The applicant's self-created parking deficit These concerns proved decisive in the Board's decision to reject the request, despite the staff recommendation supporting approval and the applicant's willingness to accept the reduced parking requirement. ## Bruce Webb – Variance to reduce required distance from residential zone from 150 feet to 40 feet **Case Number:** V-2016-35 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a variance request to reduce the required distance from a residential zone from 150 feet to 40 feet for a gymnasium in a Professional Office zone. [timestamp: 00:03:11] **Key Speakers:** - Bruce Webb (applicant) - Jimmy Emmons **Summary:** The Board approved the variance, citing several factors that supported the decision. The site's long history of similar use was noted as a significant consideration in evaluating the request. The Board also found that unique circumstances existed that justified the reduction in the required setback distance. The Board determined that the proposed gymnasium would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area, particularly the nearby residential zone. The applicant agreed to comply with two conditions imposed by staff as part of the approval. ## Leah Taylor – Variance to reduce required front yard from 30 feet to 0 feet **Case Number:** V-2016-36 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a variance request to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 0 feet for a single-family residence located in a Single Family Residential zone. [timestamp: 00:03:42] **Key Speakers and Presentation** Nathan Wright and Jimmy Emmons addressed the Board regarding this variance application. **Basis for Variance** The Board approved the variance based on several site-specific factors: - Unique topography of the property - Unbuilt street conditions - Environmental constraints affecting the site **Issues Addressed** The applicant's representative responded to concerns raised during the discussion, specifically addressing questions about the proposed home size and its compatibility with neighborhood character. ## Bluegrass Christian Assembly – Conditional use to replace swimming pool and install bath house The Board considered a conditional use permit (C-2016-29) for Bluegrass Christian Assembly to replace a swimming pool and install a bath house [timestamp: 00:04:13]. **Key Speakers** Michael Fain and Jimmy Emmons presented on this agenda item. **Presentation and Discussion** The Board reviewed the proposal in the context of the site's long operational history. The discussion noted the property's floodplain restoration efforts and determined that the proposed pool replacement and bath house installation would have minimal impact on the surrounding area. **Conditions** The applicant agreed to three conditions as part of the approval: - Use restrictions - Permit requirements - Additional conditions as specified in the Board's decision **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit for the pool replacement and bath house installation. ## First United Methodist Church – Conditional use to construct church addition **Identifier:** C-2016-30 **Outcome:** Approved The Board considered a conditional use permit for First United Methodist Church to construct a church addition [timestamp: 00:04:13]. Key speakers on this item included Chris Howard and Jimmy Emmons. The Board approved the conditional use permit based on findings that the applicant had adequate land, parking, and services to support the proposed addition. The applicant agreed to comply with seven conditions as part of the approval: - Temporary access provisions - Health department approval - Signage compliance - Additional conditions as specified in the permit The conditional use permit was granted with these conditions in place. ## Southside Church of Christ – Conditional use to demolish and rebuild Sunday school facility [timestamp: 00:04:47] The Board considered a conditional use permit (C-2016-32) for Southside Church of Christ to demolish and rebuild a Sunday school facility. **Speakers and Presentation** Bobby Morris and Jimmy Emmons presented on behalf of the application. **Key Details** The proposal involves construction of a new two-story Sunday school building. The Board noted that the project represents a minor expansion and is compatible with the H-1 zone designation for the property. **Conditions** The applicant agreed to four conditions as part of the approval: - Architectural review requirements - Signage rules and restrictions **Outcome** The Board approved the conditional use permit. ## Employment Solutions, Inc. – Administrative appeal to change non-conforming use **Overview** The Board considered an administrative appeal by Employment Solutions, Inc. to change the use of a facility from a child care facility to an adult day care facility. [timestamp: 00:04:47] **Key Speakers** Rick Chrisman and Jimmy Emmons presented on this matter. **Decision** The Board approved the administrative appeal. The approval was based on findings that the proposed change would have minimal impact and represented a reduced scope of operations compared to the existing use. **Conditions** As part of the approval, the applicant agreed to two conditions: - Permit requirements for the facility - Specified operating hours **Outcome** The administrative appeal was approved with the applicant's acceptance of the stated conditions. --- ## Decisions - **V-2016-33** — passed (5-0): Approval of variance to reduce required side yard from 8 feet to 3 feet for a detached accessory building in a Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone at 1732 Houndstooth Glen - **V-2016-35** — passed (5-0): Approval of variance to reduce required distance from a residential zone from 150 feet to 40 feet to occupy a building as a gymnasium in a Professional Office (P-1) zone at 1122 Oak Hill Dr. - **V-2016-36** — passed (6-0): Approval of variance to reduce required front yard from 30 feet to 0 feet to construct a single-family residence in a Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone at 916 Bravington Way - **C-2016-29** — passed (6-0): Approval of conditional use permit to replace existing swimming pool with a larger one and install a bath house in an Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone at 7463 Athens-Boonseboro Road - **C-2016-30** — passed (6-0): Approval of conditional use permit to construct a church addition up to an additional 10,000 square feet in an Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone at 4131 Todds Road - **C-2016-32** — passed (6-0): Approval of conditional use permit to demolish an existing one-story building and rebuild a new two-story building as a Sunday school facility in a Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone at 1533 Nicholasville Rd. - **A-2016-31** — passed (6-0): Approval of administrative appeal to change a non-conforming use from child care facility to adult day care facility in a Single Family Residential (R-1D) zone at 3600 Appian Way - **V-2016-34** — failed (4-2): Approval of variance to reduce required parking from 54 spaces to 34 spaces for office/restaurant uses in a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone at 630 Euclid Ave. --- ## Full transcript Oh I would like to welcome you to the June Board of Adjustment meeting. I'd like to go ahead and take care of a couple housekeeping items If you have a cell phone, please turn it off And if you need to take a phone call, please do it out in the lobby I'd like to anyone who's going to speak Would you stand and raise your right hand, please? Anyone who's going to speak? Do you agree to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you, you can be seated Before I read the agenda, Mr. Immons, I assume there are no withdrawals. The staff is unaware of any requests for postponements or withdrawals. Okay. I'd like to go ahead and we have the March minutes. You all have had an opportunity to review the March minutes. Are there any questions, any changes, any corrections? If not, the chair will entertain a motion. So moved. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Is there a second? A second. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. All in favor to see if I'm by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. I'd like to go ahead and read the agenda. I'm going to ask if the applicant is present as we normally do. Those that have no opposition, we hear those first. And if you are opposed or if the applicant has opposition, we ask that you all try to go out and work it out before we bring the case up. So I'd like to go ahead and call the agenda. The first case is Earl and Diane Benazette. Is the applicant here? Very good. Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition? Okay. The second is CM Chevy Chase LLC. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to this? Okay. As I said before, I'd really like, if you all would, to step out in the hallway, unless you think that the issues are insurmountable. We'd like to see, often we get these things worked out. Bruce Webb is the next applicant. Thank you. Is there any opposition to Mr. Webb? Any opposition? Okay. The next is Leah Taylor. Is the applicant here? Is there any opposition to Leah Taylor? Is there any opposition to Leah Taylor? Okay. Mr. Chairman, I believe this also the name that went out on the notice letter could also be Leah Taylor or Nathan Wright. I just want to make sure this is a variance for a property located at 916 Brovington Way. Okay. I want to make sure that there's no confusion in the audience over the naming on this particular application. Okay. And you are, sir? Nathan Wright. Okay, Mr. Wright. Okay. No opposition to that. Bluegrass Christian Assembly, is the applicant here? Is there any opposition? Is there any opposition to Bluegrass Christian Assembly? All righty. First Methodist Church, applicant is here. Is there any opposition to the First Methodist Church? Any opposition? The next item is Southside Church of Christ. Is the applicant here? Very good. Is there any opposition to Southside Christian Church? Any opposition? Okay. Employment solutions. Applicant is here. Is there any opposition to employment solutions? Any opposition? Very good. I believe that's all the board items. We will go ahead and take an order of those that there is no opposition. Earl and Diane Benezet, would you please approach the podium? Mr. Chairman, as they're approaching, the staff has received one letter on this particular application. It is a letter of support from the adjoining neighbor. Thank you. Would you state your name for the record, please? Earl Benezet. Diane Benezet. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Benezet. that you requested a variance to reduce a required side yard from 8 feet to 3 feet. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yes. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. or Mrs. Benizat? Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Anyone? Mr. Chair, I move we approve the 2016-33 Earl and Diane Benezette's request for a variance to reduce the required side yard from 8 feet to 3 feet in order to construct a detached accessory building in a single family residential R1C zone at 1732 Houndstooth Glen. for reasons recommended by staff and subject to the two conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Is there a second? A second. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. The next applicant is Bruce Webb. Mr. Chairman, also as he approaches, the staff has received one letter of concern. I'll pass that out to the board now. Okay. Would you introduce yourself, please, for the record? It's Bruce Webb. Thank you, Mr. Webb. Mr. Webb, give us just a minute to take a look at this, and we'll get with you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Immons. This letter, we have acknowledged it as part of the record, but it actually does not pertain to the request in front of us. It's actually a personal letter and has nothing to do with the case in front of us. The staff has actually recommended approval subject to two conditions, Mr. Webb. Do you agree to abide by those? Yes, I do. Does any member of the Board of Adjustment have a question for Mr. Webb? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve V-2016-35 Bruce Webb, request a variance to reduce the required distance from a residential zone from 150 feet to 40 feet in order to occupy a building as a gymnasium in a professional office P1 zone at 1122 Oak Hill Drive, based on the staff's office. based on the staff's recommendations and the two conditions. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Is there a second? I second the motion. Ms. Whitman, seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck with the project. Thank you. Leah Taylor and I believe Mr. Wright is here. Would the applicant please come forward? Mr. Chairman, staff has received several letters on this one. There were several letters of concern and one letter of support. Mr. Slee, would you check on Mr. Wright? Thank you. We lost you there for a minute, Mr. Wright. Sorry about that. We were outside talking about the lot. Mr. Wright, you request a variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 to 0 feet in order to construct a single-family residence at 916 Bravington Way. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those? Yes. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to ask the board if they have any questions for Mr. Wright. I think my only question here is, what would be the other, it seems like the other size of the homes in the neighborhood. It seems a little out of character with the size, but this is a unique lot. Maybe you could speak upon that. Yeah, I would say the average house over there is roughly 2,500 square feet, and obviously they were built in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. The lot size for our lot is roughly an acre and a quarter. The size of the house that we anticipate to build or propose to build is roughly 4,000 square feet. It is one and a half story, but I think it will blend in with the neighborhood. A lot of the renovations that have gone on within that neighborhood have expanded the footprint of the other houses, and I think you'll continue to see that. So as we move forward, I think as people are moving in and renovating and adding to, the size of the house will actually fit maybe more appropriately over time. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Mr. Dito, anything else? I actually live around the corner from you. And, you know, most of the houses do range of about 2,500 to 3,500 square feet. My neighbor's got a 3,800 square feet out. So it's not that far out of character. But it's also a big lot, and it's a beautiful lot, too, by the way. Thank you very much. And so does anybody have any other questions for Mr. Wright? If not, the Chair will entertain a motion. Excuse me. V-2016-36, Nathan Wright, Leah Taylor, move to approve a variance to reduce the required front yard from 30 feet to 0 feet in order to construct a single-family residence in a single-family residential R1C zone at 916 Brovington Way, Council District 9, subject to the staff's recommendations for the reasons the staff's recommended and based on the following conditions. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Is there a second? I'll second his motion. Mr. Forrester seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck with the project, Mr. Ryan. Thank you all very much. Our next applicant is Bluegrass Christian Assembly. The applicant, please come forward and state your name for the record. Michael Phan. Mr. Phan, the stack has recommended approval for your conditional use to replace the swimming pool with the larger one, and it sounds like it's a better plan. It sounds like it's off the floodplain. Is that correct? That's correct. because I know that there were some issues with that before, and having looked at the site plan, I think it's going to be in a much better spot. The staff has recommended approval subject to the three conditions. Do you agree to abide by those? We do. Does any member of the board have any questions for Mr. Fan? Mr. Chairman, Glover? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize there was a question. We did receive a letter of support. I'll pass that out. Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Glover. No, my question really is of staff. I noticed in the staff report that there was a statement that the project would help restore some of the natural floodplain. And since I really didn't get out to see this, and I don't have really a concept of the site in mind, the map was kind of small, the image was kind of small. If you've got something to show us, that would be helpful. Thank you. Do you want me to add? I've got a pointer. This is in the 2016 aerial photography of the Bluegrass Christian Camp, at least the developed portion of that. You've got the Boonesboro Creek on the right-hand side of the photo. Clark County is just on the other side of the creek, and the camp does extend into Clark County also, so they're on both sides of the creek. This is where their dormitories are and everything. The area that is subject to this request today is on the most northern corner, directly adjacent to 8th and Boonesboro Creek. This is the area where the existing pool is. They proposed to eliminate the existing pool, build a new pool farther up the hill. The existing pool in our FEMA maps is in the floodplain. The applicant, before they even filed this, worked with our Department of Water Quality and had worked out a plan to restore the floodplain for the area that they're taking out the old pool and putting in the new pool. So the new pool is not going to be in the floodplain at all? It will not. And when they restore the, well, maybe to the applicant, When you restore the old pool, you're talking about filling it in and... Yeah, with the green space. Okay. And we've already started conversations, like you said, with that office. Okay. Thank you. The letter that we have talks about the historical nature of the... There's a mill. Yes, ma'am. Down there. And you're not... Where are you in relation to this mill? It's part of the property. It's part of the property, but is it part of this project? No, no. I think that neighbor just really likes the mill. We appreciate it. She has given us a lot of history. It's pretty remarkable. Very good. Anybody have any other questions for Mr. Phan? If not, Cheryl, I'll take a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve C-2016-29 Bluegrass Christian Assembly requests a conditional use permit to replace the existing swimming pool with a larger one and install an associated bathhouse in the agricultural AR zone at 7463 Athens Bloonsboro Road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the three conditions. Thank you, Ms. Myers. Is there a second? I'm a second. Mr. Glover, second. So all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thanks very much. Good luck. The next case is First United Methodist Church. Applicant, please come forward and state your name for the record. Mr. Chairman, my name is Chris Howard. I'm with Carmen here representing the church. Mr. Howard, the staff has recommended approval subject to seven conditions. Do you agree to abide by those seven conditions? We do. I'd like to ask any member of the board if they have any questions for Mr. Howard. Hearing no questions, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve C-2016-30, First United Methodist Church request for a conditional use permit to construct a church addition up to an additional 10,000 square feet above what was approved in 1994, allowing up to a 17,310 maximum square foot church in the agricultural zone at 4131 Todd's Road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the seven conditions. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Is there a second? I second. Ms. Whitman seconds. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Good luck with the project. The next case is Southside Church of Christ. If the applicant would please come forward and state their name for the record. Bobby Morris. Mr. Morris, the staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions. Do you and your client agree to abide by those? We do. Very good. I'd like to ask any members of the board if they have any questions. Hearing none, the board will entertain a motion. I do have a question. Okay, Mr. Glover. Sorry. Sorry, the existing access to the one that access you're using now is going to be closed. Is that right? No, off of Nicholasville Road or off of? Hold on a second. Let me make sure I've got my notes correct here. I apologize. I have no questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Glover. With that being said, our motion will approve. C-2016-32 Southside Church of Christ requests a conditional use permit to demolish an existing one-story building and rebuild a new two-story building as a Sunday school facility and a single-family residential R1C zone at 1533 Nicholasville Road, based on the staff's recommendations and the four conditions. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Is there a second? I second. Ms. Meyer, second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. I'm sorry, that was Ms. Whitman that made a second on that. Please make note of that. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Very good. Any opposed? Good luck. Thank you. The last case with no opposition, I believe, is Employment Solutions. The applicant would come up and introduce themselves. Hi, I'm Rick Christman. Hello, Mr. Christman. How are you? I'm well. Good. The staff has recommended approval subject to two conditions. Do you agree to abide by those conditions? Yeah, the conditions are, as I understand it, the addition of the extra parking and the removal of the fence and landscaping. Those are the conditions. Actually, the conditions are the change in use to an adult daycare center shall be done in accordance with the submitted application and site plan limited to the days and hours noted. And the second condition is all necessary permits, including a zoning compliance permit, building and paving permits, and a certificate of occupancy shall be obtained from divisions of planning and building inspection prior to the operation of the new use. Yes, I do agree. Thank you, Mr. Chrisman. Any questions for Mr. Chrisman? Hearing none, Chair, I entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of A-2016-31 Employment Solutions, Incorporated in Administrative Appeal, to change one nonconforming-use child care facility to another nonconforming-use adult day care facility, in a single-family residential R-1D zone at 3600 Appian Way, based on the reasons provided by staff and subject to the two conditions provided by staff. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Is there a second? Second. Ms. Myers, second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Chrisman. I believe that we have gone through the agenda, and the only case with opposition is Chevy Chase, CMC Chevy Chase LLC. Will the applicant please come forward? Mr. Chairman, as the applicant comes forward, we have received one letter. It is a letter in support, although it does have some concern about the application. Okay. Awesome. Your name for the record, sir? I'm John Talbot. I'm here on behalf of CM Liberty, LLC, the owner of the property at Marquis and Euclid. I guess we're in agreement with the staff's recommendation and conditions. We do acknowledge the letter of Mr. Pohl, who's the adjoining neighbor, about that. And as you all invited us to, we met with Dr. Headley outside, who's the owner of the Chevy Chase Animal Clinic. I think we resolved his concerns, and he left. We still have one. His name is Clark, I think, is going to be an objector. And so with that, I'd like to just, I guess, get the staff report and then see what Ms. Clark has to say. Very good. Thank you, Ms. Talbot. Jimmy, would you mind putting a picture of the property, said property, up? I'll do that. Okay. I assume that there is opposition to this. If the opposition would like to come forward, we'd like to hear from the opposition, Mr. Talbot, and then we'll give you an opportunity to respond. This is an aerial. If you want to set it up, maybe it'll help you get a picture. Okay. Mr. Images, do you have that? Do you have that picture? I think that's probably better than seeing it on a screen. It appears that both aerial photographs, the one that we have on and the one that the applicant has, are practically the same. They're at different angles. Very good. I know that, Mr. Talbot, you requested to reduce the required parking from 54 to 34 spaces for office restaurant uses. and I know this obviously as you mentioned the staff of the recommendal approval with was subject to three conditions and you agree to abide by those yes sir very good before you state your case I'd like to go ahead and ask if Ms. Clark is going to come up here to please do so and let's My name is Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. The property is immediately bordering the Hollywood Terrace Historic District, which is where I live. I would suggest, since I've furnished a letter with plans, I'm thinking it would be quicker if you simply read the letter and then if I have something further or you have questions I would like to do this in the way that's quickest and most convenient for the board. As would we Ms. Clark why don't you give us a couple minutes and let us take a look at the letters. Thank you. Thank you. So, Thank you. Has everybody had an opportunity to read Ms. Clark's letter? We need a couple more minutes. There you go. Ms. Clark, we appreciate your being here today, and obviously a couple things popped out at me in your letter. Number one, it looks like you're saying that the operation should yield 35 spaces, not 34, and obviously safety for pedestrians and cyclists are certainly a large part of this. Is that correct? That's right, and these things are denoted on the plan and in the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing that approved the development plan. Is there anything else that you'd like to add? Does anybody have any questions for Ms. Clark? Because, Jimmy, I'd like to hear from staff, too, also, as we go through these proceedings. And Mr. Talbot will give you an opportunity to respond. But, Ms. Clark, you've got the floor. Okay. By way of elaboration about the 35th spot that should be required, the current count of outdoor tables and chairs is higher than what is on the variance plan. That's the one spot. A larger concern really is that the nose-out parking, the reverse angle parking, has not been observed and enforced with any real consistency, which is also denoted on the plan and recorded as a condition in the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing. You were not a part of this. It was planning commission and council, but there were one, two, three, four, well, three hearings and a continuance, so four public hearings, where the focus of concern really was traffic safety, pedestrian safety, and a concern about what parking could be furnished. It was, well, I'm not going to repeat the letter. It was the council's wish, for example, not to have drive-through, and then the subsequent planning commission hearing thought that it was important for the safety of that very narrow alley to have only reverse-angle parking and only for employees because there would be less to and for less traffic. The larger concern is about the whole B1 zone in that area, And it's really very tight for parking already, and in particular some of the other developments of this owner or associated companies are suffering a parking deficit, suffering from a parking deficit. Their parking is at capacity. And I'm concerned about the many new businesses and the many renewed businesses in the existing buildings in the area, longstanding buildings, that also have need of extra parking or the parking available to the public generally. I think that the fair and balanced way to enable them to lease out their final space in the building and to furnish the required parking is exactly what they offered to do at the Planning Commission hearing when they brought forward their final development plan for approval. That plan requested designated uses that would require 44 parking spaces, and they said we have 34 on site and we're prepared to lease 10 off-site. There's a provision in the zoning ordinance that you can lease them within 300 feet, and so they thought they would lease the 10 additional needed off-site. That seems to me a very fair and balanced way to do it because then there's a contract between parties sharing the needed parking, the requisite parking. You're not just taking the lion's share of the parking for everybody on the public street or pushing it towards the neighborhood. Some of them do not have permit parking. So I think that's the better course. I don't think there's any real hardship here. I realize they've kind of painted themselves into a corner filling out three of the four spots with all the parking requirement, but I think their initial option of furnishing it off-site by contract is entirely appropriate. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Does anybody have any questions for Ms. Clark? Oh, and, well, I would just add that it may not be this board that introduces, if it did not grant this variance, they face another problem, which is that there's no record that they have the sewer capacity to get a permit for a fourth use here anyway. so that is not a matter before this board but if it comforts you to know that there are other ways in which the intensity of this use is a little beyond what the site and the area can support i think that's additional evidence that the intensity is is a little high instead of a balanced B1 range of uses. Ms. Mark, I do have one question. Your proposed solution to the parking issue would be to require the applicant to have contracted off-site parking. Is that right? That's right, yes. And there was this staff observation that they obviously aren't filling out the parking they are currently furnishing, but these uses are very, very new. If you want a business to succeed, you're going to expect more occupancy in the restaurant, more traffic in the beauty salon than what we're seeing now. Some of these businesses are very, very new. So, of course, you wouldn't expect the parking to be at capacity, even though the reckoning of what parking is required for the uses could be very much on target. It's just that they're only starting up. I am kind of curious about this. We've faced this issue before with other applicants that have talked about contract parking, off-site contract parking. And I'm curious, how do you think contract parking protects traffic safety? I think what protects traffic safety is following the plan as it currently is approved. With the reverse angle parking, with employee-only parking on the alley, I think that's already at the outer limit. I guess my larger view is the Planning Commission has already bent over backward to furnish required parking, extra parking, a subdivision regulations waiver to add public parking. And I think they've done enough and more than enough to furnish this new development with lots and lots of parking. I think it comes at the cost of the quality of life and the pedestrian. I differ with the staff. There was a contention when the subdivision regulation waiver was approved. There was a contention that back in reverse angle parking was safer than furnishing it on the street. In fact, the literature tells you that having parallel parking on the street is safer than having no parking on the street. And the reason is parallel parking constrains the driving width, the lane of travel. So actually, in removing the parallel parking that was formerly there and making the street wider, one could perfectly well argue, I believe, and it's in the literature, that in making the lane of travel wider, you have further compromised the safety. That's not the question before you today because the Planning Commission granted that waiver and that parking is there. The other thing about that parking is, of course, cars are coming in and out all the time. They have to back in. That's a tricky maneuver. They come out nose first, so they're not going to run over the bicycle going by. That's encouraging. But what you've done is you've taken what, without the subdivision waiver, would have been a long frontage with a utility strip and a sidewalk and a little space and then the building wall, shoved the sidewalk up against the building wall and rendered that entire area of that angle parking basically a point of access, like a driveway, in and out, in and out, and points of conflict. So I do think that the larger design that has already been approved by Planning Commission compromises pedestrian safety, and in that I differ with the staff who advised that it improved pedestrian safety. But that question is not before you today because that parking was granted an incentive. It exists as public parking. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Ms. Glover, anyone else? Any follow-up? Nope. Thank you, Ms. Clark. I'd like to ask Mr. Immons to come up and address some of these issues and reasoning behind the staff's approval and conditions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any prepared presentation for you today, but I would like to just generally talk to you how the staff came to our recommendation. This was actually on your agenda today. This is the one case that the staff struggled with the most ourselves on this particular parking variance. To try and orient the condition, okay, they just put up a new one, but you can see at the top of the road. That's okay. This is looking at the property with Marquis Avenue and Euclid Avenue here. The front of the building is toward Euclid Avenue. This is the reverse angle parking. Once again, this is our 2016 aerial photograph. Jimmy, before you go any further, two questions that you just raised for me. Reverse angle parking, is that nose-in or back-in parking? That is back-in parking. So Markey is a two-way street? Markey is a two-way street. it's intended that for reverse angle parking, if you're not familiar with it, the driver would pull up to the space and then back into the space. That way, whenever they're ready to pull out, they're facing traffic and they can pull out into traffic. That was... But I think the point that the staff, the point that I made is that whenever you look at the time this picture was taken, and one of the four cars is parked correctly in this picture. The other three had pulled in incorrectly. Reverse angle parking is new in Lexington, and it takes time for people to get used to how you're supposed to park. The parking in front of the Rite Aid down in Chevy Chase is a pretty good example of that reverse angle parking. Is that right? It's the Rite Aid and the Morris Bookstore and maybe something else down in that area. How's that working? And then Short Street, I think. Yeah, it's a good idea. How did that work? Yeah. Casey, do you have? Honestly, I don't know at this point. I've heard mixed reviews, honestly. I mean, I can't – I do hear a lot of reviews on it, and I hear people who are out there and say, oh, it works, and I love it, and people are obeying it, and I'll turn around, and the next person will be like they don't obey it, and they pull in the wrong direction. That's been my experience as well. I'm just kind of curious. It's what is the city doing about people that ignore the parking process or requirement or configuration or whatever? Because I'm only familiar with that parking in front of the Rite Aid on Euclid. Is it Euclid? Tate's Creek High Street. And now about 75% of the time it's used correctly. I don't know what the city does about people that, if the city does anything at all about people who use it incorrectly. I don't really know for sure. It's more of a police enforcement issue. So I think it basically, traffic engineering can definitely put that request into them, but it's probably a time thing of whether they can get out there and enforce the parking. And I think kind of like roundabouts, once people get familiar with it, it'll be no big deal. Everybody will get used to it. And I presume the idea is to be able to fit more cars into a given space because you're measuring parking by the width instead of the length of the car. That is correct. So if you're comparing it to on-street