# Board of Adjustment Hearing - January 11, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 11, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5265 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5265?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-01-11 - **Last revised**: January 11, 2021 - **Length**: 15,016 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Board of Adjustment held a video teleconference meeting on January 11, 2021, at 1:30 PM, presided over by Branden Gross. The board addressed six agenda items and took eight motions and votes during the session. No public comments were heard during the meeting. The board approved three land use requests: a variance request from Chacey and Romain Malhouitre (PLN-BOA-20-00068), a conditional use request from Christ the King School (PLN-BOA-20-00067), and variance requests from Opportunity Learning Center, LLC (PLN-BOA-20-00070). In addition to these applications, the board approved the appointment of a new member to the Landscape Review Committee, conducted an election of officers, and approved a delegation of the Secretary's duties. ## Attendance **Present:** - Raquel Carter - Harry Clarke - Thomas Glover - Branden Gross - Chad Needham - Chad Walker **Absent:** - Joan Whitman **Late:** - None ## Votes and Decisions All motions brought before the board passed unanimously with 6 votes in favor and 0 votes against. **PLN-BOA-20-00068: Chacey and Romain Malhouitre Variance Request** [timestamp: 0:20:47] Motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Raquel Carter. The variance request was approved unanimously (6-0). Voting in favor were Raquel Carter, Harry Clarke, Thomas Glover, Branden Gross, Chad Needham, and Chad Walker. Construction shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan. The existing driveway shall be removed upon construction of the proposed driveway and replaced with grass and/or other vegetative groundcover. **PLN-BOA-20-00067: Christ the King School Conditional Use Request** [timestamp: 0:23:42] Motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Chad Needham. The conditional use request was approved unanimously (6-0). Construction of the proposed addition shall be in accordance with the submitted application materials and site plan. All necessary permits, including a Zoning Compliance Permit and a Certificate of Occupancy, shall be obtained prior to construction and use of the addition. **PLN-BOA-20-00070: Opportunity Learning Center, LLC Variance Requests** [timestamp: 1:40:37] Motion by Chad Needham, seconded by Harry Clarke. The variance requests were approved unanimously (6-0). Construction of the third story shall be done in accordance with the submitted application materials. Parking shall be installed in accordance with the submitted application materials and a revised site plan, subject to approval by the Division of Traffic Engineering. The parking lot shall be paved, with spaces delineated, and landscaped/screened in accordance with Articles 16 and 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. All necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from the Divisions of Planning, Building Inspection, and Traffic Engineering prior to construction and occupancy. No doors or windows for the two rear units shall face the right or rear lot lines. **Appointment and Elections** Dan Stevers was appointed to the Landscape Review Committee [timestamp: 1:43:52] (motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Harry Clarke, 6-0). Thomas Glover was elected Chairperson [timestamp: 1:45:57] (motion by Raquel Carter, seconded by Harry Clarke, 6-0). Chad Needham was elected Vice-Chairperson [timestamp: 1:49:52] (motion by Harry Clarke, seconded by Branden Gross, 6-0). Joan Whitman was elected Secretary [timestamp: 1:50:30] (motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Raquel Carter, 6-0). The Secretary's duties were delegated to the Planning Services Manager [timestamp: 1:52:06] (motion by Thomas Glover, 6-0). ## Appointments The following appointments were made during this meeting: * **Dan Stevers** was appointed to the Landscape Review Committee * **Thomas Glover** was appointed Chairperson * **Chad Needham** was appointed Vice-Chairperson * **Joan Whitman** was appointed Secretary ## Contested Items **PLN-BOA-20-00070: Opportunity Learning Center, LLC Variance Requests** The board engaged in heated discussion regarding variance requests submitted by Opportunity Learning Center, LLC. The primary point of contention centered on the connection between the main building and the garage structure. Board members raised concerns about noise generated from the garage area and questioned whether the connected space was being used as a "party deck," which would constitute an inappropriate use of the facility. Despite the significant disagreement during deliberations, the board ultimately approved the variance requests. The approval was granted with revised findings and conditions imposed to address the concerns raised during discussion. These conditions were designed to mitigate potential issues related to noise and ensure appropriate use of the connected spaces. ## PLN-BOA-20-00068: Chacey and Romain Malhouitre variance request [timestamp: 00:20:47] The board considered a variance request from Chacey and Romain Malhouitre to reduce the required side street side yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet in order to construct an addition to their house. **Presentation and Recommendation** Staff recommended approval of the variance request with conditions. Thomas Glover participated in the discussion of this agenda item alongside the applicants. **Outcome** The variance request was approved. ## PLN-BOA-20-00067: Christ the King School conditional use request [timestamp: 00:23:42] Christ the King School requested a conditional use permit to expand for academic instruction. Staff recommended approval of the request with conditions. **Key Speakers** Jeffrey Pearson and Thomas Glover presented and discussed the conditional use request. **Outcome** The conditional use request was approved. ## PLN-BOA-20-00070: Opportunity Learning Center, LLC variance requests [timestamp: 1:40:37] Opportunity Learning Center, LLC requested variances to reduce side and rear yard setbacks and to reduce the number of required parking spaces for their facility. **Staff Recommendation** Staff recommended partial approval and disapproval of the requested variances, indicating that not all requests met the criteria for approval. **Board Action** The board approved the variances with revised findings and conditions. This approval allowed the applicant to proceed with modifications to the setback requirements and parking specifications, though the final approval included conditions and findings that differed from the original request. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Richard Murphy, Paul Lea, Craig Hardin, and Thomas Glover. ## Appoint a new member to the Landscape Review Committee [timestamp: 1:43:52] The board appointed Dan Stevers to the Landscape Review Committee. The appointment was based on a recommendation from the Tree Board. Thomas Glover presented this agenda item to the board. The appointment was approved. ## Election of Officers The board proceeded with the election of officers for the 2021 term [timestamp: 1:50:30]. **Officers Elected:** - **Chairperson:** Thomas Glover - **Vice-Chairperson:** Chad Needham - **Secretary:** Joan Whitman **Key Speakers:** Branden Gross and Thomas Glover were the primary speakers during this agenda item. **Outcome:** The election of officers was approved. ## Delegation of Secretary's Duties [timestamp: 1:52:06] The board discussed and approved the delegation of the Secretary's duties to the Planning Services Manager and staff members appointed by the Manager. Thomas Glover addressed this agenda item. The board voted to approve the delegation, authorizing the Planning Services Manager to assume the Secretary's responsibilities along with designated staff members working under the Manager's direction. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of PLN-BOA-20-00068: Chacey and Romain Malhouitre variance request - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of PLN-BOA-20-00067: Christ the King School conditional use request - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Approval of PLN-BOA-20-00070: Opportunity Learning Center, LLC variance requests - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Appointment of Dan Stevers to the Landscape Review Committee - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Election of Thomas Glover as Chairperson - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Election of Chad Needham as Vice-Chairperson - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Election of Joan Whitman as Secretary - **Motion** — passed (6-0): Delegation of Secretary's Duties to Planning Services Manager --- ## Full transcript All I got is my girl Why don't you go I was a little too tall, could've used a few pounds Tight pants, points, hollering down. She was a black hat beauty with big dark eyes. And points all her own, sudden way up high. Way up firm and high. I passed the cornfields when the woods got heavy. Out in the backseat of my 60 Chevy. Working on mysteries without any clues Working on our night moves Trying to make some front page driving news Working on our night moves In the summertime In the sweet summertime We weren't in love, oh no, far from We weren't searching for some hide and spy, some We were just young and restless and bored Living by the sword And we steal away every chance we could To the back room, to the alley, or the trusty woods I used to have shields, me, but neither one cared We were getting our share Working on our nightmares Trying to lose the awkward teenage blues Working on our nightmares And it was summertime Sweet Summertime, summertime Oh I wonder I felt the lightning Yeah I waited on the thunder I waited on the thunder I woke last night to the sound of thunder How far off I sat and wondered Started humming a song from 1962 In a funny how the night moves When you just don't seem to have as much to lose Strange how the night moves Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. Hope everyone had a great new year. This is our first meeting of the Board of Adjustments for 2021 and I will read an order related to us doing Zoom meetings. 