# Board of Adjustment - January 13, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 13, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4925 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4925?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-01-13 - **Last revised**: January 13, 2020 - **Length**: 19,400 words - **Speakers**: Second > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment convened on January 13, 2020, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Branden Gross presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed five agenda items during the session, including four variance and appeal cases and the annual election of officers. The board took six votes throughout the meeting, with mixed outcomes on the development-related matters before them. No public comments were heard during this session, indicating the meeting proceeded primarily through the formal agenda items and board deliberations. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on January 13, 2020: • Branden Gross • Raquel Carter • Joan Whitman • Janice Meyer • Harry Clarke • Thomas Glover • Chad Needham No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. All seven members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The board conducted six votes during the January 13, 2020 meeting, addressing various administrative and variance requests. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] Thomas Glover motioned to approve the December 9, 2019 meeting minutes, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed 6-0-1 by roll call vote. Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Joan Whitman, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, and Chad Needham voted in favor, with one abstention. **PLN-BOA-19-00088** [timestamp: 01:00] The administrative appeal for Lexington Financial Center, LLC to transfer 21 square feet of allowable wall signage passed unanimously 7-0. Thomas Glover made the motion, Janice Meyer seconded. All members voted in favor: Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Joan Whitman, Janice Meyer, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, and Chad Needham. The approval was subject to three conditions listed in the staff report. **PLN-BOA-19-00082** [timestamp: 02:00] Chad Needham motioned for a variance to increase fence height for Mariyana K. & Diyan R. Hristov, seconded by Thomas Glover. The request failed 0-7, with all seven members voting against: Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Joan Whitman, Janice Meyer, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, and Chad Needham. **PLN-BOA-19-00091** [timestamp: 03:00] The variance request to reduce required front yard setback for Vibe Properties, LTD CO failed despite receiving 5 votes in favor. Thomas Glover motioned, Joan Whitman seconded. The 5-1-1 vote included support from Branden Gross, Joan Whitman, Janice Meyer, Thomas Glover, and Chad Needham. Harry Clarke voted against, with one abstention. **PLN-BOA-19-00089** [timestamp: 04:00] Janice Meyer's motion for the administrative appeal by Greer Land Co Smyrna #2 LLC regarding signage failed 5-2. Branden Gross seconded the motion. Supporting votes came from Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Joan Whitman, Janice Meyer, and Harry Clarke. Thomas Glover and Chad Needham voted against. **Officer Elections** [timestamp: 05:00] Harry Clarke motioned to re-elect current officers, seconded by Raquel Carter. The motion passed unanimously 7-0, retaining Branden Gross as Chair, Thomas Glover as Vice Chair, and Joan Whitman as Secretary. ## Appointments The meeting included several reappointments to key leadership positions within the organization. The following 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 The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in a split vote among board members. **Greer Land Co Sign Appeal** The primary point of contention involved an appeal by Greer Land Co regarding a sign classification dispute. The central disagreement focused on whether a sign attached to a parapet wall should be classified as a roof sign under the applicable regulations. Board members were divided on this technical interpretation, with some arguing that the sign's attachment to the parapet wall constituted a roof-mounted installation, while others maintained that the parapet wall attachment should be treated differently under the sign ordinance. After discussion and deliberation, the board voted 5-2 to deny the appeal, meaning the original determination that classified the sign as a roof sign was upheld. This decision suggests that the majority of board members agreed with the staff interpretation that signs attached to parapet walls fall under the roof sign category, which likely carries different regulatory requirements or restrictions compared to other sign types. The split vote indicates this was not a straightforward interpretation of the sign regulations, with two board members dissenting from the majority position. The close nature of the vote demonstrates the technical complexity involved in sign classification decisions and the potential for reasonable disagreement among board members when interpreting zoning and sign ordinance provisions. ## Lexington Financial Center, LLC Signage Appeal [timestamp: 01:00] The Board of Adjustment reviewed case PLN-BOA-19-00088, an administrative appeal filed by Lexington Financial Center, LLC regarding signage at 250 W. Main Street. The appeal sought approval to transfer 21 square feet of allowable wall signage to erect a third free-standing sign at the property. Adam Linville served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The staff had reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the signage transfer, though their recommendation included specific conditions that would need to be met. The request involved reallocating existing signage allowances rather than seeking additional signage beyond what would normally be permitted for the property. By transferring wall signage square footage, the applicant aimed to install an additional free-standing sign while remaining within overall signage limits. The board ultimately approved the administrative appeal, allowing Lexington Financial Center, LLC to proceed with their signage plan. The approval enables the property owner to move forward with installing the third free-standing sign using the transferred square footage from their wall signage allocation. This case demonstrates the board's consideration of signage flexibility requests where applicants seek to redistribute allowable signage rather than exceed permitted limits. The staff's recommendation for approval with conditions suggests the proposal met regulatory requirements while addressing any potential concerns about signage placement or design standards. ## Hristov Fence Variance [timestamp: 02:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-19-00082, a variance request submitted by Diyan R. Hristov to increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet to 6 feet in the front yard at 3376 Scottish Trace. Staff presented their analysis and recommended disapproval of the variance request. The proposal would allow a fence height that exceeds the standard 4-foot limitation typically required for front yard fencing in residential areas. Diyan R. Hristov spoke in support of his variance application, presenting his case for why the increased fence height was necessary for his property. Following discussion of the request and consideration of the staff recommendation, the board denied the variance application. The decision maintains the existing 4-foot height restriction for front yard fencing at the Scottish Trace property. ## Vibe Properties Yard Variance [timestamp: 03:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-19-00091, a variance request from Vibe Properties to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 0 feet for parking purposes at 264 E. Loudon Ave. Marcellus Barksdale served as a key speaker during the discussion of this variance application. The request would have allowed parking to be placed directly at the property line, eliminating the standard front yard requirement entirely. Staff had recommended disapproval of the variance request prior to the board's consideration. The significant reduction from the standard 20-foot setback to zero setback represented a substantial deviation from zoning requirements. Following discussion, the board denied the variance request, aligning with the staff recommendation. The denial means that any parking development at the property must comply with the existing 20-foot front yard setback requirement. ## Greer Land Co Sign Appeal [timestamp: 04:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-19-00089, an administrative appeal filed by Greer Land Co regarding a sign classification determination at 1100 S. Broadway. The appeal challenged a staff decision that classified a sign attached to a parapet wall as a roof sign. Ross MacArthur served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the case details to the board. The central issue involved determining whether the sign in question should be classified as a roof sign or another type of signage, which would affect compliance with applicable zoning regulations. Staff had previously reviewed the sign installation and determined that it constituted a roof sign based on its attachment to the parapet wall. The property owner appealed this administrative determination, seeking a different classification that would allow the sign to remain in its current configuration. Staff maintained their recommendation for disapproval of the appeal, supporting their original determination that the sign should be classified as a roof sign. This classification would require the sign to comply with specific regulations governing roof-mounted signage. Following discussion of the case details and staff recommendations, the board voted to deny the appeal. This decision upheld the staff's original determination that the sign at 1100 S. Broadway constitutes a roof sign and must comply with the corresponding regulatory requirements. The denial means the property owner must either modify the sign installation to comply with roof sign regulations or pursue alternative signage options that meet the applicable zoning requirements for the property. ## Election of Officers [timestamp: 05:00] The board conducted its annual election of officers during the January 13, 2020 meeting. Harry Clarke led the proceedings for selecting the Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary positions. The election process resulted in the re-election of all current officers to their respective positions. The board approved the continuation of the existing leadership structure without any changes to the officer roles. **Outcome:** All current officers were re-elected to serve another term in their positions of Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of the minutes of the December 9, 2019 meeting - **PLN-BOA-19-00088** — passed (7-0): Administrative appeal to transfer 21 square feet of allowable wall signage for Lexington Financial Center, LLC - **PLN-BOA-19-00082** — failed (0-7): Variance request to increase the allowable height of a fence for Mariyana K. & Diyan R. Hristov - **PLN-BOA-19-00091** — failed (5-1): Variance request to reduce the required front yard for Vibe Properties, LTD CO - **PLN-BOA-19-00089** — failed (5-2): Administrative appeal for Greer Land Co Smyrna #2 LLC regarding a sign - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Election of officers for the year --- ## Full transcript People come in from all walks of life, all ages, all races. Every kind of household. I mean, addiction has no boundaries. Absolutely. It knows blood. I mean, that's it. All right. Well, we appreciate your work here every day. Glad to come out and spend a little time with you today. Absolutely. We've got a little more we're going to talk about, but thank you very much. Great to be with you. Yes, sir. Thank you. We'll be right back. Christina from accounting. Yeah, hi. I used to hit a girl named Christina. Oh, really? Yeah, and then she dumped me for my best friend. I thought we talked about this, buddy. Buzz and overshared again? Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to call a car. That's a smart idea. I've been joined by Amy Baker. We're still here in the Rice Leach room. This is a great room. I love saying that. Indeed. It's a pleasure to meet you. Nice to know you. Absolutely. Well, we're happy that you're here. Happy that you got your naloxone training. I just don't have the product yet. Well, you will. I've been properly trained and signed off on. Yes, ma'am. You will have it before you leave. Now tell me what your title is. Sure. So I work with LFU. Even if it's just the lightest decision to move in a different direction, you've helped change a life. Absolutely. And we're grateful for that. You may come in one week and say, you know, I can't talk to you today, but I'll be here next week. And that is moving in the right direction. That is the harm reduction we are looking for. The seed is planted. And if he or she never goes. Thank you. I'm going to go. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. everybody on thank you for coming today and I will on we've just now started the January 13 2020 meeting of the Board of Adjustments what I'll do is if you have come and you plan to speak today and that means come up to the podium for any reason there's a sign-up sheet in the back if you could just fill that out that helps the staff keep records of who actually spoke and how you spell names it's hard sometimes with the video in the recording to make sure she gets that right please if you have a cell phone turn it on silent or off at this time so it doesn't ring during the hearings if you do plan on speaking today you and you've signed in I'm gonna swear you in if you want to give testimony before the board today so I'll take care of that the general order is the applicant will speak then any any persons from the public you want to speak and the applicant will get an opportunity to speak to do a rebuttal. If there is a recommendation of disapproval from the staff, in that instance I will have the staff give their presentation first, then the applicant, then I'll open it to the public, and then both the staff and the applicant will have a chance for a rebuttal. We don't have formal time limits at the Board of Adjustments, but if there are a lot of speakers and a lot of cases, I will limit speaking. I prefer, or not prefer you should when you come to speak don't be redundant if someone has already testified as to something then you don't need to continue to bring the same evidence before us so with that being said let me look here my sorry I got this out of order here okay so the first thing on the agenda is approval of the minutes from our December 9th meeting those have been circulated to the board were there any questions by any members of the board? Hearing none I will entertain a motion to approve. Mr. Chair I move to approve the minutes of December 2019. Second. Any discussion of them on the motion? Hearing none I'll call to a vote. All right, the motion passes. The minutes have been approved. The second item is if you plan to speak today, please stand so I can swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you very much. At this point, before I sound the agenda, are there any items that people want to postpone or withdraw or items with no discussion at this time? The last case on the agenda, PLNBOA 19-90, Bradford Stengel. The application was withdrawn on Friday via email. I'll give a little bit of an explanation for that since I suspect some folks in the audience are here on this one. The applicant was able to change their plan. They are no longer going to be pursuing a restaurant use, and they were able to sort of reconfigure the other proposed uses so that the parking requirement for what is currently there would be the same for what they were proposing, and they would not be increasing that non-conforming parking situation. At 507 East High Street, where they were proposing to remove a building and add some extra parking, they are withdrawing that portion as well. They do not plan to remove that building. So that's the update for that one. Is there a sister case in the Planning Commission for this matter, or is this the only application before us? This was the only application. I suspect they will be pursuing building permits. Okay. As far as planning, I don't think. So is there anyone here related to the 501 and 507 East High Street? Raise your hand, please. Okay. All right. At this point, the applicant has withdrawn its application, as Autumn had explained today, So we will not be hearing a case on that matter today. I am not sure whether or not they have to do anything else from the Planning Commission for approval. But, Autumn, if you have any. As far as I know, they will just be seeking building permits for building renovations and new certificates of occupancy for their new tenants. Other than that, there shouldn't be any hearings or any planning processes or anything like that. So it's our understanding at this point that there's nothing to be heard today before us because the application has been withdrawn, and that it does not appear that they may be seeking any governmental approvals other than the normal permitting and building inspection process. My understanding is that they've also reached out to their council person regarding the pedestrian-oriented business district designation. That would be a longer process that would go through council. So keep your eyes out for that. Okay. All right. So I'm not going to have anyone come up and speak to this because my board is not hearing this, and so we don't have any jurisdiction to handle anything related to this project. So I would say if you have any questions, reach out to your council person and or the applicant. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other items to be withdrawn or postponed? Okay. Well, hearing none, it looks like disapproval, disapproval. We've got an approval. All right. So we have three disapprovals and approval. So the first case on the docket is a variance appeal, and this is PLNBOA 19-82. The wrist-offs, did I pronounce that right? Yes. Yes. And the applicant is here. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on this other than staff? All right. Thank you. We'll have that case to be heard. So if you want to have a seat, sir, I'll call you up in a minute. All right. Thank you. the next item is PLM BOA 19-915 properties limited is the applicant present all right thank you so you have a seat just want to make sure there's anyone here who wants to speak on this all right since this was recommended for disapproval we will have a hearing on this one the next item is administrative appeal and this is PLN BOA 19-88 Lexington Financial Center this one has been recommended for approval is the applicant present thank you sir is there anyone who wants to speak on this okay since this is an abbreviated hearing we'll have you called up first the next administrative appeal is bill plnboa 19-89 greer land co is applicant present thank you sir um anyone here speak on that one i know we'll have that one herb is this was recommended for disapproval all right so we'll have this one to be heard okay which brings us to the first case, which is PLNBOA 19-88 Lexington Financial Center, related to 25 West Main Street. The applicant, if you would, please come up for us. Thank you, sir. If you could, please state your name for the record. Adam Linville. and what is your relation with the property owner? I'm a project manager at Integrated Sign and Graphic. We will be the company that will be producing and installing the sign if it gets approved today. And you have the authority to bind the owner in this hearing? Yes, sir. It looks like the staff has recommended approval today. That approval is based upon three conditions. Have you and your client reviewed those conditions? Yes, sir. And you both agree to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you, sir. That's all I have currently. I'm going to open it up for any members of my board who have questions for you. All right. And if no one has any questions, of course, I'm always willing to entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLNBOA 19-88, Lexington Financial Center LLC's request of an administrative appeal to transfer 21 square feet of allowable wall signage in order to erect a third freestanding sign at property within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a Lexington Center business B2B zone property located at 250 West Main Street for the reasons described in the staff report and subject to the three conditions you mentioned. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Second. Okay, I have a first and a second. Any discussion on this motion? Hearing none, then we will put it to a vote. Your application has been approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you for your time. You're welcome. All right. At this point, we will then start calling the cases that will be heard today. Like I said, they're all recommended for disapproval by the staff. So what we will do is we'll call them in order. So the first one will be PLMBOA 19-82. Mariana and Dayan Hurstoff regarding 3376 Scottish Trace. Thank you, sir. I see you're here. If you want, come up here and sit in the first row for me. And what we'll do is I will have, state your name for me for the record. Diane Christoph. Thank you, sir. And if you want to have a seat, I'll have staff give their presentation, and then you'll have an opportunity to speak. Thank you. All right. This is an application that was postponed from last month. The applicant did submit an updated drawing to staff, and we've updated our staff report to reflect that. The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the allowable height in a front yard, the allowable height of a fence in a front yard from four feet to six feet. The applicant resides at this sort of unusual pizza-shaped property and wishes to enclose a portion of his yard with a fence in order to construct a basketball court. The applicant originally planned to construct the basketball court running along the front to back of the house, But went through an HOA process and the HOA was uncomfortable with the basketball court being oriented in that direction because they were afraid of the ball bouncing out into the street and causing traffic issues. So they requested that the applicant rotate the basketball court. By doing so, the court shifted such that the fence had to be jutted out in front of the house. another condition of the HOA's approval was that the fence be six feet tall our zoning ordinance does not allow six foot tall fences in the front yard in the residential zones so a portion of this fence is out of compliance and would require a variance we'll go back here and take a look at the the property this is the portion of the yard that would be fenced in for the basketball court so based on the drawing that was submitted the the basketball court is within the yard and the yellow line reflects the the proposed fence staff believes that the fence could be reoriented to create a compliant six foot tall fence by going at a straight line from the corner of the house over and then this portion of the fence is actually okay at six feet because it's behind the front plane of the building so we're really only looking at about 30 feet of fence here that is not allowed to be six feet what is the uh widest distance from the proposed applicants proposed fence and your proposed fence are we talking about two feet three feet four feet this dimension is shown at 12 feet from the corner down that that first straight line okay um And then it goes on and curves back up to this line here, which is in line with the house. Okay, thank you. I believe that the applicant will show you a drawing today that indicates that the basketball court in this drawing is not correctly proportioned and that this is not a feasible option for him. Staff is of the mindset that the basketball court could perhaps be reoriented or shifted in size, perhaps a little bit smaller, to accommodate a compliant fence. Another option that the applicant has is to construct a four-foot tall fence. Instead, the difference of two feet for a basketball court could have some effect, but we don't think that a special circumstance is being provided here. The HOA's disapproval does not qualify as a special circumstance since that's a private matter, and there are other options that can be pursued. So that's why we're recommending disapproval. and this is a question i have and what constitutes a fence for example if a four-foot fence was built and there was some kind of two-foot netting that ran across the fence would that still be a part of the fence. I believe that would still be part of the fence. A planting would not constitute a fence. I understand. Any other questions for staff at this time? Thank you, Adam. We may have more questions for you. Does that come up now? No, this is Dermot. Thank you. Sorry, I just need to figure out how that worked. Okay. First, I want to apologize that I don't have the correct sketch on my primary application. Pretty much we're trying to fit the basketball court. I have a seven-year-old boy that loves the basketball. That is the driving the project. You want to play basketball all the time. Actually, he's playing during the day when he's coming back from the school inside the home. But the goal is to get this project. The request for variances to utilize our site yard. Since our property is located on the very unusual lot, similar to the corner, but does not meet the regulation for the corner lot. We would like to add that trampoline and also build a basketball court for our seven-year-old boy and 11-year-old girl. As parents, we want to provide more physical activity for our kids and grow up healthy citizens. My seven-year-old, how I already mentioned, is attending the basketball classes at Hoop. I am third KBC and the YMCA. My daughter is attending the tennis classes at LTC Lexington Tennis Club. Our primary decision was to build a half basketball court with real size 47 by 50 to provide maximum play space for our kids. To achieve City and Home Association permit approval, we decided to reduce the size of the court to the current size, which is not actual half size court. That was the primary decision. But even after that, court is still not fit inside from front of the property line due to the character of our unusual law. The size is also considered of the size basketball court kit that will apply it on the top of the concrete. And I have the picture below. We received approval from the city for court with hoop facing the street. Blackford Home Association did not accept the city approval. I agreed to approve the court bill only if changed the direction on the court and hoop. The reason for home association to reject my first request was the safety concern that hoop facing the street and bow will easily access the street. Home Association agreed to approve the basketball court application. It will change the direction of the court and hoop facing the house presented to the current project. Requested current location provides two feet from the neighbor fence and also enough space from the house wall. We need the minimum distance to prevent any injuries during the games. To build six feet private fence, that was the second concern, actually, an agreement to let us to build a court, is to build a six feet private fence to minimize the risk of basketball to access the street, which could cause safety incident, which we also see very reasonable, and we agree on that. I'm providing the sample of the fence that will be high quality with limited live warranty and wind certificate for the speed up to 135 miles per hour. This is not going to be the regular wooden face fence that is almost all around our neighborhood. This is going to be the good quality fence. due to our triangle corner shape of the lot, we