# Board of Adjustment - February 11, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 11, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4688 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4688?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-02-11 - **Last revised**: February 11, 2019 - **Length**: 16,843 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Division of Planning Zoning Compliance Section Board of Adjustment convened on February 11, 2019, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, KY, with Thomas Glover presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed eight agenda items during the session, consisting of six variance appeals, one conditional use appeal, and the election of officers for the board. The meeting resulted in eight motions and votes, with the board approving seven of the eight matters brought before them. Six variance and conditional use appeals were approved, including requests from Buddy Prather, OHP-SOUTHLAND LLC, Baptist Health, LNMCC, CAPKY BLUEGRASS PROPERTIES LLC, and Christian Student Fellowship, Inc. The board denied one variance appeal submitted by Alan Bidwell. Additionally, the board successfully conducted their election of officers. One member of the public provided comments during the meeting's public comment period. The session demonstrated active engagement with zoning and land use matters affecting the Lexington community, with the board exercising its authority to review appeals from planning and zoning decisions while maintaining its administrative responsibilities through the officer election process. ## Attendance The meeting on February 11, 2019 had five members present and two absent. **Present:** • Thomas Glover • Raquel Carter • Joan Whitman • Harry Clarke • Chad Needham **Absent:** • Branden Gross • Jan Meyer **Late:** • None ## Votes and Decisions The board considered eight items during the February 11, 2019 meeting, approving six applications and denying one variance request. **PLN-BOA-18-00086** [timestamp: 02:11]: Chad Needham motioned to approve Buddy Prather's variance request to reduce the required distance from a residential zone for an overhead door from 100 feet to 73 feet. Harry Clarke seconded the motion. The board unanimously approved the variance 5-0, subject to three conditions outlined by staff. **PLN-BOA-19-00002** [timestamp: 02:21]: Raquel Carter motioned to approve OHP-SOUTHLAND, LLC's variance request to increase the allowable front setback and eliminate the vehicular use area perimeter landscape buffer. Chad Needham seconded. The motion passed unanimously 5-0, subject to four staff conditions. **PLN-BOA-19-00003** [timestamp: 02:30]: Harry Clarke motioned to approve Baptist Health's variance request to reduce the setback for a free-standing sign from 10 feet to 5 feet. Joan Whitman seconded. The board approved unanimously 5-0, subject to two staff conditions. **PLN-BOA-18-00084** [timestamp: 02:40]: Chad Needham motioned to approve LNMCC's conditional use permit request for a place of religious assembly. Harry Clarke seconded. The motion passed unanimously 5-0, subject to six staff conditions. **PLN-BOA-19-00004** [timestamp: 02:50]: Harry Clarke motioned to approve CAPKY BLUEGRASS PROPERTIES, LLC's conditional use permit to establish an extended-stay hotel. Raquel Carter seconded. The board approved unanimously 5-0, subject to four staff conditions. **PLN-BOA-19-00006** [timestamp: 03:10]: Raquel Carter motioned to approve Christian Student Fellowship, Inc.'s conditional use permit for a place of religious assembly and variances. Chad Needham seconded. The motion passed 4-1 on a roll call vote, with Thomas Glover, Raquel Carter, Joan Whitman, and Chad Needham voting in favor, and Harry Clarke voting against. The approval included six staff conditions. **PLN-BOA-19-00001** [timestamp: 03:50]: Chad Needham motioned to approve Alan Bidwell's variance request to reduce the front required setback for additional paved parking. Raquel Carter seconded. The motion failed unanimously 0-5. **Officer Elections** [timestamp: 04:00]: Harry Clarke motioned to re-elect the present officers. Chad Needham seconded. The board unanimously approved 5-0 to retain Branden Gross as Chair, Thomas Glover as Vice Chair, and Joan Whitman as Secretary. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one community member addressed the board. Amanda Bledsoe spoke in support of the Christian Student Fellowship project [timestamp: 03:00]. She expressed strong support for the initiative, emphasizing the benefits it would provide to University of Kentucky students and the broader community. Bledsoe highlighted the positive impact the project would have on campus life and student engagement. No other public comments were recorded during this portion of the meeting. ## Appointments The meeting included several reappointments to key leadership positions. Three individuals were reappointed to their respective roles: • **Branden Gross** was reappointed as Chair • **Thomas Glover** was reappointed as Vice Chair • **Joan Whitman** was reappointed as Secretary These reappointments maintain continuity in the leadership structure, with all three officers continuing in their current positions for another term. ## Contested Items Two appeals generated significant discussion and opposition during the February 11, 2019 meeting. **Variance Appeal by Alan Bidwell** Alan Bidwell's request to reduce the front required setback for additional paved parking faced community opposition and was ultimately denied by the board. The variance application sought to allow construction closer to the street than normally permitted under zoning regulations to accommodate expanded parking facilities. The board determined that Bidwell's request did not meet the necessary criteria for granting a variance, specifically finding a lack of special circumstances that would justify deviating from standard zoning requirements. The denial was based on non-compliance with established zoning regulations, indicating that the proposed setback reduction would violate municipal development standards without sufficient justification for the exception. **Conditional Use Appeal by Christian Student Fellowship, Inc.** The Christian Student Fellowship, Inc. conditional use application sparked heated discussion, particularly regarding environmental preservation concerns. The primary point of contention centered on the potential impact of proposed construction on existing trees located on the property. Board members and community participants engaged in significant debate about tree preservation requirements and the organization's construction plans. Concerns were raised about how the development would affect the existing tree canopy and whether adequate measures were being proposed to protect or replace trees that might be removed during construction. The discussion highlighted the tension between development needs and environmental preservation, with participants examining the balance between allowing the religious organization's intended use of the property and maintaining the area's natural features. The extended debate reflected the community's investment in preserving green space and existing vegetation while accommodating legitimate development requests. Both contested items demonstrated the board's careful consideration of zoning compliance, community impact, and regulatory requirements in their decision-making process. ## Variance Appeal by Buddy Prather [timestamp: 02:11] The board considered a variance request from Buddy Prather to reduce the required setback distance for an overhead door from a residential zone. The current zoning ordinance requires overhead doors to be located at least 100 feet from residential zones, but Prather requested approval to place his overhead door at 73 feet from the residential boundary - a reduction of 27 feet from the standard requirement. Buddy Prather presented his case to the board, explaining the circumstances that necessitated the variance request. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval of the variance, though their recommendation included specific conditions that would need to be met. The board ultimately approved Prather's variance request, allowing him to proceed with the overhead door placement at the reduced 73-foot setback distance from the residential zone boundary. The approval enables Prather to move forward with his project while maintaining the conditions specified by staff in their recommendation. This variance represents a 27% reduction from the standard 100-foot requirement, bringing the overhead door significantly closer to the adjacent residential area than typically permitted under the zoning ordinance. ## Variance Appeal by OHP-SOUTHLAND, LLC [timestamp: 02:21] The board considered agenda item III.C.2, a variance appeal submitted by OHP-SOUTHLAND, LLC. The company requested two specific variances: permission to increase the allowable front setback beyond current regulations and elimination of the required vehicular use area perimeter landscape buffer. Dick Murphy served as the key speaker during the discussion of this variance request. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval of the requested variances, contingent upon certain conditions being met by the applicant. The variances sought by OHP-SOUTHLAND, LLC would modify standard development requirements that typically govern building placement and landscaping standards for vehicular areas. The front setback variance would allow the company greater flexibility in positioning structures on their property, while the landscape buffer elimination would remove the requirement for planted screening around parking or vehicle circulation areas. Following the presentation and discussion, the board voted to approve the variance appeal. The approval aligned with staff recommendations and included the conditions that had been proposed by planning staff as part of their review process. The successful variance appeal allows OHP-SOUTHLAND, LLC to proceed with their development plans under the modified requirements, providing them with the regulatory flexibility they requested while maintaining appropriate oversight through the attached conditions. ## Variance Appeal by Baptist Health [timestamp: 02:30] The board considered agenda item III.C.3, a variance appeal submitted by Baptist Health regarding signage setback requirements. Baptist Health requested permission to reduce the required setback distance for a free-standing sign from the standard 10 feet to 5 feet. Adam Bender served as the key speaker during the discussion of this variance request. The staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval of the variance, though their recommendation included specific conditions that would need to be met. The variance request centered on practical considerations for the placement of Baptist Health's free-standing signage. The standard 10-foot setback requirement would have created challenges for the healthcare facility's signage placement, prompting their request for the reduced 5-foot setback. Staff analysis determined that granting the variance would not compromise safety or zoning objectives, leading to their positive recommendation. The conditions attached to the staff recommendation were designed to ensure the reduced setback would still meet appropriate standards for the area. Following the presentation and discussion, the board voted to approve Baptist Health's variance appeal. The approval allows Baptist Health to proceed with their signage plans using the reduced 5-foot setback rather than the standard 10-foot requirement, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. This approval enables Baptist Health to move forward with their signage project while maintaining compliance with modified setback requirements that address their specific site constraints. ## Conditional Use Appeal by LNMCC [timestamp: 02:40] The board considered agenda item III.D.1, a conditional use appeal by LNMCC for a place of religious assembly. Staff had recommended approval of the conditional use permit with specified conditions. Key speakers during the discussion included Dilu Parajuli, Mohani Dumre, and Taft McKinstry, who presented information regarding the proposed religious assembly use. The conditional use permit application sought approval for LNMCC to operate a place of religious assembly at the specified location. Staff analysis determined that the proposed use met the necessary criteria for approval, leading to their recommendation to grant the permit subject to certain conditions. Following the presentation and discussion of the application details, the board voted to approve the conditional use permit for LNMCC's place of religious assembly, accepting the staff's recommendation and associated conditions. ## Conditional Use Appeal by CAPKY BLUEGRASS PROPERTIES, LLC [timestamp: 02:50] CAPKY BLUEGRASS PROPERTIES, LLC presented a conditional use appeal to establish an extended-stay hotel. The agenda item III.D.2 was brought forward for discussion and consideration by the governing body. Rory Kahly served as a key speaker during the presentation of this conditional use permit request. The applicant sought approval to operate an extended-stay hotel facility under the conditional use provisions. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, though their recommendation included specific conditions that would need to be met by the applicant. The details of these recommended conditions were not specified in the available materials. The governing body considered the staff recommendation along with the applicant's presentation during their deliberations on the conditional use request. Following discussion, the conditional use appeal by CAPKY BLUEGRASS PROPERTIES, LLC was approved. The approval allows the company to proceed with establishing the extended-stay hotel facility, subject to compliance with any conditions that were attached to the approval. This conditional use permit represents the formal authorization needed for CAPKY BLUEGRASS PROPERTIES, LLC to operate an extended-stay hotel at the proposed location, having satisfied the municipal requirements for this type of commercial accommodation facility. ## Conditional Use Appeal by Christian Student Fellowship, Inc. [timestamp: 03:10] The board reviewed agenda item III.D.3, a conditional use appeal submitted by Christian Student Fellowship, Inc. The organization requested a conditional use permit to operate a place of religious assembly, along with associated variances for their proposed facility. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to specific conditions. The recommendation indicated that the proposed religious assembly use met the necessary criteria for approval under the applicable zoning regulations. Key speakers during the discussion included Dick Murphy, Steve Vogel, and Amanda Bledsoe, who provided input on various aspects of the application. The speakers addressed the merits of the proposal and any relevant considerations for the conditional use permit. The board ultimately approved the conditional use appeal by Christian Student Fellowship, Inc. The approval allows the organization to proceed with their plans for the religious assembly facility, contingent upon meeting the conditions outlined by staff in their recommendation. This approval enables Christian Student Fellowship, Inc. to establish their place of religious assembly in accordance with the approved conditional use permit and any associated variances that were granted as part of the application review process. ## Variance Appeal by Alan Bidwell [timestamp: 03:50] Alan Bidwell requested a variance to reduce the required front setback in order to create additional paved parking on his property. The application was designated as agenda item III.C.4. Staff had reviewed the variance request and recommended disapproval of Bidwell's application. The specific details of the staff's reasoning for the negative recommendation were not detailed in the available materials. During the discussion, Alan Bidwell presented his case for the variance, seeking to justify the need for reduced setback requirements to accommodate more parking spaces. Pam Bidwell also participated in the presentation, supporting the variance request. Susan Spaulding was identified as another key speaker during the proceedings. The variance appeal centered on the property owner's desire to expand parking capacity by paving additional area closer to the front property line than normally permitted under current zoning regulations. Such variances typically require demonstrating hardship or unique circumstances that justify deviation from standard setback requirements. Following the presentation and discussion, the board ultimately denied Alan Bidwell's variance appeal. The decision aligned with the staff recommendation for disapproval, though the specific reasons cited by board members for the denial were not captured in the available summary materials. The denial means that Bidwell will not be permitted to reduce the front setback requirements and must comply with existing zoning regulations if he wishes to proceed with any parking improvements on the property. ## Election of Officers [timestamp: 04:00] The board conducted its annual election of officers during agenda item IV.a. Harry Clarke led the discussion regarding the selection of leadership positions for the upcoming term. The board proceeded to re-elect all current officers to their respective positions: • **Chair**: Branden Gross • **Vice Chair**: Thomas Glover • **Secretary**: Joan Whitman The election resulted in maintaining the existing leadership structure, with all three officers continuing in their current roles. The board approved the slate of officers without recorded opposition or debate. This appointment ensures continuity in the board's leadership structure for the new term. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-18-00086** — passed (5-0): Variance request by Buddy Prather to reduce the required distance from a residential zone for an overhead door from 100 feet to 73 feet - **PLN-BOA-19-00002** — passed (5-0): Variance request by OHP-SOUTHLAND, LLC to increase the allowable front setback and eliminate the vehicular use area perimeter landscape buffer - **PLN-BOA-19-00003** — passed (5-0): Variance request by Baptist Health to reduce the setback for a free-standing sign from 10 feet to 5 feet - **PLN-BOA-18-00084** — passed (5-0): Conditional use permit request by LNMCC for a place of religious assembly - **PLN-BOA-19-00004** — passed (5-0): Conditional use permit request by CAPKY BLUEGRASS PROPERTIES, LLC to establish an extended-stay hotel - **PLN-BOA-19-00006** — passed (4-1): Conditional use permit request by Christian Student Fellowship, Inc. for a place of religious assembly and variances - **PLN-BOA-19-00001** — failed (0-5): Variance request by Alan Bidwell to reduce the front required setback for additional paved parking - **Motion** — passed (5-0): Election of officers --- ## Full transcript We develop a survey every year and that is a one-on-one survey that's conducted with individuals. Now if an individual doesn't want to, they don't have to participate in the survey, we would then just do a physical count. There's an observation form where the volunteers can just record the numbers of people that they're finding if they choose not to participate. But for those that do, it can give us valuable demographic information. We know more about who specifically in our community is experiencing homelessness, and also maybe some of the things that we can implement to help them identify pathways to housing. So when you go one-on-one and they give you a survey, is there any takeaway for them? I mean, I just wondered, what is the motivation, or is just... 2019 board of adjustment I'm the temporary chair I'm the vice chair of the board so I'm temporary chair today our chairman's out we'll do things in the usual way first of all I want to make sure sure everybody silences their phones or their devices while you're here we don't we don't we don't want any unintended interruptions the first item of business is approval of the minutes from the January 14th meeting have you all read and agree with the minutes if so I'll entertain a motion Mr. Clark moves approval. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Actually, do we have to vote on this on screen? Ms. Whitman seconds. Motion passes. Minutes are approved. What I'm going to do in the usual way is to sound the agenda. We'll go through the agenda once and determine whether or not, first of all, the applicant is present, and second of all, if the application is contested by anybody in the audience. So those are the two questions I'll be asking. I'll run through the whole docket and then we'll go back and hear the uncontested matters first. That being said, let's see, I need to swear all the witnesses, all the proposed, anybody who plans to speak for or against any application today, would you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you, you may be seated. Okay, number one on the docket is PLNBOA 18-86. Buddy Prather is the applicant present. Mr. Prather is here. Is there anybody to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, Mr. Prather, you'll be first on the uncontested portion. Number two is PLNBOA 19-1, Allen Bidwell. Mr. Bidwell present, you are? Is there anybody who plans to speak in opposition to this application? Seeing none, Mr. Bidwell, you'll be second on the agenda. The next one is- Mr. Glover. Yeah, that one, the staff had recommended disapproval on that one, so that would- okay i'm sorry mr bidwell because uh the staff recommends disapproval we will hear you just like we hear the contested uh application so you'll be you'll be at the end of the uncontested you'll be first on the uncontested docket on the contested docket i'm sorry third is OHP South LLC 19-2 is the applicant present by council is there any opposition to OHP South and LLC seeing none you'll be second on the uncontested docket next is uh boa 19-3 baptist health is the applicant present applicant is present is there anyone who wishes to speak against or opposing this application in the audience seeing none you'll be the next on the unopposed the next one is boa uh 18- 84, LNMCC, request for conditional use. Is the applicant present? LNMCC, 18, I'm sorry. I'm sorry? They will be present. You are present? No, they will be. On their way, okay. On their way from where and how long? Do you suppose they'll get here in time to be heard before? I said they will. Okay. Is there any opposition to LNMCC? No opposition? You'll be on the uncontested docket. The next one is a request for a conditional use. CAPKY Bluegrass Properties LLC as the applicant present. Present. Is there anyone who is opposed to this application who wishes to speak? Seeing none, you'd also be on the unopposed. The next one is PLNBOA 19-5. The Peninsula is the applicant present. I actually would like to request one month postponement if I could. we are still working on the conditions with the staff and some neighbors as well tell us your name so nick nicholson for the record here on behalf of the applicant ball homes and requested one month postponement to the march board of adjustment meeting okay is there anyone here who wishes to speak against this application seeing none uh what's the uh first of all what's the staff's pleasure on this. Are you all in conversation? I'm sorry. I was listening to something else for a second. Is this regarding the peninsula? We're agreeable to that. We are aware that the applicant is concerned about one of the conditions that we've recommended, and we are open to discussing that further, be that with them separately or as a hearing today. Okay. If there's no opposition from the board, I'll entertain a motion. I move we postpone for one month BOA 19-5, the Peninsula. Is there a second? Second. Second. Moved and seconded. all those in favor please register can we register online on this all right she's putting it up there please vote on your screens all in favor please vote we have unanimously approved 30 days see you next month the next item on the docket is plnboa 19-6 christian student fellowship inc is the applicant present applicant is present is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this application i see one miss clark amy clark 628 castle road i don't wish to oppose it i wish to support it but i would ask that a condition be added i would not ask or require a full hearing i guess it's up to you how you need to handle that but i would like to speak to request that a condition be added and speak in support have you spoken to their council i have mr murphy if you and miss clark have you and miss clark talked before we have we're trying to just just a couple minutes ago we're my folks are trying to figure out if we can agree to the condition she's requesting we're sure okay not sure at this point about that we we may be sure by the time we get to the case but we're not sure right this moment you're uh you're last on the docket in any event so maybe by the time we get to the end of the unopposed uh and i call you again we'll be able to breeze through that one okay fair enough thank you thank you okay And I think that takes us to the first variance appeal. Buddy Prather. Mr. Prather, come up. You would. Mr. Prather, were you sworn? Yes. Your application is recommended for approval by the staff. Have you read the staff report? Yes, sir. Are you in agreement with the conditions? Yes, sir. I'll entertain any questions from the board. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I move we approve PLNBOA 18-86 Buddy Prather's request for a variance to reduce the required distance from a residential zone for an overhead door from 100 feet to 73 feet within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone at 486 Curry Avenue. Based on staff's recommendations subject to the three conditions outlined by staff. Thank you Mr. Needham, is there a second? Second. Thank you Mr. Clark, moved and seconded. All in favor please register your votes. Your application is approved. Thank you Mr. Thank you. Prather. The next on the docket is. Hold on just a second. Next on the docket is 19-2 OHP Southland LLC. Are they here? Anybody here for OHP? Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, I'm here on behalf of OHP Southland LLC and John Pazelski and Petey Cunningham from the developer and Harvey Johnson and Eric Merlino from Roberts Group are here as well. We do agree to the conditions that the staff has proposed. Okay. Anybody on the board have any questions for Mr. Murphy? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve PLNBOA 19-2 OHP Southwind LLC's request for variances to, one, increase the allowable front setback from 20 feet to 53 feet, two, to eliminate the vehicular use area perimeter landscape buffer and a conditional use for a drive-through in order to construct a new restaurant with a pickup window in a neighborhood business zone at 115 Southland Drive. That's subject to the staff's recommendations and the four conditions listed by staff. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Please register your votes. Congratulations. The application is approved. Thank you very much. Next on the docket is Baptist Health. Applicant, please come forward. tell us your name please hi good afternoon i'm adam bender from cmw i'm here on behalf of baptist health we are requesting a variance for a monument sign to reduce the setback from 10 feet to 5 feet thank you mr bender have you read the staff's report and recommendation yes and the conditions that they've laid out are acceptable. Acceptable, okay. Anybody on the board have any questions for Baptist Health, Mr. Bender? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 19-3 Baptist Health requesting a variance to reduce the setback for a free-standing sign from 10 feet to 5 feet in the Highway Service District at 3101 Wall Street, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the two conditions that are listed. So move. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? I second the motion. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. All in favor, please register your votes. Your application is approved. Good luck. It's not always like this. Don't jinx us. Hold on. Don't jinx it. I know. The next one is on the docket. It is LNMCC. Has the applicant shown up? Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Tell us your name, please. Good afternoon. I'm Dilu Parazuli. My name is Mohani Dumre. Mr. Chairman, these gentlemen are the members of- I'm sorry, who are you? I am Taft McKinstry and I represent the present owners of the property. you miss mckinstry and these two gentlemen are the members of the applicant have you all three been sworn i have have you been sworn yeah you have been sworn you were you here when i swear everybody in not that time okay please raise your right hand you solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth truth yes yes thank you people tell the truth okay I appreciate it. All right, Ms. McKinstry, go right ahead. Have you, let me ask you, have you read the staff report and recommendation? I have, but these gentlemen on behalf of the applicant have also read the staff report and they are amenable to the recommendations of the staff and ask that their application be approved. And as a representative of the owners of the property at this point, also ask that the application be approved. Okay. Are they in agreement with the six conditions on the application? They tell me that they are. Yes, sir. Okay. Any questions from the board to this applicant? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. I move we approve PLN BOA 18-84 LNMCC's request for a conditional use permit for a place of a religious assembly in order to establish a religious and cultural center in the agricultural rural AR zone and a single family R1D zone at 6251 and 6270 Athens Walnut Hill Pike. based on the recommendations that staff has provided and subject to the six conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Clark. All in favor, please register your votes. Everyone voted in favor. Good luck with your project. Thank you, Ms. McKinstry. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next on the docket is CAPKY Bluegrass Properties, LLC, VOA 19-4 as an applicant present. I'm Rory Keeley with EA Partners here on behalf of CAPCI. Thank you, Mr. I'm sorry. Tell me your name again. Rory Kaley. Thank you. Have you read the staff report? Yes. And are you in agreement with the four conditions? Yes. We're agreeable. Okay. Does the board have any questions? I do. I do have one question. I'm a little confused about extended care. and yet it says that provided such rentals or lease of less than one week shall compromise less than 50% of the total dwelling units. Explain that to me. It's not extended care. It's extended hotel. Extended stay, not extended stay hotel. It's not a health facility. I understand that. They have certain definitions on when you're a hotel, when you're an extended stay hotel. So they're looking for weekly stays being comprising of 51% of their users. Instead of turnovers, you know, one or two nights at a time, it's for the week long. Okay, I got you. And I assume that the front area will be just out parcels at some point? it'll be something and when we get a user in there we'll be back either here or to the planning commission and we have to go in front of the planning commission this is just for the use so we'll take the building and the parking lot layout back to the planning commission okay in the staff report they mentioned a little bit about the um guess the uh the traffic and the cut through from the back of the property and just wanted to know what your thoughts were on that. The street in the back is at a different elevation. So we've had this project in front of the Planning Commission several times now, and there's never been a discussion of extending that street with the elevation change. Essentially serves as a cul-de-sac with a recorded access easement that lets the end of that street go to the west and connects up with the adjacent street there. So, I mean, even though they're set up as cul-de-sacs, they do have a legal connection. We are proposing no direct access through here to Waller. And then any consideration put forth toward some type of path for pedestrians or cyclists if you're not doing cars? Not so much from the neighborhood through. The big picture out there has, I'm trying to think of the next street over. There's ample ways for the neighborhood to access out either to Waller or to Broadway itself. Through the development plan process previous to this and with the zone change, we were showing improvements for pedestrian movement along Waller. currently there's spotty sidewalks as it is going from the railroad tracks all the way down to the shopping center so part of the preliminary development plan was completing it across the frontage of this property and that'll take some work due to the drainage situation out there so how would the profile of the building the new a new building compared to what's there now right now it's a one-story building and we're proposing a five there's not an actual tenant yet the owner is meeting with several different extended stay hotel providers you know there's four or five different versions out there approval here will get us picking one of them and going to the final development this is just first step yes is there a is there a street that dead ends to the back of your property yes is that a is that a is that a dead-end street or is that a T intersection I wasn't clear and I didn't I didn't drive by it I didn't pull it up on online Camden Camden. Yeah, Camden stubs into the property, and then there's a recorded access point for it to go from Camden over to... Over towards Southern Avenue. new. That little white strip in there, there is an access easement recorded in the Platts that allow what are essentially those two stub streets connected so that if need be there is another way out. When you say access, is that a pedestrian access? It's a vehicular, it's a deeded vehicular, I think 30 foot access easement. It didn't look like a street on the application and I couldn't tell. Right. It's not a publicly maintained access point. It's just an easement across those two lots connecting the streets. You can see that Southern does not connect to royalty either. I know there's probably four or five foot elevation change from the back of our property up to the Camden Avenue pavement. Elevation change up or down from your property? Camden's up. Okay. All right. Gotcha. Any other questions? As long as traffic doesn't have any issues, I'm fine. Yeah. Certainly wouldn't approve what's there now since it's, I guess, there's nothing there now except a deserted building. Isn't that correct? Yes. All right. Fair enough. Any further questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLNBOA 19-4 CAPKY Bluegrass Properties LLC requesting a conditional youth permit to establish an extended stay hotel within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a high-rise apartment R5 zone at 353 Waller Avenue based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the conditions as presented. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? A second. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Please register your votes. Thank you very much. All have voted. Your application is approved. Good luck. Next one on the docket is PLNBOA 19-6 Christian Student Fellowship. Mr. Murphy, did you all reach some kind of understanding? well not precisely but we can tell you where we stand and i'm sure miss clark can tell you where she stands on it and okay i have a full presentation prepared on this but it's boiled down to one issue on this so i'll describe the one issue to you and then if you want to hear more about the plan we'd be happy to tell you but i don't want to take up your time if you don't need it because this is a wonderful project and you saw this three years ago many of may remember three years ago in may of 2016 you all approved the christian student fellowship new project at the corner of columbia avenue and woodland avenue and there were two parts to that one was the demolition of the existing building and replacement of it with a new building and the second part was a parking lot across columbia avenue on the north side of columbia avenue and today what's before you is just the parking lot portion what was approved by you all three years ago as a parking lot on five lots on columbia avenue and we are proposing as you've probably seen from your site plan to we've slightly reimagined the project and we would like to put a permanent residential style building called a scholar house on columbia avenue we think that would be better for the neighborhood than just having a standalone parking lot and we also have plans for an interim building which will be where we will worship during the time when the main building across the street is taken down and being reconstructed we anticipate that'll be about 15 months and we have we are agreeable with the staff conditions of approval that have been outlined on your agenda and in your staff report and in talking to miss clark there's one issue she is concerned about and that is a request for a tree preservation plan to be filed and we have a little issue with that i think this mainly centers on a sycamore tree which is located on the property which is before you today and the property which is before you today has the same paving pattern as what you all approved three years ago it's no different as far as the paving pattern on the on the lot as it was three years ago and three years ago we told you that we had had that looked at by dave leonard a certified arborist who does a lot of tree consulting work here in lexington and we were going to be following his recommendations on that i think miss clark would like you to also require us to submit a tree protection plan as part of our project and our only hesitancy is that this plan has been approved already with the same treatment of the sycamore tree as we're proposing today we feel we're going the nine yards with uh with mr leonard who as you all know is one of the leading arborists here in central kentucky and has testified before you and the planning commission a number of times about preserving trees and groves of trees on various developments here in lexington so we would uh we're sympathetic to the issue but our plans have not changed as far as the sycamore tree goes in the last three years and we do commit we continue to commit to consult with a certified arborist and the one we're using is mr dave leonard to try to assure the health of the sycamore tree but we would rather not get into the tree protection plan that is not required i don't think for the plans that come through you sometimes it is required for plans that come through the planning commission this one would not be coming through the planning commission it's come through you twice now on that and we feel like we're we're doing we're doing the right thing and we're taking steps, all reasonable steps to preserve the sycamore tree and we'd prefer to continue the way we have planned to go on this. As I said I have lots of exhibits and more explanation as to what we're doing on the project overall on this which we can present to you but that's the one issue I think that remains that I'm aware of and that's where we stand on it. Is Ms. Clark the only one that's going to speak in opposition? I think so. Mr. Murphy, before you leave, what does Mr. Leonard recommend with respect to the tree that's in question? Well, I think he had Brian Marshall here, a lead pastor, but I think he had seen our original plans, and we had committed to working with him to come up with a plan to preserve the sycamore tree and we do show it preserved on our site plan that we have submitted to you that's yes letter okay mr leonard had told us three years ago he would prepare a plan for a formal plan for us for the preservation of the sycamore tree and has that been done and i don't think the plan has been done at this time. We didn't know it would be an issue here before you. If we knew that, we might have had time to do that. I just found out about this at 1.30. I understand that Ms. Clark has consulted with the Environmental Services Division here, and they submitted a letter just a couple minutes ago, a few minutes ago, about doing a tree preservation plan as well but this is the plan we have and