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 Attorney General Opinion 20-05, in accordance with KRS 1.826, because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. So this is being held by Zoom. We have put and we have published how to access this by Zoom and also how to do a call. With that being said, I will now move to the first item, which will be the approval of the minutes for our December 14th, 2020. We did not distribute those things. Oh, okay. Well, then never mind then. So those will be December 14th. I guess I was paying less attention since I was not able to make it to the meeting. I was not going to participate. So next month we'll have presumably meetings for this meeting and for December given at the same time. So with that being said, I will announce that if you are here on PLN VOA 20-66 Speedway LLC regarding 1318 and 1320 Bersales Road, that application has been withdrawn. So we will not be hearing that case today. Once again, if you're here on the Speedway for Sales Road case, we will not be hearing that case today. So that will not be on our dockets. And with that being said, are there any other postponement requests or withdrawals at this time from anyone in the audience? If you would raise your hand or if staff is aware of anyone else. Prior to the publication of the agenda, we did have two other applications be withdrawn. So folks may have received notice for those. Those were for 904 North Broadway. that was case number PLN VOA 20-69. That application was withdrawn and then an application that was continued or postponed I believe from last month was PLN VOA 20-62 for 536 Sayre Avenue. That case was also withdrawn. So if you're here on behalf for the Broadway which is case number 69 or Sayre Road which is case number 62, we will not be hearing those cases today. Okay. Well, nothing else. What we'll do now is we will go through, I can't recall, are we still going through calling each case and asking if there are people that attend? Okay. So with that being said, we will now sound the agenda. Not sound the agenda. I will go through the agenda and I will mark cases to either be on the abbreviated docket, which means no one's here in opposition and staff has given a recommendation of approval. And then we'll have the to be heard docket, which will be cases that were recommended for disapproval and or either the applicant or the someone in the audience wants to have an argument or hearing regarding the same. So with that being said, I'm going to start on page two, number two, which is PLN VOA 20-68. Chasey and Roman Malroy, that's what's that right? Okay, well Chasey can fix that for me. At 2003 Hart Road, if you could please raise your hand if you were here on that case. Looks like... The applicant is present within our free... Okay, there we go. All right, perfect. All right, we are bringing you up. You can turn on your video and on your sound. What is the video? I think we've just allowed him to speak at this time. Okay, that's fine. We're here at this point. Hey, guys. There we go. So at this point, the staff has recommended approval. Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to speak on this case? perfect then what we will do is we will mark this to be on the abbreviated case you'll be the first one we hear give us about five minutes okay um the next item is number three which is plmboa 20-70 opportunity learning center regarding 236 lexington avenue i saw mr murphy and mr lee were here on behalf of the applicant Is there anyone else in attendance in the audience who wants to speak on this matter? All right, let's bring up Mr. Murphy. We did have two letters of support for this report in the Google Drive for the report of the first review. All right. Good afternoon, Dick. There we go. I'm assuming you're in agreement with all the staff's recommendations and this is not going to be heard? Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a disapproval of portion of that, so we need to discuss that. You'll probably want to put us on your second go around of the agenda. Well, I was hoping you were going to give me a late holiday gift, Dick. Sorry about that. That's no problem. We will have, so you'll be the first case that we hear on the second docket. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. All right. Does that want to be heard? Then that brings us to our last case, which is PLN BOA 20-67 Christ the King School regarding 299 Colony Boulevard. Let's say Mr. Pearson has raised his hand. Yes, my name is Jeffrey Pearson with Pearson and Peters Architects. I'm representing Christ the King School for BOA 2000-067. Perfect. Is there anyone else in the audience that wants to speak on this one? Okay, seeing none, we will have you as the second case on the abbreviated docket. So within the next 10 minutes, I should be able to have you back up. No problem. Thank you. And then we've got some board items. We've got the landscape review, election of officers, and some other items that are occurred today. So we'll have all that done at the end. And that brings me back to page number two. But prior to that, if we could unmute everyone so I could swear them in. So all the applicants and everyone else who plans on speaking today, at this point, I will have you sworn in. electronically and what we'll do is once we get everyone and staff tells me they're ready um i'll have everyone raise their hands okay thank you so everyone today if you could please raise your right hand and repeat after me i swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and then say I do. I do. I do. I do. Sorry, I messed that up. I do. I'll confirm. What we usually do is we try to confirm when we call each case that you were sworn in as part of the introduction of the case. So now we will now demote everyone back down and we will bring up the applicants for 2003 heart broke. So the first case to be heard today is on your second page of your agenda, number two, PLM VOA 20-68, Chasey and Romaine Malroy, regarding 2003 Hart Road for, it looks like, they want to set back their hands. So bear with us while we make some adjustments on the screen. Excuse me. Yeah, sorry. We're getting ready. We have not properly demoted everybody, so give us a second. Okay. Yeah. You guys are good. It's a technical issue on our end. We're working on it. Yeah. But first off, if you could, please state your names for the record. So my name is Roman Malwit and... Chasey Malwit. Yeah. So I totally butchered your name. I would never a million years had the wheat at the end. uh so what do you support him yes yes thank you yeah it looks good yeah so the staff has recommended approval of your request um but that approval is uh subject to two conditions have you seen those conditions yes sir are you you uh agree to abide by those conditions yes yes right perfect um in In that instance, I will, does anyone from the board have any questions or want to hear more about this particular application? Mr. Glover. Yeah, I wanted to ask the applicant what they're going to do about the trees on the side of the house if you're going to make a new driveway. Do you plan on taking down either of those big trees? So the big one, the big pine tree when it's in the middle where the driveway is going to be, will have to be removed because it's right in the middle. But the hedge on the side and all those pine trees on the side will stay at this point. So you can't build a driveway between those two big trees? There's only one. So you're familiar with the space that's where we have that that flower bed at this point, the one on the right hand side by the kitchen right now will stay on as well. So there is only one remover. Okay, thank you. And are you sure? Are you sure it's going to share? Okay. Yeah. Autumn has pulled up the image if you need that shared, Mr. Glover, are you okay with the answer? I have, yeah, I looked on, I've been by there and I looked at it. I thought there were two large trees, one on the, maybe the southeast corner and one that is, that would in fact interfere with the, with the driveway. And, and a portion of the hedge, of course. and I understand that the that hedge is going to come down I was just concerned about taking down a big tree if they didn't have to but it looks like they may have to in order to build that build that garage where they want it to so I understand that okay and I think you have to don't you have to get permission from the city to build a curb cut as well or is that part of our process. That will be part of the permitting process. Part of what? The permitting process. Okay. They're building and saving permits that will be taken care of at that time. If Mr. Parker is in attendance, you want him to explain that process? Mr. Glover. I'm sorry I can barely hear you. Okay I said I said Steve Parker's here if you want him to confirm how that process would work on the curb cut? No, I think I know how it works. Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions? All right, hearing none, then I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLN BOA 20-68. uh chasey and romaine malu request for a variance to reduce the required side street side yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet in order to construct an addition to a house in a single family residential zone on property located at 2003 hart road for the reasons are discussed in the staff report and subject to the three conditions therein. Thank you sir. Thank you. I've got a second Ms. Carter. Just to confirm for the record there are two conditions. I think you may have accidentally set three. So with that being said, are there any other questions or discussions on the motion? All right, hearing none, then I will call for a vote. If you could, if you are in favor, please raise your hand. I show the vote as unanimous. Thank you very much, sir, for fixing our camera. And your project's been approved. Good luck with the moving board. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Have a good day. You too. So we are not going to demote you, and we are going to bring up, I believe, Mr. Peterson for the Christ of King School. So we're going to move to page 3, item D1, PLNBOA 20-67, Christ of King School, related to 299 Colony Boulevard. All right, Mr. Pearson. Yes, sir. We have read the Board of Adjustments staff case report. We agree with the recommendation for approval, and we also will abide by the two conditions that are listed herein. Thank you, sir. You were sworn in? Yes, sir. Perfect. So at this point, we've got a recommendation of approval, and the applicant has agreed to abide by the conditions. I will now open it up to the board if they would like to discuss this application in further detail. Mr. Pearson, the new construction is going to be on the north side of the building? Yes, sir. That's correct, along Cockroach Road. And so the parking spaces that are going to be removed are right there on that north side where the entrance is going to be, right? That's correct. Yes, sir. We're losing eight spaces, but we have more than ample parking according to zoning requirements. Yes. The staff report says seven spaces. Excuse me. Excuse me. Seven spaces. Yes. Okay. That's all I had. I just wanted to make sure I understood exactly where it was. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any additional questions or commentary? Oh, there we go. Okay, hearing done. I would then open it up for a motion from the board. I move for approval of PLN VOA 20-67 Christ the King School's request for a conditional use to expand the school for academic instruction. in a single family residential zone on property located at 299 Colony Boulevard. Based on the best recommendations and subject to the two conditions as listed. Thank you, ma'am. I do have a second. Mr. Needham has raised his hand for a second. So I have a motion by Ms. Carter, a second by Mr. Needham. At this point, I will ask, is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then I will put this matter to a vote. Please raise your hand if you vote in favor. I show the voters being unanimous. Mr. Pearson, the application has been approved. Good luck with the project. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the board also. Stay warm. You too. That brings us back to page two, item number three, which is PLN BOA 20-70, Opportunity Learning Center, LLC, regarding 236 Lexington Avenue. The staff has recommended a partial disapproval, a partial approval. So what we will do is we will allow the staff to give their presentation, and then we will allow Mr. Murphy. we could make sure they're up on the screen. Mr. Lee was. Mr. Craig Harden may be on too. Yes, we brought him up. Is there anyone else in the audience that plans on speaking? or do you have anyone else you think, Mr. Murphy, on behalf of the applicant? I think it's just Mr. Harden and Mr. Lee. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience who plans to speak on this matter? It does not appear anyone's raised their hands. So at this point, we have the three gentlemen, and then there were two letters in support, I believe you saw it. There were two letters in support, and Mr. Harden, we did receive the email that you sent before the meeting started. Thank you. And then just to confirm, if you guys could confirm that you were all sworn in? Yes. Yes. Mr. Harden? Yes. Thank you, sir. Okay, in that case, what we'll do then is we'll now go ahead and let Autumn get her presentation. And then once she has finished, we'll open it up for questions for the board. and then we'll let Mr. Murphy and the rest of your party give their presentation. So with all, please proceed whenever you're ready. All right. All right. This application is a request for three separate variants. The first to reduce the required side yard setbacks from 5 feet to 0 feet and the second being to reduce the required rear yards from 10 feet to 0 feet. The third variant is related to parking. This is to reduce the required number of parking spaces by 50% within the defined infill and redevelopment area. And a high-intensity apartment R4 zone at 236 Lexington Avenue. The subject property is located about mid-block along Lexington Avenue between High Street and Maxwell. The property contains an existing residential structure and detached garage. This is the primary residential structure and detached garage that you can see here, sort of. Both of these structures are legally non-conforming. The primary structure is has a zero foot setback along this property line here. The accessory structure is at zero along the side lot line and along the rear lot line back here. The primary structure has operated as a fraternity house for a number of years being approved by the board back in 1997 with an approval for eight beds. No living quarters have ever been approved for the garage structure. The zoning ordinance requires side yard setbacks of five feet in the zone and a rear yard setback of 10 feet. The applicant is asking for variances to both structures in order to construct an addition which will connect the two structures and in order to convert the fraternity house into four apartments with a total of 14 beds. So the connection and the conversion to the living space is the reason that the accessory structure will require variances. The primary structure requires variances because the third floor is being raised in order to allow living space on that level. So the applicant is also requesting a variance to reduce the required parking by 50 percent. So for apartments with 14 beds the requirement would be 13 parking spaces. He plans to have at least seven parking spaces. I'll go ahead and move on to the site plan now. So the applicant originally on the site plan showed 10 spaces, but that was including two spaces here which do not meet standards from zoning or from traffic engineering to count as parking spaces, but there are seven parking spaces with five here and two here. So again the the two buildings will be connected with a connection here. And staff is generally supportive of the applicant's plan to convert these the staying fraternity house into apartments. However, while we feel that an increase from 8 beds to 14 beds is not inappropriate in this location, staff has serious concerns about adding the density directly onto the property line. So back in this portion here, converting this into living spaces. That property line is shared by two properties on Hagerman Court, which also contain apartments. The lots along Hagerman are generally much shallower than the lots on Lexington Avenue and this lot in particular. Many of the lots along Hagerman contain non-conforming structures that have non-conforming setbacks and lot coverages and they also have a limited one-way access. So because of those factors staff feels that pushing additional density up against that property line is inappropriate, especially considering that there is adequate space elsewhere on the subject property to construct an addition rather been converting the existing garage. So, let me just zoom in on that type frame. So, we've made three separate recommendations on this application that we can go through. The first is that staff is recommending disapproval of the variances to the side yard from five feet to zero feet along the southern property line and to reduce the required period to 10 feet to zero feet. So, So these are the two setback requirements for the accessory structure that's a career of the property. The reason for staff recommendation of this approval is that allowing the expansion and conversion of the existing detached garage to dwelling units would represent an intensification of the activities occurring on the subject property by increasing density directly on two property lines and in very close proximity to other multi-family structures, which could have a negative impact on the public health, safety, and welfare of those living in the structures. And then the strict application of the zoning ordinance will not deprive the applicant of reasonable use of their land or creating unnecessary hardship. On the applicant, if the applicant were to demolish the existing structure, there appears to be adequate space that they could construct a compliant addition that would need the required setbacks and allow them to have those additional units within the site with the appropriate setbacks. We are recommending approval of the requested variance for the side yard from 5 feet to 0 feet along the northern property lines. This is for the existing principal structure in order to construct the third floor living space. The reasons for that recommendation are that approval should not adversely affect the public health, secure welfare, or alter the essential characters of the vicinity. Two and three-story structures are characteristic of the open stop along Lincoln Avenue. The existing structure has existed on the property for many years in the fraternity house. An increase in the height of the structure along this property line should have little impact on the general vicinity. The structure immediately adjacent to two stories and approximately 30 feet of the property line should not be negatively impacted by the influence type. The variance is generally reasonable because the modest increase in height means the maximum heightenization of the founding ordinance will allow the applicant to reuse an existing building by converting it into units that are more desirable in the current market. Finally, we were recommending approval of the requested parking variant to reduce the number of parking spaces by 50% so down to 7%. Approval of the variant should not address the safety of public health safety or welfare nor should it create a hazard for the public. The property has a walk score rating of 93 which is considered very walkable and a bike score of 89 which is considered very bikeable. parking is available in the area including metered on-street parking and on-street parking for those with residential permits which can be acquired through Lex Park for residents of that street. And finally the close proximity to the University of Kentucky downtown major employers and the treatment center for special circumstances that increase the likelihood of residents who choose to live in this location will be less part of the movement than average. So the recommendations for approval are subject to the following conditions. The construction of the 3rd Stray shall be done in accordance with the submitted application materials as well as other portions of the zoning ordinance. An revised site condition does not include a connection between the principal structure and the detached construction structure shall be submitted. No dwelling units shall be provided in the detached accessory structure. Parking shall be installed in accordance with the submitted application material of an revised site plan subject to approval by traffic engineering. The parking lot should be paved with spaces delineated and landscaped and screened in with Article 16 and 18 in the voting ordinance. And finally, that all necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained from the Division of Planning, Building Infection, and Traffic Engineering prior to construction and occupancy. And I will stop my chair at this time, and if you don't have any questions, I'll be happy to pull things back up. We can talk about that application further. Yeah, do you have the aerial that shows the subject property and the Hagerman Court property? It should be visible, but it's not popping up into the full slideshow. Can everyone see this? yeah yeah that's true yeah and i can't recall um so yes sorry this is the subject property here um and this is agerman court here and then mr murphy may talk about this but with 250 was that the one was mr harden involved and own that mr Harden does own 250 and 228. Yeah. So I think 250, wasn't that, that was before us a few years ago, wasn't it? Was that, or maybe it was a different one? I believe 260 came before us for a fence variance a couple of years ago. Okay. That was not approved. Okay, gotcha. But yeah. And so the existing garage, is it being raised up higher or is it all the dealers just putting in some apartments? It's getting taller. It is going to be taller, okay. But the height is within allowable height of the students. It would be connected to the structure. It would be kind of of this part of that structure so it would not be an accessory structure any longer. So it would meet the high requirement for the zone. Of course, again, since it is a non-conforming structure with the zero set pack, which we're looking to remedy by getting variances, obviously we should be taking into account. And if you could quickly just elaborate real fast about, I think that's your reason number one, on disapproval regarding the proximity. I guess my thing is, I don't know, there's no plans, but I don't know, they plan on doing windows on those. I think that the applicant plans to discuss that, whether or not, I have not seen elevations until some were sent today, but I think the applicant can look at those. I think the applicant plans to talk about that. Staff's concern is pushing the density back towards that property line towards Hinkerman Port, which is already sort of a crowded narrow corridor that is very built out. And while we don't think that the density is inappropriate for the area overall, it is inappropriate to put it back on these two lot lines. Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments from the board for Autumn at this time? I see no, Mr. Glover. Yeah, Autumn, in the staff report, you suggested that there were other alternatives to the owner's plan. And I think one of them was in one of those bullet points that said that they could, in fact, construct an addition on the back of the existing structure of the house itself as an alternative. And if they did that, you all wouldn't have any objections to that? That's correct. they can't consider the rear. I would say there's probably a chance to get this recognition to the front of the property if they were inclined to use our limits and then they're parking to the rear. I think there are probably several options. I'm guessing that'd be more expensive. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else before I have Mr. Murphy come forward? All right, Mr. Murphy. At this point, we will allow you to begin your presentation. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate you hearing us. I'm here today on behalf of Opportunity Learning Center, LLC, and the owner of that company is Craig Hardin, who is here. And also with us is Paul Lee of Studio A Architecture, which is our architect for this project. Just as a little bit of background, I'm going to share the screen and put a photograph up of this property. the so I can get my screen up here well that failed here let me see what I can do here I have do I have a photograph up on the screen I've lost my photographs here. No. Okay. Let me try that one more time here. Okay. Hopefully you've got it now. That is the view of the property from Lexington Avenue. And it's a unique shot because you can see these are the only, this is the only vantage point from which you can actually see into the property. They have a driveway coming in off Lexington Avenue. And then these two panels are not built up to six or eight feet. They're built up to three feet or so, which you can see in the rest of the way around the property. It sort of reminds me of a foreign embassy. There's a big wall around it to keep everybody else out and keep what you're doing in. But the wall is eight feet tall on the inside. If you're on the other properties, it's about six feet because our property is lower than the properties on either side. And Mike, the car here is about four and a half feet, five feet tall. So you can see, give a scale for how big that wall is. And every other portion of that is a solid concrete block wall. It was built in 1986 by Richard Doyle, who was an attorney here in Lexington. He and his wife used it as a single family home for about 10 or 11 years. And then they sold it to Phi Kappa Tau fraternity. And they've used it as a fraternity for the last 25 years. It's probably that's probably one use that could may really make use of the solid wall around it to have a fraternity there and keep all their activities on the inside. But you can see on the left side, the left side of the property is built at a zero lot line. And at the left side, this is Mr. Hardin's other property. He owns both the left and the right side properties. but looking at it from his property there were there are no doors or walls on that door doors or windows excuse me on that wall and that wall of the building is incorporated into the wall that goes around the property similarly on the right side you can see the the garage building sort of peeking out it hasn't been used as a garage by the fraternity it's more of an activity building they They had a foosball table in there. They left for Mr. Harden when he bought it and other activities. So it was used for parties and activities and meetings and that sort of thing of the fraternity. Now, similarly, the right side and the rear side of the garage building have no windows or doors, and they are the walls of the garage. And under our proposal, that would still say the same. there would be no windows or doors on those side parcels. But if you look, I want you to notice two things about the picture. One is you can see the steps coming up to the main building there. The car is sort of blocking those, but there are six or so steps coming up from the ground to the first floor. I'll talk about that in a minute. And over here, there's a mansard roof with a parapet wall coming down. And when Mr. Harden bought the property, that came into play because there's extreme water problems with the building. It looks like it's built of stone blocks or concrete. It's actually synthetic stucco. One of the brand names of that was Drive-It or EIFS, E-I-F-S, exterior. That's the exterior insulation and finish system. And when that first came out in the 80s, there were apparently the manufacturers had the wrong installation instructions for their contractors. And there was a big class action about that 25 years ago or so. And it turned out the instructions were wrong. After that, the instructions were corrected so that synthetic stucco is a good material now. But unfortunately, this building was built before the instructions were changed, and there's a great deal of water damage in there. And this parapet wall is contributing to that. You can see the roof slopes down. The wall is here. That was apparently there to keep water from going off into the adjacent property. But it collected water in that valley there. and that in conjunction with the synthetic stucco has caused major mold and rot problems throughout so once Mr. Harden bought this he realized he'd have to totally totally renovate the property he's going to put a straight wall there with a gable coming out we'll build it the roof will come over here down to here with a solid wall and on the gable so we have to get a variance for that to build it at the same setback as the left side. We are requesting a parking variance, as the staff mentioned. We agree with their reasons on this. I think if there's any park property that ought to get a parking variance, it's this one due to its location. It's a half block away from the transit center, so you can get a bus to go anywhere in the county. It's within walking distance of UK and downtown. Mr. Harden's going to provide bike racks for people. And he owns the property on either side and across the street. He has parking available there if it's needed for this property as well. And as Ms. Goddard was mentioning, the walkability and bikeability scores are very high. The only place we disagree with the staff's recommendation is the one about renovating the garage. I think everybody agrees that additional units would be appropriate on this site. It's the question of should they be allowed to renovate the garage or to add on to the back of the property. and I'm going to stop my share and I'd ask the staff if they could put up that slide that showed the map that we were looking at just before the end of the staff presentation, the aerial photograph in this property, because I'd like to describe a couple things in relation to that photograph. the yeah if you could go on to the aerial photograph there there we go that's that's what I need yeah the this oops sorry when we get it back I'll put my cursor back on to there we go 236 this is the subject property You can see the garage right in the corner there. What you may be able to see, too, there's four mature trees along here, which will stay on the property and help to screen it from this building to the buildings on Hagerman Court. but the as I mentioned this this building has been used for activities which generate some degree of of sound and the solid walls have managed to insulate that from the property behind us but but here's here's the main issue and that is that if we're going to there we go we're getting zoomed in here there we go and I want to show the back part of that if we good there we go there we go all right there we are the question is do we remodel this garage or do we put an addition onto the back of the building here and i think i've got my hopefully you can see my cursor and i think staff has their cursor going as well um if we add on to the back of the building. It would probably be a two or three story addition and we would have our doors and our windows facing the rear. We'd have our light and our sound facing out this way to the rear to the properties on Hagerman Court. If we're allowed to remodel the garage here, We will keep the walls on the side and on the rear solid, no windows or doors as they are now. Our doors will be in the front and our windows will be on the front and the side, and they will be oriented back into the interior of the building. So our sound, light, and activity will be more oriented back in toward the central part of the building in here. The second reason we have is sort of unique to the site. If we're allowed to remodel the garage, as I pointed out to you before up front, the first floor of this building is about five feet above grade. We cannot do an accessible dwelling unit if we add on to the existing building. If we remodel the garage, the garage door is obviously at ground level, and we can easily do an accessible unit with entrance into the ground level on the first floor. So we will have a second small unit on the top. We will not be increasing the height a great deal on the garage. I do have, if the staff could stop their share screen, I'll go back to my share screen and show the architect's plans on this one. I'll share that. This is the site plan, but our, excuse me. There we go. This is our plan for the main building. You can see the new roof and architectural design. This is the plan for the rear building. You can see it'll retain largely the existing roof line. We'll have a dormer coming out on the second floor again, oriented back to the main building. This is the left side, which faces the inside of the property. This is the front of the building facing the inside of the property with the front door. Here's the side to the right side. Again, the wall will stay there. No doors or openings. The roof will be as it is now. No door windows or openings. We don't have an elevation of the rear, but it's going to look exactly like this with no doors or openings in the rear as well. So and we also have a letter from the owner of the property behind us, Mr. Humphress, which owns 111 Hagerman Court. 