Hey, Chad. Why don't you unmute just real quick? There we go. Unmute. All right. We can hear you and we can see you. Right now we are broadcasting over Zoom, so I just wanted to give you the heads up. And we will get ready and broadcast streaming here shortly. Great. It's good to see everyone. Good to see you. And now why don't you go ahead and mute yourself just before we get started. I'm going to check in on Harry. Hey Harry, how are you doing? I'm doing good, Hal. You're coming in loud and clear and we can see you perfectly. That's great. Great. All right, just until we get started, why don't you go ahead and mute yourself for a little bit and we'll bring everybody together here shortly. Thank you. I need arms. is that better or more or less for sure? I think I can't think. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Ladies and gentlemen, we've got about three minutes before we go on the air. Three minutes. Three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we're going on the air in about one minute. One minute, folks. Good morning. So when this meeting starts up, Brandon will bring us into a group and we'll have our conversation. For those from the audience with your hands up, at this point in time we're not taking audience comments. When it comes to each of the applications, we will indicate that it is now time for public comment regarding a certain application. We will then ask you to raise your hand. Currently, Mr. K Aldis, you currently have your hand raised. When we get to certain applications, that would be the appropriate time to go ahead and raise your hand. All right. Good afternoon, folks. You can begin your meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I would like to welcome everyone today for the agenda, I mean, for the Board of Adjustments meeting for June 8, 2020. We're going to be doing this via video teleconference today, which means you will need to work with us as we work through procedures to make sure everyone has time to present and also for them to have time to ask questions, etc. And due to the fact that we are recording this as a public record, there will be some lag time between different portions of the meeting. briefly only so that we can make sure we are tallying the votes appropriately and those are being put on the record. So the first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to make an announcement, which is due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150 as signed by the governor on March 30, 2020. In the Attorney General opinion, 20-05 and in accordance with KRS 61-2826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting so as you know we are doing this by zoom the information to access this meeting was posted on the planning services website for the Board of Adjustments and so with that those are all announcements I have what I'm going to do next is I'm going to go through some of the administrative items that we addressed before each board meeting, starting with approval of minutes. As you know, the last time we were able to meet was March 9th, 2020. We had to cancel our meetings for April 13th and May 11th of this year. So today what we will do is we will vote on approval of the minutes from our March meeting and then also vote for approval of the cancellations of our last two meetings so with that being said staff has circulated copies of the minutes from our march 13 our march 9th 2020 meeting does anyone on the board have any questions regarding those minutes and if not please raise your hand if you'd like I can make a motion to approve. Mr. Glover. Mr. Chair, I move we approve the meetings of March 9, 2020. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Do I have a second? Jan Meyer seconds. Anyone want to have a discussion on the minutes? Seeing no hands, then I will bring it to a vote. please raise your hand and also vote yes in the chat room they vote yes. So in the participant section please make sure that you go ahead and raise your hand. Both physically and hit the hand button. Oops here I can't see mine I guess I'll do my left hand. Chad are you Chad you got your hand raised? All right so it's unanimous the motion passes. I will go ahead and lower all hands. thank you the next item um is i'm going to go ahead and join these and this is the april 13th 2020 um cancellation and the may 11th 2020 cancellation um do i hear any do i have any questions or i have a motion to approve those cancellations raise your hand please if you want to all right mr. Clark move approval of the cancellation of both the April and the many meetings thank you mr. Glover seconds that any discussion on those minutes hearing that I'll put to vote please raise your hand to vote and also hit the button. I've got a unanimous again. Before we continue sir, we have a member of the BOA who is currently not in the panelist section. Okay. We would like to promote her right now. Thank you. You'll bear with us just for a second. Ms. Whitman is joining us. Ms. Whitman, you are currently joined into the panel section with the committee. And if you could just say hello to everyone so that we can check your audio. Hello. Great. Thank you very much. So far, Joan, I have done the introduction and we have approved the minutes for March 9th and the cancellations from April 13th and May 11th. Those have already been approved, but since you just joined us, do you have any commentary regarding those items? No, I do not. I apologize for being late. I tried to come in on my laptop, and for some reason today it didn't want me to, so now I'm on my iPad. So here I am. No problem. And then I want to let you know that I've gone ahead as chair and signed those, and staff will reach out with you for the appropriate way to get you to countersign those as the secretary of the board. Yes, they have emailed those pages to me and I have signed them and emailed them back. So I presume we'll do that again. Yeah. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it. Okay. Now, the next item, I'm going to go ahead and ask if anyone, I'm going to, before I sound the agenda, I'm going to ask if anyone has any withdrawals or postponements or any other items that do not that we need to discuss right now autumn before we do the square talk about the swearing in and going through the agenda itself go right ahead autumn we did have one application withdrawn that is PLN VOA 20-23 KBJ construction management at 526 Michigan Street. That's number four. It's number seven on the top of page four. Mark it off your agenda. Do we have any other ones, Autumn? No. Now this is for the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to withdraw or ask for a postponement for their entire application, not just for a part of it, but for the entire application at this time to not be heard today. Please raise your hand so that Hal can recognize you. Okay, sounds like we will... Mr. Sher, may I check in with the phone caller just to make sure? Currently, we have an individual on the phone that is phone number 1-937-638-0335. Could you tell us what your name is and what application you're here to talk about today? All right. We currently don't have an individual on that line that is able to talk to us, so I will be disabling their talking feature. Sorry about that. Oh, sorry. Yes, sir. Phone number 937. It's Aaron Judy, and it's PLN VOA 20 00025. Thank you very much, sir. What I'm going to do is I'm going to rename you, and then what we'll do is have you brought back in when that application is called. Is that all right with you? Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. bear with us while we revise that name so we know to let them talk at that case hearing okay so the issue is how many people do we have in attendance 34 individuals as attendees currently okay so what I would like to do is go ahead and square everyone in who wants to talk today and then what I recommend is that when we start our after we have our hearings we have public the public portion or the applicants I will then ask you if you have been sworn in and if you could just say yes you have that way we can have that on the record that that did occur since I'm not able to see anybody so with that being said I would like to go ahead and swear anyone who plans to talk that is not either that is not part of the board itself to please raise your right hand for me sir can we have them also raise it digitally so oh yeah you can raise it this digitally also and once they all have their hands raised I will oh yeah that's a good idea Thank you. Okay. You'll just have to ask them again. Okay, I will. And ask them. If all those that have raised their hand could unmute themselves at this time, the chair will go ahead and we'd be swearing in. please raise your right hand you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth great thank you everybody like I said we will just confirm that before each speaker and how you can remind I forget yes sir normally this is the time where would go through and I would tell the public I give kind of the general instructions for today so the first thing will be normally I tell people turn their cell phones off in this instance how we'll try to keep people muted unless it is they are recognized to speak but when you are speaking if you could make sure to be in an area that is quiet and outside and other things because the video and not the video the audio won't be able to pick up necessarily what you're saying for the record if there is background noise when you were on the microphone we've already sworn in and what will occur is I will go through in a few minutes and I will go through the agenda I will call it I will have each applicant confirm it is present today for its hearing I will then ask if there's anyone in either opposition or in favor of that application so that in if they want to have an opportunity to speak during the application and we will then keep a record of each one cases in which there is no opposition and in which there is no in which the staff has recommended we will put that on an abbreviated docket which means those cases will be called first and we will hear those cases first the cases in which the staff is either recommending disapproval or there is opposition to the application those cases will be heard second and in both instances we will be calling those cases in the order that they're listed on the agenda we are likely and what we have been doing is we generally depending on the case involved in the complexity we try to limit the public portion of the presentation to three minutes each unless there is counsel involved and then we normally give counsel 15 minutes for opposition and then of course there's an opportunity for rebuttal for both the applicant and for counsel and opposition Normally, I would tell you do not approach unless I give you permission, but I don't think that's going to be an issue today. We will go through letters of support. Those that were delivered by the time deadline this morning, staff has circulated those to the board this morning. So those will be reviewed by each of the board members during or actually probably at this point prior to the hearing. if you have alternative facts or evidence, how are we handling evidence that people may want to submit to the record? For any evidence or information that needed to be submitted to the record, we ask that it be delivered to staff. Earlier today at 10 a.m. was the cutoff for it. If there is something that needs to be sent at this point in time, it can be sent to the planning mailbox, and it will be added to the record. Okay. Is there a way for it that gets submitted for us to possibly see it today? We will do our best. So if you are in the public and you have not submitted evidence you want to have put in the record today, you will need to go ahead and list your case number in your email and send that to planning staff with the email that was provided on the website related to the Zoom meeting. and staff will endeavor to make sure that we're able to share that during this hearing while we move forward so anything else that I missed for me dad now no sir all right thank you so what we'll do now is I will now call the agenda and we will start with variance appeals the first case is PLN VOA 20 17 3609 properties LLC regarding 4517 Arum Park is the applicant present today please raise your hand sir the applicants representative has raised their hand I am promoting them to a panelist at this time mr. Nicholson I see that you are be representing the applicant is there anyone here who wants to speak either in favor or in opposition of this matter today please raise your hand. What do we need to do? Mr. Chair, yes, we do have one other telephone number that has called in since we've started. If you would please check. This is for the phone number 859-333-4841. We've unmuted you. If you could let us know which case you're here to speak on. Not here to speak, just to listen regarding the 1203 Summit Drive. Thank you very much sir and if you would like to speak we will come back to you again. We just need to make sure that you we know what case that we're looking at for you. So I will disable your speaking function now. And Mr. Nicholson if you could say hi to everyone just so that we know your audio is working. Good afternoon everyone how are y'all? well Nick it looks like you've got no opposition so we will have you heard first great then the next case is another variance appeal and this is so you'll be now demoted Nick and we'll bring you back up I'll see you shortly the next case is PLN BOA 20-18 KR Lex Oz LLC regarding 244 North Broadway staff has informed me that a new site plan has been submitted for this application and I cannot recall autumn was that circulated to the board members or that will that be shared with us today it has not been circulated but I will have it available to share with you today perfect okay is the applicant present if you are please raise your hand digitally Looks like Integra. Integrity. Yes. Integrity, you are being promoted now, and Mr. Nalisco. Hello. Hello. I should have a video, too. Yes. Hello. Hey. And I'm assuming you're here on behalf of the applicant? Yes. And Joey Nalisco is as well. All right, perfect. Hello, Joey. Hey, how are you guys doing? Fine. Is there anyone here who wants to speak in approval or disapproval of this application today in the audience? Please raise your hand for us. Mr. Taylor, I will allow him to speak. Okay, please do. Mr. Taylor, you have been allowed to speak. Good afternoon, everyone. How are you all? Doing well. And you're here in favor or opposition? In favor. All right, perfect. We will now mute you again. Is there anyone else here? Okay, since we only have one, we will allow Mr. Taylor an opportunity to speak, but since he is in favor, we will mark this as no opposition, have this case heard second. We will now demote all you guys back into the audience. Sir, we have one hand raised and Autumn would like to speak. Mr. Chair, would you like me to note cases that you should have received letters of support or opposition for as you're sounding the agenda, just as a reminder? That would be great, Autumn. Thank you. There was one letter of support for the case you just referenced, KR Lex Oz. flex odds perfect and if you want autumn just raise your hand and then how will let you speak okay so then the next variance appeal is PLN VOA 20-19 steadfast calling LPC LLC regarding 1825 little herb way okay Okay, Mr. Carter, I see you're here on behalf of the applicant. Do we have any cases on this, I mean letters on this one, Autumn? No, Autumn is shaking her head no, we do not. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to speak on this application in favor or disfavor, disapprove? Okay, it looks like no one's raised their hand now. so we will mark this one as on the abbreviated docket the next case mr. Carter will be demoting you now the next case is PLN BOA 20-20 Sean and Kristen Foley regarding 5021 Jack's Creek Pike is the applicant present Looks like Mr. Murphy is being promoted. Mr. Foley, I'm assuming Mr. Murphy you're on here on behalf of the applicant. And Mr. Murphy if you could unmute yourself and show your video. Yes I'm Dick Murphy here on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Mr. Murphy, is there another part of your application which would be represented by someone with a name called us? Or is Mr. Foley the only individual? Mr. Foley would be the only individual here. Okay. Okay. Okay. So we're going to, you guys stick around. Autumn, we're going to have Autumn real fast. She has her hand raised. So unmute Autumn. You should have received a letter regarding this one as well. support or opposition it was a little bit of both I do have another letter of support will I be able to show that on a share screen when we get to that time yes sir and you should submit it to the staff as well okay you do have one member of the audience that is raising their hand and so we don't know if this is that the name is call this and you are now being promoted so you can speak but it looks like you're muted. There you go. Yeah, hi. Yes, this is Pam Caldas. Oh, you get a lot of feedback. Okay, I'm taking care of that. Sorry. Yes, this is Pam Caldas. I reside at 5121 Jack's Creek Pike in Lexington. I am in the property in front of 5020, sorry 5021 Jack's Creek that this is the case number that we're talking about right yes this is the Jack's Creek Pike matter yes yes are you here in opposition or support of the application I am I'm here in opposition of a decreasing their frontage I would like it increased so what we're gonna do is we're going to mark this one as a case to be heard and so what we'll do is we will put you back on mute and and demote you and Mr. Murphy and Mr. Foley and then you will be the first case to be heard in opposition and so stick around with us and we will bring you back up when it's time for the case to be called okay sure thing thank you thank you ma'am so everyone from that case has now been demoted again by how and we're moving on to case number five PLN BOA 20-21 positive growth LLC and that is in reference to 667 North Martin King Boulevard is the applicant present please raise your hand. And the applicant is showing up. If you would like to share your screen and unmute yourself so that we know we have a good audio connection, please do so now. yes i am here and you are basil leskov okay and so is there anyone else in the audience that wants to speak on this matter or autumn raise your hand if we have any letters okay so no one else so what we'll do is we'll put you on the abbreviated um and your name again was basil basil leskov correct is that with a b or a b V as in Victor. Okay. Perfect, Basil. So what we'll do is we'll have your case called on the cases with no opposition, so we should have you heard in the next hopefully 15 or 20 minutes. Okay. Thank you, sir. The next item is number six, which is PLNBOA 20-22, KBJ Construction Management regarding 524 Michigan Street. In this case, both Ms. Carter and myself will be recusing, and Mr. Glover will step in as a chair during this case. And so you will need to be patient since Mr. Glover is not in the same location as Hal, who is controlling the audiovisual. But with that being said, is the applicant present today? Yes. All right. We're going to promote you right now. And then we've got Autumn has something. Mr. Carter has been being brought online. Bishop, is your video working? Perfect. Gentlemen, it's good to see you today. We're going to go ahead and see if there's anyone else in the audience who wants to speak on this application. There is not, it looks like. And then Autumn has something she needs to tell the audience and the board regarding this application. I'd like to know that the site plan has been revised for this application, and I would like to present that. And the item number three has been withdrawn. That's to reduce the required side yard setback from three feet to two feet. and just so everyone knows this is in relation to the next application which was withdrawn from consideration more or less the plan has been combined into one application at this point so is there anyone else in the audience if not we'll mark this one and and autumn with the revision sorry with the withdrawal of number three the staff is still recommending approval it will have this one okay so this one will be heard for the abbreviated applications the next item on the agenda is number seven and that is PLN BOA 20-23 that item has been withdrawn and will not be heard today so that ends the variance appeal call we will move on to the conditional use appeals which starts on page four item D The first one is PLN BOA 20-15 Alicia D. Carson regarding 2365 Shandon Drive. Is the applicant present? Please raise your hand. Ms. Carson is with us now. Ms. Carson, if you wouldn't mind unmuting yourself and sharing your video. hi and yeah you're coming nice and clear for us is there anyone else in the audience who wants to speak on this application today looks like no hands have been raised and all the telephone calls have been recognized and autumn has nothing so we'll mark this one as no opposition and put you on the abbreviated hearing schedule okay thank you um the next item is plnboa 20-16 lexington history museum and this is in regards to 317 and 321 south mill street um the applicant is represented by council is my my understanding so miss winters has raised her hand i see mr ackerman um is also in attendance i'm assuming on behalf of the applicants yes mr ackerman could you share your screen with us now yeah i just got knocked off so i'm i am putting back on and then uh miss winters if you wouldn't mind unmuting yourself and sharing your screen as much as we love seeing your husband and child there she is and so we've got Jessica autumn were there any letters on this one there were letters in support and in opposition okay in those letters they were the ones there are no additional ones from the ones you circulated this morning correct perfect okay is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak on this matter it looks like there is not what I'm going to do is I'm going to keep this one on the abbreviated docket given that no one in the audience wants to speak on this matter and staff has recommended approval the board will have an opportunity to ask you questions about the letters in opposition in case you can help address any concerns that the public has raised at that time so we'll put we will we'll take away and demote you back down to the audience and we'll go to the next case which is PLN BOA 20-24 common grounds this is 399 Waller Avenue is the applicant present today okay Autumn you have your hand raised so we might as well let her speak while we're waiting one letter of support. Okay thank you ma'am. Mr. David Robinson. All right Mr. Robinson we're promoting you. If you could unmute and check your video for us. All right. There you are. Yeah thanks. Sorry not good at this. No No problem. Are you on behalf of the applicant or the owner? I'm the owner and the applicant. Okay, perfect. So the staff has recommended disapproval. And so because of that, we'll put you on the cases to be heard. And it looks like there's no one in the audience. Last call for audience speakers. Okay, so we'll still have you to be heard, given that the staff will explain to us why they're recommending disapproval. Thank you. So we will devote you back down to the audience. All right. The next item is we're going to our administrative appeals. The first one is PLN BOA 20-10 Realty Unlimited Bluegrass regarding 1760 North Broadway. The applicant, please raise your hand for us. Mr. Minyard. Mr. Minyard, if you would unmute yourself and share your screen with us, please. Mr. Minyard, you're actually sharing your screen. We actually would like you to go ahead. he meant for you to start your video so we could see your video camera you followed the right instructions technically so if you will actually go in and allow yourself to be seen with the video start your video there you go you can unmute yourself please sir there you go Good afternoon, Mr. Menyard. This one, the staff has recommended approval and some disapproval, so I'm going to mark this one on the to-be-heard docket. So what we will do is we will demote you right now, and then we will have – well, wait a second. No, Autumn's got a hand up first, so we'll let Autumn speak, and then we'll figure out what we're going to do. We have received two letters of opposition. Okay. So what we'll do is, is there anyone else in the audience on this case, just to make sure? Yes, sir. Yes, okay. Would you like me a mic? Yes, please, Dave. Mr. Patrick Watson, you are allowed to speak at this time. Good afternoon, everybody. I'll get my screen fixed here in a second. I'm an attorney on behalf of Gary and Sandy Eckler, who are in opposition to the proposal. Thank you, Mr. Watson. We received your letter, and that was circulated by the staff. So we will put you down as wanting to talk. So we're going to go ahead and mute you. And Mr. David Danforth. Mr. Danforth, if you would like to unmute and say hi to everybody. Hi. This is David Danforth. Hi, Mr. Danforth. Are you here in opposition or in support? Opposition. Okay, so what we'll do is we'll mark you down to be heard when the case is called. This case will be – well, we got one on Montclair, and the staff's going to give us a fact sheet. But my guess is you will be almost second to last on the docket. So we'll go ahead and mark this one to be heard and demote everyone back to the audience for the time being. okay now autumn you may need to help me on this one this is PLN BOA 20-25 Aaron and Amy Jute this is regarding the property at 1203 Summit Drive I do know mr. Jute was in attendance earlier so we will go ahead and bring him up to the panel. Is there anyone else here? Please raise your hand if you want to speak on this case. Mr. Viad is also part of this application, sir. There are also several individuals. The individuals that we have already identified from the call-in, you will not be recognized again since we have you already down, and then we have several individuals raising their hand. Mr. Viad, if you could unmute yourself and mr. jute if you could go ahead and unmute yourself and share your video or start your video well mr. by if you go ahead and talk we'll make sure your audio is working well everyone good afternoon that appears to be working mr. jute there he is if you could also speak mr. jute this is there All right, so both those are working. And now we have, is it three? Three individuals from the audience that are looking to speak, since I will allow them to speak now one at a time. Mr. Dabney Parker, if you can go ahead and unmute yourself and give us a position on this. Yes, I'm here to listen, but I would like to have the opportunity to maybe speak. Okay. And Ms. Parker, what's your first name? Dabney. Okay. Just want to make sure that it could go out of the way. It was your husband's name by chance. That's true. I've been called a lot of things. Ms. Parker, are you hearing support or opposition? I guess opposition to the appeal. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. So we'll go ahead and mute you and we'll move to the next person, which looks like it's Preston Cecil. give us one second, Preston. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. This is Preston Cecil. I'm an attorney in Lexington representing property owners, Guinness and Lisa McFadden at 1230 Stewart Drive in opposition. Thank you, sir. We will mark that on the list. We will move to the next person. Mr. James Bean. Mr. Bean, we're now bringing you up. You can unmute yourself. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, sir, we can. And are you here in opposition or in support? I am here in qualified support. Okay, qualified support. Sorry, but that's not a problem. So we'll see how it goes. Well, you may be you may go either way. So that's fine. It's going to lose. Yeah, that's right. Mr. Bean, we'll go ahead and disable you, and then we'll bring up the next hand, Mr. Chad R. All right. Hello? Hello. And please state your full name for us. It is Chad Rains. Mr. Rains, are you here in support or in opposition? I guess I'm in opposition to the appeal. Okay. Mr. Raines, how would you spell your last name? It's R-A-Y-N-E-S. Thank you, sir. We'll go ahead and demote you again or put you on mute, and then we'll see if there are any more hands. There is a Patricia Price. Okay. Hello, Ms. Price. Hello. How are you? Fine. Your audio is working well. Are you here in opposition or in support? I'm in opposition. Thank you, ma'am. What we'll do is we'll mute you and when this case gets called again, we'll give you an opportunity to speak. Thank you. Is that it? Yes, sir. Okay. So what we're going to do now is the applicant, we will demote you. Since we have members of the audience who want to speak on this matter, we'll have your case brought up in a little while. and I believe that is the last case so what I want to explain everyone do the fact that we did not have meetings in April or in May we have a pretty long docket today fortunately most of these are to be heard on an abbreviated basis so we should be able to move through them very quickly however though every once in a while even an abbreviated case will take a little bit of time because board members will have questions regarding the application and how it may affect the community around the subject property so with that being said we will try to make this go as quickly and efficiently as possible and hopefully will be done before five o'clock you think that's possible now he's got his fingers crossed so that is always my goal and Miss Carter is acknowledging acknowledging her approval of that goal so with that being said what we'll do now is we will call the first case on the abbreviated docket which is variance appeals and that is PLN BOA 20-17 3609 properties LLC regarding 4517 Aram Park. Mr. Nick Nicholson has been added to a panelist for this application. Good afternoon Nick. The staff has recommended approval of your client's application today. First off, you were sworn in correct? Yes I was. Thank you sir. And the staff's recommendations are subject to two conditions. Is your client agreeable to abide by those? We have. We've reviewed them and we are a-okay with them. Thank you sir. At this point I will open up any discussion any board members may have please raise your hand electronically if you would like to speak on this application. I hear nobody or see no hands at least. Mr. Glover? I have a question about this. I'm just Just curious, I couldn't tell from the drawing, how much does the house encroach on the setback? So it's basically in between three and five feet. The kind of setback, it's not a straight line. And so the kind of far right part of the house encroaches kind of just over four feet, and the left side barely encroaches. but it basically will just allow the garage door to appear in a normal fashion as opposed to a recessed fashion right yeah i understand that i just i just couldn't tell i didn't want to scale it from the drawing sure okay thanks nick any other questions from the board okay we're hearing none um then i will ask if any board members want to raise their hand to make a motion on this case. Mr. Glover. Mr. Glover, you're still on mute, sir. Chair, I move we approve PLN VOA 20-17-3609 properties LLC request for a variance to reduce the required 25 foot setback for a front facing garage to 20 feet in order to allow a new garage door to be installed in an expansion area residential zone on property located at 4517 Aram Park for the reasons enunciated by staff in the report and subject to the two conditions in the report. Thank you, sir. Do we have a second on Mr. Clever's motion? Chad Needham, seconds. I will now ask, is there any discussion? um raise your hand if you want to discuss this motion no hands are raised i will go ahead and call a vote please vote um vote electronically and raise your hand for the screen all right it was uh passed unanimously thank you um is that the only case we have today for you It is, and I will get off your stream. All right. We will demote you, and then we will see you soon. Thank you, sir. Okay, the next case is PLN BOA 20-18 KR Lex Oz LLC regarding 244 North Broadway. Let's go ahead and have Autumn is going to be needing to speak on this one to show us a new site plan. the applicant needs to be promoted. If the applicant could go, it's perfect. There we go. There are two and also the engineer. There we go. All right, at this time I will share my screen. Thank you. All right, we have received a new site plan for this project which I will go ahead and click on through here. The original site plan that you all received is on the left here. Let me find my markup tools. I will spotlight the original application showed a 407 square foot sunroom addition. The new site plan was submitted and shows a 298 square foot addition. So this our recommendation remains the same but there is a bit of language change to the request. So we are now requesting a variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.35 to 0.56 in order to construct an addition to a single family house with an existing FAR of 0.54.57 was an error within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a high density apartment R4 historic overlay h1 zone on property at 244 north broadway so as i said staff's recommendation has not changed because this is a significantly smaller addition so all the reasons remain but I did make some changes to our recommended conditions which are showing on your screen now those are construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and revised site plan dated 6-3-2020 and that all necessary permits and or approvals shall be obtained from the divisions of building inspection and historic preservation prior to construction and occupancy if you have any questions for me I'll be available I'm going to stop my screen share now Thank you very much. And then if the applicant is the applicant, if we could unmute yourselves. And let's see here. First off, let's start with Joey. I'm assuming you're the owner of the LLC. I'm the architect of record. Okay. Okay. And you guys, but you guys are here and you have the authority to bind the owner. Correct. Correct. And you guys were both sworn in prior to sworn in by me earlier? Yes, sir. Oh, yeah. If you could, Integrity, what's your name? Joey Nolasco. And then what is your representative? Aaron Stouffer's with me. Aaron Stouffer's working on the drawings with me, and I'm the principal in charge. Okay, thank you. Aaron, if you could just verbalize yes a little louder on the swearing in. Yes. Thank you very much. Have you both looked at the revised conditions by staff today? Yes, sir. We have no objection. All right. Your client has no objection to those? Correct. okay well the staff has recommended approval do does anyone from the board have any questions for the applicants representatives today all right I'm hearing none I will ask if anyone from the board wants to move for approval or disapproval of this application you have a hand raised by oh oh mr. Clark thank you if autumn if you'll put the revised wording up and I think mr. Clark we just need to reference revised conditions mass set forth in today's presentation. I don't think you have to necessarily read them. All right. You don't want it. It'll be fine. Recommend approval of PLNBOA 20-18 KR Lex OZ LLC requesting a variance to increase the allowable floor area ratio FAR from 0.35 to 0.61 now 56, I believe, in order to construct an addition to a single family house with an existing FAR of 0.57, I think it's 5.4 now, within the defined infill and redevelopment area in the high-density apartment are four historic ORLA H1 zones on property located at 244 North Broadway, based on the staff recommendation and subject to the two conditions listed. As revised. as revised. Thank you, sir. Is there a second on Mr. Clark's motion? Jan has seconded. Is there any discussion by the board members on this motion? If so, please raise your hand. Hearing none, please I'm going to bring this to a vote and raise your hand if you approve of this motion. i mark that as unanimous thank you very much um good luck with this uh new project thank you all very much you're welcome enjoy the rest of the meeting bye-bye okay the next item i have is uh for no opposition is plnboa 20-19 steadfast calling LPC LLC regarding 1825 Lil Herb Way. Mr. Carter if you could start your video and also unmute yourself. Okay I'm unmuted. Video's having some technical issues. all right no video sorry is that a requirement I think so let's check with law yeah we're gonna check with Miss Jones to confirm that's not a requirement I recognize your voice mr. Carter I can say okay thank you so miss Jones is okay to you not having video capabilities you should talk to your supervisor about upgrading your camera for you. So Mr. Carter this is for 1825 Little Herb Way. The staff has recommended approval and we have no one here who wants to speak on this matter and there were two conditions. Have you reviewed those with your clients? Yes we have and they are in full agreement with the two conditions. Thank you, sir. Now I'm going to bring it to the board. Does anyone on the board have a question for Mr. Carter on this application? Please raise your hand if you do. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I see no questions. At this point, I'll ask if any board member wants to bring a motion. Ms. Meyer has raised her hand. Ms. Meyer, I'm sorry, you're still muted. I move for approval of... Oh, wait. You're muted again. For some reason, your audio went out. Try it one more time. There you go. Okay. Are you... You hear me? We can hear you now, yes. Okay. I move for approval of PLNBOA 2019 steadfast calling LPC LLC's request for variance to reduce the required setback. for a freestanding sign from 20 feet to 10 feet in an expansion area residential EAR3 zone on property located at 1825 Little Herb Way for reasons recommended by the staff in the report and subject to the two conditions in the report. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Please raise your hand if you want to second. Mr. Clark has seconded the motion at this point. Is there any discussion on this motion? I see no hands raised, so I will go ahead and call it to a vote. Please raise your hand, both electronically and physically. This has passed unanimously. We'll show Ms. Whitman voted in favor since her electronic didn't pop up. Okay, Mr. Carter, good luck with your project. All right, thank you. Thank you. The next case is one in opposition, and that is the Foley case regarding Jack's Creek Pike. So we will skip that case. And we will move down to the next case, which is on page 3, number 5, PLNBOA 20-21, Positive Growth LLC, regarding 667 North Martin Luther King Boulevard. We'll promote the applicant. This should be Mr. Vassal. Yes. I think his first name is Vassal. Vassal, are you there? If you can unmute yourself. Hello. Hello. Perfect. Mr. Vassal, are you a member of the LLC that owns the property? Correct. Thank you, sir. The staff has recommended approval, and that approval is based upon two conditions. Have you read those conditions? Yes, I have. And you agree to abide by those conditions? I do. Thank you. And you were sworn in at the beginning of the meeting? Yes, I have. Thank you, sir. At this point, does anyone from the board have any questions for Vassal? Okay, one more thing just for the record, if we could. Could you please spell your last name for us so we make sure the minutes are correct? L-E-S-K-I-V. Thank you, sir. We'll put that in the appropriate spelling when we do the minutes for next month. Mr. Glover does have his hand raised, so we'll recognize him now. I have a question for staff, and that question is how small is too small? This is a small lot, and it was indicated that it was a small lot on the application. And he's seeking both, he's seeking a reduction in the setback from both the front and the rear, front yard and rear yard. So how does the staff or does the staff have any idea about how small a space they would recommend building a house? I know this is a small house. Sure. This is a small lot within the infill and redevelopment area where we are trying to encourage housing. Additionally, there was a house on this lot previously and the proposed house will have a similar front yard setback and will actually have a deeper rear yard than what the previous house had. So those were factors that influenced our decision to recommend approval. I think that we are in favor of housing on a small lot as is feasible. And again, in this case, there was a house there previously with a similar footprint. Thank you. Well, I do have another question, Autumn. Are there any other similar lot sizes in the same neighborhood? Is this an unusually small lot? Is this a fragment of a lot or a piece of it or is this in keeping with the neighborhood? I believe this is in keeping with the neighborhood. You all heard cases at the corner of MLK and 7th Street last year for the corner property and the next property over where we had variances for the front yard and the side yards on those. This lot is not quite as deep as those, but it is a similar width. I would say that this lot is slightly smaller than the majority of lots within the block. Otto, could you possibly share the aerial of 667? Sure. And okay that may assist because I think the looks of the house right next door it has even a would have even less backyard and probably similar side yards is what's being requested. All right bear with me and I will share my screen now. Mr. Clark we'll have you speak once Mr. Glover is in autumn and finished. All right. In the one with the asterisk I believe is the subject property? Correct. Let me get my spotlight tool here. Yes, this is the subject property here. These were the two addresses at which we approved variances last year and I believe the year before. And just to remind the board, the one that once you was just discussing, that was the one in which they wanted the handicap ramp and some other, they came to us a couple times and they were making I think I believe it a disability accessible development was kind of their their idea for this particular property at 635. But I think they've you look there Mr. Glover 665 looks like a very similar house to what's being proposed. Yes I see it and I have it on the materials that were provided to us as well uh the house next door of 665 uh that's not a house that we have been asked to to review though that's that's that's been existing a house has existed for some time sure yeah and when you said uh the staff is encouraging building on small lots is that what i heard you Yes. Okay. Is there a reason for that? I think that the housing study that was done for Lexington recently indicated that we needed a large number of units. These are historically residential lots so we are encouraging redevelopment for residential use and they're often and affordable. Right. And this is a this is a two-story home to be built. Is that correct, Plan? I believe so. Thank you. Any more questions Mr. Glover for staff? No thank you. Thank you sir. Mr. Clark I saw your hand is raised. Please proceed. I I wanted to follow up to Mr. Glover's question about the other houses in the area. I'd driven by there, and this lot is very similar to the other lots in that area. So I think it would fit in very well. I just thought I would just mention that. Thank you, sir. Any other questions from the board members? Basil, do you want to add anything at this time? I don't think it's necessary, but I'm going to give you an opportunity. No, that would be all the information presented was correct. Thank you, sir. Well, if there are no more questions, I will ask if any board member wants to bring a motion before us. You have two. Oh, we'll go with Ms. Carter. I move for approval for PLNBOA 20-00021 positive growth LLC's request for variance to reduce the required front yard setback from 14 feet to 6 feet and 2 to reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to 6 feet in order to construct a new house within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a planned neighborhood residential zone on the property located at 667 North Martin Luther King Boulevard in accordance with the staff's recommendations and subject to the two listed conditions. Thank you Ms. Carter. Is there a second? Ms. Whitman seconds. Is there any discussion on the pending motion I'm hearing now we will bring it to a vote please raise your hand and vote electronically so I have one two three four five six in favor those opposed please raise your hand I'm abstaining and mr. Glover has abstained on this vote. We need to come up with a signal for that. Yeah, where is it? I don't know. We'll get Hal on it. We'll work that out for next time. Well, Basil, your application's been approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you, sir. Thank you. The next item, both Ms. Carter and myself are recusing. I will remind the board before you commenced that one of the requests have been withdrawn and so when you make your motion you'll want to make sure to take that in consideration at this point I will let mr. Glover take over as chair why go get a quick beverage thank you mr. gross the next item on the agenda is PLN VOA 20-22 KBJ construction management a request for a variance one of those one of those numbers has been withdrawn the the request for to reduce the side yard setback and this is on property located at 524 Michigan Street is the applicant present yeah raise the pan digitally there we go is that mr bishop carter is that correct yes sir and uh they have been added to the meeting if the applicants could say hi to everyone just so we could check your audience now i understand uh uh autumn that there is a revised site plan if you could uh perhaps put that up on the screen so we could I will go ahead and share my screen. Let me get my pointer here. Alright, there has been a change to the request here. So this is PLN BOA 20-22. They are now requesting variances to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet to 16 feet and to reduce the required rear yard setback from 20 feet to 11 feet. Variance number three has been deleted. In order to construct a new house within the defined infill and redevelopment area and a high density apartment R4 zone at 524 Michigan Street. The applicant originally filed applications for both 524 and 526 Michigan Street, which are shown on your screen now. This is generally located between Newtown Pike and Georgetown Street. Sorry, I'm all over the place here with my clicker. Last year we heard a similar application for a property right here, two doors down, for almost the exact same variances. In this instance, the application for 526 has been withdrawn because it was discovered that the deed actually shows these two properties as one. So the applicant is working on getting that changed and they are now proposing to build one house on the overall lot, which is the two of these lots cumulatively. This is the new application that was submitted. This is just a quick sketch of that drawing to scale to show what is being proposed now. So we have a 16-foot front yard with Michigan Street along here and an 11-foot rear yard. The side yards are now five and seven feet so they do not require variances and the applicant is able to bring their driveway behind their proposed building line at 16 feet and fit a car behind the building line which as you all know is important in the infill and redevelopment area where we do not allow parking in the front yard. Those are the differences that have been made from the previous site plan. If you have any questions, I'm available. I will stop my share now and let the applicant answer any questions as well. Okay. Thanks, Autumn. So as I understand it, the current plan now is to build one house on, is the address going to be 526 or 524? 524. I would also like to note that condition number one has been changed and I'll share my screen again real quick I'm sorry our condition number one has been changed to say construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and revised site plan dated June 1st 2020 and I'll stop my share Thank you, Autumn. The applicants, tell us about this. Tell us about your plan. Have you seen the revised plan and are you in agreement with it? Mr. Glover, before we proceed with the applicants, if you would check to see if they have been sworn in for this year. Oh, that's a good idea. Has the applicant, have the applicants been sworn? would you would you raise your hand if you have been torn both of you have okay thank you very much it's hard to see it's hard to see because you all are backlit instead of frontlit so I can't see your faces and gentlemen if you wouldn't mind speaking up just a little louder just so that everyone can get you have you on the record so the house is the same house that was built on 516 Michigan Street that you all approved last year. But we added, since we can only do one house, we added 14 to the house on the side. I think you broke up a little bit. How big is the house going to be? Mr. Carter, how large is the proposed house? Mr. Carter, how large is the proposed house? We just got a glimpse of the screen that Autumn shared with us, but I didn't know how large the house was going to be. The original location was 1,260 square feet. I'm sorry? 1,260. 1,260? Yes. Thank you. Anything else you want to say about this application? No. Okay. Does any member of the board have any questions of the applicant on this application? I see no hands raised. Any further, no further discussion about this. I'll invite a motion. Mr. Harry Clark has raised his hand. Mr. Clark. Thank you. I recommend approval of PLNBOA 20-22 KBJ Construction, requesting variances to, number one, reduce the required front yard from 20 to 16 feet. Number two, reduce the required rear yard from 20 to 11. For a new house within the defined infill and real development area in a high-density apartment, our Ford zone on property located at 524 Michigan Street, based on the staff recommendation and subject to the two conditions. And the revised site planning, is that correct? That's correct. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Is there a second? There was a second with Chad Needham. Mr. Needham, seconds. All those in favor, please raise your hand electronically and visually. Sir, you have all hands raised. okay motion carries uh good luck with your project sir i'm going to invite the chair to come back to our meeting and invite miss carter to come back to the meeting and share her screen and unmute herself and i'm going to turn the chairmanship back over to mr grove thank you mr glover so we will now skip number seven which was the item that was withdrawn regarding 526 Michigan Street and we will start with the conditional use appeals the first one is PLM VOA 20-15 Alicia Carson regarding 2365 Shandon Drive I miss Carson was here with us this morning or this afternoon and I my notes show that no one else was here on behalf of this application so we will promote miss Carson miss Carson if you would please raise your hand thank you if you could turn your video and your you on and mute off hello miss Carson oh you you muted if you can unmute hi there you go see that's easy to forget it's a habit that i still sometimes get tripped up yeah you just automatically start talking um so miss carson uh nobody here is to speak uh in opposition to this matter the staff has has recommended approval um and that approval is subject to the four conditions that are laid out in the report have you seen those i have and um you're agreeable to abide by those yes thank you ma'am um at this time i'll ask um the board if anyone has any questions uh for ms carson or for the staff please raise your hand if you do uh mr glover does uh ms carson i noticed that the staff has recommended that you uh an increase from 10 to 12 children uh because that's what the uh the regulations permit are you are you in agreement with with that yes yes because that way I won't have to redo this process so that would be great if I could go ahead and get that approval yeah exactly okay thank you mm-hmm any additional questions today at this time okay well in that instance I will ask if anyone from the board would like to make a motion okay higher I move for approval of PLN VOA 20-15 Alicia D Carson's request for a conditional use for a family child care facility for up to 12 children and a single-family residential R1D zone on property located at 2365 Shandon Drive for the reasons recommended by staff in the report and subject to the four conditions outlined in the report. Thank you Miss Meyer. Please raise your hand for a second. Mr. Glover has seconded. At this point I'm gonna ask if there are any questions. I do have one for or discussions one for staff or Autumn. We did need to make change that from 10 to 12 in the request for our motion you did not have to since it was our recommendation that it be added conditions did not change I think it's fine either way okay this Mar said 12 I think that's fine as you did I think I prefer it so there's consistency well I'll amend it to 10 if that I think I prefer to keep it at 12 personally okay I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't going to be an issue for staff down the line all right thank you any other comments on the motion on the floor we're hearing none that I will ask everyone to vote in favor of a vote at this time if you are in favor of this motion that is unanimous Ms. Carson your application has been approved good luck with your endeavor thank you I appreciate it you all have a good day thank you okay the next item is the Lexington History Museum which is PLN VOA 20-16 regarding 317 and 321 South Mill streets the staff has recommended approval. There are letters and both support in opposition that the staff has circulated. So at this point, we'll promote Ms. Winters and Mr. Ackerman. Ms. Winters, please raise your hand if you'd like to be promoted at this time. Mr. Ackerman, I think you're good to go. Even though I see your advertising in the background. branding branding it's not advertising and miss winters if you could unmute yourself okay thank you um and um so um you were both sworn in at the beginning of the hearing yes thank you um i do not but we do not have anyone in the audience we did not receive any invitation and i'm assuming that no one in the audience um please raise your if you are here on behalf of this application because if not we will move on the staff has recommended approval and is based upon two conditions have you guys reviewed those yes and you're in agreement with those yes we are thank you mr. I can say if you could verbalize your agreement well this point I'm going to open up the any questions that the board members may have for this application or any discussion they want to have regarding the letters that we receive from staff. Mr. Clark, you are up first. Yes, thank you. Just a matter of clarification, in the application under DA, are there any existing dwelling units on this property that will be removed if this application is approved and it's checked yes. And so I was a little confused by that. It is an R2 zone and the building is a residence to the degree that nobody will be physically living in the building. Technically, there's a removal, but a physical residence is not being removed. And of course, should the museum leave in the future, this conditional use permit would expire and the residential use would be reestablished. Nothing is really removed except the use of the house itself. Correct. Good, thank you. Anyone else have any questions? All right. Well hearing none, then I will ask if anyone on the board would like to make a motion at this time. oh I'm sorry mr. Glover mr. chair I move approval of PLN VOA 20-16 Lexington history museum request for conditional use established in historic house museum within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a two-family residential historic overlay zone on property located at 317 and 321 South Mill Street for the reasons noted in the staff report and subject to the two conditions listed therein. Thank you Mr. Glover. Anyone? There we go Mr. Needham the seconds. At this point are there any questions or discussions on the motion then hearing none I will ask for a vote at this time please raise your hand if you were in favor of this motion and everyone has voted in favor so it was unanimous good luck with your project let me ask you what is the timeline mr. Aukerman well we have possession of the property and not to jinx anything we haven't moved into it yet now that you have approved our use. We will begin moving our offices and part of our collection into the museum, probably looking open to the public this fall because we have to curate the exhibits on the first floor. And are you now going to be leaving the old courthouse? Is that... Oh, we left the old courthouse several years ago. Oh, that's right, after they did the renovations. Well, because of the lead paint dust. Yeah, because it's been in storage, haven't you? Yeah, we've had two different storage sites and a third office site for the last four or five years. We're going to start consolidating now. Oh, cool. Well, we all look forward to the project. Good luck. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Great idea. Thank you. okay I'm what we are going to bypass the case regarding common grounds on Waller Avenue since the staff has recommended disapproval well no I think that yes and then the administrative appeals will also be heard so make sure my notes are right here I'm calling the right case I believe that the Foley case is the first case to be heard does that look right to everybody correct bottom okay so we're going to go back to page two item four at the very bottom PLN BOA 20-20 Sean and Kristen Foley regarding their request for a variance related to 5021 Jack's Creek Pike. At this time we will have Mr. Foley and another gentleman I believe brought up as panelists and then please Mr. Murphy that's right and then please raise your hand Pam for you to have an opportunity to be brought up also and then is there anyone else in the audience other than those three please raise your hand electronically and we'll make sure you're added. Mr. Chair the member from the public will not be able to share their screen they will just be showing doing the audio this is to remove any conflicts. Okay perfect. Well in that instance then um but you'll have an opportunity to talk to him point being in a minute um first off um uh gentlemen i'm you were both uh sworn in yes sir and then staff has recommended approval of this project did we have uh one letter that autumn has circulated to the board members and sir we do have an update of one of those letters that I can share my screen okay as well if you'll bear with me we're just waiting for it to come on through be careful all your emails are here well if you can we can come back to that sir okay if you'd like yeah and in the meantime the staff has recommended approval based upon three conditions and the applicant is agreeable to abide by those conditions? Yes, sir. Thank you. Dick, is there anything you want to add before we have this letter and Pam an opportunity to speak? Well, since we do have some opposition, I felt like I needed to tell you a little bit more about the property. I can wait until the letters are read. That'd be fine. Here we go, sir. Okay. They're getting pulled up right now in how we'll share screen it so we can essentially all read at the same time. Ladies and gentlemen, I am now sharing my screen. If you have any issues with reading what I put up on the screen, please tell me now. Thank you. At this time, I'd ask the board members if they have, they need more time. If you do, please raise your hand. Seeing none, then we'll go ahead and end the share screen. Thank you, Hal. Okay, Mr. Murphy, if you want to tell us about your project before Pam speaks. Thank you very much. I'm here on behalf of Sean Foley who's on your screen as and his wife Kristen Foley they purchased this property a little less than two years ago in July of 2018 and right now they're growing corn on the property their plan is to build their house on this property and they filed a plant with the Planning Commission earlier this year to create a second lot in order to have a lot available for their one of their children to build a house at some point. Their children are still with them and but the hope is that at some point in the future they would be able to build a house. This is 83 acres so in in dividing it into two essentially we are meeting the 40 acre lot size requirement. I wanted to emphasize that. As I mentioned, a plat was approved by the Planning Commission for this property in February. I think that plat is actually the plan which we submitted with our application to you all. And you can see on that plan, we are dividing it into two lots, each containing at least 40 acres. And when the Planning Commission approved this, they noted the our unusual shape of our land in the AR zone we have to the requirement is 750 feet of frontage but this property does not meet that and it has two separate frontages this came about and I'm gonna put up the 1999 plan if I could for a moment here. I've got that plan coming up. In 1999, the then owner of the property, Marcel Payton, she owned the property for over 50 years, filed a preliminary subdivision plan, which was not finally divided. These are the three lots which are owned by others, along the frontage of Jack's Creek Pike. You can see where the little hand symbol is hopefully on the screen. Jack's Creek Pike is over on the right. I'm running the hand symbol down Jack's Creek Pike right now. And at that time, she also owned the back part and she planned for a roadway coming off of Jack's Creek Pike on the north to serve four 10 acre lots here on the north. And then she planned for a second roadway off of Jack's Creek Pike creating four more lots in the rear now this is the driveway is not located here it's got a better location with better site visibility but I just wanted to show you to see how that came about and the I'll try to put up the the current plat on the property which is there here we go and this is the current plat way to lay it out this is the plat which was approved by the Planning Commission in February this year here's Jack's Creek Pike coming down the outside and here up in the top is our northern frontage which is just one lot now not four lots just one lot and here is our southern frontage which is one lot again not four lots there so the previous owner had planned to do a big 10 acre lot subdivision as you know the requirement changed after she filed her preliminary subdivision plan she didn't build those roads but I wanted to point out to you that that was the original plan which I think was approved by the by the Planning Commission the the the as I said Sean filed a plat which was approved earlier this year by the Planning Commission subject to your all's approval of the waiver and we have two unusual conditions on this property. One you've already seen and that is the fact that we've got an 80 acre tract which has two separate frontages. Those two frontages are separated by about a third of a mile from each other along Jack's Creek Pike. Now the second unusual condition is I'm going to try to share my screen again and show you the aerial photograph of this property. This is the PVA map which I'm putting up there. This is an older aerial photograph. The staff may have a newer one but you can see the Foley property is outlined in blue on this and the other the first condition was the two separated access points which are separated by three 10 acre lots as I mentioned to you before but the second is the fact that we have a physical condition along the center line of this property where the hand is going right now which really prevents vehicular access from the southern lot up to the northern lot the first the darker one where the hand is right now that's a lake and and that was an old pay fishing lake on the property when the foley's bought it there was a dam they have since fixed the dam the dam is down here and then there's a stream out coming from out of that which is a stream coming as my hand fall it flows out of the property and goes out through there now there's a there's a big topographic decline here there's about a 50 foot drop from where my hand is here down to the ravine and it goes back up about 50 feet there. So there's really no place to put a road or access way between these two properties. Now I'll stop sharing. So that's essentially our case. The Planning Commission was aware of these items when they acted on the plant back in February. They did say, well, you do need to get a variance because of the unusual conditions of the lot. But we are not changing the access points or the size of the lot and the size of the access points or anything like that. We're just trying to build a house here and have the ability to build a house for their kids at some point in the future. Obviously, it could be sold and it would need to be sold if the kids built a lot so the kids could obtain financing to build a house in the future. Now, those are the conditions we have on here. And normally I'd stop there and I'd say, I think we've met our burden, we've shown our unique conditions and asked you to approve it. But I know there's some objection here as to the access points themselves and the driveways. And I just do want to remind you that when we applied for the variance, we were not asking for driveway permission. That's, of course, not part of your jurisdiction. You're not the board of driveway locations. You're the board of adjustments, which here is various variances in frontage, conditional uses, and appeals. So the location of driveways really isn't before you right now. But I did want to point out to you that this is a state highway. It's state route 1975. And because it's a state highway, the location points are controlled by the Department of Highways. And Sean and Kristen did their due diligence before they purchased the property. Before they closed back in July of 2018, they assured themselves or they asked the owner to assure them that there were permits for those two driveways. And indeed there were. And just to show you, I'm going to share the screen again and put up the permits. Here is the permit for the north entrance point which was issued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky back in 2018. I have to raise it up so you can see the top of it here actually. That's the encroachment permit. That's the one for the existing northern driveway which was granted by the state and I'll I'll show you the one for the southern access point right now that's coming on up this is the access for the southernmost entrance point they're almost identical the the only difference you see it was approved and it lists the these lists the longitude and the latitude I'm circling right now the only real difference in these two permits is that the latitude is is slightly different on the two cases but so these these were fully permitted by the state of Kentucky and Shawn went ahead and constructed these two driveways at the exact location and as you all know the state carefully reviews these for site distance and safety before they issue them but those were issued and sean has gone ahead and constructed these two driveways they they are using them for the agricultural access right now but the the will be the same driveways same location they'll they were fully permitted by the state. So the only thing that's before you is the issue of can we have these lots, each of which does not technically meet the 750 feet of frontage requirement. Whether there's a driveway on the frontage or not, you have to have that frontage. And because of the unique circumstances, we feel like we meet the requirements for it. So Mr. Chair I do have more I can tell you about the driveways and that sort of thing. I don't think it's necessary but I would reserve the right to do that if I need to respond on rebuttal for any further information you all have. But in any case we are asking for your approval. The driveways have been permitted already by the state and they've been installed in accordance with the state requirements. And I want to thank you for hearing our case and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all may have. Thank you, Dick. We appreciate that. See, we'll stop sharing. At this point, are there any questions for staff or the applicant by the board? Please raise your hand if there are. Okay, seeing none, we will allow Pam to tell us what her objections are to this project. Okay, thank you. Yes, my name is Pam Caldas and I have my husband Amir here with me. We have the residence at 5121 Jack's Creek Pike, which according to this site map, Mr. Foley's property was subdivided into two lots, and it looks like our property backs up into lot two, that he is subdivided, which is not a problem. I do not have a problem with the second access being right next to my property lines. He put a driveway in. Um, what I am opposing, what we are opposing is the, um, the request for the variance to be decreased the frontage from 750 feet, um, to 166 feet. Um, that, that is a, that is a big, big decrease in frontage, which will come very close to my property lines where I have a barn and arena and I have horses and pastures and I do not want to have a house right amount you know directly behind us there um 750 feet is you know a decent amount of distance um if what Mr. Murphy is saying that they have a hardship because of the 50-foot drop back there and you know that it's an odd shaped lot and we know that there is a pond there but that pond is not on our near our side it's 40 acres it's a 40 acre property I don't understand how 750 feet is going to make all that much yeah real quick ma'am um when the difference between a front yard and frontage is that frontage is the uh linear line between their property boundary lines at the roadway um so currently there is 169.9 that's what exists today which is different than a front yard setback which means your house has to be x feet away from the front from the road um just to make sure what you understand what they're requesting okay so so they're not saying they want to build a house 160 feet from the roadway what they're saying is we only have road frontage of 160 some odd feet and we just want you guys to acknowledge it and realize that that is the case Is that my understanding? It's using a setback with frontage. Correct. I think what's the setback in, is it 300 feet in this zone? Yes. The proposed zone for lot two is 166, which backs up to our property. Well, but the 160, that's what I'm saying, 166 feet, that is the roadway frontage. That's the line. Mr. Chair, can I share my screen? Yes, please. Yeah, I'll grab you. Bear with me one second. No, I think that you're seeing the driveway. While she's doing that, I wanted to emphasize, we will be meeting the 300-foot setback from Jack's Creek Pike, plus probably a great deal more than that. Okay. Can we zoom in Autumn? Sure, one second. The request is for the frontage is the portion of Autumn, can I zoom in some more or can I zoom into that 160? Let's see. Sorry. Let me get out of my annotate. Yeah, you may have to be in PDF for that. Here we go. All right. Is that better? Yeah. A little bit. Yeah, unfortunately, I... It's okay, but... Yeah. Is the portion of the lot that is along the street? Autumn, real quick. Let's do the one on the south next to their property. That's the one... Sure. I was just gonna explain a little bit about what frontage is. Frontage is the the portion of the property that is along the street front. So what they are asking is to basically to be allowed to subdivide this large 83 acre property into two 40 acre lots. We understand that. So this lot would have 160 166 feet of frontage so that's that is the existing condition that is there any building that they would construct on this property would have to be set back 300 feet from the road so from the road going back this direction 300 feet that is not what is before us today what is before us today is whether or not they should be able to subdivide the property into the two lots Okay, okay. We understand that. No, we have actually, I'm sorry, we do not have any opposition to them subdividing the two lots. Yeah, and that's the question before us is for them to be able to subdivide, we'd have to be okay with that road frontage being 160, 60 versus the 750 that's normally required in the zoning ordinance. 166 versus 750. Okay. Okay. We really have no opposition for him to devise a lot. Our opposition was the distance from his house to our landline and that's it. We would also note that the side yard setback for a house that would be constructed on this would be 25 feet from the property line, just for your reference. 25 feet is, can you just repeat that, please? Sure. Sorry. For any house that would be constructed on this lot, they would have to have a 25-foot setback for the side yard, so that would be from their side property line, so potentially along your property. And again, the front yard setback would be 300 feet from the road to the front of the house. Not much, but okay. That's what they're looking for. If they were to be any close, they would have to come back to us for another variant. I mean, even with like, aquine animals, like, you're not talking about a normal subdivision? This is, you know. Correct. Those are the setbacks for the agricultural rural area. Okay. Okay, so, um, then we don't oppose it. Okay. Would you have any more questions for us before we move to the next phase? No, no, thank you. Okay, thank you. In that case, then what we'll do is we will have you muted. At this time, Mr. Murphy, do you want to add anything before I close it to public? I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, do you mind if we reach out to you? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, we had a new caller. Hal wants to see what case they've called in on. Hi, phone number 951-317-3362. You've called in, and we would just like to check in and see what application you are here to talk about today. The Summit Road application, but I'm just here to listen. Okay. Well, I think it's the last one on the docket, so you sit tight, and we'll note that that's the one you're on. we just want to make sure you weren't on this uh application before we voted and you weren't able to say anything okay so with that being said thank you have for reminding me of that uh mr murphy do you want to add anything no sir all right thank you sir um at this point i'm going to close public uh discussions and open it up for any um discussions by the staff i mean by the board at this time or any questions they may have for anybody. Okay, hearing none, then I will entertain a motion from somebody from the board. Mr. Glover has raised his hand. Mr. Glover, I'm sorry, you're still muted. That's how we like him. Yeah, that's how most people like me. Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLN BOA 20-20, Sean and Kristen Foley's request for variances to decrease the required minimum frontage from 750 feet to 353 feet for lot one and 750 feet to 166 feet for lot two in order to subdivide an existing parcel into two parcels in the AR zone on property located at 5021 Jack's Creek Pike for the reasons in the staff report of the testimony we've heard today and subject to the two conditions listed. Thank you Mr. Glover. Please raise your hand for a second. Ms. Carter seconds this motion. At this point I'll open up for any discussions on the motion. Seeing no hands I will call a vote. Please raise your hand if you are in favor of this motion. I see a unanimous vote for this. Mr. Foley, your application has been approved. Good luck with your project. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the time. You're welcome. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, I guess that ends you for the day, does it? Yes, sir. All right. Well, have a good time, and we'll see you soon. Thank you. So that brings us to our next case in opposition. This one we will go in a little bit different order in that the staff has actually recommended this approval. This is item three on page five, PLN BOA 20-24, Common Grounds, request for a conditional use permit at 399 Waller Avenue. I do believe that the owner is here. We will please raise your hand. We will promote you. There you go, Mr. Robinson. I do not believe anyone else here was on this matter. If you are, please raise your hand so we can let you talk. Thank you, sir. We see you. If there's anybody from the Division of Traffic Engineering that would like to be part of this as well, please go ahead and raise your hand. Not seeing you. Okay. So what we'll do is, Mr. Robinson, since staff has recommended disapproval, our order will be a little bit different. what we normally do is we're going to let staff talk about your application and why they recommend this approval and then we'll give you an opportunity to speak on why a staff may or may not be mistaken with their analysis and their recommendation so at this point I will and I'll also remind everyone there was a letter in support I believe staff circulated that with it to us this morning with their letters. Is that the case, Autumn? That is correct. Okay, perfect. Well, in that case, Autumn, please proceed with walking us through this application. All right, and I will share my screen. Okay, the application before you now is PLN BOA 20-24 Common Grounds, requesting a conditional use to establish a drive-thru facility within the defined infill and redevelopment area in a neighborhood business B1 zone on property located at 399 Waller Avenue. And again, I will get my little pointer out here. All right, this property is located generally between the railroad tracks and South Broadway along Waller Avenue. Here's a close-up of the building. The existing structure on the left-hand suite, there is an existing pharmacy with a drive-thru facility. The right-hand suite has been occupied most recently by an ice cream shop. Audra, is the Jimmy John's still in operation at this site? I believe they're right here, yes. I think that was the old backyard burger location. My recollection was Jimmy John's was the left-hand This may have been Jimmy John's. Is that the ice cream now? Yeah, but now it's actually vacant currently. Okay. So here is an annotated site plan showing the existing conditions and what the applicant is proposing. They are proposing to install a new pickup window about halfway down this facade, with their point of order being here on this concrete shutout. For a drive-through facility, we are required to have five stacking spaces behind the point of order, so the applicant is showing their stacking area going through here. Currently, there is an existing drive-through for the pharmacy. Their pickup window is here, so their required stacking would wrap around the building here. So the applicant has requested this primarily because they have discovered that having a drive-through facility is very important to their business. They operate several other coffee shops throughout Lexington, two of which have drive-through facilities, and particularly given the current pandemic situation, they feel that having a drive-through is very important to them. They plan to be open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekends with their peak traffic between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. Again they are planning to install the window around this part of the building with their proposed point of order here. Staff has recommended disapproval of this application because the stacking area is insufficient given that it goes to directly through all of the required parking. This would create conflicts with folks who were trying to get in and out of these parking spaces on either side of the stacking area. We also have concern that stacking would more likely back up towards Waller Avenue and potentially create traffic issues coming in along Waller. Another issue with this site is that the stacking area that is required for the existing drive-through the pharmacy wraps around the building. So our customers coming in here to go to Common Grounds would be blocking access to the pharmacy and creating major traffic issues circulating the building. The width here is not enough for two vehicles to pass. Traffic engineering would require a wider access back here in order to accommodate two drive-thrus. So essentially this site is too small to accommodate both drive-thrus. So we have recommended disapproval for the reason that you see on your screen now. If you have any questions, I'm available to answer them and I will stop my share now. Yeah, Autumn, could you keep your share up? I'd like to have the, I like your graphic that showed the stacking. And this could be on my side. Is everyone in the board members, are you able to see that pretty well? Okay. I don't think that was in our... That was not in the packet, no. Okay. So, real quickly, the drive separating the parking lot from the building on the north side, yeah, that side, that is too narrow for two cars to pass. Correct. And so the pharmacy drive-through could back up, which then lead to cars coming through the coffee shop back through being stuck behind them, waiting to exit. Potentially. Correct. Okay. Is there enough if the, ignoring that issue, which is already, you know, out there, is there enough space period for the stacking to occur on, I believe it's the east side where the drive-thru window is to Waller? The five required stacking spaces have to be behind the proposed point of order. So you would have one car at the point of order and then five cars behind them. So that would not be an adequate distance. Well, I guess my question is if they were to move the window and the ordering up north, is that even a possibility? I don't think that there would be room for the five vehicles to stack. again we would not support stacking here and and we have pretty major concerns about stacking occurring here and creating a backup yeah I'm not 100% sure of the exact dimension it would depend on exactly where the point of order was but again with the issue of the shared dry vial back there that we also could not support I get it any other questions for on I've got a question. Autumn, while you have that screen up, I think I understood Brandon to ask, maybe I'm asking in a different way, if they didn't have a separate proposed point of order, if the proposed point of order was where the proposed pickup window is, would there be enough stacking space? I would have to bear that measurement, but it would still not change our recommendation. I understand. Thank you. Any other questions for Autumn at this time? Okay, well Autumn, if you could stop share screen. We will please stand by. There may be more questions for you. Mr. Robinson, you saw staff's proposal and reasons for disapproval. They appear to be significant to me, but I would like to hear what your proposal is and why we should overlook those. So I did not understand the back stacking that was happening at the other drive-thru, so I see that now. Well, Mr. Ruppis, it's not just the back stacking, it's when you have a drive-thru window you have to have so much stacking whether or not you ever have any stacks no no so i still think i can control just based on having a couple others i think you could control it coming in on waller uh it's uh sorry uh man of war place coming in that way and having the area and if we needed to move it down and have the drive through further ahead i think i could do that um and i also looked at the distance of cars coming in so that if they were to come through the other drive-through, you would have enough room for two places. But I didn't understand that the other drive-through back stacking could potentially come back for their five-car stacking. So I understand that now. I just didn't read that in there and didn't understand that. I think that's pretty significant if you can't deviate it out somewhere. So I understand now. it just makes it, it's just a location I really like, but we, we're definitely going to have to have drive-throughs. So, um, I get it though. I understand that. Well, is this, and I'm not saying this is something you can work out with staff. Um, but if we vote this down, um, you have to make significant changes. Um, so we can either have a vote or you can withdraw your application. Um, if we have a vote and we voted down, you'd have to make substantial changes before we can be heard again? What is it, 12 months, Autumn? Well, I'm going to walk on it either way. But if it's better for me to – I'm just going to tell you, this is contingent on this. I really like this location. But it's better to probably not vote, you know, just for my landlord and everybody else if they want to do something different. So I don't know how this works, but that would be what I would – So you want to withdraw your application? I'll withdraw the application. Okay. In that instance, we'll mark this as a withdrawn application. We don't need to have any vote at this time. And this matter is concluded. So good luck, Mr. Robinson. I hope you're able to work something out with this. Well, I'll be fine. But thank you. I appreciate the time. All right. I think it might be significant for Mr. Robinson to hear that even if we heard this application and disapproved it, if you went ahead and leased that property and came up with a different proposal for a drive-through that would be approved by staff, that might persuade us differently. So it doesn't really matter whether it's withdrawn or voted down. You would have to come up with a different plan on this particular piece of property. If you came up with a different plan, we could hear it in less than a year because all we would be disapproving would be this particular plan. Do you understand that? Yep. I appreciate that. Appreciate that clarity. All right. Thank you, sir. We will vote to you and we will take the next case up. okay the next case we have now moved on to administrative appeals the first one to be heard is plnboa 20-10 realty unlimited bluegrass llc once again this one is an appeal so i will let Autumn give us an explanation. I do believe there is opposition parties also in the audience. So number one, if Mr. Minard could raise his hand so we can promote him to a panelist, and then those in the audience who want to speak on this matter, also raise your hands, and once the opportunity arises, we will make sure to allow you an opportunity. So give us a second while Hal works his magic. Mr. Minard has been added to the group as a panelist. Witness Protection Program looks like Mr. Minard. Oh, that's much better. That's much, much better. There we go. I was going to give you one of those robot voices. Thanks. mr. Minyard uh you're still muted you're on yeah you can unmute yourself mr. Minyard on your side and how we'll control it on our side and speak wait we're having audio let's here try again do a test again unfortunately we're seeming to have some issues with your microphone have you tested your microphone sir it was working earlier yes it was unfortunately we are not able to hear you just now Sir, if you go to your speakers, there's the button that says mute, and then you'll have a nice triangle pointing up. If you click on that and make sure that your microphone is selected correctly. unfortunately no sir we cannot hear you um you think it's something about the location of where you were like maybe something came unplugged when you moved your laptop Sir, what I'm going to recommend, if you go to that same area in which you have the arrow pointing up, you can go to your test speaker and microphone. Oh, might he have turned his volume down and not be able to? that should be less of an issue with the uh speed or with the microphone um we could have him disconnect and call back in i think that might be appropriate mr minyard if you wouldn't mind uh leaving the meeting and then coming back into the meeting that will hopefully correct any issues that you might have and while he's doing that and we're working through this does anyone from the board want to take a restroom break for five minutes if you do okay so what we'll do is let's take a break for the board let you and mr. Mignon work out the audio visual that sounds great all right guys board members you can go ahead and stop your video and go ahead and take a five minute break so Jan turn your video off and then you'll turn it back on when you cut back. Your video is next to your mute button. We got a slide up so everybody's clear. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Minyard, if you could try unmuting yourself, we'll try getting the volume to work of some sorry. Go ahead and say hi to me. Unfortunately, we're still having an issue. Do you by any chance have any headphones or anything like that, like an iPhone headphones? Just bear with me. If you can go ahead, if you can go into the chat function, Mr. Minyard, and then you and I can send some messages back and forth I'm trying to work out a solution on my end for you if you just bear with me Mr. Minyard, if you can, go ahead and there's a phone number associated with this setup. If you call into that, leave your video going so that you can see everything. Call in on that number, and we'll be able to add the phone to our presentation, and you'll be able to speak into your phone as the microphone. Let me see if I can find the invite, and I'll send it to you, sir. Mr. Meniere, I'm going to just put myself on mute real quick. I'm going to get with Autumn. She's going to send you an email with the phone number calling, okay? Ladies and gentlemen, we're just waiting for GTV to give us the go-ahead, and then we'll get back to it. Mr. Vineyard has the ability to speak now. Hopefully it maintains. If it does not, we'll work through that solution. But right now, you haven't had an issue with hearing us, correct, sir? No, not at all. I got you loud and clear. Has everybody got a good vision of me now? We do. Yes, we do. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, you're back on the air. Thank you very much. we're back in session for the Board of Adjustments hearing after our recess. At this point, we have called case PLNBOA 20-10 Realty Unlimited Bluegrass LLC regarding 1760 North Broadway. At this time, I will ask Autumn to give the staff's presentation related to this appeal. Alright, at this time I will share my screen. Thank you ma'am. Alright, the application before you currently is PLNBOA 20-10 Realty Unlimited Bluegrass LLC. This case was continued from our March hearing. We had brief discussion about it at that time and the applicant requested that it be continued. We did receive a new site plan for this application. This is a three-part application with two variance requests and an administrative appeal. Number one is an administrative appeal to allow construction of a temporary gravel parking lot to be paved at a later date. Number two is a variance to reduce the required vehicular use area perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet and number three is a variance to reduce the property perimeter landscape buffer where a zone abuts a railroad from 15 feet to zero feet. The subject property is located on North Broadway. It is about three-quarters of an acre. It is sort of an odd shaped triangular lot as you can see here. Here's the the Google Street View. You can see that the railroad is at a higher elevation along the backside of the property. The property is adjacent to an RV sales lot and underwent a zone change from B1 to B3 in 1986. It is a subject of a development plan which depicts the principal use of the lot as a paved parking lot. The applicant has submitted the site plan that you see now. This is showing a paved apron from North Broadway with five paved parking spaces and a number of saplings planted along the North Broadway frontage and along the remainder of the property. Again the railroad is back here, North Broadway is here. So for where five or more vehicles are to be parked, the zoning ordinance does require that that be paved. The applicant is proposing to use the entire lot for the sale of storage buildings. So based on article 16-4, the property has to be paved in its entirety. The applicant is currently proposing to pave these five parking spaces and for the remainder of the property to be gravel. Then the second thing we'll look at is the buffer along the railroad that's represented by the green line here. At this location the buffer area is to be 15 feet adjacent to the railroad boundary and shall consist of one tree for every... Sorry. Is this just a quick summary? We're gonna go through these in more detail? This is well... The only reason I'm asking is because I want to talk about that first one or... Sure. We'll do that and now let me click ahead to the recommendation for that portion and we'll come back this way. Give me kind of a road map on, yeah okay. All right so here is our recommendation. We are recommending disapproval for the gravel lot. Gravel is not an allowable paving material in the zoning ordinance so allowing a new gravel parking lot to be established in a commercial zone for any amount of time really and for an extended and uncertain time period that the applicant has given us at three to five years would set a dangerous precedent and likely create enforcement issues down the road. We have not found that there are special circumstances that would justify the need to utilize gravel. The applicant and engineering have both cited that the this the fill on the site is improper to install asphalt paving at this time. However, that is not a special circumstance as the applicant as the fill was installed by the applicant. Granting the appeal could adversely affect the public health safety or welfare. The Division of Engineering has expressed major concerns with the lack of water quality and quantity features which were originally shown on the construction plans but have not been installed. Additionally, the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee has recommended that gravel not be utilized on this site in order to prevent contaminant discharge into the Royal Springs Aquifer Recharge Area. That group is a group that engineering typically will take the advice of and they are in agreement with the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee's recommendation to not allow gravel here. And Josh Duzarn from engineering should be present as well. He may have additional comments. He may wish to raise his hand at this time. Okay can we go back to the drawing? Sure. Mr. Duzarn has raised his hand if you would like to. Yes I would. Mr. Duzarn go ahead unmute yourself and share your video and when I say share your video start your video thank you mr. Dazar do you have anything to say on this previous request yeah can you see Amy? Not yet. There we are. Okay. Hey, Josh. So engineering is typically obliged to support the recommendation from the Well Springs Committee. It's in the stormwater manual. So we're obliged to follow their recommendations as far as infiltration goes. We did receive a report from Mr. Menyard's engineer stating that detention, stormwater detention was not required on this site. They submitted a drainage report. So we would evaluate the final proposal with that drainage report when that time comes. So I think that addressed one of the comments from staff as far as water quantity. But we typically do side with the aquifer committee. okay it I guess um autumn is there anyone here on this speak to the if they have five parking spaces and they're paving those five parking spaces why do they need to asphalt the entire property? If you look at article 16-4F, this says that every parcel of land hereafter used as an automobile, truck, mobile home, boat, trailer, or camper sales lot, or as an automobile service station shall be subject to the requirements of this zoning ordinance concerning servicing and shall be considered in the application thereof as the equivalent of of a parking area for more than five vehicles, regardless of the size. And what's his proposal? So the applicant is planning to utilize the entire site for the sales of these small storage buildings. Therefore, any of the site that is being utilized to store those storage buildings has to be paid. So you're interpreting that the storage units to fall within 16-4-F? Correct. those appear to be sale of vehicles that may be a mobile homes closed average I guess you're relying on the mobile home right we were looking at mobile homes probably as being the most similar okay just curious all right so on storage units. All right. I just want to make sure. The thing behind that too would be that they would be being brought in and being taken back out, you know, on trucks, and it would be important for those to be able to be accessed on the site. Gotcha. Okay. I just want to make sure I was following you. Sure. Does anyone on the board have a question for Autumn related to what I'm going to call request number one. Looks like we do not. So Autumn, let's move on to request number two. And if you don't mind, I kind of like this format where we look at it and that way we're not getting too much information at once. And we kind of break it up a little bit. Sure, I think that's helpful. Thank you, ma'am. So the second, let's see the first variance is, well I'm out of order here, here we go. The first variance is to reduce the required vehicular use area perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet. So the perimeter vehicular use area buffer would be anything along the vehicular use. So the entire site would be for vehicular use in this situation as a parking lot. So we also have the requirement for the portion along the railroad, so that's the back line here. So what we're looking at for the five foot buffer is the green lines that you see here. This buffer shall consist of one tree per 40 foot of boundary and a three-foot average height continuous hedge fence wall or earthbound or a three-foot decrease in elevation from the adjoining property to the vehicular use. What the applicant is requesting here is to plant a number of pine saplings along the green line you see they are requesting to not install the three-foot average height continuous hedge fence wall or earth mound. Now click ahead. And what's the, I can't remember, what's the zone there to the south? That's required. This is this is a vehicular use requirement. This is not zone-to-zone screen. Oh this is a vehicular use area. Okay I got you. And we are recommending disapproval of this variance. Again that there are not special circumstances unique to the subject property for the reasons I discussed earlier. Circumstances that the applicant has indicated make planting and fence installation difficult on the site are a result of the improper bill that was installed on the site. Granting the variances would adversely impact to the character of the vicinity. The adjoining RV lot does have the required screening. They have a fence and the trees as required. This property is not located within the Paris Pipe corridor overlay, but it is still a part of that corridor and is a major entry point into Lexington. And staff feels it is very important to ease that transition from the rural landscape to the urban streetscape as you are entering Lexington along Paris Pipe. The Division of Environmental Services also agreed that there were not special circumstances to justify the need for the variance for the vehicular use area. Do you all have any questions about this variance or would you like to move on to the second landscape variance? Yeah I've got a question about that. That that requirement to provide a buffer does not include the access to the property does it or does it I mean there's a there's there's planned a an ingress and egress area on the plant right there yeah and that looks like that would be the landscaping would be along here here and here okay but not Not across the driveway. Okay. Thanks. All right, Autumn. I think we're ready for number three. And just so the board we can keep up, the first one we heard is the first disapproval. That one was the second disapproval. now we're going back up to the approval one. So it's a little bit out of order than what's on our sheet, what we've been talking about. All right so what is listed in the the original application as variance number three is a variance to reduce the property perimeter landscape buffer where any zone abuts a railroad from 15 feet to zero feet. So again, that is the green line shown here. The railroad is here. And it may be helpful to go back to the image here. You can see that the railroad is at a significantly higher elevation than the subject property. What is required here by the ordinance is a 15-foot buffer consisting of one tree for every 40 feet of linear boundary plus a six-foot high fence wall or earth mound. The applicant is proposing to install a number of trees along this rear lot line. However, they again do not wish to install the six-foot high fence wall or earth mount. We have recommended approval of this variance given that the railroad is at a significantly higher elevation. This is a special circumstance that is unique to the property and justifies the the need for the variance. The required landscape buffer would not create an effective buffer. That fence would not provide any buffering between the property and the railroad because of that elevation distance. The applicant does plan to install a number of trees which we believe will be in keeping with the character of the property and that recommendation is made subject to the three conditions on your screen. Okay. So are they planning on doing the part one which is the 40 foot centering or explain exactly what they're on the on the trees? Correct. At a minimum they will meet the one per every 40 feet on center. I think they may actually be proposing more than that. How long is this increased property on that perimeter? That's a good question. Let me see if I have a dimension for that. That does not appear to be legible on the site plan that I have. I do not have that information in front of me it's approximately 490 feet okay so we're looking at probably 12 trees minimum 12 trees yeah and then let me ask you the question autumn on the disapproval number two that's premise once again that quote that you are emily you know kind of quotations because he is parking these storage facilities on the property and therefore it's considered a parking lot and that's why we need that screen. Yes. Okay all right. Well any questions for Autumn or for Josh at this time from the board? Quick question. So under what circumstance would the gravel parking lot be allowable in this infill area? It would not be allowable in any commercial location. The board has on occasion approved gravel in a very rural location, but any commercial zone we would not recommend the use of gravel. Okay, that's what I thought I was just making clarification because Brandon, I was listening to your questions I didn't know if it made a difference if it was parking or not parking or egress, but there was no there's no circumstance in which the gravel parking has the only use for gravel that would be allowable in the zoning ordinance is for like landscaping purposes but beyond that any any use of gravel for parking any sort of vehicle or building would not be allowed. And I think from what I've noticed and when when there has been parking that was gravel that was not paved it appeared to cause more trouble on getting the owner to actually pave it at some point. I think we've got a couple instances in our city of that occurring. Correct. It tends to be that once once gravel is there it's hard to get it to be paved and gravel tends to spread and cause additional issues as it is refreshed and things like that going forward. Staff wouldn't recommend the use of gravel. Any other questions for comments at this time? Mr. Needham? give us one second while yeah i just want to say i mean we see a lot of gravel parking lots around the city and we wonder why they are able to exist and i think we realize that those were put in many years prior to uh this new uh or newer ordinance and maybe autumn you can tell us when that went into effect. This is where we need Jim. Hey Jim Marks. We believe it was in the 1980s that this system or that this ordinance change happened preventing the use of gravel. Okay thank you. any additional questions right now yeah uh this is this is very clark i i'm can a little confused by the fact that the ordinance designates that it it applies only to vehicles and so i'm wondering if if this is if this is a problem um and i i think it ought to be paid I really do. But at the same time, if the ordinance does not indicate that it can be used in some other way, it's not a parking lot. And I keep thinking, well, what is it we're talking about here? Autumn, can you? Again, I'll refer back to this Article 16-4F, which refers to sales lots, which we are including these small shed type storage units as being substantially similar to these. They are not directly referenced anywhere in our zoning ordinance. This is sort of the closest use. That was my question. because everything is a vehicle. And so I'm just wondering if it applies. I think the size and scale of the items that are being sold is a part of this in addition to, while most of these are vehicles that can move, any sort of large equipment, I think, would fall into this category. And that's sort of where we're coming from. Could I interject something now, please? well actually i will i'll we'll let you know when it's your turn oh okay thank you all right autumn autumn i have a question is there uh is there another article or sub article that makes reference to selling um storage buildings or storage facilities because i agree with harry these all look like vehicles to me and a boat, although it