# Board of Adjustment - April 9, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 9, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4489 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4489?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-04-09 - **Last revised**: April 9, 2018 - **Length**: 17,036 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 Board of Adjustment convened on April 9, 2018, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Branden Gross presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed eight agenda items during the session, consisting of one variance appeal, six conditional use appeals, and one administrative appeal. Seven of the eight items were approved, while one administrative appeal by Andy Chang was postponed for future consideration. The board conducted eight motions and votes throughout the meeting and heard one public comment during the proceedings. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on April 9, 2018: **Present:** • Branden Gross • Harry Clarke • Raquel Carter • Thomas Glover • Chad Needham • Jan Meyer • Joan Whitman All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered eight items during the April 9, 2018 meeting, approving seven applications and postponing one. **PLN-BOA-18-00023** [timestamp: 02:12]: The board unanimously approved Patricia Moss's variance request to allow an accessory structure to exceed lot coverage. Thomas Glover motioned, Harry Clarke seconded, and all seven members voted in favor. The approval is subject to four conditions including construction in accordance with the site plan and obtaining necessary permits. **PLN-BOA-18-00003** [timestamp: 03:00]: Grantham, LLC's conditional use permit to operate a home-based business passed by roll call vote 6-1. Thomas Glover motioned and Chad Needham seconded. Voting in favor: Branden Gross, Harry Clarke, Raquel Carter, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, and Joan Whitman. Jan Meyer voted against. The permit includes nine conditions, including compliance with Federal Firearms License regulations. **PLN-BOA-18-00024** [timestamp: 04:00]: Greater Liberty Baptist Church's conditional use permit to utilize properties as parking was unanimously approved. Raquel Carter motioned, Joan Whitman seconded, with all seven members supporting. Seven conditions apply, including a revised timeline for improvements. **PLN-BOA-18-00027** [timestamp: 05:00]: The Lexington School's conditional use permit for a construction addition received unanimous approval. Jan Meyer motioned, Chad Needham seconded. Eight conditions apply, including compliance with floodplain and stormwater management requirements. **PLN-BOA-18-00028** [timestamp: 06:00]: Duke Road Personal Care's conditional use permit for an assisted living facility passed 6-0 with one abstention by roll call vote. Chad Needham motioned, Raquel Carter seconded. Supporting votes from Harry Clarke, Raquel Carter, Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, Jan Meyer, and Joan Whitman. Five conditions apply, with condition #6 deleted. **PLN-BOA-18-00029** [timestamp: 07:00]: Hill N Dale Christian Church's conditional use permit to operate a preschool passed unanimously. Harry Clarke motioned, Thomas Glover seconded. Five conditions include licensing by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services. **PLN-BOA-18-00032** [timestamp: 08:00]: Fayette Cooperating Preschool's conditional use permit for a childcare center was unanimously approved. Jan Meyer motioned, Joan Whitman seconded. Five conditions include state licensing compliance. **PLN-BOA-18-00031** [timestamp: 09:00]: Andy Chang's administrative appeal regarding construction without primary entrance was unanimously postponed by all seven members. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one community member addressed the board with concerns about local parking issues. **Keela Jackson** spoke about parking problems at Greater Liberty Baptist Church that are affecting her father's property [timestamp: 04:30]. Jackson expressed concerns that vehicles are blocking her father's driveway, which is preventing his ability to safely enter and exit his home. She brought this matter to the board's attention seeking resolution to the ongoing access issues. No other members of the public provided comments during this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items Two items on the agenda generated significant discussion and opposition during the meeting. **Greater Liberty Baptist Church Conditional Use Permit** The conditional use permit application for Greater Liberty Baptist Church faced community opposition primarily centered on parking concerns. Community members who attended the meeting expressed worries that the church's operations would create parking issues that would negatively impact neighboring properties. The specific nature of these parking concerns and the extent of community opposition were not detailed in the available materials, but the issue was significant enough to be noted as a contentious agenda item. **Andy Chang Administrative Appeal** An administrative appeal filed by Andy Chang created a procedural dispute that required additional staff consultation. The appeal concerned a construction project that apparently lacked a required primary entrance, though the specific details of the construction violation were not elaborated upon in the meeting materials. The complexity of Chang's appeal led to a postponement of the decision, with officials determining that further discussion with staff members was necessary before proceeding. This postponement suggests the appeal raised technical or regulatory questions that required additional expertise to resolve properly. Both contested items highlight common challenges in local government proceedings - balancing community concerns with development needs in the case of the church permit, and navigating complex building code requirements in the administrative appeal. The postponement of the Chang appeal demonstrates the deliberative approach taken when procedural questions arise that require additional staff input before a final determination can be made. ## Variance Appeal - Patricia Moss [timestamp: 02:12] The board considered agenda item III.C.1, a variance request from Patricia Moss to allow an accessory structure to exceed the permitted lot coverage by 316 square feet. The proposed accessory structure would exceed the lot coverage limits relative to the main building on the property. Patricia Moss and William Moss appeared before the board as key speakers to present their case for the variance request. The specific details of their presentation and any supporting documentation were discussed during this portion of the meeting. The board ultimately approved the variance request, allowing Patricia Moss to proceed with the accessory structure that would exceed the standard lot coverage requirements by the requested 316 square feet. ## Conditional Use Appeal - Grantham, LLC [timestamp: 03:00] The board considered agenda item III.D.1, a conditional use appeal submitted by Grantham, LLC. The company requested a conditional use permit to operate a home-based business for gunsmithing and mail order retail sale of firearms. Jacob Walbourn served as the key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The application involved establishing a specialized home-based business operation that would combine gunsmithing services with mail order retail sales of firearms, requiring conditional use approval due to the nature of the business activities. The board reviewed the application and associated materials for the proposed conditional use permit. The discussion focused on the specific business operations Grantham, LLC planned to conduct from the residential location, including both the gunsmithing services and the mail order retail component for firearm sales. Following their review and discussion of the conditional use application, the board approved the request. This approval allows Grantham, LLC to proceed with operating their home-based gunsmithing and mail order firearms retail business under the terms of the conditional use permit. The approval of this conditional use permit enables the company to establish their specialized business operations while ensuring compliance with local zoning requirements for home-based businesses involving firearms-related activities. ## Conditional Use Appeal - Greater Liberty Baptist Church [timestamp: 04:00] The council considered agenda item III.D.2, a conditional use appeal from Greater Liberty Baptist Church seeking permission to utilize additional properties as parking for the church. This ordinance item addressed the church's request for a conditional use permit to expand their parking capacity. Key speakers during the discussion included Darlene Lee and Marcus Underwood, who presented information regarding the church's parking needs and the proposed use of the additional properties. The church's request centered on their need for expanded parking facilities to accommodate their congregation. The conditional use permit would allow Greater Liberty Baptist Church to utilize nearby properties specifically for parking purposes in connection with their religious services and activities. Following the presentation and discussion of the matter, the council voted to approve the conditional use appeal. The approval grants Greater Liberty Baptist Church the conditional use permit they requested, allowing them to proceed with using the designated properties as additional parking for their church operations. The successful outcome of this appeal provides the church with the necessary authorization to address their parking capacity needs while ensuring compliance with local zoning and land use requirements. ## Conditional Use Appeal - The Lexington School [timestamp: 05:00] The Board considered agenda item III.D.3, a conditional use appeal for The Lexington School's request to construct an addition to their existing school facility. Emily Wright and Chuck Baldecchi served as key speakers during the discussion of this conditional use permit application. The proposal involved adding new construction to The Lexington School's current campus to expand their educational facilities. The Board reviewed the school's application for the conditional use permit, which is required for institutional expansions in the area. The discussion focused on the proposed addition and its compliance with local zoning requirements and conditional use standards. Following deliberation, the Board approved the conditional use permit for The Lexington School's building addition project. This approval allows the school to proceed with their planned expansion of the existing educational facility. The conditional use permit approval enables The Lexington School to move forward with construction of the addition, which will expand their capacity to serve students in the community. ## Conditional Use Appeal - Duke Road Personal Care [timestamp: 06:00] The Board considered agenda item III.D.4, a conditional use appeal for Duke Road Personal Care's request to operate an assisted living facility. Solomon VanMeter served as the key speaker for this item. Duke Road Personal Care had submitted an application for a conditional use permit to establish and operate an assisted living facility at their proposed location. The conditional use process requires special approval for certain types of facilities that may have unique impacts on surrounding neighborhoods or require additional oversight. The discussion centered on the facility's proposed operations and compliance with local zoning requirements for assisted living facilities. Such facilities typically require conditional use permits due to considerations including traffic patterns, emergency access, resident care standards, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Following the presentation and any discussion of the proposal, the Board voted to approve the conditional use permit for Duke Road Personal Care. This approval allows the facility to move forward with their plans to operate an assisted living facility, subject to any conditions that may have been attached to the permit. The approval enables Duke Road Personal Care to provide assisted living services to residents who require supportive care while maintaining some level of independence. Assisted living facilities serve an important role in the community's continuum of care options for seniors and individuals with disabilities who need assistance with daily activities but do not require the intensive medical care provided in nursing homes. ## Conditional Use Appeal - Hill N Dale Christian Church [timestamp: 07:00] The Board considered agenda item III.D.5, a conditional use appeal for Hill N Dale Christian Church. The church had requested a conditional use permit to operate a preschool as an accessory use to their existing church facility. Tom Cruze served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the church's application and the proposed preschool operation. The conditional use permit would allow Hill N Dale Christian Church to expand their services to include early childhood education programming on their property. As an accessory use to the primary church function, the preschool would operate under the conditional use framework that governs such supplementary activities at religious facilities. Following the presentation and any discussion of the application details, the Board voted to approve the conditional use permit for Hill N Dale Christian Church. This