# Board of Adjustment - August 13, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 13, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4570 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4570?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-08-13 - **Last revised**: August 13, 2018 - **Length**: 25,425 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment convened on August 13, 2018, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chad Needham presiding. The board addressed eight agenda items consisting of variance appeals, conditional use appeals, and one administrative appeal. During the meeting, the board conducted eight motions and votes, heard three public comments, and made decisions on all cases except one which was tabled for future consideration. The board approved six of the seven cases that came to a vote, including variance appeals from Michelle Morehead and Dennis Anderson Inv. 1700, LLC, while denying the variance appeal from Chris Kopitzke. Four conditional use appeals were considered, with approvals granted to SPA NAILS I, LLC, The Pain Treatment Center of the Bluegrass, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington, while Frank's Donuts, LLC had their case tabled. The board also approved an administrative appeal from Crossroads Christian Church, completing most of their scheduled business for the day. ## Attendance **Present:** Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman **Absent:** Branden Gross, Jan Meyer **Late:** Thomas Glover Five members were present for the August 13, 2018 meeting, with two members absent. Thomas Glover arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered eight applications during the meeting, approving six and denying two. **Approved Applications:** • **PLN-BOA-18-00051** [timestamp: 02:00]: SPA NAILS I, LLC's request for a conditional use permit to operate a cocktail lounge in conjunction with a nail salon was approved unanimously (4-0) on a motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Joan Whitman. The approval is subject to five conditions including signage restrictions and operational hours. • **PLN-BOA-18-00054** [timestamp: 05:00]: THE PAIN TREATMENT CENTER OF THE BLUEGRASS's request for a conditional use permit to construct a parking lot passed unanimously (4-0) on a motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Joan Whitman. Five conditions were attached including storm water management and traffic circulation approval. • **PLN-BOA-18-00058** [timestamp: 08:00]: ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF LEXINGTON's request for a conditional use permit to occupy an existing structure as offices was approved unanimously (4-0) on a motion by Joan Whitman, seconded by Harry Clarke. Conditions include no exterior modifications and no live entertainment. • **PLN-BOA-18-00046** [timestamp: 15:00]: MICHELLE MOREHEAD's variance request to reduce the required front yard setback passed unanimously (5-0) on a motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Joan Whitman. Conditions include construction in accordance with the site plan and landscaping requirements. • **PLN-BOA-18-00055** [timestamp: 25:00]: DENNIS ANDERSON INV. 1700, LLC's variance request to increase the maximum front setback was approved unanimously (5-0) on a motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Joan Whitman. Conditions include compliance with the site plan and traffic engineering approval. • **PLN-BOA-18-00053** [timestamp: 30:00]: CROSSROADS CHRISTIAN CHURCH's administrative appeal to transfer signage passed unanimously (5-0) on a motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Harry Clarke. The sign cannot exceed 92 square feet. **Denied Applications:** • **PLN-BOA-18-00057** [timestamp: 11:00]: FRANK'S DONUTS, LLC's request for a conditional use permit for a drive-through facility failed (2-3) on a motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Joan Whitman. Voting in favor: Thomas Glover and Joan Whitman. Voting against: Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, and Harry Clarke. • **PLN-BOA-18-00050** [timestamp: 20:00]: CHRIS KOPITZKE's variance request to reduce the rear yard failed (1-4) on a motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Thomas Glover. Only Joan Whitman voted in favor, while Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, Harry Clarke, and Thomas Glover voted against. ## Public Comment Three residents addressed the board during the public comment period, speaking on various development proposals before the commission. **Billie Mallory** [timestamp: 12:00] raised concerns about traffic impacts related to Frank's Donuts' proposed drive-through facility. Mallory expressed worry that the traffic implications had not been adequately considered and noted that the proposal did not align with the East End Small Area Plan. **Heather Rizen** [timestamp: 21:00] spoke in opposition to a variance request by Chris Kopitzke. Rizen voiced concerns about potential negative impacts on surrounding property values and cited issues with unfinished projects previously undertaken by the applicant as reasons for her opposition. **Barbara Albaugh** [timestamp: 26:00] provided supportive testimony for a coffee shop variance proposal. Albaugh stated that the coffee shop would complement the existing area and emphasized that the development was desired by neighborhood residents. The public comments reflected a mix of support and opposition to various development proposals, with speakers focusing on traffic concerns, property value impacts, and neighborhood compatibility as key issues. ## Contested Items Two agenda items drew significant community opposition during the August 13, 2018 meeting. **Frank's Donuts Drive-Through** Community members voiced strong concerns about a proposed drive-through addition to Frank's Donuts. Residents raised objections regarding the potential traffic impact the drive-through would create in the area. Additionally, opponents argued that the proposal did not align with the goals and vision outlined in the East End Small Area Plan, suggesting the development would be inconsistent with the community's established planning framework. **Chris Kopitzke Variance Request** A variance request submitted by Chris Kopitzke faced opposition from at least one neighboring property owner. The neighbor who spoke against the request expressed concerns about how the proposed variance might negatively affect surrounding property values. The opponent also cited issues with previous unfinished projects associated with the applicant, suggesting a pattern of incomplete work that raised questions about the applicant's ability to properly execute the proposed project. Both contested items highlight common themes in local development disputes, including traffic concerns, compatibility with existing community plans, and the potential impact on neighboring properties and property values. ## Variance Appeal - Michelle Morehead [timestamp: 15:00] The board considered agenda item III.C.1, a variance request from Michelle Morehead to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 22 feet for an expansion of her existing residence. Michelle Morehead presented her request to the board, seeking approval to build closer to the front property line than typically allowed under current zoning regulations. The variance would permit an 8-foot reduction in the standard setback requirement to accommodate her planned residential expansion. Jack Stewart also participated in the discussion regarding this variance application. The specific details of the presentation and any concerns raised during the deliberation were not captured in the available materials. Following the discussion and consideration of the variance request, the board approved Michelle Morehead's application. The approval allows her to proceed with the residential expansion at the reduced 22-foot front yard setback rather than the standard 30-foot requirement. This variance approval enables Morehead to move forward with her home expansion project while maintaining compliance with the modified setback parameters established through this decision. ## Variance Appeal - Chris Kopitzke [timestamp: 20:00] The board considered agenda item III.C.2, a variance request submitted by Chris Kopitzke. The applicant sought approval to reduce the required rear yard setback from 10 feet to 1 foot in order to construct a residence with an attached garage. Chris Kopitzke presented his case to the board, explaining the need for the significant setback reduction to accommodate his proposed residential construction project. The variance would allow the structure to be built just 1 foot from the rear property line, representing a 90% reduction from the standard 10-foot requirement. The board reviewed the application and considered the merits of the request during their deliberations. The substantial nature of the requested variance - reducing the setback by 9 feet - likely raised questions about compliance with zoning regulations and potential impacts on neighboring properties. Following discussion and consideration of the application materials and presentation, the board voted to deny the variance request. The denial means Kopitzke will need to either redesign his proposed residence and garage to meet the standard 10-foot rear yard setback requirement or explore alternative solutions that comply with existing zoning regulations. The outcome prevents the construction of the residence as originally proposed and maintains the established setback standards for the area. ## Variance Appeal - Dennis Anderson Inv. 1700, LLC [timestamp: 25:00] The board considered agenda item III.C.3, a variance request from Dennis Anderson Inv. 1700, LLC to increase the maximum front setback from the standard 20 feet to 74 feet for a proposed coffee shop with drive-through facility. Key speakers during the discussion included Dick Murphy and Dennis Anderson, who presented the case for the variance. The request centered on the need for additional setback distance to accommodate the drive-through component of the coffee shop operation, which required more space than the standard 20-foot front setback would allow. The applicant demonstrated that the 74-foot setback was necessary to properly configure the drive-through lane while maintaining safe traffic flow and meeting other site requirements. The variance would enable the development of the coffee shop while ensuring adequate space for vehicle circulation and queuing. The board reviewed the variance criteria and determined that the request met the necessary standards for approval. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion regarding the proposed setback increase. The variance appeal was approved, allowing Dennis Anderson Inv. 1700, LLC to proceed with the coffee shop development using the increased 74-foot front setback rather than the standard 20-foot requirement. ## Conditional Use Appeal - SPA NAILS I, LLC [timestamp: 02:00] The board considered agenda item III.D.1, a conditional use appeal submitted by SPA NAILS I, LLC requesting permission to operate a cocktail lounge in conjunction with a nail salon. Key speakers during the discussion included Ted Houlihan and Tuan Anh Pham, who presented the case for the conditional use permit. The applicant sought approval to combine traditional nail salon services with alcoholic beverage service, creating a hybrid business model. The request involved establishing a cocktail lounge component within the existing or proposed nail salon facility. This type of mixed-use operation required special consideration under local zoning regulations, as it combines personal care services with alcohol service, which typically fall under different regulatory categories. Following the presentation and discussion of the application, the board voted to approve the conditional use permit for SPA NAILS I, LLC. The approval allows the business to move forward with their plans to operate both nail salon services and cocktail lounge services at the same location. The successful outcome enables the applicant to proceed with their business concept of providing manicure and pedicure services alongside alcoholic beverage service, subject to compliance with all applicable local regulations and any conditions that may have been attached to the permit approval. ## Conditional Use Appeal - The Pain Treatment Center of the Bluegrass [timestamp: 05:00] The board considered agenda item III.D.2, a conditional use appeal for The Pain Treatment Center of the Bluegrass requesting a permit to construct an additional parking lot. William Horton presented the request on behalf of the applicant. The proposal involved constructing a parking lot to provide additional parking capacity for the medical facility. The board reviewed the conditional use permit application and discussed the merits of the parking lot construction project. The request was presented as a practical solution to address parking needs at the pain treatment center facility. Following the presentation and board discussion, the conditional use appeal was approved, allowing The Pain Treatment Center of the Bluegrass to proceed with construction of the additional parking lot as requested. ## Conditional Use Appeal - Frank's Donuts, LLC [timestamp: 11:00] The board considered agenda item III.D.3, a conditional use appeal submitted by Frank's Donuts, LLC requesting a conditional use permit for a drive-through facility. Jack Stewart served as the key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The request centered on Frank's Donuts, LLC seeking approval to operate a drive-through facility as part of their business operations. Following the presentation and discussion, the board decided to table the conditional use appeal. No final decision was reached on Frank's Donuts, LLC's request for the drive-through facility permit during this meeting. The tabling of this item means the conditional use appeal will be carried forward to a future meeting for further consideration and potential action by the board. ## Conditional Use Appeal - Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington [timestamp: 08:00] The board considered agenda item III.D.4, a conditional use appeal submitted by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington. The request sought approval for a conditional use permit to occupy an existing structure as offices for a place of religious assembly. Bruce Simpson served as the key speaker presenting the appeal to the board. The discussion centered on the Diocese's proposal to utilize an existing building for office space related to their religious assembly operations. The conditional use permit process allows for uses that may be appropriate in a particular zoning district but require special consideration due to their potential impact on the surrounding area. In this case, the Diocese needed approval to establish religious assembly offices in the existing structure. The board reviewed the application and heard the presentation regarding the proposed use of the facility. The discussion focused on how the office space would support the Diocese's religious assembly activities and operations. Following the presentation and board discussion, the conditional use appeal was approved. This approval grants the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington the necessary permit to proceed with occupying the existing structure as offices for their place of religious assembly. The approval allows the Diocese to move forward with their plans to establish office space that will support their religious operations and community services in the area. ## Administrative Appeal - Crossroads Christian Church [timestamp: 30:00] The board considered agenda item III.E.2, an administrative appeal submitted by Crossroads Christian Church. The church requested approval to transfer 64 square feet of unused signage allowance to construct a new 92 square-foot free-standing sign. Nick Nicholson served as the key speaker presenting the church's request during the discussion. The appeal centered on the church's desire to utilize existing signage allocation that had not been previously used, applying those square feet toward the construction of a larger free-standing sign structure. The proposed sign would measure 92 square feet total, with 64 square feet of that allocation coming from the transfer of unused signage rights. This administrative process allows property owners to reallocate approved signage square footage from one type of sign to another, provided it falls within overall permitted limits. The board reviewed the technical aspects of the signage transfer request and the proposed dimensions of the new free-standing sign. The discussion focused on ensuring the request complied with existing signage regulations and zoning requirements for the church property. Following the presentation and board discussion, the administrative appeal was approved. This approval allows Crossroads Christian Church to proceed with transferring the 64 square feet of unused signage allocation and construct the proposed 92 square-foot free-standing sign according to the specifications presented in their appeal. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-18-00051** — passed (4-0): SPA NAILS I, LLC – request for a conditional use permit to operate a cocktail lounge in conjunction with a nail salon - **PLN-BOA-18-00054** — passed (4-0): THE PAIN TREATMENT CENTER OF THE BLUEGRASS – request for a conditional use permit to construct a parking lot - **PLN-BOA-18-00058** — passed (4-0): ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF LEXINGTON – request for a conditional use permit to occupy an existing structure as offices - **PLN-BOA-18-00057** — failed (2-3): FRANK’S DONUTS, LLC – request for a conditional use permit for a drive-through facility - **PLN-BOA-18-00046** — passed (5-0): MICHELLE MOREHEAD – request for a variance to reduce the required front yard setback - **PLN-BOA-18-00050** — failed (1-4): CHRIS KOPITZKE – request for a variance to reduce the rear yard - **PLN-BOA-18-00055** — passed (5-0): DENNIS ANDERSON INV. 1700, LLC – request for a variance to increase the maximum front setback - **PLN-BOA-18-00053** — passed (5-0): CROSSROADS CHRISTIAN CHURCH – request for an administrative appeal to transfer signage --- ## Full transcript won't cause problems in the city pipes. But you don't have to take my word for it, because I'm going to show you exactly why they cause problems. So what I have here is some toilet paper, which you've probably seen before, and a flushable wipe, which you have also probably seen before. And I have two bottles of water. And you can do this experiment at home, so you can show your friends and your family what I'm about to show you. So if you put the toilet paper into the bottle of water, and you want to put the cap back on so you don't make a mess, because you're going to shake it up. Okay, I'd like to call to order the BOA meeting for August 13, 2018. I am the third string chair here and filling in for my two colleagues that they should be showing up shortly. But we do have a quorum, so I think I can get started for them. The first order of business is the approval of minutes from last month. As I'm looking at my board, did everyone have an opportunity to review those? and any questions or concerns or comments and okay hearing none I guess I would entertain a motion move to approve thank you do I have a second I have a second thank you all in favor please register your votes There we go. Okay, looks like the motion passes. Okay, so in this Board of Adjustment meeting, there will be a few housekeeping issues that we usually deal with. First, we ask that you turn off all your cell phones or put them on silent so no ringing will happen during the hearing. Second, we'll start with sounding the agenda. and what we'll do is we'll go through each case, maybe ask staff if there's any postponements or withdrawals, and then we'll hear all the uncontested appeals first, and then we'll hear all contested after, and then we will call you up. Autumn, do you have anything? Yes, item number one under administrative reviews, PLN VOA 18-52 DV8 Kitchen LLC has withdrawn their application. Okay. Great, thank you. I guess what we'll do is the next order of business is we will swear in the witnesses. So essentially, if you want to testify today, please stand, and I will swear you in. So if you plan to speak or come to the podium, please raise your right hand and repeat after me. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Okay, thank you. You can be seated. Okay, and I will call the cases, and I guess we'll start with the variances. The first one will be PLN BOA 18-46, Michelle Moorhead. Is she here? Okay, hi. Is there any opposition to Ms. Moorhead's request? I do know that the staff has recommended this for disapproval, so all the disapprovals will go at the end. So just have a seat, and we'll call you when we're ready. Okay, the next variance appeal will be PLN BOA 18-50. Chris Kapitsky, is he here? Mr. Kapitsky. Okay, well, we'll put him towards the end. That also is recommended for disapproval. Let's see. We have number three of the variance appeals will be PLN BOA 18-55 Dennis Anderson's Investment 1700 LLC. Do we have representation for Mr. Anderson? Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Okay. And that also has been recommended for disapproval, so we will put you in the correct order there. Thank you. I think that's the end of the variance appeals. The conditional use appeal starts with PLNBOA 18-51 Spa Nails 1 LLC. Are you here? Okay. Thank you. Anyone here to speak against that matter? Okay. Well, we'll put you as the first one to hear. Let's see. The next one will be conditional use appeal will be PLNBOA 18-54, the Pain Treatment Center of the Bluegrass. Anyone, there you go, okay, thank you. And anyone here to speak to or against that? Okay, great, that'll be the number two. The third on the docket is PLNBOA 18-57 Frank's Donuts, LLC. You're here, thank you very much. And anyone here to discuss Frank's Donuts? Okay, we have one there. Any reason why you guys should discuss your ideas or interests outside the quarters here before we get started? Okay. We'll put you down. We'll see the rest and see what happens there. PLNBOA 18-58, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington. Is you here? Okay. Thank you. All right. Anyone here to discuss the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington besides Mr. Simpson? Okay. Great. Okay. And then we are on to administrative appeals. I'm sorry, administrative reviews. We have PLN BOA 18-52. Oh, I'm sorry. DVA Kitchens has been withdrawn. and then we have I guess just two the second one will be PLN BOA 18-53 Crossroads Christian Church are they here I'm sorry okay thank you all right we will have that anyone here in opposition of Crossroads okay great thank you mr. Nicholson? Okay. I think I've, have I gone through everything? Does that sound, sound right? All right. Thank you. Okay. We're going to call the first case. And the first case This will be, let's see, the first case will be PLNBOA 18-51 Spa Nails 1 LLC. Could you please step up to the podium? Please introduce yourself and put your name, state your name for the record. Yes sir, I am Ted Houlihan, attorney for Spa Nails 1 LLC. okay great thanks my name is Tun Pham owner of Spinell LLC okay mr. Pham okay so the staff has recommended approval let's see and that's based on there's five conditions there have you read those conditions yes we have okay and you abide by those conditions okay great does anyone I guess from the board have any questions regarding spa nails no I don't hear many okay that's good all right well does I guess does staff have any have any discussions about it okay then I guess hearing none we're ready to move forward with a vote and I guess I I would entertain a motion. I make a motion that we approve PLNBOA 18-51 Spa Nails LLC who request a conditional use permit to operate a cocktail lounge in order to serve wine by the drink in conjunction with the Nails salon in a neighborhood business zone at 2358 Nicholasville Road, Suite 130. based on the staff's two recommendations and also subject to the five conditions listed by staff. Thank you very much, Ms. Carter. Do I have a second? I second the motion. Okay. All those in favor, please register your vote. Okay, great. Looks like your application has been approved. All right. Good luck with your project, and thanks for coming in. Likewise. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, that was fast. We'll call up the second one. PLN BOA 18-54, the Pain Treatment Center of the Bluegrass. I'm sorry, Bluegrass. If you could state your name for the record. Yes, sir. My name is William Horton. Mr. I'm sorry, Portman? Horton, H-O-R-T-O-N. I'm with Denham Blythe Company. Okay, Mr. Horton. And do you, I see there's three conditions, or I'm sorry, five conditions outlined by the staff. Have you read those? Yes, sir. And do you agree to abide by those? Yes, sir. Five conditions, okay. All right, any questions from anyone on the board? Okay. Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to accept the conditional use request for PLNBOA 1854, the Pain Treatment Center of the Bluegrass, requesting a conditional use permit to construct a parking lot for use as additional parking in professional office P1 zone at 190 Pasadena Drive, based on the staff's recommendations and subject to the five conditions that were listed. So move. Do I have a second? Second the motion. Okay. All those in here, please state your vote. Okay. It looks like it passed. Congratulations and good luck with your project. Okay. Okay. That moves us on to, I think we're going to skip Well, that moves us on to number four. PLN BOA 18-58, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington's request for a conditional use permit to establish, to occupy an existing structure as office for a place of religious assembly. Do you, are you here? Mr. Simpson, good to see you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Do you have anything you want to tell us? We certainly agree with the staff recommendation for approval. I have talked with the staff, a couple of slight modifications to the conditions to kind of clarify a few issues, if you will, and they'll put this on the board. They're in agreement with these, by the way, but I'll pass them out to you. Okay, thank you. Apparently the overhead's not working, so. Okay. Just give us a sec to review these. Surely. I've underlined the new language, and there's only one strike-through on item number five, and that was done simply to clarify what a special event would be. And you've just defined special events as weddings, wedding receptions, and similar events. Is that correct? That's correct, yes. And I guess, Autumn, you've read these and you're reading these? Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm so these proposed modifications to the conditions we're in agreement with the staff recommendation great thank you any questions from the board yes mr. Simpson how long is the renovation to last you have an estimate of that father Pat or Melissa? Two years. Two years. As much as two years. Just two years. Thank you. Okay, does that prompt any more questions? Alright, well, if there's no more questions, I guess I'll entertain a motion. motion mr. chair I move approval of PLN BOA 1858 Roman Catholic diocese of Lexington a conditional use permit to occupy an existing structure his offices for a place of religious assembly in a single family residential zone at 185 Toronto Road for the following reasons as provided by staff and the recommend recommendation of the conditions replacing conditions four and five with the handout from Council Okay, thank you very much. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay, we have a second. Everyone wants to cast their vote? Alright, Mr. Simpson, it looks like this has been approved. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, and I guess the last uncontested that we have is the administrative review that states, and that's we'll call up PLN BOA 18-53 Crossroads Christian Church. Chairman Needham. Hello, Mr. Nicholson. There likely will be a kind of full hearing on this. There will. Do you want to wait? Yes. And so I then just to follow proper protocol. Sure. That sounds great. All right. Well, we can move on, but thank you very much. Okay. Well, in that case, we will call PLNBOA 18-57 Frank's Donuts, LLC. Hello. Jack Stewart, Stewart Architecture. Okay, thank you. And you, I guess with architects, they like to ask if you have the authority to speak on behalf of your client. Yes. Okay, great. Okay, anything you'd like to tell us about Frank's Donut? Mr. Needham, I'm sorry. I do have several letters of opposition to distribute for this one. Okay. we'll have pass those out review those and I guess how this works when we're done reviewing you can maybe state what it is that your proposal and then we'll have since there is opposition to this we'll have the opposition speak as well we do we would abide by the three recommendations to get permission from the city for any site work and proper code and accommodation. It's a proper thing to do to the building. It's a convenient back door for traffic and certainly would be a nice aspect of their business to have a drive-thru and the staff has approved it and we're encouraged by that. Sounds good. Thank you. Give us one second here to review. Mr. Stewart, while we're waiting, let me ask you this question. I have some concern about an exit on Grinstead. Is there any reason why the exit can't be totally on 3rd Street? because greensted is basically a residential street and so that just concerns me a little bit well as much as i know that area the everything to the um because it would be the south of green street is is not residential i don't think and the other side i think is has a buffer of a sort that I don't think it would be impacting on any residential pleasantry. And the best thing about this is a really good improvement to the neighborhood. I mean that whole area is transforming and this building is going to be rehabbed in a really fine way so I think that's has a lot of merit but the exit on green on to the rear is is pretty nominal. I think everyone's going to come on and out of the third street because they can do that but for convenience you could very well use the rear of the property but 90 of us i think would come off of third street if somebody uses the goes into the building itself uh and they're parked in the parking lot can they exit 3rd Street without going through the drive in line? Yes, you can go to the rear and turn around if you want to do that. Or if you're perpendicular to the building, you just back out and drive out 3rd Street. Okay. Drive out the same way they came in? Yes, sir. Maybe I'm not clear on that. So to use the drive-through, you have to enter 3rd Street and exit on Grinstead? Not necessarily, but probably. I mean, because the drive-through is to the left and going around the building. If you came in from the rear, you'd have to find a way to turn around and then enter the drive-through. Okay. Because I, too, have some concern about the use of Grinstead or traffic where there's no traffic there now. And it's not really a buffer. There's just a – I mean, it's basically a privacy fence. behind there right so in those residents that are there that is backing right up to them um if traffic can maybe clarify a little bit on this one um the way the site plan is set up they have it they have it set up so third street is their main entrance and that's where people will enter and if you go through the drive-through you will be headed out onto third we do want to keep the Grinstead access only because it provides kind of an overflow. They've provided more than the minimum stacking, but if a vehicle is in the line, they can get out of line and kind of the overflow exit onto Grinstead, but we don't envision Grinstead being a main use either. but along those lines you are requiring it to be open on green greenstead i mean is it a possibility for it not to open to grinstead or is that a requirement um the traffic's recommendation would be to leave the grinstead entrance open um you know the board obviously can take that into consideration but it's not a must um if you're in the drive-thru you have to exit on to third because you're in the drive-through that's your only choice so basically anyone who would use grinstead would either be in that line and you don't get tired of waiting or whatever they would probably exit onto grinstead if you come to the facility and walk in then those parking spots those vehicles would just back up and entrance and exit on third just as a typical parking lot. I think the look of the site definitely has Third Street as their main entrance, and the Grinstead is kind of just an overflow. Is it normal to have the parking inside the traffic flow for the drive-through as opposed to the outside? We see it both ways. it's probably 50-50. The benefits to this one is then we don't have the pedestrians crossing the vehiculars. I mean, from a traffic standpoint, you're basically, if that drive-thru backs up, then it's their customers that will have to wait, and that would probably be the preferred option over having the customers walk through the drive-through lane to get to the building. Okay, so that's here nor there. Okay. Okay. And the pedestrian entrance is the East 3rd Street side only, is that correct? Yes. Yes, front way. Do you have any safety concerns about the fact that the only exit after you've gone through the drive-through is on to 3rd Street? In other words, you can't make a complete circle and go out Grinstead. No, that's not a concern for traffic. It also kind of protects that Grinstead access a little bit. I think the majority of the customers will be drive-through, and so that kind of ensures that that traffic will be exiting onto third okay thanks okay any more questions from the board at this moment um i think we do have um someone in the audience that's um in opposition so if they would like to come up at this time and discuss their thoughts and we can hear that. State your name and where you live for the record. My name is Billy Mallory and I'm Executive Director of the East End Community Development Corporation that is at 560 East 3rd Street. Our office is in the Midland Triangle and And I do not necessarily object to the business itself. We welcome businesses, but we do have an East End small area plan that doesn't seem to have been considered. And I take strong objection to staff saying that there would be no adverse effects on traffic at this location. I would challenge staff, traffic engineering, to come and sit and look at this portion of East Third Street every morning, every afternoon that is backed up for a full block. People who, other offices who are in the space that I'm in, community ventures, We cannot even enter or exit the parking lot because the traffic is so backed up. Because East Third Street is a major corridor. It is the busiest street that exists in the east end. And already we've seen an influx of traffic where the work is being done on Short and Midland. People try to avoid that construction so they're coming up Third Street. the town branch trail and all of that is of impacts midland we will have even more traffic and i wonder did anybody consider the legacy trail there's going to be pedestrians and bikes in that very area the last thing that we need is stop and go traffic and i guess another concern that i would like to express is that neither the neighborhood associate what there is a neighborhood association there is a homeowners association neither of them were approached about this business and if we're going to have small area plans then those small area plans need to be taken seriously because they are they are intended to protect fragile neighborhoods which ours is and we welcome businesses we welcome people to come to the east end but we would also challenge them to come to the residence come to the neighbors don't assume that you can just come in and do whatever you please but i would also like to request that there actually be a traffic impact study and that be done at the at the hours of the rush hour and then come back and say there's no perceived impact to traffic thank you mrs mallory um okay any questions from the board at the moment but um i would also like to just add to that having some familiar familiarity with the east end small area development plan the drive through on this is what concerns me some because that is counter intuitive to what they were trying to accomplish in that area in retail and pedestrian and biking in the trail and those types of things so i don't know how it would affect my vote one way or the other but to have a business that the intention is to primarily be drive-through would be a concern or something i would hope you would discuss with the the residents because it It does not quite fall in line with what the Easton development plan was long term. People just driving through and coming on out does not add benefit to what they were trying to accomplish in the area. And just the activity in that building is approvable. They can be open to do their business without any other approvals besides the city. The drive-thru is a conditional use, but it's a convenience I think that would help. And it just would be, I don't think, that detrimental to the activity in the neighborhood. I mean, people come and go off of streets all the time. And up Winchester Road, there are several drive-thrus that are multi-interences, gas stations and those kinds of things. And this is a small building. It's not like a Walmart or something. So it's just a convenience for their customers. and I think one that would be not a nuisance or any detrimental or have serial effect to the neighborhood. Okay. I think anyone else on the board have a question regarding that answer? um you know i can give my two cents i you know i i think as a as an infill developer i i would probably have reached out to the neighborhood association and the homeowners association if i was going to open up a business that needed a conditional use behind in the neighborhood and And for that reason, you know, I probably would, at the request of the Neighborhood Association, you know, probably do kind of what they ask initially, as we've received several letters in disapproval of not so much of the business, but probably more so for the drive-through. And the intention of that corridor would be to, I think, would be to, you know, to have quite a bit of pedestrian-friendly businesses, and adding a drive-through to a building like this probably would be a little counterintuitive to that. So, I mean, if there's no other questions, I mean, I'm happy to entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLNBOA 18-57 Frank Donuts LLC request for conditional use to permit drive-through facility within the defined infill and redevelopment area in the neighborhood business B1 zone at 547 and 549 East 3rd Street. for the reasons recommended by staff and also the conversation we've heard today in the testimony and subject to the three conditions listed in the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Do I have a second? I second the motion. Okay. Please cast your vote. Okay. Okay. We have one more vote, but I'm not sure it's going to matter. Okay. The motion looks like it's failed. In that sense, Autumn, you want to give them the next steps? Or maybe Tracy in the next steps, please. Maybe Tracy, sorry. Well, effectively, you've just approved their application without the findings to do that. So, I think you're probably going to have to make another motion and those of you that voted no are going to have to just give some reason for the record as to why you're disapproving and then we'll have to go forward. And a disapproval will keep them from coming back for a year with the same application. Okay, so we need some findings of fact for the failed motion. So give us a second, and we will determine that. Chairman Needham. I think to follow through with what Tracy Jones was recommending, an additional motion for disapproval would have to be made, and then you'd have findings for that associated with that motion for disapproval. Okay. All right. Well, then we will make, could I entertain another motion for disapproval? No, and then we will get the findings for the disapproval. Is that correct? Okay, so we'll make the motion first. No. Well, if you need a few minutes to work with Ms. Jones. We'll make a few minutes and then we'll take a quick recess. Thank you. Oh, yes. We're back in. Okay, we're back from recess, and we've moved to postpone PLNBO 1857 Frank's Donuts. A continuance. You need a motion to continue. and a vote. I need a motion. Okay, I'd like to chair. I move we continue Frank's Donuts until the September meeting. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Motion to reconsider, reconvene, continue. Everyone. Our staff, our screen says motion to reconsider. Is that the same? Is that what you all meant it to be on the screen? It should be a motion to continue is what you need at this point. Yes. Right. Yeah, our screen says differently. Our screen says a motion to reconsider. It should be a motion to continue. That's just what the system, I think, has it as. There is not a continue option. Okay. Well, just to make the record clear. The intent is that we are continuing. Sure. Just to make the record clear, the motion on the floor is to continue PLN 18-57 until the September meeting. Correct. So the screen, while it says reconsider, should be construed as a continuous motion. Yes. Thank you. Okay, and that motion passed. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. Where is it? Where is it? It was withdrawn. Okay, I think that takes us to our next, we're back to our variance appeals. And we have the first disapproval, which we'll call, will be PLN BOA 18-46 Michelle Moorhead's request for variance. Ms. Moorhead, can you please step to the podium? I do have a couple of letters on this one that I'll distribute to you all. I want to clarify that two of them are from the previously submitted application. They're letters of support for that plan. I did not receive updated support from these folks. And then I do have an email from the HOA president that is in support of the current plan. So I'll hand those out now. Okay, great. Thanks, Autumn. Give us a second while we review these, please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Stewart, do you want to just briefly talk about the project? Yes. I'm going to say a few things, and Mrs. Moorhead will present some ideas as well. Okay. I find it's an appropriate addition. We were within really just three feet beyond what's permitted to do this, and we're adding to the left front, which is, I think, a little more appropriate than the left side from before. So we found the degree of difficulty there was greater than we wanted, so this is what we're bringing to you now. And I think architecturally it'll be a compliment, and we're going to keep the same character, this very contemporary design. And the streetscape is very much of an interest to the owner that we will landscape properly and really bring this house back to something that it maybe isn't right now as far as its level of care. And, again, the support of the Neighborhood Association and the similarities around the neighborhood of other properties with three-car garages to the front. And basically, no one wants to put the garages anywhere besides the front because of the lake. And so it's the proper place to do this, I would suggest. Okay, thank you. Anyone? Oh, I'm sorry. Hi, just state your name for the record. Michelle Moorhead. Hi, Ms. Moorhead. Hello. I have a formal letter from the Homeowners Association president, but since you already submitted that, I don't know if you want to give that to them as well. she did send that to me and then this is a landscaping I think the previous thing that autumn had was just a email that miss Warner had sent to me on behalf of the approval from the board I appreciate the opportunity to share the reasons on why I feel this variance request for my new home at 2120 Island Drive deserves your vote of approval today. As you have heard from the planning office, they are stating it should be disapproved because the new addition and paving would have a negative impact on the character of the general vicinity streetscape. While a mixture of driveway types exist in the general vicinity, the majority of driveways are 15 to 20 feet at the curb. And additional paved parking areas are further set back and are located with significant landscaping that screens the paved areas from the street. These are not issues that should affect the approval of my variance request for several reasons. One, the variance requirements in Article 15-2A5 do not mention streetscape. And there are no requests for proposed landscaping or aesthetic components be submitted with the application. The island, as we mentioned, the Island Association Board unanimously approved my request for change. And I was wanting to show you just a few of the houses that are on just my street. I didn't go through the whole island. As you all know, it's a very unique neighborhood because of the water. So if you could start the video, please. It's just a few minutes. It's not very long. This is my neighbor's home right next door. As you can see, they have a very large circular drive. And you will see in the next picture, the circular drive goes all the way from one corner, the front of the house, all the way to the side. It will easily occupy five to six cars. Plus, they have a driveway, the width of the circular drive and their garage that comes out to the street. The next picture will be 2138 Island Drive. This home also has considerable pavement, and I apologize, I'm not a professional photographer, but I hope you can see that there is a circle drive that goes all the way from one side to the other with the grass in the front. This is 2152 Island Drive. This house has a three-car front-facing garage with the same size driveway. And on the next picture, you'll see that there is also an additional, there on the right, a pad for additional parking. So it's a pretty extensive paved area for the front of their house. Next will be 2132 Island Drive. And again, these are all houses on my street. This home has a circle drive and a garage very close to the proximity of the street as well. And these houses all, as you can see, have extensive landscaping. This one is 2128 Island Drive, which also has a circle driveway all the way across the front and a front entry garage. and I am willing and have full intentions of doing landscaping as well. This is 2104 Island Point, which also has a very long driveway, and as you can see, there's cars parked there on the left. You can easily park three or four cars plus the pavement for into the garage. As I mentioned, all of these homes are attractive and showcase the uniqueness of the island neighborhood. even though they have extensive pavement and garages within close proximity of the street. The changes in landscaping I've planned for my home will greatly improve its look, and it will blend nicely into this neighborhood as well. I have prepared a sketch of my home with proposed landscaping streetscape upgrades that will be completed after the remodel, and here is a copy that Autumn can let you review. While she's handing that out, I'll continue to go on, and if you need me to stop so you can review that, please let me know. The second reason listed to disapprove my request was the fact that while the desire to preserve a view of the lake at the rear of the home could be considered as a special circumstance, such a circumstance has wide applicability to many properties on the lake. At that context, alternative designs should be pursued that minimize additional front yard paving and other features that negatively impact the streetscape. This, too, is not a reason to disapprove this variance for the following reasons. The planning office approved the variance request that was presented last month, And the variance being presented to you today does not ask for any more feet coming past the building line than we did last month. As mentioned in the initial variance request, a side entrance garage, and this one now has a front entrance garage. And we also, in the previous request, were going to put a single side garage on the left side of the house. But after evaluations from engineers and contractors, due to the grade and the slope of the side of the house, it was going to be a pretty big undertaking to add that side garage on the side. And we are wanting to get a three-car garage. That's part of the reason for doing this. We do have three vehicles, as do many of the neighbors, my neighbors. And instead of having to park our vehicle in the driveway, I think our neighbors would much prefer a very tasteful and updated three-car garage to view instead of a car. There were also no oppositions to any of my requests for this variance, and I have talked with many of my new neighbors. They all seem very happy that I am wanting to improve this home as it was somewhat neglected. The reason I would like to expand my home to the front instead of the back is due to the lake views. This home is very unique in that all the rooms on the back of the house have very large windows that showcase the view and the water. And nowhere else in Lexington can homeowners get these kind of views. And in my opinion, that's what makes the island a very unique neighborhood. It makes this home very unique. and that's why I wanted to expand it to the front to add this third garage and some additional square footage on the main floor. I greatly appreciate the staff wanting to preserve the streetscape of Lexington neighborhoods and I will do my best and work hard to make this house look as beautiful as it can and to fit into the Island Neighborhood Association. I appreciate your attention, and I would ask this board to please approve my variance. And if there's a condition that needs to be added that front landscaping be a part of the approval around the paved areas, I would be happy to take that condition on. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Perhaps the board will have some questions for you. Stay right there. Okay. Ms. Morehead, as I understand from the drawing that you just passed out and from the one that was submitted with the package that we got, that it looks like, at least the way I'm interpreting it is, the only new concrete or the only new part of the driveway is that corner to accommodate a third garage. Correct. And if you can see on the drawing, Jack Stewart's office did indicate it's just that little kind of teardrop piece right in front of the garage that would be on the far left side. Right. That's the way I'm interpreting the drawing. And it's around, I think, 84 square feet is what we're adding. All of the other pavement shown there is already there and existing. We're not changing any of that. Did you have a picture? Were one of those pictures of your home? I can get one on, do you have a colored picture? Okay. Sorry, I guess I should have put a current picture. So this is the current driveway, so to the left of that Herbie, there's two Herbys up there, so the farthest left Herbie is where the third garage will be. So where those shrubs are right there, that is where the new concrete pavement will be. The rest of all this will stay, will not change or be added to. And we intend on adding a front porch and adding some very architectural details that will make the house appear and fit into the streetscape and contribute to the neighborhood. I have a question, I think maybe for staff, but is it correct that they will still need another variance? No, you should have received an updated staff report, yeah, that that condition was removed, or that reason was removed. We don't need the additional variance. let me ask the staff this how far from the street is the garage now the current the current garage meets the required setback at 30 feet so they will be constructing eight foot of addition onto the existing garages and the the new part of the garage will be set back at 22 feet it's 30 feet now? Yes. Okay. So we're talking eight feet? Yes. Three feet beyond the five foot average? Correct. Okay. Any more questions from the board at the moment? Since this is disapproved, I think we'll hear from Autumn. Is that correct, Autumn? Or would you like to? Sure. Okay. Ms. Morehead, just have a seat for a second and we'll call you back up. Thank you. So we've kind of already gone through a lot of this, I guess. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback from 30 feet to 22 feet in order to expand their garage. in order to create a three-car garage, which faces the street and adds another bedroom to the main floor of their house. This is a partially compliant average setback, as I think Mr. Glover mentioned. If the expansion was only five feet into the required front yard, we would not need this variance. But since it's eight feet, that's what triggers it. It does average out. so it's basically a matter of three feet. We have recommended disapproval based on the expansive paving in the driveway. The existing driveway is approximately 25 feet wide with an additional parking area that's about 23 feet by 17 feet, making it about a 50-foot expanse of paving width at the widest portion, which is pretty substantial. The previous proposal we did support, and that proposal was removing about 189 square feet from what is currently existing. This proposal instead will add an additional 84 or 89 feet, sorry, 84 square feet to the driveway. So that is one of the reasons that we are recommending disapproval. So, as I understand it, the part of the driveway that's going to be removed will simply be replaced by the expanded garage as it extends farther out into the front yard. In the original plan, most of the driveway that leads up to those two existing garage doors would have been removed and the driveway would have shifted over, essentially. it would have been a pretty significant difference to what we see now. So in this situation, they're keeping what is existing and adding that additional 84 square feet. But you're eliminating some concrete by the expansion of the garage. That is correct. Technically. The eight feet in front of the existing garage. okay autumn are there any other homes in the neighborhood that have that have a setback of 22 feet or something shorter than the 30-foot requirement? I'm not aware of any. They appear to be pretty much on the building line for the most part. But I don't have those specific. Well, it seems to me that the suggestion about the landscaping would certainly mask the extension of the garage, that additional footage. Some of the landscaping shown in the proposed drawing does appear to be in the right-of-way, so I'm not sure that that would actually be feasible for that to go there. But certainly landscaping could help. I'll just be perfectly honest about my feelings about this. Initially, I was really negative about this proposal. But as I've looked at the other houses in the area and the way they were structured, the amount of driveway and concrete, I feel more positive about this proposal. And I probably would approve it, given that opportunity. And I think the plan probably works. So this is for whatever my opinion is worth. I agree with you. Yeah, I agree with you. I think that's my opinion as well. But I think it may depend on the landscaping. And if the landscaping ends up being as shown on the proposed drawing that we got that was handed out, I mean, that seems to me to solve some of the problem or some of the visual objections to this, or what may be visual objections to this extension. I agree with that comment. I think the three-car garage is rather overwhelming. But I think the way the landscaping is being done, it can soften the addition of that one side of it and the extra small amount of concrete. Okay. Well, as the chair, I think it's probably leaning more for an approval as opposed to disapproval. but I would entertain a motion. I think in order to. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. We kind of anticipated that it might go this way. We guess sometimes, but we do have some draft findings for approval. I was going to say we'll need some findings if we. We weren't aware of the landscaping proposal at that time, so we would need to add another condition, perhaps, depending on your thoughts for the landscaping. But we do need to note that some of this landscaping is in the right-of-way that would need to be excluded unless they got an encroachment agreement through engineering. Encroachment on what? Placing items in the right-of-way. It's not their property. Oh, I see. And that would specifically be the three or four bushes or maybe five we see? Total of five. Five, yep. Closest to the road. Okay. And so do we have those findings? Thank you, Autumn. Thank you. drawing into the motion or into the record. And Mr. Stewart, you might want to have a comment about that. Certainly the landscaping, it didn't seem like that's a condition of this approval. It's just the hardscape and the built part that is of concern. And I'm pretty sure if we look back at those photographs that were Mrs. Morehead showed, there's other poems that had probably plantings in the right of way. But certainly a landscape plan of some degree of satisfaction would be presented if you like that. I mean, it's going to change when we go to the left and come out. Some of that vegetation you see will change. But we certainly want to bring to it a real positive visual flavor. If the board is convinced the findings are strong enough without the landscaping, then we're not going to push really hard to add that. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Stewart, have you read these alternate conditions? Okay, alternate findings. Okay. Will, I will entertain a motion. Okay. On case PLN BOA 18-46, Michelle Moorhead, I move that we approve the request for variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 22 feet in order to expand the existing residence in a single-family residential zone at 2120 island drive based on our discussions today the three new approval new reasons submitted by staff and the conditions three conditions listed one including the addition shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted site plan and application materials, two being all necessary permits and or approvals shall be obtained from the Division of Planning and Building Inspection prior to construction and occupancy, and three being that any allowable landscape as indicated on the plan submitted be completed. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Do I have a second? Motion. Thank you. and all is all in favor or favor please register your vote okay looks like the motion has passed thank you very much good luck with your project thank you all appreciate it very much Okay. Our next order of business is PLNBOA 18-50, Chris Kapitsky's request for a variance to reduce the rear yard from 10 feet to 1 foot in order to construct a residence with an attached garage in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone at 723 Downs Avenue. Hello. Hello. Please state your name for the record and your address. Chris Kapitsky, 723 Downs Avenue. Mr. Needham, Mr. Kapitsky was not here when we did the swearing-in. That's right. Could you please raise your right hand and repeat after me, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Great. Thank you. Okay. You want to give us a brief overview of your project? Sure. There's an existing house there now that is currently within two feet of the existing property line. and the foundation had been repaired a number of years ago and the footprint of the house has actually changed i believe about 18 inches on the south side and so the reason for this variance is so i don't have to redo the foundation to reconstruct the house everything else that's on the plan is actually within the r3 guidelines so instead of me tearing the foundation and putting it back to the original footprint and moving forward I'm looking for this variance in order to use the additional foot and a half and reconstruct a structure in place not to start over and move it forward okay and as I looked at your site plan you are it looks like you're actually constructing another structure to the east of it is that correct correct garage that would actually be attached with a breezeway oh that's a garage we see that's attached at an angle correct okay all right okay well i guess i'm not clear i got from the report that it's not the same footprint are we saying it's the same the the foundation that's there will not change it's the same foundation the foundation is not the same one like it changed 18 inches in the past 10 years so I can't do a remodel because the foundation is a little bit larger that's why I'm asking for a variance so it is it has changed but from right now you're saying it changed 10 inches over time 10 years ago but you're not adding any you're talking about what's there right now correct okay so so you're saying that the foundation that exists right there is is non-conforming exactly and that's the reason for the variance is to use existing foundation uh in the location that it's at rebuild a house and then add the garage at a later date they said just go ahead and leave that on there my intention is not to add the garage immediately it's just to go ahead and reconstruct the house in the existing footprint that is non-conforming because it's against the back property line okay now mr kapensky i was under the impression that the the new footprint was going to be larger than the old footprint am i incorrect the footprint that is currently there is i believe 18 inches larger than what's on record okay so it's like 10 years ago that foundation was fixed somebody added on to it and then I would just be using what's there but it's not what you guys have on record I see all right thank you so what's there right now a dilapidated house a dilapidated house with that sitting on that expanded footprint 60 of the foundation has house 40 is open open foundation meaning it does meaning it does not have a foundation and no foundation it's just the foundation it's just the the structure is not on top of the foundation correct okay it was eaten by termites When I first read this, I felt like this is an opportunity to bring the house to the front and make it kind of look like the rest of the neighborhood. The fact that you were going up over an existing foundation, as I read this, I'm not sure. I mean, you're going to add a garage. That would require, is that ultimately what requires the variance, the addition? because if he goes up on the existing foundation. If the house were to be reconstructed on the current foundation as the house is currently, it would not require any variance. It would be a reconstruction of a nonconforming. But that additional foundation that he's talking about has never had a house on it and was not part of the original structure. So that's new and would require the variance, as well as since there is a major addition of the breezeway and garage. So overall the structure is much, much larger. When you're saying it's new, it's there. It's existing, right? My understanding, this is new information to me, is that the foundation is there partially, but there's no house on the foundation. On part of it. On part of it. so the and that that was not anything that was ever submitted to us so what would be an illegal non-conformity would be the original house on its original foundation so if that were to be demolished and reconstructed on that original foundation a house of that same size that would be acceptable without the variance was the original are we sure the original uh approval was not on the foundation and just on what the existing house is the constructed house and not the foundation that was approved i'm not sure yeah i don't based on what mr kapitsky is saying the addition the additional foundation was not part of the original structure so how long have you owned the property and there are no other variances on record for this property or anything seven years or so right the house has been repaired multiple times you know prior to me owning it and i'm i own adjacent property to it and you know i just try to fix it you know improve the to improve the area. What was the purpose of the additional foundation? I believe that the foundation was damaged and it was replaced or repaired. Repaired? Replaced, yeah. I mean, there's new block. It was new. She's got an aerial that you can see it in. But was there a structure on it at one time? There was. i believe there uh historically there was a structure part of the house a porch yeah part of the house on the left side you can see that's the foundation that's existing now Do you own the 1920? I do not. I own to the left. Okay. Is the encroachment that is outside, this is a question for staff, I think, is the encroachment that is outside that heavy blue line? That's just the angle of the photo. The existing structure is about one foot to 18 inches off the property line. So is the, okay, so is that an easement? Is that, what is that? That blue line is meant to be the property line, but the way that the aerial footage gets distorted is off. The house as exists is constructed two feet within the property. It is on, entirely on its own property, but it's only set back two feet from the line. Okay, and so what do you call that piece of property between the blue line and the back of the property? What is that? Is that a utility easement or is that somebody else's property? That's a neighbor. Yeah, that's actually another person's house. 1920 Liberty Road is it. So is the foundation then built on somebody else's property? I think what we're trying to say, Mr. Glover, is that blue line is a distortion. It's not accurate. No, I understand that. I'm looking at the drawing that was submitted with the application. I think what you're seeing is the building line, the setback requirement line. Yes. the line you're seeing marks 10 feet which would be the requirement for not having a variance okay so that's just an arbitrary line to describe that right that's okay that's and that's different from what we're looking up up here right yeah this um aerial is just showing the property lines yeah gotcha all right thank you Was that just an existing, an old farmhouse that was on that land? I mean, why was it positioned in that spot on that lot? Old house, yes. I believe a lot of that property was actually part of that before it was subdivided. Right. And then, so you own the property to the left where we see the gravel and the two cars? Correct. Okay. And those, is that a camper? Yes, RV. RVs, okay. and that garage would actually be for the RV to me reading through the R3 zoning requirements the only thing that's out that is you know I guess up for discussion on the variance is basically just the structure right the footprint has changed 18 inches everything else that's on that drawing is within R3 zoning requirements when did you obtain the property? Seven or eight years ago. So you obtained it from, so you didn't build the existing foundation? I did not. All right. any other questions from the board uh i do have a question um the uh the garage that's shown on the submitted plans uh that's set at an angle uh it looks to be larger than the house is that or it looks to be similar size to the house is that is that correct considerably larger okay considerably larger what's the what's the proposed purpose is this a resident going to be a residential residential with storage for motorhome okay motorhome i see thank you So the only reason not to move your plans further from the edge of the lot is simply so you can use the existing foundation? That's the basic reason, is that correct? And that's one of the reasons. Another reason is there's actually an eight-inch gas main that's on the right rear corner of the house, diagonal across the property, which makes the whole right side of the property unusable. And if I was to reconstruct a new house on a new foundation, I'm going to have to be so many feet away from that. And right now it's within one foot of the eight-inch gas main. Also, the elevation change from the front porch ten feet forward is probably six feet. So there's a lot of water that runs down through there. So basically I would have to change elevation of the entire property in front of that in order to move that forward. Thank you. As I we've we have asked questions of staff are we going to hear from staff formally or what's the what's the next procedural question we also have someone in the audience that wants to speak so okay all right do you want to have a seat mr. Kabisky and we'll hear from the audience and then would if staff would like to make an say anything okay thank you very much hi now have you been sworn in yes okay great and state your name and address for the record please my name is heather rising i own 1924 liberty road which sits directly in front of this property okay hi um this is another house that this individual has took on that hasn't gone his way and there are several projects within this area that everything is run down. We constantly have rodents, everything that come from this house. I've owned my house since 06 and the history of this house is that some Mexican immigrants lived in the house, killed goats, hung them in the garage and let them drip dry. They eventually moved on and the houses were built along Liberty Road where there used to be a creek bed. Um, the property has sat back there. We've been down here once before because it was zoned to be business from residential and they were going to build an apartment complex. Well, at that time, Mr. Kupinski took over the house as he has tried to buy the house that sits on the corner to have the whole court Downs Avenue. He has acquired this house however the house that's next door to me on the corner has not come down in price to allow him to purchase that house as such so when property was surveyed mr kapensky took and moved survey lines and moved the markers that marked our property. I own property that backs directly up to that. Where you see the two yellow lines, that is my backyard that backs directly up to that. This individual has took and planted fruit trees all on people's property. I've had to go down here and have conversations with him because I have dead rodents trying to get to the fruit. I mean, like, he was told that he couldn't tear the house down and rebuild it because of how it was zoned. So he took one of the neighbors, had them try to rebuild it room by room by room. He found out that he was not able to build it room by room by room because the house was so dilapidated. So he said that he was going to come back and try to get it to where he could turn and tear the whole house down and rebuild it. And it's like it's just going to be another project that never gets finished that takes our neighborhood down because he has an auto body shop that is run down. We constantly have problems coming out of this house. He has a house across the street. You can't even get in the backyard because there's so many cars behind the fence. You can't get in the basement because there's so many auto parts. The poor kids have to have a swing set sitting in the front yard and play on a busy street when they pay rent to be in the house. He owns the house behind it. It's a hoe in the wall. Numerous people live in and out of. They park their cars on our property. We have to say something to them. It's just something else that he's not going to do. He's not going to finish. and it's taken our property down that we're trying to build up an established neighborhood. Okay. Well, thanks for the info. Ms. Heisner, is that right? Rising. Rising. I'm sorry, rising. And I mean, like, it's just part of the property that he's trying to build on is going up into my property because I put markers across the back of my property. he tore him down and that's it like he has no care for anything else and just briefly on that map show me where you are you see the two yellow lines where 1924 is see where it says 1920 and you see the white building yes and beside it to the left of it is the two yellow lines that's my property. 1924? Yes. Okay. And the property to the left of me is the other property that he has tried to buy because between him and W.T. Young have been trying to buy our properties for years because they have the warehouses that run back there. Mr. Kopinski has the building that sits on the other side of these RVs, he rents out to somebody who does some kind of fitness thing or something. It's all about money in his pocket. It's not about, you know, making the neighborhood look better, making it, you know, more neighborhoodly. It's about money in his pocket. And, like, everything down in the court is just run down. People from his auto shop race up the hill test driving cars, and they just don't care that it's a neighborhood. We're not a business. We're a neighborhood. We have kids. We have people that live there. Okay. Well, thank you very much for coming in and voicing your opinions. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, now we'll hear from staff. Could we maybe zoom out on the full image there? So I can see the properties across the street a little bit as well. We have recommended disapproval of the applicant's request for variance to reduce the rear yard from 10 feet to 1 foot. on the basis that we were not given sufficient evidence that there were special circumstances that would prohibit the applicant from constructing a house that did meet all the requirements of the R3 zone. This property is a relatively large residential lot. It is over twice the minimum lot size for an R3 residential lot. This property is about 12,850 square feet and the minimum size is 6,000. They have 150 feet of frontage and the property is about 100 feet deep. You can see across the street, if you look at the yellow lines, those show the property lines, that this property is about the size of the three properties across the street that each have homes. So while there's not a super defined character on Downs Avenue, given the mixture of residential and commercial uses, a compliant structure does appear to be possible on this property and would be more in character with what exists as far as the residential structures. Is it residential really until we see that warehouse? Yes. Is it R3 until that little? Okay. So it does have a residential character in the front to that point? Yes. Okay. I understand that the house as it exists is a non-conforming structure. Correct. Because it extends closer to the back property line. Is that right? Yes. And it's not a legal non-conforming structure. The additional foundation is perhaps not legal. The existing structure may be a legal non-conforming structure. Okay. I just want to make sure I understood that. If it's not a legal, non-conforming use, I'm not sure that we can grant the request. I think that the structure, the current house, would be a non-conforming structure, a legal non-conforming structure. The issue here is that the applicant is not just tearing that down and reconstructing it as is, he's constructing a major addition in the new garage, and it appears in addition to what the existing house is, based on evidently this additional foundation. Yeah, but the existing foundation is non-conforming itself. Is that correct? I think we don't have a complete picture of what the foundation is that was part of the original structure and what this new foundation that he's referencing is. You're saying we don't know whether the existing structure is conforming or not? it? We know it's nonconforming. Okay. And it's not a legal nonconforming because the zoning hasn't changed since the house was constructed, has it, or has it? The question is whether this additional foundation that was constructed six years ago is — the house itself is likely a legal nonconforming structure, but this additional foundation that was added six years ago we don't know okay well let me let me let me talk through this if I can the the structure as it exists right now is nonconforming because it's within the ten foot setback Correct. Okay. And if he were asking for permission to rebuild a new house, he couldn't build it within that existing footprint because it would encroach on that 10-foot setback. Anything that is larger than what is currently there, an exact replacement of the house that is there would be allowable without the variance. Anything that extends beyond that requires the variance. when you say what's there you're talking about the existing structure including the existing foundation i would say anything that is currently built the building there is evidently no walls or construction on the this extra foundation and we're not clear on whether there was or not. So that would not be part of what is currently the house could be replaced. So if the house was, if there was a house there and it was torn down, except for the foundation, he could build the house back without a variance. Is that what you're saying? he could reconstruct it on the same foundation because he's not encroaching any further than it already is. And since it's a non-conforming structure, he could put it back like it was. Replace what is there now. Okay, so why do we need a variance? Because of the addition. He could only rebuild on part of the foundation, the same part that you already see a house. The addition, the garage addition, since that will be an attached garage, it's not a separate