doesn't have wheels as a vehicle. So I'm, I'm, you know, I'm, I'm looking at it as a lawyer would. Is there anything else that, that might apply other than 16, 4 F besides, besides 16, 4 F? I don't think so. and so the uh and so the staff's recommendation is uh as i understand i think i was confused by the original uh recommendation of disapproval i i i understood that the that you all were only recommending or requiring that the area where the ingress and egress is, that rectangular looking shape in the middle of the property, yeah, that you were recommending to be paved, but that's not what you're recommending. Is that right? Correct. We are recommending that the entire lot be paved if it is to be used for this shed sales lot or as a parking lot. Okay. The original application did not show this as paved. It did show the entire lot as gravel, so the applicant did attempt to make that concession. However, it was not enough for staff to change to run approval. So you're saying that he was willing to pave that small area, but not the entire lot? Correct. We would also like to note that this application is inconsistent with what was approved by the Planning Commission. A parking lot was approved at this location, and at that time, the applicant was showing the lot as paved in its entirety. So that's another reason that we're here. Okay. Thank you very much. Any additional questions for staff from the board? Okay, hearing none, then Mr. Minard, you are up and you have an opportunity to speak at this time and we will close out the share screens. Here we go. Thank you. Your turn. Mr. Gross my name is Minyard not Minard okay it's like vineyard with an M it it takes a bit of learning how to say it but it's no big deal I I just want to thank everybody for all their inputs um I sent a letter out on 5 18 20 detailing my plans for the property and I'm just wondering if everybody got to read that and if you were able to read it, were you able to understand it? The packages were sent out to us and we have, those have all been delivered to us, yes. Okay, so the letter dated 5-18-2020 is there? Yeah, I'm looking at it right now. Huh? I'm looking at it right now and I read it last week. Okay, great. Well, first of all, I'm going to ask that the pavement portion of this hearing be postponed to next month. Okay. Oh, you want another continuance? Just the pavement portion. Okay. Okay. The other two, of course, you know, the railroad is very obvious. But if I understand. Let me ask you this. Let's start with number one. What's the purpose of continuing again on the pavement? We can see it from earlier this spring. And I'm interested in what we would benefit from not hearing it today. because I'm looking at what is known as a geogrid system. Which is, yeah. So you're thinking about maybe using a permeable paver on this site? No. Oh. Well, I'm asking what you're trying to do. Well, if you read my letter, it talks about the site having a dual use as a giant water filter. Yeah, I saw that part, and to be honest with you, I think it'd be beneficial to explain that a little bit more. Okay. So for those that are in the eco-green-friendly development world, which is a very small body of people right now, there was a solar powered water wheel in the inner harbor of Baltimore that I mentioned in this letter. And what it does is it takes solar power, turns the wheel and takes trash out of the harbor and puts it in a dumpster, which brought that city a lot of international recognition. How that pertains to my site is that in response to the needs of the Royal Springs folks who did like my water filter plan, but not in this area because it's their charge area, that, you know, if I'm able to develop the property the way I want it, it's going to be a giant water filter. similar to what you see in grade school, where you get to sand the stone, the filter, and what it becomes is a giant water filter. Okay, so my proposal is to plant the entire perimeter in white pine sattlings. And as those needles fall off, of course, I'm going to mat the whole perimeter, okay? Okay, so, but as those needles fall, it becomes a water filter. And you got to remember for shed sales, you know, this is a display lot. People are going to come here and look at the sheds and order one built in a factory to be delivered to their site, their home. so there's not going to be a lot of activity here anyway so that's what's coming next month i'm hoping i i can get that there's there's to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been an echo friendly development in this town that i'm aware of and i just think it's something that the city ought to consider. I'm thinking if this city has a desire to be an international city, that that might put Lexington a little higher up on the map because the millions of people looked at the water wheel in Baltimore. Well, here's what I'm thinking is that if we're going to continue and the board feels like we need feels like there's ample reason to continue, then I want to continue everything. I don't want to decide this piecemeal today. I just want to have one hearing, have everything decided. Or we just have everything heard today. So at this point, Mr. Menyer, I'm going to go ahead and direct this to the board and ask the board if there's an appetite to continue this another month until next month, given that. Is there anyone here in opposition to this? you we have several people so they need to chime in also uh miss godderweiss just raised her hand as well yeah i'm honored i was just going to remind you that there were folks here in opposition who might want to yeah i remembered i saw their names up there so and they were i believe here last month potentially or last time we had this hearing so i don't want to continue to continue something and have the citizenry have to show up every 30 days. Well, first of all, I'm not. I'm still talking, sir. So give me a second. So at this point, I would like to just get a feel for this board with the hand raised. You can just electronically raise it. Do you want to talk, Ms. Carter, or do you want to? Well, I was just going to respond. I just wanted to, I'm opposed to the continuance. Okay. I just feel like it's been three months since we heard this, you know, last, and we continued, and I feel like there's enough time to have come up with some other solutions. And I'm sort of leaning where we're going here. We've got the public continues to come and speak up on this. and I'd be opposed. Is that kind of a consensus of the board? All right. In that case, Mr. Mayor, it looks like we're going to be having this heard today, so please proceed. All right. So my goal is to make the site a giant water filter. The sheds are not going to be moving around. If I'm able to use this geogrid system, then the gravels will be bound and it holds them in place, and it purifies the water. Josh, do you have any comments on this geogrid system for this urban water filter? Sure. We would have to see a proposal from his engineer on what the system is. And ultimately, the aquifer committee recommended no infiltration into the groundwater. So even if it did have a filtration system, it would have to be discharged into a storm sewer to meet their no infiltration into the groundwater recommendation. Okay. Okay. But we, I mean, there's water quality projects all over town that do infiltration. Permeable pavers is one example of one. I think Mr. Menyer is referring to a, it'd be a permeable paver system without the pavers on top. They have a grid put down that they fill with gravel or sand, and then they put the pavers on top. But I think what Matt's proposing is something similar to that. I haven't seen the design, so I'm just assuming. But it would be something similar to that without the pavers. So I'm thinking the Southland Co-op is a paver system. Yeah, I mean, the new high school has them. Several businesses have them. But, again, we still have to comply with the Royal Springs Aqua for recommendation. Gotcha. Okay. Anything else you want to add, Mr. Minier? Yeah, well, it's asphalt. If you listen to the Royal Springs folks carefully, they talk about nonpervious asphalt or concrete. Well, that's just not true. Asphalt is pervious, and so is concrete. And if I get to use this geo grid system, which I'm hoping that the board will hear me out on it. I've got engineers working on it now. we're just we just couldn't get it together and i didn't want to ask for a total uh continuance because you know there's people here want to talk uh i want to hear them but there's just not a need for asphalt here i don't want asphalt on my property or any property I got. I don't like asphalt. And again, if you read the letter from the Royal Springs folks, they kind of approved my idea, but not in their recharge area. And if you look at the studies of the Royal Springs folks, they're not definitive enough. They show the recharge areas as general locations. So there's no absolute proof that my site is in the recharge area. So I'm hoping the board will swing with me on this. I'm hoping to get it out on the internet, show what can be done if as far as water quality goes. As far as containing a spill, I don't see a spill happening on this lot. It's It's just going to have sheds on it. There's not going to be the Royal Springs take the, the hardcore position that a tractor trailer full of diesel fuels are going to turn upside down on this lot. It's just not going to happen. And even if it did across the road by the fire department and behind the shopping center down K-Run is a massive retention basin. It could be caught there. I mean, I just don't see the need for asphalt here. I mean, it would cost more to do the geo grid the way I want to do it, but even if you had a spill, all you got to do is go in and pull up the geo grid, shovel up the gravels, it's gone. Now, there's some folks in Minnesota, Kansas, and Arizona helping me with this. I wish that the board would, you know, just pass it for another month on the asphalt. The only other thing I have to comment on at this point until I hear some other, you know the back side would be planted in in white pines and so will the front and sides you know there there was a talk about a hedge there or something is that what i understood autumn yes for the vehicular use area we are recommending disapproval of the variance which would mean that you would have to install the three foot high hedge or fence along the use area a three-foot high hedge or fence yes what kind of fence I don't think that there's it's a solid fence I think I mean you're talking about a wire fence or wood fence probably. Not a wire fence. Not wire. The idea is that it's screening. Screening from what? From the vehicles. Zone-to-zone screening. I mean, this is vehicle screening. I'm sorry. It's not making sense to me because I have almost 500 feet of road frontage where 26,000 cars a day go by. I mean, what are you going to do with the fence? What I'm proposing will eventually be a fence. If I get to plant my little pines in there and they take hold, okay, and some of them will make it and some of them won't, that's why I'm going to pepper it. The whole front and side that adjoins the RV park will float on a, you know, like the platform or the parking lot will be floating on a bed of evergreens. it's going to be beautiful so could I use a evergreen fence across the front and side Autumn that's not a fence it has to be a fence or a hedge well it's going to create a hedge you would have to talk that over with environmental services about what plantings they require for a hedge. Okay, so let's just leave it at that. So I'm willing to meet that standard along the front and sides. And for the minute, hold on, and just for the quick minute, we're going to term it to be a hedge, okay? And that's a very broad term. All right. It would have to, if the board asks to disapprove that variance, you will have to meet the ordinance and you will have to discuss that with the Division of Environmental Services about what that looks like. Okay. I'm okay with that. Anything else, Matt? um yeah i'm i'm i just want this board to know in developing this property that i just haven't been i haven't been treated fairly i've been held to an incredible standard in the development of this property and i take great pride in what i do i like to think i'm good at what I do. But if this town, if the city is going to meet its infield goals, then I encourage every board member here and the staff to look hard at those goals and see if they're obtainable. Because based on what I've seen in the regulation and enforcement of this, they're not obtainable. This property was filled in with the field that came out of the sewer line renovations. I think for the next six years, there is an overwhelming plan to redo most of the city's sewers, particularly in the north end. So when they dig these sewer lines out, everything comes out. the pipe, the old ground and everything. You put new pipe in and grab all the way back up to the roadway. So when that comes out, it's got to go somewhere. And now it's my understanding that there are no active fuel sites in this town and that all the fuel is being trucked to Anderson County over at Lawrenceburg, which is causing the city millions of dollars. So I just want everyone to hear that I feel like I've been held to an incredible standard. I don't feel like the standards imposed by Lufka meet their goals. And I'm asking for support on the postponement of the asphalt, give my engineers a chance to see what this geogrid system can yield. And if it don't yield it, you know, I'm going to asphalt a lot. Thank you, sir. Anything else? For the moment, yes, but I reserve to come back in later. Yeah, we'll let you have an opportunity to rebut. So we're going to put you on mute now, and we're going to ask at this point, any board members have any questions or follow-up? I do have one question for Autumn, but does anyone else have a question? uh autumn we've had we've heard a couple uh references to the field do we have a i recall there was a history of that but i i'm looking at the report and i'm not it's not jumping out at me that might be a question for josh okay josh you have i thought i had saw it somewhere talking about well this is when the fill occurred but i can't remember one of the letters but i can't seem to put my fingertip on it. Could you remind us? We didn't receive any official documentation on what the film material was. It was reported at one point that people were illegally dumping. I think Matt said people illegally dumped on his site without his permission. He'll be able to say if he removed that or not. So we don't know that it was compacted to a standard that a parking lot would need. Although he did say he had a sheep's foot compactor out there now so it's really just okay hey matt i'm gonna unmute you again i don't know at this point have a question for you matt if you're gonna mute yourself matt you're still on mute can you hear me now yeah i can hear you how long have you owned this site i think i've been out there about three years okay i mean i if you need that precise date i I will, but give me a history of this bill that you referred to. Well, I mean, if you read the letters sent to everyone on 518-20, it has two side histories in it. But I know the time is short, so let me agurgitate it, okay? I've got a stack of papers. Oh, I'm sure you do. Okay, but let me address the old legal feel on this side, okay? because there is such a shortage of legal dump sites in this city, the response to dump on North Broadway was overwhelming. And I had to go across the road and impose on one of my neighbors, and I actually rented a camera that sat in front of her house so we could monitor the field. So there was some illegal field put here without my permission and I removed it all, okay? Again, this site, let me say it this way. The volume of this site, you know, it's holding capacity, was targeted to the sewer line contractors in the north end of Lexington because they have no place to put their field. And it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to truck it out of the county, which is what they're doing. So in an attempt to meet the needs of the city and their EPA mandate on their sewer reclamation projects, I limited this site to only the sewer line contractors. Wait, time out. So you brought Phil into the site? My dump trucks would go to the sewer line contractors. Most of it was out in thoroughbred acres at the time. and my dump trucks and only my dump trucks brought in that field. Now, it talks about illegal field. That was field that was dumped just after I put the entrance in, okay, that was done without my permission, and we called the guys, and we stopped it. We've called two or three people, and I was able to stop it, and I was able to clean it up and contain it. All right. But just to be clear for the record, the fill that is in this spot right now was fill you brought to the site and disposed there. The illegal fill has been removed. So all the fill that is there is fill that you brought onto this site. Exactly. And first of all, let's clarify your legal a little bit. I don't think it's necessary because if you removed... Well, no, here's the point I want to make. It's gone and there's no point to... No, no. Here's the point I want to make. And if you read Autumn's write-up, she used the word improper. And during the time this was filled, mostly during 17, it was the wettest year on record. So to compact this fill with any kind of compactor, is all it's going to do is make a bigger mess. And having the site compacted, there's only one corner that could hold a building. Most of this 500 road front, the time you meet the building setback, there's nothing left. So I just want everybody to understand that I haven't done anything illegal. and I haven't done anything inappropriate. I just want everybody to be clear on that. And if someone thinks different, they need to come forward and say it now. I don't think anyone was applying you to do anything illegal. Well, you know, here's the thing. Listen, let me tell you how this works. I'm in charge and I ask questions. Okay. And I'm asking questions. I just want to know the facts. Okay. Not an elaborate diatribe. the fact i just want to know the fact i was just trying to clarify for the record the bill was brought in by you that we are concerned with today and quote illegal dumping on your site has nothing to do with anything because you clean that up and took it away that's all exactly i just want to clarify the record because we have lots of information okay okay again and miss carter has a question i just want to clarify so um if we're going to postpone that portion of it then Brandon can can you request that motion or are we actually hearing this portion oh I know we're doing a lot of conversation about it I think I mean my pain that ship has sailed but I'll let the board if sort of continue what I say make a motion right now but I think I got the feeling from your comment earlier that nobody was nobody had an appetite to continue this so I agree but I just know mr. menu is still referring to as if you know we it may be an option i just want clarity i would be surprised if that were to occur but sometimes you guys surprise me so i would say though if you want to do a continuance let's do it right now so we can move on to our last case so is anyone on the board want to entertain a motion to discontinue this motion until next month raise your hand please okay i see none um okay at this point i'm going to allow the public to speak It looks like we have Mr. Danforth up first. Yes, sir. Mr. Danforth, you should be able to unmute yourself and speak now. Hello, can you hear me? We can, sir. Welcome. And I think everyone else speaking today was in opposition, was my recollection. Are you here in opposition? Yes, I am. Okay. And then real quick, I forgot to do this earlier. Were you sworn in? Yes, I was. All right. Thank you, sir. and I'll ask Matt that when we get back to him in a few minutes. I don't recall I did that. Please proceed, and it would be helpful if what we like to do with the public, because we've got a couple of you that want to talk, is not to be redundant on points and be concise, but with that being said, please proceed. Well, my one concern was why he was – If he's willing to do all the plannings in these areas, why does he want to remove the easements? If the property's ever transferred later, that property would have no easement to have to work within. I guess, are you referring to the five-foot landscape buffering down to zero? Yes, both along the railroad tracks and the roadway. He says he's going to do all this planning, but he's wanting to remove the easements. Okay, well, we'll let him have an opportunity to speak to that issue when we have him back up here. Is there anything else you want to add? Yes, also on the gravel lot One of the problems is safety That distance there to come out from a gravel lot With a truck onto a 45 mile per hour roadway I would think would be very dangerous In that it would still be tracking out gravel In the truck tires and it could cause severe problems with that going on. I think, sir, the last plan we have in front of us, the portion at the access point will be paved. Yeah, I saw that on the bridge. But I do know, yes, we do know your concern. I understand even if it was paved, there could still be gravel stuck in the tires of the trucks. Yeah, I was an inspector for the engineering department for 30 years, and most of the farm roads that have the gravel on them, if you go look after it's rocked or a truck comes out, you'll have gravel at that entrance. Anything else you'd like to discuss today, Mr. Danforth? That's all. All right. Well, I appreciate it. We're going to mute you again, and we're going to bring up Patrick Watson. Before we do, sir, Ms. Autumn Goddard-Vice. Oh, I'm sorry. Autumn, I didn't see your hand. With regard to the variances, if those were to be approved, that would be tied to this application and to the site plan, and that would transfer with the property variances, go with the land. So if the next potential owner wanted to continue, they would have to meet the same conditions that we established today and any approval for our landscape variance. That may help with that. Thank you, ma'am. We will be now allowing Mr. Patrick Watson to go ahead and speak. Mr. Watson, you can unmute yourself and speak now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess my video screen isn't working. I apologize for that. Um, I just want to ask one question. First of all, if you could clarify, I don't understand if Mr. Minyard actually withdrew his variance request for the VUA buffer or not, because I think that if he clearly did withdraw that, then we can eliminate one of the issues that we want to raise. But there was, he kind of indicated he'd be willing to agree, but I don't understand if he actually withdrew it or if he just said that he would comply if the variance was denied. Could we get clarification on that, please, sir? Matt, raise your hand if you were withdrawing any of your requests today. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Okay. As it pertains to what Counselor Watson is. I think he's talking about the five-foot buffer around the perimeter. Yeah. I'm going to withdraw that and work closely with environmental services there. I will share the recommendations of the environmental service on the five-foot-to-zero with Watson if he feels that's necessary. Thank you, sir. So right now we're left with the railroad landscape buffering, which staff has recommended approval for, and we have the gravel parking lot, which staff has recommended disapproval, Mr. Watts. I think those are the two items we have before us now. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, I'll proceed. I submitted some written materials at the end of last week. Hopefully you all received a copy of that packet. We did receive those. Thank you. I just really want to touch on a couple of those. I don't need to go through it all because some of its staff has already gone over. But as it pertains to the administrative appeal for the gravel lot, I do want to point out a couple of things. And they all relate back to Mr. Minier's development plan that was approved by the Planning Commission back February of last year. And there's a couple things. One, that he did propose that it would be a parking lot that would be used. So these changes now seem to differ from that enough that maybe an amendment to that development plan would be appropriate. And also, I don't think that there's any unique circumstances at play here because in the development plan, it included notes that stated that Mr. Minion had expected to need to wait two or even three years before he would be able to do anything with the property before the field could settle. and uh so that also goes to the fact that i don't think that there's any undue hardship that is being placed on mr miniard here because uh once again he acknowledged that there would be that time that he would have to wait on the property before he would even consider doing something like paving with it so until we uh at least let that time run i don't i don't think that it would be appropriate for this board to consider um his appeal on the gravel parking lot those are the issues that i wanted to raise about the appeal as it pertains to the remaining variants on the back portion of the lot. We are supportive of approving it as staff has proposed with the condition in there being the pre-planning that Mr. Minard is proposing. I think that ultimately that will be sufficient to address our concern with it. But if you would look at the materials that I submitted on the, I think it was on the eighth page. And it was also available in the staff report, there were overhead shots of the site that showed that before Mr. Miniard started, it was heavily wooded. And so I would want to raise the possibility that actions that he's taken against the property, or pertaining to the property kind of have put him in the dilemma he's in needing a variance on that but that's not something that we feel like we need to raise if the board is willing to go along with the conditions that staff has proposed thank you sir um is there anyone else um on the audience is that a that new phone number uh yes it is sir so we will give us one second we've got what youtube uh patrick we're going to bring on this new telephone caller. This is 859-229-0609. Brandon, that's... Oh, is that you, Joan? That's me. I'm losing power on my iPad. Okay. All right, we'll mark that as Joan Whitman. So, we're going to promote to a... Yeah. Actually, we'll just I am going to mute you, Joan, just so that we don't get the... Yes, please. Okay. And then, unfortunately, if we lose video of you, Joan, I don't think you count as a quorum. Ms. Jones, did you confirm that? Autumn, you're still on mute. Autumn, you're on mute. No, there we go. We do still have a quorum if Joan wanted to recuse herself from this one. Well, I guess my question is, is she allowed to vote and participate if she's not? No. No. Okay. If she's on our cell phone. No, she's not on the cell phone. Oh, right. She has to be visible on the screen. She has to be visible on the screen if she could join from her, if she has a smartphone, if she could join via the Zoom app instead of just calling in. She could use her phone camera. That would be an option. Okay. Let's unmute her. Joan, can you hear us? Can you hear us, Joan? Joan, are you there? Joan? Looks like we've heard of the last Joan. We'll keep you unmuted in case you're able to join us. But just so everyone knows, until she has video capabilities, she will not be able to participate in our voting underneath the public records. Open records. Open meetings. Sorry. There we go. I got it right. I had all the words. It was all jumbled up. So the open meetings requires us to be on video. And so until we're able to hopefully, Joan, your telephone, you can get the Zoom app. I've used that. And it does work. it's a little it's a little more clunky but it will work for you okay so is anyone else in the audience raise your hand if you want to participate and comment on this application if not I'm gonna ask for Matt if you would I'm gonna give you three minutes for a rebuttal and wrap up a summary before I close public discussions and then we'll open up for the board discussion so matt you've got your uh three minutes of summary rebuttal and summary now can you hear me now yes we can oh okay okay well just in reference to dan danforth you know i've worked with him before on other injured infield uh developments and i respect his judgment um And if I'm able to get a continuance on just the asphalt portion of this, one of the applications of the geo grid is that it would hold like number two size rocks, which will not get caught in tires and move and therefore will not be on the road. And secondly, in this particular section of North Broadway, it's a federal road, and the Highway Department regularly drives by this property and requires brooming and grooming of their asphalt. So that's something I just want everybody to take into consideration. Then as it pertains to what Councillor Watson said, yes, the lot was heavily wooded with rotten trees. One of my goals here, other than having a water filter, is to restore the side slopes with evergreen plants that will create a blanket around the property and hold it up in the suspended, create the illusion that's suspended in the air to put a retail platform for sheds and barns. As far as the railroad goes, back behind the rear of my lot, and again, trying to reach out to Counselor Watson and his clients, all that will become just like a green canopy of evergreen trees. Now, it's going to take time for these trees to get up in size, which will give this fill material that went in excessively wet to settle more. And given enough time, and I'm not going to speak to how many years it will take to grow a tree back there, but given enough time when these evergreens take, it's going to create a green backdrop right along the highway. I mean, from the highway, you can sit in your car and look across this property and see a blanket of green all across the railroad bed. So, I just wanted to address Mr. Watson. So, I still want to reserve the right to rebuttal to anyone else. I happen to notice, we got Joan Whitman up on the screen. Yeah, she's back. Actually, this is the rebuttal because we're not taking any more public testimony. Oh, okay. So I'm asking, let's be clear then, I spent my three minutes, but that I'm asking for a postponement just on the asphalt to look at this geo grid thing. This is a new technology. It's something the city ought to consider, and it's something the Royal Springs folks ought to consider, but I still reserve the right to put asphalt on it, okay? I thank you for granted, you know, for the staff's recommendation as it pertains to the variance on the railroad as far as working with Evergreen, I mean, environmental services on the hedges and the fence. I don't think that's going to be a problem going forward. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, at this point, I'm going to close public comment. I'm going to remind the board that we now on your sheet. Sir, you have Mr. Barber. Okay, give me one second, Tommy. I'll let you talk. And number two, the variance to reduce the vehicular area per member landscape buffer from five to zero has been withdrawn. on so we only have two items uh before us now uh mr glover um we're gonna go ahead and lower your hand and you can unmute yourself and uh and proceed thank you sir i just wanted to remind the board that there are really only two questions before us and that is the request to allow construction of a temporary gravel parking lot uh we discussed that uh substantially we got I think we got kind of off the subject for a little bit, but only his request to establish a temporary gravel parking lot was before us. And the other request, of course, is the request that the staff has recommended approval, and that is a variance to reduce the property perimeter landscape buffer that abuts the railroad. So those two questions are really the only two that were before us. Thank you. And whether he wants to investigate putting down some other kind of surface other than gravel, that's up to him. But the staff has recommended against putting down gravel on the parking lot. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Joan, your camera's gone dark again, just to let you know. Here we go. There she is. She's back. oh what she's partially back yeah Joe we're getting bits and pieces of your of your face and your head she's on her phone yeah perfect stop it don't move it again that's perfect you got it so at this point does anyone else on the board have any comments or are we ready to have a motion if we're for a motion raise your hand and i'll call on you tommy glover raises his hand first looks like no i'm just ready i'm you asked if anybody's ready for a motion i'm ready for a motion well miss carter has her hand raised okay okay um on administrative appeal pln boa 20-00010 Realty Unlimited Bluegrass LLC's request for one an administrative appeal to allow construction of a temporary gravel parking lot to be paid at a later date and two, no. Move on to three. Yeah that's right and two of their and secondly a variance to reduce the property perimeter landscape buffer where any zone abuts a railroad from 15 feet to zero feet at property located in highway service business zone at 1760 North Broadway. I recommend approval for the variance to reduce the property perimeter landscape buffer where any zone abuts a railroad for 15 feet to zero feet and I recommend disapproval of the administrative appeal to allow construction of a temporary gravel parking lot to be paved in a lighter date based on the staff's recommendations. and on your first part needs to be subject to the three conditions I'm sorry and subject to the three conditions listed applicable to the reduction of the perimeter landscape abutting the railroad thank you good job Mr. Glover do you have a question you second it I'm seconding all right Mr. Glover I second at this point we have a motion on the floor any discussion? Hearing none, I will call a vote. Please raise your hand if you are in favor of the motion. Ms. Whitman? There you go. All hands are raised. Unancially, the motion was approved. So the variance from 15 to 0 has been approved and the disapproval of the administrative appeal was also approved and that finishes that case good luck with your project Matt the next item on the agenda is the last case of the day and I apologize ladies and gentlemen I thought we'd be done by five but it looks like we will run over at this point but it is PLN VOA 20-25 Aaron and Amy Jute regarding their appeal for Montclair. We do have a number of people in the audience who will want to be heard. We will go ahead and bring up the applicant to the panel. Mr. Jute and then Mr. Bide also. And then I believe Autumn, you were going to give us since this is a disapproval, you will give us the first fact sheet. That is correct. So once everyone gets settled, and if you are in the audience and want to speak, raise your hand, and that way Hal knows to make sure you're on the list. And has anyone else joined us since earlier today? We still have the same individuals that I can see right now, including the individuals that called in. The individuals that called in, currently we just have two. We lost one. Okay. And we will take them likely first just so that there is no issue with the raising. Perfect. Okay. At this point, Autumn, please proceed. Before you go, Autumn, Mr. Bide, if you would go ahead and unmute yourself. Thank you very much. All right, the application before you now is PLN VOA 20-25, Aaron and Amy Judy, request an administrative appeal to contest the Division of Building Inspections issuance of a construction permit based on the Division of Planning sign-off regarding the front and side yard setbacks of a proposed construction within the Montclair neighborhood ND1 overlay in a single-family residential R1C zone at 1203 Summit Drive. The subject property is located at the corner of Cooper Drive and Summit. Let me get my pointer back up here again. Alright, so we're looking at the corner property here and again here at a little more zoomed out distance. As you can see the property has been vacant. There's not been a house there. And we will click through to the next slide. Alright, so we're just going to, since this is an appeal of planning's interpretation of the ND-1, we did not make a recommendation of approval or disapproval for the appeal. So we're just going to present a chronology of events and then give the opportunity to speak to the appellant and to the property owner. What you see before you is the original 1933 plat for the property. This property here. The dashed line you see is the building line as defined on that plat. It shows a 30-foot building line on Cooper Drive, which is here, and a 40-foot building line along Summit Drive. As you can see, this property is curved in relation to the road. Because of that, the platted building line is less than 30 feet to Cooper Drive for a short distance and less than 40 feet to Summit Drive for much of the Summit Drive frontage. So as you can see, the line goes across all these lots and for the most of them is truly 40 feet from Summit Drive. But since this property curves, it is closer here. In October 2010, the Planning Commission approved the Montclair Neighborhood Design Character Overlay Zone and the associated design standards. This was approved by Council and became effective in January of 2011. At that meeting, it was noted by the neighborhood's representation that one of the goals was to utilize site planning standards reflective of the existing pattern of yards, setbacks, and garages. Design Standard 9 indicated that the minimum and maximum front setbacks for each street be as listed. The setback for Summit Drive is 40 to 50 feet and for Cooper Drive is 30 to 40 feet. These were developed based on the existing construction along those streets and the historic platt. In August of 2018, the current property owner of 1203 Summit contacted the Division of Planning with the original building platt from 1933. Since the platted building line does not run parallel to the public right-of-way, which is the line you see here with the property line, which is adjacent to the public right-of-way and the sidewalk. Since the building line did not run parallel to that, staff was concerned at first, but once the applicant had a survey or create a scale drawing of the plat, it confirmed that the plat of building lines were correct and that this was the buildable area as defined by the plat. In April of 2020, the applicant applied for construction permit for a new residential structure as shown here and planning staff came to the determination that this site plan was approvable based on the original plot from the 1930s and the survey drawing. Overall the early subdivision plans were instrumental in creating the neighborhood character that the ND1 sought to protect so that's where the staff's recommendation came from. So as you can see the building line is this dashed line here. It juts over at an angle here and goes across the front. The building permit was issued on May 12th and on May 20th Mr. Judy files an appeal alleging that the building permit was issued in error. Brandon, can we move back one slide? This is just an orientation. So on the Cooper side is what's being considered the front face of the building? The front face of the building is here. This is along Summit Drive. This will be the 5th Street side yard. Gotcha. So Summit is- The front face is Summit. Gotcha. And I can't recall, has this always been a vacant lot? Because I know one building's come down in the area recently. I just think it's always been a vacant lot. Okay. And so the front yard will face Summit and the side yard will face Cooper. Correct. Alright, perfect. That's all. I just want to make sure I was oriented right on the building plans. So here is a drawing that shows the proposed house. The area that is here was shown in the earlier drawing. This is because that is a covered front porch, so that's not actually part of what is required to meet the setback. Projections have a different requirement, so that's been omitted here. So again, you can see the dashed line shows what was platted. Mr. Judy's assertion is that the listed men and max for the front and side yards of the ND1 should have been applied parallel to the public right-of-way. So as you can see on my quick sketch here, the green line represents 30 feet parallel to the public right-of-way, and the blue line represents 40 along Summit Drive. So the portions of the house that I have outlined in black are what are at stake here. Mr. Judy's assertion is that the entire front of the building should have been between behind the 30 foot line and behind this 40 foot line. Again, the plat goes beginning at 40 feet here where the lot actually has the depth going straight over, jutting across here, and then going straight up here. Again, to where it meets the 30. So at times the building line is a bit further than 30 and at times it is closer than 30. and I will stop my share now, and I can answer any questions first if you would like. Yeah, let's see if there are any questions while you have the graphs up. Board, please raise your hand if you want to ask Sodom any questions at this time related to what she has put on the share screen. Okay, Autumn, I see none, so please proceed. All right, I have stopped my share and at this time we would probably want to hear from the appellant. Let me ask you before we do that, did you pull up the, and I may, while I was looking at stuff, did you pull up the ND1 guidelines on your thing that were in question? I can. yeah let's go ahead and pull those up on the share screen since they were discussed but I don't recall seeing them give me one second I thought I had them in here Thank you. it was number four says design standard number nine indicates minimum maximum this says for some it is 40 to 50 feet for Cooper's 30 to 40 and I was just curious about all right I will share my screen I pulled up the actual ND1 standards that actual document. All right and that should be sharing and I'll scroll down here to item number nine. Okay so it looks like to me the minimum maximum front setbacks for each street says Cooper does it say 30 to 40 feet so Cooper Drive could be up to 40 feet for the setback? Correct, that's the maximum. But we're within 30 to 40 feet. There's a small portion that is closer than 30 feet. Okay, and then what about on the summit side? On the summit side the minimum is 40 and the maximum is 50. Let me pull that PowerPoint back up. Yeah, I think if you could elaborate a little bit. So 40, the blue curved line shows the 40 foot line. If it were to run here. You're on share screen still on the ND1. You shared a certain program. Okay, let me stop share and start again. Sorry. Okay. Can you see the PowerPoint now? Yes. Okay. The blue line represents 40 feet from the right of way. So you have the curved sidewalk here. So the 40 feet is shown by the blue line. And you can see here there's a narrow black line. That would be the 50 foot maximum. Okay. Okay. Along Cooper, you see the green line represents the 30 foot. Okay. So the portions that I have outlined in black are the portions that are closer than 30 and 40 feet, but are still within the plaited building line, which... Okay, I see. So in 1933, this was plaited. Correct. It set building lines. And due to its awkward location, it has a relatively awkward building line setback, but the building that's being proposed falls within that setback. And the question is, does the ND1 trump that original plaque? Okay, and has legal weighed in on its opinion on that? If we have a discrepancy between a record plat and ND1 proposed plat, I mean setback lines, which one governs? This is for you to decide. That's what the appeal is. Oh, for us to interpret? Yes. Okay. That seems easy enough. So at this point, anyone have any questions for the staff or for Autumn? Want to discuss anything? If not, I will let Mr. Judy and Mr. Bide have an opportunity to speak. We'll start with Mr. Judy since he's named. He's the named applicant. All right. Is he unmuted or do we need to unmute? He should be unmuted. Yeah, unmute yourself, Mr. Judy. I mean, I'm sorry. There you go. Now you're ready. yes I just I dropped off my phone we can hear you now okay perfect so yes as Autumn discussed and went through when you know ND1 overlay that's where we're at. Obviously, you know, I've talked to a lot of the neighbors in the neighborhood. I know we've all been on this call for like two and a half, three hours. So I'm going to try to make this as quick as possible. We're almost to four. What's that? We're almost to four. Yeah, so almost to four. Yeah. So obviously, you know, this neighborhood has established a long time ago. I've talked to a lot of neighbors that, that pushed the ND1 to get pushed through and all the effort in the year done and, and, you know, everyone to go by those rules. And so, you know, their, their process to me was, you know, make sure that all our efforts aren't just taken away, you know, at, at the drop of a hack. That's what I'm doing. And so I wanted to first go back to an ordinance that's Article 1. It's general provisions and it's in the LFUCG book that my counsel has given me. And I sent that over to Autumn, but I can share that with everybody. And it's... Is this in the zoning ordinance? This isn't in the ND1. Can you see this now? Uh-huh. So we're looking at 5-1, conflict of ordinance. So it's the first sentence, and it basically says that whenever there's two different variances that are going on, the more severe shall be and should be put more restrictive, should be governed the law. And so the 35 foot build line on summit is the more stricter from the 1930 plot line. So that one should be enforced. And then obviously you have the 40 to 50 on, on summit. And so the, cause there's obviously two now there's the ND one and then there's the flat line, which is 35 feet. And unfortunately, Autumn did say it was 30 feet when she was explaining it to everybody. It's actually a 35 feet build line on Cooper. I'm Cooper, I apologize. And it's 40. So I just wanted to share that with you and make sure everyone knows what that ordinance is. And we all have that. And then I was going to show you also what my surveyors had done, which is pretty easy for the owner of the lot to be able to build on. Let's see this real quick. So this is what the surveyors had done. So like Autumn had said, this is the original 1930 40-foot build line and then it comes right here and this becomes 35 feet. So this This goes all the way back, if you guys can see that. And then this would be the trans build line, ND1 overlay. So it kind of curves along Summit and then onto Cooper as it goes back. And so basically, you know, I think the options would be is to push the house back and then meet the ND1, that trans line, this line right here. And then, you know, they would be able to build the house. and ND1 would be, you know, approved, you know, gone through and he meets the ND1 overlay. And so that's, you know, that's the easiest one. Or they can keep the house as is and go through a variance process. So I think those are the two easiest things to, you know, get them started on their house and get them moved into the neighborhood. Thank you, sir. I'm going to now turn it to the committee. does anyone have any questions for uh mr jute judy sorry i'm gonna get this right eventually okay thank you sir um i will go ahead and put you back on mute and then uh mr bide if you want to uh proceed thanks everyone appreciate the opportunity to uh to speak to the board share my screen here okay can everyone see that yes all right so just i want to walk through uh my thinking my wife and i's thinking um the first thing i just want to point out is is that we we purchased this lot in this neighborhood because of the character and the design criteria that the nd1 seeks to preserve We believe that the neighborhood did a wise and worthwhile thing when they decided to take the steps to preserve the neighborhood that they love. And we're grateful that they did that because we now have an opportunity to raise a family here in a neighborhood that we have admired for many years. and we were very intentional about designing a house that would stand out not for how not for how it was different or rather for how well it fit in to the architectural styles that are already present in the neighborhood this is I'm just going to give you guys a couple of examples here but we we went to we went to great lengths to design a house that paid respect as to some of the greater features that you can find in the neighborhood specifically the curved roof over 1207 summit we're paying respect to that in our design also at 1251 eldomere with that curved brick entryway above their porch we're paying respect to that and I think it's worth mentioning I believe the curved roof line in our plans is a perfect complement to the beautiful curve of the road and the sidewalk at the intersection of Summoning Cooper. So I just, I say all that and I show these pictures because I believe that it's important to know that we want to build a house that the neighborhood can be proud of. We want to build a house that fits into the neighborhood. And honestly, we've had a dream for years that we've articulated this way. We want to build a new house that looks like an old house in an old neighborhood. And I think that we have accomplished that with these designs. But before I head into this next section of the presentation, I want to just make a quick note to those neighbors in Montclair that are on the call today. What I'm about to walk through is a very technical discussion regarding zoning ordinances and legal languages in the ordinances. And it may sound like I am arguing against the ND1, and that is not absolutely not the case. Like I've already said, we believe that the general intent of the design standards of the ND1 are a good thing. We want to build a house that the neighborhood can be proud of. What we're doing today is we're having a very necessary discussion about where a house can sit on this lot. So this, Mr. Judy referred to section 15, the conflict of ordinance and I'm going to also refer to that I have all of the the language of that section here for you I'm not going to read it word for word but I just wanted to share it to show you what I'm anchoring the next three or four slides to here's the summary there are three sentences in section one five the first the first says that when there's a conflict the more restrictive ordinance shall govern which Mr. Judy called attention to the second sentence states that when there are subdivision plans that are approved by the planning commission that have features that are in excess of the minimum ordinance requirements such features as shown on that approved plan shall govern and then there's a third sentence about private deed restrictions i've i've grayed that out here because i don't believe that it's relevant to the discussion that we're having so just i want to walk through step by step of that second sentence of of the section one five of the zoning limits. When a subdivision when subdivision and development plans which you have here I've shown you here this is the official platter record with the city are approved by the planning commission. I have here a screenshot of the approval albeit it's it's a 1933 approval. It's fascinating to me that we're discussing discussing a handwritten note 1933 but here we are. Contains setback or other features in excess the minimum zoning ordinance requirements and I have two images here that show on the left on your left you'll see the building line as it is drawn on the map and I've also done another scale drawing that shows what what would be a strict application of the ND1. I have a 40-foot line that is parallel to Summit and I have a 30-foot line that is parallel to Cooper. And you can see that the building line as it was drawn in 1933 is in excess of the current zoning ordinances that you'd find the ND1. So there's no disputing that. But what Section 15, the second sentence of Section 15 says that such features as shown on the approved plan shall govern and shall be enforced by the responsible division established by the zoning ordinance. So again, I just want to go back to those first two sentences here. When you're considering lot one, block G, unit two of the Montclair subdivision, the first two statements of section 15 of the zoning ordinance are in conflict with each other. The first says that the more restrictive ordinance shall govern. And the second says, when you have an approved plan with features that are in excess, those features as shown on the approved plan shall govern. And so the corner of that unique, that unique