111 Hagerman Court is the property which directly adjoins the rear of the garage. It's the 111's back line adjoining us is the rear of our garage. And he is supportive of what we are planning on doing. In his letter, he stated, I'll look at this second bullet point of his, which is the one that pertains to it. He says, we see no reason the garage could not be additionally occupied as apartments. Mr. Harden has shared his proposed drawings with us and there will be almost no detectable difference. The roof line stays the same and there will be no openings facing us. Since it is also a concrete block structure, we do not believe that disturbances will ever be an issue. He also notes that he's observed Mr. Harden's other properties and that he generally has park and spaces available. But the second one is the key one about the construction of the remodeling the garage or activity building into residential structures. So in conclusion, we, Mr. Hardin, once he found out that he's going to have to totally renovate, He hired Mr. Lee, who is very experienced and good architect here in Lexington, to design both the renovation of the front building and the connection and renovation of the garage building. And he's done a very good job doing this. And we feel very strongly that orienting the new units or putting them in the garage and orienting them back into the building, into the property, will be a better use both for this property and for the neighboring properties than having our new units on the rear and facing backwards on that. Now, I did prepare a couple of revision to a finding that would allow the renovation of the garage. And in my paragraphs, I just cite what I just told you about. In other words, how we face the structure is important. We have support of the neighbor behind us. And also it will allow us to do a, an accessible dwelling unit in this, in this building. So I do agree with the staff reasons, except for the reasons of disapproval of the garage variance. And these are my proposed reasons for that. And I do have, I have slightly revised the staff reasons of approval. If you decide to vote our way, what I've done here is I have removed staff condition two, which says no dwelling units shall be provided in the detached accessory structures. So three, four, and five just moved up to two, three, and four. And I removed the last clause in the first paragraph, which did not allow the connection between the front building and the rear building in the back. The connection will be, Craig is adding an egress method in the rear of this building. He's adding that, which will be an exterior stairway. and the exterior stairway will easily connect into the top unit of the garage. So that's how they're going to be connected. And we will add a means of ecrest for the main building by doing that. So anyway, I've spoken enough and hopefully explained what we're doing to you. Mr. Harden is here to answer any questions. Of course, I can too. and Mr. Lee is available to answer any questions you may have about the application as well. We thank you very much for hearing our case. Mr. Murphy, maybe Mr. Harden is better to answer this. What is the purpose of the access from the accessory dwelling to the main building? I mean, I see it on here. I don't see how wide it is. My questions are how wide is that? Is it four feet or six feet? And then what's the purpose of that? Where do you speak? Oh, that's how you connect them. Yeah. Let me start out. The connection will be on the second floor. It'll be connected into the egress point from the main building to the egress point on the second floor of what used to be the garage building. and also we are required to have we we are trying to get all the units technically in one building it will be considered one building if we have that connection there according to building inspection on there craig you may be able to tell or paul be able to tell how how wide that connection point is Paul will have to tell you about this, but I know that... Go ahead, Paul. Let me get a quick measurement for you. That connection is actually 18 feet wide, And the difference between the front of the garage and the back of the main structure is 18 feet 2 inches. So that second level will appear to be a large deck. One of the reasons why we did that is so that there's not two sets of steps from the second level, one from the garage and one from the house. This way they both can share and also provide some outdoor living space for both the garage unit and the main house unit. Well, and that was really what my, I know Mr. Murphy put down some findings of facts regarding that all the noise will be directed inward. But my question is, is that this is, you know, you guys won't use this language, but I will, a party bit. how does that fit within your claim of all the sound's going to be going in when we've got it looks like an 18 by 18 foot or whatever wide area that's essentially the deck on the back that's above grade level that there's nothing blocking, there's no walls, there's no shrubbery, trees how we can control noise levels by having an elevated deck at this location. If one of you guys could discuss that point. I was cool with everything until I saw how wide that access point is. I was thinking it would be like six feet like a sidewalk would be to connect one building to another, not necessarily a 20-foot. What's the dimensions? I don't want to misspeak and say 20 feet by 20 feet. What were they? It's 18 foot by 18 foot, But make note that half of that is covered by the steps. So the only accessible space is 8'9 by the 18. And then you have to also note that 4 feet at a minimum of that space is for traffic. So really the only usable space for someone to put maybe a chair or two out is four foot wide by maybe 13 feet. Yes, it's going to look like a large deck, but the actual occupancy load for that is going to be very small. Let's pull the elevation up. I want to make sure I'm following all this. Mr. Murphy, can you pull up the elevation? Yeah, pull the elevation up again, Mr. Murphy. Okay, I'll get that up here. If you can show the second floor plan, second level floor plan, you'll get a better idea. I'm trying to figure out where I put that. Here it is. Okay. A5. And I've got to go to, as soon as my little, there we go. Okay. Here you can see, I think this is what we're talking about right here. and you can see it goes to the building here. There is buildings between it. What's that beam that disconnects the stairs for the rest of... How wide is that from the accessory building? Is that nine feet? It's eight foot nine. Eight foot nine, okay. And then it's eight foot wide in that area too? Yes. or is it 18 feet wide? As far as the depth, it's 18 feet, but you lose about five feet of that for the approach to the steps. So you only have a usable space there of eight foot nine by 13. And then a portion of that eight foot nine will be used in traffic. Well, I mean, yes, during traffic usage, it will be. However, though, having been to many a college party in my day, every space will be used including all the steps going all the way. I mean, that's all. My concern was it's not just an access way for traffic, in which case it would be about half the size there. It's a living space. I'm just trying to get to what the dimensions are of what that limit space is. Mr. Chair, if I could add, if we demolished the garage here and extended the building out to put additional units on it, our back wall would be about here, the deck or whatever would be here and would be closer to the property on Hagerman Court over here. This way they are farther back away from Hagerman Court and we do have this building between at least some of that outdoor space and the properties on Hagerman Court. And these will be separate units. All right, well, that's all I have for now. I'll let you... I just wanted to make sure I understood because there was no overhead of what that deck dimensions were. I forgot where we rub somebody or was that are we now okay do you have anything else Mr. Murphy no I think that's it unless there were any questions or anything we we we've looked at it and and Craig did retain Mr. Lee to look at it We feel this is the best design, both for this property and for the area. And we're very pleased that the property owner behind us is supportive of this as well. I had one other thing I would add, if it's okay. Your point's well taken. And we do our best to control because we rent to students often, most of them. And our office is across the street, so it's never to our advantage for that kind of activity. The garage itself had pretty high density. It was used for that. I have some other photographs I could show you if you want. they've got their letters drawn in it and it was used for gatherings with the foosball table and so forth down there so I would think that we would be reducing the density by having a single unit on the ground floor and then a single unit in the second floor so that was my thinking in addition to that by facing it the other way we've tried to mitigate any anything at all by facing it toward the building, any sound and so forth. One of the reasons that the design becomes particularly difficult for putting an addition on the, you know, more on that already large house is that our garage is down in a well, for lack of a better term it's down pretty low and the I think we had what was it Paul we counted five five or six block down inside so if we were to if let's say we were to put an addition on the back of the building and then try to use that space in behind as either additional parking or something else it's going to be down we don't well we need really need room did you say paul we needed room for a for a retaining wall back there we retained about a block anyway right right in a way to get drainage out out of there so it's very low as it approaches the back property and I'd say like 40, 45 inches at the back property. And I know for certain it's between 32 and 36 inches as it approaches our property there on that 250 Lexington Avenue. So that wall is a little bit deceiving in that it does hold back a lot of, that garage is structural in that it holds that retaining wall there as well. So that was another complication we would get into in trying to do that kind of a design. Thank you, sir. Where are you going to use that? It looks like you will have some open space. Is that going to be incorporated in? Where specifically are you? Well, I mean, it looks like it's the only space that won't be paved or otherwise approved. In the backyard? The backyard, yeah. Yes, sir. We'd like to leave that like it is. It has a number of trees in the back. It has four main trunks, and one of them is a split V for really effectively five large trees. From the back of the house, you can't see the houses on Hagerman during the summer. You literally can't see. So those trees are back there and screen it pretty well. Okay. they are right just inside the perimeter wall location of the trees anything else mr harton i know mr glover would like to ask some questions no all right really just just a couple i'm afraid i'm dating myself i remember when dick and noe doyle built this built this place back in 86 and it's a It's certainly a white elephant. Craig, are you planning to keep the Drivet or the Sencon, whichever brand it is, on the house