# Board of Adjustment - October 8, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 8, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4605 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4605?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-10-08 - **Last revised**: October 8, 2018 - **Length**: 27,110 words - **Speakers**: Near Was The Word I Think > ⚠️ **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 October 8, 2018, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Branden Gross presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed seven agenda items during the session, including multiple variance requests and conditional use permits for various development projects throughout the county. The board took eight votes on the matters before them and heard six public comments from community members regarding the proposed projects. Of the seven items considered, five were approved, one was tabled for future consideration, and one administrative appeal was denied, demonstrating active deliberation on zoning and development issues affecting the Lexington-Fayette County community. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on October 8, 2018: • Branden Gross • Jan Meyer • Raquel Carter • Chad Needham • Harry Clarke • Thomas Glover • Joan Whitman All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The board took action on eight items during the October 8, 2018 meeting. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] Thomas Glover motioned to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2018 meeting, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed unanimously 7-0 with all members voting in favor: Branden Gross, Jan Meyer, Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, and Joan Whitman. **PLN-BOA-18-00065** [timestamp: 10:00] Harry Clarke motioned for a variance to reduce the required setback of a 6-foot tall fence, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed 6-1 by roll call vote. Voting in favor: Branden Gross, Jan Meyer, Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, Harry Clarke, and Joan Whitman. Thomas Glover voted against. The approval includes the condition that the applicant shall submit corrected drawings within 30 days. **PLN-BOA-18-00068** [timestamp: 20:00] Thomas Glover motioned for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for a four-plex, seconded by Jan Meyer. The motion passed unanimously 7-0. The approval requires that the four-plex shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan. **PLN-BOA-18-00071** [timestamp: 30:00] Thomas Glover motioned for a conditional use permit to operate a funeral home, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed 6-1 by roll call vote. Voting in favor: Branden Gross, Jan Meyer, Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, Harry Clarke, and Thomas Glover. Joan Whitman voted against. The approval includes the condition that no embalming shall occur on the subject property. **PLN-BOA-18-00057** [timestamp: 40:00] Raquel Carter motioned for a conditional use permit for a drive-through facility at Frank's Donuts, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed 4-3 by roll call vote. Voting in favor: Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, and Joan Whitman. Voting against: Jan Meyer, Chad Needham, and Thomas Glover. The approval requires that there shall be no access on Grinstead, with entry and exit points on East Third Street only. **PLN-BOA-18-00066** [timestamp: 50:00] Thomas Glover motioned to postpone the conditional use permit to expand a church parking lot, seconded by Jan Meyer. The postponement was approved unanimously 6-0. **PLN-BOA-18-00070** [timestamp: 60:00] Chad Needham motioned for a conditional use permit for a drive-through accessory to a convenience store, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed 4-2 by roll call vote. Voting in favor: Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, and Chad Needham. Voting against: Jan Meyer and Thomas Glover. The approval requires the applicant to maintain landscaped screening near the rear property line. **PLN-BOA-18-00067** [timestamp: 70:00] Thomas Glover motioned on an administrative appeal to increase the allowable size of an accessory structure, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion failed unanimously 0-6, with all present members voting against: Branden Gross, Jan Meyer, Raquel Carter, Chad Needham, Harry Clarke, and Thomas Glover. ## Public Comment Six community members addressed the board during the public comment period, with most comments focusing on proposed drive-through establishments in the neighborhood. **Thomas Tolliver** [timestamp: 90:00] spoke in support of Frank's Donuts, expressing strong support for the economic development the business would bring to the neighborhood. **Billie Mallory** [timestamp: 95:00] opposed the Frank's Donuts drive-through proposal, citing concerns about traffic and safety issues. Mallory emphasized that the neighborhood has plans to become more walkable and bikeable, which would conflict with drive-through operations. **Angelia Drake** [timestamp: 100:00] raised safety concerns specifically related to children who use Charles Young Park. Drake expressed worries about how the proposed drive-through would impact child safety in the area. **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 105:00] presented opposition to the drive-through proposal through a PowerPoint presentation that detailed the potential impact on the neighborhood and its development plans. **James Brown** [timestamp: 110:00] shared concerns about the drive-through's impact on the neighborhood while suggesting that if the proposal were to be approved, certain conditions should be attached to mitigate negative effects. **Rita Miller** [timestamp: 120:00] addressed a different drive-through proposal at Clark's Central, expressing opposition based on concerns about alcohol sales through the drive-through and the potential impact on neighborhood safety. The public comments revealed a clear division in community opinion, with one speaker supporting economic development opportunities while five others raised various concerns about drive-through operations, including traffic safety, pedestrian accessibility, child safety, and alcohol sales policies. ## Appointments The meeting included one appointment action during the session. Richard Weber was reappointed to the Landscape Review Committee. The reappointment was processed as part of the meeting's administrative business. No additional details about the term length or specific responsibilities were provided in the available meeting materials for this appointment action. ## Contested Items Two drive-through proposals generated significant community opposition during the October 8, 2018 meeting. **Frank's Donuts Drive-Through** The proposed drive-through addition at Frank's Donuts faced resistance from several community members who attended the meeting. Residents expressed concerns primarily focused on traffic and safety issues that could result from the new drive-through service. The community members worried about how the additional vehicle traffic would impact the surrounding area and whether adequate safety measures were in place to protect pedestrians and other drivers. **Clark's Central Drive-Through** A second drive-through proposal at Clark's Central also drew community opposition, though for different reasons. The primary concern raised by residents centered on the establishment's plan to sell alcohol through the drive-through service. Community members questioned whether allowing drive-through alcohol sales would negatively impact neighborhood safety and expressed worries about the potential consequences of making alcoholic beverages more readily accessible through this service model. Both contested items highlight community engagement in local business development decisions, with residents actively participating in the public process to voice their concerns about how these commercial changes might affect their neighborhoods. The opposition in both cases focused on safety-related issues, though the specific nature of the safety concerns differed between the two proposals - traffic safety for Frank's Donuts and public safety related to alcohol accessibility for Clark's Central. *Note: Specific timestamp information and final outcomes for these contested items were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## Variance for Fence Setback The Board of Adjustment considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00065, a request for a variance to reduce the required setback of a 6-foot tall fence in a side street side yard [timestamp: 10:00]. Matthew Stinnett served as the key speaker for this variance request, which sought to allow construction of a 6-foot tall fence with reduced setback requirements from what is typically mandated in side street side yard areas. The application requested relief from standard zoning ordinance provisions that establish minimum setback distances for fences of this height when located adjacent to side streets. The variance would permit the fence to be constructed closer to the property line than normally allowed under current regulations. Following presentation and discussion of the variance request, the Board of Adjustment approved PLN-BOA-18-00065. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with installation of the 6-foot tall fence with the reduced setback as requested. *Note: Limited transcript details were available for this agenda item. The summary is based on the structured meeting data and agenda information provided.* ## Variance for Four-Plex Construction The Board of Adjustment considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00068, a request for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback for four-plex construction [timestamp: 20:00]. The variance application sought to modify standard setback requirements to accommodate the proposed four-unit residential development. Key speakers during the discussion included Taylor Steele and David Jones, who presented details about the project and addressed questions from board members. The applicant requested relief from the standard side yard setback requirements, which would otherwise prevent the construction of the four-plex as designed. The discussion centered on the specific setback reduction needed and how this variance would impact the surrounding neighborhood and comply with local zoning regulations. Board members evaluated the request against the standard criteria for variance approval, including whether the application demonstrated practical difficulties, whether the variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and if the request was the minimum necessary to address the hardship. Following deliberation on the merits of the application and consideration of the evidence presented, the Board of Adjustment approved the variance request. This decision allows the applicant to proceed with construction of the four-plex with the reduced side yard setback as requested in PLN-BOA-18-00068. The approval enables the development to move forward while maintaining compliance with modified setback requirements that the board determined were appropriate for this specific property and situation. ## Conditional Use Permit for Funeral Home The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00071, a request for a conditional use permit to operate a funeral home in conjunction with a place of religious assembly [timestamp: 30:00]. Jacob Walbourn served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposal to the board. The application sought approval to establish funeral home operations alongside an existing religious assembly facility. The request represented a dual-use proposal that would allow the property to serve both religious and funeral service functions. This type of combined use requires special consideration under local zoning regulations, as funeral homes typically require conditional use permits due to their specialized nature and potential community impacts. The board reviewed the application and considered the compatibility of funeral home operations with the existing religious assembly use. Such combinations are not uncommon, as many religious organizations seek to provide comprehensive services to their congregations and communities. Following their deliberation, the board approved the conditional use permit request. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with operating the funeral home in conjunction with the place of religious assembly, subject to any conditions that may have been established as part of the permit approval process. The successful outcome enables the dual-use facility to serve both religious and funeral service needs within the community, providing expanded services while maintaining compliance with local zoning requirements. ## Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Through at Frank's Donuts [timestamp: 40:00] The Board of Adjustment considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00057, a request for a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through facility at Frank's Donuts. Antonio Carranza served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The application sought approval for the installation of drive-through service at the existing Frank's Donuts location. The Board of Adjustment approved the conditional use permit for the drive-through facility at Frank's Donuts. The approval allows the business to proceed with adding drive-through service to their current operations. ## Conditional Use Permit for Drive-Through at Clark's Central [timestamp: 60:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00070, a request for a conditional use permit to allow a drive-through accessory to a convenience store at Clark's Central. Doug Martin presented the application on behalf of the project. The request sought approval for adding drive-through service capabilities to an existing convenience store operation. The conditional use permit process was required because drive-through facilities are considered accessory uses that need special approval in the applicable zoning district. The drive-through would serve as a convenience feature for customers of the existing store, allowing them to make purchases without entering the building. The board reviewed the application materials and considered the proposal's compliance with local zoning requirements and conditional use permit standards. The discussion focused on the operational aspects of the proposed drive-through and its compatibility with the surrounding area. Following their review and discussion of the application, the board voted to approve the conditional use permit for the drive-through facility at Clark's Central. The approval allows the convenience store to move forward with implementing the drive-through service as an accessory use to their primary retail operation. The approved permit enables Clark's Central to enhance their customer service offerings while maintaining compliance with local land use regulations governing drive-through facilities in the area. ## Administrative Appeal for Accessory Structure Size [timestamp: 70:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-18-00067, an administrative appeal requesting to increase the allowable size of an accessory structure. Joseph Hudson served as the key speaker for this item. The request sought approval to exceed the standard size limitations for an accessory structure through the administrative appeal process. Hudson presented the case for why the increased size should be permitted for the proposed structure. Following discussion and consideration of the appeal, the board ultimately **denied** the request. The denial means the accessory structure must comply with the existing size restrictions under current regulations, and the applicant cannot proceed with the larger structure as originally proposed. The board's decision maintains the established size limitations for accessory structures in the applicable zoning district. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of the minutes of the September 10, 2018 meeting - **PLN-BOA-18-00065** — passed (6-1): Variance to reduce the required setback of a 6 foot tall fence - **PLN-BOA-18-00068** — passed (7-0): Variance to reduce the required side yard setback for a four-plex - **PLN-BOA-18-00071** — passed (6-1): Conditional use permit to operate a funeral home - **PLN-BOA-18-00057** — passed (4-3): Conditional use permit for a drive-through facility at Frank's Donuts - **PLN-BOA-18-00066** — postponed (6-0): Conditional use permit to expand a church parking lot - **PLN-BOA-18-00070** — passed (4-2): Conditional use permit for a drive-through accessory to a convenience store - **PLN-BOA-18-00067** — failed (0-6): Administrative appeal to increase the allowable size of an accessory structure --- ## Full transcript I was something to see, like a rock And I stood arrow straight, unencumbered by the weight of all these hustlers and their schemes I stood proud, I stood tall, high above it all I still believed in my dreams. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I will now start the October 8, 2018 Board of Adjustment meeting. We've got several items I want to address with you first. If you have a cell phone, please make sure it's turned off or put on silent so it doesn't rain during the hearing. The normal order for cases is for me to call each case. We will go through to see if there's any opposition or not. If there's opposition, I'll give you an opportunity to maybe speak with the person in opposition and the applicant. Sometimes it's just neighbors want to know what's going on, and a resolution could be made prior to the case being called before us. We'll go through each item on the agenda, and then I'll go through the same thing. Cases that have no opposition will be heard first, and then cases with opposition would be heard at the tail end of that. Normally what we'll do is if we need to, it will be staff, applicant, opposition, and then time for rebuttal in each case. If it's no opposition, then normally the staff won't be involved. If it is a disapproval, the staff will normally go first and explain why they've recommended disapproval to give the applicant a chance to discuss. Do not approach us or speak without being addressed and recognized by myself or one of the other members. Are there any letters in support or opposition today for any of these cases? For PLNBOA 18-65, we have several letters. Okay. We have letters for PLN 18-00057, Frank's Donuts. One letter for BOA 18-66, Berea Christian Church. And we have some letters for 18-70, Clark Central. Okay. So in each one of those cases which will have letters, We'll take a few minutes before we actually start presenting the case so that the board has an opportunity to read each one of those letters. We'll just pass them down the line. If you have presentations that you want to put into the record and you're discussing, if you want to hand them to us, you also need to give a copy to the clerk so they can be put into evidence today. for those who will be speaking whether in opposition or in favor of application at this time if you will rise i will swear you in this is only if you plan to come into the podium in speaking to us today so if you want to talk today stand up and raise your right hand do you firm or swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth Thank you. If you did not get sworn in, you should come to the podium to speak today. But if for some reason you change your mind, we can then just have you sworn in at the podium. All right. And then lastly, if you are in opposition of a matter today and the staff has recommended approval, or if you are in favor and the staff has recommended disapproval, if you are going against the staff's recommendation, we will need to do findings of fact before we can overturn that recommendation. And so if you have not proposed those, then what we'll do is we'll have to get the legal department to put those together. So with all that being said, what we're going to do now is run through the agenda. The first item is the approval of the September 10, 2018 minutes. those were circulated did anyone have any issues or want any changes to those and if not then I will hear a motion I move to approve we have a first and a second to approve the minutes for the September 10th meeting all those in favor please register your vote Thank you. All right. At this time, is there anyone who would like to either withdraw or postpone their application and not be heard today? Okay. So the first item I'm going to call on the agenda is the variance appeal, PLN BOA 1865. Matthew Sten is the applicant present. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here in opposition to this matter today? PLN BOA 1865, located at 766 Hilden Drive. All right. We do have some letters, so we'll need to look at those, but you'll be the first case called. The next item is PLN BOA 1868 Jones in Southern Properties, LLC. The applicant present? Thank you, gentlemen. Is there anyone here in opposition to this matter today? This is for 530 Marino Street. Okay. No opposition. You will be called second. The next item on the agenda is Frank's Donuts, PLNBOA 1857. Is the applicant present? Yes. Thank you, sir. I see your engineer is also here. Is there anyone here in opposition to the application for 547 and 549 East 3rd Street? We have three people in the back. That will be heard. At this time, I know you guys have had discussions. Is there any reason for you guys to think you can resolve this between now and the time we hear Mr. Stewart? You think there's? Okay, then we'll have it heard then. The next item is PLN BOA 1866 Berea Christian Church. Applicant, thank you, sir. Anyone here in opposition? Okay, we do have one letter, and the staff has recommended a postponement of this matter. Do you want to have a postponement, or would you like to be heard? Well, I went to see what discussed with them. I had to go back to my church and talk to them. I did that, and then I'm trying to get back home with you. This is the weeks we're going to keep getting hold of. Okay, we'll come up here to the podium real fast. And the reason I want to talk to you is I don't want you to sit here all afternoon if we're going to end up postponing it. Please put your name on the record for us. Sam Broner. And you are with the church? I am Deacon of the church, yes. At this point, the staff has recommended additional information related to the parking and the design. Yes, sir. and from what you're telling me it sounds like from what you mentioned is that you have not been able to discuss this with the staff? I discussed it with the staff last Monday, I think it was, and we came up with an option that I needed to go back and discuss with my church, which I did, and then I was going to try to get a hold of Casey or Steve, I think it is, Mr. Parker, and I've left the messages, but they were off the rest of the week last week. Yeah, last week was fall break, so I know that a lot of people with children were gone. Well, at this point, the staff has recommended postponement, and it does not sound like you have come to a final agreement with the staff over the design. Would it be prudent to postpone this until next month? Because we don't have anything to look at right now. Okay, so let me just explain real quick. We have two entry points to Berea Road, and by putting the parking lot on the other side of the church, an additional parking lot on the other side of the church, it would require a third one, and they had some concerns with that. But if we dropped off, we knocked out one of our previous entry points, then they seemed acceptable to that. Well, I had to go find out if it's okay with our people. And I've been trying to find out now, calling them, and trying to find out is if they were if that was still on the table just having the two interests could i still put this in and that is the part i haven't heard back from now as far as postponing it putting blacktop down by the time we get into november the blacktop places are going to be shut down so i won't be able to do it um i don't know if there's a possibility of a tentative approval upon their approval of what i've been able to come up with i don't know i'm just well let me do this then it sounds like you we'll we'll have your case called okay so if you want to have a seat sir then we will just go ahead and call it and we'll listen to the staff and traffic and try to see what we got in the meantime do you have any plans have you submitted revised plans to the staff got revised. Okay. I haven't had time to get that together, but I can show you the plans. I did submit what what we discussed. Okay. All right. Appreciate The next item is PLN BOA 18 dash 70 Clark Central LLC applicant present. Thank you, sir. Opposition. This is for the 1419 Verciles Road project. We have one in opposition, so we'll have that one to be heard. Ma'am, is there any reason you think that speaking with the applicant before the hearing would resolve your opposition? I don't speak to him. Okay. Prior to hearing him. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Next item is PLM BOA 1871, James Fender. is the applicant present thank you sir thank you and is there anyone in opposition of the request at one five four five Russell Cave Road all right no opposition we will have that one heard next and then we have a one administrative review which is PLN BOA 1867 Joseph Hudson is the applicant present this is joseph hudson at 280 bassett avenue all right well we'll have i'll call this one again between now and the end of our hearings So the first case in which I noted that we do not have any opposition is the case PLNB-081865, Matthew Stenna and Tanya Jernigan at 766 Hilden Drive. I believe we have some letters we need to look at first before we have the case heard, but staff has recommended approval. So if you'd like to come up real quickly while we're looking at letters, we'll do a little bit of housecleaning. Sure. First, put your name on the record, please. Sure. My name is Matthew Stinnett. I'm with my wife, Tanya Jernigan. Mr. Stinnett, the staff has recommended approval. The approval is recommended based upon a subject to one condition. Have you seen that condition? I have. And you and your wife are agreeable to abide by that condition? Yes, sir. All right. Well, in that case, have a seat. We'll look at these, and if we have any questions, if we look at the letters or about your application, we'll call you back up. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Grubbs. Man, they've locked down. Thank you. Mr. Stinnett, come on up to the podium, please. Sir, we have received several letters. I think one was in support and the other ones were in opposition. Is that my recollection, Mr. Clark? And so does anyone from the board have any questions for the applicant based upon the review of the letters or otherwise? Would you explain to us how you happened to have, you had a permit that was an approved permit that was within the setback, and then we ended up with a fence that wasn't within the setback. So would you walk us through that, please? Sure. I talked about that with my contractor in advance about making sure that it was permitted and done correctly. And when he installed it, and it's totally my fault, I'll take blame, but when he installed the post, he believed he could get the setback and not disturb any of the tree line because there's five dogwoods that run behind the fence line, and they're not evenly spaced, so there's no nice way to do it. He thought he could, and when we came home, we realized in one half the fence line he was off a little bit and at that point that's when we realized we're going to have to seek this process rather than rip up the entire fence because ultimately to do it we would have to remove at minimum two of the trees and or also kind of make almost like a zigzag pattern between the trees if we're going to try to preserve the trees so i take full blame for that but that's how we ended up at that process mr senate explain to us how much of the fence is is 21 inches from the sidewalk and how much is three feet from the sidewalk seems like it changes from from one end to the other it does again because of the tree line structure it's in compliance at the the end closest to zandale I'm not sure cardinal direction-wise which end that is. It is in compliance. It goes out of compliance because of one particular dogwood tree. If you look at my submission letter, that's the tree that is absolutely butted up to it. It goes back into compliance again. And then at the end, when they were trying to match up another neighbor's fence where we were trying to join properly, it goes out of alignment again. And that's the pattern. Again, I accept responsibility for that mistake. So the end closest to your neighbor's driveway is back at 21? It's just shy of 21, yes. Yes, sir. Thank you. Do you have a picture? Sure. We submitted a letter. I did not bring copies for everyone, though. If you want to hand them to us, we will pass them. It would be recommended you leave them as evidence for the clerk. So do you have duplicates at home? I can make that happen. Okay. Of course, Mr. Gross. Yeah. Yeah. And, Mr. Carter, we submitted a number of pictures, both shown before and after. I think one concern will be the safety regarding the driveway. Sure. Could you explain, based upon the driveway, how far between the neighbor's driveway and their fence, and then how much space is there for a view so when they're pulling out that they're not going to necessarily? Oh, perfect. The concern would be, because I know that's a very walkable neighborhood, and the concern would be people coming down and someone pulling out of that neighbor driveway. and there being a miss? Sure. No, that's a fair point. I spoke at Link. The neighbor here on the near side is JJ and Megan Housley. They have two kids. We're good friends with our kids. We spoke with them with Link before we did this. The pre-existing fence was a four-foot chain link fence, which actually is about a foot closer to the right-of-way, and then there was a bush that covered about two-thirds of the right-of-way that matched the height of the fence. So in fact, this is actually you have a larger viewpoint when you pull up the driveway. In terms of viewpoint, when I spoke to Mr. Housley, he felt very comfortable with it because on the other side of the right-of-way is about six feet of green space, so he is able to pull his car up almost fully and see either down either end of the street for Hilding. And he was very much approved of the fence and felt safe and that was actually my um other question where the the old fence sat the old fence the old fence was about a foot closer to the to the right of way than the new fence we tried to set the new fence back further i don't know when the old fence was installed if it was pre-passage of the ordinance or not but it was only about a foot behind the the right-of-way. And we submitted a picture showing that we were behind the old posts. May I ask the staff a question? One of the complaints is visibility of people driving and pulling out of driveways. My question is, is the part of the fence not in compliance? Would that in any way affect the visibility? from what I'm seeing here I don't see how the visibility could be changed really one way or the other because of a few inches out of compliance right overall the defense is further than 21 inches that's that is the the narrowest portion and at this end near the driveway I measured it at about 32 inches and we do have that additional green space in the right of way to the road so it does appear that someone pulling out of that driveway would have sufficient room to pull pull towards the street and see so autumn are you saying it's at this corner at that corner 32 inches okay so we're looking at four inches for this particular corner all right We're still passing your exhibit down. In the meantime, any other questions? All right, well, give us a second. Let's flip through your photos. Sure. So staff, I guess I'm asking the question, if the fence was completely in compliance, would the visibility still be a problem? Even though everything is legal, there's nothing wrong, wouldn't be anything wrong with it. I guess that's my question. If it was perfectly legal, would there be any reason why it would not be approved in terms of visibility? No. If it were at the 36-inch setback, it would be approved. Even where it is now, though, there's not an issue with the site triangle. So there's no specified visibility issue that prevents them. No. we have had previous applicants before us with similar circumstances who built six-foot fences in residential zones which we have disapproved how is this one different In this case, the variance is for a lesser distance. As I said, 21 inches is the most narrow point, but a large portion of the fence is closer to being compliant than that. And this is only for a smaller portion of the yard. This is a uniquely shaped lot. It's sort of a triangle, and they have a pretty significant amount of frontage, and the portion that this fence is along is only about 25 percent plus this is the side yard not the front yard so the four foot requirement is for a front yard versus a side yard also so even though this address is on hildeen and this is this fence is on hildeen this is considered a side yard yes this is a side side yard yes how is that the the way that the house is situated the residents on Hildene would think that this is the backyard of that house as well I mean they do now because there's a fence right well I think if you have the way yeah if you the house is oriented towards Zandale and this is the the rear side yard if you look at the aerial it looks like the yeah that was hard the yeah even though the front walk is on Hildean it appears to be around the bend Hildean bends I see that so I guess so the front yard would be The entrance to your house is off of Zandale, correct? Hildene. It looks like. Come on up. It's a really odd lot. The driveway is off Zandale. The sidewalk which reaches our house comes off Hildene, but the house does face more towards Zandale. Again, it's a really unique, odd lot where there's a convergence of streets. Kind of a peninsula out there. It is. Any additional questions? I'd like to move this hearing along. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there any committee member discussions before I ask for a motion? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLNBOA 1865 Matthew Stendon and Tanya Durrigan requesting a variance to reduce the required setback of a six-foot tall fence in a side street yard from 36 inches to 21 inches in a single-family residential zone at 766 Hildeen Drive, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the one condition. as stated so move thank you sir i second the motion miss whitman seconds any discussion on the motion if not please vote the application is approved good luck oh yeah it's still approved oh chad are you logged out what are you uh an a or uh yay all right mark him down as a yay mr needham as he tries to log back into the system okay thank you mr carter for uh noticing that okay so the next item on our agenda will be PLM BOA 1868 Jones and Southern property regarding the property of 530 Marina Street the applicant please come forward Please state your names for the record. It's Taylor Steele. David Jones. Gentlemen, the staff has recommended approval based upon recommendations. I mean, based upon subject to two conditions. Have you seen those conditions? Yes, we have. And you're agreeable to abide by those conditions? Yes. Okay. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant regarding its application? Well, hearing none. I do have a question. Is this the property on the corner or next to the property on the corner? No, sir. It's kind of in the middle, and I believe there's two that go to the corner. i know there's at least one at the corner and i believe there's one more and then my lot i believe when you say one more you're talking about one more lot one more lot okay sure i was out there and looked at i couldn't tell whether your application was for the corner lot or for that one next to it where there's a i think there's a construction fence or temporary fence or something uh that's that's the that's next door to you yeah i'm not sure who's who owns that one and what they're doing on that one the uh the sewer line that's a that's an issue is to the right as you're looking from the street is that right from reno street and just beyond that just beyond that to the right as a residential as a residence of sort correct sure okay i just wanted to get oriented thank you okay yeah it looks like you guys i remember that when this was in front of the planning commission was going to be two buildings originally at the time we were doing we were going to do two buildings we postponed that pending this um with that sewer line the back two buildings were just going to get narrow and more and more narrow so a traditional four plex design kind of a chevy chase style i think it's going to fit the character of that neighborhood better anyway and it certainly fits within the narrower 32 foot net building here oh no no i I like the layout, and this is a prime example of why people should get surveys before they buy. Well, I got the sewer line, and I thought it was actually the tap-on because I didn't get the whole thing, so I've learned my lesson on that. All right. Any more questions? Well, hearing none, then I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLN VOA 18-68 Jones and Southern Properties LLC request for a variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 5 to 3 feet in order to construct a fourplex within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a high-density apartment R4 zone at 530 Marino Street. for the reasons recommended by staff in the staff report and subject to the two conditions in the staff report. Thank you. Second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? In that case, please register your votes. Application is approved. Good luck with your project, gentlemen. Thank you very much. The next case in which there was no opposition was PLN BOA 1871, James Fender, regarding 1545 Russell Cave Road. I saw the applicant is here. Actually, I have knew Mr. Fender back in a former life at Kroger. He was my manager when I was a bad boy. Do I need to demand a recusal? Well, you may want to. Mr. Fender was always very, very nice. Please, Mr. Walburn, state your name for the record. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant, James Fender. And I note that the staff has recommended approval, and it's going to be subject to three conditions. Has your client reviewed those? He has, and there's one minor tweak that I've discussed with staff that if you'll indulge me for just a moment, I think I can put into context. You may recognize this address as being the mosque on Russell Cave Road. Several years ago, Mr. Fender began providing funeral services to that community. Prior to doing so, he consulted with staff. They had a discussion internally and determined that at that time, there was no additional approval needed for a conditional use permit to operate that service. We're now caught in a little bit of a game of regulatory ping pong. For what it's worth, I think your staff has been more than accommodating to us, has attempted to work with us. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, specifically the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, has insist we receive licensure as a full funeral home facility. Notwithstanding the fact that the services that we intend to perform on the site do not require the embalming of bodies, the Commonwealth is insistent that we have approval to do so and that is pursuant to 201 KAR 15 110 a copy of which I brought for the record so the only minor tweak I need to the conditions it would be in regard to condition one we would there's a couple of different ways I think we could attack this we could strike the sentence no embalming shall take place or we could put a qualifier on it no embalming shall occur on the subject property except as necessary to maintain state licensure there are the requirement to have it there even though mr fender has a nearby full service facility where if any embalming needed to be done he could do it unfortunately the commonwealth has not bought that discussion from us so we're asking for your full approval with the ability to embalm while acknowledging that we really have no intention to do it there other than is required to maintain our licensure so that's the minor tweak i need mr waldgren if you if you're not going to do any embalming and the state uh requires you the state board of embalmers wants you to have a license why do you need to comply with their i haven't read 201 kar 50.10 but i uh and i don't intend to quite frankly but i'm curious why the state i'm happy to share it why does the state have any interest if you're not going to be you say you're still subject to their regulations that's correct there is that there may i interject real quickly before you start mr walbert sure number four number one is we have different definitions of minor tweaking okay i'm just i'm just teasing you but this is really the mr glover i think this is similar to the issue we we had either last month or maybe last month with the daycare facility where they had needed to have a certain level of authority given by us to obtain their license. But, Mr. Walburn, I'll let you. Sure. It's really the confluence of two regulations. As you can imagine, that regulation is quite lengthy, but the two specific points that are at issue here are, this is in section 2 sub 3 subset b you have to have proper documentation of the authorization to embalm and sub 6 the building in which an establishment is located shall be in conformity with the requirements of the applicable state and local statutes administrative regulations ordinances and zoning provisions so to kind of try to put it in as neat a package as i can And I think staff was correct when they determined that the activities that would be going on at this facility are more akin to a religious service for which this property already has a conditional use for. However, the Commonwealth has said, no, you're conducting funerals there, and you have to have the ability to perform the entire array of funeral services, notwithstanding the fact that you may not desire to do so. So I think whereas staff has been yielding and accommodating to a unique circumstance that is unique to this religious tradition, the Commonwealth has applied more of a blunt hammer approach to you shall fit this square peg within this round hole whether you want to or not. So we need the authorization to be a funeral facility to comply with state licensure, notwithstanding the fact that we do not intend to conduct some of those activities on site. So that doesn't really answer my question. Why are you within the jurisdiction of the state administrative regulation? Because they say we are. Well, I mean, I'm not. Right. So why is your client? Well, I guess the question is what kind of services are occurring at the church that would make the church be determined to be, I guess, a funeral home? Yes. So I think if you could explain that. Sure. In this religious tradition, if you are unfamiliar, these burials occur much more quickly than they would in some other traditions. The body is washed. It is draped in linen. There is a brief service conducted, and then it is very promptly buried. That, in staff's view and in my view, is a religious activity because we're not doing some of the more technical funeral requirements. However, the state indicates, because you're handling a deceased body, that that should qualify under a full-service funeral home, notwithstanding the fact that we're not providing the full array of services. As I discussed with my client when we first met, were there a need to embalm a body, he would take it to his very nearby funeral facility. But we can't get licensure to even do that limited service without having the full authorization to run a funeral home on the site. without your approval of the conditional use they will not authorize us to do any activities on the site whatsoever even were they not to involve embalming okay thank you and autumn if you could chime in real quick on staff's position on us deleting the no bombing shall occur on the subject property condition we are agreeable to that so staff is agreeable to that deletion any additional questions for mr. Walburn but you don't intend to do any involving except as necessary to maintain our licensure I think there are certain tests that have to be conducted annually to comply to be recertified there is an inspector who goes to funeral homes too much as your staff would go and inspect conditional use permits they go and inspect funeral facilities and the deletion of that language would not take you outside the jurisdiction of the state the deletion of that language would bring us into full compliance or alternatively would you like to leave that language in i would ask that it be a qualifier be added except as necessary to maintain state licensure i'm comfortable with either avenue Yeah, whichever you prefer. I was just curious about the big hammer the state is using. And this is probably not the forum for that, but I don't like to see overreaching state regulations when these matters are local or religious matters. And I would echo your sentiment. We have been conducting this use for several years now and actually had taken the proactive step of contacting staff, working it out beforehand. And I would say that when I met with Autumn, they were more than happy to try to work with me for something short of this hearing. Unfortunately, we were told we must have this approval from authorities in the Commonwealth. I appreciate your efforts. Thanks. So, Mr. Warmer, am I correct in saying if that statement is in there, then you cannot get the approval of that board? Correct. Okay. As it's written in your staff report. Well, the chair is comfortable with either taking Mr. Walburn's language or deleting. It does not matter to me. I think both accomplishes the end result for the applicant. With that being said. And Mr. Walburn, I think it's up to you. Do you prefer your... The leading would be much cleaner as far as we're concerned. I do want staff to be comfortable because I've made representations to staff about what's going on. and again I want to represent I was sworn in we're on the record we don't intend to turn this into a funeral home this is purely for these specific services but for but for our licensure we have to go forward this way but deleting would be the cleanest option for me okay we're comfortable with deleting that line as well. Okay. Okay. Unless there are any more discussion points from the committee, the chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLN BOA 18-71 James Fender's request for conditional use permit the operation of a funeral home in conjunction with the place of religious assembly in the agricultural urban AU zone at 1545 Russell Cave Road for the reasons discussed here today, for the reasons in the staff report, and subject to the three conditions in the staff report, deleting the language in number one, which reads, no embalming shall occur on the subject property. I have a first and I have a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, please vote. Applications approve. Good luck to your project, guys. Thank you. The next item was the no-show item, PLN BOA 1867, Joseph Hudson. Is Mr. Hudson here? Yes. Where? Oh, okay. This one, is there anyone else on this, 280 Bassett Avenue? Okay. Staff has recommended disapproval, so you'll be heard last on the agenda, but now I've got you marked as being present. So we will now move on to the items in which either staff has recommended disapproval, postponement, or there is opposition to the application. The first one being an oldie but a goodie, PLNBOA 1857, Frank's Donuts, LLC. I believe this is the third time in three months we've had you guys in front of us. So if the applicant could please come forward. Prior to the start, I did want to say that I went back and I reviewed the video from the August meeting. And just to clarify, based upon discussions that occurred at last month's meeting, there was a motion to approve that failed. At that point, it looked like the board went into recess to possibly come up with findings of facts for a disapproval motion. The party who was possibly going to make that disapproval motion decided not to. And instead, there was a motion to continue to August. um we then just then in august i mean september and then september it was moved to once again move again it looks like the board did not go into any closed session during that august meeting and there was never any motion to disapprove the application made during that august meeting so i just wanted there were some discussions and questions since i was not at that hearing i was not sure myself so i did go back and watch that hearing this morning to make sure I was up to speed on what had occurred. So, sir, please, once again, state your name for the record for me. Antonio Gil Carranza. Okay. What was that last name? Carranza. Carranza. Okay. I caught the Antonio. The staff has recommended approval today. I do know we have some letters that we need to look over, But in the meantime, they have recommended three conditions for the approval. Have you read those? Yes. And you guys are in agreement with those? Yes. Okay. So that's on the record. Give me, give us a few minutes while we read these emails and letters, and then we'll have you come back. Okay. And then be prepared to testify as to what discussions and attempts to discuss you've had with the neighbors. Yes. and then how you may have changed your application since the last time it was presented to this board. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. thank you Thank you. could we um could the staff go ahead and throw up the um site plan upon the projector so i can see and while they're doing that would you go ahead and get let us know what discussions may have occurred between you and the neighbors and whether any changes to your plans have occurred since we last met. I've met with a group of people at the Charles Young Center. I've also met with a couple of neighborhood organizations to get their opinions, to show that their thoughts on what we're doing, we care. We honestly do. We didn't go there to step on anybody's toes or anything like that feel like we just went to do our business. But a lot of people, some people opposed, some people didn't speak on any relation towards the fact. I tried to explain our site plan, what we're planning to do on there. Some people have their regards to our drive-through being that they feel that it's going to cause traffic, which I won't believe. I feel like we have enough room in the parking lot so that doesn't occur. I speak for my business, for our business, our family business, for our stores that we do have. We try to move at a rapid pace. People are in and out, and it doesn't cause any clog up in traffic there on 3rd Street. we that was mainly I also explained to them that whether we do get approved for a drive-thru or not we still plan on using that as an exit that was a driveway that was originally there we were planning on keeping it there on the left side of the building and the only thing that literally if we wouldn't get approved for the drive-through the only thing I just couldn't do was give people their donors but I was still planning on using that as an exit you know some people feel good about it some some didn't but and I've you know after many thought and discussion with my architect and I we just feel that that the original plan is the best way to go about it I see mr. Stewart's here I get a quick question for you is there as part of the grading process is there a way to grade that rear exit so when people have some I looked at the aerial and I've looked at kind of the ground level and it appears that you know there's a potential for the people's I'm assuming donut shops usually open pretty early but there's a potential for beams to shine in people's back of their houses do you think or given the grade level differences could you speak to that issue please certainly that whole site to Grinstead is pretty much not level but certainly much on the same grade so headlights will be doing what they will do as you enter and leave Grinstead that's what you're asking and I think the fence there is an open fence, a picket fence, a metal picket fence. So the time would be very early to have that happen. The headlights would be on. And I guess wintertime would be more so an issue than summertime as far as darkness and headlights. I'm not sure we can – I'm not sure what your question is, or how can we change that? Well, I guess my question is, is there a way for, like, for example, if the grade was built up in the back so when cars come down, the rear exit out of the parking lot, the beams would be more pointed downward rather than upward? Yeah. We certainly would try to do that if that seems to be a good solution. Were you in the chair? I'm asking you if you think that's something that could be. This is not a final grading plan. This is just a diagrammatic effort to show how this would work. So ultimately, we will have to address the grades in collecting water and so forth. So anyway, to make it a nice, pleasant, drivable experience is what we would want to do. within the 5% grade and things like that. I'm not sure making a berm that a car has to negotiate would be a friendly thing to have customers. And the answer might be a solid fence on the other side of the Brinstead there. And I'm not sure that's his burden to achieve that. Okay. Any questions for the applicant before I call opposition? Thank you, gentlemen, if you could have a seat. Okay, if you would, who is here who wants to speak in opposition to this application today? Raise your hand. You don't need to stand up yet. I'm just trying to get a count. Way up. Don't be shy. Wait, keep them up. I can't get out that fast. So we have one, two, three, four, five. Anyone else who wants to speak on this application? So I've got about five of us. So what we normally do is six, we let everyone. You ask opposition or in favor? Either way. So what we will normally do is every person will get an opportunity. We usually limit the citizen portion to three minutes apiece. And so what we'll do is we will come up and let you give your discussion. So whoever wants to come first, call on up. And if you were not sworn in at the beginning of the hearing, let me know so I can swear you in. Sir, put your name for the record. My name is Thomas Tolliver. And Mr. Tolliver, were you sworn in? No. Okay, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, sir. Please proceed. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the board. My name is Thomas Toliver, and I live at 335 East Third Street. And I have lived on East Third Street for 24 years. Lord willing, I'll be there another 24 and another 24 after that. And I look forward to seeing East Third Street, the street where I've lived for 24 years. I look forward to seeing it lined with successful and thriving businesses from one end to the next. And I appear before you today to express my strong support of the application before you. Why strong support? I'm glad you asked. First and foremost, I welcome the economic development that this business brings to my neighborhood, the East End. Economic development, especially privately funded economic development, is sorely needed in the East End, but has been slow to come. When economic development does come, this time in the form of a donut shop, We need to do what we can to ensure that that business has the opportunity to succeed. Another reason for my strong support, my strong support, is that it will bring people to the East End who might not ordinarily come. The Lyric Theater has brought more people to the East End since its reopening in 2010 than any other institution in the neighborhood. I doubt that anyone would argue that the Lyric Theater has not been good for the East End. More recently, Martine's Pastries opened in the 400 block of East Third Street, and it brought a following of loyal fans and has attracted even more. I hope that the business in question today will do likewise. Let's be clear, a donut shop would not have been my first choice for the kind of business I would like to see in that location. But that was not my choice to make. So here we, so we are getting a donut shop. I want to do what I can to help this business succeed. And if this man says he needs a drive through window to succeed, I say give him a drive through window. In closing, let me say this. This is not an issue of safety or traffic. Cars coming off this parking lot have a clear and unobstructed view of Third Street in both directions. Cars coming off this parking lot present no more danger than cars coming off any other parking lot anywhere downtown. This is an issue of economic development. Do we want to see economic development in the East End? Of course we do. then let's give this business a chance to succeed. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Who would like to speak next? Thank you. My name is Billy Mallory and I'm the executive director of the East End Community Development Corporation that's located at 560 East Third Street. I will not repeat all of the arguments that we have presented before in letters that you've been given. And pretty much I would agree with what Thomas had to say. We absolutely need and want economic development. We welcome businesses along the Third Street Corridor, and we have had some very successful businesses, and we have a couple of more that are getting ready to open. None of them have a drive-thru. And I would like to again remind you that we have an East End small area plan that's still in effect. It calls for this neighborhood to be a walkable, bikeable neighborhood. There are a number of other plans that I included in the last letter. The Downtown Lexington Traffic Movement and Revitalation Study, Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, Town Branch Commons Master Plan, and the Legacy Trail Plan, and several updates. None of those plans suggest that a drive-through should be put into a residential area, or that in any way that it calms or prevents traffic issues. I would take issue with Thomas on saying that there are no traffic problems. We have two other people who are going to speak to that. We have photos. I am, our office is across the street and less than a half a block from this location. I see the traffic issues every morning, every afternoon. Being a retired school teacher, I brought audio visuals. This is what we desire for our neighborhood. Traffic is not. We have made it very clear from the very beginning that we do not object to this business. We welcome Frank's Donuts just like we embraced Martine's Pastries. We welcome people to come to the East End, but we do not want to be a drive-through neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Mallory. I have a question for her. Oh, Ms. Mallory? Before you leave it. I have a question for you. Ms. Mallory, I haven't read all of the studies that you mentioned, but I did look at the one that was attached to your letter to this board, the East End Small Area Plan. I mean, I only looked at the executive summary, but I didn't see anything in here that discourages drive-throughs. Well, it doesn't specifically say no drive-throughs, but it calls for this to be a bikeable, walkable neighborhood. And the Legacy Trail, which we have waited eight years for, goes right through this very same area, and it is ready to break ground after the first of the year. The Town Branch Commons, which the city, I believe there were federal dollars, there's local dollars being put into that that will come up Midland, will connect with the Town Branch Trail within that same block. So you're going to have moving traffic, plus drive-through in and out, plus people who are on bikes and walking. I don't have to be a traffic engineer to realize that that is not a safe combination. And you don't think that you can have cars and pedestrians and bikes all living in the same area? We're a residential neighborhood. We're a historical neighborhood. And there is a park directly across from this business. No, I do not think it's safe. Like I said, I am there every day. I'm there every morning, every afternoon. I see the traffic. I see the children. And Third Street has a lot of traffic. Please. Third Street does have a lot of traffic. Absolutely. And Third Street today is not the Third Street of a year ago. Third Street has become very congested. I would never have thought that we would see a traffic jam on Third Street in the East End. But we have a traffic jam in the mornings. It's backed up two and a half blocks. In the afternoons, it's even worse. And Angie's going to speak on all the other different kinds of traffic that use that corridor. No, I would say it is not safe. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Mallory. Come on up. Hello, I'm Chef Angelia Drake with From the Heart Catering. I'm also president of the East End Development Committee. I have been born and raised in the East End. I have grandchildren, great nieces and great nieces and nephews that live in the East End. My biggest concern is the Charles Young Park that's right across the street from the drive through. Those children come in and out of there and unfortunately they don't have another playground or park in that area for them to go to. It's a very big concern. Dream Chasers had a program over there all summer long. 25 children or greater all summer long, they're coming in and out of there. They take field trips up and down that street. They start at 9 o'clock in the morning, they get dropped off at 8.30 and they start their day at 9 and they're utilizing the playground and the outside facilities all day long. We want to keep this as safe as possible for the children's sake. I welcome Frank's Donuts. welcome them, welcome any businesses coming into the East End. But we wanna also first keep our children safe. If we're not looking out for these children, who is? Because we could say, well, you could put a drive through, oh, you could throw this up, and no one's caring about that there is a playground. I've looked around all around Lexington, and I don't know of any park that has a drive through at Stone's Cross. I know playground in Lexington, and none of the neighborhoods has a drive through right across the street from them. The children, like I said, my greatest concern is the Charles Young and the children that are there. It's not a safe crossing, visibility is poor, and the children are not accustomed to the busy-ass moving traffic. While over there, I took pictures one day while the traffic was backed up. And the traffic was bumper to bumper in the middle of the afternoon. This is school bus time. This is when these kids get out of school and they run straight to the playground to play. They go to the parks. Yes, we like to say they need to go home and do this and do that, but unfortunately we know what goes on in East End. This is their safe haven. Let's keep it safe, please. Thank you. Do I need a turn? Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Drake, before you leave the podium, I've got to. Ms. Drake? Yes, sir. Mr. Glover is on hot street. Just a clarification. Yes, sir. The Charles Young Park has parking for the park, is it not? I'm sorry? Is there designated parking for the Charles Young? Yes sir, but unfortunately the majority of the children that go there, they're not driving. Their parents aren't bringing them, they're walking from the neighborhoods. I understand. Is that parking, I'm just trying to get oriented, is that parking right across Shropshire? Right across, it's some right across Shropshire and it's some right there at the Charles Young. I think the staff parks in that little piece of parking lot right there. Okay, thank you. But it's like on the same side of the park. They don't have to go across that third street. They don't have to go across third street? No, sir. No, no, but they have to cross Shropshire to get back and forth? Yes, sir. Okay. But most of them don't come from parked cars. They walk to the center, unfortunately. Does the school bus stop there? No, sir. Where does it stop? The school bus stops, I know of one that's on the Shropshire and fourth that comes out of the projects right there, the high school and middle school kids. The neighborhood kids walk to Wimwells Brown. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. Who's our next speaker? Ms. Clark, come on up. Please put your name on the record. My name is Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road. I'm here on behalf of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. I see you have slides. Yes. How long will it take you to get through? Well, it's really up to you because everything these people have been talking about, if you If you want to see a picture of the parking beside the recreation center, I've got one. Five minutes suffice? Can you get to that? Well, we'll do what we do. There are some things I do need to say apart from the slides, but I do think some of these slides have been sent to me by the neighbors, so I think they could be helpful. What makes this right? Conditional use is one that doesn't go everywhere. If you can't say no at this location, when would you ever say no? This is, maybe dim the lights a little, this is an overview of the whole area from Murphy Park, the vortex, and it really is a vortex of activity. Isaac Murphy Memorial Art Garden, all the way to the first major intersection is Shropshire. you can see the charles young center to the south and on the midland side of it there is parking and actually on the other as well miss clark is there a light at shropshire and third there's actually a blinking stop sign and um let me just move to um this is i'll get right back to that what put that stop sign in there that's to say the stop sign has winking red twinkles on it to make you pay attention what you get here is the confluence of Winchester Road with 25,000 cars a day Midland down to 20 East Third has only 7,000 cars a day actually Walton has more it has about at 7500. And remember that the intersections here give you routes, for example, to Main Street and all the way over to Transy and the community college and so on. This is the Murphy Park, the Murphy Memorial Art Garden. And in the letter, which you have before you and is in the record, there's significant public investment as well as private and charitable. park was three quarters of a million that's just a drop in the bucket you can see it's for social gathering it's for for nature people are outdoors in this area a lot and it's a nexus of the local heritage it is the trailhead for the legacy trail where the legacy trail meets the town branch trail The people who live here have the highest concentration of need for non-vehicular transportation, for multimodal bikes and pedestrian facilities and so on. These are the criteria for it. I think this is important. Households with no access to a vehicle, this is the highest proportion in the county. Low educational attainment, income at or below double the poverty level, limited English proficiency and race can sometimes be a factor in various such neighborhoods. And you can see that the darkest red, you can see where Winchester comes in. The art garden here is the trailhead that links the Legacy Trail, which goes along in green, with Town Branch Trail as it comes up from Midland. And it's envisioned as a place for bicycle and pedestrian links safe. And there's a need because there's a dearth of vehicles for people to get places. Now, what's to be emphasized here is that in the very first block you see the purple and then the dotted purple. That's where the trail goes from the Murphy Art Garden along. It actually has an easement for a dedicated bike path and pedestrian path. That's the solid purple. And then it turns into a path shared with automobiles when it gets to Grinstead. And Grinstead is the street directly behind 3rd Street. Then one turns down along the green, and that's a bike lane that's marked with little bicycles and a boundary line for people to get along Shropshire to rejoin at 3rd. And you can see that also the Legacy Trail goes on 4th. Oh, didn't want that. This is what a bike boulevard is pictured as in the bike and pedestrian master plan. And you can see in the shadows to the right of the yellow warning sign that there's an ample sidewalk. Grinston has no sidewalk. So we can imagine that even though it is the designated legacy trail bike and pedestrian area, you're not going to be getting the full benefit of it. There are sidewalks on Third Street. Ms. Clark, your five minutes has expired, if you could summarize. Well, I can, or it's in the record. record, what I need to say is that it's the missing link in millions in investment. Legacy trail 12 miles long, town branch about half that length. Legacy trail 18,000, 18 million, town branch 31 and a half million. We gave you reasons that we think the drive through should be denied. We're not lawyers. We can't furnish findings of fact. We need some help to do that. But it was something that it seemed that the law staff and the planning staff were not able to furnish before. So if you look at the letter I handed you on the last page of it, we think we have very good reasons for denying this drive through. The thing that isn't mentioned there, if you choose for whatever reason not to deny the drive through, There are also conditions that we believe should be attached in the unwelcome event that you should approve it. You might attach the condition no left turn out of the drive through. The problem with that is that staff has said at a drive through hearing last year that there's a problem with compliance there. You don't get compliance, people turn left anyway. Ms. Clark. condition that it not transfer to another party. We could wrap it up. Five minutes has expired. Okay. Just summarize for me. All right. I believe about everything I have to say is in the record, so I would urge you to look at the record and make a careful decision. There is one footnote, And that is simply that I believe the terms of the easement, which are in the record that staff has and probably furnished you, do not permit it to you save for a drive-through. I believe it lapses, the easement lapses if it's not used for a drive-through. So you may want to check that. Thank you, ma'am. Who is next? Come on up, sir. Put your name on the record for us. What? Oh, sir, say your name. James Brashear. Okay, thank you. My wife and I live and work at 559 East 3rd Street on the corner of Withrow Way and 3rd. I got a variance to build that property. We were the first kids on the block, so to say. My greatest concern is precedent setting. Where Frank's Donuts is going to be located, in the next block, there's an identical lot. It's a double lot, has access to Grinstead, and I know the board does not deal in hypotheticals, but let's say Indy's Fried Chicken wants to open another location, and they want a drive-through, I just don't see how you say no. My building has a commercial kitchen on the first floor. I could sell it to someone that wants to put in a carryout, and they need a drive-through. It would be very brief. But I will answer the question about headlights and people's windows on 4th Street early in the morning. absolutely will be a problem. It's a dead level grade there. There's no way to change that. I think what he said, you know, if they had a privacy fence, but it's a metal fence. So it will be a real problem. And what Billy Mallory says about traffic on that street, I can stand on my porch at 8 o'clock in the morning or at 3 in the afternoon and traffic is completely backed up past Shropshire down 3rd Street. So basically, most of the time of the day, it would be virtually impossible to make a left turn out of that drive-thru. So although it may be attractive, I don't think that people are going to want to sit in line for half an hour to get a donut because it's not going to move quickly. That's all I have to say. Sir, what was your address? 559 East 3rd. I'm about two doors down. I'm on the corner. I have a catering kitchen on the first floor, and I live upstairs. Okay. You're the two-story white building? Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. I'm just curious. Anyone else would like to speak, either in favor or opposition to this application today? Oh, come on up. Were you sworn in earlier? I was not. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you, sir. Please state your name for the record. My name is Frank Alguera. I am the son of Francisco Alguera, the owner of Frank's Donuts. Just a quick thing about the headlights. if you look on Google Maps or even if you go to the to the building itself if you're if you're looking at the houses right behind us there's also a three foot or I would say like about a three or four foot like height height yeah height difference I know I know headlights can go more than that but but that could be a, I don't know, like it would help block some of the headlights from the drive-through. That's really all I just had to say. Well, my concern with the headlights was mitigating some of the headlights going into someone's back of their house at 6 in the morning during the winter, and I didn't know if any thought had gone into any kind of design change. I think it's a little ridiculous to ask the neighbor that has been there to build its own privacy fence to avoid lights coming in its house. But I was curious about whether the grading of the parking lot could be done in such a way that when people leave the parking lot, their cars were at least angled downward instead of upward so that the lights were shining more towards the road and less up above the retaining wall into the back of the house. Okay. Yeah, we can definitely look into that. Also, another thing, our business also runs from 4.30 in the morning to the latest at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. I know there's a concern about kids going to the playground and traffic and whatnot, but our business hours don't really affect the children coming home from school and going to the playground. That's really all. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Freddy Peralta. I came to talk in favor of the Frank Donas shop. They are good friends of mine. My company, who is located here in Lexington, we provide services to them, to their branch in Winchester, Paris, Georgetown. and we are so glad that they're going to be able to come to Lexington to provide wonderful food. They are a family-owned business, and I think that we should welcome them. If we walk, and I know that each one of you have gone there because it has been a recurring topic. If you walk to East Third Street, you're going to see so many empty slots. empty lots. That's where you get everything. All houses, many of them coming down. And that will be developed. Which type of business do we want to have there? That's kind of the question. So there's no way that we're going to be able to do that. As a matter of fact, the traffic that we have been discussing here today has nothing to do with the neighbor. It's just traffic coming in and out from different places. This isn't going to make it necessarily worse because it's a situation that is not depending on the businesses that are there. It's a situation that is coming from other places. The hours, Frankie mentioned that, the hours of operation on the business is kind of ideal to deal with the traffic because precisely it's going to be mostly during an hour. There is no 3 p.m., there is no 4 p.m., there is no 5 p.m. traffic generated by this business. So that's going to be positive in this particular case. And again, we got the positive recommendation from the staff. They look at it. They did some good job. Most of the car is going to be already have plenty of space to be inside the two lots combined to create this. So there will not be outside car, outside their property that they're going to be served. And we definitely need to welcome them to come and to develop that particular place in town. I hope that you are able to actually found this positive and approve it. Thank you. Thank you. Ma'am, come on up. Please state your name for the record. K-A-N-A-I. Okay. We live, my husband and I live at 559 East Third Street. I'm happy to have these people. They're right next to us, basically. There's a lot that separates us. And they're not there all day. In fact, they're never going to be there all day. We live there. And I'm not opposed to them, but the traffic is horrific. And children are in and out. And they're in there at 4.30. I get up a lot of mornings at 4.30. I have an in-flight catering business that caters to private jets, but nobody comes into my facility. And people drive like maniacs on Withrow Way and East 3rd Street. I'm not happy. I mean, if they're going to put a drive-through in, then I'll be up here next, and I'm going to put a drive-through in. Because this, you know, that neighborhood was never supposed to be like that. We moved there. We spent half a million dollars on our building. And, hey, we were the first people on the block, and we were willing to put a lot of money in, and these men are too. But I have a successful business, and I don't have a drive-through. And I think they can have a successful business. In fact, I think they might have more. And Martine down the street, who's a friend of ours, she doesn't have a drive-through. Should we put one down there? So, you know, I love free enterprise. Hey, go for it, please. I hope you're successful. I'll send my friends over, but I don't, I really don't want to drive through. So there you go. So I'll be back if you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else want to speak today? Mr. Brown, come on up. Always welcome. Thank you. James Brown, 1814 Marlboro Drive. And as the representative for the 1st District, I've kind of been keeping my eyes and ears to the street about this issue. And I'd first like to thank the representatives from Frank's Donuts for reaching out to the community, to the Neighborhood Association, to the East End CDC, and to Charles Young to at least engage them in the conversation about the drive-through. I do share some of the same concerns that were expressed today about the drive-thru, about setting the precedence in the neighborhood. The East End is one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in our city, and we're working to make it more cycle-friendly, more pedestrian-friendly, and the Legacy Trail is coming straight down 3rd Street. On one end, we're taking away parking spots, and then on the other end, we're talking about potentially creating a drive-through that would encourage more vehicle traffic, which I think is sending two different messages. So I have those concerns. The other thing, the access on Grinstead Alley, I think, is somewhat problematic. Since Third Street is so narrow, we can't provide designated bike lanes, so we're going to do a share-all system in the road where bikes are going to be sharing the lane with traffic. And Grinstead Alley, which comes off of Shrop, is going to be the dedicated trail location. To create an access there, I guess, I think makes that a dangerous situation because that's where the trail is going to be the best facilities possible that we can dedicate for the Legacy Trail. So I have serious concerns about that. But if the board does see fit to move forward and allow it to drive through, I think there are a couple of things that need to be considered when making that decision. One is, I don't know if it's referred to as a sunset clause, but this right or this variance not necessarily pass on to another business after Franks leaves. If another business comes in after them, have them come reapply. for a drive-through and not make it an allowable use by right. The emergency, I would think that the access on Grinstead should just be an emergency access only. I don't think it should just be a drive-through, an exit, or an entrance. It should just be an emergency access and not allow cars to come in and out of the business on Grinstead. And then