lot was referred to as an awkward lot earlier, has always been the crux of the matter. And that has been obvious to us from the very beginning when we purchased this lot. And so we have went to great lengths to make sure that we have built a lot, a plan to house and will build a house that sits within that building line that is on that approved plan. That is the official plan of record with the city. not one brick will be outside of the building line that is on the approved plan and so before I before I go into this next slide I want to I just I want to I want to I want to pivot to to another piece of this I think what I've shown here is that that we are in compliance with certainly the zoning ordinance we have two sentences that are here that are that are equal but separate sentences. I think that there's not a mechanism in the drafting of the document that would show that one takes precedence over the other. I believe that just by the nature of the positioning, the order of those sentences, that second sentence creates a necessary contingency to the first, where you have the first being the more restrictive ordinance shall govern, but the second allows for approved features on an approved plan to govern. So before I move into this next section, I think that it's clear, in my opinion, that we are in compliance with both the ND1, because the ND1 drew on these original plans and these original drawings, the original design, the original purpose of the neighborhood, and we are planning and plan to build a house that also is in line with that original intent of the neighborhood. But if there's a disagreement about that, I think that there is another mechanism available to us in the zoning ordinance that would allow for modifications. I don't believe that we are not requesting a modification. I don't think a modification is necessary. I think the city was right and correct in their decision and their application of the building line. But I do want to move into that language just to cover it because I think it could be relevant here as well. So here is the language in Section 6-7 regarding modification or amendments of an ND1 overlay. it says that planning when when deciding to approve or not approve a modification or amendment it says that planning shall consider whether a request arises from a special circumstance that does not generally apply to land in the same overlay district uh i'll show that that is the case it says that the planning should consider whether a strict application will deprive the applicant of reasonable use i'll show that is the case it says that planning should consider whether a strict application would create an unnecessary hardship and it says that planning should consider whether the general intent and the preservation goals are being met so i want to walk through those uh one by one as well when you're considering the setback provisions of the nd1 uh the unique of the unique curve shape of the 1203 sun and drop you must consider that a special circumstance This is Brandon Chair. What's before us today is not whether you could potentially apply for and receive a variance or whether you could potentially ask for an amendment to the ND1. What's before us today is really, is this, which building line should be used? Should it be the 1933 Platt building line? Or has the ND1 ordinance, as adopted by city council, trumped that 1933? and so therefore you need to use the more recent building line setback which I think would then make the tips of your building design not in compliance that's the question I think before us is that right autumn is that how and I'll let you continue to speak that's what I don't want you to get on essentially a side issue that's not before us we need to focus on which one is applicable um if we've got a plaque that conflicts with the ordinance mr glover your hand is up sir um unmute yourself tommy he he acknowledged that when he uh started that alternate argument that's what he said before he went into that he said that he didn't think that that it was necessary to go into it but as long as he was on camera he would show us that second yeah and i guess i'm saying it's five o'clock so i say it's not necessary to go into it okay yeah only because it's not an issue before us today fair enough yeah um so mr bide please proceed if you've got anything more that's germane to the issue before us Well, I believe that the question of whether or not the proposal that Mr. Judy has made, the question should be asked, is that a reasonable use of the lot? And I think that the answer to that is no. He has proposed pushing back the House by a significant margin. And the fact is, is that we, prior to purchasing this lot, we confirmed with planning what was the buildable area of this lot. And they confirmed that the building line, as it was shown on the official plot of record, was valid. I think that I have shown that when you look at the language in the zoning ordinance, section 1-5, you have two separate statements. One says that the more restrictive shall govern, but the very next statement says that when you have an approved subdivision plan with features that are in excess, those features as shown on the approved plan shall govern. um and so it's it's important to me it's important to me to be able to show that if we if we were to to adopt the proposal that Mr. Judy has made um you are not you are not recognizing that a special circumstance is at hand you would not you would be depriving an app the applicant of reasonable use um what he's proposed what he is proposing is a strict application of the ND1 that strict application would create an unnecessary hardship on on my wife and I and we believe that the general intent and the preservation goals of the ND1 are being met so I'm happy to not to not go through this I can show you some of these I mean this this is the definition of special circumstance in my mind this shows all the properties in the ND1 you have vast majority of them being rectangular lots and we have we have 1203 Summit which is a curved lot with a curved property line and therefore the strict application of that curved property line must be considered a special circumstance. Here I've shown it here even a strict application of that property line creates a disjointed building line. It's critical to reconcile those disjointed setbacks to establish a buildable area that ensures reasonable use. And it's interesting to note that when you look at the official plat of record from 1933, they have created, they prescribed a uniquely shaped building line that fits this lot so that it would allow for reasonable use. It's interesting to note that a lot that's on the opposite side of Summit, that's also an irregular shaped lot, they did draw a building line that was parallel to the property line. So it seems that special consideration was given in 1933 to the shape of lot one's building line to ensure reasonable use. In another view here, what I've done here is I've drawn a strict application of the setback using the 40-foot minimum on Summit. And the bolded out area would show what the buildable area of the lot would be if you were to start as close to someone as you would be allowed to. You could go 55 feet back from the front plane of the building. And I think everyone would agree that a house of this shape and size, it doesn't necessarily have to be this shape, but you have to fit in that shape. A house of that shape and size would certainly not be in harmony with the existing character of the neighborhood, which is a goal, Section 291C of the zoning ordinance. that that's a goal of the Indy One to build properties that are in harmony with the existing character you might say well let's say let's look at the maximum let's see let's push the house back a little bit more and if you use that 55 foot line as a guide this that image on the right is what you would see you have you have an obviously awkwardly shaped area it's a building and so just back again to this, this whole thing has always been about the corner and where you are allowed to build a house on this lot. I'm just going to go back to these two drawings where you show the official plat of record and you show the disagreement between the official plat and what would be a strict application of the building line. And the second sentence of section 15 of zoning ordinance very clearly states that such features as shown on our improved plan shall govern. So again, I'm not going to, I don't want to keep going. Everyone is anxious to be complete here. So thank you guys for the opportunity. We are not opposed to the ND1. We believe in the general intent and the purpose of the ND1, which is to preserve the beauty of the neighborhood. The reason why we want to build here is because of that beauty. We've admired the neighborhood for years. And so we're excited about the opportunity to get moving on this project. And again, thanks for the time and happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. I think we're off mute. You have had to jump out for a second. So there will be some delay on unmuting people. In the meantime, I'm going to ask Ms. Jones, because at some point, Ms. Jones is going to need to tell us, as the board, what is the legal question before us. And just so everyone is aware, these administrative appeals, unlike a court where lawyers brief and issues are narrowed, a lot of times this is more like what you see on TV, which is we're determining things based upon what has presented us that day. and so we try to make the best decision that we can given the information before us. Raquel, I'm not sure. Are you able to unmute yourself or does Hal have you muted? There you go. You can go ahead and speak. I saw your hand was up. Go ahead. I had a question in regards to how the house sits next, I mean, lined up to 1207 to your neighbor on the left. I can pull the aerial again. yeah please do honor yes that was my question too thank you for all right so you're able to see the aerials now yes so as you can see the houses are in line along but this is the 40-foot building line that has been platted so what is proposed and I'll go over here to oh you can't see my spotlight can you here what is being proposed with the applicant or I'm sorry what what mr. V construction permit is for is in line with these houses what mr. Judy is asserting would require the house to be back further which would be inconsistent with the neighborhood character in the opinion of staff and the plot. I was thinking, yeah, that was my point exactly. I was thinking you'd want some continuity on the street. It would be pretty important. I keep using my cursor too. I think that there could be a similar situation here as well where this curve happens. I don't know what the history is with that. Okay and then looking at the ND1, the design number 9, it says the minimum setback will be 40 feet and the maximum front setback will be 50 feet. Correct. And we and they have currently, is it 30 feet in the front? No, it's... The main plane of the house here is at 40. This distance from here to here is 40. so so they satisfy that and and then on Cooper it's 30 feet right and they satisfy that in accordance with with the platted building line okay the building line is 40 consistently but it's not parallel to the curve so technically this corner here for example is closer than 40 feet. Okay and I guess the way that the black portions are what is outside of the 40 foot curved line. The platted building line was not curved. It went straight across and then jutted diagonally and straight. Mr. Clark, I saw your hand was up. Yes, thank you. I'm very concerned that this house would be back further than the rest of the street. That would really bother me if I lived in this neighborhood and wanted things to look like everybody else's house. To set that back at this point just to satisfy the Indy-1, I think would be a mistake. And I certainly understand the quality of the Indy-1 and how important that is. But in this particular example, I think an exception really is important. And I think if you really look at it, even the neighbors would see that this would line up much better than if we had to move that house back. That's my two cents worth. Any additional questions before? I know we have a number of people in the audience that want to speak on this issue. Any more questions for Mr. Judy or Mr. Biden or staff at this point? If not, what we'll do is we'll mute you gentlemen, and then we will open this up to the public. I would ask, since we're at 530, for people not to be repetitive, but we will give everyone a few minutes to express whether they're in favor or opposed and then why you could, like I said, kind of keep this condensed. I do know, I'm not sure if Mr. Cecil is here representing somebody or if he's in his own behalf. So, but we'll start with him, if you don't mind. Ms. Donner-Weiss has her hand, right? Oh, okay, yes, go ahead, Honor. I would maybe just note for the public comment to keep in mind what is at hand here is the appeal of whether or not planning's interpretation is correct, not whether or not they think the House should be further back. So not necessarily the aesthetic quality, perhaps, of what is being proposed, but whether or not planning interpreted the ordinance correctly. Yeah, which is what I'm going to want to make sure Ms. Jones gives us a good summary. of the issue at hand once we close public testimony. And Mr. Glover your hand is up. Well that's essentially what I wanted to say the same thing that we what we're considering is whether or not the construction permit was issued correctly or was not. And it seems to me like section 1.5 as summarized by Mr. Vee answers a question I'm not sure that we need a legal opinion from Tracy but if she wants to weigh in that's fine well I'm not asking necessarily for a legal opinion I just want her to make sure because the way I read that second part of the statute is excess in excess in the minimum and us to figure out what exactly if that's what we're supposed to be looking at. And I don't think we are. I think we just answered the question that was that's on the appeal, whether the permit was issued appropriately. And that's a and that's a subjective opinion that we can answer. I don't think that we need legal, but you certainly answer if you think if you if she thinks that we do. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Okay, at this point, we will have Mr. Cecil. Mr. Cecil will go and then we'll go to the phone number if that's all right. Oh yeah, just to confirm with that. It is real fast. Give me 10 seconds. I'll be right back. Do you want to take a brief... Before we get to public comments? No. Or no. Okay. Keep this train rolling. Okay, that's perfect. All right. Mr. Cecil, I'm going to allow you to speak real quick. Go right ahead. This train has no brakes, ladies. We're moving forward. okay thank you mr chairman can you hear me okay we can okay yeah now again i represent one of the property owners there off summit drive uh just listening to the discussion and i was sort of of late to the party here on getting involved in this but the the way i understand it and mr uh judy's platt i think it's important if he hasn't made that part of the record that it gets in uh uh to the for the findings today the one that he brought up on on the screen when he went through his appeal, the one from CAM surveying, because it shows the building line off of Cooper and Summit with the curve along that line. The way I understand it, the Platte, 1933 Platte shows a setback line off of Cooper of 35 feet, and then off of, and then the ND1 and the Platte show a setback of 40 feet and uh and that plat that mr judy had shows that curve if you take the curve around um from cooper to summit and i think the law when you interpret uh kras 100 and these sorts of issues is pretty clear that the more restrictive applies and i think if you have the more restrictive of those to apply the areas in black shown on miss goddor was his drawing would be outside of the building line and that would require variance as you said that the the question today is whether the building construction permit was granted correctly and i think given the fact that you have those two lines and the curve as shown on mr judy's plat those areas are obviously outside of the building line that would require variance from the board of adjustment so again and there's a whole line of cases dealing with restrictive uses and the more restrictive apply. Also, the ordinance, I think the chairman kind of brought this up. It says in excess of, and to me, that indicates that if the development plan has a setback that is in excess of the minimum, then that would apply. And of course, in this case, it is not. The way the line is shown on the development plan is actually closer to these areas than the setbacks on the plat as well as the ones in the ND1. So that's my understanding of the issue. Hello? Yeah, we're here. And I'll be here to answer any questions on behalf of my client, but that's my take on it. Okay, thank you, sir. I'm going to note a couple things just for clarification is that there is a recorded plat from 1933 but there is no subsequent plat because the nda was approved but it's not actually a plat that you could pull down it's just it's just its own ordinance that kind of overlays the area um correct yes but it's got a restriction for the setback that is more restrictive than the plan. And the law, I think, is very clear that the more restrictive of the two would apply if you look at the cases. That's my two cents on it. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. We will be disabling Mr. Cecil. Okay. And then we will be going to the phone call. Hello, the phone caller in, you're up. Hi, you indicated that you would like to speak earlier in the day. You are on the phone line right now. If there is a phone caller that would like to speak at this point in time, please say hi. All right, well, let's just put her out. We can, or him out. We can try again. Yeah, and that will bring us to Mr. James Beam. Mr. James Beam, you're up to talk. If you would like to unmute yourself. Now, can you hear me? Yes, sir. Good evening. Good evening. Thanks very much for having the chance to render an opinion. I am a resident in Montclair neighborhood. We live on the corner of Eldemere and Montclair. We've been here 35 years. We live in one of the double lots. There were six double lots in this neighborhood when it was first created back in 1933, 32. And only two of them have curves. only one of those with a curve now is being sold it's never had a house on it so this is an issue without precedent how do you handle reasonably the layout where it's curved off and you can't square off your house to keep it even with the other houses there is a lot of controversy in the neighborhood, very divided opinions, some who believe that the regulation and law should be enforced strictly, others not so much. My belief is that the intent of the rule is what should govern in a decision. Since you have no precedent to make on a curved lot, and you only have one other choice to make it in the future, which is a house across the street, you must decide based on the intent of the regulation, which is to preserve neighborhood aesthetic character and design. And although my original email to become involved in this said I agreed that the rule should be enforced, once I saw the plan and measured out the small degree of, if you would call it violation, I thought it fit the character of the neighborhood better to let it be approved as is. So this is not the neighborhood's opinion, it's a divided opinion. But I think that there is good reason that the board can consider approving this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Bean. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Bean before we disable him. Okay, thank you, sir. Well, next up is Guinness. Would Guinness like to speak now? The individual whose Zoom account is titled Guinness. Now, if you'd like to unmute yourself. so. I'm going to request that you unmute yourself. Maybe that will help you. All right, let's go to Mr. Parker. Oh, Ms. Parker. Sorry. Individual that is under Guinness, I'm going to disable your speaking. If you would like to speak in a little bit, go ahead and raise your hand again but we're gonna move on. Miss Parker would you like to speak please? Yes I would. Alright you are up good evening. Thank you for staying with us all afternoon. Yes. It makes you feel better we do this every month. Oh bless your heart. I am a member of the Montclair Neighborhood Board which we're now called Neighbors of Montclair but and I'm the secretary of the board but I'm here today as an individual. So I'm not speaking on behalf of the board, but on behalf of myself. I've only lived in the neighborhood for 33 years, and I was very involved with the ND1 overlay plan, and it was done very carefully. There was lots of input from lots of folks, and then there were lots of revisions based on that input, and we came up with a plan that was very satisfactory with the folks that lived there 10 years ago. And we were very fortunate to have an architect on the board at that time. And he was very instrumental in getting the ND1 pass. And in these 10 years, there've been several requests for variances. I'm not, probably not familiar with all of them, but I know of a couple. And I know that they have much larger differences than what this design would do. And we, as this hearing is a testament, we are a pretty vigilant neighborhood. And so I think allowing Matt to go ahead, I approve what you all did as a board of adjustment. And we're not, this is not going to be a slippery slope down, you know, for variances being allowed willy-nilly. I just think this is an appropriate thing to do and I support the Board of Adjustment. So you support the building permit having been issued? Yes. Okay, thank you, ma'am. Any questions for Ms. Parker at this time? Okay, we will now disable your ability to talk and we will move to anyone else with their hand raised. At this time, I would like to try to recognize the individual that called in earlier. Individual who has called in, if you have the ability to vote. Individual that has called in, you're our only caller. If you could go ahead and indicate if you'd like to speak. Hearing none. Wait, are you there? Individual that is on the phone. Okay. We're going to disable speak and then we do have a few more people who have raised their hands again. Ms. Patricia Price. If you would like to unmute yourself, please. Yes. I'm going to defer to my husband and let him do the talking. He's home from work now. So his name is Jerry and here he is. Is his name Jerry Price? Yes. Perfect. We need that for the record. Okay. Actually, sir, you will, since you have just entered the meeting, you need to be sworn in. Okay. Please raise your right hand. Done. Do you swear and affirmably tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Absolutely. Thank you, sir. You may proceed. Okay. The first question I have is, what is the minimum building lot size under the ND1 overlay? I was on the board or on the committee that got the ND1 passed, and it has been a chore to go against the city for all of these different applications that have been made, including the KET lot up there by KET. I think everybody knows what that is. and but anyway there's some other issues that are at stake here including other lots that may potentially benefit from any changes that would be made to the ND1 overlay yeah like I said I'm trying to be as brief as I can but yeah I am wondering what maybe Ms. Goddard-Weiss could tell me how what is the size what we'll do uh Mr. Price what I recommend is um you go ahead and go through your um prepare points and then we'll have Autumn answer these uh dimensional questions um all at one time in this case you have additional ones okay okay that's that's perfect uh but anyway uh I'm thinking that the city is not looking at the long range effects of uh changing this ND1 that all the neighbors got together and petitioned the city to pass this. And I think the precedent that would be set, as I said, is far reaching. And first of all, the city permit was issued and it was not in compliance with the ND1 overlay. So that's the first thing that happened. They should never have issued that permit. I feel sorry for Mr. Bide. I don't know how he got into all this mess, but it is a mess, and it's just against the rules of the neighborhood, ND1 overlay, to build that building on that lot in those dimensions. all right i mean and we're talking about well maybe move the house back well you could also have a narrow uh house something that would fit and and stay within the guidelines but i think that there are minimum sizes for the buildings there are minimum sizes for the lots just the same as there are minimum setbacks. And when I was listening to the 1.5, and it was talking about excess and minimums and all that, I was hearing that instead of 35, it would be 40. It would, instead of 30, it would be 35. So the building lot on Cooper, the way that I saw that a couple sentences was to move it back to 35 feet, not 30 feet. And the building lot on Summit would be 40 feet, not whatever, not less than. And when you look at the 1933 plat, there is no disjointed lines in that plat. It's a continuous line around the corner all the way to the back of the lot there at the house behind the 1203. And then there's this graphic there with this disjointed line that someone drew that makes absolutely no sense to me why they would even include that because that's not what the 1933 Platts said, and that's not what the ND1 overlay says, and it's almost like bait-and-switch kind of thing. I don't know what that's all about, but there is a couple other questions that I might have for Mr. Vide, and that would be where is the garage going to be on this building lot, and where is the driveway going to be? To me, that's a very important question. Mr. Price, this is Brandon Gross again. Those items were covered earlier in the presentation. He has submitted a building plan. That's how he got his permit Which shows where the garage Where the driveway are going to be located And so But I'm going to ask you Since we do have several more people Who are online to possibly talk If we could go ahead and Wrap this up Or if you have any additional questions That we can address the staff If you can go ahead and tell us what those are now And we will address those Well I'm in favor of staying with ND1 overlay and a more strict application of that. And it seems like that in this particular case, Mr. Vibe created a plan. The city gave him a permit for the plan, but however, it was not in compliant with the ND1 overlay. and I think that it would probably be against other city ordinances as well. So that's what I've got. Thank you, sir. I think Mr. Needham was trying to get your attention as well. Yeah, I saw it. I was ignoring him. He didn't raise his hand. Mr. Needham, would you like something to add? He's good, he says. Okay. He lips. Autumn, do you want to speak to the issue with the lot and how this lot already exists maybe and just a brief comment on that issue? This is an existing lot and the ND1 does not affect lot size. Lot size is not ruled by the ND1 guidelines. In the R1C zone, the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet for what that's worth. Thank you very much, Autumn. Okay, who else do we have on with our hands? Next is Guinness again. We're going to try this again with the individual that is named Guinness on Zoom. Please go ahead and speak. I sure hope this works this time. Anyone there? Please speak your full name. My name is Eugene McFadden. I go by Guinness. I live at 1230 Summit Drive. My apologies for not having better control of my technology. We've all been here for a while, so I'll make this short and sweet. Before you come forward, sir, were you sworn in at the beginning of this meeting? I was not, but I do love America. All right, good. We all love America here, so let's get this swearing in going. Please raise your right hand for me. Yes. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Thank you, sir. I've even got a flag in my office. So as Mr. Judy suggested, an easy fix would just be shifting the house slightly to come into agreement with the ND1 overlay. And I'd just like to make a point that Mr. Vyad mentioned that it could not be pushed back because it was too significant of a portion of the home. And I'd just like to use that as my argument. It is a very significant portion of the home that is actually not in congruency with the ND1 overlay. So I think that's point number one. And then, you know, we're talking about which is more important, the ND1 overlay or the 1933 plat. The definition of overlay is to place over or upon, number one. And then two, to cover or overspread or surmount. So to me, just by definition, overlay means it takes precedent. That's all I got. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. McFadden? For Guinness. I actually did have one more comment, and I think it goes to the point of following these things down to the foot. I've most recently last summer doing some work in my backyard. Nobody sees it except for a neighbor or two. It doesn't necessarily affect anybody. But, man, I was held to the inch. And I think if we're all going to be doing this on a level playing field and have some fairness going on here, I would expect that to go across the board as well. And I think that was the reason for the overlay in the first place, if I'm not mistaken. Thank you, sir. appreciate your uh taking your time today um we have one more we have one more uh mr ken donsworth i am going to uh allow you to speak right now mr donsworth can you uh hear us oh mr donsworth can you uh go ahead and uh unmute yourself there you go yeah sorry um thanks for your time and I know it's been a long day so I'm not going to keep you too much time. I have not been sworn in. All right, please raise your right hand for me. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Do you love America? I sure do. I'm actually from Ireland but I've been here 30 years. so i i guess like look obviously i live in the corner i live across from dr bean and it's lovely to look out at his empty lot which is great but the point is like what guinness has said like to the very end she was held accountable for everyone needs to adhere by to adhere to that. I built a house or renovated a house back in 2010 and we had to move our garage two feet and it was a complete disaster because we didn't plan on doing it, you know, but we didn't adhere to the building line. So we had to go get a variance and we went through when we pleaded our case and we notified all of the neighbors like correctly so everyone had had to say something since matt's plan went ahead clearly with the city approval i as a neighbor feel a little bit blindsided that we never had an opportunity to voice our opinion other than mr judy clearly caught this nobody would have been on this call today so i'm not saying that matt was trying to be sneaky getting this approval from the city but the neighborhood needs to be aware of such activity there was the notice wasn't put up all of the neighbors could not be on this call we've got multiple emails from neighbors that have been here a long time and they are all concerned as well so the lack of notice to the neighbors has been kind of upsetting to me whether that was intended or not I have no idea but I do know when I went through the variance process it was it was somewhat torturous and ultimately we got our results we had to you know work with everybody but everybody had the right notice we have had no notice and I know you approved it based on the city but the bottom line is everybody needs to be held accountable the same way. One person cannot be treated differently than the other person. That's the bottom line. Just like Guinness to the very inch of his garage. That's my take on it. As I said, push the house back, build a nice house, Matt. I don't know. I don't know the solution, but I do know everyone needs to be held accountable. Nobody can get a benefit over the other person. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time today. We do have one more person who has raised their hand. All right. Ms. Diana Kirtley. I'm going to be allowing you to speak right now. Ms. Kirtley, you can unmute yourself, ma'am. This is Clyde Kirtley, and I'm not sure whether I was sworn in earlier and will be happier to redo it. All right. We'll redo it then. Please raise your right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you, sir. We, too, live in the neighborhood a short distance from the proposed construction site. And my question for you, the board, for the staff, and for council, is the general legal principle that later in time to prevail with respect to legislation and rezoning not apply here. There seems to be, at least in the proponents' belief, the idea that the earlier 1930-something proposal, flat proposal controls, rather than the later ND1, given the normal legislation and rules of construction, is there some reason why that does not apply in this instance, of which the board is aware? Well, I think, sir, that's one of the questions we have to answer today. I would urge the board in answering that question because of its importance to seek the advice of counsel, even if it means delaying it, because I think you want to be on sound footing. I appreciate that. I think that is well taken. And just so everyone knows, when we make these decisions, we do look at the long-term effect and how it could possibly affect others in the future. And often if we do make a decision that is a close decision, we closely find our findings of facts. If we want to limit this for a future reference, we do limit it to the specifics on the ground as to this particular one. Each case we look at it as kind of its own case, but we do try to find a consistency amongst our approvals when we do have to make these hard decisions. I can appreciate that, but as I think the issue was framed by the board earlier on, and especially by Mr. Glover, the issue is, and by the proponent, is to what legal standards should apply as a legal interpretation before I think the board would want to resolve that issue for itself before proceeding to apply the facts to that general rule. legal principle. I can tell you right now I will ask Mr. Glover to speak once we get through all the public commentary and we close it to the public. Thank you very much. I'm sure he's ready. He's taking notes. He's going to be ready for me. Okay, do we have any more callers that have raised their hand? I'm going to go ahead and do this one more time. The individual who is currently on their cell phone or a landline. You had called in previously to say that you were interested in this case. You are now on the, you have your opportunity to speak now. Not hearing anyone. I am going to disable the talking. Okay, so what I'm going to do now is I'm going to allow Matt to speak, and then Since technically Aaron is the one that has brought this, I will let you do the final. And what this is an opportunity for is to briefly, briefly summarize your points in under three minutes, and then I will close this to the public. The board may still ask questions of either one of you or the staff, but we will not be having rebuttals and going back and forth. we will at that point try to move this to a closing and a vote so at this point Matt if we can unmute him or if you need to he can he's okay so you're ready sir please proceed okay appreciate all the commentary guys I'm taking some notes here I want to I just want to address a few of a few of the comments that I heard hopefully I didn't hear them incorrectly Mr. Preston I don't remember your last name so apologize for calling you Mr. Preston you had a you made a comment about uh the definition perhaps of what in excess means when you're looking at the second sentence of section 15 I think whenever it's important to it's important to know because it's tough to wrap our minds around what in excess of a minimum is um but I think a a clear reading of that would be that the minimum that the Indy 1 establishes is a 30-foot setback on Cooper and a 40-foot setback along Summit. And the 1933 drawing is in excess of that, meaning that it is beyond that minimum line. So that just definition of terms there, believe that in excess would be that it goes beyond the minimum, meaning you are putting a feature of the House beyond that strict application that would be. And so when reading Section 15, that second sentence, it very clearly states that when you have a feature on an approved plan that is in excess of the minimum, that feature shall govern. There is a very, very clearly dotted, drawn dotted line on the 1933 plaque that is approved by the planning commission it has a feature in excess of the nd1 but that feature shall govern um there was a question uh there was a question from uh from guinness uh or you or not a question but more and more of a comment about a significant portion being outside the building line um now i believe that he was he was interpreting that building line to be some sort of a combination of the 30 and the 40, I think that we can show that a significant portion of the building is actually not outside of that, what I'll call a new line, because it's not a line that exists today. The problem here is that the ND1, as written, insufficiently addresses the curve. you have two competing distances along a curve, and that was the image that I showed where I showed that disjointed line. If you do a strict application of the 30 feet along Cooper and the 40 feet along Summit, those lines never meet. You have to bring those lines together. And so if you do bring those lines together in some way, we can show that we can apply the law of average and show that we are still honoring the amount of front yard that will be required and the amount of side yard that will be required. There's there is that there was a question or not a question, but a concern about whether or not that that it was it was our intent to be sneaky about the plans or sneaky about our project or what we plan to do. that was certainly not the case um there has been a a a sign in the yard for at least nine months um from Mr. Chad Raines his his home building company SBR Homes that that sign is I can't remember which football game it was but it was it's been there since one of the football games in the fall um and so that that is I think that it has been it should have been clear to anyone in the neighborhood that that activity was happening on that lot um so again apologies if i if you if you if your if your impression was that we were trying to be sneaky that was not the impression um uh what are what are the other questions i think i think that was that was that was all of it um again the the indy one has written i think someone pointed out that this is a very unique situation um with the curved lot and a a strict reading of the nd1 does not address how to manage a 30-foot curve and a 40-foot curve how those two curves meet um you have to reconcile those two curves in the original design of the neighborhood address that with the the the non parallel building line um that's drawn on that official platter record Thank you, sir. We will go ahead and mute you and I'll put Mr. Judy on for your summary. Okay, so I'm going to make this quick because it's six something now. So just going back to a couple of the notes that we were talking about earlier, um guinness was you know from everything that i've heard guinness was saying um was referencing matt and when he said that there was a matt was saying that there was a significant amount of his house that was outside of the nd1 overlay but back so he was actually using his words when he said that i need to i need to address this what i said was i would say matt yeah at this point your part's done if you could not necessarily i don't know pair of trades yes just mr judy please finish up okay thank you um and so that's that's why guinness you know said it that way and so in looking at it and what i've shown and what my surveyor has shown um to everybody um which i believe it uh it is submitted for record um that it is a small portion that's outside of that line and what that line is is that's a transitional line which um i would like to show again if you guys would let me i don't know if you guys want me to or not but i could show real quick on a share screen yeah it it's it's it's up Yep. So that this transitional build line is the transition from 40 to 30, which is a very easy transitional line, which can be when you move these two little things back, you know, these two sides of the house back, you're able to fit it in. you're not talking about a lot of space. And like I said before, is the other option for him to do that would be to also then ask for a variance. Or what you could also do is flip the house to face Cooper and get all of that area. And then you also have your garage back behind you. So there's three options for the board or, you know, for him as the builder to consider. Obviously, you guys are making the decision on whether that was granted as right or not. And so I believe that appreciate everyone's time and effort on this long Tuesday or Monday. Oh, I'm sorry. I was still muted. Thank you very much. At this point, I'm going to close this to public testimony at this time. I'm going to open it up to the board. I do want to note very quickly, please do not use the chat function that is adding public comment, and it is outside the purview of what you are at right now. You will have to be removed from the panel's position if you do so again. Bad cop. Good cop is back. And yes, if you could, at this point, we're only only the board has the opportunities to speak or comment so I will now open it up to the board for any discussions if this is like we normally get on these ministry reviews these are not always easy answers if they were they would not be in front of us so staff has made its determination of what should be occurring or that the permit was allowed so at this point Miss Jones will need to write up for us after we have our discussions findings of facts for us to base our ruling upon so once we have our discussions and we get a feel if somebody has the inclination to make a motion one way or the other we should probably take a recess for a few minutes let you confer with miss jones um and then at that point we can then have findings of facts put together shared on the screen um as part of any kind of motion but i just want to let you guys know that will be coming um as we move forward so now i will uh relinquish the floor to any board member who would like to speak Tommy nothing well I don't feel compelled to to say anything really I okay but I can I mean I'm but I was surprised that's all no I've I've heard all the testimony I'm not sure I'm not sure what findings of fact we need. We've heard all the testimony, and I think, and legal can tell me if I'm right or wrong, but it seems to me that we can base any motion that we have on the staff summary, the documents that are presented to us, and the testimony that we've heard. If it's different than that, I'd like to know that. And if we do need findings, that'll certainly extend the meeting further. But for myself, I'm persuaded by Matthew Veed's argument, especially the interpretation of or his explanation of the meaning of the ordinance 1.5 and those two parts of it. That to me was fairly persuasive. and additionally the fact that his explanation seems to me to be the most reasonable because it complies with not only the ordinance itself but with the ND1. I think his explanation is more reasonable than the other explanations. I know that the neighbors have made objections to this and want to support the appeal. But I think most of their objections are personal objections or visceral reactions to this, thinking that he might be, that the applicant might be getting away with something. And in fact, he's not. To my mind, he's fully compliant with the permit. and the permit, I think the issuance of the permit was in compliance with the best interpretation of the ordinance and the ND overlay. So if it seems like it's inconsistent, I think there's a rule that we look for the easiest explanation, and that's often the most correct one. And it seems to me that the most correct one is the one where this application is in compliance with both the ND1 and the ordinance. So that's persuasive to me. Thank you, Mr. Glover. Any other board members? I'm going to turn it over. I'm going to ask Ms. Jones a question in a second. Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark. Yes, thank you. I can't get to my place where I raised my hand, so let that suffice. But I'm in agreement with Mr. Glover, And first thing I want to say, I want to be very clear with the neighbors, because I love the whole concept of the ND1. I think it's really, really important. And if I thought that this was going to set a precedent that was inappropriate, I couldn't support it, because I feel very, very comfortable with the whole idea of the ND1. and I'll go back to my original thought if this was if this was not on curve the site would be perfectly acceptable and so it is an exception there's no question about that it is an exception to the MD1 but it's an exception that that it has been made and approved by the Planning Commission and a permit has been issued. And I think that's appropriate, and I think it fits into the neighborhood quite well. And I don't think it would detract in the least from the wonderful neighborhood that these folks are so proud of. So I would think that that would be a mistake to try to move the house or not make an exception for in this particular case. Any other board members? I will say, before I ask for a motion, I'll ask Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones, is finding a fact something that we should do in this instance? Yes, I think you probably need to. Just because there's been so many different opinions and things that have been voiced to you, you're probably going to need them, even if they're fairly simple, to state what your decision is being based on. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones, have you been working on some findings of fact for us for at some point when we do have a vote for them to be shared, or how should we handle that given we're in a Zoom situation? I have been trying to, based on the conversations, and I think under the circumstances, the easiest thing for me to do is maybe email them to Mr. Glover or Mr. Clark. and also to how and then maybe they can take a look at them and see what they think okay and then we can probably do that during a five-minute recess that would probably be a good idea and I would like to comment before then I think this is a difficult one I think what the issue is before us is did the staff make the right call i think this one is definitely um is it in the strike zone is it a ball i think this is difficult um one um my personal feeling is that given i think and i think that this could is is definitely would fall in the gray area of interpreting what the NDA-1 meant regarding Summit and meant regarding Cooper. And I think you have to also factor in the fact that when this plant was originally done, this curve was created and the developer was cognizant of there being an issue at this particular juncture. And I think that this interpretation or us approving this should be limited to this lot one given the peculiar dimensions of the building setback line so that this should not be something that's relied upon for any other lots in the subdivision I think this is a very unique lot that would likely not be replicated anymore given the fact that the developer created this weird building setback line on the corner itself if it had been more of a square setback line I think my decision would have been different but in this instance the developer acknowledged this was a unique line and it created a unique building line and I think it was a reasonable interpretation of staff to find that this plan qualified within within the ND1. So with that being said, without us saying that the ND1 overruled the Platt, I think it's an appropriate interpretation of the ND1 where two roads like this can figure on an awkward lot that was not anticipated by the council when they voted on the ND1. So with that being said, is there any more comments from commission at this point? Okay, hearing none, then I will say, Ms. Jones, do you think five minutes or do you want 10 minutes? I think five's fine. Okay, let's do a five minute. That will give everyone time to take a break, use the restroom, get a beverage, and then we'll reconvene. Ladies and gentlemen, I will be going ahead and muting all of the participants. And once we come back, we'll unmute everyone. If the board members would like to, they can go ahead and stop share of their screen. Same with the two members of the public who are part of the panelist group. And we're off the air right now. So you're clear. Ms. Carter, thank you. I think we've lost Ms. Whitman. Seemingly so. Which is okay. We still have a quorum. She may be back in the attendees. Okay. Yeah, see if she's in the attendees. I'm not seeing her there. I'll watch for her. Okay. I have no sound. you cannot hear us Mr. Clark I guess that is a no I got it now can you hear us now Harry I can hear you now can all the other commission members board members hear me alright perfect okay so Mr. Glover I believe you and have received from Tracy a findings a fact You are ready to make a motion. Yes, I am. Mr. Chair, I move that we disapprove the appeal of 20-25 concerning the 1203 Summit Drive. the recorded plat and in 1933 created on this particular lot curved geometry at the corner of summit drive and cooper drive the building line as shown by the plat that was approved by the planning commission is followed by the residential construction permit application the granting of the residential construction permit was appropriate in upholding the goals and intent of the ND1 overlay and also the underlying plot of record approved by the planning commission that's my motion thank you Mr. Clark second Mr. Clark seconds that at this point is any discussion on the motion amongst the board members the hearing done i will put this to a vote if you please raise your hand if you vote in favor of tommy's motion see all hands raised everyone's hand is raised i will note for the record if i did not earlier that miss whitman um left the meeting so she did not vote on this last item so how what this means now is that the staff um appropriately issued the building permit um that has been the our determination underneath the I'm sure underneath the zoning ordinance there is a right to an appeal of our decision to the circuit court but at this time our jurisdiction is more or less over with this matter and so we'll move to that finishes our business for the day I appreciate everyone for sticking along with us for so long we do have a couple items number one are there any we're going to demote Mr. Judy and Matt. Then is there any items that any board members wishes to bring to our attention? I believe one item is, Ms. Meyer, your term is, are you coming to the end of your second or your third term, Jan? I'm coming to the end of my third term. okay so you will be replaced then sometime soon is that the end of this month is that your no I don't think it's till I don't think it's until July okay I'm not exactly sure but just so everyone knows the next month may be our last meeting with will be our last meet with Jan since she'll be term limited out the end of July 31 so we will hopefully try to have some kind of celebration for her 12 years of service and coming to these meetings every month except for her vacation month for the last 12 years. Well done. Were you able to go anywhere this year or did you stay home, Jan? Well, I'm getting ready to go, but since we're doing Zoom, I'm, you know, I'll probably you'll probably see me in July wherever I do it good to hear so those are the items for the board any of the board items okay the next item does staff have anything no okay um do we have a lot of applications for next month or can we have a shorter meeting our filing deadline is not until Wednesday we're only expecting about three or four applications though for something to change. And I want to announce that the next meeting will be July 13th, 2020 at 1 30 p.m. And are we scheduled to do a Zoom for that also currently? Currently we are, yes. Will that change? We are not expecting it to change. Okay, so we will expect to have the same Zoom meeting so the public can access the agenda and the call-in information at the planning services website. With all that, we have no further business. I will declare the meeting adjourned, and I appreciate all your hard work today. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I will now end this meeting. Have a good day. Thanks, Hal. Yep, you're off the air. Thank you. It should be easier.