uh this is the this is the permanent plan steve vogel i'm going to ask you to come up and like where the sycamore tree is on this one because we're showing we are showing a number of trees on this and i want to make sure that we get the sycamore correctly located if you could point out to your honor this is steve vogel our with strand associates who are our engineers and landscape architects on the project have you been have you been sworn excuse me have you been sworn in no would you please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do tell us your name again please stephen vogel thank you mr vogel So the tree in question is up in this front. It's the easternmost corner on the lot. It's actually a 46-inch diameter sycamore tree. And part of, in fact, if you go up to the interim condition, you can see the issue. If you'll slide that down. Yeah, right there. So there's a, in order to do stormwater management on the site, we've intended to use underground detention, the chamber system, which while it detains water on site and there is infiltration, when that infiltration rate is exceeded, it needs to run off the site. In order to do that, we need to get into a public system, and there's a lot of things that are keeping us constrained to this route that we've chosen. but you can see the line right here that cuts pretty close to the tree from the corner of the site and then it gets out onto columbia where it ties into a public sewer system and this is this right here going this close to a tree is an area where we are concerned about our impact to the tree now that's why we consulted dave leonard is because we wanted to make sure that whatever we did was appropriate in dealing with this type and size of tree and so we've worked with him to develop a preliminary plan now that will continue to develop as we actually develop the design and we know how deep the pipes are going to be and what size they'll be is it the intent of the applicant to preserve the tree if if you can there yes it is we have we've just been handed some letters emails and such so let me interrupt you for just a moment uh so the so the board members can read these emails and they may prompt some questions to you before you so if you just if you don't mind just hang around for just a moment we're going to take about five minutes or so for the board to review these letters and we'll we'll come back to you is that okay with you mr murphy yes sir all right we'll be we'll be back with you shortly and i'm not taking a recess because i like the room to be quiet while we're reading these uh emails and letters so thank you very much for your accommodation Thank you. Okay. Okay. We've looked at some emails and stuff that we've seen that have been sent to us. And Mr. Murphy, I don't know whether we need to see your whole presentation or not. Let me summarize what I've seen so far. This is actually the plan that was submitted to us is a two-step process, right? You're going to put up a temporary. We're going to have a permanent scholar in residence house up close to Columbia. and then behind that we'll have a temporary well I can't I'm trying not use word temporary it's an interim building for our work house our worship area while the our main building on the other side of Columbia is being rebuilt reason I'm avoiding the word temporary is because the interim building under the code is a permanent building we because it's going to be up more than six months so we have to comply with permanent fire code life safety code building code zoning code because it qualifies as a permanent building but we're not going to keep it there permanently we're going to keep it there about 15 months while the main building is being rebuilt on the across columbia avenue mr chairman if i may we do have a council member here who wanted to testify to you she has to leave in just a few minutes and i i would ask if she could go ahead and testify so so she can leave because she does have a have another item she needs to get to it's a amanda mays bledsoe who's familiar with christian student fellowship sure that'd be great thank you thank you members i've learned it can't be two places at once although i do try i just want to to speak briefly on behalf of CSF. I am no longer a board member, but I was for eight years. And it is not in my district, although a number of people who support the organization and live there do happen to live in the 10th. So it's personal to me. I will just briefly say that the organization itself has done a phenomenal job meeting the needs of UK students. We spent an entire work session last week talking about how important it is for UK students to have safe places. Places to gather, places to worship, places to be that are promoting good student activity, if you will. And this organization does that. Their growth is good for the university. It's good for us. Secondly, the redesign of that building, if you know a couple years ago when they talked about it, the parking lot feels very empty. It feels very abrupt when you come apart. This new building feels much better from a transitional neighborhood perspective. It has that panhellenic feel. So when you come around the corner, it'll feel more like you're still part of the university. It'll have a much better curb appeal. It'll look very nice against the other the next building they have there and it mirrors UK's development much much nicer that provides some parking but also provide some housing some student living both of which are really good for the university and again provide some space for them so I just want to say I'm not only fully supportive I've been a financial partner with them for a very long time will continue to do so and I would hope that you would approve their request Thank You Miss Bletchel and mr chairman there are a number of people in the audience i think most of them are our supporters uh if it's okay with you i would like to ask them to stand most of them will not be speaking today but they did take time off to come down here and express their support of our application sure that'll be fine okay if you all would stand if you're in support of this And these are students, they're alumni, there's some neighbors as well of CSF. And I think you can see how strongly this impacts people's lives if students and others are willing to come down at quarter after two on a Monday afternoon in the rain and it's 38 degrees to come down and express their support to you. Thank you all very much. Thank you all. I have a question. Yeah, go ahead. Questions from the board? Yeah, me too. Mr. Murphy, as I'm reading through this, I see that when you use interim versus temporary that one of the conditions states that the interim sanctionary building will be removed within six months following the issue of a CO. I see, that's a CO for the permanent sanctuary structure. Yes. Once the, I see, so we're approving not a six-month interim sanctuary. It's just to be removed within six months after you have your permanent CEO of the other building. Is that correct? Okay, I just want to make sure I read that right. Mr. Moore, let's talk about trees. I think it's a good issue that we need to discuss. and if you could just tell me what what trees will actually be taken down in based on this development just in total i mean whether we have a tree plan or not if we can come up with what what the intention is we've got a little exhibit we're going to try to go to that gives a little better idea of what we're trying to attempting to do with the parking lot and and we're getting we've got that on a flash drive and we're going to get it up we show a aerial view of what we're proposing to do superimposed on the area we're in right now on this and let's see if you could go to the these are our plans which staff has shown you the top is the is the interim plan showing the this is Columbia here Woodlands out here this lot is owned by a fraternity that has not yet been built we have our scholar and residence building right here, the permanent building the interim building will be behind it right here, we have to meet a code separation since they're permanent buildings, we have to have the two buildings separated by at least 20 feet which is why it's moved back here, we hope to have a covered walkway because we'll be using the restrooms in this building for the interim building. Well, that's in action. The bottom, these are actually two plans of the same lot. The bottom is the permanent condition where we have the permanent scholar house with the parking lot in here. This is the area of the sycamore tree. I want to go on to where we've got an aerial look at this. This is probably a better rendering of what we're doing overall on the side here's woodland avenue here's columbia avenue and the this is just a block to show the massing of the proposed the new building it's obviously not a rendering of the building the wesley foundation the methodist student fellowship is right here the library the wt young library is just to the left it's across woodland from this and we have i think this is is a UK building and then on down the street, interestingly enough, is the Jewish Fellowship Center on down Columbia Avenue. This is the lot. When we got approved three years ago, this was to be entirely a parking lot. As you can see, we're showing the permanent condition here. We're calling it the Lewis House. The Scholar Building will probably be named after C.S. Lewis, the Christian Scholar. And so that's where the Lewis House will be. and the interim building will be located behind it. After the interim building is removed, we'll have additional parking right here. This is the sycamore tree. These are some additional trees that may be planted on the site. This is our conceptual plan. Obviously, it's a rendering of what we'd like it to be. It's not our development plan, but this gives you a little better idea of what we plan for the property. if i could ask them it seems like the the more common issue aside from the trees we just brought up today has to do with the parking situation so currently the entire thing is a parking lot but who utilizes that parking well actually currently if you could go on to the next slide we it's it's currently not a parking lot not okay there were five there were four houses there which have been removed under proper demolition permits and all the asbestos was abated and right now here here is csf again the main building which is not actually before you today here is the parking lot we're talking about it extends actually over here a little bit outside the blue here is the parking for the wt young library which is available after hours for students without permit and we do rent 20 spaces over here at the early child care center this right now there is no parking on this right now as we came in at the hearing i'm miss carter you weren't on the board three years ago when we had this originally we have only about 14 spaces on site right now and we have currently a worship capacity of about 400 students and we most of our students walk ride bicycles to it because we are now in the middle of campus when this was built 50 years ago we were on the fringe out here right now we're just smack in the middle of campus where where a student ministry ought to be because going down this is sports center drive that's woodland and that's columbia but we have The main building has three roads on either side. And across SportsCenter, this starts the big complex of big new dormitories that go down SportsCenter Drive. So we're in the middle of it all. But we do have a great need for parking for staff members. We have 35 staff members to provide a ministry to students of all types here. We have parents coming in to help with activities at the CSF, and we do want to be available to off-campus students to have some available parking. So we do need parking spaces. We don't need as many as the code requires. Now, the issue we got into three years ago is we had planned an 800-capacity worship center, which would have required 160 parking spaces. We have reduced that, as our plans have progressed, to 600, which would require 120 spaces. We don't need 120 spaces. Three years ago, the board granted us a 45% reduction in the parking that we are required to do. They went from 160 to, I think, 88 parking spaces. now with the reduced capacity of 600 that would require us to have 120 parking spaces we're asking that to be reduced to 66 parking spaces that we we we provide under the ordinance i'm going by through my mind since i'm off kilter on my presentation and the the so we had a number of complaints through the years about not having enough off-street parking for the facility even though as i said most of our students walk and that's what we're catering to but there are people who need to drive there and it's difficult for a parent or an off off campus person to park at the stadium or wherever and and make it up here if there's no parking available over at the library so we do need the parking but we don't need as much as required so we did ask for the variants and we purchased these five lots across the street and they have just now been cleared of of the houses but there's there's some gravel parking people still park in the old driveways to the houses but there's really not much of anything so there's not really much of anything over there right now we had proposed that it would be entirely a parking lot when we got approved three years ago but as i said the plan has evolved and we want to have that we have removed one story from