itself? We will not be able to do that. It is actually buckling off of the side of the house. It's unfortunate because you either love it or you hate it, but it looks like stone to the extent that it looked like a big, heavy, stationary structure. I found that people kind of like that, but that's not going to be possible to say that. And the foundation does not have a proper brick ledge, as you would say. So we will wind up with probably like a cementitious siding, like a hardy board type thing is where we're headed. But then we want to, Paul has done a good job of helping us mix that up a little bit with some of the facing, facing because we don't want it to be too imposing we've done a number of historic renovations over the years and learned some techniques and that roof is we've tried to bring down in a really a either a mancer truncated hip yeah and so even on the primary structure we are retaining a hip it's not going to be a full dorm around the 228 property it'll be we're going to remain to maintain a hip there we just have to come up to the edge of that parapet wall to get rid of that water problem yeah i've been i've been involved in several pieces of litigation on drive on drive it and sencon and the whole ethos thing i think i'm not sure i may have been involved in the uh in the larger litigation itself it's been quite a while ago, but that, uh, it's, it's interesting looking stuff, but it's not, it's certainly not structural. Um, yeah, actually I'm, I'm, I'm kind of in support of your, of your, of your overall plan. Um, hate to disappoint the staff, uh, but I'm, I kind of like the plan and And I've seen the property and it's very tight in there. And it is very low. I don't know why the elevation of this particular property, piece of property, at least it looks lower than the properties on either side of it. Is that the case, Paul? It is. On the right side, if you're facing the property, in the back corner, it's four and a half feet lower. And on the left side, it's probably only 18 inches lower. We would have to have a significant retaining wall on that back right corner. Yeah. I understand the reason for wanting to keep the existing structure in the back because it looks to be structural for the wall. Is the wall on the back side of the property the same height as the wall on the side? It's not. It's only like two blocks, maybe 16 inches taller to get that roof line just above the top of the wall. Okay. But you can literally be standing in the parking lot on the one side. grab the gutter of the garage. Did Dick Doyle excavate to build the garage? I'm not, or the house? I'm not sure what the, I can't remember back that far. They must have, because it's pretty low down there. I can tell you that the original drawings we were able to retain from the, they were done professionally by CMW. Good set of drawings. And those drawings reflect a water retention system in the very front of the building, which I don't know why they did, because we have stormwater drain right directly outside, literally in front of the property. so they could have just brought it straight out but nevertheless they had that drawn in there and then they took a drain all the way back and directly in front of that garage unfortunately somebody decided i guess that i'm i'm assuming at the time they were building that that was too expensive and they deleted all of that so that left a water there so we're going to have to raise a little of that up back there anyway. So we'll have to put a drain in back there at some point. Does the property have any existing water problems right now? Well, of course it has the EFAS system and so that's one problem. But as far as the basement level and it is out of CMU masonry block and you can see where it had a little bit from time to time but not major. It seems to be okay. It has a pretty good internal system if that answers your question. And the house itself is up about five feet off of the grade. This is Mr. Clark. I'm following up on Mr. Glover's question about water, particularly drainage in the back. I know So the fact that it's lower obviously has to have a different kind of drainage system. Could you explain what's happening there and how the new construction on the garage would affect that? Well, there won't be any effect at all if we don't do any construction there. What I was going to do if I constructed back there, in order to put in the accessible unit on the first floor, you will need to because the garage was originally poured in a sloped fashion on the interior we will have to raise that slightly inside of course because we need to get plumbing and so forth so if we're going to go back there with a sewer line to that garage then we will be able to then also use that afford to use that pit to in a retention or i keep saying retention i don't mean retention, I mean a stormwater drain at the back, just like it was at the outset of the original drawings, which was deleted. And so I think that we'll bring that all the way out and go all the way to the street where our stormwater is directly underneath our, we're fortunate it's directly underneath the sidewalk on our side of the street. Okay, that was my concern. Thank you. Yes, sir. Additionally, I don't know if it's a concern for stormwater, but we also have a retention basin at the property of 250 directly on the outside of the wall. You're thinking in terms of stormwater. I had a question. This is Chad Needham. Um, if you do not join the two staircases on that, um, on that connection point, um, the parking space is still, uh, is still available. You're talking about underneath the stair? That's correct. Those two staircases, I guess that staircase comes down close enough to the back of the house where you could still park a car in that section. Right, that was the intention. If I may, one of the reasons why we did not want the stair to go all the way down to that location is because it's over top of the stair leading to the basement. And as the stair would fall, you would not be able to get into the basement at that point. And so that's why we needed to relocate the last section of the stair somewhere else so that we could still have access to the basement. Mr. Needham, we are required to connect those to the garage building to the main building. Otherwise, we come into a group residential project that has many, many other requirements, which would probably prevent us from doing this. I see. So that connection point has to happen in order to bring it in all under one, I guess, building. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. So an ADU, it's not really officially an ADU at that point? Not officially. Okay. It would have to be an ADU in order for it to be separate. Is that correct? Well, ADUs are not currently legal. If it were not attached to the existing municipal structure, we would have two structures with residential facilities, and it would be, that would trigger our group residential standards, and there would have to be a development plan, there would be additional requirements for open space, the setback requirements are a little bit different, um a number of other issues that would come up so they have to in order to to avoid that have to be considered as one building so that's what this sort of connection is seeking to do here does that connection point have to happen on the second floor or any connection point so it so a breezeway for example connecting the structure existing structure to the garage would also qualify is that correct? Yes. Okay and then the new access easement is that required in order to maneuver a car out of that spot? We had to serve that spot as well as part of the reason the variance is for seven spaces and that's the number of spaces that are shown in front of the structure and Parker may still be on and talk about what on the plan would actually come to parking and what would maybe not do. Okay. I couldn't hear all of Ms. Goddardwis' answer, but the new access easement makes it a lot easier to do that, I can tell you that. And just want to mention too, the ADU ordinance has gone through the Planning Commission, but it has been in a council committee for the last year, and the council hasn't taken action on it yet. I'm having trouble hearing. Autumn, you're hard to hear. I'm not sure. I guess I'll just have to holler. We're turning our volume up. Does that help at all? That's bad. Yes. Okay. Okay. So what'd you, can you say that again, Autumn? I didn't hear that. Sorry. what's being proposed would not qualify as an ADU even if that regulation had passed. It does not meet the requirements for that for a number of reasons. So the ADU conversation is not really relevant. Okay. I mean my opinion here is I'm fine with the 50% parking reduction and And, you know, the northern property line seems fine recommendation. You know, the disapproval of the five feet in the back. I mean, the sound and the light and the orientation towards the house and towards Lexington Avenue, I get that. That makes sense if that's an issue with the houses on Hagerman Court. I do think that second floor connection is a bit odd. I do, you know, I guess it has to happen in order to make this possible. I don't know. It wouldn't be my first. I don't know if I I don't know. It seems obviously a way around to get a to get apartments in that garage, which is what most people would love to have. So it seems as though we have not allowed this or even entertained it in other requests here for ADU or putting some type of housing in a garage. So that's a way around. It's kind of a loophole. I don't know about that for this, if that makes sense. You know, I don't know who owns 109 and 113 Hagerman. I think it was good for you guys to get 111 to approve it. Those both seem like they also would be affected, but I appreciate you reaching out to the neighbor there and getting at least one of them to agree. So I don't know, this is my thoughts at the moment. We have tried to reach those two other owners you mentioned. They're in California and we haven't been able to reach them. Those are those properties are owned by the same company. One oh, what is it? One oh five. There's a parking lot. 13 or 113. Sorry. Yeah. Yes, sir. Are we going to have to submit an updated site plan that doesn't show the head on collision parking? That would be part of the process. Okay. One of the conditions that would be revised. Okay. I'm assuming that would just be a one-way. Right. That's what they say. Steve, may be able to answer your question. Yes, Steve. Mr. Clarkson. Oh, there you are. How was your problem? That was some of the concerns that we had. The design of the parking could not be approved as shown. I think it's a way to get the numbers to show a 50% reduction, but there's the parking lot circulation does not work as shown on the plan so you may have you know i don't know how how this plan would go whether it's approved or disapproved but regardless if this plan moved forward we would have to see a complete redesign of the parking because it's just not feasible. There's some maneuvers that are virtually impossible