the drive-through lane. At the drive-through lane, I think it should be required to only exit out to the right with the flow of traffic. And we can potentially put some stations or pylons, those things that come up in the middle, to prevent traffic from going left and crossing the lane. And then the entrance. I think right now, according to the site plan, the entrance is one-way in only. I think that ought to be a two-way entrance to give folks the ability to access the business and leave the business out of that entrance. That way you give two ways out to that facility if we don't allow the access in the back. But, like I said, I'll just say I agree with a lot of the concerns that were shared by the neighborhood and the community today. But then in the same breath, I also thank Franks for their investment in that corridor and willing to invest in the neighborhood and the community. So thank you. Thank you. Mr. Brown, I've got a question just before you leave since you're here. And maybe one of these questions may be more appropriate for staff. This application is for a business in a business zone. It's a B1 zone. I believe, is that right? Yes. B1 zone. Do you know where the residential zone line is? You said you're familiar with this area. Yes, sir. I actually think it becomes a mixed zone once you get further down Third Street, headed towards downtown, because there are residential houses once you pass Ray Street. Well, and then I guess they actually live in their residence, So I guess it must be a zone residential to some extent. On the north side of Grinstead is R, and then so is when you pass Shropshire. I mean, not pass, when you pass Third Street and get to Warnick and Powell, after you get past the commerce areas, the old commerce areas, it's residential. But even in your business zones, we could put residential above retail. They just can't be on the first floor. Mr. Brown, since I'm taking advantage of you while you're here, do you know whether or not there are sidewalks planned for Grinstead? I'm not completely certain. I know there's a trail, a dedicated trail that's up for Grinstead, but I don't necessarily know if it's a sidewalk. It may be an eight-foot combined use path that may be at the same level as the street. I don't know if it's raised above street level or not. And finally, one of your recommendations was that the Grinstead access be closed for this business. Wouldn't that force all the traffic out onto Third Street? Yes, sir. But I do agree that there is clear lines of sight on Third Street. And I think if the drive-through lane is designated to go right and the entrance is closer to Lewis Street, which is also an extra street, I think that will lend itself to have some more flexibility. And we may even have to put in another dedicated crosswalk at the Lewis Street site, which I don't think currently exists. So, yeah, I'd hate to force more traffic there, but at least when folks are traveling down Grinstead on a dedicated path, a trail system, then they don't have to worry about cars entering and coming out of a business. well I mean wrench the dead ends right there at with road isn't it yes sir yeah yeah but it yeah it continues through a residential lot to the to IMAG thank you all right thank you anybody else like to speak on this today all right well hearing none I'll give the applicant an opportunity to rebut if it would so chooses first to address one of the issues that they had referring to us having conditional use that drive-through as an easement saying that it that it would terminate in the fact that we didn't use it well we are purchasing the property right next to us so that shouldn't matter in the fact anymore because that property will belong to us number two as far as the headlights going and towards the back I mean what we could do where where the headlights and head down or I could add maybe what people refer to us like privacy bushes or hedges and add them along the back so the lights wouldn't super go everywhere on grind said only through where the opening wood that we would leave for the exit um as far as uh the their condition on us putting as i think i mentioned this last meeting us putting in somewhat of a curb or something to make cars turn right i'm up for any kind of solution there is to make this uh you know as safe as possible unfortunately i can't make everyone happy um i can only do so much and especially so much that i get approved for i hope you guys i i mean when you're looking when you're looking at it i i personally don't feel that it should cause any traffic jams as i said before my parking lot should be big enough to suffice where cars come in and out uh without causing a problem on the where the cars enter on the right and on the right hand side of the building it's the entrance should be uh wide enough so where cars do come in and exit through there but as I said before I do intend to leave the the driveway on the right-hand side to be able to cars be able to exit that way as well I hope you guys move to approve this anything you guys may may recommend I hope you know any recommendations that come towards us for us to obtain this I'm more than happy to work with any of them I'm more towards looking at solutions not looking at the problem but that's it thank you thank you sir any questions from the board or any discussions I do Brandon I have a question it may be more for traffic I believe that in the first time we heard it was that by the suggestion of traffic engineering to open it to Grinstead that way is that a was that always in the site plan the the requirement for grinstead was because you only had one way coming from east third so you had to have it exit some way because the site currently would have no exit being a one-way in off of east third mr. brown's comment was if you closed grinstead and you made that a two-way you could do that it would afford you the opportunity to extend the drive-through lane towards the back of grinstead so you have more stacking which would alleviate some of the pressures of stacking on to third we don't anticipate that they are in excess of the five car minimum stacking that is required but if you did close grinstead and you made the east third entrance point a two-way access which currently as configured is 24 foot wide which is what we would require as a minimum distance behind the cars you could extend your drive through in more fashion towards grinstead and have more stacking towards the back you could also afford a few more parking spaces as well since you don't have to have the accessibility to grinstead in looking at this we did consult with fire and they did not require grinstead to be access to be open so they were okay they would either pull up a truck on third pull into the parking lot be able to back out on third or come in on grinstead and park and or could still access the building with hoses okay so that was a viable option so we could close grinstead require that front entrance to be in and out entrance and that would actually ease several of the issues including traffic exiting on Grinstead which is supposed to be a dedicated bike trail correct it would alleviate traffic on Grinstead now you do have then you're you have an enter and exit points coming out onto third so it's a trade-off you have two exit points on to third then as the drive-through and your main parking area is coming out on the east third okay is it plausible to require traffic to only go to the right on pine exit or you could put up a sign lexton drivers are very creative sometimes and vision impairment sometimes becomes a factor okay because i do tend to agree with the traffic issue but the traffic issue is there right now so i do also agree that franks would not cause the congestion there it's already there so okay i will say that probably in the last year there's been quite a bit of increase in traffic simply because um as many people that living in downtown town area has have noticed there's a lot of construction going on right now and unfortunately a lot of the traffic has been funneled through the east third corridor because of the construction projects so i do think the comments about deep traffic in the last year increasing there has been a tremendous amount of projects both private and city that have impacted alternate corridors and funneled a lot of traffic this direction Hopefully that will be alleviated once these projects wrap up and are completed. But there have been a lot of detours that have routed traffic this direction. Did I understand you to say that traffic had looked at this application? You all were consulted or were you not? can't we have just through the normal process of seeing these applications we look at these being engineers we always have a better design for no matter what it is and mr brown came to us and we talked to him about some different alternatives problems that we foresaw as well as when the public calls we listen to their comments concerns and we we have 300,000 traffic engineers and in Lexington as well that always offer suggestions so listening to those comments we take every every suggestion into consideration so we yeah we had looked at these and then they are viable solutions to what Mr. Brown brought up is an option. Okay. And you agreed with the staff report that recommended approval? Yes. Thank you. Stephen, I just had a question. Could you just talk with maybe your opinions on the legacy trail going in front of that and what that would look like? It's going to be, there's been a really big change as far as the mixed use of pedestrians and bicyclists in traffic in Lexington. So those concerns, it's more of a learning process for everyone. and it's a compromise. We, visiting other cities and seeing other communities that are more further along in their bike path systems and things and have Lexi Trail type of facilities already, and it's not unheard of to see a mix. So I think it would be, from our perspective, it would be a fine solution to have the legacy trail through here. I don't think it's going to be an impact. I think it's going to be an asset to have the mixed-use. Just like mixed-use residential and commercial facilities, same thing goes along with circulation patterns of traffic. Because traffic is not just vehicular. traffic is pedestrian bicycle and pedestrian and vehicular so I don't see being that big of an issue as far as in front of this location is the trail actually on the on the north side or is it gonna be on this on the south side of East 3rd I have not seen the plan I think it's along I think it's along East third but I'm not sure about that Keith Levin is handling that so he's within in he's an engineering so I didn't specifically look that I was just down the north or south of that East third Street yeah I don't I don't know the specifics I've seen the big plan and and didn't focus on the small details of it okay thank you if I can add to that the the legacy trail is going to be located on Grinstead Street it's not going to be on on third street here it's going to be a shared path or a shared way on Grinstead for for bikes and vehicles okay and that kicks in maybe I didn't see that on Shropshire it turns left I believe it kicks in on Shropshire and goes down Grinstead and then as Mr. Brown said it goes through a piece of property it'll be a dedicated bike path up to the Memorial Garden okay okay thank you any other questions from the board all right well hearing none the chair will entertain a motion okay well i think if if any of the board members would like to add additional conditions What we probably want to do is maybe take a few minutes and let that board member speak with staff and legal department about how to draft it. And then once we can come back and then you can then propose. Just some of these were kind of. But I will say if you're doing. Conditions, I think the. I'm personally. I'm not 100% comfortable putting a drive-through in at this location. Just given the other businesses and also just the corridor itself, I travel this. I travel down East 3rd probably once or twice a week. I think I've seen a lot of changes over the last decade and a half of my travels down this road. actually before that i rarely traveled and i travel probably every week now um coming back from my travels down further southeast kentucky and always usually come in off winchester road and come down third because of all the one-way streets downtown but i will say that there's i've seen a lot of new growth In this area, I think there's been a lot of positive growth, especially when the housing authority assisted in bringing the new residential neighborhood in. So I'm 100% comfortable with a drive-through period. But if there were going to be a drive-through, I would probably be more comfortable if it had a non-transferability provision so that if anyone, a future business, wanted to use the drive-through, they'd have come back before us. And so we could look at how the impact of this particular, what I would consider more of a low-use drive-through, had affected the neighborhood. And maybe it would caution others from necessarily thinking they could automatically get a drive-through. That's just my two cents. So with that being said, I'm going to go ahead and take a five-minute recess, let you guys discuss with planning and staff if you have any conditions you want to add. Thank you. Okay, we are out of recess in which one of our members talked with staff and talked with the legal department regarding some possible new conditions that she would like to see. So I'm not sure. So I'll let Cal, you can proceed. Proceed. Okay, I'd like to make a motion to approve PLNBOA 18-57, Frank's Donuts requests for a conditional use permit for a drive-thru facility within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a neighborhood business zone at 547 and 549 East 3rd Street, based on the staff's recommendations, including the conditions listed by staff, conditions 1 through 3, and adding two conditions. Condition 4 says there shall be no access on Grinstead, and the entry and exit points shall be on East 3rd Street. A revised site plan shall be submitted to show these revisions. And the fifth condition is the conditional use shall become null and void should the donut shop use cease. I second the motion. Okay, so currently we have a motion and a second. We will still need to discuss with the applicant whether he would be agreeable to these two new conditions. But prior to that, is there any discussion? Does anyone want any amendments or any additional conditions while we discuss this particular motion before us? I'm trying to read the board. Mr. Chair, you might read it to us. There shall be no access on Grinstead. Entry and exit point shall be on East Main Street. East Third Street. East Third Street, sorry. East Main Street's my street a revised site plan shall be submitted to show those revisions number five the conditional use shall become null and void should the donut shop use cease and I don't think it needs I don't think we need additional language but number four seems to seems to involve traffic so I I would I would I don't know whether it needs to be in there, but Steve, you were talking about that. The suggestion of traffic that it have the exit and entry on Third Street. So I would say I would suggest to the applicant that if this if this passes with those provisions, that number four that you get in touch with traffic and see how that is going to work out. I think number two requires you to get traffic approval anyway. Does traffic or staff believe that number four need to be revised to include a reference to your approval? We will see the revised site plan when the application comes through, but number two covers us as well. Condition two covers traffic. That's correct. Thanks. Okay. Any other questions or discussions? All right, I'll have the applicant come forward, please. So there's a motion to approve this with these two new conditions. Are you agreeable to these two conditions? Yes, I am. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any additional discussions? In case I second the motion. All right. We've got a first and we've got a second. Oh, wait. Ms. Boydman had already seconded. We were just discussing the motion. Gotcha. Yeah. So, hearing none, we'll move to vote. Wait, we're having technical difficulties. The application has been approved. Good luck with your project. Very close. Okay, the next item on our agenda is PLN BOA 1866 Berea Christian Church. Should have postponed, sir. I tried to give you an out. That's fine. Okay, so for this one, I guess, please put your name back on the record again. Sam Broder. Thank you, sir. we have one letter is this a letter in opposition support so we have one letter in support if we could if we could have your site plan put up on the board for us you can do the back side then the front side And sir, I'm going to just be honest with you. Not that I'm opposed to your application, but given the fact that staff hasn't given us a report for approval at this point, hasn't given us any conditions they may want. Generally speaking, in those instances, a one-month postponement would normally be requested and generally given. But it appears that your position is that due to the time and the fact that asphalt companies will start shutting down in the near future, which is an honest issue because if we preview next month in November, you may not get started until sometime November and the cold may move in. So let's go ahead and explain at least to us and to staff about what you have, what you're proposing to make changes that the staff has requested. And then we'll need to get traffic and everyone else kind of need to chime in. Okay. The red square area is where we're planning to make our changes. Now, on the back side of the same sheet actually shows the layout of the parking lot itself. But prior to that, if you don't mind, go back, please. If you'll see off to the left there, that is Berea Road. We have two entrances toward the top of the page here. That's two entrances to our current parking lot and showing our building. Prior to 2015, you were able to pull up your aerial view. Yeah. Prior to 2015, there was a road that came on around the backside, just a single road, and it came down and exited back out onto Berea Road. So it had three access points, two entering in the parking lot and one exiting on out on the outside to Berea Road on the other side of the church. after 2015 the dark square area is where we added some restrooms for for the church it needed some in the upstairs so they added that and that was all approved and that's finished and done now we need more parking and what we were proposing to do was to come on around now if you would let me please let's see yes right there so this top section right here you can't hardly see it but it's it's kind of a reddish color everything in the red is what we're proposing is the parking lot we want to come around the back of the church and then come out with parking places down and then exit out onto Berea Road. That was our request. Can you orient this for us, Mr. Bronner? I'm looking at the same. Is this north at the top or bottom? Looks like it's the bottom. North is, well, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. It's got an arrow. Okay. But as you can if if you look at at this sheet then this just kind of pastes into that block it's so it goes like this is ironworks that's uh yes that's ironworks and the way you're holding it at the bottom of the page then would be Berea Road. So it's this, the squares. This square right here, here's Berea Road and here's Ironworks. And on this, if you just lay that right in there like that, here's Berea Road and Ironworks is down here. I understand. This is Iron Works. I totally understand. What I need to know is how he's going to change it from his original plan. Berea Road's here. That's what I want to know. This is Iron Works. These are the new parking spaces close to Iron Works by the service road. Look at that service road. That's correct. It's between the building and the service road is where the parking is. Correct. Yes, sir. Correct. Yeah. And as part of your proposal, you're