building, it's attached to this house this is a completely new structure yeah so that is what triggers the need for the variant I don't think we were even talking about the garage I think it's real unclear on the foundation that's sitting there right now so in your view there's a foundation that's there most of it has a house on it part of it does not have any framing on it and you're saying that the part with some framing of a house that's non-conforming, likely, legal, and he could rebuild on that same amount of square footage of house. Right. He could reconstruct the house that is there as it is. Anything beyond that, though, is what triggers the variance. So since there is the... But there already is a foundation there that's beyond the house that was there. So he cannot construct on that foundation that's beyond the existing house. So from what I understand, so he can build on the existing foundation. He wants to add a garage to that existing structure. And by adding the garage, he therefore has to get a variance. So he can rebuild on the structure currently. Is that correct? There's a portion of the existing foundation that doesn't have a building on it now. That's the rub here. It's the left part. I understand that, but that's what we're kind of assuming is acceptable as a legal matter, or we don't know. No, that's the part that was added at some point. There's some uncertainty about when that was added. Okay. Okay. If I might interject, I think part of the problem here is that this, if I understand correctly, Probably what the staff said earlier is that the part of the foundation on which the house that you see is standing is what would be the original foundation. And it itself encroaches onto what's now the setback. But it would be considered a legal nonconforming use because it was probably that way before the ordinance changed the setback the problem is that it sounds like to me and you can correct me if i'm wrong that the there is an additional portion of the foundation that the the applicant is saying he wants to use in addition to what that house is sitting on that at some point in time in recent history like the last 10 years has been constructed but there there was no variance for it, although there should have been, because at that point you had a new portion of the foundation being constructed that didn't meet the setback, but didn't get a variance. So that would be not only non-conforming, but also probably not legal, because it didn't have the variance. The question is, the staff I don't think considered that because they were not aware that there was some portion that had been built. And also, there's no variance on the property. And then in addition to that, you have this question about the garage is being built. It's within the setback, but it's not there currently, and it's being attached to the existing property. which makes it larger. So there's about three different things going on here, and I'm not sure we have the whole picture based on what the applicants told us today, if that's fair. Yeah, and I have a simple explanation about what staff is disapproving, because we're not disapproving to reconstruct a house where the existing house is now. That's not being disapproved, right? that's not what's been proposed what's been proposed is to build on that existing footprint but to add onto that footprint if it were strictly a replacement of the i understand that you wouldn't have this problem but there's nothing in here that says that it's he's asking for a larger a larger footprint based on the the additional foundation correct we were not aware of the additional foundation right but based on the fact that there's going to be a large edition of the garage that alone is sufficient to to not allow this okay so it's the garage basically that that is the problem any addition is that because the garage is proposed to be attached and that would increase the size of the whole structure correct okay so if the garage were not attached it would have to meet the size requirements for an accessory structure which it would not as proposed okay i see what would be the size of that accessory structure it could be a maximum of 50 percent of the principal structure gotcha which would not accommodate the rv that he's requesting okay i see Is that of the principal legal nonconforming structure or the non-legal? The request for the variance, I guess, and maybe that's what confuses me on the whole thing. We're requesting a variance to reduce the rear yard from 10 feet to 1 feet in order to construct this residence. But actually, it's already been reduced from 10 feet to 1 feet. The foundation's already there and been expanded just without the proper variances. But we don't go into the discussion of the size of the garage. The original house was constructed at that setback likely before the provisions of the zoning ordinance making it a legal non-conforming structure. My point, Con, is the request is not even for the correct variance, right? Because he would really be requiring variances for the size of the garage. Now, if the garage is attached, we don't need a variance for the garage size. Is that what you... Yeah, but if it's attached, then you need a variance for the size of the total resin. We need the requested variance. Yeah, so we're still missing, even if we, I mean, we don't, he's only asking for variance for one thing, but that doesn't even cover the price. That would be the only variance that is required, the variance that is requested. Okay. Okay, any more questions for Autumn? I'm still confused. me too yeah i'm not sure we've got i'm not i'm not sure we understand as a board we understand what what's being requested or what is proposed uh to be disapproved the uh like has been said the the case report says construct a residence but there's already a residence constructed And so the resident is demolishing the existing residents in order to construct a new residence using part of that footprint, but with a major addition. The major addition being the garage. Yes. So it is a much larger principal structure. This is one entire structure that we're talking about. Yes. The applicant is proposing that is much larger than the existing one structure on the property. Therefore, we have to resolve this issue of what is currently a legal nonconforming distance from the rear of the house to the rear lot line. Once we reconstruct this much larger structure, we need our variance. Do we need to determine first whether it's a legal or illegal nonconforming structure? So in the site plan, you can see that the area that appears on the far right, that square with the front porch, it appears, that is the current house. to the side there that portion is the foundation that is in question that does not currently have a structure other than the foundation and may have never had a structure we're not 100% sure exactly what's going on there and then we have the garage addition so the issue is that anything larger than the first square where the current house is requires the variance the garage itself on its own is 10 feet away, yes, but the remaining portion has to be resolved. And you're saying the fact that if he were only rebuilding the house on the existing house structure, he would not need a variance. Correct. Because it's an existing structure, even though it's nonconforming, because it's within the setback. Right. but the but by adding an attached garage in the addition on this foundation area when you say the addition on the foundation area are you talking about where there is no current built structure beyond just a foundation yes oh that's that oh that's that uh oh i see that's that uh third or 40 percent Right here. Okay. All right. I got you. All right. And that extra portion to the left of the existing house, is that also, does the foundation exist for that as well? Yes. It does. This portion here is what we're guessing. Yeah. I guess that goes back to my original question and maybe I'm just missing the point completely. But where they're requesting the variance on the rear yard setback, I mean that's already done. All that is, that foundation is already one foot from the back of the property line, right? Yes, but there is no house there. Yeah, I know, I know. So the request for the variance for that would mean that if we don't request that, then they also need to move what's there? No, he could build. The foundation there is possibly not legal, yes. The foundation is non-conforming, but it's existing. It is existing. There's no evidence they got the variance, the proper variance, to do that portion on the left side. But I understand he doesn't need a variance to rebuild on the total foundation. He does not need a variance for this portion here. But he does need a variance to rebuild on the foundation to the left? Yes. Why? Because there's no structure there? Yes. But isn't the foundation a structure? Yes, and it was built at a different time from the original portion of the house. Do we know when it was built? I believe this is the portion that the applicant was discussing had been constructed within the past 10 years. Okay. I think the way I'm going to look at this, and this is just my opinion, is this is a B3, I'm sorry, it's R3 really to the end of the left side here, I guess that would be the south side of Downs Avenue. If we grant this, this enables really a very large accessory structure to a residential house that's going to look very commercial to me, and it's going to look odd in a residential lot. So, you know, yes, it would make sense to keep that house smaller, keep an accessory dwelling smaller, and he, you know, he can rebuild the house and add accessory dwelling in its current state, but to add this huge garage is going to make it look, to me, quite commercial at that point, and the lot already reads a little bit commercial, but, you know, I think based on what we've been presented here, that's probably more of my issue. By not granting it, by disapproving it, it would not allow him to build such a huge garage for his RVs, but yet he'd be able to rebuild a nice house and keep the lot residential. But that's not the intention, I understand. but the uh and as i understand it also just for added information the this this lot is larger than other lots of the neighborhood we've heard that testimony and also it's right next to a commercial it's a either a b or a b1 or b2 or whatever it is that's right next to this r3 lot is that correct I won. So it's okay. It's an industrial zoning that's abutting the property that's existing right there. Okay. I just want to make sure I understood all the facts. This side here. Yeah. And the other problem is the gas line that runs through there. Yes. That gas line is where on that map? Because it says the gas line, this dotted line here, that was not clear on the plan. It could be under the back right corner of the house, but it's within a foot. It's what? It's within a foot of the back corner. Oh, I see. This is it. Yeah. Gotcha. Thank you. The applicant again? I believe he has something he wants to add. Oh, he does. Okay. Okay, Autumn, thank you. So the variance that I'm looking for is for the small area on the left side of the existing house. that area right there is what I need the variance for the garage is an accessory structure that I'm not looking I'm not looking for that today I'm just in order to rebuild the house on the foundation is there i need a variance to build on that slice of the foundation i understood that you did not need a variance because uh because that foundation has been there even though it's non-conforming it's an existing non-conforming structure it was not existing from 40 or 50 years ago just that little slice okay no i understand that that that oh you're talking about that well that's different than what we have here it says one foot from the rear not from the in order for me to rebuild on that i have to have a variance that i'm not moving the property back it's just i have to have a variance in order to rebuild on top of it because it is within that that setback anything that gets changed on that house whatsoever i have to have a variance because it's already in that setback area so would you outline where the existing house is right now so that whole structure is existing now as a building right what you just what you just outlined not the foundation the building itself it's that right there okay yeah it's the larger square correct But the foundation as drawn there is existing. Correct. And if I don't get a variance, I'll take that left side off the foundation, and then I'll rebuild the house in the same spot. So basically what I'm looking for here is that slice to be approved. How big is the slice? Did you say three feet? I saw her motioning a size. it's two it's maybe two three feet I don't know exactly because the I didn't go from the original drawing that you guys have versus what it is but it's minimal I think we also have a problem because the request says in order to construct a residence with an attached garage. But you're saying you're not going to construct the garage at this point? Not immediately, no. I mean, if I was to get a variance just to rebuild a house on that structure, that's all I'm looking for. You don't need a variance for that. I do. For that little sliver? I would have to do a whole new footer and move that foundation in, in order to get the foundation. I would have to do a whole new footer and move that foundation in, in order to get the foundation. I would have to do a whole new footer and move that foundation in in order to stay within the skeleton of what it was originally 40 years ago. I would have to do a new footer and just move that wall in several feet, which that's what I'll do. If I don't get a variance today, then I'll knock that down, scoot it in two, three feet, rebuild the house, and then build the garage. whatever's within the guidelines of R3. The smaller square on the left side, what's there now? The small rectangular on the left side where your footer there's the foundation on top of the footer right there you just can't see much of it because of the angle of the picture that sliver right there absolutely but that's what we're talking about here yeah but that's not three feet that's that's having in the size of the structure See if you can zoom in a little bit on that. We can see it better. We're going to pull up Google Earth to get a different angle. I think Right So we're saying that it's legal We're assuming that The existing foundation That other piece is very small. So I'd like to ask the staff, in the third bullet point, It says the same footprint as the existing structure. What is the existing structure? Is that we considering the foundation or the building itself? That's my question. That's my question. The building. The building itself and not the foundation. Because we have differences of opinion here. yes we looked at it as the the building itself okay okay Staff, you're saying that the existing structure does not include the foundation to the south, to the left of that property? Yes. That's what we're saying. The existing building is not part. Okay. Correct. Right. What we have said is that the existing structure of the house, excluding the foundation where there is no structure on top of the foundation, would not require a variance. just that portion that is currently a full house could the board could the board i'm not saying we do this but could the board consider the foundation as part of the existing structure i think she just said it was it's not no she says not just the what's built the house itself okay larger house yeah go ahead so so on the PVA the residential square foot is 1081 and my proposed building size is going to be 1536 so just as an exact measurement it would be Yeah, roughly 500 more square feet. Yeah, 400, yeah. 455 to be exact. And then as a first and second floor. Well, I think that if there's—I'm clear. Anyone else—I mean, I know it's a difficult thing to understand, but I think we're going to—I'll just go ahead and ask for this to go to a vote. Are we ready for that? Mr. Glover? I think so. Okay. Okay. So I will entertain a motion. Okay. On case PLNBOA 18-50, Chris Capizzi, I move that we disapprove the request for variance to reduce the rear yard from 10 foot to 1 foot in order to deconstruct the residence with the garage in the planned neighborhood residential zone at 723 Downs Avenue, based on the staff recommendations. also just like to mention based on the lack of clarity of the plans and that have been submitted okay do we have a second i'll second okay i'll uh please register your vote Okay. It looks like that this, Mr. Kapitsky, this has been disapproved based on what the staff recommended. So the motion passed as a disapproval. okay okay but thank you for your time and thank you for applying and i appreciate your all's time thank you thank you good luck good luck okay that's uh move on do we is everyone okay we need a short recess or we good we're good okay we'll move forward um the next on the variance appeal agenda is pln boa 18-55 dennis anderson investment 1700 llc's request for a variance decrease the maximum front setback from 20 feet to 74 feet in order to construct a coffee shop with a drive-through in a commercial building in a neighborhood b1 zone at 1745 sharkey way could we mr anderson or mr murphy would you like to approach and thank you mr chairman i am dick murphy i'm here representing the applicant which is dennis anderson imv 1700 llc which is part of a group of companies known as anderson communities tony barrett is our designer of barrett partners he's passing you out an aerial display we'll also have that on our powerpoint we just wanted you to have you to have a paper copy of that. Of course, Dennis Anderson is with me here today as well. Also, Isaac Bertram from Dennis's office is with us here along with Tony, our designer, Tony Barrett. I think we do have two neighbors here, Barbara and Joe Albaugh from the association. I think Ms. Albaugh, I spoke to her before the meeting, is going to speak. She's an officer in the Townley Neighborhood Association as well. We're here to ask for a variance for the front yard setback for one lot. It's two buildings at 1745 Sharkey Way. The I think we have no objectors here. That's one advantage of about going at the end. You see there's nobody else in the room hardly except the other applicants. So we I think we have no objectors here to us. I think we do have two supporters as well. As you know, Townley Center is located at Lees Town Road and New Circle Road in Lexington. It's about 15 years old. And when Dennis built this, it was one of the first mixed-use communities here in Lexington. As you know, it has a mix of residential, has single-family detached townhomes, apartments. It has a mixture of commercial. It has actually nine or ten restaurants in there, shops, professional offices, has a convenience store gas stations for shell station out there. It's worked very well. And if we, I think I can click to the next slide here. There we go. This is page 43 out of our current comprehensive plan, which is the 2013 comprehensive plan. I just brought that up to mention that in our comprehensive plan, Townley Center is one of two neighborhoods that have been mentioned as successfully placemaking and renewing areas. One is the Southland Drive area and the other is the Townley area. And they mentioned that Townley and Metathorpe work well together. Townley is a