have to turn our orientation of the court and bring it to the building line for the safety of the kids playing. Neighbors walking on the walkway and the drivers on the street. We request the variance for six feet fence built on a 25 feet building line instead of 25.59 front of the house line. you know pretty much be requesting the fence to be five feet out of the front line from house line. You already have that disapproval from the planning team. I'm not going to read them. I'm going to skip. if you want me to read, you already know you have them. I go to the next one. We would like to present. Sir, would you do me a favor? Would you go back to the one where you have the plan? The first slide. Okay. Is that appropriate? So I'm looking at the plan and I'm looking at the sheet. Are you doing 20 feet, is it still going to be 20 feet from the right-of-way to the fence? Yes, sir. All the way around? It's going to be 20 feet from the walkway, actually, yes. Yeah, from the walkway to the fence? To the fence, yes, sir, that's correct. Okay, that was my, thank you. Now, on this drawing, if you go back there, is that the correct orientation? This is exactly correct orientation. And again, I apologize that I didn't provide exactly the giftwood sketch. But this is exactly the way how we can fit it. Because looking on a sketch, we're trying to keep it two feet from my neighbor fence. We're trying to keep it away from the house. and at the same time, you know, that's the minimum we can go forward. We already have the first application was 15 feet away from the walkway, but for the recommendation of the planning team, you know, I just move it to 20, but that's going to give actually, let me see, where is that? I'm going to use mine, you know, I don't know how this works. But pretty much right here, this is what we have to leave to keep the safety. When you're playing, you're playing basketball on high speed. And we want to keep to have at least one and a half, maybe two feet right here, the distance to the actual basketball court to the fans. Because we don't want somebody to just running and jump straight off the fans. and pretty much hurt himself. And that's the maximum we can pretty much go back. We cannot go back, you know, right here, because you can see it right here. That's the triangle locked, and we cannot go back. You know, there is no way. That's the main reason of it. Because it's what? Why can't you go? It's a triangle. We cannot go that, because we have to push this right here, okay? And this is going to be all the way in the house. You know, we have the whole court is going to be in the house pretty much. Because the and if I'm correct, the staff's concern is not the distance from the curb. It's the part of the fence that's in front of the plane of the front plane of the house. So you're saying that it would not work the way they decided because you have to be at an angle. Yes, ma'am. That's that's we cannot we cannot put it in the back back back. where we can because this is going to push it out away you know this corner right here if you put it you know least two feet this way it actually the whole the whole discord it has to be the hoop actually has to be you know in the house you know but I don't want to put it in the house you know because we have yeah because we have a window right here right right right here in this area we have a big windows on the living room and you know of course you know my wife have a little small garden on it over here just keep it looking nice you know like every female want to have a garden at home any any other questions yeah I'd I'd like to ask a question, if you might, Mr. Herstoff. I'm a little confused why the court has to be so big that it couldn't be reduced slightly to take care of the amount of fence that would come in front of the plane of the house. And it looks like to me that the court itself could be reduced. I mean, we are talking about a seven-year-old kid. I just don't see why a little bit of reduction and a little bit of movement toward the back, even if we're talking four or five feet, that part of the court that is closest to the house couldn't be moved behind the plane of the house. I'm having a hard time understanding why the size of the court couldn't be reduced enough and moved enough to take care of that. Yes, sir, I have an answer for your question. we want to build the half court. The what now? Half court. That was the primary. I understand. And I have the real size of the half courts are right here. We want to put the real basketball, half court basketball. That was the primary. And you can see it already reduced the size of the court. I understand that. I'm asking you why that is so important. Because when I build a court, you know, I want to be close to the actual real court. And why is that? If one day my son is become a basketball player, he really want to have a kind of place where it's close to the real basketball court. And also the second reason this is what is going to be on the top of the concrete, you know, and this is the actual size, you know, that it's going to cover the concrete and concrete is not going to be visible. And this is the second reason for, you know, this is actual size, you know, cannot be changed. When you go back to the drawing that staff has, they actually have the court fitting in the space with those dimensions. Yes, ma'am. And again, I apologize for that. My engineering skill was not that very good. You know, and I didn't realize, you know, because primary reason was for four to six feet and I don't pay attention exactly how the court is going to look like, but I get my wife to drawing now exactly how it's going to look and that is of the difference. Any other question? I think I have one more slide right here. Okay, we just have a response to Okay, we just have a response to the disapproval points of the planning team. The character of our react is very unique, and this is the reason for project we presented to be unusual. We assure that the requested variance is not going to affect negatively any site, and only reason for the request is to use our yard, provide our safety space environment so they can spend as much as can time outside and be active. According to staff, our requests for fences six will be very unusual, even the character of our yard. But in fact, on our street, nine houses from our house, Actually, that's eight houses, not nine. There is a fence that is six feet tall, and it's only exactly nine inches. You know, I went to measure it. This is right on our street. Excuse me. It is on the... Give me a second. That's no problem. I have a picture in my photo. Thank you. Yes. You know, this is kind of, it's exactly in our neighborhood. Again, it's eight houses from our house. And again, you can see the picture over here. We have a kind of very paintings missing, you know, the fence over here. That is not very happy. I'm not happy when I walk any time around this fence. But the fence that is going to be on our house, I already mentioned it earlier, and one of the swipes is going to be good quality fence. It's not going to be something close to this. It's going to be the good quality fence. Main reason for spending the extra money, this is our house, and we really want to do whatever we're doing it to looking good you know we're not gonna make an exception for trying to be cheap you know spending less money or or or anything like that just just to do it because you know we want to put the court no the fence is gonna be the good-looking fence any other questions You know, I have one more, actually two more slides to go through. Just comparing to this example over here, you know, again, this is a 19 inch from the walkaway. Our request is for fence to be at 20 feet from the walkaway. pretty much what is going to be almost 18 feet difference from our request. The recommendations for the homeowners was the safety reason. The character shape of our yard, as can be seen, is very specific and usual. The variance is needed to fit the court and provide the safety clearance to the fence. Again, I apologize, I didn't provide the exactly correct drawing in the first presentation. As can be seen in the presented sketch, the curve is needed in target to fit the rectangle in the yard which is with shape of triangle. I already kind of show what is causing it to not be able to move it back. Safety is top priority for our project. If our planning team did not recognize and accept the safety concern from the home association, but this is going to be the mainly safety project. We don't want any additional in a long time period somebody to hurt because we're going to invite the friends. My son is going to invite the friends, you know, we want to do it right. According to the staff, the fans with high four feet will provide a reasonable level of security for the basketball. Please consider that the hoop is 10 feet high and the ball will be throwing way above four feet. Also consider that most of our yard is exposing to the walk away and street, which is pretty busy with pedestrian and cars. Six feet fence will provide a lot more safety for the kids and our pedestrian and driver reducing the chance the ball to escape to the street and the kids to run the street chasing the ball. Actually, that's the funny part. My wife told me to bring the basketball ball to bounce it and see that pretty much the ball is, even if it's coming back from the court, is going to bounce away above, not above, but it's going to be bouncing four feet pretty much if it's coming from the board and it's bouncing on the ground. Pretty much the last slide, please consider my application on the base of our facts below. I put them out together in a sample word. Unique loss, mostly similar to the corner, safety of the project already compromised the size of the court and fence distance to the walkway our primary quest last fence located to be at 15 feet from the walkway and planning team recommendation we reduce it to 20 even the court will be a feet away from the fence actually that's kind of it's concerned me because it's going to be way too close but you know we agree you know just to build the the court. Our project requests for awareness will not negatively affect the public health, safety, welfare and will not cause a hazard to the public. Again, I said, you know, it's It's going to be not just pouring a concrete. It's going to have that on the top of the concrete. And also the fence is going to be, again, it's not going to be just regular fence. Provide more physical activities for our kids. Bring the seven-year boy dream to come through and have a basketball court where he can practice daily and improve his basketball skills. Luckily, he has an activity in the school. I plan to bring him over here because he can tell how happy he can be with his court, but I couldn't pull him from the school. That's all I have, and I'm ready for your questions. Please put slide one back on. Yes, sir. Okay. I don't have any questions for you. I just want to leave that slide up. Anyone have any questions? I do. I'm looking at the court, and it's not square. I just wondered why that is. Is it an optical illusion, or am I just seeing it incorrectly? It cannot be correct. I mean, it cannot be straight because it's this, this is mine actually. This right here is always going to pushing the, to be not straight. Do that again, triangle log. You know, we're trying to put in a square in a triangle log, you know. And it's going to look like that. You cannot do it like that. I guess I don't understand why the line of the court can't be directly perpendicular to the line of the house. Why it has to be at an angle there. You mean this line right here? Well, the long line of the court, they're parallel, but they're not perpendicular to the end lines. And that's going to make a strange basketball court. when all you needed to do was to move the court, the left side of the court, more toward the back of the house to square it up and that it would get it away from the plane of the house, the front house. You know, I really like the idea of what you're doing for your kids. I think that's really, really good, and I appreciate that. It just seems like it would be such a minor adjustment to make this work and satisfy the ordinance that we've expressed. So I'm having a hard time understanding why the simple adjustments can't be made. Pretty much the size of the court, whatever we're putting it, the whole problem is we cannot push back the court. you know, due to right here, we're going to be, you know, we have to cut it pretty much just two feet and stick. I don't want to do that because that's going to create a safety concern, you know. If I cut the two feet over here and pretty much have the court right to the fence, that's going to be one of the safety reasons that I don't want to do it. and just the size of the load, you know, is not allowed to put the square, you know, in a triangle. And that's the triangle load that's pushing the core to coming outside. Does that kind of explain the idea? What is the actual issue that we're trying to? Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Can we go back to the original design that was presented to us by the staff? Yeah. No, that's what I'm seeing there, and I'm still not understanding why that's impossible. Could staff take a moment to explain to Mr. Christoff here at the table which line we're talking about on his drawing that's making it not square? I'm not sure he totally understands that. Yeah. I've never seen that before. I would think you'd mess up your shooting. I'm doing it. Non-parallel, I'm doing it. That's what I mean. I want a full-size chord. You make it a parallel drive. Yes, it's almost good. I don't think that's right. No, no. He just wanted a six chord. No, no. He really just needs to have a four or a decent size. Yeah, but we want to have this and this. the whole you could build a full-size court and put a four-fifth fence in the front of me sure Sure, of course. I think I would rather stay in the back plane. Short a little bit or narrow a little bit. Yeah, I have an extra copy. Do you have an extra copy of that one? Yes. I have the blank one. You mean of this one or the blank one? I have this one. I'm showing you the camera. Yeah. How close to the side? I understand. Yeah. That's what, three feet? Something like that? Yeah, but he's got . Oh, yeah. I understand. Yeah. The whole thing. I'm minimizing shut. My whole thing's shut. It's right here, you know in order to give us. Is it because of your windows and things here? No, no, no. We don't want to go that far. You have a desktop. The whole port is right here. Okay, let's go up here. It's actually like that. But I cannot drive it. I'm driving. I can go to here. Actually, it's real. It's a straight right here. Okay, so your corner is not really this close to the fence. It's this close to the fence. It is. The one you were referring to was not really, that was behind the plane of the house. that what he cited neighbors. It is very nice. 3272. To put it right. 