approval allows the church to move forward with establishing and operating the preschool facility as requested in their application. The approval enables the church to serve the community through expanded educational programming while maintaining compliance with local zoning and conditional use requirements. ## Conditional Use Appeal - Fayette Cooperating Preschool [timestamp: 08:00] The council considered agenda item III.D.6, a conditional use appeal for Fayette Cooperating Preschool. The preschool had requested a conditional use permit to operate a childcare center and nursery school as an accessory use to a church facility. Mary Brenzel served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the conditional use request to the council members. The application involved establishing a preschool operation that would function as an accessory use to an existing church, which is a common arrangement that allows religious institutions to provide educational services to their communities while generating additional revenue to support their operations. Following the presentation and any discussion among council members, the conditional use appeal was approved. This approval allows Fayette Cooperating Preschool to move forward with operating their childcare center and nursery school program at the church location, subject to any conditions that may have been established as part of the conditional use permit process. The approval of this conditional use permit enables the preschool to provide early childhood education services while maintaining compliance with local zoning regulations that govern accessory uses to religious facilities. ## Administrative Appeal - Andy Chang [timestamp: 09:00] The City Council considered agenda item III.E.2, an administrative appeal submitted by Andy Chang regarding construction requirements for a new residential structure. Chang requested permission to construct a new residential building without providing a primary entrance for pedestrian access, which appears to deviate from standard municipal building requirements. Andy Chang served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting his case to the Council for the administrative appeal. The specific details of Chang's justification for the variance request and the original administrative decision being appealed were discussed during this portion of the meeting. The Council ultimately decided to postpone action on Chang's administrative appeal rather than rendering an immediate decision. The reasons for the postponement and any conditions or additional information required before the matter can be reconsidered were not specified in the available meeting data. This postponement means Chang's request to construct a residential structure without a standard pedestrian entrance remains unresolved, and the matter will need to be brought back before the Council at a future meeting for final determination. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-18-00023** — passed (7-0): Variance request by Patricia Moss to allow an accessory structure to exceed lot coverage - **PLN-BOA-18-00003** — passed (6-1): Conditional use permit for Grantham, LLC to operate a home-based business - **PLN-BOA-18-00024** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit for Greater Liberty Baptist Church to utilize properties as parking - **PLN-BOA-18-00027** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit for The Lexington School to construct an addition - **PLN-BOA-18-00028** — passed (6-0): Conditional use permit for Duke Road Personal Care to operate an assisted living facility - **PLN-BOA-18-00029** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit for Hill N Dale Christian Church to operate a preschool - **PLN-BOA-18-00032** — passed (7-0): Conditional use permit for Fayette Cooperating Preschool to operate a childcare center - **PLN-BOA-18-00031** — postponed (7-0): Administrative appeal by Andy Chang for construction without primary entrance --- ## Full transcript to Caribbean culture and Caribbean food. Okay, well let's start, let's talk about how your mom got into cooking and starting her own restaurant. Now she's one of the people that keep all the recipes in her head. She doesn't have a cookbook to share, she probably just does it all off of memory. There's no cookbook. Me and my brother, we follow her around. My brother, Ruben Laurenville, we're pretty much both of us here, me, my brother, and my mom. And we follow her around just trying to, you know, write down everything that she does. But she does everything from her head. She was born in Haiti, learned to cook ever since she was a kid while she was in Haiti. Moved to the Bahamas, I believe, at the age of 17. Worked in the service industry there, different because it's a huge tourist industry. Cooked in several different hotels. and then move to. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Today is February. Whoops. Those are minutes. More minutes. There we go. Today is April 9, 2018. Agenda for the Board of Adjustments. What I'm going to do is I'm going to go through some administrative items and then we will go into closed session for a few minutes on some business that legal needs to discuss with us. So the first item I will do is approval of minutes. Staff has sent out the March 12, 2018 minutes. Did everyone get those? And did anyone have any issues, edits, questions? I move we approve the minutes, March 12. Mr. Glover moves. Do I have a second? Ms. Whitman seconds. All those in favor, register your votes. Okay, that motion passes. The next item I want to discuss is, bear with me here, I will go through the agenda real quickly, especially since we're going to go into a closed session, to give the parties time, if they so chose, to discuss any of the items and see if you can resolve any opposition while we are in closed session. So what I'll do is the first case is a variance appeal, which is PLN BOA 18-23, Patricia Moss. Oh, I'm sorry, is there anyone here who wants to withdraw or postpone? I'm sorry. I have a request from the applicant for PLNBOA 18-26 Mini Sharp to postpone one month. They were unable to be here due to a family emergency. So that is item number E1 on page 4, PLNBOA 18-26 Mini Sharp. Is anyone here on that matter today? Okay. Hearing none, then I guess do we need to move to approve that? Yes. So do I have a motion? So moved to postpone one month. First to postpone that to our next hearing, which will be March 14, 2008. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second for Mr. Clark. All those in favor, register your votes. Did you mean May 14th? Yes. What did I say? I think you said March. I'm sorry yes May 14th 2018 even though I would like to have heard it last month Any other withdrawals or postponements? I would also just like to direct your attention to the case above that PLNBOA 18-32 Fayette Cooperating Preschool There is an error on the agenda that says that that is at 371 Hillendale Road It is actually at 121 Rosemont Garden in Council District 3 is that the corner of clays mill and rosemont i don't think so no it's nicholasville right oh it's the other side okay i know where it is all All right. Okay, so I'm going to go back to the first variance appeal, which was PLN BOA 18-23, Patricia Moss. Is the applicant present? Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to that case? Okay. We'll have you heard first. The next case is a conditional use appeal for PLM BOA 18-3, Grantham LLC. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here in opposition to that matter today? There were some last week, I mean last month that were here. I guess not. Okay. The next item will be PLM BOA 18-24, Greater Liberty Baptist Church. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Ma'am, is there anyone here in opposition to that case? Okay. The next item is PLM BOA 18-27, the Lexington School. Is the applicant present? Thank you, sir. Anyone here in opposition to that matter? The next item is PLM BOA 18-28, Duke Road Personal Care. The applicant's present. Thank you, sir. Anyone here in opposition to that case? We have one opposition to this Duke Road Personal Care case, ma'am. Yes, I just asked a question. Okay. Well, maybe you and Mr. Main Meter can get together while we're in closed session, and maybe he can answer, and then we'll have an opportunity. but I'll mark that one as of now to be heard. The next case is PLN BOA 18-29 Hillandale Christian Church. The applicant present? Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to Hillandale Christian Church's application? the next matter is the plmboa 18-32 fayette cooperating preschool which has had an address changed to 121 rosemont gardens the applicant present thank you ma'am is there anyone here in opposition to this case. And lastly, we have administrative review of PLM BOA 18-31. Andy Chong is the applicant present. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to that matter? All right. I've got to be honest with the audience. We've got a full house and no one except for one is here in opposition. Is anyone here opposing any of the cases to be heard today? This is a new for me. Usually we don't have anyone in the audience when there's no opposition. Okay, so the next item is anyone who will be speaking today, either in favor or opposition of any of the cases, who will come up to the mic and give any testimony, I'll need you to stand and raise your right hand for me. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. And then if you didn't stand up, don't come to the podium unless you tell me you didn't get sworn in, so I can swear you in. Okay, so what I'd like to do now is entertain a motion from Mr. Glover. Mr. Chair. Oh, actually, it's been moved. I move pursuant to KRS 618101C to go into closed session for the purpose of discussing proposed litigation against or on behalf of the Board of Adjustment. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Do I have a second? Mr. Clark seconds. Oh, okay. She say is not available. So all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. We will go into a closed session. We'll be back in five or ten minutes. Thank you. Thank you. First, I'd like to apologize. It took substantially longer than I had anticipated, so I apologize for making you wait. While we were in closed session, has anyone come into the audience today in opposition of any of the cases that didn't have an opportunity to tell us that earlier? Okay. And I appear from, okay, the one lady who was opposed to the PLMBOA 1828 Duke Road Personal Care, it appears that that has been resolved and she has left. Okay. So we'll put that on as the none also. So with that being said, it appears we have no opposition cases today, and we have one that the staff has had disapproval, so we will have one hearing at the end on that one. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to start calling cases in order. The first one is PLN BOA 1823 Patricia Moss' application for a variance. Come on up. And then if you could speak into the mic and tell us your name. Hi, I'm Patricia Moss. Ms. Moss, the staff has recommended approval of this application. It's subject to four conditions in the report. Have you seen those conditions? I have, sir. And you are agreeable to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Okay. In that instance, does anyone from the board have any questions for Ms. Moss? I do. Ms. Moss, is this going to be a one-story detached accessory structure or taller? Yes, sir, one-story. one story and on the eastern side i noticed a staff report says that there are existing trees which provide a buffer i presume that you don't intend to take down any of those trees is that correct uh actually the building the way it's sitting the north side is facing toward the house the west side is three foot off the property line which has the trees right along there that is the closest trees to the building so i'm so the staff report is wrong is that what you're saying the staff report says that the western side is 23 feet off the property line sorry i was turned around you're correct on both sides of our property there are trees and the trees will not be removed they will be staying okay i just wanted you i just wanted to hear that on the record before because the reason i think for for the staff recommending approval of the of the structure being so close to the proper line was the tree buffer that existed now there has been some tree trimming due to overhang overhanging onto the property and they were dying off uh that last storm we had come through uh it knocked a few tree limbs down so So it's just some little bit cleaning up, but the line is still there. Okay. The thing I'm concerned about, I think, is the same thing the staff had mentioned, the fact that there are existing trees which provide a buffer. Yes, sir. Okay. And you intend to keep those trees as a buffer? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant? Hearing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLNBOA 18-23 Patricia Moss' request for variance to allow a detached accessory structure to exceed the footprint of the principal structure by 316 square feet and to increase the total allowable area of the accessory building from 784 square feet to 1536 square feet in a single family residential zone at 811 Stone Road for the reasons detailed by staff and their report and bait and subject to the four conditions in the staff report thank you mr. Glover is there a second second for mr. Clark is there any discussions on the motion hearing none please vote. Congratulations, good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you, board. The next case is PLN BOA 18-3 Grantham LLC's application. And Mr. Walburn, before we proceed um would you be in opposition if we put this at the end of the non-opposed cases because there will be probably some questions and i'd hate for the citizen we have to i appreciate that mr chair i'm supposed to be in louisville at four but well then we will proceed okay yes that's not an issue okay so this is plnboa 10-3 uh please put your name on the record Jacob Auburn on behalf of the applicant Grantham LLC. Thank you, sir. And the staff has recommended approval today based upon what appears to be nine conditions. My understanding, though, from talking with counsel, that one of these conditions may be changed. Is that correct, Ms. Jones? We are changing one of the conditions? Do we have that for the board? I mean, to put up on the board? I believe this was number five and... Wait a minute. Bear with us. Have you seen this new... I discussed it over the phone briefly with Ms. Jones, but I haven't actually read the text. All right. Do we have the text? There we go. Okay, so the revision would be number five would now read the application. Shall comply with all safety measures as required by federal firearms licensing regulations. I think that would be all right. I do think that is probably covered by condition number one, but I won't argue too fiercely over that. all right so as the conditions as recommended your client is agreeable to the nine conditions as proposed yes okay um with all that being said i would normally um we don't i don't ask for this i usually ask right away if anyone has any questions but if you want to give a brief overview of your client's business at the location i'd be happy to um my client mr duncan is the owner of grantham llc he has previous experience with a local gun retailer has recently started his own process of getting his federal firearms license as part of getting that license which i can represent to the board has already been issued by the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms he was required to get zoning compliance as i think you may have heard about in your closed session there are some state laws krs 65 870 being the most relevant that actually exempt or pro rather prohibit urban county government or any other governmental entities from enacting virtually any regulation that has anything to do with firearms that's probably a gross oversimplification but that's kind of the moral of the story but during that process in an effort to comply with all local regulations and because I do think while this use is not a retail sales establishment as that term is defined in the ordinance, I do think it is a home occupation. So just to make sure that we've covered all of our bases, we've gone ahead and gone through with this process. He was originally recommended for approval. That recommendation changed after lengthy discussions with council last time and over, I'll call it mild objection. You all postponed a month, and I think we've been able to work with staff and council to come up with an acceptable application. The terms of the business are exclusively governed by his federal firearms license, which I think if you'll notice from your staff report calls for very limited hours of operation. This is not going to be a significantly impactful use in the community. he anticipates a bare minimum number of customers would actually come to the home. He's just making sure that he can comply with the requirements of his federal firearms license. So with that, I'd be happy to entertain any specific questions that you may have, but I think you all have heard a lot about this already today. So if I can provide any clarification, I'd be happy to. well i'll open it up to any questions from the board at this time i'm kind of curious mr wahlgren the application is for gunsmithing and mail order and on-site retail sale firearms and items that serve as accessories to firearms and it gives the example of scopes and binoculars do you or does your does your client consider ammunition as accessories uh ammunition is not part of his sales model he will not be selling ammunition on the at this location it would not be covered by this great and how many guns does he propose to work on or deal in or sell or i mean just just the volume give me an idea we're going to see truckloads of guns coming up to his house or if it's one at a time if you've reviewed the property i think you'd see that the truckloads would be a quite difficult proposition here when i first met with mr duncan he told me he averages about one to three customers a month who typically are doing one to two firearms so certainly i think you're talking about one or two at a time at this time obviously ideally anytime you start a business you hope it grows. I've already discussed with Mr. Duncan that there comes a point where that would not be appropriate for a home occupation anymore. I think we all hope that he can go to a actual retail facility one day but that's not the business model here and certainly if the business were to grow we discussed this with staff and council that we would need to find a new location. So how big is too big for a home business? It's a reasonable question and I discussed with council on trying to impose some limits or some thresholds that would require us to at least come back. I had said if we reached 30 customers a month which would be one customer a day that that would be a time that it might be time to reevaluate things. We're mindful that this is a residential neighborhood. I know one concern that had been expressed at one point was parking. We don't think that and I've brought photographs if you care to see them but the street is not utilized for parking presently there is an abundance of parking available in the area but if it got to be more than one or two customers a day given the extremely limited hours of operation that were permitted anyway i think we wouldn't reevaluate at that time and one more question really in light and this is i guess the bigger question in light of the statute that you that you mentioned uh does the board have jurisdiction to even entertain this application i think you do and in fact it's funny while you all were back there i was just discussing with my client is their virtue in withdrawing the application because I don't think you can regulate it. What I do think you do have the ability to regulate is a home occupation. I have argued, I hope successfully to counsel, that this is not retail sales as that term is defined in your zoning ordinance. I do think it's a home occupation and certainly would not want a disruption to the business of someone complaining that he had not received appropriately appropriate licensure or approval to perform a home occupation. I had written in a letter, I think two months ago or last month, you did a home occupation for scuba training that I assume was going on in this gentleman's house. It's the same thing. There are other regulations you have to comply with or that are beyond your purview, but you all do have, I think, the latitude here to consider is there appropriate parking available, for instance. Is this too intense use in terms of volume for the neighborhood. I don't think you have any of that evidence here. I think this will more than amply function. I do think you have jurisdiction in that regard with respect to home occupations. If it's a home occupation, then if the retail portion of the application were denied, that wouldn't affect his occupation. Well, I don't believe that retail sales is what's occurring here. Retail sales is a defined term under your zoning ordinance, and that is not something that my client is engaging in. In fact, the federal firearms licensure prohibits that. You can't walk into a gun store and take something away for immediate purchase. Retail sales under your ordinance means what you do at Kroger, what you do at the fabric store, what you do at wherever you're buying merchandise. You walk in, select something off the cell, pay for it, and leave. You can't do that in a firearms context. And that is how retail sales is defined in your ordinance, not just the ability to purchase, but the ability to purchase immediately. That can't happen here. By law, it can't happen here. I haven't objected to the retail sales language, but I don't think it's applicable here. This is essentially a mail-order business. So if we took out the retail sales portion of the application and approved the rest, it wouldn't affect his business? In my opinion, it does not. Okay, thank you. I'm not clear. Would you walk us through exactly what your client plans to do with this business? So this is a smaller entity. He had previous clients that he'd worked with at a previous employer. What would happen is if you decided that you wanted to buy, and these are specifically custom-type firearms, you can't just call the manufacturer and get one. There is a licensure requirement that's the FFL, the Federal Firearms License we've been discussing, that's issued through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Manufacturers may only ship to licensed individuals. So, for instance, if you were interested in making a purchase, you would contact my client, tell him what you were interested in receiving. You'd be required to fill out background check paperwork and comply with all federal law with respect to firearm sales. He would then make arrangements to have that item shipped to him after receiving payment from you and assurances from the appropriate authorities that you had passed your background check. Once the item came in, he would contact you and then make arrangements to get that item delivered to you. So does he know exactly when that item is going to be delivered? Yes. So he is on site to take the delivery? Yes. That's not something they'll leave. It's not the Amazon package. They won't leave it on your doorstep So how does that differ from from? Mail order and him not being a dealer if they're shipping it to him. Mr. Walburn seems like to me he's he's he's the dealer and and dealing with a a manufacturer and he's the he's the person in between the manufacturer and the buyer so he is indeed a dealer how is that not selling retail well because retail sales is a defined term under your ordinance that says that the items must be available for immediate purchase and takeaway you can't walk into this regardless of what happens today you can't walk into the facility say I would like a firearm and leave with one that takes him out of the realm of retail sales as that term is defined in your zoning ordinance. Mr. Walburn being the studious attorney you are I'm sure you brought that definition with you. Believe it or not I don't believe I did. Oh I've discussed it extensively with your counsel but it is in the zoning ordinance. It is on my staff report here we go okay immediate purchase and removal that's so how does how does your client differ from like a retail it meant me outlet because the retail, like Bud's or whatever gun shop there is, there's a waiting period? Yes. And to answer your question as directly as I can, I don't think it significantly does. I think where we may be getting caught up is how you and I understand retail, which is purchase of goods, versus retail, how it's defined in the zoning ordinance here. He is selling merchandise. Make no mistake about that. I don't want to mislead you on that point. He is selling merchandise. What he's not doing is selling merchandise that is available for immediate purchase and removal from the premises by the purchaser. That takes him out of the realm of retail sales and the zoning ordinance for the urban county government. And thus, I think you might be able to understand why I said the retail sales language really was of no import to me one way or the other, because we're not retail selling as that term is defined. So if it just says mail order sale for firearms, then that would be sufficient? I think that's more than adequate for him to proceed. I would tell you that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms did accept our position of the KRS 65870, more or less exempted him from local regulation, but since this process has begun, and to protect against potential collateral attacks later from other people, the federal government will require no more information from us. But to make sure that he's in full compliance, that's why we're here today. Any additional questions from the board? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLNBOA 18-3, Grantham LLC's request for a conditional use permit to operate a home-based business, gunsmithing, and mail order. I'm still troubled by this, on-site retail sales because of what number two in the conditions says. And items that serve as accessories to firearms in a single-family residential zone at 103 Woods Avenue for the reasons recommended in the staff report and subject to the nine conditions in the staff's report. May I ask, is that as amended? I'm sorry, yes. as amended by the language that we saw that amended the language in condition number five. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. I want to have a couple items of discussion before we do vote. And it appears, Ms. Jones, that the application description in our report does reference retail sales, which does appear to contradict the language in number two of the conditions. Is that something that needs to be clarified? I think the applicant has said there will not be retail sales at this location. I mean, it sounds to me like the applicant's agreeable to striking the word retail from the description, if I'm understanding correctly. Yeah. As the definition shows on the screen, I don't think we're engaging in that activity. So if you want to strike the word retail so that it would read on- On-site sale of firearms? No. Mail order sale of firearms. Yes, mail order sale I think would be better. That's acceptable. I will accept the friendly amendment, changing that language. Do I have an amendment for that? Do we have to make a motion for that amendment? Do we not? Or can we just make a friendly amendment to the motion? I think what Mr. Glover is saying is, since he made the motion, he'll accept the amendment to delete that language so that it'll say mail order sales. So no, you don't have to have a motion. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Should that also include a change in condition number two? Yes. Yeah, I think that would be changed from retail sales of merchandise to online sales of merchandise. Well, if I could have an opportunity to rebut that concern, I actually think number two as is reads as it should. If you want to impose an additional condition concerning that, but I want it to be clear in the record that this is not retail sales as that term is defined. In fact, I actually suggested this condition for that exact reason to clarify the business model here. So if there are additional concerns about the nature of the business, I think that's fine. But maybe number two is better as a finding of fact instead of a condition because there's really not. Well, Mr. Waldman, I think the question for number two is that second sentence where it says retail sales of merchandise shall be on appointment only. If you just strike the word retail. I've got out in front of my skis. Apologies. And then we change it to goods shall not be available for immediate. it so essentially or just merchandise it says that yeah sales on merchandise if you change uh if you change the word goods to and that'll solve the problem The noun problem. What will it? So it will say, if I'm understanding correctly, mail order sales of merchandise shall be by appointment only and shall not be available for immediate purchase and removal from the premises. Is that what it's going to say now? I don't object to that, but that's fine. That works for me. All right. Another friendly amendment, Mr. Glover? Okay. To revise condition number two. So that sentence number two shall read now, mail order sales of merchandise shall be by appointment only and shall not be available for immediate purchase and removal from the premises by purchaser on a walk-in basis. Mr. Rauburn, is that language agreeable with you? Yes. Okay. so is your motion amended would you like to hear that motion again there is a motion on the floor that's been seconded it was it was complicated by all the language changes um i'll be glad to make it again unless everybody's clear on what we're on what's on the floor is anyone unclear on what's on the floor and would like Mr. Glover to restate the motion. Okay. Are there any further discussion points on the motion before I close discussions? Oh, I do have a question for Tracy for legal. The condition number nine, as I understand it, means that the, it seems to me to mean that the federal firearms license will be or at least a copy will be on will be on file with this with building inspection so is that how you're reading that's correct okay and you say the license has already been granted correct okay thank you mr walbert sorry to be a complicated case today but any further discussions on the motion or any points okay i will now close discussions on the motion the motion is to approve as um discussed and amended i um please register your votes Are you? Is the voting over? I thought I, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Glover. The application has been approved. Good luck with your project, sir. Thank you all very much. Thank you. It was no, it was a touch screen, it didn't touch. The next case before us is PLM BOA 18-24, Greater Liberty Baptist Church, it's a request for a conditional use permit. As applicant. And from the staff, these letters that have been produced, are they letters in favor or opposition opposition and general concern I would say okay well then ma'am if you would please state your name for the record yes it's darling Lee okay miss Lee we had do have some letters that we would need time to kind of flip through usually takes a couple minutes but in the meantime I'll ask you a couple questions the staff has recommended approval of your application based upon six recommendations have you seen those six recommendations yes I have okay in our conditions I'm sorry conditions and are you agreeable to abide by those conditions yay nay the time and only is what we're looking at because it's a lot y'all asking for us to do in a short period of time for us completing this project because there are four lots that you're asking for us to have payment by December of this year and with our finances I can tell you now that won't be possible well while we got that is there I'm looking at the conditions but I can't see where there's a time limit on here's number one we'll put up a copy of the timeline you should have received it in your packet i don't think it's not in the agenda printed but it was attached to the staff report yeah the uh i thought the i thought the timeline was part of your application well no this is it was not when i when i went down to talk to them about this i explained to my situation i understand that there's a permit that has to be attained and we have no problem paying at least one of these lots but to have all form done at this this particular time, we don't have the finance to do it. It's not that we don't want to do it, but our finances speak otherwise. For us to do this rightly and in the right format. So we know that the main one they were concerned about were the properties, where the two houses were removed. We have no problem, at least payment, but the other conditions along with this, financially will be a huge burden on the church. And we are now just beginning to see ourselves in the green. okay was this a timeline that you prepared and proposed with your application or what was the staff could you the timeline is something that staff has compiled and proposed we understand that the church does have some financial issues to overcome in order to complete the project so we sort of laid out this timeline as a way of creating a temporary solution and then working towards the final solution and setting that on a timeline this is an enforcement case the result of a complaint back in december so we are kind of trying to get this moving in the right direction and the timeline was well let me do this um if you could could you walk us through a little bit about a little bit more detail on how we got here and where we're going sure um the two properties closest to 3rd Street 367 3rd and 318 autumn wait one second some of the board members have asked me to take a quick break let them read these letters I guess these letters are pretty detailed and they're not being a pay attention if you want to have a seat in the first row we'll five minutes and then we'll get going again so I hope so I hope so I hope so so all right we're gonna go into how long do you think we're going to need all right we're gonna we're gonna go with 10-minute break I'm gonna call us back into order and before we recessed I believe that staff was getting ready to give us a quick overview because it appears from leading reading the staff's reports and the timeline is that this was matters before us due to a complaint from the community regarding some of the parking areas etc so if you could give us a little bit timeline on what the violation sure is and then we can get us to where we are in the apple the applicant can they explain to us what their plan is and how long they think don't take okay the church exists I don't know the church and one existing parking lot were approved by the board previously the properties at 367 East 3rd Street and 318 chestnut are the two at the corner of chestnut and third the church has been using those for several years as parking lots but they have never been paved striped or landscaped in accordance with the zoning ordinance but that has been going on for a number of years most recently 321 and 323 which are across the street from the church previously had residential structures which were demolished in the past year since then the church has put in some sort of asphalt chip fill and has been using those two properties for parking as well a complaint was received by the zoning office on December 4th and this application as a result of that complaint and trying to get these four lots into compliance. Chestnut Street does have restricted street parking. It's restricted to one side of the street in this part of Chestnut, so there is a need by the church for additional parking. The community has expressed concerns with the stormwater issues primarily and having everything paved appropriately that's kind of how we've gotten to where we are i can answer more questions as you have them okay so in summary the church is the large building next to the two parking lots on the screen they have approval to use the two existing parking lots as part of the 91 no they have approval for the one parking lot sorry the church is right here and the Existing, okay, it is the existing two lots here are parking that were included in the conditional use. Okay. So the existing two lots, when I said two, it's because two PVA deeded lots are approved as part of the 91. And then they've currently been using parking at 3rd and Chestnut and then also across the street, which have not been approved. to be used as a parking lot? That is correct. Okay. And it looks like you guys proposed a timeline because of the concerns that the neighbors have raised. That is correct. We understand that the church was not planning on doing this project at this time and does not have the financial means in place to complete this project. But since it is something that has come in as a complaint, it is a priority for us that it be done correctly and in accordance with the ordinance. So we've proposed the timeline to sort of outline a path to compliance. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for staff prior to asking the applicant to come forward? I have a question. One of the letters spoke about cutting through some of the properties and going into an alley, and one requested a fence to stop that. Have you all addressed that at all? I don't think we addressed that in the staff report. That is certainly a condition that could be added if the board wanted to go in that direction. Questions for staff? Okay, ma'am, come back up please. And I can't recall, did I ask you to put your name on the record? Darlene Lee. Ms. Lee? Yes. Okay, Ms. Lee, if you would go ahead and explain to us what the plan is and what you think it's going to cost, how long do you think it's going to take, because the issue that's probably before us is the fact that these four lots are not in compliance right now with the our ordinances you can't just tear down a building and fill it up with gravel and start parking on it without coming to us first and so the staff it appears has proposed a timeline that it thinks would give you a reasonable time to get these items corrected but but in my understanding is they would would they continue to park on these lots or would they be prohibited parking the timeline does ask for a temporary solution to allow parking to continue until the the final solution if you look at the first part of the timeline it's somewhere in my pile of stuff december completed by December okay the temporary solution is essentially to minimize the effect of drainage onto the neighboring properties since the houses were removed and their yards were also removed it has changed the amount of pervious surface that there is which creates an increase in runoff on the adjacent properties so we're looking to mitigate that in a temporary means to allow them to continue parking on at least some of the part of the property until the final design and final improvements can be made but what about between now and june is it is it the staff's position that they have until june to because you said just needs by june is that by june 1 or june 30. i that 30 days makes a huge difference in the construction world well you know the the reality is you can't plan these things to the day so anytime in june okay and then in would they be allowed to continue to park as is until that time period that was the main purpose behind having a timeline at all was to allow them to continue to use the lots for parking that would be a big hurt on them to close all four yeah i understand okay all right thank you staff uh please miss lee um if you want to proceed yes and as i was stating we will start this project but having all four lots done even by december again i can tell you for sure me being the treasurer It's not going to happen. So what we propose to do is start on 321 and 323 where the main source of the problem is. At least start there, beginning that process, at least have that completed by December of this year. To be safely for it to be done right and correctly. So it would be just to have 321 and 323 completed this year? Yes, because that's where the most problem is, as she stated, where the owners are concerned about the runoff of the waters, where