with a standard-sized vehicle. And I was going to ask you that. I think right now we're down to they just need to get seven spaces. But looking at this, I'm concerned that their seven space may not make it through you guys on permitting. That's correct. Would it be more reasonable to ask for sticks? They can't go below. Oh, they can't go, so they have to find a settlement space. Well, let me ask you, can they get parking next door? Well, they can satisfy that with off-site parking. It cannot be someone else's required parking. You can't eat into someone else's requirement. Right. If the adjacent lots are requiring 20 and they have 25, then yes, there might be five extra that Mr. Harden could share. But if the requirement is 20 and they only have 20, then he can't spill over and eat into their requirement, even if the residents only use 15 on any given day. But Mr. Parker, the staff will handle that after we approve it? Yes. Yes, okay. That's what my... Gotcha. So we want to make sure that seven spaces are feasible or actually accessible by vehicle. Mr. Murphy, could you share screen again and put up your proposed findings of facts? Unfortunately, we don't have our little projector here. I think while you go to that, I think Dick's proposed findings were really just a reduction of some of the language of the proposed findings on the staff report. A deletion of number two and a deletion of half of number one and renumbering the rest. Is that right, Dick? Well, those are the conditions. Yes. Yeah, those are the conditions I just put up, which remove all two and take off the last clause of one. And here are the proposed findings, which were the reasons I mentioned in my presentation. And on those, Dick, on the last line on A, where it says property owners to the right and the last sentence on A, Staff has asked that that gets struck. Okay. And I'd not, I trust the, not because it's inaccurate, but I just rather would not have comments about neighbors in the findings. Generally, we don't put, yeah, comments of neighbors in the findings. And I think to get to owners, I think Mr. Harden is included. So just generally, we would just take that out. Okay. And then if we go from this point, one, two, three lines from the bottom, I would like to see instead of the word will. So it says other activity will be, I would say should be, because I don't know if it will or not, but presumably it should. Correct. Yeah. Yeah, so go to the left column. On the side there, go right there, will. Will. Yeah. Should be. Should be. I said will be. Okay. That works for us. Yeah, and then lastly, on the second to last sentence, the one that starts on the second to bottom line, in addition, it will allow an accessible dwelling unit to be constructed. I would like something to wear because it's not going to be constructed. it would allow an access to be I guess to be constructed in the rear building. I guess maybe in the existing rear building. Yeah. So put existing between the and rear just to make it clear that they're not building a new building. No, you're still in A. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, in the rear in the existing rear. That works for us. Yeah. Tracy, do you have anything else to say? I think that's everything from staff and myself. um and mr blubber were you comfortable or everyone else comfortable with these leave it up leave it up there for just a second so we can uh so we can read it all here in fact uh brandon why don't you your microphone's working pretty well why don't you read it out loud to us the whole thing is as with including your uh and i'm only going to read number A since that's the only one that changed. So A would read the approval of the variance will not adversely affect the public health safety or welfare nor alter the essential character of the general vicinity. The building is already constructed at a zero setback on the rear side property line and the rear property line. It is construed concrete blocks has no windows or doors facing either the property on the right or the rear by having the doors and windows facing the existing larger structure noise light and other activities should be directed inward to the subject property rather than outward in addition it will allow an accessible dwelling unit to be constructed in the existing rear building period okay that's good um and then on the conditions um the only change i had was i think the intent is that there won't be any windows yeah and so I would propose that we add a number five to what's shown on the screen and it would read no doors or windows for the two rear units shall face the rear or side lot lines and maybe we should put right we should I can't recall how we did it in the that way it matches what's in the findings of fact I use right and rear. So let's do right or rear. Yeah, that works. If I may add, the Kentucky building code does not allow for any windows boards on the property lines. Anyway. Well, but you can set back your dorm or five feet and then put a window in. In case things change, we don't have to worry about it. And then the last thing I had was they said they had a permit for fraternity house. Do we need to go ahead and we have that do anything with that or does it just go away? It goes away and there was actually a contact clause that if ownership changed that the conditional use would be null and void anyway. So it's already gone. Okay, so Dick, you heard that the permit for the fraternity house is now null and void at this point? Yes, we checked that out a couple months ago with Ms. Goddardwiss, and she shared that with us at that time. Okay, perfect. Just want to make sure that's on the record. So in the future, when Ms. Messorin wants to make an attorney house, they can't go back to it without coming back to the force. Okay, well, that's all the comments I had. Anyone else have any comments? I'm not saying I'm ready to support this, but I feel like I'm going to. Any discussion from the board? Comments for staff and the applicant? Are we ready to move for a motion at this time? Mr. Needham, you're muted. I have one more clarification. So if if Steve Parker does not find seven spaces does the existing I mean, does the neighboring property, maybe 250 through the access easement, have a space? Should we even be worried about that or not? I think you should be worried about it, yes. Yeah, so I guess, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Hardens, while you're here, can you confirm that there is going to be potentially another space in one of these adjacent properties? i i generally go go ahead craig sorry i i i need to be careful there because i things get counted we seem to have space that's not official space sometimes so i'm i'm really not certain when i obtained the property of 250 The parking was striped off and we continue to use some that's down through the entrance way. It's rarely used, but if things get to a peak level, sometimes they are used. We also have our office directly across the street where we have seven or eight spots. We don't ever use all of them. But I think, Dick, you looked at the square footage, and it said we needed seven or eight, so we weren't really sure. So we're right on that. But we do have public parking in front that's not restricted. Then we also have public parking, which is restricted, neighborhood restricted, on the street. I don't think any of that counts. I think we're looking for seven dedicated spaces. Yeah, those are the public right-of-way spaces, but they can't counsel rules. We will have to check. Okay, but it's going to be subject to. Yeah, so if Mr. Parker can't find the seven spaces, this, I guess, presumably. It would result in a reduction in the number of bedrooms or dwelling units. Okay, so they wouldn't have to come back before us. Right, because we cannot reduce it any lower than seven, since that's the 50% maximum. So if they can't find seven spaces, they would have to potentially get rid of the garage accessories. Right. Okay. Does that answer your question, Mr. Needham, that if for some reason they're not able to find the seven dedicated spaces in the vicinity, that there may be readjustments on the number of living units they could have within the two structures? yeah okay yeah that's fine one structure i'm still concerned about you know just making an an ada with this loophole i mean i or an adu i'm sorry you know i'm thinking you start with some mobile homes down on your properties and start building these ways yeah building but i like i like using a structure that's not going to be used so i i mean i get it but it's it's an odd loophole to do yeah this is more like a duplex but we are at an r4 yeah this is an r4 property we're not you know you know it's just a few issues being this were r1 and they were trying to use a breezeway of some sort but we are in an r4 this is supposed to be for apartments and a number of apartments i think the only thing it really triggers would be they would need development plans and some other niceties that they're able to avoid open space and other requirements that a larger development that would have multiple buildings with multiple apartments would need to comply but this is a small line i mean i'm yeah i'm relatively i'm relatively yep no i i appreciate that that uh that opinion also my last question is what's the plan for the for the nice wall what color would you like it it has graffiti on it right now yeah you could do an art wall that'd be nice well that that might not look that it has um it has more visibility from the 250 property as you come down lexington avenue which is which is our view from our office i've actually thought of that there's a nice fir tree at that corner which is very large that i that would obscure that largely so I don't know how much it actually be seen but public art would be nice it's pretty dull looking right now well it's actually with gold and maroon posts those have to go remember you're in the national historic district no ma'am I don't you're in the national register district register okay yeah we have i guess we would have to i just have a question i guess we would submit a new site plan is that what we would do yes okay that's no problem i couldn't hear that i'm sorry if you go do it go to the permitting process you wouldn't need submitted to us. Okay and and we already have started that process with building inspection so they're there they've requested that too so. Well is there anything else from the board members? No. If anyone want to make a motion one way or the other? Well, somebody? Yeah, I can try. Don't forget, if you're doing it for disapproval, it's easy. But if you're doing it for approval, don't forget to incorporate the revised findings as shown on the screen, revised conditions. I got them. Okay, I move to approve PLN BOA 20-70. Sorry. Mr. Meadon, I forgot. The findings that we've been revising on the screen and conditions are related to the current accessory structure, which will now be part of the main structure, but we do still have to address the other items. So this would probably be best taken as three