the top of the main building here and at the same time we'd like to have a more scholarly venue for visiting scholars and to have people who want to use the library, study rooms, and that sort of thing. We thought that would be appropriate across the street. I'll give you just a really brief overview of this, if you could go through to the next slide. This is the rendering of the Scholar House prepared by EOP Architects. I have Josh Gilpin here from EOP, who's our designer, and we have Jace Burris from Jace Burris Architects who is doing the interim structure for us. So we have two outstanding architecture firms. This is EOPs rendering from Columbia Avenue what this building will look like. And you can see we've tried to keep the craftsman style houses to reflect what's in the neighborhood. If you can go to the next one, we just have some additional shots. This is also looking at the front from Columbia going to the next one. we have a view from the right going down to Columbia going to the next one we have a view from the other side on left going up and then the next one we have a rendering of the side and then the next one is a rendering from the rear what you would see from the parking lot side and we did this just to show you this has been designed from all sides we think it's a really attractive house we I think it makes this lot a lot more aesthetically pleasing and a better transition into the neighborhood than just having parking on this site. If you go on to the next slide, we show some of the houses. This is the house, which I believe is right next door to us on Columbia. We have various styles in here. This is sort of a functional type thing that is student housing. If you go on to the next one, we have a couple more examples of that. that's another one in the neighborhood functional type student housing and this one is another example of that but going on the next slide what we're trying to emulate is the craftsman style houses in the neighborhood which were built 90 to 100 years ago this is one example and going on to the next one this is another example you can see the characterized by the front porch and the dormer above with the roof lines and this is probably the best example we have picture of actually and this is the building which is now the kabod jewish student center down at a block down on columbia avenue this again has the front porch with the dormer above and i think you can see that we're eop has done i think an outstanding job in trying to bring the architectural elements back into the building that we're doing it i can't remember if we got another slide on here or not I think we do. Yeah, this is the this is what inspired the Scholar House. This is from Charlottesville, Virginia. This is a similar type of building as we want to do on this lot using an existing building in Charlottesville. If you go on to the next one, we have, believe it or not, the next two are interior shots of that building you just saw. It's an older building, but this is a study area in that building. And going on to the next shot, this is the library in that building. And we have an apartment on the second floor of this for visiting scholars. It's just one-bedroom apartment with a little kitchen on there so they can stay while they're on campus. And we may, yeah, these are examples of interim buildings. This isn't, we're not saying we're going to do this, but this is UK's bookstore, which was the UK bookstore for three years on Lexington Avenue behind the Coliseum, which was in existence while the student center was being built. and then we have a couple more we're looking into if you go on to the next slide. This slide and the next one are contractors' exhibits of what type of building we're looking at doing. This is the last one. This could be what we might end up doing as the interim building as well. So that gives you a little overview of what we're doing on this. and again we think it'll work well on this lot make a lot a lot better we're mindful of the tree situation we will have we are required to do landscaping when we were here before you three years ago one thing we committed to was over and above landscaping along Columbia Avenue so it wouldn't just be a blank streetscape we still do have that of course except for on the area where the permanent building is going to be located and we will be required to meet our perimeter parking perimeter landscape requirements and we have plenty of room to do that with our 15-foot setback for the interim building we'll have plenty of room to do all our perimeter landscaping we're making every effort to preserve the sycamore tree as mr. Vogel mentioned to you we do have we have a lot of discussion previously about drainage issues on this property there was no drainage on this at all when those houses were built originally and so three years ago we had a lot of discussion about how we were going to do that where it was going to go and we hired strand which is very familiar with storm water here in lexington they've done a lot of studies for the city as a matter of fact on storm water so we're going to use underground vaults here and we do have to have a lot of pipes going through the property to get our water to the underground vaults and to get it back out of the underground vaults to the storm sewer system but they're going to be retained there so it doesn't overwhelm the city system at any one time after it goes through the vaults so we we are as committed three years ago committed to engage mr dave leonard to look at the especially the sycamore tree to develop a plan to preserve that we're going to make every effort to do that csf wants to do that i guess i've been around development long enough to know that there are a lot of competing demands on development this one it is competing demand of storm water perhaps versus being able to preserve every tree that we have storm water is a very very important question here we want to make sure we get that right and the pipes have to go in certain locations and as mr vogel mentioned to you that we do have a pipe going somewhat near the sycamore tree but we do need that pipe to make the make the system work we have some hesitancy to submit ourselves to a full review of a tree protection plan which we are not normally required to do to go through you we do have no problem submitting this to mr leonard as if you've been up here you know mr leonard is very committed to preserving trees in this community and he's a certified arborist and that's what we would request that We've committed to do that, to have our plan reviewed by a certified arborist, and Mr. Leonard is the one we have chosen to work with on that. Mr. Murphy, I know Dave Leonard, of course, but I understand his job was several years ago before this plan was even considered. Is that not correct? Mr. Leonard? Yes. Yes. His was to look at it when the whole lot was going to be paved with a parking lot. Okay. Now, let me – I don't believe you've answered my question. I don't want to pursue this too much, but I would simply like to know what's going to happen to the trees that are there now. If there's no plan – as a member of the tree board, I can tell you that we come across examples of developers who just have no concern about the trees at all. And so I'm a little sensitive about that. And since it came up, and since I know this area very well, and I must say, I like this project a lot. I think it's a great idea, and the plans are good. But I'm still concerned about the fact that we don't seem to be that concerned about the trees. We've talked about one tree so far, but I don't know that a tree protection plan needs to happen. But this letter from John Saylor, who is the program manager of the Natural Resource Operation and Urban Forestry with the Division of Environment Services, It says, he says, the Division of Environmental Services would like to request a tree protection plan approved by the Urban Forester for the Christian Student Center plan before you today. I reviewed the plan and believe the 40-foot sycamore tree and the 40-inch sycamore tree and the trees along the property line require more protection than they currently have. And so that's a red flag for me. and I just need some assurance that this is going to be of concern when we get into the to the product the project development itself well I can hand you out a letter mr. letter and send us before you heard it three years ago this was I want to emphasize this was before you heard it three years ago but this did not have this was not talking about a building when we talked to him about his and just and just to make clear uh just to make clear mr murphy three years ago you all did not build that building right okay we have not yet where the building is across the street we're getting ready to start that but this what you have before you today is step one because we have to get the interim structure and this structure approved so we know we can worship somewhere before we take down the building across the street and build it so uh and uh steve mr vogel has talked to mr leonard this morning about it i'm going to hand out while he's addressing you i'm going to hand out the letter he sent to you to us three years ago before the hearing on this and he mentions in here that the site includes homes and fence row trees a lot of non-native trees including Eastern hemlocked morway spruce and the under the undesirable invasive helianthus altissima or tree of heaven and he does he mentions interior trees which will probably not be able to be preserved he mentions the sycamore tree and his willingness to work with us to preserve that so let me hand that out but while I'm doing that I'll ask mr. Vogel to tell you about his conversation with mr. Leonard okay thank you I do just want to point out that the impact of the trees on this site with this adjusted site plan is no different than what was approved three years ago the the layout of the site is essentially the same we've just removed some parking and placed a building in the same place so the existing trees again like mr. Murphy just said the interior trees on the site the existing fence row trees will need to be removed they can't be placed in a new island or in a new green space within the site they're not accustomed to that they wouldn't do well in that situation so the plan is to remove those interior trees and selectively remove trees around the perimeter where mr leonard has identified trees that don't belong the invasive species that he mentions in his letter and then this morning we discussed again the impact to the sycamore tree in the front and just went back and forth on a couple ideas talked about different routes for the stormwater to take i proposed a few different new ones and he concurred that the plan that we have currently which would include using directional boring rather than open cut trenching to get underneath the tree root system would be the most appropriate in this in this instance to protect that tree mr vogel i have a question did we know that uh three years ago when we approved this what the underground detention was going to look like and where it was going to exit the parking lot uh i believe that you did yes it was actually in the presentation there's a there were a few slides on storm water that showed the route coming out of the front uh and going down columbia okay at that point did we discuss this tree there was some discussion about protecting the tree yeah yeah and we agree we agreed to protect the tree then we agreed that the approach would be to save the tree save the tree okay any any further questions uh for the applicant at the present time thank you mr murphy have a seat for a moment we'll hear from ms clark Ms. Clark, were you persuaded? Thank you. Amy Clark, 628 Castle Road. It's a great project. I've said right from the beginning, I am not here to oppose this project. It's a huge improvement to have a study hall, you know, scholar house. I think it's wonderful. I think it's charming. I just today saw the elevations that it's going to be sort of bungalow style with a shed roof and a front porch. kind of imitating the neighborhood. I also think it's well-sighted on the upper end of the lot near the other houses. I don't need to waste your time telling you that I think it's a great addition, improvement. What I do want to ask is that a tree protection plan approved by the urban forester be attached as a condition of approval. As you've been told, ordinarily the Board of Adjustment doesn't get a tree protection plan on a site plan. If it's a conditional use, as I understand it, what you require and need for a development plan is really different. That gets problematic when you have a big complex site like 50,000 square feet of student center and this is 8,000 square feet plus of Scholar House. So what's happening is if this were before the planning commission as a final development plan, you'd have to have a tree protection plan. It's part of the process. When it's a conditional use, it's not part of the process. I'm asking that in this case you attach as a condition of granting the conditional use this tree protection plan, What it does is this. It puts all the good intentions, very good intentions and good plans as far as we can see them or know them, that CSF has expressed for the trees on this project under the oversight of our urban forester. So that you as public officials and I as a citizen and neighbor know that it's under the watchful eye of people who can judge well how the trees should be handled. It