the houses used to be. We just had two houses removed from there and it was over $11,000 that we spent having those done. So we are working on the finance to have this taken care of. But I can say for sure I know we can have that lot done by December of this year. Because that's a big lot that has to be paid and taken care of by a professional company. Do you think it behooves you for us to postpone this for a month for the staff and you to have further discussions on the timeline? I don't think so because we both know what needs to be done. Like I said, we are looking at contractors right now to have this taken care of. This is our proposal that we were asking for you all to consider. Meeting a month later is not going to make any more difference than we are today. Mr. Gross? The staff would not object to changing the timeline to just reflect that 321 and 323 would be totally completed by the end of this year. And maybe give them another year to do the other two lots, which have been used for working for, to be frank, probably 15 to 18 years. Yes, yes. And they're not the problem, at least as big a problem as 321 and 323. So that would be a pretty simple fix to the timeline. And the reason I asked for that project to be completed by December, because we have to apply for the grant through the engineering department. It takes time doing the paperwork for that. I've already looked into that process. So that's why I'm stating, I understand they gave us a timeline, but when you look at this realistic, as far as paperwork with the grants, grants do take a while to go through. It's not a simple fix. At least having everything that we need done in a proper format will be done in orderly. So that was the reason I proposed those two lots for now, and I agree a year later with the other lots was to take care of. So do we think that on those two lots we're going to meet these other deadlines or we're just saying we know that? A year later, a year later, by the end of 2019 for the other two lots. But this year, since it's already halfway into the year, getting this lot lease payment is the main concern right now, giving us to lease December. Like I stated, we just had two houses removed, which was over $11,000. And this is not going to be a cheap project. So I don't want to promise something that we can't deliver. I can deliver this, but I can't deliver the whole four lots to y'all this year. It won't happen. But we are saying that on the 321 and 323, we'll hit these other deadlines, like a temporary fix by June and the final design by August, where they laid this timeline out on 321 and 323. Will we meet those deadlines? Okay, what we proposed was having 321 and 323 done for us to look the layout of it by December. And then next year we'll start working on the other two lines that are questionable too. Ms. Lee, what she's asking is, are you going to buy June of this year, have the grass 25-foot buffer at the rear completed? No. No. Okay. So my question for... That's what I told you. So, and that's the reason I was saying if you came back next month, that would give you an opportunity and the staff an opportunity to sit down instead of us winging, making changes to this schedule, that you guys could sit down and say, okay, for these two lots, this is going to be our schedule that we've agreed to. For these two lots, this will be our schedule. For 19 that we agree to. because what you're asking is a lot of changes to the schedule, but staffing hasn't had an opportunity to sit down at Pierce and go through these and say, this is what we could do, this is what we can't do. I think that they are, it appears to be open to delaying the pavement of the lots at 318 and 367 until 2019, but they still want you to keep this timeline as to 321 and 323 Chestnut, Which means by June they want you to establish a grass 20-foot wide buffer at the rear of 321 and 323. Are you saying that is not feasible? I'm not saying that, but we looked into a contractor because basically what you are asking about if I follow this schedule correctly, a contractor has to come out, I guess, through the measurements and do everything that needs to be done to make sure that. And I'm hoping by then we can have a contractor. That's the issue, looking at contractors now, making sure it's going to be feasible and affordable for them, whoever we take on to do this job. Because I can tell you for sure, the grant won't be ready by then, because I don't know what the process used for the grant is usually three months for them to even look at the grant, even to approve it or disapprove it, from my understanding. I guess my question is, in Section A, address immediate needs by June of 2018, Are you saying that these four bullet points are not, you're not going to be able to meet those? No. Can you give us at least a July to come back to look at that? Would that be visible for that? Well, that's the reason I'm saying these. I mean, we don't usually, we will make from the chair, we'll sometimes with the staff come up with reasonable accommodations like we did for the last case. But it appears to me that you are requesting a substantial change from what the staff has recommended. and usually we recommend that you go and talk with the staff and then come back next month with something that you guys have all agreed to the fine points and then we can look at a final plan rather than an ad hoc whether or not we should change it or not what's the staff's feeling there's problems ongoing right now so that's my concern with delaying things a whole month with no decision at all there's ongoing problems right now that are reflected in some of the letters you read every time it rains the conditions of the lots are poor we can show you some pictures and we one neighbor in particular on the downside of that lot gets water drainage onto onto their lot times of heavy rain so i think an extra month to to finish the immediate needs part of this would probably be acceptable but i think there might be some confusion about the grants this immediate needs phase is not a need to get a grant phase the need to get a grant phase is for the final solution it may be asphalt it may be grass pavers it may be overlaying uh heavy duty plastic over already grassed areas no i understand that i'm not sure if the applicants yeah i do i do i truly do and the contractor for the immediate needs may be a different contractor than the the final. I would presume it would be. I would think so. I guess if it comes down to whether they need just need another month for the immediate needs phase. Fine sir please state your name for the record for me. Marcus Underwood. Okay Mr. Underwood. I think the need here for the additional 30 days that she's asking for I mean out of the four bullet points we see here the last two I think are more feasible for us to accommodate it's the first two bullet points that are that we are a little unsure about on whether we'll be ready for those by by the end of June that's the main purpose behind that as far as the other things following to the end of the end of the year I think we'll be able to move in the right direction to to meet those dates as far as getting bids and contractors and things but those first two bullet points for June is going to be the that's what we're unsure about at this point and would the staff be opposed to moving that to July be honest with you usually I'm usually I don't get this detailed of usually we get you got to get this done without with all these different steps is the staff agreeable to a July 18 immediate resolution rather than June of 18. Yes, that's fine. Okay. And you guys would be agreeable to July. Yes. Okay. And then on the final is that the all four bullet points are just the first. Well, I'm going to get to that on the on B. Does that need to be September or is August still feasible? September. I think the clarification that I would need is July. If we're moving the immediate needs to July, that needs to include all four bullet points. No, that's correct. Yeah, no, that's correct. I mean. Oh, man. Because if they're saying that two bullet points, those two can be done, should we leave those? Well, I think those are, from what I understood, those are immediate by June. But, you know, I think that the 25-foot wide buffer is really the main thing that's going to help with the rainwater. The other two really don't. And I think that's the main issue there. And really, I would do this in reverse if you're asking an opinion because I think it's easier to pave and get 367 and 318 to comply than it's going to be cheaper than 321 and 323. And 367 you see from 3rd Street, which is a big entry point to the street and to the church, and that would look better to me, paid first. Well, I think if we're kicking this out 30 days to July, I see no reason not to post this until next month and let you guys come up with a plan that we can just approve rather than. I don't like the idea of having to go through each bullet point necessarily. Or I just want us to have, I guess, an up or down on this. I mean, what's the. Well, and if we're going to, if we do postpone it, I'd like some of the issues that are brought up in these letters to be addressed with, you know, between the applicant and staff. Only because bullet number four, clean sidewalks and street from debris on a weekly basis. Well, I could start immediately. There's no reason for that to be a June issue. That is, this should be done. But the fence, I'm referring to the fence, and one property owner in particular who wrote a letter, Mr. Harden, who has had some problems, and I don't know if you've had any conversations with Mr. Harden about it, But there's a letter from him, and, you know, maybe you could, you know, work something out sooner rather than later with him. Ms. Lee, have you all seen the letters that we've read? No, we've not seen anything, no. All right. I mean, Mr. Marks, what's your comment on? this case? Well, if the church is willing to start working on this now and not just sit and do nothing for 30 days, then we're fine with postponing it and we'll work together to change the timeline. Or do you think this is something that you could mark up and we could have this case brought back up after I hear a couple other cases? That you could take the timeline, mark it up, so then I've got something put on the board rather than me marking it up? Sure. Okay, let's do that then, Ms. Lee, Mr. Underwood. Let's go ahead and we're going to just, your case, I'll call it back up. This will give the staff and you time to kind of mark up the phase. We have a 2018 schedule and a 2019 schedule and then we can then address whether or not to approve the conditional permit based upon those revised schedules. Does that seem fair? That seems fair. Okay, perfect. Well then, we'll have you guys take a seat. Stick around, ladies and gentlemen. We'll call the next case. Mr. Chair, I think it would be also appropriate while we're doing that to look at the letters and see if there are other issues that need to be addressed. And we'll have those letters pressed back up to the staff. Okay, the next case on our docket is PLM BOA 18-27, the Lexington Schools Request for Conditional Use Permit. And let's hope this one goes as smoothly as the first case we heard. coming up and introduce yourself for the record please hi my name is Emily Wright I am a landscape architect working for the Lexington school I'm Chuck Baldetti I'm the headmaster of the Lexington school thank you and do we we have a letter is it opposition or in favor We do have one letter of opposition. Okay. Well, I think it's only one, so we'll go ahead and while that's getting read and passed, run as a long email. Okay. All right. So the staff has recommended approval, and they have based that approval with the subject to the conditions 1 through 8 as set forth in our report. Have you had an opportunity to look at those? Yes, sir. And is your client in agreement with those? Yes. Okay. Well, that takes care of that. While we're going through, there may be more questions. Does anyone have any questions regarding this application before you've seen the opposition letter? Yeah. Okay. Well, then sit tight, and we'll pass this down, and we'll hopefully. Actually, you can answer one question for me. When I read this, I couldn't. Is a clubhouse the same thing as a field house? Funny. We've talked about that. uh it it um it is going to have restrooms concession and a team room and storage but there's no play field inside so that's why we made the distinction so i think clubhouse i think bourbon cigars any uh additional questions um i i have a question that may be appropriate for staff it's in condition number uh number four uh it says if if flood plain's flood plain revisions are made based upon a new drainage analysis uh a letter shall be filed and approved is that approved by fema or approved by the board or approved by staff or approved by building inspection no i was by fema by FEMA okay thank you real quickly it looks like the letter generally deals with parking in the area and I was gonna ask staff is there I'm just presuming that this provides for adequate parking for our ordinance it does the new additions do not add to the parking requirement for the school overall since the number of students is not changing. There are no additional parking requirements. I'm trying to think here. It referenced additional parking, but are you guys installing any additional parking as part of this? We are. We're expanding an existing parking lot. How many spaces? By 18 to 20 