new development. Metathorpe is an older one, but they complement each other very well. I will add that we do have to cater to automobile traffic here because Metathorpe is across Leestown Road from us, five-lane road and people drive to us from metaphor because it is so difficult to cross leestown road we draw here in townley not only from metaphor but all out out the area of leestown road past new circle past citation they come here it's interesting i have i've had a couple zone changes recently up on georgetown road past citation and in doing surveys of the people who live up there they shop mainly in two places this our area Townley around there off Lee's town and the other area we shop at is the Walmart on New Circle Road so we have a large area that we draw here from townley one of the things that residents have wanted for a long time is a coffee shop we don't have a coffee shop in town like and in talking to the all boss it's interesting because because they mentioned that people want a coffee shop so much that some of the residents in Townley have on their own contacted coffee shop companies asking them if they want to come here. And unfortunately, have not been successful as of yet. But Dennis has enlisted a coffee shop company that does want to come here at this point. and we're enlisting your help because we need a variance of our required not set back line but the set two line in the b1 zone and sort of a balancing act out in townley we have 428 residential units out there 428 that's probably about 600 people living out there and 600 people could not support the 8 to 10 restaurants we have out there. They probably couldn't support the Applebee's alone by themselves. They couldn't support the other uses we have out in Townley without those businesses and restaurants attracting people from other parts of the community. So we want, Dennis wants the uses in Townley that are attractive to the people who live there. But in order to get those people, those uses have to draw people from outside of the area. Our coffee shop estimates that 65% of its business, 65% is going to come through its drive-through window. Now, we need to have that because we need a successful coffee shop there that can remain viable and can remain open so it can supply the needs of the people who live in town. As you know, there's sort of two types of people that frequent coffee shops. One group wants to hang out. They may want to meet a friend or a business associate there. They may want to use the Wi-Fi. They may stay there for an hour or so. The other group is somebody who wants their coffee and wants to get to work, and we have to accommodate that too, and that's what our drive-through is going to act as to accommodate the people who want to pick up their coffee, want to get on with their day, They don't need to hang out around the coffee shop for a long period of time. If we can go to the third slide, I want to give you a background of how we got here. Okay. That is our current plat for the property. And I only bring it up because it's a 2007 plat. It's an amendment of one which was done in 2004, but here is our property. Here is Sharky Way, which we're asking for the variance from. Here is Town Center Drive. Leastown is up here. Sharky Way runs parallel to Leastown, which runs up here. Our lot is right here. The coffee shop will be located here and the commercial building right below it. And that setback line is listed as 20 feet, 20 foot setback along Sharky Way back in 2007. And if we go to the next slide, this is just a blow up of the slide you had before, the 2007 plant. That's Sharky Way again. Leastown is over here. And this dotted line is our 20 foot setback line. So when we planted this and when we developed this 10, 15 years ago, we had a setback line. We were required to meet 20 feet. We had to be set back 20 feet from Sharky Way. Now, you might ask, what's our setback along Town Center Drive? That's an access easement. That answers my question. It's an access easement. It's not a public road. Town Center Drive through here is not a public road. And the reason for that is back when we did our development, the city would not approve our angled parking on a public roadway. They said, you can do it, but you have to do it as a private access easement. They said, Dennis Anderson, you're going to maintain it. You're going to stripe it out. You're going to take care of the snow and all that sort of thing. If you do that, we'll let you have angled parking. Theories have changed. That is done on public streets a lot now. but we are an access easement because we're an access easement there is no setback requirement along town center drive up there so we're only asking for a variance along sharkey way we have been through the planning commission with this and i bring this is our approved development plan we went through the planning commission in april this year and got approval of our development plan which is the same layout as we presented to you in our application to you i just bring that up to say planning commission has seen this they've seen our layout it's gone through the sign-off procedures through traffic engineering traffic engineering has signed off on this and approved our layout of this property but they did note at the planning commission in their minutes which is the next one they have note 10 that we either had to get your approval of the variance along sharky way or we had to adjust our setback line now this next slide is the is the application we have presented to you which should be in your packet of what we want to do as far as setbacks on this property line the about where we're at is about six years ago after that plat you saw the city changed the setback line and b1 it had always been you had to have your building at least 20 feet back from the roadway which we'd complied with in which we that's how we designed townley center about six years ago they changed the ordinance to say not only is there going to be a setback line there's going be a set forward line so in b1 as it is written today your building has to be set back at least 10 feet from the road not 20 but it has to be at least 20 feet or closer to the roadway so you have a little window your building has to be set up in an area between between 10 and 20 feet back from the from the roadway that you're asking for so that was changed after town was developed part of our big problem here is we have tried to develop this as a cohesive community and we have developed this so that along sharkey way and i'll show you the exhibit in a minute we have a number of businesses that that rely upon automobile traffic in as well as pedestrian traffic we've tried to group those along sharkey way and the new ordinance would make us sort of out of line with what we already have which will take us to the next exhibit which is the aerial which is the one we've presented to you that shows townley center as it is today as you can see we're about 85 percent built out and the The area we're in, here is Sharky Way. Here is Town Center Drive. Lee's Town Road, again, is just off the picture on the top. If you've been out there, you recognize Zaxby's and Taco Bell and Wendy's have signs up on Lee's Town Road, but actually their fronts are fronting along Sharky Way. So I want you to look at what our setbacks are along Sharky Way. We can look at our fast food restaurants. Zaxby's is 122 feet back from Sharky. Taco Bell, 132. Wendy's, 67. The shell, the building is 80. This 40 dimension is just the canopy for the gas pumps. So all through here, we're averaging probably 90 or so feet back from Sharky Way. Now, those are B3. I will have to say those are the B3 highway service zones where they don't have the Build 2 line, but it's consistent the way we've been designing this. What about Walgreens? Walgreens is B1. It's exactly across the street from us. They're in the same zone we are. Their setback is 62 feet from Sharky Way. We're asking for 7310. I asked for 74. I wanted around 7310 to 74, so I asked for 74 feet set back here. We're also proposing another commercial building on the lot next to it, on the same lot next to the coffee shop of 68 feet 6 inches. Going down the road, there is one building, only one building, in the entire roadway here in area that is 20 feet back from Sharky Way, and that's the rear end of Dennis' office. That's in the P1 zone. That's in a different zone. It's an office building. That's the only building in this whole scheme that is 20 feet back from Sharky Way. Our stay bridge in and suites, that's in the P1 zone also. That's 160 feet back from Sharky Way. Going around the curve, the Kentowry Firestone is 60 feet back. the Lexington Postal Credit Union you all granted a variance last year allowing us to be 53 back both of these Kentowry and the Postal Credit are in the B1 zone same zone we are in now when we go along Roundstar Sharky Way you can see at the Holiday Inn Express we got 95 feet there 55 I think that's B3 the rest of these are B1 we have even in the back of Townley Center. We have the firehouse subs and the vinaigrette salad bar. And I want to point out even the vinaigrette salad restaurant needs a drive-thru window. I didn't know a salad restaurant would, but they need a drive-thru window to exist out here. The drive-thru windows on the side. That portion is 80 feet back from Hatter Lane. The closest portion is 53 back. We're 60 feet back from Sharky Way. Going back, our retail center in which we have the El Mariachi restaurant and we have the Happy Panda and other ones, that is 56 feet back on this side. Our other retail suite is 70 feet back from Hatter Lane through here. So in looking at this, if we were to build our coffee shop 10 or 15 feet back from Sharky Way, we would be the outlier in our development. We would be changing horses after 85% of our development is built to come to a different design model out here. That's not good for a development. You want to make your development consistent. I understand where new uses are going in and other parts of the community, and they want to be one consistent and have everything out near the road and all that sort of thing. But here, we've established this pattern over the last 15 years. We, by the way, won the Mayor's Award for Best Infill Development out here. Dennis has people coming in from out of state to look at it about successful mixed-use development. Dennis has developed in surrounding counties, and when you go up there and say we'd like to build something like Townley Center, they say, oh, yeah, I've been to Townley Center. That's real nice. Let's get something like this in our community. So it's real attractive and it's done real well, and we just want to keep it consistent with the way we've been doing it. So as you can see, I think the illustration, our aerial bird's-eye view of this shows that we should be consistent. Now, going back to the slide of our application to you, you can see that, again, here's Sharky Way. Here's Town Center Drive. Lee's Town is up here again. Here's our coffee shop, and here's our retail building. One reason we asked for 74 feet instead of 60 or something, which some of your other ones in our area are, is because we are showing our handicapped accessible parking space right here, which adds a little bit of length of a car there. And that's so that somebody in a wheelchair, if they're getting out of the wheelchair, they can come into the building without crossing a driving lane on that. So that's one reason we're a little farther back here. But you can see we have a drive-through situation here. we have a bypass lane which is advisable for drive-through windows so that if you come in and you want your coffee and you find 10 people in line in front of you and you say I just can't wait for this you can pull out and you can either come over and park and walk in or you can just leave we hope they wouldn't leave but they have the option of leaving too but we have designed this properly according to drive through standards with appropriate stacking distance and a bypass lane one thing we do not have is we do not have access to town center drive we always already have our slant parking there we don't have space for access from town center drive to come in here so all our traffic is going to have to come in most of it through this spot will come in some Some will go to the retail building. Some might come in here, but most of our coffee center traffic will come in. They could come around through the drive-through window, or they could park and they can go on in. We need the variance for our retail building as well so we have a consistent setback. So when you come in and make the turn, you can go either way and have a consistent setback and have the parking in the front as we do on our many of our other establishments in townley center i'm going to go down and show you we we are aware of what the staff has recommended and they have a concern about pedestrian accessibility so we asked the company we're talking with and unfortunately i would point out we're under a non-disclosure agreement with the company that wants to come in here we are not allowed to to disclose to anyone who is who dennis is talking to about coming in here but they have sent us a plan showing us how we'd have our crosswalks they proposed three crosswalks to get in from the other the sidewalk along town center drive or this is a and w back here from the a and w area more from just people coming from this parking lot over would have delineated pedestrian access in and out to the coffee shop right there and uh the mr murphy before you go on before you leave that diagram how do you how to how does a pedestrian get to the coffee shop from town center drive this is town center drive if you've been out there there's a little it's a brick sort of circle right middle of town center right we have a wide sidewalk going along here so you'd come in here and make the cross through this crosswalk into the door into the coffee shop right there there's so there's access right there to the coffee shop yes okay yes If you're from A&W area, you'd come here. If you're from this area, you'd come over here. I'm doing that. And our only access is from, our only vehicular access is from Sharky Way. We don't have any vehicular access from Town Center Drive. So, again, our reasons for wanting this are, one, we have to have a coffee shop that can be fiscally economically viable here and to do that we have to not only have a have a place that will serve the people who live out in townley but we have to attract the traffic that comes from out outside of townley to make this work to have a coffee shop we we can't have it it won't be supported by just our residents so we have to have one that does cater to some extent to automobile traffic. We think we've done a real good job of that here. But from the other side, in making it consistent with our development in Townley, we started our development in 2002 and as I said at this point it's about at least 85% built out. We do want to keep it consistent. Even if this weren't a coffee shop we'd probably be asking you for your variance to keep it consistent with the other businesses throughout the area we don't want to one of the businesses sticking out like a sore thumb in the middle of the rest of them that are set back as you can see from the handout probably averaging 60 feet 55 65 feet back and we do want to have our handicap accessible parking spaces adjacent to the building so people in wheelchairs don't have to cross any driving lanes. So my last slide, I just want to point out, you can't read it there, but this is the language from the Curran's case, which says it discusses all the various technicalities that you must meet to grant a variance. But then it says what we've got to remember, though, is that the Board of Adjustment is a safety valve, that zoning ordinances don't function without a safety valve for cases which i would say just like ours that's what you're here to function as the safety valve for this community so that's our case here i've probably forgotten to say a few things we had a lot to a lot to present to you but the it's important i mean this is you could say well this is just a coffee shop but it's important because coffee shops, like it or not, if you drink coffee or not, they're important community features in communities today. We really want a coffee shop here. We want one that is viable, but we want to be consistent with our development as well. So we think we have the unique circumstances which warrant you granting us a variance. I have done up findings. These are the same exact same findings which are in your statement of justification. I've just done them up as findings. I'll hand those out if that's okay with you all. Mr. Chairman, just reserve the right to rebut anything new that comes in. I think Ms. Zalbaugh is here and wants to speak to you as well. Great. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. would you like to step up state your name for the record and your address please my name is barbara all paul i live at 132 town square park we've lived in town center or Townley Park for 12 years. We were one of the first homes occupied on Town Square. We were there before any commercial. We love Townley Park. We love what Anderson communities have done for us. We do walk a lot. We frequent probably all the restaurants more than we probably should, but we do. and I have served on the Townley Park Neighborhood Association Board about seven years I have been the secretary we have discussed having a coffee shop in Townley Park as Mr. Murphy said for about a year we it comes up at every one of our board meetings because we feel like it's it's something we need something both the residents would enjoy being able to go to, but also complement what is already in Townley Park. With the exception of Wendy's, the other restaurants generally don't open until probably lunchtime. A coffee shop would fill the void early in the morning. It'd be mostly, I think, morning traffic. We just feel very strongly as a neighborhood association that this is one of the remaining properties is what we would like to have. We commend them for reaching out and finding a coffee shop. I also wanted to tell you June Salyer, who is our president, was coming with me today but had someone at her house that she didn't feel comfortable leaving doing something. So she could not come, but I said this is something our board has discussed. We are in all agreement for a coffee shop to come. and just hope that we can continue with the way that the Townley Park has been built. What is nice, when you come around, buildings are not sitting right on the curb. Everyone is back, and I think what Mr. Murphy has said is that this would just be consistent with the rest of our neighborhood. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Barbara. I'm sorry I didn't get your last name. A-L-B-A-U-T-H. Okay, thank you very much, Ms. A-L-B-A-U-T-H. Okay, anyone else from the audience? Staff, would you like to make your report, please? Okay. So this request is for a variance to increase the front setback from 20 feet to 74 feet. In this situation, this is different from Frank's Donuts because this is a drive-thru that is approved on a development plan as an accessory use, so we're not discussing whether or not we can have the drive-thru. That is already approved. The issue here is this front setback. We agree that Townley Center is an excellent example of a pedestrian-friendly development, as it is. and we believe that this plan would not be a benefit to the existing development as it is now. The property is about an acre in size, and we believe that there could be a new configuration that would still allow for a drive-through but would be more in keeping with the businesses along Town Center Drive. The applicant pointed out in their justification that Townley Center was designed to allow the commercial uses that are more dependent on automobile traffic to be clustered along Sharky Way, while uses that rely more heavily on pedestrian traffic are grouped in the shopping center along Town Center Drive. And this property is at the corner of those two. There are two buildings proposed here, and the one with the drive-thru has been placed at the corner of Town Center and Sharky. One possible way that we could make this better would be by putting the automobile-centric building along Sharky and perhaps moving the commercial building to town center drive then we could keep that consistent frontage along town center while they do not require a variance long town center as mr murphy pointed out that is an access easement and not a public road so there's no variance required there but the coffee shop is set back considerably further than the buildings you can see um we don't have anything up there do we sorry so the coffee shop would be adjacent to the a&w restaurant which you can see the sort of rounded portion there being consistent with that setback is important to continuing the pedestrian friendly environment that we have in town center and that makes it such a a unique development in Lexington. We would really like to continue to see that success maintain a consistent line there. The argument that this variance is necessary because the zoning ordinance has changed is not a sufficient reason to grant a variance. I think that's pretty clear. and we also are not comfortable with granting a variance for the commercial building because we don't know really anything about that building at this point our understanding is that that's sort of a placeholder structure and we don't know exactly what's going to be going there and we always recommend that we don't give variances for hypotheticals I guess that's Do you have any questions? That's all. Okay. Any questions for staff? Yeah, I do. What is the – I'm looking at the handout that was given us with all the setbacks, and it looks at a couple of things about that. There is a – I guess just south of this proposed where it says retail. yes that's where the a and w correct is on the corner the rounded corner and there's a patio yes other concerns that we had here are the the relationship between the drive-through and the patio and that that could be a detriment to folks who are enjoying the patio that the point of order is most likely right that vicinity um also you see that the sidewalk on on the site plan is quite wide at the a and w and that sidewalk slims down considerably as we move forward towards sharky way on the submitted site plan um that's because there's parking on on town center drive right well as you can see on this image that the apple bees across the street they are set back further from sharky way but they maintain the setback along town center drive with the two buildings marked retail and that sidewalk does maintain its width the full way towards sharkey um basically what they're doing here with this drive-through you see that there's this this complete u-shape around the building of a drive aisle that really seems to be a disparity with what we see here in the two retail buildings and even the applebees while they are set back from sharkey way they really are more in line with the relationship for the pedestrian and the b1 setback that we like to see a long town center could you could you solve the uh the concerns that you have with the a and w patio by requiring some kind of screening on the proposed uh on the proposed plan applicants plan on that south side i think that would be something that that the board could i mean i noticed when mr murphy showed the uh the uh the coffee shop uh plan there was some screening along the south side uh but it was inside of the proposed drive-through and if you put that screening on the outside of that proposed drive-through it would solve that a and w on the site plan that they show i'm not sure that there's that there's really room for screening there it would probably require them to move the building more towards sharky way which is what they're requesting the variance for so i don't know if that's something they would be interested in yeah um the uh there's a paint store there now in that same building south of the of that lot where it says retail in there i'm sorry there's isn't there a isn't there a paint store i'm not sure well i mean that's the where he's got that uh he's showing 70 foot setback at the very bottom of that picture that's up on the board right you said that the drive-through itself the drive-through concept was not what you all objected to does that is did i understand you correctly correct okay we don't have a problem with the drive-through the drive-through is not a conditional use in the situation so the drive-through is not what we're considering but the the layout of the drive-through is certainly disconcerting in the situation so the location of the drive-through is what's bothering you and we do believe that the site is is large enough that it could be reconfigured to meet the setbacks or perhaps a lesser variance and be more in character with the this pedestrian zone along Town Center did you all did the applicant and staff talk about different kinds of plans I believe that during their development plan process they did talk about some other options um i know that mr murphy had indicated that they might be interested in doing some things but i don't think that that actually that i think that this is the plan that they want i don't know that's a question for the applicant as to whether or not yeah no i share your concerns about the about the configure about the location of the drive-through i i agree with you about that i think there might be a better way of doing that other than what the plan is that they proposed and since they've got enough room for both a coffee shop and a commercial building it seems like there are any number of ways that you could reconfigure that so that the drive through would not diminish the pedestrian capabilities from town center nor should it uh adversely impact the a and w patio it seems to me that there there ought to be other possibilities there i agree with you about that thank you I think we have to remember, too, that many retail establishments have their own designs, the way they want the traffic flow. I mean, I've heard this over and over again about redesigns. But if you're trying to get a retail business in, they're not asking you to design their property for them. They're looking for a property that will fit their design. So to expect any developer to go back to a retailer and say, well, we want to redesign your building, even though you've done this for years and you've proved this is the way it should be, is just many times not a reasonable thing. And I don't know what this one is, but it's true with grocery stores. is true with all kinds of filling stations, just on and on. So many times it is not a problem that the developer can solve with that particular retail establishment, and I think we have to remember that. You're saying that the coffee shop franchisor may have a take-it-or-leave-it design. I'd like to add, I've been out there to look at this and look at the plan, and I think this plan fits the neighborhood. And I hate to disagree with staff because you all are smarter than I am, and you did exactly what the ordinance says you should do, and I appreciate that. But in this particular case, I see this plan as fitting what's going on in this particular place. And I think the plan looks good. I don't see any real problems with it. Some of the objections I do understand. Maybe there are some alternatives. But I think in general, I think this fits, and I think it's appropriate. and I think in terms of what a coffee shop needs in terms of traffic flow, and I think it fits the other establishments and businesses, and I think the addition of the pedestrian walkways makes a major difference as well. I would think this is appropriate for this area, and I would approve it. autumn uh the uh i'm looking at uh the plan as well and and i think mr murphy brought this out the vinaigrettes uh restaurant uh on hatter lane on the south side down there has is shown to have an 80 foot setback and he also i think he mentioned there's a drive through there now i don't i didn't see i i didn't drive by that particular part but is that is that correct that they have a drive-through it looks like the drive-through is set back 80 feet they do have it yeah okay and that would be probably that that building was constructed prior to the change in the ordinance prior to the change in the ordinance with the setback okay i also see in looking at coffee shops around town i think part of the problem with with traffic flow is they are too close to the street and there's not enough room for the motion of the drive-through and so i i think the requiring a 20 20 foot uh is is simply inappropriate for this particular establishment i i just it just looks so reasonable to me can i ask a question is uh the applebee's face sharky or does it face town center? It does face Sharky. Face is Sharky. I mean, yeah, I mean, I mean, I guess it could be reconfigured, but I'm not too opposed, really, to how it currently is configured. I mean, I guess, you know, you could, I mean, argue that the two retail shops with their curved kind of fronts toward Townley, they match up well. and with the Applebee's facing Sharky, you know, across the street, the proposed coffee shop facing Sharky is not, I don't think that looks too different. I mean, I guess it could get reconfigured, but, you know, I'd probably leave that up. The developer wasn't too far, you know, too strange. And, you know, maybe if there's some type of way to get a larger sidewalk, if that is a legitimate concern, but if it's not, I'm probably not opposed to the way it's proposed either. Although, you know, I can understand the facing to town center would be nice, but again, I don't know if it really matches what's going on with Applebee's, and I think it may draw from the two retail buildings a little bit. What's that? If it were facing Town Center, you've got a whole row of parking in there. Yeah, I like the consistency of what the two rounded corners on the two retail, and you're going to see both of those. If this faced and fronted Town Center... They wouldn't have their parking that they need. Yeah, no, I don't think it would be any better, really, But, you know, to me, it's however the ‑‑ it's not that ‑‑ it doesn't seem that off. So I would probably be more in favor just to accept the development that they've proposed. Any other questions? I got a question for Mr. Murphy. Okay. Thank you, Autumn. You're proposing two buildings. One is a coffee shop and one is a commercial building. What's going to go in the commercial building? We don't know at this point, but they will. A lot of the construction will be done at the same time. because dennis would be building at the very minimum this parking area at the same time so that later on it doesn't mess up the other tenants and all that sort of thing to do it so they're going to build the whole thing i mean it's you're going to build it the uh that uh commercial building the same time you build a coffee shop yeah we'll be doing working on that side of the lot yes for sure i don't know if the building will go up at this point or not dennis may be able to answer that okay i wasn't here for the swearing in okay but i will tell the truth do you tell it do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you your question was what's going to be in the retail building and are you going to build it at the same time you build a coffee shop we're going to complete all the site improvements so all the parking and curb will be put in all the sidewalks be put in it's very likely it will be constructed same time we have not entered into agreement yet you don't have a tenant yet we've been talking with Tzatziki and I don't know if we'll come to an agreement or not we did the deal with the Applebee's across the road which is owner either one of comment to on a and W I went to a and W and discussed with them who's working another transaction with her Kevin Basner is her president and we were working on a site in Georgetown I brought up that we were bringing in a national brand coffee his only concern was that you maintain the site line and look when we designed this development we set the shell way back we said athletes back a little bit and we brought this out real close. What national tenants want his visibility and accessibility and that was a MW's concern that we maintain the visibility here about this setting back a little bit this setting back more. The main sight line from is this way, but it preserves that visibility. That was his concern. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you. Did you approach Shell about their coffee sales? No. Okay. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Okay. Well, if there's no other questions, I would enter. Well, let me see. i i do the staff has the staff seen the uh proposed findings and conclusions for approval have you all taken a look at that yes is there anything that you all see in that that you find objectionable if the board is inclined to approve this application no um i i would prefer to not have number four in there if you all choose to approve it which is about strict compliance and making the use on the property impossible but other than that the rest of them look fine um there's also some conditions that probably need to be added mr clark has those okay okay based on that i would entertain a Entertain. A motion. A motion. I'll make the motion since I have the paper. I recommend approval of PLNBOA 1855, Dennis Anderson, requesting a variance to increase the maximum front setback from 20 feet to 74 feet in order to construct a coffee shop with a drive-thru and a commercial building in a neighborhood business B-1 association at 1745 Sharkey Way. And this is with the findings and conclusions that are presented by Mr. Murphy, except for number four, with the following conditions. Number one, the use shall be done in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan. Number two, all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Division of Planning and the Director of Building Inspection prior to occupancy. Number three, traffic circulation and layout of the parking areas shall be approved by the Division of Traffic Engineering. And number four, all parking areas shall be paved with spaces delineated and landscaped screened in accordance with the Article 16 and 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. So move. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Do I have a second? I second the motion. Thank you. Or thank you. Let's all take a vote. Okay, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Anderson, looks like it has been approved. Thank you. Good luck with the project. We're going to take an hour recess. Hour recess sounds great. I will never refuse to go to the front of the agenda again. I assure you that. You asked to go to the back. I was very wrong. That was a bad call. I no longer care about parliamentary procedures in any way, shape, or form. Okay. I think it's the last one on today. We're going to call PLNBOA 18-53 Crossroads Christian Church's request for an administrative appeal to transfer 64 square feet of unused signage to construct a 92 square foot freestanding sign in an expansion area residential zone at 4128 Todd's Road. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Crossroads Community Church. With me is Brian Carter, their executive pastor as well. We are in agreement with all of the conditions that the staff have put on the recommendation of approval. We only request that instead of limiting it to the 64 square feet, that you all do consider our full request for 92 square feet of this sign. We are here for a very simple reason, and that is that the existing signage for Crossroads is woefully inadequate. I will show you kind of the site, but there are a lot of specific problems with this parcel, such as slope and existing infrastructure that make it impossible to determine where the sign is located and where the entryway is located on Todd's Road. But before I get into the specific site, I do want to kind of introduce the Crossroads Church to you all. It is not your standard local kind of congregation that kind of draws the same people every weekday or, excuse me, every kind of service on the weekends. It is much more regional in nature. It is a Cincinnati-based operation that has seven locations in Cincinnati. They have operations in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton. And then kind of going down the I-75 corridor, there's a location in Georgetown, there's one here in Lexington, and also in Richmond. And this is on purpose. They have a kind of regional traveling congregation. They have a main service in Cincinnati, and that kind of service is then transmitted out to the various branches. One of their mottos, for example, is one church, many locations. And it is designed around kind of the folks that are, unfortunately, mobile by nature. And it allows them to always be able to attend kind of their home church regardless of where they are throughout this kind of corridor. Because of this, the signage for Crossroads is kind of very essential to their very use. and it's one of the reasons why they are located so close to the interstate being kind of having a large frontage along i-75 there also are several operations that occur kind of just on site there's a preschool that is there there is kind of school ministries that take place for middle school students for high school students there are kind of community support groups that occur at kind of later on at night. The building is actually open to the public from I believe it's 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. Monday through Friday where they offer free coffee, which I found out very recently. There's also kind of a lounge area where students can come after school to study, to pray, to do kind of, you know, have a kind of lounge area that is in the area. They also have community events. They have camps, they have leadership summits, and they even have a kind of weekday movie night. Many of these occur obviously at night, after work hours, and so again, kind of signage is very important in order to access the site. If you all are not familiar, where it is located is on Todd's Road when you are kind of past the interstate when you are leaving town. This is, as you approach Todd's Ridge Road, Todd's Road Bridge. And as you can see, you can't tell there's a church anywhere in this area. You cannot see a sign. You cannot see a steeple. You have no way to know that the entrance to this church is as soon as this bridge ends. Part of that has to do with the slope of the property. Another kind of feature is, unfortunately, these large concrete guardrails and the even larger metal fences to keep cars and traffic