parallel parking, yes, you can get more in there. The traffic engineering opinion is that we would prefer the back end as opposed to the pull end because when you're backing into the space and you're stopping traffic, you're stopping that traffic, and they know that. You stop, the person behind you knows what you're doing, as opposed to when you pull in and you're backing out into a blind situation. And in that case, the driver along Euclid wouldn't expect that. So that's kind of the design theory of it, of why the back-end angled parking is kind of chosen as opposed to the pull-in. I can tell you personally this is anecdotal, but it does seem like the more that people park correctly at these, people start realizing, oh, this is what I'm supposed to do. Most of my family is from St. Louis, and they use a lot of this type of reverse angle parking. And it is quite effective up there when everybody does it. and then you see the one person who pulls in, slouch way, is not understanding how to do it and taking up eight parking spaces for their one car, you realize it comes down to a learned behavior on that. I agree. Ms. Meyer, did you have a question? Is there signage on the building? I was there yesterday, and I didn't observe it. I believe the way we were going to There is signage posted, and I think in this particular situation, it was going to be posted at the beginning of the parking, so as you were driving, you would see enter the parking space in this direction. I believe those are in. I'm pretty certain. Another question. And, Mr. Emmons, I presume that the staff took into account that pedestrian traffic in this area, which is high, weighs in favor of reducing the required number of spaces for this or any particular commercial place. Yeah, we did, and that's a good segue to kind of go into. I'm not going to read our staff report to you. You've had a chance to read it. Um, parking variances are something that the Board of Adjustment has had the authority to do since 2009. So there aren't that many cases. But with all of the parking variances that you have seen, the staff has consistently, um, recommended kind of a three, in addition to looking for unique circumstances and would it be, you know, the normal requirements for a variance. With parking variances, we've kind of looked at three additional criteria. The first one being, is it a walkable area? The idea being that a walkable pedestrian-oriented area, there's a good idea that you won't need as much cars and that we're favoring the pedestrians. The next one that we look at is, are there other opportunities for on-street parking more than what is normal in a normal situation? And then the final one is the use. Is there a reasonable expectation that this user will generate less parking than other users of that same category? In this particular instance, some of the things that were kind of, you know, as we come down to it, and we have to make a recommendation to you to either approve or disapprove the request, as we were looking at this, the board has the authority to grant up to a 50% reduction in the required parking. The applicants are roughly asking for a one-third reduction in their parking. Whenever the staff looked at this, there is no contest that this area is a very walkable area and a pedestrian-oriented area. With the University of Kentucky, with Euclid Avenue, with the things that we're doing in the corridor for bicycles and pedestrians, this just ranks very high. And the staff does agree that on that first test, this was a very good candidate for the walkability. On the second test, the availability of other parking arrangements. We did look specifically at the reverse angle parking spaces. Those eight spaces are not counted towards the applicant's parking. Physically, they are slightly located on the applicant's property. most of the parking space is in the public right-of-way. It was determined at the time of the final development plan that those parking spaces would be public parking spaces and not count towards the applicant's parking requirement. However, in looking at the variance and the appropriateness of the variance, we did take that into consideration as a special circumstance. These on-street parking spaces, staff is aware of just less than a handful of other properties where parking spaces are partially on private property and partially on public property. That is a unique circumstance for this one, and we felt that that did gain a little bit of counting. Whether they're counted as parking spaces for this use or public parking spaces, they exist. And so we kind of took that into account. And we did find that there are other parking opportunities on street and in the area. We also noted that there, and like Ms. Clark brought up, that there is also a lot of available parking spaces. You can see in the photo that are other privately owned business spaces in the area that the applicants could make arrangements to rent those spaces. The last one on the three tests was the parking generation of that particular user. And the staff could not really come to the conclusion that the two proposed restaurants and the beauty salon and the barbershop, we didn't see any evidence that they would generate less parking than other restaurants or that. So in the end, kind of looking at those three criteria, we felt that they met two-thirds of the criteria, kind of two out of three, and that they were requesting not the full parking variance, but providing about two-thirds of the parking that they are required on site. We feel that that's a reasonable, logical connection to go ahead and recommend approval of the parking variance that they are requesting. I do believe we put it in our staff report that this is kind of the maximum parking variance that we would recommend on this one. We would not recommend going down to the full 50% that you can go on this one. Well, the last point that was out of the ordinary, because the board doesn't have the authority to grant a variance if there was a willful violation of the zoning ordinance, The staff did recognize and admit that the applicant putting in users that are more intense parking-wise than was originally contemplated for the shopping center is a situation that they have created. However, we did not feel that that was a willful violation of the zoning ordinance. We believe that they didn't realize that, in particular, that the beauty salon and the barbershop, those personal services, had a higher parking generator than the retail use that they were originally approved for. So we don't think that this is before you today on any kind of willful violation of the zoning ordinance that the applicants put forward. I had a question, Jim. What would be this fourth space? I mean, I can get when you have a development and you have a couple tenants that are interested in coming in, you design the building, you try to get as much parking as you can. The fourth tenant, you don't know. You're going to say, we'll build the space and we'll fill that as it comes, and I get that. What are the permitted uses that would be within the current parking availability or number that they could use for this space? Obviously, Restaurant is taking it over the top. Without either getting a parking variance or without making an agreement with an adjoining property or an adjacent property, they have used up all of their available parking. In our review for the zoning compliance permits for the three uses that are there, We did determine that those three uses met the parking on site. Of course, we made sure that as we were issuing those zoning compliance permits, made sure to let the applicant know that this uses up all of your available parking and you still have a fourth suite. And that's kind of how we got into the conversation with the applicant, how we came to that, why they're here today. and they went ahead and filed the parking variance. Yeah, so you know going in that you're not going to have any parking available to build the extra square footage. Is that correct? When this shopping center was originally approved, it was approved with two restaurants and two retail shops. It did meet all of its required parking on site. It did so by limiting the number of seats in the restaurants and the fact that a retail use, like a dress shop, requires less parking than the barbershop or the beauty shop tenants that are there now. So we understand how they got to this point, but we also understand how they got to this point. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Does anybody have any other questions for Mr. Emmons? Thank you, sir. Mr. Talbot? Thank you. I'd like to introduce the folks I've got with me. This is Jason Taylor, who's here on behalf of Equity Management Group, and Tony Barrett is with Barrett Partners. So, I guess the, you know, how did we get here question, that's kind of where we left often could take the way into this. The property was always designed to have 34 spaces on site that are available for it. And that was based on parking ratios for retail stores, like Jimmy said, in a restaurant, a dress shop, and so forth. The spaces along Marquis, in fairness, we think we should get some credit for doing those because we dedicated land that is ours through an easement to make those spaces available. That facilitated the traffic movement along Marquis, in particular Kroger's trucks. That's how they get in and out of the Kroger store. So by cleaning up that row of parking that was there, it improved sight lines and essentially the width of the street while creating eight spaces because we're using narrower, you know, we're using land that would otherwise be a green strip or a sidewalk. We're using that for parking, and it's because of the intensity of this area. And that's what we want is to use these corridors for intense uses. And so then as the leasing of the property began, the demand came from restaurants and from a barbershop and from a massage place. These are users that cater to folks in the immediate area who are going to have a tendency to walk there or be there because of Kroger. We're not attracting people from across town here. This is intended for the residents of the Columbia Heights Neighborhood Association. not, you know, these are our customers, the folks who want to have here. And it's in part indicative of the shifting nature of retail. You know, no longer do we have as many dress shops or as many whatever people shop online for things. Instead, they want goods, services that they can't get online, like a haircut or a trip to the beauty salon. And the fact that the ordinance defines these uses as requiring so much parking doesn't mean that they really require that much parking. In other words, just because a parking ordinance says one thing doesn't mean the user really needs that. And so today we haven't had any issues with parking. Granted, it's a new building and there are new users, and we'll find that out. But leasing is really not a good option for us for additional spaces. As Jimmy just said, we need to have more spaces to lease the remaining 2,900 square feet for anything. And so by getting a lease, we're dependent on the lease for the certificate of occupancy. And so with a variance, we have the certainty of having a variance for the parking. If there's a parking problem in the future, an actual problem, then it would be incumbent on the developer to go and solve the problem by getting additional spaces and leasing those. But I think the better solution for today to make this property more successful and a better asset for the community is to grant this variance and to approve an additional, you know, the one-third variance for the 20 spaces that have been asked for. I think you do get credit for the eight spaces, at least in my mind, but even if you did, you'd still have to ask for a variance for the extra parking as well, right? That's correct. And that's because of the parking requirements that are imposed on health and beauty in restaurants, which are the things that are in demand in this area. And so Tony, do you want to add anything to that? Okay, thanks. Jason, want to add anything? Anybody have any other questions for Mr. Talbot? Ms. Wynne? At the Planning Commission hearing, was there discussion about leasing spaces, parking spaces? Was that discussed at the Planning Commission? Do you recall? Well, Amy's shaking. There was a long discussion at the Planning Commission. It could have been. It is correct that we had initially anticipated leasing spaces, but I can't demonstrate that on the development plan so I had to take that off and reduce the intensity of the restaurant seats down to get the, so that we would fit on site. So I think I had six I anticipated on the original development plan six parking spaces off site that we were leased but But I wouldn't be able to get this plan certified without throwing in excess parking spaces. So we just reduced the number of seats in the restaurant. Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Anybody have any other questions for Mr. Talbert, Mr. Barrett, Ms. Meyer? I just have an overall question. So uses change. I mean, you know, restaurants come and go, as we all know. So if, you know, we've got a restaurant, there's a restaurant there now, I've noted, but it doesn't survive. Then the new restaurant that goes in knows that it has a limited number of tables, that it has to comply with the parking. That is correct. as uses change, they'll have to come in for zoning compliance permits. And as we review those zoning compliance permits, checking the required and available parking is a part of that standard permitting process. Thank you. So as I interpret that so different, so sometime in the future, if the spaces change, they'd have to come back to staff or to the board for some other kind of permission. Is that correct? They would definitely, for a new user to get their zoning compliance permit, definitely does have to come back to the staff. Coming back to the board would only be if they wanted to request a variance or if this variance is granted today and they wanted to do something different than what they were. a different variance than what's being requested. Yep. Thank you. I mean, I think I'm frustrated with the amount of parking that's necessary on any new construction project such as this. It seems like there's always more parking necessary than really what is used. And although you have, it looks like, in the current market, you know, you have enough spots, But when you look at this and when you get into it on the front end, to think that you would know when you're leasing with a certain number of spaces, it just seems like you're – to me, I struggle with, yes, it's a very walkable neighborhood. Yes, I wasn't even reading it. I think there's another certain amount of – if you have bike racks, you get – is that correct? You get a certain percentage of it. I didn't see that in here, but maybe that was concluded with the bus. I believe that their bus parking and the other types of inherent variances that are allowed have been included in the numbers. Have been included? Without getting lost in the math, I believe it was included. Yes, the bus stop that shows in the photo across the street, they get a reduction of two because they're so close to that. And that reduces it by what? How many spaces? Two. Two. And then bike racks, is that another two or no? We didn't meet the threshold for bike racks. You have to have 50 spaces to meet the threshold for bike racks. So we did take the credit for the two spaces for the bus shelter, but we did not get any credit for the bicycle use. Yeah, I mean, and it's a very walkable and bikeable spot. You know, I just struggle with, you know, Ms. Clark's points. I mean, yes, it's walkable, yes, it's bikeable. But, you know, if this is the parameters that everyone has to as a developer, you know, I think the eight spaces that you gave up in the right-of-way there, it was a great move too. But you still are vastly under what you should be for the amount of square foot that was built and for what you're trying to lease it for. So, you know, is it fair for everyone else involved? I don't know. But I'm struggling with that. So if you can convince me. I'd like to say what I'd like to say is that this is an area where we're not out in the county plotting out, laying out a big new shopping center for a big Kroger store or something like that this is an existing part of town that's been here for decades and we have to respect the property boundaries and the spaces we have and it's important to make the maximum out of every square foot in our interior spaces to do as much as we can with it so we don't have to grow out You want to answer Mr. Taylor? Sir, come up and state your name for the record, please. Jason Taylor with Equity Management Group, a developer. When we did this development and we looked at the ratios, we were under the impression that our retail would be 1 to 400 for any building under 10,000 feet, which is in the B1 zone requirement. And because we built the building the way we did, we measured the square footage, we did all this up front, we never thought we would have a parking problem, ever. We do own the Starbucks development in Chevy Chase over to where Glens Creek was when the last was Macho Nacho. We do own Chevy Chase Plaza. We own Bourbon Toulouse. We own Orms. We own the building at 312 South Ashland. We're very familiar with people coming and going in the area and not needing the required parking that everybody says you need. People walk. People buy. People come from the neighborhood. They use their strollers. It's very in and out. and we wanted to make sure the development was that way. We pulled it to the front. We put the patios out front for the restaurants if they wanted to use them. Uncle Matty has a great patio. It's very in and out. We worked with the city on the reverse parking. There is a problem with the signage. The Lex Park is in charge of it. They have an easement, and they maintain it. They have not put a sign. If you're coming up marquee, it's back in, so people are coming up and turning in because they don't know, and Lex Park is going to correct that. so those signages are not there. But our signs are there like they're supposed to be for employees as well as for reverse parking and as well as for customers. So we think we did it right, and we're here to try to get it right. Yeah, I think I agree. I mean, it's a good development. I think the challenge, and also, you know, if I was in this position, I think going out and getting a lease would be somewhat of an easy thing to do. I mean, I'm looking around. There seems like a lot of surface parking already as opposed to getting a variance. I struggle with that. I've had to get leases before for certain buildings that I'd have to redevelop, and it's just part of that. And it's very attainable. It seems like leases, I mean, you can negotiate relatively, I don't know in this area, but you can negotiate a very fair and equitable lease for parking for a restaurant that even next door building of, what was it, pole rows of pole? I mean, that's an office. So just leasing their spot for an evening restaurant would seem a very logical thing to do. It would be if we had a real parking problem. At the present, we don't have a parking problem. We have an occupancy permit problem that we can't get any certificate of occupancy without this variance. You're right. As Ms. Clark pointed out, we could go get a lease and do it in that fashion. but we think that it's better for certainty purposes to be here today asking you for the variance. That way the tenant will know that there's a variance that supports their certificate of occupancy and they can stay there. If the uses were to grow, be successful, we very much hope they do because that's how they pay the rent, then we can solve that problem by getting a lease of parking. But what you're doing today doesn't preclude us from getting a lease. It's just a way for us to have certainty in going forward with leasing. But it seems to me by doing that, you're putting, you know, it's a double-edged sword to me because it's kind of, you know, I understand the issue of parking and, you know, let's, you know, see how it goes. But then at what point it starts to put a, you know, a burden on the neighborhood or the, you know, the other public parking. And so at what point do you lease, I guess, is my question. When would you lease? When we get those complaints. Because the complaints would come from two places. They would come from, obviously, the neighbors, but more importantly, they'd come from the managers of the businesses, where, you know, Supercuts was complaining about Massage Envy or complaining about Matty-O taking up too much parking. That's when we'd go get the lease. And Mr. Taylor gave a list of properties that we own, operate in the area, and they've done that on occasion where it's necessary, and they've found other tenants, in particular the Starbucks at High in Ashland. They've gone and gotten some parking leases for that, I don't know. Can you lease to yourself any properties close enough? We also, we don't think that our properties that are within the range, that it's reasonable to think somebody's going to park there and walk that far. We do think that the people that live there already will walk that far and not use their car. But if we have surplus at Chevy Chase Plaza and we can ask the employees to walk, they might do that, but we don't know. Not for customers. They won't. While you're up there, Mr. Talbot, just a point of order, I guess, from staff. I know that we have in the past had annual reviews for conditional uses, but I don't recall that we've had any kind of review for variances. But it sounds like that's the kind of thing we're talking about. And I'm not sure I know how to ask the question, but the problem seems to be that we don't know how dense this particular project is going to be until it's in use and has been for a while. So should it be in use for a while, and there is no problem, we don't need to do anything, but if in the future, in a year or maybe two years, there is a problem, is there a remedy or recourse or process by which the board or staff can review the variance and alter it in some fashion or make further requirements on that variance if parking becomes a problem in the future? Mr. Glover, I'm not sure to the answer to the last part of your question that there is a process that we can use for, say, the board to revisit this variance. The board does have the ability to condition a variance, and those conditions can be fully enforced the way we would for conditional use permit or any of your actions. I can tell you from the staff perspective when the third tenant went in and it really came to light that we were running out of parking on the site, we made the statement to the applicant that we were going to monitor their parking from that point until the time that there was a user for the fourth space. And we've periodically done that. We have not documented dates and times the way the staff ordinarily would in a report. But I know myself, I have been surprised at the availability of parking at the location with three out of the four spaces leased. So the question is, what if? What if in the future we find that parking is overcrowded and people are parking illegally, parking off-site, people complaining, people parking in other people's spots without permission and things like that, which can happen? It does happen. happened next door to the Kroger's on the other side of the Kroger's, for example, and the owner had to put up signs and prohibit parking, things like that. I mean, that's a natural thing that would occur. So if that did occur in the future, what authority does planning and zoning have? What authority does the board have? What authority does the staff have to make changes to accommodate that problem? I think clearly the staff can report to you our observations, knowing exactly what the board could do upon those reports. I'm not as confident of an answer on for you. I do think, though, from what Mr. Talbot and the team has told you today, they are concerned with that, and certainly we'd be glad to share our findings with them as well. But unless Mr. Marks or perhaps Ms. Brown or Ms. Jones have another answer for you, I'm not sure what the board could do after