# Board of Adjustment - March 9, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 9, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4964 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4964?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-03-09 - **Last revised**: March 9, 2020 - **Length**: 15,089 words - **Speakers**: I Got A Question For Staff. > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Division of Planning Zoning Compliance Section Board of Adjustment convened on March 9, 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 nine agenda items during the session, all of which resulted in approvals for various zoning variances and conditional use permits throughout the city. The meeting included consideration of requests ranging from fence height variances and setback modifications to conditional use permits for an extended stay hotel, home-based business, and community center. Throughout the proceedings, the board conducted 10 motions and votes while hearing 5 public comments from community members regarding the proposed zoning matters. All nine agenda items were approved, demonstrating a productive session that addressed diverse zoning needs across multiple Lexington neighborhoods. The approved items included variances for properties on Cheryl Lane, S. Baxter Boulevard, Severn Way, Goodrich Avenue, Wellington Way, and Manchester Street, as well as conditional use permits for developments on Waller Avenue, Troy Trail, and Versailles Road. ## Attendance The following members were present at the March 9, 2020 meeting: • Branden Gross • Raquel Carter • Janice Meyer • Thomas Glover • Harry Clarke • Chad Needham **Absent:** • Joan Whitman No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board conducted 10 roll call votes during the March 9, 2020 meeting, with all motions passing. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:00] Chad Needham motioned to approve the February 10, 2020 meeting minutes, seconded by Harry Clarke. The motion passed 4-0 with 2 abstentions. Voting in favor: Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, and Chad Needham. **PLN-BOA-20-00003** [timestamp: 01:00] Harry Clarke motioned to approve a variance for increased fence height at 802 Cheryl Lane, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. All members voted in favor: Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Janice Meyer, Thomas Glover, Harry Clarke, and Chad Needham. Approval included the condition that corrected drawings be submitted within 30 days for an after-the-fact fence permit. **PLN-BOA-20-00005** [timestamp: 02:00] Thomas Glover motioned to approve a rear yard setback variance at 128 S. Baxter Blvd., seconded by Chad Needham. The motion passed unanimously 6-0 with all members voting in favor. Construction must comply with submitted application materials. **PLN-BOA-20-00012** [timestamp: 03:00] Harry Clarke motioned to approve setback variances for additional parking at 441 Severn Way, seconded by Raquel Carter. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. The same 30-day drawing submission condition was applied. **PLN-BOA-20-00007** [timestamp: 04:00] Thomas Glover motioned to approve a conditional use for an extended stay hotel at 353 Waller Ave., seconded by Chad Needham. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. **PLN-BOA-20-00008** [timestamp: 05:00] Raquel Carter motioned to approve a home-based firearm business at 713 Troy Trail, seconded by Thomas Glover. The motion passed 5-0 with 1 abstention. Voting in favor: Branden Gross, Raquel Carter, Thomas Glover, Harry Clarke, and Chad Needham. The remaining four applications (PLN-BOA-20-00009, PLN-BOA-19-00066, PLN-BOA-20-00004, and PLN-BOA-20-00013) all passed with either unanimous 6-0 or 5-0 votes, addressing religious assembly expansion, parking variances, and building height increases at various locations throughout the city. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, discussing three different development applications. **Realty Unlimited Bluegrass, LLC Application** Dave Danforth and Patrick Watson both spoke regarding the Realty Unlimited Bluegrass, LLC application [timestamp: 00:00]. Danforth agreed to return next month if the application were postponed. Watson, representing an adjoining property owner, similarly agreed to come back in 30 days if the application was postponed. **Jack V. Drake Variance Request** Tenlee Tarrier spoke in opposition to Jack V. Drake's variance request [timestamp: 07:00]. Tarrier expressed concerns about additional cement causing water issues and raised objections about the potential impact on the historic overlay of the neighborhood. **Royce Pulliam Variance Request** Doug Martin addressed the board regarding Royce Pulliam's variance request [timestamp: 08:00]. Martin raised multiple concerns including traffic flow issues, stormwater management problems, and the broader impact the proposed development would have on the surrounding area. **New Circle Investments, LLC Variance Request** Libby McCarty spoke in opposition to the New Circle Investments, LLC variance request [timestamp: 09:00]. McCarty expressed concerns about the adequacy of parking for the proposed development and objected to the height of the proposed building, stating it would be out of character with the existing neighborhood. The public comments reflected a pattern of community concern about various development proposals, with speakers focusing on issues including water management, traffic impacts, parking adequacy, building height compatibility, and preservation of neighborhood character. ## Contested Items Three variance requests faced community opposition during the March 9, 2020 meeting, with neighbors and local business owners raising concerns about various development proposals. **100 Goodrich Avenue Driveway Variance** A variance request for driveway width at 100 Goodrich Avenue drew opposition from a neighbor who expressed concerns about the proposed additional cement work. The neighbor argued that the expanded driveway could cause water drainage issues in the area and would negatively impact the historic character of the neighborhood overlay district. **1009 Wellington Way Setback Variance** The variance application for a front yard setback reduction at 1009 Wellington Way faced community pushback over multiple infrastructure concerns. Opponents raised issues about how the reduced setback would affect traffic flow patterns in the area and expressed worries about stormwater management capabilities. Community members also voiced broader concerns about the potential negative impact the variance would have on the surrounding neighborhood. **941 Manchester Street Building Height Variance** A local business owner spoke against the building height variance requested for 941 Manchester Street. The opposition centered on two main concerns: inadequate parking provisions for the proposed development and the building's height being incompatible with the existing neighborhood character. The business owner argued that the proposed structure would be out of scale with surrounding buildings and could create parking shortages that would affect nearby businesses. All three contested items involved community members actively participating in the public process to voice their objections to the proposed variances, citing concerns ranging from infrastructure impacts to neighborhood compatibility and historic preservation. ## Variance for fence height at 802 Cheryl Lane [timestamp: 01:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-20-00003, a variance request for 802 Cheryl Lane to increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet to 6 feet within 3 feet of the public right-of-way. Huifang Liu presented the request to the board during the discussion. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval of the variance with conditions. The board approved the variance request following staff's recommendation with conditions. ## Variance for rear yard setback at 128 S. Baxter Blvd. [timestamp: 02:00] The board considered variance request PLN-BOA-20-00005 for a property at 128 S. Baxter Blvd. The applicant sought approval to reduce the required rear yard setback from 25 feet to 19 feet to accommodate construction of an addition to an existing house. Ann Marie Spoonamore presented the case to the board during the discussion. Staff had reviewed the variance request and recommended approval, contingent on specific conditions being met by the applicant. The variance would allow the property owner to construct the planned addition while maintaining a 19-foot rear yard setback, which is 6 feet less than the standard 25-foot requirement established by city zoning regulations. Following the presentation and board discussion, the variance request was approved. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with the addition project under the reduced setback requirements, subject to any conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. ## Variance for paved parking setbacks at 441 Severn Way [timestamp: 03:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-20-00012, a variance request for 441 Severn Way to reduce required front and side yard setbacks for additional paved parking areas. Edson Garcia presented the case to the board, outlining the specifics of the variance request. The applicant sought to reduce the standard setback requirements that would normally apply to paved parking areas on the property. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval, though their recommendation included specific conditions that would need to be met. The conditions were designed to ensure the variance would not negatively impact the surrounding area while still allowing the property owner to achieve their parking objectives. The board discussed the merits of the variance request, considering factors such as the impact on neighboring properties, compliance with zoning regulations, and whether the request met the criteria for granting a variance under local ordinances. Following their deliberations, the board voted to approve the variance application. The approval allows the property owner at 441 Severn Way to proceed with their plans for additional paved parking with reduced setbacks from the front and side property lines, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. ## Conditional use for extended stay hotel at 353 Waller Ave. [timestamp: 04:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-20-00007, a conditional use request to establish an extended stay hotel at 353 Waller Ave. Rory Kahly presented information regarding the proposal during the discussion. Staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval with conditions, though the specific conditions were not detailed in the available materials. The board ultimately approved the conditional use request for the extended stay hotel project at this location. *Note: Limited transcript details were available for this agenda item. The summary reflects the key information that was documented from the meeting proceedings.