3272. But yeah, it's straight. And even that, it's straight right here. And this is how it is. So it's behind the appointment house. So see where it comes out right here? It sure is. I measured all the points right here. And the 24th It fits. And it's actually . This is fine. It's actually . Yep. Yep, sure is. The whole . It's facing like that. I think what's throwing them off is that the drawing is showing it at an angle. It's not. I think what you need to explain to them is that it's not at an angle, that it's at the same, it's parallel to the top. Yeah. Okay, honest. Yeah. All right. Yeah, I pretty much understood the question and the request is the, actually the court is parallel to the house. You know, I just, I even don't have a draft correct here on my second draft too. so are you able to situate the court in a way that the entire fence can be behind the front plane of the house if you move that section are you saying that's not doable it's not doable no ma'am to be able to do it you would have to shrink the court that's what we would have to do because you're saying that butts all the way up because it's still i know it's not exactly correct but there still seems to be some significant footage between the corner of the house and where the basketball court could start. But we already reduced that you know I just measure it you know I went back and measure it and you know I'm I left the very small place you know from the whatever the actual current fence request is into the court you know before I look at you know I have it what is the five additional feet you know I have it seven eight feet now I have a on the one of the edge I have a below two feet on this edge and other edge it's three feet and that's that's that's pretty much is putting the fence very very close even with that that from from this age right here are there any more questions for the applicant thank you sir if you wanted to see we may have more questions for you thank you is there anything that staff wants to say at this point I'm happy to answer any questions you have any questions for staff all right okay we're hearing none I'll close the public portion. Of course we can discuss anything we want. If anyone has comments at the board, I'm always willing to entertain a motion at any time and a member wants to make one. I do have a question. There is a drawing of a rectangle outside the court between the house in the court what is that it's labeled as the hoop that's the hoop for the basketball court okay all right any additional questions comments I again would like to know what the applicant's reason for not accepting the sketch A that we have. And I know he thinks the fence is too close, I believe, to the court. Is that what I'm hearing? Where the fence would have to be, the red line. Excuse me, may I ask? Why does this sketch not work for you? Because it's not presenting the actual location of the court. Okay. In order to fit the court, you know, on 20 feet, you know, it's going to be two feet from the fence. The way how we presented, you know, with these five feet that is going to pulling out of the front line. the actual court location on a 20 feet away from the walk away actual fence is going to be between two and two and a half feet and a bolt they just on a bolt site and for another bolt both sides right here this actually is going be right here. Actually it is, and this is right here. The 15 feet away, you know, it's given enough space, you know, it's adding additional space away from the cord. But, But, you know, again, I could compromise already the distance trying to kind of. Mr. Ristel, I just want to say that, you know, I think we're going to have to have a compromise here. The way I see it is that you either reduce the size of your court or you accept a four-foot fence if you're going to come out in front of your house. I think that's the two options, really, is the way I see it. I know you want a six-foot fence, but if you want a six-foot fence, you've got to reduce the size of the court. If you want a full court, you've got to bring it out, and you have to do a four-foot fence. Four-foot fence is not going to work. Again, that's going to cause the safety issues. I think that's where this all comes into compliance, and I don't see – I think those are the two – really the two key things I see right now is what I would approve. So, in this case, I disapprove, but I think you have those two options. And I don't think they're bad options. I know you want a full height fence, but based on what we see here, I don't see how I can make that call. That's just my two cents. Any more questions for the applicant before I tell them to take a seat? Well, I've got a question, a short question for staff. You want to have a seat, sir? The plans all show a 20-foot setback, basically, from the right-of-way. Is that right? But he doesn't have to go back 20 feet to build a fence. He can build a fence up to the front property line. It just has to be four feet tall. Anything in between the front plane of the building and then the front lot line has to be four feet tall. And behind the plane of the house, you can go to the six-foot fence. Sure. Yeah, that seems simple to me. Okay, that's all I had. Thanks. I was going to mention that. Any additional comments, questions? All right. Once again, I'm willing to entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move PLNBOA 19-82 for disapproval of the Mariana K. and Dionne Christoffer's quest for variance to increase the allowable height of a fence located in the front yard from four feet to six feet in an expansion area residential to EAR-2 zone on property located at 3376 Cottage Trace based on staff's reasons. I second. And we got a first and a second. Any discussion on the motion before I call a vote? Hearing none, we'll put it to a vote. So your application was disapproved, which means you won't be able to build the fence as you wanted to do it. So that takes us to the next one. I apologize, Mr. Needham. I was getting ready to say that subject to the conditions, I'm so used to hearing that at the end of a motion that my radar went off when I didn't hear it. So I apologize for it. It looked like I was going to interrupt you. The next case to be heard is PLN BOA 19-91 by Properties Limited Co. 264 East Loudoun Avenue. The applicant is present today. And so once again, since it's recommended for disapproval by the staff, I'll have the staff give a short report for us and then we'll have the applicant come and give us their reason the application should be approved. This application is a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to 0 feet in order to allow parking in the front yard in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area at 264 East Loudoun Avenue. The property is shown up here is a considerably deep and narrow property, as is similar to most of the other properties in this vicinity on East Loudoun Avenue the applicant is requesting a variance to allow parking in the front of the house which they have recently renovated they feel that having off-street parking is necessary for the sale of the house which is what they plan to do to sell the house historically this house has shared a parking lot. Not moving very well here. Driveway in a parking lot behind the joining house. There's more pages, right? Just throw up the site plan then. okay there we go the case isn't pulled up on our screen we're still showing the last case our screen okay thank you very much back and forth we may jump here in a second but the house we're looking at is this one right here historically this house has shared this driveway with the adjacent property interesting enough there is an easement on the deed for 264 that says that they are allowed to use this driveway as their access historically parking spaces were provided in the back of the properties for both of those two houses oddly enough for this house the deed does not include that easement so the applicant has concerns that in the future a homeowner could run into issues with the adjoining property not letting this residence use that driveway so wait a second which so the White House this is the subject property the house here uh-huh has a driveway has this driveway and it's on the property lot it's on the lot of the White House right on the line so in the White House has a deed that says it's subject does not have it their deed does not reference the easement that's often the case has any has in their deed that they are allowed to use the adjoining property for this easement for their parking but without getting into a lot of legal issues it's quite often that the the deed for the burden property which would be the white house would not have the easement referenced in its deed per se but it would be in its land records probably created otherwise but that's something that they're not attorneys to figure out but just some background on the property and the reason that the applicant has is pursuing this in case that access easement should go away they would like to have to be able to provide off-street parking the adjoining property to the left has a parking pad in the front yard a variance was approved for that back in 1992 and it could be said that there are some similarities between the two applications but I think that sort of the train of thought has changed over time about parking in the front yard there are issues here with the changing the character of the general vicinity primarily the houses in this vicinity do have driveways and park in the rear or they use on street parking which is available another concern is the the storm sewer in front of the house and the proximity of these other two curb cuts immediately adjacent there's really not enough room to provide the 20-foot parking pad that the applicant is requesting in addition to that typically driveways in the infill and redevelopment area are limited to 10 feet in width so this is already a much wider proposal than what would be allowed for even a driveway in the infill area so let me ask you this question a 10-foot driveway would be acceptable it would not because it there's no place for the driveway to go so parking in the front yard is prohibited in the infill area that's why we're asking for a variance to eliminate the front yard a driveway that didn't lead to a parking space would just be considered parking in the front yard so the driveway itself would be parking right yeah okay i mean but people can park in their driveway can't they they can but your required parking cannot be in front of the building line okay so a 10-foot driveway has to go somewhere correct that's in the ordinance yes what about a paved walkway a paved walkway has to be separated from any surface for driving So a driveway, and then if you were to have a sidewalk up to the front door, there has to be at least two feet in between the two so that you can't drive on the walkway to differentiate. Okay. Thank you. Was a survey done? I'm not aware. Do you know if there is parking behind this house? It was hard to tell from aerial photos. it looked like there had been parking back there historically but I couldn't tell if it was paved or graveled and it looked like it had not necessarily been used very recently and the applicant could probably explain a little bit further what's going on back there but there were documents from other building permits for this property in the past that reference the parking being in the rear okay Any additional questions for staff? All right. Thank you, Yano. We'll probably have more questions for you. Now have applicant come forward. Hello, sir. If you could, please state your name for the record for us. Marcellus Barksdale. Are you the owner of the company that owns the property? Yes, sir, I am. All right, thank you, sir. In that case, please proceed. Okay, I've got some updated pictures just to pass out to you all. My apologies for not having the digitized presentation. That's fine. You have, how many copies do you have? I've got four. If you want, we can share, and then plus he can put them in at the overhead. Okay. And they'll show up for us. that way we know exactly which one you're talking about And then if you don't mind, if you have the extra ones, we'll pass them around. Perfect. It looks like those are going to be hard to see on the overscreen, so it would probably be better if we should. Yeah. I'll let you guys and those, and then we'll share one too. Yeah, that'd be perfect. Thank you, sir. All right, again, apologies for that, but the biggest concern that we have is the need to allow off-street parking at 264 East Louding. And there's really kind of a tight situation over there. If you also look at, it's image three, if you guys can kind of follow along, just to provide some updated pictures. it's fairly narrow between that median on Loudon and the side of the street. So if you get, in times, two SUVs, it's very difficult. And all the time, it's very difficult to even get out of, a driver to get out of their car. And just to also touch on that, we had an open house over there on the night of November the 24th, 2019. and car got side swiped and