now going to close off one of the entrances on Berea. I'm assuming the one closer to Ironworks or the one in the rear? Well, yes, that would be the one closer to Ironworks. Now, my question, and I know I've talked to Mr. Parker about this, too. We met Monday, last week Monday, with Ms. Coucher and Parker, and they were concerned about the third access point, which we had had up to 2015. team. Basically what I'm asking for is for a decision from you all in that if I can, I would still like the three access points that we had if possible. If you want to take their recommendation, then I'll do the two access points and get rid of the one closest to the church. Just so the record is clear, when I'm coming down Berea Road, where there now is a green space, you were going to put in a new parking lot. Yes. And that parking lot will have an entrance. Yes. And you will eliminate the next entrance, which is the one closer to the sanctuary, potentially eliminate that. If that would be the recommendation. So you would still have two entrances. You'd have the new entrance, and you'd have the more is this the more southern i can't see my i don't see a directional bulk so you'll have the two entrances yeah i understand what you're asking for and i understand you're asking for approval today so work can start before the cold sets in um okay it if again if possible i would like three since we had three before well we'll let i'm gonna listen to traffic sure and then if you want to have a seat for a second sure um i'm trying not to um traffic so we reviewed the plan um we were concerned about the close proximity to ironworks and having two access points for this site we felt was adequate adding a third in that closest sequence in the close proximity to ironworks we were concerned about accidents the design that we've seen it's up here right now does not meet our minimum standards four dimensions. So we recommended disapproval. Yeah, I think the idea of postponing this for a month to give the applicant a chance to work it out with staff and traffic is probably a good idea now i understand that it's weather dependent but uh uh that's the risk that everybody that's in construction business takes i don't know asphalt plants i don't know what their schedules are i think they're weather dependent as well but i've seen asphalt i've seen asphalt paving going on in december so i i mean i don't know that that's i don't know if that's a big concern Well, I just heard the contractor that we've been talking to says that they were going to be shutting down later on, that they shut down in the fall sometimes. So that's all I went by. But I believe what traffic engineering is saying is, as it is, it's not just the entry points that's the issue. right now this is not an approvable plan as far as allowable space the one thing that that we had talked about as far as the parking lot itself goes you see the three parallel parking places actually four they requested that we not paint those in they were concerned about people backing out into that area and and we could do without those as long as we can still have the other spaces was that mr parker was that part of the yeah part of the concern is the drive aisle width where the cars are parallel parts behind cars are angled in um i think there is a a solution, but we're more comfortable with seeing a plan that we review, we comment on, and that there's no misunderstandings about what is reviewed and what is to be built, because a hypothetical sometimes leads to a lot of problems, and I don't want the church to take on expenses and then have to change those. I know I understand their funds are limited. Being out of new development engineering, asphalt plants usually shut down around the second week of December. So that's typically December 15th is when the plants do shut down. Well, it sounds like the current plan as submitted staff is taking the position that it's not ripe for us to review at this time and so i will suggest that we postpone this until next month and get with staff submit your new plans to them and that will give you approximately 30 days to get reviewed our next hearing i've misplaced my minutes will be on November 12th. And so with that, I will entertain a motion. Wait, that's right. Do we move to postpone at this point or continue at this point? I think we should probably move to continue it since we've had discussions that will appear in the minutes. Don't you agree, Tracy? Yeah, I think continuance may be the best, so then you can start at that point. Okay. I move to continue ELN BOA 18-66 Berea Christian Church application for a conditional use permit. Second. Any discussions? If not, please register your votes. Wait a minute. So what we'll do is we'll pick up next month on November 12th. Okay. So get with the planning traffic and submit your plans because it sounds like they want some revisions in addition to what was discussed. Also, let the record show that Ms. Joan Whitman had to leave the meeting. We still have a quorum, but the minutes can show she left. Thank you, sir. Thank you. which brings us to our next case PLN BOA 18-70 Clark Central LLC 1419 Versailles Road I think we have one person speaking today in opposition so we have two speakers good afternoon mr martin please state your name for the record i'm doug martin here on behalf of the applicant clark central llc and um the staff has recommended approval of your application today and they have seven conditions. Has your client reviewed those? We have one change, Mr. Chair, on item number four. And this will be apparent as I go through my presentation. But we would ask that at the screening state that would be near the rear property line. There is an approximate three-foot drop-off at the rear property. and if we put it on the property line it's going to be three foot lower than it needs to be and the whole purpose is to screen uh the the uh residences in the in the rear from the uh from the drive-through um does staff have an issue with that change no i don't know if we could be more specific than near that might be be better but well you have something you want to propose something Because I'm all ears. Within three feet of the property. I don't know where the drop-off is exactly. I don't know. If I could go through the presentation, could we maybe talk about this at some point when we get to the slide that shows us and maybe we can find something that what we'd be replacing is the small shrubbery with much larger American arbor viding. I just want to say for the record, I have with me today Daniel Rayner, who is an engineer with Thoroughbred Engineering, and he's going to be walking the Board of Adjustment through the plan. I also have with me today Mark Ruddy, who lives at 102 Delmont. This is the property to the immediate rear of the gas station. And so Mr. Ruddy wants to make a few statements. He is an employee of the Clark's Pump and Shop. He is our restaurant manager and makes modified eggs, I must say. So what I want to do is take you through, just give you the overview, show you where it is in town, show you some surrounding properties. And then Daniel Rayner will walk you through the plan itself. And this is the official submitted plan that Daniel will walk you through. This is on Versailles Road. It's on the very eastern edge of what can be considered Cardinal Valley. You can't really get any further east in Cardinal Valley without going out onto Versailles Road. But from Delmont, you can get all the way up to Valley Road and beyond. on almost all the properties uh to the i guess this is going to be east west and south are uh zoned b1 neighborhood business uh the property across into the rear uh of delmont drive is is r3 and that's i'll show you that in a second and then to the immediate rear is r1c so the subject property our property is clark's pump and shop approximately eight and a half acres zone b1 neighborhood business constructed in 2017 i've included a number of letters in your your packet the property that was there before were two abandoned apartment buildings. They had become, they attracted vagrants and drug users and prostitution. And all the folks that we got letters of support for thinks that the station is a significant improvement from what was there before. It has a large parking open space and parking. at the time that this was designed the the folks down permitting said yeah you can go ahead and build it like this but you have to get permission from the board of adjustment and so that's that's why we're here we keep i think think the the manager keeps the car in front of the window so folks can't use it but you would you would enter you can see where the the drive-through arrow is you basically enter toward the back and and drive around the other way inside it's a modern convenience store uh the window that's there is a fixed window it cannot open if the board of adjustment is inclined to improve this then we will replace the window with one that it can open and and it's workable i also want to say that there's no refrigerator back there so this is not a liquor store this is a convenience store i'll a little bit later i'll go through a letter of from brian unruh who's the director of operations and the the top five items that are are sold out of there none of them include liquor so it's not a very big to to basically to to to get uh beer uh to sell out of the window they have to go with that far back corner and then run back to the window so it's a it's a little bit of a hop to do that this is a little better view of the drive-through we've agreed that's going to have no no menu board board no amplified speaker or microphone and this is to reduce any impact on the surrounding neighbors so the the lack of a menu board pretty much guarantees it will never be used as a restaurant you cannot put a mcdonald's in there so this is the primary area that we want to address with the changes to the plan and and that's actually mr mr rudder's house right there and and behind mr rudder is kim and will felt's at 104 delmont we have letters of support for both the property owners and from mr rudder of both houses so if you see the little bushes in the in the along the line that's what we want to replace with our providing if you can see if you go much further past the bushes it's down in the next to the fence you're about three feet lower than that so we think that replacing these existing bushes with the arborvitae basically gives you significantly better coverage and this is the area that we want to to to prevent any impact because car lights would be shining directly in back and so but i stood out there with mr miss feltz and you know i stood on top of that and you know i'm about five foot ten so you know if you if you hold you know hold a something in front of your face while you're standing on that you have significant coverage in back and they'll just grow as the years go by as well so i think uh but but that's the difference in on the at the property line or near near the rear of the property but this is where we're going to put it How tall are these our provide is going to be how tall the staff has has asked for a minimum of three feet. We're going to put in a minimum of five feet. Yeah, so we want this to provide coverage. We they have 42 of these ones with drive through. They have about 85 stations, I believe in the United States and they they don't do good business by by being bad. neighbors. So I don't know whether we want to work on the language at this point here or whether staff has any suggestion. I thought near the rear property line, but if you think we need to be more specific. Will there be alcohol sales from this window? It's possible. Yeah, it's possible, but it's a rare thing. The top five things that are included, it's It's mostly tobacco products by far. And we'll talk about when we get to Brian Unruh's. I think the order is cigarettes, tobacco products, lottery tickets, soda sales, and gasoline. Wait, wait, I thought this was like the chicken window when you guys were here last time. Mr. Rudder makes great chicken, but we're not going to have a menu there. It's really just for convenience items. And it's not a heavily used. We're looking at between one and five cars per hour on average to go through that. They don't have a separate button on their cash registers. And so they really don't have vast amounts of data to know. But they did keep data at four different stores for a day to see what it was. And one store had 20 visits. another store had approximately 120 visits so I think you're looking at one to five cars per hour on average so I want to take you sir yeah so I want to take you around the the vicinity real quick so Smithers sign company is next door it's about three-quarters acre they've been there since 1972 also zone The rear Smithers Sign Company extends behind Mr. Rudder's at 102 Delmont. That's the sign company, so they're right next door. And that's the back. And if you see the green back there, that lot behind Smithers is for their commercial trucks. That's where they have large commercial trucks parked that deliver their signs. and there is a letter in your packet from smithers sign company in support of the drive-through across the street is off-campus barber and styles foodland market and there are apartments upstairs also zone b1 you're talking about across for sales road across for sales road yes next to that and i did these by the zoning who the lots of our apartments at 1418 la casa de mama at 1424 and days motor lodge at 1500 also zone b1 so that's the apartments on the left and casa de mama on the right can we turn the lights down maybe just just last are they They say, okay, as long as they can see it, that's good. All right, and then the Days Motor Lodge up there. Yeah. Now on our side of Versailles Road, but across Delmont, there are 1501 to 1507 Versailles Road, also zone B1. These are owned by the Glenda Mazurka Trust. They're being used for rental property, although I would expect them to be developed at some point in the future. And we have a letter of support from Ms. Mazurka. Behind Ms. Mazurka at 105 Delmont is residential housing, zone R3. And this was actually sold by Ms. Mazurka in July, I think, of this summer. and it's undergoing renovation. Directly behind the station is 102-104 Delmont. It's residential rental and owner-occupied housing. That's Zone R1C. The house on the right is Mr. Rudders. The house on the left is owned by Will and Kim Feltz. We have letters to support both from the property owner of 102 two and also from the tenant obviously who's here. And then we have letters from both Mr. and Ms. Feltz. Now these are the two properties that are impacted most by the drive through. But what's very attractive to them is first of all, they can see Versailles Road from their backyards as it is now. And so this is going to significantly increase, improve their privacy in their backyards. They're not going to, we're going to have a much taller fence. We're going to have additional landscaping. And the landscaping will grow over time. And so this is going to significantly improve sort of the neighborhood quality of their backyard. So the drive-thru. Clark's has approximately 42 stores in the U.S. with drive-thru windows. It gives patrons a quicker in-and-out experience. It allows Clark to close the inside of the store after hours. There was a robbery at Clark's in July, late July, about 2 a.m. And, you know, unfortunately, none of the patrons, none of the employees were injured by this. But in some areas, it's really helpful to have the option to close the store after hours so that folks can purchase things through the drive-thru window, but the main store itself is not open. The letter in there from Brian Unruh confirms that their stores rarely experience more than two stacked vehicles at any time. And so Mr. Rayner will talk about the stacking in more detail. One thing it also does we find is it allows handicapped folks to purchase gas convenience items without exiting their vehicles. Think about how many places in town that you know of that someone who's handicapped can go and get gas. You don't think about it. I really hadn't thought about it until I worked on this project. But it's significant to them. And they go through the drive-thru, hey, can someone come pump gas for me? And they do. And I just put this up there. There's no beer fridge at the drive-thru counter. So the top five sellers, and I went through cigarettes, other tobacco products, lottery tickets, soft drinks, and gasoline. And cigarettes is frankly quite high. So whatever's number six, if beer were number six, it would be a very small fraction of the use of that window. I put a letter in your packet from Brian Unruh, which confirms a lot of things we've talked about. In particular, that there's really, it's a rare thing to have more than two stacked vehicles. It's an occasional people stop by, buy some cigarettes, get some candy or a Coke or something like that. So at this point, I'm going to turn it over to Daniel Rayner, who's at Thoroughbred Engineering, who's going to walk you through the site design. And after Daniel, Mr. Rudder will speak briefly, and then I'll be back. Thank you. Doug, before you leave, it looks to me from the pictures in your handout that there already is a drive-through. This is one that I didn't visit this past week. Well, it was constructed at the time they built the station. And the client was told by permitting that, well, you can build it, but you just can't use it unless you get permission from the Board of Adjustment. i'm not sure they understood that it was a little more involved in that i was not involved in the project at the time and and so it is there but it is not usable the window that's that's there is not cannot be opened no one has ever purchased anything from there because the window is a fixed window it will not open so obviously they're hoping that they're to be able to use their their drive-through investment but but it is subject to the determination of the of this body thank you hello I'm Daniel Rayner and part of my coffee I'm just getting over cold but see I'll stick on this one first. Mainly I just wanted to kind of go over a couple of the points even that staff recommended just for approval and just hit on those again. It was designed per the requirements, the zoning and staff requirements, and specifically as far as it won't have, it's unlikely to have adverse effects on public safety. Just the way it's designed, the requirements for Lexington are that it has five vehicles stacked, not counting the one at the window. You can see there that there's five stacked and still leaving room for at least four or five more before even backing up on the road. But per that letter that's attached, I mean, it's very unlikely that they have more than two, but it already satisfies as it is, plus additional spaces, the stacking requirement. We also, as well, to mitigate any kind of congestion that might occur on the property, we provided those paint stripes to direct traffic, as well as painting on the road there, drive-through lane. We have signs you can see there on the northeast side as well as the west side. There's a drive-through sign for when people are coming in from Delmont Drive, pointing into which direction to direct people, as well as when people come around that, when they come in, they'll turn right from Delmont, and there's a sign again once they get towards the entrance of Versailles, directing them left, just so there's no confusion, as well as when people turn directly in from Sales Road right, there's a sign saying drive-through lane right here, so it's very clearly designated where to go. There's also a sign, you can see where that last vehicle stacking is leaving room there. There's a sign to not block that access for when people are coming through that do park there, so that they don't block it. And that's common, that isn't seen in other places, even on the road itself. When they have businesses that come out near an intersection, they have a stop bar or a sign saying, do not block this access, so cars can come in and out of that. So that is to mitigate any possible