spaces. Okay. well that was the their concern is parking on the exterior of the school grounds which unfortunately an urban school always has those issues you're kind of landlocked but does anyone else have any questions about parking or traffic concerns no but i have a question about it just rhetorical really you're adding 15 000 you propose to add 15 000 square feet of of building space but but enrollment will stay the same correct so it's a it's a library okay it's being added main part and what really has happened is the school has grown pretty significantly um after the great recession and um so the extension to the cafeteria will help us a little bit but it's really to it's to accommodate the current student body so the this 595 students is is what it's grown to correct okay so no additional students so to pay for those tuitions going up fundraising fundraising good luck thank you yep and just for everyone's in case they don't know you guys still go up to ninth grade? We go through eighth grade. So none of the students park on site, I hope. Correct. Thanks. Okay. Has everyone had an opportunity to look at that email? I did. I'm just curious. The email brings up about large, when you have events with a large attendance and of course you're you're parking on georgian way and you're parking on lane allen do you all provide some sort of safety officer or is there a safety officer yes ma'am so i think what they're referring to is grandparents day which is a day that we have quite a few visitors and we do provide we do provide folks to help with traffic and we also just to be fair we we do email our parent body and tell them that they may receive tickets if they park where they shouldn't and that they need to be good neighbors. Well, if there are no additional questions or statements, then the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLN BOA 18-27, Lexington School's request for a conditional use permit to construct an addition to an existing school in a residential family single-family residential zone at 1050 lane allen road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the eight conditions outlined by staff thank you miss meyer do i have a second mr needham seconds any discussions before we vote all right hearing none please register your votes Okay, your project was approved. Good luck. Thank you. You're welcome. The next item is PLN BOA 18-28, Duke Road Personal Care's request for a conditional use permit. I will be recusing myself from this matter and passing the gavel over to Mr. Glover. Mr. Van Meter. Solly Van Meter on behalf of Duke Road Personal Care, LLC. Thank you. I looked over the applications and I have no questions myself. I'm a little interested in the history, I guess, in the last year. Hold on a second. uh we got an email in favor passing that along mr glover um i would like to make a note that condition number six actually does not apply um to this type of abuse since it is not a multi-family residential structure or a single family residential structure um the nd1 overlay actually does not apply to this so that condition can be removed okay because that was mentioned on the front as well of the staff report so so the staff is proposing to remove condition number six correct okay thank you does that mean it's not in the chevy chase nd1 overlay it is within the overlay but none of the requirements of the nd1 overlay apply to this type of building for this use nd1 overlay applies to single family detached residents okay gotcha i gotcha fair enough okay um any help anybody on the board have any questions of mr van meter about this application I thought you were just following up with you, a little history. Yeah. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. I did. If you wouldn't mind, tell us the history of this property, because we heard this, I think, last year, and it was a different proposal, and now it's changed. We were in favor of it then. And you're still in favor of it, I hope. We approved it then. Now it's different. And it's different now, so what's the difference? this project this will now be a certified assisted living project previously we were anticipated we were planning on a licensed personal care facility that was going to be all on one level the the code requirements were forcing the units to be pretty small and what we by by flipping it to what we've proposed now we'll be able to provide larger units for our residents that'd be close to 600 square feet per per apartment and there'll be assisted living apartments versus personal care which is a more of a medical model of care so it's not as intensive a use as far as the assisted living personal care well the health care piece of it is not yes okay now how does the staff change mr band meter between the two it's significantly less staff well pretty there's less staff we because we don't have a health care we are not providing any health services what any uh any medical services on staff is it um any training there i was interested in that seeing assisted living sometimes includes a some kind of medical staff assisted living facilities are not by statute are not permitted to provide health services at our facility and it's not the same for every assisted living facility at our facility we do plan on providing something like health care management or not sure what the word is but we will have doctors that will come in a doctor that will come in and review residents files and and try to keep keep our residents on whatever their prescribed plan is I understand I was just interested because of the staff and how they would interact with the residents that would not be our staff that would be someone I understand thank you okay any further questions to mr. van meter about this application any questions to staff about this application hearing none I'll entertain a motion I move we approve PLNBOA 18-28 Duke Road Personal Care LLC's request for a conditional use permit to construct and operate an assisted living facility in a planned neighborhood residential neighborhood character design overlay, an R3 and D1 zone at 319 and 327 Duke Road, based on staff's recommendations and subject to the five conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Do I hear a second? Who did I hear? Okay, thank you. Ms. Carter, Ms. Carter seconds. All those in favor, please register your vote electronically. We heard, oh, we heard from six. I was looking for seven. We have one recusal. So motion is carried. Good luck with your project. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr. Glover. The next item we have on the agenda is PLN BOA 1829 Hillandale Christian Church's application for a conditional use permit. The staff has recommended approval with subject to the 1 through 5 conditions. Sir, if you could state your name for the record. My name is Tom Cruise. Thank you, Mr. Cruise. And do you agree to abide by the conditions? Yes, we'll abide by them. Okay, sir. Are there any questions from the board for the applicant? It looks like, Mr. Cruise, that the staff has recommended to give you more than you asked for. That's fine. Can you handle that? I guess that was my question. You do anticipate growth? It depends on the regulations that a non-licensed state care center has, and that's really the limitation on that. Thank you. Any additional questions or comments? Okay, hearing none, the Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 18-29 Hillandale Christian Church requesting a conditional use permit to operate a preschool accessory to a church in a single-family residential zone at 371 Hillandale Road, based on the recommendation of the staff and subject to the five conditions listed. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I have a second? I'll second. I have a second for Mr. Glover. Any discussions on the motion? Hearing none, please register your votes. Motion passes. Motion passes. Good luck with your project. Thank you. One question I have. Is it possible to go to planning and zoning and getting the zoning compliance permit and their certificate of occupancy today? you I don't know if it's I guess since the ruling has been made in favor you could go over to the zoning office and I don't know if anyone over there is watching this hearing right now they might be able to verify that way that can you initial the agenda or someone do that and that would save us a trip coming back downtown this all um well actually what go ahead oh no oh wait has it wait did i has it been constructed yes they're using an existing existing yeah okay yeah that would i would suggest you go and speak with barb okay in the back row okay and maybe she could help put you together with staff at the office all right all right good luck you're welcome barb the next case we have on the docket is plm boa 18-32 fake cooperating preschools request for a conditional use permit. Hello. Please state your name for the record. I'm Mary Brenzel. I'm the executive director of the Fayette Cooperating Preschool. The staff has recommended approval today. We don't have any letters or emails on this one. Okay. They have recommended approval subject to five conditions in the report. Have you seen those? Yes, I have. Have you agreed to abide by those? Yes, I do. Okay. Does anyone from the board have any questions on this matter? If you recall, this is the one where the address is 121 Rosemont Garden and not Hillendale Road. Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLN BOA 18-32, Fayette Cooperating Preschool's request for a conditional use permit to operate a child care center slash nursery school, accessory to a church in a single family residential zone at 121 Rosemont Garden for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the five conditions. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Do I have a second? Ms. Whitman seconds. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Register your votes. The application is approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you so much. You're very welcome. I see Ms. Lee has returned, along with Mr. Mark, so I will bring up for a second time the case of PLNBOA 18-24 Greater Liberty Baptist Church was an agreement reached between staff and the applicant, Mr. Marks? Yes. I'll put it up here on the screen in about 10 seconds. Thank you, sir. So, Ms. Lee, I want to go back to the conditions that were proposed by the staff. There were six of them. the timeline will be amended based upon the conversations, what's going to go up on the board. But subject to that being shown and us approving that, are you otherwise agreeable to the six conditions as amended here today? Yes, I am. All right. Thank you, ma'am. In that case, we'll just wait for Mr. Marks to explain the changes. Okay. On addressing immediate needs, which is item A, we've changed that to July of 2018. item b finalized design plans will be by september of 2018 item c select contractor by october of 2018 item d complete improvements by december 2018 for 321 and 323 chestnut and by december 2019 for 318 chestnut and 367 east 3rd street There is one thing I would like to make a modification on A bullet point 4. I think that that could be started immediately rather than waiting until July. It's the keeping the sidewalks clean. I think there's a note there. If we can zoom in on that part of it, it does say that that particular one would start immediately. Okay, I got you. All right. Perfect. Okay, does anyone? There were other items that were in those letters. So does anyone on the board want to discuss those items and want to discuss whether they should be addressed as part of this modified plan, timeline? Well, there were some fencing. There was some fencing that, as I recall, was to block access to the, there's an alley. the people were cutting through some properties and going through an alley there are two separate things that are addressed in the letters and I'm not sure if you're referring to one or both of them on the 321 and 323 there is an alley that connects that goes to the street behind and I believe that is where they were requesting a fence there is also on 367 or 3318 there is a right-of-way or an access to a house that fronts on 3rd Street and there were some concerns about that as well because that homeowner has issues getting in and out of his garage sometimes because folks are parking in the access way there so I'm not sure which one or both of those I'm referring to both of them okay I've got I've got 377 East 3rd Street as as the Hardin property yes and he's the one who wrote he wrote a letter about having access blocked yes so how are we gonna how are we going to deal with that and how are we going to deal with the fence that to have to stop the cutting through yeah if I may we had discussed it as far as the cutting through on the alleyway Patrons have been doing that for decades at a time. For decades in the past before we had even thought about knocking those homes down. That alleyway cuts to Ohio Street, comes off Ohio Street. And it gives those residents also access to the back of their houses, which I believe are also driveways and things back there for those persons. So people walk through there, there's no fences I think on any of those properties. So even if we fenced off ours, they can still cut through there and just cut through somebody else's yard. Ours is just wide open right now, but they have been cutting through there forever. So we know that also once we complete the paving and everything and all the requirements and guidelines, we have to have some type of border, whether it's bushes or