hit and pinned up against the utility pole you can see the utility pole image six it makes six of the utility plow and it's kind of right in the middle between 264 East Loudoun and 262 East Loudoun and if you then go to image seven if that car was totaled that night and it was hit it was parked on the side of the street and pinned up against that utility pole and that was the night of an open house and After that incident, we essentially decided to take the house off the market to be able to hopefully provide off-street parking for safety reasons, not even necessarily for us to sell the house, but because it's the right thing to do in terms of safety. And there is a situation where the deed of 264 East Loudon does say that there is a shared driveway, but 262 East Loudon does not say anything about that. and that has that house was just sold so there is a new owner in that house and we'll be selling that house at 264 each loud and and you know kind of hopefully you would hope that both owners could agree to things but in the event that things cannot happen and agreements cannot take place you know 264 the owners that property are always going to be left in a situation where you know they're looking over their shoulder all the time whether they're getting kids out of the the car, getting groceries out of the car, and it's just not really the most suitable place to sleep at night and understand that your car is safely parked. And the 20 foot parking pad, that was based on a recommendation from Autumn. We were seeing if we could provide parking for two vehicles, and she, from our understanding, it was the 20 feet would be necessary. And this was all based on a conversation with her. However, our biggest thing is we just want to be able to provide adequate parking even for one vehicle. And that's just the biggest concern of ours, just to allow that safely. And I'm open to understanding whatever can be done to provide that one safe parking. So I'd like to also talk to staff to figure out what type of recommendations or options we would have in terms of being able to actually provide safe off-site parking for 264 each level i have a question for you um have you talked to the new owners of 262 um have you approached yes i have about and what and what is historically the parking situation it was in the back is um no there is no there's no there's no there's no gravel in the back the driveway just leads to the back and that's essentially it um there's no gravel or concrete in the back um it's it's brushes and trees and you know it's not really a safe place to park either well can it become a safe place to to park? Could it become a safe place to park? Possibly, but the biggest challenge with that is you're always subject to the owners at 262 East Loudon, and they're in the process of renovating that property, so they'll probably sell that property as well, and it could be some turnover just in the next few months with both the properties. I've got a question for staff. um do you do we you run into this a lot i some with shared driveways in older in neighborhoods like that you know do you is this is this a common occurrence we have not run into it in gems or my recollection if i may we see it more around campus in the uk environment where we have a lot of shared driveways in very similar lot configurations, and parking is in the rear. And so it's quite common over there for when landlords buy properties and they want to rent out the bedrooms. It goes from a single-family usage to multi. You know, you've got three or four students living in those, and they need parking. So we anticipate that with the recently passed ADU. So I think we will see more and more driveways that are shared. But it's very common in State Street, Elizabeth Street, Marino, those areas, as well as over towards the Ashland Park area. A little bit more common. It's getting more as the U.K. spreads out. I was going to say, when I lived on Mentel Park, I had a shared driveway with the neighbor, and the parking was both in the very rear, and it was just graveled. They just threw down some gravel, and that's just where you parked, and both properties shared the one driveway. I mean, I don't have any advice for you, but I do think this suits well to, you know, use the driveway between the two properties as the right-of-way, and both properties park in the rear. you know you might be able to get some free legal advice from our chair but you know it does sound like there is some if the burden was I was trying to follow what he said but if the burden is usually not on the house that has the easement if I'm saying this correctly then then you would have the you would have the I guess the burden of proof for that can you help me out there well He's talking about the burdened property. Burdened property. Burdened property. I mean, in my experience, you will often find where the driveway was created, the shared easement would either be a separate instrument that's been recorded that would burden 262 and benefit 264, or at one point they had common ownership and the owner of 262 sold 264 to a third party, in which case it said, in addition to this real estate, I give you this driveway access right. so I until it till the property records are searched for 262 I wouldn't be I would not put money on the fact that that easement does not exist plus you've got other easements by use of a certain amount of time creates easements by necessity there's a lot of legal ways to prove that you have an easement and a shared right use that driveway so I'm just saying like it right now I would not personally i don't put much credence in it does show the deed in 262 does not show an easement i would find that to be very likely the case 99 of 100 times i look at those documents yeah you're talking about a even if it's not recorded it could be a prescriptive easement that is correct yeah yeah and i think and that is often the case in these old neighborhoods right that you may not find a driveway easement of record that doesn't mean you don't have a right to use it um and if for some reason your neighbor were to say no you can't you have to have a court would have to decide you do have the right to use it but if it's been a shared driveway for a substantial length of time 15 years just like just like like adverse adverse was that's right yeah so yeah yeah my biggest concern is the fact that there's a storm sewer culvert right in front of this property I'm not even sure there's enough space to put in a driveway from the property line to the culvert to even have a driveway, to build a driveway on this site. Can we put in the photo, Autumn, of the storm sewer photo? Yeah, if you look at, I've got a more updated picture of that. I think it says photo two, maybe. Photo one. Photo one. There we go. should be able to i mean yeah because if he's saying the driveway is not on his property i don't think there's enough space to even put a 10-foot potentially driveway for the safety reasons and i doubt he or the city are going to allow that culvert to be relocated for the same reason there's it's really not appropriate to park in front of this property so i see your point i I understand what you're trying to do because of that drainage thing right there in the front of the property, there's not room to put a car because of that drainage. So, you know, what are you going to do? But I think, as has been discussed, your better option, rather than parking in front, is to continue the shared use of that driveway and park in the rear of the house. Now, I kind of disagree with staff's reasons for disapproval because it looks to me like from the neighbor's driveway, that's the character of the general vicinity. So I see the applicant's point saying if the neighbors can do it, it seems like I should be able to also. But I think the better option is to continue the use of that shared driveway and provide for parking in the rear. I'd also like to agree with that up to a point, because in looking at the neighborhood, I tell you, it's like 50% of the houses in that whole area have parking in front, and I don't know whether those have been grandfathered in or whether they're just illegal or what, but it just seems like to me that it's fairly common in that neighborhood. So that bothers me a little bit, and I know what the staff is doing. staff has no problem has no option but to disapprove and in in terms of ordinance but it's certainly not it's certainly a common thing to be parking in front of the houses in this neighborhood can i make a suggestion if we look at can we pull up image five All right, so if we're looking at image five, we've got that patch of grass in between the driveway and the walkway. And this is a question for staff. Would it be possible to get a special ordinance to extend that to concrete so that you can safely park one vehicle directly in front of the house and if we look at image two that I have you see that the house next to 264 that's 266 they've got you know a parking pad that extends the width of the entire house where you are able to park a vehicle safely off the street without having to park in the rear would that be something that could an issue with with that green space that you mentioned there is a side yard setback requirement for a driveway or parking that's two feet so you would have to be two feet off of your property line that's shared with 262 so that would squeeze you on on your space and with that driveway being right up on the property line I believe that could cause some spacing issues for the the curb cuts I don't know traffic can weigh in on that at all the other adjoining property did receive a variance for their front yard parking back in the early 90s the majority of houses in the neighborhood do not have parking pads in the front yard they may have cars that are parking in the front part of the yard but that's because they're on a driveway that goes to the back in most cases but the variance that you're asking for essentially would give you what your neighbor has I don't know if that helps clarify the option to create compliant parking that would not require any variance would be to continue using the shared driveway and to pave two spaces in the backyard how wide is this lot do you know 30 feet 30 feet but there's a 30 feet include any part of that shared driveway no okay it just doesn't even look 30 feet wide to me again i think that's your i think your better option i i i can't vote to approve this uh i'm I'm in alliance with the staff's recommendation, but I think your better option is not a pad in the front of the house, but to continue using that shared driveway and build something behind it to allow for the parking of two cars. So before investing money in providing parking in the rear of the house, what can I do to ensure that we will be able to actually use that as a shared driveway just so that there is on record that, because again, we're in the business of providing safe housing. And that includes maintaining all of owner's valuables, vehicles, and everything. And it's sounding like, I understand that the staff recommendation is to use the shared driveway to park in the rear of the house. The only challenge is we could do that, a family could be moved in, And the moment that an owner in that house next door said that I don't want you to use my driveway because that's where I park my vehicles so that I can safely enter my house without having to sacrifice my backyard. What do you tell the owner of 264 East Loudon about their safety and their vehicles? How old is this house? This house was built in like 1920, but it's a complete renovation. Very complete, very nice single family home, three bedroom, two baths. And so you will have a family living in this house that has parents as well as children and a vehicle to transport them and at least providing one parking space to where we can ensure that you're going to be safe living in this house. What's the name of your company? Vibe Properties. And did Vibe Properties buy this house from the owner occupants that lived there before? It was an owner's, her mom actually owned the house and she grew up in the house. The house was completely dilapidated, essentially unlivable. We bought the house from her, was able to give a family another opportunity to kind of start fresh, a lot of money in their pockets so that they were able to get into a safer situation. And that's kind of the whole basis of my company getting into this whole property thing, is being able to really provide safe housing and essentially help three families in the process. The people that we're buying the house from in the first place, my family is by properties and being able to, again, generate income. But also, too, that third family that's able to move into a place where they don't have to worry about safety. And that's the number one priority that we're trying to provide. And again, back to the recommendation of staff with the rear parking. I understand it, and in a perfect world, that would be the answer. But I can't sit here and guarantee to a family that, you know, yeah, you're going to be safe and you're always going to be able to park in this rear parking structure without having any type of concrete things. And I'm just trying to understand, you know, what my options to move forward. It sounds to me from what you're describing that the family that lived there before has lived there. And they didn't have a vehicle. Longer than 15 years. Yes, longer than 15 years. and they didn't have a vehicle, so these things weren't really, it wasn't really much of a challenge. My recommendation would be to get a good real estate attorney. Yeah, I'm afraid that's my recommendation also. If you want to be absolutely convinced about that, hire a real estate attorney who can look at the deeds, the two deeds, and figure out whether or not you do have a shared driveway. And if the driveway has been in use for 15 years as a shared driveway, prescriptive easement is what you've got. If they didn't have a car, I don't know how that impacts the concept of having a shared driveway. That's for an