congestion there. Also, the requirement back there, we have a six-foot fence, as you mentioned. It's going to be increased to eight feet. It doesn't need to be that way, but we're trying to mitigate any issues that might arise from the light, as well as that American Arboriety. That is going to basically replace the existing, and this may clarify a little bit the modification to that condition. Those plants there are for the VUA, so they do need to be near that. I guess I don't know that even the VUA specifies the exact distance. but it's for VUA, but it's also going to provide that additional screening for light. So it's kind of replacing the VUA with additional more and thicker trees for that. Also, this is an example of what the kind of fully grown American R variety would look like. Those are a little bit taller than five foot, but as it grows, it's going to fill out quite nicely. And you really, I mean, those are called basically, you know, privacy landscaping. People put those up and you can't see through them once they start growing together. But those lights you can see on the side of the building, those will have shades on them as well to prevent any light from polluting the other side. So they'll be directed down and inward. And as far as any potential congestion or issues coming out of our sales road, we do have a sign specifying no left turn there to prevent anyone from getting ideas, from turning over there and potentially getting in an unsafe situation. I don't know if you have any other questions that I could answer as far as the site plan or... I do have a question. Once they get through the drive-in, it's not clear to me how they exit from the drive-in back to Versailles Road or however they're getting out. Go back to that original, where you were. Yeah, right there. The structure between the drive-in and the other parking, what is that? Is that additional parking, the yellow figure there? On the right here? Yellow. that that isn't that's a median there yeah and is there parking inside that medium yes there's there's two there's three parking spots there okay and the driveway width between the parking stalls on that one and the other is is 24 which is the minimum between if you have a 90 degree parking you have to have at least a minimum of 24 feet in between those two so that people can back up and pull in so there is the required amount of space needed for that for that turn as well as someone to park in there would need okay is that going to be marked this i guess is my question because if the lane is marked going into the into the drive-in it looks like seems like there should be a lane mark coming out as well because you've got the confusion of other parking in there and minimal space are you talking about the marking right here yes coming out I see the errors, but is there going to be anything on the pavement? Because it's going to be really confusing, people trying to get out of there. As far as people coming from the drive-thru, which direction they go? Yes, that's correct. Yeah, the drive-thru is only one way. I understand that. But is there directions for them to drive coming out of that, or are they kind of on their own? They can't go this way to come out. This is only a one-way drive, so if people were to come in here and park, they can come in this direction because it's going to be left open, but they cannot go that way because it's a one-way road. I'm talking about coming out after they've gone to the drive-in. Oh, yeah, they can exit through Versailles Road or they can exit through Delmont. So once they come out of here, they can choose to turn that way if they want to, or they can proceed straight and turn. They can only turn right. They can't turn left here. So if they wanted to turn left, they'd have to go to the right. Okay, I understand that. I'm asking, once they go through the drive-in, they turn right, and then they go through the parking lot right there, yeah. Are there no lanes marked? No. If we were to put a line here as well as these paint stripes that when we talk with traffic, they definitely wanted to have those, that would start having crossing lines that would get more confusing. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions? Thank you, sir. Please state your name for the record. Mark Ruddy, R-U-D-D-Y. not used to speaking in public. Um, I just wanted to voice my opinion on why I approve of the drive-thru and I think it's mainly going to just be for the safety factor. Um, he had mentioned the man that came in and robbed. He came in about 2 a.m. in the morning with a knife, but that same man ran down the street and ran past everybody's house. house. And I told him I said, well, if you had a drive through window, he wouldn't be able to go inside. I mean, a drive through is not going to be 100% nothing is unless it's just not there, but it's there. So there's nothing we can do about that. But I mean, I've worked around drive through windows all my life and I know that it prevents robberies more than anything else. And for the people that work there, their safety and our safety. I mean, I live right next door. I've seen it all. I mean, before the before Clark's was there. We were getting people that were hiding in my backyard from the police. We had one that was trying to run up our back steps to enter our house to get away from the police. Um, haven't seen that anymore. Um, so you know, I definitely approve of the drive through window and I think, uh, as a safety factor for everybody, the noise is not gonna bother me because like I said, I'm right next door. All of our bedrooms are on the other side of the house, so it's not gonna make a difference to me. So, uh, and like he said the felt were more concerned about having a little bit more privacy and I think that's what defense is gonna do and the plants arbor vitus I think they called it so I just wanted to let you know that I live right next door and I definitely approve of it and I hope you guys do too can I ask you one question did you live in that house when this first went through I've lived there for almost five years oh you have okay yeah I actually voted for the drive-thru window back when they had the vote before he even worked there so I live I was there when the apartments were there and all the homeless and you know not so kind people that were staying over there so it was a welcome sight when they tore those down great thank you thank you mr. Martin that's what we have if I'm happy to answer any questions that you or the staff may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin before I have citizen comment period? Actually, I did want to say for the record, I have given Ms. Goderweiss, is that right? A flash drive with the Cardinal Valley Small Area Development Plan, the Oxford Circle Study and the Versailles Road Intermodal Study, and I ask that those be entered in the record. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ma'am, do you want to come up? My name is Rita Miller. And before I read my statement to you, I'll address your earlier question, have we spoken? Well, I did speak to Mr. Martin when we came in, and I gave him some of my concerns. And he kind of laughed me off and said he'd been a member of the council for numerous years, which I assume that puts him in your back pocket. But I am a paying citizen- That would not be the case ma'am. That lives in this neighborhood. His response when I asked, do you live in Cardinal Valley, is no, I'm an attorney. Okay. I'm a retired respiratory therapist. I still work full time at the age of 71, and I put money into my neighborhood. I maintain my property, and I work hard to make it a better place to live for me and everyone else that lives there. My concerns are not whether or not he gets a drive-thru, because unlike him, this isn't about win and lose, which is what he said, whoever wins and loses. We can both win, and we can both lose. We need to do what's best for the neighborhood. My concern is a drive-through that sells alcohol through the window, brown bag alcohol. Now I'm going to read my statement, but I did bring some copies if you would like to have a copy. Please, we'll put those in the record. I'm Rita Miller, a resident of Cardinal Valley residing on Dunkirk Drive. I've come to voice my concerns to you over the Clark convenience store on Vercels Road once again requesting a permit to install a drive-through window, which I feel will have a negative effect on the safety of our neighborhood. A drive-through window would easier enable excessively inebriated individuals to drive up, purchase alcohol in a brown bag, and beer is an alcohol, and you do get drunk from it. Drive off where they become more of a danger than they already are. This increases the possibility of drunk driver accidents that cause property damages as well as possible loss of lives. By being able to purchase alcohol without having to walk in eliminates the clerk employees ability to determine the level of sobriety of the purchaser. So they cannot make an informed decision as to whether or not to sell them alcohol. In turn, this makes the employee as liable for damages of property or loss of life as the inebriated person that they sell the alcohol to. By selling to someone highly inebriated, the person becomes more of a danger to themselves, others, and property in the entire neighborhood. This is a liability to the store owner, the employee, and everyone else. Drunk driver accidents affect the cost of insurance as well as lowers the reputation of our neighborhood as a family safe area to live. These issues lower the value of our property and have a negative effect on the goodwill of businesses needed to bring more upscale business to our area. It is my understanding that the store was robbed in the early hours of the morning and the store owner feels that a drive-through window will eliminate possibility of robberies, making it safer for their employees. There are other options to achieve that goal that could have a more positive effect for all concerned. First being closing earlier since there is less possibility of robberies when there are more people out and about. Install an interior safety barrier for your employees. This is deterrent that is being used in several speedways throughout the Lexington area where robbery is more likely to occur. This also allows the employees the visibility view, the customer's ability to walk, acknowledging he or she is not over the limit of inebriation and okay to sell alcohol to. I ask Mr. Martin, are you going to assure me they will not sell alcohol through the window? But it's only that 2% that could possibly be that alcohol. How much percent does it take to kill one person? A drunk is a drunk no matter if you only sold it to one person out of every 100. Higher security for late hours are requests regular drop by of police cars as a deterrent during these less frequented hours. These are other options that could be used. I have been negatively affected by the following drunk driving accidents in the neighborhood. One morning while my daughter was loading work product in her car in my driveway for a health department event, a drunk woman jumped the curb in her car and broadsided my daughter's car totaling it, coming only a few seconds from hitting and killing my lovely daughter. There is no money amount that that store can make that would have replaced my daughter or the next one in line, and we know it won't be Mr. Martin's daughter. He doesn't live in the neighborhood. In addition to the trauma it cost her, the cost to the insurance was well above $15,000 in damages. Less than two months later, a friend of my daughter's was staying over that parked her car at the curb out front of my house, had her Dodge Neon sideswiped and totaled by yet another drunk driver, once again costing her thousands of dollars. Then a few months later, another friend was here working on a project, and his Toyota Corolla parked at the curb in front of my house was hit and totaled by yet another drunk driver, once again costing him thousands of dollars. These accidents are continually raising the weight of our insurance in this area. In essence, anything enabling a drunk driver easier access to purchase alcohol after already being over the limit is detrimental to the safety of our entire neighborhood. It is costly, has a negative effect, and should be a major concern to us all. Not only do these accidents affect our insurance, but the reputation of our neighborhood as a family-friendly neighborhood. In addition, it does not encourage investment in an area needed for businesses to build here and eliminate positive growth. So I request, when considering the decision to approve this permit, that you consider the issues that this can cause for us and respectfully ask that the Clark Convenience Store consider a different option to make their employees safe and deter the possibility of being robbed, which is generally a concern for all establishments of this type. I appreciate your time for listening to my concerns. I hope that you really do take them into mind when you approve this. I am not against them having a drive-thru. I am against them having a drive-thru that will sell alcohol to another drunk driver. And they cannot judge how drunk someone is if they're not walking in the store. That beer might be on the other side of the store, But if they sell it out of that one, it's still going to that same drunk driver. That is a safety issue in my neighborhood. I live there. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Miller, where is Dunkirk Drive in relation to this? If you go down Delmont, it dead ends into Dunkirk, right at the curve. Now, their opinion is that if you don't live 10 houses from it, then you shouldn't have an opinion. and that's exactly what Mr. Mark Ruddy said to me online on our neighborhood association site. But I was affected by that. He wasn't selling liquor in case he wasn't opened. The place that was selling the liquor that we have already given a drive-thru permit to is much farther from me, but they managed to do three incidents in front of my house in less than a six-month period. I'm much closer to him than I was to them in addition yesterday my neighbor says oh a few weeks before you moved in I had an antique truck parked in front of the house my next door neighbor that I was getting ready to go to a car show with and a drunk driver came down the road rear-ended my antique truck and shoved it a block down the road and told her it happens it's not just me Those are things happening in our neighborhood, and we have to take our neighborhood back. The only way to do that is eliminate the easy way of getting alcohol. Thank you. Any more questions for Ms. Miller? All right. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Before I give Mr. Martin an opportunity to rebut, I've got a question with staff. You may sit down, ma'am. Yeah. Autumn, given the presentation on number four, this is just kind of a house cleaning, is staff comfortable with changing the word it to rear or? Near. Near, I think was the word. Yeah, I think that's, I think we're fine with that. You'd be okay. Just want to make sure. All right. Mr. Martin, do you want to come up for any rebuttal? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Obviously, we always appreciate when citizens tell us what's going on with them. There are a number of drive-throughs in the Cardinal Valley area. One of them is the Liquor Barn up in Oxford Circle. We've heard no evidence that this gas station, this Clark's Pump and Shop, contributes in any way to drunk driving in the area. Or that the approval of a drive-through, where our own statistics say that the beer that's there would not be even in the top six items, or at least top five items. And so I can say that Clark Central has a vigorous employee training. They have 42 stations with drive-through windows. And so they are, this is a very real issue to them, because if they're selling alcohol to drunk drivers, they're out of business. And so they take this very serious. They train their staff, employees, to not sell alcohol to folks who are intoxicated either inside their store or outside the store. And so we know that Clark, I've been today after I spoke with the objector, I was texting with Mr. Clark, who's out of town, to ask and to clarify what their policies were. And they train their employees for this. This is a part of their employee training. So we would, you know, all I can say is that Clark Central makes a vigorous effort to prevent anything bad happening related to their drive-throughs in their stores. And given that statement, I presume that you would be opposed to an additional condition to limit alcohol sales from the window? Well, we would, and here's why. If you think it through, it's a practical problem. First of all, one of the main reasons for the drive-thru is to be able to close the store at night. It's not the only reason. It's obviously an increased source of revenue for the company. But what this would do would prevent them from selling alcohol after they close the store. So, and I'm just talking, I have not discussed this specifically with Mr. Clark, but I'm guessing that that might discourage them from closing stores. at night. So it is, you know, even though it's a small fraction of what they sell out of the window, so I think this is sort of an exaggerated conversation in some ways, but, you know, it's consistent with applicable laws to do that. They are a responsible corporate citizen. They, you know, it's not a bar, you know, it's not a, they're not passing mugs out the window or anything like that. I'm not trying to make light of it, but the beer cooler is on the exact opposite. Do you have that? We can, do you have the presentation? Oh, here, I got it. Okay. Yeah. So that's the beer way in the back. And I checked this out. I went to the store yesterday, and I walked behind the counter, and I asked them specifically whether they had any cooler that they could sell beer out of there. They don't. And what that tells you is a couple things. One, if it was a big part of what they do, they would have a cooler there so they can pull the thing out. You know, you go to Wildcat Liquor up on Maxwell, and, you know, it's really close to the window. Here, it's nowhere near the window. And so it really is a small part of what they do. We would not be in favor of the limitation, obviously because limitations are more limiting, but because it would probably prohibit them from selling any alcohol after hours. And so if they close the store and my personal concern just as the attorney thinking through this, but that would discourage them from closing the store, which is a safety issue. So there's just no evidence that this window contributes in any way to a drunk driving problem at all. It's a very small part, but it would be inconvenient. You would have a customer who would go to the window, and they'd be told, I'm sorry, you have to come inside to get order. And then you have angry customers. So I think it's an unnecessary limit because I don't think there's any evidence that this is going to cause any problems with drunk driving in the area. Any additional questions for Mr. Martin? Anything from staff? All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. I will entertain a motion. I move we approve PLN BOA 18-70 Clark Central LLC's request for a conditional use permit for a drive-through accessory to a convenience store in a neighborhood business B1 zone at 1419 for sales road. on staff's recommendations and some subject to the seven conditions outlined by staff specifically number four that states the applicant shall maintain landscape screening near the rear of the property line consisting of American Arbor Vitae or similar plantings with an initial planting height at least three feet thank you do i have a second i have a second any discussion on the motion i would like to michael say and i have no problem with this but i would also like to suggest that my comments about the exiting from the drive drive-in window i think there's some problems there and it would i think would be smart to look look at that again and and see if that can be cleared up a little bit Thank you, Mr. Clark. Any other comments or discussion? Hearing none, please register your votes. The allocation, as proposed, has passed. Good luck to the project. Thanks, guys. this brings us up to our last case of the day and i may have missed it did we get a report from staff on this one because i can't find mine okay we did not get one in our packets I got this. There was no report? I do not recall seeing report. Okay. And I was out and my assistant was out so her stand-in did not mention hey you only got so. All right. I'm sorry that you all did not receive staff report on this one. I'm not sure what happen there um i would probably want to ask the applicant that whether or not he got the report no okay through email well what i would like to do then auto you know i don't want to extend if we could have a few minutes to review the report before you start and then if you can let the applicant see a copy yeah i only have the one copy on me i guess i don't yeah that's what i said we can look at ours on the screen oh okay you have it on this yeah if you could just give us a minute let us review it online. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think we're good, Autumn. All right. This is an administrative appeal to increase the allowable size of an accessory structure. from 831 square feet to 1,260 square feet and a variance to decrease the required side yard setback down to one inch in order to construct a new two-story garage. We've seen a couple of cases like this in the past and primarily we are recommending disapproval of this one. Typically when we have seen this be approved It is at a much larger, more rural type of residential lot. So that is one reason that we believe that this is not in character with the general vicinity of the neighborhood. We also have not found that there are any special circumstances to justify the need for this variant setback. This is a case that the building has been constructed. it's not completely finished but it is up and was done without a permit and this is a complaint case so they're asking for forgiveness here we've not been able to find any any special circumstances that that really justify the need for the variance nor the administrative appeal the increase in size accessory detached structure is allowed to be 50% of the square footage of the principal structure on the property in this case the total square footage of this accessory structure would be about 76% of the principal structure square footage detached garages are pretty common in this area but they're not typically two stories that's not the issue here it could be a two-story garage as long as it was only 831 square feet of finished floor area so while they're not common it would be allowed at a smaller size but just to speak to the character of the neighborhood something of this size is not not typical there have been no variances for similar requests either for the setback or for the increase in size and in this general vicinity looking at the streets on Bassett, Menifee, Preston, Sherman or Monroe so pretty much the entire vicinity there have not been any kind of requests of this nature And there's just the concern that this would be an unreasonable circumvention of the zoning ordinance, considering that the applicant did not go through the process of getting a permit in the first place, and it was constructed, and the complaint came in on May 30th, and we didn't receive any application for this variance and administrative appeal until August, and didn't get fully here until today. So if you have any questions. I have a question. You said 830 square feet of finished area. If it was unfinished, if there was area unfinished, could it be bigger? Right. It could be. And would describe what that might look like. That would be like an unfinished attic space type situation. So in this case, if you had a garage downstairs where you parked your cars and you had an apartment up above, the garage would not be considered finished? in well in in this case that the garage is included in the portion of the square feet it's not something that would count in certain circumstances but when it's when we're talking about the size of the square of an accessory structure that the square footage it is count in this case so I think she's saying if the second story was storage right storage and it would it would not be included but if they decide as the application of yours where the cars are parked would be would be included yes but in this instance it sounds like they may want to do a painting studio in the second-story garage if they were to do that you would have to include it how much square footage is the ground floor autumn let's see the footprint is okay six hundred and 30 square feet. And so the language of the code doesn't say anything, or the article, does not say anything about finished, just the square footage. Correct. It doesn't. So where we're asking what's finished or not finished, it's just saying what's the square footage that they're building. There's no distinction on finished here. Oh, there is no distinction? Well, it doesn't say that. I'm confused here. I think Jim can you is it the because remember we had one that was downtown closer in the east and the guy was building over building on that lot and he was saying that he was not intending to finish that part upstairs but he could later so we had to consider that that it was area that could the height differences. Yeah, we made it take it down. So it's too high. The unfinished attic space, I think, is defined as having a maximum height of seven feet. Correct. So that's sort of the distinguishing difference. This one's too tall. The second story would be too tall to be considered unfinished. They're asking for a fully functional second floor. I don't know the exact height of the how that level plays out within the structure. Any more questions for Autumn? Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. The applicant present. Come on up. Please state your name for the record. Joseph Hudson. mr. Hudson today you've asked for a review of the staff's recommendation disapproval for you to build this garage so it's your turn to explain why we should allow it. I purchased this house in 2014. And the garage as purchase was really not to code any longer. It was unable to have a car drive in. So we had it taken down in 2017. And then I was working with a contractor, and I was mistakenly led to believe that permits were optional. And so he began construction. We had talked about where. I didn't know that the code was a foot and a half offset or that there was the square footage limitations. and so now I'm here and it's I in talking with with my neighbor who shares the property line we had initially discussed where it would be but I think neither of us realized the requirement for it to be offset so I'm having that conversation today it seems like that would be the fairest thing for the neighborhood is to follow that code which code is that That is in the zoning code R2 on the offset, which says right now the building is one inch off of the property line, and it should be 18 inches. Okay. That's probably the smaller of the two issues that are before us. the main issue is what we're going to do about this garage that is appears to be so it's all framed up and so if it's disapproved it would need to be deconstructed and moved over 17 inches and not have a second floor and just just for a little bit of context for you unfortunately this board has is put in this position from time to time and just this year alone we've made somebody take a floor down off their house and we've made somebody remove two feet of a masonry brick wall around their house else so um uh so from time to time we've had to make those decisions and they're not ones we enjoy you got anything else for me no sir all right any questions for the applicant yeah i've got a i've got a question or two i uh who built it i don't know if that's appropriate i don't i don't want to i'm embarrassed i take responsibility uh i was the one behind i submitted for the applications it's my responsibility well i mean i i mean i think your contractor uh whoever he is uh should know better unfortunately at the time wasn't registered and is in process now. Yeah, I mean, that's a pretty risky thing to do is to. None of this was anything that I was aware was required, or I just was first-time homeowner, kind of a weekend DIYer for the first few years, and first time I reached out, got a recommendation, made a poor decision. Yeah, so it's framed. Is there a new concrete pad or something down, or what's the is the concrete pad um and it will need to be uh i suppose extended so that's going to be the next step is to apply for the the proper reapply for the permits that everything would be to code what are the dimensions of the concrete pad i'm curious um it is 22 feet wide and 30 feet long the idea was to have an extra 10 feet long compared to most two-car garages for about a 200 square foot kind of shop home gym in the back have you had any discussions with staff on to how to salvage this project um short of you moving the building Just to be honest with you, I think the one inch versus 18 inches is probably less problematic for me than it is the additional second story. So the answer to the question was it was an eight feet tall and it sounded like seven feet was the minimum. But no, I've not had any conversations. When I first had the stop work notice, I went in and talked to Jordan, who was incredibly helpful, and I laid it out where we were, and he told me what would need to be done to get to code. So, no, I've not heard any suggestions on what to do. Well, just speaking for me, personally, I'm inclined to deny your appeal. and the chair is probably trying to be helpful to suggest ways where you're not completely out of luck and have to take it down back to the grass and i think it'd be it'd be helpful if you maybe talk to your contractor about about that but there are other people as well that you can talk to and staff is probably a good a good beginning point but i'm not in favor of granting your your request so that uh i mean because it would first it would it would set a bad precedent quite frankly for not only your neighbors but for the entire city and and secondly it's it's much more difficult uh to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission And so we typically, as Brandon said, we don't grant these requests. I'm sorry that you're out the money and the work that's already been done, but I can't vote to approve it. I understand. Thank you. Yeah. I feel for you. I mean, I don't think this is an historic district, but I built a garage behind my house in a historic district. And it, be that what it may, you know, it's a very difficult thing sometimes. I felt like I could be much closer to the sidewalk than I could, to the back. And it just created a garage that was very different than what I had initially visioned. And it was a big learning lesson for me, but I learned it. And unfortunately, yeah, I don't know. So I kind of feel like if you didn't really know, that's part of the lesson. But it would be nice to see some forgiveness. But in this case, because you guys worked. I wasn't on the last when they had removed that house that was overbuilt in the neighborhood. But there were some, I guess, negotiating on that and working things out. But this, I don't know. Well, I think, and just to clarify, Ms. Jones can chime in, legal can chime in. I think even if we were to deny the, if we were to follow the staff's recommendation that disapproval, that would not necessarily stop somebody from coming in with an application for a variance on the 18 versus one inch. Is that the case? or how would that work ms jones even for to disapprove i mean could could the applicant go and speak with the staff and and maybe come up with a scenario on which he could request a variance in other words in other words are there salvageable solutions if of course not yet the project's not complete loss yeah i have a concern about you disapproving an application and then having someone come back in with the same application or some part of the same application based on your bylaws. So, you know, this is for two things. It's one for the variance from 18 to one inch on the side yard setback, and then secondly for the size of the structure, which is accessory in this area. So, you know, I don't know whether or not there's any way to salvage the project or if there's some way to cut it down engineering-wise, but if you're inclined to allow some part of it or consider some alteration to it, I would say you'd be better off to postpone or continue it and not to disapprove it, because disapproval might prohibit, unless it was substantially different, you know, from coming back to you. Let me ask it in a different way. I mean, his request really is a double request. he's requesting an appeal for the for the uh for the size of the structure and a variance for the setback could we disapprove one and and postpone the other or i mean i i'm not sure i think it made more sense to continue the entire thing until next month that can't do anything yeah that's Yeah, I don't disagree with that. I mean, I'd like to ask the applicant, what's your plan? If we don't approve this, what are you going to do? In conversations with the contractor, I've tried to put a lot of responsibility on him. Again, this is my first time in working with a contractor. I don't know what my options would be. I like the guy. I want good things for him. You have a written contract with him? No. And, yeah, and again, I did not know that was something that was, that was something I asked him about, and he just kind of blew it off, and so I didn't think that was a big thing. But he has agreed to take back some of the materials, the extras, and then the idea would be to move it over 17 inches, apply for all the right permits and keep the walls as best we can just disassemble them pour a new footer pour add-on and reconstruct it 17 inches over i suppose that's my my best option at this point yeah i'm confused about what we're asking to be continued then well I think that the item, what's before us is this sort of review for the variance. He's supposed to have 18 inches off the property line. And he's only supposed to build a garage that's only a certain size. Correct. So if we were to continue this to next month, that may give him an opportunity to speak with staff. Nope, never mind. I don't think there's any part of it. Okay, you've already been through this? We've been through this. We don't make these casual suggestions. suggestions we know it's a big issue there's no other option yeah either prove this or he has to rebuild it okay and in all honesty i would i would want a decision today it's kind of been an eyesore for me and the neighbors and i just would like a finished garage wherever and however i think that here's the here's just thinking this through i don't see any danger in disapproving the whole thing because then if you if you wanted to salvage a project you would salvage it within the parameters of the zoning ordinance and the requirements of having it 18 inches off the side and however many inches off the back and you'd be limited in the height of it then you wouldn't need to come back to us correct so that's what that's that's what i'm that's what i see i I would agree with that. I think that's the solution, and it's a terrible situation to be in. We appreciate that, and I think we have no other answer. But I think you can make some adjustments to make it not a total loss. Yes, sir. Mr. Hudson, I would like to put one more thing on the record. I think you have not identified your contractor, but I just wanted to say on the record that this is your contractor's fault. He should know better. You should too, but he's in the business of constructing garages, he should know better than to say that permission is optional. Agreed. Good luck to you. Thank you. Any additional comments or questions? I think the positive is that you do have a frame structure, and if it's going to be smaller, you probably don't earn out a whole lot of material. There you go. All right, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we disapprove the PLN VOA 18-67, Joseph Hudson's request for an administrative appeal to increase the allowable size of an accessory structure from 831 square feet to 1260 square feet, and to deny the variance to decrease the required side yard setback for an accessory structure from 18 inches to 1 inch to construct a new two-story garage within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a two-family residential R2 zone at 280 Bassett Avenue for the reasons recommended in the staff's case report. Second. any discussion on the motion I have a first and a second Clark hearing them please register your votes denied good luck future next item are there any items that any board member would like to bring to our attention right now any items that staff other than what i'm going to announce several things it'll be pretty quick you saw the reminder about the training coming up on friday we're finishing the agenda up hopefully in the next couple of days you'll get that email from pam whitaker but for those that are coming to the full day it's going to start at eight o'clock sorry about that but um the afternoon session some of you may just come to the afternoon we're guessing it's going to start around one but there's a kind of a working lunch kind of thing going on so it may be a little after one but approximately one hopefully we'll wrap that up with the agenda in a couple of days the other two things are we need to reappoint a member of the landscape review committee mr richard weber who is the owner of springhouse gardens nursery garden shop landscaping place in nicholasville his term expires on november 30th he has indicated he would like to serve another four years so if acceptable to you all we would need a motion to reappoint mr weber for four more years so moved Mr. Clark second. We need to make a vote, a formal vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? You want us to vote on the machine? Okay. Okay, the last item is just a heads up that we're working on the meeting schedule for next year already. We're going to stick to the second Mondays, if that's acceptable to you all. We hate to switch again after just one year of a trial run. I want to go on the record as saying I don't like it. I would prefer to meet on Wednesday or some other day other than Monday. And I would like to meet at 1.30 instead of 1 o'clock. I know I was not here for the vote when it was taken last year, but just be prepared. That's going to be my suggestion when it comes up. I don't recall who had a conflict on Wednesdays. Jan. Jan did? Oh, okay. I think it was a set. Was Monday the only day that was going to be acceptable to most everybody? I think Monday or Friday. Monday or Friday. There was time constraint, you know, having availability of this chamber. And I think we did one, even though you weren't here, because it was our understanding that you had something on Monday. Yeah, I thought it was Mr. Glover that needed me at 1 p.m., but you had something with your church, I believe. Oh, yes, yes. That has resolved. Oh, good. Sure. Yeah. that yeah yeah mr gross i withdraw my objection for that particular reason maintaining my option to but i would say my schedule was busy the days i think i think it was like friday or monday would only work as to the one or 1 30 we could discuss that next month i'm not you know one works for me better because like you know we'll get done or you know and get out but 1 15. yeah All right, so we'll discuss that next month. Would that be fine if we discuss the time next month? Yeah, we'll have the draft ready for you next month, and we'll need to make a decision next month. That's right. We will make a decision. Thank you. It's only 1 or 1.30. We're down to 2 this time. Anything else? Okay, so our next meeting will be November 12th. We'll determine 1 or 1.30 if Mr. Glover wants to take an informal poll. I think it doesn't matter to me. and we're at adjournment. Thank you. you