separate actions. That's how the staff report formatted it as. We could do one joint motion. We could do one and you would say for the reasons provided by staff for the variance to reduce from five to zero along the northern property line and for the parking. Under item three on your agenda, you would use Mr. Murphy's findings for the first one And then you would say, and approval of, for the reasons provided by staff of the other two that follow. And then the conditions we have provided would address all three. Hope you brought your name. I hope you heard that. Yeah. That's serious. Yeah. We'll make sure. So let me just review quickly. So I'm gonna approve the staff recommendations the 50% in the northern property line and I'm going to approve the recommendations of the five feet to zero feet and that approval. What's that? There's two parts to that one and 10 feet to zero feet. Oh and 10 feet to zero feet and that approval is based on these new revised conditions. findings i'm sorry findings yes yes and then you would then make the motion for all of them you will then say based on subject to the revised conditions as shown on screen it's just more spread out than you normally do all right let me give a shot you can stop me and we can cut and paste if that's okay okay mr chair i move to approve plnboa 20-70 opportunity learning centers llc's request for one uh a variance to reduce the required side yard set back from five feet to zero feet and two a variance to reduce the required rear yard from 10 10 feet to zero feet in order to construct an addition to an existing legally non-conforming structure and three, a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces by 50% in the defined infill and redevelopment area in a high-density apartment zone on property located at 236 Lexington Ave. Based on staff's approval of the requested variance to reduce the side yard from five feet to zero feet along the northern property line, and then also based on staff's approval of the requested variance to require to reduce the number of required parking spaces by 50 percent and then finding and then also recommend the approval of the requested variance to reduce the side yard from five feet to zero feet along the southern property line and reduce the required year rear yard setback from 10 feet to zero feet, subject. Wait, you mean? I'm sorry? Based on the revised findings. Based on the revised findings and then subject to the revised conditions located of the five conditions that have been submitted. That serves how sausage is made. We have a motion to the floor for Mr. Needham. Do we have a second? I'll second. Mr. Clark second that. Any discussion for the motion? Hearing none, then please raise your hand if you're in favor. I show the vote as unanimous. This application has been approved. Good luck. Thank you all very much. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate your consideration. We are now going to demote everyone and that completes our application for today. Bear with me. We've got a few board items to cover. And that's going to be on page three. Item 4A, we need to appoint a new member of the Landscape Review Committee. The tree board has given us a recommendation to appoint member Dan Stevers to the Landscape Review Committee. So at this point I would ask if anyone has any questions for the board, I mean for the planning staff at this point related to that appointment and if not what we need to do is have someone from the board make the motion but Trace is here with us to discuss if you guys have any questions on this appointment. I have a I have a administrative question I guess why why does the Board of Adjustment appoint members to the Landscape Review Committee is a Landscape Review Committee under our jurisdiction the Landscape Review Committee gives a recommendation to the Board adjustment for any barriers related to landscaping materials or with the ordinance because of the fact that committee makes a recommendation to the board. Tracy I think you're muted. She should be picked up on our microphone. Yeah I think I think I I basically agree. Sure. Yeah, she said it falls under our jurisdiction, and they make a recommendation. I believe this board only meets on an as needed basis. Yep. So do you need a motion? Yes, sir. I move that we appoint Dan Stevers to the Landscape Review Committee. I'll second. We have a motion for Mr. Glover, a second for Mr. Clark. Any discussion? I'll add that I made the recommendation to the tree board that we nominate Dan for this position. He's a good man. He's president or chair, whatever the title is, of the tree board. And I can't remember, Mr. Clark, do you serve on the landscape review? I do. That's correct. So, Tommy, Mr. Clark is our member on that committee. Yep. Yep. Okay. Any other seeing none that I will call to vote, please raise your hand. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and skip B for a second and go down to item C, delegation or secretary's duties. This is, Ms. Wade is here. Yes, ma'am. You might want to elect your secretary before you give away. Oh, you think the secretary's going to want to keep those duties? No, but usually you elect the officers. That is fine. I was just trying to move things along. You know how I do. So in that case, we will go on to number B, an election of officers. According to our bylaws, the officers shall be elected. If the first regular meeting in January of each year and the board shall select a chairperson, Vice Chair, First Secretary. Currently I serve as Chair, Mr. Glover as Vice Chair, and Ms. Whitman as Secretary. So at this point I will ask if anyone would like to make a motion for somebody to serve as the Chairperson for this coming year. I move for Thomas Glover to service chairperson for the upcoming year. All right. So we have a motion for Mr. Glover. Mr. Clark, you were going to say something? No, I was going to ask just a question about the process, but I'm fine. Thank you. Oh, okay. Well, if you have questions, please, by all means. I'm fine. Thanks. Okay. So we have a motion for Mr. Glover to serve as chair for this coming year. Do we have a second? I'll second. Mr. Clark seconds that motion. I will now speak quickly for this motion. I appreciate Mr. Glover standing in for this coming year. It's been an honor to be your chair for the last, I think, two years. Autumn says more than two years. At least three. She says three. It feels like a lifetime. And so, but I can, I look forward to taking my wallflower, I mean, wall, yeah, wallflower spot back on this board this coming year. So I appreciate that. And so with that, I'm going to go ahead and call this matter to a vote. if you were in favor of Mr. Glover serving as the chair, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. And I think at this point, I relinquish my duties to Mr. Glover as the chair. So I hope you have the agenda referring to, Tommy. Well, thank you for the recommendation. You know, I'm in my I'm in my the last part of my third four year term on this board. So and I've turned down the chairmanship twice. I've been vice chair at least two times and maybe three. I can't remember. But and I have conducted hearings when the chair has been otherwise occupied for. I don't know, the last 10 years at least or so. So it's not like I'm without experience. And I think the staff reminded me one time that I was the first member of the board to, in his first meeting, to make a motion for an item on the docket. So it looks like I jumped in with both feet when I was first appointed and they said nobody had ever done that before. So I'm fairly comfortable with the process even though I'm not certainly not an expert in either planning or zoning but I've been here for a while so thank you for the vote of confidence and it looks like the last item is a delegation of secretary's duties I understand that Joan Whitman has agreed the chair the vice chair and the secretary i'm sorry uh yes you're right that's okay i will guide you my young apprentice no that's uh that's that's good i appreciate it brandon uh thank you so the next item is to uh is because i'm vacating the vice chair we need a uh we need to vice chair. So are there nominations from the board for vice chair? Mr. Chair, I nominate Chad Needham as vice chair. If he's willing to accept that position. Second. I'm trying to find my unmute button quickly. It's stuck. I nominate Raquel. Oh, no, we don't need the only nominations. Brandon already seconded your nomination, Chad. I couldn't unmute fast enough. I'm sorry. I'm getting older. But so, Chad, did you did you accept the nomination or did you reject it? Or is or do we do we go through that process? If we have two nominations, we're going to have to embarrass somebody by voting. Have you all talked about this? We. uh-oh Raquel did you all talk about it we can even chat's muted again sorry we have discussed and either is fine but chat if you're able to do it you know I'd love to join on to your nomination if you feel like it's too good oh you're great all right how about this I'll cut you the deal I'll do it the first year if you do it the second year I'll take that deal all right okay good so uh did we have a second for Chad Needham's nomination Brandon seconds uh all those in favor of Chad Needham as vice chair raise your hand thank you and Chad you can vote for yourself if you like there we go it's it's unanimous Thank you. And Joan, I understand, has has agreed to be secretary for the for the coming year. Is that correct, staff? Because I didn't see her response. Mr. Glover, I emailed her. I did not get a response back to Joan. But I will, knowing Joan, I think she would be comfortable either serving in that position or bringing someone else into an officer's position if they would probably like that. And I have no problem approving her in her absence. That's usually the easiest way to get things done. So I nominate Joan Whitman for secretary. Is there a second? A second. Thank you, Raquel. Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, all those in favor of Joan's serving as secretary, please raise your hand. Looks unanimous. Thank you. and board item 4C is delegation of secretary's duties. In the past, the duties of secretary have been delegated to the planning service manager and staff members appointed by the manager. And so I recommend that we continue with that delegation. Is there any opposition of that recommendation? I ask for unanimous consent for that item. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And that motion carries. Thank you very much. Are there any other staff items that need to be presented or would anyone would like to be presented this time? I have one. I would like to thank Brandon for serving as chair for the two or three years that he has. and appreciate his willingness to serve on the board in a continuing fashion. We would be lost without his guidance, so I appreciate that very much. The next meeting will be February 8th, 2021. Any other business? I declare the meeting, the January meeting of the Board of Adjustment in adjournment. Thank you.