follows just all the ordinances in Article 26 of the ordinances. It says how trees are to be treated. So it gives the urban forester an opportunity to review at leisure, and I think he'll do it pretty quickly, and to approve the tree protection plan, and I would guess also to exercise oversight ongoing to enforce it if need be. As I understand it, Dave Leonard is not currently contracted. I believe them that they can, I know they consulted him in the past and he presented some material and they intend to go back to him. But what we need is just the tree protection plan. Because there is some evident possibility for harm for adverse effect on the neighborhood if the trees aren't adequately protected. And a condition, I believe, would cover that. I will say what's different between what you already approved three years ago and what I saw offered to you today. The sewer pipe is delineated on the plan. There's a storm sewer pipe delineated. It's not labeled. But on one of that pair of plans, you see a sewer pipe crossing the area where that sycamore is. The sycamore isn't labeled as what we're told is a 46-inch sycamore. That makes it a significant tree. If it's over 36 inches in the trunk width, it's a significant tree. So it's new that we're seeing the path of that pipe. I looked at it and I thought, this looks terrible. They're going to trench the tree roots. I was able to reach Mr. Vogel, Steve Vogel, talked to me this morning. He explained, oh, no, it's going to be all right. We're going to do an air gun. We're going to do directional boring. Dave Leonard's on board with it and so on. And I hired Dave Leonard to do an air gun to preserve tree roots rather than trenching in my own yard when we put in a water line. Dave Leonard's a wonderful guy. Dave Leonard has not been associated with this newer part of the project yet. He probably will be. They don't need to spend extra money in advance of needing his services. So what's new is the sewer pipe delineated on the plan where it wasn't before. What else is new? The old plan said the tree canopy is to remain. And as I was by there this morning, I see that trees are tagged either for preserving or for removing along the perimeter, along the rear fence row. And I'm learning just now that possibly, I don't know if Mr. Leonard actually tagged the trees that are appropriate to remove and not. All these are things that in a tree protection plan come under the oversight of an urban forester. What else is new is there's an interim building. I don't know if it will impact the fence row canopy or not. I know there's a reduction in setback. That's one of the variances sought today. I would assume there won't be a basement. We're probably not disturbing trees below there. Another thing that's new, and this I think may be, in a sense, the most telling difference, because if they hire David Leonard and he goes along with everything and we all love him and he's an esteemed arborist of international stature, why should we care? Well, I was by today, and they've torn down the houses. It's kind of a mud pit there. There's some graveling along the points of access, and there were seven cars parked there. I assume they're staff cars. They're just cars. It doesn't look like construction activity. And each of those seven cars access the site immediately adjacent to the sycamore tree, where there's an existing driveway for the little old house that was at some point torn down, I guess. But those cars are going, and I have to assume it could be daily, right next to that sycamore tree that compacts the soil. I think if you had a tree protection plan in place, if it was reviewed and overseen by the appropriate people who are professionals and know about trees, they would say, put a big fence to protect that tree right from the get-go. And they would say, this is not an appropriate place to access the site during construction. So that's something that I don't think they have any intention of doing anything other than cherishing that tree. But like the rest of us, they don't know any better. That's why we need somebody who has a responsibility, a professional responsibility, to see a plan and review the plan. Like I said, the perimeter trees, some are tagged to remain or not, as it seems, and that's something they can check in too. I don't think it's a very great thing or a very expensive thing or a very troublesome thing I'm asking for. I think it's something that gives us all assurance, including the applicant, that we're doing this right. We're even going the extra mile to protect what we don't even know is important, like not driving over the sycamore tree while you're building the house. Ms. Clark, do you have a tree protection plan to propose to the applicant or to the board? My guess is that David Leonard, in doing his preliminary study and report, has probably got two-thirds, three-fourths of the work done for that already. Another issue is sycamore is a riparian tree. They're taking all the water from this site and they're piping it into a storm pipe. I would not be the one to prepare a tree protection plan. A professional would prepare it and a professional would review it. And then we'd all know it's right. And they've hired him already in the past. They've sought his advice. All this does is it puts their good intentions into a written condition and puts city oversight over this because this is a conditional use that could have an adverse impact if we lost the sycamore tree, if the fence row trees weren't protected to the best of what's possible and available. And it's really very little we're asking, I'm asking, really very little because they want to do it right already. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Thank you. Any questions to Ms. Clark while she's near the podium? Anybody have any questions of her? I noticed that the staff did not require a tree protection plan. Did staff have any concerns, or did you all have any discussion about that when you were reviewing this particular plan? we did not really have any discussion regarding a tree protection plan um in our discussion in-house okay well may i ask either the staff or law if if as a body the board of adjustment can uh make make a condition of a of a tree protection plan as part of our as part of our approval tracy do you want to take that one Well, that's a good question because normally tree protection plans, if you look at them under the zoning ordinance in Article 26, are utilized in preliminary development plans and development plans, and that's not what this is. Although, because of the size of that tree, it does meet the definition of a significant tree under our ordinance. so you know the question is sort of up to you all because you do have the right to impose certain conditions um that are for the you know health safety welfare of the neighborhood when you're looking at conditional use permits so you know you don't this is not something you normally see or not something that the staff would normally evaluate in the course of a reviewing a conditional use permit request because it's not a development plan it's not a preliminary development plan but it's something that is being asked of you to look at in that respect and you do have you know a fair latitude about imposing conditions um the question i guess is up to you all is to balance that between what you're hearing from the applicant about the ability to make the site work and other things and make your decision okay if i could ask mr murphy what disadvantage it would would would impose upon the project to put together a tree protection plan what would be the disadvantage of that well uh the let me i'll make a proposal to you on this which may encompass what you're proposing our our issue primarily is that we are not doing much more to impervious surfaces on this property i don't i think maybe less than three years ago and we thought we had this issue resolved three years ago we've agreed to try to look at the sycamore tree in coming back on it the what I've been discussing this with Brian Marshall who's the pastor of CSF while Miss Clark was up here and our issue primarily is we don't want to have to do a formal tree protection plan for the entire lot because the discussion has centered on the sycamore tree what I'm going to propose to you is that we engage Mr. Leonard to do a tree protection plan and we run that for the sycamore tree, and we run the sycamore tree by the urban forester for his input on that before we proceed with the entire plan. That way we can proceed with the plan we have had for the lot. We can resolve the issue for the sycamore, which I think is the main issue we have here. We can run that plan by the urban forester for input without the requirement of us doing a formal tree protection plan for the entire property. I have a feeling you didn't answer my question, Mr. Murphy. What disadvantage would there be if we required a tree protection plan? What's the disadvantage for this project itself? And I understand in any project you're probably going to have some casualties with trees. I understand that. And we will have casualties here because there are interior trees that have to be removed. And Mr. Leonard has actually recommended, you see in the letter, that most of the perimeter trees are not desirable trees, and we want to remove many of those and put in desirable trees along the interim. The disadvantage is probably the time, the money it will take to produce that plan on it. And the issue would be, I don't think there's going to be an issue with the setbacks. Even if you grant us the setback we request for the rear, that's still 15 feet. The required parking perimeter is only 5 feet in this zone, I think, from zone to zone screening. So we have much more area than that. It's mainly the issue of we have plans in effect for what we have. It's having to do another plan that may or may not be contradictory on other parts of the property and the expense and the delay of doing it. It looks to me, Mr. Murphy, like if you compare the two drawings that were submitted with the application, that there are more trees in the permanent condition than there are in the interim condition on the lot. So it looks to me like that although you will and you will have to remove trees to put up a parking lot, that you propose to plant some around the perimeter anyway. And I presume that would be a desirable thing for the applicant to want anyway, just for its own appearances of the property. if you're going to put a building here trees are desirable and yes that's absolutely correct and i want to emphasize too that not doing a tree protection plan doesn't mean the city will not review our plan for landscaping around the parking lot that we still must get that approved as part of our building permit process so we're going to have to go through the tree review and the the landscape review as we get our permits for the construction on the property that's a normal part of it which shows how many trees we're going to plant along the perimeter and where and all that sort of thing that's that's a requirement we have to fulfill anyway but i'll also add it gives you license to remove any tree other than the sycamore tree is that not correct uh technically it does yes any other questions for mr murphy mr mr chair of the people at csf uh spent a lot of time preparing a set of letters or receiving a set of letters of support and petitions of support i'll if i can i'd just like to enter them into the record you're certainly welcome to do that just give it to staff and we'll make it a part of the record of this hearing you have extra copies for us thank you yeah i have one question just on how ultimately this is designed if if the tree is something that's going to be the sticking point we want to see it stay maybe this is a question for mr vogel The inlet that we see there in the far left, I guess south corner of this parking lot, to hit that storm sewer, why can't that head a little more east, if I'm looking at this correctly, and head out past the plaza area benches and then connect to the storm sewer, which pretty much keeps it fully surrounded outside of the canopy of the sycamore? well unfortunately that's one of the things i talked to dave leonard about this morning unfortunately the tree can't be overhangs the roadway as well and in order to go that route we would have to basically trench through the root zone on columbia and the impact is much greater because the the location that we have it now is something that can be directional board from the site um and uh do you have my slides loaded up does that storm sewer continue uh east down columbia yeah i've got an exhibit that'll show you exactly what i'm talking about with tunneling or boring for pipes through a rude zone area the last slide. So, right here, this is the front corner of that site that we've been talking about. And I believe what you were talking about, the route that you were discussing is shown in blue right there. Similar, yes. And so that's what I showed to Dave Leonard today was, you know, after talking with Amy about her concerns with the plan, what if we went around, and he said the impact of the tree would be far greater if we went this route. And he said that the green, again, because of the directional boring. And so this is what trenching does to tree roots. it basically just shears them off, disconnects them from the wider area out here. When you do directional tunneling, if you can get below two feet and even deeper, especially if you can get to three feet, if you can