approving a variance. Yeah, it may be a legal question, but it does have to do with continued jurisdiction over the issue. So before we go forward, I'd like to have that clarified in some fashion. So while Ms. Jones is looking, I'll ask her the question. I'm not really sure. I mean, there's a provision in the ordinance that talks about revoking a variance, but it has to be for noncompliance. So if you grant the variance and then you've granted it, they're not really being noncompliant with it just because then there's a need for more parking. Because what you've actually granted is the variance for less parking. So I don't know that that would apply. The ordinance does allow you to impose reasonable conditions or restrictions on the variance if you decide to grant it. I don't know, I cannot think of an instance where the board has asked for a review to be made on a variance, and even if you did, I'm not sure what you would do if you found in that review there was something askew with it. Right. That's my problem. I think that's the problem we're having here is what authority do we have. If we impose some kind of condition or restriction, I don't know what the answer to the question would be or the answer to the problem would be. I mean, the practical thing would be, if the board or if staff reported to the board that there was a problem with parking, the problem that I described, what could we do about it? I mean, I guess we could negotiate something, right, Mr. Talbot? Right. Under threat of revoking the variants. That's one thing. But that seems to be an awkward non-solution to an eminently practical problem that would have practical solutions. But I'm thinking about some kind of condition, but I don't know how to describe it. wouldn't know how to describe or articulate it. I can throw out an idea that might be good or bad. I'm over here, Tommy. Rather than talk about revoking the variance, you could have a condition about the initial certificate of occupancy being only issued on a temporary basis and then it will have to be reevaluated after that interim time is over to see if there's been a parking problem or not. That's a good idea. So that's something, Mr. Marks, that we can place a condition on? Because I share both Mr. Needham and Mr. Glover's concern. The reason we don't get into this a lot with variances is because most of the time someone's talking about building a new facility. You don't want to put someone out there hanging, putting a lot of money into building a new building, and then say, oh, this didn't work out quite right, so you've got to tear the building down. Now this building's already been built. So the question really is for a new tenant to come in for that fourth suite, how much are they going to have to invest in improving that particular suite for their particular business? So that's kind of the question. It can't be attractive for the developer, I'm sure. Yeah, I would think that's. I don't know how a tenant would ever sign a lease and make the investment to go doing the business, and as soon as they get going well, they're going to say, oh, we're sorry, you're out. Sure. I don't think that's. So the general question basically is what authority exists anywhere within the government to remedy in some fashion a congested parking area. That's more of the general question. It would apply not only to this applicant but to everybody. And, of course, I'm just on the board, and I don't know the answer to that question. But the answer to that question would probably solve this question that we have. Sorry, I don't know the answer. I think we're attempting to address a problem that we hope arises in the future, as opposed to allowing just the creation of the building. But to Mr. Glover's point, though, if we did grant this variance and we have a problem a year or two years down the road, what could happen to remedy it? Is there something that planning and zoning could do? I mean, at the end of the day, I know we can't guarantee everything, but is there any recourse if this is granted after a year or two? And I presume that once we grant the variance, we're done. We lose jurisdiction, and we have no further authority to do anything else if we have not imposed any kind of conditions. And I'm hesitant to impose conditions because it is just a theoretical future problem. I agree that the parking restrictions are onerous, especially for a walkable neighborhood, a development in a walkable neighborhood. So I'm just trying to figure out if there are practical solutions. To me, it seems the most logical thing would be just to solve everyone's issue. As a fourth tenant comes in, and I don't want to tell you how to run your business, but as a fourth tenant comes in, they know that there's a parking issue. and the variance we've tried, but really we have to secure a lease. Maybe you have to go out and secure a lease, or we've secured a lease contingent upon you going in, and that lease is necessary for you to occupy this space. It's just part of the process that has to take place for this fourth space to be occupied by a restaurant, And, you know, I don't think that's too unheard of, and it resolves what we would do as a board, maybe. Would that be a problem for the owner? Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. It would be to go get a lease of how many spaces? Whatever you need. I think you're talking about denying the request for a variance pending. That would be the option that they would have without requiring a variance. Yeah. Variance of 20 spaces. I'm sorry? They wanted a variance of 20 spaces, 54 to 34. Is that so? Yeah, but with a lease secured on an adjacent lot or something close within 300 feet, there wouldn't need to be any variance. But that's something I don't think we have any jurisdiction over. That's not what's before us. I mean, we can't put conditions on a lease requirement. I think that you have to look at first the track record of any developer, obviously, but the track record of this developer in particular and just the properties in this immediate vicinity that they operate are pretty substantial. They've operated these properties for decades. As Mr. Taylor said, we were out from Starbucks at High and Ashland down to Fincastle and High Street down there too, as well as the Chevy Chase Plaza. They have significant rehabilitation over there, and all these things are functioning very well. If a problem were to arise, as landlords, they're the first ones that have to address it. They've gotten leases in other places where they've needed them, and they would certainly do so in this instance. But the variance gives us the certainty to lease that space and put it to use for everybody's benefit. What would trigger the owner or the developer to secure a lease in the future if parking became a problem? What would compel you to do that? A conflict between tenants. That's what we'd do. In other words, tenants would be complaining either back to the landlord for not enough parking or pointing fingers at each other about employees or customers parking in each other's spaces. And I presume that your development is not going to designate parking spaces for each tenant. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. That's a bad idea. When you do that, you reduce spaces. You create problems, sure. Thank you, Mr. Simmons. Mr. Simmons, did you have something you wanted to add? I see you all huddling over there. you have to enlighten us here? Well, first and foremost, I think you can understand why the staff struggled with our recommendation. And as it comes down to it, and we have to recommend one way or the other, I think you're getting today understanding this is where we were when we were reviewing this application. I'm hesitant to say this because it kind of goes against my personal philosophy, but I do think that one potential solution to kind of get us out of the box that we're in today would be for the board to restrict this variance to the uses that are proposed by the applicant at this time. In their application, they have very specifically put in there that they are asking for two restaurants with a number of seats that they've put in their application. in the beauty salon and the barber shop. And so that's in their application. It would require this was written. Our staff recommendation of approval and conditions for approval took into account that if the variance is granted, that there will be changes in users over time. however the way that the variance works it does run with the land if you if you were very specific on the the the uses that are proposed today and they wanted to change those uses in the future the applicant would have one of two choices they can either meet the full required parking because If they're granted the variance and they don't meet the requirements, they don't have to take advantage of the variance that's granted. So if they wanted to change users and meet the full parking requirement, they could. Or they could submit an amended Board of Adjustment application, a new application, for a change in use so that the parking can be looked at today. So essentially, what I'm recommending is that you could, I think it's in your authority under the reasonable conditions, to lock them in to the three users that are there today and the fourth use to what they said it's going to be. I don't have specific language for you because I think it will require a change in the conditions of approval because we wrote them with the flexibility in mind that there will be new users over time. What you're suggesting presumes a granting of the variants and would put a ceiling on the parking spaces because of the uses that are in the application. Is that what you're saying? Yes, directly tying the parking variance to the uses that are existing and the use that they specifically propose in their application. And that would limit the vacant site they are proposing to use that as a restaurant with a number of seats that they put in their application. The only thing that would do really would be to guarantee that if they had a tenant with a use that was more dense than what they've got in there, that they'd have to come back and ask for additional permissions. Exactly. I mean, a very potentially likely change would be that restaurants that offer live entertainment have a higher parking requirement than restaurants that don't. This has been determined to be, you know, it was calculated under a restaurant without live entertainment. Right. So any of those kinds of uses, it would go on that. So it would definitely make this case more cumbersome in its conditions and would take away a lot of authority at the staff level to make changes. Jimmy, isn't that already in the conditions, the first condition? The first condition, if I remember correctly, it says that it shall be as per the submitted application and site plan unless amended by the Planning Commission. And then we've got condition number three, that they submit an amended development plan to amend the development by the Planning Commission. So theoretically, they could meet those conditions of this variance not by coming back to the Board of Adjustment, but by simply changing the uses on the development plan to meet parking. It was written that way intentionally so that at the staff level, we could deal with the changes in users over time and not require it to keep coming back in front of the Board. But I've sat here and listened to you, and I understand your concerns about the potential for once the variance is granted, how would you get it back if things were to be different? If you just deleted the third condition, wouldn't that satisfy what you're suggesting? I believe you would need to get on the first one. Get rid of the except as amended by the Planning Commission on the final development plan. And I think it would be wise to, the property shall be developed in accordance with the approved application and site plan, including the two restaurants and uses proposed. And get rid of the exception, you know, make it clear. Three is actually still advisable to go ahead and require that because the currently active development plan, the currently signed development plan has the