whatever around the parking lot is one of the conditions. So, I mean, but outside of that, as far as fencing, right now we're not looking at doing something like that. And to address Mr. Harden's concern, that easement, and this is to my understanding, it's actually supposed to be a through way. There's nothing that proves that he owns that property or that it's his driveway. But yet he has this garage or parking structure, he has sat right in the middle of it. Now, for years that has been somewhat of an issue. He addressed that concern in his letter. But the church really for the most part, I think have done a great job to try to keep that as open. Because for one, I don't know if you have this map here, but the map shows that that is the entryway where the cars go in and out to park there. So it's not blocked that often. Sometimes it does get blocked. I do have people come late and they just look for somewhere to go. So I can't say it never does, but sometimes it does. My thing is as a solution to that, because he can't claim it as his property, but I don't think we can claim it as ours. But once we pave this lot at 318, that will simply be the entryway into the parking lot, which will still give him access. We wouldn't close that off. I think that would accommodate both parties and we should be fine. But in the meantime, I mean, because you're not going to get to 318 until another year from now, correct? Right, but in the meantime, we're still parking on it. But, yes. Is there something to sign it or something that, you know, caution people to watch it off that road because that man needs to be able to get out of it? I don't know how you address it, but, I mean, it's going to be another year before, you know, I'm just concerned about this man if there's an emergency or something and he can't get out of his driveway. There currently is not a sign there. We don't have a problem putting a sign there if that's necessary, but I think that would be fine. It wouldn't be. I don't know if that would solve the problem or if he would be okay with that, but just maybe have a conversation with him. you know that you know you're trying to work out something and and you know so that the man does have um he can get out if he needs to if it's an emergency and or an ambulance can get in if it's necessary um there is a person in the audience here who is an opposition who was not here previously who does want to speak to this matter just yeah i'm concerned about this access with the driveway also um i'm more concerned about this than the the fencing issue to be honest with you i've got the aerial pulled up i can't even tell you where the alley is um oh wait wait i'm on the wrong side yeah oh that no that's his driveway there i'm talking about the the fence alley is that this no yeah that's what i'm saying i couldn't even see where they cut through yeah yeah it's here probably it's at easement into 349 well well the point being I think that I've run titles in some of these neighborhoods for lots and let me tell you they're kind of unless that's him yeah because we just pulled up a an aerial photo that showed it presumably on a sunday or on a wednesday that has complete full light and there's a pickup truck and another car parked in what would be his access driveway that's his vehicles those are his vehicles those are his vehicles okay So I think we would want something that, until you get the parking lot resolved, some way to monitor to make sure people aren't blocking his driveway. As I stated, we don't have a problem putting up signage. I think that would hopefully be at that for a temporary. I would suggest also trying to figure out this. I doubt even if you did own that lot and he didn't own that driveway, you'd be hard-pressed to be able to close it at this point because he's probably been using it for so long. And we have no intentions on trying to do anything like that. But it may be that, and this may be an engineering question on whether or not that entrance there essentially gets closed off for everyone except for him. That would be the more northern of the three entrances in that parking lot. We pulled up a PVA map, and it appears that it's his property. Okay. So it appears he may own that? Yes. It appears that way from the PVA map we pulled up. So maybe when you guys do the redesign, you may just need to close off that one particular entrance, because this will give you three going on to that property as it is, and have one in, one out, or two. So that would be something to keep an eye on or distinguish. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, then, we have a lady in the audience who would like to speak, so I'll have her opportunity. Good afternoon, ma'am. Please state your name for the record. My name is Keila Jackson, my father's Allen Harden. Okay. He's 77, he's third. He's been living there since I was a child and since in the 70s. And when there was other property, there were houses already on those lots. The driveway's been there, the garage has been there, we lived there. We had never had any problems with the church parking at all until maybe a couple of years ago. And we've tried on a few occasions to have people not park there. We'll ask them nicely. We'll put signs up. We've been, there's a sign there right now. If you go past there, you'll see a sign there right now that says no parking. But they ignore it. We've talked to the church, you've called the church. He's called them with no results. I called them and they say no. They don't really want to talk to us about it. I'm not sure why, because we just never had any trouble at all before. But all I really wanted to make sure was that he's able to leave his house to go to his church and come back and go home. He has to wait for everybody to leave from their church services before he can go home. He gets in. He's in a wheelchair. He drives up in his car. He has to have room to get his wheelchair out. It takes a little while to do all this, and you need to have space to maneuver. But it's not always the case. You got people who, and I've talked to a couple of them. Some of them didn't know. Some may know. I can't say that for sure, but I just want to make sure he's got enough space to do what he needs to do. I mean, he's got that right to, I mean, he's been doing it all of his, most of my life anyway. So, that's all I have to say. So, what do you think should be done? I think that first of all, the church needs to talk to their members and visitors and let them know that no, you can't park there. I mean, he's been using this for years. He needs to have room to get in and out. It's terrible to have to not go to church because you can't get back into your driveway to go home. He can't just park anywhere and just walk in. He's got to be right by his house because he's got to get his wheelchair out. They need to make sure that's done. The rest of the stuff, I mean, we've dealt with all the rest of the mud stuff. To me, that's not a big issue. For him, it's just so he can get into the house and be safe. And not fall somewhere because of not having enough space or whatever the case might be. But I mean, there's other issues with other things, but for me personally, that's the main issue that I have with it. I just wish someone would be nice enough and courteous enough to talk to him about it and get a definite answer. That's what all we need to have. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Marks, I guess you have any comments? I wrote up a condition if you want to look at it to add. Up to look at that condition. The church, I like it. Short, sweet, gets right to the point. Okay, so this additional condition would read, unobstructed vehicular access from Chestnut Street to 377 East 3rd Street shall be maintained by the church. Ms. Lee, come on back up. Mr. Underwood. Would you guys, are you guys agreeable to that? Now, with that being said, if you want to either party, Mr. Harden, I believe, or you want to do some research and find out who actually owns it, you can come back and make adjustments. I would suggest at least let staff, when you guys are doing the, whoever does the design for the parking lot, needs to address this issue and that process. But for now, we'd like to make sure he has unobstructed access to his property. And if for some reason you have ideas to change what that means, you can come back before us and we can entertain that at that time. We have no objection to that. And also, I mean, if after some due diligence is done, just to let you know that where we are and where we stand in regards to Mr. Harden's property, Even if it turned out we actually owned it, we will not cut that access off to him. He's like she stated, he's been there since the 70s. It is what it is, we don't have a problem with that. And in the meantime, these things have been addressed. Yes. It's one of my members. I have addressed it. But parking is a problem. For the last, I became the pastor in August of 2017. The church has experienced exponential growth. We can only park on one side of the street. That's why parking is such a premium. That's why it's one of the biggest priorities we have, because it's a hindrance of growth. People don't want to walk three blocks to church in the rain. You understand what I'm saying? So, yes, we have some visitors, some new persons that may not know the conditions with Brother Hardin's easeway, his thruway, driveway, whatever you want to call it. But I also have people, I have guys who are manning the parking every Sunday before church starts. They're manning the parking across the street, the paved lot, the gravel lots. But they can't be out there all day. They deserve to come to worship. They come inside. You have folk that come late. They just look for anywhere so they don't have to walk two, three blocks to church. So we can't control it and guarantee, but we'll continue to do the best we can to address it and keep down the concern the best we can. I'd appreciate that. I think Mr. Harden has a right to go worship also at his church. So, okay. So that being said, are there any more questions from the board? Okay. I will entertain a motion then. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN BOA 1824 Greater Liberty Baptist Church request for conditional use permit to utilize the four listed properties as parking for the church in a planned neighborhood residential zone at 318 321 and 323 chestnut street and 367 east third street we're approved approving based on the staff's recommendations along with the seven conditions agreed I just also like to stress that one of the conditions includes the the timeline agreed upon today thank you miss Do I have a second? I have a second. Please register your votes. Oh, sorry. Any discussion? Okay. Please register your votes. All right. Good luck with your project. We hope everything gets resolved and if you could talk to Ms. Harden's daughter on your way out, maybe you guys could break bread together. Thank you very much. Okay. I'll send you something tomorrow. Yeah, email probably. Second one over. Okay, this brings us to our last case of the day. What copies of the letter? PLN BOA 18-31, Andy Chains, request for an administrative appeal. The applicant would please come forward. in this instance please state your name for the record yeah my name is Andy Chan I'm the owner of this property okay the staff has recommended disapproval and so what we'll do in this instance is we'll give the staff an opportunity to tell us why they think it's disapproval then you may come up and rebut it so you want to have a seat sir Okay. Okay. This project is for an apartment building in an R5 zone here at the University of Kentucky. The applicant has six variances for this property that were approved in 2014, and those are still in effect. Now the applicant is asking for an administrative appeal for relief from two of the requirements for residential structures that are within the infill and redevelopment area. And he's asking to not be required to have a primary entrance for pedestrian access into the building along the primary wall and to not have a single story projection on the primary wall plane, which could be met by any of the four options that are provided in the zoning ordinance there. So, this is, these requirements came directly from the Residential Infill and Redevelopment Design Standards, which were adopted by the Planning Commission in 2001, and they led to the text amendments that created these requirements. That document has intent statements behind each of these requirements. So the board has the authority to allow an applicant to meet this intent through another way. But in this case, the applicant has not provided any indication that he would do anything to sort of meet these requirements in a give and take sort of way. For... Let's see. I guess we can put this up on the... It might be a little bit easier. First, we'll address Article 15-7A1, stating that all new residential structures within the defined infill and redevelopment area shall have a primary entrance for pedestrian access into each building along the primary wall or its offsets. The intent statement for that from the design standards says that a building should be positioned to orient to neighborhood streets and walkways in order to foster a sense of connection with the community, build a sense of ownership in the block, and to promote safe streets. The applicant is not providing any reasoning that he cannot do this beside the parking is going to be in the rear of the structure, and he believes it would be