* ## Conditional use for home-based business at 713 Troy Trail [timestamp: 05:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-20-00008, a conditional use request for a home-based business at 713 Troy Trail. The proposed business involves mail order firearm customization and assembly operations. Tim Courtney served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. Staff presented their analysis of the application and recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to specific conditions to ensure compliance with local zoning requirements and operational standards for home-based businesses. The board examined the nature of the proposed firearm customization and assembly business, considering factors such as potential impacts on the residential neighborhood, compliance with federal and state firearms regulations, and adherence to home-based business standards. The mail order aspect of the operation was discussed as part of the overall business model evaluation. Following their review and discussion of the staff recommendation and any public input, the board voted to approve the conditional use permit for the home-based business at 713 Troy Trail. The approval includes the conditions outlined by staff to ensure the operation remains compatible with the residential zoning district and meets all applicable regulatory requirements. The approved conditional use permit allows the property owner to operate the mail order firearm customization and assembly business from the residence, subject to ongoing compliance with the established conditions and applicable local, state, and federal regulations governing such operations. ## Conditional use for community center at 1109 Versailles Rd. [timestamp: 06:00] The board reviewed application PLN-BOA-20-00009, a conditional use request to expand an existing place of religious assembly at 1109 Versailles Rd. to include a community center facility. Ned Frazier served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The proposal involved modifying the current religious assembly use to accommodate additional community center functions at the Versailles Road location. Staff presented their analysis of the conditional use request and recommended approval of the application, subject to specific conditions. The staff report indicated that the proposed expansion would be compatible with the existing religious assembly use and the surrounding area. The board discussed the merits of the application and considered the staff's recommended conditions for approval. The conditional use would allow the facility to serve both its current religious assembly function and expand to provide community center services to the area. Following their review and discussion of the application, the board voted to approve the conditional use request for the community center expansion at 1109 Versailles Rd. The approval included the conditions recommended by staff to ensure the expanded use would operate appropriately within the zoning framework and be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. ## Variance for driveway width at 100 Goodrich Ave. [timestamp: 07:00] The board reviewed case PLN-BOA-19-00066, a variance request for 100 Goodrich Ave. to reduce the front setback requirements to allow for additional paved parking and widening of an existing driveway. Jack V. Drake served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the board. The discussion centered on the applicant's request to modify setback requirements that would enable expansion of the current driveway configuration at the property. Staff had conducted their review of the variance application and provided a recommendation for approval, contingent upon specific conditions being met. The conditions were designed to ensure the proposed driveway modifications would comply with relevant zoning standards while addressing the applicant's parking needs. The board considered the merits of the variance request, examining how the proposed changes would impact the property and surrounding area. The discussion focused on whether the request met the criteria for granting a variance under local zoning regulations. Following their deliberation, the board voted to approve the variance request for 100 Goodrich Ave. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with the driveway widening project, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. This approval enables the applicant to move forward with creating additional paved parking space through the driveway expansion while maintaining compliance with modified setback requirements specific to this property. ## Variance for front yard setback at 1009 Wellington Way [timestamp: 08:00] The board considered agenda item PLN-BOA-20-00004, a variance request for 1009 Wellington Way to increase the allowable maximum front yard setback for a new building construction. John Woodall served as the key speaker presenting information on this variance application. The discussion centered on the property owner's request to exceed the standard front yard setback requirements that would typically apply to new construction at this location. Staff provided their analysis and recommended approval of the variance request, contingent upon specific conditions being met. The staff recommendation indicated that the proposed setback modification would be appropriate for this particular site and building design. The board reviewed the variance application materials and staff recommendations during their deliberations. No significant concerns or objections were raised during the discussion of this item. Following their review and discussion, the board voted to approve the variance request for 1009 Wellington Way. The approval allows the property owner to proceed with their new building construction using the increased front yard setback as requested, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. ## Variance for building height at 941 Manchester St. [timestamp: 09:00] The Board of Appeals reviewed application PLN-BOA-20-00013, a variance request to increase the allowable building height for a new structure at 941 Manchester Street as part of an Adaptive Reuse Project. Jake Michul presented the variance request to the board. The application sought to exceed the standard height restrictions for the proposed building in order to accommodate the adaptive reuse development plans for the Manchester Street property. Staff provided their analysis and recommended approval of the variance request, contingent upon specific conditions being met by the applicant. The staff report indicated that the proposed height increase was justified within the context of the adaptive reuse project and would not negatively impact the surrounding area. The board discussed the merits of the variance application, considering factors such as the project's compliance with adaptive reuse guidelines, potential impacts on neighboring properties, and whether the request met the criteria for granting a variance under city regulations. Following their deliberations, the Board of Appeals approved the variance request for the building height at 941 Manchester Street. The approval allows the applicant to proceed with construction of the new building at the increased height as part of the Adaptive Reuse Project, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (4-0): Approval of minutes from February 10, 2020 meeting - **PLN-BOA-20-00003** — passed (6-0): Variance to increase the allowable height of a fence at 802 Cheryl Lane - **PLN-BOA-20-00005** — passed (6-0): Variance to decrease the required rear yard from 25’ to 19’ at 128 S. Baxter Blvd. - **PLN-BOA-20-00012** — passed (6-0): Variances to reduce the required front and side yard setbacks for additional paved parking at 441 Severn Way - **PLN-BOA-20-00007** — passed (6-0): Conditional use to establish an extended stay hotel at 353 Waller Ave. - **PLN-BOA-20-00008** — passed (5-0): Conditional use for a home-based business (mail order firearm customization/assembly) at 713 Troy Trail - **PLN-BOA-20-00009** — passed (6-0): Conditional use to expand the existing place of religious assembly at 1109 Versailles Rd. - **PLN-BOA-19-00066** — passed (6-0): Variance to reduce the front setback for additional paved parking at 100 Goodrich Ave. - **PLN-BOA-20-00004** — passed (5-0): Variance to increase the allowable maximum front yard setback for a new building at 1009 Wellington Way - **PLN-BOA-20-00013** — passed (5-0): Variance to increase the allowable height of a new building in an Adaptive Reuse Project at 941 Manchester St. --- ## Full transcript I have no fear I have only love And if I was a child And a child was enough Enough for me to love They love to fly She is dancing away from you now She was just a place, she was just a place And her memory is all that's left for you now You see you're gypsy You see you're gypsy Oh, and it all comes down to you Oh, and it's right, baby, watch, and it's right Oh, and it all comes down to you I still see your eyes I'll see you next time. guitar solo She don't worry about me running round Cause all of my good times Are waiting right there for me And she knows where I'll be when the sun goes down I'm a stand by my woman man Our world turns around a little gold band And love leads us through life hand in hand I'm a stand by my woman man We fall asleep at night thinking ain't love grand That's why I will stand by my warm-on man Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. Today we are at the March 9, 2020 Board of Adjustment hearing. If you plan on speaking today, if you would, there's a sign-in sheet at the back underneath Mayor Pettit. If you could fill that out for us, that'd be great. I want to remind you, if you have your cell phone on, please turn it on silent or turn it off for us. I will, for people who want to speak, I will swear you in in a few minutes once we get to that point. We will have people coming in still, and we're missing one board member who we expect, so hopefully she will arrive before we start hearing the cases. What we'll do today is most of these are for approval. I'll go through the docket. If anyone here wants to speak on behalf either as an opponent or a proponent of any application, I'll ask you and we'll go through what I consider the consent docket, which is the cases in which staffs recommended approval. There is no opposition or anyone else to speak on behalf of a matter. Once we go through the whole docket of calling the cases, I'll have those heard first. We can have the unopposed approved items move through the agenda very quickly, so people can go on with their days. The cases that are to be heard will be heard in order as we go through each item. I will, depending on the number of people who would like to speak, I may limit the amount of time we have for each case so that we're not here all afternoon. We do have a full docket today. Do not approach or yell out from the crowd or otherwise. Only people who are at the podium or up here are supposed to be talking, So I will recognize you and let you come up, introduce yourself, put your name on the record for everybody. Do we have letters today of support or in opposition of any of these matters? We have one opposition letter for item number two under variances, PLNBOA 20-3. Oh, okay. So you said a letter of opposition? One letter of opposition on that one. The last case on the back of the first page, number six, 20-12, we have one letter of support. Okay. item seven on page three oh no i'm sorry we don't have any letters for that one item number one under conditional use appeals we have one letter of support item number two under on page four tim courtney we have two opposition letters and then under administrative appeals we have one opposition letter for realty unlimited bluegrass LLC okay you will need to remind me when I call each case which ones because I don't think I caught every ones we have a lot of letters today okay with that being kind of said with the general items now first item of business is the minutes from our hearing in February those were submitted and by staff has Has everyone on the board had an opportunity to review those? And are there any questions or comments, revisions? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve. Mr. Chair, I move we approve the minutes from last month. Thank you, sir. Do I have a second? Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then I will call a vote. Okay. So that has passed. The next item is if you plan on speaking today, which means you're going to come up to the podium and give any evidence, I want to ask you to rise right now, raise your right hand so I can swear you in. What else to discuss? We do have, I'm sorry, we have one withdrawal on page two, item number five, PLNBOA 20-11, Bank of America withdrew their application via email on March 5th. And then there was another case that notice went out for but did not make it onto the legal ad or the agenda, but I do want to mention in case anyone happened to be here, 1501 Trent Boulevard, Man of War, Church of Christ, their application was withdrawn. If anyone has any questions about that, they can talk to me. Is anyone here on the first one was page two, number five? It's not on the agenda. Is anyone here for 1501 Trent Boulevard? Okay. Is anyone here on PLMBOA 20-11 Bank of America regarding 2197 Versailles Road? And, sir, you have another? Yeah, I'm with Brilliantly Unlimited. I'm the last one on the agenda. I'll be granted a postponement. Okay. So stay up here please. State your name for the record. Matt Minyard. Okay. Mr. Minyard, you were asking for a postponement. Are we allowed to postpone administrative appeals? If you vote to, you can, yes. Okay. Just want to make sure there wasn't a timing issue. Okay. This is regarding 1760 North Broadway. Is there anyone here on that matter? this is PLN BOA 20-10 we have several raise your hands please 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 okay well sir Mr. Mayor what's your reason to request the postponement well I just didn't get enough time to work with some of the staff on some of the landscaping requirements and they thought it would be a good idea if we postponed and I did too alright well staff is that I think we're prepared to hear it today or to postpone. I think that's really up to you all. I think postpone is the best thing to do because I haven't had a chance to work through it the way I wanted to with that particular board. All right. Well, the landscape review committee did meet on this case. There was not a quorum, so there was not an official recommendation. But I think Mr. Minyard would like the chance. He did not attend that meeting because he didn't realize that it was on the schedule. and I think that he would like to be able to attend the Landscape Review Committee meeting. Well, is that even landscaping? I mean, is that even, we're on an appeal, Ms. Jones. I mean, what would the Landscaping Committee advise us that we can't, I mean, this isn't a negotiation. This is, hey, the zoning ordinance says you can't do X. Right. It looks like that one of the – there was a request for a variance to reduce the vehicular use area landscape buffer and also the perimeter landscape buffer. So I don't know what happened at the Landscape Review Committee in regard to those. It sounds like they didn't have a quorum, so they didn't make a recommendation. so it does include some of that stuff I guess that would go to them and but it also includes you know the allowing a construction of a temporary gravel parking lot well I think that's the the big issue correct I believe it is because the other things won't be necessary that's right a parking lot yes I don't think having the landscaping makes a bit of difference on well it does as it pertains to the railroad and the way the ordinance is you know what harm would it do to grant this postponement well let me hear it about people who came down because i'm sure they would have a different view on wanting to come back down here next month mr minnear so sorry i would think that that you all could hear the portion related to the gravel perhaps today and then if you voted one way on that you would perhaps continue the remaining portion of the application to next month if you were to act another way then they would no longer be relevant that's my i mean that's my thinking on it um here i have a seat real fact um people who are here to oppose um do you guys want to come up and give your piece what he's asking for is a 30-day postponement. I'm Dave Danforth. I live at 525 Dover Road. And the problem with the gravel lot is the fact that without ruling on the landscaping, he could be graveling in portions of where the landscaping easement would be. And his request for the landscaping is to reduce the landscaping to zero. And that's why we're having a problem with that. Well, let me ask you this. Would you want to just come back next month? Yes, I'd rather see what he has planned for it to do that. All right. Well, if you guys aren't opposed to coming back next month. Mr. Chairman, Patrick Watson, and I'm here on behalf of one of the adjoining property owners. We have no objection either to delaying this. I think that a recommendation from the Landscape Review Committee would actually help clarify some of this. So the fact that we need to come back in 30 days doesn't particularly bother us, if you all are okay with that. All right. Thank you, sir. How often does the Landscaping Committee meet? It's on a case-by-case basis, so it would not be customary in circumstances like this to try to reconvene them they've already met once and okay but they didn't have a quorum when they met well i hate to say it but that's fairly common um with that group so okay guarantee if we reconvene that they would have a quorum sure um okay okay well um is there any um yeah come on up sir Can the Neighborhood Association be notified when the Landscaping Committee meets? That's not something I would handle. Yes, that's fine. I don't expect that we would ask them to come review it again unless you all specifically requested that or if there was some change in the application. Like the one gentleman pointed out, it's a request to go all the way to zero for both of the landscaping requirements. We often make determinations without having had the landscape review recommendation. So we don't necessarily need to have the landscape review committee rejoin. But if they do reconvene sometime over the next 30 days, staff will give you guys notice if you give them your names and contact information. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, they've agreed to do that. So, well, with that being said, I have no objection to postponing for a month. However, I will say this. If, for some reason, landscape review committee does not meet between now and then, I'm not going to feel inclined necessarily to postpone it at a time. Could we perhaps ask the applicant if he intends to make any changes to the landscape variance that has been requested and the plans that were submitted? Because if there are not going to be any changes, then I think that, as Mr. Marks has suggested, the Landscape Review Committee would be unlikely to meet again. They only meet if there is a landscape variance on the docket for that month's BOA agenda. Like I said, I wasn't aware of the meeting. It had to be there. I don't really understand it good enough at this point. Well, the question is, are you going to change anything on your submitted plans that you've already given to the staff? I have to review those plans before I can comment to that. And, again, I'm requesting you to postpone this for 30 days. Give me a time to look at those plans. Give me a time to talk to some other people and see what's going to work there. There's a tremendous amount of field to play. We're going into the summer. You know, we need to pick certain species that will grow there and take hold. So I just don't see why I'm not entitled to 30-day postponement. I need to work on this some more, and I need to work with that staff some more. Mr. Chair, I would recommend a postponement. I can't see any reason why we can't postponement. I would entertain a motion. I move we postpone. April 13th. April 13th. All right, and that'll give me a chance to talk with some of the neighbors who I haven't talked to in these committees and see what everybody thinks is best. Thank you, sir. We have a motion on the table for postponement of this case till our April 13th, 2021, 30 p.m. meeting. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, we have a first and a second discussion on the motion. Hearing none, I'll put it to a vote. Okay, thank you. So this hopefully will give time for you to meet with the applicant. Maybe you guys can work something out. However, though, even if you were to work something out on the variance, that would not mean we'd have to necessarily agree to it, and it would also not change the fact that we have to review whether or not he can have his proposed gravel driveway, which is prohibited by the zoning ordinance at this time. Thank you very much. okay any more postponements or withdrawals all right well thank you very much in that case then what i'll do is i'll start going through the cases the first step will be i will call each case if you are here as an applicant just raise your hand so i can confirm you're here i'll always ask if anyone's here to speak in support or opposition of your application if there are none then i will then once we go through the full docket I'll then call you up one at a time and have your case heard. So the first case is PLMBOA 19-66 Jack B. Drake. Is Mr. Drake here? Thank you, sir. Is anyone here to speak on this matter? Okay. So I'm going to knock this one to be heard. The next item is PLMBOA-20-3 Lou. and that's as far as I think I feel comfortable saying. This is regarding 802 Cheryl Lane. Ma'am, is that you? Yes. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on this one? This is guarding 802 Cheryl Lane. We do have one letter, but we will mark this one to not be heard. The next one is PLNBOA 20-4 Royce Pulliam. Thank you. And we have someone who wants to speak, So we'll mark this one to be heard. I will be recusing myself from this case. And Mr. Glover will handle the case. The next one is PLN BOA 20-5, Ann Marie and Ryan Spoonamore. The Spoonamores, are they here? Good seeing you guys again. Is there anyone here who wants to speak to this one? No? Okay. So we'll mark this one. You guys will be heard second, I believe. Yes. PLNBOA 20-11 Bank of America, that one has been withdrawn. So if you're here on that case, it has been withdrawn. The next case is PLNBOA 20-12 Edson Garcia regarding Severn Way. Mr. Garcia, is there anyone here who wants to speak on this one? All right. You will be the third case called. The next case is PLNBOA 20-13 New Circle Investments LLC. The applicant present. Thank you. Anyone who wants to speak on behalf for this one? For. Against. Against. Okay. So this one will be heard. I will be recusing myself from this case also. The next one is PLNBOA 20-7, CAP Kentucky Bluegrass. Applicant present? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this case? Okay, we do have one letter, but we'll mark it to not be heard, I mean, on the expedited docket. The next item is PLMBOA 20-8, Tim Courtney, regarding Troy Trail. Is the applicant here? Thank you, sir. Anyone here who wants to speak on behalf of this matter? All right, I'll mark you down. No opposition. The next case is PLMBOA 20-9, Nathaniel Missionary Society, applicant present. All right. Anyone here who wants to speak on behalf of this one? Okay. We will mark this to not be heard. And then, of course, if you are here for PLMBOA 20-10, Realty Unlimited Bluegrass, that case has been postponed until next month. All right. And I think, staff, if I recall, you have recommended approval for all of these cases. Is that? That is correct. All right. Perfect. Well, in that case, we will start with the first case with no opposition, which is PLN BOA 20-3, Lou, regarding 802 Sheryl Lane. Come on, ma'am. Yeah, come on up. If you'd say your full name into the microphone. Please find me. Sorry. Give us one second. We're going to look at this letter one of your neighbors sent. The staff has recommended approval today of your fence. Okay. And that approval is subject to one recommendation, which is that the applicant must submit corrected drawings showing the work as completed. Have you seen that recommendation? Would you show her? If the body people are talking to you, they say just to take a moment for the maximum permit. Right, so after this, if they say yes here. Come on, back to the microphone. Do you understand what that statement says? Okay. And you're willing to agree to that statement? Did you say yes into the microphone? Yes. Thank you very much. There was, in the email, Autumn, are you concerned about the issue with the view given the driveway? I think that given the distance of the fence from where it would be allowed by right to be this tall, I don't think there's really any major concerns there. Okay, thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? I have a question for the staff. Would you just walk us through, please, what our issue is here along? Sure. So in a side street, side yard. Drawing on the board. Yeah, if you don't mind, put it on the board for us. So for a side street, side yard, which is on a corner lot, the side that is not the front yard. A fence is allowed to be either four feet tall or six feet tall, depending on where it is located within that yard. If the fence can go all the way up to the property line and be four feet tall, and then if it's going to be six feet tall, there's a required setback of three feet from the back of the sidewalk. So that's where this fence is encroaching within that three feet. and that distance is between 28 inches and 35 inches rather than 36 so it's it's a fairly small distance and that's why we recommended approval which one's not straight the sidewalk or the fence i'm not sure okay i'm just curious it's clearly one of them's off right Any additional questions? We're hearing none, then I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of BLN BOA 20-3, Lu Hu-Fang and Ding, requesting a variance to increase the reliable height of a fence that is within three feet of the public right-of-way in a side street side yard from four feet to six feet in single family residential zone on property located at 802 Sherrill Lane based on the staff's recommendation and the condition that's listed. So move. Second. So we have a first and a second. Is there any discussion on this motion? Hearing none, then I'll call a vote. Okay, your application has been approved. I believe once the fence is, I guess she now needs to go to building inspection and submit a revised drawing. Correct. She would just need to go to building inspection. And I believe, I don't think a permit has been pulled at all for this fence, so it would just be an after-the-fact permit. Do you understand? Yeah, so what floor is building inspection on? The building inspection is on the second floor of the building where you came to apply for this. So you will need to go visit them. You'll need to have a permit and pay the permit fee and then submit a revised drawing with where the fence is. And at that point, you will be in compliance. And you've got, is it 30 days? Yes. So you need to do that within the next 30 days. And if you have any questions, I'm sure Jim or Autumn would be more than willing to help you through the process. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Good luck. Okay, the next case we have that had no opposition and the staff had recommended approval is on page 2, item 4, PLM BOA 20-5, Ann Marie and Ryan Spoonamore. Applicant, come forward, please. Please state your name for the record. I'm Rodney Woodrum with Spectrum Contracting. Ann Marie Spoonamore. Hey, guys. Okay. The staff has recommended approval with one condition, Have you seen that, Ms. Spoonamore? Yes. That we finish out the plan as it was submitted. Yes. And you're willing to agree to that condition? Yes. Okay. Now, I will be honest with you. I looked at the application and the drawing, and it must have been because it was Monday, but I was having a hard time following where the discrepancy was. Jim and Autumn, I was wondering if you could throw the site plan up and show me. Oh, yeah, I didn't get a color one. Sorry about your luck. Yeah, if I wasn't in color like Mr. Glover's, I feel like there's some age discrimination that I'm being subject to here. Yeah. So if you could just show us where for the people who didn't get it in color, where discrepancy is. All right. At the rear of the house where you see the word footer right there next to that, it says proposed addition. And you'll see the distance is marked at 19.5 feet at one end. At the other end, it is greater because of the angle of the rear lot line. but that it's a small portion and that's supposed to be a 25 foot correct okay that makes yeah i i see it now all right any questions from anyone on the staff yeah it's a yeah yeah i mean they could have built it crooked Does anyone have any questions for the applicant or any comments? All right. Well, in that case, then I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLNBOA 20-5, Ann Marie and Ryan Spoonamore's request for a variance to decrease the required rear yard. And I presume that's rear yard setback. Is that right? Is that meant to read? Yes, I think either way it's essentially. I mean, I can't. It would be setback. I can't move the yard, so they're requesting a decrease the required rear yard setback from 25 to 19 feet in order to construct an addition to a house in an agricultural zone on property located at 128 South Baxter Boulevard for the reasons discussed in the staff report and subject to the one condition listed. Is there a second? Mr. Needham has seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Then hearing none, we'll put it to a vote. You've been approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, the next case we're going to have heard is also on page two. It's case number six at the bottom, PLN BOA 20-12, Edson Garcia, regarding 4417 Way. Mr. Garcia, if you want to... We do have one letter of support for this one. Oh, okay. Thank you. Yeah, I didn't mark that one. All right. If you'd state your name for the record. Edson Garcia. Good afternoon, Mr. Garcia. We have one application in support, but the staff has recommended approval, and that approval is subject to one condition, which is similar to the one we had earlier. Essentially, you need to submit corrected drawings and get a permit from the Division of Building Inspection 30 days from today. Are you willing to agree to that? Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Garcia on this application? And then, of course, we've got a letter coming down the line if anyone wants to read it, but it is a letter in support. I've got a question for staff. How is this driveway in noncompliance? Let me grab our site plan here and put that up. In this case, a lot of the time when we see these driveway widenings, we're in the infill area and limited. In outside of the infill area for residential zones, the driveway is defined as leading to the required parking space. So in a house that has a garage, that is typically the driveway is as wide as the garage door. In this instance, the driveway has been paved beyond that distance of the house. So this is subject to that six-foot triangle setback that we are always looking for. And there is also a two-foot side yard setback for any paving. So the portion that is out of compliance is, let me... You don't by chance have a different color pen, do you? Because that looks like just more black. I don't on me. Okay. So, typically that six-foot setback would start at the back of the sidewalk here and angle back, this distance here being six feet. Sorry. So this area that I've shaded in is non-compliant. The area that is paved here where the apron was widened is not compliant. And then for a distance of one foot along the entire side here requires a variant. I have a question for staff. I feel like we do one of these at least every other month. So what's the difference on this one? And we normally require them to do that corrective portion. In this situation, for one, this is outside of the infill and redevelopment area. A lot of the time we are looking at cases where it is within the infill area. Another issue here is that the applicant has enclosed his garage and made that into living space. So that no longer takes care of his one required parking space. The zoning ordinance requires that the one required parking space be behind the building line. So in this instance, the required parking space is now in this driveway. And there was some confusion whenever the applicant filed his building permit for the renovation. It was noted that this paving must remain in order to accommodate that parking space, presumably because the plan reviewer didn't know that this was a new paving that had not been permitted. So it was sort of an after-the-fact realization that this was paved out of compliance. And the area that would have to be removed is quite small. So the overall impact, I think, is what we were looking at when we considered our recommendation for approval. My concern with that just becomes that every time we have someone come, then they're going to take a picture. You know how they do it. They take a picture, oh, my neighbor didn't have to do the cut, and this house doesn't have the cut. And that is something that we look at with each one of these cases is what the neighborhood character is and whether this has been done there. In this neighborhood, this is an older neighborhood where there are a number of varying driveway widths that, you know, it appears some of them may have been permitted because they do have that six-foot angled setback. Others have just been widened and they may have been there for years or they may have been, you know, something that slipped by, but there is a wide variety within the area, so we don't see this as having a negative impact on the character because the character of the neighborhood already sort of has this. Autumn, it looks like one of the things that's different in this case from several others is the fact that he is going to make his garage into a living area. And so if he had not done that, then this would be a little more complicated. Correct. Yes. Okay. So because the parking area he's allowed has to be behind the front line of the house. Correct. And in this case, what he's got is, or what he built is behind the front. Yes. But in order to get there using what would have been the existing paving, he'd have had to make a right-hand turn and a left-hand turn to get there. So this makes practical sense to me, even though it looks like we're forgiving a violation. We're not forgiving very much, just what you have scribbled up there on the drawing. Thanks. I'd also like to emphasize again, and I've said this before, We live in a society of two cars, and we inherit one-car garages all over the city. And so in a sense, I think we're forced to make decisions that are not always practical. And I think the fact that many people have one-car garage or have made a living space out of that garage, and I see lots of examples of that. But we still have two cars, and I think the fact that we don't have ordinances that deal with that is somewhat problematic. And so in this particular case, it doesn't necessarily apply, but I just want to express that for the record and would certainly approve this particular application. I would echo that, Mr. Clark, especially while we have a couple members of our city council in the audience, if they could take note that we do see these driveway cases, and oftentimes I think our ordinance is a little outdated on the practicality of what people actually need for their homes. I agree. With that being said, any other questions for the staff? I mean, for anyone else, staff or applicant? Hearing none, then I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLN BOA 20-12, Edson Garcia, requesting variances to, one, reduce the required front setback for additional paved parking from six feet to zero, and two, to reduce the required side yard setback for additional paved parking from two feet to one foot in a single-family zone on property located at 4417 Way, based on the staff's recommendation and the one condition as listed. A second. Okay, we have first and second. Any discussion on our motion before we call a vote? Having heard none, I will put this to a vote. Sir, your application has been approved. Once again, you'll need to get with the permit office to get your permit pulled and submit the proper paperwork. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, the next item I have for not to be heard is a conditional use appeal. We're on page 3, item D1, PLNBOA 20-7, CAPKY Bluegrass regarding 353 Waller Avenue. Applicant present. i have rory kaylee with ea partners here on behalf of cap kentucky bluegrass thank you sir and um as their engineer you are authorized to bind them today yes thank you um the staff has recommended approval um that approval has three conditions has your client reviewed those yes and your client is agreed to abide by this yes okay we have one letter in support which is being or i guess an email which is being passed around while we do that does anyone have any questions for rory or staff all right well give us a second then Thank you. Thank you. Any questions, comments? Are we through the email? All right, I hear a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve the request of PLN BOA 20-7 Kapke Bluegrass for conditional use to establish an extended stay hotel within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a high-rise apartment R5 zone on property located at 353 Waller Avenue for the reasons outlined in the staff report and subject to the three conditions listed therein. Do we have a second? Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we'll put it to a vote. Application is approved. Good luck with the project. Thank you. Thank you. We now turn to page 4, number 2, top of the page, PLNBOA 20-8, Tim Courtney, regarding 713 Troy Trail. Come on up, sir. Are these in support or opposition? Opposition. Okay. State your name for the record, please. Tim Courtney. Good afternoon. We do have a couple of letters here we're going to look at, but in the meantime, I just want to make sure staff has recommended approval. That approval is based upon eight conditions. Have you seen those? Yes, I have. You've agreed to abide by those? Oh, yes. Thank you, sir. Okay, in that case, give us a second while we look at this, and then we'll come back with possible questions. In the meantime, does anyone have questions for the applicant? Okay. I have a question. Would you tell us exactly what you plan to do? um with with this conditional use permit what kinds of things are you going to be basically it's a firearm restoration and gunsmithing just repairs things like that is there ammunition there is ammunition when a test fire but not on the property i actually do it out of town on some relatives out in the country on their property i don't do any firing in town no Have you had any contact with your neighbors about what you intend to do? A couple of them, after they received the letters, came over and talked to me. They didn't voice any kind of opposition or anything, no. Mr. Courtney, will there be ammunition stored at your house as well as the guns that you're working on? Yes, sir, but they're also in a lock safe. In a lock safe? Mm-hmm. Do you do any reloading of ammunition on site? No, sir, I do not. It sounded like from your application that you're in the business of or want to be in the business at your home of assembling firearms that you receive by mail. Is that correct? Well, like I said, sometimes it's just a matter of re-barreling or gunsmithing. Sometimes it is actual assembly. It all follows the ATF guidelines. I actually already have the FFL license. I moved here and I had to come to you guys so I can get the letter to give to the ATF to continue to do it at my new residence. Have you been in this business before? Yes, sir, I have. Where and how long? I worked for a company in Ashland for approximately three and a half years and then received my own license in Catlettsburg there and I was doing it there for a year up until now. Is this your full-time job? Yes sir. Would it, could this, I'm concerned about it being in the neighborhood. I'll be very clear about that. just seems to me that um you it would be uh if you did this out of a neighborhood if you had a site out of a neighborhood where you did this kind of work that's that's my thought and and that's expressed in one of the letters that's that we're reading i would also like to note there is an 01 ffl right across the street from where i reside now that actually sells guns in and out i do not sell guns in and out i don't have anybody that comes to the residence well i'm i'm only i don't know anything about that all i know is is is the application your application that's before us uh from your application that says no customers will be coming to your property is that is that correct that is correct everything is mail ordered the customers ship them to me then i ship them back to their uh ffl in their area okay no drive-through services okay nobody knocking on your door no sir no to drop off or pick up okay thank you quick question for staff didn't we have one very similar to this out in fire was it firebrook or it was in the middle of a subdivision even we've had several we had a gunsmith i believe in firebrook and then we also had um similar but actual on-site sales i believe uh down in uh winchester roads no Yes, what's that park? It's a park in your neighborhood, Chad, on Floughton. What's that big park over there called? Castlewood? Castlewood, yes, in the Castlewood area. Okay, I think it was. Yeah, that one was on sales, but the one we did out, Firebrook, was almost. The Firebrook one was appraisal and gunsmithing of mostly antique firearms, I believe. And then the other one that you're referencing was mostly online sales, but he was going to have some customers coming to the property, and those were both approved. And we've had a few other gunsmithing cases throughout the years that have been approved. But in all those cases, we banned on-site discharging of the guns. These conditions were essentially lifted from previous cases. These are sort of the standard conditions for this type of application. Mr. Corden, explain to me exactly what you're doing with the guns. Can you be fairly specific just so we get a full picture of that? Well, generally, mostly what I do, the guns are actually decommissioned from other countries, say Poland, Russia, countries like that. People can essentially buy them. You can buy them without a license. Anybody can get the parts kits. The thing is that you have to have the receivers. What actually makes it a functional firearm? and that's where I come in. I just take the parts that you send me and I assemble them with the receiver that you provide. And then, like I said, I take them to my relative's property, I test them, then I box them up and I ship them back to their state, to their local FFL. So who are you shipping them to? Well, the customers, it has to be transferred through another federal firearm licensee like myself, so I ship it to their FFL. They go in, do a background check and pick the gun up from them. I see. Thank you. That's right. You can't just ship firearms from individuals. Any other questions? All right. Hearing none, then I would entertain a motion. I move to approve PLN BOA 20-08, Tim Courtney's request for a conditional use for a home-based business, a mail-order firearm customization assembly in a single-family zone on property located at 713 Troy Trail, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the eight conditions listed. A second? Is there a second? I'll second. any discussion of the motion before we uh vote hearing none i'll call oh mr clark excuse me mr chair can i ask the staff uh what what would be the authority if you can answer this what would be what would be our authority to reject a proposal like this i mean the ordinance it seems fairly clear that this is permitted. Does it not? Let me interrupt you. Ms. Jones, will you speak to this and also speak to the KRS statute that's on point? We've talked about this before in the other cases. I mean, we don't really have the authority to override the federal law on this. So we do have the authority to condition, which is what we've done here in these types of situations, and also to be sure that they have their federal firearms license so that we know that whatever's being shipped there is appropriate. So that's basically what we're looking for when they apply. And that's the limit, basically, of our authority? I believe that it is. Yeah, the KRS is pretty clear that you can't stop this just because it happens to be a gun facility. Any other questions or comments on this application? Tracy, what is the KRS citation? Do you know? I don't have it. I don't remember exactly which one it is. It's in Chapter 100, I believe. Oh, I thought it was outside of our statutes. Mr. Courtney, do you know the statute that... No, sir, I do not. Okay, thank you. I don't recall the exact statute, but it was something under the KRS state law, and it was essentially that firearms couldn't be treated differently than other types of merchandise. Okay, that's a pretty good summary. Thanks. Any additional comments? Okay, I will now bring us to a vote. Application has been approved. Good luck with your business. Thank you, sir. Thank you. This brings us to our next case, page 4, item 3, PLMBOA 20-9, Nathaniel Missionary Society, regarding 1109 Versailles Road. Come on up, please, and state your name for the record. Yes, Ned Fraser. Good afternoon, Ned. and the staff has recommended approval subject to three conditions. Have you seen those? I believe I have, yes. Would you confirm that? Yeah, that's not quite good enough for me. I understand that. Yes, I've seen that. Okay. And then what is your relationship with the missionary? I'm representative of the CAFE, and we are tenants of the missionary. Okay. My name is Dan Baer. I'm the executive director of the Nathaniel Mission. Okay, perfect. And so you both are authorized to bind the applicant on this. Perfect. Any questions from any members of the board? I think my only question is the operational side of it. But obviously there's no, I think, other businesses here to say that have represented themselves. But I see that you're operating just on Saturdays. Is that correct? Yes. That's our intent to open on Saturdays. There will be a day that the day we would expand will be to Fridays because there are currently similar services on the broad site through the Daniel mission, but we would add that to the mix on a Friday. Okay. Is that condition part of this? Okay. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Anyone else have a comment or any questions? Well, hearing none, then I'd entertain a motion. Go ahead. I move that we approve PLNBOA 20-0009, Nathaniel Missionary Society Inc.'s request for conditional use permit to expand the existing place of religious assembly in order to include an accessory community center or recovery cafe within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a warehouse business B4 zone on property located at 1109 Versailles Road based on the staff's recommendations for approval and and subject to the three conditions. We have a first and a second. Anyone want to discuss this matter before we do the vote? Hearing none, I'll ask for a vote. All right, applications approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you. You're welcome. I believe now that we have gone through all of the cases that were not to be heard. Just to make sure I didn't miss anybody, I'm going to do a real quick roll call. The first case to be heard will be PLNBOA 19-66, Jack Drake, Mr. Drake, and then we have someone who wants to speak. Okay. That will be the first case. Then we have our second case will be PLNBOA 20-4, Royce Pulliam's case. All right. Then our third case will be PLNBOA 20-13, New Circle Investments case. Is anyone here who wants to speak on that one? I think I registered. Oh, ma'am. Okay, make sure. Okay, I thought I had that down. Okay. All right. So I am going to recuse from the second and third cases, which coincidentally will now be the last cases that we hear today. So I will duck out early. Yes, I know it's coincidental, guys. I did not plan this. I know I hear grumbles from everybody, but I will watch you from my computer at the office. So I will make sure I know what's going on. Yes, that's what I do. So with that being said, I'm going to call the first case, which is Jack V. Drake, and this is on 100 Goodrich Avenue. Please come up, sir. And state your name for the record. Jack Drake. Okay. Mr. Drake, staff has recommended approval today of your project. That approval is based upon two conditions. Have you seen those? I have not. Okay. They probably mailed it to you in a letter, but they're real short. Oh, I did see this one, yes. Okay. Okay. and you're agreeable to abide by those yes okay since we do have um someone who wants to speak um on this matter today i want to go ahead and throw up the site plan for us and please explain to us uh what you're going to do on this project real fast after they'll put up the drawing for you so my current driveway is the all of the white area not including the darker shaded area that's all it was grass and to get to my i've got two two garages and to get to the right garage you have to drive through the grass and able to get in to park into the right garage and it was causing i mean the grass is all just dirt it got to a point where it looked really bad because i was having to drive through it all the time so i was proposing to make all of that concrete that way my yard can look better and that way it makes it easier to get into that second garage Any questions for Mr. Drake? So they began the paving because we didn't realize that we needed to get approval for it. So they began the paving. They have not done the skirt yet like it shows on the picture. It's just the original apron. um so there's gravel and two by fours um holding it holding the gravel in right now and we paused any kind of construction on it once we got the letter in the mail to say you know deposit but um yeah right now it's uh pebble gravel was so updated yeah i thought i kept thinking i was looking at the wrong house like they just took that does it look like like right yeah it's got the gravel i had to go back Is it currently concrete? No. It's pebble gravel, so it's like a pre-concrete. I'll be doing one if it shows you how. So right now, everything in the white is concrete. Question for staff. So ordinarily we get affirmative statements about whether or not the variance would have an adverse effect. Either it will or it won't. And in B, you say it won't have much effect. So it looks like you're equivocating. I think in this situation, the issue here is that this is a very unusual circumstance for the infill area to have a two-car garage. And we have two sections of the ordinance that are essentially competing with one another, that the driveway can be as wide as the garage leading to the required parking space, but that in the infill area, the required parking space, or I'm sorry, the driveway can only be 10 feet wide, which I don't know how you're going to fit a two-car garage on a 10-foot-wide driveway. So I think that's sort of what happened here was something that was sort of a compromise probably