attorney to tell you or a different attorney to tell you. Your private lawyer can tell you that. we can't give legal advice so my best bet our best advice I think would be to consult a private private counsel and continue talking with staff about what that rear parking should look like then for staff in regards to the variants in the front there's absolutely no way to get the same variance that 266 East Loudon was able to get granted for them to provide that prop that parking in the right that's essentially what you're asking for today and that we have recommended disapproval for okay you know it seems it sounds inconsistent because right next door to the house that you have is a house that has what you want but that case is not before us your neighbor's house is not before us today if it were we would probably disapprove it that's just my guess just like we my guess is that we would follow the staff's recommendation on disapproval today so the fact that it the fact that the neighbor's house has what you want in front of your house doesn't really help you in this particular case it does somewhat because I think it it describes the general character of the vicinity the character of the general vicinity but I don't think it helps you enough to where we would approve granting your request today. I understand that. And as going forward, would it consist of me submitting a new application for that specifically before we could make any type of approval on that? That would be if you were to come back before this board, you would need to talk with Autumn and Jim and they would tell you whether or not your application is different and substantially different enough from this one today, you cannot bring the same plans before us for the next one. Absolutely. But if you were to make significant changes in their opinion, then you could be before us prior to that date. But you'd have to really talk with staff and with traffic engineering to come up with a plan that would satisfy them. Or once again, you appeal it to us and we would say yes or no. We feel like sometimes we reverse what staff says. But in this one, I get the feeling that that will not be the case. All right, sir. Any more questions for the applicant? All right, I'm going to close the public portion. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any follow-up from staff? All right. At that point, any comments from the board? If not, then I'm always willing to entertain a motion in these instances. Mr. Chair, I move that we disapprove PLN BOA 19-91 Vibe Properties Limited CO request for a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20 feet to zero feet in order to allow parking in the front yard in the planned neighborhood residential zone within the defined infill and redevelopment area on property located at 264 east loudon avenue for the reasons stated in the staff report thank you mr glover is there a second i second the motion any discussion on the motion before i call a vote i'm gonna i'm gonna vote against the motion i don't expect it to to have any effect but i'm going to do it just as a matter of of concern about this particular case in any case like this because the house doesn't have a garage they can't take they can't take the option of building something where a car would park it's not it's not the staff's problem i mean i understand exactly why the staff recommends this but I'm a vote against it just out of just out of my concern for what happens to people who who do what this gentleman has done and and put a good house on the market and puts it puts it somewhat in jeopardy simply because of the idea we can't we can't park a car there so I know that there's options and I understand that but anyway that's the reason for my vote and and I'm going I don't often editorialize before our votes but in this instance I will say that a purchaser has the ability before they purchase to both look at the property see its conditions before they buy it hire an attorney hire engineer I realize that this is a there are margins in play and business decisions are made are made before people purchase properties but in this instance I think that it It was obvious to anyone with two eyes that there was a driveway issue before the property was purchased. While I sympathize with him wanting a driveway, I do not overly sympathize with things that were obvious to anyone who looked at this property before they purchased it. And I do think they have options, and I think they can come back before us with maybe a different plan. They may get approved, but that's just my two cents on it. Well, I absolutely agree. I understand that totally. And I certainly agree to your point, and it still bothers me, and my vote is simply one of protest. Any additional comments before I call a vote? All right, I will call a vote. It looks like I've already got a couple people that are ahead of me. Okay, so the application was denied and this plan was not approved. You're welcome. So that brings us to the last case, and I believe Raquel will rejoin us. This is PLM BOA 19-89 Greer Land Co. It's regarding property located at 1100 South Broadway. The applicant is present. once again due to the fact that this is a recommendation for disapproval I'll have the staff give me their case first before we have the applicant. And I do have one letter of opposition that I'll hand out to you all as I go up to the podium. Appreciate that Autumn I forgot to ask you that at the beginning of the hearings. I never called it that. I never called it a higher, a higher, a higher. I saw it this morning. I don't know. What's your head? All right. This application is for an administrative appeal to determine that a sign attached to a parapet wall is not a roof sign in a neighborhood business zone at 1100 South Broadway. You'll see the subject property here. Currently a Wendy's is under construction on this property, and that is the applicant for the proposed sign. I don't know why this is giving me trouble today. Here we go. Okay. So our ordinance has a very specific definition of wall mounted sign and of roof sign. Roof signs are not permitted in any of our zones per the zoning ordinance. And I will remind you that the board does not have the authority to approve a sign type for a property that is not allowed in that zone. So the question before us today is whether or not the sign being proposed qualifies as a roof sign. If it does, then it is not allowed on this property and you can't say that it is. So the question is whether this is a wall sign or a roof sign. A wall-mounted sign is defined as a sign that is attached to a wall and can be on a parapet not exceeding six feet in height and provided that the parapet extends on three sides of the building. A parapet is defined by the International Code Council as a part of a wall that is entirely above the roof line and these are typically extensions of exterior walls and they're used to create architectural elements or to conceal rooftop elements like mechanical equipment or to make walking around on the roof safe to create edge protection the parapet wall that is in question here does not extend around three sides of the building as you will see if this goes spawn forward. The sign that we're looking at is that the windy icon here. The building does have a parapet wall which extends around three sides. That's the parapet wall here and that does go around the back of the building and along the opposite side. This parapet wall is what's referred to in the construction drawings as a blade parapet because it does simply extend straight up. When building inspection saw the original drawing the orientation has changed a bit and the blade was originally on the front of the building for these drawings and it is now on the right hand side of the building however the the height issue is the same and building inspection took the average roof line which was based on the lower parapet wall and extended that line across the building so the Wendy's icon cannot exceed this dashed line here so the sign that it was proposed here was a little bit lower than it could be when the top of wendy's head could be at this dash line just for for us and the administrative process of how this works so the the building permits were pulled and then the sign permit has come after the building was built or did the original building sign permits um we're working through at the same time as the building permits i believe um the sign package was approved with the the bottom proposed Wendy and the applicant has come forward and said that it's really important to us that that Wendy be at the top of this blade parapet so we're going to file this appeal to determine that we don't think this is a roof sign planning staff and building inspection are in agreement that this does qualify as a roof sign because of the language in the definition of wall sign which goes back to the the parapet extending around three sides of the building this parapet if we can go forward to the next slide you'll see this is not the Wendy's in question but this is a similar Wendy's to the one that was originally proposed so this is the sort of blade parapet that we're looking at it just won't be in this location on our Wendy's so that's that parapet does not extend around three sides and therefore does not meet the definition of a wall sign and since it is above the roof line we have to consider it a roof sign which is not allowed in a B1 zone we're saying that So this is not acceptable? That example you're showing there is the way it should be or is not the way? This would not be acceptable. But it would be if the red portion, the height, went around three sides. Right. If this line where this is extended over to it looks like about here and Wendy's head were at the top of that line, then it would be okay. And again, this is just an example of another Wendy somewhere. I think this is similar, not similar, but I think we had a case, if you recall, the Central Baptist on Nicholasville Road, where they're trying to make, essentially, they have a standard package they like to use, and it unfortunately does not appear to comports with our definitions on our zoning. Roll back up to the drawings. Just to remind you that this is the time that we're... I drove by and I was kind of, I'm glad you talked about the parapet and the three sides because I was very confused because I know this shopping center very well. And I saw a bunch of parapets all over the shopping center. I couldn't figure out what the difference between those approved signs and this one. Okay, so this time we could do it and they could even put this, look at the bottom one that's approved. They could even raise that up a little bit if they wanted to, up to that dotted line. Correct. So how many feet are we talking difference? Let's see. The average roof line was established at a building height of 18 feet 3 inches. The blade parapet extends to 21 feet in height, so it's just a couple feet that we would be looking at. it was a picture of wendy considered a sign yes autumn is is a parapet a wall yes it can be it's an extension of a wall that goes above the roof and if a parapet is extends around three sides of a building that seems like it would be a wall so if the it's different structurally because it may begin at the at the roofline and not be an extension of the structure of the wall if that clarifies at all well not sure but if the hypothetically if the when the picture Wendy were on a blade parapet so what this call or blade wall a blade parapet yes if it were not if it did not extend above the other parapet would that would that be permitted right the issue is is that we're looking at the average roofline based on the other parapet and it's exceeding that height by more than 24 inches just that it's exceeding that height so we're looking at the average roof line based on the parapet and that dash line continues on there so this portion above that line is considered to be part of the roof sign so so i think what she's saying is maybe i'll make sure that it could be underneath the parapet The parable can exist higher than the plane. Right. Like if the blade ended at this Wendy's head and we had a foot of difference between her head and that dashed line, that wouldn't be an issue. Okay. So I have, thank you, I have a legal question, I guess. And it has to do with, in the staff report, it says Article 17-8A says that we may not permit any sign to be erected that's not specifically permitted in this zone. So we couldn't approve this anyway. The question before you is whether or not you consider this to be a roof sign. Staff's opinion is that this is clearly a roof sign and therefore cannot be allowed. This is kind of going back to what we had with the Kerkorian Theater. It's not a matter of whether or not we think they should have the sign. It's a matter of whether or not it's a roof sign. So if we decided that this was a roof sign, then we would have no authority to grant this application. But if we decided it was a wall sign, then we would have the authority but not be required to grant it. Well, no, you're not. If it were a wall sign, then it would just go through the regular wall sign permitting process and would receive a permit from building inspection. You wouldn't make that call necessarily. You're just determining whether or not it's a roof sign. If you determine that it's not a roof sign, then effectively, yes, you would be approving the specific sign, but you would also be approving this elsewhere. It would be an interpretation going on. Yeah, and it would be precedent for any subsequent applications that would come before us. And if this is a parapet and we do agree that this is a wall sign, there would be nothing stopping them from going four or five, six feet higher and putting the Wendy's higher, would there? Could they make it higher? That we would run into the issue perhaps of the, in the definition, it does say that the parapet can't exceed six feet in height. So it can't be six feet above the roof line and that the parapet has to extend on three sides. So if you just basically said