inconvenient to have this access point here. He's not providing any other way to sort of foster the sense of community or orient to the neighborhood. And then the next page talks about the second requirement for a single-story projection. The intent here says a building should appear to have a human scale in order to promote a pedestrian-oriented environment, promote safe streets, and maintain compatibility with established neighborhood character. In general, this can be accomplished by using traditional residential building elements, including constructing to a height and width that is similar in size to conventional single family structures, using typical window and door sizes, employing building materials that convey a sense of scale, using some one- and two-story elements that are also appropriate. And then it talks about, later on, about these different types of single-story projections that meet this intent of creating a human scale. And again, the applicant has not provided any alternatives for creating this. So that is why staff has recommended disapproval. Because the request just appears to be based on the applicant's aesthetic choices, and there's been no give and take in trying to meet the intent. Could you tell me what the primary wall is? I mean, looking at the drawing of the proposed building, Is the primary wall the one that fronts on Transcript Avenue? Yes. Short wall? Yes. Where is the entrance on that drawing? The entrance is in the rear. I was a little confused. I saw the Herbys and the Roses, but I didn't quite see. The entrance is proposed to be at the rear. I'm not sure exactly in relation to where the Herbie's and Rosie's are if it is Directly you know at that in house or they're not I'm confused on the rear Exit on the area looks like there's a building sitting there There is currently a building there. I believe this is this is a proposed new building This is a new building that's not been constructed. No, no, no. I'm talking about Well, unless I'm losing my bearings, I come in on Transcript Avenue, and I go back to the seven parking spaces. There is currently a structure there. But then in the back, it looks to me like to be a curb cut in the back of his plants. Oh, okay, yes. That goes into what appears to be an existing apartment building, if you look at the aerial. I'm confused about this. Is this a curb cut or not? Because it looks like a curb cut. It does look like it, but it also shows the three-foot-wide landscape buffer, so I'm not sure what. This is going to be four stories? Yes. Are there any other four-story structures? That variance was, that's part of the variances that were approved back in 2014 is not what we are discussing today. I'm not sure whether or not there are other. I think you've looked at the letter. What we are talking about today is just the requirements for the pedestrian access in the main plane and the one-foot projection. The other variances are still in existence. So the letter, I think, primarily discusses things that have already been approved. The site plan that you received, I'm putting up on the board now, but that's all we have. All right. So now that you've got that up on the board, Autumn, could you show us exactly what we are discussing for today so that we don't get confused on what is already, and then also what's already been once more and more time. This is the primary plane. and by the ordinance the applicant is required to have a primary pedestrian entrance in this this ball plane and to have a single story projection that can be a porch a canopy a bay window or a recessed entry and the applicant has requested to to not have the single story projection or to have a pedestrian entry in that wall plane i guess the idea of that is so that the building faces the road you're not looking at as I said it from the the intent statements in the design standards it's essentially about engaging with the neighborhood and creating a human scale okay just what's the other request those are the two releases for the front the entry and the single-story projection that could be a porch canopy bay window or recessed entry any more questions for staff for the time being until we hear from the applicant okay thank you oh well looking at looking at the you know the fly fly over at the pva site you know there are buildings that are next door to this proposed building that um that front on you know the sides on transcript is that the is that considered a primary wall that and they've got utilities on the it's likely that those have been there since prior to 2001 when the design standards were adopted for the infill and redevelopment area you know the questions for staff all right thank you ma'am we may have more sir come up Okay, first of all, so beside the front entrance, we are talking about the other entrance is actually on the side of the building, it's not the rear of the building. The other access, I don't know if you can see that that on the on the on the drawing on the side on the on this side well i'm saying between spaces one and space is five it appears you have a curb cut yeah but there's no entrance from there the other entrance is from the side the side of the building on the driveway side on the driveway side and then about in the middle of the building there's There appears to be maybe a short, narrow grassy strip in the middle of that and there's a side entrance. Yes. So a lot of it will be the entrance for there'll be seven unit apartment unit in this building. So beside the front unit on the first floor all the units will be accessed from that entrance. and the main reason I'm asking the board to accept the exception to remove the front entrance is because if someone doesn't know that area or doesn't know that building, they may try to access the building from that front entrance first. That may disturb the people who are living there. So I was asking that can we just remove that and have everyone accessing from the side entrance, which there will be a stair to the unit on the second, third floor, and the basement. So, and if we remove the front entrance, I guess there's no reason we should have the canopy or the porch on the front, because there's no door there. So that's why the second request is also added. And what's the what what faces the street what is it going to look like? What is facing the street? That's what we need to see. That's what we need to see. We need to see what you're proposing. I have some picture on my cell phone. Can I show that to you guys? I don't have to print out for the. I don't know. Can we put that up on the screen? We could try. All right. we could do, sir. Okay. Let me see. While we're working on that, I would like to make another note that the agenda has another error. This is not in an agricultural rural zone. It is in a high-rise residential zone, R5. That's what's currently there. He wants to tear it down and put it in. So that'll be the front entrance if we don't have the primary door on the front. Oh. Oh, you're gone. I don't know what that was. So this is the base. First wall, second, third wall. So that, so this, uh, three storage high with the basement, uh, so the building. Oh. it was suggested that you email it to them maybe that's another electronic solution to looking at I've got a freeze frame on it, so you should find out. But you won't email it. Here's my email address. Do you guys need to see the side of the building? Yeah, what view is this? Are we looking? Is this a street view? Yeah, from the street. From transcript? Yes. Okay. While we're trying to get a picture of the side, what are the landscape requirements here? I mean, I'm wondering if this could be enhanced with some nice landscaping and some picnic tables or benches or something that would make it inviting and neighborly. you know some something that might help us with with these you know whatever the the design standards that i was referencing say that the intent statements are to clarify the reason for the standards and to provide the board of adjustment with guidance and considering if the intent can be met by other methods when hearing a case so i think that if we were to look closely at the intent statements and develop an alternative that could meet them then that would would be appropriate Thank you. I read it now because I'm trying to get in these buildings, so I can finish by summer and renting this out for students. So if we postpone to next month, then I may not have this project done by the school staff. Well, I can't read a crystal ball, but the staff has recommended this approval, and I've been underwhelmed with what I've seen so far. Do you think it would behoove you to reconsider you postponing it until next month and then talk with the staff and come up with a plan? Actually, I think it's either approved or not approved because I don't know if there's other plans. I mean, either I have the door or I don't have the door on the phone. I don't know if there's any alternate solution for that. So, yeah. That's fair. So this is the site of the building. If we're looking from the driveway, and you can see that there's a stairway, and all the access to other units from this entrance. So if there's an entrance, if you have to put the door on the front, what does that enter into? I'll be entering the front, so there will be a unit on the front and back on each floor. So the entrance on the front wall will be entrance, will be the entrance to the first unit on the. Yes. No, there's no common area. So as Jan mentioned, would you be willing then to, you know, agree to some type of landscaping in lieu of the door? Something just so that that part that. Yeah, sure. I'm waiting to, I mean, I'm not sure what kind of landscaping. I'm maybe planting some bush on the front or I'm waiting to do that. Well, Mr. Chang, the staff has said there's been no give and take in this process. Have you had conversations with the staff on things that could be done to? Actually, does King, my architect, talk to you if there's other things that can be done? As far as I am aware, the applicant has decided that he would like to pursue this request. and I don't there's not been any sort of it was not it was a question of I would like to not do this and that was sort of the extent of the discussion I don't know if the applicant is open to considering other options that would well that's the thing I want to tell the board just from my standpoint I'm a little frustrated that we're in a position of having to negotiate a potential resolution on the fly when there's ample opportunity for those discussions to be had before we come here. This is more than what can we tweak this or tweak that. This is, yeah, I'm open to something possibly, but they can't show us what it's going to look like today. And so that's my frustration. And I'd like applicants to work with the staff to resolve what would be workable solutions before we see them. Can I just follow up on that? The possibility of this being not approved may be great. I don't know. I don't know how everybody feels, but it seems like to me if there was some consideration for some alterations with the staff, some conversation with the staff to solve some of these problems, might be better than just for the for the board to just disapprove and if that happens that that it probably is more delaying than a discussion with the staff and so i would i would certainly recommend some some thought about that and just for the staff just because we don't approve this for an entrance today does not mean that a demo permit can't be pulled grading can't be started a foundation can't possibly be poured it just may mean that the top three floors may look different but the basement is still gonna be a basement right all that we are discussing is whether or not there's a front door and a one-story projection so a porch or a bay window or you know In that case, can we, I would think, can we postpone this to next month? I mean, if there's no delay on the project. Mr. Marks, do you have any comments? Not really. I mean, I think the point being is the, what has been approved already, your current conditional use permit, you may proceed. Correct? underneath there are six variants and yeah mr. Chang can come can move forward with constructing a building that meet the typical requirements and those six variances the only he's required to have a front door in a single-story projection and those are the two things that he does not want to have I don't know that there are really relevant alternatives to those things that will meet this intent there may be it may be worth having the discussion but I don't know how willing the applicant is to look into those things if it's well hope springs internally so we'll see so you'd like to postpone till next month yes okay all right on a postponement I need a motion mr. chair I move postponement of PLN BOA 19-31, Andy Chang requesting administering appeal. Second. Thank you, Mr. Clark. On your first, Ms. Myers on her second. The postponement would have the case heard on May 14, 2018. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please register your votes. All right, sir, we'll see you next month. Thank you. Okay. I believe that completes our business for the day. Are there any items that any board members would like to bring to my attention? Okay, anything staff would like to bring to our attentions that we need to address today? All right. Hearing none, our next meeting date is May 14, 2018. And since there's no further business to be discussed, I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you.