get that deep, you're below all of the roots that are feeding that tree. And then the distance, so there's the feeder roots on the outside. There's also the structural roots. and on a tree this size it's about 11 feet from the trunk of the tree is where the structural root zone is for this. And so we're outside, you can't see the numbers too small, but we're almost 14 feet, so we're outside of that as well. So not only are we going to be directional boring so that we don't do any trenching that cuts those roots, we're also outside those critical zones to keep the structural integrity of the tree intact. What's the size of that or the diameter of that pipe that needs to be structurally bored? The pipe along the roadway, because it'll be a city storm sewer, will have to be 15 inches, and that's part of the concern. We haven't sized the detention for this yet, but it will be a much smaller pipe. Hopefully, we can get something on the order of 8 to 10 inches from the outflow from the underground detention, which would be a much smaller bore up to where we tie into the public sewer system. That seems logical. I still don't understand. Why can't you just go straight from even where the green starts, but say where the blue starts, straight down? Why do you have to trench back toward where it connects? Does the storm sewer not run all the way down Columbia? Right here? Yeah, doesn't that storm sewer continue down Columbia? Yes. Yeah, this goes down Columbia. Our site is right here. towards the other way towards now this is this would be going uphill if we go this direction okay but if you connect uphill we would still have to go downhill through the tree root zone but if it's already existing it's not existing there's no that's what i'm asking there's no storm sewer east of that we have to go down to woodland to connect okay all right sorry okay understandable thank you Any more questions from the board to the applicant or to anyone? Mr. Clark? Well, I just simply reiterate my concern that there's no assurance that any tree will be left. And I've read Dave Leonard's comments, and he is not suggesting we remove all those trees. He's suggesting that there are some that could be removed. As a matter of fact, if they are removed, the ones that are left that he would recommend would be healthier because of it. And so there's no plan for that. It's just an idle suggestion from Dave without any assurances that any of this will be listened to. So I'm very concerned about that. It seems like to me a tree protection plan would be just pro forma in something like this, and that's what I would certainly recommend. Well, do you want to propose an amendment to the application then and see if there's sufficient support on the board for that? I can do that. Would it be better to make the motion to approve with an additional condition of a tree protection plan? Well, I don't think so. I mean, I think the applicant is, the application stands on its own. if you want to I think it I think the appropriate procedure would be to I guess prop to vote on the proposal as it is to see if that passes and if it doesn't perhaps then we could take up an amended proposal to see if that might pass how does that sit with you all i have a question sure dr clark um thank you um are you thinking of a tree protection plan for this one sycamore tree no for the entire project okay thank you well my proposal is to the as chair is that we vote on this and if there and if the proposal as If the application as proposed does not pass because of the want of a tree protection plan, that we then, rather than just disapproving it, that we take up the issue with a tree protection plan. How does legal – I'd like to hear you weigh in on this. Well, my only concern about that would be that you're taking a vote that's going to approve or disapprove it initially. Right. And if there's enough feeling on the board that some type of additional condition should be added, the whole plan could be disapproved, and I don't think that's what anyone in the room has really expressed any concern for. So it might be better to determine if the board believes if that's the way you want to go, whether or not an amendment would be appropriate first. Well, that was my initial thought. I guess we could have a preliminary motion to the board, tell me if I'm wrong, as to whether or not we should attach a tree protection plan to this application, which is what mr clark is suggesting as a preliminary vote well can we do that i mean i was i was assuming if somebody wants to make a motion to add as a condition that a tree protection plan be added to this as a condition of approval that someone could make that and then if that passes then you could vote on the whole plan with that condition if it fails, then you can make whatever other motions you would like to do. Yeah, you said it better than I did. So is there... Well, procedurally, I think that's what I'm trying to get to is, is there a consensus of board members who feel strongly enough about a tree protection plan that they would make it in the form of a motion, a preliminary motion, to add it to this application. I personally am comfortable with all the efforts and think with all the plans and efforts that they have in place. It does appear that they're trying to do the best that they can to preserve it. I feel like they still have to get their development plan approved, which always includes the landscaping. I think it looks like they're adding trees from the interim tonight. So I'm opposed to being more burdensome on a, especially an entity like this, a nonprofit-type entity that's trying to, their ultimate project is a great one that's going to make, appears to make the area better. It's nice suited in that area. So I would require it of them. I'm not saying I would not require that of them. I certainly agree with that. And I'm not convinced that it's terribly burdensome to assure that this property is appropriately protected as far as trees are concerned. But I agree. It's a good plan. And I certainly approve of the plan itself. It's excellent. And I think that's what I'm sure. And if we're giving opinions here, I would lean a little bit more towards the fact that I do think they've given a good effort, and I think everyone's on board with the feeling that the tree would like to ultimately be saved. I think it's the best for everyone and the efforts that you can do to make that happen. I think they'll do that, and that would be doing the right thing, and I think the intent of what I would like to see. so i don't need to put any more burdensome restrictions on the rest of the lot i think this tree is of particular concern and is of importance and i would like to see it saved that sounds like a consensus to me and so i propose that we vote on the proposal without a tree protection plan. Well, let's do it this way. Let me see a show of hands of how many want a tree protection plan in this application before we vote. I don't think that's legal. Well, there's one. And so that consensus. I knew that. Yeah. I understand that. I wasn't sure whether there was going to be a consensus about that or not. So to shorten this process, because we've been on it for a while, can we have a motion? I move for approval for PLN BOA 19-6 Christian Student Fellowship Incorporated's request for a conditional use permit for a place of religious assembly in order to amend an existing conditional use in order to construct an interim sanctuary building and a permanent scholar house and variances to, one, decrease the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet for the interim sanctuary building, two, to decrease the minimum required parking from 80 spaces to 44 spaces, three, to decrease the minimum required parking for the permanent sanctuary building from 120 spaces to 66 spaces within the defined infield and redevelopment area in a two-family residential zone at 507, 511, 523, 527, and 537 Columbia Avenue. And this is based on the recommendations that the staff has outlined. And there will be an agreement with the six conditions that have also been listed by staff as well. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Please register your vote. Project is approved. Thank you very much. You need to accuse yourself. You need to accuse yourself. Yeah. It looks like we have some people that are leaving, so if you all wouldn't mind moving out quickly so we can get to the last item on our agenda, and we appreciate your consideration. Thank you very much. Thank you. The last application on the agenda is PLN BOA 19-1, Alan Bidwell's request for a variance. Mr. Bidwell, you're present. Good afternoon. Thank you all for the time, and this is my wife, Pam. She'll help me out. I'm new to this gang, and I appreciate that. On my variance, my contractor was responsible for all the permits. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Alan Bidwell. This is my wife, Pam. Thank you. Were you sworn in? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Proceed. And my, on my variance, I'm asking for my concrete, my existing concrete to stay as it is. initially the contractor had a permit to pour the drive and and in the middle of the construction we had to deviate from the plan for the the concrete to match to the driveway into the garage we couldn't we wanted it a good level driveway we didn't want to be bouncing into the driveway so we had to change the plan and at the end of the after all said and done we had I got a letter saying we were out of compliance for the width of the driveway which myself or the contractor I did not realize it so my variance is to cannot keep my existing concrete and I'm sorry tell me if this This is true, Mr. Bidwell, from the drawing that accompanied your application. It suggests that those four triangles are the only part of the existing driveway that require a variance, and you propose those to remain as constructed, is that right? Yes, sir. Okay. Is that the sum and substance of your application? You want to, oh, that is the hatched areas, those four hatched areas? Yes. That is being asked to be removed. By the city. Yes. The triangles are. That's the part that you want to keep that the city has, and that's the reason why the city has denied or has recommended disapproval of your application. Yes, sir. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Is there anything else you want to say? I had examples of other driveways being, that would be, I have a, you know, I can go each reason why they disregarded it. Like, on the A, you know, I admit we did wrong. We did not have the right, we did not go get another permit. I didn't know. I thought we were in compliance. I was told by the contractor we were. Item B, I have examples of other driveways that are larger than my driveway in my neighborhood, because the neighborhood, it's not characteristic of the vicinity. I have four examples of wider driveways in my neighborhood that are just two blocks from my house. On item C, do you want to see the pictures? Do you have pictures with you? Yes, I did. You're certainly welcome to circulate those pictures to us. All right, here. I want to show what was in my garage. Here, I want to show the picture. This is what's in my garage. I have a boat and a kayak, and I have to back in to take my boat out. That boat and car on the example I show, that is two-scale on my driveway. and I have to back in that boat and I would be in my yard when I do that trying to negotiate with the parked car normally when I go fish I come in late at night and that cars parked because it's the neighbors they that's they're limited on space to park also so that is one of the reasons of the variances I need to pull in on both sides of the car one to get my kayak and one to get my boat i need to make this easy to get in and out now on variance b on on the the reason b where it was denied you asked for additional pictures this is 1943 okay there's that's a wide driveway then i got this is how wide is that driveway uh i did not stop to take pictures or with it's wider than 30 foot i i i uh just went to google maps this morning looked down and took pictures of it i've been sick and i've been working overtime all last week where is that driveway that's that is two doors down that is 1943 epimatics okay uh the next one is now these are views from maywick oh i'm sorry that is 937 maywick this is nine this is 898 maywick it's viewed from delhi That is 962. These are views from Google. I'm sorry. I've got my pictures out of order. That's 894. My secretary here is helping me. I think that's it, isn't it? Okay. Well, those are examples of... Now, this here is a couple of blocks away. See the example of how wide the driveways are in all the concretes tied together, even between the two homes. And there's a narrow stretch of grass in between. but I wanted to show there are driveways that are equally wider than mine in the neighborhood. And that's what item B was. They said that it was not characteristic of the neighborhood. And I've got other pictures here to show that if you want to see them. And my biggest thing is on, I have another issue with the last issue with C. The site does not have special circumstances. is just aside the need for the variance, it showed that I have an issue with walking. I have neuropathy, and I have trouble balancing. Excuse me. Sorry. And if you look at the picture of the variance of the concrete, right where I get out of the truck when I'm trying to back in, that is right where I get out of the truck at. and i'll trip do you have a picture