original retail uses in the restaurants with less parking on it. So condition number three is just to bring the development plan so that there's not a discrepancy between what the Planning Commission approved and what's being presented to the Board of Adjustment. So really to get rid of flexibility, that flexibility is inherent in number one. So it could read, the property shall be developed in accordance with the approved application, including the currently proposed uses. Yes. Mr. Talbot. I'd like to make a suggestion to that wording. It's that we might get a retail shop or something, and so we don't want to just say, but I think, if I'm hearing the board correctly, the board's concerned with that we don't put in users that are more parking intense. Right. And so we set a ceiling essentially on the intensity of the parking allowed. And I think we're agreeable to that, provided we have wording that's acceptable. And so we would like to say rather than specific uses as shown on the development plan, because those are the most intense uses we think we would do there. So that's why we're comfortable with this limit of the 54 spaces. And so then we can say that maybe the combined uses on the property will not require more than 54 spaces under the ordinance. something to that effect. In other words, so that if we get some kind of store there that goes there that doesn't need that much parking, we can still do the store, but we can go above it. I think that's what you're doing. Yeah, and that's what our intent is. Jimmy, how does that sound? Or Bill? As far as writing a condition on the fly, if you said the property shall be developed in accordance with the approved application and proposed uses or uses that require less parking than proposed. Just setting that cap. I feel a little bit more comfortable. Are you working on something over there, Ms. Jones? It's because I'm thinking on my feet at the microphone. Very good. Let's give this just a second, and let's see what Ms. Jones comes up to. Take a five-minute break. Let's do. We're going to recess for five minutes. Thank you. To go ahead and reconvene the Board of Adjustment meeting. Ms. Jones has come up with some language I think that will be helpful to us, and we'll get to that in just a second. I know Ms. Clark had a comment that you wanted to make, and Ms. Clark, we're going to give you the floor and make sure it's something new that we haven't heard. Yeah, I believe it is, and I appreciate the opportunity to have some rebuttal in response to the various elements of testimony and the ideas. I'm impressed by Mr. Emmons' observation that there is apparently existing parking all around the area that's underutilized and would be available for lease. I would remind you, and I think Mr. Needham probably does more infill kinds of development than anyone else on the board. What I want to remind you is that when you vote on a variance, you need to make a finding that the applicant will suffer unnecessary hardship under the constraints of the zoning as it exists. It seems to me the easy and right solution, far and away the most flexible solution, is in fact to require the applicant to rent parking. And it may not be much of a hardship if there's so much available and underutilized. So that's one very important factor, I think, to consider. I wanted to say, too, someone said that the signage was in order. I want to tell you that the signage on the rear at the alley reads free customer parking. This is designated for employee parking on the development plan. Another finding that this board must make when it grants a variance is that the applicant is not circumventing the zoning ordinance in advance of the variance requested in advance of the grant of that. and the required parking agreed to and designated on the plan and in the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing specifies that that's to be employee parking. So here's one of what I see as several instances where they're so squeezed for either actual parking or required parking or maybe it's customer parking that they're already violating the conditions of the required parking on their development plan. To me, that's serious. To me, that's a violation that should be heeded. I will say briefly that the bit with nose-in, nose-out parking, my only observation that is new information is that it has a lot to do with which direction you're coming from. If the angle is in a certain direction and you're driving from the opposite side of the street, you go nose in, because otherwise you'd have to do almost 360 to back in. If you're on the same side of the street, it's convenient enough to pull up ahead and back in. That's one of the very frequent things there, and it's also very hazardous in traffic if people do it in funny ways. also designated on the plan and in the Planning Commission hearing was that requirement that it be nose out because of public safety. So here again, they are violating, they are stretching the limits of what is required of them, the conditions. Regarding the thought of restricting the variance, so that it won't exceed or alter the present uses or their parking requirement. I have a couple of major concerns there. I would invite you to ask someone who's a real lawyer. it seems to me that Kentucky statute says that variances are for dimensions and variances are not for uses. It's true that you may condition a variance. Kentucky statute says that, too. But can you really govern the uses when you grant a variance? That would be a question. I do think 20 extra is too many if you choose to go that route. They could reduce the seating in the restaurant and require less. I'm also concerned that you're painting them into a corner, that this restaurant use may be inappropriate. It may be too intensive, and I'm not so sure that there's enough flexibility for them. Lots more flexibility in simply furnishing. a lease to guarantee the extra parking. The other thing is, are you binding yourself not to grant a further variance or a greater variance at a later date? Or are you simply saying, well, grant this variance today, but you're not allowed to have another until you ask for it and prove you require it? And if so, you're really not saying much at all, except that you're granting the variance. I'm not sure what adding that condition really adds if they can come back and ask for another variance. If they can't, I'd be surprised if you could bind yourself not to grant a further variance. The other thing I'll say is when they got the zone change, they were asking for 68 seats in a restaurant. Currently it's 98. The request for the variance bumps the seating up to 176 seats. There's a real question of intensity here. They have the B1 by right, the uses that go with the B1. They don't have a right to put every single use in that building at almost the highest possible intensity, unless you're granted with these variances to make that possible. I just want to see if there's anything further, and I don't want to waste your time with things that aren't needed. The land that furnishes the extra public parking along the side, that land now dedicated for public use for parking is required in the subdivision regulations, a great part of it, to be dedicated for public use for sidewalk and utility strip. So what they're doing is they're privileging a parking use over pedestrian, sidewalk, and utility strip. They're rearranging that. That's how they got that variance. So to say it's a generous gift of their own private property, I think, is partly confusing or misleading. In addition to the number of seats needed and required changing, this is something that really happens and needs to happen any time you do a development. I don't do developments, but I see it and I know it. You start with something and you have a concept and you narrow it down and you change it and you're flexible. What's been very flexible in this plan is the ratio of floor space devoted to restaurant and the ratio of floor space devoted to retail. And when they sought the zone change, that ratio was very different. At this point, they're devoting, I think, 5,800 of their floor space to restaurant. At the final development plan, which you have before you, I'm talking off the top of my head, I think it was 4,800. So what they're doing is they're ever increasing both the floor space and the seating for the restaurant use. I think it's beyond what's sustainable, and I think it's beyond what's a balanced and friendly and collegial sharing in the larger business community there. And I think it'll have an impact on the neighbors. I do think there's no real evidence to judge yet whether the parking requirement is too great for the actual use. In general, I think it's too early to grant this variance. If they came a couple of years from now and said, we have this burdensome leasing and we're paying $100 a month, we're paying $1,000, we're paying through the nose, and can you release us from this lease because we never use this parking, we never need it. If they came after build-out, after the uses were really up and running, it would make sense. And finally, although they are very skilled and very experienced in the area, they probably, I don't know if they have majority ownership in the area, but they're a significant owner in that whole larger area, I would remind you that there's that macho nacho that lasted about four months, and that has been a facility that, for whatever reason, the planning and the governance of it and their own market testing and so on has not found a good and viable and long-term use for, and part of that problem, at least word on the street, what we all say to one another is that it's associated with the parking, the parking and the site circulation altogether. I think probably I could go on forever, and I won't. So thank you for your care and attention. We've been hearing about an hour and a half of testimony. Casey, did you have something that you wanted to share? I did. Just more for the record, I wanted to explain the location of the right-of-way and where it came to be where it is regarding the right-of-way on Marquee and why half the parking is on the right-of-way and half is on private property. When we were going through the development process, there was originally on-street parking on Marquee Avenue. With any development, we didn't want to lose on-street parking. And so the kind of compromise solution was that to change it to this back-end angled parking, opened up the site distance at McCall's and Marquee at that intersection. We left the property line or the right-of-way line where it was because if we had required the applicant to dedicate that to the city, it would have also changed their building line. It would have changed other factors. So the reason it was left there was almost a compromise to leave that parking as on-street parking, still provide that, but not have to change other stuff on the site. Any questions for KC? I'd like to ask the board, no, Ms. Clark, I'd like to ask the board if they've got any questions or concerns. We've listened to a lot of testimony today, and we want to try to do what we think is fair and equitable in a very challenging situation and respect your concerns, both the applicant and the opposition. But I think that we've had a very open dialogue about this. And I don't know if the board would like to move forward, but I know that Ms. Jones has prepared some language for us. And Mr. Glover, I'd like to turn it over to you for a moment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a motion with respect to V2016-34 CM Chevy Chase LLC's request for variance to reduce required parking from 54 spaces to 34 spaces for office restaurant uses in a neighborhood business B1 zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area at 630 Euclid Avenue. I move approval based on the testimony at this hearing, the reasons recommended by staff, and the conditions that we had up on the board a few minutes ago, which read as follows. Number one, the property shall be developed in accordance with the approved application and site plan, provided the required parking for all uses does not exceed 54 parking spaces. We had no changes to number two. And