at the time of the original driveway was paved, that these areas were left unpaved, especially the small area in the center there, to sort of accommodate that 10-foot requirement, and in this case it may not be practical. And I agree, and thank you for explaining it so well. This is similar to the application we had earlier that Mr. Clark spoke about, and I agree with him then. I agree with him now. This is a very practical solution. It seems to me that there ought to be some kind of change in the ordinances, so we won't have to hear these all the time, or to make it an administrative matter that the staff can take care of, or something like that, because I anticipate that we heard two today out of, what, nine cases or so. It could overwhelm us after a while. So for any council members present and listening, we recommend a change to the ordinance to accommodate this kind of application. Thank you. Thank you, sir. If you'd have a seat, we'll have your neighbor come up. Ma'am, you want to come up? Oh, not you. Not yet. Good afternoon, ma'am. If you could state your name for the record. Hi, my name is Tenley Terrier, and I live at 99 Goodrich, which is across the street from Mr. Drake. There's some history with this property. For a long time it was in the flood zone, and until the Hampton Inn was built at that point, that property was taken out of the flood zone. I didn't bring the pictures that I used to bring of this property being completely flooded consistently every time it rained to the point where you couldn't see. and I would come in front of not you all but some group of people every year when somebody wanted to build a house and say please don't do this. So they said they would put a swale in and they put the swale in and it sort of kind of helps but I know we had a really bad rain four or five inches a couple years ago and they had rain almost to the front of the house. We still have a lot of water issues in our neighborhood and I think any more cement is going to be a problem. But going back, so we had, first it was in a flood zone. They took it out of the flood zone. There's a little swale. It doesn't seem to really help with how much water we have in our property. Then the property at 102 that's owned by El Toro tried to put a whole parking lot behind 102, and our neighborhood fought for a year to get them to not make that a parking lot. and now our neighborhood has recently gone with historic overlay so we are working really hard we have to follow every single piece of code we have to go in front of the historic board to get any changes at all and I've seen this driveway you can it's a very strange driveway I give him that you can actually go from the front of the driveway to you know the second garage he asked a while ago and I don't know again who he asked because he told me he asked and was denied permission to do the cement before and then he went ahead and put the gravel down anyhow and because people complained about it then he stopped at the gravel level and didn't cement it in so he's been in front of the city people before to ask to make that change and was denied he's appealing it now while we're in the historic overlay any more cement will really make a difference on that property i mean i don't want to live in a property where the water comes almost up to the steps of my house um but the main thing is we fought for two years to get our neighborhood to be historic overlay this is one of the few houses that is not really historic in our neighborhood but at the end of this because you can't really see the picture this will look like a parking lot And I'm sorry, I have two cars. I park in one car in front and one car in back, and we want to switch out. We do it. Everybody else and the 200 people in our just three streets, we all do the same thing. You have a car, you pull it out. You have another car, you put it in. We do it every day. I've been there more than 25 years. So he already has two garages, garage spaces, and three places he can park a car. So it's, I don't know. I think we've worked so hard to make things, you know, to fight against parking lots and fight for the historic overlay. So I'm asking you to consider not doing this. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Any questions? Okay. Appreciate it. Does anyone on the board have any questions for staff or for any of the witnesses? Applicant. Perhaps Mr. Drake would like to respond to that testimony. I have not came and asked for this before. This is my first time doing so. To my knowledge, at least, I don't know if the people doing the concrete did or not, but I have not personally. and with the car I drive it is I mean to be able to park it into the garage it would be a three-step process of backing up getting in part of the yard then part of the yard to be able to get the car in the garage so I don't know maybe if you drove a really small car it would be easy to avoid the grass but from the time that I lived there without the gravel about a year and a half it was just a mud puddle from the rain because it does it does rain a lot in that area but they've since they redid the drain systems in the road we have not had any i personally haven't had any flooding problems i know my next door neighbor has at a house that's been there for a long time but my house was built two years ago i've never had any flooding problems besides since they've redone the road and the drain systems now when before they redid the train systems i would get flooding all in my yard but now that they've redid that this past summer and tore it all out and everything it's uh it's really helped a lot mr drake did you tell us how old this house is it's two years two years okay so it's a new construction it is and it's one of the few on the street and a lot of people were not very happy about it being new construction on an older street thank you i have question for staff we I'm aware of this infill driveway situation and I just like to know what was the thinking when when this or you know this went into effect this ordinance this eight-foot apron and and the like the infill regulations were specifically keyed to our smaller infill lots that are within a certain area primarily these are our narrower lots and I think it was a limitation on the overall paved area to reduce because there are flooding issues in a lot of our neighborhoods and things like that as well as the aesthetics of having a sea of parking everywhere you look those are sort of and Jim may be able to supplement me I think was mainly a character of the area trying to preserve most of the neighborhoods in the infill and redevelopment area as many of which were characterized by single one car wide driveways in retrospect it just hasn't worked out the way that the folks that drafted that up intended it to and with regard to your questions about this needs to get fixed it is on the list of things to amend the zoning ordinance to address this there are several committees within the division of planning right now working on a number of zoning ordinance updates and parking which includes this kind of issue is is one of those committees so is you know as i know this neighborhood really well it so is the staff hanging its hat on the fact that it's a two-car garage versus the other houses that are primarily either no garage or one car garages? That is certainly a major factor. As I mentioned the ordinance is sort of conflicting here. Essentially if you were to follow the paving regulations a two-car garage would perhaps not even be really allowed in the infill area because or at least not at this setback because of the requirements for the paving to be limited to 10 feet and to not have parking in the front yard. So this is certainly an unusual circumstance and it is the only two-car garage on the entire street and there's also a mitigating circumstance simply because the house was was built before it became a historical area this application will still have to go before the historic preservation office I'm not sure if it'll go before the BOAR if it would be something that would be approvable by their staff so it is still subject to the H1 overlay as far as the paving the house of course was constructed prior to Okay, where is in relation to the new development in this neighborhood? Is that at this corner, Goodrich and Nicholasville Road? That is at the corner of Penn Moken Park and Nicholasville Road. Which is? Which would be, I believe, heading towards downtown, yes. Two streets down? You know, are those houses going to have two-car garages and driveways? I am not sure off the top of my head. That was the issue with the... Okay. Thank you. Any questions or comments? Anyone want to make a motion, one way or the other? Mr. Chair, I move approval for BLN POA 19-66, Jack Drake, requesting a variance to reduce the front setback for additional paved parking from six foot to zero in order to widen an existing driveway within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential historic district overlay zone on properly located at 100 Goodreach Avenue based on the staff's recommendation and the two conditions listed. So moved. Thank you, sir. I will second. Any discussion? All right, hearing none, I'll call to a vote. Application has been approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you all. Thank you. Okay, so this brings us to our next cases, which I will now hand over the gavel to Mr. Glover to handle. You're in very capable hands the rest of the afternoon. I do this with a saddened heart, members of the board. But I will look forward to seeing everyone in April at our next board meeting. Please make sure to wash your hands often and stay safe over the next few weeks. And I will see you guys in 30 days. Thank you. Okay, good afternoon, everyone. Everybody else, well, all you here are not virophobic, so welcome to the council chambers. Today is also National Napping Day, so if I nod off, I'm only being patriotic. but it's my pleasure with an hour and 15 minutes notice to chair the last two items on the agenda the first of which is PLN BOA 20-04 Royce Pulliam is the applicant present thank you and was there opposition to this case as well thank you sir so we Let's hear from the applicant first and tell us about this project. Sounds complicated. Okay. Hopefully it's not too complicated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. John Woodall on behalf of the applicant, which is formerly RTA Family Trust and Royce Pulliam. The trust owns two pieces of property on Wellington Way. One is, excuse me, 1009 Wellington and the other is at 1017. Quite simply, when this started out per the justification letter, we refer to 1009 Wellington as building A and 1017 as building B. We started out as a request for a variance from... Mr. Woodall, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we have the wrong case up. That's true. We switched the documents. Thank you. The subject of the variance was from a variance from the maximum front yard setback. Originally it was for both properties to go from 20 feet to 70 feet. Subsequently, what we realized is as to building B, we don't need that setback. And so staff in their recommendation of approval had actually made that part of their recommendations, recommendations and and we concur with that so that just brings us to building a which staff has recommended approval of that variance the reason why we're asking for this this this these properties are both in a B1 zone they're where their plan for retail and restaurant use which are permitted uses in a B1 zone there was an issue though with with these particular with with the building a property 1009 just the layout itself creates some stormwater treatment issues so as opposed to having the property building up on the street the plan that's been drawn by banks and i've got our engineer landscape architect here today greg morstad if there are questions was to set that building back and since we cannot construct a storm detention facility under the building it's got to be under the parking lot so i believe that's in character keeping with with with several of the businesses along this in this neighborhood um this is like i said in an area this these these two properties are b1 but But there's also P1 properties and B6P properties in this same area. So this area is commercial in nature. And we concur, like I said, with the staff's recommendation of approval and the conditions that they want to place upon us. I could say more, but that's essentially it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Woodall, I've driven by and looked at this property. it looks like the property generally slopes towards wellington way would you agree with that i believe you're right sir is that why the is that why the plan was to have the retention basin towards the yes sir east south southeast end i guess yes sir okay that's what i thought any questions of mr uh we up until a few you know before this hearing started we didn't hadn't heard of any objection to our plans all right have a seat i'm sorry go ahead so before you leave mr let me be sure i'm clear on this we're asking we're after asking for a variance for only building a is that correct yes sir 1009 well 1009 right thank you yes sir okay any any other questions uh this may not be your last chance to ask mr woodall questions but but we'll hear from the opposition. And just have a seat, John, and we'll call you later. Thanks. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Members, my name is Doug Martin, and I live at 2213 Chamblee Lane, and I am here appearing on behalf of myself. So my law office is immediately west of this property. And so to the left of the drawing that you see is 1031 Wellington Way. And my office is the front corner office. And so I don't think there's any single person has this has a greater impact than myself. because if they mess up this project, I get hit with their water or whatever. So we're here today to prove a setback to facilitate a site design that's shown on the applicant's development plan. And so the question is whether this setback is appropriate for the area and is a good idea. There are numerous problems with the proposed site layout, and I kind of want to walk you through what I see the problems. You know, of course, water retention we all support. If they mess the water on this, it's going to end up in my office because the drainage for the office is right outside my window. And it's not that much further below the grade of where my window is. And so I'm extremely concerned about that this project get done correctly. To the right of the site design is Palomar Center Drive. And this is the intersection of Wellington Way and Palomar Center Drive. And if anybody knows the area, they put a Sedona tap house, a restaurant, sort of up. So across from where that entrance is going to be is roughly Chase Bank. And the next property up from that is Sedona Tap House. Now, as we do have distinguished council members with us today, several council members with us today, the parking requirements on restaurants are too little in Lexington. I can tell you that because the folks at Sedona park in my parking lot because there's no room in the Sedona parking lot. And so here we're looking at two restaurants being put right next to my office. And I can tell you, without anything else, there's not enough parking there to cover that. But more than that, the way they have this site laid out, and the reason they're here today is because in order to lay out the site this way, they need a variance. They have coming off of Palomar Center Drive a large entrance, which frankly traffic, garbage trucks can't get to. So you see the garbage bins up on the right. Front loaders will not be able to make that turn to get to the garbage bins. And they won't be able to come in this entrance on this side. And so there's some, and so I think garbage is a problem. The right in right out on Wellington Way, which you see at the bottom, is first of all, I think it's, of course, police and fire will weigh in on this, but I think that's too small for police and fire. Particularly getting a fire truck in and around those narrow turns in that parking lot. But beyond that, you're taking traffic from Wellington Way that's coming east, so coming on your side from left to right, And you're not letting them enter the property there. You're going to make them go through this already burdened intersection at Palomar Center Drive and Wellington Way, which is too close to Harrodsburg Road to begin with. That intersection has a Panera by it, Central Bank, Chase Bank, and then the Sedona Tap House. And so in order to facilitate their setback, they have all this traffic flow on their site, which is going to make a bad situation at that intersection even worse. And with a right in, right out, you're telling traffic that's coming east, you can't enter here. We're going to send you through this already overburdened intersection. And so we're going to make a bad situation much, much worse. There's a proposed drive through, which I don't know how emergency vehicles would get through there, but it's right outside my office. And so we've all been through the drive throughs before, and I realize that there's sensitivity to having drive throughs near alternate uses. And so this would be a drive through right next to a professional office building, and particularly right outside my office. By setting this building back, you're going to be putting it closer to the neighborhood and back. So there's a karate building, teaching facility there right behind where that building is. But further beyond that are residential houses. And they're going to get more smells and odors and noise from the traffic that comes through here. The stormwater, in order to facilitate this stormwater retention, which is what this design is intended to do, I think requires a stormwater drainage study. Because I think the system out here is already overburdened because you've got the Sedona up top, you've got another commercial building up top, and you have all this now storm water that's got to go somewhere. And I'm very concerned that's going to go into my office. And finally, I think I don't really see any plans for landscaping on here. And so when you're setting something back away from the road toward other uses, I think they should provide for some sort of barrier for sound and for light. There's no provisions for whether or not there's a drive-through speaker device and things like that. So I don't think this is a responsible design. I realize they want to make money. I realize they want to maximize the zoning that they got a number of years ago for this. But by approving this application, the Board of Adjustment really is sort of locking the applicant in to a design that isn't what it could be. And so I think by approving this application, the board will be setting in motion a design which has these flaws. Traffic flaws, water flaws, landscaping flaws, and those types of things. So I hope the applicant will postpone this and go back to the drawing board and find something that will be more appropriate in size and scope and impact on an otherwise overloaded area. This intersection really is a bad, bad intersection. And to put two restaurants that are forced to go through that restaurant is a bad idea. Thank you. Any questions from the board to Mr. Martin? Yeah, Mr. Martin, quick question. You referenced the drive-through, and I don't see where that... To the left of the building, on the left... On the west side of the building. On the left side of the building, there's a note that says that's for a drive-through and emergency access, if I've read that note correctly. Drive-through emergency access lane. I made mine too big because I can't see them. Does drive-through mean windows or just traffic movement? Great question. Yeah, it is good. Mr. Martin, another question for you. My recollection is that at that particular spot on Wellington, there is a turn lane in the middle of Wellington, is there not? Because it seems like I remember when I was on council that we designated that there had to be a turn lane. There is. I use it every day because my office is next door. In fact, the entrance, you can see on the very left-hand side of your screen the entrance drive to my building. And so, yes, there is a middle lane. But that's really not going to have any impact here because this design will not allow anyone to enter from Wellington Way. This is a right in, right out. And so there's no left turn in to it. So no one will be using a middle turn length on this. Okay, that's a good point. We'll talk to Mr. Willall about that. Mr. Martin, what do you propose instead of the plan for as far as that intersection is concerned? What would you suggest? Well, the site is just drawn so tightly. I would be fine with entrance off of Wellington Way. I realize it's right next to our building, but to send them through that intersection really would be tragic. That thing is, all the traffic for Palomar has to come out two places. One by the McDonald's down on Lyon Drive, and one right there. And so everybody that goes to Malone's, everybody goes to the Walmart shopping, everybody goes to the Qdoba, all that has to go out in two places. And so we've added to that the Sedona Tap House, and that's a very, very busy place. And to add two restaurants to that and not let them have access off Wellington. So I support the access off of Wellington. but but I don't support the the the crammed in site design that this is that doesn't allow the flow of traffic and has unknown wastewater or stormwater impact. Mr. Martin I will agree with you about that intersection as a matter of fact if you're coming out of if you're coming out of Palomar trying to turn left on Wellington it's almost impossible so I go through the Panera parking lot don't tell anybody. I won't admit going through the Panera parking lot but I've heard others do that. So that's the only way you can get out there you have to go through Panera. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you sir have a seat. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I do have a question for staff. Go ahead. I would just like to note that this project is subject to a final development plan which has not been certified yet so the vast majority of the issues that mr. Martin brought up our development plan issues what is before you today is only the setback variant that was going to be my question yeah I understand we understood that so we're not here to decide on landscaping requirements or the configuration of that intersection in and out off of the property water retention requirements or design or anything like that. Is that correct? Correct. The water retention is an issue regarding the variance because that's the reason that they're requesting to be set back further so that they can provide that in the front. So that is relevant. Yes or no, not size and design. Correct. Okay. I might just add one last comment. Sure. My only point was when you decide to make this decision, it's going to force all these other elements in place. We understand. Yeah, thank you. Okay, that was really my question for staff, is how much of this, you know, I never want to undertake more authority or jurisdiction than we're granted or that we're offered. So I wanted to make clear what we are deciding and what we're not deciding. So today we're only deciding the setback and only on Building A. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. All right. Is there anybody else to speak in opposition to this application? Hearing none, Mr. Woodall, come back up if you would. Autumn stole a lot of my thunder right there. A lot of the issues that Mr. Martin raised, and we are respectful of those. Our development plan issues, this is just step one. We've got to go back to the planning commission and to staff and hammer out the development plan after this. Truthfully, a lot of the issues he raised have already been addressed, but it doesn't matter. We still have to go through that process. You can see how he might be concerned looking at this plan. I agree that that right in, right out access to the property is going to be problematic for you. I don't know who came up with that or why, but I'm sure there's a good reason, and we don't need to hear about it. Okay. All right. Because that's not within our jurisdiction, not in the application, but I'm sure there's some grounds for doing it that way. Yes, sir. But we don't need to hear it because that's not before us. So anything else you'd like to add, Mr. Woodall? No, sir. We're respectful of Mr. Martin's concerns, and to the extent this is granted, we will work with him throughout this project to try to address those as best we can. Okay, thanks. Any questions for Mr. Woodall? I just want to clarify, Building A is 1009 Wellington. Let me make sure that, yes ma'am. Okay. Yes ma'am. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Any other comments or questions from the board or from staff? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. I move for approval of PLNBOA 20-4, Royce Pulliam's request for variance to increase the allowable maximum front yard setback from 20 feet to 70 feet for a new building in a neighborhood business, B1 zone, on property located at 1009 Wellington Way, based on the staff's recommendation and subject to the four listed conditions. Did everybody hear that slide? variation that Ms. Carter made to the motion. Is there a second to her motion? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. The motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, register your vote electronically. The motion carries. Good luck with your project. Thank you, y'all. Have a nice day. The last item on the agenda is PLNBOA 20-13, New Circle Investments, LLC. Is the applicant present? Yes. Come on up and identify yourself for us, please. My name is Jake Michael. I'm counsel for the applicant, New Circle Investments. Mr. Michael, tell us a little bit about this project. I'll try to keep it as simple as I can. my client New Circle Investments and its representative Nick Feldman who's here in the room today acquired 941 Manchester along with several other parcels at the east end of Manchester Street so this is at the Oliver Lewis or just down from the Oliver Lewis intersection near the music hall and the Grand Reserve it's much less developed than what you'll find just a little bit further down the road and they've got a plan for a luxury boutique hotel that will go on 941 which is in between what is currently a filling station and the building that houses what's among other things a grand reserve which is what most people are most familiar with down there this is an L-shaped parcel so it has a narrower section that fronts on the road and then it curves around to the west behind the filling station in an area that will that is and will continue to be parking and so we've gone through the development plan process discuss traffic discuss parking at length and gotten to the point where we are confident they're working with local and state traffic authorities that traffic issues will be worked out that we do have more than enough parking and are working on getting more than that just to accommodate practical needs as well so the issue speaking to jurisdiction this came up in the last case is can we make this hotel 78 feet tall this is an adaptive reuse project project in an I1 zone and I1 zone normally the maximum building height is 75 feet here it's 48 feet because of the adaptive reuse designation but the adaptive reuse designation is what facilitates all the exciting retail and entertainment and hospitality type activities down in this area and so we've requested a variance to build the hotel to 78 feet so that we can accommodate enough rooms 120 keys to make this an economically viable project at that end of the Manchester Street practically speaking the hotel will be 68 feet tall there'll be a rooftop terrace with a bar and sort of entertainment type area which is what takes the height to 78 feet but from the ground it will appear to be more of a 68 story facility and so what we're here to ask for today is approval of the variants from 48 to 78 feet to accommodate the hotel we have read the staff's recommendation of approval we are in agreement with that recommendation we agreed to abide by all the conditions that we'd request that that you approve the variance. Thank you, Mr. Michael. Do you have a brand yet for the hotel? We anticipate there will be a Lifehouse branded hotel, which is a relatively new flag. They've got properties in Miami, Colorado, Tennessee, or soon-to-be Tennessee, several others in the works, Nantucket. It's a luxury boutique brand. It's not generally focused on small, unique neighborhoods in keeping with the character of the development and the area and the community as a whole. Okay. And how many floors? It will be six floors with a terrace on the top, which is technically a seventh, but it will appear to be a six-story floor. I understand. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Michael? Have a seat, and we may call you back. Thank you. and there was opposition to this case, so please come up to the microphone and tell us who you are. Hi, I'm Libby McCarty. I own Raleigh Oil Company, and I have an unattended fueling location that is next door at 943 Manchester Street. This property kind of does an L around it. what an unattended fueling location is it's for fleet fueling if you're not familiar it's mainly heavy some vehicles but it's mainly heavy heavy diesel vehicles like garbage trucks and fire trucks and horse vans and that type of thing so we have a lot of big heavy trucks coming through there I'm opposed to the seven-story building with the rooftop bar one because there's nothing around us over one or one and a half stories in height so I think it's out of character of the neighborhood and secondly I know that the staff has approved this but under a I just disagree with it it says granting the variance for two reasons one it says it has adequate parking I do not think 70 parking places is enough and I'm basing that on my experience as a business owner we have a major parking issue there since since I've had a location there since the early 2000s you know we have the Manchester Music Hall and the Barrel House and the coffee shop all the different little things that have located as my adjacent neighbors and they don't have enough parking and they're parking in my unattended feeling location and it's a problem because they're impeding my business they're impeding why the City of Lexington is of my customers they're they're impeding the city of lexington vehicles from fueling because they're parking in my my location who's parking in your location customers of these businesses that are already located there there's a parking issue in that part of manchester street right okay so i disagree with the approval for two reasons one it says adequate parking i don't think 70 spaces is adequate and secondly it says um granting the variance would not adversely affect the public health safety and welfare while I disagree with that because when these different patrons park in my lot there they are at danger from one of these big heavy trucks that comes wheeling in there sometimes fast sometimes they're emergency vehicles etc and I think somebody could get hurt so that's my story I'm not an attorney I'm not an architect I'm just giving you what my experience has been having been in that location for a really long time and secondly from being a resident of Lexington I don't think it goes with the neighborhood Thank You Ms. McCarty are there any questions from the board no questions have a seat thank you very much mr. Michael did you hear anything you need to respond to? Yes, briefly. We certainly understand the concerns that were raised. We reached out to Ms. McCarty a week or so ago when we found out she was opposed. We met with her this morning. We will certainly take all of her concerns into account. We have been around and around with the parking and the traffic and made sure that we will have enough that we will have appropriate traffic calming systems in place. That will be part of the final sign-offs on the development plan which has been approved subject to the final sign-offs including this variance the parking that is available to us that the developer owns or controls is 144 parking spaces we've not operated essentially my client currently leases to a coffee shop and a part of the event venues that operate in this space but until November we weren't part of or operating these facilities we're not aware of anybody parking at the fueling station but we certainly will be a 24-hour operation that will be able to monitor that and make sure that that that doesn't happen that something will be very attentive to and I believe that you know knowing these concerns and understanding the character of the area as a design process proceeds there are ways that you can architecturally design these buildings to appear not as tall as they might seem so the number that might look big on paper is not as big as it might appear and in the I1 zone like we discussed even on the lot where that fueling station is an industrial use without any kind of special approval could potentially go up to 75 feet the last thing that I wanted to point out as far as the character of the area there are about 32 townhouses in a development there at the end of Manchester near Oliver Lewis Way which are approximately three stories and 42 feet in height and these numbers come from the development plans and or Google Earth. The elevation there is about 10 feet higher than it is on this site. The Peva Rakehouse is 82 feet. The Goodfellas Smokestack is 97 feet. The water tower at the Peva campus is 166 feet. There's a Kentucky American Water Tower right near the end of Manchester that's 168. So there are some taller structures in the area and changes in topography that will make different size structures up here taller or smaller but taking all those things into account we certainly think that what we have proposed and are planning for this site will will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood that's really the objective and that's what will make this work as a project so with that clarification are there any other questions for me? for mr. Michael yes I'd like to ask this as part of the construction of the hotel itself are you creating parking places it wouldn't be there now yes we are and that's one thing that will ameliorate some of the problems that miss McCarty had we have acquired space well we've acquired let's see there will be 67 parking spaces on this lot in that L-shaped area that flips behind the fueling station there will be 48 parking spaces which are totally new directly across the street and what is now an empty lot in a little garden area source so there's 48 spaces that aren't there now that will be there when this hotel opens right across the street and then there are 29 that we control just on that same block that are existing but unlike some of the prior operators we will own and control all of those spaces so we will have accumulated the necessary parking to fully handle the capacity of the hotel which you know once you account for things like uber people coming in to the airport and not having cars and the legacy trail coming through we we think that we by leaves and bounds will meet all the parking we needed not overburden neighbors or anything like that Your business is, I suspect that you're seeing in the future your business being related to the new convention center. I think it's all of the above. There's Keeneland, there's a convention center, there's downtown, there's other current and ongoing development in this area. and it's just there was a need that my client saw and an opening in the market and a really exciting opportunity to create something that's very unique to Lexington. Again, the design and planning are still in progress, but that's kind of the objective to make this. And it's right across from where the new convention center and the park, the new park would be, just right across Oliver Lewis Way, right? Yes, and the Legacy Trail will run right in front of this hotel. That's one of the big draws, too, that it will be this walkable environment, so close to everything, and really make a great reuse of this oddly shaped lot. Thank you, Mr. Michael. Thank you. Okay, any questions from the board to anybody? To or from staff? Are you ready to vote? If you are, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I recommend approval of PLNBOA 20-13 New Circle Investments, LLC, requesting a variance to increase the reliable height of a new building in an adaptive reuse project from 48 to 78 feet in order to construct a new hotel within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a light industrial zone a property located at 941 manchester street based on the staff's recommendation and the status this the staff recommendation and the conditions that the three conditions that are listed thank you mr clark is there a second second thank you there's a motion is made and seconded all those in favor please register your vote electronically. Everybody vote? Okay. There we go. All right. The motion has carried. Your project is approved. Good luck with it. And I would remind you, Mr. Michael, that good neighbors make good neighbors also. Okay. Thank you all. That's the last item on my agenda. Are there any other matters to come before the March 2020 Board of Adjustment? Hearing none, we'll announce that the next meeting date is April 13, 2020, at 1.30. If there's no further business, this meeting is adjourned. Sign of die. The End