do you have a picture other than this drawing of your of your own driveway yes i do okay let's take a look at that okay i think that was in those here i have they were up here at the very first i don't got that yeah sorry i'm not used to this okay that's the current driveway now okay and um well press i'm really out of sorts i apologize but i have a i want to show i have a medical issue here i have a doctor stating saying that I do have disabilities with walking and I've got a parking permit to where I need to get mobility I have trouble with my mobility both my wife and I will have future needs for accessibility on this driveway and that is one of the reasons we are both from very large families and and we park additional cars in the driveway and they have trouble getting i don't want them to be tripping over the driveway basically getting out of the cars when they park in the driveway i'm a family of 10 i'm one of 10 and she's one of six and we do have relatives come and visit on issues i'm still going these are driveways that have the larger driveways that are in compliance and i want you to look there's no mud where they've been driving i'm sorry beating this thing up there's no drive you know where on existing driveways that are so narrow people there's mud and ruts um and it it really helps the appearance of the neighborhood having these driveways a little bit wider where you don't see the mud and the ruts of anyone driving through the yard. Yeah, these are examples of those in compliance. We have a great neighborhood and I like I don't like to bring out the bad, but I like to bring out the good. People have really worked hard to keep the neighborhood and and keep it nice. We've been there 20-something years. I think, Mr. Clark, I think we played, our kids played ball together. But this is what I'm trying to avoid. Here's one here. This is a Google picture of one of the yards that you're in compliance. Can you show some of that? but you see the rock in the mud cars parked on the street in the mud to keep off the street I'm trying to stop that that is that is why I I told my contractor build this driveway wider give me room to get in and out he said he had the permits for it and I did not check back up on him He was a good man. He had been working hard for me and he did a good job for me. This is something that slipped through the cracks. I did not know a 24-foot variance was needed, or the distance. I want to introduce you to Susan Spaulding. She's our Gardenside neighborhood president. Okay. Have you been sworn? Come on up. Well, what I have to say is just simple. The work is beautiful. That photograph did not do justice, Alan, to how beautiful your driveway is. And I'm also his neighbor. I also live three doors down. It has really improved, enhanced our whole street. It looks great, and it's a model for the neighborhood, I think. And as you've seen, there are quite a few much wider driveways, so it's really not out of character for our neighborhood. It fits right in. And the other thing is, the cutaway, I think the photographs also, at least from my view here, I'm not sure what you're seeing up there, but you can't see sort of where the driveways go, where the concrete's been cut out. I'm a walker and a lot of people in the neighborhood are walkers and it makes actually kind of a hazard where it's cut away and where the mud is like that. Anyway, I just want to say I think the work is beautiful. I hope you allow it to stay and thanks. Thank you, ma'am. Anything else, Mr. Bidwell? No, thank you all for the time. This is an application that was recommended for disapproval by the staff, and so we can hear from the staff about their reasons for recommending a disapproval. All right. Mr. Bidwell addressed most of our points for our reasons for disapproval, but I'll give you a little bit more background, I guess, on the case. Last summer, around last summer, a single car garage had previously existed at this residence and was replaced with this two-car garage and this new driveway. So the driveway was proposed to be widened. The original approved drawing shows that paving would be added with the required six-foot setback from the right-of-way on one side of the driveway, since partial driveway existed already. That was not what was completed. What was completed was the work that we see here. I do have a photo. An aerial view here just showing the work that has been completed. As you can see on the site plan, the four triangles that are shaded are the areas that could be removed. This is not what was originally approved. As I said, the entire setback was shown on one side in the original approved paving permit. But here we're taking out these four pieces to make a compliant driveway. the issue here is that by definition a driveway um cannot exceed 24 feet in width so anything beyond that is regulated as additional paved parking and we get into those setbacks the six feet from the front property line um basically sorry is uh just to make sure i understand this drawing uh that accompanied the application who put in those four triangles was that something the staff added as a as a recommended fix correct okay i got you i think building inspection initially suggested this is a fix and then mr bidwell and i discussed it as well and that was what building inspection and planning were in agreement that this would be a way to fix okay and are those and make sure i got the dimensions right they're six feet deep essentially and 3.1 feet correct so this is at the widest amounts to about 36 square feet of paving total Okay, and the triangles are the same on both sides of the sidewalk? Yes. Same size? Okay. Another way to achieve a compliant driveway would be to remove two larger triangles on, well, one larger triangle. Sorry. This is the paving permit drawing. So you see that the setback was originally just flaring in the one direction, and the apron would still flare out in both directions, as that is the requirement of traffic engineering for driveway aprons generally. So that is another option for creating a compliant driveway would be to remove that larger triangle on one side. okay just to make sure we're all looking at the same thing the in this drawing the garage is at the bottom left yes the hatched uh section there is that was the new proposed paving and what was actually completed included out to here and we don't have a flare over here okay so this is the one that was approved yes this is what was okay so this would be an option or as your site plan shows removing those four small triangles would also achieve a compliant driveway it looks like I mean let me make sure I'm understanding It looks to me like in the drawing that was approved, if I'm looking at this correctly, the paving to the left is outside the footprint of the driveway. Is that correct? Am I looking at that correctly? Yes, it was. The reason why there was a – Come up here so you're on the record. I'm sorry. There was an easement that we had to hold for the utility lines above, so the building had to be moved in away from the concrete. Okay. and so essentially what you did instead of complying with this drawing that's being shown right now is just to build the driveway to the same lateral dimensions as the as the garage that was built is that right okay all right while mr bidwell was able to find some examples of wider driveways in the neighborhood staff would ascertain that that is not typical of the neighborhood majority of houses in the neighborhood do have single car driveways even the ones that are double width are not 30 feet in width and we do not believe that removal of the 36 square feet that are not in compliance would have an effect on the functionality of the driveway or that it would affect the accessibility of the driveway location of the concrete that not in compliance does not appear that it would have an impact on maneuverability in and out of a vehicle in this driveway do you have the picture of the garage as built still over there somewhere i think it was one of the pictures that mr bidwell proposed let's take a look at that for a second yeah it looks it looks to me like the I'm curious about the width of the building on either side of the garage doors. Do you know the width of the building between the edge of the building and the edge of the door? It's approximately equal to the size of the garage, which was 30 foot. The driveway was 30 foot. It was 30 foot. That was the 30 point two at the bottom. Yeah, I'm talking about the... It's equal to the garage. I'm talking about the difference between the edge of the building and the edge of the door. From there to there, yes. Oh, that is a foot off of the existing concrete into the yard. Does that make sense? Almost that. All the existing concrete was removed. No, I understand that. That's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking the difference. I'm asking how far in from the edge of the building does the door start? Oh, that is. Looks like about three feet. Yes. And you know why? So I have room to open the door in the garage so I can get out of the car. Right. I understand that. That's what I was trying to ask. And it looks like the center between the doors is equally about three feet. Is that about right? Yes. Okay. All right. Just to make sure I understood. What else, Autumn? I think that about covers it. Any questions to staff? By the board? any questions to mr bidwell or his i do i just want to have a compliment sure your team did a great job in helping there they they helped me electrical construction all their people were so helpful i didn't know there was a concrete inspector i would have talked to him too because i made several trips down to the office just to make sure everything was in place i never knew the driveway would be a problem. I apologize for taking your time, but I do want to make sure I can get in and out of my driveway without falling and without tripping and without driving in the yard. Thank you all. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Sure. She mentioned that it wasn't necessary to have this this triangle wouldn't be a problem well it would be for a handicapped person or for neighbors trying to walk i mean you'd be tripping and then you'd be making mud and it just looks really ugly we like it to look nicer and that's what i want to say thank you any comments or questions uh by the board I think the only comment I want to make is we have to – this happens a lot, and these are difficult decisions and circumstances are always a little bit different. But it's a challenge for me, at least, to make an exact change or a change specifically to your address when we do have a lot of these addresses that are really paved wrong or not according to plan. and it does pose an issue not just for it just sets somewhat of a precedence moving forward when we when we make these type of of exact specific decisions and it's a challenge so i just wanted to say that thanks uh thank you um and that and what he says is true we we are faced with these kinds of decisions all the time. This is a volunteer board. We have to interpret the ordinances sitting as a board. We rely a great deal on staff to help us with the details. And we can't always grant the applications that are proposed to us. And so we'll see how this goes but the staff has recommended disapproval for the reasons that they have that they have given and is there anything else that the board would like to say are you ready to vote on this on this proposal I'll entertain a motion Let's see. I move we – I'm approving this. I always mess those up. Disapprove the application. You're moving to disapprove the application. I move – for PLNBOA 19-1, Allen Bidlisall request, I move for disapproval in his request for variance to reduce the acquired front setback for additional parking from six feet to zero feet in order to bring a recently paved driveway wider than 24 feet into compliance in a single-family residential R1C zone at 1961 Vicksburg Road, based on staff's three reasons for disapproval. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Is there a second? A second. Thank you, Ms. Carter. And let's register your vote electronically. Mr. Bidwell, the disapproval was approved, and so your application was disapproved. Thank you for coming. Sorry. Is there any other resource I could take? I don't know. I'm trying to think of the help of my family and follow them. The next step on a disapproval of an application is circuit court. If you disagree with the vote of the Board of Adjustment on an application, you can consult an attorney about that or not to see what your next step might be. Can I talk to the staff? you certainly can talk to staff as well thank you all right thank you there are still let's see there's still a item on our agenda that we haven't gotten to we have The board item is election of officers. So we'll take that up at this time. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion, if I might. Sure. I would like to move that we continue the current officers with Brandon Gross as chair, Thomas Glover as vice chair, and Joan Whitman as secretary. So move. All right. Thank you, Mr. Clark, is there a second for that motion? I second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. All in favor, register your vote. Joan? Joan? Looks like the motion passed. Are there any other items from staff to be heard at this time? There are not. Are there any other items from the board to be heard at this time? Anything from support? Hearing none, our meeting is adjourned. Thank you.