that you don't believe that the three sides matters anymore, then we would still have the six foot height to lean on perhaps in the situation that you're. But the point being is they could make that parapet taller. Right. It looks like it's only, I can't tell how many feet above, but maybe a couple feet. Now in our package, so the picture of the Buffalo Wild Wings sign. Yes. Are we classifying that as a parapet? I'm not sure exactly of the permitting history on that sign. That's been there for many years. Buffalo Wild Wings has been there for a lot longer than I realized. so I don't know exactly what the permitting situation there was that parapet does extend along the the building on three sides but that Buffalo Wild Wings sign does exceed that top of the parapet so I'm not I'm not sure of the history of that I can I can tell you is that Buffalo Wild Wings it's been there since I was in college so it's yeah exactly it's a little dated logo first watch it stands above right and again i'm guessing that that again that parapet does extend on three sides although that one is slightly taller they are connected still this blade parapet is off on its own and that may be where some of the difference in interpretation from building inspection came from that allowed that first watch sign um you know six or seven years ago whenever that one went in can you go back to the similar wendy's picture so we're saying three it extends to three sides we're not saying that particular i kept thinking we meant that that particular like red piece had three sides and i'm like it clearly has three sides but you mean it extends along three sides of the building so if it were bigger and more obnoxious we would approve it well no not if it were not if it were thicker per se but if it had three sides. We're looking for a hammer not a blade. Yeah I think I think what I'm saying is it essentially it's on three sides of the building. three sides yeah any more questions for autumn this is why we get paid the big bucks fellas thank you ma'am we may have more questions for you um sir please come forward and state your name for the record uh good afternoon my name is ross mcarthur i'm with wendy's restaurants we're looking for determination of exactly that that point and um real quickly you are here and you have the authority to speak on behalf of the property owner i do yes i have thank you sir one one picture to show you guys i think we'll say a thousand words and it's the sonic restaurant 100 yards up the road from ours where they have a clear parapet wall with a sign well above the roof line with a neon splash over the top which is part of their national image and and that's all we're asking for is that Logo of Wendy is part of our national image. There is 1100 restaurants across the country that have that exact same parapet wall and Wendy's are asking for that exception because also on that street with the traffic and all the other signs that are there it's very difficult to see I'm glad I did notice that when I was looking at the site earlier so I'm glad you brought that up I would like to know if staff looked at the Sonic I know the Sonic has been there for a number of years it's gone to a renovation not look at Sonic Again, that one has been there for many years. So it's hard to attest to what the permitting process was. And there's a lot of details that could be into why that sign got permitted related to what's a permit or what's actually part of the building. So I'd encourage you not to jump to big conclusions here about that one sign. Well, I think also we need to remember what's before us is we've got to figure out whether a parapet, Where the language that says a parapet has three walls actually says what it says, which means a parapet has three sides. If you look at Webster's and Google, they define it as one to four sides. So it all depends on who you look at for the determination. Could we pull up the zoning ordinance again? Sure. They're on the screen. and i will say that with the sonic this does look like it could be a wall that continues all the way through the building and that can be a difference a parapet is often an extension of a wall that goes above versus a part of the structure of the wall itself that looked like it could have some more structural ramifications on the building rather than being an extension and in the first portion we're looking at that is a verbatim quote of the ordinance yes okay mr. MacArthur you don't have to have a picture of the Wendy's on Nicholasville Road do you is it what's configuration the sign in that in that location The sign is only six square feet. It's the logo of Wendy herself. And it is actually a foot below the top of the parapet wall. It certainly is above the line of the other sections of that wall. But it is higher. If you look at what the city is asking, where it's below that, it does look odd. It does not look proportional on that wall. And that wall's built and finished. I was just on site. Well, I will say editorially, I will know Wendy's is there, whether I can see the sign or not. I noticed it the first day the other Wendy's sign went up. I drive that road every day to and fro. Looking forward to it being there. Doesn't mean I'll approve it, but I'm looking forward to it. understand yet my concern is it that it clearly says provided a pair of the extent always three sides of the building it does have a pair of that does extend on three sides of the bill this is just one section of that pair of that wall you go back to the picture of what the with photo of what the sound looks like today okay well I have a photo the section to the right where you see the gap that's all parapet wall and that extends on three parts of the building you can see on the drive-through section there as well I think it's fairly obvious that the ordinance intends that you're talking about the parapet that the sign is proposed to be on not some other parapet so it's a parapet By your own admission, that determines that it's a parapet. They're just saying there's not three sides to it. This is not about how a parapet's designed. Yeah, this is about that if it is there, it has to be on three sides of the building for it to be considered a wall sign. Okay. You have anything else for us? Sonic didn't see it that way, and we put out 120 letters to our neighbors, and nobody came to complain about it. so and that whole area is covered in parapet wall signage from buffalo wild wings when you're there five years ago um and the jewelry store if the uh if the parapet uh in that top drawing extended over to Wendy's picture, would that make that blade into a portion of the parapet? I mean, is the fact that the parapet, what Mr. MacArthur's saying is the parapet is the whole, everything above the roof line. And my question is, if that parapet that we all acknowledge as the parapet extended so that it connected with the blade would that would the blade then be considered part of the parapet i think it would be considered part of the parapet i think we would still have potentially an issue with the height i would want to to revisit that if that were a change that were made sure if as long as it was under six feet and which it is there would be no issue if it were attached to that other parapet and were part of the continuous parapet then i I think we would have a different conversation perhaps. I don't know that our interpretation would be exactly that that met the requirement, but it would certainly get us closer. Yeah. It might invoke Ms. Carter's admonition. It would be approved, but ugly. Okay, thanks. The gap is just an architectural feature. There is a parapet wall on three sides. Yes, a portion of it sticks up, but it does have that gap between them. Does the ordinance imply that the parapet has to be connected on three sides? In other words, if there's a parapet on the front, a parapet on the side, a parapet on the other side, and they're not connected, would that still be a parapet wall? I think it's pretty clear that it means a parapet that extends on three sides, a singular parapet. I think what we're looking at here is a parapet that extends on three sides and then an additional blade parapet. So you're saying that the parapet has to be connected to itself on three sides? Yes. Okay. I think the purpose is so that then it's, quote, a wall versus a roof sign. Yeah, I understand. Yeah. So anything else, sir? That's it. All right. I'll have you take a seat at this point. We've heard from staff. Does staff have anything else they want to add? All right, well in that case, of course we're always welcome to ask questions of anyone here, but I'm going to close that portion and open it up for discussion or I'll entertain a motion. My comment is more editorial. I imagine cases like this, these are just hard for me when it feels like, you know, we encourage business and it's great and we're all excited about the windies and you know we're making it difficult for them and not for i mean we're stuck with what it says but i just always feel bad i just want to share thank you guys your sympathies are noted for the record I want I'm just kind of curious asking the staff the the issue before us is presented as it asking us as a board to determine that a sign attached to a parapet wall is not a roof sign is that the way the applicant has stated the appeal or is that the staff's statement that was the way that the the application went out i don't know exactly that language was probably a mesh of of both um but i think that it what we're getting at is that this particular sign attached to a parapet wall is not is not a roof sign would be the intent there um because as we have discovered that you can have a sign attached to a parapet wall as long as that parapet wall extends on three sides and it is not a roof sign so i see where the confusion comes from yeah would would the case be any different if the application were asking us for a variance from the sign requirements so the the three sides is not something that would be variable because that's not a dimensional requirement it would be an administrative appeal very similar to this one but perhaps slightly different wording that a wall sign could be on a parapet that is not exceeding six feet high and does not extend to three sides and i think our recommendation would would be the same that that we're not meeting the intent of the ordinance and okay i think maybe you said it and i'm still not grasping it so if we were to determine that a sign attached to a parapet wall is not a roof sign as is being asked of us that still doesn't allow them to have that wendy's on that location on the on this particular parapet wall correct if you determined that that the sign attached to the parapet wall is not a roof sign then they would be able to have the sign Because I thought it still would extend to this type of parapet wall, but then there's only a allowable parapet wall would have the three sides. I think perhaps a change in the language to the request, request an administrative appeal to determine that a proposed sign attached to indicate that we're talking about this sign specifically. This is not determining that all signs on parapets are reef signs or not. That's not the intent of the request. but even if we determine that this parapet wall is not a roof sign this parapet wall itself is not one that extends three sides so we still could not get the height that we wanted or he's requesting right because this is just a blade parapet so even if we're determining it as a the height is not really the issue here it's the three sides is the biggest factor that well and the height is extending above the average roof line. So if this were a parapet wall that were the same height as the remaining parapet, then they would be able to go to the top of that parapet because it was not extending past the height overall. I don't know if I'm muddying the waters. It's not you. The issue at heart is whether or not this is a roof sign. I was looking at it as the reverse. The issue is whether or not we're calling it a parapet. No, this is a parapet. The definition is not with regard to what is a parapet. You can have a parapet. Throw that zoning ordinance back up. I think that will help. A parapet can be one side. It can be up to four sides. That's not what's the issue here. What we're looking at is a parapet. But what the ordinance says is that a wall sign can be on a parapet, not exceeding six feet in height and provided that that parapet extends on three sides. So the issue here is that this is a blade parapet that goes straight up and only is on one side of the building. So if you have a sign that's on a parapet, the parapet has to extend around three sides of the building? Correct. Yeah. For it not to be a roof sign? Correct. And roof signs are not allowed anywhere in our... Yeah. But for it to be classified as a wall sign? Right. For it to be classified as a wall sign, the parapet has to extend on three sides. On three sides. So that's the question is, is whether or not we, whether or not, well, it's hard because the way this was proposed before us. But I think the issue is, is this a parapet that extends on all three sides? Correct. All right, now that's perfectly muddled. Does legal have anything they want to add at this point to make sure we are coming up with the right inquiry? No. Legal is happy to answer any additional questions you may have, but Autumn's explained it correctly. We have nothing to clarify. All right. Thank you. Well, I have a question. I guess my question for legal is, do we have the authority to decide other than what the staff has recommended? yes the board has the authority to disagree with the staff and to interpret the ordinance as you believe is appropriate so yes you are entitled to disagree with staff if you would like i'm i'm i'm trying to i'm i'm considering hypotheticals let's say for example that that we that there's a motion made to follow the staff's recommendation that doesn't that doesn't get the necessary votes to be approved, um, or something like that. Or if we, or if there's a motion to, to