number three reads, the final development plan shall be amended to indicate the current proposed uses and their required parking, including compliance with the Board of Adjustments action of approval. We've got a motion. Is there a second? Is there a second to the motion? Hearing none. I will second his motion. Mr. Forster does second the motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. Opposed. Because I support we've got six members here. It's 3-3, so the motion is defeated. Is that correct, Mr. Saleh? The motion is defeated. So what are all alternatives at this point? Joan voted for it. If you voted for it, raise your right hand. I'm sorry, there are four votes for it. The motion does carry. I'm sorry, Ms. Whitman, I thought that you... So we have a motion by Mr. Glover. We have a second by Mr. Forrester. and the board approves with that language of 4 to 2. Okay, good luck with the project. Thank you for your time, Ms. Clark. Thank you all very much. Some of these decisions are just very, very challenging, Mr. Needham, and I can certainly understand the concerns. I'd like to, I know Mr. Duncan wanted to address us with a few items today, and please come forward and welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those of you who I've not met, my name is Jim Duncan, and I am now the Director of Planning, and I thought this would be a good time to introduce myself to you if we haven't met and to tell you about a few things coming up in the Division of Planning. First of all, I can say I empathize with your jobs. In a previous job, I was the advisor to the Board of Zoning Adjustment in Dothan, Alabama, and so I have a great deal of respect for what you do. But I must say I don't believe we ever dealt with anything as complex as you all do on a monthly basis, and so I do appreciate your service, particularly on Friday afternoons, as you are so generous to give of your time. I wanted to tell you all, in case you don't know, that today is Jimmy Emmons' last meeting with us as the Board of Adjustment staff. He will be transitioning to the transportation planning section in the Division of Planning. He'll just be moving across the hall, so fortunately for me, he's still going to be with us in transportation planning. This will be another arrow in his quiver of things that he has done for the Division of Planning over the 15 years and still counting. We're going to miss Jimmy as the advisor to the Board of Adjustment, but he'll still be available to advise us on other matters. But I think we're going to be well covered in the interim until we do get his replacement, and I'll combine those statements with an explanation about a little reorganization that we're doing internally as well. We are going to relocate the Board of Adjustment functions from planning services, where they have been for years and years, to our newest section, zoning enforcement, which is managed by Jim Marks. We've had zoning enforcement for about four years now, and we believe that by putting the Board of Adjustment with enforcement, there may be some more efficiencies, particularly with the administrative appeals that come through. We've heard a lot of discussion today about zoning compliance permits. That will be managed out of that section as well. So we will have Tammy and our new Board of Adjustment Senior Planner, as well as Barb Rackers and Dave Jarman from our office, will all be part of Jim Mark's group now in enforcement. And in the interim, until we are able to replace the Senior Planner, Jim Marks and Barb will be the primary advisors to the Board of Adjustment. and they have extensive experience with this. So we don't expect that you all will notice any difference in service and staff reviews, and certainly we don't expect our customers to see any difference. They'll be able to keep that going until we get a new and permanent replacement. It'll likely take about three months to do that. That's just the way our process goes. We're advertising for that position this weekend, and as these things go, in our experience, it will take about three months to do that. But Jim and Barb, along with help from Dave and, of course, Tammy, will keep the ship running, and you shouldn't notice anything. I also want to tell you that next week, on the 29th, on Wednesday, we will be switching to a system called the Acela Civic Platform. And through that electronic system, that web-based system, all applications for conditional use, variants, and administrative appeals will be processed electronically. For our applicants, they will be reviewed that way for our staff. And this has been a system that's been about two years in the making. This will also be for Planning Commission items as well. So all of our items that we will be receiving from the public and reviewing and then presenting to you and to the Planning Commission will be through this SELA program. Our staff has been working on this. They have trained Tammy, Jim, Barb, Dave. They've all been trained in the use of this. But you know as these things go, there will likely be some unexpected outcomes and perhaps some bumps. and we're going to do our best to make sure that our customers and our boards are not adversely affected by this. But we will be switching to this next week. So if for the July meeting you hear some rumblings about people having to go to apply through a new process, then that's what this is about. But we think that after a few months that we'll be settled into this and this will be much more efficient and much more attractive to our applicants and to the public at large. there will be a way that anybody, whether they're an applicant or just an interested party, can log on to the web and check the status of an application. And that's important particularly for applications that move through a process once they've been approved. So we believe this is going to be good, and we welcome your input when we do start rolling this out, but we also ask you to bear with us as we do in case there are any unexpected outcomes of this. And then speaking of electronics, we are also looking to perhaps change the way we interact with you and provide you information. I believe Tammy tested this month the notion of sending you all your packets through email. We'd like to continue to refine that and make sure that you have what you need, but I can tell you in doing so that saves us a lot of paper and a lot of staff time of assembling those packets, particularly if they just end up in the recycling bin at the end of this meeting anyway. So we will continue to work on that, and if you are able and have the capacity to receive those kinds of things online, we would like to work with you on that. And going forward, those screens in front of you, that's part of a system that the clerk here has. It's called the Granica system. The Urban County Council and the Planning Commission use those screens for voting, but they also have more purposes. And we believe that we can display our staff reports and our maps and other information on those screens in such a way that we can almost go paperless with our presentations to you. So at some point in the future, we will train you all on how to use that and see if that's a more efficient way to do this. Again, we're looking for efficiencies in staff time and resources and in ways that make the process easier for you all to use. So if you'll work with us over the next few weeks and months, we hope to be more efficient with our interactions with you and provide you the information you need and seek your feedback as well. So how can we help you with the information you need and how can we do a better job and be greener in the process of doing so? Thank you, Mr. Duncan. My only concern when Tammy had sent the board minutes and the agendas to us in the packet was that when they're scanned, they don't come across very clearly. And Mr. Salee actually had forwarded a Microsoft Word document that was read very clearly. So that was my only concern. But I think we all agree that the less paper, the better, and we all have those capabilities. And I know that we tried to do this on-screen voting one time, but it was actually introduced to us about five minutes before the meeting started. So I think that we're certainly capable of navigating this, as long as we have a little bit of preparation and a little bit of education for that. One thing I might suggest, Mr. Chair, is that maybe at the end of a meeting at some future time, we schedule a small work session following the board meeting and then bring the clerk in, and she can walk us through how to use this, and then we can refresh it at the beginning of the next meeting. I think that's an excellent idea. Ms. Duncan, first of all, thanks for being here, and we appreciate you explaining the changes, and welcome to your new position, and I know the staff was very pleased that you were appointed to this in this new role. Mr. Salee, what is going to happen to him? What is his fate? Mr. Salee has been sentenced to work in the Division of Planning for the duration of his life, and he will continue to be a valuable resource. He may show up here from time to time. I think Jim Marks will be the senior manager in charge of the staff, but Bill's expertise will be called upon, and he may join us from time to time. Well, that's what scares me a little bit. It's going to be Mr. Marks over here in this chair. Is that correct? That's the expectation. Very good. Well, and I would like to say, too, Mr. Duncan, that it's been a pleasure to work with Mr. Emmons. He's always very well prepared. I think I speak for the board and wishing him well. and he and Mr. Salee have just been huge assets to us and have really helped educate us through the process. And we really appreciate your service, Bill and Jimmy. And Mr. Marsh, we always look forward to working with you. And we'll look forward to that, and maybe we can schedule something after our next meeting or our subsequent meeting in August. Yes. Does any other member of the board have any questions for Mr. Duncan or any other comments? Well, other than just welcome, Mr. Duncan. And I assume we're going to see a change in the website where people can make application online, you say. Is that going to take place for the July session? Well, unfortunately for the board, it's going to be split because the deadline for variances are Tuesday. We don't go live until Wednesday. So we will actually, for the July meeting, the people seeking variances will do so the traditional way. and then we will actually take those applications and insert them ourselves through the ACCELTA process. Going forward, they will do their own applications online. We will also have a kiosk in our office, so if somebody comes in, they're a one-time user, we will walk them through it in our office so they don't have to do it at home, but they can certainly do it from the convenience of home if they want to. And as far as our meetings are concerned, and you may cover this in training, but are the screens that we're going to use here for the board going to be interactive, or are we going to have to, I mean, to be truly paperless, they'd have to be interactive screens for taking notes and things. Right, and that's going to be new ground for us, Mr. Glover. The Planning Commission doesn't do this either, but the Urban County Clerk is saying that these screens can provide a lot more information, and we'll all kind of learn that together, what we're able to do through those for you. Fair enough. Welcome aboard. Very good. Any other questions? please note Mr. Glover our next meeting is July 29th at 1.30 in these chambers so we will look forward to seeing you all then and just so we double check no one else is changing over there are they? you know they're all going to be there very good thank you all very much have a nice weekend and we're adjourned happy traveling thank you Thank you. Let it be Let it be Let it be Yeah, let it be Whisper words of wisdom Let it be And when the night is cloudy There is still a light that shines on me Shine until tomorrow, let it be I wake up to the sound of music Mother Mary comes to me Speaking words of wisdom, let it be Let it be Let it be Let it be