and debris and whatnot off of the interstate. Again, you cannot see where this church is. You cannot see where the sign is. This is where the start of the turn lane is on the bridge to get into the site, and you just now can start to almost see that there is a sign right there. You certainly cannot read it. you certainly cannot tell that that is where Crossroads Community Church is. It is not, or unfortunately, when you do start to actually see it, once it's past the concrete obstacles, you then are basically interject the utility poles. So right here is, again, the sign. This is just a kind of temporary sign that was for a weekend event this week. That, again, you have this utility poles that is blocking it. It is not until you can actually, the turn lane has kind of gone hard, where you're not supposed to be crossing over from the straight traffic to a turn lane, before you can actually tell that that's crossroads. It really isn't even until you are in the actual intersection that you can read the crossroad signs. Coming the other direction, you are faced with many similar problems. About the time where Todd's Road kind of expands, where you have to make your decision on where to go, You can kind of see that the sign is at the very top of the hill. But again, once you get to the turn lane, there's a utility box that is in the way. And once you're by the turn lane again, you are dealing with utility poles. This is kind of a long way of saying that the existing signage is woefully, woefully inadequate. Because of that, we had approached the planning staff almost a year ago. It was in September that we kind of first started this process in order to address what we needed, which would be expanded signage. That required a text amendment. We initially approached the planning staff looking for about 120 square feet of signage out front. They kind of reacted to that, saying that that was too large. and over several months, over several different drafts of a text amendment, we finally negotiated something that the planning staff felt that they were comfortable, that it addresses any of their concerns, and it also was adequate enough for us to make the exact request that we are here today making. We went through the full planning commission process. We went through committee hearings. We went through a public hearing. We then went to council for this. Throughout the entire time, it was very clear and very open and honest that we were going to be requesting a 92 foot sign. I give you that kind of background because it is with a little bit of frustration that we then get a staff report that is trying to limit it to only 64 feet. The reason that I am told is that there is a proposed rule on a revamped signage ordinance that will limit the signage square footage transfer from the same type of sign so if there are freestanding signs too are loud you can transfer freestanding square footage to a freestanding sign but you cannot transfer wall signage to a freestanding sign i want to stress that that is an internal planning staff discussion about a possible rule this rule has not been formalized it not has been it has not been proposed it has not been introduced to the planning commission there has been no public discussion on this i can assure you that the kind of representing several commercial developers several different entities that have taken advantage of the signage transfer we will be fighting against this proposed rule but it is not the rule today it is not even a proposed rule that's out there yet for public consumption and so to hold an applicant to this proposed internal rule i think is inappropriate it's also kind of frustrating that this was never discussed throughout the entire year long conversations we have had with the planning staff that this possibility could come up had it been so in the negotiations when we were talking about the different drafts in the different language that would go into that zoning ordinance we would have changed what we would have basically accepted and brought before the planning commission whether that would have been we're allowed two free standing signs that are 50 square feet in nature as opposed to 32. that would have solved this problem and taken this issue entirely off the table but we're past that point we already went through the zoning tax amendment process and this has simply never been brought up with regards to the specific concerns that staff issued for limiting it to 64 feet These were the exact concerns that we discussed throughout the ZODA process, that what would happen to churches inside the urban service boundary. We addressed that through the ZODA by making sure this was only for churches inside the expansion area, not the traditional urban service boundary. We made sure that it was very clear there are different rules that govern the expansion area than govern the traditional urban service boundary. We made it so that there were frontage requirements in order to make sure that this wouldn't run rampant for religious uses throughout the expansion area itself. And so, again, it is a little bit frustrating to get the staff report back where we kind of addressed these exact concerns. The planning staff felt comfortable with it. They presented a recommendation of approval to the planning commission, and it was then approved unanimously. land. Now, whenever I am representing a religious use before an administrative board, I feel kind of compelled. Rarely does the lawyer come out in me, but this is one instance where the lawyer has to come out. There is a federal law called RELUPA. It is called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Very, very, very briefly, and as boiled down as you can get, The gist of it is that when religious uses come before local land use planning bodies, it's a different standard than a normal applicant. It brings into things such as compelling governmental interests and making sure that any restriction placed on that religious use is done in the least restrictive manner possible in basically that interest of the compelling governmental interest. I bring this up because when churches come here, there are different rules. In 20 years, 246 churches have come before this body asking either conditional use, a variance, or some type of administrative appeal, which is what we are asking here today. In those 246 cases, this body has turned down a church eight times or put additional restrictions on an application eight times. four of which were outside the urban service area entirely and had no sewer whatsoever and it was determined that that would be inappropriate. Two of those instances were just where a church had acquired a single family residence and was attempting to do some type of community shelter there. So for a staff report to basically list the conditions of we think that's adequate enough for your religious use or we're worried about some future potential ramification precedence-wise down the road, we've never seen anything like that as a reason for kind of turning down an application or limiting an application. There was an example for religious use with a signage transfer that was brought before this board in 2009 that allowed a 200-square-foot sign on a 50-foot pole, and that was not turned down. putting all of that aside this is justified this request is justified based on the hardships that I kind of talked about with regards to the slope the infrastructure and the other kind of the you know kind of incidents of this particular parcel that are obstructing the view of this particular sign it also will not have any type of negative impact on the surrounding area because it is a parcel with 1,700 linear feet of frontage. A 92 square foot sign that is 20 feet off the road and basically sitting on 1,700 square feet is not going to have any type of adverse impact. That open space would dwarf the sign itself. It is directly adjacent to the interstate and it's directly across the street from a different church. If you think about applications that I've even brought before this board for similar transfer requests, you had Lexmark asking for a 117 square foot sign because of its substantial frontage. You also had the stockyards that brought in a 200 square foot sign because of its proximity and adjacentness to the interstate. And so we certainly think that this 92 square foot sign request is very much adequate because simply put, even double the size, maybe triple the size, you'd be able to see it at this point. So we're trying to do this to help our congregation that is traveling to get to this site. I was actually just informed that they had invited over at church last month in order to have a conversation on race relations. and several of the folks completely blew right by the church. They had no idea where it was. They even got several phone calls saying, where in the world are you guys located? This is a real-world example that just occurred why we need to address this. We think we have offered a rational and reasoned application, and we would request that you approve it subject to the staff's findings, simply implementing 92 square feet as opposed to the 64 cap. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have any questions about the church, about the application, about the ZODA, anything you all would like. Thank you. What are the dimensions? Come again. What are the dimensions? The dimension is it is 10 feet in height. It is 10 feet in height, and it appears 10 feet 9 inches wide. Here is an exhibit that was done. right i'm i'm thinking mr nicholson that the that the sign you're proposing is about the size of the screen we've got up there Maybe not that screen. I would say it certainly is not, I would not say that it's that large at all. Not the one behind us, but the one behind you. Ten feet, I would say that's not. About, it is, but it's also located 22 feet off of the roadway. 22 feet off the roadway. And so take that into consideration, move that 22 feet back, and that is certainly a smaller looking sign. It certainly does not have a large-scale feel from the roadway to the traveling public, especially when coming across the interstate. 94 feet would be 9.7 or so on each side. You said that yours was 10 feet by something. with a with a decorative base in order to basically make sure that the the initial signage is visible from the road not at the very bottom the measurements you gave me does that include the base then that includes the base yes say because this is more than okay yes and i i there there are two different ways to talk um what the code of ordinance says and what reality is i gave you reality that this thing is basically 10 feet by 10 by 9 the actual measurement of signage is smaller than that because they do not include bases they do not include any decorative ribbon ribbon around the top i figured you wanted reality. And the height of the freestanding sign was another one of the kind of specific discussed points with the Zoda. This is in a, the church is in a residential zone. It's in the EAL expansion zone, yes. Is this an electronic sign? It is not an electronic sign. It's a paneled sign. It will have light, but it is not a flashing electronic. It is a hard panel that would be able to be replaced. So it can't be changed except manually. Correct. And so when the latest Bible series will come in, they will put up the panel advertising the specific Bible series that's being discussed. There's currently no signage on 75. There is not. And with this proposal, we would not be suggesting that. There is a solid kind of tree buffer there. We were originally looking at doing a large wall sign along the back to show from the interstate crossroads across the top of the building. But the amount of buffer back there, it just would not be effective at all. Okay. The sign of the church across the street, did they have a sign of this magnitude? I'm not sure. the specific size of that i did not check from what i can recall mostly theirs is wall signage and it is kind of on top of the hill that white white panel is the four right there okay so right there is significantly larger than what we have There are also several, it's one of these kind of loopholes in the system when it comes to the sign ordinance. There are, when you're driving along Todd's Road, I noticed this when it was out there on Friday, obviously at 3.37 p.m., but there's about eight neighborhoods as you go along Todd's Road that have substantial grand entrance designs. I had to find the humor in seeing how substantial those signs were and then driving up and seeing this little guy but neighborhood associations have different rules any more questions from the board yeah I have a question for staff is there a set back of a sign of this size. I mean he's saying 22 feet. You're saying you can put it. We're putting it 22 feet and that is per the site plan that is submitted with his application so that would be a binding condition. But is there. We think it's 10 feet but we're checking. Okay. I think she is correct there. So we are more than doubling what the kind of recommended setback would be. Well, I think that's very important, the sign of the sign, so that it doesn't obstruct traffic. Good. Yes, sir. Is this a double-sided sign? It is. The same panels are on the same side for each lecture series. Okay. So it looks the same on one side as it does the other. It does. Let me just... this may seem somewhat negative, but I worry somewhat about the fact that, and I understand the nature of the church, and I appreciate that. And that's actually very interesting. I appreciate that. On the other hand, I'm not sure the more regional nature is the difference here because there are lots of regional and national firms that have to abide by our rules as well, whether it's Lowe's or Applebee's or whomever. So I think that's an argument that I think we have to consider a little differently. I do want to at least point out that we are abiding by the rules. What we are requesting is perfectly allowable within the zoning ordinance, and it is not going above and beyond what is currently contemplated. I also wanted to make sure that I stress the physical issues with this specific parcel and signage associated with it. It is not just because it is a regional church. It is also a hardship based on this parcel. I understand that. Yes, sir. This is an administrative appeal. It is. Are you appealing from the staffs? The building inspections denial of a signed permit is basically what initiates the signage transfers. Okay. And did they, was that a written document that they denied? It is the standard kind of, if you are above 32 square feet, you must go to the board. Okay, gotcha. All right, thanks. Would the staff like to make any comments? Thank you, Autumn. Our primary concern is that the requested sign is nearly three times the size that is is permitted by the zoning ordinance without a transfer. In all of our residential zones, excluding your mixed use zones, which are commercial and residential, 32 square feet is the largest sign that is permitted by right for any use. So a sign that is three times that is a pretty large increase and we are recommending to double that to 64 because we believe that that is more in line with the character of the area. and would be a better precedent overall for this type of transfer. Again, the church is not in a commercial zone. You can see that there are really not a lot of signs on this stretch here, so a particularly large sign would stand out that much more. To speak to some of what the applicant has discussed, the zoning ordinance text amendment was in no way an approval of this request. That was whenever the planning commission approves a text amendment, they are looking at the ramifications of that text amendment to the county as a whole. So while they do discuss the individual applicant's request at times, they are really approving this for the entire urban county. So to say that we indicated one thing or allowed them to do this is not really relevant. This is something that they, by the Texas Amendment being approved, they are able to make this request for a transfer of this size, but in no way implicates the board to approve that. Do you have any other questions for me? Is the zoning across the street, across Todd's Road, the same? I believe so. Okay. And is the zoning inside I-75 the same, or is it different? It looks residential. I believe it's still the EAR, too. This is the residential zone. Okay. I mean, this is the first property you get to when you're crossing I-75 on Todd's Road. is that right correct all right so how does the staff feel about the precedence that would be established we do feel that it could set a precedent um because this is such a major increase to triple the signage um but we are more comfortable with the proposed variance that that we've suggested of doubling it to 64 square feet. Transfers are freely granted or have been granted in the past, I guess. Is that correct? Yes. And the request for 94 feet is, I mean, they have 94 feet, they just don't have it in? Correct, yes. Okay. They would be giving up their additional freestanding sign and some wall signage. Okay, so this would be the only sign on this property? I believe so. All right. Any comments more from the board? Mr. Clark? Good. Okay. Ms. Carter? Okay. Well, then I will entertain a motion. I'll attempt a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve 18-53 Crossroads Christian Church request for an administrative appeal to transfer 64 feet of unused signage to construct a 92 square foot freestanding sign in an expansion area of residential zone at 40%. 4128 Todd's Road for the reasons that we have discussed in the hearing, the testimony that's been given and subject to the three conditions in the staff report. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Glover, do I have a second? Mr. Chairman, you might need to tweak one of the conditions. I'm sorry? You might need to tweak one of the conditions that refers to a 64 square foot sign. You're right. To be clear, you said 64 or 94? Well, they're transferring 64 feet, right? Right. And so condition number one should read no more than 92 feet. Yeah, sorry. Thank you. I've had that. Didn't mention it. Okay. I second the revised motion of 92 feet. Thank you. Please cast your vote. Okay. It looks like the motion has been approved. That was much more suspenseful. Yeah. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Okay. I guess that I have to announce that any items a board member wishes to present will be heard at this time. Okay. I don't hear any. and I'll announce that any staff member that wishes to present should be heard at this time. I think that we need to have a very brief closed session to discuss a pending litigation matter. So I have a motion if you all don't have it. Okay. Can we adjourn and then have the closed hearing or do we need to? No. So we just need to go, we need to have a. You'll need to have a closed session and then you'll have to come back out. I don't expect that you will need a vote when you come out, but you might. And then you could adjourn then. Okay. Do we need a motion to. Go into closed session? Go into closed session. If we do, I so move. I second. Great. Approved. We will go into a closed session. We are out of closed session. The next meeting, the chair will announce the next meeting date will be September 10th, 2018. If there's no further business, we will declare this meeting adjourned. So moved. Thank you.