approve this, uh, appeal, um, I'm just trying to figure out, I don't want to get us into legal trouble right off the bat cause we're asking maybe the wrong questions or we haven't defined the issue. You know, my first inclination when I read Article 17-8A is that we don't have jurisdiction, maybe we don't have jurisdiction to decide the case. Do we have the jurisdiction to answer this question, or can we decline to answer the question? No, I believe this question does fall within your jurisdiction. Do we have 17-8A to put up there? Sure. interpretation of the zoning ordinance is within your purview so interpreting the section that defines what a wall sign is is is within what you can do um what the board specifically can't do is approve a sign type that's not allowed in that zone so that again comes back to whether or not you determine it's a roof sign. Okay, yeah, I understand. So the question as stated is a question that we can answer, in other words. In other words, the appeal is asking us to determine something that we can. Correct. You have the authority to determine. Yes, if it were an appeal to say that, an administrative appeal to determine that Wendy's can have a roof sign, then you would not really have the jurisdiction to make that call. right but to determine whether or not it's a roof sign is within your purview okay yeah that's correct okay good thank you so would it be fair to say that our question is is this a parapet that hat that goes three sides of the building I mean, is that really? I think you're not determining whether, I don't think you can determine that the parapet extends on three sides. I think you're determining whether or not that requirement exists. You're determining whether or not the sign that is proposed meets the definition of a wall sign. So you're determining that that sign extends on, if the parapet extends, I guess, yes. That's a question. Yeah, ultimately it's, the argument would be is that they comply with Section 17. Or that that means something different than. So here's the question. The question is stated to us is, it says the applicant requests an administrative appeal to determine that a sign attached to a parapet wall is not a roof sign on this property. so if we answer that question yes the implication is that we're we're looking at this particular sign attached to a parapet wall right right i understand as it relates to this particular application but if we answer that question yes it is not a roof sign where does that leave us then that determines that it is in fact a wall sign and they would be able to move forward with wall sign permits would they have to apply i mean as long as they meet the requirements for a wall sign they would be good to go with with regular permitting but wouldn't we have to make the determination then that this is a parapet with three sides on the building because it says provided however it says is, provided the parapet extends on at least three sides of a building. Well, we're not asked to, as I read the question, we're not asked to answer that. I mean, we're asked to determine if this is a roof sign. Yeah. And the definition of. It's going to fall within the definition of wall sign. That's what we're asking is, does this fall within the definition of wall sign? Right. It's actually asking if it falls, if we think it's a roof sign. Right. though we could say question is yeah i don't care what you call it i'm just not calling it a roof sign yeah so if we say yes i think that if you determined it was not a roof sign it would the interpretation would be that it was a wall sign because there's not another category in between okay that it would fall into so it would be a wall sign yeah yes by default but yes then it would have to meet the definition of wall sign which is clearly intertwined with the definition of roof sign by the fact that this language is included that talks about parapets within the wall sign definition i'm trying to figure out if there's uh there's there's several ways that the applicant could lose this appeal if we decide it's a roof sign he he can't he can't have it he can have it but it can't be as high up the sign is is still you can still have the sign as the original drawing proposed sure it's just a matter of where on that blade you can still have a you can have a sign on that blade but not at that height as long as it falls into the parameters of a wall sign right okay and doesn't exceed the average roof line is then that's more of a matter of interpretation right but but the way ordinance is written though it's either a wall sign or a roof sign that's right there's no other signs correct so for us If it was to say this is not a roof sign, then we would implicitly, that makes it a wall sign. That's right. Yes. So the question is then, we have a definition of wall sign. Does it fall within that definition? And I don't think it complies with, provided the parapet extends on at least three sides of a building. So that gets back to my original jurisdictional question. if we decide to deny the appeal and say that it is a roof sign, he loses. Correct. If we approve the appeal and say that it's a wall sign, it doesn't fall within the definition, and he loses. Is that what you all are saying? No. You're determining, by determining that it's not a roof sign, you're determining that it is a wall sign and that that language is null. We have to suspend that section, that second clause in this section. That's the reason I'm saying I don't see how we possibly say it's not a roof sign because we don't have a definition of roof sign. We have a definition of wall sign. If it doesn't fall within wall sign, it's a roof sign. Well, we do have a definition of roof sign. There is a definition of roof sign as well. But the two definitions are working in concert. I think it's a question is just a question is this a wall sign and to be a wall sign it's got a pair of a set three sides to me it feels more like a wall sign their reason just if I would look at it looks like a wall so it's more like a wall sign is on a pair of the wall and there are pair of walls around the building although it is extended that's not connected I think you'd have to i just don't see well it's within the same plane though yeah on that one side i i i will i will i will not be able to ignore the section says provided the parapet extends on at least three sides of the building well i think this one does so so why are we even voting because if we because he's saying because if we can't approve a roof sign the applicant is asserting that this is not a roof sign okay and if the applicant is is disregarding the line that says that it has to extend on three signs and they're asking you to agree with them so if you don't agree with them then the app then your motion would be to to continue with the recommended disapproval if you do agree with them that this doesn't apply for whatever reason then you would move to approve and that it was not a roof sign and i get it i think it maybe it's that it's written poorly i don't know what it is but article 17 3 c 10 defines a roof sign and i feel like we can determine that this sign falls within the definition of the roof sign however then what we're saying is there's no other category then by default it's a wall sign and it doesn't fit the wall sign definition here but if we're just asking if it's a roof sign i mean it's not above the yeah yeah but but down down in your end defies roof sign and we're we have to look at all of the the ordinance it's not you know we can't pick and choose one or the other and they don't supersede one another so they're they're working together we have to consider both the definition of roof sign and the definition of wall sign to get at what what really is a roof sign and once again the ordinance is specific as to a wall sign it specifically says if you put it on a parapet the parapet has to extend on three sides of the building i understand all that so they got more specific i'm talking about the jurisdiction that we have to decide this the issue before us if we decide that it's a that it is a roof sign we deny his appeal and he has to do something else if we if that motion doesn't pass if if we if the motion to uh dis or to to deny the appeal then i would call then i will go into recess use the restroom you may speak with legal mr glover we can come up with i'm just kind of of curious. I mean, it says that in the… Or we could take no action. That is an option. If there's no motion to approve after that lack of whatever, then the appeal is not granted. At that point, we've taken no action. And to be honest with you, I've had this issue with legal before, is what exactly happens when there is no action taken, and the ordinance is not clear on what happens for the applicant at that point. Well, down in the reasons for disapproval, reason number one, reason A, the second statement says the Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to approve a roof sign in this location. That's a pretty clear statement of our jurisdiction, as I'm reading. That's why the request is not to determine that a roof sign is okay in this location. That's why it's to determine that this is not a roof sign. Right. That's not a roof sign. That's the only way to make this application go. authority to do a roof sign anyway. Make this application even presentable to us. Correct, yes. Yeah, that's what I thought. Our interpretation would be that it. No roof signs anywhere in Fayette County. I mean, what's the square? What? Square. Square of what? There are some existing roof signs that have gotten through the landmark sign committee, like the city center sign. That's how they were able to have a roof sign. And some of them predate the ordinance. The Victorian Square, the square. Oh, yes, yes. Right. continental end had a great one in the old continental end all right let's get back on to task at hand we've been here in this case okay do we have any other comments not related to the continental end which i can only imagine what you were doing at the continental get in your room while you're in high school i know we've all we've all been in the continental god bless its soul uh but are there any more comments or questions for the staff is i think i think we need to move to which is mr glover's question is what do we do if we decide to then to deny the appeal so at that point if anyone is inclined to disapprove the appeal then i say it's good if you disapprove the appeal it will disapprove the application this sign will be considered to be a roof sign which is not permitted they will not be able to have this sign in this location yes so this question is if anyone is in in favor of denying the appeal i would say let's hear your motion now so we can get some votes coming all right okay um i move that we disapprove PLN BOA 1989 Greer lands company smur number two LLCs requests for an administrative appeal to determine that a sign attached to a parapet wall it's not a group sign in a neighborhood business be one zone a property located at 1100 South Broadway and this disapproval this motion is is based on the staff's recommendation for disapproval. There are two reasons. Thank you, ma'am. Do I have a second for this motion? I will second this motion. Any discussion on the motion before we put it to a vote? And as the chair, I am allowed to second. Yes, you are. So I'll put it to a vote in favor of this motion or deny it. The motion is approved and the application was denied. Thank you, sir. You guys were slow on voting. This is putting me in a lot of suspense. All right. So that takes care of our agenda items. As everyone knows, we have set our meetings for the year. We set those, I believe, last month, or was it November? By the way, they were all approved. I believe even Mr. Glover acquiesced in those. I do. Now we need to staff items, and it is election of officers time. period so if anyone would like to uh overthrow the chair this is your opportunity uh to get that done so i'll let uh autumn and jim i guess we need to elect a chair a vice chair and a secretary that is correct and currently are it's myself tommy and joan as chair vice chair and secretary Am I allowed to move that we move them as a slate or do we need to do them individually? I can't recall. We only do this once a year. You can do them as a slate if you'd like. Okay. Well, in that case, unless there's any more discussion, if anyone else wants to throw their hat in the ring, you can either do officers individually, nominate new officers. So I guess the first thing I call for nominations. i'd like to move to to re uh elect the current current officers as indicated and as had just been announced all right so i will then we've got a first and a second at this point does anyone want to bring any other nominations just to make sure this is all above the board all right hearing none then we'll put it to a vote all right and you guys will all get Christmas bonuses next year they'll double your salary coming up this coming year are there any other staff items or things that we need to discuss at this time any other items anyone from the board wants to discuss let me ask you guys what does our agenda look like next month is it going to be a small one two applications all right well here's knock on wood the staff recommends approval we'll get will be able to fly through them I think this was the most oh that's right Jane where we're Sunday location will you be Jane will be in Mexico next month so we'll miss hers and And I will be absent next month as well. All right, so we'll have two absences. All right. Our next meeting is going to be held February 10th at 2020, 1.30 p.m. in these chambers and on Lex TV. So I'm going to adjourn us. Thank you very much for watching. Thank you. Thank you. God only knows what I'd be without you If you should ever leave me The life would still go unbelievably The world could show nothing to me So what good would live and do me God only knows what I'd be without you God only knows what I'd be without God only knows what I'd be without God only knows what I'd be without you.